If real life were Civ3, who'd have the highest end score?

[Shadow_Cougar]

Well the Chinese have the longevity advantage, but their score will be hurt by conquest (mongols/barbarians, British, Japanese), long periods of anarchy and the destuction of most cultural buildings.

The Americans are behind, but racking up points quickly. Libraries, universities, temples and cathedrals and sports arenas (colliseums) in most every city plus a number of modern and industrial wonders are helping their score. Plus the Americans seem to have the unique mod to build multiple small wonders (Anapolis, West Point, VMI). Sheer size helps, but much of the Pacific area is ocean.

The British average score is dropping quickly, but they racked up some impressive points. What, no Big Ben Wonder?

The Romans really racked up the early game points, nearly winning the game early (by domination). Too many government changes brought them down.

China has the high score, followed by Britain. Americans are 4th, but with the highest per turn score by far.

[Arrian]

I think it's gotta be China, due to land mass/population over thousands of years. Civ III calculates score based upon your average (per turn) population (adjusted for whether they are happy or content - unhappy doesn't help you) and land area.

China has been large and populous for millenia. Sure, it's had serious problems, but it has remained an intact civilization. The Mongol conquest? Well, sure, the Mongols won militarily, but after a relatively short time in power, Chinese culture won out (IIRC from the one Chinese history class I took in college, the Mongols DID assimilate and become quite "Chinese"). As for culture, they've got tons of it. Culture only matters, however, if someone would have won a cultural victory. Impossible to quantify, of course, but I don't think any one civ would have amassed the victory requirement.

India is probably second, again because of territory and population, but I know less about it's history, so I'm not sure. Was ancient India anywhere near as unified as, say, Han China? If so, it has to be a contender.

The US of A, despite being poweful and wealthy, is neither the largest, nor the most populous country in the world, even at the height of its power. Accordingly, I wouldn't even list it as a contender. Culturally, lots of improvements and wonders, but none "doubled" due to age.

England might be in the race, due to the slowdown of years/turns late in the game. The British Empire, while it was rather brief in terms of years (when compared to say, the Roman Empire), lasts a pretty long time in "turns." During that time, the English get a huge boost to their score. Otherwise, however, England is small in both land area and population. So I doubt it would challenge China or India.

The Romans are a possibility, due to the size of their empire and its relative longevity. However, a lot of "turns" have passed since that empire fell. And China had them beat in population even at the height of the Empire.

Egypt - nice culture, but conquered by both Greece (or rather Macedon, but in Civ III Alexander is apparently Greek) and Rome. Not really big enough to contend.

The fact that we're discussing this semi-seriously is a sad testiment to our boredom, lack of work ethic, addiction to Civ III or all of the above.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Chinese, with no doubt. Longevity, landmass and population do the trick. The Civ3 score depends also on happiness, that lowers their score for the last few turns, but generally they are lightyears ahead.

[Carver]

If we look at the individual victory conditions we can eliminate all but America.

1.Conquest. No single civ/government has ever controlled the entire Earth, and I don't think this is foreseeable by 2050.

2.Domination. No single civ/government has ever controlled 2/3 of the Earth, and I don't think this is foreseeable by 2050.

3.United Nations. In reality, a particular country having one of its officials as Secratary-General does not equate to controlling the world as it does in Civ3. Therefore, the UN victory is not applicable.

4.Cultural. There has been alot of debate in this thread about whose culture is strongest. There are old cultures which have had a great impact on the rest of the world. Rome has influenced all of Europe and, by extension, other areas of the globe. But how long did Rome last? Rome's average score wouldn't be that great. The there are people who say land area is what matters. Well it's really the number of cities that maters (as this determines how many temples, libraries etc. you can have). China, Russia and India are huge nations with many cities and 'improvements', but I would argue that their impact outside of their borders is negligable. America, presently, has the most powerful culture. New York and Hollywood are the most culturally powerful cities in history. The whole world watches their movies, for better or worse. The cultural win could swing too many ways. I don't think any civ has double the culture points of the next closest civ, as is required in Civ3. NYC or Hollywood could possibly win by becoming 20,000 cp cities, however.

5.Space Race. Biulding a ship that could travel to Alpha Centauri is an expensive and technically challenging undertaking that only America could mount alone. Possibly a European/Japanese/Russian consortium could put a mission together, but that is not an acceptable victory condidtion for Civ3. Only America has the technical expertise, and the money, to mount a mission on its own. And to the nay sayers, yes it is possible for us to reach Alpha by 2050, if we simply commit the national will, and finances, to do it.

By either a 20,000 cp city or, more likely, a space race win America is the only Civ that can win.

[Miznia]

In hindsight, I regret omitting the Indians, Spanish, and perhaps Arabs, from the options. If I regret including anyone, I guess it's the French or Germans (nary an argument for either, so far), but they each have a vote, so whatever.

