Real World
- Thread starter Naokaukodem
- Start date
Zombie69
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,902
Memphus said:
I never said Canada would have any hope of winning either! In fact, my statement that diplomacy victory is unatainable in multiplayer (to which i'll attach the clause "unless you have 50% of the world population just by yourself", because you make a valid point) precludes this very possibility.
abj
Chieftain
Zombie69 said:
I would figure calling the US:
would blatantly qualify as bashing. And then to defend it by telling others to ignore it? Give me a break. Asinine comments like that should not be posted, especially when there are no markers to represent any attitude towards it being sarcastic or tongue-in-cheek.
Zombie69
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2005
- Messages
- 1,902
Astalder said:
That's not what i meant at all. What i meant is that your objectives, in the end, will not be met. It's starting to be clear now even for Bush himself.
Sure, you took out the dictator you put there a few years ago. You put another one there in his place, who will be more of a puppet (at least for a while). But all those -1 to relations around the world that it cost you outweigh any benefit you may get. Also, the people of Iraq have not been fooled, and you can't go forever against the will of the people. Eventually, they'll take their country back and all you'll have gained is another enemy.
In short, Bush set objectives for this war (which surely weren't WMD). Whether this war is a success or not can only be mesured according to those objectives and what it cost to reach them (if at all). Looking at it this way, it's obvious that this war was not a success for the USA.
Memphus said:
Compared to:
Zombie69 Quoting Memphus said:
Does not reflect my post properly. I was never saying that Canada would win...I do love my country but I am not naive.
I was stating that Canada was a close Ally of the US,
[rant]
(at that time anyways... our politicians(not all politicians, but Canadian Politics Definetly don't belong here) are now distancing the two of us
much to the dismay of many Canadians)[end rant]
In any case Canada was a close ally of the US right after WWII and would definetly of voted for them for a diplomatic win (IMO), My comment was directed at the size of Canada compared to the world would have had little effect on the outcome of the US winning or not.
Lol, thinking the opinions of the terrorists left in Iraq represents the will of that nation's people is like thinking the KKK represents America. The majority of Iraqis want two things: the US to leave, and the US to finish the job first. They want exactly what anyone would want after having a dictator removed, they want us to get them to a point where they can take care of themselves and then let them do it. Worked out pretty well in Japan and west Germany, I think it'll work out in Iraq if we don't screw it up. It doesn't matter if you thought going into Iraq was the right move (personally I think it was a waste of time, the only nations we made safer were the European ones), we're there now and you don't just get up and leave because people playing politics say so. You want to know why? Do a little reading on post WW1 Germany.
*points at Israel* (Before you say anything, a United Nations creation).
You got that backwards. If Bush's objectives were WMDs, then it was a failure in that respect. If he had other objectives, then it was not necessarily a failure. For example, the Middle East now looks like this:
Israel Syria Iraq Iran Afghanistan Pakistan India
You play Civ4, how about you boot up a scenario where the Allied nations and their overwhelming military advantage have that positioning on a nation with a hostile leadership and a culture war going on.
Failure? Not necessarily...
I got lots of reasons to dislike our President, mine tend to be based on reason though, not uninformed rhetoric. I'll bash my President in the local forums though, like I said we Americans are a funny lot... we'll tear each other apart on our own, and police our own government. We don't want your help with that.
Hmm...In each cat a different one wins:
Domination: No one. Too much of the world taken up by small countries. If europe was a country it could win, but europe is NOT a country. Strike that too. Europe and US combined could win. No one else. Except China.
Diplomatic: US before 2000. Now the UN is in ruins. Maybe the EU, but once again, Europe is not a country. (They should be one, they could win anything).
Space: US hands down, if ISS fails. If ISS and International Co-op succeds and we all win, no point, right?
Culture: Any Europian Country. Not the US. US uses other cultures, making us a mixing pot of all cultures, but none of our own, less English, but that was stolen from Europe again. Not europe itself, just any one of its countries.
Conquest: If we were all at war, US would win. Actually, Strike that. Nucular Armageddon. No winner, all losers. Bring on the winter!
Historograph: Wait till 2050 ;-). No, I would say that US would win. Europe combined could beat it, but Europe is not a country!
Domination: No one. Too much of the world taken up by small countries. If europe was a country it could win, but europe is NOT a country. Strike that too. Europe and US combined could win. No one else. Except China.
Diplomatic: US before 2000. Now the UN is in ruins. Maybe the EU, but once again, Europe is not a country. (They should be one, they could win anything).
