What Civ attributes would you change if you made Civ III?

[Kiki]

I think that alot of the attributes seem a like they could do some tweaking. Tell what you want.

France shouldn't be commerical/industrious. I'm not sure what they should have been. Maybe they should be militaristic because of Joan of Arc and Napoleon who defended France. But the second attribute, I am not sure if they were that industrious or commerical in real life, but I doubt it.

America should be commerical/industrious because America's world revolves around trade and industry today as it was for many years. They weren't 'expansionist' because they stopped after they got enough land.

Chinese should also be commerical/industrious too because before Mao Tse Tung(sp?) they traded and they were industrious, and they still are now. Ppl saw they will be a strong economic power soon.

Japan should be commerical/militaristic because Japan's history is warlike and they became a major economic power after the atomic bombings.

 

[Excilus]

China -> Scientific/Industrious

China's whole philosophy centers around getting work done, and understanding things around you. If you goto a chinese school you'd know what I mean.

Japan -> Militaristic/More Militaristic(hehehe)
America -> Industrious/Commercial
Persia -> Militaristic/Commercial

 

[Marla_Singer]

They [Americans] weren't 'expansionist' because they stopped after they got enough land.

What is enough land?
Americas expansion didn't end to California. Today the pacific ocean is controlled by the americans, Hawaii is a state only to make of Pearl Harbor an attack on "american ground".
Europeans can't critic the US for the good reason they are "free" thanx to them.
Tell to south american countries americans don't want to control them (Chile, Bay of Pigs, Panama, etc...)

Americans should definitely be expansionnist and industrious. It's the whole story of a country summarized in two words.

Why french wouldn't be commercial and industrious? I've already posted a message about it. French people invented colbertism in the 17th century, it's definitely the first country to target its efforts on industries instead of pure trade. English sould be also industrious since the industrial revolution starts there. That's true.

I don't understand why people don't want to see a France commercial and industrious ?? if it was Persia or Babylon no one would care...

France militarist? hum, Not more than England I'm sorry... England History is only conquest or attempt of conquest (France's invasions, colonization, irish issue, etc...). You can't consider that general behave of french people through history had been axed on military...
French people didn't want to move to Canada that's why it has been lost, everyone wanted to stay in the mother country.

The game has been made such as each civilizations get a different mix of two abilities between six. It wouldn't be funny to get 5 civilizations with the same abilities at the begining... am I the only one to think so?

 

[homer]

Oh.. I must disagree.. I think the French have been VERY militaristic throughout history.......


....... they just havent been very good at it :crazyeyes


hehehehe....



I wouldnt say the US is an expansionist civilization in the modern day, though I would agree you could easily make that arguemnet about us in the 19th century (just like every western power was)... so I wont dispute the game making us expansionist...

Oh, Marla, I think there could be some debate as to reasons as to why France didnt keep Canada.. Im not an expert on Canadian history... but Im sure that it must have something to do with hockey... or something of the sorts... you know those Kanucks! ayeh?

 

[D.Shaffer]

As has been stated by several people, MOST of the Civs present are given attributes based on that civs Golden Age. This doesnt necessarily apply to all Civs. The US' golden age, IMO, is the present day, where we arent exactly expansionistic. (We havent been expansionistic since the Spanish American war.)

France's golden age, IMO, is when Napolean was running things. He may not have been French himself, but when else has France ever had that degree of sheer power and influence in the world? Napoleons empire was not industrious and commercial, IMO. I would argue for that being more militaristic and scientific. (Say what you will, Napoleonic france came up with a LOT of stuff we use today that you might not realise, like canned food.)

 

[Toasty]

I disagree. France's golden age was definitely under Louis XIV, aka the sun king. It became the leading economic power in Europe, and it wasn't crushed. And, the musketeers are the spec unit, which were around in Louis's rule. So in this case, commercial/industrious most definitely fits.

If they're going to base the attributes on the golden age, it would help to make the leader the one in the golden age.

 

[harryfish]

Originally posted by D.Shaffer
The US' golden age, IMO, is the present day, where we arent exactly expansionistic.

To me the US's golden age was 1930-1970 or thereabouts.. Recovering from the great depression, helping out in ww2, nuclear fission harnessed, Apollo program, and birth of electronics & computers.
Which probably ended when people became disillusioned with vietnam around the start of the seventies... (IMO, of course..)

I think if anyone is haveing a golden age at the moment then it's china, they'll have men on the moon before the decade's out, mark my words!

 

[harryfish]

Originally posted by D.Shaffer
The US' golden age, IMO, is the present day, where we arent exactly expansionistic.

To me the US's golden age was 1930-1970 or thereabouts.. Recovering from the great depression, helping out in ww2, nuclear fission harnessed, Apollo program, and birth of electronics & computers.
Which probably ended when people became disillusioned with vietnam around the start of the seventies... (IMO, of course..)

