The Perfect Civ List - Page 2

Aramis · February 7, 2003, 00:39

Quote:

Originally posted by steven8r
Just out of curriosity, what Civ Traits would the Canadians have, eh?

snow
and some more snow

Aramis · February 7, 2003, 00:49

Quote:

Originally posted by steven8r
Just out of curriosity, what Civ Traits would the Canadians have, eh?

Seriously, Industrious and Scientific.

With far fewer people than the US of A, and much more territory, Canada in its brief history (since independence) is one of the world's most remarkable success stories. Maybe the best.

My hat off to the northern neighbors. Sorry you have to live so close to us-- but it does give an exciting element of danger.

Chilean President™ · February 7, 2003, 00:59

Quote:

Originally posted by rmds
Canada in its brief history (since independence) is one of the world's most remarkable success stories. Maybe the best.

I know that there is not so succesful like Canada in quick developement, but at this point I think that the modern social democracies of the nordic nations are also remarkable for their success in this capitalistic world.

Quote:

Originally posted by rmds
My hat off to the northern neighbors. Sorry you have to live so close to us-- but it does give an exciting element of danger.

is nice to hear (or see) an "american mea culpa" ... or it was only a joke?

Anyway, pretty good

Aramis · February 7, 2003, 01:12

Quote:

is nice to hear (or see) an "american mea culpa" ... or it was only a joke?

Anyway, pretty good

Both--I'm a Unitedstatesian. Or, as we like to call ourselves, Unitedstatittes.

HolyWarrior · February 7, 2003, 01:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Centauri18
Those would be my picks for the new civs as well. Never heard of the Khmers, though. A couple of those are the ones they ought to have added in PTW. It should have been more than five civs.

The Khmer are primarily known for their massive temple complex Angkor Wat. They ruled the entire Indochina area while Europe was still in the dark ages.

Aramis · February 7, 2003, 01:50

Quote:

Originally posted by rmds

Both--I'm a Unitedstatesian. Or, as we like to call ourselves, Unitedstatittes.

Let me rephrase that.

I was serious in the intent, but lighthearted in the delivery (Kinda like what our missles will be doing to Iraq in about 3 weeks, if the cowboy President gets his way.)

Canada is a good choice to represent breakaway British colonies. Maybe some kind of bonus for them to build a good railway system? Workers build railways as fast with Republic as with Democracy?

I'm going to take the dog for a walk now.

Good night.

Master Zen · February 7, 2003, 02:08

Quote:

Originally posted by rmds

Both--I'm a Unitedstatesian. Or, as we like to call ourselves, Unitedstatittes.

Funny, now that you mention it, I've always been a bit offended that the US reserves the right to call themselves "Americans" being there 30+ countries in the continent. Also, Amerigo Vespucci called the New World America, he did not distinguish between North and South, so it would also be historically incorrect to refer to the US as "America" and the continent as "the Americas".

The problem, of course, is that the US doesn't have a real name in the same sense as "Rusia", "Japan" etc. I have always tried to find a word to use, in English, to call an American without calling them "American". I guess Unitedstatesian would be the closest.

In Spanish we don't have that problem as there exists a prefectly usuable word to call you guys, "Estadounidenses" (Direct translation of Unitedstatesian). Still, many people refer to them as "Norteamericanos" or "Americanos". I would say that's wrong considering we have the first option. Still, most people say "Gringos"...

Another "shorter" option: USians.

Master Zen · February 7, 2003, 02:11

BTW, I was thinking if there was another "no-real-name" country and there is: The United Arab Emirates.

What do they call themselves? Gonna check the CIA Factbook. Using the same line of reasoning as the US, they have the right to reserve the use of the word "Arabs" to refer to them.

Master Zen · February 7, 2003, 02:17

Before I get slammed for US-bashing, I must make the point that the term "American" originally referred to British colonials in the New World, as to distinguish them from British in Britain. The name apparently stuck.

Aramis · February 7, 2003, 02:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
Funny, now that you mention it, I've always been a bit offended that the US reserves the right to call themselves "Americans" being there 30+ countries in the continent.

A US author named Paul Theroux wrote a book a number of years back, called The Old Patagonian Express, about his attempt to take a railway journey from Boston's South Station to the farthest possible spot in Argentina's province of Patagonia.

Other than the (then and maybe still) contentious border between Colombia and Panama he was successful.

His return journey he wanted to do on the ocean, by steamer. He asked someone if a particular ship stopped at American ports. Told 'yes' he booked passage only to find that the ship did not go north of Brasil.

He realized then, he wrote, that citizens of the USA do NOT have a lock on the name 'American.' All those ports were American, but not USA.

