Matching of UU, leader and GA

Chemical Ollie · October 12, 2002, 18:50

Shouldn't the unique unit, civilisation leader and golden age stick together? Well, in some cases they do, in some cases they don't.

Americans:
Leader: Abraham Lincoln was perhaps a great president, but would you call a horrific civil war a golden age? I wouldn't! A better choice would have been Kennedy or Reagan.
UU - a good choice. No one dominate the air like them!
GA - a good choice. The American GA is not right now, with recession, terrorist war and all, but was not long ago.

Aztecs:
Everything is well timed, historically.

Babylonians:
Everything is well timed, historically.

Chinese:
Leader - Mao a great leader? Worst they had in 300 years! But that's my opinion.
UU- Good choice
GA - China has had several golden ages in the last 6000 years. The age of riders was one of them. Well done!

Germans:
Leader - OK, Bismark united the city-states: so far, so good. But wouldn't Adolf the Führer match the UU and GA better, despite the lack of political correctness to this. I know the game would be sold less in Israel and US if Hitler was the German leader, but the Romans did not treat the Jews much better, did they? The destruction of Jerusalem 70 AD stands as one of the worst happenings in Jewish history, and still you never hear any complaints about the Golden Age of Romans in CIV3.
UU- The German tanks really sucked (technically) in the early stages of WW2. However, the new tactics took the Brits and French by storm and Germany ruled the battlefield. In the later stages of WW2, the Germans beat the allies in the tank war by 10-1, but lacked the fuel and production capacity to win in the long term. Panzers rule! But a unique unit to match the current leader Bismarck would perhaps be some kind of infantry. May I suggest the Machine Gunner, with ADM 6-12-1 to reflect the German tactics of WW1? Should work well with plenty of artillery!
Golden Age - The golden age of Germany was really the late 1930's, before the war started, but that would not sell any games in some contries (as discussed above). But even long before that, Germany was dominating the scientific world, much with the help of jews like Einstein. The choice of GA is as good as any.

English:
I would not complain too much historically about any of the unique features of England in CIV3.

French:
Leader - Joan? Naah! A beauty, but nothing more. Napoleon would be a better choice (at least his early days.)
Unique unit: A good choice, but not timed with the golden age of France. Some Napoleonic rifleman, with increased attack, defence or movement would be better.
Golden age: Early industrial would be more accurate. Remember that all modern political movements were invented in France: Communism, socialism, liberalism etc.

Greeks:
Everything is well timed, historically.

Romans:
Everything is well timed, historically.

This is far from all. More will be written by me and others.

Tassadar500 · October 12, 2002, 19:11

Good post. Its well written.

Athitis · October 13, 2002, 14:28

Indeed. I think Napoleaon would be a better choise too, but I have to disangree about Mao. Oh, well, let's stay on topic.

Ribannah · October 14, 2002, 06:27

Iroquois

Hiawatha = 1451 AD
Golden Age = peak in 1680 AD
Mounted Warrior = never

My guess is it was never a consideration to have them coincide.

Gangerolf · October 15, 2002, 13:39

I think the Iroquois are supposed to represent all native north americans, if not they would surely have an other UU.

Ribannah · October 15, 2002, 14:04

That's just something they made up when they had to explain the UU, after fans commented on their choice. All the cities (barring two mistakes) are Iroquois cities.

Firaxis' research on the Iroquois came from one single webpage (of the thousands that are around). This particular site didn't say anything about Iroquois warfare, so they borrowed from their imagination ....

One_Brow · October 15, 2002, 16:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
Shouldn't the unique unit, civilisation leader and golden age stick together? Well, in some cases they do, in some cases they don't.

Germans:
Leader - OK, Bismark united the city-states: so far, so good. But wouldn't Adolf the Führer match the UU and GA better, despite the lack of political correctness to this. I know the game would be sold less in Israel and US if Hitler was the German leader, but the Romans did not treat the Jews much better, did they? The destruction of Jerusalem 70 AD stands as one of the worst happenings in Jewish history, and still you never hear any complaints about the Golden Age of Romans in CIV3.
UU- The German tanks really sucked (technically) in the early stages of WW2. However, the new tactics took the Brits and French by storm and Germany ruled the battlefield. In the later stages of WW2, the Germans beat the allies in the tank war by 10-1, but lacked the fuel and production capacity to win in the long term. Panzers rule! But a unique unit to match the current leader Bismarck would perhaps be some kind of infantry. May I suggest the Machine Gunner, with ADM 6-12-1 to reflect the German tactics of WW1? Should work well with plenty of artillery!
Golden Age - The golden age of Germany was really the late 1930's, before the war started, but that would not sell any games in some contries (as discussed above). But even long before that, Germany was dominating the scientific world, much with the help of jews like Einstein. The choice of GA is as good as any.

