riflemen in three cornered hats

lord of the mark · December 21, 2000, 17:20

I understand its only concept art, so lets clarify some things for the benefit of Firaxis.

Yes the rifle was invented in the 18thc, and that may well be where Firaxis got a historicical model for a rifleman. However due to the difficulty in in proper ammo, it was difficult developing a rifle that could be used as a standard infantry weapon. A rifleman was basically a sharpshooter specialist. Full units of riflemen did not come into play until the American Civil War, when the "minie ball" made the US made Springfield and the UK made Lee-Enfield into standard infantry weapons. Indeed in the early battles of the ACW, (EG 1st Manassas- 1861) infantry was armed with muskets. The first battle (IIRC) in which the rifle was decisive was Fredericksburg (1862), and the unfamiliarity with the impact of mass use of the rifle was largely responsible for the very bloody results of that battle.

Ergo a Civ3 rifleman unit should wear 19thc dress (as did the Civ2 and Civ:TOT riflemen) and not 18th c dress.

And yes some of us dont want to bother with modpacks, so it does matter.

hHydro · December 21, 2000, 17:32

Oh. My. God.

It's cool that you know your history and all, but I'm sorry, but I can't possibly convey how unimportant this trivial detail is.

We're talking about a game where history-as-we-know-it can end up with fascist dictators controlling the world with Elephants and musketeers by 1100 AD, and where planes take 5 years to fly around the world, and you're worried about how many corners the guy's bloody hat has.

Heh. Do you write Hasbro and complain that the car token should be bigger than the thimble?

lord of the mark · December 21, 2000, 17:42

Very well - than why use unit graphics at all, why not just use war game style counters? or why not just re-use the old civ 2 units - why bother with new ones for civ3?

No im not a stickler for historical details, i dont play with the fascism patch, i'd rather have the inaccuracy of loads of alpines than add a patch that will introduce elements the AI doesnt understand.

But accurate looking riflemen was something that Civ2 got right. What is to be gained by having Civ3 get it wrong?

and whyu should we use these forums to learn and teach history?

red_jon · December 21, 2000, 18:23

I agree with lotm.

Some people want accuracy to enjoy the game more. It is a CIV game after all.

------------------
"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender!" -Winston Churchill

"Gotta love me"- Baby, Dinosaurs

Ralf · December 21, 2000, 18:27

quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark on 12-21-2000 04:42 PM
But accurate looking riflemen was something that Civ2 got right. What is to be gained by having Civ3 get it wrong?

You absolutely right!

Then it comes to simple stuff like the looks of units, city-improvements, wonders, tile-improvements and techs, there no reason whatsoever why Civ-3 shouldnt be 100% accurat and realistic.

The urge for realism only becomes a problem when we are talking about incorporating ever more complex society-parameters in the game. Civ-3 is after all suppose to be a game - not a super-detailed and super-realistic world-simulator.

Steve Clark · December 21, 2000, 18:39

You don't like the representation of the conceptual Riflemen? Fine...then either 1) design your own unit or 2) download a modpack. Why is this so hard to understand?? Do you have any idea how many different ways folks here have portrayed the warrior unit (for example) in Civ2? Why even bother to complain about these units when we will be able to design our own or to download what others have designed? Why am I asking so many pointed questions?

red_jon · December 21, 2000, 18:45

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Clark on 12-21-2000 05:39 PM
You don't like the representation of the conceptual Riflemen? Fine...then either 1) design your own unit or 2) download a modpack. Why is this so hard to understand?? Do you have any idea how many different ways folks here have portrayed the warrior unit (for example) in Civ2? Why even bother to complain about these units when we will be able to design our own or to download what others have designed? Why am I asking so many pointed questions?

I HATE IT WHEN PEOPLE SAY STUFF LIKE THIS.

Why should we have to bother? If we pay for the game, it is their job to make sure it is correct. Why should we have to do their work for them?

------------------
"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender!" -Winston Churchill

"Gotta love me"- Baby, Dinosaurs

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto · December 21, 2000, 18:53

you guys!!! we only know that there will be a unit in civ-3 called a Rifleman. we dont know exactly what he will look like (look at my Email Post!), so we cant complain yet. besides, if the Riflemen do look like that, we dont know if that unit will be an 'elite' unit with musketeers, maybe they will have two different riflemen! dont complain about something your not sure of.

