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

[Cairo_East]

Let's not forget Spain. The amount of land mass controlled by this nation over several turns might put them over several other nations. But I voted for China.

[Jonny]

Chinese win it.

They've been around the longest (so has their culture), and they have a HUGE population and are a large country. These things will push them over the top.

China having 4x the population of the US pretty much makes them unsurpassable by the US.

However, I believe the close second is India. HUGE population also, long lasting, large culture, and mid-large size.

[nato]

I hate to be difficult, but I don't know if I can agree to China being knocked out after the Mongol conquest.

It just really seems to me that that situation just SCREAMS culture flip. China was inferior militarily, but its super culture overcame the Mongols, and made the conquests ultimately temporary.

That is one of the very few situations in history that culture flipping actually models well (otherwise I think culture flipping is pretty unrealistic). Since so many historical events aren't simulatable in Civ3 terms, it seems ashame to throw out one that is.

Anyway, if China is counted as ending with the Mongols, then that gives Rome (and Britain) a much better chance. However I think China would still be a contender, which shows how big a lead I think they have with the full history.

I was looking for the "Rome and China were cultural equals" quote, but I can't find it. I found this about them though (paraphrased a little for brevity, sorry its so long):

The intensity of commercial intercourse was a striking aspect. Ambassadors and trade missions would be exchanged ... Marcus Aurelius is said to have sent an embassy to China, which offered its gifts to the Chinese emperor in 166 A.D. - gifts which were interpreted as tribute by the august Chinese. ... The volume of Rome's oriental trade was exceedingly great. Because Roman exports to the east could never match in quantity or value the empire's imports, the West suffered a serious adverse balance of trade. ... estimated that Rome's trade with the orient cost her a net money loss of some $500,000,000. This serious drain took place at a time when gold was being exhausted, and therefore must be reckoned as a major factor in the economic decline of the Roman world.

Ok not perfectly on point, but it shows Rome had a large trade deficit with China, Rome badly wanted Chinese goods, and China (and this is SO Chinese) didn't greatly want Roman goods. Just something I ran across and thought might be interesting.

Further, to show how terrible I am, even if China was not a consideration, I think Rome might have a tough time beating Britain's score. Britain wasn't hegemon as long, but in terms of points per turn I think they would be very far ahead Rome, which might lead to a higher total score. This is because of the Industrial vs Agricultural thing I wrote about above. I think it would be pretty close between these two.

About the domination win, I always hear Britain's empire described as 1/4 the world. Incredible, but thats still pretty short of 2/3. (I think Spain is even less, though also huge.) If Britain was to win, I think it would have to be by score.

I'm not sure about Rome vs Britain, but its a consideration. I'm still going with China though.

Of course I am speaking of the highly theoretical "No Late Game Canadian Rampage" scenario, but like I said I'm not from Canadia.

[Ninot]

hope this is a quick reply to Nato....

Personally... Even tho i boast Rome, its only culturally. I dont think Rome stands a chance at winning by score. I would put many empires before Rome in score, mostly cuz of a short empire life, small empire size (well, small compared to the size of the world, and some other nations) and some other things i cant think of cuz im tired

But, Culture flip or not, Mongol had China defeated. If Mongol culture flipped after their victory, its just that, after the fact.

I mean, i can't argue that Mongolia couldn't hold the Chinese for more than a century at most, but, in a game of Civ 3, if you go to conquer China, and it starts with 5 cities (lets say its a small map) and you conquer ALL 5 cities, those cities aren't gonna go back to Chinese control, cuz there isn't any Chinese control left in the game.

And, by the subject of the thread, this is by Civ 3 rules. By those Rules, Mongolia had China defeated. Sure, it didn't last, but it was fact, and complete.

So, i submitt that China's total score be stopped by the year that Kublai Khan finnaly had total control over China. So sayeth the rules of Civ3

[Aeson]

In Civ3 game terms, territory of any civilization isn't going to account for much. Even on a 256x256 map, and at the domination limit, there woudn't be enough territory points to overcome the huge population scores that modern countries would boast.

To put this in perspective consider a high scoring Civ3 game. I played a Huge/Pangaea game where I scored 37779 points. My population at its max was 280 million and my territory 2/3rds of the world. The population score was almost twice what the territory score was. China has a very small territory compared to my game, but more than 4 times the population.

The formula for territory scoring is: (turn score)

(Claimed Land + Claimed Coast) * Difficulty

The formula for population scoring is:

((Happy * 2) + Content + Specialist) * Difficulty

Since Difficulty is applied to both equally, it doesn't make a difference in relative scoring between Civs.

Using Marla's World map, at the height of the Roman Empire they claimed roughly 510 tiles (most of the mediterranean sea is coast and counts towards score).

