How well has your country been represented in game?

Viregel said:

For any Dutchmen/anyone that knows; are there any other possibilities for a good Dutch leader apart from William?

Click to expand...

There are a few that wouldn't make for poor choices.
King Willem I, who ruled after the Netherlands became what is known as the modern current Netherlands in 1815 (after Napoleon rule) wouldn't be a bad choice. He was known for pushing for modernizing the country back then.
King Willem II, his successor, would also not be a bad choice, he turned the Netherlands into the constitiuonal monarchy. He didn't rule for particulary long though due to a sudden death, so perhaps Willem I is the better choice, but that's up for debate.
Johan Rudolph Thorbecke is another possibility. He was Prime Minister during the time the Netherlands came to use the Parliamentary System. He was also in charge of putting together the Dutch Constitution in 1848.
Possibly Queen Wilhelmina, who has been our longest ruling Queen (50 years) in the early 20th century. However, at her time, the power of the King/Queen was already reduced to a mostly ceremonial role (though there is still officialy veto power) due to the changes made mostly by Willem II and Thorbecke.

All in all however, none of those come close to the impact that Willem van Oranje (Civ calls him William, he's known as Willem...we like our Willems dont we?) has had on our history.

Loucypher said:

Possibly Queen Wilhelmina, who has been our longest ruling Queen (50 years) in the early 20th century. However, at her time, the power of the King/Queen was already reduced to a mostly ceremonial role (though there is still officialy veto power) due to the changes made mostly by Willem II and Thorbecke.

Click to expand...

Constitutional monarchy didn't stop Victoria being a leader option for England in Civ IV.

All in all however, none of those come close to the impact that Willem van Oranje (Civ calls him William, he's known as Willem...we like our Willems dont we?) has had on our history.

Click to expand...

It would probably have been better to use the Dutch name, as calling him William of Orange invites confusion with Britain's William III (who lived over a century later and was Prince of Orange, but never a ruler in his home country). In British history, "your" William of Orange is also known as William the Silent.

PhilBowles said:

Replace the Minuteman with a UB along the following lines:

Production Line: This building works exactly like the Factory, which it replaces. Once Replaceable Parts has been researched, if the city builds a non-Settler unit (civilian, military or trade) and immediately starts building a second copy of the same unit, the production cost of that unit is reduced by 50% (this effect does not stack, however a third or subsequent unit started immediately after the second will retain the same 50% discount as the second).

Click to expand...

I'm getting a bit tired of people pushing for removal of an UU in favour of an UB, is no Civ allowed to have two UUs? What's wrong with Minutemen, are they not American enough?

goremand said:

I'm getting a bit tired of people pushing for removal of an UU in favour of an UB, is no Civ allowed to have two UUs? What's wrong with Minutemen, are they not American enough?

Click to expand...

The problem with two UUs is that they lack the flexibility to reflect much of a nation's development in anything other than the military sphere (and are often not the ideal way to represent that - UB civs like the Zulu can make better warmongers than dual UU civs like Sweden, or indeed America), and in a game like Civ the most significant features of a culture's success as a civ are surely the ones that should be represented. America without mass production is as off as 'England' without the Industrial Revolution.

The Minuteman barely qualifies as either American or a military unit - it was a colonial militia levy during the war for independence, and since its purpose was essentially defensive would be better-reflected as a boost to garrison defence strength - and in game terms it hits too early to be particularly suitable as an American UU. But the reason for replacing it isn't because it's "not American enough", but because if mass production is to be represented it has to be as a UB (since people seem wedded to 'Manifest Destiny' as a UA), and for various reasons the B-17 is the most appropriate of America's two UUs. It's characteristic of a period when America had risen to military dominance, it reflects a particularly characteristic form of American military success (air power, and especially bombing), and gameplay-wise it's also a better unit and more distinctive (as there are lots of unique replacements for assorted gunpowder infantry units). Conceptually it's also not very satisfactory that America's unique gunpowder unit represents a unit that in reality was inferior to the equivalents of the day in other societies - why should a militarily successful, technologically advanced modern power have as its poster UU an ad hoc militia force?

