America isn't old enough to be in Civ3

[Fresno]

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.

[Daniel Khan]

Re: America isn't old enough to be in Civ

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

[Sun Zi 36]

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.

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.

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.

[Fresno]

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.

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.

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?

[knott]

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

[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.

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.

[Immortal Khan]

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?!

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.

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.

[Dauphin]

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.

[Fresno]

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...

[Fresno]

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.

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.

[Immortal Khan]

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.

[Dauphin]

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.

[Fresno]

-

[Fresno]

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.

[Sun Zi 36]

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

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

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.

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.