Steve Clark · December 21, 2000, 18:55

quote:

Why should we have to bother? If we pay for the game, it is their job to make sure it is correct. Why should we have to do their work for them?

Correct? Correct for what?

The most important part of Civ3 is customizability (according to the Apolyton poll and from many comments here). The ability to create and play with customized units (and to create scenarios) are critical for replay (witness the tens of thousands of downloads for the HiRes modpack alone, and the many user-designed scenarios). But more importantly, let's say you want to design or play a WWI scenario that has Riflemen units. Would you use a 18th- or 19th-century representation? Of course not, neither one would be right. That is the point.

Ralf · December 21, 2000, 19:10

quote:

Originally posted by Steve Clark on 12-21-2000 05:55 PM
Correct? Correct for what?

"If you desperately tries to please everybody, you may very well end up with pleasing nobody".

Having a dedicated PC-game fan-base can both be a blessing and a curse, i guess.

The Kaiser · December 21, 2000, 19:42

I agree with LotM as regards getting it right first time, we shouldn't always need to MOD stuff the minutes it's released.

However this comes down to what Firaxis are aiming for. Are they after the period the unit first appeared, or when it was used to a great effect?

Diablo, I've seen your email off Firaxis and they stated that whilst the images aren't directly "in game graphics" they are the 3D models that will be used to create the "in game" graphics. So THIS IS what the Rifleman will look like, however the animation and posture could change.

hHydro · December 21, 2000, 19:57

quote:

Originally posted by The Kaiser on 12-21-2000 06:42 PM
I agree with LotM as regards getting it right first time, we shouldn't always need to MOD stuff the minutes it's released.

Getting it right? IT's a freakin HAT!

Heh.. Man, I'm sorry I went for lunch. This thread exploded while I was gone.

No-one's advocating having giant Volkswagons with guns, or planes with 2 pairs of wings... but the point is, CIV 3 is not HISTORY. IT's a GAME. Firaxis has better things to do than redo all their art because you guys have an aversion to 3-pointed hats. \

I'm not saying to deal with it and wait for a mod pack - I'm just finding it hard to believe that L.O.T.M. is worried about details on a graphic that will probably be too small to see in-game anyways. And you know what Lord? I don't have a problem with reusing Civ 2 graphics or army markers. Heck. Use the pieces from Monopoly for all I care. Games like this aren't good because the pieces look pretty. It's nice, but very low on my list of priorities.

Having said that, I think we all know this game WILL look beautiful. Firaxis won't release an ugly game. So why gripe about the graphics before you've even seen them?

(PS: In my first post, I wasn't referring to playing with a 'fascism patch'.. I've never played with such a thing. I was merely trying to point out that this game isn't about recreating history. It's about building a civilization to stand the test of time.

)

The Kaiser · December 21, 2000, 21:20

Why is it when we have discussions like this we always get the "I can't believe your talking about this" Brigade march into town?

If you think Civilisation is "just a game" why are you on these Forums?

IT IS IMPORTANT what the Rifleman looks like, because how it is graphically portrayed gives us clues as to where it appears in the Timeline/TechTree for example. Is it earlier or later than in Civ2? Would another unit be needed to fill the gap?

Yes we are picking from scraps of info at the moment, but this is more than a discussion about members fashion tastes!
[This message has been edited by The Kaiser (edited December 21, 2000).]

hHydro · December 21, 2000, 22:14

quote:

Originally posted by The Kaiser on 12-21-2000 08:20 PM
IT IS IMPORTANT what the Rifleman looks like, because how it is graphically portrayed gives us clues as to where it appears in the Timeline/TechTree for example. [This message has been edited by The Kaiser (edited December 21, 2000).]

Hehe.. Sorry Kaiser.. couldn't resist.

"Ha.. the fool is coming at me with just three riflemen.. it's hopeless! He'll be.. uh wait.. those riflemen have THREE CORNERED HATS! Muster the defenses! We're doomed!"

Alright so I'm giving you and L.O.T.M. a hard time, but you have to admit that nitpicking details this tiny is pretty trivial. True, they may be changes that you WANT, but can you imagine the look on the face of the Firaxis artist when you walk up to him and say "I don't like it. His hat's wrong/the tank has a gay little cross on it/the phalanx's shield looks like it's constipated..." You know what he/she'll be thinking.

