What the hell is up with the historical researchers at firaxis?

[Dry]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Btw, why are the french industrious?

Look at the effect of being indutrious in the game.
Being industrious does not mean working like ants, it means building roads, drying swamps, improving land,... it means having good engineers.

French always had good engineers.
Begin with Vauban (city walls++), LeNotre (French Gardens: a masterpiece of hydraulic engineering) and go on with Lesseps and Eiffel.
They have dig the Suez Canal and started the Panama one.
Today they are one of the greatest bridge builders nation in the world.
They have great succes with their TGV train.
Together with UK, they built the tunnel under the Channel.
They are #1 in Europe in space program.

[bigvic]

Yeah, good comments. I know the game is not supposed to be totally historically accurate, but a few glaring boo boo's do stand out. Modding, by the way, is easy - modding well, to maintain or establish some kind of balance, though, is harder. I now accept scientific for persia, though one could make quite an argument for religious (early development of Zoroastrianism, current Shi'ite theocracy). China? Militaristic? Gee, all those periods of warfare in China are more analogous to Europe's periods of warfare, and I think China shouuld be seen, before the modern era, as more of a cultural/geographic region than a single political entity, like France. When has China embarked on major campaigns of conquest (external)? The period of warring states could just as easily be viewed as a long early period of anarchy for a non religious civ between governments. The most militaristic bents in China after this were a result of takeovers by Mongols and quasi mongols (Manchus). I would agree with the industrious part (great wall), but am more prone to classify them as scientific (paper monney, gunpowder, etc) than militaristic.

3 traits would be a good idea, i have considered it for my mod, but mainly for expansionist civs, or for UU weak civs - but then i gave scouts an extra move point and made some improvements expansionist, like courthouses, harbors, and a few other and this seems to work well, though i im tempted to give the poor english another trait (what thouugh, industrious? too powerful)

Spain - expansionist/religious
ottomans militaristic/expansionist

oh well, got to go

[Traelin]

Originally posted by KaiserIsak
My mods when the game come out:

America should be religious and militaristic
China should be industrious and scientific
Spain should be religious/exp
Arabs should be religious/scientific (or commercial)
Romans should definatly be religious, after all it was they who made us all christians/exp

America religious/militaristic?? America has a diverse population with varying religions. This country was founded on Jefferson's notion of separation of church and state. If anything, they should be a combination of the following traits:
--Industrious
--Scientific
--Expansionist
--Militaristic

EDIT: I mean a combination of two of the above traits.

China should remain Militaristic, for the reasons that other posters have mentioned.

I agree with your assessment of Spain.

I can see the reasoning for your choices for the Arabs.

Hrm I dunno about the Romans. I can see why you'd suggest Religious, but I really think it'd be hard for me to change their current traits.

[Dominae]

My limited knowledge of history tells me that perhaps the Germans would be more "realistic" if their traits were Militaristic and Industrious rather than Militaristic and Scientific. The Scientific trait makes a lot of sense too, I admit, but if I were to choose one, it would be Industrious. This is probably the civ in my mind that really deserves having 3 traits, if such a thing wouldn't break game balance.


Dominae

[Tiberius]

Sorry, double post

[Tiberius]

Damn, tripple post.

You know the story: "The server is busy ...please wait..."

[Tiberius]

Dry, all what you've said could be said about many other civs in the world: good engineers, great bridge builders, etc, ,etc. But were they industrious in the time of Joan? I don't think so.
France being industrious while the germans or the romans not, is a joke, IMO.

I'm not saying that I can't play the game with industrious french or some other more or less stange traits/civs. The fact is that the game is fun and this is more important than historical accuracy.

[Cyclotron]

I think that overall I could find some reason to give nearly any civ every trait. Firaxis tried to choose two that best represented the Civ and ensured game balance. Not only are you looking at Civ traits from your own perspective (so your concept of "best" might be different) but you are not looking at gameplay balance either.

If I asked each person in America: "What two traits describe Americans? Militaristic, Scientific, Industrious, Expansionistic, Religious, or Commercial?" I would get a plethora of different answers. What is "most appropriate" is something that the game developers must decide, while bearing strategy in mind... I see nothing wrong with their choices.

[bigvic]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
I think that overall I could find some reason to give nearly any civ every trait. Firaxis tried to choose two that best represented the Civ and ensured game balance. Not only are you looking at Civ traits from your own perspective (so your concept of "best" might be different) but you are not looking at gameplay balance either.

If I asked each person in America: "What two traits describe Americans? Militaristic, Scientific, Industrious, Expansionistic, Religious, or Commercial?" I would get a plethora of different answers. What is "most appropriate" is something that the game developers must decide, while bearing strategy in mind... I see nothing wrong with their choices.

i'm sorry, dude, but people in the non electronic games industry have been comin up with historically accurate, playable, fun strategy games for over 30 years now. a little historical reaserch/knowledge coupled with a good sense of game balance does not take a rocket scientist. in fact, you cannot seperate historical context from civ 3 - its a game about history.......

if a good strategy game is all you want, good for you, but i'm shocked at the laziness and ignorance of the designers that have dropped this misinformation on people. seriously, one competant historical expert/consultant could have been hired. what i find utterly amazing is that the folks who can put together as complex a package as this cannot do a little homework on the context. i mean, if your ok with this, good for you, but for me, if i want to playy a simple ahistorical strategy game i could get risk. civ should be more than that.

and balance would have been maintained.

as far as that goes, i have serious issues with a few other things i've heard about ptw design choices. for one, the choice of sipahi as ottoman UU. janisary would have been best. sipahi?

ah......if i were only ignorant.............

