Which civ should be deleted from civ3?

[Gangerolf]

If the Americans should be kicked out of the game, then kick out the Germans as well. Germany didn't exist as one nation before 1871, thus being younger than the US.

[Inverse Icarus]

[KERPAL]you know damn right.[/KERPAL]

[TechWins]

Ok, LOTM we all would appreciate it if you would not do such long quotes. Only quote the part you are actually going to comment on.

Kenobi (and others) simply point out that an American civ from 4,000 BC-1700 AD does not make sense to them.

Well, I for one think having phalanxes, warriors, etc... for civs who weren't around that time (i.e. Americans, French, Aztecs) looks kind of cool. I like seeing units like that with those civs who weren't around back then. I also don't think it seems weird when the Babylonians have nuclear weapons. I don't because this is a game to re-create history. That's just me, I guess I'm a little more flexible.

That you hope to join the navy (has America lost any ships to hostile action in the last 20 years?)

I'm only going to join the Navy to serve my country, in serving my country I do have a small chance that I could die. Which in my opinion seems as if I would be dying for more country.

I believe that an American ethnicity does exist

I think somebody that does belong to the American ethnic group is somebody that refres to themselves as an American and not an African American, Asian American, etc... I don't call my self a European American. I understand why people are referred to African Americans etc..., for easy identification in terms of race. You're not a part of the American ethnic group unless you refer to yourself as an American when being asked what nationality you're. IMO. I'm not trying to be racist in anyway, nor am I a racist.

On topic: I think a good poll would be deciding amongst the Civ2 civs,

I think I'll go ahead and do that. First I'll check to see if anybody else has done it. Thanks for the idea.

It's true that they've cut civs, but the ones they have chosen are already set in stone. It's pointless to talk about removing civs

This is a talk about which civ should (have been)/(be) deleted from Civ2, not the already determined civs for Civ3. All this talk is assuming that there will only be 16 civs availabe. The 16 civs seems to be the correct number, though, with that number being referenced by many sources.

The way I got it is that there are going to be the same number of civs (Was it 21? 3 Civs per color, 7 colors) but there are now 16 Civs playing instead of 7 plus the barbarians.

I sure wish it would be like this but it seems unlikely to me. I think the most likely situation is one of these two. 1)16 civs total for play and 8 civs availabe for play all at once. 2)16 civs total for play and 16 civs available for play all at once.

and what does activity against the roman empire have to do with the situation in 4000BC?

I think he's trying to say that at least those nations you mentioned fought against the Roman Empire. Which in my opinion really doesn't matter because there were a lot of nations that didn't fight against the Roman Empire that should be included as civs for Civ3.

If the Americans should be kicked out of the game, then kick out the Germans as well. Germany didn't exist as one nation before 1871, thus being younger than the US.

Well, that is true but the German people had already inhabitated that land for a very long time. That's the difference between the Americans and the Germans, the Americans have only inhabitated the land for a short time while the Germans have lived on their land for many centuries now. I still don't think that should deny access to the Americans on being a civ. The Americans have done so much, over a short period of time, that the Americans have created a new civ. called the Americans.

Sorry about the long post.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by GP


Look at the location. Stuttgart. Site of EUCOM HQ...

exactly. again, what is the purpose of him being there? what is the purpose of american military presence in europe? protecting germany from serbian or bulgarian invasion? "peacekeeping'? (another term for levelling a bit more crops than a regular army would do during exercises. i suggest stuttgart hq is moved to skoplje, there would be something to chew on for a while.

[D4everman]

exactly. again, what is the purpose of him being there? what is the purpose of american military presence in europe? protecting germany from serbian or bulgarian invasion? "peacekeeping'? (another term for levelling a bit more crops than a regular army would do during exercises. i suggest stuttgart hq is moved to skoplje, there would be something to chew on for a while.

La Russo, does my being here offend you in some way? Do you just plain have a problem with Americans, or the US Army in particular? If so why? If not, why sound so hostile?

This entire process of bashing peoples nationality is absurd. (I'm not saying you did that, but the tone of this thread gets means spirited in some posts.) I like it here in Europe. This is my second time here and I've enjoyed it. If you don't like the fact that we're here...well, thats tough I guess. As a minority I've been called some pretty nasty things in the past (the "N" word)...I've even been assualted. Do I hate all white people because of it? No, of course not. (ask my wife....she's not a minority.) The point is, don't lump all americans in a group labeled "bad guys". It would be like calling every german the other "N" word. Its unfair, its mean and hey, theres already enough bad stuff in the world.

