the civ "Germany" and other crap

[Franz-Josef II]

I can't help myself but I was really a bit disappointed by Firaxis' Civ3 in the beginning.... Having played civ and civ2 both over years and being historically interestet, I have always expected the coming Civ3 to be something much "higher". more deepgoing into inter-national realations and negotiations, but especially more histrocially accurate and also better simulating "history"! maybe a game that simulates something of a realistic possibility of history....
nevertheless I could't prevent myself playing the game a bit..
I have to admit that civ3 actually has some good features either..! but lets stop about that chapter...

What I actually wanted to say is that the civ "Germany" is a strange thing in this game! being represented by the german chancellor "Bismarck", this country is a nearly 140 year old nation...!(being put into the age of 4000BC) thats why the developers put Berlin as the capital of the germans... Ignoring the old history of this people.
Especially the long existence of the "Holy Roman Empire of German Nation" (about 1500 AD) which later lead into the "Deutscher Bund". Ignoring that the Habsburgs, who ruled Österreich and later the "Doppelmonarchie Österreich- Ungarn/Austria-Hungaria", were over hundreds of years the selected "leaders" in this "federation" with only a few short interruptions. Going hand by hand with this they left actually german cities like "Wien/Vienna" out of their city-list. instead they are concetrating on the "Prussians". nevertheless they put "Salzburg" into the city-list, although this city was never under prussian or later "german" controll. actually austrian!

Another thing I wanted to say is that the Discussion about Lenin or Stalin being the leaders of Russsia is really unacceptable! They are representers of the UDSSR not of Russia. Moreower they Both have been Mass Murderers and therefore shouldn't represent a Country!! Same with Mao tse tung. To my mind Catherine is historically acceptable...
Two things are also very stupid!!
First of all that a country like "America" is letting be played a role in history from 4000 BC !! really redicilous. instead they could have made realistic revolution possibilities....
and that joan d'ark represents france...very stupid!


greetings to whoever wants to read it...

 

[DaEezT]

Civ != Interactive history book
Civ = game

 

[Dreifels]

You're right. Same you may see that they take just Barbarossa as name for the 1st leader in the game, followed by a pilot's name of 1st world war.

This shows that this is made by someone who had heared sometimes a little but understand nothing.

IF they look for a right name who represents "Germany", then there only Barbarossa would be right. But for such they would have to know the history of Europe, not only the past 100 years of Amerika.

 

[hzm]

Actually they weren't very good with america either.

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

I think that there are a few reasons for these differences. First off, if they had included a leader from ancient "germany" then anyone playing the game would not understand. Especially if the civ wasn't named germany. The uneducated posters would flame about there not being a germany.

Second, if a country like America wasn't thrown in there, 70% of the civ3 buyers might be pretty angry.

These are just my 2 cents.

 

[LordAzreal]

Does it really matter whether certain civs are relevant to history? Hell no! This is a game in which you REWRITE HISTORY!!!

Sheesh, with your kind of attitude ppl would get disappointed when in 1066, a barbarian group known as the Normans didn't sack Hastings or when Constantinople (Byzantium) fell to the Iriquois and not the Turks (who should've been included as the Firaxian take on the Turks might've been interesting if "inaccurate").

I'm not one of the uneducated majority you're complaining about. I am simply one who realises the actual point to the GAME. To rewrite history. So what if the Pyramids end up in York instead of Giza or the United Nations ends up in Beijing instead of New York. Its only a GAME.

 

[Dreifels]

Originally posted by gonzo_for_civ
I think that there are a few reasons for these differences. First off, if they had included a leader from ancient "germany" then anyone playing the game would not understand. Especially if the civ wasn't named germany. The uneducated posters would flame about there not being a germany.

Don't believe that they had serious reasins. Too much in this game is confuse. Furthermore, who really does be familar with Bismarck? So, if they took Barbarossa, maybe those players being interested to learn more about him, would read some historical information. (And same curious decision they made with the French leader). No, they just took a name that they did know. Nothing more.

Other sample the "palast" ist. Goodness, what a mix and wrong collection of building parts. Any student of an architect high shool would cry if he analyse what they had done.

Civ 3 does not have 10% of the intelligent production of Civ II,

 

[muppet]

I think we may be becoming hyper-critical. I also think it may be "picky" to overly criticize game-play decisions and "fun" ideas for being historically inaccurate.