753 BC 9 (Rome is founded) tiles
275 BC 29 tiles
133 BC 171 tiles
14 AD 397 tiles
117 AD 510 tiles
395 AD 460 tiles; 220 tiles (E) 240 (the rest)
476 AD 220 tiles (E), the west falls
565 AD 320 tiles
876 AD 70 tiles
1057 AD 120 tiles
1350 AD 9 tiles
1453 AD 0 tiles

After 395, the Roman Empire split. The size of the Roman Empire had been declining, and the East Roman Empire was roughly 2/5ths of what remained. Sick of counting tiles, so I'll just rough estimate it at 220, which is somewhat generous.

Continuing on with the Byzantine Empire, by 565 AD Italy, the North African Coast, and a small portion of Spain were brought back into the Empire. By 876 it has almost all been lost, along with Egypt and Palestine, and all but the south eastern portion of Greece. The Empire expanded again until 1057, reaching the Danube and expanding towards the east a bit more. About 1350 AD the Byzantine Empire was little more than a small area around Constantinople. in 1453, Constantinople fell, and that is pretty much as far as I can stretch the Roman Empire's existance.

Roman Territory Score: (tiles are averaged out between dates, i don't know any other way to do it :P )

24 turns * 19 tiles = 216
7 turns * 100 tiles = 700
7 turns * 284 tiles = 1988
5 turns * 453 tiles = 2265
17 turns * 485 tiles = 8245
8 turns * 340 tiles = 2720
9 turns * 270 tiles = 2430
32 turns * 195 tiles = 6240
18 turns * 95 tiles = 1710
40 turns * 65 tiles = 2600
20 turns * 5 tiles = 100

total territory score: 29205/540 = 54

As you can see, the roman/byzantine empire didn't really rack up many territory points. This is on a map that is close to the 256x256 limit. On Deity that would end up as a score of 340 from territory. I'm not sure about the population totals for the Roman Empire, I'd guess 5-20 million (i have no idea, anyone?) at its peak. In any case, their population was very low compared to modern numbers, and probably matched their territory score quite well. Doubling 340 to account for population gives 680.

In Civ3, every population point = 10,000 people. The Chinese would have about 150,000 population points currently. Since China is not in anarchy, we can safely assume half of those are at least content. China has a few luxuries, and with world trading how it is (they are a prefered trading partner of the US) they probably have most if not all of them. Say the population is divided into fifths. You have Workers, which don't count as population, specialist (worth 1), content (1), happy (2), and unhappy (0). Thats 30,000 of each. Their population score per turn would be 120,000. Just using one year of their population score (120000/540 = 222), they get 222 points... thats 1332 points on Deity if they only existed for 1 turn, and not including territory (which would be about .5 for the turn anyways). It really isn't a contest in terms of the Civ3 point system. China hands down the winner so far, with India in second. England could have racked up a lot of points, and wouldn't have been hurt as much by the year by turn system as the Romans, but the major population boom in the past century or so would probably leave them in the dust as well. I'm sorry if any of my references weren't quite right, but I think even with major variances on the numbers it's still pretty clear who the winner is so far.

And yes... I have too much spare time!

Years by turn table:

4000BC - 2750BC 25 turns, 50 years each
2710BC - 1750BC 25 turns, 40 years each
1725BC - 750BC 40 turns, 25 years each
730BC - 250AD 50 turns, 20 years each
260BC - 1250AD 100 turns, 10 years each
1255AD - 1750AD 100 turns, 5 years each
1752AD - 1950AD 100 turns, 2 years each
1951AD - 2050AD 100 turns, 1 year each

[Captain]

Originally posted by Ninot
And, by the subject of the thread, this is by Civ 3 rules. By those Rules, Mongolia had China defeated. Sure, it didn't last, but it was fact, and complete.

So, i submitt that China's total score be stopped by the year that Kublai Khan finnaly had total control over China. So sayeth the rules of Civ3

So by extension, Rome is kaput too.
That would seem to leave only India and England as the remaining contenders (it could be argued that the Mogul conquest of India was incomplete.)

BUT, the Mongol "conquest" occurred about midway through Civ 3's history (1279 Mongols defeated the Sung, 1368 Mongols expelled from China. I still refuse to admit China disintegrated like the Romans did, but I will admit they were hugely crippled by the Mongols).

Still, we could thus count instead the PRESENT Chinese civ, which in my mind would again rack up an enormous score compared to the rest of the world, according to Civ 3 rules (as was so well laid out by Aeson*).

That would put its age roughly around the same as England's, giving about 250-300 turns worth of score or so. (recall that "England" didn't really exist until sometime ~1000-1400 AD, it was a hodge podge of very separate tribes. Hard to place a start date, after Norman conquest but before war with Jean D'Arc.)

