What do you think would be your country's traits if included in CIV?

Dawood:
only thing americans care about is replacing regimes and making money...
Click to expand...


I'm about as far from being what people would call a patriot as one can be without actually emigrating, but I really don't think we Americans need to see that kind of junk.

At the very least, don't confuse the people with the government. Bush Lite of the current invasion didn't even get 50% of our vote, and his fabled daddy, of the last invasion, did not get reelected.

Americans, the people, do care about getting money, but our government doesn't give us free health care or free college tuition or even try to protect us from immigrants taking our jobs and/or lowering the salary base for them, or so-called U.S. corporations shipping our jobs to cheap labor third world nations.

Feel free to condemn the U.S. government. I do it almost every chance I get. But chill on what "Americans" care about.

Oh, does Sweden still require mandatory military service? Was that your idea, or your cousin's? Getting the idea yet, bro?

I have loads of respect for your country. Try to return the favor. After all, you don't want me launching my personal ICBMs at your house, right? ;)
 
I think it´s too easy too assume that America is militaristic because they´ve fought more wars then say, Belgium. It is simply a large country, so there is more incentives for America too wage war, then for Belgium. There is 3 reasons for that:

1. Powerful countries are never popular. America is to the world what Germany is for Europe, and who likes the Germans?
2. Big countries have the means to wage war, small countries don`t (fairly obvious).
3. Big countries have big interests. If Brazil decides not to purchase any Belgian products in the future, it doesn´t really matter enough to fight a costly war over it. If they decide not to buy American stuff anymore, the benefits of forcing them to change their opinion might outweigh the costs.

So the real question you should ask yourself is; how often would my country wage war if it was big?
 
America is to the world what Germany is for Europe, and who likes the Germans?
Click to expand...

Except that Germany started two world wars, and so far the U.S. hasn't started any...

...unless you count the theory that Roosevelt purposely supported Japan's military effort by selling them all that scrap metal prior to the Pearl Harbor attack.

The theory claims he did because he knew it would require an attack on U.S. property for the citizens to tolerate U.S. involvement in the European/Asian war.

There might even be something to that, as history maintains that, even after Pearl Harbor, many U.S. politicians and citizens of that time were all for hitting Japan, but were against involvement in the European theater.

There was also active resistance to U.S. involvement in the first world war, come to think of it.

That involvement gave birth to what may well be the most emotionally powerful anti-war novel of all time: Dalton Trumbo's "Johnny Got His Gun. Banned in the U.S. for decades, but revived during the Vietnam era.
 
Mmm, I not sure whether you understand what I meant Quandary. I didn`t mean that America is or was like Germany, just that it hold a similar role in the world as Germany, which is that of the most powerful country. And powerful countries are usually unpopular amongst others. So that`s the paralel I was trying to point out. For your information, I do believe that Germany should be labelled militaristic and America should not. As for Macchiavellian policy, could it be that America has not sent out the coast guard during Hitler`s operation Paukenschlag (=Drumbeat), which involved an all-out submarine attack on US commercial vessels, just in order to boost casualties and thereby public support for the war? Call me a cynic if you like....
 
your both wrong England has fought and won more wars than any country in teh world to date. Ppl constantly talk about how small the country is. Did that stop us claiming more than 1/3 of the worlds populous as sovereign territory, no. Thing is America bullies more than anything, this isnt anti american its a fact. Also they only join a wining side another fact (WW2 teh tide had shifted when USA joined with Stalingrad and El Alamein hapening b4 US involvement)
 
To get back on topic. For us Danes it would have to be militaristic and commercial. A long period of warfare against primarily the Swedes and the Germans were followed by a period of commercialism after the end of the Great Nordic War in 1720. So, basically those two traits would fit in to a period of around 150 years. If I have to put a more narrow frame on it then I would be hard pressed to find a second trait. I can't see expansionist, industrious, religious or scientific working.
 
@fazzoletti:

I understood you, man :)

I didn't intend to be at all harsh in my reply to you, so I'm sorry if it seemed that I was.
 
I would say many 'militaristic' countries are not militaristic. Just because there's a strong army, or even a frequently used army, does not indicate a militant society. Countries that parade around their armies are more militant. Countries that don't even look at peace or always act as if its wartime (North Korea's constant bomb drills and constant martial music used throughout pyongyang to both wake people up and put them to sleep) those are militaristic. Countries that don't use a police force but use martial law are more likely militaristic.
 
