France better than Germany?

[solodar]

Re: France better than Germany?

Originally posted by bobbo008

The Germans are scientific and militaristic.
The French are industrial and commercial.

The problem with the civs that still exist in the real world is that they have enough history to have had different characteristics at different times.

Firaxis seems to have picked one era and based the traits and the UU on that era. Germans have the Panzer UU so their traits fit the WWII era (trying to take over Europe and best scientific establishment on the planet -- check). France has the Musketeer and fits Sun King/Revolution period (cottage industry and mercantilism -- check).

Similarly, there's the Japanese. I don't think anyone would consider the current nation of Japan to be militaristic, but the Samurai era Japan certainly was. If you did a modern Japan civ, they'd probably be Sci/Ind instead of Mil/Rel. No idea what the UU would be though.

solodar

[RGBVideo]

Compare the Germans and the Chinese. See anything strange?

[Gangerolf]

France kicks arse

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
Germany has attacked France three times in the past 150 years. Twice in the last 90. Would you like to say that Germany has not been a bunch of fierce conquerers overunning the French?

Yea, but twice in the past 90 years it have been the French, who declared war. They should have said: "We declare war, but please please please don't attack us, we're French!" May be this had helped.

[Mattaba]

Originally posted by Tuomerehu
Compare the Germans and the Chinese. See anything strange?

Exactly, If you switch them, it would make much more sense.

[bobbo008]

"Germany has attacked France three times in the past 150 years"

maybe you're missing the point but on all three occasions France declared war on Germany first.

"Germany wasn't powerful in modern times"

Germany is the second largest exporter in the world and has the third largest economy. Also, if anyone cares to know, Germany has the most troops overseas in the world except for the U.S.

"Egypt isn't industrious anymore"

Just how industrious was Egypt?

"Because it's already scientific and militaristic"

which is why I think there shouldn't have to be exactly two traits. Or maybe they should have more than 6 possible, but this is a whole other thing.

"Yes but it was the military-industrial complex that brought them into WWII, and also gave them the expertise to rebuild their country"

I don't know if you can credit that to the military, though.

"The problem with the civs that still exist in the real world is that they have enough history to have had different characteristics at different times."

Basically. So any time they choose is going to offend somebody out there.

"Compare the Germans and the Chinese. See anything strange?"

Umm...they're both countries?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior

Germany has attacked France three times in the past 150 years. Twice in the last 90. Would you like to say that Germany has not been a bunch of fierce conquerers overunning the French?

All three times, France declared war first. All three times, they did so out of arrogance that they were better than the Germans and could take them down. All three times, their arrogance bit them on the butt.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by brianshapiro
France had a right to alsace-lorraine and Germans are big poopooheads.

France had no more a right to Alsace-Lorraine than the Germans did. One could easily argue that Napoleon's annexation of what had been a traditional German state and part of the Holy Roman Empire was wrong. It's predominantly German population at the time of the Franco-Prussian war certainly didn't feel France had a "right" to their territory.

also, Austria > Germany most of the great intellectuals and historically important leaders from the area were Austrians ; Freud, Wittgenstein, Wagner, Makart, Hitler,etc some others were german but few
Germany was always a culturally barren wasteland

What a crock of ****. First, in the game it is reasonable to say "Germans" refers to all the German states, including Austria. Second, Wagner wasn't Austrian, he was born in Leipzig and spent his life in Germany, not Austria. Third, you've neglected a massive number of German artists, thinkers, scientists, composers, etc. who weren't Austrian. Saying it was culturally barren is patently false. Here's just a few names:

Writers/Artists:

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Friedrich Schiller
Novalis
Friedrich von Schlegel
The Brothers Grimm
Albrecht Durer
Thomas Mann
Bertold Brecht

Composers/Musicians:

Johann Sebastian Bach (and his family)
Georg Frederic Handel
Franz Liszt
Felix Mendelssohn
Robert Schumann
Carl Maria von Weber
Johannes Brahms
Richard Strauss
Hugo Wolf
Carl Orff
Wilhelm Furtwangler
Otto Klemperer
Bruno Walter
Felix Weingartner

Philosophers/Mathematicians:

Georg W.F. Hegel
Karl Marx
Wilhelm Leibniz
Friedrich Nietzsche
Arthur Schopenhauer
Immanuel Kant
Martin Heidigger
Albert Einstein
Victor Weisskopf

Inventors/Scientists:

Johannes Gutenburg
Nicolaus Otto
Karl Braun
Gottlieb Daimler
Rudolf Diesel
Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit
Heinrich Geissler
Karl Benz
Heinrich Hertz
Felix Hoffmann
Charles Proteus Steinmetz
Werner von Siemens
Graf Ferdinand von Zeppelin
Konrad Zuse
Wernher von Braun

An incomplete list. And that's not enumerating the German political and military leaders, like Bismarck, Frederick the Great, Barbarossa, Otto the Great, etc.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by bobbo008


"Because it's already scientific and militaristic"

which is why I think there shouldn't have to be exactly two traits. Or maybe they should have more than 6 possible, but this is a whole other thing.

