Louis XIV, a pacifist?

[MiChello]

In the recently posted preview of civ4 on the 1up site, it says that you can run France as a pacifist state under the leadership of Louis XIV. This sounds fine, but there's a small problem with Louis XIV, as he (as i recall) wasn't that pacifistic at all. He waged wars during his entire reign ("the character of a conqueror is regarded as the noblest and highest of titles" he supposedly said); he revoked the Edict of Nantes (ending religious toleration in France resulting in a massive emigration of Huguenots), he invaded Flanders which gave him control of some twelve towns in the Spanish Netherlands, five years later he led an army of over 100,000 men into Holland and acquired several more towns in Flanders and the Franche-Comté (the Dutch only managed to drive the French off by opening the dikes and flooding the countryside), he conquered Lorraine and Strasbourg and he fought in the War of the Spanish Succession (which ended his quest for military glory after 35 years of fighting).

Is it just me, or is there a problem with claiming Louis XIV was a pacifist?

 

[warpstorm]

You are obviously confusing historical fidelity with game balance. France already has a warlike leader. The other leader has to be a pacifist.

 

[Louis XXIV]

While the other leader doesn't have to be a pacifist, Louis XIV is better suited for a cultural game than a war game. That doesn't mean he can't wage war, just that Napoleon is better.

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

As I recall from reading the info available on Civ 4, Pacificism is a civics option, not a leader trait.

Louis XIV is Creative and Organized, which means cultural and civic buildings are cheaper. From what I know of L14, this sounds pretty accurate. It definitely does lead to builder strategy (NOT a pacificistic one... the article may have been sloppy in its terminology).

 

[Akka]

Well, Louis XIV was famous for making France the absolute center of all the European cultural life, leaving everyone else trying to copy him.
As such, he's a claim for cultural and civic prowesses.
Of course, deducing from that he's a pacifist is totally wrong ^^

 

[qazxc]

You are obviously confusing historical fidelity with game balance. France already has a warlike leader. The other leader has to be a pacifist.

Why not have both game balance and historical accuracy? All Firaxis had to do was rename Louis to "Good King Dagobert."

The fact Firaxis did not bother to do so forces me to conclude that for them historical conformity is less important than playability - or as you put it game-balance.
What I see is the “X-Boxification” of Civ4.


q

 

[warpstorm]

Did you not play their previous games? Playability always trumps historical accuracy in their titles.

"At Firaxis our motto is that we do the research after we make the game. There are two reasons for that. First, we want the game to be accessible so we try to play to what we think people know and find fun about pirates already. We also consider Pirates to be more of a movie pirate game as opposed to a realistic pirate game (scurvy just doesn’t seem fun). Second, when you do too much research, you run the risk that the only people who enjoy the game are the ones who read the same books as you." - Sid Meier

 

[Jaybe]

"... Second, when you do too much research, you run the risk that the only people who enjoy the game are the ones who read the same books as you." - Sid Meier

See, you could have historical realism AND sell books at the same time!

(As long as you are well read)

 

[MiChello]

You are obviously confusing historical fidelity with game balance. France already has a warlike leader. The other leader has to be a pacifist.

While the other leader doesn't have to be a pacifist, Louis XIV is better suited for a cultural game than a war game. That doesn't mean he can't wage war, just that Napoleon is better.

I agree that Napoleon was warlike and the French need a choise of balanced leaders. Louis XIV just isn't less militaristic, he waged war for a longer period of time than Napoleon ever did, but wasn't succesfull in conquering the vast territory Napoleon did. The problem is that France has had other leaders that where less militaristic than Louis XIV.
Louis was a militaristic cultural leader, Napoleon was a militaristic civic leader. The Mongols have two warmongering leaders, so why shouldn't the French have two as well?

My overall point is that the article, like Crazy Eskimo said, is sloppy. Reducing Louis to a pacifist is like saying the 2nd WW didn't happen, it's just not true. Sid Meier never claimed Louis was a pacifist, 1up did

 

[qazxc]

Did you not play their previous games? Playability always trumps historical accuracy in their titles.

"At Firaxis our motto is that we do the research after we make the game. There are two reasons for that. First, we want the game to be accessible so we try to play to what we think people know and find fun about pirates already. We also consider Pirates to be more of a movie pirate game as opposed to a realistic pirate game (scurvy just doesn’t seem fun). Second, when you do too much research, you run the risk that the only people who enjoy the game are the ones who read the same books as you." - Sid Meier

I’ve only played Civ1, 2 and 3, and lived in the hope.

