who would have/has won and how? I personally believe that the US would have won a cultural victory or spaceship victory. Also possible that Alexander the Great won conquest or domination. What do you all think?
If Civ3 were RL...
- Thread starter EQandcivfanatic
- Start date
naervod
My current user title
If Civ 3 were RL here is who I thik would've won for each victory:
Histograph: China
Domination: Roman Empire
Conquest: Mongols
Spaceship: USA and USSR tie (russia was first in space and to space walk, but USA was first on moon)
Cultural: 3-way tie: India, USA, Dar es-Islam (Islamic Empir preceding the Ottomans)
Diplomatic: USA
Histograph: China
Domination: Roman Empire
Conquest: Mongols
Spaceship: USA and USSR tie (russia was first in space and to space walk, but USA was first on moon)
Cultural: 3-way tie: India, USA, Dar es-Islam (Islamic Empir preceding the Ottomans)
Diplomatic: USA
Angelscotboi
Emperor
Naervod the US didnt land on the moon, dont you know that? it was shown that the film was in fact in a hanger in the nevada desert...
There is simply too much solar radiation to put a person on the moon without having them wear about a 30-40 cm of lead lined concrete...sorry hate to burst everyones bubble
There is simply too much solar radiation to put a person on the moon without having them wear about a 30-40 cm of lead lined concrete...sorry hate to burst everyones bubble
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
Hmmmm... One little thing there, though. We can safely assume that the Earth's protective atmosphere does not reach to the orbit the Russian astronauts were in. So the solar radiation would differ there and on the moon by a *very*small amount, possibly nothing or negative depending on the current alignment of the earth, sun and moon. So if you deny ppl landing on the moon, you have to deny astronauts being in orbit, and you end up denying rocket launches.
Sorry to make a new bubble lmsw08233.
Oh, I remembered a joke about this, got it from Dilbert.
Dilbert: Do you think NASA will ever land an unmanned vehicle on Mars?
Boss: No way. It's too far.
Dilbert: You'd better tell NASA. They think they already did it.
(From the chapter "Opinion suppression therapy".)
Sorry to make a new bubble lmsw08233.
Oh, I remembered a joke about this, got it from Dilbert.
Dilbert: Do you think NASA will ever land an unmanned vehicle on Mars?
Boss: No way. It's too far.
Dilbert: You'd better tell NASA. They think they already did it.
(From the chapter "Opinion suppression therapy".)
William528
I'm still here
If Civ 3 was real the Al queada would be fighting with spears and knights, and winning!!
N. Korea would have flipped to China, and there would be desert next to Hiroshima. The Germans would never have been able to beat the French in 1940, the US would have won in Vietnam, and Cuba, Iraq wouldn't hesiste to drop a nuke on US.
Cold war? what cold war! if civ3 was real, would the world we know still be here? probably not, especially if i were controlling one of the civs, e.g USSR.
N. Korea would have flipped to China, and there would be desert next to Hiroshima. The Germans would never have been able to beat the French in 1940, the US would have won in Vietnam, and Cuba, Iraq wouldn't hesiste to drop a nuke on US.
Cold war? what cold war! if civ3 was real, would the world we know still be here? probably not, especially if i were controlling one of the civs, e.g USSR.
Vinz Clortho
Chieftain
I like playing CIVIII so much because it does reflect RL.
In game terms, you can't really win the higher levels with JUST Domination or Conquest, or even Culturally. If you focus on any one aspect then you'll fall behind another country that focused on the other aspects you didn't pursue. You can "win" a culture victory, but a culture without an army doesn't get too far in the game.
Much like the real world, this planet isn't called "Rome" because the Romans focused too hard on Domination. Sure they dominated alot of geophraphical mass, but history shows us that the culture of the Germanian barbarians (and the fact that the Romans overextended their army) countered their goal of global control. Rome was so busy dominating that it forgot to build up it's culture, and the nation fell into massive corruption.
A country has to maintain higher than average scores in all aspects, all the time, to win.
The only nation in RL that seems to be the champion in that reagrd is America. It's only superficial political-correctness that prevents the U.S. from applying it's full might against the world to expand it's borders. If the U.S. was free to go forth and kick ass ever since the end of WWII then the entire continent of North America would belong to the Yankees.
(But since there's a MacDonald's in every fricken country, I'd say the Americas are going for the "cultural victory".)
In game terms, you can't really win the higher levels with JUST Domination or Conquest, or even Culturally. If you focus on any one aspect then you'll fall behind another country that focused on the other aspects you didn't pursue. You can "win" a culture victory, but a culture without an army doesn't get too far in the game.
