Why do Firaxis hate France?

[Rhye]

It is clear for the following reasons:

1) Aggressiveness is set to minimum, like India.
Minimum? France is a peace-loving civ like India? In the Middle Age they took part in almost every war in Europe! In the Napoleonic era they conquered almost all Europe! In 1870 they were looking forward to fight with Prussia! In the imperialism age they conquered all the north-western Africa! In early 1900 they were looking forward to start a new war to reconquer Alsazia and Lorena! (I've written italian names, I don't know english words)
It doesn't seem a peaceful civ to me...
2)Their civ color is a ridiculous pink
Their colour has always been blue! Blue like their football shirt.
3)Their leader is Joan of Arc
With all the great leaders they had, from CharleMagne to Louis XIV to Napoleon, why Joan of Arc who hasn't never been the ruler of France?
4)Have you compared the file JO_all.pcx in civ3\art\advisors with the files of the other civs? French are the only people who have got fields in the background.....fields in modern age!
Take a look at TO_all.pcx, or at HI_all.pcx. You'll always see an evolution on the background, and in the right you'll always see buildings or skycrapers. Why France has only grass?
5)Have you seen in JO_all.pcx Joan of Arc style "skinhead"?
It's really ridiculous, no comment about this.

With all these features, my feelings towars French when I played civ3 were only pity.
Only changing their color to blue and substituing Joan with a picture of an hateful Louis XIV and setting aggressiveness to the fourth position I felt again that hate which lead me to declare them war and destroy Paris!!

 

[Richard III]

Self explanatory question, really.

 

[Shaitan]

Why does Firaxis hate France? Good question with no clear answer except...

BLAME CANADA!


My apologies to any Canadians in the audience. I just watched the South Park movie again last night.

 

[Richard III]

Yes, blame us. It is all our fault, really. Really, it is. Please accept our apologies.

 

[Black Waltz]

I agree that it should not be set to 0, but they were hardly looking foward to a fight with Prussia in 1800's. In fact, it was Bismark who engineered the whole thing, and it was only because of the humiliating peace that was imposed upon them when they lost that war that they plotted revenge. (And it's Alsace and Lorraine. )

 

[The_Clash]

First Napoleon is not French he is Corisigan(sp)

Second most of the wars the French got in they got their butts wipped.

Third look at France now a days, the are pansy hippies. Everytime the US or Britian want to or need to go fight someone the French run and hide.

 

[Immortal]

BTW the names I've always learned for the portions of France taken during the war are Alsace & Lorraine. Anyone else know them by a different name? I could be mistaken after all, I don't read much about history.

I've seen many pictures and seen many politicians from the Pre-WW1 France and many of them screamed "We shall unite our nation" "Germany will pay for this insult" etc.

I personally mixed up the colours of the nations, I have the Aztecs as pink, germans as Brown, french as Blue and so on, so that's easily fixed.

I understand what you mean about the aggression level, seems out of touch.

 

[LordAzreal]

Originally posted by Rhye
It is clear for the following reasons:

1) Aggressiveness is set to minimum, like India.
Minimum? France is a peace-loving civ like India? In the Middle Age they took part in almost every war in Europe! In the Napoleonic era they conquered almost all Europe! In 1870 they were looking forward to fight with Prussia! In the imperialism age they conquered all the north-western Africa! In early 1900 they were looking forward to start a new war to reconquer Alsazia and Lorena! (I've written italian names, I don't know english words)
It doesn't seem a peaceful civ to me...
2)Their civ color is a ridiculous pink
Their colour has always been blue! Blue like their football shirt.
3)Their leader is Joan of Arc
With all the great leaders they had, from CharleMagne to Louis XIV to Napoleon, why Joan of Arc who hasn't never been the ruler of France?
4)Have you compared the file JO_all.pcx in civ3\art\advisors with the files of the other civs? French are the only people who have got fields in the background.....fields in modern age!
Take a look at TO_all.pcx, or at HI_all.pcx. You'll always see an evolution on the background, and in the right you'll always see buildings or skycrapers. Why France has only grass?
5)Have you seen in JO_all.pcx Joan of Arc style "skinhead"?
It's really ridiculous, no comment about this.

With all these features, my feelings towars French when I played civ3 were only pity.
Only changing their color to blue and substituing Joan with a picture of an hateful Louis XIV and setting aggressiveness to the fourth position I felt again that hate which lead me to declare them war and destroy Paris!!

