 |
| |
|
|
Shadow_Cougar
|
|
Dallas, TX usa
Nov 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
Well the Chinese have the longevity advantage, but their score will be hurt by conquest (mongols/barbarians, British, Japanese), long periods of anarchy and the destuction of most cultural buildings.
The Americans are behind, but racking up points quickly. Libraries, universities, temples and cathedrals and sports arenas (colliseums) in most every city plus a number of modern and industrial wonders are helping their score. Plus the Americans seem to have the unique mod to build multiple small wonders  (Anapolis, West Point, VMI). Sheer size helps, but much of the Pacific area is ocean.
The British average score is dropping quickly, but they racked up some impressive points. What, no Big Ben Wonder?
The Romans really racked up the early game points, nearly winning the game early (by domination). Too many government changes brought them down.
China has the high score, followed by Britain. Americans are 4th, but with the highest per turn score by far.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
I think it's gotta be China, due to land mass/population over thousands of years. Civ III calculates score based upon your average (per turn) population (adjusted for whether they are happy or content - unhappy doesn't help you) and land area.
China has been large and populous for millenia. Sure, it's had serious problems, but it has remained an intact civilization. The Mongol conquest? Well, sure, the Mongols won militarily, but after a relatively short time in power, Chinese culture won out (IIRC from the one Chinese history class I took in college, the Mongols DID assimilate and become quite "Chinese"). As for culture, they've got tons of it. Culture only matters, however, if someone would have won a cultural victory. Impossible to quantify, of course, but I don't think any one civ would have amassed the victory requirement.
India is probably second, again because of territory and population, but I know less about it's history, so I'm not sure. Was ancient India anywhere near as unified as, say, Han China? If so, it has to be a contender.
The US of A, despite being poweful and wealthy, is neither the largest, nor the most populous country in the world, even at the height of its power. Accordingly, I wouldn't even list it as a contender. Culturally, lots of improvements and wonders, but none "doubled" due to age.
England might be in the race, due to the slowdown of years/turns late in the game. The British Empire, while it was rather brief in terms of years (when compared to say, the Roman Empire), lasts a pretty long time in "turns." During that time, the English get a huge boost to their score. Otherwise, however, England is small in both land area and population. So I doubt it would challenge China or India.
The Romans are a possibility, due to the size of their empire and its relative longevity. However, a lot of "turns" have passed since that empire fell. And China had them beat in population even at the height of the Empire.
Egypt - nice culture, but conquered by both Greece (or rather Macedon, but in Civ III Alexander is apparently Greek) and Rome. Not really big enough to contend.
The fact that we're discussing this semi-seriously is a sad testiment to our boredom, lack of work ethic, addiction to Civ III or all of the above.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Carver
|
 |
reprocessing plutonium, Yongbyon, NK
Jan 2002
time: 23:18
|
|
If we look at the individual victory conditions we can eliminate all but America.
1.Conquest. No single civ/government has ever controlled the entire Earth, and I don't think this is foreseeable by 2050.
2.Domination. No single civ/government has ever controlled 2/3 of the Earth, and I don't think this is foreseeable by 2050.
3.United Nations. In reality, a particular country having one of its officials as Secratary-General does not equate to controlling the world as it does in Civ3. Therefore, the UN victory is not applicable.
4.Cultural. There has been alot of debate in this thread about whose culture is strongest. There are old cultures which have had a great impact on the rest of the world. Rome has influenced all of Europe and, by extension, other areas of the globe. But how long did Rome last? Rome's average score wouldn't be that great. The there are people who say land area is what matters. Well it's really the number of cities that maters (as this determines how many temples, libraries etc. you can have). China, Russia and India are huge nations with many cities and 'improvements', but I would argue that their impact outside of their borders is negligable. America, presently, has the most powerful culture. New York and Hollywood are the most culturally powerful cities in history. The whole world watches their movies, for better or worse. The cultural win could swing too many ways. I don't think any civ has double the culture points of the next closest civ, as is required in Civ3. NYC or Hollywood could possibly win by becoming 20,000 cp cities, however.
5.Space Race. Biulding a ship that could travel to Alpha Centauri is an expensive and technically challenging undertaking that only America could mount alone. Possibly a European/Japanese/Russian consortium could put a mission together, but that is not an acceptable victory condidtion for Civ3. Only America has the technical expertise, and the money, to mount a mission on its own. And to the nay sayers, yes it is possible for us to reach Alpha by 2050, if we simply commit the national will, and finances, to do it.