That book opened my eyes, too. I call myself an American around my US friends, but to people from other nations I describe myself either as "from Indiana", or "a citizen of the US."

Both unwieldy terms.

But we're stuck with such forms. A union of fifty states that still maintain a fair amount of self-government, we've never had a chance or inkling to choose a national name. other than arrogantly appropriating the term 'American.'

I vote for 'Unitedstatittes.' Reminds me of the Hittites.

To keep a tiny bit on subject--maybe Firaxis should have added Arrogance as a civ trait. Then 'America' could be expansionist and arrogant (and commercial and militaristic and scientific and artistic and greedy and . . . and--OMG!--Left Out of the Game! I guess it was a marketing decision: how Unitedstatittian).

Master Zen · February 7, 2003, 02:41

I think arrogance is not a Unitedstatittian-only (geez that's hard to pronounce!) trait.

Try the Brits during the Victorian age...try the French during the Bell Epoque...

mrboo123 · February 7, 2003, 08:59

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
(...)I know you can't add UUs (THAT would be cool...), but surely if you want something changed you can change it.

Funny, I did that...

mrboo123 · February 7, 2003, 09:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Yanghead
Canada:

Religious: went from Monarcy to Democracy(ok socalism) without a hitch.

Scientific: high education level, and hey we made the Canadarm on the space shuttle.

UU: mountie (gives double effect when garrisoned for happines otherwise usless in combat) early Industrial Age

or peacekeeper (colourless modern unit with high defence and like 1 or 0 attack)

Basically a builder civ, cause we ain't expansionist or militaristic, and well can socalists be commercial? oh yeah Its too damn cold to be industrious (right now anyway).

Plus someone has dome advisor heads you know science guy, military guy with Bob and Doug Mckenzie

I made the Peacekeeper for my civ, and inculded the stuff the workers do (Mine, build roads...) and cost a civilian too.

Wazell · February 7, 2003, 09:42

Quote:

BTW, I was thinking if there was another "no-real-name" country and there is: The United Arab Emirates.

What do they call themselves? Gonna check the CIA Factbook. Using the same line of reasoning as the US, they have the right to reserve the use of the word "Arabs" to refer to them.

IIRC, the citizens of UAE call themselves by their own emirate. There are seven of them. So someone from Dubai has different "nationality" than someone from Abu Dhabi. They're probably called this way by other Arabs, too.

You are right with the America thing. Good'old Amerigo sailed with Portuguese around South America, particularly Brazil. He told many interesting stories from his travels so cartographers thought it appropriate to name the whole new world after him. Mind you, North America was unknown back then, except maybe Florida and Newfoundland area, which were thought to be islands. Thus the name originally refers to Latin America.

XarXo · February 7, 2003, 10:38

Quote:

Originally posted by South killer
i think the civs playable on civ 3 are very bad chosen (like the iroquis

). I think a game like civ3 should have civs that represent all cultures of all places of the world. So, anyway, here's the list:

America:
-USA
-Aztec
-Inca
-Brasil
-Argentina or Mexico(or both-- we need a spanish-speaking latinamerican civ)
Europe:
-Spain
-France
-England
-Germany
-Roman
-Greek
-Russian
Middle East:
-Turkey
-Persian
-Arabian
Africa:
-Egypt
-Zulus or Zimbabwe
Asia:
-Chinese
-Japanese
Oceania:
-Polynesian

That'll make 20 civs. What do you think of the list?

ROTFLMAO

And why not a Bolivian Civ? They country is pretty large!!!

You "just" forgot: Siam, Mongolia, Ethiopia, Mayas, Babylon, Israel, India, Ghana, Scandinavians, Celts...

Oh, please! This list proposal is TRUE?

What is the great cultural achievement of south america countries? Afternoon 500 episodies TV series ? Oh please! Only the Iroquois religion is by far more important than all the culture produced in South America after the fall of the native empires!!

USA enters in the game just because it truly is controlling near all the world (today news, just read). But the others? Brasil? Why? Because is chopping the amazon?

Civ is a game of more than 6000 years, think in something with a bit of history.

pedrojedi · February 7, 2003, 11:56

If I were putting any characteristics in Brasil CIv, it would be certainly religious and commercial. Scientific is not a trademark for our people, even with recent advances in many areas of science & technology

Quote:

What is the great cultural achievement of south america countries? Afternoon 500 episodies TV series ? Oh please! Only the Iroquois religion is by far more important than all the culture produced in South America after the fall of the native empires!!

Well, thanks for such disrespect for our not-too-priviledged countries of South America. We're really sorry to be filling this im-poor-tant space of world with such non-productive people, as you can evaluate very well from your *close* and *knowledgeable* position.

