Which civ should be deleted from civ3?

[D4everman]

D4,
That was a touching post.
Now, everyone's job has to have a purpose. What is the purpose of American contingent in Europe?

I'm not sure if that was sarcasm or not. It doesn't matter though, since I'm not willing to engage in a political argument. Besides, I can't tell you what my job is since its classified.

D4

[Rommel393]

La Russo my comments on you butchering my post:

First, the fact you place the entire blame on us for causing the situation in Russia right now is actually kind of funny. The reason crime is so horrible over there is that the communist government owned everything when it was active. When it fell it no longer owned everything. So now no1 knows who own what. Who has the deeds to the houses? Who owns that car? Plus the poor situation of the government has meant poor police protection and organized crime has been allowed to take hold. This was caused by the fall of the USSR and if you blame that on America, then thank you. But the USSR had the same aim on us and we just won the cold war. Theres no shame in that. We were two superpowers facing off because we threatened eachother from nuclear weapons. If we had fallen would you have blamed it all on the USSR?

Second, your right on one thing. A reason many countries in the middle east and around the world hate us is because we do stick our noses in places they shouldn't be. I don't agree with that but do I agree with everything about America? NO, of course not. I disagree with the government on many, many things. Actually I probably disagree with it more than I do agree with it.

Lastly, the fact that we put forth a low amount of our GNP for aid might be true but you have to look at how big our GNP is. Even a low percentage is a lot of money. Plus its not just government aid we have thousands of american non-government organizations who also give aid. I think you failed to take those into account.

But now I need to say we should probably get off of all this patriotism talk not only is it of subject but people are just starting to get dirty. I want to say I am very interested in other nations and I don't think any are less than we are but the fact that I stand up for mine shouldn't make anyone mad. But on subject, something has always bothered me about America in Civ2. It wasn't around in ancient times. But it has had a huge effect on the world. A paradox?

[Recurve]

Leave the Americans in, they're one of the easiest tribes to conquer.

[Footie Mad]

Originally posted by Recurve
Leave the Americans in, they're one of the easiest tribes to conquer.

Hopefully they will balance the AI types so that no one is more dominant than the other. Not like in civ 2 where the militaristic, aggressive, expansionist AI always came out on top.

[TechWins]

Hopefully they will balance the AI types so that no one is more dominant than the other. Not like in civ 2 where the militaristic, aggressive, expansionist AI always came out on top.

I sure hope so too. I hated how the Mongols in Civ2 would always take over the anti-militariastic civs early in the game and that would lead to a boring end game. With the lack of civs toward the end.

The Americans ought to go. They are nothing but a breakaway splinter of the British

I guess the French, the English, and the Germans shouldn't be in the game either. I mean since they are just break aways from the Roman Empire.

Now, back to the topic. Development of the American civilization is a glitch in comparison with others in the Civ. It is, of course, impossible to have a Civ 3 game without D.C to nuke into oblivion but it does feel strange to have American hoplites and chariots rambling around. I do feel that the whole issue might be better addressed by a more frequent and effective civil wars and empire splits. Do not ask me how....

So it doesn't feel weird for you to have modern Babylonian, Persian, Sioux, etc... units? I don't understand. That would also mean that most of the civs shouldn't even be able to build anything at the very beginning of the game considering they weren't civs yet.

The post about kicking ass (whoever it was that wrote that, I didn't not the name) was innappropriate. Especially if the person that wrote it never served or has any intention of serving in the Armed forces.

Yes, I am the one who said that. I was saying that in a light hearted way so there wasn't much truth to it. I do realise that there's no way the US could fight off the rest of the world. If I was alive I know I would do everything I could to help my country win the war. I do have every intention to join the US military. In fact I'll be joining the Navy. I know I would always help fight to protect America.

Maybe the Americans shouldn't be in the game because of the age of the country but since becoming a nation the USA has done many great things as a nation. If you are saying the Americans shouldn't be in the game because we are so called "bullies" you are being very judgemental. Based on that the Americans wouldn't be left out of the game. You shouldn't stereo type the Americans, for that matter you shouldn't stereo type anybody. I will agree that a lot of Americans are jackasses but they're also a lot of great people who happen to be Americans. That is the case in all countries, though. Some people are different than others and it's as simple as that. I'm not going to judge somebody just by their nationality but if you want to go ahead. This is to everybody in the forum not just the non-americans.

[death_head]

I don't think Abraham Lincoln is going to put up with that anti-American heresy! Seriously, though, I think America shouldn't be in there, because, well, I don't really know why...it's just a feeling. I'm serious though.

[Footie Mad]

Originally posted by TechWins






I guess the French, the English, and the Germans shouldn't be in the game either. I mean since they are just break aways from the Roman Empire.

We are all just splinters of the first man, therefore no civ should be in at all!

[TechWins]

We are all just splinters of the first man

Exactly, so the Americans should be in the game even if they are just a break away from the English. There could be other reasons why the Americans shouldn't be in the game but use the reason of the Americans shouldn't be in the game because they are a break away from the English is just ridiculous.

[Kenobi]

Originally posted by Kenobi
You just opened Pandora's can o' whupass there, GP. I'm bumping you just to observe the sh#itfight that ensues...

