Civ4: strategy GAME vs. historical SIM (long!)

[Jonathan]

One thing that springs to mind, is what may be a kind of example of a 'culture bomb' historically, namely the influx of American culture into Europe following WW2, along with the Marshall Plan.

Everything american was popular in Europe for a long time (and even is still today), be it hit songs, movies, smoking, fashion. Denmark for instance, was culturally much more connected with Germany prior to the war, but after the war it was everything British-American.

But Denmark never became part of the USA as a result (as far as I know!).

 

[calyth]

yes but if the game balance screws up the whole historical nature of the background of the game what is the point.... grenadiers were obsoleted by accurate muskets let alone rifled muskets...

Wait a minute... All the infantry units in the whole bloody C&C series are pretty much immune to tank fire. I'm sure there are enough historical background about how a human won't stand up to tank fire, especially if you asked a veteran.
There are cases where a unit violates history because it's convenient to make the gameplay more balanced. Grenadiers were allowed to have a bonus on Rifleman, contrary to what history dictated, specifically for that purpose.

And I don't really play Civ as any kind of serious simulation. I might come across things that were interesting and look it up after the game, but that's pretty rare. I somehow love to learn the history of WWII, but I don't consider for a minute that the whole Civ franchise can even begin to simulate this event.

 

[Strauss]

Just wanted to comment that Praetorian probably works better than legionary. The praetorian gaurd specifically refers to the elite Roman soldiers gaurding the emporer. All soldiers are technically legions. Not all legions are praetorians.

But the emperor's bodyguards wouldn't fight at the front lines. And the Roman legions were all "elite" compared to most of their rivals, which justifies them as a UU