Does the American Civ make you uneasy?

[Tylerryan79]

Orgelord, Einstein wrote a letter to the president, warning him that the Nazis were trying to build a bomb. Oppenheimer was the lead scientist on the Manhatten Project, and is known as the Father of the atom bomb.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer

Mr. Computer, I know humor is hard for your kind to understand, but it was a joke. Does that compute?

 

[Fizticks]

Although Oppenheimer led the Manhattan Project, it was an assembly of American and European scientests(who had fled to the US just before the war)

 

[Ogrelord]

I kinda messed up. I was thinking about the V-2 scientists and engineers. I mixed Rocketry with Atomic Fission tech.

 

[mjs0]

Does the American Civ make you uneasy?

Yeah, I guess it does, but since I live here now I have to be careful what I say.

At least I'll be able to play Civ5 soon to escape my real life worries...

 

[wilebill]

Does America make you uneasy? Well, we hope so. We want to see a lot of paranoia and fear out there! Be afraid! Be very afraid!

'Cause you see, don't matter where you wander, don't matter where you stand! America 'da name of 'da Big Boss Man!

So, of course we'uns be in Civ 5. Since the entire purpose of history and indeed of the universe has been to bring forth America, it only right that we be there from the beginning to help motivate things along.

 

[mqduck]

I always thought the idea of having ANY civilization exist in the year 4000 as a bit strange and historically inaccurate. I thought it would be a cool idea to begin a game of Civ as a neutral tribe with no civilization attachment. Then, as you progress in the game based on your decisions, your civ adopts a name/culture (like if you build a lot of ships, your civ BECOMES England, and adopts the English special ability.... or if you like buying tiles, you BECOME America. etc).

Or... if we make it totally hypothetical, you start off as a neutral civ, and then you get unique abilities from a combination of different civs. Maybe you build a lot of ancient seige weapons and the suddenly unlock a techonology giving you the BALLISTA, but because you're also into building wonders, you get the Egyptian +20% wonder building increase, etc.

Who's down wit this, yo? Some modder should start modding this right away. I'll step in and take all the credit at the end, though.

Yes. Yes about everything. The idea that a civilization is born with a personality or, worse, that it's born in the Stone Age predestined to develop Panzer tanks infuriates the historical materialist within me. A civilization's qualities are the result of its historical circumstances.

 

[cr0ws]

Like it or not but America has greatly influenced history in the short time it's exsisted. Besides an all out world war or civil war it's not going anywhere for a while. I don't see it as an empire at all(well maybe I do), atleast in the sense that "empires fall". In this day and age I cannot see the US falling anytime soon. The world is in such a place that Allies would help us out before the government could fall, just as we would help them out too. Everything is in a sort of limbo where no one wants to disturb the status quo.

Anyways, how can you play a game that goes into the modern age, and then build all these units and buildings, but not have the country that discovered them in it? Besides the GDR, the nuke is the strongest weapon in the game, that alone is a free pass to let the US be in the game.

I beg to differ, for even as I type this, there are underground think tanks and factions devising plans to disassemble and throw USA into a revolution unlike it's ever had before. Simply to take out the United Nations for starters. And I must say, someone is doing a smashing good job of it. Could be them Vietnamese....they're still butthurt over the fact they've been invaderfied and the agent orange thing rocked their world. Mistaking your enemy for your ally is a horrible way to end frienships.

 

[QuothTheRaven]

It's never bothered me at all. Unless you're playing on a pre-made Earth map with pre-defined spawn locations tied to leader, no Civ is going to be in a really comparable situation to its real life self.

 

[MarcusNovius]

Good idea but I'm three steps ahead of you on that one. I started a thread with a similar idea and it evolved to what you are talking about. I've started a potential tech tree to do basically the same thing. If you help make the mod once the game comes out then you can still get some credit though.

fantastic idea.. reminds me ever so slightly of when I first heard of the game "spore" and the high hopes I had for it... sadly it didnt live up to them!

I can see a great idea here though- decide to build your first city in a dessert and your civ sways towards being better dessert fighters... etc etc pleeeeeeeeeeeease make this!

 

[SevenSpirits]

You guys who are getting excited about civs adapting to their position...

That's the game! That is Civ IV, or Civ V. Ever notice how if your civilization starts near seafood it quickly develops the ability to work it? That's because you, the player, notice the seafood, and direct your civilization to research fishing and build a work boat. Or if you start near stone, weird how you end up learning to work it quickly (Masonry) and build something out of it, huh?

So yeah, Civ is fun. Using the tech tree (and now social policies, too) and of course by deciding what units and buildings to build, you can readily adapt to your environment! Wow!

Unique civ traits are a bonus on top of the game, which turn it into 18 different games. Don't worry too much about what they represent thematically. It's just extra variety! The normal development of civilizations in different directions is already simulated just fine by the standard game mechanics.

 

[matt112986]

fantastic idea.. reminds me ever so slightly of when I first heard of the game "spore" and the high hopes I had for it... sadly it didnt live up to them!

