Historical accuracy in Civ3 - what???

[Ubik]

So, this is a thread devoted primarily to the history buff type of persons, but everyone is welcome here to put down his/hers opinion about the subject.

So, how historicaly accurate is Civ3?

Some general facts: This game is not about following the historical path but about creating your own version of history. So, several misinterpretations/errors/stupidities should be expected(granted) and/or forgiven.

But, there are certain aspects that should be not overlooked so light-hearted.

Those should be

- The civ-specific attributes
- The unique units
- The time frame for golden ages/uu appearance etc.
- The leaders

So, my opinion on those four aspects:

Civ specific attributes
So long, the only major faults I can see are those of the Chines [i](by no means "militaristic" - they were certainly less militaristic than most civilizations) and the Persian (scientific? the Persian? Pi-leeeease!). Those two should be: Persian: Commercial/religious. Chinese: Scientific/Commercial (just as the Greek). The rest - so far - seem more or less ok.

Unique Units
Same as above, the main problem seem to be the Chinese. What the heck is "a rider"??? There are two main problems: A)The name of the unit (what do you mean "rider"???) and - most important - b)Never, ever the chinese cavalry was considered "special", "elite" or distinguished by any means (outside China, at least). Other people know more about Chinese history than I do and they could provide a fitting UU but the rider is completely irrelevant!
The placement/timeframe for the Greek, Persian, Indian, Egyptian, Roman UU seems very appropriate and fitting, but other mentioned (but not yeat appeared officially) like the Kozaks for the Russian, seem to be somewhat out of order.

Time frame for G.A.
The double trigger is having some interesting side effects. But if we only count in the UU trigger (and I suppose they will try to "regulate" it and make the triggering available in the same time frame with also the wonder-trigger) there are some faults here too. The definite golden age for the Russian (in the Firaxian way of interpreting nations) should occur in the 20th century, so that Mig - Su - whatever (even better, an improved or cheaper nuke ) should be more appropriate. Also, the very early GA trigerring possible for the Aztecs is kinda lame.

Leaders
Oh. Ohhh... OHHHHH!!! Firaxis worked wonders NOT! They managed to do a very, very bad work. Where to start from? Jeanne d'ark for France? Doh! Cleopatra for Egypt? Doh! Abe Linkoln for USA? Double doh! and the list goes on...

So, on these four categories (and nothing more) I rate Civ3's historical accuracy with a 5 out of 10. If the rating would be more general (not just on those 4) it would be much, much lower.

Anyway, I consider it a pretty good work despite the low grade.

Other opinions?

[Alexander I]

If CivIII is a '5', then there are no 10s out there! There are so many much more horrendous "historical" games that I have to give Civ3 an...


8. With Civ2 a less notable 6, and Age of Empires , a very disheartening 4 (though AOE2 managed to eke out a 5).

Civ3 may have some errors, limiting them to an 8, but everything else is so far off that they have to be that high.

[Christantine The Great]

Read my sig for my responce, second quote.

As for Abe Lincoln, what's wrong with him??? He WAS a president...

[Ubik]

Originally posted by Christantine The Great
Read my sig for my responce, second quote.

As for Abe Lincoln, what's wrong with him??? He WAS a president...

About the response... it's ok, I have stated the same thing (but I love to fool around with the details).

About Abe... well, if a perverted, drunk gambling political opportunist, that was president at a time when USA was nothing more than an insignificant minor power in "the colonies", should be represent the allmighty in the 20th century one-and-only-superpower... well, it's up to you Americans to decide.

I would pick Roosevelt if I was you... Or the other '30's president (I don't remember his name well...) the one who introduced the economical reform. Or was it Roosevelt again? I am

Or, if you want someone from distant history, pick Washington. He was the no1, right? And you don't mess with the Republican vs Democrats dillemma (he was a federalist, right?)

[ixnay]

Yes, FDR was the president during the Great Depression and he introduced the New Deal. As for Lincoln, I am fine with his selection as the leader for the US. After all, he did hold the union together during the civil war and help to end slavery, and is recognized by historians as either the #1 or #2 greatest US president.

[Steve Clark]

It is ironic that someone who would use the term 'historical accuracy' in the title, yet displays stupid ignorance about Lincoln.

