Brazil as a great civ of the *future*

[Miznia]

What do you think about prophetically including Brazil as a civ? It would fill a spot on the map...

[jdd2007]

sorry buddy, but despite its size and population, even in todays world, brazil isnt very influential. although its roughly the same age as the US, america has undoubtedly had an enormous effect on the the last two and a half centuries. brazil has not really changed history much. what kind of country sues the Simpsons, anyway? sheesh, that alone should disqualify the country

[Miznia]

Look, you silly person... Well, perhaps I wasn't clear... My whole point is that Brazil might IN THE FUTURE be an important civ. After they chop the rainforests down and fill the area up with folks.

Miznia

[jdd2007]

im sorry. i musunderstood. try to be a little clearer next time.

[Dom Pedro II]

Alright, I'm Brazilian and jdd2007, thems fightin' words! We've had more of an impact on the world than you think! We're bigger than the continental United States or all of Europe minus Russia, we have 175 million people. During the exodus from Europe in the 19th century, Brazil caught a quarter of those new comers (the U.S. itself had less than half). We helped fight in the invasion of Italy in World War Two. Alberto Santos Dumont (a Brazilian) was the first person to build a heavier-than-air flying machine that could take off under its own power (NOT the Wright Brothers because theirs used a catapult to lift them off the ground). Today, Brazil's economy is the 5th largest in the world, and last year were had a 4% growth in our GNP, which is better than most industrialized nations in the best of times. We are the next generation super power. Not like the U.S. which uses treachery and deceit to advance itself politically in the world. We have not "influenced" the world as much because we've had the good sense to leave other people alone rather than terrorize them!!!

Of course, there is that famous quote... "Brazil is the up and coming country of the future... and always will be."

[punkbass2000]

"Not like the U.S. which uses treachery and deceit to advance itself politically in the world. We have not "influenced" the world as much because we've had the good sense to leave other people alone rather than terrorize them!!!"

I totally agree with that

[Alex]

Boy, let's hope this thread does not degenerate in a flame war...

Despite being a Brazilian myself, I'd like to disagree with D. Pedro... Brazil is simply not important enough to feature as a civ in Civ3, because Brazil is not, technically speaking, a civilisation. USA is not a civilisation too, for that matter.

Brazil must be seen as a part of the "Iberic" civilisation, which would encompass Portugal and Spain. After all, our country was colonized by the Portuguese.

We all understand why America (as the north americans like to style themselves, with some arrogance) is in the game. The game was made by an american company, and its main market is the USA. Firaxis would have to be nuts to not include USA as a civ. But, as I said before, USA does not qualify as a civ IN THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT UTILIZED BY CIV3.

As for the Simpsons episode, I would like to say that it was stupid to sue the Simpsons, but only because we had no chance to win that lawsuit. Other than that, it was perfectly natural to be dissatisfied with prejudices and misconceptions. Any american would.

[jdd2007]

im not saying brazil hasnt had an effect on the world, just that it hasnt been large enough to warrant entry into civ3.

although im not usually a flamer, but i take offense at

"U.S. which uses treachery and deceit to advance itself politically in the world"

i dont usually defend my countrys actions, but what you said is completely not true. the us has advanced politically by expansion, hard-fought wars, excellent (mostly) leadership and a strong economy. today the us is powerful because of Europe being rocked by WWII, and later because of the democratic triumph over Russia.

"4% growth in our GNP"

however fast your country as a whole is growing, millions upon millions of brazilians live in shack cities. millions more do better farming and cutting down the rainforest.

"America (as the north americans like to style themselves, with some arrogance)"

whats wrong with saying america? i live in america and you live in america. im in north america, you in south. you live in brazil, and i in the usa.

terrorise people? were we terrorising when we fought the nazis, terrorists, when our government fought a war to end slavery in this country, when we introduced the marshall plan and monroe doctrine? was washington terrorising when he became the president, brushing away the monarchy offered to him.

im not defending all of the united states actions for the last 225 years, just doing what you would do if i said something like

"brazilians are cowards because they have fought so few wars"

know how i feel now? yah ill bet.
my government does not terrorise people. your country is not cowards.

about the simpsons thing, every show mocks american (no, whoops, US) values. the simpsons are a stereotypical US family. when one episode set in brazil makes a few references to a high crime rate there, rio takes it offensively and sues fox. sheesh, do you think springfield, illinois would sue fox, no matter how dumb it makes inhabitants look. no, it wouldnt.

enough for now

jdd

[punkbass2000]

"im not defending all of the united states actions for the last 225 years,"

100 good deeds does not justify a single evil act.

