Immortals had SWORDS?? Oh, really.

[Zouave]

For those who care about some semblance of historical reality, I would like to point out this about the civ-specific Immortals unit.

Persian Immortals were NOT swordsmen. They carried spears, and also functioned as archers. There are well known paintings of them still extant from the Persian royal palaces.

So how they turned into devastating swordsmen I know not. Maybe Sid does.

For those who care not about History, disregard this thread!

 

[cutiestar]

Indeed the immortals in real life didn't look like the immortals in CIV III, but I think the ones in CIV III look better, and they would have otherwise looked like spearman. We must also remember in CIV III the immortals are a potent ancient unit, but in real time they were weak without 10,000 of them working together always.

 

[Psychlone]

Zouave, perhaps you should bear in mind that this is a GAME, not a museum, not a history text. You seem obsessed with historical accuracy. I might suggest you should find a different game to play, or better yet, try making your own.

 

[Zouave]

Hey fella, I TOLD you to disregard this thread if you don't care about history. I guess you don't listen.

Great photos, cutiestar. That's them!

Ever see the movie "300 Spartans"? Persians vs Greek at Thermopolae. The Immortals were dressed all in black, like the SS. Not real either. But amusing.

 

[Psychlone]

I care about history, but I can accept it when people take artistic liberty with it in a game. I was a tank crewman in the US Army, and I could go on and on about the inaccuracies of mechanized ground forces and other modern units in Civ3, but I cut them some slack because this isn't a tactical simulation. Seriously, not trying to flame on you, and you obviously have a broader base of historical knowledge than I, but please realize, not every game programmer or graphic artist has a degree in history, and make some allowances.

 

[Phantis86]

No game is completely historically accurate no matter what.

So even if he tried to find a game that was "historically accurate", he wouldn't be able to. He was just making a post that nerds like me wouldn't mind knowing about. If it weren't for people like him, I wouldn't be watching the History Channel for two hours each night.

 

[cutiestar]

I agree, I must say i am very lacking in historical knowledge, i have a stats degree, but since i came to this board and got this game, i have learned so many historical things, and it is so interesting for me, i love it. I never even knew what an "immortal " was until I found this game and forum.

Sure the game isn't suppose to be historically simulated, but i love the posts that are historically accurate.

 

[Endureth]

I think a game based on the history of the world should be historically accurate. What's wrong with making it both fun and educational? I was surprised to learn immortals were not swordsmen myself.

Endureth

 

[Psychlone]

I guess I'm the oddball here. I apologize to Zouave for coming down on him. It wasn't that he brought the point up that bothered me, it was the tone in which he did so, it just struck me as very derogatory. Certainly, I agree that when people can enlighten the rest of us about how real history compares to what we see in the game, it's very interesting. But they don't have to slam on Sid Meier and crew because they made a mistake or took an artistic liberty. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Panda]

Thanks for the info on the Immortals They look a bit gay though

As for the historical accuracy vs fun factor debate, I think the Big S has stated years ago that he has no problem at all with taking 'liberties' regarding historical facts if it increases the fun factor of the Civ series... And I'm glad he has! After all, primarily Civ is supposed to be FUN!!!

 

[Endureth]

While Civ is definately a good game, I think if it was more historically accurate it would be a more fun game to me. Actually, it would be a heck of a lot more fun to me. So really the liberties Sid has taken to make the game more fun is based on the individual person playing the game. Personally, I'd like to see a game 'like' Civ that focused more on the historical events and realism.

Endureth

 

[royfurr]

Psychlone, I didn't get the impression Zouvae was slamming on Sid and crew. Yes, a SLIGHT bit of a knock, but hey "Civ specific" units are a big deal and SHOULD have at least A BIT of historical connection to their Civ- thas why they are CIV SPECIFIC. But kudos to you to have the strength to reply in a civilized fashion rather then starting flames.

On historical accuracy- obvioulsy a very personal balance issue. I would like MORE in SOME things in the game (yes, you've heard it before FIRAXIS PLEASE FIX THE NAVAL ASPECTS!!). BUT, I am not sure I completely agree with Endureth, about generally MORE accuracy. Partway pehaps, but not 100%. You DO have to balance gameplay and fun with accuracy. It's just that sometime, LACK of REAL WORLD ACCURACY does DETRACT from the fun.

This is a balancing act, a tightrope the designers walk that is the crux to success of the game. I think CIv III is better then II in many ways but DOES fall a liitle short in some imporrtant areas- that reduce the FUN. And its this balancing act that is at the heart of it all.

The Designers just need a crystal ball (Build THE ORACLE, guys!!) to read my mind and exactly balance historical accuracy, fun, and the level of the AI to be challenging but not overwhelming!!! SO GET TO IT!!

