The late game is too American

[Sandman]

Yes, America is the world's most powerful country, and yes it has mighty war machine, but even so, the late game has been Americanized way too much.

Firstly, why are there two stealth air units? Only one would be necessary, since they are both bombers. And I really don't think that 'stealth' deserves to be a seperate tech.

The B-2 'Spirit', the big stealth plane, has an insanely high cost at over a billion dollars per plane. It can't fly supersonic, has a relatively small payload due to it's low profile, and needs a climate-controlled hangar. And of course it can only be used at night. No more are planned. It's a modern equivalent of the Zeppelin, frightening, silent, and can do a bit of damage, but extravagant and ultimately useless.

That this paper tiger was put in over a typical jet bomber is serious oversight IMO.

The stealth 'fighter' is has a much more reasonable price tag, and a better record, but an advancement in radar could make it obselete overnight. Still, it's not too bad a choice.

Now we have the AEGIS cruiser. It's a missile firing cruiser with some sort of computer system which gives it a fighting edge. However, its anti-aircraft abilities are not really modelled in civ3, so it was given an anti-sub role instead.

This annoys me, as the phalanx and the trireme were presumably ditched for being too Mediterranean. AEGIS was kept though - why? Why not 'advanced cruiser' or something like that?

The final named tech in civ1 and civ2 was fusion power. In civ3 it is 'Integrated defence'. I think that this is inexcusable.

Fusion power: A dream of safe, clean energy harnessed in the same way the sun gets it's energy. Will we ever do it? No-one knows. It's an ideal stepping stone for future techs.

Integrated defence: A rubbishly named final tech (was all previous defence 'unintegrated'?). It's depressing that many of the final techs (stealth, smart weapons and integrated defence) are military-only techs.

I really don't think that technological development should end with the controversial 'son of Star Wars' but I suppose Firaxis thinks differently.

Then there are the wonders, but i'll do them in separate post later some time, if this thread takes off.

[Sabre2th]

I'm confused as to what this has to do with America. Out of all of those complaints, the only one that really has to do with the U.S. is the AEGIS cruiser, and that could have been done for any number of other reasons.

[Sandman]

Only America has any stealth units, and only America plans an Strategic Missile Defence.

You're right though; I certainly didn't make myself very clear.

[Dis]

well it's a good post anyways

I can't disagree with it.

But it doesn't bother me. Of course I'm american so that may be why . There are many other things in the game that bother me more.

but I agree Fusion power should be the be all/end all of techs.

Integrated defense is pretty cheesy. I agree completely.

[ixnay]

I didn't really notice it. Then again, I have yet to play very far into the modern age without the game ending...

[awesomedude]

As far as I'm concerned, the above post has only scratched the surface of the civ-americanization. I mean it's enough that the US is a civilization by itself (ok, don't make me define civilization). I mean the architecture for example...all the sky scrapers and downtown areas that they've put into the modern era, you won't find in many cities outside the US. This has gotten much better since civ2 anyway...those 'all-out-skyscraper' modern era cities for every civ really annoyed me.

[Alex]

Originally posted by ixnay37
I didn't really notice it. Then again, I have yet to play very far into the modern age without the game ending...

Me too.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by awesomedude
As far as I'm concerned, the above post has only scratched the surface of the civ-americanization. I mean it's enough that the US is a civilization by itself (ok, don't make me define civilization). I mean the architecture for example...all the sky scrapers and downtown areas that they've put into the modern era, you won't find in many cities outside the US. This has gotten much better since civ2 anyway...those 'all-out-skyscraper' modern era cities for every civ really annoyed me.

What about Malaysia, Singapore. Toronto, etc. Many cities around the world have skyscrapers. Aren't the tallest skyscrapers in the world in Kuala Lampor?

[asleepathewheel]

I think the early stages of the game are too babylonian and egyptian. Pyramids? Hanging Gardens? Baah. What about everyone else in the world at the time? Perhaps this belongs in the Civilizations forum.


Do you want the game to end at 1950? or the equivalent tech time?

If you want the American influence out, what do you want in? BTW, I think that a lot of the modern stuff could also be viewed as being of Soviet design.

And, I guess you are forgetting those Future Techs! Hahaha, right. Who has actually researched one of those? I agree that there could be a better way to end the tech tree than with NMD or whatever its called this republican cycle.

[Thrawn05]

This is why I don't goto Civ3 - Civilizations forum. I'm tired of debates like this.

[Felch]

Originally posted by awesomedude
As far as I'm concerned, the above post has only scratched the surface of the civ-americanization. I mean it's enough that the US is a civilization by itself (ok, don't make me define civilization). I mean the architecture for example...all the sky scrapers and downtown areas that they've put into the modern era, you won't find in many cities outside the US. This has gotten much better since civ2 anyway...those 'all-out-skyscraper' modern era cities for every civ really annoyed me.

