• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.

Agricultural America????

Reynoulds #

Chieftain
Joined
Nov 17, 2003
Messages
23
Location
Kobyashi Maru
I thought America was supposed to be agricultural and industrious in Conquest's epic game? England has been changed, but America hasn't been. I haven't seen any threads on it either (I searched a little before posting).

Have I missed something?
 
they are NOT supposed to be agricultural... did you want them to be? i think they're fine the way they are... of course, i don't have C3C and i haven't played it-- i'm just assuming so...
 
Ok, thanks. I was just looking through another thread and it said nothing about it.

I guess that was just a thread that I was reading a few months back.
 
wouldnt being industrius AND agricultural be contradictory? once a nation has a nation is agricultural when its main power and commerce is from crops and feilds while industrial is the power is in manufacturing
 
Industrious is not a synonym for industriailized. It refers to being hard-working and productive... and there's no reason and industrialized power can't be agricultural. In fact the use of industry does typically improve agricultural output, due to the availability of heavy machinery (tractors, combines, refrigeration, et al) and chemical processes (you don't think fertilizer comes from orchards of nitrate tree, do you?). This is in fact what is going on in both the United States and the European Union this day.

I feel like the U.S. being Agricultural would have fit in very well with a historical view of the country, but I'm not going to take issue with the choice. There are a lot of civs that could have been given different abilities.
 
Expansionist is pobably the most fitting trait for our nation, especially up until WW1. Industrious would be the 2nd most as the lands went from being completely wild and untamed to totally civilized in just 200 years.

Scientific and commercial make the next since as America has always been leading in both of those, especially since the 2nd half of the 1800s.

Agricultural makes some since, especially considering we grow enough food to feed possibly even the entire world (not sure though), however agricultural is kinda a silly trait because to be a civilization you need to be agricultural. However the few civs that are actually agricultural fit it a lot more than America as that's what the society was based on.

Seafaring is out. Religious is out. Militaristic is out (for those that disagree with the last, despite that we have wars every generation, we are not a militaristic people like the Aztecs or the Mongols. We are expansionist however).
 
Almost every civ could stake a claim at having every one of the traits, they just have to try and take the best fitting (as well as trying to spread the traits out as best they can).

Taking America as an example

Expansionist clearly fits considering how fast the country grew from being a relatively minor colony to a *quite* large country.

Industrious - Yamamoto's warning sums that one up pretty well. The industrial production capacity of America is intimidating

Agricultural - As hygro said, every civ needs to be. America's economy is if I'm not mistaken chiefly agricultural.

Commercial - 10 trillion a year, nuff said. You guys certainly like your free market economics.

Scientific - Of course, they have a strong claim, but others have a much greater claim (Greece is the most obvious, and I'd argue for the English).

Seafaring - Not as strong a claim as others but your fleet is *quite* big last time I checked.

Religious - massive Christian population, state/church seperation barely tangible. Goes without saying that others have a much stronger claim.

Militaristic - you guys spend more on your military than anyone has ever spent on anything by a spectacular margin.

If anyone takes issue with me I'm just demonstrating that you can spin it any way. All of the traits are key foundations of any civ (unless you are landlocked I suppose).
 
enkidu warrior, please don't post things like this about countries that you (apparently) don't live in... i know you were trying to demonstrate a point, but that point was most likely already seen. i'll say no more.
 
Originally posted by devilzExcremNt
enkidu warrior, please don't post things like this about countries that you (apparently) don't live in... i know you were trying to demonstrate a point, but that point was most likely already seen. i'll say no more.

??? I didn't think I said anything controversial. I'm looking over what I said and I can't see that any of it could possibly be taken as offensive. Please correct me, maybe I can clarify what I meant.
 
Enkidu didn't say anything wrong or offensive, and I say this as a patriotic American.

I like the fact that the US is an industrious civ, and it fits really well. But when it comes to being expansionist, I have some reservations.

First of all, the trait is bunk! If you don't exploit it quickly, it's useless. Also, goodie huts don't make a civ! A civ is built on a well-balanced mix of military, science, economy, infrastructure, good planning, and a host of other aspects.

Also, the US didn't expand by making nice with little villages in order to gain their secrets and resources. We conquered and bought all the land west of the Appalachian mounain range. So either comercial or militaristic would have been better than expansionistic if the trait was chosen because of the time it took us to reach our current geographic size.