Space: US hands down, if ISS fails. If ISS and International Co-op succeds and we all win, no point, right?
Culture: Any Europian Country. Not the US. US uses other cultures, making us a mixing pot of all cultures, but none of our own, less English, but that was stolen from Europe again. Not europe itself, just any one of its countries.
Conquest: If we were all at war, US would win. Actually, Strike that. Nucular Armageddon. No winner, all losers. Bring on the winter!
Historograph: Wait till 2050 ;-). No, I would say that US would win. Europe combined could beat it, but Europe is not a country!
civ=braincandy
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7
oh yeah eating burgers and drinking coffee is a mighty cultural event. Its more an economic factor.
Mr. Civtastic
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2006
- Messages
- 488
Nestorius said:
I think this is the most accurate post. Space race could be done...only if we had a competition to drive us like the 50's and 60's (and MANY advances in technology)
Domination? We could definately nuke the world's population so that our supporters numbered 2/3s.
Conquest? Much Much harder and probably unlikely...except with nukes again.
Diplomatic? Right now, no. Now if we start ponying up millions to EVERY nation, along with tech...yes. And we could do it...drop off military spending. Thats a trillion dollars to spread out amongst our doubters.
Cultural. I think this is closet. American movies and music rule the world. Our athletic sports are considered the finest athletes. Our form of government is now considered the best. Our civil rights are considered the best. We have territory (giving off culture) spread throughout the world. The whole world imitates the West, and of the West...America dominates.
Timed Victory...will be very close. Who knows where China will be at 2050. Our economies will almost surely bring us to fight. Whoever comes out on top will win.
kingjoshi
King
It's odd no one has brought up India. And what's with all this Europe talk? It's not a civ, despite the EU. Maybe in the future, they'll have permanent alliances and be a civ.
The culture of the US is dominant by FAR. China and India have strong cultures, but they've done little in exporting it. However, India has done a much better job of exporting its culture (music and movies) to areas around the Indian Ocean then China has done in regards to its culture. I think Japan has exported more culture then China has.
But the US is beyond compare. The influence of US music, television, movies, etc. I mean, MTV (despite the crappy channel it is now) still has much influence on the young in MANY nations. People that barely speak English or don't speak at all thought the world of Michael Jackson or other American entertainers. And due to the ingrained culture of the US, while the love of soccer has spread all over the world, it's been much slower to develop a following, versus how much the NBA is expanding elsewhere (or even baseball since now they're having the world classic).
And let's not forget video games. Obviously we have developers from all over the world but with Japan the US are the leaders in developing games. And this gaming phenomenon and addiction is a new form of culture.
Just like how religion can be spread in the game through commerce, likewise with culture in real life. And with the army of marketers/psychologists/economists/etc, that itself is a form of culture the US is spreading.
NYC and LA have achieved legendary status. LA due to the culture bombing with great artists and the Hollywood World Wonder. NYC is much older and due to its massive size and production, its been able to acheive it. I don't think DC or Chicago or any other city is there yet.
----------------
In regards to other victory conditions.
Space race - we're at such infancy no one will acheive it by 2050.
Domination - China has 1.2 billion people, only accounting for 20% of the world population. India has over 1 billion and will eventually overtake it, the question is only when. But that's not significant enough. Heck, India can't even get a permanent seat in the UN! No country has even close to decent land mass to talk. Maybe Kubla Kahn way back, but not now.
Conquest - um, I don't see a Nuclear war happening nor civs getting taken out.
Diplomatic - The UK, Canada and most of the countries in the Americas would've voted for the US. And I'm taking about the governments, not public sentiment. But China and India have too population and they have strong nationalism there as well. China would've voted for itself and India abstained.
Yes, I'm thinking too much on something that wasn't meant to be taken seriously...
Anyway, my bet is on India as a dark horse to win on time by 2050. Assuming Paskistan doesn't nuke them..
The culture of the US is dominant by FAR. China and India have strong cultures, but they've done little in exporting it. However, India has done a much better job of exporting its culture (music and movies) to areas around the Indian Ocean then China has done in regards to its culture. I think Japan has exported more culture then China has.
But the US is beyond compare. The influence of US music, television, movies, etc. I mean, MTV (despite the crappy channel it is now) still has much influence on the young in MANY nations. People that barely speak English or don't speak at all thought the world of Michael Jackson or other American entertainers. And due to the ingrained culture of the US, while the love of soccer has spread all over the world, it's been much slower to develop a following, versus how much the NBA is expanding elsewhere (or even baseball since now they're having the world classic).
