Which civ should be deleted from civ3?

[LaRusso]

The whole topic is off topic but it is fun and it also shows us the importance of the new 'nationalism' thingie in the civ 3 (whatever it might be...) hats off to firaxis hehehehe

Greetings from Yurip

[TechWins]

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

I hope you're not intending that I belittled anyone's nation. I don't think I did anything like that. When showing my nationalism/patriotism I'm sorry if I did belittle somebody's country in any way, even though I don't think I did.

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

If I join the Navy I will be able to visit a lot of places with the Navy. With the Army I would primarily be at one place. That is why I want to join the Navy.

Greetings from Yurip

Salutations from the States

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by TechWins
If I join the Navy I will be able to visit a lot of places with the Navy. With the Army I would primarily be at one place. That is why I want to join the Navy.

Plus you never have to actually see the face of the enemy.

[TechWins]

Plus you never have to actually see the face of the enemy.

Unless we (the world) start using Punic War (actually just the Romans wanted to do this) tactics with getting off of our boats/ships and hopping on the enemies boat/ship to fight hand to hand combat. At this point I think that is very unlikely.

[Grumbold]

[Footie Mad]

Originally posted by TechWins


Unless we (the world) start using Punic War (actually just the Romans wanted to do this) tactics with getting off of our boats/ships and hopping on the enemies boat/ship to fight hand to hand combat. At this point I think that is very unlikely.

But they do have hand to hand combat education in the navy?

[campmajor!]

Originally posted by TechWins


Unless we (the world) start using Punic War (actually just the Romans wanted to do this) tactics with getting off of our boats/ships and hopping on the enemies boat/ship to fight hand to hand combat. At this point I think that is very unlikely.

But then your captain would be called Redbeard and you would all be dressed as pirates!

[D4everman]

"But they do have hand to hand combat education in the navy?"

I'm not sure that they doexcept for certain jobs. I work in a joint environment and a lot of the Navy and Air Force folks don't know anything about hand to hand or even how to fire a rifle! No joke.

It would be interesting in Civ 3 if they had a marine detachment thing like in SMAX but one that became obsolete when technology made it impractical.

D4

[BigRich]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
snip

------
Kick the Celts out of Civ III.
We don't need Celts...

Sorry about the repost - managed to mess up the last one

Anyway keep the Celts but don't give them a special unit. Instead give them the civilization feature of Scottish Cuisine. Adds one to happiness in every city but their troops operate at 75% reduced efficiency due to poor diet

Rich.

[LaRusso]

Hm, that would mean a bonus for French and Italian troops, as well as a penalty for Germans and English. I like the idea but the side effects are less than believable.

[death_head]

In Age of Kings, the Celts have the Woad Raider. It's not very useful, and it wouldn't incorporate well into Civ, but I recommend it anyhow, because I like the word "Woad"

[Gangerolf]

I say kick out the Zulus and the Sioux. They were barbarians, not civilizations.
I know it's politically and geographically correct to include them, but it still would be silly.

Originally posted by D4everman
"But they do have hand to hand combat education in the navy?"

I'm not sure that they doexcept for certain jobs. I work in a joint environment and a lot of the Navy and Air Force folks don't know anything about hand to hand or even how to fire a rifle! No joke. D4

You are right, except for the Seals. They are petty good.

In boot camp they take you to a rile range and let you shoot for 1 or 2 days but that is about it. You have to remember in the Navy you have a job for the most part. That job is to run the ship. Maybe fired a gun once in a while. Guns on Ships normally start at 3" and bigger. There are small arms but normally lock up, unless you are on watch.
I was in security division at Naval Training Center in San Diego during the Cuba Missile Crises and they took us out to the gun range and taught us how to handle and fire small arms. For a while they were going to arm us, but as the crises slow down they did not.
However I did very well shooting and still to this day retain the ability to shoot very well.

[Henk_Glimlach]

The Americans and why is that because they have only a very small part of history.

[death_head]

America is probably the most influential country in the world today...I don't think they're as unimportant as you say.

