GalCiv2 Forums
Okay, here's what you do for this game: You have to "ban" the person who posted above you for an outrageous, silly, or funny reason. Got it?
Banned for boners embed.
Heard of it. It has several British armoured vehicles in it. 
Have thought of getting it before, but never have.
Banned for burying wood.
banned for I wanted to see what would sprout. 
Well, just about any game that's based on things that didn't happen (and some that are loosely based on truth) sounds ridiculous. But hey, if we can turn Cold War fears into modern entertainment, who's to say it's wrong?
Banned because you made me remember a Patrice O'Neal bit about how different things would be if women could "egg on top of his head" and call their girlfriends to brag about it.
Banned because I honestly don't wanna know.
Banned for making me fix your post.
banned for maybe so, but as I pointed to my dad (given that the plot takes place over 12 years from now) Germany built a superpower out of a battered nation that no one expected. And don't forget that the Romans were slaves before rising up and becoming the historic empire we know.
Not saying it's terribly plausible, but not impossible.
Banned because that's not the part I find implausible. The main issue is that all of these games feature a rogue nation that behaves contrary to its own dominant ideology, and which occupies America with more pointless and counterproductive cruelty than Nazi Germany.
Banned because I want a pointer to this liberated-slave version of Rome's founding.
Everything I've read boils crudely down to them being sort of trashy neighbors of the Etruscans who lucked out in the long run because the hills along the Tiber they picked for their shabby little towns turned out to be a very strategic location.
banned for the hills were good, but not amazing...
Rome was dominated by Etruscans until the Romans sacked Veii in 396 BC.
Maybe the use of the term 'slave' was a little too encompassing, but they were not at all valued citizens within the empire and had it not been for a chink in the political armor of the Etruscans developing in the south, they would have not necessarily had the chance to rise up to political might. Keep in mind, when I say 'rise up', it does not always have to be violent.
SD: Oh, I'm sorry. Because all the fear of a Soviet/Chinese led World War Three wasn't a fear of the Western World for almost five decades. 
Nope, that was ALL Government Propaganda. If you look closely enough, Russia and China don't even exist on the map. They're just really big oceans that the government says are nations.
Please, of all the bullcrap Alternate histories out there, or even plausible futures, WiC is by far the most realistic. At the time of the game, the USSR had the largest standing army in the world (1/4 of it's population of 280 million either was manufacturing military equipment or serving in the military), had the second largest economy and third largest population in the world. Not to mention their advancement in military technology that was only matched by that of NATO, and just barely so. If you're going to bash a game's storyline, have something to back up just how UN-realistic it COULD have been.
kthxbai
Banned because the Roman Empire was beast. Learning about both the Roman Empire of old and the Holy Roman Empire which dominated Central European politics until the mid 1800's.
Xer0 \^/
banned for letting them be beast, whatever that means. I'll assume there was a missing word in there.
Yes, their biggest deal was the lasting influence and longevity of the Senate and later empire. Alexander and the Khan's each had much larger empires, the Khan's being the largest contiguous empire in history. And then there's the British Empire, the largest overall in history with effects still felt to this day, not to mention the fairly unique quality of still existing as a country after the decline of the larger empire. None of the aforementioned empires can claim that. Even Macedon has already had to come and go out of existence before existing in modern day.
Sorry, I havn't talked to anyone outside my locale in a while... the baltimore/redneck/white trash slang is starting to get to me.
"Beast" - a slang term generally meaning "awesome" "strong" "powerful" or "unstoppable" Example: "Dude, that car was freaking beast"...
Yes, there are alot of stoners in my area.
Banned because I'm ashamed of my local culture...
Anyway, something that has always bothered me about older cultures is that no Continental European power managed to unite all of Europe, yet in Asia, India and the Middle East, those areas were often under the control of one regional power. (Albeit, when the Mongols were around, all of them were under one power, but still). It stumps me every time I wonder why the Chinese, Indians, and Arabs all have a few languages and cultures between them, while Europe easily has almost a hundred seperate cultures and languages.