But at the same time, I have 'fashion tastes' too. (AKA: an opinion). It is *my* opinion that some people focus on this game as an earth-simulator, and don't consider the applications for alternate history. The more I am forced to relive hitory as it occurred on earth, the less fun I am going to have.

In my history, maybe there was only one world war, fought with Gyros and Dirigibles. Maybe the last remaining Democracy on my continent shares a border with a newly risen communist regime. Maybe the polar caps melt and society is driven to the seas where it thrives under the leadership of Kevin Costner.

And maybe.. just maybe.. three corner hats remained in style for military uniforms throughout the 18th and 19th centuries...

Steve Clark · December 21, 2000, 22:16

Kaiser, with all due respect, that is not right at all. The Riflemen unit will have attributes similar to these:
Riflemen, nil, 0, 1.,0, 5a,4d, 2h,1f, 4,0, 1, Csc, 000000000000000
plus whatever new Civ3 attributes they come up with. It will be available with the advance of something like Conscription. So how does that relate to anything historical? I may discover the appropriate advance in 800ad, so should I expect the Riflemen unit to be in chainmail?? But let's say, for arguments sake, you want the Riflemen to be close to historically accurate. What do you chose? An 18th-century Grenadier? An early 19th-century frontiersmen? A Union soldier? A Confederate soldier? A Mexican War soldier? How about a riflemen from the Old West (my favorite)? Any one of these would be CORRECT, right?

Let's not focus on what the units look like anymore, it's stupid. Let Firaxis do its job of designing and developing the only good sequel to Civ2 and not spending the time to throw crumbs to urchins.

Theben · December 21, 2000, 22:25

The last 2 posts sum up my opinion. In Civ2 the "history" changes with each game you play. One disappointment of mine is that is can't stray further w/o me mucking up the .txt files. The uniform the guy's in isn't too terribly important. As long as it looks good!

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto · December 21, 2000, 22:42

I still say this: Do not start making fusses about stuff when you dont know nothin about it except what it'll look like, hell, the Rifleman could be an 'elite' musketeer, they just called it the Riflemen cause thats what the sharp-shooters were called back then.

Grumbold · December 22, 2000, 10:13

I have to agree. There is no "right" depiction for a rifleman because that name was used loosely by many nations over a wide period of time. If the artist has chosen to depict one of the earliest instances of the rifle then why not? I had a poke at the Phalanx for not having a long spear, but it is quite possibly correct for an early bronze age hoplite or something even if troops would be somewhat differently equipped in a few centuries time. Lets just hope they include enough troop types and/or unit graphics that all recognisable military periods are represented. I'll dislike fighting over Europe with stacks of 18C. Austrian Riflemen, Union Artillery and Confederate cavalry but I'll do it if I must. Key prestige locations will continue to be guarded by the Black Watch Highlanders well into the 21st C though, even if they only have muskets

Ralf · December 22, 2000, 11:35

This is my summarized and final opinion on this issue:

1: Just make the unit name-convention consistent with the overal looks of the unit. Its really as simple and uncomplicated as that. Just like it was in Civ-2.

I never knew if that old civ-2 musketeer uniform, or the civ-2 rifleman uniform, ever had any exact real-life historical uniform counterpart - and i never cared.

Maybe it was just summarized abstractions of uniforms from those eras. I never cared.

All i cared about - seen from an non-historical laymans point of view - was that the Civ-2 musketeer-unit had the quintessential looks of any non-specific 18:th century musketeer. And that the Civ-2 rifleman-unit had the quintessential looks of any non-specific 19:th century rifleman.

2: Also, NO controversial Samurai instead of Legion replacements, ala CTP-2. YES, we do have mod-packs, but why build in controversials in the main-game, then its so easy to bypass them?

lord of the mark · December 22, 2000, 12:14

2 points

1. Some people seem to have gotten the idea that i was complaining bitterly about the rifleman in 18th c dress. I was not. If they keep the rifleman in 18thc dress I am sure Civ 3 will still be a good game. I thought it POSSIBLE that the artists had happened on an illustration in a history book of a rifleman in 18th c dress and had used that. I thought nothing would be lost by pointing out why it would be MORE appopriate to put a riflemen in 19thc dress (anything from 1862 to whenever the next infantry unit appears)
If it is too late to change thats ok.