[TechWins]

The Americans and why is that because they have only a very small part of history.

Even though America is a young nation America still has a very rich history. America should be included because they are the only world super power today. Please don't argue that for nationalism purposes anybody because you know it's true.

If you don't inlcude the Americans the modern times wouldn't feel right.

[death_head]

Is it possible to rig Civ so that the factions start out in the appropriate period with the appropriate technology? Similar to the Aliens in SMACX landing late, America wouldn't begin until 1600 whatever, but they would be pretty powerful, and start out as a submissive to Britain, etc.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by tniem
I think there is a valid reason not to include America in the game - it did not exist until 300 years ago and there is no American ethniticity. It is a reason not include my nation in the game.

No American ethnicity ?!?!?!?

Im "ethnically" American - I was born in the USA (apologies to the Bruce) speak American English (no harbours for me) I love baseball and apple pie, think our literature is better, our art is better, etc. My father helped whup Japan in WW2, and i registered for the draft during the cold war. Please tell me what it is about me that is not "ethnically" American? Could it be something racial? The fact that everyone of my great grandparents was born in Eastern Europe and spoke Yiddish? So what - what does that have to do with being part of a CIVILIZATION dammit??? Why do you have to be ethnically homogenous to be a CIVILIZATION????? America's succes is the proof that multi-ethnicity is a strength for a civilization and a nation state, not a weakness.

Civ specificity will ruin CIV3.


Proudly a part of the American CIV
LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Well, i think its just great that civ3 is gonna have distinct races, all the best stratgy games do. and i think races really add to a history flavored game like civ - look at AOE and AOK for crying out loud.

but hell, aoe had the assyrians - they werent a race, only a state.

we should have real races - aryans, semites, slavs, blacks, asiatics, hindoos, indians, and wogs. all others should be excluded cause theyre not real races. America is a mongrel country, and should be excluded. And britain - i mean really Disraeli was PM, he wasnt no anglo-saxon - how could he have partaken in inevitable fruition of anglo saxon traits already latent in 4000 BC? I say just plunk down the aryan settler on a map - if they go to britain so be it, if germany so be it - but they will keep their race specific traits (oops i mean civ specific traits) wherever they go.




CIv specific traits will ruin civ3.


LOTM
(sorry to be so unsubtle, but fearing that SDWOTN)

[lord of the mark]

In my previous i began with

open bracket - sarcasm mode on - close bracket



and ended with (before civ specific ....)


open bracket - sarcasm mode off - close bracket


sarcasm may or may not work on the net - but brackets dont work apolyton !!!!!!!!

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
I say kick out the Zulus and the Sioux. They were barbarians, not civilizations.
I know it's politically and geographically correct to include them, but it still would be silly.

Lovely - absolutely lovely.

Why should we be surprised? This kind of thing has filled the Aoe/AOK boards for quite some time. It should let up for a little while when the game comes out, then start up in earnest for the inevitable expansion pack.


CIv specific traits will ruin civ3
LOTM

[tniem]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
No American ethnicity ?!?!?!?

Correct, I do not believe that there is an American ethnicity. I looked the word up on Merriam-Webster's online dictionary and found this out:

"of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background"

Now, do you believe that you would be able to put our nation into a grouping of one common racial, religious, linguistic, or even a cultural background? If you answer yes, which I don't think you will, then you have been in the suburbs too long and cannot face true reality.

Im "ethnically" American - I was born in the USA (apologies to the Bruce) speak American English (no harbours for me) I love baseball and apple pie, think our literature is better, our art is better, etc. My father helped whup Japan in WW2, and i registered for the draft during the cold war. Please tell me what it is about me that is not "ethnically" American?

You are not ethnically American because there isn't an American ethniticity in my opinion. Yes you are a part of the American civilization and obviously are very proud of that, so am I for your information, but that does not mean we are of the same ethnic background.

Could it be something racial?

Yes it could.

