Historically Innaccurate Civ Traits?

[Midnite_Rambler]

The Japenese religious? Rome not expantionist? Have you found any particular civilization traits that might not exactly fit their historical simutants?

The Russians are listed as scientific, but pre-Stalin Russia was ankle deep in mideval potato-serfs. Their shining technological glory was a failed cold-war satellite which to this day bares the name of most Russian canines: Sputnik.

So think about it and list it.
Are there any civilization tratis that you consider historically inaccurate?

 

[Spoonwood]

This might fall along the lines of stereotyping, but here goes:

Greece should be seafaring instead of commercial (aren't they in RaR?). From my meager understanding of history, most of the american tribes (the Maya, the Inca, the Iroquois) shouldn't play as agricultural, as agriculture doesn't come as all too big of a thing for them comparatively. China might work out better as scientific, as they did invent *paper* writing as well as gunpowder. The English definitely should play as scientific and commercial. Commercial since they've traded so much since the industrial ages really. Scientific... well Adam Smith, Isaac Newton, and Charles Darwin... any other nation have basically the most important figures in the development of three scientific fields like that? Then there's Hooke, and Boyle, and Cavendish, and a whole host of others. America might fit better as scientific also, since they landed on the moon (well technological, but scientific comes as the closest match here). I don't get Persia or Babylonia as scientific. Arabia, with their invention of algebra and preservation of Aristotle and other texts, makes more sense to me. Persia I would think militaristic or expansionist.

 

[Turner]

The Japanese are very religious. They just don't wear it on their sleeves like Americans do.

There's an adage at Firaxis, which some of us here agree with. Gameplay trumps realism every time. Civ's goal is to me more historically authentic than historically accurate. No one wants to play the Earth's history every game. What would be the point?

But that's the great thing about Civ. Comes with the Editor, and you can change stuff like this to your heart's content.

 

[Spoonwood]

Putting aside Turner's relevant point about gameplay trumping realism...

The Byzantines certainly shouldn't play as scientific. Most of the time of that empire happened in the European dark ages. Sure perhaps they preserved some of the ancient texts, but it doesn't work out that they made all too many scientific/technological advances of their own. Religious would make sense for them, since religion played an important part in most of the people's lives then for sure. France maybe should play as scientific. I don't see Korea as scientific, but admittedly I have a meager understanding of history in plenty of respects. Seafaring would make more sense for them, as seafaring would for Japan.

 

[TheOverseer714]

I remember reading somewhere on here that most civs at some point carried most if not all traits. America is or has been Scientific, Commercial, Agricultural, Seafaring, Religious, Militaristic, Expansionist and Industrious, and so is practically any major country in existence. So someone had to draw the line and pick 2 for each civ. Inaccurate at times, but it is just a game.

 

[capnvonbaron]

Think of it this way: The traits are not of the civ, but of the leader. The villagers just follow the leader's direction. Its something they kinda allude to in Civ4.

So while the the Americans may have had periods of scientific and commercial might, under Lincoln we were expanding rapidly westward and seeing the beginnings of America's transition from a big agricultural nation (think: tobacco, cotton, wheat, cattle) to a major industrial one. And while the French might be lazy cheese eaters now, they were hard working money-hoarders under Joan's rule.

 

[Spoonwood]

The Greeks weren't commercial under Alexander... more like expansionist. Under Justinian I the Byzantines weren't scientific, more like religious and militaristic, but one can more easily grant seafaring than scientific. The Persians weren't scientific under Xerxes... in fact his name means "ruler of heros". The Iroquois don't seem to have practiced agriculture to the same extent that European or Middle Eastern or Asian cultures have done so. Did they irrigate their lands or just find new lands when their soil went barren? From what I've gleaned, more the latter. They also didn't have a system of Writing, but they start with Alphabet?

 

[capnvonbaron]

They also didn't have a system of Writing, but they start with Alphabet?

One cannot say anything about starting techs. IRL the majority of the tribes in Civ3 didn't emerge at the same time anyways. Otherwise, the Americans should start with all the techs up to gunpowder and astronomy, but not be allowed to enter the game until 1776AD

In any case, I see what you are saying about some of the leaders. I guess not ALL of the leaders are representitive of their civ's. But then, I don't really agree to the selection of leaders for each civ, either. That discussion is for a different thread, though

 

[Argetnyx]

The trait 'expantionist' only applies, in the game, to the ultimately large countries. russia is very large, but it did not aim to get any larger any more than every other civilization.

 

[templar_x]

i have to disagree - the Byzantines probably were the MOST scientific nation of their time. and take one civ-relevant invention for many others... the trebuchet

japan was definitely not a typical seafaring nation. over 100s of years the country lived completely separated from the world and disallowed contact with other nationalities (means no tourism, too, something i could befriend with if i think of the hordes of tourists in my city).

and then... Alexander was not Greek but Macedonian... and Joan never was a ruler of France.

 

[Argetnyx]

i have to disagree - the Byzantines probably were the MOST scientific nation of their time. and take one civ-relevant invention for many others... the trebuchet

japan was definitely not a typical seafaring nation. over 100s of years the country lived completely separated from the world and disallowed contact with other nationalities (means no tourism, too, something i could befriend with if i think of the hordes of tourists in my city).

and then... Alexander was not Greek but Macedonian... and Joan never was a ruler of France.

