You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

General Discussions
Moderated by Maffia, LordKivlov, JimXIX

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.131 replies
Age of Empires III Heaven » Forums » General Discussions » Why does everyone like the British?
Bottom
Topic Subject:Why does everyone like the British?
« Previous Page  1 ··· 3 4 5 6  Next Page »
ThatisHILLARIOUS
Skirmisher
posted 05-18-05 08:03 PM EDT (US)         
My subject is self-explanatory.
But really, would you rather live in a nation were you have the Queen, and all the Queen does is drain money from the Budget. Or, would you prefer to live were the Czar (guess were that is) drains money from the Budget to finance the War or the Modernization.

note that capitalization express strong points or the beginings of sentences
when words preceded by 'the' are capitalized the phrase (the word and the 'the') should be given enunciation from the rest of the sentance that contains them


This is my sig.

True, it does suck.

But I deal with it.

Why can't you?
AuthorReplies:
ThunderWalker
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 07:09 PM EDT (US)     101 / 131       
im thinkin Dutch as my first civ to play with, just becasue its not one of the biggest powers, but i liked the idea of them being able to make banks and getting a steady flow of gold through them and then on the civ link on the site it says their most likely a defense civ so another reason im goin to get them, of course i would like to know what the huge ship of theirs really does, more or less a huge trade ship or some such thing, o and i apoligize for my other reply in this topic and will say that i wont talk about political views or my opinions of what i think of anyone's(Rogueagle's) views on such matters

"When you hear the THUNDER, it will be the last thing you hear!"
~Captain Kwen 3rd Calvary Division
HC Dragoon
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 07:25 PM EDT (US)     102 / 131       
Haven't heard of this "huge Dutch ship", where did you hear about it?

[This message has been edited by HC Dragoon (edited 05-30-2005 @ 07:41 PM).]

enemy sighted
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 07:44 PM EDT (US)     103 / 131       

Quote:

Haven't heard of this big Dutch ship, where did you hear about it?

it is a place called www.ageofempires3.com


[--o--]Enemy Sighted[--o--]

Ruler of the Dry Seas of North Africa and provinces of Spain

Long live The TurksEygptians And Almohonds For Eternity
HC Dragoon
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 07:50 PM EDT (US)     104 / 131       
Ah ok, they are called Fluyts. A few things they might be able to do:
1. Allow bigger shipments from your HC.
2. Increase the amount of coin you get.
3. Hold more troops than any other ship.

[This message has been edited by HC Dragoon (edited 05-30-2005 @ 07:56 PM).]

enemy sighted
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 07:58 PM EDT (US)     105 / 131       
From what i read they hold more cargo and some additional units..i collect from that info that:
1. Allows more resources(not untis) to be shipped
2.and maybe some additonal untis(not many i suspect)along
3.Might allow HC to send resource shipments faster

[--o--]Enemy Sighted[--o--]

Ruler of the Dry Seas of North Africa and provinces of Spain

Long live The TurksEygptians And Almohonds For Eternity
Rogueagle
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 09:17 PM EDT (US)     106 / 131       
First, an apology. Thunder Walker, i'm really sorry if i offended you in my previous post...i have to admit while writing that i was offended myself, simply because you said you were amazed at the "stupidity" of those who disagreed. I'm not saying whether i agree with yout political viewpoints or not, simply that your reasoning was not good enough to call other people stupid.

Also, Kipling's rankings aren't too bad if all you consider is economic strength. Just reverse Britain and France in that list (and perhaps move Canada further up - not sure as to its placement exactly), and through in China at number 3 (or 2?, unsure again) and you have almost a perfect ranking of economic strength. Of course this does not directly translate into power. Russia still has the worlds largest or second largest land army, and a fair amount of high level technology. (China is probably number one here, actually). USA has the most powerful and advanced. India has one of the largest and most powerful - locally only though. UK has a strong military and is probably the only country other than the US that can deploy a large amount of troops halfway across the globe by itself (and protect them on the way there too). France Germany and Italy all have sizable and fairly deployable forces, as does Canada.

off-topic (the nukes) - 400 may not be enough for a nuclear winter, but enough to destroy any country. However, the reason the US and Russia built more than another 20,000 - each (and paid and still pay a HUGE pile of money to maintian the remaining 10,000 or so - each) - is to maintain retaliatory capability, even after being the victim of a nuclear strike. And the more you can attack with, the more you can guarantee get through, meaning the more you can lessen the retaliation (if early strike). Also why these nukes are deployed in everything from aircraft, ICBMs, IRBMs, subs, railroad cars, silos, ships, and even artillery platforms (France actually built a tank that fires a really small nuclear warhead, i believe).

back on-topic again - do ships in this game play a significantly different role from ships in past Age of Empires games? Do they have different purposes or are they just more powerful, but essentially used for the same purposes besides that? (or is this known? (clearly not known to me , but known in general?)