And let's not forget video games. Obviously we have developers from all over the world but with Japan the US are the leaders in developing games. And this gaming phenomenon and addiction is a new form of culture.
Just like how religion can be spread in the game through commerce, likewise with culture in real life. And with the army of marketers/psychologists/economists/etc, that itself is a form of culture the US is spreading.
NYC and LA have achieved legendary status. LA due to the culture bombing with great artists and the Hollywood World Wonder. NYC is much older and due to its massive size and production, its been able to acheive it. I don't think DC or Chicago or any other city is there yet.
----------------
In regards to other victory conditions.
Space race - we're at such infancy no one will acheive it by 2050.
Domination - China has 1.2 billion people, only accounting for 20% of the world population. India has over 1 billion and will eventually overtake it, the question is only when. But that's not significant enough. Heck, India can't even get a permanent seat in the UN! No country has even close to decent land mass to talk. Maybe Kubla Kahn way back, but not now.
Conquest - um, I don't see a Nuclear war happening nor civs getting taken out.
Diplomatic - The UK, Canada and most of the countries in the Americas would've voted for the US. And I'm taking about the governments, not public sentiment. But China and India have too population and they have strong nationalism there as well. China would've voted for itself and India abstained.
Yes, I'm thinking too much on something that wasn't meant to be taken seriously...
Anyway, my bet is on India as a dark horse to win on time by 2050. Assuming Paskistan doesn't nuke them..
Points:
1st: The USA would NOT have won a diplomatic victory after WWII. You had the whole Soviet bloc that wouldn't have voted for them, plus you had all of China that wouldn't have voted for them. I seriously doubt that the Soviet bloc and China would amount to less than 41%, seeing as how china at that time held between 1/4 and 1/3 of the world's population. France likely wouldn't have voted for the USA either, just out of spite. The USA may have gotten the vote for Secretary General (I have no idea), but if it were the Diplomatic Victory vote there would have been quite a few abstainers.
2nd: India would not win a diplomatic victory. Ghandi diplomicized the Brits out of there, but as far as global diplomacy?
3rd: The reason that the USA has -1 or worse relations now with so many nations is that the USA is the only superpower left. The world wants the USA to be dominant, but then complains about her dominance.
"USA - solve African hunger."
"USA - North Korea is up to no good again."
"USA - there was a Tsunami. We'll all chip in, but we expect more from you. That's all you can give? Sure - it's more than anyone else, but that's all?"
"USA - this country has gotten out of hand. We need you to send the most troops in, but they'll be under some other UN country's general. Oh - you don't like that? You think you should be in charge all of the time? We don't care that the general is sending your troops in without armor support in an area that clearly needs it. You're not in charge."
"USA - we know that you are feeding much of the world with your fishing and livestock and they'd go hungry without you, but we condemn your devastation of fishing waters and the treatment of your animals."
"USA - we condemn you invading Iraq for no good reason that most of us actually agreed with you on to begin with. What's that? You're closing your military bases in our country? We'll shut up now."
"USA - your greenhouse gases are killing the entire world. We realize that about half of the cars sold in the USA aren't American made, but we want to keep that money AND complain about your Greenhouse gases.
"USA - you won't get rid of the landmines in S. Korea. Please remove them so that we may then complain about the vast number of troops you had to put on the border to "protect" against an invasion."
"USA - please do something else that we can complain about. We're bored with our own country."
In other words, it's not half the world against the Soviets anymore. Now everybody's sites are on the USA. Most of the world hates the USA. Even half of the USA hates the USA. I swear, I think that the liberals just argue for the sake of arguing sometimes.
Republicans: We want to put forth an initiative to clean up America!
Liberals: Your initiative violates the civil rights of the people living in those areas. You are suggesting that the people in these areas are not as good as the people in "clean" areas.
Republicans: We're just trying to help.
Liberals: Go back to executing murderers you villians while we continue to support abortion, since we then get the women's vote. You can have the murderer's vote. Oh - they can't vote. Ha!
Republicans: But....
Liberals: Oh shut up.
[dramatization - may not have happened]
4th: China would not win a cultural victory. Their policies for thousands of years was one of isolation. Indeed - they even built a wall to further isolate themselves. Yes, they invented many things that are important today: gunpowder, paper, spaghetti. Yet those things were stuck in China until Europeans went there and brought them out.