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by bigvic
i'm sorry, dude, but people in the non electronic games industry have been comin up with historically accurate, playable, fun strategy games for over 30 years now.

No, they haven't. I can't think of any broad (not one single war, ie. Napaleonic war game or somesuch) strategy game that has perfect historical realism. It can't be done. Even if it could be done, Sid made it very clear he emphasized gameplay over realism, and has done so in every Civ title.

Oh, and as for the "30 years" bit... sorry man, but Steve Jobs built the first PC in 1976, or 26 years ago. Check your dates.

if a good strategy game is all you want, good for you,

Yep, that's all I want.

but i'm shocked at the laziness and ignorance of the designers that have dropped this misinformation on people. seriously, one competant historical expert/consultant could have been hired.

Ehhh... so, rather than a conscious desicion on their part to make the game as they did, now they did it out of ignorance? Seriously, you're joking, right? Bigvic, see Sid's above comment... the're designing a game, they aren't writing a college history thesis.

what i find utterly amazing is that the folks who can put together as complex a package as this cannot do a little homework on the context.

"Cannot" or "decided not to?" Which seems more likely to you?

i mean, if your ok with this, good for you,

thanks

but for me, if i want to playy a simple ahistorical strategy game i could get risk. civ should be more than that.

It is. It's a much better game than risk. I don't care about perfect, or even near perfect historical accuracy.

[bigvic]

cyclotron, steve jobs had nothing to do with companies like avalon hill, a NON (let me emphasize that again) NON - computer game company. they came up with sometimes incredibly complex strategy/tactical games that would be considerably less complex if converted to computer format and therefore more playable. they did their homework, almost always, even in the shoddiest examples, managed to come up with material more historically accurate than civ3.

the game designerrs made a concious decision to be ignorant? hmmm....

don't get me wrong - i respect your opinion and understand your interest in the game, but i assure you they could have injected a bit more historical authenticity into the game and still had a great, playable fun product. its exactly this kind of intellectual laziness that perpetuates the average schmuk's lack of knowledge about his/her past, therefore it rather irks me.

by the way, i've noticed you are awfully defensive about firaxis - whats up, bucking for a job or something?

no offense, really

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by bigvic
the game designerrs made a concious decision to be ignorant? hmmm....

You don't understand. I mean that, they aren't ignorant, they simply made a conscious decision to make the game not completely historically accurate.

don't get me wrong - i respect your opinion and understand your interest in the game, but i assure you they could have injected a bit more historical authenticity into the game and still had a great, playable fun product. its exactly this kind of intellectual laziness that perpetuates the average schmuk's lack of knowledge about his/her past, therefore it rather irks me.

I can't be entirely certain that any balance of gameplay and realism is the best one. Did Civ3 sacrafice realism for gameplay? Vice versa? I don't really know what the optimal balance is, but I am sure there is a balance, and Civ3 has hit it close enough for me.

Don't get me wrong; I love history. I dropped electives to take more history in high school. History is grand. But I don't expect my games to be historically perfect, because they are games and I believe perfect realism borders on the anal-retentive.

Could they have "injected" more history into Civ3? Yes. But unless it adds gameplay, I don't care. It ends up costing me more money and taking more time to come out. A certain threshold of realism is necessary, but I think that that has been 75% or so achieved by Civ3. Even so, the areas of realism I am interested in aren't the ones you appear to be... so maybe they should just keep it the way it is.

by the way, i've noticed you are awfully defensive about firaxis - whats up, bucking for a job or something?

no offense, really

lol, none taken. Actually, I'd be saying this about any computer game company. The value (or lack thereof) I place in realism has nothing to do with the company producing the game; I'm not so much defending Firaxis as that.

If I could get a job at Firaxis, I wouldn't be posting here.

[statusperfect]

Spooky. Parts of my post on page one turned red without me editing it.

EDIT: Now it's back to normal again. At times, Poly scares me.

[ranskaldan]

Warring States Period?? That's gotta be the most atypical part of Chinese history. It's the last era when China actually behaved like Europe (i.e. disjointed little states). After 221 BC, Chinese political philosophy was totally and utterly based on unity and empire. Even when China did dissolute into "warring states" after that, the independent warring states were obsessed with "reunification" and not at all concerned with "conquest".

So, scientific and industrious would work perfectly.

[Beren]

China is indeed a country of science (I didn't hear anyone argue that.) They are certainly not religious or expansionistic. Commercial could go, but not really defendable if you see how isolationistic they were. Concerning militaristic, I don't see why they should be. Industrious...... ok, well I that is the best option. It doesn't really reflect the Confucianism, but it is the best deal we can make here.