16-02-2002 15:06									#511
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Rothy WOT!?!?!?! England Controlled 1/4 of the Globe I'll have you know!! Our Empire is perhaps the greatest Empire in HISTORY!!, Yes these days we are just a mighty nation, but at one time we were a glorious formidable civilisation!!. We then decided to be kind and give the other places thier independance.

Still thinking of Rome as a civ feels different from thinking of Britain as a civ.

	16-02-2002 18:22									#512
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I would bet that in a few thousand years England will be seen in the same light as Ancient Rome or Ancient Greece.

	17-02-2002 02:57									#513
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Oligarf "Allah, bless America!"

"God zij met ons"
(Dutch for: "May God bless us")
You're really glad with our new Euro, aren't you?

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin I would bet that in a few thousand years England will be seen in the same light as Ancient Rome or Ancient Greece.

I think it's more likely they will see Europe in that light. In all history, I think England, France and Spain were more or less equally important. I know England had its great time, but so had many other European countries.

	18-02-2002 00:53									#514
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

AMERICA IS THE GREATEST! Period.

No other civilization will be remembered in 1000 years, or 25 for that matter. We are all that is important. Noone cares about Rome because it LOST.

Noone cares about a dead civ because it was destroyed by a greater, more powerful one. Now, America is #1 and we will stay that way because we are the best!

So, we lost to Vietnam because we were not strong enough and our tactics were awful. But they didn't have the guts to take us on! They knew that they couldn't win against America in an offensive war. NOONE CAN!!!!!!!!!

Just compare the number of turns America is in the game. And compare it to the Zulu or the Iroquois. Duh?

Face it we are the greatest and we will ALWAYS be the greatest, because we were the first democracy and we care for the people. Don't even think of using any other civ; they are all worthless compared to us.

	18-02-2002 02:39									#515
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Brilliant satire.

Say, where you from.

	20-02-2002 02:25									#516
	Suffering from ads?

We've seen countless posts like that which were meant seriously - so I hope you're right and this one is meant as a satire.

	20-02-2002 02:51									#517
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Steve Clark So you are saying that Civ3 should be a historical simulator instead of a civilization-based strategy game? That's a tired, irrelevant argument, imo.

I agree with this. The game is called Civilization for a reason. It's meant for you to pick a civilization from Earth's history to take it from 4000BC to 2000BC. All civilizations haven't existed through this length of time. Even Egypt was conquered several times and it's impossible to represent this in the game. There is one thing that would be an interesting add on to the game, though (if it can be made into a Modpack or something). What if you take out America as a civ but add the capability of your cities running a chance of declaring independence when they riot. They would form a new civilization and would have to be retaken by force or culturally assimilated back. For example, Enlish found a few new cities on a new continent and because of the distance to the capitol, would run a higher chance of rioting and in each turn of rioting, have a chance of declaring independence and form a new civ called America! This would add a new interesting twist to the game. What fo you think?

	20-02-2002 02:51									#518
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Steve Clark So you are saying that Civ3 should be a historical simulator instead of a civilization-based strategy game? That's a tired, irrelevant argument, imo.

I agree with this. The game is called Civilization for a reason. It's meant for you to pick a civilization from Earth's history to take it from 4000BC to 2000BC. All civilizations haven't existed through this length of time. Even Egypt was conquered several times and it's impossible to represent this in the game. There is one thing that would be an interesting add on to the game, though (if it can be made into a Modpack or something). What if you take out America as a civ but add the capability of your cities running a chance of declaring independence when they riot. They would form a new civilization and would have to be retaken by force or culturally assimilated back. For example, Enlish found a few new cities on a new continent and because of the distance to the capitol, would run a higher chance of rioting and in each turn of rioting, have a chance of declaring independence and form a new civ called America! This would add a new interesting twist to the game. What do you think?

	20-02-2002 03:04									#519
	Support Apolyton

It's an excellent idea - that's why I already came up with it, a long time ago.

	20-02-2002 03:09									#520
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Fresno It's an excellent idea - that's why I already came up with it, a long time ago.

Well, what came of it?

	20-02-2002 03:23									#521
	Inflate your Upload Space

When I came up with it (and that's months ago now) I compared the game with Europa Universalis, another great history game, in which concepts as nationalism and religious differences are included (and can cause civil disorder and eventually a civil war/independence).

Some agreed with it, others didn't react.

	20-02-2002 04:40									#522
	Remove this text

I think most people would agree with the concept, its just how it pans out in terms of gameplay.

Talking of EU as a source of idea...

