One hell of a complain about Civilizations.

[Galucard]

I was just wondering about some things, and thinking if I'm the only one who thinks like that, so i decided to post this, I would like to know if you agree or disagree with these and why maybe. I also pretend to write a little about history, mainly about Napoleon and Alexander wich are really out of place, maybe Wu Zetian too.

Starting with the civilizations present on CiV.

-First off, why does Firaxis seem so afraid of putting great dictators of History in the game, i dunno if the germans would get mad seeing Adolf Hitler (Already answered: German law prevents it from happenning, so at least officialy he cant be in the game) in the game, or if the Italians would not like seeing Benito Mussolini, but like it or not, they are great names of history and would not be an offense for the jews or anything like that.

-USA - Washington : When you start a game with them, the guy already says, A great industrious nation wich in the dawn of its time had to wage wars for their freedom and things like that, and then, they get a nice SCOUTING civ power and some UU that can move a lil further on rough terrain and not to mention the other crap (Did anyone see the AI use planes, or use them in Deity anyways ?).

My suggestion would be replacing the Zero with a UB of production using coal, Bonus combat in friendly lands for the minuteman, and for gods sake, no +1 land unit sight range, WTH were they thinking anyway, at tops the american can get more ruins early in the game (Still not usefull against an enemy starting with a scout and 3 warriors !)

-ENGLAND - Elizabeth : I really like the way its unique units are in the game, but their Civ Power is diminishing, the QUEEN OF THE SEAS of history gets a move bonus, the nation that in episodes like the war against France had one ship sink over 3 of the enemy without taking damage (i would say sorry for forgetting the name of the English Admiral who did this, but it was in the war against Napoleon and in the Mediterran), so really, a combat bonus for their sea units please

-FRANCE - Napoleon : This one really i cannot understand. First: what has Napoleon to do with Áncien Regimé ?

The absolutism to what that refers ended with the French revolution, led by Maximilian Robespierre, wich by the way ended just a couple of years before Napoleon get to try and dominate Europe when Louis XVI lost his head, true, France is the Symbol of the Absolutism, but not Napoleon by any means, so France's Leader with that civ power should be Louis XIV (The day starts in France when I rise, and not when the sun appears) and also NO ONE can associate Absolutism to culture so France is completelly out of place and Firaxis made a hell of a mix of things that do not get along.

Keeping in mind that France is also the world's center of culture. My sugestion would be a Combat bonus due to Napoleon being their actual leader and a UB replacing Foreign Legion, wich could early on the game give a %Culture to a city, wich would end up giving a nice advantage to France's Culture, to Keep their bonus, the leader should be Louis XIV and the bonus for Áncien Regimé should be something related to Aristocracy.

Lil off topic: I would like to see frances UB be "Versailles" replacing the Palace and giving maybe 1 or 2 more culture and 100% bonus culture for the capital, they would get the same bonus they already have in the capital for the civ power, and not get it later on other cities so it would be nice.

-GREECE - Alexander : Just wondering, who told Firaxis that Alexander led the greeks ? There was milions of options for someone to led Greece and they set a freaking Macedonian who conquered the greeks and because he liked their culture spread it to the world, but by any means he became greek (just if you would like leader suggestions, Leonidas, Odysseus aka Ulysses, Agamenon etc).

Sure maybe they did not want to put the Macedonians but whatever. Again speaking about civ power, even tho the greeks united against the Persians in the medic wars (Persian wars), they were not an united people so really the City state bonus relation is out of place (THE WHOLE DIPLOMACY CRAP IS OUT OF PLACE SO WHATEVER), maybe this power is because Firaxis knew diplomacy would be broken in the game (it only exists with city states and is broken).

As a GREEK civ power it should be something related to culture "We dominated the Greek cities, but they dominated our minds" said the Romans and Alexander as well. Or Alexander's Civ power something more Imperialist, ppl who play in deity may think "WTH MORE IMPERIALIST", remember one thing, the AI does make use of city state relationship or conquers those crap, thats how he does it so fast.

-INDIA - Ghandi : Maybe the greatest man to ever walk the Earth, a man who won a war with peace "If the English shoot a man, help him, if they beat you up, leave them to be, ignore the English, and in time their morale will diminish and they will realise they are killing innocent people (and in time the ashamed English lost the war, and the indians did not shoot a single Bullet), an episode that I DOUBT we will se again, their civ power is a little out of place in my oppinion, they should get something related to diplomacy, but since that system is severely broken in this game it should be like that for a while

-CHINA - Wu Zetian : Do no research, has anyone ever heard of her ? again, this represents Firaxis fear of putting a dictator in the game the Chinese leader should be Yao Yao or Mao Tsé Tung. And an imbalanced Paper Maker ? What were they thinking, the Chinese should have an unique building Boosting up their food and cities grow ratio.