Territory wise, England outmatched China, but population wise it's no contest (unless you count India as part of England which would bump up its score for those 100 turns or so. 1827-1947 but piecemeal.) You could also reduce China's score during its very long war years (1850's Taiping Rebellion killed 30 million people, about 10-15% of pop, plus warlord years and war with Japan), thus limiting eliminating any "happy" bonuses for population. However, I would deny that the Chinese were any less "content" than their Indian counterparts under the Moguls, the British, and the intermittent warfare.
Even removing happy bonus, China's pop has been around 140 million since the Mongol era and reached 400 million in 1910. (China's Population History ) and 1.2 B now.

Most of British history was neglibly small (8-10 million compared to China's 140 M), rising to perhaps 50 M at its zenith(excluding India). If we add in India during ~120 years of British rule, that pop would be averaged as ~150M). At India independence in 1947, pop=300M. That drops UK back down to around 60 M in modern era (last 55 turns). In comparison for same number of years, China had an average of ~750M (between 500M-1200M).

Now, if we decide to count India as having survived from its earliest age, it would win. But if we consider the Mogul conquest (1526-1858) complete (about as complete as China under Mongols), India would not win.

So, it's back to China. Once more the winner. But the margin is much narrower than I thought. someone else can work out numbers if they want. I'm guessing, so I could be wrong, but I think China still wins even if you add India to the UK for 100 turns.

*Aeson's post is very well-calculated. His explanation is the most solid Civ 3 explanation I've seen.

[Captain]

Originally posted by notyoueither


What's fascinating is that these Aryans and the German tribes are likely of the same stock but divergent by about 4000 years. Makes certain 20th century theories of races seem fairly absurd.

BTW. They (the Aryans) displaced the first culture. Harappan. The fuzion of these 2 cultures gave rise to the Vedic civ under which Hindu culture evolved. Like I said, Asian cultures are more than monolithic entities that sprang from scratch into their present forms.

Salve

You know, I'm really curious how this blond-haired blue eyed thing came about. Admittedly I don't know many of them, but all the Germans I know are dark-haired and dark-eyed. Which makes more sense given this possible common linkage.

But where did this "ideal" Aryan imager come from? After all, Hitler himself was hardly the image he proposed. Was it really something the Nazis espoused or was it Western war propaganda? I know that genetic experiments and racial purity were big issues, but looking at some of the Allied war posters and imagery, they seem pretty similar to the "Aryan ideal". And I do know that WW2 is almost universally considered a "just war" (as opposed to WW1 or vietnam or others) because of the concept of liberating the oppressed from totalitarian regimes (never mind that allied Stalinist Russia was hardly a nice place to live) and the idea of saving people from the Holocaust - but all that was discovered at the end of the war. I suspect it was used more to justify it after the fact, rather than as an initial motivation.
(Sure Germany was belligerant and in Civ 3 terms, that's reason enough, but so was pretty much every Imperial power. UK, France, USA, Japan, Russia,...see what France did after the war?)

I suppose I could look this stuff up some more, but I'm sure one of you has a good story.

Btw, Jadlakha, thanks for your post. I am reading up on some Indian history now. Only on the Guptas now though. Modern era is a while away, but this Gandhi story really stuck out. It appears that while in South Africa, Gandhi once attended church and was kicked out by an usher. He recounts it this way:

"That poor usher. I felt sorry for him. He thought he was ushering a colored man out of church when, in reality, he was ushering India out of the British Empire."

[Pius Popprasch]

China: reasons:
territory, more than the e.g. US
happy, specialized people, 1.3 billion!
and also old, i.e. constantly scoring.

Other contenders: Russia, Britain, India, Rome/Italy

Americans don't win in any category and have too few turns for their temples.

[notyoueither]

subtitle:
At and After the Abyss.

OK. At least 2 of you asked for it. So now you're in for it. I hope this is accepted in the spirit it is offered. Honestly, I do not intend to spam these boards. Oh well, such is the fate of an author in the on-line world. Herodotus, Pliny, how good you had it!

I see we have attracted the attention of some of the heavy hitters. Hi Aeson. BTW, you need a Canadian passport to be granted access to the Conspiracy.

Anyway, my contribution will come in several parts, and take several days. If the initial parts are received with derision and vegetable matter, I will desist. If not, I may continue to illustrate the continuity of the Roman civ.

Salve

[notyoueither]

By the end of the 4th century CE, Rome had ceased to be the sole seat of power in the Empire.

Under Diocletian (284-305) the Empire was ruled by 4 people (Tetrarchy). He, as an Augusti, appointed a co-ruler (Maximian, the 2nd Augusti) and they each had a trainee (Caesares). Each of the 4 directed the affairs of an area of the Empire. Diocletian built his own palace at Split (henseforth to become a verb as people *split* up

Incidentally, the beginnings of feudalism can be seen in the reforms of Diocletian. All citizens officially became subject to the personal whim of the ruler. Peasants were tied to the soil and certain groups were specifically tasked with responsibilities to supply soldiers for the Army.

