Radical Idea? - Page 2

Panag · August 7, 2003, 03:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Panag:

Look at the title of your information Panag:

CURRENT OPERATIONS

NOT

CURRENT WARS

You have listed all military operations for the US, not the wars in which it has participated. An operation is essentially any major mission in which the military partakes in. these can include:combat missions, peacekeeping missions, Humanitarian aid missions, and training exercises.

It is another example in which you just list information and do not understand the relevance (or lack therof) in relation to the topic.

PS. When did we Fight "Safeguard California" ?

hi ,

the list of us mil ops is to long to post , ........

and btw , as for the rest , think before you post such language , ......

and i did not list them as " current ops or wars for that matter " , ...... duh , its a cut copy save , but unfortunatly half of it did not came along due to poly's posting format , .....

have a nice day

vmxa1 · August 7, 2003, 13:50

In all fairness panag you posted about the US having over 100 wars. You then proceeeded to list a long list of actions. True you did not claim they were war, but lets not be cute. The implications was there.
Anyway this is so boring and OT, I will let you have the last, you would insist upon it anyway.

Uber Warrior · August 9, 2003, 15:42

hmmmm Panag appears to be anti-American, Pointing out reason doesnt ever change someone with blind hatred. Your smart to ignore him vmxa1

vmxa1 · August 9, 2003, 15:58

Deleted

Mad Bomber · August 9, 2003, 16:08

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Fact is Congress did not declare war for the civil war. They could not as that would require recoqnizing the South as a country.
Congress has not declared a war since WWII. Operations are not wars neither are missions.

You are correct that the US has not declared war since WW2. However I was refering to war in its broadest sense as a major armed conflict. If you only count declared wars then the count is considerably less than the 20 I have listed. Also I would like to apologize to all of the other posters for this threadjack but Panag's claim that the US has participated in 100 wars got me more than a little pissed.-

vmxa1 · August 9, 2003, 16:45

I hear you.

bobbo008 · August 9, 2003, 18:05

this thread at least gives me the excuse to laugh at my own country (USA).

haha...

there.

Verto · August 9, 2003, 20:00

Getting back on topic...I think this is a great idea and would love to see it implemented. Having the game semi-adapt to your playing style would be a nice feature.

Panag · August 10, 2003, 06:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Uber Warrior
hmmmm Panag appears to be anti-American, Pointing out reason doesnt ever change someone with blind hatred. Your smart to ignore him vmxa1

hi ,

for your information , its not , .........

and know what " blind hatred " means before you post it , .......

bye

Fatwreck · August 11, 2003, 04:00

it´s really sad that most americans are so naive and buys anything there goverment tells them...

Panag · August 11, 2003, 12:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Fatwreck
it´s really sad that most americans are so naive and buys anything there goverment tells them...

hi ,

and just what the heck does the US gov or its ways do to be brought up in a game thread , .......

aint the OT big enough on that particular topic , ........

have a nice day

vmxa1 · August 11, 2003, 12:21

Not to mention that it is hard to image how someone living is Sweden has a handle on how 300 million Americans think. People that live here and are paid to figure out how they think are not doing it all that well.

Verto · August 11, 2003, 12:42

Moving back to the original topic...

once again, a good idea.

TheArsenal · August 11, 2003, 12:49

deleted for common sense reasons.

Panag · August 11, 2003, 13:16

hi ,

can we please get over this OT , .........

have a nice day

TheArsenal · August 11, 2003, 13:27

Agreed. It was my mistake, and out of character, to discuss anything but game play. I have deleted the response.

Josephias · August 17, 2003, 00:34

Sorry if I'm repeating somebody, but now I haven't time to read all the posts. In response of the starter of the thread I will purpose something sightly different, but still related:

Every civ will have various leaders - representing various periods of their story (or the various behavoirs the civ as presented to the world). The actual leader will be chosen at the start (either selected, or randomly).

So, in example, If you had the french, you could have as leader:

Joan of Arc (militaristic, religious) - UU: Heavy Knight
Napoleon (militaristic, expansionist) - UU: Dragoon
Louis XIV (industrious, commercial) - UU: Musketeer
De Gaulle?...

Same could happen for the rest of civs. That way, maps with determined civs could still have a "random" factor (So an European map won't be the same with Liz, Napoleon, and Isabella than with Churchill, Joane of Arc and Philiphe II)... or there could be done more specific scenarios, fixing the leaders of a certain age.

That could help also to the return of the civil war feature: Imagine you conquer the Russian capital, when the russians were ruled by Catie... a new russian faction (Stalin, Ivan,...) could appear, being a similar, but different civ.

Panag · August 17, 2003, 09:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Josephias
Sorry if I'm repeating somebody, but now I haven't time to read all the posts. In response of the starter of the thread I will purpose something sightly different, but still related:

Every civ will have various leaders - representing various periods of their story (or the various behavoirs the civ as presented to the world). The actual leader will be chosen at the start (either selected, or randomly).

So, in example, If you had the french, you could have as leader:

Joan of Arc (militaristic, religious) - UU: Heavy Knight
Napoleon (militaristic, expansionist) - UU: Dragoon
Louis XIV (industrious, commercial) - UU: Musketeer
De Gaulle?...

Same could happen for the rest of civs. That way, maps with determined civs could still have a "random" factor (So an European map won't be the same with Liz, Napoleon, and Isabella than with Churchill, Joane of Arc and Philiphe II)... or there could be done more specific scenarios, fixing the leaders of a certain age.

That could help also to the return of the civil war feature: Imagine you conquer the Russian capital, when the russians were ruled by Catie... a new russian faction (Stalin, Ivan,...) could appear, being a similar, but different civ.

hi ,

great idea

but it should not be for each civ

have a nice day

bobbo008 · August 17, 2003, 14:32

i kinda like the idea of civs changing like was said above.

my only problem with that is that a lot of those traits happened because of winning/losing wars and other things. in civ3, those events dont happen that made the civ's traits change.

vmxa1 · August 18, 2003, 01:30

I suspect one problem is that more grahpics would require more space to hold it. The CD is very close to 700MB, so they may need to go to another CD and that is not something they would like to do.