BorgeoisBuffoon
Local Idiot
How are we not a civilization?
Are there any civs that you have never played as?
- Thread starter Haethurn
- Start date
How are we not a civilization?
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
He's talking crap...he thinks because it's only 2 and a half centuries old and has origins in other cultures 
that it isn't a civilization. 
that it isn't a civilization. 
Bucephalus
Shooting from the lip....
Originally posted by calgacus
He's talking crap...he thinks because it's only 2 and a half centuries old and has origins in other cultures
" America: The only country to pass from barbarism to decadence without an intervening period of civilization."
Oscar Wilde
Tavenier
King
Thank you for enlightening them.
The language is European, politics ancient Roman, 99.9% of the population is originally from outside the 'New World', and so on.
Sorry, you're right, you have the hamburger (named after a German city).
Pangur Bán
Deconstructed
Have you nothing of your own to say?
Tavenier
King
Originally posted by calgacus
Have you nothing of your own to say?
Haven't you developed your own language?
No, just kidding.
I even remembered a quote (was it by Churchill?):
The only difference between Britain and the US is the language?
Bucephalus
Shooting from the lip....
Originally posted by Tavenier
Haven't you developed your own language?
No, just kidding.
I even remembered a quote (was it by Churchill?):
The only difference between Britain and the US is the language?
No, I think it was Wilde (again).
He said, "England and America, two nations seperated by a shared language"
Bucephalus
Shooting from the lip....
Originally posted by calgacus
Have you nothing of your own to say?
Hey, don't shoot the messenger. Any anti-American sentiment that you infer is that of Wilde's and not my own.
Philips beard
Prince
Egypt and Japan are really good Civs, with good traits and everything! Strange so many of you never play them...
I never play Zululand, or american tribes...
I never play Zululand, or american tribes...
Tavenier
King
I never have played Zulu, but Egypt many times. Especially when Civ 3 was just out. The UU isn't much, but the traits are cool and I like the color they have. At first religious was my favourite trait, but that changed over time. Now with the two added governernments and the longer anarchy time, maybe its value comes back to me...
Bucephalus
Shooting from the lip....
You should try the Iroquois now they have different traits. I've just played them for the first time, and they rock! Agricultural makes for really fast expansion, while commercial keeps corruption at a managable level. Also, since I lacked iron, the U/U was a godsend.
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
I havn't played as the Iroquois yet, but now that I have a feeling for the different traits, I think they will be really good. I remember liking their UU in vanilla civ3, I just never liked their traits. Commercial/Agricultural allows for massive and sustainable growth throughout the game, and the early UU ensures that you get a big slice of territory. They could pick any method of winning without too much trouble, 100000 culture victory would be a good bet.
In my recent game as India I really learned to appreciate the Commercial trait. You just explode later in the game when your population reaches a certain point. The lower corruption boost was extremely helpful (though perhaps magnified by the bug). I also got an army of elite war elephants (6 HP each - 24 in total if you manage to get the pentagon).
In my recent game as India I really learned to appreciate the Commercial trait. You just explode later in the game when your population reaches a certain point. The lower corruption boost was extremely helpful (though perhaps magnified by the bug). I also got an army of elite war elephants (6 HP each - 24 in total if you manage to get the pentagon).
Gogf
Indescribable
The Vikings and Dutch both have awesome UUs! Dutch: Who uses a 2.4.1 for offense? You get teh same defense for half the shields. I recommend trying the Vikings, their UU is awesome, ties for best attack, until tanks or marines (whoever you get first). First amphbious unit until marines. 6.2.1 in stead of 4.1.1. Very good...
Granite88
Chieftain
If Americans are such barbarians then why couldn't the mighty British Empire keep control over a few idiot prisoners? And another question, without the United States, what's to stop Stalin from taking the rest of Europe? The French army? Americans may have borrowed government and language from others, but then at least we didn't spend centuries beliveing that the king ruled through divine right... And somebody care to explain why it is whenever UN troops are deployed somewhere the US foots most of the bill? The United States has it's problems, but as for churchhill, if America sucks so bad, then why is an entire wing of St. Paul's cathedral devoted to the Americans who died liberating europe?
Sorry about that, but dang, show a little respect.
On topic, I generally never play as anyone expansionist, I also like the radom button, but only in single player. Usually it's persia, ottomans, carthage, or the dutch.
BTW, does anyone know if the Sumerian UU upgrades to a pikeman? Or a Swordsman?
