Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by Ceoladir, Mar 1, 2010.
oh and its not other civs, its their people (remember culture flips)
That's actually an argument that implies the U.S. would NOT have won, because it's not just a cultural lead and a certain amount of culture. It's a certain amount of culture AND twice the culture of any other tribe's culture.
ooh well so noone one a culture victory but usa would still have sort of won diplomatic victory
Not a single Secretary General of the U. N. has come from the U. S. A quick scan of the wikipedia page also suggests to me that this would NOT have happened, although admittedly it's hard to figure out what would translate into a diplomatic victory. Difficulties exist. For example, I don't see how one could claim the U. S. would have gotten enough votes in the Cold War era, or during the recent Bush administration. I could more see it during the first Bush administration and the first Gulf War, when a significant number of nations contributed to that war, but even then... does that come as enough to match the conditions of a U. N. victory in civ III?
One could make a case for the expansion of NATO into eastern Europe as meeting the conditions for a diplomatic victory. In some sense, former Soviet client states are voting for the USA now.
America is in many ways losing a Civilization III game, and losing its place as the dominant nation and culture in human society in reality. We are in massive debt to China (all true, look it up), can barely afford to keep many of the elderly in our country medicated and somewhat-healthy, our military is bogged down in brush wars in the Mid-East, and despite the power and wide-spreadedness of our culture (if you can call it that, is mostly an amalgamation of Anglo-Saxon culture with some eastern influences), we are still seen as a joke by many people, even on our own soil.
No, in a game of Civilization the U.S. would be far behind. Also, Russia barely has an effective military and wouldn't ever dream of invading America, or any other major western power. Anyone who tells you to fear Russia hasn't gotten over the Cold War, or just likes Sarah Palin.
Finally, any points we have in a game of Civilization at this point would come from our massive nuclear stockpile, which of course if used would mean the extinction of the human species.
That's deliberate policy. No SG has ever come from one of the permanent Security Council powers--they never even bother to politic for one. The SG has always come from a neutral, nonaligned, or 3rd world country. In this respect, CivIII doesn't mirror the real world. From the founding of the UN until roughly the mid-60's, though, the US could usually round up enough votes on any position it chose in the General Assembly, then have it overturned by a Soviet veto on the Security Council. That was in fact a key position for the US to take: to be so diplomatically dominant as to force the Soviets to the unpalatable result of vetoing everything. It would be defensible to argue that this was the real world equivalent of CivIII's diplomatic victory.
The problem, of course, is that unlike CivIII, the real world game continues & in recent decades the US has been pushed into the same position as the Soviets were in. You could then argue, on the above basis, that the US is currently losing either the 2nd game of CivIII, or the continuation. However, it isn't clear that anyone else is winning, either. The Chinese may be doing best in the overall diplomatic scene, beyond the UN, but they are also building upon a sand of dictators around the world & are anything but sweetness and light; it is likely that sooner or later this will backfire on them, although possibly not before they have everything they wanted. If you get what you want, then pull out of the game, is that then a victory? Depends on your POV, I suppose.
wow thanks i had no idea about how the un worked until that post
No one has won yet. The game is continuing. America is in the lead with China close behind. Either China or USA will probably win a time expires victory in 2050.
Theres an issue at the moment with the UK drilling for oil on the Falkland Islands, the Argentinians are somewhat annoyed. The last I heard a UK oil rig was on its way down there to do the drilling. When I heard it my first image was a CIII map with a destroyer and oil rig in convoy.
Diplomatic Advisor: The Argentinians are annoyed with us.
I think it's definitely arguable that the US has won a 100k cultural victory, less so on the UN victory. Obviously no one has won a domination or conquest, we haven't colonized anywhere but earth... maybe New York for 20k? But you could argue that for a number of cities in the world...
Maybe the US has a VP victory for getting into so many wars. Maybe China won already and the rest of the world is going to figure it out in the next century. [histographic if nothing else]
Personally I think that since you can't actually 'win' in the real world, it pointless to try and compare.
what is that supposed to mean ?
LOL. If life were like Civ the USA would have to conquer all the great wonder cities so no one could achieve culture victory. And leaders would live a long long time.
Would we play more turns after 2050 if no victory conditions were met or would we just award histograph victory?
thats right about the leaders,
and about the histograph victory, would victory points be turned on
Since the US currently has a couple of space probes that have reached interstellar space in the Voyager and Pioneer series, in a sense, the US has won the Space Race.
I think the Mayans are claiming histographic victory in 2012, aren't they?
i don't think the Mayans would claim the victory, they were wiped out looong ago
there 2012 came a little early
Separate names with a comma.