America isn't old enough to be in Civ3

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Fresno
But I wonder wether it's only the fault of the press. Generally, newspapers tend to tell the people what they want to hear.

To a degree, in order to sell papers, but there is a lot of the owners/editors views in newspapers. Considering the calibre of the owners of most of the British press it is not hard to see why the papers are anti-euro.

[Fresno]

Sun Zi 36: The problem is a bit the same as the one we are dealing with on the other thread; I mean, when should a (there: non-western) civ be included and when not. We should think of some criteria to determine what we exactly mean with 'culture.' Should it only be like the concept it is in civ (temples and libraries) or also things like language? Although I personally feel the last meaning is the better one, I don't see a way to introduce the concept in a game like civ.

Sagacious Dolphin: Well, at least Blair supports the euro, doesn't he? I guess that if he and his cabinet have enough time, they should be able to introduce it.

BTW, what was wrong with your deep blue sea? Has Shell been busy there?

[Ironikinit]

Originally posted by Fresno
But I have to say many of the posts posted by the English here were very good; till now, nationalist posts were strictly American.

Edit: Just to make sure this post won't be misunderstood: it's true England was a great nation, and it should definately be a civ.

Make a thread called "England isn't good enough to be in Civ3" and you might get a few more nationalist posts from the English.

[Immortal Khan]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36

This then comes down to personal opinion and the ultimate purpose for defining the civ. As this is a game/simulation with a maximum of only 16 civs, we should easily deduce that def 2 should be used in a very broad sense which means only great differences should be viewed as a different or indepent "type".

in my opinion, the differences mentioned are just not enough to make it a different "type of culture and society" (def 2). so I do no agree that the USA is "culturally separate" at the time of its national independence. I will not go into the details of why i think it's not enough bcos the whole subject has been going on for too long, so much has been repeated and it's just getting too boring.

If this be the case then why is England , Germany, France an "independent" civ? Shouldn't they be a European Civ? and Persia and Babylon should be integrated into a single Civ.
This is why Firaxis came up with the great idea of making these civs "independent" but yet they are part of their greater culture group: European, Middle Eastern, Asian, and American. Although the only thing i disagree with is that America should be part of the European culture, not the American culture along with the Aztecs and Iroqouis. I think it would be better if you take out Americans, put in the Incas as the 3rd American civ and introduce the revolting cities concept. The revolting, newly independent civ would be of the same culture group as the civ it revolted against.

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36

A personal response: i made the statement in my previous post only to emphasise my point about real-time vs turn-based civilisation gaming which was unrelated to what u were saying. i never even intended to "correct" you.

If it was unrelated to what I was saying then why did you put my quote in that specific post?! DUH! I thought that was the point of replying with quotes!

[Dauphin]

Sagacious Dolphin: Well, at least Blair supports the euro, doesn't he? I guess that if he and his cabinet have enough time, they should be able to introduce it.

Blair does, but his cabinet can only make it happen via referendum else be faced with a popular electoral revolt.

Gordon Brown is also a sticking point because as CotE he has the say on when and if we are ready for Euro membership ("The economic tests" as he puts it) and hence a referendum on the issue. And I have serious doubts over his desire for the Euro.

[Sun Zi 36]

Immortal Khan:

If this be the case then why is England , Germany, France an "independent" civ? Shouldn't they be a European Civ? and Persia and Babylon should be integrated into a single Civ.

This is already partly answered:

As this is a game/simulation with a maximum of only 16 civs, we should easily deduce that def 2 should be used in a very broad sense which means only great differences should be viewed as a different or indepent "type".

applying to your question, this means i think that England, Germany, France satisfies the "broad" sense of cultural difference while USA does not. on the other hand, if u only make them a European civ (too broad) then there is not enough civs to make it 16.

As I said, i don't want to go further into answering WHY i think there are enough differences with other civilisations (eg France England Germany) while there are not enough with the USA because it would mean firstly to assess all the details of their aspects of "intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions" (def 1) and then compare whether they are a different "type" (in "the broad sense") as others (def 2). this is just to tedious and complex to go into.

If it was unrelated to what I was saying then why did you put my quote in that specific post?! DUH! I thought that was the point of replying with quotes!

i dont want to say further on this point. it is useless to argue further.

Fresno:
Trying to think up some criteria to determine what we mean by culture would be too controversal. i have come to learn that the best and easiest way to eliminate any doubts about it is to refer to some convincing authority like the defintion in the dictionary. I am sure u will find things like language in the definition of "culture" or "civilisation" in a dictionary. i guess using many concepts of culture to SELECT civs does not necessarily mean all those aspects have to be reflected in the actual gameplay (it's only a game/simulation afterall), although it'd be much more fun. maybe some tendency of your citizens to react differently to different governments?
but as i said in the other thread culture cant be the ONLY criteria to select a civ into a game like this. i think importance in history is the only other good sub-criteria.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36
Trying to think up some criteria to determine what we mean by culture would be too controversal. i have come to learn that the best and easiest way to eliminate any doubts about it is to refer to some convincing authority like the defintion in the dictionary. I am sure u will find things like language in the definition of "culture" or "civilisation" in a dictionary.

