Which civ should be deleted from civ3? - Page 2

TechWins · July 23, 2001, 00:13

My post was kind of a joke. If you can't get past that then that is your fault. Grumbold, I do think England is a great country, if I had to choose in anywhere in the world to live (except the US) I would most likely choose England. Mainly because of England being so similar to America.

Alinestra Covelia and Dida, I am ashamed of you for not having any nationalism to the USA. That is if you truely are an American. As soon as I'm 18 I'm going into the Navy. My dad and most of my uncles were in the Navy and my grandpa served in the Navy during WW2. I may only be serving four years but it's still more than most people do. It's terrible how people like you, Alinestra Covelia & Dida, are scared of a little nationalism. Do you even celebrate Independence Day or are you against that sort of celebration?

My post was mainly a joke but there was some truth behind it. I still do believe that the USA rules all right now and will rule all forever.

Rommel393 · July 23, 2001, 00:15

By the way to back up my thread I just want to say that I wasn't putting down any other nations. I was just defending America.

Rasputin · July 23, 2001, 01:11

i think that the refernece to US being deleted was ajoke guys, we all know that americans wont buy a game with out them in it, how do they sate their ego otherwise !!!

s for why the western world has a love hate relationship with USofA its more to do with the fact that so few Americans care to learn of anything outside of their country, of course they are arrogant enough to say what worthwhile thinng is outside USofA...

TechWins · July 23, 2001, 01:58

Quote:

s for why the western world has a love hate relationship with USofA its more to do with the fact that so few Americans care to learn of anything outside of their country, of course they are arrogant enough to say what worthwhile thinng is outside USofA...

It really all just depends on the person. Some people don't care to expand their horizons, while some people are more adventerous (I'm in between). In fact I'm quite intrigued by many things outside of the US. In fact I would some day like to go to a city in your country, Sydney (or is it Sidney?). I would like to learn about many other cultures and visit many other places outside of the US. If you're referring to me with this statement "of course they are arrogant enough to say what worthwhile thinng is outside USofA...". The reason why I stated that the second most country I wouldn't mind living in is England because if I had to live somewhere else out of the US I would like to stay in a similar culture. I'm sure since you live in Australia you would like to live in Australia but if you had to go somewhere else you would like to live somewhere that has a similar culture as Australia. Another place that would have some easier adaption for me would be Canada. It's just a matter of a person's comfort zone.

I'm not even going to get into your first statement.

LaRusso · July 23, 2001, 04:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Rommel393
I think the reason people are mad at America is because they think we are Amerocentric. But you know what I have to say about that? Its called patriotism people.

Hm, when other people nurture the same kind of feelings you call them 'nationalists' and 'fanatics'.

Quote:

I consider myself a patriot and would fight and die for this great land in an instant. The fact that people insult America all the time actually makes me sick.

Being prepared to die for 'one's country' is really really stupid nowadays. Have you ever asked yourself what is a' country'. HOw and why you identify with it, its history, culture and other people. Even more acute when it comes to the US. Stop for a moment and stop being automatic.

Quote:

Many Muslim nations hate us why? Cuz our most prominent religion is Christianity.

No, this is because you meddle into their affairs and use your stick much more often than your carrot. Why don't they hate China? Japan? Ha? By the way, why are Muslim 'patriotic' feelings, topped with the desire to slam a car bomb into your base 'for his country' less heroic than your desire to die defending a shopping mall in Vermont from commie invasion (wherever it may come from nowadays)....?

Quote:

Despite the fact we supply aid to many countries in the terms of money and food.

Ha! You devote the lowest GDP % to aid out of all developed nations. Except, of course, military aid to Israel....

Quote:

Even though we ourselves are in debt (that part isnt so smart).

Someone has to pay for 3 cars per family.

Quote:

Sure our government has messed up. Sometimes we send our fighting forces to places where they shouldn't be but thats not Americans thats just some bad leaders and politics. Also, because America is the most prominent nation on Earth it is the most criticized. All our faults are pointed out and seem to outnumber the good things we do. While many smaller countries make just as many if not more mistakes but because their small few criticize them.