In 305 both Diocletian and Maximian resigned in favour of their proteges, Constantinius and Galerius. The orderly succession of power was disrupted by the personal ambitions of some who were left out and struggles for dominance ensued. The son of Constantinius emerged as the sole ruler.

The son, Constantine the Great (324-37) made his capital at Constantinople (renamed Byzantium). He continued the practice of demarcating the empire into 4 areas, however all remained under his control. During his reign the Senate of Rome became a city council. Constantine died in 337 after receiving baptism on his death bed. In effect, he became the first Christian emperor.

In 391 Christianity became the official religion of the state. All *heathen* cults were banned.

After the death of Theodosius (394-95) the Empire was partitioned by his sons into the Eastern and Western Empires. This partition was semi-permanent. The capital of the Western Empire was at Ravenna from 404.

[notyoueither]

476 CE marks the beginning of the Interregnum in the West. The event has it's beginnings in the late 4th century with pressures brought on the Eastern German tribes by changes in climate, increased population and of course the incursions of the Huns. Many of the Eastern German tribes began to migrate westward into the border regions of the Empire. In many cases they were allowed to settle within the Empire itself.

In return for settlements along the frontier or within Roman territory itself, various German tribes were charged with guarding the approaches to the Empire. In short, they joined the Empire. Of course, as part of the Empire they still felt themselves free to make war within the Empire. Hadn't they many precedents? Caesar and Pompeii; Augustus and Mark Antony; the list is not a short one.

Here I will give a quote. Ahem, *Roman civilization was not destroyed by the Germans. The establishment of the German States had been prepared by the decentralization of the Roman Empire under Diocletian.*

In any event, by 476 the Germans had become a major force within the Western Empire. One of the German generals under Romulus Augustus, a fellow by the name of Odoacer decided that he no longer required the services of his master. Odoacer deposed the faux Romulus. Only the bounder had the gaul (pun intended) to fail to nominate himself as Emperor in the place of the fallen Caesar as so many had done in the past. Odoacer simply formed his own short-lived kingdom. Thus from 476, there was no Emperor in the West until men and events conspired to revive the office.

However, Roman laws were not struck down. Roman religion was not abolished, the temples still stood. Roman commerce did not cease. The political institutions and the culture remained. Why? Because many of the Germans had become Christians. The German Kings used Roman laws and institutions to rule their land. In fact, many of the German Kings became kings as vassals of the Empire. In short, the Germans were a part of the evolution of the Empire into the sometime warring principalities that came after the break down of centralized control under Emperors.

The Empire continued as a centrally ruled entity in the East. Meanwhile the Empire in the West underwent tumult and catastrophes along it's way towards rebirth into a relatively stable and recognizable geo-political structure.

After being admitted into the Empire by the Emperor Velens in 376, the Visigoths went on a rampage. They pillaged parts of Italy and Rome itself in 410. In 419 they were granted a kingdom around Toulouse. This Kingdom expanded into Spain by 507.

The Vandals were admitted to the Empire and settled in Spain in 409. By 435 the Vandals had moved into Africa and were recognized as a subordinate kingdom by the Western Empire. Of course in 455 they too plundered Rome, apparently not being content in their new lands. As an aside, the Vandals very likely did not do the damage to art and architecture that they are accused of. However, this incident has given rise to both verb and noun in our language. Somebody had to be blamed for centuries of neglect and scavanging by the population of Rome itself.

By 493 the Ostrogoths had formed their own kingdom in Italy. Here, there was religious strife due to the fact that the Ostrogoths had not adopted Christianity. This can truely be called a non-Roman period of the Empire, at least as far as Italy is concerned, even though administration and commerce were left in the hands of Romans. The fact that the Ostrogoths had no mandate did not go without notice. The power of the Eastern Empire was not small, and events in the West were viewed with dismay.

[notyoueither]

Here's another quote. Ahem, after 476 *the Imperial title in the West was transferred to Constantinople and the Eastern Emperors were recognized as legitimate rulers over the entire Roman world.* As such, the Eastern Empire under Justinian launched an ambitious program of pacification to bring order again to the West (and the West under their sway.) The Vandal Kingdom in Africa was destroyed by general Belisarius in 534-35. Under Generals Belisarius and Narses the Ostrogothic Kingdom was destroyed between 535 and 553. The Byzantines also made inroads into the Spanish areas of the Visigothic Kingdom in Spain.

BTW. That guy Justinian did a bit more than order armies around. Under his reign Roman law was codified from the *complex tradition of Roman law, which dated back at least a thousand years* into a consistent code known as the *Corpus Juris Civilis* (otherwise known as the Code of Justinian). It formed the basis of law in Western and much of Eastern Europe. Unfortunately, it was not Greek.

