Ekmek
on steam: ekmek_e
I dont think i ever finished a whole epic game. its a modder thing 
Are there any civs that you have never played as?
- Thread starter Haethurn
- Start date
Tavenier
King
I am not anti-American. I am anti-some Americans, just as much as any other people.
And one last remark. Armies don't make a civilization. Were the crusaders a civ? Maybe only the Knights of St John at Rhodos (later moved to Malta). And without the USA Stalin was defeated by Germany, so we would probably talk German around here. Not a very good alternative (understatement, maybe? haha).
And indeed the British had their attentions elsewhere, for the bigger part. And without Dutch money and French troops I don't think the American colonists would have won. Maybe in the end, but not in that decade.
Sorry if I have offended you. But I was only joking. And I just never play the US because Americans with spears and chariots just don't work for me as a historian. Most other tribes/civs also weren't around in 4000 BC (like my own civ, the Dutch), but they do have ancestors in the places where they live. The Dutch, German and English had the Germanic tribes, Russia the Scythians and so forth.
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
I'm not saying that including America in the game is silly period. I'm saying some people would rather play with more historically grounded civs, and scoff at the thought of America being in one of their games. Agree or not, these people are not being anti-American, and you can completely understand their position.
Masquerouge
Deity
I've never played with any militaristic Civ... fun, eh ? Now that in C3C MGL can't rush Wonders, I can tell you Militaristic has lost any incentive it could have had before
Heeey come on now our soldiers had the most awesome, fear-inducing, big-bad-ass-kicking bicycles in 1940.
And the Maginot line was such a great wonder... It could have stopped anybody who wanted, for some weird reason, to go through it and not around it
Heeey come on now our soldiers had the most awesome, fear-inducing, big-bad-ass-kicking bicycles in 1940.
And the Maginot line was such a great wonder... It could have stopped anybody who wanted, for some weird reason, to go through it and not around it
I Honestly believe that Stalin's Russia would have eventualy defeated Germany without a single US or British commonweath troop on the western front. Germany devoted at the very leaste 80% of its army to the Eastern front. And when they felt they had a shot at taking out some of the Allies late in the war (Battle of the Bulge) it was the US/Britian they targeted. After the Battle of Kirsk in '43, Germany had little if no hope against Russia. So I would have to agree with Granite88. Fear of the atomic bomb was the only thing stoping Stalin.
SelfishGene
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2003
- Messages
- 11
America has some of the best traits in the game, imo. Industrious/Expansionist just ROCKS if you open a goody hut with a settler. Of course expansionist is undependable, but when it works it really works.
BTW Russia would have lost without Allied assistance. Although the importance of Lend-Lease and similar contributions from the Commonwealth contries has been downplayed when considering gross totals (something like only 8-10% of aircraft used by the S,U. during the war were from other countries), what is less known is how important allied shipping routes were in supplying strategic raw materials, cables and telephone wires, light duty trucks and other infrastructure materials. Something like 50-70% (can't remember exact) of aviation quality aluminum and a big portion of aviation fuel were supplied the the US, as well as more than half of transport trucks. This allowed not only the continuing operation of Russian factors to crack out IL-2 and T-34 but also so that more factories could be devoted to military equipment like tanks rather than secondary equipment like trucks.
BTW Russia would have lost without Allied assistance. Although the importance of Lend-Lease and similar contributions from the Commonwealth contries has been downplayed when considering gross totals (something like only 8-10% of aircraft used by the S,U. during the war were from other countries), what is less known is how important allied shipping routes were in supplying strategic raw materials, cables and telephone wires, light duty trucks and other infrastructure materials. Something like 50-70% (can't remember exact) of aviation quality aluminum and a big portion of aviation fuel were supplied the the US, as well as more than half of transport trucks. This allowed not only the continuing operation of Russian factors to crack out IL-2 and T-34 but also so that more factories could be devoted to military equipment like tanks rather than secondary equipment like trucks.
You are right SelfishGene. But if you read what I said, "without a single US or British commonwealth troop ON THE WESTERN FRONT" does not imply a compleate absence. I was just backing up Granite88's claim that without the US presence, Russia could have easily steamrolled the entire European mainland. And therefore, the low countries would NOT be speaking German.
Tavenier
King
I think you mean if the US was not in the war at all. Then Russia would have never won. Britain neither. No supplies could have came in at Archangelsk. Maybe with no allied ships around anymore the Nazi's could have taken that harbour-town from the sea.
I agree that by far the biggest part of the Nazi army was fighting Russians. But still not all the soldiers were. And what about the morale boost for the German soldiers knowing that after Russia all is won (not other enemies to defeat)?
And what about all the countries that would have reacted very different at everything would the US not participate and Britain thus defeated? Japan would have surely started to attack the SU from the East, no doubt about that. The North Africa army of Rommel could have conquered Islamic Africa, Italy would not be invaded in Sicily with all the consequences that brings. And what about all the neutral countries? Wouldn't Turkey want some lost territories back from Russia? What about the atomic bomb?
You only look at the army that was in Russia. In this kind of 'what ifs' you must see way beyond that. You fail to think of the impact this would all have on morale, neutral countries, supplies and so forth.
In the end I am glad that neither Stalin nor Hitler conquered Europe. They kind of defeated each other. So therefore I am glad Britain kept fighting, what they could never have done if the Americans didn't send the supplies. I even believe that Germany (with Japan and Italy) would have won WW2 if any of the three victors was defeated or neutral. Wthout Britain no American foothold to launch bombing raids and D-Day. Without Russia an abvious victory for Germany and without the US no supplies and later manpower.