The thing I like about EU that must somehow be resolved in the Civ series is relations and alliances. In EU it is a lot easier to get people to like you even when the most powerful nation; if you go to war your allies actually help you with meaningful military assistance. In civ everyone hates you, regardless of what you do.

	20-02-2002 05:53									#523
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I never played EU. Civilization/Call to Power is the only turned based empire building game I've played. Every other game has been real time like AOE/AOK, Cossaks, and Empire Earth. And they are more battle oriented (not much politics and diplomacy in those games). Is there a way to add the "revolt against mother country and become a new civ" to the game? Anyways, not having America as a civ is really only relevant if you are playing on the world map and using CPT if you are trying to be "historically accurate". Even then, like I said before, all the other civs didn't start in 4000BC.

	20-02-2002 07:03									#524
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by TacticalGrace I know that. My point is that playing as the Americans is just a bit silly. In civ terms they are the English, just much later down the line.

Here's a thought.

"America" may not currently be terribly distinct right now, but it may be in the future. In 800 AD, France and Germany were not terribly distinct either. Europe was just one big seething mass of Celts, Franks, Gauls, Goths, and whatnot. The point is, they became distinct over time.

America is home to some cultures that are quite unique however. I offer the following for your consideration:

The Mormons: Wild weird stuff here. Entirely unlike Europe or anything else. Established a theocracy in the middle of the rocky mountains, had their own alphabet, and a very different social order that included polygamy.

"Gangsta" culture: Can anybody quite put their finger on where this comes from? The language has some roots in England, but the rest seems to be a mishmash of African, English, Spanish, and Mexican (native american) influences.
Especially study the "Folk Nation" and "People Nation" phenomenon, with all the rules, dress, and hand signals.
And the graffiti! Who the hell can read that? What language is that?
That isn't European. Uh-uh. No way.

I'm sure there are others, but these came quickly to mind.

	20-02-2002 07:12									#525
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom Just one salient example of the non-disease extermination of Indians immediately comes to mind- ever hear of Wounded Knee?

Yes, I concede that Europeans did on occasion massacre Native Americans. But let's not be too one sided here. The native americans weren't the innocent noble creatures of Dances with Wolves, either. Native Americans were massacring each other just fine before the Europeans ever arrived.

A great many tribes were also cannibals, including the Iroquois and Aztecs. (funny thing, I learned this as a result of Civ3.)

Read a description of the Aztec sacrifice ritual sometime. I almost threw up. The Aztecs were sick ****ers, and I understand completely why the Spanish might not respect them. I say good riddance to their religion at least.

	20-02-2002 16:28									#526
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin The thing I like about EU that must somehow be resolved in the Civ series is relations and alliances. In EU it is a lot easier to get people to like you even when the most powerful nation; if you go to war your allies actually help you with meaningful military assistance. In civ everyone hates you, regardless of what you do.

There are very many things in EU which I would like to see back in Civ. If you start a game, first you really have the feeling you're reading an old historical atlas. But you are the one to write how history will continue. This feeling is the reason why I started playing civ1 years ago. Now I must say EU feels more like rewriting history as Civ3 does.

	20-02-2002 18:03									#527
	Re: America isn't old enough to be in Civ Inflate your Upload Space

That's funny, Germany has been around only since the middle 1800's and you don't complain about them.

	20-02-2002 19:35									#528
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Khan I never played EU. Civilization/Call to Power is the only turned based empire building game I've played. Every other game has been real time like AOE/AOK, Cossaks, and Empire Earth.

Actually this raised some interesting thoughts. EU is actually strictly REAL TIME, NOT TURN BASED. I remember a long long time ago someone raised a thread about making civ3 real time and got completely shot at by everyone in the forum. EU shows that a real time empire building/histirical game could be very fun to play with. There's no reason to reject real-time as an improvement to the civ series right out of hand. I actually like the realism and the sense immediacy of playing real time. It saves much more time in multiplayer games too.

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin The thing I like about EU that must somehow be resolved in the Civ series is relations and alliances. In EU it is a lot easier to get people to like you even when the most powerful nation; if you go to war your allies actually help you with meaningful military assistance. In civ everyone hates you, regardless of what you do.

quote: Originally posted by Fresno There are very many things in EU which I would like to see back in Civ. If you start a game, first you really have the feeling you're reading an old historical atlas. But you are the one to write how history will continue.

I agree with both of u. One reason why relations and alliances is so important in EU is because u know that u can never conquer the world because it's just too big. u have to rely on alliances cos others will too. Even with war the "bargaining table" system makes sure you are at least restrained from swallowing your enemies right out of hand. That's why i think barbarians should be made much more important to represent nomads or lesser civs different from the actual great civs in the game. However, i must say that the graphics in civ3 is much better than EU and a great leap from civ2.