2. WRT to history simulator vs alt history game

Well of course the fascination of civ is playing through alt histories - eg what if a key civ had been left alone in its early years and had focused on research, could it have conquered the world with tanks when everyone else had knights and pikemen. (Though to be accurate from the ALTERNATIVE HISTORY point of view you would need major changes in gameplay) Of course in an outcome like that you could well have riflemen coming before, say monotheism or navigation. One would expect them to be dressed differently than in actual history. But then why not include volkswagons with machine guns, or substitute troops on rhinos for troops on elephants, or whatever - I mean in alt history you dont have to have historical units(since things could have turned out differently) or historical tech sequences (except where you can make a case for historical necessity) We play with historical units to accomodate the POSSIBILITY that you will discover techs in roughly the "right" time period and sequence, and to make the game immersive when you do.

The Kaiser · December 22, 2000, 19:33

Ok so we have a lot of opinions floating around on this thread as to the importance of a 3 pointed hat!

But I'm just interested in the clues the Graphics gives us about what the finished game will look like. Yes we are feeding of crumbs at the moment, but it's all we've been given so far, so we're stuck with it. I guess we won't have a better idea until the full site goes up in the new year.

All I will say is if Firaxis are not trying for accuracy in their unit portrayal's, why have they produced a near perfect image of a Panzer III tank? As opposed to the abstract Armour unit in Civ2.

The clues are there, it's just that some aren't willing to look hard enough.
[This message has been edited by The Kaiser (edited December 22, 2000).]

Dan Magaha FIRAXIS · December 22, 2000, 20:59

I feel compelled to post to clear up a few things.

First, this artwork is concept art. It isn't necessarily "final" or even "what the final game may look like". It's merely designed to give you an idea of what our artists are working on. Nothing more.

Secondly, given the disclaimer that the ART is concept and not final, you should also assume the naming conventions for the units are also conceptual at this point, and *not* final. It's entirely possible that the model we labeled the "Rifleman" could be called something completely different in the finished product. I already alluded to this in an email that was posted regarding the "Panzer Tank" render, but I want to make sure this is clear.

I point this out only because it seems there is a debate over something which could (and probably will) change before the game hits the streets. Rest assured that we *do* want to make sure everything in the game fits into the proper historical perspective, so I wouldn't worry about that too much..

That being said, please resume the festivities =)

Dan
Firaxis Games, Inc.

The Kaiser · December 22, 2000, 21:17

Well it's sure difficult to resume after a post like that!

Although it seems now that it will probably change, can I just say that I for one don't mind a 3 pointed hat on my Rifleman unit as I feel it represents when the weapon first appeared.

And thats that!

Nuf said.

Dauphin · December 23, 2000, 06:17

Who knows. If it turns out that Riflemen are to have three-cornered hats it could just be claimed that those units are going for thr "Retro" look.

Many armies today still have traditional uniforms - often worn for display purposes. (so they don't necessarily go into combat wearing them.)

red_jon · December 23, 2000, 07:35

At least Firaxis can't get it as wrong as Activision

------------------
"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender!" -Winston Churchill

"Gotta love me"- Baby, Dinosaurs

Frank Johnson · December 25, 2000, 01:06

Hm.....we're gonna have this problem untill every unit has an image, for each culture represented as a civ, in Civ.

Native American: "Me tradum you furs for gun."
Trader:"Sure thing, oh and here's your 3 cornered hats."
Native American:"Hats? We no need."
Trader:"What? You can't have a gun without a 3 cornered hat, it just doesn't exist."

St Leo · December 26, 2000, 01:27

The best reason for keeping the 3-cornered hat is that it looks really cool.

------------------
St. Leo
http://www.sidgames.com/hosted/ziggurat/
http://www.sidgames.com/forums/

hHydro · December 27, 2000, 16:56

-=eND OF tHREAD=-

The Kaiser · December 29, 2000, 22:29

Maybe the Musketeer unit will have one of those large rimmed hat's with the feather's!

The Kaiser · January 8, 2001, 14:41

Which might not be as daft as it sounds, as it puts the Musketeer and Riflemen earlier in the timeline. Thus suggesting that there are new defensive units to bridge the gap between Riflemen and Mechanised Infantry.
[This message has been edited by The Kaiser (edited January 08, 2001).]