I think if anyone is haveing a golden age at the moment then it's china, they'll have men on the moon before the decade's out, mark my words!

 

[Caligula]

How can anyone say France has not been militaristic? For most of the industrial and modern age, its army was one of the largest (usually the largest) in Europe, if not the world, and even its military titles (`maréchal´, `général´) are widely used in modified form outside of France.

The French army was almost always larger than the German one, even in 1914, when the French population was considerably smaller, and its economy not much more than half as large, so if Germany is militaristic, then how can France be otherwise?

The choices for Germany and America are OK, I think. England, however, should have one of the attributes changed to industrious, so it should be commercial and industrious (since America is already industrious and expansionistic). China shouldn´t be militaristic, so maybe scientific instead.

 

[Marla_Singer]

Have you checked a map of Europe once? It's very interesting, we see the UK on North West, Germany on North East, Italy on South East, Spain on South West... there's also Holland on the North... Austria on the East....
and in the middle ?? France.

Since the Middle Age, France has always been the most interesting part of Europe to conqueer. It's always funny to see a map of Europe on the time of the King Charles of Spain (Charles Quint is his french name). That king ruled on Spain, North of Italy, Austria, Switzerland, the actual Benelux and Germany.
France was totally surrounded by his Empire !
It would be interesting to know what would have been consequences if the "worst at wars" french people had been invaded by that huge Empire.

France needed a big army for its defence! I know it looks like a french point of view, but sincerly, all wars were to unified the country or for its self defence... and when we look to geography, it's not an easy mission. Expansion wars ? well, there's some campaign in Italy, there's Napoleon... 10 years that means so much. There's also wars against protestant that is true...

I think military has never been a goal in general french history. At the opposite of several other european power and I'm sorry to include England in that one.

Anyway, I'm for the creation of a european civilization, it would be funny ! what abilities would we give to Europe ?

NOTE: Germany has been centered only when Russia became really powerful (18th century). Before, the center was on Western Europe (to me...)

 

[Marla_Singer]

By the way, the Golden Age of France is definitely during the 17th century and the reign of Louis the XIVth. At that time, France was the 1st cultural power, the 1st commercial power and the 1st to create an industry through the economic theory of that time: colbertism.

Golden Age fo England is in the 1st part of the 19th century.
Golden Age of Germany is between 1870 and 1918.
Golden Age of the US started in 1941 (I'm not that sure it ended in 1970).

I'm a bit sad that french golden age was at the time of monarchy... since France is actually really born in 1789. Try to find a statue of a french king or a street named as a king of the Old Regime in Paris it will be hard.

 

[dannyevilcat]

To me, anyway, "expansionist" doesn't neccesarily mean land-grabbing.

It has more to do with grabbing the biggest slice of the world pie, any pie, and America is still doing that. Every nation has interests beyond their borders, but American foreign policy is very "in your face" and profitable. The Swiss would be a commercial people... not the U.S.A. IMHO.

When a country fights wars overseas merely to protect and ensure the sources of prosperity which don't belong to them, it's just conquest in sheeps clothing.

 

[Caligula]

I think the claim that France is in the middle of Europe says a lot.

You may think of France as being in the middle, but Russia isn´t the only country with territory in eastern Europe, and Poland wasn´t always weak. Prussian militarism was in fact born of the continual threats from Poland, Austria, Sweden and Russia. There were also the invasions of the Turks, Mongols, etc.

As for the `defensive´ nature of France´s wars, this is very debatable, but really beside the point. There are two sides to every war, and pointing to one side as the `aggressor´ is really just a propaganda game. States don´t usually go to war unless they feel threatened, so every war can be said to be defensive in that respect.

I think part of the disagreement comes from the fact that you don´t like militarism, so you don´t like France to be labelled as militaristic. Whether or not France has been aggressive (I think it has), it has almost always been militarily strong, and that is more relevant to militarism (aggression is a separate attribute from militarism in Civ3).

I don´t think militarism is necessarily a bad thing. The militarism introduced by the Great Elector is what allowed Prussia to exist, rather than being swallowed up by the larger powers surrounding it (and if you look at a map, you´ll see Prussia lacked the kind of natural boundaries which protect much of the French border). Even if French militarism was mostly defensive, as you say it was, you´re only arguing is that militarism was necessary for the survival of France, not that it didn´t exist!

Also, when France was the first military power of Europe for more than two centuries, and continued to have the largest army even after Prussia/Germany replaced it as the first power in 1870-71, I don´t see how you can say it was the `worst at wars´.

As for England/Britain, its army was almost always small and weak compared to the other great powers, so why would you call it militaristic? It may have been aggressive, esp. in the colonial field, but that´s a separate attribute. Like America, Britain is protected to a large extent by geography, which explains the historically small armies in both (relative to population and economic power).