I think my country's attributes would be apathetic and unindustrious.

I think the US's attributes would be uninformed and reactionary.

I think France's attributes would be stubborn and reactionary.

Everybody happy now I've dissed all sides?
 
I like the idea of having the nation's attribute change over time. To avoid the trolling let's take a classic - say Greece:
Greece was once very Militaristic (e.g. Sparta) but I would not apply that characteristic to Greece now

Perhaps have a nation start with 2 Characteristic but if it leads the world in some key factor for a length of time have one attribute change. If the Zulu's have more temples and cathedral's than everyone for ten turns then they become religious. Most troops militaristic. Factories-industrious and so on; that would allow a player to guide his civilization to the needs of a particular game.
 
I see what you mean, Sewer. Did you know btw that in ancient times, Greece didn't exist as a country, but only as a couple of city states? Sparta, for example, was very militaristic, but Athens was commercial & scientific. But your point is clear, countries can change over time.

Let us assume (for a moment) that we all agree that England is commercial. Question: how come? Answer: they are on an island (so there's lots of trading opportunities/necessities), at least I suppose that's the answer. I mean, this is my idea, not some scientific theory.
So how come Germany is militaristic (assuming that you guys agree about that as well)? They are in the middle of Europe, with all sorts of nations surrounding them, so there's booty potential and/or defense necessity (did I spell that right?). So it pays or used to pay for them to have an good army.
The state of Prussia once decided to force the remaining German states to form an alliance. Prussia was a militaristic state, so Germany (led by the Prussians) became militaristic in nature. But how come the Prussians were militaristic? It has got to be a survival-of-the-fittest-kind-of-thing. Commercial states that might have existed could not exist in the surroundings, or changed their policies (=became militaristic).
Was that a choice made by their leaders? Yes, I suppose so. So, mmm, this is funny, I think I agree with you SSF...I was trying to point out you were wrong but come to think of it you aren't.... Ok, so 'cultural self-determination' is the thing for civ4 I guess.....

ps Sgt.Hellfish, America did not choose sides in ww2. Hitler declared war on America.

pps Quandary, no hard feelings man ;)
 
oldmanrupert : they train now, since Colombia Plan began. I don't know how many of them have this kind of training now, but i guess it would be some hundreds.

sgt.hellfish : i could say brazil is religious too, because it's the biggest catholic country, but would fit better if there were no minorities, and there are a lot here! thinking better, brazil wouldn't be a militaristic country, only had 2 wars, but couldn't think of a better trait.
 
-=Israel as it is now would be either Mil-Sci, Sci-Rel, or Mil-Rel.
-Mil cause we're under constant threat of war [and terrorism] so we have a powerful military, and draft is compulsory.
-Sci cause we've made many great scientific discoveries... Contrary to popular(?) misleading, Israel is a very advanced country [I'm not sure there was any need to point this out... But I can't help but recall the stories of people asking friends of mine over the net if we ride camels to school/work etc.]
-Rel because my country can't seem to seperate state and religion... This pisses the hell out of me, but it's true nonetheless...
-The special unit would most likely be the Merkava mk3 or mk5, Israel's awesome tanks... Would just be a pumped up mech. inf. This is an educated guess, I don't know much about the Merkava really...

-=The Jews [for lack of better name], as the settlers that settled palestine and formed Israel, would probably be Ind-Exp.
-Ind, because those people did ALOT of work here and brought up quite a formidable country.
-Exp more for the scout [to help build up a coutry quick] than cause there was much expansion done [we're a f-cking tiny country! Which reminds me that I think there should be a trait for small countries that makes settlers more costly, but doubles all food gold and shield production from tiles]...
-The lack of Rel is because at the start of the State of Israel, there was a great sense of Israelity and togetherness, which could not really survive within the strict boudries of Jewish law... The ultra-orthodox jews etc came here later on... The less orthodox nationalist religious people and other more mild sects of Jewdism probably arose out of the settlers here later on in the countrie's existance... I truly don't know much about this subject. ><
-Their special unit would be the Halutz, a settler that can defend itself [1.1] if placed early in the game, if later on, should also be faster and have appropriate defense and attack stats.