And yes, I do work at EUCOM HQ. I can't tell you what goes on there, but I can tell you if you knew you'd be glad we were there.

D4

[TCO]

Can you say what J-code you're in? Is it really that secret? I think there must be some unclass descriptions of the HQ? No?

La russo: I think it was a brave and noble thing that we did, having troops in europe during the Cold War, but I agree that the need for them has gone away. There are still a lot of Europeans who like having us over there though...and some Americans too (of course). As long as we're there, I'm glad that we have guys like D4everman there with level heads and brave hearts. BTW: you sound a lot more like a critic than a doer. What have you done for your country? Ever served overseas?

[D4everman]

GP, I work in J3, involving the ETTC. You sound like you've been here so you understand what I mean. I don't feel comfortable going into more detail than that, considering the clearances needed in such a position.

BTW, if La Russo does have a problem with the US forces being in Europe (depending on what country he hails from) he might want to take issue with the various other forces there, like the french, the brits, etc. Its not like the US is the only military operating off of their home soil.

At any rate its a moot point. The only thing we can do here is moan at each other about what bad stuff we think other nations have done. I only posted my response because I really wanted to know what issue La Russo had with americans. I thought we could work it out, but upon further thought probably not. If he (or she I don't know) dislikes americans I doubt I can change their minds.

D4

[TCO]

Keep up the good work, D4. EUCOM is a hot CINC. Always multiple crisis teams and JTFs going into Africa and the Balkans. You guys in ops had your hands full when I came through a couple years ago (visited opcon etc...btw...hope this isn't classfied, but I'm truly impressed by the number of TVs!!! )

[tniem]

Originally posted by Grumbold
LOTM:

Is it really necessary to quote a whole page long thread to issue a 2 sentence reply?

In defense of LOTM, even though I don't agree with him, he did make a lot longer than a 2 sentence reply. Barried in the quote of my post was his responses. Each time he typed, LOTM: and then put what he wanted to say.


LOTM: In the future close off the quotes with [ / quote ] and then type your reply. Then start a new quote with [ quote ] until you have the next part you wanted to say.

[tniem]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
and btw, i grew up in an immigrant dominated city. and the suburban area i now live in is heavily populated by new immigrants from Central America.

LOTM.

Let me just apologize for that line. I was sorry about saying that from the moment I hit post. I had tried in this thread to add some civility and make some good points and then at least with you, I blew any chance at having that point make any impact with that one line. I am sorry about that.

But what I meant still stands. The U.S. is a culturally and ethnically diverse country. We continue to add new groups and assimilate them into our nation, but that does not make one ethniticity. What it does make is a nation with so many varied ideas and dreams that it would be hard for any nation to compete with our diversity and our devoloping culture.

[D4everman]

Naw, saying that isn't classified, GP, but as you probably know our threatcon goes from Alpha to Charlie constantly. Heck, it went to Charlie yesterday at the drop of a hat.

What year did you go through here. We've probably met if I was here and you stayed for any amount of time. Hint: I work in the office across from Resource Management and next to the soda machine.

D4

[TCO]

I just got a quick tour. I was over at Kelly for 2 weeks doing the Agile Lion in July 97. I was playing "aide" for one of the high muckety mucks. So I went over with him to see the site and to visit with the DCINC. (I was pretty much the proverbial fly on the wall for that meeting!) I can't remember where the soda machine is. But I saw the opcon and talked to some of the strike boys.

[Kenobi]

Originally posted by GP
I just got a quick tour. I was over at Kelly for 2 weeks doing the Agile Lion in July 97. I was playing "aide" for one of the high muckety mucks. So I went over with him to see the site and to visit with the DCINC. (I was pretty much the proverbial fly on the wall for that meeting!) I can't remember where the soda machine is. But I saw the opcon and talked to some of the strike boys.

No offence to the service men (and women?) in the forum, but isn't this getting OT?

For the record, I think the US presence in Europe since WWII - which goes beyond the military presence to the economic support provided via the Marshall plan - has been a critical factor in the both the economic resurgence of Europe and the creation of the Euopean Union itself. Certainly, self-interest was involved (the US wanted a strong Europe to counter the Soviets), but this fact tends to be overlooked by Europeans intent on bashing American culture.

I stand by my earlier comments regarding the game, however: it's not realistic to have an "American" tribe in 4000B.C.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by D4everman
BTW, if La Russo does have a problem with the US forces being in Europe (depending on what country he hails from) he might want to take issue with the various other forces there, like the french, the brits, etc. Its not like the US is the only military operating off of their home soil.

