A militaristic & Scientific nation for expansion pack

[aaglo]

Originally posted by UberKruX


um, ew.

you make us sound like Hitler

Yeah, sorry. But it only SOUNDS like it, thank god you AREN'T like it. But I have two words for USA:
Atomic Bomb

[KrazyHorse]

Japanese=Scientific+Militaristic

[kIndal]

I believe that the best choice would be the Germans. They have always a important scientifics studying to develop new weapons, specially in WW1 and 2, remember Chlorine gas,zeppelin, fokker planes (well, this are only of WW1).

About USA, well in part is truth, USA has developed some of the most destructives weapons in history, and has a militar character.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Alex 14
Vikings? I'm not sure if they where scientific though, they are the only civ that i will proberly miss in civ 3.

Nope. A dead cert expansionist, probably either religious or militaristic as well...

[Acemo]

I think that either the Germans or Americans could be classified as militaristic/scientific. expansionistic/industrious does work for the Americans in my opinion.
I am surprised that the Germans arent militaristic/scientific instead of commercial/expansionistic given that the English are also commercial/expansionistic.
Perhaps the scientific/militaristic was found to be unbalancing during play testing?

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Acemo
I am surprised that the Germans arent militaristic/scientific instead of commercial/expansionistic given that the English are also commercial/expansionistic.
Perhaps the scientific/militaristic was found to be unbalancing during play testing?

Yes, it could be: easy discover of new army units, easy to win&gain new military leaders...

Also SMAC had early balancing trouble, that forced Firaxis to tune up during first or second patch.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by kIndal
I believe that the best choice would be the Germans. They have always a important scientifics studying to develop new weapons, specially in WW1 and 2, remember Chlorine gas,zeppelin, fokker planes (well, this are only of WW1).

Fokker was a Dutchman, and except for the short period of 1912-1919, the Fokker company was always based in The Netherlands.

The French were the first to use chemical warfare. They fired tear-gas grenades at the Germans in 1914, In reaction, the Germans started to employ chlorine gas cylinders against the French in 1915.

The Airship, too, was a French invention, as early as 1783. The French also built the first power-driven airship. All the Germans added was a rigid hull. Today modern airships are produced by the Dutch.

[KrazyHorse]

By definition an airship has a rigid hull. The French were pioneers in balloons, not airships.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
By definition an airship has a rigid hull. The French were pioneers in balloons, not airships.

Here my english limits can hurt the most Oh, well.

In Italian we differentiate the "lighter than air" stuff into free flight (not propelled) like hot air or gas balloons, and propelled.

Propelled can have a rigid hull (know type: the Zeppelin as the burned Hindemburg") or an half/rigid hull.

That differentiate the French discover by brothers Montgolfier and the follow military use of balloon as Artillery Observatory from German use as Strategic Bomber (irrilevant on bombs payload, but not interceptable from available biplane fighters).

Just nitpicking

[Blaupanzer]

Back to topic, the descriptions we have to date of the two characteristics fit the Germans to a tee. The desire to make everything better in quality, etc. is really "engineering" as much as science, but the Germans fit the bill. From the times of the Romans, "expansionism" on the part of the Germans meant conquering, without emphasis on settling or colonizing. Their current category seems wrong. What is the historic case for the Germans as a commercial exemplar in world history?

On the other hand, the U.S. doesn't really qualify. Her "contribution to world development" is as much commercial as military. Yankee traders built a substantial part of the non-British trading empire of the late 18th and 19th centuries. While it is true that the Americans built the A-bomb, that weapon is a scientific and engineering triumph, much more than a military one. Similarly, the great industrial mobilization of WWII is more about commercial power than military. If the U.S. had tryed to keep what it took from the Germans in that war, ala the USSR, then you could say they are militaristic. (I'm not saying the U.S. is not militaristic, per se. I'm saying their modern practices in warfare do not fit the definition offered by Sid.)

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
By definition an airship has a rigid hull. The French were pioneers in balloons, not airships.

I'd rather say the balloon is one type (the earliest type) of airship. Later additions were steering, power and rigid hulls. I consider the first two a bigger leap than the last one.

[Felch]

Yeah, sorry. But it only SOUNDS like it, thank god you AREN'T like it. But I have two words for USA:
Atomic Bomb

Sorry aaglo, but the atomic bomb was developed during a war started by Nazi Germany and imposed on the United States by Imperial Japan.

The Manhattan Project was started after Albert Einstein (hardly a militarist) informed FDR of the possibilities of an atomic bomb. Einstein believed that Hitler would employ the scientific resources of Germany towards developing the bomb, and hence, urged Roosevelt to build the bomb first.

The fact is that the Nazis were working on a bomb, although they never came very close to completing it. And although its use over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is of questionable morality, it was not as deadly as the conventional bombing of cities such as Tokyo, Berlin, and Dresden.

To accuse the isolationist and peaceful America of the early part of this century of militarism is simply untrue. Prior to the start of WWII America had one of the smallest armies of all the great powers. In fact, Belgium had a larger army than America did at the start of the war.

Germany would be the most reasonable Sci/Mil civ.

[Alfonsus72]

Originally posted by Felch X

The Manhattan Project was started after Albert Einstein (hardly a militarist) informed FDR of the possibilities of an atomic bomb. Einstein believed that Hitler would employ the scientific resources of Germany towards developing the bomb, and hence, urged Roosevelt to build the bomb first.

The idea that one developed the bomb for defense and others for offense is quite partial. In fact, the USA has not only been the first to develop the bomb, has been the only one to use it (such a achievement, considering the a-bomb club components, including Stalin´s soviet union, De Gaulle´s France, China, India, Pakistan,...).

Anyway, I agree that USA in civ3 is better as Industrial/Sci. than militaristic or even expansionist. Commercial is also an option. Religious, I guess no, cause they have no "national religion", there are many protestants, but also catholics, muslims... and I guess a majority of non-religious people.

[tniem]

The US fits industrial/expansion better than any other two.

Definitely expansion. Starting on the East coast, the nation in 200 years spread across the continent. Took over islands in the pacific, Caribean, and bought up land from the Russians (Alaska). The belief of the country was that we had a manifest destiny to own North America. So yes expansion fits the nation like a glove.

Now the next attribute is a choice between science and industrial. The country is not religious or at least not how Firaxis has used it. The country isn't what I would call your normal militaristic country. We geared up for two world wars but did not keep any of the land nor did we do it for that. So not your typical militaristic empire. Commercial is not an option because both the Brits and Germans are expansion/commercial, so that leaves Science or Industrial.

Arguments can be made for both. And in fact in many ways the attributes are related. But now look at the way Firaxis has put it. The grouping of Romans, Egyptians, Chinese, and Americans says that these groups did things out of hard work. I don't know, it does seem to fit more than the science grouping for the states.

[jsw363]

A few points...

The Incas HAD knowledge of the wheel, but didn't use it in the ANDES because it wasn't practical. They used it for children's toys instead

A few of my ideas:

Germans: Milatiristic, Scientific
Spanish: Religious, Expansionist
Inca: Expansionist, Religious
Japanese: Commercial, Militaristic

Please don't start a discussion over the ehtics of the Atom Bomb, it's OT.