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

[Martinus]

I think the traits are the mostly for game balance (and suitable peacefull GA trigger - that's why Chinese are militaristic - so that Great Wall can trigger their GA).

As for Spanish being commercial - well, the Commercial trait does two things - it allows you to have big-area spanning empires and gives you more gold. That's what Spain achieved actually - the exact name of the trait is irrelevant - the Commercial effect suits Spanish civ quite well.

[bigvic]

Originally posted by cyclotron7



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.

well, despite our differences in game philosophy, i think we can agree on one thing - these pop ups at this site NEVER get LESS irritating! oh well, if it pays the bills for mark g., more power to him......

[bigvic]

Originally posted by Martinus
I think the traits are the mostly for game balance (and suitable peacefull GA trigger - that's why Chinese are militaristic - so that Great Wall can trigger their GA).

As for Spanish being commercial - well, the Commercial trait does two things - it allows you to have big-area spanning empires and gives you more gold. That's what Spain achieved actually - the exact name of the trait is irrelevant - the Commercial effect suits Spanish civ quite well.

I base my criticism of Spain's "commercial" tendencies on several things....
1. Spanish wealth in the 16th century was based not on mercantile acumen, but simply on the military conquest of 2-3 less technologically advanced (generally)empires - very similar to what happens when you take down quickly a wealthy, weak, ai - you know, "we have "liberated" 178 gold from their vaults" or something like that per city. again, this is not "commercial".
2. evidence of spain's inability to sustain economic growth without constant infusions of conquered or mined hard currency abound. basically the gold they gained from their new world conquests ironically enough ended up in the coffers of their true commercial enemies to the north as they spent it all to finance their impressive war machine.
3. while britain, france, and holland were developping joint stock companies and dropping opposition to usury, spain was still basing their economy on monopolistic guilds. for example, the only authorized trade to/from the new world (authorized being the key word here) took place once a year when a big galleon fleet sailed over loaded down with shoddy, overpriced spanish goods. there were only 3 accepted ports to which residents of the new world could come to trade - santo domingo in hispaniola (dominican republic now), veracruz mexico, and colon panama. so, if you lived in argentina, for example, and wante to trade, legally you had to travel , what, 1000 - 2000 miles north to trade your goods. in fact, at the hight of english pirating, often the citizens of the "victimized" town would look forward to the english "attack", since these guys in actuality always carried a bunch of cheap, high quality english manufactured goods they would "force at cannon point" the locals to purchase.
4. in fact, after the mined and looted gold ran out, spain was one of the poorest nations of europe, and, in fact, was in capable of generating money in any apresciable "commercial" way until some years after the death of franco and their reintigration into europe in the EU.

Portugal, now? yes definately commercial. but spain? again, money does not mean comercial.

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by 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.

How about a perfectionist/isolationist trait?

Originally posted by Martinus
I think the traits are the mostly for game balance (and suitable peacefull GA trigger - that's why Chinese are militaristic - so that Great Wall can trigger their GA).

That would fit an "isolationist" trait. A militaristic civ would have gone out there and subjugated all the barbarians. China did send campaigns out, but they were more for the "display of imperial power", rarely conquest. Instead, China walled itself in. It fits.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by 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.

China WAS a country of science. I would argue that the Civ traits are supposed to match the era of the Civ being represented. I wouldn't say China was a scientific powerhouse in Mao's day. Heck, it's actually been ages since you could even associate the word science with them. They have 4 times the population of America and are 30 years behind in military technology (that they haven't stolen, that is).

[gsmoove23]

Talk about historical inaccuracy, I started a game last night as China and I was placed on a little bitty island. What the hell is that?!?! Its not like I chose the Taiwanese civ.

The game is re-writing history, c'mon. The idea of putting millenia of chinese cultural development up against a few centuries of american existence and clalling them both a civ is ridiculous enough, but its fun. For cryin' out loud if I wanted to relive history I'll read a book. I'm not saying that the people who want complete historical accuracy are wrong but, to say Firaxis failed by not putting it in the game IMO is ridiculous.