Here you'll find some definitions given by dictionary.com. I think definition 1b would be the most accurate.

i guess using many concepts of culture to SELECT civs does not necessarily mean all those aspects have to be reflected in the actual gameplay (it's only a game/simulation afterall), although it'd be much more fun. maybe some tendency of your citizens to react differently to different governments?

Maybe, it's a nice idea. Perhaps the citizens also should develop different religions, like they do in EU.

but as i said in the other thread culture cant be the ONLY criteria to select a civ into a game like this. i think importance in history is the only other good sub-criteria.

As I said in the other thread, I agree with that.

[gopher]

Jesus, this thread is STILL alive?

Just one more sign of the comming apocalypse, right along with the new Britney movie.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Oligarf
'Americans discover Navigation'

Explain this, Americans.

"Babylonians discover Robotics"

Explain this, Babylonians.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by FireDragon

"Babylonians discover Robotics"

Explain this, Babylonians.

I don't think there would be any Babylonians complaining if there was a request to remove them from the game on those (or indeed any) grounds.

Besides, the Babylonian market isn't big for Civ series games.

[KrazyHorse]

As this is the 550th post in this thread, it's time for it to die.

[Dauphin]

Is that actually an official forum rule, or just general practice?

[KrazyHorse]

Official. Running scripts on the longer threads is apparently a problem. Plus, I want to get rid of this topic.

[Dauphin]

I declare this thread closed.

Oh wait, I'm not a moderator...

[Mars]

I must say i'm rather surprised that this thread is still in existence. It was started like 4 months ago. Or was it 5.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Mars
I must say i'm rather surprised that this thread is still in existence. It was started like 4 months ago. Or was it 5.

America bashing threads never die, they simply get locked away...

[Mars]

America bashing threads never die, they simply get locked away...

So true, So true.

[Oligarf]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36
Actually this raised some interesting thoughts. EU is actually strictly REAL TIME, NOT TURN BASED. I remember a long long time ago someone raised a thread about making civ3 real time and got completely shot at by everyone in the forum. EU shows that a real time empire building/histirical game could be very fun to play with. There's no reason to reject real-time as an improvement to the civ series right out of hand. I actually like the realism and the sense immediacy of playing real time. It saves much more time in multiplayer games too.

Thank you! Finally some people that do understand what I am saying. Maybe I should retry that thread.

[Oligarf]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Make a thread called "England isn't good enough to be in Civ3" and you might get a few more nationalist posts from the English.

Good point.

[Oligarf]

Originally posted by FireDragon

"Babylonians discover Robotics"

Explain this, Babylonians.

The Babylonians could have done so, the Americans will not rediscover Navigation themselves, they are smart enough not to do so.

[Dauphin]

Make a thread called "England isn't good enough to be in Civ3" and you might get a few more nationalist posts from the English

I would just post a in that thread and be done with it.

Americans are way more patriotic and nationalistic when it comes to these things. Also berating England's acheivements is an Englishman's number one pasttime. Well...almost.

[Immortal Khan]

This whole thing seems to be pointless considering you can use the Civ3 Editor to edit civilizations! Take out the American, Babylonians, English, or whoever and make your own! You bunch of lazy louts! Instead, we'd rather type away at a question which really shouldn't of been asked in the 1st place!

[Fresno]

About this thread 'still' being alive:
People post, so people think this thread is interesting enough to exist. No problem. If you don't like the topic, don't post.

About Civ real-time:
Oligarf's previous thread about that was spoiled by some short-sighted people who didn't even want to consider it. It's a strategy which has also been tried here: if people don't like the topic, they start ranting.

About Americans being more patriotic:
I think it has to do with this. If you live in a European city, you might live in a 17th century house, visit your local medieval church and shop in the historic inner town. This means as a European you face your roots every day. The Americans of course have their more recent history, but they live separated from their European roots, and they need to compensate this with their national symbols.

[Dauphin]

I live in a house built in 1982, I go to a church built in 1967, and go shopping in a town that was just a chalk pit 50 years ago.

If it were about history why aren't the Aussies ultra-patriotic?

[Borat]

This thread is funny, but to all them people who think that Americans and British people have a shared culture are wrong.

Americans and British people speak different forms of English.
Americans speak in high-pitched voices and do not pronounce their “T’s. But they really pronounce their “O’s. British people are the opposite. Americans believe they have no accent, even though they speak a dialect form of Standard English.

Britain has an unelected Head of State, but general elections are fair.
USA has an elected Head of State, but general elections are unfair.

British people invent things, while Americans make them.

If a British person went to America and walked on a “pavement” he would most probably be ran over by a car, because in America roads are also paved and Americans walk on “side walk” instead.

British people drive on the left side of the road with the other 2 Billion people.
Americans drive on the right side of the road with the other 4 billion people.

Americans ideals are right-wing and are constantly going right wing and are supporting anti-social governments more and more.
British ideal are left-wing are and are constantly going left wing and are supporting social governments more and more.