Well, since you are the first to cast a stone in every geopolitical situation, I guess you should be the one without sins. You see, the whole problem is not that you are bullies, but that you are trying to obfuscate this with a nice human rights rhetorics. Be frank and let us know that you are bullies....

Quote:

The one thing we do have badly is crime but its only bad compared to some other nations. The former USSR right now is extremely unsafe but few people talk about that.

They do not have time. You waged cold war against USSR so, just like Afghanistan, where you kicked out commies to bring in Talebans, the chaos in Russia is directly the product of your activities.

Quote:

God Bless America.

Ha-ha! WHy would he/she?

Now, back to the topic. Development of the American civilization is a glitch in comparison with others in the Civ. It is, of course, impossible to have a Civ 3 game without D.C to nuke into oblivion but it does feel strange to have American hoplites and chariots rambling around. I do feel that the whole issue might be better addressed by a more frequent and effective civil wars and empire splits. Do not ask me how....

Grumbold · July 23, 2001, 05:52

double post.

Grumbold · July 23, 2001, 05:54

I hope every person here takes pride in their own nation. However I do not think this is the right place to parade patriotic views, let alone make negative statements about another. National pride is a hard thing to joke about, particularly if you want to get a laugh rather than a fist in response.

Hopefully mention of the Civ editor has halted any further need to discuss which countries are absolutely vital to have in the game "out of the box". Firaxis have to decide based on historical significance and their largest markets. After that its down to the fans to add the rest.

LaRusso · July 23, 2001, 06:22

hm. what else to do until civ3.com comes out?

fittstim · July 23, 2001, 07:19

Give me a break.

How can anyone over the age of 16 say America would "kick ass"? Aren't you even slightly embarrassed?

Yeah, yeah America rules!!! So what. Nobody likes a sore loser but most people hate a sore winner. Americans just don't "get it".

-------------------------

I can personally attest to the fact that not only is "American" a separate language from "English" but I would say that there are several distinct sub-languages within "American". So much so that when I tried to have a conversation with a farmer from the eastern shore of Virginia, I understood not a single word. Not a single word. And he couldn't understand my "Boston" accent American/English either.

-------------------------

And with respect to the atrocious listing of city populations comparing Chinese to American cities, you need to re-check your facts. I have no idea how China calculates populations or how their cities are laid out but in the US, it is not so cut and dry. Take Boston, as an incorporated city it has a population of about 600,000. This is because it is tiny in areal extent (42 mi^2). Include the suburbs and the Boston MSA is 4.5 million. San Fran is in the same exact situation (this is the reason that they are the two most expensive cities to live in within the continental US).

However, there are also joke cities like Jacksonville and San Jose which are so huge (Jacksonville has more incorporated land than the state of Rhode Island, I think). So when you talk about "major" cities in the US, you have to know what you're talking about. No one should ever say that San Jose is a bigger city than Boston or San Fran.

Sorry about the rambling nature of the post but I would say, include America. Afterall, it's been around much longer than the Aztecs were (400 years vs. 250 years)...

Provost Harrison · July 23, 2001, 07:54

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
I'd say the Aztecs. Those names are just wacked. too long. Not distinctive or memorable. And too many t-towns!

WHAT?! You mean the simplicity of names such as Teotihuacan, Tzintzuntzen and Calixtlahuaca doesn't mean they just roll straight off the tongue?

The Americans ought to go. They are nothing but a breakaway splinter of the British

I dunno, all of the ones that are in seem to be worthy. We don't have the CtP stupidity of the Polynesians or Jamaicans, which is just silly.

LaRusso · July 23, 2001, 07:58

What really was the worst about CTP was that one would usually end up with Polynesians, Welsh, Indonesians and Zulu in the same game. No big bad gyus, no Chinese, Russians, English, French...etc. There ought to be some mechanism to ensure at least 2 badboys are in.....
No offense, but not all the civs are equally attractive to crush

LaRusso · July 23, 2001, 08:29

This is kinda off topic but also on topic in a way. Enjoy!

death_head · July 23, 2001, 10:06

*enjoys it*

D4everman · July 23, 2001, 10:08

I can't believe I just read all of those posts with the national chest beating going on it.

