Simple way to make CIV more "real"

[TomCB]

Have you ever read a history book?
1) The French were defeated by the Russian cold, and Germany wasn't even a country then.
2) The Germans had a way of stopping resistance. They killed everyone. Without the bombing raids they would have had a whole lot more resources to commit to just such endeavors.
3) Arsonal of Democracy? Are you debating that?
You do know that the US was creating more war material than the rest of the world combined by1944, don't you?
That was said as a mean of getting the American people to think that building would be enough to win the war, and not actually sending troops.
4) Ah, yea, until he stomped it in 6 weeks and then plundered it. His introduction of German culture, by force, was a way to destroy France. If he wanted France leveled, he could have done it.
5) That is an alternative history story too.
Problem is, "allied" was 80% American, and America still had another enemy to fight.
Second problem, Russia would have mauled out army at the time. They out numbered us by the end of the war and the Russian armor was far better. They had rebuilt a massive military industrail complex and even though the US war industry was greater than the rest of the world combined, it would have cost the US millions of men.
Britain was spent and France only had a shadow army.
Things worked out well as they went.
The Soviets went away quietly and even though we don't know all the consequestences yet, I think it was for the better that the hot war in Europe ended when it did.
So, your saying the US would not have needed to stand in the way of the Soviets if the US had just attacked Russia in 45. Interesting........
Western Europe would have just built up it's military?
HA. Western Europe would not have had the chance. If the US did not maintain a huge army in Europe, as well as stating that any attack on an ally would be considered an attack on the US, Western Europe would have been taken over by 1950.
Ever here of the Berlin Airlift?
Only US planes there.
How old are you......12?
6) I will forgive your stupidity. You seem like you are one of those that just do not understand America's Greatness and the blessings it has bestowed upon the world.
Since you dislike the US so much, perhaps you should go back to whatever socialist country you are from.
Norway is it?
I am so glad my forebearers left Norway so many years ago and came here where I am allowed to be as proserous as I can be, in the Greatest Nation Ever to Bless This Planet with It's Existence.

[Master Zen]

For the sake of the righteousness, you all need to get some facts right:

1) Its just not right to claim one country (US) as the savior of the human race just for one or two occasions it intervened favorably in the world scene.

2) Just as the US was indeed the arsenal of democracy in WW2, why not mention that France was the arsenal of democracy in WW1? And that the US used french artillery, french airplanes, french tanks, etc. Why not mention that it was the French and British who singlehandedly stopped the Germans in mid-1918? Major US action began during the counterattack, yet all US history books claim that US intervention almost by itself won WW1.

3) Why not accept that the US independence was won thanks to French support of the revolution?

4) Why not accept that Britain would have won in both 1776 AND 1812 had it not been involved in even greater struggles in Europe at the time?

5) Why not accept that the Monroe Doctrine would only have been possible had the Royal Navy been a barrier to all other European states to intervene in Latin America?

6) Hundreds of R.A.F. planes took part in the Berlin Airlift.

7) With or without Lend-Lease, the Red Army sooner or later would have destroyed the Wehrmacht. The victories at Moscow and Stalingrad were achieved without Lend-Lease at its full.

8) I cannot even list the number of times the US has helped deposed legitimate democratic governments and replaced them with brutal right-wing dictatorships. Is that the work of the "greatest nation to bless the world with its existence?"

9) For every nation that "owes their freedom" to the US there is another that owes its misery to the US too. Iraq comes to mind with the 1,000,000+ women and children who have starved because of the embargo. Cuba comes to mind too, just because you can't stand a rival ideology in your supposed "backyard".

Honestly I think NO nation ever in history is worthy of that "greatest nation" title. Great powers come and go, and you should well fear the day when the history books your children or grandchildren read will not be "Made in the USA". (For the sake of fairness I doubt any country's school history books are written without some doses of nationalism tainting the truth)

and now, just for the record that all my posts have been civ3-related:

I'm quite surprised that some of you didn't know you could repair damaged units in an Allied city in Civ2. I'm not sure if it was a well-documented featured but I remember using it in the original Civ2 and in the Civ2 MGE.