Byzantine successes in the West were neither long nor short lived. Between 640 and 698 most of the African areas of the Empire fell to the advance of Islam. By 715 the South of Spain had fallen to the forces of Mohammed. In 718 Muslims of the Omayyad Dynasty laid seige to Contantinople itself (unsuccessfully).

Meanwhile, in Italy the Byzantines were successful in completing the subjugation of large areas after the campaigns of Belisarius and Narses. Unfortunately, successes in Italy did not entirely last forever. In 568 the latest German interlopers, the Lombards invaded Italy. Like the Ostrogoths, the Lombards lacked an Imperial invitation. Thus the Lombards formed a second non-Roman Kingdom in Italy. Significantly for our story, the Byzantines maintained control of Southern Italy, Venice, Ravenna and (most significantly) Rome. Thus the Patriarch of Rome was preserved by the power of the the Eastern Empire during one of the darker periods of the history of the Empire. This may well be one of Justinian's longest lasting contributions to the Empire.

[notyoueither]

Well, that's it for now.

3 books in one night is quite enough for me.

Please, send your vegetable matter to your nearest food bank. They need it.

Salve

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Aeson
China seems the most obvious choice, all of the other Civs either had too late a start or an early demise.

Originally posted by Ninot
"China big, China old" is what i deem unintelligent.

The guantlet had been thrown, and my response was imminent (if cowardly delayed until Ninot was no longer involved in the thread). Now let us hope that my lack of communication skills and spelling doesn't prove Ninot right...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the history Notyoueither! I admit my sources (World Book Encyclopedia ) were not so in depth, but the same general theme was there I think. As for the Canadian thing, I visited Lake Okiesomethingorother (it had a loch ness wannabe in it) and a Flintstones theme park in British Columbia when I was 4 or 5... I must have a passport! My Mom probably has it in one of my baby - not so baby (but still enough of a baby to cry when a wasp stings me during the Fred and Barney parade) scrapbooks.

While mulling over the tile counts and cultural continuums in my troubled sleep, I recalled creating the great leader Ghengis in a game played with the Chinese. Upon waking (for the 34th time) a quick check with the editor collaborated with my dream (also showing Kublai as Chinese), and gives us a vital clue that the Chinese in Mongol form conquered themselves (in a Civ3 game mechanics sort of way)! This is in line with Notyoueither's ideas on the Romans conquering themselves, and could be considered precident.

A quick skimming of all the other Civilizations leader names in the editor revealed many other possible links between cultures and civilizations, and highlighted my lack of knowlege of Aztec personalities. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?!?!?! A better question could be how do the Aztecs get 10 great leaders and never build a wonder of the world? They probably built 10 Armies of Jag Warriors (with a few captured workers mixed in) and then disbanded them to simulate smallpox. This must have been a pre-alpha version of the AI at work in the Americas... No wonder the Spanish had such an easy time of it, especially considering they don't even exist in Civ3 terms (unless as barbarians). In any case, I can't believe that these are real names, it reminds me of the story of Niki-niki-tembo-no-so-rembo-uma-muchi-gama-gama-guchi. (sic, very very sic)

Originally posted by notyoueither
Odoacer deposed the faux Romulus. Only the bounder had the gaul (pun intended) to fail to nominate himself as Emperor in the place of the fallen Caesar as so many had done in the past. Odoacer simply formed his own short-lived kingdom.

(bold text added for effect)

Maybe it's just because I'm working on so little sleep here, but this is hillarious! I'm normally adverse to the very idea of puns, but this could be the most innovative one I've ever come across! That might not be saying a whole lot seeing as I avoid puns like the plague...

[Samudragupt]

But I do have some disparate points to make

The Oldest Civilization
There is some argument as to which amongst Egypt, India, China , mesopotamian is the oldest. Till recently it was thought to be Mesopotamian followed by China/India. Note by civilization I mean - first known cities. But recently this past year a 7000 yr old city has been discovered off the coast if Gujarat (a state in India) . This fact would make India the fount of (this definition) of civilization . Making it the oldest by a 1000-1500 yrs.

Another factor which crops up quite often is how much American culture has spread around the world. But one must keep in mind that Indian/Chinese culture spread at a time when there was hardly any means of coomunication. But still it spread . This fact in my mind counts for a lot.

Also there is the question about the stregth of a culture - by this I mean the capacity of the culture in question to survive invasion and time. I think the Indian and the Chinese outstrip others by far since they have survived countless invasions and still retained their essential ethos. India would actually score more on this count as it had to bear the brunt of Islamic invasions which were hell bent on uprooting the existing culture/relegion as opposed to say the Mongol conquerors which according to some posts actually assimilated with the Chinese culture.