 

[RogueNine]

Originally posted by Psychlone
I guess I'm the oddball here. I apologize to Zouave for coming down on him. It wasn't that he brought the point up that bothered me, it was the tone in which he did so, it just struck me as very derogatory. Certainly, I agree that when people can enlighten the rest of us about how real history compares to what we see in the game, it's very interesting. But they don't have to slam on Sid Meier and crew because they made a mistake or took an artistic liberty. That's all I'm saying.

Its not just you Psychlone. Zouave has come down on Firaxis many a time on these boards in the last week. I get the feeling that he loves the game, but has decided to point out every flaw he finds with it. Not a problem really, but at first it seemed like all he wanted to do was complain. I've concluded though that if after nearly two weeks he's still here, then he must love this game.

I too appreciate the historical tidbits. I never knew that Immortals weren't swordsmen. I actually thought, given their name, that they were just the gods that the Persians prayed to, and that Firaxis chose to make them their unit... you learn something new everyday.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zouave
For those who care not about History, disregard this thread!

Great historical tidbit!

Herodotus says,

"The dress of these troops consisted of the tiara, or soft felt cap, embroidered tunic with sleeves, a coat of mail looking like the scales of a fish, and trousers; for arms they carried light wicker shields, quivers slung below them, short spears, powerful bows with cane arrows, and dangers swinging from belts beside the right thigh."

Actually, the name "Immortals" may have been a mistranslation of a similar Persian word "Companions". They probably functioned as Royal Guards, hence the spears.

Combining the spears with archers created a formidable combined-arms attack force.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Panda
Thanks for the info on the Immortals They look a bit gay though

I don't know about the Immortals, but for the record, they were defeated by the most brilliant and brave commander in history, the very gay Alexander of Macedonia.

 

[PanaGo]

Originally posted by Zachriel



Great historical tidbit!

Herodotus says,

"The dress of these troops consisted of ... powerful bows with cane arrows, and dangers swinging from belts beside the right thigh."

Actually, the name "Immortals" may have been a mistranslation of a similar Persian word "Companions". They probably functioned as Royal Guards, hence the spears.

Combining the spears with archers created a formidable combined-arms attack force.

You are sooo right!

 

[Zouave]

If I'm not mistaken, Alexander had in the works a phalanx/archer combo attack force.

His Macedonian phalanx was a nearly unstoppable offensive force; it went far beyond what earlier Greeks had done. Spears were twenty feet long now, for instance, and there were layers of spear points from the ranks behind the first one. You'd have to get past about six lines of spear points to even reach the first soldiers. This phalanx in game terms likely would have had a '5' attack value, but it lasted too short a time and was only a Macedonian force of Alexander and his father, Phillip, at least at their high level.

But in the planning was a phalanx somewhat less dense (same number of spears in the front though) with archers replacing many spearmen. So you'd get volleys of arrows shot at you just before the spears connected. It might have been unstoppable. But it never happened.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zouave
If I'm not mistaken, Alexander had in the works a phalanx/archer combo attack force.
. . .

Yes, that was a Greek development. More important was the invention of pitched warfare. Before that time, skirmish warfare was the norm, with battles breaking down into one on one fights, and with both armies surviving, but one or both in retreat or disorder.

Pitched warfare is the concept that the battle will be decided that very day -- do or die. Unit cohesion (where each man will never desert his comrades) not individual bravery is the underlying principle. The Persian line could not "hold" against these men who would not quit.

Interestingly, Shaka Zulu independently invented the concept and used it to dominate the interior of Africa.

 

[Gruntboy]

The Immortals were also called "apple-bearers" because their spears were weighted with an orb at the end of the staff (not terribly evident from the above picture).

The phalangist is represented defensively in civ3 because Greek City states fielded the spearmen in "bloodless" battles. The phalanx presented a defensive wall of spears and shields - no-one really knows how they fought. It has been suggested that 2 phalanx's would jostle and parry unti one side grew tired.

Alexander's Macedonians are more akin to pikeman, wielding much longer weapons (about 16' IIRC).

 

[gormtheold]

A lot of the units are slightly different than their real life counterparts. I always thought the most striking was the cavalry. It is designed to be an attack unit better than knights against riflemen. I'm assuming the riflemen are meant to be approximately civil war soldiers (maybe whole nineteenth century). Not even Burnside ever tried attacking entrenched (fortified) riflemen with cavalry, they would've been slaughtered, yet attacks clearly happened between the introduction of gunpowder and the invention of tanks, so a unit was needed to encourage this. To be historically accurate, probably the defensive units should be equal in attack and defense (only the entrenching and fortifying changes anything--i.e. in either the civil war or world war I two infantry units trading shots would be equally matched-it was the breastworks that gave the defense the advantage in the civil war and the trenches, complete with barbed wire, that made attacking suicidal in WWI).

But the point in the game is to have a countermeasure for every measure-entrenched infantry? Better have an awful lot of cavalry or wait for tanks. Tanks attacking? Mechanize your infantry. Game balance is important. In real life, it ain't.