Historical accuracy in Civ3 - what???

[Ubik]

So, this is a thread devoted primarily to the history buff type of persons, but everyone is welcome here to put down his/hers opinion about the subject.

So, how historicaly accurate is Civ3?

Some general facts: This game is not about following the historical path but about creating your own version of history. So, several misinterpretations/errors/stupidities should be expected(granted) and/or forgiven.

But, there are certain aspects that should be not overlooked so light-hearted.

Those should be

- The civ-specific attributes
- The unique units
- The time frame for golden ages/uu appearance etc.
- The leaders

So, my opinion on those four aspects:

Civ specific attributes
So long, the only major faults I can see are those of the Chines [i](by no means "militaristic" - they were certainly less militaristic than most civilizations) and the Persian (scientific? the Persian? Pi-leeeease!). Those two should be: Persian: Commercial/religious. Chinese: Scientific/Commercial (just as the Greek). The rest - so far - seem more or less ok.

Unique Units
Same as above, the main problem seem to be the Chinese. What the heck is "a rider"??? There are two main problems: A)The name of the unit (what do you mean "rider"???) and - most important - b)Never, ever the chinese cavalry was considered "special", "elite" or distinguished by any means (outside China, at least). Other people know more about Chinese history than I do and they could provide a fitting UU but the rider is completely irrelevant!
The placement/timeframe for the Greek, Persian, Indian, Egyptian, Roman UU seems very appropriate and fitting, but other mentioned (but not yeat appeared officially) like the Kozaks for the Russian, seem to be somewhat out of order.

Time frame for G.A.
The double trigger is having some interesting side effects. But if we only count in the UU trigger (and I suppose they will try to "regulate" it and make the triggering available in the same time frame with also the wonder-trigger) there are some faults here too. The definite golden age for the Russian (in the Firaxian way of interpreting nations) should occur in the 20th century, so that Mig - Su - whatever (even better, an improved or cheaper nuke ) should be more appropriate. Also, the very early GA trigerring possible for the Aztecs is kinda lame.

Leaders
Oh. Ohhh... OHHHHH!!! Firaxis worked wonders NOT! They managed to do a very, very bad work. Where to start from? Jeanne d'ark for France? Doh! Cleopatra for Egypt? Doh! Abe Linkoln for USA? Double doh! and the list goes on...

So, on these four categories (and nothing more) I rate Civ3's historical accuracy with a 5 out of 10. If the rating would be more general (not just on those 4) it would be much, much lower.

Anyway, I consider it a pretty good work despite the low grade.

Other opinions?

[Alexander I]

If CivIII is a '5', then there are no 10s out there! There are so many much more horrendous "historical" games that I have to give Civ3 an...


8. With Civ2 a less notable 6, and Age of Empires , a very disheartening 4 (though AOE2 managed to eke out a 5).

Civ3 may have some errors, limiting them to an 8, but everything else is so far off that they have to be that high.

[Christantine The Great]

Read my sig for my responce, second quote.

As for Abe Lincoln, what's wrong with him??? He WAS a president...

[Ubik]

Originally posted by Christantine The Great
Read my sig for my responce, second quote.

As for Abe Lincoln, what's wrong with him??? He WAS a president...

About the response... it's ok, I have stated the same thing (but I love to fool around with the details).

About Abe... well, if a perverted, drunk gambling political opportunist, that was president at a time when USA was nothing more than an insignificant minor power in "the colonies", should be represent the allmighty in the 20th century one-and-only-superpower... well, it's up to you Americans to decide.

I would pick Roosevelt if I was you... Or the other '30's president (I don't remember his name well...) the one who introduced the economical reform. Or was it Roosevelt again? I am

Or, if you want someone from distant history, pick Washington. He was the no1, right? And you don't mess with the Republican vs Democrats dillemma (he was a federalist, right?)

[ixnay]

Yes, FDR was the president during the Great Depression and he introduced the New Deal. As for Lincoln, I am fine with his selection as the leader for the US. After all, he did hold the union together during the civil war and help to end slavery, and is recognized by historians as either the #1 or #2 greatest US president.