Much like the real world, this planet isn't called "Rome" because the Romans focused too hard on Domination. Sure they dominated alot of geophraphical mass, but history shows us that the culture of the Germanian barbarians (and the fact that the Romans overextended their army) countered their goal of global control. Rome was so busy dominating that it forgot to build up it's culture, and the nation fell into massive corruption.
A country has to maintain higher than average scores in all aspects, all the time, to win.
The only nation in RL that seems to be the champion in that reagrd is America. It's only superficial political-correctness that prevents the U.S. from applying it's full might against the world to expand it's borders. If the U.S. was free to go forth and kick ass ever since the end of WWII then the entire continent of North America would belong to the Yankees.
(But since there's a MacDonald's in every fricken country, I'd say the Americas are going for the "cultural victory".)
Fool Inc.
Back from the Dead
Of course it is the American way, Why destory when we can buy!
mgns
Chieftain
I dont think the americans are a very good "tribe" to be regarded in this aspect anyway. Its such a shortlived "culture" and nation that historically its not very important. Also, remember that the us in essence is emmigrants from europe. How would that be taken into concideration? flipping workers brought overseas and added to american cities?
good point, wondered about that since first day i played Civ3.
Obssesed Nuker
Resident Nuclear Launcher
Domination
Ancient:Romans(land), Persia(land), and Macadonia(land)
Mideviel(early):Mongols
Mideviel(late)/Industrial:Britain(land)
Modern:China(people) and Russia(land)
Conquest
All ages:non
Culture:
Ancient:Roman
Midievel: either Britian, France, or Spain
Industrial:non
Modern:America
Diplomatic:
All ages except Modern:non
Modern:America
Space:
All ages except Modern:non
Modern: America and U.S.S.R(until it collapsed that is :AHEM
Histograph:
All ages: Non (We still havent reached 2050
)
Ancient:Romans(land), Persia(land), and Macadonia(land)
Mideviel(early):Mongols
Mideviel(late)/Industrial:Britain(land)
Modern:China(people) and Russia(land)
Conquest
All ages:non
Culture:
Ancient:Roman
Midievel: either Britian, France, or Spain
Industrial:non
Modern:America
Diplomatic:
All ages except Modern:non
Modern:America
Space:
All ages except Modern:non
Modern: America and U.S.S.R(until it collapsed that is :AHEM
Histograph:
All ages: Non (We still havent reached 2050
)
Here's a question. If Civ3 were RL, then what difficulty level would we be playing on?
The middle ages started around 400-500AD (The fall of the Roman Empire essentailly marked the end of the ancient era), Industrial in the 19th century, and the modern era in the mid 20th century.
Someone could do a test with 31 civs on Marla's map.
The middle ages started around 400-500AD (The fall of the Roman Empire essentailly marked the end of the ancient era), Industrial in the 19th century, and the modern era in the mid 20th century.
Someone could do a test with 31 civs on Marla's map.
Vinz Clortho
Chieftain
----------------------------------------------
Here's a question. If Civ3 were RL, then what difficulty level would we be playing on?
----------------------------------------------
Well I'm obviously playing on Deity level, as my superior intellect is incapable of operating at anything less than maximum output. The problem is that everyone around me is playing on Village Idiot level.
Here's a question. If Civ3 were RL, then what difficulty level would we be playing on?
----------------------------------------------
Well I'm obviously playing on Deity level, as my superior intellect is incapable of operating at anything less than maximum output. The problem is that everyone around me is playing on Village Idiot level.
Louis
Chieftain
To "Vinz Clortho":
I dont totally agree with you about US beeing "the champion". Even though the US is a huge country with a massive army, it is - as any other industrialized country in the world - completely interdependent (relying on) other countries. e.g. if the US was cut of from the cheap oil supply that is the backbone of the US economy, the country would soon experience a gigantic crisis and would - in the long run - have to give up on its plans to apply it's full might against the world to expand it's borders.
Furthermore, what you call "superficial political-correctness" is actually global non-attack agreements, and these agreements are what the US have used numerous times as an excuse to send troops to distant regions to "fight the war of peace". If the US was to violate these agreements and expand its borders, the rest of the world would turn against the US and I dont believe even your war-mad president George W. Bush jr. would like that very much - even though it sometimes seems that he is not aware of it.
I recomend a book called "The Eagle's Shadow" by Mark Hertsgaard. He is an american who loves the US but also realizes the flaws in the US politic concerning foreign affairs. A lot of americans and europeans ought to read this book to get more of an insight look on the US goverment at the moment and in past times.
P.S. When it comes to the culturally win I totally agree with you. In RL the US would be close to reaching a cultural win.