And same curious decision they made with the French leader No, they just took a name that they did know. Nothing more.

I doubt there is anyone in America who does not know that Joan of Arc was never the ruler of France. I think it is more "fun" and "fantasy" to be able to see Joan of Arc as France's leader though.

So, if they took Barbarossa, maybe those players being interested to learn more about him, would read some historical information

Maybe, some of us care as much about European history as much as Europeans care about North American history?

It's a game. We're having fun on our "free time". I would sign up for History 350 or PoliSci 220 if I wanted another history lesson.

 

[muppet]

Originally posted by Franz-Josef II
Two things are also very stupid!!
First of all that a country like "America" is letting be played a role in history from 4000 BC !! really redicilous. instead they could have made realistic revolution possibilities....
and that joan d'ark represents france...very stupid!

greetings to whoever wants to read it...

Greetings to you too.
Maybe you should ask a MOD to rename this thread to:
I want to bash America some more.

I agree with you that America in 4,000BC having an effect on history is "ridiculous". Maybe it should only be allowed to enter the game, per your suggestion, sometime after England has had at least one revolution... say from Monarchy to Democracy??

And maybe, ALL European countries should not have an effect on history from 4,000BC either? Maybe they should be allowed in the game sometime after 0AD? Say sometime after the collapse of the Roman Empire? Hmmm.....

Maybe.... Maybe you should check your ego at the door next time?

 

[Salvor]

[edit] What a silly thread, I'm outa here! Who's the idiot who bumped it, anyway? [/edit]

 

[Dirk Aurel]

This thread is pretty pointless,it´s just a game,and ofcourse we all wanna start in 4000BC.A revolution might be fun though,as would colonies.
The only thing I really wanted to add,is that Charlemagne is Karl der Grosse,Leader of the Franks...a germanic tribe.So wasn´t really trounced by the French.Not in this case at least.Point made though,I agree.

They could have taken a bit more care of what the cities are called,some don´t make sense,where as others are missing which are historically important,could imagine the same faults for other civilizations.
New Beijing,Beijing 2.Might have been smarter to add cities which are/were important and in culturally influenced areas like Germans ~Prague,China ~Samarkand.Shouldn´t be that hard adding Vienna etc. with the editor

Still pointless thread,but my first posting all the same.YAY!

 

[SKILORD]

if one can complain about America being in there from the start one can also complain about rome, greece and persia lasting untiul the end of the game. to make people like that happy they could have done the "Build your own civ" like in Empire earth but that's just stupid. to complain about the civ choices is really stupid.

 

[Graeme the mad]

You seem to be claiming that Germany shouldn't be in the game

HA - Germany may be only 130 years old (not 140) but they are the major civilsation of that time - they achieved incredible power and came closer than any other civilisation ever to achieving world domination ( I hold that if Hitler had launched an attack against Britain or the Japs hadn't bombed pearl harbour then the axis would have conquere the world)

What is funny is you seem to be criticising the game designers for bad historical accuracy and unrealism (I agree with you about cities and leaders incidentally and think austro-hungary should have been included) however you then go on to say world leaders who are mass murders are unacceptable.
YOU ARE NOW THE ONE WHO WANTS TO CHANGE HISTORY - Of course mass murders are acceptable - some of them were the most important leaders of their countrys. YOur lack of knowledge also shows through - you complain about MAo but not alexander the great or Hammurabi. Leaders of countrys tend to be nasty people - they should well be included in a game which incidentally consists of warfare (people dying in nasty ways)

YOU MAKE ME SO ANGRY (not that it takes a whole lot)

 

[Rushton]

Almost ALL of the civs in the game didn´t exist at 4,000 B.C and most didn´t at 1 A.D. So the game can´t be too historically accurate as there probably weren´t 16 known civs in 4,000 B.C.

So there is the definitive answer!

 

[SKILORD]

Germany is and has been for almost all of it's relatively short lifespan a world power, they DEFINATELY deserve to be a civ. i agree with Graeme they have come the closest to world domination, probably will always be the closest. ALSO the Reformation, One of the most significant evcents in history or i think so anyway, REALLY got going in germany thanks to Martin Luther. german tribes brought down rome. How can you argue germany's significance???