[Steve Clark]

It is ironic that someone who would use the term 'historical accuracy' in the title, yet displays stupid ignorance about Lincoln.

[Christantine The Great]

Please do your USA bashing somewhere else. Every leader in history has done something bad during their lives, Mr. Lincoln is no exception.

[Ubik]

Are you nuts?

WHAT USA bashing? What the heck are you talking about?

I was talking about who Abe Linkoln was, I was not bashing anything. What is this, when someone points out that Alexander was a "slaughterer" it's ok, but when someone is presenting the facts about a US president he is in a anti-USA rage?

I am not even tempted to reply to that Clarck character - stupid and ignorant HE must be, for claiming to be the weilder of the ultimate truth about abe's life and political career. Without providing anything to contradict my opinion.

so, people, if you have reached that kind of level in arrogance as to not accept criticism on long-dead US politicians... man, you are definitely out of order.

[ixnay]

I'm not accusing you of any US-bashing. So Abe may not have been a great person - I'm not disputing that. He was, however, a great political leader in a time of crisis, which is why he is regarded as a great president.

[static]

Originally posted by Ubik


About the response... it's ok, I have stated the same thing (but I love to fool around with the details).

About Abe... well, if a perverted, drunk gambling political opportunist, that was president at a time when USA was nothing more than an insignificant minor power in "the colonies", should be represent the allmighty in the 20th century one-and-only-superpower... well, it's up to you Americans to decide.

WOW, where do I begin with this moronic statement. Perhaps this will enlighten you,
"(Almost all historians judge Lincoln as the greatest president in American history because of the way he exercised leadership during the war and because of the impact of that leadership on the moral and political character of the nation. He conceived of his presidential role as unique under the Constitution in times of crisis. Lincoln was convinced that within the branches of government, the presidency alone was empowered not only to uphold the Constitution, but also to preserve, protect, and defend it. In the end, however, Lincoln is measured by his most lasting accomplishments: the preservation of the Union and the death of slavery—accomplishments achieved by acting "with malice towards none" in the pursuit of a "more perfect and equal union.")"

http://www.americanpresident.org/KoTrain/Courses/AL/AL_In_Brief.htm

[Mars]

i agree that joan of arc shouldn't be the french leader. it should be napolean or charlemagne. I also think that the russian UU should be the MiG

[Christantine The Great]

About Abe... well, if a perverted, drunk gambling political opportunist

No good points, all bad. No evidence supporting this. That sure sounds like bashing, although light.

Without providing anything to contradict my opinion.

You didn't give any evidence yourself, why should I?

I am not even tempted to reply to that Clarck character

Just did.

If you want to debate this in a civil tone I will be glad to. Until then, shut up.

[orange]

Eh, I wouldn't make the Russian UU a Mig. It's really more of a 'Soviet made' weapon.

Napoleon seems to be the logical leader for the French, not Joan of Arc

Abe Lincoln should be replaced by Georgie Washington, IMO. However, FDR would be a poor choice if you want to start pointing out personal issues. He was no better than Abe, and was certainly more of a political opportunist than Lincoln. Your points about Lincoln are largely exaggerated.

I do however agree with the statements about the Persian and Chinese civs being incorrectly labeled.

[Christantine The Great]

I was hoping someone would say they wanted Washington to be the leader so I could say "NEVER".

NEVER!

Seriously, though, I don't think he would be a good choice. He was a slave owner, Lincoln wasn't. He didn't attempt to abolish slavery, which would have been much easier at the time. Lincoln, at first didn't care but then he did like the idea of having them freed and returned to Africa or their own state (he liked segregation). Lincoln, at least, did believe that the "all men are created equal" part of the Constitution covered blacks, too.

[Christantine The Great]

Before I forget to add this...

Should we really bother to argue about who the leader is going to be anymore? Changing the skin tone is one thing, but making a brand spanking new 3D model...I don't think so.