[jdd2007]

brazil is not blameless either

[punkbass2000]

I'm not pro-brazil. I voted 'stoooooopid'.

[Dom Pedro II]

The USA does not terrorize people.



Friend, few Americans can see what their government as done in the last 60 years. The United States was built on the idea of capitalism, free trade, a small government. That ideal is dead and has been dead for sometime. The United States today is a corporate-controlled, big government, welfare state that I will glad to see in a history book rather than in current reality.

Let me just give you a taste of the U.S.'s "hard-fought" efforts and how they've made the world safe for democracy...

Since this started with Brazil... In 1964, the Brazilian military overthrew the democratically-elected government of Brazil. What most Americans do not know is that the U.S. 7th fleet was off the coast of Joao Pessoa ready to HELP the Brazilian military. After the coup was over, did the Americans press the military regime to begin setting up free elections? Hardly! The CIA began selling torture devices, which my father personally saw with the good old "Made in the USA" printed right on them. They trained the Brazilian police in numerous torture techniques, so that when the regime was lifted in 1985, 10,000 people had been slaughtered. In Chile it was 15,000 by the U.S.-backed Pinochet, in Argentina another 10,000.

The United States CIA ALSO was responsible for paying off a sheik in Afghanistan to declare a holy war against the Soviets so that the Afghans would fight harder. Not to mention the fact that the U.S. for years financed a man called Osama Bin Laden to help the Afghans, and in the conflict with the Lebonese, Isreali intelligence and the CIA helped found a little terrorist organization known as Hamas. Brilliant move guys! None of this came back to bite you in the ass!

How about World War I? A war that was declared so that rich American bankers would not lose out on their investments of backing the Entente powers. And which at the end, Americans gained no land, but DID make off with billions of dollars in German patents and companies that they just sort of HELPED themselves to.

Or how about in Latin America where the United States trained numerous "national guards" in various latin countries, who then went and just happened to overthrow their governments and set up vicious, U.S. backed dictatorships. The most famous of which was Batista's regime in Cuba. And in 1954, the Eisenhower administration allowed Guatemala City to be reduced to rubble by U.S. bombers because the president of Guatemala nationalized lands belonging to the United Fruit Company, which ruled over these lands like a Southern planter in the 1840s.

And then there are the half-assed attempts to actually do some good... for example, the Clinton administration helped train and finance thousands of rebels in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein in 1995. A day before the attack was supposed to be launched, Clinton washed his hands of the whole deal and U.S. support dissolved. The Iraqis moved in days later and slaughtered every man, woman, and child in the resistance. Then they took the heads of the leaders and hung them in downtown Baghdad. We not only let those people die, we were the ones who encouraged them to revolt, so its like we killed them ourselves.

And then there are the times when the USA did good things... World War II. That was a good thing, but guess what... the United States isn't going to be able to ride the "we saved your asses in WWII" excuse forever. And even in that war, the U.S. and Britain conducted terrorist projects! The leveling of Hamburg and Dresden, only reason was the frighten the populace of Germany... they went specifically for civilian targets. And then the always famous attack bomb... thats history's biggest terrorist attack. True, it ended the war, but it also incinerated 100,000 people in two cities that a bunch of military bureaucrats decided upon because they were the ones that had been destroyed the least by U.S. firebombings which had already killed a couple of million Japanese citizens. Jeez! I wish I could play God like that... deciding who lives and who dies...

But hey! It's alright, right? I mean, after the war, we did help rebuild Japan and all (to stop Soviet encroachments, that being the ONLY reason). Of course, all of that financial aid doesn't really help the poor little man and his family who were wiped off the face of the earth just because of something their government had done.

[Inverse Icarus]

any nation that tries to sue the simpsons for parody / humor isn;t work jack.