 

[Salvor]

[edit] What a silly thread, I'm outa here! Who's the idiot who bumped it, anyway? [/edit]

 

[Graeme the mad]

the germans have never been close to world domination

This is completley wrong - I do not want to say this was Germany s best time in social standards however it was if it was being measured by civ3 terms.

If Germany had taken Britain instead of attacking USSR they would have won the war. THe US would not have come into the war on the side of the USSR, even if they did then they would have no where to attack from (only reason D-Day could happen was because of Britains close proximity to NAzi controlled France.
If they had then attacfked the USSR the Germans would have won - even if the USSR had forced them back (which I believe unlikely) I think we can agree the NAzi's could have held out till '45 by which time they would have had an atom bomb, fighter jets, and missiles.
I doubt the Nazi's wpould havae had an qualms about deploying atom bombs and this would have forced the USSR - which was not developing one, into submission.
The Axis powers would then have control of Africa, Asia, and Europe and most of soth america would be loyal to them. The only power left would be the USA which would possibly have had 2 atom bombs by this time (remember research was speeded up because of the war) - the only place they could deploy them with any effect would be Japan and this would not stop a determined NAzi invasion.

 

[Salvor]

[edit] What a silly thread, I'm outa here! Who's the idiot who bumped it, anyway? [/edit]

 

[Graeme the mad]

you are entitled to your own views as what is 'near world domination' and I agree that everything I'm saying didn't in fact happen however I must correct you about the A-bomb. The Germans were as close to developing one as the US in '44 - however a very slight miscalculation meant it did not work. If Germany had never been invaded this miscalculation could have been dealt with and an A-bomb built. The USSR had little idea behind the actual mechanics of building a bomb despite the fact they were aware of manhattan (though of course it is dubtful they wouldhave been had the US not come into the war)

 

[Troyens]

Originally posted by Franz-Josef II
I can't help myself but I was really a bit disappointed by Firaxis' Civ3 in the beginning.... Having played civ and civ2 both over years and being historically interestet, I have always expected the coming Civ3 to be something much "higher". more deepgoing into inter-national realations and negotiations, but especially more histrocially accurate and also better simulating "history"! maybe a game that simulates something of a realistic possibility of history....
nevertheless I could't prevent myself playing the game a bit..
I have to admit that civ3 actually has some good features either..! but lets stop about that chapter...

What I actually wanted to say is that the civ "Germany" is a strange thing in this game! being represented by the german chancellor "Bismarck", this country is a nearly 140 year old nation...!(being put into the age of 4000BC) thats why the developers put Berlin as the capital of the germans... Ignoring the old history of this people.
Especially the long existence of the "Holy Roman Empire of German Nation" (about 1500 AD) which later lead into the "Deutscher Bund". Ignoring that the Habsburgs, who ruled Österreich and later the "Doppelmonarchie Österreich- Ungarn/Austria-Hungaria", were over hundreds of years the selected "leaders" in this "federation" with only a few short interruptions. Going hand by hand with this they left actually german cities like "Wien/Vienna" out of their city-list. instead they are concetrating on the "Prussians". nevertheless they put "Salzburg" into the city-list, although this city was never under prussian or later "german" controll. actually austrian!

Another thing I wanted to say is that the Discussion about Lenin or Stalin being the leaders of Russsia is really unacceptable! They are representers of the UDSSR not of Russia. Moreower they Both have been Mass Murderers and therefore shouldn't represent a Country!! Same with Mao tse tung. To my mind Catherine is historically acceptable...
Two things are also very stupid!!
First of all that a country like "America" is letting be played a role in history from 4000 BC !! really redicilous. instead they could have made realistic revolution possibilities....
and that joan d'ark represents france...very stupid!


greetings to whoever wants to read it...

First of all, I too expected Civ 3 to be "higher" or "deeper", as you say, than Civ 2. Nope. And the AI remains almost as dumb with much cheating. See the many threads on that.

But, the choices of civs is the LEAST non-historical problem with the game.

The Germanic tribes stopped Rome in 9 AD, so a Germanic civ, is not totally absurd, and it does give you the chance to play as germany in WW II. America today is the world's only Superpower, so why ignore it. I suppose you'd prefer Carthage, Spain, or the Hittites?? I'd accept them as options.

Historically, unit values and capabilities are often way off and dumb. Longbowmen should be English-specific and should be able to stop knights, for example. The way naval warfare and units are handled is dumb especially regarding cutting off trade during war.

But I can live with a German civ.