America isn't old enough to be in Civ3 - Page 4

Asesino_Virtual · October 11, 2001, 19:24

Yeah, NYC looks great with the Statue of Liberty... and...oops, they are no more!

Thats demostrates how easy is to destroy a Wonder of the World in a war.

Juggernaut · October 11, 2001, 21:34

300 years of existence isn't long enough?

KrazyHorse · October 11, 2001, 21:37

*Begins counting on fingers*

1776+300 = 2001?

orange · October 11, 2001, 22:07

KH - American civilization didn't begin in 1776. A case could be made for it beginning in the early 1700s.

Craftsman · October 12, 2001, 00:42

Wow! Four pages of replies!

Like Steve Clark said:

Quote:

So you are saying that Civ3 should be a historical simulator instead of a civilization-based strategy game? That's a tired, irrelevant argument, imo.

Civilization is only a game!

It´s, like Firaxis is advertising, "a what-if world"!

Where is Brasilia? (Brazil´s Capital City)

KrazyHorse · October 12, 2001, 00:53

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
KH - American civilization didn't begin in 1776. A case could be made for it beginning in the early 1700s.

But I'm only keeping out of the way of this one due o LOTM's astute observations that the civs in Civ are nations, not civs. The argument for the US in Civ3 gets a lot weaker if you go back to "civ" as a requirement and not "nation"...

Dauphin · October 12, 2001, 14:43

Especially considering how the Americans of the first half of the 18th Century were proud to be part of the English Empire.

Dugrik · October 12, 2001, 19:39

A nation is a group of people who share a language and culture. If they organize themselves politically they become a state. The history of the German folk prior to the 19th century is one in which their territory was divided into many many independent states but grouped under loose political entities such as the Holy Roman Empire, the Confederation of the Rhine, and the North German Confederation.

Austria was the leading German state until after the Napoleonic wars when Prussia began to rise in influence. Beginning in 1865, Otto von Bismark, the chancellor of Prussia, orchestrated three wars which culmanated in the founding of the German Empire in 1870. Austria, although a German state, was isolated and excluded from the new empire to ensure Prussian dominance.

The point is that it is wrong to confuse the development of the culture of the German people with the rise and fall of any particular state or confederation of states. The nation has been around for millenia. The states will rise and fall and rise and fall as states are wont to do.

Dugrik · October 12, 2001, 19:52

Hmmmm, looks like I got sidetracked by a side arguement.

My point about ignoring particular states and instead focusing on the cultural development of the people who comprise that nation is equally applicable to the United States. For three hundred years the American people have been forging a set of traditions and values which have revolutionized the world. We have exported democracy to hundreds of nations. Our corporations have world-wide presence. (Consider the phrase Coca-Cola diplomacy.) While the time frame is small compared to 6000 years of civilization, the acceleration of the changes wrought has been blinding. (This is certainly reflected in the game where a modern turn comprises one or two years compared to an ancient turn of 100 years.) The time period may be short, but more has been done to influence the world and humanity. Thus it would be silly to exclude the American people from the game.

Boris Godunov · October 12, 2001, 22:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Asesino_Virtual
Yeah, NYC looks great with the Statue of Liberty... and...oops, they are no more!

Thats demostrates how easy is to destroy a Wonder of the World in a war.

And this is amusing to you how?

Since I have to see the hole in the skyline every day, maybe I'm a bit touchy about it, but considering 5,400 people were slaughtered, I'd think you could show some class about it.

Fresno · October 13, 2001, 07:56

Quote:

Originally posted by jdd2007
how can u not want americans. we have given u freedom, money, and McDonalds...what would life be without coke, the internet

and SID MEIER *looks for a bowing smilie, grumbles*
its ur choice... we have given u all of the above (well maybe not freedom, but we saved europes ass in ww2

)

Without America Europe would not be the same indeed; but what would America be without Europe?

As I said when I started this thread, I know the USA is the most powerful nation of the world today. But Civ isn't only about how the world looks right now, it is about history. And I'm sorry, but the role America played in history is still not very large.

Dauphin · October 13, 2001, 08:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Dugrik
We have exported democracy to hundreds of nations.

Name ten.

Oligarf · October 13, 2001, 13:00

It's about rewriting history, so the history that it is now doesn't matter that much.

jsw363 · October 13, 2001, 21:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Name ten.

There are numerous examples including, but obviously not limited to: Mexico, Japan, S. Korea, West Germany, Latin America. We may not have had the best methods, but we did export...

KrazyHorse · October 14, 2001, 01:10

Quote:

Originally posted by jsw363

There are numerous examples including, but obviously not limited to: Mexico, Japan, S. Korea, West Germany, Latin America. We may not have had the best methods, but we did export...

That's funny...

I thought German democracy already existed under Weimar.

Other places, maybe, but I wouldn't look upon Latin America as a ringing success for American-exported democracy. The US has a long history of exporting dictatorships soutwards, not democracies.

jsw363 · October 14, 2001, 02:13

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's funny...
I thought German democracy already existed under Weimar.
Other places, maybe, but I wouldn't look upon Latin America as a ringing success for American-exported democracy. The US has a long history of exporting dictatorships soutwards, not democracies.

That's funny too. Would you consider their election of Hitler a resounding success for democracy?
As for Latin America, yeah, we made some mistakes. But most of them are democratic now. (And at least they didn't go commie

)

mactbone · October 14, 2001, 02:20

The Weimar Republic was a failed democracy, not applicable in this instance because it was more often than not legislated by the President. The Congress couldn't accomplish much at all, allowing the president to use emergency powers.

KrazyHorse · October 14, 2001, 03:20

The Weimar Republic was democratic in its constitution, forms, etc. Just because it ended up failing doesn't mean that its memory wasn't what the people looked to for their example.