1.) Just because they are peacemongers doesn't mean that they don't build up a significant military force. If you observe them, they still build up their military. And it doesn't matter what the aggression level is. If you are weak, the other civ will threaten you. Does the history of real-world France REALLY matter? No. This is a game where history is REWRITTEN!!! An alternate reality where Joan of Arc did rule, where Bismarck is much less diplomatic, where the Americans started out in 4000 BC, where Babylon survives to see the first manned voyage to Alpha Centauri. Who cares about what really happened?

2.) No argument there. They should definitely be blue.

3.) True that Joan of Arc didn't actually rule anything. But Firaxis obviously felt that they needed a peacemonger other than India ruled by a female. She is perhaps the best option for a peacemongering ruler. If they had've chosen Charlemagne, Louis XIV or Napoleon (who was the best possible option), then you'd have another ego-inflated civ who wants to rule the world (Bismarck, Shaka, Catherine, Hammurabi, Tokugawa, Xerxes and Caesar are more than enough people with high aggression). Though I guess my comment might make some think I contradict myself, but this is nothing to do with hatred. A civ who builds up a huge army and is more cooperative with the human player adds the ally you might rely on in your long campaign against Bismarck and Shaka (Gandhi is way too wussy as he backs out of any conflict within less than 20 turns).

4.) No argument there. But that doesn't prove anything. Maybe they thought that Joan of Arc would've been an environmentalist past the middle ages. So what? Besides, she is a soldier doing her rounds.

5.) The skinhead look is because she is a soldier. If you looked closely, you'd notice an APC in the background and the word 'ARMEE' on her T-Shirt. Throughout the course of the game, she is made to appear like a soldier.

I don't think that Firaxis hate France. They obviously wanted to make a strong, powerhouse nation you could easily depend on in conflict (that's the way they've been in my games), so therefore, I believe the contrary. Firaxis probably love France (its hard not to these days as it is a nice place).

 

[Rhye]

Originally posted by The_Clash
Napoleon is not French he is Corisigan(sp)

Corse belongs to France. Would you like to say that Napoleon conquered half Europe with only people from Corse?!?!?!? Bah...
Or would you like to add Corsigan civ????

 

[Rhye]

Originally posted by Black Waltz
I agree that it should not be set to 0, but they were hardly looking foward to a fight with Prussia in 1800's. In fact, it was Bismark who engineered the whole thing, and it was only because of the humiliating peace that was imposed upon them when they lost that war that they plotted revenge.

07/13/1870 Bismark set a trap for Napoleon III: the "Dispaccio di Ems": it was only a fake. All France felt his pride injuried, and claimed war: 07/19/1870 Napoleon III declared war to Prussia.
So it resulted that France was the aggressor.

 

[Ironikinit]

I can't believe you guys don't get this.

Joan is in a field in the modern pic because she is a soldier. Do you see the boxy looking thing by the tree? That's an APC. She's on maneuvers.

Her hair is short because she's a soldier, just as she has a masculine haircut and dress in all the other eras because she's a soldier in all of them. It says "ARMEE" on her shirt in the modern pic, if you need another clue. She's not a damn skinhead.

Not everybody can be blue. There are other nations traditionally associated with the color blue. The stupid color doesn't matter.

Seriously, WTF, you guys are trolling, aren't you.

Despite the weak UU and the low aggression setting, France typically does well in the game, probably due to strong attributes. Possibly the non-aggression helps too, as she's less likely to start wars. Often one of the civs that are the early belligerants in a war get ganged. Further, many players favor France either to play or as an AI ally. I assume I'm wasting my time because if you had a real interest in the game you'd've read the posts about France and how well liked it is by many players. They're everywhere. Better yet, you could play the game and see for yourself how little Firaxis hated France instead of poke around the editor for reasons to be offended. These last remarks are for Rhye.

 

[Panda]

I thought it was obvious that the bald head & 'Armee' T-shirt was a reference to Ridley Scott's movie 'G.I.Jane', in which a woman learns to lead men on a battlefield...

OTOH, that could be seen as an insult since that flick was a pile of steaming dung...

 

[uday0408]

I usually play the Indians but use an aggressive and industrial approach (while benefitting from cultural and commerial bonus). I think Gandhi is a bad choice for ruler of India. It would be very much against his ideals to put in such a position. Infact he chose not to be the Prime Minister of India when India got independence. Nehru was in that role. Besides the pic of gandhi is somewhat unappealing (I'm not saying gandhi was appealing in looks)... especially when they put a hat on him (if you look at icons in diplomacy window) in the later ages when the civ is doing well.