[bobbo008]

"The French were defeated by the Russian cold, and Germany wasn't even a country then."

they were still German, or, as you seem to want be a **** about it, there were from Prussia, Austria, etc. GERMAN.

"Arsonal of Democracy" is not a term outside the US

"You do know that the US was creating more war material than the rest of the world combined by1944, don't you?"

the rest of the world, you mean the smoking crater known as Europe?

"Ah, yea, until he stomped it in 6 weeks and then plundered it. His introduction of German culture, by force, was a way to destroy France. If he wanted France leveled, he could have done it."

If that's what you want to believe, sure, Germany could have easily produced enough bombs to destroy every square mile of France.

"They out numbered us by the end of the war and the Russian armor was far better. They had rebuilt a massive military industrail complex and even though the US war industry was greater than the rest of the world combined, it would have cost the US millions of men."

It would have cost them so much more. The West had always possessed the technology, the East always the men.

"Things worked out well as they went."

Sure, just ask any German, Pollack, Hungarian, Slav, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, Romanian, etc.

"Western Europe would not have had the chance. If the US did not maintain a huge army in Europe, as well as stating that any attack on an ally would be considered an attack on the US, Western Europe would have been taken over by 1950"

The Soviets never stopped building up their military, Western Europe did. Germany's former allies would join Germany again. Ukrainians welcomed the Germans as liberators, and they would certainly take up arms against the Russians. With the promise of self-determination, it would be the destruction of the Napoleanic Empire, but for Russia, only this time bigger.

You are American. With how you talk, you could be nothing but.

[TomCB]

4 raguil_79

OK, Let get facts RIGHT
1) Ok, BOTH World Wars. Who (and only who) keeps themselves strong so that is not a third?
2) France was not. The US was then ALSO. Don't believe me? Look up how the Dow's and Carnegie and the others of the time made their money. They made arms for Europe. The Lusitanian was carrying arms like the Germans said it was. We had NO business getting into that war at all.
The reason the Germans gave up was that they were running out of men and the US had plenty.
Also, the US fleet was helping kill the U-Boats and getting supplied to Europe.
AND. One of the first things the US did was assume the debts of the Western powers, making them solvent again.
British and French are two countries, not one and therefore cannot win anything "single-handed".
You’re referring to the attacks at Belleau Wood, where the US Marine Corp made a name for itself.
Your facts are incorrect. At the insistence of General Pershing, American troops were not scattered among the allied lines, instead they were given their own sections. The Germans attacked there and were held.
That was the last gasp of Kaiser Germany.
3) Never said it was not. However, lets not forget that the support was half hearted at best and was more to fight Britain than it was to help the US.
Regardless, their halfhearted effort was enough to turn the tide.
4) See 3. However, I doubt they really had a chance to conquer and occupy the US. It was simply too big at that time.
5) AH...NO The US navy was pretty strong at that time and only while occupied during the civil war did the French move on Mexico. After the Civil war, the US once again moved to remove European control. This continued until the Spanish-American war of 1898.
BTW. That was a war which had no real reason to start; and was caused by new papers that wanted to sell papers and the sinking of the Maine was an accident.
6) http://www.konnections.com/airlift/berlin.htm. According to this site, the British provided the bases the supplies were loaded from. No mention was made of planes that do not mean there were not any; just no site I found mentioned them.
7) True, never said otherwise. I just said that Russia did need the help. As a matter of fact, someone was telling me that if the US had attacked Russia in 45, the US never would have had to wage the cold war. I responded that at that point I believe the Russian army would have mauled the US army in Europe by not only numbers but also better armor.
8) Please, pick one non-communist government that the US overthrew. And since EVERY communist government was created by armed revolution and not elections, you can't even suggest that they were democratic.
9) Don’t tell me you believe those numbers. Think about it, Iraq has a population of 20 million. If a million women and children were killed, that would be more than 10% of the women and children of Iraq. You need to stop believing the trash these third world toilets dish out. Iraq has the ability to buy as much food and medicine that it wants to. It just won't. I suppose you ignore the reports of full stores and pharmacies in Iraq too?
We have already had net saved lives in Afghanistan since the Taliban butchered it's own people every day, just like Saddam Hussein does. Attacking Iraq and removing him will have the same effect, a net saving of lives and a whole lot of trouble.
You are living in a fantasy world if you believe any of that trash Iraq dishes out.
Cuba exports communism and has started a few wars in Central America and Africa and we will not tolerate that. I know the rest of the world (mainly Europe) likes to wait until things get real bad before acting, we however, would rather be more proactive, since we are the ones that must clean up the mess anyway.
It is not merely a "rival ideology". It is an Evil Regime.
I suppose you would have called Nazi Germany a "rival ideology" also?
Far more people have been killed by communism that by actions directly or indirectly by the US. And the US made it its mission to stop Communism.
I call that far and away a net gain for the world.


