Kayak
Partisan
Naokaukodem said:Why not? Plus I'm refering to the Civilization 3 victory type of course.
Ahh. but you said real life...
Naokaukodem said:They are the ruler of the actual world. They police it. They are the U.N. Finally, their culture is spread everywhere and capitalism also, it will be hard to consider they did not win anything.
The US the ruler of the world? The gods forbid please! And I disagree that they police it, I think they only bully it around a lot. Agreed US culture has spread far. If the US was the only promoter of capitalism i might agree with you here. It Civ terms they are certainly winning at the moment. Come back in a few decades (turns


Naokaukodem said:There is victory and victory. Considering the object civilization, a victory is not a reward for things you made. It is an accomplishment, the particular way you have conquered the whole globe, you expansed the best. It is the very end, when things won't move again. From this point of view, i can say that civ3 UN diplomatic victory is a kind of early victory maybe... but at the actual point of view of the reality, it is yet a final victory, because it hasn't been surpassed. It is with our time to say that UN is the mark of a diplomatic victory.
The problem I have with this is that in the game, being elected head of the UN appears to mean that you are elected head of the nations of the world. This is very difficult for me to imagine in a game that attempts to follow world history. Being head of the UN or even hosting the headquarters should give greater international stature, not dominion.