Well, you can give Germany as many of the 6 possible traits as you want via the editor. You can give all the civs whatever traits you desire and adjust the aggressiveness levels.

[GePap]

I think people are not loking at what these traits truly represent when thinking of this discussion.

Comercial trait does not only mean cheap banks and markets, it aso means the ablity to create lare empires with less corruption, ie. oversea's empires. France's history as an economic power in Europe, and its history of commercial empire both make Comercial a understanable trait.

As for Industrial: as someone has stated earlier, industrial seems to apply more not to 'modern industry', but to the great projects of engineers and builders of the past. The French were great Medieval engineers, and this trend continued into the presen: think of the Suez Canal (frenh built) and the Panama Canal (the french started it, another industrious civ. finished it).

As for the Germans: German's have been a cultural group more than any one state (as Germany is the youngest state in the game [1871]), so thinking of German traits from the history of Wilhemine and after Germany is not fuly accurate.

Now, Militarist seems to indicate a culture of the warrior, which is why the Jaanese and Aztecs and Zulus' ahe this trait, as a warrior culture was very important. NOw, a militarist culture does apply to modern germany, but you also have the cuture of war of the innital germanic warriors, and alo groups like the Teutonic Knights and their campaigns into the East in the 1200's.

As for Scientific..well, perhas one can argue. The Germans not only had a top notch scientific establishment in the late 1800's and first half of 1900's, but think of their great university system, and all the many great German sicientists from the past and early century trained at German universities.

I think the most glaring mix up of traits is the Chinese/Roman/Persian mixup.

China should be industrious/scientific, Rome should be industrious/militaristic and Persia shoul be Militaristic/commercial.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by GePap
Comercial trait does not only mean cheap banks and markets, ...

The commercial trait doesn't reduce the cost of markets and banks. It would be too powerful if it did.

[De Gaulle]

Re: Re: France better than Germany?

Originally posted by solodar


The problem with the civs that still exist in the real world is that they have enough history to have had different characteristics at different times.

Firaxis seems to have picked one era and based the traits and the UU on that era. Germans have the Panzer UU so their traits fit the WWII era (trying to take over Europe and best scientific establishment on the planet -- check). France has the Musketeer and fits Sun King/Revolution period (cottage industry and mercantilism -- check).

solodar

I think Solodar said it best. UU and traits affected to a particular civ seem to reflect a same historical period.

As far as France declaring war on Germany all the time, I do agree that France did it. However, these wars had been prepared and made inevitable by the actions and ambitions of Germany I believe.
Yes, France did declare war in 1939... after Germany had taken over Austria, the Sudetes and was sarting to gobble Poland. Who really was the agressor in this case? In civ III, we would call it being drawn in by an MPP...

These wars were fought for the same reasons we fight them in civ III: aquisition of lebensraum, ressources and to gain a definite advantage over your immediate competitors. Throughout the second millenium Europe was almost constantly at war to preserve a "balance of power", with alliances shifting back and forth to prevent one country from achieving a decisive advantage. The franco-german wars fit exactly in this picture.

Finally, I couldn't help but notice all these comments aimed at the lack of French prowess on the battlefield in WW2... I would like to remind the people making these comments to realize the disparity of force between the 2 countries before getting to quick conclusions... At the time, Germany had about twice the population of France and the same advantage in industrial production. When French military planners recognized the continued threat posed by an aggressive Germany in the early 1920s they had to find a way to reestablish parity. The Maginot line was their answer, its rationale being that fortifications and artillery would bring a much needed advantage/equalizer to the outnumbered and outgunned French soldiers. In the spirit of measure/countermeasure competition, the Germans realized they needed a way to negate this equilibrium brought about by the Maginot line. They had 15 years to think about it and they came up with a military answer with Panzers, Stukas and the Blitzkriege. Notably, they also had a diplomatic component to their strategy since they trashed the neutrality of Belgium and the Netherlands.
Did we lose? No... we were more exactly routed, destroyed, eviscerated, and so on...

But what would YOU have done better in a similar situation in Civ III? Remember that you can't aquire techs easily, that you can't do Rope rape, set-up MPPs with every civ on the planet, and that your adversary is not a predictable AI. Furthermore, he is in his GA, with a great UU, and has been mobilizing for a while. Waiting to hear a lentghy strategy, not a quick derogatory comment, Thanks.

Last thing: I agree with the original poster in that European integration is just great, and I support it wholeheartedly.