Oerdin · October 14, 2001, 03:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Asesino_Virtual
Yeah, NYC looks great with the Statue of Liberty... and...oops, they are no more!

Thats demostrates how easy is to destroy a Wonder of the World in a war.

The Statue of liberty is just fine thank you. The World Trade Center was done in by Muslim extreamists though.

Imran Siddiqui · October 14, 2001, 04:16

Any nation that has achieved superpower status deserves to be in the game. No matter for how little of a time.

Drake Tungsten · October 14, 2001, 06:03

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The Weimar Republic was democratic in its constitution, forms, etc. Just because it ended up failing doesn't mean that its memory wasn't what the people looked to for their example.

I have to disagree. The current German democracy is heavily influenced by the American model, especially in its federal nature. The Weimar Republic was never very popular in Germany and was not much more than a gap filler between the Hohenzollern monarchy and the Nazis. To not give America credit for the current German government is to ignore history.

Dauphin · October 14, 2001, 08:31

Quote:

To not give America credit for the current German government is to ignore history.

I'll give it some credit, but to believe that it is US democracy is as arrogant as believing that only US forces defended democracy in WW2.

I would bet that Britain gave democracy to more countries than the US. Australia, Canada, South Africa, India etc... (most Commonwealth countries had democracies set up as part of the handover)

Oligarf · October 14, 2001, 11:25

America is democratic, but somehow I find it strange that George W. Bush is President and that Al Gore had the most votes.

So not to much credit for the American democracy.

Boris Godunov · October 14, 2001, 11:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Oligarf
America is democratic, but somehow I find it strange that George W. Bush is President and that Al Gore had the most votes.

So not to much credit for the American democracy.

That is because we have a Representative Democracy rather than an absolute one. The above situation is an example of one of the flaws of our system rather than a repudiation of the entire system. Since the American Democracy has been successful in facilitating peaceful, orderly transitions of power for 200 years, I'd qualify it as highly successful, warts and all.

You can't isolate any modern democracy from American influence, just as you can't isolate American democracy from French and British influence. No political systems exist in a vacuum.

Drake Tungsten · October 14, 2001, 15:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch

Quote:

To not give America credit for the current German government is to ignore history.

I'll give it some credit, but to believe that it is US democracy is as arrogant as believing that only US forces defended democracy in WW2.

I would bet that Britain gave democracy to more countries than the US. Australia, Canada, South Africa, India etc... (most Commonwealth countries had democracies set up as part of the handover)

I totally agree with you. America played a role in creating the German government, but there was other very important influences. We only deserve a little credit and that's all I want.

I also hate Americans who claim that the US won WWII (in Europe at least). They are ignorant of history and ignore the fact that the Soviet Union and Britain sacrificed much more than America did to defeat the Nazis. To even call WWII a "fight to save democracy" is a misnomer. The Soviet Union certainly didn't promote democracy after the war and I don't think Churchill would've supported Germany if it was a democracy instead of a fascist state. WWII was fought to prevent Germany from becoming the most powerful country on earth, plain and simple. That title fell on us Americans, pretty much by default.

TCO · October 14, 2001, 17:02

Doesn't matter how old we are. We are the number one market for Civ. So dollars speak and we win.

You can screw up release in any other single country. But the Us is critical. I worked for a global Swiss company and this is what they felt.

Mikael · October 14, 2001, 18:35

I personally think the US shouldn't be in the game thus I will replace them with the Mighty Finns as soon as I learn how tu use the editor! And the Finns special unit shall be the Ski Infantry equipped with Suomi submachineguns and Molotov cocktails!!

Oh yes, oh yes! World domination!

Jaybe · October 14, 2001, 18:51

I voted "I don't care."
Sure, the British/English shouldn't be in the mix of civs either. We have no documentation of their having writing back then.
OTH, the U.S. broke off from the British, but you can't even have revolutions in the game.

Shucks, I suppose it's only a game.

JMarks · October 14, 2001, 23:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

That is because we have a Representative Democracy rather than an absolute one. The above situation is an example of one of the flaws of our system rather than a repudiation of the entire system. Since the American Democracy has been successful in facilitating peaceful, orderly transitions of power for 200 years, I'd qualify it as highly successful, warts and all.

You can't isolate any modern democracy from American influence, just as you can't isolate American democracy from French and British influence. No political systems exist in a vacuum.

Well, if we want to be technical, wouldn't it be a democratic republic? Anyway, the election isn't just based on what the majority of the people want, but is also influenced by the states. Hence we have a senate and a house of representitives. The former representing states (2 each) the later the people. The electoral collage represents both in the election of the president. Sure, I think it could be changed for the better (eg the winner of the state gets the 'senator' votes, but they still have to win the 'representative' votes), but it works. This way small states still get a voice in and aren't completely drowned out by the bigger states in the decision for president.

Aside from that, hasn't this whole argument taken place months ago? I remember arguing in that one too. Didn't the pro-American faction win that one? Hmmm.

jsw363 · October 15, 2001, 00:03

I'd say that it was pretty clear that the US had a large role in promoting democracy and setting up democratic governments following WWII. The British have obviously had a large influence on the spread of democracy, but I think that the subject of American democracy came up as a reponse to someone who said that Americans haven't really made an impact on the world.

To that I'd have to say that America is a superpower and for that reason deserves to be in the game, intellectual, cultural and other accomplishments aside. I beleive that the US is influential in all aspects of modern life and is a civ unique enough from the British civ (just as the Romans are distinct from the Greeks) to be included.

American democracy isn't perfect, but its a really good system... so good in fact that many countries have chosen to emulate it. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery...