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

[Marla_Singer]

Caligula, your point of view is awfully subjective. I don't consider the US as a military nation because you have a general on your $1 banknote.

I won't reduce myself to go find ten examples in 1000 years of english military history to answer to you. I like better to read books than to answer to TV watchers.
This chat is pointless and whatever is the next french military guy you'll find (try Clovis... !), I think it remains accurate regarding history to see as french strengths culture, diplomacy and trade.
Of course, you'll say Shakespeare is the greatest, the UN is in NYC and Wall Street rules, I'll keep my advice as it is and you'll keep yours as it is.

This is my last post in this civilization forum. Bye.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Originally posted by Caligula

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.

I dont know, the GOVERNMENT may be more militaristic then it has been, but the American culture seems firmly anti-military. If we were truly a militaristic culture, the US military wouldnt be having the problems it has with recruiting. That's why we put such an emphasis on making sure we have a highly ADVANCED and well trained military. If we were TRULY militaristic, we'd have a really LARGE military as well, and there are more then several nations out there who completely dominate us when you compare military size to population.

 

[Caligula]

D.Shaffer:

No modern, democratic society is truly militaristic any more, so it´s a matter of degree, and I think America is more militaristic than most. Even without conscription, the American military is larger than any other, excepting the Chinese.

I agree that militaristic isn´t a good fit for the American civ, but if American history had begun after 1950, that view would probably be quite different.

Marla_Singer:

I´m sorry the truth of French militarism upsets you, but my point of view is not at all subjective. Your maps are nevertheless the best I´ve played, so thank you for them.

 

[Frozen_Lava]

Hum, France is militarist because they have ONE nuclear carrier (that doesn't work by the way ! lame frenchies...), but the US isn't at all cause it's natural they got lot's of them. Well, anyway, you're weird in all your points.

I think the game is fine as it is. I don't know why to put France or America as militaristic. Actually, Rome could be militaristic because its devellopment was axed on war conquest, it's not the case of France or... well okay, it's a bit the case of the US... but I still think there's other attributes that suit more the US, I see myself the US as an expansionnist/industrial. But expansionnist/scientific is good too. I don't see what to change to France.

By the way, there's no more conscription in France (I know I'm belgian, but our TV is THEIR TV), it's natural also that the US or the UK doesn't have conscription as they are overseas of their main adversaries (as France today, that's why there's no more conscription).
I've heard about people who joined the army without the will too during Viet Nam war, well I dunno the US, I won't argue about it.

Anyway, France is not a militaristic country, far to be one, I don't think they ever be really more militarist than any other european power. So move on, play civ3 as it is, cause it's already great !

 

[Squiggy]

Going by the civ's attributes during the Golden Age:

America: I would go with Industrious-Commercial. The Americans are definantly Industrious - Just look at the architecture of any large American city. Commercial - Americans are the richest people in the world today. Corporations like McDonald's, Nike and Microsoft have spread their commercial influence worldwide.

Aztecs: I think that Militaristic-Religious suits them well.

Babylonians: I would go with Industrious-Religious. These are the people who built the Tower of Babel after all.

Chinese: Industrious-Militaristic suits them fine.

Egyptians: Industrious-Religious is perfect for them. Pyramids and Mummies pretty much sum this civ up.

English: IMO, the Golden Age of Great Britain was from 1600 to 1783. During this time, British redcoats were the strongest, best-trained, most feared army in the world and the British Empire stretched across the globe. This is why I will say Militaristic-Expansionist.

French: I will say Commercial-Religious. The French have always been commercial. They also had many revolutions during their history. The Religious attribute facilitates these revolutions well with its 1-turn limit on anarchy. The French also built fantastic cathedrals so the cheaper cost of Cathedrals and Temples also fits the French.

Germans: Militaristic-Scientific suits them fine.

Greeks: Religious-Scientific. Greek Gods and mythology are still fascinating people today. The reduced cost of Libraries facilitates Greek literary achievements as well.

Indians: Commercial-Religious suits them well.

Iroquois: Religious-Expansionist suits them.

Japanese: Militaristic-Commercial. Just look at Sony, anime, sushi and Ichiro.

Persians: Commercial-Scientific. Persians were great trading powers of the time. Even today, we get most of our oil from that region.

Romans: Expansionist-Scientific. The Roman Empire stretched far and wide and had a lot of advanced technology.

Russians: Expansionist-Industrious. Russia has a lot of land today, and things like Sputnik took a lot of Industriousness.

Zulus: They are so insignificant, they don't deserve to exist in this game!. Instead give us:

Spanish: Expansionist-Commercial. The Spanish dominated most of America until the English rose to power. They were searching for a route to China for economic interests.

 

[Toasty]

I'd like to say that they should add a couple of characteristics. If they've got militaristic, why not seafaring? And why not diplomatic? I think those would help rate the countries alot easier and more accurately (Britain=seafaring, commercial, France=diplomatic, commercial). That would be pretty nice, no?

 

[Excilus]

You guys are looking at this the wrong way. The french are not a militaristic civilization, and for that matter, neither are the americans. You are blurring the lines between history and culture, government and people, sentiment and wars.

What contributes more to a civilization? Culture of the people, the religon, the ideals, the way of thinking, or governments opposed to those people, or waging wars out of neccessity? Walk the border between thailand and malaysia, and see for yourself.

Looking at some point cases in history, we see that these examples of history don't really match of witht the culture of the people. Since governments don't always last long, but of course, the people do, lets think of the examples of napolean and the americans during WWII.

The french during the napoleanic period:

It's obvious, they had a really big army, and a very right wing government. But thinking of the average frenchman, is he a warmongering citizen? Not sure about you, but I don't think so.

The americans, WWII and post WWII:

Notice that the americans were very isolationist in WWI, and were still isolationist during WWII. The war did not start for them until 1940, and it was a deliberate start. Under those times of neccessity, the industrious people of america mobilized, and with thier huge industrial base, and NOT because it was a military culture, like for example the japanese, they they turned the tide of the war with, well, only about 400,000 losses.

_________________________________________________

Now, for me, I think each civs golden age shoul be where they had significant economic growth and expansion. For example, america during the industrial revolution, with enormus immigration, railroad building, and huge sustained effort.

That said, I don't think anything should really change in civ attributes, except one thing.

China -> scientific, industrious

The reason is, is that china has NEVER had any large conquests as a unified nation. They were very isolationist, not quick to get into wars at all, but determined defenders , and notice that they are the oldest existing civilization, and getting to be the most powerful in the world today.

Since the dawn of civilization, china has traded relatively little of thier knowledge for relatively little of others. China had stuck to thier ivory tower, with little contact or want of it, and kept up and exceeded the rest of the world with most subjets except machine power, not that they needed it much. I have seen a road laid with stone by hand progress a kilometer a day.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Originally posted by Caligula

No modern, democratic society is truly militaristic any more, so it´s a matter of degree, and I think America is more militaristic than most. Even without conscription, the American military is larger than any other, excepting the Chinese.

Compare the PERCENTAGE of the population. We have a large military, but we also have a large population. IMO, a militant society emphasises war and military endeavors. For the longest time, the US military was considered the last resort of those who couldnt do anything else (Until fairly recently) and even then, as I've said, they're having problems keeping people in. Compare this to, say, Prussian germany during the early 1900's.

 

[Lkysam]

I wouldnt agree with the USA as a militaristic civ. Americas greatness has not hinged on military power. That is what I would consider to make it militaristic civ. I would consider more of a Industrial\Commercial or maybe a Industrial\Scientific. After look at Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Einstien, Thomas Jefferson etc. And about conscription in Vietnam. It began soon after world war 2 and the whole world was scared of the communist. America didnt become large by it's military power. It bought most of it's land from the Russians and French. French should be militaristic. Look at Napolean!

 

[Marla_Singer]

Yeah well , do what you want, put France militaristic and religious as it is obviously your way to define it, I propose you also to put America as industrious, commercial, scientific, religious and expansionnist.

It is funny to see what it remains when we die... who had thought what would remain of France life is its militaristic and its religious behaviour ? I always thought litterature, science, trade, philosophy, arts, had been striked by french hand, but no, what remains are some cathedrals and a guy called Napoleon.

What to say except it's an obvious lack of knowledge to say so? nothing, we have nothing to say, cause Civilization is a game for frustrated people and this people want to see their ennemies like in the movies to be even more happy to destroy them in the game. That's why they are happy to see Germany as militarist, that's why they want to see France as militarist and religious.

The thing that you don't understand, is that Europe is already dead, you're stabbing a dead body.

 

[Carparker]

I don't really think the civs are based on the true historical "golden ages", but rather are based upon an average of sorts of the foreign affairs of the civ over time. For example, while the French have historically had one of the best militaries, they have also been owned or conquerred frequently, twice in a span of 30 years by Germany in the WW's. The Americans are labelled as expansionist because for the majority of our history we have been expansionist. While some of the characteristics don't truly apply to the civs, it would be a rather boring game if three or more civs shared the same two agendas.

My biggest problem is instead with the rulers chosen for some of the civs, particularly France. While Joan of Arc played an important role in France's history, I think either Charlemagne or Napoleon would have been a better fit. I think Joan was chosen b/c some fools out there think it would be politically incorrect to not include female rulers. Another one is Catherine the Great. Peter the Great would have been a better choice. The others are pretty good choices, but one question....

Is Alexander of the Greeks supposed to be Alexander the Great?? If he is, the real one was actually Macedonian and extremely militaristic, which Greece is not in the game, so I'm confused there.

 

[Caligula]

I don´t understand the emotional reactions to these attributes, esp. militaristic. In Civ3, militaristic allows a civ to produce better units and more leaders. It has nothing to do with warmongering, as so many people seem to think.

If you want to decide which civs should be militaristic, think of the historically great armies and leaders (from Alexander the Great to the modern American army). The civs with the most great armies or great military leaders should be militaristic, unless there are other outstanding attributes which are more important. The ones with fewer or none should not be.

The aggression level is, I suppose, the Civ3 mechanism to determine whether or not a civ is warmongering. Some of the choices are stupid, I think, but it nevertheless isn´t militaristic which determines this. Anyway, the most warmongering civs in the games I´ve played have been any that are bigger than mine.

D. Shaffer:

I think the American army is larger per inhabitant than any other G7 country except France, and conscription was only just ended in France this year, so that may change soon. Also, America spends much more than any other country on its military, by either measure (absolute or per-inhabitant).

 

[D.Shaffer]

Originally posted by Caligula
I think the American army is larger per inhabitant than any other G7 country except France, and conscription was only just ended in France this year, so that may change soon. Also, America spends much more than any other country on its military, by either measure (absolute or per-inhabitant).

Spending doesnt enter into it. The US, and most modern armies, spend billions of dollars on their military because they maintain very high technology equipment. As for figures...

The US has a population of 280 Million (CIA Factbook). According to the US Dept of Defence,we have a military that's roughly 1.4 million people. That's .5%

Iraq, in 2000 before the Gulf War, had an active military strength of roughly 1 million people. (http://www.csis.org/stratassessment/reports/Iraqi10yrsAfter.pdf Although it's currently at roughly 0.4 million now) out of a total population of 23 million. Thats a ratio of roughly 0.5% to 4% / 1.7% of the population.

France had a military population of roughly 0.5 million in 1995 (http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/19_15.pdf) and while I cant find its population in 1995, its current population is about 60 million people, and I hesitantly assume it's stayed fairly stable in 6 years. That's .8% of the population. (Aka, they had a HIGHER percent than the US did if the French population hasnt drifted to much)

Germany's military in 1999 had a strength of roughly .34 million people and a current population of 83million. That's .4% percent.