I am sure you don't think any nation deserves it.
You are blinded by something, hate, envy, I don't know.
Maybe you will look at the big picture someday.

[TomCB]

4 bobbo008

I did not know being accurate was being a **** about it where you are from, and where is that? Fantasy land?
As far as Europe being a "bombed out crater" is concerned, you vastly underestimate things.
All nations were producing more war material in 44 than in 42. The factories had been moved and rebuilt. So you comment is baseless.

Are you suggesting that Germany could not have leveled France if it wanted to?
Please, they ravaged Poland and huge chunks of Russia.
If Hitler had the will to destroy France as was suggested before, I am sure the forces occupying France could have done it.
I can't believe you could suggest otherwise.

I stand by my belief that a war between the US with spent allies against Russia, would have been a bad bet for the US. Remember, there was more fronts than Europe. Russia would have invaded the Middle East and deprived the allies of the much needed oil. It would have been very ugly and not worth starting.

As far as Eastern Europeans go.
Sure they got a bad deal, but keep in mind, many of them were just like most Europeans are today.
They stuck their heads in the ground and thought all the worlds problems would go away.
The French could have stopped Hitler in 37 when he re-militerized the Rhine. But they didn't want to "start" anything.
Lets not even talk about that wuss Chamberlain.

If Germany had treated locals better, I think they would have won the war.
I don't know if the locals would give the western powers with German allies a second chance. Too much bad blood.

I am a student of history. I will give honest appraisals of military capabilities.
I have said that US armor blew chunks in WWII
Aircraft were very good.
I think American soldiers were not the best, but not the worst.
I think Germany had the best troops overall. They had the best equipment, when it worked. The Russian T-34 (C and 85) I think was the best overall battle tanks of the war.

Europe never has appreciated the US.
Even when the US Nuclear weapons were preventing a Russian attack.

Think about it. Europe has been wrong so many times in the last 75 years or so, and that has resulted in countless dead.
The US however, has lead the world time and time again against aggression, some of it allowed by Europe.

Just maybe it is time for Europe to follow quietly.

Think about this, many US states are at least as big and as economically potent as European countries.

That thought may give you some insight on why Americans feel so..........important.
And not remembering our wars of aggression help too.

[Jaybe]

7) With or without Lend-Lease, the Red Army sooner or later would have destroyed the Wehrmacht. The victories at Moscow and Stalingrad were achieved without Lend-Lease at its full.

Lend-Lease to the USSR did not contribute any meaningful proportion of anything except for motor transport (jeeps & trucks), which was more than the Soviets produced. Essential for motorized units and getting supplies to the front.

It can be legitimately argued the the US did not defeat Germany in WW2. It definitely was the Soviets.

OTOH, if the Germans had treated Russian people decently instead as sub-humans, then they would have been considered as liberators and the war might have gone quite differently. The Warmacht treated them okay during the initial invasion, but then the occupation governmental arm came in and people were being killed wholesale, starved even more than before and conscripted into forced labor, etc.