My personal vote: [N.B. deliberately provocative for the target CivIII market...] Americans - if you don't have your own language you don't qualify as a civilization.

Apologies for the insufferable arrogance of quoting myself, but...I TOLD YOU SO!

Nationalism just seems to be the lightning rod of conflict in this forum - guaranteed to get your posts up without achieving anything. As others have pointed out, there is no way that Firaxis would antagonise their key market, so the Americans have to be in.

Now that we've had our fun bashing each other (but mostly the Americans - sorry, lads), perhaps we should close down this thread and focus on some more important (albeit less entertaining) issues?

[TechWins]

Now that we've had our fun bashing each other (but mostly the Americans - sorry, lads),

Apology unaccepted. The American emissary says to the Kenobi the leader of (x) civ to prepare for war. Just playing. I don't think this thread needs to be closed because I find it fairly entertaining. Isn't that all that matters? What we are talking about may be irrelavant to civ3 but it's still fun speaking our nationalism and hearing the other non-Americans point out untruthful facts about the Americans. It's all fun and games, so it doesn't matter.

[Mister Pleasant]

I had an idea for the introduction of New World hybrid empires earlier. Most of the civs in the western hemisphere are the odd products of Euro colonizers and indigenous populations. My idea was that empires should sprout from more frequent civil wars from specific types of cities. For instance, the Americans are unlocked after the British have captured Iroquois cities and these revolt (for sheer variety, maybe Americans could show up when Iroquois conquer British cities and these revolts). Anyway, Americans would show up during revolts from a British/Iroquois connection. Likewise, Mexicans result from Spanish/Aztec contact, Peruvians from Spanish/Inca contact. Even the early game could operate ths way. Byzantines result from Roman/Greek contact. English from Roman/Celtic. And so forth. In fact the game could start with only the Chinese, Indians, Greek, Egypt, Aztec, Inca, Iroquis, Zulu and let every other civ appear via civil war. Some civs might even spawn from another without contact - say the Russians from the Byzantines or Japanes with Chinese Player chooses whether or not to stick with old empire or take control of new one. Could be a cool result. Imagine an endgame with the Mexicans, Romans, and Arabs, as weaker empires and a cold war between the major players, the Peruvians and the Incans (who in the end crushed the Spanish). Adahualpa vs. Bolivar. Man, the possibilities for different histories would be great.

[Urban Ranger]

Is there anything to the "minor nations" bit, or is that just a rumour?

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
I had an idea for the introduction of New World hybrid empires earlier. Most of the Civs in the western hemisphere are the odd products of Euro colonizers and indigenous populations. My idea was that empires should sprout from more frequent civil wars from specific types of cities. For instance, the Americans are unlocked after the British have captured Iroquois cities and these revolt (for sheer variety, maybe Americans could show up when Iroquois conquer British cities and these revolts). Anyway, Americans would show up during revolts from a British/Iroquois connection. Likewise, Mexicans result from Spanish/Aztec contact, Peruvians from Spanish/Inca contact. Even the early game could operate this way. Byzantines result from Roman/Greek contact. English from Roman/Celtic. And so forth. In fact the game could start with only the Chinese, Indians, Greek, Egypt, Aztec, Inca, Iroquois, Zulu and let every other civ appear via civil war. Some Civs might even spawn from another without contact - say the Russians from the Byzantines or Japanese with Chinese Player chooses whether or not to stick with old empire or take control of new one. Could be a cool result. Imagine an endgame with the Mexicans, Romans, and Arabs, as weaker empires and a cold war between the major players, the Peruvians and the Incans (who in the end crushed the Spanish). Adahualpa vs. Bolivar. Man, the possibilities for different histories would be great.

The Aztec were a short Civ in term of China, India, Egyptians and Rome. Someone has already pointed out they were around 250 to 300 years only (between 1200 to 1521 AD). The Aztec were slaves to another northern Mexican tribe (a place call Aztlan). Don't remember which tribe. They broke away and wander many year before they founded their first City (Tenochtitlan, pronounced Tay nohch tee tlahn). After their first city was built, they grew very fast and started to conquer other smaller tribes. The Aztecs were the first Mexican per said. They call themselves Mexica plus other names.
The Inca (about 1200 to 1532) are a short term Civ also.
Mayan were the long term Civs. They started to settle the area about 2500 BC. By 800 BC the Maya lowlands were completely settled. The classic period lasted from about 300 AD to 950 AD when the Mayan abandoned their cities and spread throughout Central America. (Total years 3,450 years) I think they qualify as an ancient Civs.
Other tribes in the area were Olmec, Teotihuacan civilization, and Toltec.

[tniem]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Is there anything to the "minor nations" bit, or is that just a rumour?

It was something that was certainly pushed in the lists and has been talked about to death here on ACS. I thought for a while that it might actually make it into the game but I have never heard anyone from Firaxis say anything about it or read about in a preview. I think the idea of minor civs is not going to be included in Civ III.

[D4everman]

Techwins

Sorry I got a little riled. I've been to a lot of countries and I've enjoyed visiting them all. (except for the Mid east, but there was like a war going on and everything when I was there)

Point is everyone should be proud of their nationality but not to the point of belittling someone elses. End of being riled.

Why are you joining the Navy? Join the Army!Hooooah!

D4