The UK has a military of roughly .20 million people and a population of 60 million. .3%

Going from modern militaries...Iraq, in 2000 before the Gulf War, had an active military strength of roughly 1 million people. (http://www.csis.org/stratassessment/reports/Iraqi10yrsAfter.pdf Although it's currently at roughly 0.4 million now) out of a total population of 23 million. Thats 4% / 1.7% of the population.

With the figures out of the way, what does that tell us? The US does NOT really have a large military in proportion to its population. The numbers also dont show that US military assistance is a planned part of many of these nations defense.

 

[Giorgicus]

Originally posted by Squiggy

Japanese: Militaristic-Commercial. Just look at Sony, anime, sushi and Ichiro.

Good points, Squiggy, but I really have to disagree with you on this one. The Japanese are commercial today, but only because we (i.e., MacArthur, et al.) forced them to adapt to democratic and capitalistic ways. Companies like Sony and the Japanese auto industry were helped in many ways by U.S. companies during the early days.

But viewing their history and national character as a whole, the Japanese were anything but commercial. Under their feudal system, they traded mainly in rice. (To put it in "Civ terms," they discovered currency at a late stage in their history). The samaurai culture, in fact, held monetary matters to be beneath them, and bargaining with money was considered peasant-like. Further, the Japanese were so xenophobic that they attempted to seal off their island from foreign influence (and trade) until it was essentially forced open by Dewey circa 1850.

They have been, however, a deeply religious people. Consider that until the end of World War II, the Japanese believed that Hirohito was actually descended from divinity. Obviously, the way the Japanese fought during World War II showed intense fanaticism, motivated in part by religion; if Hirohito had not spoken and ordered surrender in 1945, Japan as an island nation would have been willing to die to every last man, woman and child.

Therefore, I think that Japan is quite appropriately described as religious and militaristic. My .02.

 

[drag79]

I am from Russia adn i can tell what characteristics suits it
military-no, all war has expansionists target
commercial - may be on early ages, but not later
religious - no, becase last age was no religion - communizm only
industry - may be
science - yeah!
expansionizm - also may be, but only till 19 age...
PS sorry for my bad english

 

[Uto3]

Originally posted by Marla_Singer
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.

Note that there was no military support in Germany, Austria and even very strong resistance in the Benelux. The Benelux even waged an indepence war back then. So the actual Spanish territory was smaller than that.

 

[Uto3]

AND TO YOU ALL:

If you look at the leader Firaxis has chosen for each of the civs. That is the 'golden age' they have chosen and their abilities are based upon those times.

So everything is OK then. Besides, at current times, America should have MILITARISTIC and maybe commercial. America thinks they are the 'world police', but since 9-11 they have to think differently about that I guess. They always send their army over: Servia, Iraq, Vietnam, WW2-Europe, WW2-Japan and so on. They are the ones that want to be the tough guys(while they aren't)
About France:

France is somewhat difficult to decide, but as Firaxis wanted to create all different civs with different specific abs. Commercial-Industrial was lstill unassigned and it was just given to France as they are 'a bit of everything'.

 

[Arrian]

The main problem with all of this is that no civilization can be accurately summed up by picking two "attributes" such as there are in Civ III. You can argue (and have argued) that various civs in the game could/should have different attributes, but it's all subjective. Further, it tends to arouse emotional responses from people, so what could be a fun, lighthearted "debate" becomes a nasty flame war.

As for me, I would have chosen Industrious/Commercial for America, and Industrious/Scientific for China. France is a tough one, I'm not sure what I'd make them.

The funny thing is that I have yet to play as the Americans - their traits suck, and no amount of patriotism is going to get me to chose them over the Babylonians.

-Arrian

 

[Zouave]

Uto3,

Sid and Firaxis chose murderer, dictator, and the man responsible for tens of millions of dead Chinese for their leader - MAO. The age of Mao Zedung is considered China's "Golden Age" by Sid and Firaxis?!? LMAO!


I would have considered the 8th Century T'ang Dynasty a Golden Age under the Emperor Taizong. But I suppose no one ever heard of him.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by 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,

What were the two largest armies in 1863?