 |
| |
|
|
Mahdimael
|
 |
Sandy Eigo, CA, USA
May 2001
time: 05:29
|
|
max14,
You're probably right that Native Americans wouldn't want the US to represent them- yet it would also be wrong to have a "Native North American" nation, too. There are hundreds of tribes and subsets in North America, so to make a single nation like that would be incorrect. Also, keep in mind that Native Americans have volunteered for military service in great numbers.
The Italians are a good civ to include, but I think it's easier to incorporate them with the romans- just as the western empire was starting to fade, Italy was on the rise.
Finally, on the USSR thing- I'm taking it that your point is that the Soviet Union is resilient. You're right, and it's a testament to the workforce of that nation that they were able to survive, despite crippling poverty and shortages- things you never heard about because of the state-run media. As we're learning now, much of the Soviet strength was just smoke and mirrors, and came at the expense of the populace. Read memoirs of German soldiers on the Eastern Front of WW2, about the state of the people they encountered.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
RKJanus
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Oh please.............
Shouldn't that be French? [/QUOTE
The French already have a power? Power of Seige?
Americans, Indians (East), Carthage, Sioux, Apache, Javanese, Assyrians, Swedes (dominant in Scandinavia till 1905), Koreans.
Arguably the Americans, Canadians, Australians etc are merely an extension of Europeans however and while highly relevant to post 1750 not prior to that.
Plenty of options though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asdfboo
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PMKeates
That first statement is extremely far from the truth. The non-USA economy is almost four times as large as the USA one.
Your army is the best trained? That is highly debatable. Recent military events have put that statement to serious question. |
I'd like to hear why you think that statement is debatable. Helicopter crashes in the desert are unavoidable. Do you know how much maintenance is required for them, per hour in the sky in the desert? Also, our troops have been very cool when it comes to crowds, generally. There have been incidents, but for the most part, our soldiers have been polite and diplomatic when it comes to local opposition (clerics and such.) Also, while the media may spew out disaster story after disaster story about Iraq, you might not realize that a lot of the country is doing well. Most of Northern Iraq is safe, and quite prosperous. For example, the city of Mosul has running water, an Iraqi-elected council, Universities, electricity, police, etc. Our soldiers are doing the best they can, and have a lot of experience in it. Many soldiers have been to Afghanistan, and before it places like Albania, and Bosnia. There are few countries in the world whose armed forces approach ours in terms of experience, and training.
The equipment gap is also quite large between the U.S. and the rest of the world. If you hadn't seen already, the U.S. army just unveiled a new next-gen rifle to replace the M4. In addition, the U.S. is doing a lot of research, and testing, of integrated systems for the battlefield, like the Land Warrior system. Javelin anti-tank rockets, and the new Crusader vehicles are some of the other innovations from our Army.
Our Air Force and Navy are also very advanced, but I don't have quite as much knowledge about them.
I'd like to see what you have to say about this, and perhaps you could enlighten me about the problems with our military.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Signa
|
 |
IA, USA
Nov 2001
time: 23:29
|
|
Once again this is a turning into a political debate...
dannubis just basically said "all these accomplishments are mute because you use them in such a way that could be interpreted as aggression, so you shouldn't be in Ron". Does Germany's great feats in building a massive army and air force in the 30s need to be left out because they where offensive with it? NO! Same with the Roman legions/Mongol hordes/Aztecs warriors and a heck of a lot else. All in all, despite the fact some people don't like us, America should be in an XP.
As for the technology of the United States Navy and Air Force we are probably even more ahead there. We are the only nation with nuclear powered surface ships, have the best submarines, the Aegis combat system (which would rule if it was ever given a chance to shine), aircraft that only a few foreign ones can challenge (the F-14, F-18, and the incoming JSF [the "Super" Hornet I admit sucks]), only nation with the potential to have battleships (with six months), plus our carriers. Those are no small accomplishment of industry and technology. The Air Force is even further ahead on technology. F-22 fighter, which will rule everything that exists, the JSF (which looks to be good), the only other country besides Japan and the USSR/Russia with AWACs (and ours are signifigantly better), only nation with stealth aircraft (China might have a proto-stealth technology but nothing like us) in the F-19/117 and B-2. And the heavy strategic bombers that aren't preatty but can make people hurt alot in the B-52 and B-1. Plus the older generation of aircraft (F-15, F-16, and A-10) are still the best in the world and we are still upgrading. No individual force is capable of facing our Air Force or Navy, we dominate on the sea and in the air far more than land.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Exel
|
|
Finland
Jul 2003
time: 07:29
|
|
Definitely the Scandinavians - representing Sweden, Norway, Finland and Denmark. Vikings, anyone?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PMKeates
|
 |
London, Great Britain
May 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by asdfboo
I'd like to hear why you think that statement is debatable. Helicopter crashes in the desert are unavoidable. Do you know how much maintenance is required for them, per hour in the sky in the desert? Also, our troops have been very cool when it comes to crowds, generally. There have been incidents, but for the most part, our soldiers have been polite and diplomatic when it comes to local opposition (clerics and such.) Also, while the media may spew out disaster story after disaster story about Iraq, you might not realize that a lot of the country is doing well. Most of Northern Iraq is safe, and quite prosperous. For example, the city of Mosul has running water, an Iraqi-elected council, Universities, electricity, police, etc. Our soldiers are doing the best they can, and have a lot of experience in it. Many soldiers have been to Afghanistan, and before it places like Albania, and Bosnia. There are few countries in the world whose armed forces approach ours in terms of experience, and training.
