France better than Germany?

[MiloMilo]

Not many Brits here, actually. Over 50 million people claim German and Irish nationality each. There are also each 30 million of africans and hispanics. Starting to narrow down?

I'm not talking bloodlines or skin color, I mean the predominant language, the political system, the legal system, most of the religion, much of the materialistic value, etc etc are all derivative of British culture. Britain's not as much of a melting pot as America, but there are a lot of people from around the world trying to immigrate there. The point is, to include America and England as two disparate cultures in a game that's all about rewriting history is kinda silly--they're effectively, to a great extent, the same culture.

No, the French Revolution did.

Please. The French Revolution was such a poser. It just thought the American Revolution was cool, and wanted to be like it. The American Revolution got all the girls.

[bobbo008]

(to the above thread)

You're right about the culture for the most part, in my opinion. And the french revolution comment was sarcastic.

[bobbo008]

sorry, dont know how to edit posts...

I think Britain requested that its naval power be twice the size of any other or equal to any two powers, sort of the same thing... anybody know for sure?

[zorbop]

hold on, whats all this crap about britatin being the queen of the see's?
i dont care if they tell you in your bogus little american-history classes that big bad britain and it's navy tried to "opress" people.
britain did have a relatively strong navy a few hundred years ago.... but not really that strong compared to france or spain. but take WWII for instance, who had better ships? britain or germany? germany, britain designed wwii ships to be fast and light, which didnt work to well

secondly, if you really care about the traits that is what the editor is for, i normally use a mod with germany and china having switched traits.

furthermore, is industry/commerce really that much better than science/military? sure, industrious is the best trait. but commerce isnt that strong, probobly worse than both scientific and militaristic. plus, the panzer is far better than the french musket thingy?

[Pyrodrew]

The point is, to include America and England as two disparate cultures in a game that's all about rewriting history is kinda silly

Thus, Americans should have been culturally-linked with the European Civs.
Those so eager to get rid of the Americans in a game made by Americans should simply load up Civ3 & attack or edit the Americans that way rather than making futile cries here.

[bobbo008]

(in response to zorbop)

easy there, big shooter.

(in response to pyrodrew)

I think Americans should be culturally European, as most probably do, even though it sounds funny to exclude Americans from the American culture group.

Since proportionately most of the game takes place in the last several centuries, it would be stupid to take out America. It is hard to remove (one of) the superpowers of the past century.

[planetfall]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Planetfall, I disagree with almost all of your reasons that America is not religious. I think the people are very much a religious people... but that's not the point. "Religious" seems to be used by Civ3 to mean something like "thocratic," and America's separation of church and state is about the furthest you get from a theocracy without banning religion altogether. So, people yes, nation no. We may be religious, but most of us have secular values that are distinctly different from the values of most so-called "religious cultures."

Excellent point about theocracy. America started as Deist with a general union of state and some God but also with a separation of state and a more specific declaration of who, what... this God is. Particularly excluded were any god spokemen in the state operation.

The religion in America is bypolar. Instead of a theocracy we have a culturacy, {Secular religion} publically and a individualism privately {whatever you believe is ok as long as you share some kind of ethic sytem}.

Here "religion" has been redefined from the 1st Webster definition to the last: "any object of conscientious regard and pursuit" and "to be very earnest about something".

Civ3 seems to use religious as applying to a civ that is very earnest about the same thing. Even if we said America was earnest about it's culture, there would not be agreement as we are in the midst of some heavy culture warfare.

To summarize, many {most?} Americans may describe themselves as religious people, but this is not a key trait of the American culture. We don't try to Christianize Kuwait and the Moslem countries. We don't try to proselytize secularism to the world. We don't even try to force our separation of civ government and civ religion on other peoples.

The phrase that reasonated with people was not "it's about God, stupid" but "it's the econmomy, stupid". Commerce is much more our earnest focus than a common religion.

== PF

[Inverse Icarus]

again. game by americans.

germans = nazis;
france = pushovers;

thank you, come again.

[planetfall]

"possible, Germans sometimes tend to miss the big picture but even with modern socialism there is still a strong work ethic."
...

"I choose not industrial because even though there is a strong work ethic in many Germans, Germans also take 6 weeks of vacation."

And why not? With unemployment as it is... (I would definitely say they are industrious)

Ok, they still have a work ethic. I was comparing modern Germans with Germans of 20-30 years ago. Then the work ethic was more like workaholicism

"He blocked almost all R&D on the me262, a early jet fighter."

One could argue they lacked sufficient resources and production methods to build them, but one could also argue against that.

Reports from Luftwaffe leaders were that Hitler did not understand fighters and fighter missions. He just wanted to bomb/bomb/bomb.

"I don't think the Germans, French, British or any other country would necessarily have listed him, either. It isn't about American bias, it's about Hitler being a very sensitive subject worldwide. I frankly think Germans would be more upset than anyone at having Hitler listed as a great leader for them."

