Should Europe have as many civs as it does?

Felch · September 8, 2001, 20:55

There has been some debate about whether America, the Iroqouis and the Zulu are valid civilizations. This thread is intended to question whether we really need as many European cvs as there are in the game.

KrazyHorse · September 8, 2001, 21:08

Actually, Europe has merely 37.5% of the civs, and Asia comes in a close second with 31.25%. North America has 18.75% and Africa has 12.5%.

Given the extremely large impact of European ideas and actions on today's world, I don't see the problem.

Felch · September 8, 2001, 21:17

Europe has more civs than Asia does in a landmass less than one quarter the size. Asia is about 44,579,000 square km (note that I'm using metric for y'all) if you include the Middle East, which you are. Europe in contrast is about 9,938,000 sq. km. Source

Part of the question in determining placement is whether it is getting too crowded geopolitically.

Inverse Icarus · September 8, 2001, 22:32

largest maps are 6x larger than civ2 "large"

someone did some math and said that you can fit 20 cities in GB on the world map

Imran Siddiqui · September 8, 2001, 22:53

Well, seeing as Europe conquered basically the entire rest of the world and imbued their culture on it, they should receive a Hell of a lot of Civs.

Urban Ranger · September 8, 2001, 23:10

Somehow, there's something incorrect about what Irman said.

Imran Siddiqui · September 8, 2001, 23:31

Well what is it?

Did Europe NOT conquer most of the world? Did they NOT leave their culture behind (Representative Democracy and Capitalism for starters).

Felch · September 9, 2001, 00:15

European Culture is hardly capitalist these days Imran. And few of the former colonies have been very successful at embracing democracy, at least until recently.

d_dudy · September 9, 2001, 00:46

so many civs in such a small spot always was kinda weird. how many times were those poor romans cut off and forced to live in but on city?

i'm just waitin for the europansies to show up and put their 2 cents in. or would it be 1/50th of a euro?

Felch · September 9, 2001, 01:04

According to The Onion those Euro thingies are going to be redeemable for actual currency (US $) in over 15,000 European banks.

Useless Machine · September 9, 2001, 01:34

Where are all the euros? I thought they stayed at these forums 24/7. Who's gonna contradict eveything I say?

Felch · September 9, 2001, 01:42

The Europeans are prolly at their welfare offices now, getting paid to continue bashing America online.

Gramphos · September 9, 2001, 03:54

No, they should have more!
In fact all continents should have more

Fiil · September 9, 2001, 04:02

* Just back from the welfare office *

What is there to contradict?? You amercans obviously tried to make a poll that would annoy europeans. Only trouble is the result speaks our case!

Europe is great because... no wait, I don't have to explain, you allready seem to know!!

Saint Marcus · September 9, 2001, 05:33

Felch is just a bigot. And as you can see in the poll, Europe deserves that many civs.

To quote the words of a great man, with one minor change. "Felch is the biggest close minded bigot on the forums". Imran, you know who I'm talking about, don't you?

Skanky Burns · September 9, 2001, 05:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Gramphos
No, they should have more!
In fact all continents should have more

I agree. They should bump up the number of civs in the Australian continent to at least 1

Felch · September 9, 2001, 07:37

Mark, Internet polling is not exactly scientific.

And yes I am a bigot. I think it is absoƒuckinglutely rediculous that Europe has more civs than any other continent. What's Europe's claim to fame? Using Chinese technology to subjugate and exploit native peoples around the world. Oh, gee, what an accomplishment. Maybe the Dutch should be lauded because they ran guns into Japan. Or maybe we should reward the enslavement of millions of Native Americans by giving the Spanish a civ. Or maybe, since the Muscovites based their power on conquering their technologically backward eastern neighbors while using serf labor to fuel their autocracy, Russia should be rewarded. Or maybe Belgium should be given a civ because King Leopold looted the Congo, and enslaved the natives.

Or maybe we should reward Europe because now they're nice people and are giving apologies at U.N. conferences and such. But if you were to take Europe today, it would be reasonable to have even fewer civs, possibly the EU and Russia. You all want to be included on the basis of your nation's height of power, but criticize America for being bigoted and short sighted. America is a much gentler Imperial power than any of the European powers were. At least we try to do the right thing sometimes.

Saint Marcus · September 9, 2001, 07:56

Let me see....please refresh my memory. What exactly did the Americans do to the Native Americans?

What did the Japanese do in WW2?

What did the Chinese do under Mao? I'm sure they were very friendly towards dissidents and the people of Tibet.

And don't forget Egypt! Just read the bible.

Same goes for Babylon. In the bible Babylon was a synonim for Hell.

Or how about the Aztecs, who ritually sacrificed millions.