[Christantine The Great]

Please do your USA bashing somewhere else. Every leader in history has done something bad during their lives, Mr. Lincoln is no exception.

[Ubik]

WHAT USA bashing? What the heck are you talking about?

I was talking about who Abe Linkoln was, I was not bashing anything. What is this, when someone points out that Alexander was a "slaughterer" it's ok, but when someone is presenting the facts about a US president he is in a anti-USA rage?

I am not even tempted to reply to that Clarck character - stupid and ignorant HE must be, for claiming to be the weilder of the ultimate truth about abe's life and political career. Without providing anything to contradict my opinion.

so, people, if you have reached that kind of level in arrogance as to not accept criticism on long-dead US politicians... man, you are definitely out of order.

[ixnay]

I'm not accusing you of any US-bashing. So Abe may not have been a great person - I'm not disputing that. He was, however, a great political leader in a time of crisis, which is why he is regarded as a great president.

[static]

Originally posted by Ubik


About the response... it's ok, I have stated the same thing (but I love to fool around with the details).

About Abe... well, if a perverted, drunk gambling political opportunist, that was president at a time when USA was nothing more than an insignificant minor power in "the colonies", should be represent the allmighty in the 20th century one-and-only-superpower... well, it's up to you Americans to decide.

WOW, where do I begin with this moronic statement. Perhaps this will enlighten you,
"(Almost all historians judge Lincoln as the greatest president in American history because of the way he exercised leadership during the war and because of the impact of that leadership on the moral and political character of the nation. He conceived of his presidential role as unique under the Constitution in times of crisis. Lincoln was convinced that within the branches of government, the presidency alone was empowered not only to uphold the Constitution, but also to preserve, protect, and defend it. In the end, however, Lincoln is measured by his most lasting accomplishments: the preservation of the Union and the death of slavery—accomplishments achieved by acting "with malice towards none" in the pursuit of a "more perfect and equal union.")"
http://www.americanpresident.org/KoT...L_In_Brief.htm

[Mars]

i agree that joan of arc shouldn't be the french leader. it should be napolean or charlemagne. I also think that the russian UU should be the MiG

[Christantine The Great]

About Abe... well, if a perverted, drunk gambling political opportunist

No good points, all bad. No evidence supporting this. That sure sounds like bashing, although light.

Without providing anything to contradict my opinion.

You didn't give any evidence yourself, why should I?

I am not even tempted to reply to that Clarck character

Just did.

If you want to debate this in a civil tone I will be glad to. Until then, shut up.

[orange]

Eh, I wouldn't make the Russian UU a Mig. It's really more of a 'Soviet made' weapon.

Napoleon seems to be the logical leader for the French, not Joan of Arc

Abe Lincoln should be replaced by Georgie Washington, IMO. However, FDR would be a poor choice if you want to start pointing out personal issues. He was no better than Abe, and was certainly more of a political opportunist than Lincoln. Your points about Lincoln are largely exaggerated.

I do however agree with the statements about the Persian and Chinese civs being incorrectly labeled.

[Christantine The Great]

I was hoping someone would say they wanted Washington to be the leader so I could say "NEVER".

NEVER!

Seriously, though, I don't think he would be a good choice. He was a slave owner, Lincoln wasn't. He didn't attempt to abolish slavery, which would have been much easier at the time. Lincoln, at first didn't care but then he did like the idea of having them freed and returned to Africa or their own state (he liked segregation). Lincoln, at least, did believe that the "all men are created equal" part of the Constitution covered blacks, too.

[Christantine The Great]

Should we really bother to argue about who the leader is going to be anymore? Changing the skin tone is one thing, but making a brand spanking new 3D model...I don't think so.

[orange]

Uh, Christatine, before you get all righteous, Abe Lincoln didn't love the black man, don't be fooled. He was a political opportunist. He realized that he could gain the most support by taking a stand with the abolitionists and that's just what he did. He forced his opponents to side with the slavery enthusaists, which made his opponents look like immoral hicks.

George Washington owned slaves during a time when owning slaves was hardly a political issue, and seen as a social norm. Washington also lived in the south, whereas Lincoln lived in the North, and was to poor to own slaves. Abolishing slavery during Washington's time would have been political suicide. During Lincoln's run for office, he split the populous 50/50. It would have been in NO WAY easier for Washington to abolish slavery than it was for Lincoln.