Get over it people. Not one country on the planet has a monopoly of good or bad things in it. Yeah, America's a great country...I'm an american. But we're not perfect and the attitude of "America's Number 1" is precisely why people get ticked off at americans. I've lived in Europe a long time and to be honest I can see why some folks over here get pissed at us. The post about kicking ass (whoever it was that wrote that, I didn't not the name) was innappropriate. Especially if the person that wrote it never served or has any intention of serving in the Armed forces.

As for the people bashing America, get over it. If you think that every american is a loudmouth bully then maybe you've never met any americans or you've had the misfortune of meeting the wrong americans. (and meeting them on the internet doesn't count. The internet is perfect for loudmouths to rave with impunity. From ANY country.)I did notice that someone didn't reveal what country they were sending from when bashing the US. Must be a great place since apparently it has no faults.

If you're going to waste time badmouthing another nation you should probably find a chatroom on the subject and toss insults at each other.

D4

LaRusso · July 23, 2001, 10:17

D4,
That was a touching post.
Now, everyone's job has to have a purpose. What is the purpose of American contingent in Europe?

D4everman · July 23, 2001, 11:24

D4,
That was a touching post.
Now, everyone's job has to have a purpose. What is the purpose of American contingent in Europe?

I'm not sure if that was sarcasm or not. It doesn't matter though, since I'm not willing to engage in a political argument. Besides, I can't tell you what my job is since its classified.

D4

Rommel393 · July 23, 2001, 12:06

La Russo my comments on you butchering my post:

First, the fact you place the entire blame on us for causing the situation in Russia right now is actually kind of funny. The reason crime is so horrible over there is that the communist government owned everything when it was active. When it fell it no longer owned everything. So now no1 knows who own what. Who has the deeds to the houses? Who owns that car? Plus the poor situation of the government has meant poor police protection and organized crime has been allowed to take hold. This was caused by the fall of the USSR and if you blame that on America, then thank you. But the USSR had the same aim on us and we just won the cold war. Theres no shame in that. We were two superpowers facing off because we threatened eachother from nuclear weapons. If we had fallen would you have blamed it all on the USSR?

Second, your right on one thing. A reason many countries in the middle east and around the world hate us is because we do stick our noses in places they shouldn't be. I don't agree with that but do I agree with everything about America? NO, of course not. I disagree with the government on many, many things. Actually I probably disagree with it more than I do agree with it.

Lastly, the fact that we put forth a low amount of our GNP for aid might be true but you have to look at how big our GNP is. Even a low percentage is a lot of money. Plus its not just government aid we have thousands of american non-government organizations who also give aid. I think you failed to take those into account.

But now I need to say we should probably get off of all this patriotism talk not only is it of subject but people are just starting to get dirty. I want to say I am very interested in other nations and I don't think any are less than we are but the fact that I stand up for mine shouldn't make anyone mad. But on subject, something has always bothered me about America in Civ2. It wasn't around in ancient times. But it has had a huge effect on the world. A paradox?

Recurve · July 23, 2001, 13:39

Leave the Americans in, they're one of the easiest tribes to conquer.

Footie Mad · July 23, 2001, 14:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Recurve
Leave the Americans in, they're one of the easiest tribes to conquer.

Hopefully they will balance the AI types so that no one is more dominant than the other. Not like in civ 2 where the militaristic, aggressive, expansionist AI always came out on top.

TechWins · July 23, 2001, 17:58

Quote:

Hopefully they will balance the AI types so that no one is more dominant than the other. Not like in civ 2 where the militaristic, aggressive, expansionist AI always came out on top.

I sure hope so too. I hated how the Mongols in Civ2 would always take over the anti-militariastic civs early in the game and that would lead to a boring end game. With the lack of civs toward the end.

Quote:

The Americans ought to go. They are nothing but a breakaway splinter of the British

I guess the French, the English, and the Germans shouldn't be in the game either. I mean since they are just break aways from the Roman Empire.