It is truly amazing how history can be interpreted differently. Also, each country is quite ethnocentric when it comes to how history is taught in their educational systems (yes, even the U.S.)!

[dannubis]

A few simple questions to the "patriots" of the "greatest nation of the world"

1) Why is it that your greatest nation of the world doesn't recognise the legitimacy of the international tribunal of Den Haag ? Terrorism is bad but war crimes (if commited by americans) are ok?

2) Why is it that the north korean governement can't produce nuclear weapons while your country still does it on a daily basis? If memory serves your country is the only one who actually used them against civilian targets.

3) If one considers himself to be the saviour of the democratic values of the world, why can't you abide by those principles and let people live their lives whithout your governement interveening all the time (Korea, Persia, Vietnam, Cambodja, Laos, Chili, Nicaragua, ....)?

4) Why does the USA does not recognise the Kyoto climate agreements, signed by almost every nation in the world ?

5) Why is it that in your democratic country all male subjects of arabic origine have to get themselves registered? What's the next step: make them wair a half moon on their arm ?

[bobbo008]

"And since EVERY communist government was created by armed revolution and not elections, you can't even suggest that they were democratic."

In 2001, Moldova democratically elected a communist president.

"Cuba exports communism"

yup, their second biggest export after sugar.

"As far as Europe being a "bombed out crater" is concerned, you vastly underestimate things."

I knew those pictures of destroyed British and German towns were created as propaganda!

"Are you suggesting that Germany could not have leveled France if it wanted to?
Please, they ravaged Poland and huge chunks of Russia."

Ravaged, not destroyed. And they marched through Russia, Russia itself probably destroyed most of itself.

"If Hitler had the will to destroy France as was suggested before, I am sure the forces occupying France could have done it."

well, if youre sure about it.

"I stand by my belief that a war between the US with spent allies against Russia, would have been a bad bet for the US. Remember, there was more fronts than Europe. Russia would have invaded the Middle East and deprived the allies of the much needed oil. It would have been very ugly and not worth starting."

Nuclear weapons ring a bell? Germans develop their rockets, duct tape a nuke on them, there, no more moscow or st. petersberg.

"Sure they got a bad deal, but keep in mind, many of them were just like most Europeans are today."

yeah, only poorer.

"The French could have stopped Hitler in 37 when he re-militerized the Rhine. But they didn't want to "start" anything."

never said they couldn't.

"Lets not even talk about that wuss Chamberlain."

Fair enough.

"If Germany had treated locals better, I think they would have won the war.
I don't know if the locals would give the western powers with German allies a second chance. Too much bad blood."

French forces did fight with the Nazis in North Africa... They wouldn't have had a choice. Keep in mind the Berlin Airlift, where Germans were seen hugging Americans and the like, was only in 1948.

"Even when the US Nuclear weapons were preventing a Russian attack."

At the end of WWII, the Germans were only a couple months away from their own nuke.

"The US however, has lead the world time and time again against aggression, some of it allowed by Europe."

sure...

"It can be legitimately argued the the US did not defeat Germany in WW2. It definitely was the Soviets. "

You think a war between Germany and the USSR would have been Soviet victory?


The bottom line is, only Americans are making the claims of "greatest nation" etc.

[Panag]

hi ,

guys , can we keep this more to practical things that can be implemented in the improvement of the game , .....

thanks

have a nice day

[Master Zen]

I think dannubis got it right... I'm just going to add a few things:

1) Communist or non-communist regimes, if they are elected, or hell, even if they are not, that give no country no right to overthrow them.

2) Salvador Allende was elected in 1970 as the first socialist president in Chile. The CIA did not stop from day one to overthrow the guy, leading up to the coup by Pinochet in 1973 which for 19 years ruled over one of the most brutal dictatorships in Latin American history.

3) If you think Castro was bad, you obviously have not read about his pro-US predecessor Fulgencio Batista who bowed down to everything the US said and held his country in a deplorable state. At least Castro gave them education and health, and while the USSR existed, Cuba was one of the most prosperous countries in LA.