 

[Marla_Singer]

Listen to me,

Of course Poland, the Ottoman Empire, Greece, Russia was at the East of and far from France.
But I'm talking about big powers from 1000 to 1800, these powers were Spain, England, Austria, Prussia (or the Saint Empire). You can't say that France wasn't in the middle these ones !
No seriously, my point of view looks really stupid I know but if you look even today the most powerful countries in Europe, they are the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain and France. And I'm certainly an ass but the one in the center of these ones isn't Germany.

Second point. If you look about people who doesn't accept critics, go see american people, I'm not saying anything else.
The UK is constitued of islands and there's no land frontiers... hopefully they didn't get the biggest land army ! France has many land frontiers with big countries... that's all I was saying.

To me, considering the France as a militarist country is an enormous stupidity that only an anglo saxon can say. I don't see how we can say it is a militarist country, I can't. Of course, there was 1000 years of wars between brits and french people... but then I accept a militarist France ONLY if the brits are militarist too.

I don't think History is something we should be proud of. History is just how things have been... and our ass has nothing to do with what happened 500 centuries before on the land where we are randomly present today.

 

[Caligula]

I like to base arguments on facts, so here are some facts about France:

1 From the end of the Thirty Years War until the unification of imperial Germany, France was the first military power in Europe, with an army that was the model which other states imitated.

2 Modern, universal conscription on the national level originated in revolutionary France.

3 Under Napoleon, the French army was so great that it took the combined efforts of almost all of the other great powers to defeat it.

4 The unification of imperial Germany reduced France to the second power in Europe, but even with its smaller population and much smaller economy, France maintained an army that was usually larger than the German one.

5 France today spends more per inhabitant on its military than any other country in the EU.

6 The French army is the second-largest in the EU, and the German army (which is the largest) is only about 5% larger, even though the population is 33% larger!

7 The French nuclear arsenal is larger than that of every other country but two: the USA and Russia. (Yes, the French arsenal is larger than the British, and even the Chinese!)

8 France is one of only two countries in the world with a nuclear aircraft carrier. (The other country is of course the USA, with several of them.)

9 French titles of the highest-ranking military officers are widely used in modified form outside of France.

10 The most prominent leader of 19th-century France was Napoleon. The most prominent leader of 20th-century France was de Gaulle.

I doubt I´ll dwell on France any further, but few countries boast such a list!

A general problem I think is that each civ was limited to two attributes, which reduces the possibilities. Three would be better, with separate land-power and sea-power attributes instead of militarism. This would allow for more civs without duplicating the attribute combinations, and for sea powers to be distinct from land powers.

A small comment on history is that most people are not randomly present on a specific plot of land, but are there because their ancestors built a civ there. This is less true than it used to be, because of modern technology, but still true for most of the world´s population.

 

[Frozen_Lava]

I don't know what to conclude ? that the US is a militaristic country too ? military expenses per inhabitants in that country are way larger than all european countries combined !
Most famous american leaders: Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington...
Most known leaders are always leaders who come up with wars, because their actions are crucial on that time.

Well, by randomly I think she meant that we haven't chosen to born in our country, we could easily be born in Botswanna, China or Paraguay... My ancestors ? well if I just look to my parents, I have half of my ancestors in Morocco and a quarter in Germany. If we look to simple mathematics, I should have more ancestors at the time of Charlemagne than what was actually the world population on that time...
As all of our ancestors come from different countries, why would we be proud of those of a unique nation ? That's all ...

 

[Dario]

I don't know what to conclude ? that the US is a militaristic country too ? military expenses per inhabitants in that country are way larger than all european countries combined !

I think it's pretty obvious that the US are militaristic. More than that, they are the most militaristic nation in the world...

 

[dannyevilcat]

I really think you guys misunderstand what a militaristic civ is. It's not about spending or even just how many wars they've fought.
A militaristic civ would be one with a warrior mentality, or military caste. Kicking @ss in war is not a defining act for the U.S.-- being the land of the free and land of opportunities is.

 

[Caligula]

Frozen_Lava:

I think America today is one of the more militaristic countries in the world, although its military is entirely professional (i.e. no conscription), which goes against that attribute. For most of its history, however, it was the opposite, with a tiny military in comparison to its population and economy, so `militaristic´ is less suitable for it than for civs with long histories of militarism.

The choice of civ attributes should be based on their relative strength over the long run. Most civs have probably matched most attributes to some extent at some time, so it´s a matter of finding the strongest matches, and the ones with the deepest roots.

Btw., the point of per-inhabitant calculations is to avoid population differences, so combining them doesn´t make any sense.

Dannyevilcat:

I agree that militarism isn´t about how many wars have been fought, but it *is* about the importance attached to the military, and the size of the army, and amount invested in it, are directly related to that. It´s the same thing as a scientific civ investing more per person in science.

 

[Caligula]

Btw., the point about the leaders was their origin, not whether or not they led during wartime. Both Napoleon and de Gaulle were military leaders before they became political leaders, and this leadership path (from military to political) is a typical feature of militaristic societies.