As for today, being the world's only bastion of Communism that counts (I don't count Cuba, as that borders on a Dictatorship, plus they're insignificant except for their baseball team and their cigars) they still don't have relations good enough with the rest of the world to consider a cultural victory. Heck - they didn't even have great relations with their Soviet Communist brothers.
5th: The reason things worked so well in Japan was that the Emperor was left on the throne. Quite a shrewd move by Truman. Whatever the Emperor said, the people did. As for Germany, the ones in the west were just happy not being in the Red area. The ones in the east who caused trouble would be shot on site. Plus they were tired of the war, and knew that they were beaten.
6th: It is folly to say that the USA's culture is not one of the most dominant in the world. During the cold war, everybody in the Communist countries wanted US goods. People from all over the world come to Disneyland (or World - I get them mixed up).
Whether you agree that coffee and cheeseburgers are "culture", they ARE a way of life that was invented here and that "culture" has spread throughout the world. Ok, I don't buy the coffee thing. People want coffee whether Starbucks is there or not. Starbucks didn't invent the coffeehouse. But MacDonalds is huge, and is an American ideal. If they don't have a MacDonalds, they have their own thing. Plus - NYC is a culture all on it's own. How many great people have risen from there in the last century and a half since it took dominance over from Philadelphia?
Not saying that the USA should win a cultural victory - but let's not discredit her contributions just because we hate America. And that's another thing. We can say USA or America and it typically means the same thing. Doesn't really, but everyone around the world considers America to be the USA.
7th: Rome would NOT have won a domination or cultural victory. They have to control 70 percent of the territory, right? The known world at the time included India, China, all of Africa (not just Egypt), and whatever was in Russia at the time. They had little or no influence in any of those areas. That's not to mention that roughly 1/3 of the world was not yet discovered at the time. The game goes by control of a percentage of the whole world; not just the known world.
Ok, I'll stop now. Oh - and I notice that Astalder beat me to it on the superpower theory.
1st: The USA would NOT have won a diplomatic victory after WWII. You had the whole Soviet bloc that wouldn't have voted for them, plus you had all of China that wouldn't have voted for them. I seriously doubt that the Soviet bloc and China would amount to less than 41%, seeing as how china at that time held between 1/4 and 1/3 of the world's population. France likely wouldn't have voted for the USA either, just out of spite. The USA may have gotten the vote for Secretary General (I have no idea), but if it were the Diplomatic Victory vote there would have been quite a few abstainers.
2nd: India would not win a diplomatic victory. Ghandi diplomicized the Brits out of there, but as far as global diplomacy?
3rd: The reason that the USA has -1 or worse relations now with so many nations is that the USA is the only superpower left. The world wants the USA to be dominant, but then complains about her dominance.
"USA - solve African hunger."
"USA - North Korea is up to no good again."
"USA - there was a Tsunami. We'll all chip in, but we expect more from you. That's all you can give? Sure - it's more than anyone else, but that's all?"
"USA - this country has gotten out of hand. We need you to send the most troops in, but they'll be under some other UN country's general. Oh - you don't like that? You think you should be in charge all of the time? We don't care that the general is sending your troops in without armor support in an area that clearly needs it. You're not in charge."
"USA - we know that you are feeding much of the world with your fishing and livestock and they'd go hungry without you, but we condemn your devastation of fishing waters and the treatment of your animals."
"USA - we condemn you invading Iraq for no good reason that most of us actually agreed with you on to begin with. What's that? You're closing your military bases in our country? We'll shut up now."
"USA - your greenhouse gases are killing the entire world. We realize that about half of the cars sold in the USA aren't American made, but we want to keep that money AND complain about your Greenhouse gases.
"USA - you won't get rid of the landmines in S. Korea. Please remove them so that we may then complain about the vast number of troops you had to put on the border to "protect" against an invasion."
"USA - please do something else that we can complain about. We're bored with our own country."
In other words, it's not half the world against the Soviets anymore. Now everybody's sites are on the USA. Most of the world hates the USA. Even half of the USA hates the USA. I swear, I think that the liberals just argue for the sake of arguing sometimes.
Republicans: We want to put forth an initiative to clean up America!
Liberals: Your initiative violates the civil rights of the people living in those areas. You are suggesting that the people in these areas are not as good as the people in "clean" areas.
Republicans: We're just trying to help.
Liberals: Go back to executing murderers you villians while we continue to support abortion, since we then get the women's vote. You can have the murderer's vote. Oh - they can't vote. Ha!