From where I stand, well... Never heard about Iriquois before Civ3. Really. And, for all that I know, they were a bunch of indians that got too killed by "civilization", a tribe or union of tribes of indians that tried to keep united against the white-people-from-very-far-away. Not a great contribution to the world, since I saw here that a lot of other people didn't too hear about the Iriquois.

But I agree that it's difficult to elect someone down here to be a Civ... The Incas were big, but their contribution to science and culture were some very good forms of farming in mountains, and Machu Picchu, along with a statement of engineering prowess. Not much more, and not at all new if compared with the Aztecs.

Quote:

USA enters in the game just because it truly is controlling near all the world (today news, just read). But the others? Brasil? Why? Because is chopping the amazon?

Well, thank you for the news, I really didn't know that either. And yeah, we keep ourselves busy chopping down the Amazon, just for fun. No economic interests. And it's really coming down, at any moment it will be just a memory.

As if other nations are a great example of preservation, but whatever. Hey, we DID sign that little agreement, uh, I don't know, Treaty of Kioto, didn't we?

Hey, this would be nice for Civ4, some form of a more maleable diplomacy... Treaties of Preservation, Pollution, establishment of timelines to development of less nature-agressive production...

Master Zen · February 7, 2003, 12:31

XarXo:

No offense, but there's more culture in Latin America than you can even imagine.

Just because we didn't give the world cheeseburgers and diet coke is no reason to diminish our cultural achievements.

I would advise you to actually VISIT any latin american country and prove it for yourself.

BTW:

If there was a Brazilian civ, instead of "We love the king day" there should be Rio-type carnavals. A pop up video of half-naked samba-dancing girls would be nice!

Chilean President™ · February 7, 2003, 12:36

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen
A pop up video of half-naked samba-dancing girls would be nice!

I agree, I agree!!

pedrojedi · February 7, 2003, 14:35

Quote:

If there was a Brazilian civ, instead of "We love the king day" there should be Rio-type carnavals. A pop up video of half-naked samba-dancing girls would be nice!

It should be "We love the Carnaval Week!", and, as things are going, instead of HALF-naked it would be FULL-naked samba dancing-girls. Or perhaps some children playing soccer.

XarXo · February 7, 2003, 17:36

I stayed in Mexico (5 years ago, 1 month), Argentina (3 years ago, only 11 days) and Brasil (2 years ago, 2 months) and I can assure you that from the fall of native empires nothing interesting happened here except for wars and dictators. And yes, I gone out of the tursitic places to see the "real" country.

Is pathetic, they preffer imagine themselves as "latinos" than restore and modernize the old civ that stayed here. They consider the natives as "crappy people" just because they are poors and by ages spanish "great" conquistadores just oppressed them.

Only in Argentinians and Bolivians I felt some personality for become something new. They need 1000 years to become interesting for a Civ game, sorry. Be patient

brianshapiro · February 7, 2003, 17:52

i dont think israel should be added, there was influence from the culture but israel was never an empire and was most times part of other empires . its impossible to not find it funny to put israel next to rome,france,america as world-players and you people know it.
so stop trying to have your way

but personally i would like to be able to play on a 50 player map with both small and large states/civilizations . in which case adding them would make sense, but so would adding other small history-specific groups like phonecians etc.

Chilean President™ · February 7, 2003, 18:09

Quote:

Originally posted by XarXo
I stayed in Mexico (5 years ago, 1 month), Argentina (3 years ago, only 11 days) and Brasil (2 years ago, 2 months) and I can assure you that from the fall of native empires nothing interesting happened here except for wars and dictators. And yes, I gone out of the tursitic places to see the "real" country.

Is pathetic, they peffer imaginte themselves as "latinos" than restore and modernize the old civ that stayed here. They consider the natives as "crappy people" just because they are poors and by ages spanish "great" conquistadores just oppressed them.

I live in Spain, and I can say that your spanish dialect that is considered "awful" (except for Brazilian Portuguese and Portugal). You say all these territories as "mother countries" and you always reffer this with a romatinc idea of history. Always spanish (I not consider myself as one) will say you "Hello! How do you do! We are so happy to have a latino brother", but at the end, a mjority (60%) will think you in "another poor inmigrant to maintain".

Only in Argentinians and Bolivians I felt some personality for become something new, but the other countries: BLAH.

You need 1000 years to become interesting for a Civ game, sorry.

You're right, you dont know nothing about the history of this side of the world. You said "nothing interesting happened here except for wars and dictators", well Franco salutes you!
In the case of Chile we do not consider our selfs "latinos", because first of all we are chileans and that's more important. In our veins run the blood of the Araucanos who stopped the advance of the Incas and the spanish for more than 200 years.