I don't really think Japan should be an option. I would say they've developed a distinctive culture, and I'm not too sympathetic to the "it all comes from Korean" argument, but... The Japanese didn't write anything down (that we have) until the 700's AD, and their culture didn't spread too much elsewhere.

Tupi-Guarani are supposed to be the "bananas" option. They're the dark green tribe in Colonization, in Brazil.

Another interesting question, that I considered, was "who SHOULD be the winner," i.e. regardless of Civ3 rules, but I figured that could get uncivil. It's just that, I WANT China and Britain to rank high...

Miznia

[cassembler]

Highest total score: China
Highest CURRENT score: Americans*
Highest single peak score at any given time: Romans (maybe Mongols?)

*=this might be due to contemporary propaganda, so I could be wrong

[Scooby_Doo]

I think thats it gotta be the Chinese on the grounds that they've been around for so long and have, more or less, remained intact throughout.

I agree that any diplo victory would be silly, after all, being Secratary-General of the UN hardly makes you undisputed world leader and controller of the universe, does it? (or does it? perhaps theres some kind of conspiracy at work here)

I would like the English to get it, cos I'm English, and although they are certainly in with a good shout I don't think they can topple the achievements of China throughout the millenia.

Having said that- Yes, the US are behind as they've not been going very long but they are racking up the points like no other nation at the moment and by 2050 they could indeed be the undisputed world power.

So, I think that i should be: (By 2050)

1)Possibly America (but hopefully not!)
2)China at least #2, if not #1
3)Rome or England

[SultanofATL]

Seeing as we the US tax payer subsidizes and pretty much could kick all the rest of the world's collective a-- there should be only one conclusion- All your base are belong to us!!!!

[Scooby_Doo]

"Seeing as we the US tax payer subsidizes and pretty much could kick all the rest of the world's collective a-- "

Excuse me? I'm pretty sure you're joking here, but I'm rather worried this thread could turn into a "US is just superior" thing, which would be a shame.

Anyway, I can't see "US Tax Payer vs Assorted World Leaders" catching on!

[Zouave]

Originally posted by SultanofATL
Seeing as we the US tax payer subsidizes and pretty much could kick all the rest of the world's collective a-- there should be only one conclusion- All your base are belong to us!!!!

You are either terribly misinformed or joking.

[SultanofATL]

Ok this was a joke, but damn it don't start acting like this is absurd. Misinformed? Like a previous poster said lets not let this get out of hand....trust me I could provide enough facts on this subject to make you wonder just how far the "sphere of U.S. influence" goes.

[Jawa Jocky]

I didn’t consider that there are 48 turns left in the game. I would actually change my vote to the USA. I would also elevate Russia up to 2nd. Russia has the most land, a ton of resources (improves economic outlook), a large population, the age advantage, and a powerful army (their conventional forces are hurting but they have the most Nukes). This leaves China in 3rd (I have lowered their accumulated culture because others have reminded me that they have lost and regained territory {including to Japan in the 30s}).

In 2050:
1) USA
2) Russia
3) China

Then again the I.C.S.C. (International Civ Scoring Committee) might rule my home county vote as too bias and throw it out. Everybody is a 1st place winner now (maybe I watched to much Olympic coverage).

[KithrupFugitive]

I actually voted for China, for the reasons articulated by Arrian and others.

I was surprised that Greece was not on the list, but then to Arrian's point, the cultural influence of Greece would not lead to a high score under the present Civ3 system.

[nato]

Ah you started it anyway Scooby_Doo, with "1)Possibly America (but hopefully not!)". Otherwise I agree with your post a real lot.

I really like Shadow_Cougar's line of thinking, and I agree with his post very much. Cool post from Arrian too.

One thing in Carver's post about "China, Russia and India are huge nations with many cities and 'improvements', but I would argue that their impact outside of their borders is negligable", I disagree, at least about China and India.

For India, there is Buddism. It got changed a real lot, but it spread across a huge area to many many people. I think that would count as cultural influence.

For China, that statement is just very wrong. China has had enormous influence in the cultures in its region. I'm not knocking the uniqueness or individuality of China's neighbors, but they all imported lots of Chinese culture. Also, even today, the very high numbers of still-loyal Chinese living abroad in those countries hold a disproportionate amount of economic power and influence.

I guess I'm just saying Chinese culture has been enormously strong and influential in its area, not negligible. You just can't ignore them.

[nato]

Oh yeah I wanted to add, about the whole "America subsidizes the world" thing ... about the only people we send lots of money to anymore is Israel and Egypt. My US foreign policy professor described that as "we pay them not to fight". So, sadly, nowadays we aren't giving a lot of money out in foreign aid. So unless you mean some sort of strange corporate thing, that statement is just not correct.