Hope you dont take my point as beeing personal. I am in NO ASPECT a US-hater, I am just interested in (and concerned about) global politics and the development of my planet.
Cheers
Louis
I dont totally agree with you about US beeing "the champion". Even though the US is a huge country with a massive army, it is - as any other industrialized country in the world - completely interdependent (relying on) other countries. e.g. if the US was cut of from the cheap oil supply that is the backbone of the US economy, the country would soon experience a gigantic crisis and would - in the long run - have to give up on its plans to apply it's full might against the world to expand it's borders.
Furthermore, what you call "superficial political-correctness" is actually global non-attack agreements, and these agreements are what the US have used numerous times as an excuse to send troops to distant regions to "fight the war of peace". If the US was to violate these agreements and expand its borders, the rest of the world would turn against the US and I dont believe even your war-mad president George W. Bush jr. would like that very much - even though it sometimes seems that he is not aware of it.
I recomend a book called "The Eagle's Shadow" by Mark Hertsgaard. He is an american who loves the US but also realizes the flaws in the US politic concerning foreign affairs. A lot of americans and europeans ought to read this book to get more of an insight look on the US goverment at the moment and in past times.
P.S. When it comes to the culturally win I totally agree with you. In RL the US would be close to reaching a cultural win.
Hope you dont take my point as beeing personal. I am in NO ASPECT a US-hater, I am just interested in (and concerned about) global politics and the development of my planet.
Cheers
Louis
Vinz Clortho
Chieftain
Louis,
I don't mind being criticized, so no offense taken. I do believe, however, that there is no concievable way of cutting off the oil supply to America because of it's assive army and political/economic influence. The only reason the U.S. has stopped short of simply taking the Middle Eastern oil for it's own is Political Correctness and bleeding heart liberals who still believe that passive resistance actually makes a difference to people with automatic weapons.
As mimicked in the game CivIII, if the U.S. were to impose it's will just a bit harder on a couple of choice countries then the rest of the world begins to develop deep seated resentment (we're walking a fine line as it is). The one who starts wars usually gets the bad reputation. As you pointed out, the U.S. is interdependent and cannot afford to lose the freinds it has, (in that way). On the other hand, if someone starts a war AGAINST the U.S. (or at least it appears that way) then the rest of the world will sit back and let us rightly seek our vengence.
Let me remind you of a quote; "God created all men equally. It's just that he created some more equal than others"
What I mean is, the rest of the world needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs the rest of the world. If it came right down to survival then I don't see why America couldn't simply tap the strategic reservces in ANWR and the GOM while invading the oil producing South American countries. With the UN troops waging conventional war against the Arabs, no formidable opponents between us and the oil, and Brazil in Anarchy... it would be possible.
As Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand as reminders that M.A.D. is a joke, it would also be plausible to concoct another tragic terrorist strike on American soil that whips the nation into a war fury. After all, who is going to cry about Baghdad being turned into ground zero after a popular American city has already been nuked. Nobody will care. Not the English, not the Germans, not the Russians, not even the Chinese (certiantly not the Israelis who will probably re-nuke Baghdad for good measure). Definately not after the FBI has "proved" that Saddam is responsible for the terrorist attack. I'd bet that South Korea wouldn't shed any tears if their northern neighbors were incinerated for teasing the lion.
That's the great thing about the war on terror... it can be directed against anyone, at any time, at any cost. And all the U.S. needs is "proof".
Bottom line is that as of 2003 AD, the United States is just one Adolph Hitler away from effectively conquering the world.
Nothing personal, of course. Thanks to G. Bush Sr, America now wields a kinder, gentler machine gun hand
I don't mind being criticized, so no offense taken. I do believe, however, that there is no concievable way of cutting off the oil supply to America because of it's assive army and political/economic influence. The only reason the U.S. has stopped short of simply taking the Middle Eastern oil for it's own is Political Correctness and bleeding heart liberals who still believe that passive resistance actually makes a difference to people with automatic weapons.
As mimicked in the game CivIII, if the U.S. were to impose it's will just a bit harder on a couple of choice countries then the rest of the world begins to develop deep seated resentment (we're walking a fine line as it is). The one who starts wars usually gets the bad reputation. As you pointed out, the U.S. is interdependent and cannot afford to lose the freinds it has, (in that way). On the other hand, if someone starts a war AGAINST the U.S. (or at least it appears that way) then the rest of the world will sit back and let us rightly seek our vengence.