At any rate its a moot point. The only thing we can do here is moan at each other about what bad stuff we think other nations have done. I only posted my response because I really wanted to know what issue La Russo had with americans. I thought we could work it out, but upon further thought probably not. If he (or she I don't know) dislikes americans I doubt I can change their minds.

D4

Oh well,
I am really sorry if Germans dislike Afro-Americans. I can assure you I do not, one of my best college mates was from Nigeria, we shared a flat for a long time. I felt comfortable in Philly just like I do anywhere in Europe. So I am not bigotted.
Next, I do work for an American institution. I am used to American corporate culture and working habbits. THere are many Americans working with me and I have absolutely no problem with that. I often travel to the US on business and throughly enjoy my business trips as long as they are to NYC .
I can understand that you feel ofended since I expressed my displeasure with your corporation (US Army). Let me explain. Cold war standoff thing is a myth. NATO estimations were that in 72 hrs Russians would push them into Atlantic Ocean. Basically the only real deterrent during the Cold War were nukes. American military presence was a nice touch but of no real strategic significance in the central theater of operations.
Nowadays,, you claim, I'd be happy if I would only realize what great service is being done by the US Army in Europe. Hm, let me see....
Basically, except for destroying farming crops in pointless exercises (just like any other army), you are 'peacekeeping'. To reach this noble verb, you first have to persuade a government NOT to use force on its territory but to negotiate with whatever band of drug dealers happens to grab arms. Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia. Then you ride in, promising security. Let's look at that security.
Bosnia - still divided, war criminals still running free (main ones especially). Depleted uranium abound. Lewd behaviour and hushing up of major scandals involving your soldiers. Cutting down presence to 3.300 soldiers.
Kosovo - mammoth Bondsteel built to 'protect Kosovars'. Meanwhile, Albanians protect themselves by ethnically cleansing Serbs and exporting their war to Macedonia. You had 'peacekeepers' for 7 yrs in Macedonia, but it was a misnomer. They cannot enforce peace, cannot fire, cannot return fire except if they are shot. So once massacred, they can react. Very clever. Meanwhile, your ally Macedonia is falling appart, while you are twisting their arm to give up their statehood. The reason - if you show any spine, Albanians will start attacking your forces in Kosovo. Now we come to the crux of US tactics in its humanitarian actions. Although they are done for the greater good and 'higher purposes' than a simple realpolitik, not a single US life will be sacrificed. The absurdity of the approach is evident, whether a bomb is smashed into refugee column from 15,000 ft altitude or the soldiers watch as the weapons are smuggled into Macedonia.
You may now say I am biased. Well I closely watch your involvement in Europe. Balkans is the only flashpoint. Who are you protecting in Central Europe. Who poses a threat? RUssia? Belorussia? Ukraine? Mighty Serbia and Croatia? Who exactly threatens Europe so that you have to have so many people on ground there?
I do not want to insult you. You probably work hard and believe in what you do. But I can assure you, every Army constantly works on projecting an image of the necessity of its existence.
I wish you all the best during your service and I am really glad you can rationalize the purpose of your presence in Europe.
Ciao!

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by tniem
In defense of LOTM, even though I don't agree with him, he did make a lot longer than a 2 sentence reply. Barried in the quote of my post was his responses. Each time he typed, LOTM: and then put what he wanted to say.

That explains it. With the quotes on it read like you were addressing LOTM not vice versa.

What is a tribal level civ?

Umm, in Civ terms it would be a collection of cities with the odd temple or granary improvement but mostly loads of troops. Expansionist militarist like the Mongols.

and what does activity against the roman empire have to do with the situation in 4000BC?

In 4,000 BC the Egyptians were just as uncivilised as everyone else, which is why its a good time for Civ to start you off with a few nomads and nothing else. My point and I think that of some other posters
(and it is only one, valid, point of view) is that in 4,000 BC the core seeds of all the Eurasian and African nations already existed. Some moved swiftly up the "tech tree" to found empires, build wonders and decline. Others were slower to start that climb but were still present and recorded in history, presenting a sizable armed threat to the major players of the day. Each civ, by 0 AD, had met and fought at least one other of the civs. The Greeks fought the Persians and the Egyptians and the proto-Romans. The Romans fought the Carthaginians, proto-Spanish, proto-French, proto-Germans, proto-English etc. The Germanic tribes then sacked Rome repeatedly on their own rise to power.

Perhaps you can accuse us of appalling eurasia-centric views that discount the parallel history stream of the Americas where most of the early activity was in the south. I haven't seen anyone championing the cause of those civilisations though, just picking out the USA individually as having been so influential in the 20th century.