Should America be a civ?

Daz · January 31, 2003, 06:32

First off... dont flame me for this. I have nothing against America or the Americans. But, isn't Civilization about "ancient" civilizations and their rise to power? I mean... how old is the "American" civilization? How can you take CIV3 historically correct and have America start in 4000BC wirh Egypt? It doesnt make sense to me.

This can of course be applied to some other civs too, but America (US) stands out being "formed" in the 18th/19th century.

My question is:

Would you prefer to have the Civs historically correct regardless of being an American?

Jamski · January 31, 2003, 06:55

The problem is that most of the potential buyers for any new game are Americans. Note also that the American city list contains more cities than any of the others, 50 cities to be precise, I believe, so wherever you are in the states, your local big town is included. Aw, ain't that nice.

-Jam

Daz · January 31, 2003, 07:31

Yes, neat indeed. I am aware of the rules of selling a game.

But honestly... does it bother you / would you prefer to play a more historically correct game?

Jamski · January 31, 2003, 08:37

It bothers me a little, yeah, but other wise the game would start in 4000BC with just Egyptians, Indians, Babylonians (?) and Chinese. Everyone else would be barbarians.

Seriously if realism is important, then the Americans should be represented by the American Indians, and Washington, Boston etc are cities in the English list, New Orleans in the French list, Los Angeles in the Spanish List etc. The problem goes right back to the original Civ concept, and has never been satisfactoraly solved.

-Jam

Serb · January 31, 2003, 09:22

I predict nice clash here soon. Another 'Stop America bashing" Cool

Andemagne · January 31, 2003, 10:20

no, of course not!

America is a Nation, not a Civilization.

and like one of those afterpost quotes say: "America is only nation in the world that went straight from barbarism to decadence without Civilization inbetween"

Jamski · January 31, 2003, 10:37

If you leave a youghurt for 300 years on its own, it will develop a CULTURE

-Jam

Ribannah · January 31, 2003, 20:50

Should America be a civ?

The obvious answer is: "Of course they should, everyone else is! Why are they so slow?"

Underseer · January 31, 2003, 23:56

Bah, realism, schmealism!

As someone else pointed out, if you start at 4000BC using this logic, you can only start as Egyptians, Chinese, Babylonians or Indians. So should we eliminate the others as well?

Should the Ottomans, Romans, Celts, Carthaginians, et. al. automatically be erradicated at the appropriate dates?

Should Europeans be forced to wait until they contact Mediterranean cultures to learn alphabet and literacy (and probably a lot of other techs)?

Should Asians be forced to wait until they contact outside cultures before they can learn industrial age techs?

I find the whole thing silly, but then I don't take much of anything seriously.

Panag · February 1, 2003, 09:15

hi ,

yes they should be a civ

; a poll would have been intresting , ....

have a nice day

XarXo · February 1, 2003, 19:05

America is a powerful nation, no doubt, they are our modern and refinated version of China. When they want something, IT MUST BE DONE, just this

. If you don't do this, you're the Antichrist of the God Crusade for the Saint Peace that Irridites the American Global Lighthouse from the Western World (who's the fundamentalist here?

).

I think that the big problem is that they always felt like the Arda continent of a Tolkien-world vision, this is why a lot of the people ignore the problems of the world and believe that they are the best in all.

They are great, yes, but just great. Remember that a small country like Netherlands or an old one like Greece made big things before us!

....

MMM, this post is quite useless, the americans that post here are surely all world-knowing developed.

At the end, Americans need a socialist party for know what is think different. It probably never will win, but at the end the people will find something different.

Actually they are more a world vision than a Civ, the American Life propaganda transformed the nationalist sense in something that seems avaible in all Wall Marts for just 99,99$.

HAND · February 2, 2003, 01:05

Yes they should be a civ. I know its weird starting with the Americans at 4000 BC, but its a game!

(just as weird as encountering Carthaginian Stealth bombers

)

Chilean President™ · February 2, 2003, 01:22

Well actually the meaning of the word "civilization" is referred to a large group of people that shares a culture, so the civs of the game should be: occidentals, egyptians, chineses, islamics, etc. France, Germany, the UK and the US are considered "the occidental civilization" right?

But the truth is that a game like that would be quite boring and, after all, great empires are the key players of the game. Sure the US didn't exist in 4000 BC, but does that means that we cannot play with the Greeks or Persians in the XXI century years?

I vows for a rename of the game, "Sid Meier's Empires III"

well if anyone has not understand my english; yeah America should included be in the game as a civ

ottok · February 2, 2003, 12:40

NO.
USA ISNT CIVILIZATION IT IS MILITARISATION!

THIS IS A one reason,which are build a terrorism.

And anyway! Who is the Saddam? Whot fool hee doo...

is only tell that its HATE all to usa! Some one others think same... Why only saddam? And after Saddam,there at cam a seccond men who tells"USA IS SATAN!" and became the leader! But he at also maybe the TO MUCH DANGER than saddam newer!!

HAND · February 2, 2003, 14:18

Quote:

Originally posted by ottok
NO.
USA ISNT CIVILIZATION IT IS MILITARISATION!

THIS IS A one reason,which are build a terrorism.

And anyway! Who is the Saddam? Whot fool hee doo...

is only tell that its HATE all to usa! Some one others think same... Why only saddam? And after Saddam,there at cam a seccond men who tells"USA IS SATAN!" and became the leader! But he at also maybe the TO MUCH DANGER than saddam newer!!

What?

Chilean President™ · February 2, 2003, 15:43

Daz · February 3, 2003, 04:07

Hey! This thread was not meant to be a place for political/ideological rants. So cut it out!