I agree with what you say for the most part. Yes, if the allies (US and Britain) were not involved, Germany would have no doubt won. What I was saying is that by the end of the historical war, Russia and the Allies were not on the best of terms and only the threat of nuclear weapons could conceivably stop Stalin from taking all of mainland Europe. And as I will explain below, even if the US position was as neutral as possible I believe the Russians would have still won. And then again, the only thing stopping them would be the treat of US nuclear weapons.
The reason I choose this as a more plausible reality, is simple. The counterfactual that suggests that US (and especially England) remain 100% neutral is even more unlikely than no one on this forum responding to this America isn't a civilization. One could however argue on the possible outcome if the US only contributed money and supplies to the English and Russians. England would no doubt defend her territory in Egypt and the Middle East so it is inconceivable that England be neutral. However, I can not see the US doing absolutely nothing. Russia being the lesser of two evils, and the enemy of Englands enemy, would no doubt gain more favor in the American government than the Germans would. Also, lending supplies to a country in war does not necessary put the lending country in war. The Russians had fighter pilots in the Korean War and they were not technically at war. The Chinese contributed great quantities of supplies to the North Vietnamese and were not considered to be at war. This is by no means the end of a huge list of possible examples. So I argue that you could consider the US neutral and still be involved in the Lend Lease program.
Because of this, I still say that the Russians would have won without the direct military involvement of the US, and hence no allied invasion of Western Europe. I say again, without the US presence, Russia could have still easily steamrolled the entire European mainland. There is by far more to consider than this, but I think this thread jacking has successfully derailed the threads original purpose already. I would love to take this debate further but feel it should not be on this thread. However, I invite anyone to message me privately if they wish.
The reason I choose this as a more plausible reality, is simple. The counterfactual that suggests that US (and especially England) remain 100% neutral is even more unlikely than no one on this forum responding to this America isn't a civilization. One could however argue on the possible outcome if the US only contributed money and supplies to the English and Russians. England would no doubt defend her territory in Egypt and the Middle East so it is inconceivable that England be neutral. However, I can not see the US doing absolutely nothing. Russia being the lesser of two evils, and the enemy of Englands enemy, would no doubt gain more favor in the American government than the Germans would. Also, lending supplies to a country in war does not necessary put the lending country in war. The Russians had fighter pilots in the Korean War and they were not technically at war. The Chinese contributed great quantities of supplies to the North Vietnamese and were not considered to be at war. This is by no means the end of a huge list of possible examples. So I argue that you could consider the US neutral and still be involved in the Lend Lease program.
Because of this, I still say that the Russians would have won without the direct military involvement of the US, and hence no allied invasion of Western Europe. I say again, without the US presence, Russia could have still easily steamrolled the entire European mainland. There is by far more to consider than this, but I think this thread jacking has successfully derailed the threads original purpose already. I would love to take this debate further but feel it should not be on this thread. However, I invite anyone to message me privately if they wish.
SammyDaBull
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2003
- Messages
- 40
This thread wavers much... The fact is that we can't know what would happen because it never ocured. I am surprized none of you hae mention the russian winter there is no way that Hitler could have taken over too much of Russia and mantained it for long. It probobly would have ended with diplomatic agreement.
Thats my 50 cents, not much thought but others have covered pretty much everything. What was this thread about again????
Thats my 50 cents, not much thought but others have covered pretty much everything. What was this thread about again????
Iepers
Chieftain
Well instead of me posting the ones ive never played with ill post the ones i have played with
Germany (Love the Panzer)
America (My home)
England
Netherlands (after going to Amsterdam 3 times, i just had to play as them)
Scandinavia
Thats all
Germany (Love the Panzer)
America (My home)
England
Netherlands (after going to Amsterdam 3 times, i just had to play as them)
Scandinavia
Thats all
bru
Prince
I have played Civ from the beginning but much to my discredit I have only played with the most powerful Civs. It takes me so long to play a game that as I start each game I chicken out on the less powerful ones and play my old standby Civs.
MamboJoel
Cool.
Of course. When I got C3C, I wanted to try the agricultural trait for my first game. I took the Iroquois, I had only played once before without much success.
SemiGod, Large continental Map. Potery and Alphabet leads you to the Writing > MapMaking path at 50 turn tech. I was able to both get them before the others. Agriculture gives you great settler factories while you search for those two techs. Then you get this incredible UU. It simply rocks. They cost 30 shields and you end up having loads of them. I did not ever build any defensive unit before Christ and put all my energy into fast attacks. I ended up owning 30% of the land mass at 100BC. Thanks to the commercial traits, a lot of them were able to participate in the production of new UUs.
IMO Iroquois is the most powerfull civ, from 4000BC to modern age.
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.
Yes, the Iroquis have totally changed. I liked them better before, since religious is my favourite trait - but still they got one of the best UU in the game. Only when playing these guys and perhaps Egypt, I don't go straight for Iron Working. And the mounted warriors look so cool! Although horses were not native in America (since they died out thousands of years before), most of us non-native americans like to think on the western movies when playing i reckon. Imagine mounted warriors in the meso-american conquest. That would be way out of place. While I missed the Conquistadors in that scenario (which is rather in the Age of discovery one)
Yes, the Iroquis have totally changed. I liked them better before, since religious is my favourite trait - but still they got one of the best UU in the game. Only when playing these guys and perhaps Egypt, I don't go straight for Iron Working. And the mounted warriors look so cool! Although horses were not native in America (since they died out thousands of years before), most of us non-native americans like to think on the western movies when playing i reckon. Imagine mounted warriors in the meso-american conquest. That would be way out of place. While I missed the Conquistadors in that scenario (which is rather in the Age of discovery one)
Similar threads