Sorry about that, but dang, show a little respect.
On topic, I generally never play as anyone expansionist, I also like the radom button, but only in single player. Usually it's persia, ottomans, carthage, or the dutch.
BTW, does anyone know if the Sumerian UU upgrades to a pikeman? Or a Swordsman?
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
Massive over-reaction.
Whatever your position, you can surely see why some people would rather not have America in their games because they prefer a more historical basis. America's inclusion is obvious for marketing reasons, but they are a weak case just because they haven't been around very long and have a very composite culture. Nothing anti-American about that right?
I know there is a tiresome amount of anti-Americanism at the moment but you are looking for offense where none was intended.
Those "idiot prisoners" as you so affectionatly refer to your ancestors were not quite as you describe them, and in our infinite wisdom, the "mighty British Empire" decided to place more importance in securing the more lucrative colonies in Jamaica.
Canada and Fiji are the most frequent contributor of troops to the UN, and the US gives the smallest percentage of its GDP as foreign aid out of all the developed nations.
Granite88
Chieftain
Yes, I did over-react, I apologize, but as you say, there is a "tiring amount of anti-Americanism at the moment".
Jormurgandr
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 11, 2003
- Messages
- 30
Hittites, America, Zulu, Russia, England, Netherlands, and Portugal.
Hittites have a mediocre (in most cases) trait combo and a mediocre UU. I haven't felt the urge to play as them yet, but I might in the future.
The Zulu have a terrible trait combo. Or did; I haven't fully utilized the new armies, so I'm not sure if militaristic is stronger or weaker than before. The UU isn't that great, and yields an early GA. I probably won't ever play as them unless they turn up on random.
Russia wasn't very good in the original and PTW, but it looks like it got a big boost in Conquests. Blitzing Cossacks and the newly improved scientific trait make this civ a lot more appealing. The old Cossacks were one of the worst UUs.
America's UU is awful. The traits aren't too bad, so I might play as them sometime.
England's UU was one of the worst, and its traits weren't that impressive. It has been improved in Conquests, but the noncumulative bonuses of commercial and seafaring bothers me.
Netherlands looks like a solid civ; just haven't tried them yet. I like to play more offensively, so the UU doesn't appeal to me, even though it is very good.
Portugal looks like it could be good on certain maps. Just haven't tried them yet.
Hittites have a mediocre (in most cases) trait combo and a mediocre UU. I haven't felt the urge to play as them yet, but I might in the future.
The Zulu have a terrible trait combo. Or did; I haven't fully utilized the new armies, so I'm not sure if militaristic is stronger or weaker than before. The UU isn't that great, and yields an early GA. I probably won't ever play as them unless they turn up on random.
Russia wasn't very good in the original and PTW, but it looks like it got a big boost in Conquests. Blitzing Cossacks and the newly improved scientific trait make this civ a lot more appealing. The old Cossacks were one of the worst UUs.
America's UU is awful. The traits aren't too bad, so I might play as them sometime.
England's UU was one of the worst, and its traits weren't that impressive. It has been improved in Conquests, but the noncumulative bonuses of commercial and seafaring bothers me.
Netherlands looks like a solid civ; just haven't tried them yet. I like to play more offensively, so the UU doesn't appeal to me, even though it is very good.
Portugal looks like it could be good on certain maps. Just haven't tried them yet.
in answer to the forum question. Egypt. I have never played as them.
lets assume the world ended today, and you looked back at the impact various cultures had on the world, and what they achieved. Are you telling me that America wouldn't be somewhere in that (what is it?) 32 civilizations? Historical context? isn't there an age in civilization called the modern age? Doesn't that age mostly represent technologies of the 1900's? America had a large role. 1/4 of game is the modern age.
I find most of those commets silly. Marketing reasons, sure but thats not the point.
lets assume the world ended today, and you looked back at the impact various cultures had on the world, and what they achieved. Are you telling me that America wouldn't be somewhere in that (what is it?) 32 civilizations? Historical context? isn't there an age in civilization called the modern age? Doesn't that age mostly represent technologies of the 1900's? America had a large role. 1/4 of game is the modern age.
Before I started playing random, I would always play as either Aztec or Egypt. I now these two always get super early GA's but their UU's (Havent played Azted since they changed the Jaguar worriror) are so good for killing civ's really early in the game.
I like to play on huge maps with maximum number of civs so I always run into my neighbors early on.
