Persia and China: Reverse attributes?

[Greyhound]

OK, this is a thread about the attributes of Persia (Scientific/Industrious) and China (Militaristic/Industrious).
It is not about "Why didn´t Firaxis do it this or that way, im so pissed of... (whine)". I know I can change the attributes in the editor with the exact amount of 13 clicks. The question is, should I do it?

From my personal historical knowledge, the attributes should be exactly reversed. Persia: The king of countries creates an empire with military strength. China: After the unification, there was no unusually great warlike expansion. Instead, they developed gunpowder, paper etc.
Firaxis seems to know this because in the manual (yeah, I actually read it) the attributes ARE reversed. The building priorities in the editor show the same: Persia will build offensive land units, China will improve its cities.

So, did Firaxis simply get something confused or is there a point behind it? Is it historically correct to change it? I guess it will even out the game because the extraordinary combination results in very strong Persian and Chinese empires...

What´s your opinion?

 

[Chieftess]

Who knows... maybe for playability?...

 

[SirJethro]

Maybe it's anti-Red propoganda that was forced in by the Bush Administration....

 

[Supernove]

I guess it will even out the game because the extraordinary combination results in very strong Persian and Chinese empires...[/B]

That would be my guess also, it makes them both better civs.

 

[Sim_One]

Greece should be religious and scientifc, Babylon should be scientific and industrious, and Persia should be scientific and commercial. China is fine the way it is. I tried making Persia religious but then I'd have to change the ones for India and I just can't think of anything better for India except for rel+comm.

 

[Sim_One]

China has not been very scientific in the past 600 years.

 

[god_money]

Eh... China hasn't exactly been one of the most Militaristic civs either.
I'd concider them to be more isolationist/defensive, aside from
Taiwan or Tibet. Thus, I gave them Expansionist/Industrious.

America - Commercial/Industrious (the home of capitalism, aside
from the Lousiana purchase I don't think they'd be considered
'expansionist', certainly not moreso than commercial)

And I'm looking forward to changing the Carthaginians to
Militaristic ::cough Hannibal cough::

 

[Sim_One]

Originally posted by god_money
Eh... China hasn't exactly been one of the most Militaristic civs either.

There are two militaristic wonders in this game from China.

 

[god_money]

Funny you should mention that, considering The Hanging Gardens
(of Babylon) don't coinside with either of Babylons traits.

If you related your objection to my post with historical backing,
I'd be with ya on the subject. The game is obviously faulted,
therefore an unreliable source from which to base your argument.

 

[Sim_One]

Originally posted by god_money
Funny you should mention that, considering The Hanging Gardens
(of Babylon) don't coinside with either of Babylons traits.

If you related your objection to my post with historical backing,
I'd be with ya on the subject. The game is obviously faulted,
therefore an unreliable source from which to base your argument.

Ok then have you heard of Sun Tzu or The Great Wall of China? One of the greatest militaristic tacticians ever and one of the greatest militaristic infrastructures ever. I don't know too much on Chinese history but I'm sure there are many who can tell you all about China's militaristic achievements.

 

[Nad]

I think there's a few civs whose attributes are inaccurate. Rome, for example, should be militaristic and religious (but there's already 2 mil/rel civs), Persia should definitely be militaristic, Germany should be scientific/industrious, and America should be commercial etc. Again, most of this is really opinion, and I guess that's what the editor is there for