America?

[johnmcd]

Originally posted by Prussia
Not to mention the fact that these are NOT terrorists, since normal every-day terrorists don't WARN THE PUBLIC WHEN AND WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO ATTACK, and warn them to stay clear.

I thought the definition of terrorist was someone who attacks innocents and those who cannot defend themselves purposefully and causes general collateral damage.

So many different incendiary areas that definition could be taken to.

If nothing else, Tom, do you want to stop using England as synonomous with Britain?

[Strudo]

I think the civs that should be in the game are the civs that are included with the game. Any civ not included should not be included.

Just play the game people.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Strudo
I think the civs that should be in the game are the civs that are included with the game. Any civ not included should not be included.

Just play the game people.

[Martinus]

Answering the post from another thread, America certainly didn't "save the world" in the first World War - in fact it wasn't hardly a World War to begin with, but a local European conflict, into which America got dragged. I would have expected someone playing a game like Civilization to have a better understanding of history than a mentally handicapped illiterate child.

That being said, I think America should be in game, since it has been the most powerful country in the world for nearly a century, and certainly deserves to be represented. If "being formerly part of another country" should count against being a civ, then half of European civs should be removed, as they were all ruled at some point by Rome.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by gradea
It wasn't really seperate from France untill what, the thirteenth century?

Err... what? Kingdom of England was independent (it was a Kingdom), and not a part of France since at least 8th-9th century. Only because the King of England also had landholdings in France does not mean England was part of France. Really, this mistake is so glaring, it invalidates the rest of your post.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Qwertqwert


Neigher of them stood the test of time... The reason why I said one of the other, is because I feel there is only 1 native American civilization needed. That one could be the Iroquis also. There's definatly more worthy civilizations then having both Aztecs and Incans.

Are you implying that America will stand the test of time?

If so, it is about as founded as a belief that I am an immortal being, since unlike Julius Ceasar, Alexander the Great and George Washington, I have not died yet.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Common Sensei
Something like the European Union would be a diplomatic option than an actual civ. Something to fill the gap between a Defensive Pact and a Permanent Alliance. Perhaps it would give all members of such a union an extra trade route in each city, or something to that effect.

Actually, I would say that European Union more or less is a Permanent Alliance.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by padillah
Membership has to be renewed, the UK almost dropped out in 2005.

LOL what?

I must say I am left speechless by your ignorance. Astounding.

[padillah]

Well, your penchant for overexageration and simplification at the same time has me giggling as well.

I also stated that I am having a hard time finding objective information on the EU. Just a bunch of "flag waving". I would tell you that the source of that was an old article in the Wikipedia but you know and I know that, for history, the wiki is not as good as say a swift kick in the head. However, lacking anything other than "Rah rah, sis boom bah", that's what I went with.

If you have unbiased sources I could look up I'd be very grateful. Seeing as how you've provided such wonderful retort to the others I'm dying to be educated by you. From the tenor of your posts you must be the single most intelligent persone on the planet.

OR you could try some civility. Your choice.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by johnmcd

Originally posted by Prussia
Not to mention the fact that these are NOT terrorists, since normal every-day terrorists don't WARN THE PUBLIC WHEN AND WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO ATTACK, and warn them to stay clear.

I thought the definition of terrorist was someone who attacks innocents and those who cannot defend themselves purposefully and causes general collateral damage.

So many different incendiary areas that definition could be taken to.

Umm... you realise you quoted Prussia and then addressed me?

I know they were two different sentances but it looked confusing.

If nothing else, Tom, do you want to stop using England as synonomous with Britain?

I just wrote a rather long diatribe, wondering aloud the differences between the government of England and the government of Brittan... Then I realised, you're a "McD".

My apologies. I will try and be more precise in the future.

Tom Padilla (ne Kerr)

[Will9]

Originally posted by Martinus
Answering the post from another thread, America certainly didn't "save the world" in the first World War - in fact it wasn't hardly a World War to begin with, but a local European conflict, into which America got dragged. I would have expected someone playing a game like Civilization to have a better understanding of history than a mentally handicapped illiterate child.

That being said, I think America should be in game, since it has been the most powerful country in the world for nearly a century, and certainly deserves to be represented. If "being formerly part of another country" should count against being a civ, then half of European civs should be removed, as they were all ruled at some point by Rome.

England and France could barly hold back the central powers with Russia on their side. By the time America arrived Russia backed out and England and France were almost out of money. Now you are saying that England, Italy, and France could have held out against Germany, Austria-Hungry, and the Ottamen Empire with out money.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Will9


England and France could barly hold back the central powers with Russia on their side. By the time America arrived Russia backed out and England and France were almost out of money. Now you are saying that England, Italy, and France could have held out against Germany, Austria-Hungry, and the Ottamen Empire with out money.

It's hardly "saving the world". First of all, the Central Powers were equally bankrupt.

Besides, I can't see how victory by the Central Powers in WWI would be worse than victory by the Entente. In fact, an indecisive victory by either side would probably be better than what happened historically, as it may have prevented WWII from happening.

So you essentially saved England and France some money, pushed Germany on the road that ultimately led to the emergence of nazism, and helped Soviet Revolutionaries in Russia grow stronger by removing any threat from Germany and Austria. Good job on saving the world, bucko.

[dregor]

Ok, I gotta bite. You realize that The Colbert Report is satire that makes fun of blind patriotism, right Will9?

[Henrik]

Originally posted by padillah
Membership has to be renewed, the UK almost dropped out in 2005.

Um... No.

In fact, currently there's no way to leave the union at all.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Will9


England and France could barly hold back the central powers with Russia on their side. By the time America arrived Russia backed out and England and France were almost out of money. Now you are saying that England, Italy, and France could have held out against Germany, Austria-Hungry, and the Ottamen Empire with out money.

"By the time America arrived" says it all. Show up late, then try to take credit for finishing the job, when the heavy lifting has already been done.