Ajs77311
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 09:23 PM EDT (US)     107 / 131       
Ships will be able to create units, so they will be kind-of like floating bases.
But for the most part, just more powerfull

October 25th: 298th day of the year, coincidence, conspiracy? You Decide.

I am still waiting for Name change to Armed Rebel.

Rogueagle
Skirmisher
posted 05-30-05 09:28 PM EDT (US)     108 / 131       
Create units...woah...i missed when that came about completely! It seems like a great idea - ships as floating bases. Finally ships seem to be getting the importance (and hopfully expense) they deserve (i hated it when a couple samurai would chop apart a galleon in the shallows in AOK). And more accurate historically (of course ships didn't create units historically, but then, neither did a 15' by 15' building) - it seems like an excellent idea to represent the value of having a large galleon or later on a man-of-war stationed off of your colony.
Da_Sleek_Ranga
Skirmisher
posted 05-31-05 04:04 AM EDT (US)     109 / 131       
I personally don't like the british but i'm irish so what did you expect

It's not God i hate, it's his fanclub i can't stand!!!!
Wu Su Zheng
Banned
posted 05-31-05 05:40 AM EDT (US)     110 / 131       
Don't include Wales and Scotland in this.
kipling
Skirmisher
posted 05-31-05 06:13 AM EDT (US)     111 / 131       

Quote:

Don't include Wales and Scotland in this.


Why not? They're British too.

Quote:

Just reverse Britain and France in that list (and perhaps move Canada further up - not sure as to its placement exactly), and through in China at number 3 (or 2?, unsure again) and you have almost a perfect ranking of economic strength.


A look at the CIA world factbook shows that France makes $1.737 trillion a year. Britain is slightly richer on 1.782 trillion, Canada stays where it is, still making quite a bit less than Italy. But you're right, China is at Number 2, there's also India at 4, Brazil at 9, Russia at 10. Soooo... the top ten economically would be:
1. USA
2. China
3. Japan
4. India
5. Germany
6. Britain
7. France
8. Italy
9. Brazil
10. Russia

God, I have no life.

HC Dragoon
Skirmisher
posted 05-31-05 07:53 AM EDT (US)     112 / 131       
Is anyone who is going to play as the British, thinking of upgrading their longbowmen so the will be better than early musketeers?. In theory longbowmen were still better than early musketeers but it was much harder to train someone in the use of the longbow, rather than just give them a musket and teach them in 15 mintutes.

[This message has been edited by HC Dragoon (edited 05-31-2005 @ 08:57 AM).]

THE_champion95
Skirmisher
posted 05-31-05 08:30 AM EDT (US)     113 / 131       
No, I still dont think longbowmen were better than musketeers, maybe a longbowmen against a musketeer one on one may win, but musketeers backed up by cavalry and artillery are much more useful.

supporter of Crystal Palace Football club
Leader of The VnX clan!


ESO Name: Rulezzz
ngchunghin
Skirmisher
posted 05-31-05 08:55 AM EDT (US)     114 / 131       
Artillery vs longbowman= sure win, may be even 1 vs 10.
Because cannon can kill bowman in 1 shot.
Another thing, i don't think archery is better than gun.
Gun is the improve of crossbow.
That's my opinion .

Ah!! I answer the question,
I will use others first because many games have the same britin. But I never heard about Neverland or Portugal.
These are attracting me.

[This message has been edited by ngchunghin (edited 05-31-2005 @ 08:59 AM).]

HC Dragoon
Skirmisher
posted 05-31-05 09:03 AM EDT (US)     115 / 131       
You get to play Netherlands and Portugal in the Cossack games, but playing Portugal in a game is quite rare I agree. My Portuguese friend actually gets quite annoyed that he can't play his nation in most RTS games, so he's looking forward to Age of Empires 3.