Let me remind you of a quote; "God created all men equally. It's just that he created some more equal than others"
What I mean is, the rest of the world needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs the rest of the world. If it came right down to survival then I don't see why America couldn't simply tap the strategic reservces in ANWR and the GOM while invading the oil producing South American countries. With the UN troops waging conventional war against the Arabs, no formidable opponents between us and the oil, and Brazil in Anarchy... it would be possible.
As Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand as reminders that M.A.D. is a joke, it would also be plausible to concoct another tragic terrorist strike on American soil that whips the nation into a war fury. After all, who is going to cry about Baghdad being turned into ground zero after a popular American city has already been nuked. Nobody will care. Not the English, not the Germans, not the Russians, not even the Chinese (certiantly not the Israelis who will probably re-nuke Baghdad for good measure). Definately not after the FBI has "proved" that Saddam is responsible for the terrorist attack. I'd bet that South Korea wouldn't shed any tears if their northern neighbors were incinerated for teasing the lion.
That's the great thing about the war on terror... it can be directed against anyone, at any time, at any cost. And all the U.S. needs is "proof".
Bottom line is that as of 2003 AD, the United States is just one Adolph Hitler away from effectively conquering the world.
Nothing personal, of course. Thanks to G. Bush Sr, America now wields a kinder, gentler machine gun hand
Obssesed Nuker
Resident Nuclear Launcher
In Civ3 MAD is a joke. But in real life you might consider differently.
And besides the U.S.A has it own personal oil supply(in Texas
). Which means that in a game of Civ 3 if everybody cut off oil from the U.S America wouldnt even flinch.
And then what if we looked at the world from a Call To Power percpective .
And besides the U.S.A has it own personal oil supply(in Texas
). Which means that in a game of Civ 3 if everybody cut off oil from the U.S America wouldnt even flinch.And then what if we looked at the world from a Call To Power percpective
.
from a call to power perspective things would be much different. For one we would have that Nanite Defuser thing which the US could use to conquer lots of places without worrying about nukes.
Yes we are one Adolf Hitler away from WW3, which we might just have in dear old Georgie. Also we are one "Nanite Defuser" away from conquering the world as well. For those of you who have never played CTP, the Nanite Defuser is a wonder you can build that destroys all Nuclear weapons across the world. Should something like this be invented the world would no doubt be much at war again.
Yes we are one Adolf Hitler away from WW3, which we might just have in dear old Georgie. Also we are one "Nanite Defuser" away from conquering the world as well. For those of you who have never played CTP, the Nanite Defuser is a wonder you can build that destroys all Nuclear weapons across the world. Should something like this be invented the world would no doubt be much at war again.
Moderator Action: This thread is getting off topic, please keep it on topic before I send you to AoA's lair.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
Louis
Chieftain
Dear Moderator Chieftess.
I know that we have thrown this thread off topic with our global politics discussion, but please forgive us. Isnt nice that a computer game can start such and interesting and important debate? At least I think so, but youre right. This is a Civ3 forum, so I promise that I wont continue our debate beyond this post. Thanks for your understanding and thanks for a great forum.
Yes there is oil in Texas, but there is only a minimal amount compared to what the US consumes. Have you any idea of how much oil the US consumes? There is a car for every two people in the US and something like 50 percent of them are 4wheelers. The cheap oil is the main reason why the US has grown to be the super-state it is today. Thats why The US is desperate to secure its oil supply from the Middle East. The oil was the most important reason for the US to defend Kuwait against Saddam back in 1992 and thats also the main reason why they are going to attack Saddam now. Of course they are also interested in removing a possible treat of weapons of mass destruction, but you can be sure that even if the UN inspectors dont find any nuclear weapons in Iraq, Bush is going to start bombing anyway.
To Vinz Clortho about our discussion on USA being the world champion:
You are right, at least it seems that way and maybe it especially seems that way to the American people because of your very government friendly media only publishing what the Bush administration want the Americans to believe. In the European media a lot of important people states how they do not approve of the way Bush is using "terror" as an excuse to attack any state that does not support him..
I do believe, however, that there is no conceivable way of cutting off the oil supply to America because of its massive army and political/economic influence.
The US is not only vulnerable to a cut off in the oil supply. Even just higher prices on the oil would mean a massive stagnation in the economic growth. Are you familiar with the oil crises in 1973 where the OPEC countries decided to raise the price on oil? From the end of WW2 and on to the oil crises in 1973 the growth in the US was enormous and USA was on stoppable on the economic issue, but the oil crises drastically slowed USA down. Just imagine how many Americans use their car everyday to get to work in 2003 compared to 1973. Now imagine what an oil crisis in 2003 would do to the country!