4) More good commies: the Sandinistas in Nicaragua overthrew another brutal pro-US dictator, Somoza. And BTW, these guys gave elections, lost, and withdrew from power, leaving Nicaragua with a female president, something that has yet to happen in the land where "all men (and women I presume?) are created equal".

Finally, there is no reason to take the US point of view as the absolute truth any more as one should take Saddam's. The 1 million+ dead from the embargo is data collected by the West. Believing like a blind man what your government says turns people, and nations, into sheep.

Too much reading only Newsweek and Time can hardly be qualified as objective. As it is obvious that you have not ever been exposed to foreign news it is quite easy to take everything that CNN says as the truth. And the result is just a subtle a brainwash as can be. The result: most US citizens tend to believe that overthrowing and invading countries is "normal" and is their "god given right".

It would have been really funny if a foreign country invaded the US just because Bush's election was hardly "democratic". You would find this out of the question but if that is so, what makes it so right to do it to others?

HOW TO MAKE CIV3 MORE REAL:

REVOLUTIONS! Not just changing governments at will, but making them more unpredictable, encouraged by outside events. Hell, even Civil Wars should be able to occur if you really mismanage your civ.

[mrboo123]

Originally posted by TomCB
(...)The US is on the verge of a cultural victory.

That news is old as Hitler is evil!

[TomCB]

2 Jaybe
I can agree with most of your points. What the US and Britain did do to defeat Germany could have been done by the Soviets, given enough time.
Since the majority of troops placed against the allied bombers were 2nd rate troops I don't see them having that huge of a long term impact against the constantly improving Russians.
That is the reason I have stated that a Russia-US war in 45 would have ended badly for the US.
Russian armor was vastly superior to the POS Sherman. Also, the British and to a lesser extent, the US forces were spent. They had the end of the road in sight for so long that adding 4000 miles to it would have been too much I think.
Lets not forget that the Russian army was FAR larger than the American, as they had a MUCH larger front to take care of.
Allied bombers would not have helped in a ground war and even with total dominance of the air, I don't think that US ground forces, especially with German allies, would have held off the Russian war machine.

On the other hand, don't for a second belittle motor transport. It made it possible to get the rest where it needed to go.
It is too bad a country can't be motivated to accomplish peaceful things like they can be for war.

Imagine the accomplishments..................

As far as the Haag goes, as in this forum, the world is full of irrationale anti American behavior.
Since the Americans are called upon to be the back bone of the UN, we are certainly not going to put our people at the mercy of these anti-American zealots.
War is a crime. And you anti-American zealots seem to believe every 2 bit dictators accusations, no matter how bizarre they may be.
Is America right to get involved in so many places?
HELL NO.
But in those places we should, I should go in alone and then finish when WE think it is really over.
Hmmmm I am thinking First Gulf War.
2) North Korea is a country run by dictators who are perfectly willing to starve their own people.
They have attempted nuclear blackmail in the past and are trying it again.
They do not operate as a civilized society and therefore can not be trusted with such weapons.
Do the math, the attacks on Japan SAVED lives relative to an invasion.
That lame arguement shows how weak your case is.
As far as interfering in countries listed?
Korea. Gee, stopped the communist invasion and conquest and continue to do so.
Persia. Was an ally until the Shah was overthrown. Hardly can be considered interfering.
Vietnam, Ditto as Korea, except due to incompetent American leadership, we lost that one.
Cambodja & Laos. The communist used them first and then took them over killing million in the process. We were too bruised from Vietnam to do anything about it.
Chili. Became communist and we helped a brutal right winger take over. Good idea, bad follow through, picked wrong guy to take over. Chile is now one of the most prosperous countries in South America.
It was a good idea, but had VERY bad execution.
Nicaragua. PLEASE. We aided the resistence so much that the communist had to allow free elections and they got thrown out of office in a landslide.
That was as well planned and executed as Chile's was a bad one.
Kyoto? Just because alot of other countries sign it does not make it good for the US. It is designed to bury American industry.
NASA photos of pollution have shown most pollution comes from South America and SE Asia. not North America. Our VAST forest go a long way to cleaning the air, a fact that Kyoto ignores.