What about longbowmen backed up by cavalry and artillery though? Do you think you can build musketeers and longbowmen at the same time? or musketeers take the place of longbowmen?. It might be a good idea to mix longbowmen and musketeers, giving them that little bit extra range.

[This message has been edited by HC Dragoon (edited 05-31-2005 @ 09:13 AM).]

Rogueagle
Skirmisher
posted 05-31-05 09:59 AM EDT (US)     116 / 131       
Kipling....i have no life either ...i actually go to that same website and bother to remember the numbers. The reason i had it the other way around was that i think last years numbers were 1.666 for France and 1.663 for Britain. Of course i might be wrong on that too...after seeing this years, i'm now getting the suspicion that it was 1.666 for Britain and 1.663 for France after all, and i just remembered the order wrong. Thanks for correcting me though. That new list seems to make perfect sense.

The advantages and disadvantages of the longbow, crossbow, and musket are based on four essential factors - training time, rate of fire, accuracy, and stopping power. The longbow had quite good range, excellent rate of fire and accuracy, and although slightly low stopping power, it was still decent. The problem is that training a man to use a longbow well took years.

A crossbow has great range, stopping power, and accuracy (if the person could use it well), although rate of fire was horrendous. However, the crossbow was considered almost a weapon of mass destruction when it first arrived on battlefields, as a peasant with 1 day of training could kill a knight who had been training his entire life (as crossbow bolts penetrate armor far easier than arrows). Many nobles actually petitioned the church to have the weapon banned.

That weapon, and later the musket (same advantages and disadvantages, except both are even more extreme - ex: even longer reload time, but a ton more power, range. Only difference was really bad accuracy, but massed, that did not matter), sounded the death knell for the nobility as elite warriors on the battlefield, so the nobility either became officers in a rank and file army, or they pursued an admiralty or a less militarisic course.

Paulimach
Skirmisher
posted 05-31-05 10:19 AM EDT (US)     117 / 131       
F*&% the british,americans french, germans, portugese... The canadians are the best

I am somehow less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.

~ Stephen Jay Gould

ThunderWalker
Skirmisher
posted 05-31-05 05:46 PM EDT (US)     118 / 131       
im thinking if u have a diverse army, like mix a little bit of bow and gun, more gun of course, thats for earlier ages, once u get pass the 2nd or 3rd, guns, guns, guns ,guns, guns and more guns, with the exception of a only infrantry hand-to-hand combat group and a good size calvary for flanking, and i always did like seeing ships battle, i cant wait to see how it is with a whole fleet of ships battling each other, with the new graphics and other things they put into the game so cannon balls go through the sails and stuff, im lokin forward to it

"When you hear the THUNDER, it will be the last thing you hear!"
~Captain Kwen 3rd Calvary Division
Gen_Goobs
Skirmisher
posted 06-01-05 02:48 AM EDT (US)     119 / 131       
"4. India"


Please tell me you pulled that one out of ur arse.

The CIA cant be serious.

and china?

WHY THE HELL ARE WE PAYING AID TO THEM!?!?!?!?


Australia is going down the gurgler because we are paying aid to rich countries. great!


General L. Goobs
Victim of narrow mindedness.
MoNo Ager
Skirmisher
posted 06-01-05 08:05 AM EDT (US)     120 / 131       

Quote:

4. India

seriously? no way it's only an LEDC and the same with china!

[This message has been edited by MoNo Ager (edited 06-01-2005 @ 08:05 AM).]

Cataphract887
Skirmisher
posted 06-01-05 11:08 AM EDT (US)     121 / 131       

Quote:

That weapon, and later the musket (same advantages and disadvantages, except both are even more extreme - ex: even longer reload time, but a ton more power, range. Only difference was really bad accuracy, but massed, that did not matter), sounded the death knell for the nobility as elite warriors on the battlefield, so the nobility either became officers in a rank and file army, or they pursued an admiralty or a less militarisic course.

actually,i think for a long time bows\xbows had more range than muskets,and were better in just about everything. however,a person does not need years and years of training to use a musket like a bow. THAT is why muskets obsoleted bows,the cost to train(in time\money) was to high.muskets are cheaper.

on a note to the econ discussion,wealth isnt measured in the $$$ per year or per capita,but in how much that country can actually do. mercantallism was obsoleted a loong time ago


"Excellent could be any map that has the quality of a ES random map or ES scenario. AoK is an excellent, award winning game. That's where I'd start." -AnastasiaKafka

"Hard work is evil. Bitmaps are stupid. Working on a scenario for more than one afternoon is stupid. Triggers are stupid. Testing your own scenario is stupid. The world is stupid. You are the Greatest." -Ingo Van Thiel

[This message has been edited by Cataphract887 (edited 06-01-2005 @ 11:08 AM).]

