Just an Observation

[Venger]

I love a good pile on the French thread!!!

The Musketeer, the French UU, should have the animation modifed so the unit drops it's musket and flees...

Venger

[Capt Dizle]

ok, I will add one:

Can only build wonders in rival civs cities (Statue of Liberty)

[Akka]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
poor frenchie..

Frenchies are used to bad treatments.
They live in a country full of them after all

[Jersey]

Skanky Burns, thanks for the correction. I suck at math, that why I'm in law school. Atleast I had the right idea. Regardless, the French shouldn't be industrial. I don't care what the french government claims. If they're industrial, they might as well by militaristic. They should be either religous, or scientific, hell, even I wouldn't even have a problem if they were expansionist. As for the pink....I think its kinda fitting.

Anyway, we should give France a bit of credit, after all, they did help us whip the British a bit quicker then it would've taken us by ourselves. (Yes, my opinion of America may be slightly inflated, but its all I know).....and Jimytrick, what the hell are you talking about?

[Nexus VI]

Re: Just an Observation

Originally posted by Jersey
It would be like if there were Italians in the game and they got a military bonus.....

Well... we were economically weak to support a war. We were unprepared for it. But a military bonus could still exist. Play "Steel Panthers"; the game says we had a very good artillery, for instance.

However, in Civ there are no "Italians", but there are "Romans"... who are our ancestors... no empire in history managed to do what Roman Empire did...

But war is never a thing to be proud of.

[laurentius]

Ok, now we are getting to the point that most of the civs should have more than 2 abilities. I still think that romans should have had all possible abilities just as I thought the same day I heard about this ridiculous ability-system. It's just poor idea! And obvieusly they had to give something to the french too, militaristic would have been a bit false, just as religious. As we all know there is a strick gap between the church and the state, also during the french revolution religion was banned and e.g. Notre Dame was turned into "the temple of rationality". The calendar was fixed also to start from the capture of Bastillon



Seems like you guys know too well what the Rock is cooking, open the CIA-world factbook every once and while,please.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil

Actually, it's 6x5, not 5x4. So after getting rid of the duplicates, there is 15 different combinations possible, one for each civ with one duplicated (I think it's Religious and Militaristic but I am not sure).

The Aztecs and Japanese are both Religious and Militaristic. There are 15 possible combinations of two of CEIMRS (picking 2 of 6, order unimportant)

CE, CI, CM, CR, CS

EI, EM, ER, ES

IM, IR, IS

MR, MS

RS

[Moraelin]

Actually, I don't think France ever counted as really religious. If you want an European civilization that was REALLY religious, take the Spanish. But then there are already two civs in the game that are Religious and Militaristic, so I doubt that one more was needed.

As for World War 2, it wasn't just France. The British troops sent their to help also had their rears handed to them, and had to be evacuated. Dunkirk, anyone? Right. As was said, if it weren't for the channel, it's highly likely that Great Britain would have been overrun, too.

Petain didn't really have much choice at that point. The war was pretty much lost, and what he did was merely saving his country from what looked like certain disaster. Sure, he could have fought a few more weeks, but with the massive losses the French army had taken and without any help (the Brits had buggered off alread) what could he gain? More bombed cities? Yeah, that's got to be an improvement.

Or maybe he'd have got France to be treated like Poland, too. If you don't remember, the plan was that the whole Polish race be completely exterminated until 1975. Schools were closed in Poland and even attending private courses was illegal. France, by contrast, managed to get away pretty easy.

If I do find a fault with France, it's maybe the excessive nationalism. (Maybe THAT should have been in the game. Industrious and Nationalistic)

But more realistically, your problem is that you see France through glasses painted by the Hollywood propaganda. Frankly, the way it treats most cultures is like a baby treats a diaper.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Moraelin
Actually, I don't think France ever counted as really religious. If you want an European civilization that was REALLY religious, take the Spanish. But then there are already two civs in the game that are Religious and Militaristic, so I doubt that one more was needed.

As for World War 2, it wasn't just France. The British troops sent their to help also had their rears handed to them, and had to be evacuated. Dunkirk, anyone? Right. As was said, if it weren't for the channel, it's highly likely that Great Britain would have been overrun, too.

Petain didn't really have much choice at that point. The war was pretty much lost, and what he did was merely saving his country from what looked like certain disaster. Sure, he could have fought a few more weeks, but with the massive losses the French army had taken and without any help (the Brits had buggered off alread) what could he gain? More bombed cities? Yeah, that's got to be an improvement.