Finally I come across the these phrases pretty often - "American culture has spread so far and wide in this world" or "Indian culture didnt really make it very far across the border"
this reminds me of a cute little french quote
"Culture is like marmalade - the less you have the more you spread it"

More later if and when I feel less lazy
yours etc

[Ninot]

The guantlet had been thrown, and my response was imminent (if cowardly delayed until Ninot was no longer involved in the thread). Now let us hope that my lack of communication skills and spelling doesn't prove Ninot right...

I wasn't out, i just didn't have the motivation to cheer for Rome no more. I admitt my defeat, Rome is not the heir to the IRL civ3 throne .

Now, an interesting new view has come to attention....
What if we use modern china as the example? Do they win?
Well, can China's population truly be taken into their score?

I don't exactly know. Up untill this century, not a whole of of Chinese people could really be considered "speacialist". Too much of the population was into agriculture to do that. And could they all be considered "happy"? or are they merely content?... i dunnno.... i dont think the population matters as much as you might think, personally....

As for teritory and power, I would put England ahead of modern china. from the Elizabethan era till the end of world war 2, it can be argued that England was the strongest nation in the world. It had major control over good parts of Africa, North America (well... USA up untill the revolution), India... and probably some other parts. And its not like they didn't have an influence either. There are reasons why Ghandi spoke english. Even teritories England has pulled out of still speak english to some degree.
Did they keep the people happy? i dont know about that. But they had so much territory, i think the points might add up for the last millenia of the game.

[TheDarkCavalier]

Hmm... I REALLY dunno if any "states" of England were happy...

But think about SPACE VICTORY... RUSSIA...
CULTURAL ... well.... to some degree, Rome, but NOT China
DIPLOMATIC ... hm, dunno.
CONQUEST ... ROME! nothing was left, just the Barbarians, everything else was ... ahem... civilised...
DOMINATION ... probably Rome (the city)...

even if Rome was destroyed, it still left a hueg impact on our world...

so ROME da WINNER!

[nato]

And, by the subject of the thread, this is by Civ 3 rules. By those Rules, Mongolia had China defeated. Sure, it didn't last, but it was fact, and complete.

So, i submitt that China's total score be stopped by the year that Kublai Khan finnaly had total control over China. So sayeth the rules of Civ3

Well I still would say it is a culture flip situation, but I can agree to see it as the end of the original Chinese. In that case, as has been pointed out, we have two "Chinese" civs, the ancient and the modern.

Here is one funny fact I was told to give an idea about modern China's population. They are still overwhelmingly rural, like near 80% I think. However, that still gives them more city dwellers than the entire population of the US!

If population counts more than anything else, like Aeson is saying, than its either China or India obviously, with no room for discussion. If China is split in two, then I guess it goes something like:

1. India
2. Ancient China
3. Modern China

Population being overwhelming turns it into a pretty simple stat contest. I guess to be really interesting you would have to either tone down the population bonus or go to a "Top 5" or "Top 10" list.

Wow Aeson good analysis with the tile counting! That must have been a lot of work. Same with NYE's Rome discussion.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by nato


Well I still would say it is a culture flip situation, but I can agree to see it as the end of the original Chinese. In that case, as has been pointed out, we have two "Chinese" civs, the ancient and the modern.

Here is one funny fact I was told to give an idea about modern China's population. They are still overwhelmingly rural, like near 80% I think. However, that still gives them more city dwellers than the entire population of the US!

If population counts more than anything else, like Aeson is saying, than its either China or India obviously, with no room for discussion. If China is split in two, then I guess it goes something like:

1. India
2. Ancient China
3. Modern China

Population being overwhelming turns it into a pretty simple stat contest. I guess to be really interesting you would have to either tone down the population bonus or go to a "Top 5" or "Top 10" list.

Wow Aeson good analysis with the tile counting! That must have been a lot of work. Same with NYE's Rome discussion.

Hmmm, if population and geographical area are the two biggest factors for score, then the USA should be right up top of that list, consider: the USA is the 3rd most populous nation on earth, and covers the 5th (or 4th, depending) most area.

By contrast, Russia (most land area) has half the population, and Canada (second most land area) has about 1/9th the population. China (most population) has about the same size (and thus should be ahead of the USA) and india (second most pop) is quite a bit smaller, so it is a toss up.

Brazil isn't a "civ", but if it were, it would be a bit under the US, given that it has the 4th largest land area, and about half the population...

Of course, none of this counts culture, which is a debate in and of itself...

[nato]

I think Aeson was saying that land area didn't count much, it was mostly population.

I did indeed consider the US for 4th based on population. However, although the US is solidly in third place now (after the two big guys) it still hasn't been around for long, so I'm not sure how high it would rank.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by nato
I think Aeson was saying that land area didn't count much, it was mostly population.