Spacemonk
Skirmisher
posted 06-01-05 11:23 AM EDT (US)     122 / 131       
guys the numbers are probably for the whole country not per person, wich matters a lot more.

"Give me Age of Empires, sir, and you may keep your Warcraft."
AnC_Ivo17
Skirmisher
posted 06-01-05 02:50 PM EDT (US)     123 / 131       
Mercantalism was "popular" around the Industrial revolution. Also the per capita income is also important, for the quality of life. Liechtenstein have around 42000 euro per capita income. yes they r not a world power but they life quite well.

In hoc signo vinces!
- Spiritum Sancti
AnC_Ivo17
Skirmisher
posted 06-01-05 02:51 PM EDT (US)     124 / 131       
I belive that some1 should close this post cuz its out of the scope of aoe3.

In hoc signo vinces!
- Spiritum Sancti
Rogueagle
Skirmisher
posted 06-01-05 07:42 PM EDT (US)     125 / 131       
Yes, it has moved out of AoE3 - but could it perhaps be moved rather than closed? It seems like some interesting concepts have been brought up.

Also, the CIA numbers are quite believable and probably very accurate estimates. As for aid to those "rich" countries, the US does not give much aid as a nation to India. And less to China. Also, those countries aren't exactly rich. They wield significant (and very rapidly increasing) economic power, and both actually have quite powerful militaries, but the numbers used in that ranking were the GDP (maybe GNP...similary purposes for the numbers in either case) - not per capita. The problem is that both those countries have well over a billion people (just look at China - 1.3 billion - that .3 is larger than the entire US population). Those two countries combined have a third of the worlds population. And they have equally massive troubles, in large part resulting from overpopulation and foreign threat...hence giant expenditure. Also, foreign aid is used to establish allies and friends...and thus aid almost never goes to where it is needed most, but for politcal and international relations reasons.

As for Mercantilism, it may have peaked around the industrial revolution, as it helped the mother country sell its good, especially to its own colonies. But earler, i think the demands of mercantilism drove the industrial revolution, just as industrial advances made such an economic system possible. And either way, Spain started dropping from power around the early 1600s and was finished as a global power 1700s as they could not meet the demands of their own colonies (actually the decline of Spain is far more complicated, but thats thereason within these contexts). Even in the early 1800's Spain still owned all of the Americas (South America, Central America, Carribean, Mexico - including everything West of the Mississippi, Florida, , with the exception of Brazil (Portugal), Louisiana (French - and everything between mississippi and appalachian), the 13 British colonies, and Canada (British). The problem was that Spain could not manage its colonies well, and failed to develop diverse economic strucutres in their colonies (Britain succeeded at it exceptionally well), which is why, in part, Latin American countries still have trouble with their economies, at least in comparison to the United States. That, admittedly, has been ridiculously oversimplified, but it captures the general relationships.

And Mercantalism has definately been obsolete for a very long time now (the modern economic numbers weren't referring to mercantilism, it was a seperate discussion)...our economic structure right now is really really odd , actually. It essentially only has value because we believe it does.

I agree that thats why muskets obsoleted long bows. But this was simply an extension of the way crossbows were obsoleting long bows. Yes, long bows were better, but a simple peasant could be taught how to operate either a cross bow or a musket in less than a day of training, and then kill a knight or longbowman that had been training his entire life. The reason muskets then replaced crossbows is cost and power. Crossbows were more accurate and had more range (early muskets had more range on a good day, but that was unreliable - later muskets, of course, had much better capabilities), but required that the user be physically strong. The ultimate reason (besides cost), is that even crossbow bolts had to fired in a balistic tragectory to a greater degree than musket balls had to be fired (and crossbows aren't as good as longbows or musket balls in ballistic trajectory...they are less likely to hit with the point down). Thus, a crossbow was easily better in a one on one fight, but was less practical for massed fire.

« Previous Page  1 ··· 3 4 5 6  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires III Heaven | HeavenGames