Quote:

Now, back to the topic. Development of the American civilization is a glitch in comparison with others in the Civ. It is, of course, impossible to have a Civ 3 game without D.C to nuke into oblivion but it does feel strange to have American hoplites and chariots rambling around. I do feel that the whole issue might be better addressed by a more frequent and effective civil wars and empire splits. Do not ask me how....

So it doesn't feel weird for you to have modern Babylonian, Persian, Sioux, etc... units? I don't understand. That would also mean that most of the civs shouldn't even be able to build anything at the very beginning of the game considering they weren't civs yet.

Quote:

The post about kicking ass (whoever it was that wrote that, I didn't not the name) was innappropriate. Especially if the person that wrote it never served or has any intention of serving in the Armed forces.

Yes, I am the one who said that. I was saying that in a light hearted way so there wasn't much truth to it. I do realise that there's no way the US could fight off the rest of the world. If I was alive I know I would do everything I could to help my country win the war. I do have every intention to join the US military. In fact I'll be joining the Navy. I know I would always help fight to protect America.

Maybe the Americans shouldn't be in the game because of the age of the country but since becoming a nation the USA has done many great things as a nation. If you are saying the Americans shouldn't be in the game because we are so called "bullies" you are being very judgemental. Based on that the Americans wouldn't be left out of the game. You shouldn't stereo type the Americans, for that matter you shouldn't stereo type anybody. I will agree that a lot of Americans are jackasses but they're also a lot of great people who happen to be Americans. That is the case in all countries, though. Some people are different than others and it's as simple as that. I'm not going to judge somebody just by their nationality but if you want to go ahead. This is to everybody in the forum not just the non-americans.

death_head · July 23, 2001, 18:01

I don't think Abraham Lincoln is going to put up with that anti-American heresy! Seriously, though, I think America shouldn't be in there, because, well, I don't really know why...it's just a feeling.

I'm serious though.

Footie Mad · July 23, 2001, 20:36

Quote:

Originally posted by TechWins

I guess the French, the English, and the Germans shouldn't be in the game either. I mean since they are just break aways from the Roman Empire.

We are all just splinters of the first man, therefore no civ should be in at all!

TechWins · July 23, 2001, 20:45

Quote:

We are all just splinters of the first man

Exactly, so the Americans should be in the game even if they are just a break away from the English. There could be other reasons why the Americans shouldn't be in the game but use the reason of the Americans shouldn't be in the game because they are a break away from the English is just ridiculous.

Kenobi · July 23, 2001, 21:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Kenobi
You just opened Pandora's can o' whupass there, GP. I'm bumping you just to observe the sh#itfight that ensues...

My personal vote: [N.B. deliberately provocative for the target CivIII market...] Americans - if you don't have your own language you don't qualify as a civilization.

Apologies for the insufferable arrogance of quoting myself, but...I TOLD YOU SO!

Nationalism just seems to be the lightning rod of conflict in this forum - guaranteed to get your posts up without achieving anything. As others have pointed out, there is no way that Firaxis would antagonise their key market, so the Americans have to be in.

Now that we've had our fun bashing each other (but mostly the Americans - sorry, lads), perhaps we should close down this thread and focus on some more important (albeit less entertaining) issues?

TechWins · July 23, 2001, 23:39

Quote:

Now that we've had our fun bashing each other (but mostly the Americans - sorry, lads),

Apology unaccepted. The American emissary says to the Kenobi the leader of (x) civ to prepare for war. Just playing. I don't think this thread needs to be closed because I find it fairly entertaining. Isn't that all that matters? What we are talking about may be irrelavant to civ3 but it's still fun speaking our nationalism and hearing the other non-Americans point out untruthful facts about the Americans. It's all fun and games, so it doesn't matter.

