Civilization characteristics

[JBearIt]

How do people feel about the characteristics assigned to the civs? I think some of them are off the mark. For instance, the Russians as a scientific civilization??? I thought they were behind the tech curve most of their history. The only exception were aspects of the space race.

 

[Phorever Phalanx]

thread here

------------------
<FONT COLOR="blue"><FONT size="4">Phorever</FONT c><FONT COLOR="orange">Phalanx</FONT c></FONT s>

<FONT size="2">"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Winston Churchill</FONT s>

 

[Bloodclot]

I like the idea of having civ characteristics but correct me if I'm wrong, I thought that this was an area we could customize.

 

[JavalTigar]

I believe when you go to make a custom race you get to change those character traits. Like in Civ2 when you could change the name of the leader, race and titles of your leader.
I have to agree with the scientific Russian comments as well. Seems to me they would be a Military & Expansion. Czars & Stalin were always looking for that warm water port.

------------------
The will to conquer is the first condition of victory.-Foch

 

[Daoloth]

Aside from Lysenkoism, the Russians have had pretty bad science, take this for example:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/r16_disaster.html

Puts the Challenger to shame.

 

[WUM]

I think the Russians are and should be scientific!

We have:
Militaristic
Industrious
Commercial
Scientific
Expansionist
Religious

The Russians are definitely NOT:
religious,
industrious,
or commercial.

The Russian ARE - of course - militaristic.

So the choice has to made between Expansionistic and Scientific.
The Russians never really expanded their territory, even though it was huge. What they did was using their military to suppress and infuence and rule óther countries. The most important aspect of expansionistic is that other countries will be eliminated if it´s in the way of the expansionistic civ.
So scientific has to be the choice. That really not so weird. Russians not only went into space first. They also had nuclear weapons shortly after the USA. Other weapons are also state of the art. If Russians wanted to have something, they researched it with so much effort that it would bear fruit VERY soon.

So i say the choice was good. Besides i like the extra´s of this combination! I will probably play the Russians first!

 

[Parthicus]

I have to agree, though in the 20th century Russia had an outstanding number of great physicists, maybe that's why they made it scientific. But for most of its existence, it was behind, so I'd have chosen "Expansionistic & Militaristic".

Parthicus

Originally posted by JBearIt:
How do people feel about the characteristics assigned to the civs? I think some of them are off the mark. For instance, the Russians as a scientific civilization??? I thought they were behind the tech curve most of their history. The only exception were aspects of the space race.

 

[Supernaut]

Wum, when we talk about the Russians, we are not just talking about the Soviets. Russia started off as just the bit around Moscow, and then expanded massively in the later Midle Ages. One of the reasons they hold Siberia is because the ruler at the time just hought 'get as much land as possible, oh look here's a bit no-one wants'. And from whom did the US buy Alaska? Even the Soviets were expansionist - witness Stalin grabbing the baltic states and bits of Poland.

However, Russia has always been behind 'the West' in science - rulers like Catherine the Great were obsessed with bringing their nation up to the level of the other European powers, because they felt everyone looked down on them as a backward agricultural peasant state.

So I think expansionist and militaristic would have been ideal for Russia - the idea of Russia being ahead of everyone in science from the dawn of civilisation just doesn't seem right.

 

[Aristonico]

Expansionistic and religious...
The Russian expansion has been described before. So I am not going to repeat.
-Religious because they are the centre of the Orthodox church (ok, ok, my Greek friends forgive me, but even you know what I am talking about)...
Three Romes have been in the World: Rome, Constantinople and Moscow...

 

[Serg]

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.

 

[mark.summers]

the reason why militaristic would be inappropriate for the Russians is not because they haven't historically had vast armed forces, they have, like the Chinese. The reasons are:

1) historically they took ages to mobilise and operate their armed forces
2) aside from a hard corps of elites the Russian army has traditionally been a conscript peasant army which has been poorly trained and poorly equipped. That's why the T34 and the Kalashnikov were so successful, simple weapons but excellently designed for a conscipt peasant army and they could be massed produced.

The benefit of "militaristic" seems to be a better chance of troops gaining veteran status after battle. That doesn't equate with the above really whereas it would make sense with the Romans or the Zulus

Turning to a different civ - describing the Persians as militaristic seems daft for reasons as per the Russians, lots of soldiers but bar the Immortals and cataphracts they were not very well trained or led. Surely religious would have been better for them?

 

[Ubik01]

Definitely, the pro-communist Russia wasn't "militaristic", not more than any other "great power" of the era (17-19th century).

But, most western people know the Russians as the "Reds", the soviets actually. So, they believe that the "Russians" are represented by that model.

And the USSR was a militaristic state...

So, it seems quite satisfying. Even though the Cossacks are not what represented the Russian military excellence... Probably a WW2 unit would be more accurate. And it would revive the cold war thing

 

[mark.summers]

mmm, yes maybe a T34 would have been a better choice of unit. Anyone know what the Germans are getting? A King Tiger tank? Stormtroopers? Or could it be something from a much earlier era like a Teutonic Knight or an Uhlan?

Be interesting to see the other special units: France - King's Musketeer, Imperial Guard, Cuirassier, Swiss pike?
England - probably naval, maybe a Dreadnought? Or medieval archers?
Romans - has to be the Legion I guess
Indians - Elephant?
Persians - Immortals or Cataphracts?
Aztecs - Jaguar / Eagle Knights or bolas wielders?
Japanese - Samurai, Ashigaru? or something more modern like a Yamato Battleship?

I think all of the others have been published on the Civ3 site

 

[boca]

I agree with Ubik01.
Firaxis want the Russians to represent the U.S.S.R. that's why they give them militaristic and scientific characteristics. Not entirely accurate, but as it has been discused in the past. This is a game of possibilities, not facts.

 

[Dearmad]

It irks me a LOT that the USA special unit will be the F15. If anything it ought to be the Aircraft Carrier, or... possibly the B29 bomber or P-51 mustang. The aircraft carrier could carry an extra plane and operate at a faster speed or have a better visual sphere than the others in the game.

And what IS all this special units having only stats on steroids instead of REALLY special aspects as well when appropriate? As above the US Aircraft Carrier could see further and be less vulnerable to air attack than others in the game. I'm sure other "special" units could have other "special" qualities beyond tougher stats.

 

[Agni Neres]

Hi all,

Some special units/abilities thoughts of what could'a been, or can be in a scenario:

Americans: US Marines -or- Atomic Bomb (Weaker version of regular nuke, kills all defenders but takes out less improvements and brings less (game) pollution)

USSR: AK-47 (ie, upgraded riflemen)

Japanese: Assassin (upgraded spy!)

Germans (Prussians): Just about anything on land works. Founders of modern military thought! Moltke's War Academy? Firaxis Panzer choice works well.

French: First to practise Total War. Bonus to overall national production, not specific unit. If I have to pick one unit: Artillery.

Agni

 

[crimson]

Definitely militaristic and expansionist would be the best choice for the Russians.

And for the Germans it should be commercial and militaristic or scientfic. This is because Germany was only expansionist during the 2nd and 3rd Reich but it was at most times a powerhouse in terms of military or science. While military must seem clear to everyone scientific can easily be seen if you look at the Nobel Award winners of the first half of the last century.
And these two points would also fit into Nazi Germany which was also militaristic AND scientific (aircrafts, panzers).

just my two cents...

[This message has been edited by crimson (edited September 06, 2001).]