[bobbo008]

hmm... I'm getting support at the time, intelligent support at that. Whereas I didn't know all of the people listed by Boris, I felt the "barren wasteland" would be regected by anyone of any intelligence (it's nice to see the names, though).

"think of... the Panama Canal"

you mean the one the French failed at?

"so thinking of German traits from the history of Wilhemine and after Germany is not fuly accurate."

I think it basically is. The game starts at 4000 B.C., and I don't exactly think that there were Englishman walking arouond discovering the wheel.

"As for Scientific..well, perhas one can argue"

Do you mean against? I think possibly the Germans have done more in America than America has. Keep in mind our old Nazi buddy von Braun and his team made the moon landing possible.

"China should be industrious/scientific, Rome should be industrious/militaristic and Persia shoul be Militaristic/commercial."

China maybe not so scientific in the past 1000 years. Rome could be a lot of things, and I feel it's almost insulting to limit them to just two of the traits.

"these wars had been prepared and made inevitable by the actions and ambitions of Germany I believe."

I wouldn't use the word "inevitable". WWII was SOOO preventable, at least on the scale that it was.

"after Germany had taken over Austria, the Sudetes and was sarting to gobble Poland"

Austria? How about with 99% of the voting Austrian population approving. Sudetes? Germans. Poland? Well, Hitler's a jackass.

"Germans realized they needed a way to negate this equilibrium brought about by the Maginot line. They had 15 years to think about it and they came up with a military answer with Panzers, Stukas and the Blitzkriege"

No, they went around it. On a side note, of the attacking the Germans DID do on the Maginot line, it was only breached once. I compliment to French engineering. I also noticed the poster's name was De Gaulle, who insisted that defenses be increased at the Belgian border. He called that one, even though I think he was too nationalistic as president, although I can sort of see why.

[De Gaulle]

Originally posted by bobbo008 "these wars had been prepared and made inevitable by the actions and ambitions of Germany I believe."

I wouldn't use the word "inevitable". WWII was SOOO preventable, at least on the scale that it was.

Preventable? Well, with Hitler at the wheel bent on conquering most of Europe I fail to see how it was preventable...

[SIZE=1]
"after Germany had taken over Austria, the Sudetes and was sarting to gobble Poland"

Austria? How about with 99% of the voting Austrian population approving. Sudetes? Germans. Poland? Well, Hitler's a jackass.

Austria&Sudetes: I guess that's what Chamberlain and the others were thinking at Munich in 1938...
Poland: yeah, there can be no "sane" justification for this one.

[SIZE=1]
"Germans realized they needed a way to negate this equilibrium brought about by the Maginot line. They had 15 years to think about it and they came up with a military answer with Panzers, Stukas and the Blitzkriege"

No, they went around it. On a side note, of the attacking the Germans DID do on the Maginot line, it was only breached once. I compliment to French engineering. .

My point exactly, they went around it because it denied them their numerical and material advantage. That was a pretty efficient counter-measure, I would say.

[SIZE=1]
I also noticed the poster's name was De Gaulle, who insisted that defenses be increased at the Belgian border. He called that one, even though I think he was too nationalistic as president, although I can sort of see why.

Yes, he insisted on prolonguing the line up to Dunkirk. It seems that political considerations, the Belgians were dead against it because it would make their whole country the battlefield, prevailed. A huge mistake.
As for De Gaulle, he had the same feeling about what modern warfare "would" be than the Germans. I think he won the only French victory in 1940 with his tank battalion, using similar tactics based on speed&firepower.

He was a very nationalistic president, true enough. But the good kind, which is extremely hard to find. For example, he is the one who pulled France out of Algeria after understanding that the military victory there was pointless since 90% of the population would never be satisfied to be under French rule again. He relinquished power democratically TWICE (he was called back in to clean the Algerian mess) instead of turning into a dictator. That is pretty rare for "Strongmen", no?

[bobbo008]

"Preventable? Well, with Hitler at the wheel bent on conquering most of Europe I fail to see how it was preventable..."

when Hitler came to power Germany wasn't in very good shape, especially militarily. If his military buildup would have been stopped immediately, they could probably have had a case to force Hitler out of power, make a deal or keep troops stationed. Britain and France at the time weren't going to intervene until there was absolutely no doubt. I actually can't imagine what the top officials at the time were thinking.

To the de Gaulle comments:

I never said he was stupid. His choice regarding Algeria wasn't much of a choice. He did kick NATO out, increased the military, and, if my sources are right, started the French nuclear program, with strong disapproval from most World powers. The French people did give him broad powers, and it is very commendable that he turned them down, however.

And yeah, he was a tank commander for the Free French. Would you happen to know if he encountered any Vichy French forces?