The Byzantines had more technology, yes, but they did not discover it: the Byzantines were the last remanants of the great Roman Empire, they were the ones who discovered the technology.

As for Japan, look up pre-WWII to WWII Japan and tell me they were not seafaring. Also, part of the seafaring trait was that the capitol starts on the coast, all of the seafaring nations have coastal capitols.

Alexander conquered Greece and ruled it, making him ruler. Joan rescued France from England in the Hundred Years War, commanding the French army, making her eligible for leader status. If you want to take it that way, Bismark shouldnt be ruler of Germany, he was under the command of the Kaiser.

 

[Marsden]

The Koreans developed the Hwacha and Turtle ships, so that could be scientific, but it also could argue miltaristic as well.

Turner said it best. I'm sure that's why there are so few civs with the same trait combos, (3 pairs I think Ottoman-Persian, Mongol-Zulu, Greek-Korean) There were a few others but Conquests added 2 traits and moved some around.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

I'm sure that's why there are so few civs with the same trait combos, (3 pairs I think Ottoman-Persian, Mongol-Zulu, Greek-Korean) There were a few others but Conquests added 2 traits and moved some around.

Aztecs-Japan, both Mil and Rel. I don't think they were changed in C3C.

 

[Yoda Power]

Aztecs-Japan, both Mil and Rel. I don't think they were changed in C3C.

Isn't Aztecs agri now, or am I halucinating?

 

[Lord Emsworth]

Yeah, I see now they are agri in C3C.

 

[ecuwins]

I too don't get why all of the "Native American" civs are agricultural. I guess Firaxis found it necessary to add a powerful trait to the heathen civs for parity purposes.

 

[templar_x]

i do not mean to argue about things anyone could easily pick from a wikipedia article, but you are just wrong in most places. history is just not accurately learnt from a 1-paragraphe summary of a nation´s past...

the byzantines with their alleged "no science" approach were not the "last remnants" but lasted for a 1000 (!) years after the separation of the western and eastern roman empire. before the separation, definitely it was the so called "greek" or "byzantine" part of the empire that was the center of culture and science...

japan... do 30 years of naval power in a >1000 year history make a tribe a typical seafaring country? i don´t think so.

and of course the occupation of a country or leading armies does not automatically make you a ruler. while you sure could argue a "defacto"-status for bismarck, there is absolutely no argument for calling joan a ruler.
the very clear distinction between occupation and rule is to at least forge legitimacy - which is exactly what those in (or aggregating) power kept trying in a range from inthronisation from the chief priest or by otherwise accumulating symbols of power, eg getting crowned, to manipulating elections.
to explain it for your example of greece (and there was no country named greece in Alexander´s time...), Alexander neither was king of Sparta (which was a kingdom) nor elected in Athens (a democracy, if not of today´s standards). they paid tribute, accepted his supremacy and (Athens, not Sparta) delivered troops. no ruler.

The Byzantines had more technology, yes, but they did not discover it: the Byzantines were the last remanants of the great Roman Empire, they were the ones who discovered the technology.

As for Japan, look up pre-WWII to WWII Japan and tell me they were not seafaring. Also, part of the seafaring trait was that the capitol starts on the coast, all of the seafaring nations have coastal capitols.

Alexander conquered Greece and ruled it, making him ruler. Joan rescued France from England in the Hundred Years War, commanding the French army, making her eligible for leader status. If you want to take it that way, Bismark shouldnt be ruler of Germany, he was under the command of the Kaiser.

 

[Theov]

America should be Religious and Militaristic.

 

[Cattivo]

You could also make the argument that America should be commercial & agricultural because of how much trade we participate in and how rich we are, combined with our farming tradition and great grain producing capabilities - but that just contributes to the point earlier by Overseer that every civilization has been each trait at some point in their history.

 

[Argetnyx]

the byzantines with their alleged "no science" approach were not the "last remnants" but lasted for a 1000 (!) years after the separation of the western and eastern roman empire. before the separation, definitely it was the so called "greek" or "byzantine" part of the empire that was the center of culture and science...

The Eastern Empire was a center of culture and science, but it was never as great as the Roman Empire itself. The decay of the Western Empire helped in that description. It was never called the 'Greek' part either.

japan... do 30 years of naval power in a >1000 year history make a tribe a typical seafaring country? i don´t think so.

ok, you got me there.

and of course the occupation of a country or leading armies does not automatically make you a ruler. while you sure could argue a "defacto"-status for bismarck, there is absolutely no argument for calling joan a ruler.

Joan d'Arc was the 'saviour' of France. leading armies can definitely make you a ruler, many Roman emporers were generals who overthrew the last emporer by force.

the very clear distinction between occupation and rule is to at least forge legitimacy - which is exactly what those in (or aggregating) power kept trying in a range from inthronisation from the chief priest or by otherwise accumulating symbols of power, eg getting crowned, to manipulating elections.

if you work by that logic, then Lincoln shouldnt be ruler of America.

to explain it for your example of greece (and there was no country named greece in Alexander´s time...), Alexander neither was king of Sparta (which was a kingdom) nor elected in Athens (a democracy, if not of today´s standards). they paid tribute, accepted his supremacy and (Athens, not Sparta) delivered troops. no ruler.

There was never a unified ancient Greece, youre right there, but Alexander ruled Macedonia which conquered all of the other Greek city-states. therefore, Sparta was not a kingdom and Athens was not a democracy, they were under the control of Macedonia, not their own governments.