Furthermore, most Americans don't live in towns with skyscrapers. I never even saw one up close until I was 17, and visited Manhattan.

[Kilroy_Alpha]

Originally posted by nationalist


What about Malaysia, Singapore. Toronto, etc. Many cities around the world have skyscrapers. Aren't the tallest skyscrapers in the world in Kuala Lampor?

Yes, the Petronas Towers. awesomedude doesn't know what the **** he's talking about. It's almost like he's trolling, only he's not doing a good job at all.

[Zannhart]

Originally posted by awesomedude
As far as I'm concerned, the above post has only scratched the surface of the civ-americanization. I mean it's enough that the US is a civilization by itself (ok, don't make me define civilization). I mean the architecture for example...all the sky scrapers and downtown areas that they've put into the modern era, you won't find in many cities outside the US. This has gotten much better since civ2 anyway...those 'all-out-skyscraper' modern era cities for every civ really annoyed me.

OK well first of all like someone else already stated....there are many other countries in the world that have skyscrapers, heck, even some countries in Africa have skyscrapers. And yes, the tallest building in the world isn't even in America.

And don't worry, I won't ask ya to define civilization, I already know it But I'll get it from Websters just to make ya happy:

>>The act or process of civilizing or reaching a civilized state.<<

I think America is quite 'civilized', at least when compared to other countries.

>>Modern society with its conveniences: returned to civilization after camping in the mountains.<<

Everyone is always bashing America for loving their 'modern conveniences' so yes, I think this fits America too

Why is it no matter what message board I go to these days there is always some post bashing America? I mean I swear, I never see posts bashing England or the Ukraine, why is America always a good target? Jealousy?

[Dis]

and america will never have the tallest skyscrapers.

I doubt they will build anything over 60 stories in the WTC site. Eventually the sears tower will be levelled, and pretty much everything else is fairly small compared to asian buildings.

so who cares about sky scrapers.

I never liked stealth aircraft in civ3 or civ2. But at least civ3 had jet aircraft which civ2 was lacking.

[Inverse Icarus]

the lategame is too american? it's because we're the most influential force at that time.

ancient civs? i'm sure not all of them had "pikemen" (eg zulu), or "tanks" or "calvary".

every age (or potion of an age) is based on the overwhelming
force behind that age.

it's like debating "the early part of this game is too [INSERT ANCIENT CIV]".

Americans never ran around with warriors, but the people at the time (zulu etc) did, so there are warriors in the game.

Because the American airforce is more advanced than a lot of the world's, the units are based on them.

simple fact.

and asfor SDI Defence, they were just looking for a way to combat the ICBM infinate range. I'm sorry if their concept offends you.

[steelehc]

I agree that fusion power would be a good tech... But thats all I agree with. Sure, America has Stealth aircraft, and skyscrapers, but so what? What else would the put in the game--biplanes and thatched huts? If the game was solely americanized, there would be no pyrmiads, no hanging gardens, no temples, no oracle, no triremes, no caravels, no much of anything, in fact, until the industrial era.

Steele

[nato]

Since being online I've become wary of anti-Americanism, but I think Sandman has some good points.

However you forgot the modern armor! It is an M1 looking tank. This goes right with your post as American ... and also in a way you probably didn't think!

One of the big special things about the M1 is the armor and the chobham brick thingies ... this goes right with stealth and AEGIS.

Chobham, stealth and AEGIS are all defensive technologies whose sole purposes are to try to keep tanks, planes, and ships viable with all the new powerful missles flying around. In a way all three are kind of desperate attempts to stave off being made obsolete by missles.

Since things are going missle-missle-missle, I think the very latest units of Civ should be powerful, effective missles. Basically, I think the cruise missle type unit (uh oh is that another American one?) should be much more powerful. I think this is how things will be in the near future ... cheap powerful missles will be dominant ... and maybe not so American-specific. (This all is just how I see it)

I think the nuclear fusion vs integrated defense is also a good point. However, in Civ terms I could see going integrated defense. The biggest weapon in Civ is supposed to be the nuclear missle (OUR WORDS ARE BACKED BY THEM!). SDI type things make the big nuclear missle no longer work ... so in Civ terms, a defense against the (supposedly) most powerful weapon in the game as the final tech makes sense. In real life terms I would agree fusion is much better (hope it is possible).

edit: And fusion power makes less game sense ... because who really needs another power plant that late in the game?

So I think Sandman has good points. But also, just because it is American doesn't necesarily mean it is wrong. Whoever happens to be most powerful usually is leading the way in the new techs ... maybe in 50 years Civ9's modern era will seem too Chinese or whoever...

[awesomedude]

Originally posted by Felch X


Furthermore, most Americans don't live in towns with skyscrapers. I never even saw one up close until I was 17, and visited Manhattan.