Oddly enough, many Russian and ex-Soviet citizens wouldn't mind Stalin as a Great Leader. Where I can see Hitler as not being a GL, I question Stalin, as well.

That was exactly my point. Both Hitler and Stalin were GL and great mass murderers. Stalin more so that Hitler by the numbers but Hitler more than Stalin by the civ memory. {I guess as a residual effect of being allied with Russia against Germany}

"anglo-saxon",i.e., French-English"

Anglo-saxon means English. Technically, those are two German tribes. The Angles even gave England its name (Angl-land).

I stand corrected. Thanks for the history lesson!!!! For others, the third Germanic tribe invading about 5th century bc was the Jutes. {hum, wonder is that is where "JU" came from for the JU88}


== PF

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by zorbop
hold on, whats all this crap about britatin being the queen of the see's?
i dont care if they tell you in your bogus little american-history classes that big bad britain and it's navy tried to "opress" people.
britain did have a relatively strong navy a few hundred years ago.... but not really that strong compared to france or spain. but take WWII for instance, who had better ships? britain or germany? germany, britain designed wwii ships to be fast and light, which didnt work to well

I don't know what the "opress" bit is about (I certainly didn't mention it), but you are categorically wrong about your assessment of the English navy. After the defeat of the Spanish Armada, which sent much of Spain's naval power to the bottom, England was left as ruler of the waves. She had the largest, most powerful navy in the world from the 17th century until the 20th century, when America surpassed it.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Britain's navy was supreme. That's why Germany's build up was considered a direct threat. Germany never had a larger navy than Britain. While Germany had built some impressive ships by WWII, the Royal Navy still surpassed it in size and strength, which is why Germany never had any considerable naval victories during the war, apart from the lucky shot on the Hood. That's not counting, of course, her u-boats sinking convoys.

[bobbo008]

"again. game by americans.

germans = nazis;
france = pushovers;

thank you, come again."

hmm...thats basically the whole thread.

"That was exactly my point. Both Hitler and Stalin were GL and great mass murderers. Stalin more so that Hitler by the numbers but Hitler more than Stalin by the civ memory. {I guess as a residual effect of being allied with Russia against Germany}"

I think that's exactly it, we don't emphasize on Stalin because he was our Allies. Makes you wonder what else our country's would resort to...

"I stand corrected. Thanks for the history lesson!!!! For others, the third Germanic tribe invading about 5th century bc was the Jutes. {hum, wonder is that is where "JU" came from for the JU88}"

I'm glad for once somebody didn't get defensive about it. If you had said german I could have corrected you again. The Jutes come from Denmark, hence the name, The Jutland Peninsula.

"Germany never had any considerable naval victories during the war, apart from the lucky shot on the Hood. That's not counting, of course, her u-boats sinking convoys."

Wasn't it the Bismark that sank the Hood (the two flagships going at it, how cool)? I think with the U-boats, that's just excellent planning to counter the superior numbers of the English.

[planetfall]

Originally posted by bobbo008
"
I think that's exactly it, we don't emphasize on Stalin because he was our Allies. Makes you wonder what else our country's would resort to...

In recent history, Bosnia. No political uproar over war of aggression. Most bizarre.

== PF

[peterfharris]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Those so eager to get rid of the Americans in a game made by Americans should simply load up Civ3 & attack or edit the Americans that way rather than making futile cries here.

The idea of removing the Americans is so ludricous I find the very thought funny. The USA is the biggest games market. The mere fact that Americans will buy more copies of Civ3 than any other nationality seems the definitive argument in favour of Firaxis including the Americans. The new country versus current superpower arguments are therefore largely irrelevant. (and the game was made by Americans).

[bobbo008]

"The new country versus current superpower arguments are therefore largely irrelevant"

At least you didn't say "completely irrelevant"...

[peterfharris]

Originally posted by bobbo008
"The new country versus current superpower arguments are therefore largely irrelevant"

At least you didn't say "completely irrelevant"...

I think the marketing considerations trump any other arguments regardless of how strong or weak those arguments might be. I intended no comment on whether or not the USA "deserves" to be in the game. (If marketing considerations were ignored then I would say that it is certainly not a "must include" like Rome or England. I would not go further than that without giving this matter some thought. I shall give this matter no thought.)

I wonder if marketing might have entered into the decision to include the Iroquois, a USA indian tribe, rather than the Incas or Mayas. OTH the selections may have just been willy nilly (that would explain why Spain was not included in the 16 civs).

[bobbo008]

I think a lot of the civs are in there for balance (3-4 in each world group). The Iroquois and Aztecs hardly compare to the other civs (how many dozen Spaniards did it take to crush the Aztec empire?). Also, the Zulu, never have been much of a world power.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by planetfall
I stand corrected. Thanks for the history lesson!!!! For others, the third Germanic tribe invading about 5th century bc was the Jutes. {hum, wonder is that is where "JU" came from for the JU88}

Prof. Hugo Junkers (1859-1935) will love this explanation.