The fact that everyone of my great grandparents was born in Eastern Europe and spoke Yiddish? So what - what does that have to do with being part of a CIVILIZATION dammit??? Why do you have to be ethnically homogenous to be a CIVILIZATION?????

It doesn't obviously. I never said it did. In fact if you read my post you will realize that I do not expect Firaxis to not include America. They know we are a powerful country in the 20th Century and had a lot to do with the advent of the modern republic. Yes we are a civilization, I never said we weren't. I said we aren't an ethniticity, there is a big difference.

The reason I mentioned it was to simply add that there is an argument for why America would not be included. It was at a time when the thread was becoming increasingly hostile because someone mentioned kicking America out of Civ III as a joke. Immediately a couple Americans (not going to mention names) startied calling names and yelling about how good this country is. I tried to calm everyone down and also mention a couple reasons that Americans should see why others around the world either don't like us or simply don't have the same love for the U.S as we do. I didn't believe that I would later get flamed for saying there is not an American ethniticity.

America's succes is the proof that multi-ethnicity is a strength for a civilization and a nation state, not a weakness.

I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry when I got to this line. Because I totally agree with you. Our diversity is our greatest strength contributing so many new ideas and thoughts that just could not blossom under a homogenous people.

But why then are you first saying to me that I am saying utter nonsense that there is not American ethniticity. Then you turn around and say we are a nation of many ethniticities. You make a 180 on the issue and the only reason I suspect this is because I said some negative things about the U.S.

Well as the saying goes, if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen. Yes you and I's country has problems. I love my country dearly but I won't help this country by ignoring the bad and only spouting what I see as good. So I did what was my duty as an American to talk about changes that needed to be made and at the same time tried to make ACS a more comfortable enviornment in which to post. If you don't like my motives than frankly I really do not care.

[Kenobi]

tniem, very sensible commentary.

One of the reasons I enjoy CIII is the ability to replay history and watch a civilization progress. It doesn't make sense to me if I can't take a tribe from 4000B.C. and see it grow. Even with only a basic grasp of history, you simply can't do it with the Americans and think you're being in any way realistic.

The only "Americans" around 4000B.C. were native Americans, not the folk who run that country now, who speak English (yes, it's English, because if "American" were a separate language you wouldn't understand these words), practise a system of law (Common Law) descended from England, have a bicameral parliamentary system of government based on that of the English parliament and conduct their business affairs under a set of commercial practices commonly referred to as "Anglo-Saxon". Every major institution in the USA is derived in some way from Europe, as is the bulk of the population.

Before everyone gets upset again (there seem to be a lot of people here who get easily worked up about the status of their country), let me just say that I would be very surprised if the Americans are excluded because of: a) the marketing necessity (America's where the money is); and b) it's the one remaining superpower, which counts for a lot.

[TechWins]

who speak English (yes, it's English, because if "American" were a separate language you wouldn't understand these words)

Of couse it is English not American. The thing is that it's American English, which is basically the samething as English but has a few different changes. I know there are even differences in the way people speak in my state(Arizona) to a state in the southeast (Alabama, Georgia, Florida). They may be small differences but there are enough differences to slightly seperate the two languages. I still will never say I speak American English, though, I will always say that I speak English, by the way.

Before everyone gets upset again (there seem to be a lot of people here who get easily worked up about the status of their country), let me just say that I would be very surprised if the Americans are excluded because of: a) the marketing necessity (America's where the money is); and b) it's the one remaining superpower, which counts for a lot.

Well, you're just deriving these problems. You shouldn't be giving a long list of why America shouldn't be in the game and then come back with two reasons why America should be in the game if you don't want people to get upset. One of the reasons being a very poor reason for America to be in the game "a) the marketing necessity (America's where the money is)". America should be in the game regardless of marketing terms. They have a great military as of now and have had a great military for some time now. The military is very good in all aspects, navy, air force, and army. The enconomy has been incredilbe over the years. Many great inventions have came from American people. The Americans have helped fight in many wars to provide a safer world. The Americans are a very large nation in terms of size. The Americans are very loyal to their allies. I could go on and on about why America should be included in Civ3. I have a question what country are you from? Now whatever country that may be, how would you like it if a bunch of people continued to bash your country about why it shouldn't be in the game? Think twice before you do that to my country. Considering I know I would die for my country (I will be showing that by joining the Navy when I turn 18) I will get upset about you belittling my country.

