Why no Military/Scientific Civ?

[Bleyn]

Does anyone have any idea why there isn't a civilization with a combination of Military and Scientific abilities among the 16?

Is there just not a historical civ that would fit? Or is there a good historical fit, but that combination is too powerful and would unbalance gameplay?

BTW, what is the difference between between abilities like "Reduced Scientific improvement costs" and "Production costs reduced for religious buildings"? Does the former get certain techs researched more quickly, is it just a different way of saying the same thing, or what? (sorry if someone has already answered this in a different thread, I haven't had a chance to wade through all of the numerous posts in the most likely threads yet)

[d_dudy]

i think the greeks could fit that mold

[The diplomat]

Re: Why no Military/Scientific Civ?

Originally posted by Bleyn
BTW, what is the difference between between abilities like "Reduced Scientific improvement costs" and "Production costs reduced for religious buildings"? Does the former get certain techs researched more quickly, is it just a different way of saying the same thing, or what?

"reduced scientific improvement costs" means that the maintenance cost in gold for scientific city improvements cost less. So, you pay less gold every turn to maintain those types of city imporvements.
"Production costs reduced" means that the amount of shields required to build that city improvement is less. So, you will build that type of city improvement a bit faster.
They are two distinct things.

[tniem]

Well I think it could be a combination of both. I think they placed most civs in pretty good attributes. And there are few civs that I would consider highly advanced and highly militaristic (not just conquering people - expansionists, but actually geared towards war). I have proposed for the expansion pack (assuming one is coming) that the Arabs be given this combination.

However, there is a distinct possibility they found this combination to powerful. You get a boost in science giving you better weapons than your opponents. Plus, you also have reduced military cost and a chance at gaining veteran status which only increases your advantage. So yes there is a good chance that they did not let a civ have this combo to keep warmongers from using like I used the University in SMAC.

[Swissy]

Originally posted by d_dudy
i think the greeks could fit that mold

As I wrote in another thread; Alexander wasn't looking to open new markets when he invaded Persia, Egypt and India.

[Gangerolf]

I suppose they tried all the combinations before choosing which civ gets which abilites, and maybe found out that the mil/sci combination was too powerful. IMO several civs would fit the description of being militarisitc and scientific (Greeks, Germans, Chinese etc).

[Stefu]

I think Germans would fit it. That way, we'd also ensure that all 15 combinations have at least one Civ, as they previously shared Commercial/Expansionist with English

[Arent]

germans

Yes, you're right, and several other guys already pointed it out:
Germans being commercial/expansionist seems a little weird.
I mean: Why commercial? England was a kind of trade empire, French and Greek
had quite a lot colonisation and trade efforts running, but Germany? Ok, it has a
strong economy and this low corruption possibly accounts to germans being efficient.
But this is a looong way. And in history? Trade?
And expansionist? Germany had some, but few colonies. They tried to conquer and
had some keen diplomats, but not to colonize! (This *is* weird!)
Anyone able to explain this?
Or some suggestions for attributes? I mean I know yours (militaristic/scientific) -
any other opinion?

Arent

[Swissy]

Re: germans

Originally posted by Arent
Yes, you're right, and several other guys already pointed it out:
Germans being commercial/expansionist seems a little weird.
I mean: Why commercial? England was a kind of trade empire, French and Greek
had quite a lot colonisation and trade efforts running, but Germany? Ok, it has a
strong economy and this low corruption possibly accounts to germans being efficient.
But this is a looong way. And in history? Trade?
And expansionist? Germany had some, but few colonies. They tried to conquer and
had some keen diplomats, but not to colonize! (This *is* weird!)
Anyone able to explain this?
Or some suggestions for attributes? I mean I know yours (militaristic/scientific) -
any other opinion?

Arent

Germany, actually the small German states, of the late middle ages thru the renaissance were the backbone of european trade. Remember all trade back then was by land. The great mechant guilds were mostly German, and their influence reached into the Mediterranen. Germany is an industrial powerhouse due to the foundation laid by those merchants. As for expansionist, many German leader believed that Poland and Ukraine would be the breadbasket of the German future. The Germans never "colonized" like the western europeans, as they never were able to secure the land they wanted(Poland, Ukraine, etc).

[tniem]

Re: germans

Originally posted by Arent
And expansionist? Germany had some, but few colonies. They tried to conquer and had some keen diplomats, but not to colonize! (This *is* weird!)
Anyone able to explain this?

Probably has to do with two World Wars.

[Arent]

definitions

Swissy: Yes, this actually makes sense.
I notice that being "commercial" or "expansionistic" leaves a lot to interpretation.
My first idea thinking of "commercial" is free market system (possibly due to recent
history). I think that's why some people stated America should be commercial.
Germany has IMHO such a strong economy cause of good infrastructure so I would
depict them as industrious, but, well...
"Expansionistic" - I may well imagine how England builds ships, gets around the
globe, finds some settlers in this hut and some town in another (low corruption handy
cause of widespread empire, furthermore being able to use the money to buy
something at threatened Outposts).
If you think about it, expansionist basically means building scouts, exploring the
world, collecting huts(getting some towns) and contact with other civs.
I think the World Wars were more about... errm... war (incited by inner conflicts and
economical crisis in Europe). Those thoughts about settling in Ukraine were (IMHO)
not the cause for the war.

Arent

[d_dudy]

if i had to choose between germany being expansionistic or militaristic i'd choose militaristic. german military heritage goes back a ways, especially with mercenaries used by britain to fight us americans and napolean.

but they shouldn't be expansionistic. they didn't want to clonize the lands they took and they certainly weren't trying to assimilate them into german society.

i think firaxis basiccally screwed up with the germans (as this thread shows now)

i wish (but they won't) they would fix the german abilities so that they would be more realistic and not a copy of the english

i'm ok with the commercial part

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by d_dudy
but they shouldn't be expansionistic. they didn't want to clonize the lands they took and they certainly weren't trying to assimilate them into german society

Really? Lebensraum in the east goes back to the Teutonic knights in the 14th century, IIRC. The Germans are, IMHO, the epitome of an expansionist civ.

OTOH, they're also the epitome of Scientific and Industrious as well...

[- Groucho -]

This thread just demonstratest the problem with unique civs. No civ's attitudes are set in amber. Even the most rigid civs change over time and have different attitudes given the predominant political force of the moment. Are the Germans expansionistic? Yes and no. Depends on who is in charge.

Giving unique traits to a civ worked in SMAC because the back story actually had the population break into factions based on their fundamental outlooks. Real countires aren't like that. Just ask one of the million odd greens in Germany whether they are a fundamentally expansionist country. The answer will differ from that given by a Teutonic knight.

So really, as long as there is some period in a civs history that matches the traits Firaxis assigns then they've got it right.

As for Military/Scientific - how about the US? It captures a pretty big chunk of the modern US outlook.

[tniem]

Re: definitions

Originally posted by Arent
I think the World Wars were more about... errm... war (incited by inner conflicts and
economical crisis in Europe). Those thoughts about settling in Ukraine were (IMHO)
not the cause for the war.

Maybe not but they were a powerful motivating force in getting the German people behind the war. So the population did want to expand and did see it as a way to show their greatness.