The question should have been do you want Civilization to reflect human history more or less correctly or not. America is just the best example to point this out.

Someone mentioned the Ottomans. Well, yes I am aware that they didn't "start" in 4000BC but at least it WAS BC. So did most of the others. This doesn't apply only to America. England is somewhat older but also not historically correct. You should play the Celts (please correct me if I'm wrong) and be able to change your nations name. Thus you could one day become English, or Scotish, or American, or anybody else who evolved from them.
Russians would evolve from Slavs, Ottomans from Babylon (I guess) and so on.

Your 2 cents?

Jamski · February 3, 2003, 05:30

The Ottomans came around 600-700AD, IIRC, or even later, and lasted until 1918. Just making a point

The game does mix cultural groups (Celts) with nations (America) and real civilisations (Egyptians) Almost none of the "civs" in the game were actively in competition, with the exception of France, Germany and England, and these only in the last 1000 years (of a game that covers 6000 years) Its a game, so it has to make some "unhistorical" compromises, which is part of the fun of playing a civ game. Ha ! My Bablonian (modern Iraq) tanks defeat the invading American longbowmen.

-Jam

Jamski · February 3, 2003, 05:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Daz
England is somewhat older but also not historically correct. You should play the Celts (please correct me if I'm wrong)

Well, not really wrong

but you should start as the Celts, get taken over by the Romans, regain unwanted independence as a Romano-Celtic culture, be invaded by the Saxons, assimlate the Saxons, be invaded by the Angles, who form a post-Roman Anglo-Saxon culture and drive the Romano-Celts into Wales and Scotland, where they meet up with the surviving Celts, then be invaded in the North by the Vikings, who divide your country and then assimilate, just in time to be invaded by the Normans, who then impose a French-speaking feudal aristocracy for 300 years, claim the throne of France, lose it, become assimmilated too, reclaim the Celtic people of Scotland, Wales and Ireland for your empire, take over half the world, and give it away again, taking some of the captured populations home to work in your cities, untill they too are English.

Enough ?

-Jam

Yanghead · February 3, 2003, 05:44

I have no problem with "America" being a civ, however they need a new city list and a new leader. I live in Canada was born a Canadian and am also a NORTH American. If the Civ is supposed to be USA then call it that. I'd throw in some more good natured american bashing but I don't want to be accused of Jacking the thread.

Chilean President™ · February 3, 2003, 06:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Yanghead
I have no problem with "America" being a civ, however they need a new city list and a new leader. I live in Canada was born a Canadian and am also a NORTH American. If the Civ is supposed to be USA then call it that. I'd throw in some more good natured american bashing but I don't want to be accused of Jacking the thread.

Well then maybe we should stop speaking of "America" because that's the real name of the entire continent, after all I'm an american too.
The problem would be, how we call the citizens of the US, "unitedstatians"?

Centauri18 · February 3, 2003, 06:29

Would you prefer Norteamericano?

Jamski · February 3, 2003, 06:30

How about calling them "Yanks" ?

-Jam

Chilean President™ · February 3, 2003, 06:46

"Norteamericano" could be a mexican too. "Yancs", only for the northern states, right?
What I mean is that the country don't have a name "of his own", as the states that compose the country have. Is kind of weird, but I think is the only nation in the world that uses the same name of their own continent.

Well I don't want to jack this thread, it was only a remark.

Amesjustin · February 3, 2003, 15:42

Well, I was going to post something along the lines of 'Stop all the USA-Bashing!' but then I read this post...

Quote:

Originally posted by ottok
NO.
USA ISNT CIVILIZATION IT IS MILITARISATION!

THIS IS A one reason,which are build a terrorism.

And anyway! Who is the Saddam? Whot fool hee doo...

is only tell that its HATE all to usa! Some one others think same... Why only saddam? And after Saddam,there at cam a seccond men who tells"USA IS SATAN!" and became the leader! But he at also maybe the TO MUCH DANGER than saddam newer!!

...and could not stop laughing. I actually agree that USA should not be in the game from the start, but should come into power later (same with other late comers). Of course that would require such an extensive reworking of the game that you might as well make a new one where civilizations evolve, grow into power, and eventually lose it (as they all inevitably do). Civolution would be a good name....

Centauri18 · February 3, 2003, 21:50

I don't care about real history and where it relates to starting civs. I always play with the Americans (slightly modified, but still) and I like being able to start early. I don't care if it's historically incorrect. But let's face it. It was pretty much just the Egyptians and a few others in 4000 BC, and none of the other civs we recognize today would have been recognizeable.
So I say, so what? It's just a game.

Amesjustin · February 3, 2003, 22:36

Until Someone actually comes up with a Civolution-type game, I am with you Centauri 18.

Dauphin · February 3, 2003, 22:52

Quote:

Originally posted by War of Art
The problem is that most of the potential buyers for any new game are Americans. Note also that the American city list contains more cities than any of the others, 50 cities to be precise, I believe, so wherever you are in the states, your local big town is included. Aw, ain't that nice.

-Jam

If we tried to get 50 great English cities we would have to resort to naming cities after small villages and hamlets.

Dauphin · February 3, 2003, 22:54

Wasn't America only brought into Civ1 at the 11th hour because of marketting considerations?

I have no problem with them being in. Makes it funny to see them as a backward and hopeless nation for a change.

Jamski · February 4, 2003, 06:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Chilean President
Is kind of weird, but I think is the only nation in the world that uses the same name of their own continent.

Australia ? Or is the continent called "Oceania" or something ?

Quote:

] Originally posted by Chilean President
Well I don't want to jack this thread, it was only a remark.

Well, if you are, then so am I.

-Jam