PhilBowles said:

The problem with two UUs is that they lack the flexibility to reflect much of a nation's development in anything other than the military sphere (and are often not the ideal way to represent that - UB civs like the Zulu can make better warmongers than dual UU civs like Sweden, or indeed America), and in a game like Civ the most significant features of a culture's success as a civ are surely the ones that should be represented.

Click to expand...

So, is that a yes? You don't think any Civ should have 2 UUs?

PhilBowles said:

The Minuteman barely qualifies as either American or a military unit

Click to expand...

Fair enough, though Americans themselves seem to think they are pretty iconic.

Viregel said:

For any Dutchmen/anyone that knows; are there any other possibilities for a good Dutch leader apart from William?

Click to expand...

Not really,he's de Vader de vaderlands for a reason

Saying the Minuteman barely qualifies as American would be like saying Pedro barely qualifies as a Brazilian, or that William barely qualifies as Dutch. Or, indeed, saying Washington barely qualifies as American !

Teproc said:

Saying the Minuteman barely qualifies as American would be like saying Pedro barely qualifies as a Brazilian, or that William barely qualifies as Dutch. Or, indeed, saying Washington barely qualifies as American !

Click to expand...

I would indeed say that Washington barely qualifies as American - he certainly thought of himself as British until after the revolution, with a lifelong ambition to serve in the British Army. For a start, unlike the independence movements in Brazil or the Netherlands, the Americans did not originally go to war to secure independence; they saw themselves at the time as revolutionaries in what amounted to a civil war, and used terms like 'Rebels' and 'Revolutionaries' for themselves. Not that many self-declared as 'Americans' as a perceived identity separate from the British. They called their conflict the American Revolutionary War and didn't adopt a declaration of independence until the war had been ongoing for a year. "American" in this context referred only to a geography - it wasn't a national identity any more than "Home Counties" or "East Anglian" is in the modern UK.

So, is that a yes? You don't think any Civ should have 2 UUs?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily - it's hard to think of another or better way to portray certain civs, such as the Huns; and in some cases a civ is so strongly designed around one particular, militaristic portion of its history that it makes sense - Greece, for example, is strongly flavoured around a military theme and Alexander's conquests. Were it not for a UA somewhat at odds with that approach, Sweden would be the same (Gustav plus two contemporary UUs). There shouldn't be any hard and fast rule beyond representing a civ with the features that do, indeed, best-characterise its unique strengths. And that includes the "every civ must have a UU" rule - for some civs that's a stretch, hence some of the stranger UUs in the game (Naruesan's Elephant? Kris Swordsmen?).

EDIT: Above edited slightly for clarity (and pedantry).

PhilBowles said:

I would indeed say that Washington barely qualifies as American - he certainly thought of himself as British, with a lifelong ambition to serve in the British Army.

Click to expand...

Yeah, he was British

A bit off-topic, but as a frenchman living in Paris, I am quite proud that there are 3 world wonders in my city (Louvre, Eiffel Tower, Notre Dame) ;-)

But this pride does not offset the hassle of subway strikes every other day ;-)
Nor of having our leader a bloody warmonger

PhilBowles said:

Constitutional monarchy didn't stop Victoria being a leader option for England in Civ IV.

Click to expand...

I suppose so, but Victoria has left a considerably larger impact on the collective minds of the world hasn't she? She's much more fitting then our Wilhelmina would ever be.

Well yeah, George Washington was British, that was my point. You're not going to argue against him being the American leader though, are you ? Unless you are, it is ridiculous to criticize the Minutemen as an American UU for not actually being American.

PhilBowles said:

Not necessarily - it's hard to think of another or better way to portray certain civs, such as the Huns; and in some cases a civ is so strongly designed around one particular, militaristic portion of its history that it makes sense - Greece, for example, is strongly flavoured around a military theme and Alexander's conquests.

Click to expand...

Have you considered that maybe this is also the case for America? Washington, Minutemen, Manifest Destiny, it seems with the exception of B17 they are very focused on the revolution and the early days. Do you have a problem with this? It's hard to say Firaxis misrepresented America due to ignorance (as they have been accused of in other instances), after all they are based in America.