I would think of Ashoka if a ruler of early ages is more suited. Or simply Nehru as he was one of the great freedom fighters and a good ruler of India. If Ashoka is selected then... India needs to be represented in more aggressive stance than current.

 

[Rhye]

.

 

[Rhye]

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Despite the weak UU and the low aggression setting, France typically does well in the game, probably due to strong attributes. Possibly the non-aggression helps too, as she's less likely to start wars. Often one of the civs that are the early belligerants in a war get ganged. Further, many players favor France either to play or as an AI ally. I assume I'm wasting my time because if you had a real interest in the game you'd've read the posts about France and how well liked it is by many players. They're everywhere. Better yet, you could play the game and see for yourself how little Firaxis hated France instead of poke around the editor for reasons to be offended. These last remarks are for Rhye.

I disagree.
In my games France has always been a lamb. Definitely too weak.

 

[Reichsmarshal]

Originally posted by LordAzreal


1.) Just because they are peacemongers doesn't mean that they don't build up a significant military force. If you observe them, they still build up their military. And it doesn't matter what the aggression level is. If you are weak, the other civ will threaten you. Does the history of real-world France REALLY matter? No. This is a game where history is REWRITTEN!!! An alternate reality where Joan of Arc did rule, where Bismarck is much less diplomatic, where the Americans started out in 4000 BC, where Babylon survives to see the first manned voyage to Alpha Centauri. Who cares about what really happened?

2.) No argument there. They should definitely be blue.

3.) True that Joan of Arc didn't actually rule anything. But Firaxis obviously felt that they needed a peacemonger other than India ruled by a female. She is perhaps the best option for a peacemongering ruler. If they had've chosen Charlemagne, Louis XIV or Napoleon (who was the best possible option), then you'd have another ego-inflated civ who wants to rule the world (Bismarck, Shaka, Catherine, Hammurabi, Tokugawa, Xerxes and Caesar are more than enough people with high aggression). Though I guess my comment might make some think I contradict myself, but this is nothing to do with hatred. A civ who builds up a huge army and is more cooperative with the human player adds the ally you might rely on in your long campaign against Bismarck and Shaka (Gandhi is way too wussy as he backs out of any conflict within less than 20 turns).

4.) No argument there. But that doesn't prove anything. Maybe they thought that Joan of Arc would've been an environmentalist past the middle ages. So what? Besides, she is a soldier doing her rounds.

5.) The skinhead look is because she is a soldier. If you looked closely, you'd notice an APC in the background and the word 'ARMEE' on her T-Shirt. Throughout the course of the game, she is made to appear like a soldier.

I don't think that Firaxis hate France. They obviously wanted to make a strong, powerhouse nation you could easily depend on in conflict (that's the way they've been in my games), so therefore, I believe the contrary. Firaxis probably love France (its hard not to these days as it is a nice place).

France should DEFININTALY have a 4 aggression rating. Few can compare to the militaristic conquests of France (even though they didn't always win). I also say blue would fit them, it is not that serious of a problem the editor can't fix though.

 

[LordAzreal]

Originally posted by Reichsmarshal


France should DEFININTALY have a 4 aggression rating. Few can compare to the militaristic conquests of France (even though they didn't always win). I also say blue would fit them, it is not that serious of a problem the editor can't fix though.

As I already said, there are already too many aggressive civilizations there. And it doesn't have to go according to history (where France was successful in their military history, apart from the two World Wars of course). Its just a game. Take it for that, accept what Firaxis have done. Accept that they needed more nice guys to stand at your side when the evil, warmongering Civ III rulers (Bismarck, Shaka, Caesar, Tokugawa, etc.) push for a war. But for that kind of effect, they could've set aggression to middle (like America, Greece, Egypt and England). That way, they are much less likely to back down if you bring them into a conflict (even though they probably won't since they build up a huge army for such a peacemongering nation).

I guess France was less aggressive as Firaxis felt that at least four nations needed to be less than the middle in terms of aggression (alongside India, China and the Iroquois). With all the evil about in the Civ III world. Its good to have a friend you can depend on. That's what its about here. It doesn't matter who they choose to be friendly (stop complaining about it and Civ3Edit to change the things you ppl seem to hate about the Firaxian defaults. There's no need to complain).

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

If you don't like how the French are portrayed then feel free to edit them. We don't like historical debates in here anymore (please see announcement). Does Firaxis hate them? I highly doubt it