[Grumbold]

Kenobi (and others) simply point out that an American civ from 4,000 BC-1700 AD does not make sense to them. I hope you can recognise that this is one valid point of view. That you hope to join the navy (has America lost any ships to hostile action in the last 20 years?) is an example of your patriotism or desired career choice but otherwise irrelevant. Founding Washington, New York and Boston before the pyramids get built just seems wrong to some people. But hey, Civ is a fantasy game and we all know that Firaxis would never ever release a game without the American civ. A stupid question was asked and it got some stupid answers. Some attempts at wit were not seen as being funny. Big deal.

I believe that an American ethnicity does exist simply because there will be people now living in America who cannot trace their roots back far enough to find who the original settlers were, or whose ancestors came from so many different places that it is impossible to own any one foreign ethnicity. Cultures that have very strong family ties and resist intermarriage with outside cultures will naturally retain their unique identities within America and would not, as a result, see themselves as part of the American ethnic group.

[campmajor!]

Bravo Grumbold! You have just summarized this thread and may be it is now time to close it. (Markos: Please do.)

Before anyone gets (more) upset...

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by tniem


Correct, I do not believe that there is an American ethnicity. I looked the word up on Merriam-Webster's online dictionary and found this out:

"of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background"

Now, do you believe that you would be able to put our nation into a grouping of one common racial, religious, linguistic, or even a cultural background? If you answer yes, which I don't think you will, then you have been in the suburbs too long and cannot face true reality.


LOTM - Yes, we have a common linguistic, cultural and national background. It is a blend of different cultural backgrounds, and has been frequently enriched by immigration. If the most recent immigrants have not yet assimilated to it, that does not mean they will not, and they will probably change the blend as they join it. We have a core culture, and most (though by no means all)of us share it. It is just as much of one despite the fact that most of us have have ancestors who did not share it. Does origin have to mean ultimate origin? then does it make sense to speak of say english ethnicity? Werent the english a blend of romans, celts, germanic invaders etc.

Thats why i dont like this kind of use of the word "ethnic" - it privileges certain groupings, implying that they were somehow "pure" - yet history and anthropolgy tell us that almost all human societies represented blends of people from different origins

Whether we are multi-ethnic or have a core ethnic identity depends on the use of the word ethnic. if it means racial origins, yes we are diverse. If it means a common cultural heritage, then we do have one, although we are always have newcomers who are in varying states of assimilation and contribution to the blend. Unfortunately the word ethnic tend to blur the distinction between culture and race, implying a natural connection between the two, a connection that does not exist IMHO. end - LOTM


You are not ethnically American because there isn't an American ethniticity in my opinion. Yes you are a part of the American civilization and obviously are very proud of that, so am I for your information, but that does not mean we are of the same ethnic background.




Yes it could.


LOTM - if we mean racial , let us say racial



It doesn't obviously. I never said it did. In fact if you read my post you will realize that I do not expect Firaxis to not include America. They know we are a powerful country in the 20th Century and had a lot to do with the advent of the modern republic. Yes we are a civilization, I never said we weren't. I said we aren't an ethniticity, there is a big difference.

The reason I mentioned it was to simply add that there is an argument for why America would not be included. It was at a time when the thread was becoming increasingly hostile because someone mentioned kicking America out of Civ III as a joke. Immediately a couple Americans (not going to mention names) startied calling names and yelling about how good this country is. I tried to calm everyone down and also mention a couple reasons that Americans should see why others around the world either don't like us or simply don't have the same love for the U.S as we do. I didn't believe that I would later get flamed for saying there is not an American ethniticity.