PhilBowles said:

I would indeed say that Washington barely qualifies as American - he certainly thought of himself as British until after the revolution, with a lifelong ambition to serve in the British Army. For a start, unlike the independence movements in Brazil or the Netherlands, the Americans did not originally go to war to secure independence; they saw themselves at the time as revolutionaries in what amounted to a civil war, and used terms like 'Rebels' and 'Revolutionaries' for themselves. Not that many self-declared as 'Americans' as a perceived identity separate from the British. They called their conflict the American Revolutionary War and didn't adopt a declaration of independence until the war had been ongoing for a year. "American" in this context referred only to a geography - it wasn't a national identity any more than "Home Counties" or "East Anglian" is in the modern UK.

Click to expand...

There is something vaguely annoying about this.... It's almost as though you have filtered the facts to come to conclusions that you find palatable.... But that's OK that's your perogative...


I'm sure to the extent historians can actually interpet this stuff, Washington would have had a number of "loyalties"....to his "British"...probably better to say, English ..heritage... To the American colonies of which he was a product.... To his immediate family and its interests... To his own own business interests.

But the indisputable fact is that when the provocations from the British crown became serious enough, he threw in his lot with those who felt the only option was to separate from the "old country" and form a new nation.....I'm sure all of those founders had plenty of misgivings and forebodings, but they took the plunge anyway.

It is interesting, though, and similar to what you would expect today....the majority of the colonists were either opposed or indifferent to the revolutionary cause....and a high proportion actual left...likely at least in part, because life became intolerable for them in the new nation.

But to say Washington was British and not American...or just barely American... sounds like "tetrapyloctomy" to me. Once it was clear there was to be a new nation....then he was definitely an American.....

And to imply that the American colonies were not much different in terms of "identity" than the Home Counties or East Anglia, particularly by the time of Washington simply seems mischievous..... [Oh yes...I might grant you Yorkshire though...it has always seemed a bit of a "reluctant" part of England to me... and, of course, there is the Isle of Man which although it definitely seems to be part of England, isn't...nor is it even part of Great Britain.]

BTW...I am NOT an American....

Before I get too annoyed, I'd like to point out that "America" is a continent, not a country.

Back on topic; is there anyone with enough knowledge to review dead civs, such as Babylon and Assyria? I'm interested to see how well they're portrayed.

As far as Babylon goes, I'm not particularly knowledgeable about them, but I didn't think of Babylon as a scientific civ before. I find it strange that there is nothing reflecting what is arguably the greatest achievment of the Babylonians : the Hammurabi Code. Probably something about social policies could have been done there, but maybe they wanted to avoid it because they went with Nebuchedanezzar this time ? Except Nebby was a warmonger (he was the guy who destroyed the Temple of Jerusalem for the first time IIRC), and this version of Babylon is not warmongery at all.

The Walls of Babylon are very cool though.

Viregel said:

Before I get too annoyed, I'd like to point out that "America" is a continent, not a country.

Click to expand...

Mind explaining your logic here? America is indeed the country, so the only way I can wrap my head around what you're saying here is that technically America is called the "United States of America". But if you want to get that technical, "America" is not the name of any continent, but part of the name of two continents, so...

AgressiveWimp said:

Mind explaining your logic here? America is indeed the country, so the only way I can wrap my head around what you're saying here is that technically America is called the "United States of America". But if you want to get that technical, "America" is not the name of any continent, but part of the name of two continents, so...

Click to expand...

OK, I'm an idiot. Whenever I get mad about that, I always somehow forget that America is two continents. For clarity, I tend to refer to the United States of America as "'Murcia", but yeah, I suck at this.

Alternatively, "The New World" and "The Thirteen Colonies" should do.

Murcia is a part of Spain, nothing to do with the US of A !

Just kidding, I know that was just a typo.

"The US" is the term you're looking for I think. The real problem is when you want to talk about someon who comes from America vs someone who comes from the US. Actually in English you can say a US citizen I guess.

Viregel said:

OK, I'm an idiot. Whenever I get mad about that, I always somehow forget that America is two continents. For clarity, I tend to refer to the United States of America as "'Murcia", but yeah, I suck at this.

Alternatively, "The New World" and "The Thirteen Colonies" should do.

Click to expand...

The New World also applies to both of the Americas and the Thirteen Colonies hasn't applied for many years.

Also, people seem to accept that Australia is the name of both a continent and a country just fine.