If real life were Civ3, who'd have the highest end score?

[Shadow_Cougar]

Well the Chinese have the longevity advantage, but their score will be hurt by conquest (mongols/barbarians, British, Japanese), long periods of anarchy and the destuction of most cultural buildings.

The Americans are behind, but racking up points quickly. Libraries, universities, temples and cathedrals and sports arenas (colliseums) in most every city plus a number of modern and industrial wonders are helping their score. Plus the Americans seem to have the unique mod to build multiple small wonders (Anapolis, West Point, VMI). Sheer size helps, but much of the Pacific area is ocean.

The British average score is dropping quickly, but they racked up some impressive points. What, no Big Ben Wonder?

The Romans really racked up the early game points, nearly winning the game early (by domination). Too many government changes brought them down.

China has the high score, followed by Britain. Americans are 4th, but with the highest per turn score by far.

[Arrian]

I think it's gotta be China, due to land mass/population over thousands of years. Civ III calculates score based upon your average (per turn) population (adjusted for whether they are happy or content - unhappy doesn't help you) and land area.

China has been large and populous for millenia. Sure, it's had serious problems, but it has remained an intact civilization. The Mongol conquest? Well, sure, the Mongols won militarily, but after a relatively short time in power, Chinese culture won out (IIRC from the one Chinese history class I took in college, the Mongols DID assimilate and become quite "Chinese"). As for culture, they've got tons of it. Culture only matters, however, if someone would have won a cultural victory. Impossible to quantify, of course, but I don't think any one civ would have amassed the victory requirement.

India is probably second, again because of territory and population, but I know less about it's history, so I'm not sure. Was ancient India anywhere near as unified as, say, Han China? If so, it has to be a contender.

The US of A, despite being poweful and wealthy, is neither the largest, nor the most populous country in the world, even at the height of its power. Accordingly, I wouldn't even list it as a contender. Culturally, lots of improvements and wonders, but none "doubled" due to age.

England might be in the race, due to the slowdown of years/turns late in the game. The British Empire, while it was rather brief in terms of years (when compared to say, the Roman Empire), lasts a pretty long time in "turns." During that time, the English get a huge boost to their score. Otherwise, however, England is small in both land area and population. So I doubt it would challenge China or India.

The Romans are a possibility, due to the size of their empire and its relative longevity. However, a lot of "turns" have passed since that empire fell. And China had them beat in population even at the height of the Empire.

Egypt - nice culture, but conquered by both Greece (or rather Macedon, but in Civ III Alexander is apparently Greek) and Rome. Not really big enough to contend.

The fact that we're discussing this semi-seriously is a sad testiment to our boredom, lack of work ethic, addiction to Civ III or all of the above.

-Arrian

[Harovan]

Chinese, with no doubt. Longevity, landmass and population do the trick. The Civ3 score depends also on happiness, that lowers their score for the last few turns, but generally they are lightyears ahead.

[Carver]

Only America can win

If we look at the individual victory conditions we can eliminate all but America.

1.Conquest. No single civ/government has ever controlled the entire Earth, and I don't think this is foreseeable by 2050.

2.Domination. No single civ/government has ever controlled 2/3 of the Earth, and I don't think this is foreseeable by 2050.

3.United Nations. In reality, a particular country having one of its officials as Secratary-General does not equate to controlling the world as it does in Civ3. Therefore, the UN victory is not applicable.

4.Cultural. There has been alot of debate in this thread about whose culture is strongest. There are old cultures which have had a great impact on the rest of the world. Rome has influenced all of Europe and, by extension, other areas of the globe. But how long did Rome last? Rome's average score wouldn't be that great. The there are people who say land area is what matters. Well it's really the number of cities that maters (as this determines how many temples, libraries etc. you can have). China, Russia and India are huge nations with many cities and 'improvements', but I would argue that their impact outside of their borders is negligable. America, presently, has the most powerful culture. New York and Hollywood are the most culturally powerful cities in history. The whole world watches their movies, for better or worse. The cultural win could swing too many ways. I don't think any civ has double the culture points of the next closest civ, as is required in Civ3. NYC or Hollywood could possibly win by becoming 20,000 cp cities, however.

5.Space Race. Biulding a ship that could travel to Alpha Centauri is an expensive and technically challenging undertaking that only America could mount alone. Possibly a European/Japanese/Russian consortium could put a mission together, but that is not an acceptable victory condidtion for Civ3. Only America has the technical expertise, and the money, to mount a mission on its own. And to the nay sayers, yes it is possible for us to reach Alpha by 2050, if we simply commit the national will, and finances, to do it.

By either a 20,000 cp city or, more likely, a space race win America is the only Civ that can win.

[Miznia]

In hindsight, I regret omitting the Indians, Spanish, and perhaps Arabs, from the options. If I regret including anyone, I guess it's the French or Germans (nary an argument for either, so far), but they each have a vote, so whatever.