About the US being an Agricultural civ- I think this would have been more fitting than expansionist in terms of the effects the trait has on the civ in question.

Allow me to explain.

Agricultural gives you a large boost in population growth. While the US hardly boasts high birth rates, it certainly does have a significant rate of population growth. Obviously this is due to immigration, but nonetheless, we've grown very quickly.

The US also produces massive amounts of food. We literally burn and trash most of it, but we produce WAY more than we need. This, by itself, should be sufficient to qualify as agricultural.

On top of all this, the beginings of what is known today as the United States was a set of colonies that were mostly large-scale plantation based or vast expanses of subsistence farmers (with a few large cities where the industry was concentrated).

This is my case for America being agricultural. I hope it isn't inflamatory or over-political.
 
Overall I think Expansionist or Commercial fits America's basic historical background from past to future. However, I'd love to see Agricultural/Religious for a Confederacy vs. an Industrious/Commercial Union. C3C Civil War scenario anyone?
:cool:
 
I don't see the Americans as being all that expansionist. For the most part they built settlers and pretty much overran everything in the west with them. I see expansionist as a civilization that is always looking to expand their empire. To me the Americans just settled land that was there for the taking with relatively little effort. If they were truly expansionists they would have made a run at Canada and Mexico to expand their empire.

Americans should be Commercial. As it was they bought most of their land (Lousiana, Alaska) did not take it militarily. Greatest materialistic, commercial society on the planet. Would also make them worth playing once in awhile. Industrious-Commercial are not such bad traits.
 
Originally posted by Hygro
Agricultural makes some since, especially considering we grow enough food to feed possibly even the entire world. . . However the few civs that are actually agricultural fit it a lot more than America as that's what the society was based on.
First, I don't have strong feelings on the civ traits one way or the other. That game is about fun and balance, not realism.

However, the importance of the "agricultural" trait for Americans interests me. Personally, I think the Great Plains in the middle of the U.S. not only defines our country but also is perhaps the greatest single resource explaining our relatively quick ascendance to being a world power.

In history, most countries have devoted a substantial portion of their economy and populace to growing food. In the old world, most arable land has been farmed for thousands of years and nutrients must be replenished through fertilizers, etc. to allow crops to be productive. However, the Great Plains of the U.S. had been buidling up topsoil (often up to 2 meters deep!) and nutrients for thousands of years. Thus, farmers were able to immediately and easily "mine" this incredibly productive soil. It's been said that in most countries 1 farmer feeds 10 people, but in the U.S. 1 farmer feeds 100. No other country has a comparable area of land that is so suited to grain agriculture. Ukraine has its steppes, but those are higher, colder, and generally less suited for wheat. Other new world countries generally were too cold or too covered in jungle to experience the agriculture boom of stored topsoil. The Central and South American civs had to work so hard at agriculture because jungle soils are essentially devoid of nutrients.

The bottom line is the boom in wheat production drove the develpoment of the cattle industry (cheap feed!), provided an enormous trade surplus, and freed up large portions of the population to develop industry, expand, make movies, build malls, etc.

Now that the productive top soils of the Great Plains are gone (remember the "Dust Bowl"), we have the economic power to use fertilizers, pesticides, and genetically modified crops to maintain the massive agricultural production.

The irony is that because productivity of our farmers is so high, we produce more food yet have fewer farmers per capita than any country in history. Does that make us "agricultural" civ or not?
 
Originally posted by LeroyJr
If they were truly expansionists they would have made a run at Canada and Mexico to expand their empire.

Well, with Mexico they did... they fought quite a lot of battle to gain control of the Southwest. Look at a map of Mexico before the 1820, you'll be amazed !
Who killed Davy Crockett ? :)
 
Originally posted by somateria

It's been said that in most countries 1 farmer feeds 10 people, but in the U.S. 1 farmer feeds 100. No other country has a comparable area of land that is so suited to grain agriculture.

Would that not be a reason for america to NOT be agricultural? If we have 1/10th the number of farmers, it would seem like agriculture is not a defining trait of the American society.

As far as expansionist goes, I do not care. Religous is that only trait that should never apply.
 
Back
Top Bottom