I did indeed consider the US for 4th based on population. However, although the US is solidly in third place now (after the two big guys) it still hasn't been around for long, so I'm not sure how high it would rank.

Hmmm, I think I would put the US high on the cultural meter *holds up hand* The US is one of the most religious nations on earth, and every city has at least half a dozen churches, and most cities have cathedrals of one type or another. The US has many great wonders, and quite a few small ones. Liberaries in any town that would be considered pop. 1 in Civ, Theaters, sports arena's, etc. This is all evidenced by the fact that the US's cultural boarders _are_ expanding. If culture counts for much, then the US should be bumped up that list...

[Thrawn05]

Talk to me when (or if ) we make it to the year 2050.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory


Hmmm, I think I would put the US high on the cultural meter *holds up hand* The US is one of the most religious nations on earth, and every city has at least half a dozen churches, and most cities have cathedrals of one type or another. The US has many great wonders, and quite a few small ones. Liberaries in any town that would be considered pop. 1 in Civ, Theaters, sports arena's, etc. This is all evidenced by the fact that the US's cultural boarders _are_ expanding. If culture counts for much, then the US should be bumped up that list...

I have a library? Where!?!

Anyway, the US is not very religious, if you look at some of these "modern" churchs and those in most european nations. Besides, as far as catholics are concerned, the nation with the most practicing catholics is Ireland (80%), compared to the US where on a Easter and/or Xmas, makes it to 30%. Don't get me started with the PC mentality of the universities and schools.

[Kensan]

The case for China:

As has been stated before, China under the scoring system of Civ 3 wins due to having the most population, largest land mass and most total "culture points" over the entire span of the game so far. As for critics who say China is eliminated due to Mongol invasions, I can only say that China was never completely conquered. In fact, at that point in the "game" you could argue that all Chinese cities revolted and flipped back to Chinese rule in one turn.

Let me further point out that China has had an absolute enormous impact on the course of human history as well. One of most important "advances" in human history was the invention of paper by Tsai Lun. It forever altered human retention of knowledge and led to the masses being educated and literate. The formula he used to create paper was so good that it has remained virtually unchanged to present day, 1800 years later. Christianity would not have been the break-through religion it was had it not been for Bibles being printed using PAPER. Gutenberg mass-produced them because of a Chinese idea.

I could go on about Chinese advances in medicine, science, astronomy, magnetism, animal husbandry and many more that equaled or were superior to anything currently known in the world up to the 1600's.

For those in the Roman camp, yes I agree the empire of Rome racked up a lot of points. However, you seem to ascribe a lot of tribute points to yourselves for successes of completely different "civilizations". Yes there are several derivative languages in use today that come from Latin as well as political forms of government and representation. But if you are going to use that as the basis for your win, then you are mistaken.

I'll point out that the world as we know it was changed forever by Isaac Newton. Because of his studies into physics, light waves, astronomy and mathematics, everything that has been done over the last 500 years can damn near be attributed to him alone. His ideas were revolutionary and probably would not have even occured if it weren't for him. Industrialization took place because of the application of his theories. And I would not call Newton remotely Roman. And I'll take my modern tank versus your legionaire in this "Real Life" challenge, thank you very much.

Therefore, as the majority of the forum has concluded: China wins.....for now. We obviously have several "game turns" left.

FYI, I am a white male American, and I would love to give the USA a vote of confidence but the "scoring system" just wouldn't allow it due to lack of time as a viable civilization.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by Thrawn05
I have a library? Where!?!

Well, how big is your city? 1 pop. point = 100,000 people, right? is your city 100,000 people strong?

Originally posted by Thrawn05
Anyway, the US is not very religious, if you look at some of these "modern" churchs and those in most european nations.

I don't know what anything after the comma means, and the first part of the sentance is flatly untrue. in poll after poll, 80% of the population says they belive in a devine being. It is true that the nation is less _christian_ than we used to be, but this does not mean less _religious_.

Originally posted by Thrawn05
Besides, as far as catholics are concerned, the nation with the most practicing catholics is Ireland (80%), compared to the US where on a Easter and/or Xmas, makes it to 30%. Don't get me started with the PC mentality of the universities and schools.

I am a bit curious how this is relevent. It doesn't matter how PC univeristies and schools are, or how many practicing catholics there are, the fact is that America is one of the most religous nations on the planet. I am _shocked_ that they were not given this atribute in the game...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Kensan
I'll point out that the world as we know it was changed forever by Isaac Newton. Because of his studies into physics, light waves, astronomy and mathematics, everything that has been done over the last 500 years can damn near be attributed to him alone. His ideas were revolutionary and probably would not have even occured if it weren't for him. Industrialization took place because of the application of his theories. And I would not call Newton remotely Roman. And I'll take my modern tank versus your legionaire in this "Real Life" challenge, thank you very much.