[Dom Pedro II]

Alright! Alright! Yeesh! Look, I don't know the full details of the law suit against the Simpsons, but I do know that just because somebody in the government of Brazil is wasting their time on a law suit (probably the people who are being influenced by the tourism companies *never thought of that didya?*) it doesn't mean the whole nation of 175 million is flipping over it. I mean, the U.S. government has done some stupid stuff too. 12 million bucks to make a pen to write in space and the Soviets used a pencil. The Dutch went to war over tulips. The English went to war over the Faulkland Islands! Every nation, great or not, has done stupid things in the past.

[Alex]

Dom Pedro:

Now let's try to get this thread back on topic...

The first message on this thread asked us if Firaxis should include Brazil as one of the civs in the expansion pack. The reason, as noted by the thread starter, is that Brazil might in the future be an important civ; plus, it would fill a spot on the map.

As I said above, I don't think that Brazil could be considered a civilisation, technically speaking. Neither the USA. Many people argue that USA are in the game because of its importance and influence nowadays. From that point of view, they are right, but that was not the reason why USA was included in the game, as we all know.

Brazil? I'm a pessimist. I don't think Brazil will ever be a great nation. We could be the richest nation in the world. Even the Americans know this (and fear this). But it just won't happen. Sorry, Dom Pedro.

Now I'm going to watch The Simpsons...

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
I mean, the U.S. government has done some stupid stuff too. 12 million bucks to make a pen to write in space and the Soviets used a pencil.

I have one of those "space pens" and I resent that remark. The fact that I can write upside down comes in handy and is worth the 12 mil.

[Grrr]

Yes. Brazil will be a powerful civ. It will kill the rest of us by hacking down all the rainforests.

[siredgar]

I'd add love to add the Brazilians if a bunch of modern civs were included in the game.

For example, I would like to see (not in any order):

1. Brazilians
2. Mexicans
3. Argentines
4. Australians
5. South Africans
6. Dutch
7. Portuguese
8. Polish
9. Swedish
10. Koreans
11. Thai
12. Indonesians
13. Pakistanis
14. Saudi Arabians
15. Turkish
16. Nigerians
17. Congolese
18. Canadians
19. Vietnamese
20. Tibetans

I would think that if they added at least half a dozen of these civs, they could add the Brazilians, too.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by siredgar
I'd add love to add the Brazilians if a bunch of modern civs were included in the game.

That would be cool, to have a game of all modern civs. Would be very cool. The more civs, the merrier.

[FrostyBoy]

What I'd like to know is why must a civilization have an effect in order to be worthy of being a civilization to recreate history?

That's so...effectivist!

Really, it should be done the right way, and it's just unfortunate that Civilization is made this way - it's wrong, but it's the way it has been done, so until someone actually designs a civ game where you start off as nameless wandering people, we're stuck with this nonsense.

[Miznia]

asleepathewheel said:
The more civs, the merrier.

You know, I feel like it isn't, necessarily. If I can't for the life of me imagine a certain civ as a world power, I don't want it in the game (unless it's programmed to suck a little).

Imagine you're playing the Egyptians, Romans, Chinese, or some other grand civilization... And your opposition turns out to be the Swedes, or Poles, or Argentina. That seems really lame to me.

There's also the problem of being able to believe it when one civ beats up another. Sioux kicking the snot out of China: how am I supposed to deal with that? or the Dutch conquer Russia?

In CTP I don't think I ever had the displeasure of encountering the Cuban civ, but if I had, I think I'd be pretty annoyed.

Anyway, I think that 24 civs is already going to be pushing it...

[Miznia]

What I'd like to know is why must a civilization have an effect in order to be worthy of being a civilization to recreate history?

Really, it should be done the right way, and it's just unfortunate that Civilization is made this way - it's wrong, but it's the way it has been done, so until someone actually designs a civ game where you start off as nameless wandering people, we're stuck with this nonsense

Do you kind of mean like you could do in Imperialism, where all the country and province names could be randomized, and players were differentiated mainly by color? I can just imagine the discussions...

"Why does dark cyan make such unreasonable trade proposals?"
"OLIVE GREEN IS A LIAR"
"Why is medium gray Religious/Commercial?"
etc.

