!!! Civ-specific abilities !!!

JBear, just out of curiosity, what do you know about Russians? You were scared of the reds as a little baby American, scared by men whose power and influence depended on the Soviets being evil. But historically, Russia has been more religious then anything else. I think someone already gave the arguments concerning the Orthodox church.

But even if you say that russians in civ represent the soviets- which they do not- you will see they are not more militaristic then any major western power. If you look at the modern era, who exports the most weapons? The US of A! Who spends by far the most money on defense? Same! And that's in the 21st century, without any serious threats from abroad! Now who's militaristic? Continuing with russians representing the Soviets argument, Communism can be argued to have been the biggest religious movement of the 20th century, with its Christ- Lenin, its Father- Marx and its Holy Spirit- work. Even if you dont agree that Communism was a religion, you must agree that it is based on faith, and faith is a trademark of a religious culture. Thus, even if you say the russians are actually Soviets, that makes them religious.

So I vote for Expansionist and Religious... though I am not against Scientific, as the Russians are clever, and given the opportunity will do good science - even in the last century. As for this century, let me remind you that black holes were theoretically accepted in Russia twenty years ahead of the west.
 
Originally posted by Hammanu:
JBear, just out of curiosity, what do you know about Russians? You were scared of the reds as a little baby American, scared by men whose power and influence depended on the Soviets being evil. But historically, Russia has been more religious then anything else. I think someone already gave the arguments concerning the Orthodox church.

But even if you say that russians in civ represent the soviets- which they do not- you will see they are not more militaristic then any major western power. If you look at the modern era, who exports the most weapons? The US of A! Who spends by far the most money on defense? Same! And that's in the 21st century, without any serious threats from abroad! Now who's militaristic? Continuing with russians representing the Soviets argument, Communism can be argued to have been the biggest religious movement of the 20th century, with its Christ- Lenin, its Father- Marx and its Holy Spirit- work. Even if you dont agree that Communism was a religion, you must agree that it is based on faith, and faith is a trademark of a religious culture. Thus, even if you say the russians are actually Soviets, that makes them religious.

So I vote for Expansionist and Religious... though I am not against Scientific, as the Russians are clever, and given the opportunity will do good science - even in the last century. As for this century, let me remind you that black holes were theoretically accepted in Russia twenty years ahead of the west.

Now at last I have found the person who's political arguments are harmony with mine.
But let's not get to off-topic, so don't start any historical argue here.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://www.virtuallandmedia.com/flags4/europe/FIN.GIF" border=0> &lt;-- THIS COUNTRY IS ON AMNESTYS BLACK LIST OF HUMAN RIGHTS!
[ICQ: 130479710]
 
JBear, That's strieke two- the Japaneese are nothing if not religious. I won't write another essay, but will instead suggest that you consult any one of the many beautiful japaneese religius texts on buddism, such as Hagakure, or any common history textbook that will tell you about the great infuence that buddism, shinto(sp?) and christianity had on Japaneese history and on the hearts of the Japaneese.
 
I think these are very serious questions that pertain directly to "civ-specific abilities". Who knows, maybe Firaxis changed them because of something they read here? I think that if they try to make all these civillizations so detailed, and make mistakes, if they misrepresent a people as militaristic for example, it is a serious matter and may affect the outlook of all those millions who will play civIII.
 
There's another consideration, I bet, on part of Firaxis, that has to do with play balance. This might be even more important than which tribe has which characteristics, in a historical sense. So there might even come more changes, as the game comes through playtesting. I always thought that watching Ghandi perform heavy coastal bombardments and land riflemen <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/soldier.gif" border=0> on my coasts, was one of the most hilarious moments of CivI. I am sad to hear, that Indians are not included as a tribe. Are they? I haven't really checked, but I guess not, since I haven't noticed them. <IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/shakehead_ron.gif" border=0>

[EDIT]
Just checked! YES! The Indians are in! Great news!
smile.gif


[This message has been edited by Morten Blaabjerg (edited September 07, 2001).]
 
Originally posted by lkendter:
Hammanu

Are you Russian?

Hammanu, you seem to like to push the Religious aspect too. I'm sure you can find religious achievements associated with all civilizations but when you are trying to decide which two characteristics most define a civilization, religion does not immediately spring to mind for either the Russians or Japanese.

Similarly, Russians and science don't come to mind either. You criticize potentially tying the Russians to the Soviet era for purposes of military nature yet you seem to have no problem accepting Soviet-era discoveries as evidence of the Russians' scientific nature. I say look at the whole sweep of a civilization's history and you'll see that the Russians were mostly behind in scientific progress.

[This message has been edited by JBearIt (edited September 07, 2001).]
 