In the end I just want to add, that before you point out countries as being terrorist countries then just remember, that USA is one of the biggest terrorist countries in the world. A terrorist action is defined as an action hurting and killing civilians to affect a political matter. Remember the Vietnam War, the My Lai massacre and the massive and inhuman use of napalm? What about Desert Storm in 1992 where the Americans killed thousands in Baghdad with their smart bombs? The two nuclear bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The approx. 4000 civilians killed during the American bombing of Afghanistan. All these killings are terrorist actions if you use the scientific and not the American definition.
Thanks for a nice debate. I hope we all got just a little bit smarter.
Cheers Louis
I know that we have thrown this thread off topic with our global politics discussion, but please forgive us. Isnt nice that a computer game can start such and interesting and important debate? At least I think so, but youre right. This is a Civ3 forum, so I promise that I wont continue our debate beyond this post. Thanks for your understanding and thanks for a great forum.
Yes there is oil in Texas, but there is only a minimal amount compared to what the US consumes. Have you any idea of how much oil the US consumes? There is a car for every two people in the US and something like 50 percent of them are 4wheelers. The cheap oil is the main reason why the US has grown to be the super-state it is today. Thats why The US is desperate to secure its oil supply from the Middle East. The oil was the most important reason for the US to defend Kuwait against Saddam back in 1992 and thats also the main reason why they are going to attack Saddam now. Of course they are also interested in removing a possible treat of weapons of mass destruction, but you can be sure that even if the UN inspectors dont find any nuclear weapons in Iraq, Bush is going to start bombing anyway.
To Vinz Clortho about our discussion on USA being the world champion:
You are right, at least it seems that way and maybe it especially seems that way to the American people because of your very government friendly media only publishing what the Bush administration want the Americans to believe. In the European media a lot of important people states how they do not approve of the way Bush is using "terror" as an excuse to attack any state that does not support him..
I do believe, however, that there is no conceivable way of cutting off the oil supply to America because of its massive army and political/economic influence.
The US is not only vulnerable to a cut off in the oil supply. Even just higher prices on the oil would mean a massive stagnation in the economic growth. Are you familiar with the oil crises in 1973 where the OPEC countries decided to raise the price on oil? From the end of WW2 and on to the oil crises in 1973 the growth in the US was enormous and USA was on stoppable on the economic issue, but the oil crises drastically slowed USA down. Just imagine how many Americans use their car everyday to get to work in 2003 compared to 1973. Now imagine what an oil crisis in 2003 would do to the country!
In the end I just want to add, that before you point out countries as being terrorist countries then just remember, that USA is one of the biggest terrorist countries in the world. A terrorist action is defined as an action hurting and killing civilians to affect a political matter. Remember the Vietnam War, the My Lai massacre and the massive and inhuman use of napalm? What about Desert Storm in 1992 where the Americans killed thousands in Baghdad with their smart bombs? The two nuclear bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The approx. 4000 civilians killed during the American bombing of Afghanistan. All these killings are terrorist actions if you use the scientific and not the American definition.
Thanks for a nice debate. I hope we all got just a little bit smarter.
Cheers Louis
William528
I'm still here
If there was a economic victry (like in Alpha-Centuri) then I think Japan is a serious contender. In the real world that is. But how well would Japan do in Civ3?
In Civ3 land is very important, Food, Shields and Commerce all come from land. Japan's land is quite poor in quality, and there isn't much of it; but Japan is one of the richest country on earth. Japan unlike Britain has never had an empire for long enough to benefit from it. So in Civ3 is it possible for Japan to be a successful country without having to conquer other countries?
If Japan is to conquer other countries what about corruption in the colonies? and could it ever produce an army large and advanced enough to do it? 'cos being on that rock it's gonna lack money for research.
Another important thing in civ3 is resources. What resources does Japan have? Japan has to buy a lot of resources from other countries, then it uses them to produce something more useful and makes a profit from it. In Civ3 is that possible? Would Japan even have enough money to buy resources?
In Civ3 land is very important, Food, Shields and Commerce all come from land. Japan's land is quite poor in quality, and there isn't much of it; but Japan is one of the richest country on earth. Japan unlike Britain has never had an empire for long enough to benefit from it. So in Civ3 is it possible for Japan to be a successful country without having to conquer other countries?
If Japan is to conquer other countries what about corruption in the colonies? and could it ever produce an army large and advanced enough to do it? 'cos being on that rock it's gonna lack money for research.
Another important thing in civ3 is resources. What resources does Japan have? Japan has to buy a lot of resources from other countries, then it uses them to produce something more useful and makes a profit from it. In Civ3 is that possible? Would Japan even have enough money to buy resources?
Similar threads