The equipment gap is also quite large between the U.S. and the rest of the world. If you hadn't seen already, the U.S. army just unveiled a new next-gen rifle to replace the M4. In addition, the U.S. is doing a lot of research, and testing, of integrated systems for the battlefield, like the Land Warrior system. Javelin anti-tank rockets, and the new Crusader vehicles are some of the other innovations from our Army.
Our Air Force and Navy are also very advanced, but I don't have quite as much knowledge about them.
I'd like to see what you have to say about this, and perhaps you could enlighten me about the problems with our military. |
First off, I was not referring to friendly fire incidents in general, they are unavoidable. But rather the fact that some members of the American armed forces are just not right in the head. Don't say I'm wrong, unless you think that nutcase who threw a grenade into an American tent was in a state of perfect mental health. If one of the troops does it, who's to say they aren't more troops who would have snapped just the same?
I also did NOT need a lecture into the state of American defence forces. Your comparisons to land and air equipment of the Chinese and Russian armed forces was frankly a waste of time. In fact, comparison to any of the conventional forces of any nuclear power is pointless. How long do you think it would take for a war between Russia and the USA, China and the USA or even the UK and the USA to escalate to a nuclear state of affairs? To answer that question, not very long at all. When countries such as the UK have enough nuclear power to remove a vast majority of the American populous, whether the UK has the latest and greatest aircraft or the latest and greatest armour on its tanks (Although it does have the latter) is of no consequence.
P.S. - While your soldiers may have been polite and diplomatic (For the most part), some of your soldiers, I personally do not think, really understand what's going on. A shining example of that is when they draped the American flag over the head of a huge statue of Saddam Hussein. That was not a professional thing to do, and not something that people with true experience and even a little common sense would have carried out.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asdfboo
|
|
I have to agree with the poster above me that the actions of one individual soldier shouldn't reflect on the whole. In every industry, there are people who aren't right in the head. This isn't a result of their training, or their job. Some people are just insane. I've seen other incidents like this, and while it is always a tragic thing, it is not a result of their training. Your logic that "If one does it, more will follow" has no base in reality.
As for your thought that nuclear arms render all convential forces null and void, I believe this is also flawed. I cannot honestly see and of the leaders of the countries you mentioned launching nuclear weapons. The leaders are simply too intelligent to unleash such a devastating weapon upon the world, unless it would do more to save lives than end them. WWII showed us the devastation of nuclear war, and I don't think any leader would want to see that happen again.
As for the soldiers; I can't say that I approve of the marine putting the American flag on Saddam's statue. That was an insensitive thing to do. However, you may not know it, but many of the leaders in Iraq aren't idiots. They don't let their soldiers drive around with American flags flying from their humvees. As with your last argument, because one soldier does something does not mean others will follow in suit. I would caution you from saying American soldiers lack common sense. Did you not see the scene in Najaf, where soldiers, when trying to meet with a local Sheik, were confronted by locals who were afraid they were going to defile the local Mosque. Did they start firing wildly? No. Did they start shouting, and enflame the crowd? No. The Colonel had his men kneel, and lower their weapons. When the crowd still refused to let them through, he told his men to go on and turn around, and leave.
Does that sound to you like an inexperienced group of soldiers, with no common sense? Maybe you should see the other half of the picture before you stereotype the whole American Army.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Exel
|
|
Finland
Jul 2003
time: 07:29
|
|
Enough of this crap. Go have your political debates elsewhere. They are not needed here. Read the topic again, please.