Monroe was the one who supported sending Blacks to Africa, and he did just that, which is why the capital of Liberia is "Monrovia". But again, hardly because he loved blacks.

Jefferson owned slaves, yet Adams did not. Does that make Adams a better leader?

George Washington was a humble war hero, and they are VERY hard to come by in American history. He was a very smart man.

[Steve Clark]

Ubik must think there has not been any biographies written about Lincoln, or perhaps none have gotten to Greece.

I have read four of them (Thomas, Oates, Peterson and Waugh). But anyone with any historical sense would know such statements are just trolling (unless that's the point of this thread and I missed it).

if a perverted, drunk gambling political opportunist

Perverted: Perversion is defined as leading astray from right opinion or conduct (as one definition). I would say in Lincoln's case, from the time as a congressman in the Iliinois Legislature to his term as President, he has consistently displayed morals, opinions and conducts just the opposite of perversion.

Drunk: Lincoln grew up in the rough frontier towns of Indiana and Illinois. After the Black Hawk War, he arrived back in New Salem and partnered with Berry in running a grocer. Berry was an alcoholic and ran the store into debt, which Lincoln eventually repaid by himself (thus his nickname, Honest Abe). Even though he could not help but to join in on some occassional drinking with the boys, the experience in New Salem (in 1832) made him a teetotaler for the rest of his life. Not once as President did he touch alcohol or for decades preceeding that.

Gambling: Apart from casual gambling on the frontier when he was growing up, he never actively engaged in gambling of any sort.

Political Opportunist: Political achievement is opportunistic, else it wouldn't be politics.

[orange]

well said Steve

[jdd2007]

Uh, Christatine, before you get all righteous, Abe Lincoln didn't love the black man, don't be fooled. He was a political opportunist. He realized that he could gain the most support by taking a stand with the abolitionists and that's just what he did. He forced his opponents to side with the slavery enthusaists, which made his opponents look like immoral hicks.

i was just about to post a message agreeing with u when i read this post.

Abe Lincoln didn't love the black man, don't be fooled.

where did u get this idea from? abes decision to abolish slavery wasnt exactly 100% because he wanted to help humanity, but it wasnt 100% political either.

made his opponents look like immoral hicks.

uhhh r u saying they werent imoral and that they werent hicks. i dont know if they were hicks, but they sure as h ell were imoral...

[Christantine The Great]

I agree. I think Lincoln didn't touch alcohol after he drank that barrel of wiskey. Unless that is a myth...

Uh, Christatine, before you get all righteous

I'm getting this from a biography that I have just read.

Anyway... It would have been easier for Washington to abolish slavery. Slavery was on the way out at the beginning of the ninteenth century and it only started up in strength again when the cottin gin was invented and greedy landowners wanted to get as much possible with people who you didn't have to pay. It would have been much easier around the time when slavery was grinding to a halt than when it was in full force.

Monroe was the one who supported sending Blacks to Africa

I didn't say Lincoln came up with the idea. Read my post again.

Does that make Adams a better leader?

Try selling CivIII on the street in Harlem where a slave owner is the leader of the Americans. That's my point.

I think you believe that I am supporting Lincoln 100%. I'm not, I'm just defending him. I think he is an appropriate leader for the Americans.

[mactbone]

Abolishing slavery during Washington's time would have been political suicide

Just have to point out how wrong this was. Did you know that Congress was ready and willing to just *give* Washington the presidency, no votes, nothing. Washington declined and asked for a real election (or at least as close to one as they had back then). He got elected and I'm willing to bet by a landslide. I don't even know who ran against him. Not to say he was a bad pres. or anything, but your statement is waaaaay off base.

[orange]

where did u get this idea from? abes decision to abolish slavery wasnt exactly 100% because he wanted to help humanity, but it wasnt 100% political either.