Or maybe he'd have got France to be treated like Poland, too. If you don't remember, the plan was that the whole Polish race be completely exterminated until 1975. Schools were closed in Poland and even attending private courses was illegal. France, by contrast, managed to get away pretty easy.

If I do find a fault with France, it's maybe the excessive nationalism. (Maybe THAT should have been in the game. Industrious and Nationalistic)

Ah well, Moraelin, you would have had a better argument to simply reminding that Americans sat on their butt and cowardly did not move during both the WW until they were personnally attacked

And if you think that French are nationalistic, just wait to see the flames that calling Americans "coward" will start

French would never have suffered the total destruction that was reserved to polish people. Polish were Slavonics, and they were supposed to have stole the land that belonged "rightfully" to germanic people. So they should be killed. French, on the other hands, were "latin people", that were just the step below aryan race, and that then should be allowed to live to serve their lords. Hu yes, it's twisted, but well Hitler wasn't really sane.

But more realistically, your problem is that you see France through glasses painted by the Hollywood propaganda. Frankly, the way it treats most cultures is like a baby treats a diaper.

You want to make Americans think by themselves ?

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Ah well, Moraelin, you would have had a better argument to simply reminding that Americans sat on their butt and cowardly did not move during both the WW until they were personnally attacked

Well, I'm not trying to turn this into an anti-american thread. In all fairness, the French sat on their butts until they got attacked too. Both Great Britain and France had promised Poland that they'll only have to defend for TWO WEEKS, after which the combined British and French armies would attack Germany from the west and end the war. This would have stopped WW2 dead before it even properly started, since Germany didn't have the army or the economy to fight two fronts at that moment. (They had to even send their training tanks to Poland.) But needless to say, they both just ignored that alliance, and left Poland alone.

And if you think that French are nationalistic, just wait to see the flames that calling Americans "coward" will start

I may be ill informed, but I don't think the USA has anywhere near the nationalistic excesses of France. E.g., someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's illegal in the USA to broadcast more than a given quota of foreign music.

So I wouldn't have given the Americans a "Nationalistic" trait, but I definitely wouldn't have given them "Industrious", either. Frankly, the only reason why they are ahead economically is that they haven't had their cities and roads bombed into the ground for a long long time. (Not saying that they should have, but it's nevertheless a fact.) And they also have ludicrious ammounts of resources per population.

If you want "Industrious", take the Japanese: they became the second economic power, not only after being almost wiped out in WW2, but also in spite of having almost NO natural resources. Japan has to import almost everything, including food. The oil that Japan could extract in a year, they use up in a week. THAT kind of lack of resources, and yet they manage to export a lot.

Or take Germany. If we're talking "Industrious civs build roads quicker", then I do believe that the USA still doesn't have an equivalent of the German Autobahns. Also look at how they rose from total famine to an economic power that could cause WW2. Without any American help, so there.

Back to the French... Maybe in game terms France should have been "Expansionist", though, given the effect of expansionism on Barbarians. Historically, the French colonies in the new world have lived in far better harmony with the natives than any other colonies. They focused far more on trading with the Indians than on trying to wipe them out, like the English and Spanish did.

French would never have suffered the total destruction that was reserved to polish people. Polish were Slavonics, and they were supposed to have stole the land that belonged "rightfully" to germanic people. So they should be killed. French, on the other hands, were "latin people", that were just the step below aryan race, and that then should be allowed to live to serve their lords. Hu yes, it's twisted, but well Hitler wasn't really sane.

Have you read Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf? (Yeah, I know it's illegal in Germany, but I didn't read it in Germany) Fascinating read, to say the least, if only for the insight into the twisted mind that caused all that.

(Before I get started, this post is NOT nazi propaganda, just history. Anyone who takes Mein Kampf seriously, should probably get a brain.)

Hitler considered France to be THE enemy of the German people. Punishing France for WW1 and for sending Germany into economic ruin after it was second only to uniting all Germans. (A.k.a., invading Austria.)

By contrast, the Slavic people merely happened to be an inferior race that happened to occupy a teritory that (in Adolf's twisted mind) Germany needed as expansion space. It was an inhuman kind of logic, but cold logic nevertheless. Unlike with the Jewish population, this time it was nothing personal. The Jews he wrongly hated. The Russians he didn't. It was just that his idea was that Germany needed more space, Russia had a lot of space, therefore he concluded that Germany must invade Russia.