On the topic, I would prioritize two nations on the "to be included" list: USA (or Americans in the Civ3 style) and Scandinavians (as I said earlier). Other nations could be the Arabs and Italy (rename Rome when they reach medieval?).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hell Kitty
|
|
Personally, I don't want to see the inclusion of America in an expansion any more than I'd want to see the inclusion of Australia. These nations are too young, and wouldn't make any sense in the context of the game, other than the "Yay, I get to play as my own nation" nationalistic kind of way. If the game was more realistic, and the nations changed into what they are today, like if you could start out as a European nation, then colonize another country, and then become a new nation or some such, I think it would work ok, but then we'd be talking about a completely different game.
I like the inclusion of nations such as the Aztec, in that they offer a kind of "what if" scenario, in that we can find out "what if the Aztecs survived and made it to the present", but unfortunately, that doesn't really work in the reverse (what if the modern USA was an ancient civilisation) without creating too much of a fantasy game.
I think the only way to include "Americans" would be to have native-American tribes (which are already included in the game as barbarians), but, like the Australian Aboriginals, I don't think they lend themselves very well to the type of civilisations in the game, what with their smaller, nomadic nature. Besides, that isn't what people want anyway, they want modern USA, judging from all the tech people talk about.
I know there is a mod that replaces one of the South American nations with the US, and I think if you really want to play as modern USA, go with a mod, or play something else. Modern civilisations that come from European colonisation don't seem right in this game.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PMKeates
|
|
London, Great Britain
May 2003
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by asdfboo
I have to agree with the poster above me that the actions of one individual soldier shouldn't reflect on the whole. In every industry, there are people who aren't right in the head. This isn't a result of their training, or their job. Some people are just insane. I've seen other incidents like this, and while it is always a tragic thing, it is not a result of their training. Your logic that "If one does it, more will follow" has no base in reality.
As for your thought that nuclear arms render all convential forces null and void, I believe this is also flawed. I cannot honestly see and of the leaders of the countries you mentioned launching nuclear weapons. The leaders are simply too intelligent to unleash such a devastating weapon upon the world, unless it would do more to save lives than end them. WWII showed us the devastation of nuclear war, and I don't think any leader would want to see that happen again.
As for the soldiers; I can't say that I approve of the marine putting the American flag on Saddam's statue. That was an insensitive thing to do. However, you may not know it, but many of the leaders in Iraq aren't idiots. They don't let their soldiers drive around with American flags flying from their humvees. As with your last argument, because one soldier does something does not mean others will follow in suit. I would caution you from saying American soldiers lack common sense. Did you not see the scene in Najaf, where soldiers, when trying to meet with a local Sheik, were confronted by locals who were afraid they were going to defile the local Mosque. Did they start firing wildly? No. Did they start shouting, and enflame the crowd? No. The Colonel had his men kneel, and lower their weapons. When the crowd still refused to let them through, he told his men to go on and turn around, and leave.
Does that sound to you like an inexperienced group of soldiers, with no common sense? Maybe you should see the other half of the picture before you stereotype the whole American Army. |
I did type a huge stunning reply to this, but then my PC overheated and turned itself off. So, in summary:
A single soldiers actions shouldn't reflect on the entire army, however the USA has a dispraportionally large amount of these incidents. How often do you let a 2 year old drive a car? Not often? Simply because they aren't mentally stable enough. This same sort of logic should apply to enrollment in the USA's armed forces. Someone must have picked up a difference in this persons attitude and personality.
Yes, if a nations sovereignty was invaded to such an extent that a country was hanging on a limb, they would launch all their nuclear weapons. The argument that they wont is complete nonsense. Otherwise, why would anyone have nuclear weapons if nations "cannot honestly see any of the leaders of the countries I mentioned launching nuclear weapons"?
Driving around Iraq in humvees with American flags on? I've seen plenty of it personally.
Soldiers lack common sense? Well, I'd say that some of them do. And when you say "some" in reference to over 1,000,000, that's a lot of people without proper common sense. Note that the colonel ordered them to do that, the soldiers didn't use their own initiative.
I have seen the entire picture of the American army, reading first hand reports, both good and bad, of the equipment, training and actions of the American armed forces. I have seen enough to make a judgement.
Last edited by PMKeates on 20-07-2003 at 18:38
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Exel
|
|
Finland
Jul 2003
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hell Kitty
Personally, I don't want to see the inclusion of America in an expansion any more than I'd want to see the inclusion of Australia. These nations are too young, and wouldn't make any sense in the context of the game, other than the "Yay, I get to play as my own nation" nationalistic kind of way. |
Too young to make any sense in the context of the game? Pardon me, but Aztecs and Romans were there a lot shorter period of time (note: in game terms!). USA has existed the last four (out of eight) ages, at least as a colony of Britain and France.