If ravaged is not destroyed, what is, blowing up the dirt?
Germany wiped out thousands of villages and small towns, and that was collateral damage.
A destroyed country is really of no value to the winners, unless that is the goal in the first place

Germany was never even close to getting a nuke.
Their own scientists were working against the program.
We knew at the end of the war that they would not have gotten one for years. That little fact almost ended the program in the US. However, so much money had been spent on it that it was determined best ot finish it.

Germans of the time knew how bad communism is, they were grateful for any help they got. But the western allies did not butcher them like the Germans and Russian did to each other.
The French were in no position to fight either, afterall, they just got their own country back a few months before.
Yes I think that given time and knowing the economic pressures on Germany, the Russians would have defeated Germany. Perhaps you don't know, but Germany was paying for the war through inflation and plunder. At some point the German economy would have collasped. Estimates made by Germany Financial ministers was that Germany could fight for until late 45 at best.

As far as what American's thinks. What do you expect, all we hear from foreigners is that we are so rotten and don't give them enough.
Then we know all that we have done and see all the self destructive things others nations ( and the US) do to themsleves and we see all the million of people trying to get HERE.
What would you think?
Be honest.

4 raguil_79
Rights of Communist to rule. Sorry, can't agree. That is like saying life, even Cancer, has the right to live and should not be killed.
2) read comments about Chile above
3) Cuba was more prosperous before Castro due to foreign investment. A country is not prosperous because of foreign aid. Yes they have sub standard (by western standards) medical care, which is a good thing because of all the rationing they must endure.
If Cuba is so wonderful, why are so many trying to boat to Florida?
4) Only good communist is a dead one. And the leader of Nicaragua I believe was elected because she was the wife of the resistence leader the communists killed.
The only reason they had elections was becasue of US pressure.
The "Data" of 1 million dead is only provided by Saddam.
No western source buys it for a second.
The American press is hardly what one should be watching, at least not only 2 or 3.
I prefer BBC, Pravda and FOX cable my self. I get a wide range of views that way.
As far as our last presidential election goes, it was HIGHLY democratic. Here are the FACTS.
Election results are completely botched by the networks.
District leaders in Florida (Democrats) put a system in place that was far less than perfect. This caused questions as to voters intent.
Florida law states that every county MUST provide election results within 7 days.
The Democrats sued in the Florida supream court to extend the deadline. The court illegally said yes, they have not legal authority to make such an order.
The Republicians sued in the US Supream court to enforce Florida law.
The Supream court correctly unheld Florida law.

Since then, an alliance of media outlets have paid for a massive recount, and it was determined the George W would have won by an even larger margin than he did.

Since the communists have as there goal to take over the world, and they have stated this since day one. The US is obligated to keep them in check in order to protect ourselves and our allies, even if our allies don't act like friends or even deserve the protection.

Make CIV 3 Better

Government change: How about something like "great leaders" that inspire movements.
Lenin was shipped to Russia by the Germans for instance. These could even be spys created by rival powers.

How about small neutral powers that could be swayed from one political sphere to another by use of these leaders.

[mrboo123]

Oh, I got any idea that goes with the topic, Why don't we see Jesus if were going to use BC/AD dating? And why weren't Reionlion (Christian, Jewiahs, Ishamle, etc.) and molothogy include in the game??? And terrsiom (played by the Barbs.)???

[TomCB]

I like the idea of religious movements, I just don't know how they would program that.
Would it make a better game?
Glad I am not a programmer with such demanding customers.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by TomCB
Glad I am not a programmer with such demanding customers.

On the contrary. Far too many Civ 3 players are NOT demanding at all, and that is why they tolerated a rushed beta product, Civ 3, with many inherent flaws, and PTW was worse and even more overpriced.