Also, it's worth noting that it's FALSE that he thought of Latins as a superior race. He considered the British to be a superior race, on account of their germanic ancestry. His original plan was to ally with England and split the world between them. Even right before starting bombing England, he still tried to get them to be allies.

By contrast, the Italians were NOT his intended allies. In Mein Kampf he shows very little regard for the Italians, and considers that trusting them in WW1 was a huge mistake. Furthermore, originally there was very little respect between Hitler and Musolini. The called each other pretty harsh stuff. The eventual alliance, and accepting the Italians as one of the superior races was merely because England didn't want to be allies with Germany after all. (Ditto for accepting the Japanese as short Aryans with dark hair, which was not quite the original idea.)

[Badtz Maru]

Hitler DID think the Slavs were inferior, only slightly better than the Jews. This is part of the reason why his campaign against Russia failed - the people he was conquering so hated Stalin that many would have gladly joined Germany against him had they not been treated as subhumans.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Moraelin
Well, I'm not trying to turn this into an anti-american thread. In all fairness, the French sat on their butts until they got attacked too. Both Great Britain and France had promised Poland that they'll only have to defend for TWO WEEKS, after which the combined British and French armies would attack Germany from the west and end the war. This would have stopped WW2 dead before it even properly started, since Germany didn't have the army or the economy to fight two fronts at that moment. (They had to even send their training tanks to Poland.) But needless to say, they both just ignored that alliance, and left Poland alone.

Just sooooooooo right !
Thinking back at the state of the German army during the Poland campaign and how easily the Allied could have crushed the Germany in a few weeks if only they had attacked...
Geesh, de Gaulle should have been given the overall lead of operation, rather than putting this brain-dead Gamelin on the top. WW2 would never have happened.

I may be ill informed, but I don't think the USA has anywhere near the nationalistic excesses of France. E.g., someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's illegal in the USA to broadcast more than a given quota of foreign music.

I do think that USA and France are about the same when it comes to nationalism. French protect their culture with laws, to avoid being completely eaten by American one. Can be seen as either a last-ditch fight or as a good try to keep some cultural variety depending on your point of view
Americans are much simpler on that : they nearly ignore all that is not American (ever went to a video shop on USA ? Hitchcock is not put on the "Suspense" shelf, nor the "Thriller" or the "Detective" ones. So where it is ? Yes, you guessed it, it's on the "Foreign Movies" shelf.

So I wouldn't have given the Americans a "Nationalistic" trait, but I definitely wouldn't have given them "Industrious", either. Frankly, the only reason why they are ahead economically is that they haven't had their cities and roads bombed into the ground for a long long time. (Not saying that they should have, but it's nevertheless a fact.) And they also have ludicrious ammounts of resources per population.

If you want "Industrious", take the Japanese: they became the second economic power, not only after being almost wiped out in WW2, but also in spite of having almost NO natural resources. Japan has to import almost everything, including food. The oil that Japan could extract in a year, they use up in a week. THAT kind of lack of resources, and yet they manage to export a lot.

Completely agree. The whole cultural and social system in Japan focus on labor and being useful to the society. Romans and Egyptians are in my mind two of the best representative of the industrious civilizations.

Or take Germany. If we're talking "Industrious civs build roads quicker", then I do believe that the USA still doesn't have an equivalent of the German Autobahns. Also look at how they rose from total famine to an economic power that could cause WW2. Without any American help, so there.

Back to the French... Maybe in game terms France should have been "Expansionist", though, given the effect of expansionism on Barbarians. Historically, the French colonies in the new world have lived in far better harmony with the natives than any other colonies. They focused far more on trading with the Indians than on trying to wipe them out, like the English and Spanish did.

Interesting idea here.

Have you read Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf? (Yeah, I know it's illegal in Germany, but I didn't read it in Germany) Fascinating read, to say the least, if only for the insight into the twisted mind that caused all that.

It's forbidden in Germany ? Not very surprising considering the past, but I wonder how the students do when they have a subject in philosophy about it...

(Before I get started, this post is NOT nazi propaganda, just history. Anyone who takes Mein Kampf seriously, should probably get a brain.)

Don't bother with the advertising, any people that mix "talking about a book" and "sharing the idea of the book" is not even worth the time to read his answer.

Hitler considered France to be THE enemy of the German people. Punishing France for WW1 and for sending Germany into economic ruin after it was second only to uniting all Germans. (A.k.a., invading Austria.)