Of course, you are right... I wasn't aware that I claimed most Americans, or any given percentage for that matter, to be living in cities with skyscrapers... No, I guess I didn't after all... I don't really see the point of the posting at all really. Most small cities, american or not, do obviously not have skyscrapers.

[awesomedude]

Originally posted by Kilroy_Alpha


Yes, the Petronas Towers. awesomedude doesn't know what the **** he's talking about. It's almost like he's trolling, only he's not doing a good job at all.

There's no reason to get upset... I'll answer this one post and the others in my next posting.

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

First, I agree that the stealth bomber is totally overrated in the game. Thats why we are still flying so many B-52s.

I was reading some stuff on the differences between the AEGIS destroyers and cruisers the other day, and it listed 4 countries currently deploying AEGIS calss ships: the US, Japan, Britian, and Italy. i not 100% sure of the last 2, but the picture shown was a Konga-class destroyer and was listed as an AEGIS. Therefore, even though the US may have invented the AEGIS ships, we arent alone in deploying them.

The skyscraper agrument is sily. The towns/cities/metropoli are not your 200 population real life towns. These represent 10s and 100s of thousands of people. I've visted lots of "small" cities and 20+ story buildings are fairly common over about 200k. Tell me one other building that automatically defines a large city as much as skyscrapers do. (btw, there will be more tall buildings, I've heard Trump has already been thinking about it, and Chicago has been discussing some very tall buildings the last few weeks)

Integrated defense should be a tech researched. Just look how often a planetary defense system is mentioned in sci-fi stories. But I agree that fusion is the end all tech. Personally, I've never liked any of the tech trees. Researching government types?? BLAHHHHHH, just make them dependant on other types, IE communism with industrialization, etc. Plus getting military units with social techs, BLAHHHHHH knights with fuedalism. Are we saying that without fuedalism there would never have been knights? Not likely. The stirrup allowed riders more stablity thus allowing the rider to wear heavier armor.

As far as the America bashing, just be thankful that for the first time in history, a country with superior firepower isnt trying to conquer the world. And if America is so bad, why are so many foreigners trying so hard to get here?

Long live America

[awesomedude]

To begin with, my intent with my post was not to start some kind of flaming debate (or a debate at all) as some people around here seem to have thought; it was merely a shared thought in a friendly manner.

Originally posted by Zannhart
OK well first of all like someone else already stated....there are many other countries in the world that have skyscrapers, heck, even some countries in Africa have skyscrapers. And yes, the tallest building in the world isn't even in America.

Sure, there are many cities that have skyscrapers around the world... Even the tallest ones may be found outside the US, as you pointed out. I'm originally European so I guess I'm a bit biased in this case, but what I am getting at here is not the existance of skyscrapers around the world (now did I ever write that skyscrapers can't be found outside the US?), but rather the way (big) american cities are built (and maybe newer cities in general). The dense downtown areas with a throng of skyscrapers sticking up in the very center, the very distinctive blocks, the way streets are laid out (avenues etc), that doesn't really exist where I come from. All the concrete...

Maybe there's tons of this kind of city architectual structure in Asia and Africa... Can't say I know for sure... But I think that in the eyes of the world, skyscrapers and such are seen as very American in the sense of architecture and is something that is very strongly asscociated with the US, and that was what I was really trying to get at with my post.

Originally posted by Zannhart
And don't worry, I won't ask ya to define civilization, I already know it But I'll get it from Websters just to make ya happy:

>>The act or process of civilizing or reaching a civilized state.<<

I think America is quite 'civilized', at least when compared to other countries.

You are getting me all wrong. Did I claim the US not to be a civilized country? And why would some quote of 'Websters' make me happy? I don't believe I asked for that either.

Originally posted by Zannhart
Why is it no matter what message board I go to these days there is always some post bashing America? I mean I swear, I never see posts bashing England or the Ukraine, why is America always a good target? Jealousy?

I can't say I am very surprised, but you must be really sensitive if you would find my post to be "bashing America".

[steelehc]

Regarding AEGIS: The only countries currently with deployed ships with the AEGIS system are the USA, Britain, and Japan. The Italian navy is currently in a joint project with the French to deploy AEGIS class ships by 2007. Spain is also working on AEGIS, and should have the first one commissioned by the end of this year.

Steele

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

thanks Steele

Glad I'm not totally losing my mind. I need a few braincells for when 1.18 comes out

[awesomedude]

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64
The skyscraper agrument is sily. The towns/cities/metropoli are not your 200 population real life towns. These represent 10s and 100s of thousands of people. I've visted lots of "small" cities and 20+ story buildings are fairly common over about 200k. Tell me one other building that automatically defines a large city as much as skyscrapers do. (btw, there will be more tall buildings, I've heard Trump has already been thinking about it, and Chicago has been discussing some very tall buildings the last few weeks).