By either a 20,000 cp city or, more likely, a space race win America is the only Civ that can win.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Miznia
|
 |
Madison WI
Jul 2001
time: 23:18
|
|
In hindsight, I regret omitting the Indians, Spanish, and perhaps Arabs, from the options. If I regret including anyone, I guess it's the French or Germans (nary an argument for either, so far), but they each have a vote, so whatever.
I don't really think Japan should be an option. I would say they've developed a distinctive culture, and I'm not too sympathetic to the "it all comes from Korean" argument, but... The Japanese didn't write anything down (that we have) until the 700's AD, and their culture didn't spread too much elsewhere.
Tupi-Guarani are supposed to be the "bananas" option. They're the dark green tribe in Colonization, in Brazil.
Another interesting question, that I considered, was "who SHOULD be the winner," i.e. regardless of Civ3 rules, but I figured that could get uncivil. It's just that, I WANT China and Britain to rank high...
Miznia
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Scooby_Doo
|
|
Bristol, UK
Feb 2002
time: 05:18
|
|
I think thats it gotta be the Chinese on the grounds that they've been around for so long and have, more or less, remained intact throughout.
I agree that any diplo victory would be silly, after all, being Secratary-General of the UN hardly makes you undisputed world leader and controller of the universe, does it? (or does it? perhaps theres some kind of conspiracy at work here)
I would like the English to get it, cos I'm English, and although they are certainly in with a good shout I don't think they can topple the achievements of China throughout the millenia.
Having said that- Yes, the US are behind as they've not been going very long but they are racking up the points like no other nation at the moment and by 2050 they could indeed be the undisputed world power.
So, I think that i should be: (By 2050)
1)Possibly America (but hopefully not!)
2)China at least #2, if not #1
3)Rome or England
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nato
|
 |
West Unite
Aug 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
Ah you started it anyway Scooby_Doo, with "1)Possibly America (but hopefully not!)". Otherwise I agree with your post a real lot.
I really like Shadow_Cougar's line of thinking, and I agree with his post very much. Cool post from Arrian too.
One thing in Carver's post about "China, Russia and India are huge nations with many cities and 'improvements', but I would argue that their impact outside of their borders is negligable", I disagree, at least about China and India.
For India, there is Buddism. It got changed a real lot, but it spread across a huge area to many many people. I think that would count as cultural influence.
For China, that statement is just very wrong. China has had enormous influence in the cultures in its region. I'm not knocking the uniqueness or individuality of China's neighbors, but they all imported lots of Chinese culture. Also, even today, the very high numbers of still-loyal Chinese living abroad in those countries hold a disproportionate amount of economic power and influence.
I guess I'm just saying Chinese culture has been enormously strong and influential in its area, not negligible. You just can't ignore them.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ninot
|
 |
Centre Bell
Nov 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
well, just reading up since yesterday, im happy to see a few confident votes in Rome, and displeasured still by some votes in China, but, hey, its a free world, vote as you please.
Just some notes and remarks. I find it incredibly simplistic just to say that China would win due to land mass and history. Realisticly, how much of the land that is within their borders, is acutally inhabbiteed a good long portion of they year? the Himmalaya's and the Gobi ensure that those areas are void of many cities.
So (strangely enough... as an exact copy of my current Martha's world map game), China's bulk is by the sea. if ya look at it in a pure civ3 way, China can't claim to have the same land mass as it does IRL. I dunno, just my opinion
Also, there ARE the matters of conquest, that can't very easily be ignored.... (100 years of mongol rule? woa!). I dunno, but that sounds like they were eliminated from the game 800 years ago.
But, off of that. I don't care to start anything nasty about China. I like China, I just don't see it just for them to have won the game by any means.