I can see a great idea here though- decide to build your first city in a dessert and your civ sways towards being better dessert fighters... etc etc pleeeeeeeeeeeease make this!

I've always loved such an idea. The ability to be your own civ you made up which is tailored to your play styles as well as the conditions of the game would be awesome.

 

[Emstinson]

I'd love to know why any one resorting to historical references even plays a game like this with no historical reference point outside of perhaps the unique units and buildings. It'd be like saying, "oh you are playing the Aztecs? better hurry your game ends in the 1500's" or whatever. Hope you researched your small pox vaccine by then... The game is here to let your creativity run wild, do some (prescribed to you by a doctor) drugs, sit back with a warm bagel and let your American warriors take out some barbarians!

 

[Akar]

How many of the civs were actually around in 400BC? I have no problem playing as them. Although I never will as I dislike their UA

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm uneasy about the american civ sucking. I think the Americans should have the best UU's, the best UB, the best traits. You get the picture.

Right now, the americans look to be as crappy as they were in Civ4

 

[Schuesseled]

I'm really getting tired of reading your wingy posts disgustipated, why are you so negative?

 

[Akar]

They see us rollin, they hatin...

 

[Drawmeus]

You would make a great point if cultural identity was linked to political ideology, which of course it isn't. France may have had a lot of political upheavals, but that didn't ever change what it meant to be French, to the French. Germany, I won't get into but it has a case for having a cultural identity since Roman Republican times. China, well China is China, the only ancient Civilization still in existence today, need I say more?

Actually, this kind of gets at the reason why America is weirder in 4000 BC than, say, England.

The vast majority of civs are defined principally by ethnic and regional considerations. England is defined primarily by racial and locational factors. Greece, same deal. China, same deal. The situation is obviously complex in many cases (China is made up of several distinct peoples, England has been invaded and conquered by waves of different peoples), but outside of transitional times, there is an English people, a Russian people, a Chinese people, etc. The exact ethnicity of those peoples change sometimes, but you can mostly make such a characterization.

Now, one of the central conceits of Civilization is that we toss location out but assume the nations/civilizations/whatever stay the same. That gives us oddities like England in 4000 BC, Egypt under Ramses building tanks, etc, but that's one of the main things we've accepted by playing Civ at all.

America is different. You can't define it by racial factors at all (though you might eventually be able to do so - as a Hispanic nation in a few centuries). America's cultural identity is defined by politics - by a Constitution and a few basic principles (the elimination of the nobility, free speech, etc).

You can imagine England in 4000 BC as the forerunners of the modern British. America is literally not America without the political factors. It's stranger.



That said, I'd still rather have America in 4000 BC than not at all.

 

[mqduck]

America is different. You can't define it by racial factors at all (though you might eventually be able to do so - as a Hispanic nation in a few centuries). America's cultural identity is defined by politics - by a Constitution and a few basic principles (the elimination of the nobility, free speech, etc).

America *does* have a cultural identity, and it's British. We learn about English history in school like it's "our" history. *That's* why an American civ is kind of absurd: we're a British colony.

 

[EmpireOfCats]

Oh, I thought it was strange the first time, but not more than most of the other "civilizations".

Aztec tanks have already been mentioned. The culture we call "Japan" are a bunch of people who displaced the original Ainu (as they are now called). "Germania" was used by the Romans for everything from the Rhine to the Urals, and the concept of "Germany" wasn't really established even in a theoretical sense until the Carolingian Empire was dissolved in 800-something CE (Carolingians, if you remember your Matrix, were those guys in sexy rubber suits). It took until 1871 before it was a country. Calling "Arabia" a civilization before Mohammed unified them is pushing it a bit. "Egypt" was run by Greeks after a while, and later turned Arabic itself. We hardly know jack about the Iroquois before 1600 CE, so including them is, with all due respect, pretty much romantic fiction. "Babylonia" are Arabs and Persians. Everybody and his friend invaded an conquered "England" at one point or the other.

There are some that are more easy to believe -- China and Greece, for example. But in general, history is messy. In the end, it's a game. Don't overthink it.

 

[Sheng-ji]

Everybody and his friend invaded an conquered "England" at one point or the other.

Not really, The Anglo Saxons, who united to create England were left after the Roman withdrawal were only conquered once, by the Normans, descendants of Scandinavians on viking. Since then we have resisted invasion from the French, Spanish, Germans and Scots. Our culture is a mixture of Greek/Roman/German and now American.

Anyway, I like the Americans being in the game! Just because they have only become a cultural superpower in the last 50 years or so, the sheer spread of their culture around the globe must be unsurpassed! And while the original settlers were of varying ancestry, Americans are not, nor have they ever lived a European way of life! I am certainly not uncomfortable, the whole idea of civ is to rewrite history - otherwise I'd have to be uncomfortable with England bordering the Holy Roman Empire, sandwiching the tiny one city civ that is China etc etc - civ to me is the ultimate what if game!