And for the person who mentioned militaristic-religious as traits for the American civ I think thats a little unfairly based on the present day. America has a long history of non-interventionism, much to the dismay of France and England. I don't know what the current traits are but expansionist would be preferrable to militaristic. As for religious, unfortunately I can't argue. "One nation, under God..."

[Traelin]

Each Civ's traits should be representative of the era in which they are included in Civ III. That is key to remember. IMHO, here's how I would break them down:

America -- A combination of two from: Expansionist/Industrious/Militaristic. I would say leave them alone.

Iroquois -- Expansionist/Religious.

Aztecs -- Militaristic/Religious.

English -- Expansionist and either Commercial or Militaristic. A good case could be made for Militaristic.

French -- Militaristic/Religious. Duh, the Hundred Years War, and Joan of Arc's devotion to God.

Germans -- Militaristic and perhaps Expansionist, although I'm not too sure on this one.

Greeks -- Scientific/Commercial.

Romans -- Militaristic and either Expansionist (a very good argument can be made here), Commercial, or Religious.

Chinese -- Militaristic/Expansionist.

OK I'm getting tired of writing all these. These are my humble opinions for the Civs I've listed.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Talk about historical inaccuracy, I started a game last night as China and I was placed on a little bitty island. What the hell is that?!?! Its not like I chose the Taiwanese civ.

That's funny hehe.

Originally posted by gsmoove23
As for religious, unfortunately I can't argue. "One nation, under God..."

Sure you can. Just because the word God is mentioned in the Pledge doesn't mean we are a "religious" Civ. We have a diverse population with many different religions. Usually when a Civ is listed as religious, you are likely to find a theocratic type of government, or a Civ whose people followed the same religion, or something like that.

[KaiserIsak]

Not being liberal does´nt mean that you are not commercial. I guess that is not your meaning, but it could look like it.

My opinion is that it is a little ignorant to speak about "civ attributes" as it is the individual who may or may not have these abilities. I dont really think you can say that spain was not commercial. My opinion is that all the civ traits fits all the civs.

[gsmoove23]

Traelin, we're in danger of going off-topic again. Should start a whole new thread, America, religious civ or no. I so want to write a long response.

You've almost listed every civ as militaristic! There would be no reason to include the trait, just take it for a given. To reduce thousands of years of chinese development to militaristic expansionist is hard to bear. I don't see why the coice of leaderhead should limit the definition of the civ.

[Zero]

Originally posted by aahz_capone
Russia beintg scientific actually makes sence, the dude who invented the periodic table was russian, and lets not forget getting the first man in space, and the first satellite.

Our physicists at one point found learning Russian as second language so valuable because of vast amount of knowledge exchange that was taking place in the mid 20th century. So Sci for Russia isn't that bad

[Random Passerby]

It's all well and good to go about saying "This civ should be this and this, and this other one should get that and that", but how would you propose divvying things up historically and still ending up with the same distribution (i.e., using all 15 unique combinations)?

Granted, Firaxis seems to have dropped all pretense of spreading traits out evenly with PTW, so go ahead and complain about that.

[ranskaldan]

An idea would be dumping the predefined categories and having AOE-like lists of custom-made traits for each civ.

There should be an option to either use historically accurate traits or assign your own points, like Empire Earth.

In fact, we can have an option where Egypt always starts in the desert, Aztecs in the jungles, etc etc.

So, wait for civ4.

[-proletarian-]

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. 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.............

Ha. I like the way that you try to equate b***ching about "historical accuracy" with somehow being more enlightened than the rest of us. You're nothing special.

The crux of your argument is basically this: "waaaaa, this isn't a true-blue history sim, I'm too intelligent for this game!"

Civ isn't a history sim, and doesn't even strive to be one. It's a fantasy game that centres around being at the helm of one of the greatest civilizations ever to have graced the face of the Earth. Once in the game, the aim is to create your own history, not just re-create the past 6000 years of human history on a monitor. That's where you go wrong in your assumptions.....

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by -proletarian-
Civ isn't a history sim, and doesn't even strive to be one. It's a fantasy game that centres around being at the helm of one of the greatest civilizations ever to have graced the face of the Earth. Once in the game, the aim is to create your own history, not just re-create the past 6000 years of human history on a monitor.

Well said, -proletarian-, well said.