Another statistic I remember reading, America gives out the most money in foreign aid in absolute terms, but Japan recently surpassed us in per person terms.

[SultanofATL]

Actually Japan leads us in the gross amount category as well. Unfortunately this only belies the state sponsored amounts of aid as they pertain to the U.N. When you factor in other forms the true tally would bely a much different tale. Hey I'm not here to argue...I just get a little touchy when I read or hear some of the rhetoric people spew at my country. All things being counted equal I would have to say a CIV III game played out currently would have to go to the former Soviet Union. Had they not lost a great deal of territory and people to the break up they would be top 2 in almost every important category.

[nato]

I don't want to argue either. The stats I read counted both government and private aid, and if I recall it was the private aid that really boosted the US. However that info might be a little dated. I'm surprised Japan is still giving so much considering the past decade and their economy.

People do spew at the US, like Scooby did ... I think it is natural. The world is a FFA (free for all) situation, and in those you always gang up against the guy who is ahead. Civ is real!

I would totally reject the Soviet Union in real life terms, but in Civ terms they may have been playing the war monger style just right. Forget consumer goods and keeping people happy, go for the military! I think they would be hurting in culture terms though.

I still don't think they could come close to China ... they were just too poor and backwards for too long. Actually they would be like the US ... pathetic score for most of history, and then enormous per turn score late game.

[Hagbart]

Originally posted by nato
Another statistic I remember reading, America gives out the most money in foreign aid in absolute terms, but Japan recently surpassed us in per person terms.

No Japan gives the most in absolute terms, US second most, but many European Countries give a lot more in % of GNP than the US.
Some numbers (% of GNP, 2000):
Denmark 1.06
Netherlands 0.82
Sweden 0.81
Norway 0.80
Luxembourg 0.7
France 0.33
Japan 0.27
USA 0.10 -(which is the lowest of the industrialised countries)
The goal is at least 0.7%

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp


hehe , I just show you this because Denmark is in the lead, woohoo .

[godinex]

And the nukes what?
I say Romans... Occident rules!

[Hagbart]

The Orcs have my vote.
They are typically believed to be brutal and mindless, possessing no humanity or empathy for other races. Although few are aware of it, the Orcs once cultivated a noble, Shamanistic society on the world of Draenor.

[Ninot]

well, just reading up since yesterday, im happy to see a few confident votes in Rome, and displeasured still by some votes in China, but, hey, its a free world, vote as you please.

Just some notes and remarks. I find it incredibly simplistic just to say that China would win due to land mass and history. Realisticly, how much of the land that is within their borders, is acutally inhabbiteed a good long portion of they year? the Himmalaya's and the Gobi ensure that those areas are void of many cities.

So (strangely enough... as an exact copy of my current Martha's world map game), China's bulk is by the sea. if ya look at it in a pure civ3 way, China can't claim to have the same land mass as it does IRL. I dunno, just my opinion

Also, there ARE the matters of conquest, that can't very easily be ignored.... (100 years of mongol rule? woa!). I dunno, but that sounds like they were eliminated from the game 800 years ago.

But, off of that. I don't care to start anything nasty about China. I like China, I just don't see it just for them to have won the game by any means.

My vote stays confidently with Rome, the father of the West, and cultivator of Christianity.

ps..: ROFL... hey, if ya look at the world from the Romans point of view, they won by conquest. Afterall, they had beaten everyone, it was nothing but "Barbarians" left. And, well, they dont count as civs.

[nato]

ps..: ROFL... hey, if ya look at the world from the Romans point of view, they won by conquest. Afterall, they had beaten everyone, it was nothing but "Barbarians" left. And, well, they dont count as civs.

Exactly the Chinese view! The ONLY civilization, the one true source, surrounded by barbarians!

Actually I remember a cool quote from a history book ... it said that the only time ancient China ever met a cultural equal was when it made contact with Rome. (just what the book said)

[Ninot]

i just thought of something... why didnt firaxis make an "economic" victory? its plausible. like, as soon as a treasury reaches a certain ammount, bang...they win. im guessing it would be remarkably like cultural victory, but with gold instead of music

[Ninot]

oh, just something i read just now from one of Nato's previous posts..., about crediting Buddism to India...

you can't

if anything, Buddism is to India as USA is to Britain. Buddism never took off in India, but it did in other places. to credit the culture of buddism to India just seems... wrong. I dunno about my analogy, but, i dunno, distort, it, and it works.

as for the China/Rome/Barbarians, well... atleast we can declare Rome and China 1 and 2 in culture, agreed? (even if we dont agree on whos 1)

[Dida]

Originally posted by Ninot


Also, there ARE the matters of conquest, that can't very easily be ignored.... (100 years of mongol rule? woa!). I dunno, but that sounds like they were eliminated from the game 800 years ago.