Republicans: But....
Liberals: Oh shut up.
[dramatization - may not have happened]
4th: China would not win a cultural victory. Their policies for thousands of years was one of isolation. Indeed - they even built a wall to further isolate themselves. Yes, they invented many things that are important today: gunpowder, paper, spaghetti. Yet those things were stuck in China until Europeans went there and brought them out.
As for today, being the world's only bastion of Communism that counts (I don't count Cuba, as that borders on a Dictatorship, plus they're insignificant except for their baseball team and their cigars) they still don't have relations good enough with the rest of the world to consider a cultural victory. Heck - they didn't even have great relations with their Soviet Communist brothers.
5th: The reason things worked so well in Japan was that the Emperor was left on the throne. Quite a shrewd move by Truman. Whatever the Emperor said, the people did. As for Germany, the ones in the west were just happy not being in the Red area. The ones in the east who caused trouble would be shot on site. Plus they were tired of the war, and knew that they were beaten.
6th: It is folly to say that the USA's culture is not one of the most dominant in the world. During the cold war, everybody in the Communist countries wanted US goods. People from all over the world come to Disneyland (or World - I get them mixed up).
Whether you agree that coffee and cheeseburgers are "culture", they ARE a way of life that was invented here and that "culture" has spread throughout the world. Ok, I don't buy the coffee thing. People want coffee whether Starbucks is there or not. Starbucks didn't invent the coffeehouse. But MacDonalds is huge, and is an American ideal. If they don't have a MacDonalds, they have their own thing. Plus - NYC is a culture all on it's own. How many great people have risen from there in the last century and a half since it took dominance over from Philadelphia?
Not saying that the USA should win a cultural victory - but let's not discredit her contributions just because we hate America. And that's another thing. We can say USA or America and it typically means the same thing. Doesn't really, but everyone around the world considers America to be the USA.
7th: Rome would NOT have won a domination or cultural victory. They have to control 70 percent of the territory, right? The known world at the time included India, China, all of Africa (not just Egypt), and whatever was in Russia at the time. They had little or no influence in any of those areas. That's not to mention that roughly 1/3 of the world was not yet discovered at the time. The game goes by control of a percentage of the whole world; not just the known world.
Ok, I'll stop now. Oh - and I notice that Astalder beat me to it on the superpower theory.
kingjoshi said:
I wish more people would realize this....
kingjoshi said:
Soccer doesn't lend itself well to TV, which is why it won't catch on here. They've been saying for fifty years now that Soccer is the next big thing in America. It's just not going to happen. Americans don't have the patience for it. Eurpeans blast them for not understanding the intricacies of the game. Say it's more cerebral. Try explaining to a European what a two-deep zone is, or why you'd put eight men in the box on third and short.
kingjoshi said:
Video games may have started in the USA, but they are clearly Japanese now. I don't have a problem with that, other than the characters they create. The Japanese want to cater to Americans/Europeans AND the Japanese markets, so they make an American skinned character with Japanese features. In the end it looks like one of the guys from Queer Eye. Look - either make an American or a Japanese character. Don't emasculate us!
RandomInsanity
Warlord
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2005
- Messages
- 162
norway wins diplomatic un victory in 1946
Edward The Big
Bob Crane's Tripod
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2005
- Messages
- 204
While this game goes on, I can see Islam spreading throughout Europe...and Europe's population shrinking...
Hentooth
Lord & Master
England should win through language, invention and our mighty empire!! (100 years ago, maybe. We are just Airstrip 1 now. Damn those yanks!)
zeeter said:
Now now, easy on the generalisations. There's a lot of us in the uk with a healthy passion for American Football, or Football as you Americans call it...
, indeed a lot of us take the Monday after the Superbowl off work to stay up deep into the night to watch it. We know of two deep zones, run blitzes, flea flickers and even Statue of Liberty plays.Likewise those that say 'soccer' is more cerebral aren't really hitting the mark either. It's just a different brand of game, and one that's ingrained into the culture here in Europe, and many other parts of the world.
I think people tend to like the type sports they know from childhood. If you're used to the stop-start nature of American sports then the slower but continuous nature of soccer may not appeal. Conversely, people used to wacthing 45 minutes in a row can become frustrated by the constant interruptions, and adverts, in US sports. Especially during the last two minutes of a US football game...
Anyhow, to each their own.
I'll get back in my box now.
Similar threads