-=The Hebrews, as the nomadic people of ancient times would probably be Exp-Rel.
-Exp, not really because we expanded much in those days, but more cause of, again, the scout bonus...
-Rel cause, well, I think it's obvious enough...
-Can't really think about a special unit...

btw, if any of you remember me [proly not, I don't remember many of you]:
It's good to be back.
 
Hey, I remember your signiture ;)

Yeah I would agree Isreal is a militaristic nation.
 
Originally posted by fazzoletti
Aha, another example that shows the need for 3 traits (1 major strength + 2 minor strengths)....

Israelis: RELIGIOUS, Militaristic, Industrious
Click to expand...
I agree in general, about the three traits thing, but Israel would not be industrious if it were based on the modern-day State of Israel... It would definately be REL-mil-sci, or possibly MIL-rel-sci....

Also I think some traits should be added, like a trait for smaller countries, as I mentioned before, a trait for naval powers like England, and perhaps a set of traits that characterize the civs favourite type of land [so a mountainous civ would be able to settle mountains, would treat hills as grassland for movement, and mountains as hills, and also mountain defense bonuses would rise. Also there could be a trait for civs that can handle deserts and tundra, etc... Along with a trait that is more neutral for civs that have no pefferance for land types...]

Bla, I really should go to sleep, sorry if this post seems like a pile of bull****, I'm having a hard time focusing right now... I'll add more on the subject tomorrow...
 
Originally posted by fazzoletti


I don´t think so. Our ancestors were trying to make money in Indonesia, they weren´t 'Dutchizing' the place. I am not so sure about policy aims in those days but I think we didn´t want to turn Indonesia into a new province (like the English tried with India (?)). So you could say we were being militaristic (like the Germans in WW2) but we applied a puppetmaster strategy I think, unlike Hitler in France. So no conquest-tactics (Germany-militaristic) and no settling-tactics (America-expansionist) either. I would find it very interesting what you think about this though...
Click to expand...

I agree with darkness. The expansionist trait gives scouts, with the possibily to discover the world. That's what the Dutch did. We were one of the most important explorers in the 17th century. Also we had colonies in Japan, Indonesia, North and South America and South Africa. I know that we are a tiny country now, but expansionist and commercial are the traits for a Dutch civ.

The UU must be a Galleon that should be able to carry more units and has a higher movement rate. :)

Now, does someone want to make a leaderhead (William of Orange)? :p
 
Grrrrr!!!

Srt Hellfish saying that make me and welsh, and northern irish people very angry.

We scots really hat it when the English start talking about their empire and their colonys. We were a sovrien country of that empire too.

England has also been to big for its boots sometimes. On many occasions has it invaded smaller countries (take us in scotland for example) and failed. I really hate it when people start talking about britain but saying england, are they too blind to realise that there are 3 other countries aswell

arg it makes me so annoyed

Anyway i would sya Scotland would be an Industrious and Scientific nation.

Industrious because we had huge coal industries in the victorian era. in WWII we made moee ships and destroyers than England. We had massive industries at falkirk. Now we have a massive chemicals and pharmesuiticals industry in Grangemouth.

Scientific because scotland invented the Television,Telephone (which if we hadnt invented meant u wouldnt be using this internet right now) Penecillin (which has saved over 500,000,000 lives worldwide) and we are one of the leading countries in Genetics (we made dolly the sheep :) in my city, Edinburgh) and we are one of the leading countries in Cancer research. The Edinburgh university is also the best university in the world for the study of medicin and biology and biological sciences.

Our leader would have to be Rober Bruce
Our capital would be Edinburgh (like in real life)
Our Unit would be a Jocobite or a Pictish warrior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
What would a Neolithic scenario look like?
Replies
4
Views
414
SultanRedSnake
SultanRedSnake
evonannoredars
How will nukes come into play?
Replies
8
Views
2K
SirViss
SirViss
K
What if religions couldn't be controlled, only welcomed or suppressed?
Replies
9
Views
692
Nic@Melbourne
N
K
Alternative campaign-The English
Replies
5
Views
756
Fergei
Fergei
H
Crossroads of the World and Right to Rule DLC - themed predictions based on what we know
31 32 33
Replies
658
Views
64K
notNamed
N
Back
Top Bottom