But, off of that. I don't care to start anything nasty about China. I like China, I just don't see it just for them to have won the game by any means.

My vote stays confidently with Rome, the father of the West, and cultivator of Christianity.

Mongols are not in the game, they are included in the Chinese race in Civ3. Roman Empire collapsed about 1500 years ago, that is even longer time since China was ruled by Mongols. Mind you, Christianity is not a part of Roman culture, it is Hebrew culture. Roman culture itself is from Greek. They were nothing more than pure barbarian before adapting Greek culture. The land mass of Roman Empire even at its height is at most 1/2 of China. Note that, China is only slightly smaller than the whole Europe.

[N. Machiavelli]

Naw, the Romans owe all that they are to the Etruscans, not the Greeks. Romans had the innate ability to assimilate all the cultures they conquered, so "Roman" culture derives from the Greeks, Carthaginians, Croatians, Egyptian, and to a lesser extent Persians and the Gauls. However, the very base of their culture came from their first rulers and then first conquest, the Etruscans. It's kinda similar to Britain to the US.

Which raises another point, America may be a once-colony of Britain, but Britain is a once-colony of France

[Ninot]

Mongols are not in the game

um, sorry Dida, but this has nothing to do with what civs are in the game... it has to do with IRL civs. in IRL, Mongolia was most definately not a part of China. They were, and still are, two seperate entities. Only thing is, Mongol ruled over China. Only in a game can China claim the vice-versa.

And, if you forgot, this thread isnt about "which civ in the game would have won IRL"... The Banana Republic vote is enough to prove your argument dead.

And nothing more than barbarian before the greeks? Hello? The barbarians that united their entire peninsula? (ok, I admitt, the Etruscan kings did have a hand in that...) barbarians that were able to unite in a way the greek city states never did? Rome may have been adoptive of culture, but it was never barbaric.

And, whats with the landmass argument? Rome may have had some land, but I'll never declare it was more than some of the big current day nations. Nor am i arguing thats how Rome would better China. Im arguing from a purely cultural point of view here.

And... wait, Christian culture originates from Hebrew? Like, sure, they share an entire testament, but it stops pretty much there. The only major Christian church (like, forgetting about the early Roman division of what Jesus was) was the Roman Catholic Church, and that lasted up untill Martin Luther. The head of that church has always been in Italy, or Rome if you prefer. Constantine, the first emperor to declare Christianity legal, well... he pretty much made a legal monopoly of the worlds christians by doin that.

And, like i said before, if you wanna argue that Christianity was never a claim for Roman fame... just look at how the bible was read for quite a long time. In latin, the language of Rome.



Now, as for Machiavelli... yeah, i admitt the Etruscan kings helped Rome quite a bit. And Roman culture does borrow from a bit of everything. Well, i find it hard to see how Phoenexian, Egyptian, and Gaul culture ever seriously effected Rome, but sure, Rome borrowed from Greece. But, if your gonna make me say something (however weak) on this argument, ill just say this:"Rome, the first melting-pot of global society"... and, as a post-note to that "Take that, America!"
Rofl, no offence there. I love my Yankee southern neighbors.

oh... and if USA is a once-colony of Britain, and Britain is a once-colony of France, and both Britain and France were a once colony of Rome... what does that make Rome?.....

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Ninot
Well, i find it hard to see how Phoenexian, Egyptian, and Gaul culture ever seriously effected Rome....

Heh. Half the ancient Egyptian obelisks are in Rome. Besides that, they learned early desert terraforming from the Egyptians. From the Cartheginians, their entire navy. From the Gauls the concept of mounted combat tactics, which were superior to the Greeks.

oh... and if USA is a once-colony of Britain, and Britain is a once-colony of France, and both Britain and France were a once colony of Rome... what does that make Rome?.....

Romans were an off-shoot of the Etruscans. The Etruscans came from the Pelloponesians. The Pelloponesians sprang from Croats. Croats from Ancient Turks in the Fertile Crescent. They from the Egyptians.....

[Styria]

If this is according to Civ III, don't forget that score is calculated per turn, not per year. So for any civ in existence from 4,000 BC to 1 AD, it only counts for 160 game turns. Meanwhile for the USA, every other year of its first century counts and I think every year of its second does, so it's scored for 150 turns right there. Should we average in everyone's zero-scoring turns when they weren't in existence, or just take the ones they were around for?

[Ninot]

Romans were an off-shoot of the Etruscans

Depends who ya ask, ya might get a different answer on that one.

I have been taught that the Romans were well settled by their own, somewhat mysterious origins (Romulus and Remus...), and the Etruscans came a few decades later, to become the predominant ruling class of the Romans.