Yes, yes, we all know that most everybody is equating togas and Legions with Rome. No togas, no Legions, Rome must be gone...

*Principia Mathematica* was written in which language? He used the observations of which Astronomers? As Newton himself said *standing on the shoulders of giants* or something like that.

Here's a question for all the China voters out there. Suppose that Taiwan builds some modern wonder of the world, something like the *Truely Human AI Computer* (very feasable that the Taiwanese would do this first). Would you rack these points up for China?

Salve

[TheDarkCavalier]

As I said, RUSSIA or ROME would win, but even if Taiwan made a Human AI, that wouldn't change... much.... they'd still lose by everything else.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory
Well, how big is your city? 1 pop. point = 100,000 people, right? is your city 100,000 people strong?

Try 50,000.

Originally posted by Andrew Cory
I don't know what anything after the comma means, and the first part of the sentance is flatly untrue. in poll after poll, 80% of the population says they belive in a devine being. It is true that the nation is less _christian_ than we used to be, but this does not mean less _religious_.

For the first part, modern church are those which look more like a convention hall then a church. Take a trip to spain and goto some of the poorest towns (the ones with no paved roads) and see the church that would put St. Patrick's in NYC to shame (believe me, I saw it, wooooooooooooooooow).

Second part, every country has that amount, the question is, do they practice what they believe in?

Originally posted by Andrew Cory
I am a bit curious how this is relevent. It doesn't matter how PC univeristies and schools are, or how many practicing catholics there are, the fact is that America is one of the most religous nations on the planet. I am _shocked_ that they were not given this atribute in the game...

Uh- em, let me get started.
1: Saying Merry Xmas can get you kicked out
2: Wearing a cross/crusifix is against University policy
3: No latin classes (it was deemed, religous, WTF?)
4: Saying God bless you when someone snezzes is offensive to a lot people at my university
5: The only religous thing the school newspaper talks about to no end now is Islam. Mmmmmmmmm, I wonder why?
6: I went to class with ashes on my forhead on Ash wendsday, and the teacher threw me out, it was offesive.
7: Majority of the students are athiests.

If I think a little harder, I can come up with some more.

[Aeson]

While most Americans do belong to a religion of one type or another, the lifestyle and culture in the US is not dictated by religion for most. Compare the US to many Muslim countries where religion is "law" and we don't come off as a very religious people. For a lot of US history this wasn't the case, but even at the height of American religious zeal, we never had a "Holy War" or state religion. This is a good thing, but it does suggest that religion is not one of the main motivations or attributes of American culture.

Most ancient civilizations had very strong religious influences in their everyday life. From a state sponsered religion, to leaders who were considered gods in that religion. Those who believed differently were the enemy. In cases when there was a measure of religious freedom, it was still required that the official gods of state be worshipped, alongside personally chosen deities.

The way the religious attribute works in Civ3 seems to denote a strong central religion which was the motivation behind much of the activity in the country. A unified religion helps keep the country together when changing governments for instance. If the US were to go into revolution, I can only see the different religious viewpoints further hindering a reunited government. Religious freedom in the US has led to a very diverse set of beliefs held by many different groups.

I personally think that Scientific and Commercial would be the best traits to attribute to the Americans. Perhaps even Commercial and Commercial if current culture is the deciding factor. A nation with as high a percentage of overweight people and escalators as we have should never be considered industrious.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by notyoueither
As Newton himself said *standing on the shoulders of giants* or something like that.

Every culture (and individual) relies on ideas and discoveries that have come before it. Tracing back to the initial circumstance or action that all human accomplishment is derived from, we'd have to say that everything is from nature or a divine being, depending on belief system. If every human had to start from scratch, it would be rare anyone would get past the "what to eat and how to get it" discovery in their lifetime.

Here's a question for all the China voters out there. Suppose that Taiwan builds some modern wonder of the world, something like the *Truely Human AI Computer* (very feasable that the Taiwanese would do this first). Would you rack these points up for China?

Four things count towards Civ3 scoring. Population, Territory, Difficulty level, and Future Technologies. Future Technologies are almost worthless in a scoring sense, and actually diminish Population scores because commerce is diverted into science instead of entertainment. Wonders of the world can only indirectly affect score. In Civ3 terms, only the score of the Civ who discovers a cure for cancer will be helped by any yet to be built wonders. The effect even then would be negligible on final score, at most adding 1 point per turn per city.

If someone ever does come up with a truely human AI, I fully expect the AI civilization to win by conquest within a couple years. Imagine all the power we give computers today (nuclear weapons, power grids, traffic control, air control, surveilance, communication) being used for a single entity's selfish (this is the main human trait) gain.