With the "independence" concept raised, i agree with the concept, but i think independence from civilisation needs to be differentiated from national independence. I think it should be called "cultural separation" instead to prevent confusion and to better describe its meaning. A nation is not necessarily culturally separate from its mother country immediately at the time of its national independence (like America in 1776 or many other countries) and so it does not necessarily mean the new entity is a new civilisation. It would take much more time to be separate culturally than politically.

	20-02-2002 20:56									#529
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Sun Zi 36 I agree with both of u. One reason why relations and alliances is so important in EU is because u know that u can never conquer the world because it's just too big.

That's true, and I guess some civ players won't like that. But it is much more realistic and it is also more fun.

quote: However, i must say that the graphics in civ3 is much better than EU and a great leap from civ2.

I agree. The music and the graphics in EU are definately not what they should be. But that's totally compensated by the realism and the tactical challenges.

quote: With the "independence" concept raised, i agree with the concept, but i think independence from civilisation needs to be differentiated from national independence. I think it should be called "cultural separation" instead to prevent confusion and to better describe its meaning. A nation is not necessarily culturally separate from its mother country immediately at the time of its national independence (like America in 1776 or many other countries) and so it does not necessarily mean the new entity is a new civilisation. It would take much more time to be separate culturally than politically.

In my nation/culture-thread, it appears most people want civ to be about cultures, not about nations. So I agree with you about cultural independence. But how would you determine when a part of the civ is culturally independent?

	20-02-2002 21:20									#530
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Rothy WOT!?!?!?! England Controlled 1/4 of the Globe I'll have you know!! Our Empire is perhaps the greatest Empire in HISTORY!!, Yes these days we are just a mighty nation, but at one time we were a glorious formidable civilisation!!. We then decided to be kind and give the other places thier independance. Interesting Poll this

Obvious England and America have the same roots

	20-02-2002 21:22									#531
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

But I have to say many of the posts posted by the English here were very good; till now, nationalist posts were strictly American.

Edit: Just to make sure this post won't be misunderstood: it's true England was a great nation, and it should definately be a civ.

Last edited by Fresno on 20-02-2002 at 21:32

	20-02-2002 23:48									#532
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Sun Zi 36 Actually this raised some interesting thoughts. EU is actually strictly REAL TIME, NOT TURN BASED. I remember a long long time ago someone raised a thread about making civ3 real time and got completely shot at by everyone in the forum. EU shows that a real time empire building/histirical game could be very fun to play with. There's no reason to reject real-time as an improvement to the civ series right out of hand. I actually like the realism and the sense immediacy of playing real time. It saves much more time in multiplayer games too.

Like I said, I never played EU, so how should I know whether it's turn based or real time. Unneeded correction on your part. If you like Real Time Empire Building, then go with Empire Earth. It's a cross between Civ and AOE/AOK. It has an awesome zoom effect that puts you right on the ground face to face with all the units. Of course, the units appear kinda blocky when u get that close but what do u expect when there are 100's of units on the field all running around spilling blood?!

quote: Originally posted by Sun Zi 36 I agree with both of u. One reason why relations and alliances is so important in EU is because u know that u can never conquer the world because it's just too big. u have to rely on alliances cos others will too. Even with war the "bargaining table" system makes sure you are at least restrained from swallowing your enemies right out of hand. That's why i think barbarians should be made much more important to represent nomads or lesser civs different from the actual great civs in the game. However, i must say that the graphics in civ3 is much better than EU and a great leap from civ2.

Civ should add the Terrorist as the advanced barbarian civ with the capability to set "calamities" (bombs, disease, etc.,) in cities like the ancient barbarians steal money from your cities.

quote: Originally posted by Sun Zi 36 With the "independence" concept raised, i agree with the concept, but i think independence from civilisation needs to be differentiated from national independence. I think it should be called "cultural separation" instead to prevent confusion and to better describe its meaning. A nation is not necessarily culturally separate from its mother country immediately at the time of its national independence (like America in 1776 or many other countries) and so it does not necessarily mean the new entity is a new civilisation. It would take much more time to be separate culturally than politically.

America WAS culturally different from England by the time of Independence. It was 1000's of miles away, had different resources, and people lived differently than in England. It was a frontier or wild land without major cities like in England. People left England so they could live the life they wanted or were sent there as punishments for crimes in the mother country. The cultural differences were one of the reasons for the revolution. Even the versions of the English language were different.