By contrast, the Slavic people merely happened to be an inferior race that happened to occupy a teritory that (in Adolf's twisted mind) Germany needed as expansion space. It was an inhuman kind of logic, but cold logic nevertheless. Unlike with the Jewish population, this time it was nothing personal. The Jews he wrongly hated. The Russians he didn't. It was just that his idea was that Germany needed more space, Russia had a lot of space, therefore he concluded that Germany must invade Russia.

Also, it's worth noting that it's FALSE that he thought of Latins as a superior race. He considered the British to be a superior race, on account of their germanic ancestry. His original plan was to ally with England and split the world between them. Even right before starting bombing England, he still tried to get them to be allies.

By contrast, the Italians were NOT his intended allies. In Mein Kampf he shows very little regard for the Italians, and considers that trusting them in WW1 was a huge mistake. Furthermore, originally there was very little respect between Hitler and Musolini. The called each other pretty harsh stuff. The eventual alliance, and accepting the Italians as one of the superior races was merely because England didn't want to be allies with Germany after all. (Ditto for accepting the Japanese as short Aryans with dark hair, which was not quite the original idea.)

All is quite true, though there is some parts I have to partially disagree :

1) France was his archenemy, because of the WW1 mainly and the humiliation of Germany. He wanted his revenge, and wanted to humiliate back the country. Though, in his racial vision of the world, Latin people were inferior ones, BUT they were not "just wipe them out" ones. If I remember well my history, he considered the top of the races to be Arian/Germanic one, then Latin, then Slaves, then the "worthless races" (probably all the non-white people) then the "to kill" ones (jews, gipsy, gays, mentally deficients people, etc...). So, he hated France, but he did not had such hate for Frenchmen (and even annexed the most germanic parts of France as if they were Germans).

2) Hitler considered that all what was east to Germany was the "vital space", and then it was clear from the start that Russia was about to be attacked and conquered. Though, the reasons for attacking Russia were not only the vital space, but were too the "crusade against bolcheviks" and the desire to wipe slaves out from the "rightfully owned by Germans" lands they lived upon.

3) Alliance between Mussolinin and Hitler was more due to similar kind of governments than racial conceptions. Ditto for the Japanese. All these countries had a fascist-like government, same vision of "society above individual", same militaristic opinions, and to sum up, thought all the exact same things (Mussolini praised the "latin race", Japaneses thought their race was superior, and Hitler thought that Germans were the "race of Lords"). Same visions of the world lead to alliances, and as the Japanese were far from Europe, Hitler didn't care about their race, 'cause he would not be next to them. The "short aryans with dark hair" was probably a masquerade invented by diplomats to smooth the Japan-Germany alliance.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Hitler DID think the Slavs were inferior, only slightly better than the Jews. This is part of the reason why his campaign against Russia failed - the people he was conquering so hated Stalin that many would have gladly joined Germany against him had they not been treated as subhumans.

Exactly. Russians were well disposed toward Germans at the starts, and they did not even try to resist. But then the Wermacht (spelling ?) started to treat them like subhumans, and then they fought back.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
It's forbidden in Germany ? Not very surprising considering the past, but I wonder how the students do when they have a subject in philosophy about it...

You'd be surprised how much stuff is forbidden here, so it doesn't become Nazi propaganda.

E.g., I go and ask at the game shop here (which usually has a lot of imported games) if they have the English version of "Return to Castle Wolfenstein." I mean, wth, the German versions of most games are censored to get a teen rating, but most of the times you can still get a gory imported version with an "18+" rating sticker slapped on the box. They tell me that even if I could get an imported version of Wolfenstein, I darn better not play that on the Internet or tell anyone about it, because that version is forbidden in Germany.

So I get the German version. Gee, as far as I can tell, the main difference is that the flags on the walls have the Wolfenstein logo in the middle of the white circle, instead of the crooked cross. And there seem to be a whole lot of portraits of some officer on the walls. (I'd assume originally it was the guy with the short moustache)

Personally I'd say noone would be brain-dead enough to take a screenshot of a flag on the wall, and use it as a nazi insignia. I mean, wth, if they really wanted a crooked cross, it's not like they can't draw it themselves in the paint program that comes with Windows. It's not THAT hard a thing to draw, you know. And besides, the whole idea of the game is to fight AGAINST the nazis, not for them anyway. Does it really become any better if you fight against some guys with a wolfenstein logo on their flag instead?

But anyway, it's an example of how strictly some stuff is forbidden down here.

[dwsmith]

THIS POST IS DELEATED FOR REASONS OF US/FRANCE BASHING IS STUPID!