Xer0 \^/
Banned because Europe has been united before. It was called the Roman Empire, and as far as I know it didn't really care whether or not its culture spread with its borders, which would explain how many of the "countries" or rather groups of people of the same ethnic background as they were at the time kept their identities. Furthermore, the Dark Ages led to a massive lapse in communication between the various groups in Europe, further facilitating the gain of strong national identities. By the end of the Dark Ages there were such strong identities for each country that they stayed different.
Something like that. I'm not really sure, that's just what I thought of in two minutes or so.
Meanwhile, the Middle-East, in my opinion, has such a unified cultural background because of Islam, correct me if I'm wrong. If Mohammed and his successors did indeed turn all of the Middle East to Islam through diplomacy and force of arms, then even if the martial aspect of this kingdom fell the religious side would have, and in fact has, lived on. As Islam is often felt to be as much a culture and background as a religion by many, and places a strong focus on the language of Arabic, this could explain the language and cultural similarities between many of the Middle-Eastern states.
So yeah. That's what I think, though I don't really know too much on the subject.
Banned because that seems to make sense. I also think that geography may have played a role in the Mideast's unification. The environment there is much more homogenous than Europe's, so the same culture can spread over a wider area. But that does not explain the unification of Asia.
And this whole "virus in San Fransisco" thing, before they've even consolidated their hold on any American territory? No country in the modern world has ever done anything like that. Even the Holocaust, which was pretty much the largest and fastest genocide we've ever seen, was carried out much more systematically and much later on in the flow of the war.
Banned because the moment that Russia did something like that the world would quickly meet its end courtesy of nuclear exchange.
Indeed, even if the Russians did what they were expected to do in the event of the Cold War going hot, the nuclear exchange would start on a tactical scale straight away. There were tactical nukes primed to blow the advancing Russian tanks to hell on one side, and nukes ready to shatter the European defensive line on the other.
Furthermore, if nukes had been launched in any way, shape, or form the rulebook would have been cast aside, and the world as we knew it would have become so much radioactive dust.
Banned for nuclear exchange. Seems like a pretty big understatement.
banned for stating it if you're not going to go over.
Yes, I agree that neither side would go long without vaporizing the other, but it's a game where nukes would bring a quick end to the fun.
As for Europe, Asia, etc... Keep in mind a few conflicts and such...
Asia was largely brought together, but some could argue never totally. Not all of Southeast Asia actually fell, but largely because it was ignored. But yes, it was largely unified at one time. Of course, a common practice of older Eastern cultures was to allow invaders in and then assimilate them, thus it was no biggy.
The Middle East is not totally homogenous, geographically or culturally. Although Islam helped at one point to unify people, after Mohammad died, it quickly split and newcomers were seen as outsiders. Islam had a similar history to Alexander's Hellenistic Empire. And if you were to say an Arab was the same as a Persian, both would take offense, despite both being largely Islamic. It was really only in the times of Mohammad and Saladin that it was united, even if tenuously. Before Islam, though, cultural assimilation was a constant and so invaders were unwelcome, but often tolerated once everyone knew who bested who.
Europe was not exactly unified. The Roman Empire got the closest, but was unwilling to breach into Scandinavia and much of the northeastern area because the Germanic tribes were an absolute nightmare to contend with after a point. Containment was preferred over invasion, but they still did a very good job. Alexander had a bigger empire, but went the opposite direction. Charlemagne attempted to bring together Europe (as did Hitler and Napoleon) with the hopes of uniting all tribes of Germanic origin, but fell short in the same fashion as the Roman Empire (as did Hitler and Napoleon). I think one of the biggest conflicts with such an endeavor is the cultural dynamic of Europe. Europe had a huge influx of peoples with the same background, later known as Celts collectively. These people could spread out and didn't have too many issues. Then the migration exploded from the Caucus Mountains, sending only one group out toward India and a plethora of people toward Europe. So suddenly it's crowded with all sorts of ideologies. So people are going to start bashing heads in for space (and the poor Celts were not anticipating this). Because the cultural tendency was that of resistance and so many groups had to constantly vie for space, these people became hardened, a reason I believe Europe was destined to carve some impressive territories out of the rest of the world. Not saying they're better, just better at violence.
Banned for needing a map to figure out something that you just said.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
Sins Forums