	21-02-2002 00:19									#533
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Fresno But I have to say many of the posts posted by the English here were very good; till now, nationalist posts were strictly American.

The English aren't nationalistic, its against their nature these days (with a few minor exceptions in hooliganiim ) I think any "nationalistic" posts have to be read in a humourous or lighthearted tone. Take the last sentence in that post for example.

"We then decided to be kind and give the other places thier independance."

American nationalism is serious chest-beating.

	21-02-2002 00:35									#534
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Well, that's more or less what I meant. I was just reacting to Knott's post.

Unfortunately, during the last months nationalism has been growing here in the Netherlands. First the royal marriage, and now a weird professor has founded a party saying we should protect or culture from immigrants...

But it's nice to hear you English aren't nationalist any more. Now I hope you'll join us with the euro...

	21-02-2002 00:49									#535
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Khan Like I said, I never played EU, so how should I know whether it's turn based or real time.

Well, you could just look at their site.

quote: America WAS culturally different from England by the time of Independence. It was 1000's of miles away, had different resources, and people lived differently than in England. It was a frontier or wild land without major cities like in England. People left England so they could live the life they wanted or were sent there as punishments for crimes in the mother country. The cultural differences were one of the reasons for the revolution. Even the versions of the English language were different.

That goes for every colony, it isn't really originally American. Surinams independence was only 25 years ago, and they had a distinct accent too.

	21-02-2002 02:45									#536
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Fresno That goes for every colony, it isn't really originally American. Surinams independence was only 25 years ago, and they had a distinct accent too.

That's why it should be that rioting cities of the mother country revolt and become their own civ rather than becoming "culturally seperate". In CivIII, you have European culture, the Asian culture, the American culture, and the Middle Eastern cultures, the revolting civ would still be of the same culture identity as the country it revolted against.

	21-02-2002 03:50									#537
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Fresno But it's nice to hear you English aren't nationalist any more. Now I hope you'll join us with the euro...

Don't hold your breath.

We may not be nationalistic but we still don't want to be ruled ( ) by other nations. Stupid right wing press.

	21-02-2002 17:21									#538
	Remove this text

-

Last edited by Fresno on 21-02-2002 at 17:27

	21-02-2002 17:25									#539
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

So you're one of those who would support it?

But I wonder wether it's only the fault of the press. Generally, newspapers tend to tell the people what they want to hear.

	21-02-2002 21:37									#540
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Fresno In my nation/culture-thread, it appears most people want civ to be about cultures, not about nations. So I agree with you about cultural independence. But how would you determine when a part of the civ is culturally independent?

U raise very difficult questions. i guess the most thorough and convincing way to determine cultural independence is to again look at a few definitions of civilisation, ie

quote: From dictionary.com civ¡Pi¡Pli¡Pza¡Ption (sv-l-zshn) n. 1.An advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development in human society, marked by progress in the arts and sciences, the extensive use of record-keeping, including writing, and the appearance of complex political and social institutions. 2.The type of culture and society developed by a particular nation or region or in a particular epoch: Mayan civilization; the civilization of ancient Rome.

The common features of all civilisations are defined in 1 while 2 defined the way we use the word comparatively. A culturally independent civ (whether of a "nation", a "region" or a "particular epoch") must be both a civ (def 1) and an independent civ comparative to the mother civ (def 2). Therefore the civ is "culturally separate" when it possesses all the features mentioned in 1 while the set of features possessed must not be of the same "type" (def 2) as the mother civ.

This then comes down to personal opinion and the ultimate purpose for defining the civ. As this is a game/simulation with a maximum of only 16 civs, we should easily deduce that def 2 should be used in a very broad sense which means only great differences should be viewed as a different or indepent "type".

this also answers the argument

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Khan America WAS culturally different from England by the time of Independence. It was 1000's of miles away, had different resources, and people lived differently than in England. It was a frontier or wild land without major cities like in England. People left England so they could live the life they wanted or were sent there as punishments for crimes in the mother country. The cultural differences were one of the reasons for the revolution. Even the versions of the English language were different.

in my opinion, the differences mentioned are just not enough to make it a different "type of culture and society" (def 2). so I do no agree that the USA is "culturally separate" at the time of its national independence. I will not go into the details of why i think it's not enough bcos the whole subject has been going on for too long, so much has been repeated and it's just getting too boring.

quote: Originally posted by Immortal Khan Like I said, I never played EU, so how should I know whether it's turn based or real time. Unneeded correction on your part.

A personal response: i made the statement in my previous post only to emphasise my point about real-time vs turn-based civilisation gaming which was unrelated to what u were saying. i never even intended to "correct" you.