I don't really think Japan should be an option. I would say they've developed a distinctive culture, and I'm not too sympathetic to the "it all comes from Korean" argument, but... The Japanese didn't write anything down (that we have) until the 700's AD, and their culture didn't spread too much elsewhere.

Tupi-Guarani are supposed to be the "bananas" option. They're the dark green tribe in Colonization, in Brazil.

Another interesting question, that I considered, was "who SHOULD be the winner," i.e. regardless of Civ3 rules, but I figured that could get uncivil. It's just that, I WANT China and Britain to rank high...

Miznia

[cassembler]

Highest total score: China
Highest CURRENT score: Americans*
Highest single peak score at any given time: Romans (maybe Mongols?)

*=this might be due to contemporary propaganda, so I could be wrong

[Scooby_Doo]

I think thats it gotta be the Chinese on the grounds that they've been around for so long and have, more or less, remained intact throughout.

I agree that any diplo victory would be silly, after all, being Secratary-General of the UN hardly makes you undisputed world leader and controller of the universe, does it? (or does it? perhaps theres some kind of conspiracy at work here)

I would like the English to get it, cos I'm English, and although they are certainly in with a good shout I don't think they can topple the achievements of China throughout the millenia.

Having said that- Yes, the US are behind as they've not been going very long but they are racking up the points like no other nation at the moment and by 2050 they could indeed be the undisputed world power.

So, I think that i should be: (By 2050)

1)Possibly America (but hopefully not!)
2)China at least #2, if not #1
3)Rome or England

[SultanofATL]

Seeing as we the US tax payer subsidizes and pretty much could kick all the rest of the world's collective a-- there should be only one conclusion- All your base are belong to us!!!!

[Scooby_Doo]

"Seeing as we the US tax payer subsidizes and pretty much could kick all the rest of the world's collective a-- "

Excuse me? I'm pretty sure you're joking here, but I'm rather worried this thread could turn into a "US is just superior" thing, which would be a shame.

Anyway, I can't see "US Tax Payer vs Assorted World Leaders" catching on!

[Zouave]

Originally posted by SultanofATL
Seeing as we the US tax payer subsidizes and pretty much could kick all the rest of the world's collective a-- there should be only one conclusion- All your base are belong to us!!!!

You are either terribly misinformed or joking.

[SultanofATL]

Ok this was a joke, but damn it don't start acting like this is absurd. Misinformed? Like a previous poster said lets not let this get out of hand....trust me I could provide enough facts on this subject to make you wonder just how far the "sphere of U.S. influence" goes.

[Jawa Jocky]

I didn’t consider that there are 48 turns left in the game. I would actually change my vote to the USA. I would also elevate Russia up to 2nd. Russia has the most land, a ton of resources (improves economic outlook), a large population, the age advantage, and a powerful army (their conventional forces are hurting but they have the most Nukes). This leaves China in 3rd (I have lowered their accumulated culture because others have reminded me that they have lost and regained territory {including to Japan in the 30s}).

In 2050:
1) USA
2) Russia
3) China

Then again the I.C.S.C. (International Civ Scoring Committee) might rule my home county vote as too bias and throw it out. Everybody is a 1st place winner now (maybe I watched to much Olympic coverage).

[KithrupFugitive]

What about the Greeks?

I actually voted for China, for the reasons articulated by Arrian and others.

I was surprised that Greece was not on the list, but then to Arrian's point, the cultural influence of Greece would not lead to a high score under the present Civ3 system.

[nato]

Ah you started it anyway Scooby_Doo, with "1)Possibly America (but hopefully not!)". Otherwise I agree with your post a real lot.

I really like Shadow_Cougar's line of thinking, and I agree with his post very much. Cool post from Arrian too.

One thing in Carver's post about "China, Russia and India are huge nations with many cities and 'improvements', but I would argue that their impact outside of their borders is negligable", I disagree, at least about China and India.

For India, there is Buddism. It got changed a real lot, but it spread across a huge area to many many people. I think that would count as cultural influence.

For China, that statement is just very wrong. China has had enormous influence in the cultures in its region. I'm not knocking the uniqueness or individuality of China's neighbors, but they all imported lots of Chinese culture. Also, even today, the very high numbers of still-loyal Chinese living abroad in those countries hold a disproportionate amount of economic power and influence.

I guess I'm just saying Chinese culture has been enormously strong and influential in its area, not negligible. You just can't ignore them.

[nato]

Oh yeah I wanted to add, about the whole "America subsidizes the world" thing ... about the only people we send lots of money to anymore is Israel and Egypt. My US foreign policy professor described that as "we pay them not to fight". So, sadly, nowadays we aren't giving a lot of money out in foreign aid. So unless you mean some sort of strange corporate thing, that statement is just not correct.

Another statistic I remember reading, America gives out the most money in foreign aid in absolute terms, but Japan recently surpassed us in per person terms.