Americans spell funny, for instance they spell Difference/Defense Amour/Color Realize/Surprise Realize/Realism
British people follow suit, because they spell Difference/Defence Amour/Colour Realise/Surprise Realise/Realism

Americans can’t distinguish between a Cheque and “Check” or Programme and a Program, British people can

Americans love their own sports like “Padded up Rugby”, “Rounders”, “Netball” but they call them “Football, Baseball and Basketball presuming that you have to be hard to play them, even though they originated from “women” sports and they tend to be good at them.
British love their own sports that they share with the rest of the World including “World Football, Rugby and Cricket. But they tend not to be good at them.

If an Americans bought a loaf of bread, he/she should feel good because a British person would be paying double the amount for the same product. The same goes with a car, a house, any other food or even taxes.

Some Americans get crippled by their medical bills, British people receive free medical care.

British people have a sense of humor/humour, Americans don’t
British people drink strong beer; Americans don’t seem to drink beer at all.

Americans believe that they live in a democracy were smoking is banned in some States, and your not allowed to drink beer until your 21.
British people don’t believe that they live in a democracy because they live in a Monarchy, but they can smoke anywhere, a 14 years old boy can order a pint of beer with a meal and they can leave school at 16 years old. (15 years depending on Date of Birth)

Americans are patriotic people, love their national anthem and put their hand on their heart when their national anthem is played.
The only patriotic British people left are living Australia or Canada; and they think their national anthem is the most boring in the world.

Americans drink Coffee
British people drink Tea

Americans drive big cars and they pay cheap Petroleum prices what they call “gas”
British people drive smaller cars and they pay skyrocket Petroleum prices what they call “Petrol”

America has the biggest economy in the world and has one of the most powerful Armies. It also is one of the largest countries geographically.
Britain is the fourth biggest economy in the world, exports all it's arms to the Far East and has a tiny Island.


There is one thing that Americans and British people share, and that is arrogance. Plus they are the two most hated Nations on the planet. They normally like bombing Far East countries and love sucking up to each other. Or should I say Britain likes “sucking up” to America.

And if Americans don’t like British people, they normally hate them. If British people don’t like Americans they normally hate them too. Their never is an in between.

[Sun Zi 36]

Borat:
one can always spot differences, no two things are the same, no two things can exist in the same time in the same space.

What I suggest to you is, your comparison between British and American is like comparing 2 apples, maybe one is bigger the other smaller, one is more red the other less, one has thicker skin the other thinner, one has more white spots on it the other less.

But if you compare the British or Americans with the Russians, you may come to realise that it is no longer like comparing 2 apples, but comparing an apple with an orange. The composition of the whole fruit is different, the taste is different, the way they grew is different, etc etc. If you compare the British or Americans with the Chinese, you may even realise that it is like comparing an apple with a bean.

My point is that, you can always spot differences in culture between people. Even You and your neighbour have a different way of life, does that mean u two are of a different culture?

The question is not whether there ARE differences, it is whether those differences are ENOUGH for us to accept that they should be distinguished in a different category. Should we distinguish different apples into different categories or should we distinguish only when it is a different kind of fruit?

If we accept that we distinguish only when it is a different kind of fruit, then it can be accepted that British and Americans share the same culture even though there are minor differences between them.

[Oligarf]

Originally posted by Sun Zi 36
If we accept that we distinguish only when it is a different kind of fruit, then it can be accepted that British and Americans share the same culture even though there are minor differences between them.

AGREE

[Beren]

The whole problem is that in Civ 3 civilizations cannot rise or fall quickly enough. To make it more realistic, it should include about 200 civilizations and in the early history empires could be destroyed in one turn.
Civilizations could rise in a couple of turns which have never been there before. To make it that realistic, however, is to complete destroy the entire concept of the game. It will be an impossible task to complete. And even when you complete it, you have an unbalanced game where chanches are not equally spreaded.
It is both unthinkable to have Babylonians discovering Robotics and to have Americans discovering the Wheel. But in civilization 3 to become the predominant culture in modern times, you should already have an advantage in ancient times. This on no way makes sense.
Both Babylonians and Americans have the right to be in Cilization 3, but it would lead to some curious events. If you want to remove civilizations, remove the Iroqouis, the Aztecs, the Zulus and possibly the Indians and replace them by Spain, Turkey, Saracens and some other culture you find important (maybe israel, both ancient and modern in one civ).
By the way: I disagree Persia and Babylon represent the same culture. If there was one era in history where the difference between cultures was big, it are the ancient times.
The Persians where a civ from the east and represent themselves. Even today Iran is a predominant power in the Middle East. The Babylonians don't represent themselves, but entire Mesopotamia (Sumeria, Assyria, Sargon, Babylon.) These cultures were perhaps earlier than Egypt to become a civilization. And they have stayed a very important part of the world, until the Persian conquerors came. To say that they are of the same kind as the Persians is inacceptable. You might as well say that the Romans are the same culture as the Greeks, but actually it is much worse than that, because the Persians really did use quite a lot of own elements which formed their culture.

[jasev]

Originally posted by Beren
If you want to remove civilizations, remove the Iroqouis

[...]

and replace them by Spain

Absolutely agreed.

[Tuberski]

Damn firaxians! give us something new to talk about at least!

back to sleep