I really hate it when people abuse history like this.

The late 1930s economy of Germany was built on disenfranchisement and deficit spending. It was no more a golden age than you can imitate a Golden Age by choosing to mobilize and setting your science at 100%.

The real golden age of Germany was during and just after the unification. Prussia developed a dominant military, in part because it chose breech-loading rifles over muzzle-loaders as a basis for its army in the mid-19th century. The Prussian/German economy of Bismarck stayed strong for some 40 years.

Earlier, Frederick the Great and a couple of minor countries held off all the other Great Powers of Europe in the Seven Years War. That could be a candidate for a Golden Age, militarily.

If you really want to use a UU to match the Golden Age, I'd say a rifleman with an attack of 6.

Chemical Ollie · October 15, 2002, 17:26

Quote:

Originally posted by One_Brow

I really hate it when people abuse history like this.

The late 1930s economy of Germany was built on disenfranchisement and deficit spending. It was no more a golden age than you can imitate a Golden Age by choosing to mobilize and setting your science at 100%.

The real golden age of Germany was during and just after the unification. Prussia developed a dominant military, in part because it chose breech-loading rifles over muzzle-loaders as a basis for its army in the mid-19th century. The Prussian/German economy of Bismarck stayed strong for some 40 years.

Earlier, Frederick the Great and a couple of minor countries held off all the other Great Powers of Europe in the Seven Years War. That could be a candidate for a Golden Age, militarily.

If you really want to use a UU to match the Golden Age, I'd say a rifleman with an attack of 6.

You are probably right.

molly bloom · October 15, 2002, 23:25

I cannot see how Germany's Golden Age leader can be someone whose policies caused the exile or death of a greater part of Germany's cultural leaders, scientists, and the destruction of Germany's world ranking architectural landmarks.

Germany's Golden Age (thus far) would be better located in the mid-to-late 19th Century- philosophy, philology, linguitics, archaeology, painting, literature, music, military thought- they're all flourishing, along with the economy and the integration rather than the exclusion of German Jews from society. It would be rare for any society to have the conjunction of great leader, cultural golden age and significant military unit all at the same time.

N. Machiavelli · October 16, 2002, 13:29

Germany's Golden Age was *not* the 1930's. While the policies of Hitler and the Nazi party brought a false-relief to the Depression, Germany's true GA thus far would be, as MB said, in the late 1800's. Militarily, this can be seen by Unification as well as the Franco-Prussian war. I'd have to also agree that while the Panzer is famous, it was the German infantry that pulled it's victories in all 3 wars. Conseuqently, I'll agree that the German UU would be most ideal as an increased-attack rifleman (perhaps infantry). This way, the UU, GA, and leader match well.

The Americans, however, are a little different. While I'd personally say that the American peak 'Golden Age' can be best represented in the 1940's - early 1960's (militarily that is, I'd start their cultural GA earlier ~1900-ish), their first 'boom' occured economically, socially, and militarily in the days of and shortly after the American Civil War. Most may argue that, but at the time of 1863, the US military was the best equipped, fed, and supplied than any other in the world. Their railroads constructed both during and after the war accounted for well over half of all RR on the planet. Social reforms were created during and in the aftermath of the war. Moreso, it impacted the United States' sense of national self I dare say more than the earlier GA I mentioned. Before the Civil War, the US referred to itself primarily as a collection of near-autonomous States. The development of a unified national self was brought at the end. Before the war, you refer to the US as "the United States *are*", after it would be "the United States *is*", which is what this era affected the nation personally; it made it an *is*. While this may not seem like much, it meant a great deal in the development of the nation's identity in the future. As such, it may be somewhat more appropriate to center this era as the American GA, Leader, and UU focus. The F-15, while a symbol of the modern American penchant for airpower, is inappropriate for this purpose. So I would say that the American UU would be a Rifleman with and extra defense point to represent the American infantry tactical development at the time. Trench warfare was patented in the late stages on the Civil war, as early repeating rifles did battle with the mass trench system employed by the southern forces outside of Richmond, etc.

Beren · November 14, 2002, 10:43

India:
Leader: Don't go for Ghandi, bring in a Gupta leader.
UU: perfect.
GA: perfect.