[HazieDaVampire]

Brazil is getting like America, modern industries, Beating natives of with a stick! Its just like America cept 100/200 years behind in its attitude and getting more modern!

[Alex]

Originally posted by Miznia


You know, I feel like it isn't, necessarily. If I can't for the life of me imagine a certain civ as a world power, I don't want it in the game (unless it's programmed to suck a little).

I agree with you. If the Brazilians would be in the game, then it could be programmed to have serious corruption problems in ALL of its cities, including the capital...

(Hey, I'm from Brazil, so I have the right to criticize my own country... )

[siredgar]

Corruption is rampant in poorer countries. It is NOT a "Brazilian" characteristic. When a country becomes better off and the gap between the rich and the poor is reduced, corruption levels always go down. Anyhow, corruption is present in ALL countries. There are just different levels and forms of it. I am sure that once Brazil achieves a higher standard of living for ALL, it will not be such a problem.

[Alex]

Siredgar: I know that corruption is not a "Brazilian" characteristic. I was just mocking my own country, which is what anyone with a good spirit should do from time to time.

On the other hand, corruption has become a "cultural" trend in Brazil; it is so strong that it spreads out in all fields of social relations, from the public space to the private sphere. Our elites have very few or no respect for legal behaviour, because its members are used to get what they want irrespective of whom might get harmed on the process. And they are never punished for their attitudes, and this, in turn, stimulates them even more to act the way they do. In order to change this state of things, it would be necessary a big change in consciousness and that change has to come from the elite members, because the common people are extraordinarily "sedated" and ignorant to take the fate of the nation on their hands.

Hence my pessimism.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Miznia


You know, I feel like it isn't, necessarily. If I can't for the life of me imagine a certain civ as a world power, I don't want it in the game (unless it's programmed to suck a little).

Imagine you're playing the Egyptians, Romans, Chinese, or some other grand civilization... And your opposition turns out to be the Swedes, or Poles, or Argentina. That seems really lame to me.

There's also the problem of being able to believe it when one civ beats up another. Sioux kicking the snot out of China: how am I supposed to deal with that? or the Dutch conquer Russia?

Anyway, I think that 24 civs is already going to be pushing it...

Different strokes. I just figure, the more civs, the more unique characteristics, the more varied the gameplay. Playing all random 15 opponents would then actually mean something. This is, of course, assuming that Firaxis will add in new characteristics.

And, isn't the tag on Civ: rewrite world history? I think it would be fun to start out as say Canada, and take over the world. I'm not that hung up on reality.

[Weymaster]

Ahem... well, i've been an observer of this flame war, but let me explain why Brazil shouldn't be included in Civ3, and for that matter why other countries should be:

1) While Brazil is a big country (about the same size of the US) and has a big population, it hasn't affected much of the world's affairs, right? If I am wrong, please tell me about 3 Brazilians that influenced the world as much as American, French or Chinese leaders had... Even Cuba could be more important than Brazil in this context (let's remember that Fidel Castro has been a pain in the American @ss since 1951)...

2) If you want to 'fill the spot' of South America, why not to have the Inca Nation instead? In the context of Civ3 it would be a good balancing force against Sioux and Aztecs, and in reality, they were the most advanced civilization in the Americas until the Spanish invasion.

3) If you think of Brazil as a 'future glorious Civilization', why not Argentina, Canada or Mexico? For example: Mexico (a) has a bigger economy than Brazil, (b) Mexico is the only country around the world that has invaded continental US (in the 20th century) ... The whole point is, Latin America cant be a separate civilization

That's it thank you. Please don't let this forum degenerate into a political debate.

[Seeker]

I agree that we need to fill up South America.

But Civ is about civilizations 'standing the test of time', not modern nations.

Seeing the Brazilian phalanxs in 2000BC would be like CtP, with Jamaican and Nicaraguan 'civs'.

South America should be represented by the Incas.

[Chris Wilkinson]

Seeing the Brazilian phalanxs in 2000BC would be like CtP, with Jamaican and Nicaraguan 'civs'.

Therefore the Americans should not be included. I don't think Brazil has been around long enough to be included...I agree with the Incas.