The idea taught in school is that Abe was a great man who's goal was to abolish slavery because he was was a great lover of the African American. While it is true that Lincoln didn't support slavery, as most northerners didn't, he was no more into the idea of abolishing slavery than most northerners. Lincoln jumped on the Abolitionist band waggon when he ran for Illinois governor. The Lincoln Douglass debates, which he makes his first definitive stand against slavery, boosted his national popularity to the point that many northerners gave their support to the man if he ran for president. He was a smart smart guy for this. But he was not for immediate social equality between whites and blacks. He simply found slavery to be immoral and took a stand which benefited his political career.

uhhh r u saying they werent imoral and that they werent hicks. i dont know if they were hicks, but they sure as h ell were imoral...

What I'm saying is, Lincoln forced the other candidates, who would have been middle of the road on the issue, as all candidates previous to him were, into defending slavery. Lincoln was the favorite for the anti-slavery movement, so another candidate being anti-slavery would be pointless from a political standpoint...it wouldn't get them the Republican nomination. They had to go democrat to get the southern votes, or risk not being able to run for president.

Anyway... It would have been easier for Washington to abolish slavery. Slavery was on the way out at the beginning of the ninteenth century and it only started up in strength again when the cottin gin was invented and greedy landowners wanted to get as much possible with people who you didn't have to pay. It would have been much easier around the time when slavery was grinding to a halt than when it was in full force.

During Washington's time, this is specifically the reason that abolishing slavery would have been a pointless request. People, both north and south, would see it as a (in place of the other term...) "black lover" being righteous. The issue of slavery wasn't nearly questioned to the extent that it was during the 1800s, mainly because it WASN'T a big deal. It was just a norm. It wasn't until the mid 1800s where the masses decided "this is wrong" and being anti-slavery at least got you 50% of the people on your side.

I didn't say Lincoln came up with the idea. Read my post again.

My mistake, but the point still rings true. Lincoln was a political opportunist. Taking nothing away from the man at all...he was a great president...but he was more of a political opportunist than a crusader for African American freedom.

Try selling CivIII on the street in Harlem where a slave owner is the leader of the Americans. That's my point.

I can see the riots in Harlem now!

I'd go as far as to say that NO black man is going to care whether or not the leader of the Americans in CivIII is Lincoln or Washington based on the fact that one was a slave owner and the other was not, let alone the entire race.

I think you believe that I am supporting Lincoln 100%. I'm not, I'm just defending him. I think he is an appropriate leader for the Americans.

Not at all. I'm defending my view that Washington makes the better leader.

[orange]

Originally posted by MacTBone


Just have to point out how wrong this was. Did you know that Congress was ready and willing to just *give* Washington the presidency, no votes, nothing. Washington declined and asked for a real election (or at least as close to one as they had back then). He got elected and I'm willing to bet by a landslide. I don't even know who ran against him. Not to say he was a bad pres. or anything, but your statement is waaaaay off base.

I didn't say "If Washington came out anti-slavery" I said "during Washington's time", IE the late 1700s. Washington could have pulled it off, because of his enormous popularity... and yes they would have made him King...but that's not what my point was.

Washington probably could have successfully allowed barnyard animals to become voting american citizens if he wanted to...just because he COULD have done it doesn't mean it would have been very popular among the people.

[Ubik]

Due to overpatriotic bullshit, this thread has gone to hell... whatever... Thanks to the (very few) who actually tried to contribute something on subject.

[orange]

Sorry, got off on a tangent

The funny thing, there's even a thread on what we were discussing!

Ok, no more threadjacking. We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic

[Steve Clark]

I guess the few of us trying to pull Ubik's head out of his you-know-what constitute as being overly patriotic. It's just a reaction to ignorance, I guess.

[Ubik]

Or if you don't know Greek (I wouldn't expect you to do) let's just say that yes, it was my reaction to ignorance and stupidity: Your ignorance and stupidity, boy.

[orange]

now now boys, lets play nice

[KrazyHorse]

Ubuk's comments re Lincoln seemed fairly off-base, but what I don't get is:

"Please do your USA bashing somewhere else"

Why is an anti-Lincoln sentiment anti-American, especially when a "better" idea for an American leader is proposed?

[BlackStone]

I think that it is reasonably acurate to say that each civ at differing times has been: war like, peaceful, scientific and all the others in its own particular way. So why not have a variety of leader options that represent each of these forms. You choose a historical leader from that civ that suits the way you want to play.

eg Ghandi - peaceful diplomate

Hitler - waring psychopath

etc