One way to implement USA would to the include a nation representing the native American indians (for example Iroquis or Sioux, or just simply Americans) which would then change into USA on the enlightenment age. Of course, if America name would be used (like in Civ3), that would not be necessary.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hell Kitty
|
|
quote:
Too young to make any sense in the context of the game? Pardon me, but Aztecs and Romans were there a lot shorter period of time (note: in game terms!). |
As I said before, it's a "what if" scenario, in that we can see how the Aztecs and Romans fare had they lasted longer. You cannot do the same in reverse.
Oh, and when I say "too young", I'm not talking about how long that particular nation lasted, but rather at what point in history it began. America is much younger than in this regard than all the other nations in the game.
quote:
USA has existed the last four (out of eight) ages, at least as a colony of Britain and France. |
Exactly, America was never an ancient (or perhaps just really old  ) civilisations, it was a colony of a civilisation that is already represented in the game. Now, if Rise of Nations had nations which could branch off into something else, (eg Europeans conquering North America/Canada/Australia = end of Native North American/Native Canadian/Aboriginal nations, Spanish conquering South America = end of Native South American nations, etc) then the inclusion of America would work, but Rise of Nations doesn't do offer any such feature. Maybe RoN2 will, but I don't see the game being transformed this much for an expansion.
quote:
One way to implement USA would to the include a nation representing the native American indians (for example Iroquis or Sioux, or just simply Americans) which would then change into USA on the enlightenment age. Of course, if America name would be used (like in Civ3), that would not be necessary.
|
It seems to me that when people talk about playing as America, they are referring to modern day Anglo-Saxon America. I could see them including one or two native American groups, but although their modern tech might be influenced by modern US tech, I don't see them suddenly "turning into" modern America, which would be rather insulting to native Americans. I see the city names as being native American in origin too, and the name "America" comes from Amerigo Vespucci, which has nothing to do with Native Americans at all.
Anyway, to me, it seems that Rise of Nations is taking really old (as opposed to ancient, as the Aztec, Inca and Maya are hardly ancient when compared to the Romans of Egyptians), and creating a generic "ancient" timeframe with which to start in, so that your chose "nation" can "rise" to conquer the world. Rise of Nations doesn't factor in more modern nations that came about through "interference" with other countrys.
Last edited by Hell Kitty on 20-07-2003 at 22:14
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hell Kitty
|
|
I think the Wright Brothers were the first to fly successfully, but there were numerous Europeans in history to have come up with designs. I believe it was an English chap who designed the idea of the first modern plane, but I don't know if he ever had anything built.
Anyway, I can't really think of any more nations to include, I'm happy with what we've got, although I wouldn't mind if the present ones looked more unique, and would like it if the nations had unique units for every age.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by PMKeates
First off, I was not referring to friendly fire incidents in general, they are unavoidable. But rather the fact that some members of the American armed forces are just not right in the head. Don't say I'm wrong, unless you think that nutcase who threw a grenade into an American tent was in a state of perfect mental health. If one of the troops does it, who's to say they aren't more troops who would have snapped just the same?
I also did NOT need a lecture into the state of American defence forces. Your comparisons to land and air equipment of the Chinese and Russian armed forces was frankly a waste of time. In fact, comparison to any of the conventional forces of any nuclear power is pointless. How long do you think it would take for a war between Russia and the USA, China and the USA or even the UK and the USA to escalate to a nuclear state of affairs? To answer that question, not very long at all. When countries such as the UK have enough nuclear power to remove a vast majority of the American populous, whether the UK has the latest and greatest aircraft or the latest and greatest armour on its tanks (Although it does have the latter) is of no consequence.
P.S. - While your soldiers may have been polite and diplomatic (For the most part), some of your soldiers, I personally do not think, really understand what's going on. A shining example of that is when they draped the American flag over the head of a huge statue of Saddam Hussein. That was not a professional thing to do, and not something that people with true experience and even a little common sense would have carried out. |
Oh, I see. You're just a moron. Carry on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
StampOnIt
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
Oh, I see. You're just a moron. Carry on. |
Yeah Sikander, I agree. PMKeates doesn't seam to realise that it's not about "your soldiers" and "their mental health". Soldiers are only people, and last I looked, the entire world was populated with people. So what does that tell us? That you have morons all around the globe who don't understand what the hell is going on at all. Every army has potential tent-grenade throwers.
So when you see American soldiers draping American flags over Iraqi statues, don't come up with retarted arguments such as "I don't really think YOUR soldiers understand what's going on." By the looks of it, you don't either, so shut up already...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-07-2003 20:45
), but although the US military is definitely the best equipped, I really don't think they are the best trained... not by a long-shot.
|