July 24, 2001, 00:07

I had an idea for the introduction of New World hybrid empires earlier. Most of the civs in the western hemisphere are the odd products of Euro colonizers and indigenous populations. My idea was that empires should sprout from more frequent civil wars from specific types of cities. For instance, the Americans are unlocked after the British have captured Iroquois cities and these revolt (for sheer variety, maybe Americans could show up when Iroquois conquer British cities and these revolts). Anyway, Americans would show up during revolts from a British/Iroquois connection. Likewise, Mexicans result from Spanish/Aztec contact, Peruvians from Spanish/Inca contact. Even the early game could operate ths way. Byzantines result from Roman/Greek contact. English from Roman/Celtic. And so forth. In fact the game could start with only the Chinese, Indians, Greek, Egypt, Aztec, Inca, Iroquis, Zulu and let every other civ appear via civil war. Some civs might even spawn from another without contact - say the Russians from the Byzantines or Japanes with Chinese Player chooses whether or not to stick with old empire or take control of new one. Could be a cool result. Imagine an endgame with the Mexicans, Romans, and Arabs, as weaker empires and a cold war between the major players, the Peruvians and the Incans (who in the end crushed the Spanish). Adahualpa vs. Bolivar. Man, the possibilities for different histories would be great.

Urban Ranger · July 24, 2001, 00:43

Is there anything to the "minor nations" bit, or is that just a rumour?

July 24, 2001, 01:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
I had an idea for the introduction of New World hybrid empires earlier. Most of the Civs in the western hemisphere are the odd products of Euro colonizers and indigenous populations. My idea was that empires should sprout from more frequent civil wars from specific types of cities. For instance, the Americans are unlocked after the British have captured Iroquois cities and these revolt (for sheer variety, maybe Americans could show up when Iroquois conquer British cities and these revolts). Anyway, Americans would show up during revolts from a British/Iroquois connection. Likewise, Mexicans result from Spanish/Aztec contact, Peruvians from Spanish/Inca contact. Even the early game could operate this way. Byzantines result from Roman/Greek contact. English from Roman/Celtic. And so forth. In fact the game could start with only the Chinese, Indians, Greek, Egypt, Aztec, Inca, Iroquois, Zulu and let every other civ appear via civil war. Some Civs might even spawn from another without contact - say the Russians from the Byzantines or Japanese with Chinese Player chooses whether or not to stick with old empire or take control of new one. Could be a cool result. Imagine an endgame with the Mexicans, Romans, and Arabs, as weaker empires and a cold war between the major players, the Peruvians and the Incans (who in the end crushed the Spanish). Adahualpa vs. Bolivar. Man, the possibilities for different histories would be great.

The Aztec were a short Civ in term of China, India, Egyptians and Rome. Someone has already pointed out they were around 250 to 300 years only (between 1200 to 1521 AD). The Aztec were slaves to another northern Mexican tribe (a place call Aztlan). Don't remember which tribe. They broke away and wander many year before they founded their first City (Tenochtitlan, pronounced Tay nohch tee tlahn). After their first city was built, they grew very fast and started to conquer other smaller tribes. The Aztecs were the first Mexican per said. They call themselves Mexica plus other names.
The Inca (about 1200 to 1532) are a short term Civ also.
Mayan were the long term Civs. They started to settle the area about 2500 BC. By 800 BC the Maya lowlands were completely settled. The classic period lasted from about 300 AD to 950 AD when the Mayan abandoned their cities and spread throughout Central America. (Total years 3,450 years) I think they qualify as an ancient Civs.
Other tribes in the area were Olmec, Teotihuacan civilization, and Toltec.

tniem · July 24, 2001, 01:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Is there anything to the "minor nations" bit, or is that just a rumour?

It was something that was certainly pushed in the lists and has been talked about to death here on ACS. I thought for a while that it might actually make it into the game but I have never heard anyone from Firaxis say anything about it or read about in a preview. I think the idea of minor civs is not going to be included in Civ III.

D4everman · July 24, 2001, 02:22

Techwins

Sorry I got a little riled. I've been to a lot of countries and I've enjoyed visiting them all. (except for the Mid east, but there was like a war going on and everything when I was there)

Point is everyone should be proud of their nationality but not to the point of belittling someone elses. End of being riled.

Why are you joining the Navy? Join the Army!Hooooah!

D4