riflemen in three cornered hats

[Theben]

The last 2 posts sum up my opinion. In Civ2 the "history" changes with each game you play. One disappointment of mine is that is can't stray further w/o me mucking up the .txt files. The uniform the guy's in isn't too terribly important. As long as it looks good!

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

I still say this: Do not start making fusses about stuff when you dont know nothin about it except what it'll look like, hell, the Rifleman could be an 'elite' musketeer, they just called it the Riflemen cause thats what the sharp-shooters were called back then.

[Grumbold]

I have to agree. There is no "right" depiction for a rifleman because that name was used loosely by many nations over a wide period of time. If the artist has chosen to depict one of the earliest instances of the rifle then why not? I had a poke at the Phalanx for not having a long spear, but it is quite possibly correct for an early bronze age hoplite or something even if troops would be somewhat differently equipped in a few centuries time. Lets just hope they include enough troop types and/or unit graphics that all recognisable military periods are represented. I'll dislike fighting over Europe with stacks of 18C. Austrian Riflemen, Union Artillery and Confederate cavalry but I'll do it if I must. Key prestige locations will continue to be guarded by the Black Watch Highlanders well into the 21st C though, even if they only have muskets

[Ralf]

This is my summarized and final opinion on this issue:

1: Just make the unit name-convention consistent with the overal looks of the unit. Its really as simple and uncomplicated as that. Just like it was in Civ-2.

I never knew if that old civ-2 musketeer uniform, or the civ-2 rifleman uniform, ever had any exact real-life historical uniform counterpart - and i never cared.

Maybe it was just summarized abstractions of uniforms from those eras. I never cared.

All i cared about - seen from an non-historical laymans point of view - was that the Civ-2 musketeer-unit had the quintessential looks of any non-specific 18:th century musketeer. And that the Civ-2 rifleman-unit had the quintessential looks of any non-specific 19:th century rifleman.


2: Also, NO controversial Samurai instead of Legion replacements, ala CTP-2. YES, we do have mod-packs, but why build in controversials in the main-game, then its so easy to bypass them?

[lord of the mark]

2 points

1. Some people seem to have gotten the idea that i was complaining bitterly about the rifleman in 18th c dress. I was not. If they keep the rifleman in 18thc dress I am sure Civ 3 will still be a good game. I thought it POSSIBLE that the artists had happened on an illustration in a history book of a rifleman in 18th c dress and had used that. I thought nothing would be lost by pointing out why it would be MORE appopriate to put a riflemen in 19thc dress (anything from 1862 to whenever the next infantry unit appears)
If it is too late to change thats ok.

2. WRT to history simulator vs alt history game

Well of course the fascination of civ is playing through alt histories - eg what if a key civ had been left alone in its early years and had focused on research, could it have conquered the world with tanks when everyone else had knights and pikemen. (Though to be accurate from the ALTERNATIVE HISTORY point of view you would need major changes in gameplay) Of course in an outcome like that you could well have riflemen coming before, say monotheism or navigation. One would expect them to be dressed differently than in actual history. But then why not include volkswagons with machine guns, or substitute troops on rhinos for troops on elephants, or whatever - I mean in alt history you dont have to have historical units(since things could have turned out differently) or historical tech sequences (except where you can make a case for historical necessity) We play with historical units to accomodate the POSSIBILITY that you will discover techs in roughly the "right" time period and sequence, and to make the game immersive when you do.

[The Kaiser]

Ok so we have a lot of opinions floating around on this thread as to the importance of a 3 pointed hat!

But I'm just interested in the clues the Graphics gives us about what the finished game will look like. Yes we are feeding of crumbs at the moment, but it's all we've been given so far, so we're stuck with it. I guess we won't have a better idea until the full site goes up in the new year.

All I will say is if Firaxis are not trying for accuracy in their unit portrayal's, why have they produced a near perfect image of a Panzer III tank? As opposed to the abstract Armour unit in Civ2.

The clues are there, it's just that some aren't willing to look hard enough.
[This message has been edited by The Kaiser (edited December 22, 2000).]

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

I feel compelled to post to clear up a few things.

First, this artwork is concept art. It isn't necessarily "final" or even "what the final game may look like". It's merely designed to give you an idea of what our artists are working on. Nothing more.

Secondly, given the disclaimer that the ART is concept and not final, you should also assume the naming conventions for the units are also conceptual at this point, and *not* final. It's entirely possible that the model we labeled the "Rifleman" could be called something completely different in the finished product. I already alluded to this in an email that was posted regarding the "Panzer Tank" render, but I want to make sure this is clear.

I point this out only because it seems there is a debate over something which could (and probably will) change before the game hits the streets. Rest assured that we *do* want to make sure everything in the game fits into the proper historical perspective, so I wouldn't worry about that too much..

That being said, please resume the festivities =)

Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

[The Kaiser]

Well it's sure difficult to resume after a post like that!

Although it seems now that it will probably change, can I just say that I for one don't mind a 3 pointed hat on my Rifleman unit as I feel it represents when the weapon first appeared.

And thats that!

Nuf said.

[Dauphin]

Who knows. If it turns out that Riflemen are to have three-cornered hats it could just be claimed that those units are going for thr "Retro" look.

Many armies today still have traditional uniforms - often worn for display purposes. (so they don't necessarily go into combat wearing them.)

[red_jon]

At least Firaxis can't get it as wrong as Activision

------------------
"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender!" -Winston Churchill

"Gotta love me"- Baby, Dinosaurs

[Frank Johnson]

Hm.....we're gonna have this problem untill every unit has an image, for each culture represented as a civ, in Civ.

Native American: "Me tradum you furs for gun."
Trader:"Sure thing, oh and here's your 3 cornered hats."
Native American:"Hats? We no need."
Trader:"What? You can't have a gun without a 3 cornered hat, it just doesn't exist."

[St Leo]

The best reason for keeping the 3-cornered hat is that it looks really cool.

------------------
St. Leo
http://www.sidgames.com/hosted/ziggurat/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

[hHydro]

-=eND OF tHREAD=-

[The Kaiser]

Maybe the Musketeer unit will have one of those large rimmed hat's with the feather's!

[The Kaiser]

Which might not be as daft as it sounds, as it puts the Musketeer and Riflemen earlier in the timeline. Thus suggesting that there are new defensive units to bridge the gap between Riflemen and Mechanised Infantry.
[This message has been edited by The Kaiser (edited January 08, 2001).]