And of course the Zulus. we all know how friendly they were towards captured englishmen.

And the Persians. Of course they never used slaves.

Need I go on?

Saint Marcus · September 9, 2001, 07:57

Quote:

America is a much gentler Imperial power than any of the European powers were.

I'm sure the native Americans would agree. Custer was such a nice fellow.

Just shut up please. You are just an ignorant, close minded, newbie bigot. Beat it.

Felch · September 9, 2001, 08:22

Quote:

I'm sure the native Americans would agree. Custer was such a nice fellow.

Custer was a nice fellow. He had the decency to get himself killed by the Natives.

Your points seem to be that as long as the Japanese killed poeple during WWII, the Spanish were justified in killing the Incas four hundred years earlier. Nobody is saying it's all right to use terror tactics and such. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't aplaud nations for using them.

The biblical criticism of Egypt and Babylon was primarily propaganda. They were little worse than any of their neighbors. However the Bible is very nice to the Persians under Cyrus the Great who liberated the Isrealites. But you don't like Persia very much either.

Korea, the Anasazi, Mali, Polynesia, Canada, and Australia could all be civs placed in favor of some little European country that enjoys raping the world. Although you would probably discount them because North Korea is a ruthless tyranny, the Anasazi never conquered anybody, or Canda and Australia are either insignificant or else based on the expulsion of the natives.

Face it Mark, you're as much of a bigot in favor of Europe as I am against it. And I love the newbie remark. It's so nice to learn that unless I spend my life on these forums my opinion is worthless.

Felch · September 9, 2001, 08:29

Also remember that the it is reasonable to hold Europe and America to a higer standard because the west has justified much of its existence in terms of its Christianity. The fact that colonial pillaging went hand in hand with evangelizing natives to a peaceful faith makes it even more repulsive.

There were no Beatitudes in ancient Persia or Pre-Columbian America. There was no religious hypocrisy in the acts of the Maoists. The Europeans on the other hand considered their conquests to be acts of mercy, and simply a part of Kipling's "White Man's Burden."

I do not consider the actions that the Americans took in reaching their Manifest Destiny to be acceptable. However, as many people on the forum are happy to point out, America's foremost influence in its early years was Europe. The United States simply continued the European strategy of expelling the natives whenever it was convenient.

Saint Marcus · September 9, 2001, 08:34

Quote:

It's so nice to learn that unless I spend my life on these forums my opinion is worthless.

Yep, pretty much.

Quote:

Korea, the Anasazi, Mali, Polynesia, Canada, and Australia could all be civs placed in favor of some little European country that enjoys raping the world. Although you would probably discount them because North Korea is a ruthless tyranny, the Anasazi never conquered anybody, or Canda and Australia are either insignificant or else based on the expulsion of the natives.

Ok, you win. The 16 civs in Civ3 will be: Korea, Anasazi, Mali, Polynesia, Canada, Australia, Swiss, Iceland, New Zealand, Jamaica, Malta, Tibet, Liechtenstein, Andora, Monaco, San Marino. Sounds terribly exciting to me.

Quote:

Your points seem to be that as long as the Japanese killed poeple during WWII, the Spanish were justified in killing the Incas four hundred years earlier. Nobody is saying it's all right to use terror tactics and such. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't aplaud nations for using them.

EVERY civ in civ3 killed, murdered, pillaged and raped. Rome would probably be number 1 on the list too. To place Japan or the Aztecs or Americans above the English or French is just plain stupid.

Saint Marcus · September 9, 2001, 08:36

Quote:

I do not consider the actions that the Americans took in reaching their Manifest Destiny to be acceptable. However, as many people on the forum are happy to point out, America's foremost influence in its early years was Europe. The United States simply continued the European strategy of expelling the natives whenever it was convenient.

And Europe followed the Roman example, who pretty much invented genocide (they wiped out complete tribes of people). In other words, the USA is no better than Europe, and Europe is no worse than the Romans.

Felch · September 9, 2001, 08:46

Quote:

And Europe followed the Roman example, who pretty much invented genocide (they wiped out complete tribes of people). In other words, the USA is no better than Europe, and Europe is no worse than the Romans.

Europe is worse than the Romans because of its hypocrisy. Allow me to explain.

Key difference between Europe and Rome equals Christianity.

Although Rome became Christian, by the time it did it was no longer pillaging and decimating.

Europe on the other hand was essentially unified by a basic religious code of conduct. Turn the other cheek, love your neighbor, blessed are the peacemakers, etc.

This is the essential quality that made Europe seperate. Islamic Spain, and the Ottoman Empire, even though they were geographically European, would not be culturally European.

Hence, the fact that Europe and America did the exact same thing that the rest of the world did is unacceptable.