-BABYLON - Nabuchednezzar II : No comments about the choice of leader and civ power. The Babylons surelly gave us lots of technology and great Scientists, such as... well there is also the other one... (Clearly I know that is not entirely true, but clearly you do as well that that is not a caracteristic of the Babylon). The leader should be Hamurabi and no other, the civ power should be something related to their code of laws, suggestion: no extra unhappiness from occupied cities, but that would make them somewhat militaristic, and those would not be Babylons, but still better than the one they get now.

-OTOMMANS - Suleiman : The nation who destroyed the most important city of ancient times gets a nice civ power do they not, I think Firaxis does not know that Istambul was always named like that and that it was a freaking long siege, lost only because the Byzantine did not get their reinforcment as a retaliation from the western Catholic Church to the eastern newly founded catholicism.

So please, even a siege bonus would fit them more than the crap you gave them, WTH has that to do anyways. And speaking about unique units, I like the janissary and the sipahi, but I really miss their Bombard Cannon, biggest artillery of their time being the true reason they beat the Byzantine

-GERMANY - Otto Von Bismarck – A nation RAZED by two world wars who still reconstructed at an amazing speed getting to the point they are the second greatest economy of our time (third now, just recently surpassed by China), they represent the fear of Firaxis from putting the dictator in the game, and get a nice Civ power don’t they (SARCASM).

The German are a people to be feared and not laughed at and I really think they should get a nice production bonus to land military units, its kinda unexplained how they did rebuild that fast after WW and WWII, mainly military speaking. Loosing WW 1 and returning at FULL POWER in WW2 to almost dominate whole Europe is not for any nation, I think they have that barb power because of their late unification but anyways, I do not agree.

-RUSSIA – Catherine – Again wrong leader choice, the correct choice here would be Joseph Stalin, or Mikhail Gorbachov, wich represent the full strength Russia had as the Soviet Union, the Cossack really represents Russia’s might as in the war against Napoleon they were used against the troopers in the severe winter the soldiers faced, when movement was hard and guns were mostly frozen, Cossacks destroyed the French, this history happened again in WW2 against the German, but I think the Cossacks should get a more powerful bonus, their civ power is ok, they should get a more production related UB, culture is so much NOT RUSSIA.

-ROME – Augustus Caesar – The greatest empire of all time, over a thousand years of history, no nation, yes NO OTHER, got even close of making an empire endure for so long, if you do consider both empires after they split up, then the byzantine and the western together lasted for about 2 thousand years. The leader was perfectly chosen for Rome, the legionnaire is well placed, but I do not like their civ power and the ballista

The first really professional army in the world, in my humble opinion they should get something more military as a bonus, and a Forum as their UB replacing that ballista. Suggestion for civ power : Military land units can receive a promotion as soon as they are trained (That could be it IF their exp remained at 0, I mean, at 15 exp they would get another, normal unit just with an extra promotion.), well maybe something else if that is underpowered


Maybe I forgot a thing or two about Civilizations that i have Knowledge off (Cant complain about Askia Songhai for example, but could give balance tips anyway), but being that true I will edit in time.

As i remember Issues not already posted i will edit, dont want to post Diplomacy, Terrain, Great People, Specialists, Horseman, Artillery problems wich are already in other posts, but in my oppinion, greatest problem in the game is Diplomacy with other nations.

 

[Jharii]

-First off, why does Firaxis seem so afraid of putting great dictators of History in the game, i dunno if the germans would get mad seeing Adolf Hitler in the game, or if the Italians would not like seeing Benito Mussolini, but like it or not, they are great names of history and would not be an offense for the jews or anything like that.

First off, no one can answer that first part of the question except Firaxis.

Except for... Hitler (and the swastika) is not present in the game to adhere to German law.

 

[Galucard]

Thank you for the information, i did not know the German had a law for that, i am actually Brazilian, about the Firaxis thing, the text is really directed to them, even tho i do not think any of them to read it

 

[Jediron]

I think Firaxis does not know that Istambul was always named like that and that it was a freaking long siege

Constantinopal, during Roman occupation ;-)

 

[lschnarch]

First of all, hello to CivFanatics.

Second, although I agree with quite some of your points, may I ask you to rework your sentences a bit? They appear to be very, very long making them hard to read. Sometimes they seem to stretch over almost the whole paragraph.