Spain our mother country?

We are a great modern state but because of our own achievements, not the "spanish legacy". If the british arrive to Chile or other south american countries before your "colonizadores" other profile this countries would have, and the economic developement path would be easier.

Always a chilean will say you "Hello! How do you do! We are so happy to have a spanish brother", but at the end, a majority will think you in "another poor educated spanish". After all is no secret that Spain is the poor european nation, who live thinking only in his "great" past, but not building a nation to the future.

You said: "Only in Argentinians and Bolivians I felt some personality for become something new", you better have check for México who is a wonderful nation and are really proud of their past, but their construct their modern state facing the future. Also Uruguay, the Garra Charrúa!, is knew in the world as the South American Switzerland, Brazil a great state that has left far away Portugal, and some other countries that are doing the best to be developed nations.

An advice; one step at the time... first you must learn to think, then you must learn to write.

Master Zen · February 7, 2003, 18:18

After reading Chilean's response there's not much else for me to say except that:

As far as Mexican history goes, you better read it and after you have, I dare you to say again that "nothing interesting happened". Wars and dictators? Nothing different from our countries then huh?

In other things like Art, Music, etc. we've had more than most countries, from our impressive muralist painters, to nobel prize winning authors, to world-renowned arquitects, music that is recognized throughout the globe, etc. you name it, we've had 'em.

If that is too little for you, and so insignificant and boring, please illustrate how wonderful your civilization has been for the last 200 years.

brianshapiro · February 7, 2003, 18:24

Master Zen ,

its true from the perspective of a Westerner, most south american and central american nations can be lumped together in one group, 'South American culture' , most americans and europeans dont distinguish it any further. There is respect for Argentina because of artistic products like tango ; people know about Brasil for the women. Mexico is known for the food. Aside from these things, to the typical American they might as well have been nothing but wars and dictators. To more sophisticated Americans, theyre still nothing more than #34xx trading partner, no more distinguishable among the countries than the countries in Africa.

Im just repeating what I think the perception of south america is. I'm only not sure it deserves more, because it hasn't done enough to prove to the world deserves more.

brianshapiro · February 7, 2003, 18:26

Or maybe its better to say, the countries of south america dont seem more distinct from one another, than the states of the US seem distinct from one another; and then the US from britain.

Master Zen · February 7, 2003, 18:34

brianshapiro:

just because people don't know about things, does not mean they don't exist.

What do most people know about the Scandinavians besides the seterotypical image of hairy barabarian-looking vikings destroying every village in sight?

What do most people know about the Celts other that they are an NBA team?

What do most people know about the Carthaginians other that some guy rode with elephants to try and defeat Rome?

Seriously, most people are ignorant of the true acomplishment of these civilzations yet they are included.

Master Zen · February 7, 2003, 18:36

Quote:

Originally posted by brianshapiro
Or maybe its better to say, the countries of south america dont seem more distinct from one another, than the states of the US seem distinct from one another; and then the US from britain.

That's why I said there should be a "Latinamerican" civilization which would cover for all these countries.

Chilean President™ · February 7, 2003, 18:41

That's right Master Zen, much people doesn't know the American nations achievements and believe that are homogenous countries, when actually that's not true. But I also agree that to be know, we should do more "noise". But "good noise", not starting wars or becoming corrupt nations as the "developed" countries perception think all these countries are.

Manya · February 7, 2003, 19:09

Estoy de acuerdo con Chilean President, many countries think that we are some underdeveloped drug dealers native americans, or in my case they don't even now were we are

pedrojedi · February 7, 2003, 21:35

Well, I think it's amazing that someone manages to come here, spends 2 months and still think of us as a uncultured and poor of spirit people. But what can I do? Two months is still two months, a lot of time to "test" his knowledge and prejudices about someone or someoneS. I would rather have a few more questions about where were these two months spent, but, as a famous composer said, "Let it be".

As much as it "feels" not-right, a Latinoamerican Civ would be a great idea, with a mix & blend of our various cultures and costumes. Maybe a special UU, like the Rain Forest Guerrilla, or the Revolutionary, or, taking account of some opinions, the Latino Heart Conqueror. Whatever.

It seems that some opinions will fill the gaps between our worlds for a few more generations, as there is STILL some younger generations europeans who think of us as countries who don't want to be in the "First World High Society Club", and our people as 10% lazy corrupt folk who revel laughing at 90% extremely poor people.

Things are changing here, and it's been quite some time. Soccer (GOOD soccer, by the way), women, dances and exquisite spices are the LEAST we have to spare.