What level is our earth playing at?

What level is our earth playing at?

  • Cheiftain

    Votes: 7 15.2%
  • Warlord

    Votes: 1 2.2%
  • Prince

    Votes: 5 10.9%
  • King

    Votes: 4 8.7%
  • Emperor

    Votes: 5 10.9%
  • Deity

    Votes: 24 52.2%

  • Total voters
    46
Stabalizing Myanmar, "old school" Stalinist regimes in Laos and Cambodia.
Cambodia does not have an old style communist regime. They have a very weak, less-effective democracy monitored by the UN (need I say more about the weakness if the UN is involved)

Were you meaning Vietnam perhaps? However, both Laos and Vietnam are more Mao oriented than Stalin

I voted King as the middle of the road. some areas Diety other Chieftan.
 
I was tired so I just wrote "Stalinist." You're right, they are Maoist regimes...I was just thinking of Pol Pot...and the UN may as well be considered a Maoist state :crazyeye:
 
actually, i change my vote to diety.

before i said that we have no bloody thirsty AIs taking over the world, that because THE AIs ALWAYS EXTORT YOU FIRST. They will be freindly to you, as long as you give them all your technologys etc.
 
I don't know about the world, but I know Israel is playing at least 20,000 levels harder than deity :rolleyes:
 
Has to be deity - let's look at some (simplified) facts.
History shows that whatever your empire level, it will fall.
Starting at 4,000 BC - and playing a little fast and loose with dates. Don't pull me up on the factoids here, I'm just establishing a principle and dealing with a handful of major historical players.

The Phoenicians
- don't know much about them, but their ships carried them all around Europe. Excellent trade, excellent geographical knowledge of their area, knew how to mine tin etc. But as I understand it, natural disasters finished them off. They were a great civ - all gone.
Eliminated by natural disaster then.

The Egyptians
- the great pyramid, if what 've heard is correct, contains more stone than the combined cathedrals of Europe in the middle ages. No shortage of workers then. Good for religion, good for military power. But they were done by the Romans - never a major force again.
Eliminated by enemy might.

The Greeks
- Fathers of modern philosophy, fathers of modern democracy, quite powerful militarily. But with fractious city states and Sparta on one side and Italy on the other, they were gobbled up by Rome.
Eliminated by might, sapped by petty wars.

The Romans
- An awesome civ, no need to mention their many accomplishments.
Wiped out by barbarian hordes, coupled with the strain of keeping hold of such a large empire (consider it like a city in CivIII flipping over to a different civ?)
Eliminated by barbarians, eventually.

The British Empire
- It is estimated that in the 1800s, a quarter of the world's population was in the British Empire. Could they have kept it, given a few twists of fate? But they 'lost' India, gave independence to many other civs as well, new political and humanitarian theories discouraged the idea of 'empire', and two world wars saw them go from #1 to lower top-ten in fifty-odd years.
Their maritime might was unsurpassed for hundreds of years in a European arena where Macchiavellian tactics and attempted conquest was the norm. There were military alliances all over the place and everyone was scrabbling for territory all over the world.
- eliminated by a combination of factors, city (country) flipping back to former ownership, political factors, and two titanic wars knocked the stuffing out of them.

So history shows that the major players I've picked out here (and there are many others e.g. Soviet Russia which were massive and couldn't last for a century) , with many unique attributes and strengths, did not have what it takes to play a winning game of Civ3.

- that to me spells 'deity' level.
 
You forgot the last empire.
US of A.
 
Yes, The US is doing well, but I don't think they have a winning game - although they haven't fallen yet. Can they last long enough to get Alpha Centauri?
 
Actually I would compare the world situation to a MULTIPLAYER game rather than a single-player one. I've never played multiplayer, but I assume there are no "levels" (since there is no AI), and from both what I've heard and what I'd imagine, the strategies are much more difficult since you deal with real human intelligence and cunning--which can be ruthless in the extreme, and totally unpredictable.

Since the world powers are led by humans (well, you know what I mean ;) ) rather than computers at this time, that accounts for why things don't generally happen the way they do in an average single-player civ game.

So I'd vote "multiplayer" if that were an option.
 
Originally posted by polymath
Yes, The US is doing well, but I don't think they have a winning game - although they haven't fallen yet. Can they last long enough to get Alpha Centauri?

Maybe, but they can fall after that, too.
US will fall. I'm not hoping it, it's just a fact.
The real question is : Why it will fall? And when?
 
Maybe USA will fall when the rip inside will cause it and not an attack from the outside.
Americans are not ethnic, they are from diversed ethnicities.
Let the american culture develop its way and the diversed ethnicities to continue and maybe that can cause a rip from the inside that will bring it down. Or maybe not, what do I know.
 
Originally posted by allan2
Actually I would compare the world situation to a MULTIPLAYER game rather than a single-player one. I've never played multiplayer, but I assume there are no "levels" (since there is no AI), and from both what I've heard and what I'd imagine, the strategies are much more difficult since you deal with real human intelligence and cunning--which can be ruthless in the extreme, and totally unpredictable.

Since the world powers are led by humans (well, you know what I mean ;) ) rather than computers at this time, that accounts for why things don't generally happen the way they do in an average single-player civ game.

So I'd vote "multiplayer" if that were an option.
Im pretty sure that there would be levels in a multiplayer game cause the level would determine things like happieness.
 
"Im pretty sure that there would be levels in a multiplayer game cause the level would determine things like happieness."

Hmmm... in terms of just the happiness issue then, I'd say that sometimes it can be chieftain (sheep easily lulled by propaganda, decadence, etc.) and sometimes Diety (people b*tch about the STUPIDEST things...). And both can happen just "playing" the US!

But my point about multiplayer was, that our leaders, being (somewhat ;) ) human, are not quite as predictable as a computer AI. And in a multiplayer game you will have relatively wise or cunning players, and ones who don't play as well. Same thing in the real world. Computer AIs can't simulate that near well enough. Hell even on Diety, the AI will still become "stupid" as the human player practices against it--because it can be so easily predicted!
 
Level = Artificial Idiot probably on an abacus mainframe.

Been going 6,000 years yet but not even launced one proper trireme (star ship) yet.
 
If the real world were a civ game, the Romans would never have been so dumb as to let the stupid barbarians conquer them. They would still be ruling the world and would have reached Alpha Centauri at around 1600 A.D., having left one pathetic little city from another empire around so that their game didn't have to end with a world conquest victory around 1000 A.D.
 
Back
Top Bottom