Third, I have to disagree on the question of including tyrants and mass murderers as nation leaders. I agree that in this context Napoleon, Alexander, Julius Caesar are debatable as well, but the ones you proposed would be just disgusting.

 

[Galucard]

Did not write coz i was not really sure of how its written in english, so leaving it like that.

lschnarch : Editing right now !

Edit : I did a rework in the way it is written, but the way the forum prevents me from using tab for spaces before the sentences is kinda annoying so if that is any good now, im leaving it, else i would like a suggestion on how to do it.

Edit II :Even though they are disgusting and maybe many people would not like to see them in the game, we cannot say that they were not great leaders, taking the biggest of them, Adolf Hitler, as an example, many people around the world read his book, and try to get but a fraction of his great rhetorical power, trying to understand how with stupid ideas like that he changed the course of history in the world, he does not deserve to be remembered or anything like that, considering what he did, but still, i dont see a way to neglect his greatness (in his own way).

 

[lschnarch]

Constantinopal, during Roman occupation ;-)

Actually, it was founded under the name of Byzantion by Greeks around 600 BC.

 

[Socratatus]

This is why I like CIV 4 complete, you get many more historical leaders per nation and Mods fill in the space with missing dictaters. I agree that China should have Mao or similar. I also believe Winston Churchill or Henry VIII should lead England in CIV 5... but I don`t have CIV 5 anyway, staying with IV.

Interesting to note that Stalin was officially included in the very first CIV (and maybe Civ 2). It always adds a certain edge for me if suddenly you find yourself having to negotiate with Stalin or Hitler.

 

[Galucard]

Hell i feel almost bad about forgetting to post something about Churchil in England, but again if you want "Queen of the Seas" england, then that is Elisabeth, still if I am a fan of any big leader, that is Churchill

 

[HorribleHarald]

I don't either like the second UU of Romans, ballista. Why not scorpio or onager?

 

[Skwink]

-GREECE - Alexander : Just wondering, who told Firaxis that Alexander led the greeks ? There was milions of options for someone to led France and they set a freaking Macedonian who conquered the greeks and because he liked their culture spread it to the world, but by any means he became greek (just if you would like leader suggestions, Leonidas, Odysseus aka Ulysses, Agamenon etc).

Napoleon was a Macedonian?

Why Odysseus? He didn't exist.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

First of all, hello to CivFanatics.

Second, although I agree with quite some of your points, may I ask you to rework your sentences a bit? They appear to be very, very long making them hard to read. Sometimes they seem to stretch over almost the whole paragraph.

Third, I have to disagree on the question of including tyrants and mass murderers as nation leaders. I agree that in this context Napoleon, Alexander, Julius Caesar are debatable as well, but the ones you proposed would be just disgusting.

To be fair we had Stalin and Mao in the past.... The difference between Stalin and Hitler is that Stalin won the war with the Allies... (if you think about the Caudillo Franco in Spain, he was like Mussolini, who helped him to win the Spain Civil War, but due to the neutrality in World War II, he was the leader of Spain until his death...).
So i don't like some leaders from our recent past for sure, but if you not iclude someone like Mussolini, i think is better not ot include Stalin or Mao as well..

Maybe we can use leaders until XX century (i accept Ghandi as the only exception).

Napoleon was a Macedonian?

The funny thing is that he ignores the fact that Alexander was taught by one of the greatest Greek thinkers, Aristotle.

 

[Skwink]

I don't either like the second UU of Romans, ballista. Why not scorpio or onager?

Sorry for DP.

The onager was really just a catapult. Not very unique. Yes, the scorpio would work ok, but the Ballista is more of a siege weapon. the Scorpio was mainly used on infantry. With Legions, the Ballista makes a good combo.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

The ballista was a siege weapon widely used in all wars from Pyrrhic...

Yet the Scorpion was surely used a lot, but after the I century b. C. And it's use was not as a siege weapon, but more like a range weapon to support the infantry. So it was way lighter than a ballist and with the wheels it had a tremendous mobility....

If you need a reference for the history if the roman legion, i suggest the Le Bohec's books on the matter.

 

[Galucard]

Skwink Caesar : It was a typo, fixed, but i never said napoleon was macedonian. Odysseus actually existed, also named Ulysses, of course these are all histories in ancient history books so you cant actually say anything you know from 1500After Christ back is true unless you belive the books, as you might know, archaelogists found traces of the existance of Troy, if you do not consider that you cant really consider any other greek leader =X, but I think I got your point anyway.