First, I did not make an argument. Second, I didn't claim all American cities to have skyscrapers. I haven't even been discussing small cities, since Civ3 really doesn't picture those at all in the modern era.

[nato]

The dense downtown areas with a throng of skyscrapers sticking up in the very center, the very distinctive blocks, the way streets are laid out

One note, American cities are no longer built that way, and haven't been for decades.

Newly built American cities tend to be lower buildings and more spread out. They also tend to be centered around one of the highway junctions located in a loop around old fashioned downtowns like in the quote above.

I am surprised that more tall buildings are being built, since they haven't been built for a long time. They don't make economic sense to build like they used to. That kind of city is desinged for old style mass production industrial societies.

In fact this new style of city may well be yet another dreaded American innovation coming soon to a country near you! Simply because it is increasingly the kind of city it makes economic sense to build, given modern means of production. They are just being built in America first because America, as the most powerful, is leading in post-industrial society. (Or at least that is what we like to say about our gutted industrial sectors... sigh)

[nato]

Go Steele! Cool info.

To support my missle claims above, the Japanese for instance have some AEGIS cruisers and some destroyers ... no big ships. Its all to avoid the flood of anti ship missles! We have a program called Streetfighter that is moving towards this... but the carriers have a LOT of institutional support.

[Zannhart]

>>But I think that in the eyes of the world, skyscrapers and such are seen as very American in the sense of architecture and is something that is very strongly asscociated with the US, and that was what I was really trying to get at with my post.<<

So something that is very strongly associated with the US and is put into this video game means this whole game was widely designed towards the US?

Since according to you so many people are 'missing the point' with your post it sounds as if you need to start rewording your posts, and not that we are just reading them all wrong. Or are we all just too dense to understand you?

>>And why would some quote of 'Websters' make me happy? I don't believe I asked for that either.<<

Well no you didn't...but since you said "don't make me define 'civlization'" I just thought I'd look up the word for ya so you wouldn't have to go through all the trouble of defining it for us.

>>I can't say I am very surprised, but you must be really sensitive if you would find my post toe "bashing America". <<

>>You are getting me all wrong. Did I claim the US not to be a civilized country?<<

>>I mean it's enough that the US is a civilization by itself (ok, don't make me define civilization). <<

Yeah...kind of sounded to me as if you were claiming the US was't a 'civilization', and if that's the case you were indeed 'bashing' the US. But please do explain the point of that phrase there, since we all don't understand you.

[awesomedude]

Originally posted by nato


One note, American cities are no longer built that way, and haven't been for decades.

Newly built American cities tend to be lower buildings and more spread out. They also tend to be centered around one of the highway junctions located in a loop around old fashioned downtowns like in the quote above.

I am surprised that more tall buildings are being built, since they haven't been built for a long time. They don't make economic sense to build like they used to. That kind of city is desinged for old style mass production industrial societies.

In fact this new style of city may well be yet another dreaded American innovation coming soon to a country near you! Simply because it is increasingly the kind of city it makes economic sense to build, given modern means of production. They are just being built in America first because America, as the most powerful, is leading in post-industrial society. (Or at least that is what we like to say about our gutted industrial sectors... sigh)

I totally agree with the above... Nothing is longer built in the old European architecture (and other cultures for that matter), mainly out of economic concerns, globalization and the fact that times change. Maybe Europe will look just like America in x years...I doubt it, but who knows? The US is by far the most influential power in the world right now. Every country is starting to look more and more like the US. But as of right now, I still believe that skyscrapers are something that is very much associated with the US. Probably isn't in 20-30 years.

[Zannhart]

>>But I think that in the eyes of the world, skyscrapers and such are seen as very American in the sense of architecture and is something that is very strongly asscociated with the US, and that was what I was really trying to get at with my post. <<

>>But as of right now, I still believe that skyscrapers are something that is very much associated with the US. Probably isn't in 20-30 years.<<

First you speak for the world "In the eyes of the world", then you speak for just yourself "I still believe", make up your mind who you're speaking for

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

Originally posted by nato

I am surprised that more tall buildings are being built, since they haven't been built for a long time. They don't make economic sense to build like they used to. That kind of city is desinged for old style mass production industrial societies.

Unfortunately in some cities bigger is the only way to get a view of anything other than other buildings. I'm not sure what the opinion is outside of Chicago, but if you build a highrise condo building here, it'l be sold out long before construction starts. Alot of commerical buildings are even converting over to condos. City living is extremely popular here right now. And it only takes a few weathly guys to drive the desire for taller buildings. I heard that in order to met the HDTV standards, some new tall buildings will be needed to get the required antenna space. There had been talk of a 2000 foot building but I think that was finally shelved. Personally, I'll stick to the small-town feel of some suburbs.