My vote stays confidently with Rome, the father of the West, and cultivator of Christianity.
ps..: ROFL... hey, if ya look at the world from the Romans point of view, they won by conquest. Afterall, they had beaten everyone, it was nothing but "Barbarians" left. And, well, they dont count as civs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ninot
|
|
Centre Bell
Nov 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
oh, just something i read just now from one of Nato's previous posts..., about crediting Buddism to India...
you can't
if anything, Buddism is to India as USA is to Britain. Buddism never took off in India, but it did in other places. to credit the culture of buddism to India just seems... wrong. I dunno about my analogy, but, i dunno, distort, it, and it works.
as for the China/Rome/Barbarians, well... atleast we can declare Rome and China 1 and 2 in culture, agreed? (even if we dont agree on whos 1)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dida
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ninot
Also, there ARE the matters of conquest, that can't very easily be ignored.... (100 years of mongol rule? woa!). I dunno, but that sounds like they were eliminated from the game 800 years ago.
But, off of that. I don't care to start anything nasty about China. I like China, I just don't see it just for them to have won the game by any means.
My vote stays confidently with Rome, the father of the West, and cultivator of Christianity.
|
Mongols are not in the game, they are included in the Chinese race in Civ3. Roman Empire collapsed about 1500 years ago, that is even longer time since China was ruled by Mongols. Mind you, Christianity is not a part of Roman culture, it is Hebrew culture. Roman culture itself is from Greek. They were nothing more than pure barbarian before adapting Greek culture. The land mass of Roman Empire even at its height is at most 1/2 of China. Note that, China is only slightly smaller than the whole Europe.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N. Machiavelli
|
 |
THE Prince
Nov 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
Naw, the Romans owe all that they are to the Etruscans, not the Greeks. Romans had the innate ability to assimilate all the cultures they conquered, so "Roman" culture derives from the Greeks, Carthaginians, Croatians, Egyptian, and to a lesser extent Persians and the Gauls. However, the very base of their culture came from their first rulers and then first conquest, the Etruscans. It's kinda similar to Britain to the US.
Which raises another point, America may be a once-colony of Britain, but Britain is a once-colony of France 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ninot
|
|
Centre Bell
Nov 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Mongols are not in the game |
um, sorry Dida, but this has nothing to do with what civs are in the game... it has to do with IRL civs. in IRL, Mongolia was most definately not a part of China. They were, and still are, two seperate entities. Only thing is, Mongol ruled over China. Only in a game can China claim the vice-versa.
And, if you forgot, this thread isnt about "which civ in the game would have won IRL"... The Banana Republic vote is enough to prove your argument dead.
And nothing more than barbarian before the greeks? Hello? The barbarians that united their entire peninsula? (ok, I admitt, the Etruscan kings did have a hand in that...) barbarians that were able to unite in a way the greek city states never did? Rome may have been adoptive of culture, but it was never barbaric.
And, whats with the landmass argument? Rome may have had some land, but I'll never declare it was more than some of the big current day nations. Nor am i arguing thats how Rome would better China. Im arguing from a purely cultural point of view here.
And... wait, Christian culture originates from Hebrew? Like, sure, they share an entire testament, but it stops pretty much there. The only major Christian church (like, forgetting about the early Roman division of what Jesus was) was the Roman Catholic Church, and that lasted up untill Martin Luther. The head of that church has always been in Italy, or Rome if you prefer. Constantine, the first emperor to declare Christianity legal, well... he pretty much made a legal monopoly of the worlds christians by doin that.
And, like i said before, if you wanna argue that Christianity was never a claim for Roman fame... just look at how the bible was read for quite a long time. In latin, the language of Rome.
Now, as for Machiavelli... yeah, i admitt the Etruscan kings helped Rome quite a bit. And Roman culture does borrow from a bit of everything. Well, i find it hard to see how Phoenexian, Egyptian, and Gaul culture ever seriously effected Rome, but sure, Rome borrowed from Greece. But, if your gonna make me say something (however weak) on this argument, ill just say this:"Rome, the first melting-pot of global society"... and, as a post-note to that "Take that, America!"
Rofl, no offence there. I love my Yankee southern neighbors.
oh... and if USA is a once-colony of Britain, and Britain is a once-colony of France, and both Britain and France were a once colony of Rome... what does that make Rome?.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Styria
|
|
Upstate New York
Oct 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
If this is according to Civ III, don't forget that score is calculated per turn, not per year. So for any civ in existence from 4,000 BC to 1 AD, it only counts for 160 game turns. Meanwhile for the USA, every other year of its first century counts and I think every year of its second does, so it's scored for 150 turns right there. Should we average in everyone's zero-scoring turns when they weren't in existence, or just take the ones they were around for?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-03-2002 20:15
, I just show you this because Denmark is in the lead, woohoo 
.
|