JLoZeppeli : I dont ignore that, and i did post what Alex said after dominating the greek, about that Napoleon thing among the Greece part it was a typo, my bad sorry. About leaders, i try to think about "Greatest minds" in a civilization history, not really respecting time boundries, but you do have a point, considering that much is unknown from our past since many books were tossed in the fire and many others are hidden from common people knowledge.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

Skwink Caesar : It was a typo fixed, but i never said napoleon was macedonian, and Odysseus actually existed, also named Ulysses, of course these are all histories in ancient history books so you cant actually say anything you know from 1500After Christ back is true unless you belive the books.

JLoZeppeli : I dont ignore that, and i did post what Alex said after dominating the greek, about that Napoleon thing among the Greece part it was a typo, my bad sorry. About leaders, i try to think about "Greatest minds" in a civilization history, not really respecting time boundries, but you do have a point, considering that much is unknown from our past since many books were tossed in the fire and many others are hidden from common people knowledge.

But you need to use better arguments to support your thesis... As an example, about Napoleon, a good argument is that he was from Corsica, and was of italian origin (to be honest he was italian...), and he was unable to speak a good french for years, as stated by his professors at the Military Academy...

So Louis XIV could be considered a better leader to represent France....

But still Napoleon was a leader of great importance for France.

 

[Galucard]

You did not get the point, Napoleon was italian, but led France, and ended up with a French empire.
Alexander was Macedonian, and did not led the Greek, no Greek empire under Alexander, but he did spread greek culture due to his admiring for them mainly because his great teacher was aristotle, a great representation of this was the statement "We dominated the greek cities, but the greek dominated our minds", wich also happened with the Romans, who even made a copy of the entire greek religion changing the gods names
Zeus -> Jupiter, for example.

I think Firaxis point was putting Alexander in the game leading a true nation, because few people even remember about him being macedonian, and no Civilization game could exist without the leader of the second greatest empire of history, loosing only to Gengis Khan of the mongols.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

You did not get the point, Napoleon was italian, but led France, and ended up with a French empire.
Alexander was Macedonian, and did not led the Greek, no Greek empire under Alexander, but he did spread greek culture due to his admiring for them mainly because his great teacher was aristotle, a great representation of this was the statement "We dominated the greek cities, but the greek dominated our minds", wich also happened with the Romans, who even made a copy of the entire greek religion changing the gods names
Zeus -> Jupiter, for example.

I think Firaxis point was putting Alexander in the game leading a true nation, because few people even remember about him being macedonian, and no Civilization game could exist without the leader of the second greatest empire of history, loosing only to Gengis Khan of the mongols.

Ok so you prefer Macedonian Empire or Hellenistic Empire as a name.. Because Greece never had an empire (they were a bunch of city-states with some colonies)... If we speak of history, its obvious that civ is flawed in many ways...

 

[Galucard]

I totally agree with you now, and again while I like Alex in the game and also Greece as many other people do.But its not just accurate, we could discuss days about this but we would never get anywhere, so my complain remains but i do not see a way around, with that in mind, i completely agree with you.

 

[Licinia Eudoxia]

Actually, Greece's formal name (still used in diplomacy, at the United Nations, and such) is still 'the Hellenic Republic.'

But anyway:

• I think a scouting, exploration and territory claiming ability is perfectly on the mark for America.
• I agree on Elizabeth's bit, some combat advantage to naval units would help a lot. Naval combat is already extremely slow.
• I also agree that Napoleon's unique ability doesn't really suit him at all.
• For India, I won't nitpick about the details of India's independence, but I will point out that the unique ability is designed to give them fewer cities with very large populations. Which is kind of a fair trait, but I wish they'd added some growth bonus as well.
• For China, I thought Wu Zetian is a great choice. For one, I always want to see more female leaders when I can. For another, I think with China's long, rich ancient history, that choosing Mao would be a shame. I love this one.
• Hammurabi is overdone, and I think Nebuchadnezzar is a much cooler choice for Babylon.
• I'm guessing you haven't played as Germany yet, but Bismarck's power is amazing. You want a production bonus for land units? Bismarck's power gives you tons of land units. Also, forget Adolf Hitler, Germany has lots of great military leaders and tradition. I think it's really short-sighted how many people automatically want Hitler to be the leader of the Germans. Even without the German law, I think Bismarck is a better choice.
• On Russia, Again, I think choosing someone like Stalin or Gorbachev is very short-sighted. I like the choice of Catherine much more.
• On my own note, I dislike 'Askia' being the leader of the Songhai. 'Askia' was a title, like 'king' (it actually means 'usurper', which is a really cool title, though).