LOTM - I appreciate your concern for civility on Apolyton. I am more concerned about racialism in the civ community, especially with the introduction of civ-specific units. This tends to breed this kind of discussion. If things are becoming less civil, I see it as less the fault of unreasoning posters and more the fault of changes in Civ, which I predicted would impact the Civ community. And i didnt intend to flame you personally - i am sure you are well-meaning - i intended to take issue with certain ideas.

I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry when I got to this line. Because I totally agree with you. Our diversity is our greatest strength contributing so many new ideas and thoughts that just could not blossom under a homogenous people.

But why then are you first saying to me that I am saying utter nonsense that there is not American ethniticity. Then you turn around and say we are a nation of many ethniticities. You make a 180 on the issue and the only reason I suspect this is because I said some negative things about the U.S.

LOTM - see above.


Well as the saying goes, if you can't handle the heat get out of the kitchen. Yes you and I's country has problems. I love my country dearly but I won't help this country by ignoring the bad and only spouting what I see as good. So I did what was my duty as an American to talk about changes that needed to be made and at the same time tried to make ACS a more comfortable enviornment in which to post. If you don't like my motives than frankly I really do not care.

Im sure you're motives are fine. My motives are to question the assumption that there is any historical jsutification to the notion that some civs-races-ethnicities whatever have inborn hereditary traits and charecteristics independent of their georgraphy and cultural evolution. As such I will challenge any attempt to exclude any civ on grounds of cultural civilizational uniquness, etc.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by tniem


If you answer yes, which I don't think you will, then you have been in the suburbs too long and cannot face true reality.


.

and btw, i grew up in an immigrant dominated city. and the suburban area i now live in is heavily populated by new immigrants from Central America.

LOTM.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Kenobi (and others) simply point out that an American civ from 4,000 BC-1700 AD does not make sense to them. I hope you can recognise that this is one valid point of view. That you hope to join the navy (has America lost any ships to hostile action in the last 20 years?) is an example of your patriotism or desired career choice but otherwise irrelevant. Founding Washington, New York and Boston before the pyramids get built just seems wrong to some people. .

And where was Spain when the pyramids were built? and france? and germany?

Civ2 is not a fantasy game - it is an alternative history game - one which takes as its guiding priniciple that how history actually ended up was the result of various historical forces and tendencies ( the drive for technological advance, the conflict between war and peaceful development, etc) and that the distincitveness of different societies is a result of their geography, their strategic choices, and hisotrical accidents. thus it daoes make any difference what names of civs are in or what city names you use. all civs are generic.

Once you introduce civ specific units youi are moving in the direction of "history on rails" or of racialism. History on rails would mean forcing actual historical events and actual results. Thus not only would new york not be built before the pyramids, but the pyramids would necessarily be built in egypt, and new york would be built in its historical location, etc. That is NOT what we are getting in civ3, whether you include the americans or not. you are getting a game where wonders can be built anywhwere, where civs can start and build cities anywhere - the only thing that is given in 4000 BC is that each civ has certain specific traits. thus the racialist bias. And in that context America must be excluded becasue there was no "American race" in 4000BC. Not no american state - there assuredly being no german or russian or english state in 4000 BC. Some however beleive that there was an russian or German "tribe" or race in 4000 BC.

LOTM

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by Grumbold
(has America lost any ships to hostile action in the last 20 years?)

The next US conflicts are most likely another peacekeeping mission or war with China over Taiwan. As such, the Navy will play the most prominent role, especially with China's current large naval buildup, which will be a good sized threat to the US Navy in about 5-10 years when a lot of their new ships come online. Besides, without the Navy, who's gonna deliver the Marines, as they will be on the front lines of all near-future conflicts the US is in.

On topic: I think a good poll would be deciding amongst the Civ2 civs, deciding which civs were the least cared for? Spread over a few threads in a round robin type system, the top few civs that people like the least can be whittled out. I don't know all the Civ2 civs, so I can't start such a thread, but someone who does can.