I must admit, I was not aware of this most astonishing statement of Sid’s.
Apparently making a game accessible includes letting players marinate in ignorance.
Live and learn… oops I forgot, around here learning is out.

q

[edited for typo]

 

[Sickman]

I agree that Napoleon was warlike and the French need a choise of balanced leaders. Louis XIV just isn't less militaristic, he waged war for a longer period of time than Napoleon ever did, but wasn't succesfull in conquering the vast territory Napoleon did. The problem is that France has had other leaders that where less militaristic than Louis XIV.

So Louis XIV isn't militaristic because he waged war but wasn't successful, makes lot of sense for me. So "militaristic" trait isn't his strenght or otherwise he would be gaming wise compared to Napoleon's talents as military leader and that would be even larger historical error.
And probably there are more militaristic leaders of French than Louis XIV?
Of course Louis XIV was militaristic it's just that some traits must be picked over another not only to show his characteristics but also his strengths.

Louis was a militaristic cultural leader, Napoleon was a militaristic civic leader. The Mongols have two warmongering leaders, so why shouldn't the French have two as well?

With your logic all civs should have two militaristic leaders because Mongols have two.

My overall point is that the article, like Crazy Eskimo said, is sloppy. Reducing Louis to a pacifist is like saying the 2nd WW didn't happen, it's just not true. Sid Meier never claimed Louis was a pacifist, 1up did

So all the leaders that were warmongering have to be with militaristic trait?
I guess we have to add that trait to all leaders then maybe exception being Gandhi and who?

If Louis XIV is creative and organized then it is pretty accurate description in Civ terms. Saying that he was pacifist is of course very must inaccurate.

 

[MiChello]

And that's my point, he just wasn't a pacifist. I don't think every nation has to have two militaristic leaders, but it's rediculous that a nation cannot have two leaders that are much alike...

 

[Louis XXIV]

I agree that Napoleon was warlike and the French need a choise of balanced leaders. Louis XIV just isn't less militaristic, he waged war for a longer period of time than Napoleon ever did, but wasn't succesfull in conquering the vast territory Napoleon did.

I think the fact that he was less successful should speak towards why he shouldn't get any traits that give bonus to military.

The problem is that France has had other leaders that where less militaristic than Louis XIV.

But were they more significant historical leaders than the Sun King?

My overall point is that the article, like Crazy Eskimo said, is sloppy. Reducing Louis to a pacifist is like saying the 2nd WW didn't happen, it's just not true. Sid Meier never claimed Louis was a pacifist, 1up did

I believe they just claimed you could play the game with Louis XIV while playing a pacifist game, not that the historical Louis XIV was a pacifist (this isn't a history lesson, everything that gets mentioned is to improve strategy).

Still, Louis XIV is famous for being the Sun King who built the Palace at Versaille. He is not famous for his wars, unlike Napoleon who dragged all of Europe into war.

 

[MiChello]

Napoleon is also remembered for introducing the metric system troughout Europe, education and the establishment of the napoleontic code. Louis may not have been succesfull in war, but as the leaders in Civ4 are supposed to resemble the leaders of times past, Louis just wasn't a pacifist
On the other hand, how large was Louis' impact on Europe really? I would suggest replacing him with Charlemagne, a militaristic leader as well and that's good, for the French, like the Germans and the Russians alike, never haven been a pacifistic people...

 

[Akka]

Well, Louis XIV WAS successful in war. He lost some of them (mainly at the end of his reign), but France gained quite a lot of territories under his rule.

Additionnally, to say that he didn't impact on Europe is extremely false. As I pointed it, he made France the absolute cultural center of Europe. It's mainly because of him that French became the practically one and only language in all the royal courts of Europe, and every monarch tried to emule his style.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Louis may not have been succesfull in war, but as the leaders in Civ4 are supposed to resemble the leaders of times past, Louis just wasn't a pacifist

Who said he was going to be a pacifist. Just that you could play him as one and would do a better job than you would with Ghengis Khan as a pacifist.

 

[MiChello]

Additionnally, to say that he didn't impact on Europe is extremely false. As I pointed it, he made France the absolute cultural center of Europe.

True, I was trying to be provocative . Tough I do believe Charlemange's influence on history has been larger, people just tend to know Louis rather than Charles...

"The example we saw was of France, which could be run as a pacifist state under Louis XIV, or as an expansionist warmonger under Napolean."

It could be run like that, I agree. You could be a cold-blooded maniac while playing as Gandhi, but really the only thing I had a problem with, is that Louis is pictured here as a pacifistic ruler which he just wasn't