Quote:

Ok, you win. The 16 civs in Civ3 will be: Korea, Anasazi, Mali, Polynesia, Canada, Australia, Swiss, Iceland, New Zealand, Jamaica, Malta, Tibet, Liechtenstein, Andora, Monaco, San Marino. Sounds terribly exciting to me.

Quote:

EVERY civ in civ3 killed, murdered, pillaged and raped. Rome would probably be number 1 on the list too. To place Japan or the Aztecs or Americans above the English or French is just plain stupid.

The award for not getting the point goes to Mark L!

The idea is not to make every civ peaceful. I'm simply saying that conquest should not be the litmus test we use for deciding if a civ is included.

Saint Marcus · September 9, 2001, 08:55

Your total lack of historical comprehension scares me. Many European nations did not conquer in name of Christianity. Just because a nation is christian and conquers it is worse than a non-christian nation that conquers. That is just totally and completely rediculous.

Though I'm willing to give in to you. All Christian European civs in civ3 should be kept out....but the USA should also be excluded following your arguments.

Out: England, France, Germany, Russia, USA
In: Mali, Korea, Polynesia, Canada, Australia

Felch · September 9, 2001, 09:02

Agreed. Rome and Greece in Europe. Iroquois, Canada, and the Aztecs in North America.

Although, if you can demonstrate to me that England, France, Germany, Russia, and the US never used religion as a reason to wage war or colonize then I might buy your first arguement too.

A nation that identifies itself by a system of morals and then discards them in order to expand its influence is far worse than the Aztec Empire which waged war in accordance with its religious traditions. If you disagree, that's your perogitive.

Fiil · September 9, 2001, 09:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Felch X
Although Rome became Christian, by the time it did it was no longer pillaging and decimating.

Come on Felch, I'm not defending anyone but this one is not true, and I hope you know it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Felch X
However, as many people on the forum are happy to point out, America's foremost influence in its early years was Europe. The United States simply continued the European strategy of expelling the natives whenever it was convenient.

As I remember it Britain tried to stop the settlers moving west into indian territory. I don't blame the americans that they did so, and I agree that europeans would have done the same to get some land (Makes sense since they were europeans) at that time, it was a hard time to live and it wasn't only the natives who fought for their lives.
It is however completely inresponsible to suggest that americans only expelled the natives because they were influenced by Europe, at the same time saying that they would not have done so if they weren't.

Info on Europe:
Europe is only the name of the continent I live in. I do not feel closer connected to Rome than to Boston. Actually maybe I feel a bit closer to Boston. European is not a nationality - we have different cultures and different histories. Europe is not an evil place, where people only want to conquer the world - it never was!! Unfortunately some leaders think more of themselves than of others and this has led to many misfortunes. These leaders usually outshine the more pleasant ones and it is mostly them we remember!

As for saying that there is no place in civ for civs without spotless reputations, or just saying that this gives them less right, this makes no sense. Sadly it seems that everyone who has power uses it to aid their own good. If a civ has never done anything wrong this only states that it never had the possibily!!

monolith94 · September 9, 2001, 11:23

"Ok, you win. The 16 civs in Civ3 will be: Korea, Anasazi, Mali, Polynesia, Canada, Australia, Swiss, Iceland, New Zealand, Jamaica, Malta, Tibet, Liechtenstein, Andora, Monaco, San Marino. Sounds terribly exciting to me. "

The irony is that half of the new civs you posted up are from Europe. . .

KrazyHorse · September 9, 2001, 11:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Mark L
Ok, you win. The 16 civs in Civ3 will be: Korea, Anasazi, Mali, Polynesia, Canada, Australia, Swiss, Iceland, New Zealand, Jamaica, Malta, Tibet, Liechtenstein, Andora, Monaco, San Marino. Sounds terribly exciting to me

Hey! Don't make fun. We're the only G8 country not in the game.

mactbone · September 9, 2001, 11:35

Quote:

A nation that identifies itself by a system of morals and then discards them in order to expand its influence is far worse than the Aztec Empire which waged war in accordance with its religious traditions. If you disagree, that's your perogitive

So, what you're saying is that if a civ has managed to survive without attacking anyone hypocritically (a subjective measure by any means), then yippee they get to be in.
"Look at me I'm making people happy!" - Homer Simpson
You're willing to take some civs that have had incredible influence on the history of mankind because "they killed, but killing is against their relegion". I don't recall, but what relegion was Napolean? Did it affect his policy of wanting to rule the world? Should it have? In the US there is supposed to be seperation of Church and State, I know this isn't always true, but there is sufficient evidence to say that the nation isn't controlled by relegion, and that the reason everyone thinks Americans are all deeply relegious is because of the Holy Roller's and other fanatics. Just because they shout loudest...