What is it about those russians? There's nothing historical about this! It's something abstract, for gods sake!
rolleyes.gif


The Zulus can hardly be said to have been "expansionist", either. I never heard of zulus conquering other parts of the world, like mongols, europeans or americans did. Iroqois are also expansionist. And germans being more militaristic than the english? Ha! This is not history. They're trying to make some dramatic stereotypes, so the game will be fun...
 
Originally posted by Morten Blaabjerg:
You bet! If there was one tribe, that this would be true of historically, it would be the romans! -But looking at the chart, I guess "expansionistic" might mean something like "breeding like rabbits"... since expansionistic tribes start off with pottery.

If you believe the stories about Caligula, some Romans may have engaged in breeding
<u>with</u>rabbits (not to mention other animals).
 
I like the Hammanu's reply and I reapeat own reply said in other topic:

I think "Expansionistic & Scientific" for Russia is not bad choice. Most talks happen around the scientific feature of russians.
Yes, Russia seldom leads in science over other countries. But russian scientists perform many discovery in fundamental science not only in the 20th century. Such names as Lomonosov, Mendeleev, Tsiolkovskii and so on. The main problem of russians is inefficiency to use own and alien discoveries in practice.
About militaristic. Russians have never been warlike peoples.
Western countries regard Russia as a military country due to arms race the took place in the second half of 20th century.

 
The Japanese "religious" characteristic isn't all that inaccurate. The state religion up until the end of WWII was Shintoism, which was used to justify the war - Emporer Hirohito was worshipped as a god, and the war was positioned as a holy war. The PM's recent visit to a Shinto shrine honoring the country's war dead, including WWII war criminals, was very controversial, there are still nationalists who buy into the whole thing.
 
The mere notion that anyone can really categorize a society with two characteristics is
crazyeyes.gif


Nothing is going to be perfect, but even so, we shouldn't be taking the definitional meaning the civ advantage and arguing whether it fits the civ _ rather we should look at the strategy that it leads to and see if it fits.

Expansionist fosters an aggressive strategy just as militaristic does. Combining the two most aggressive advantages is completely inline with how the Zulus play in Civ2.

The religious benefit fosters a cultural strategy. How can anyone argue that the Japanese did not strategically use their nation's cultural strength to further their militaristic ambitions in WWII
spanking.gif
There were Japanese
soldier.gif
defending pacific islands for 20-30 year after the damn war, not to mention the kamikazes.

I also have to completely agree with the arguement that the Russians are a religious society historically. I don't want to overstate this because I'm only 85% sure that I remember this correctly, but I thought that one of the bigger tensions in the communist era was that "officially" God didn't exist and strongly religious people were told to replace their belief in God with a belief in Communism. The communist movement was much more about a cultural change than a governmental one.


 
Sorry for the double _ why did they change the Chinese?? Now there is no civ with Scientific and Industrious and I thought that "fit" the Chinese pretty well.

Plus the two repeating abilities both involve militaristic, limiting the options for you warmongers out there...
 
lkendter, I am russian.

Morten, you are right. It is silly to argue about these.

How about this thing I posted in a forum where it didnt belong? What if a civillizations attributes changed randomly with time, to represent shifts in rulers or those rulers midlife crisees or something? Like, "The king of france has had a religius vision; every able man is to report to castles to be equipped for crusading!"

That would get rid of those absurd civillization leaders, and make AI civs much more interesting and varied. Such changes wouldnt happen too often, of corse, maybe once or twice during the game for every civ.
 
It is very interesting how Firaxis chose to distribute some of the specific civilization abilities. Most of them I am ok with, but a few I have problems with.

1) The Americans should be [Commercial, Industrious]
2) The Romans should be [Militaristic, Expansionists]
3) The French should be [Commercial, Scientific]

What does everyone else think about the current selections?


------------------
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. "
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds, and the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell
"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens."
- Jimi Hendrix
"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his. "
- General George Patton (1885-1945)
"Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
- Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956)
 
Originally posted by Hammanu:
lkendter, I am russian.

What if a civillizations attributes changed randomly with time, to represent shifts in rulers or those rulers midlife crisees or something? Like, "The king of france has had a religius vision; every able man is to report to castles to be equipped for crusading!"


Actually, I think that's a good idea and its a similar concept to what's used in a game called Europa Universalis. In that game, the player is the constant power behind the throne but the actual leaders change over time. Each leader has different level of ability with diplomacy, military, etc. In addition, sometimes there are random events such as the king dying early, going insane, etc.
 
Originally posted by rdwendt:
Most of them I am ok with, but a few I have problems with.

1) The Americans should be [Commercial, Industrious]
2) The Romans should be [Militaristic, Expansionists]
3) The French should be [Commercial, Scientific]

What does everyone else think about the current selections?

Id agree with 1 and 2...for 3 id say either what rdwendt said or possibly go for industrious and scientific

also id make the english/british expansionist and scientific without a doubt..
 
Back
Top Bottom