Lord Merciless · November 15, 2002, 01:43

Egyptian Leader: Cleo was the worst possible choice. First, she was Greek, not Egyptian(and certainly not black). Second, Ancient Egypt at her time was "game over". Third, she was the equivalent to Emperess Dowager Cixi of China(If you know Chinese history, you will know the story).
Ramses II is so much better.

Egyptian UU and GA are however well done.

Beren · November 15, 2002, 04:35

Romans: UU and GA are good, but:
Leader: Caesar was a cissy, he got killed, he couldn't maintain power. The only reason he became such a legend is because Octavian made him one, proclaming Caesar as a title. (English and French use the word emperor, derived from Imperator (another title the emperor had) and Germans and Dutch use the word kaiser, derived from Caesar.) My personal opinion is that the Roman empire should have Octavian as a choiche. Maybe it will help me not to think 'Oh, there's that cissy again.' when the Romans come and talk to me.

SIV · December 2, 2002, 14:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
Germans:
Leader - OK, Bismark united the city-states: so far, so good. But wouldn't Adolf the Führer match the UU and GA better, despite the lack of political correctness to this. I know the game would be sold less in Israel and US if Hitler was the German leader, but the Romans did not treat the Jews much better, did they? The destruction of Jerusalem 70 AD stands as one of the worst happenings in Jewish history, and still you never hear any complaints about the Golden Age of Romans in CIV3.
others.

That's becuase it wasn't Ceaser who destroyed Jerusalem. It was titus (and his father aspasyanus).
And I don't play the Romans (I hate seeing one of "thier" cities Jerusalem)
And id hitler entered the game. It would'nt be sold in Israel at all...

Centauri18 · January 23, 2003, 04:32

The Russian "czar" or "tsar" is aso derived from "Caesar."

Centauri18 · February 2, 2003, 18:21

And I can relate to hating the Romans building Jerusalem. It just doesn't look right. But then the game also has the Egyptians building Alexandria, even though it was built by Alexander the Great after he conquered Egypt. But then the English built a lot of the original American cities, and the Mexicans built a lot of them in the west. And the Dutch built New York (it was once New Amsterdam).
And what about the Iroquois cities? The game uses the ENglish translations of the names (but then this game is catered to English-speakers.
And as for UUs, I am partial to either a modification of the Modern Armor for the Americans (based on the M-1) or possibly a version of the Spitfire fighter for the English. Or maybe an Eagle Warrior for the Aztecs to replace the Jaguar Warrior, which becomes obsolete way too quickly.

Yanghead · February 3, 2003, 05:26

Personally I think the Firaxis team watches too many cowboy and indian movies. The native american tribes were not always so damn warlike. The french who settled near the great lakes had excellent relations with the native tribes. I terms of civ the Iroquois should be a goody hut. You want to talk about "civilizations" or empires of the new world look at the Haida or other west coast tribes. You ever seen a totem pole? That is called a cultural development, provided by the west coast nations. All the average person knows about plains indians comes from John Wayne movies or boy scout manuals!! The image of mounted souix warriors attacking the caravan of wagons comes from the age of steam. European settlers were building railroads all across new england at this time UU leader and golden age DO NOT coincide at all.

Centauri18 · February 3, 2003, 06:27

The iroquois never struck me as warlike in the game.
And I know a bit about the Native American tribes, and now Hollywood made them seem so much worse than they were.
Hell, I'm half-Inuit myself.
I know that the Plains Natives fought mostly defensive battles, because Andrew Jackson and other xenophobic American leaders forced them to leave their ancestral lands.
But hey, there's nothing we can do about the past. We can try to alter people's perceptions of Native Americans.
And for the record, Hollywood has gotten better about its depictions of Native Americans. In one movie I saw, Geronimo was depicted as a hero instead of a villan, as he has been historically portrayed by Hollywood.
Maybe someday all the old stereotypes will be gone.
And as for the game, hey, the Iroquois were an important group if tribes. They formed North America's first real democracy, after all. They made peace with the first settlers, until they were overrun.
Portraying all Native Americans as savages was most likely an attempt at justification for wiping them out.
That's my theory, anyway.

Yanghead · February 3, 2003, 09:02

Centari18

I agree with you, they did certainly portray(sp?) native americans in a bad light in Hollywood. The point I was trying to make is that the Iriquois were not plains indians, and did not use mounted warriors significantly in warfare. The UU is inaproriate. That and there should be another civ for north america, esp. for earth maps. I mean really you have Rome, Greece, France, Germany, Spain, Celts, Scandinavians all within 6-8 tiles of each other.

While the AI does not use the Iriquois in a very warlike fashion, they are one of the easies to use for ancient era conquest.