The Jaguar worrior is good at declaring war and then ripping up enemy roads and improvements and capturing that early undefended city. They also keep the AI from sending out settlers unprotected. And since they have a movement of two. They will usualy survive to fight another day. With them I was always able to manipulate my immediate neighbors, and keep them small untill I was ready to steamroll them. It is this cheap mobility that makes them so good in my opinion.
As for the war chariot, I love that one too. Granted it is dependent on horses, but it is like having horseback riders for the cost of spearmen. And you get them sooner also. Egypt also fits my strategy of early domination of my immediate neighbors. The zounds of chariots are usualy too much for the AI to handle.
Always seemed that I was bigger then most if not all the AI players really early on because of my aggression, and the end game was never in question.
Now with Conquests, my new favorite will no doubt be the Incas. I will sacrafice an early GA because in my oppinion, the very beggining of the game is the easiest time to really smash the other civs. And maybe it was a fluke, but when I played the Incas I seemed to learn 75% of the ancient technologies from goody huts.
In reality the only civs I have played to the end are America, Aztec, Egypt, Inca, Celts, Babylon and Germany. And America was when I first got the game two years ago and didn't realize that the different civs had "traits" and figured it would be good to have a UU in the modern times. I was used to the insane technology advancement rate of Civ II.
I like to play on huge maps with maximum number of civs so I always run into my neighbors early on.
The Jaguar worrior is good at declaring war and then ripping up enemy roads and improvements and capturing that early undefended city. They also keep the AI from sending out settlers unprotected. And since they have a movement of two. They will usualy survive to fight another day. With them I was always able to manipulate my immediate neighbors, and keep them small untill I was ready to steamroll them. It is this cheap mobility that makes them so good in my opinion.
As for the war chariot, I love that one too. Granted it is dependent on horses, but it is like having horseback riders for the cost of spearmen. And you get them sooner also. Egypt also fits my strategy of early domination of my immediate neighbors. The zounds of chariots are usualy too much for the AI to handle.
Always seemed that I was bigger then most if not all the AI players really early on because of my aggression, and the end game was never in question.
Now with Conquests, my new favorite will no doubt be the Incas. I will sacrafice an early GA because in my oppinion, the very beggining of the game is the easiest time to really smash the other civs. And maybe it was a fluke, but when I played the Incas I seemed to learn 75% of the ancient technologies from goody huts.
In reality the only civs I have played to the end are America, Aztec, Egypt, Inca, Celts, Babylon and Germany. And America was when I first got the game two years ago and didn't realize that the different civs had "traits" and figured it would be good to have a UU in the modern times. I was used to the insane technology advancement rate of Civ II.
I don't understand why so many people are hostile towards expansionist civilizations. To me it is one of the best traits. You can step way ahead of your enemies from the techs you get from the goody huts, and anyone who denies the importance of scouts for early exploration...just doesn't get it, in my opinion. It's just terrible to have to explore with a warrior. It takes forever to understand the advantages of your position and how to exploit it if you're only exploring with one or two warriors.
Oh, sure, it would've been nice if they added some lasting effects that would stick around after the ancient ages...maybe a decreased cost for settlers, and less of a penalty for creating them...but as it is, expansionist is still an excellent trait. Sure, maybe industrious beats it in the long run...but my God, isn't it boring playing with the same old perfect traits every single freaking time?
I never even pay attention to the traits. I play a civ based on what I think of their culture and what I think of them historically as a civilization. Traits can go out the window as far as I'm concerned. They're nice to have, but they're second in what I consider when trying to figure what civilization I should play.
I don't care if a civilization has the best traits in the world, if I think their culture sucks, if I think their history is boring as hell, I'm not going to play them.
Oh, sure, it would've been nice if they added some lasting effects that would stick around after the ancient ages...maybe a decreased cost for settlers, and less of a penalty for creating them...but as it is, expansionist is still an excellent trait. Sure, maybe industrious beats it in the long run...but my God, isn't it boring playing with the same old perfect traits every single freaking time?
I never even pay attention to the traits. I play a civ based on what I think of their culture and what I think of them historically as a civilization. Traits can go out the window as far as I'm concerned. They're nice to have, but they're second in what I consider when trying to figure what civilization I should play.
I don't care if a civilization has the best traits in the world, if I think their culture sucks, if I think their history is boring as hell, I'm not going to play them.
Similar threads
