What traits should China have?

[johncmcleod]

The China that deserves to be in the game is ncient China. But the China they have in the game is modern China, whose leader is Mao, who are industrious and have a big military. But modern China doesn't deserve to be in the game, they're not powerful or influential to be in civ. But ancient China definitely is. They would be scientific and maybe religious. The problem with this is it seems there are too many religious civs. What do you think China's traits should be?

[Sheik]

But modern China doesn't deserve to be in the game, they're not powerful or influential to be in civ

you're kidding right? They have a growing economy and the fact that they are communist still makes people uneasy. They are also the most populous country on Earth. More people are Chinese then anything else.

However, as for ancient china Scientific would be a must.

[vmxa1]

The name should have been some other one, not Mao. However the name is not all that important.
Anyway reality is not part of the game. Any resemblance to reality is coincidental.
If you try to pick them apart it could go on forever.
They needed some civs and they came up with some. What difference does it make which ones and how they are structured?

[Vince278]

Could replace Mao with their first Emperor.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by vmxa1
The name should have been some other one, not Mao. However the name is not all that important.
Anyway reality is not part of the game. Any resemblance to reality is coincidental.
If you try to pick them apart it could go on forever.
They needed some civs and they came up with some. What difference does it make which ones and how they are structured?

[PLATO]

Ancient China was so many different things that it would be hard to pick just two. They were industrious, religious, militaristic, scientific and even expansionist at points. The traits selected are as good as any IMHO.

[Lord_Davinator]

I believe the indians are now on top of the fertility tree... and have a higher population than china... could replace mao but with who? confusious?

[PeaSoup]

Originally posted by Lord_Davinator
I believe the indians are now on top of the fertility tree... and have a higher population than china... could replace mao but with who? confusious?

close but not yet

http://www.worldwatch.org/alerts/990813.html

Each year India is adding 18 million people, roughly another Australia. By 2050, U.N. demographers project that it will have added another 530 million people for a total of more than 1.5 billion. If India continues on the demographic path as projected, it will overtake China by 2045, becoming the world's most populous country. Well before hitting the one billion mark, the demands of India's population were outrunning its natural resource base. This can be seen in its shrinking forests, deteriorating rangelands, and falling water tables. For Americans to understand the pressure of population on resources in India, it would be necessary to squeeze the entire U.S. population east of the Mississippi River and then multiply it by four.

[The Mad Monk]

For Americans to understand the pressure of population on resources in India, it would be necessary to squeeze the entire U.S. population east of the Mississippi River and then multiply it by four.

It's a good thing we didn't stop at the Mississippi, then.

[History Guy]

I change him to Qin Shihuangdi whenever I play China.

[Spiffor]

I think China should definitely be agricultural. Chinese efficient farming aalways sustained a very, very large population, and the relationship to food seems very important in the Chinese culture (from my limited perpective).

I'd have no problems seeing China as industrious as a second trait, but I think the agricultural-industrious combo would fit the Egyptians better. That's why I think the Chinese should end up being agricultural-scientific.

Militaristic definitely doesn't match the Chinese (as well as their current UU). It was bundled with China for two bad reasons :
- the fact that the Mongols weren't first included in the game (China included Mongolia, and its agressive traits)
- the fact there is a growing perception in the western public of today's China as a somewhat aggressive future rival.

I hope they'll drop the militaristic trait for China, and give the Rider UU to the Mongols. The Chinese deserve something like the Chu-ko-nu, or some cheap industrial infantry.

[PLATO]

Spiffor, I disagree that China is not historically militaristic. Just because their militarism was not turned outward does not change the fact that they had a militaristic culture. For most of its history China was ruled by various warloards that fought endlessly for domination of one another. Strong emperors kept them under control and demanded loyalty, whereas weak ones would let the situation dissolve in to total war. Mao was the first one to completely change this cycle and he did it in a very militaristic (i.e. bloody) way. Heavy militarism is a large part of China.

Now that being said, is that one of the big Chinese contributions to the world? Probably not. I think that agricultural-industrious or agricultural-scientific are the best choices, but not for the reasons you outlined. It is rather for their contribution to world culture and for that their militarism did nothing.

[Insigna]

China should definitely be scientific especialy for Ancient China which was comparitvly more important in the world than modern China.

[Arrian]

I always thought that China should have been scientific (with the new traits, agricultural/scientific sounds good). But in the original release, the Mongols were not in the game, and Firaxis said they kinda merged the Mongols into the Chinese - hence the militaristic trait and the Rider.

Now that the Mongols are in the game, I wouldn't be surprised if they switch up China's traits in Conquests. While they're at it, I still think Rome should be Ind/Mil (though I've come to like their present traits too).

-Arrian

[PLATO]

I definately agree that Rome should be Ind/Mil. It seems kind of strange that they were not from the beginning. After all, they were among the most prolific builders and by far the most militaristic of the late ancient cultures.

[Azeem]

China has the dubious honor of having some of the most violent and frequent civil wars in world history, so "Militaristic" does make sense. China did become expansionist at various points in their history, that did heavily influence the Far East. The Chinese invasions of Korea and Vietnam caused aspects Chinese culture to further spread into these regions. China held Vietnam at one time, causing the Vietnamese people to be heavily influenced by Imperial China.

The question of what China's traits should be is a bit hard to answer since China had been all of the traits in Civ3 at one point or another. Presently, the "Militaristic" and "Industrious" trait does make sense, but so does "Commerical" and "Industrious", as China has had a history of prosperous trade and economic growth from the Han Dynasty era to even recent times.

The choice for Mao Zedong as the leader for the Chinese is a bit odd. It certainly should have been Qin Shihuangdi of the Qin Dynasty or Liu Bang of the Han Dynasty.

And by the way, China isn't a "communist" state. Never was, probably never will be. It's a "Maoist" state. It's also probably the most capitalist country in the world.

[Captain THC]

Agrilcultural and Militaristic.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by johncmcleod
The China that deserves to be in the game is ncient China. But the China they have in the game is modern China, whose leader is Mao, who are industrious and have a big military. But modern China doesn't deserve to be in the game, they're not powerful or influential to be in civ. But ancient China definitely is. They would be scientific and maybe religious. The problem with this is it seems there are too many religious civs. What do you think China's traits should be?

So? The Germany of Bismark didn't have Panzers, the US of Abraham Lincoln didn't have F-15s either and I don't see any complaining...

The problem with millenial civilization is that it is hard and unfair to simply judge them for one period in their history. Thus we have traits which might seem more accord to a certain period, but UU's from another, etc.

But seriously, what are your arguments to say China wasn't industrial in it's ancient history? Or that it wasn't militarisitic? Ever heard of SunTzu? China has been at war probably more than any other civ since BC. I honestly think they deserve the traits they have.

And Mao, despite certain western propaganda, was an brilliant man, both as a polititian as well as a strategist and is by far the most important chinese leader of the last couple hundred years.

[vmxa1]

I don't think the west consider Mao other than what you said. They just think he was evil as well. He killed more Chinese than all the previous chinese leaders combined. Most would think that is evil.

[Master Zen]

I doubt most westerners have ever read anything Mao has ever written or can even differentiate Maoism from Marxism or Marxism-Leninism... it ain't the same despite most people just see it as "red".

[statusperfect]

Civ 3 is a fantasy game, not a simulation. This thread is braindead. A strong cause could be made for all traits in Chinas case, even seafaring.

[Tiberius]

China was definitely industrious throughout its history. I won't even mention the Great Wall, but did you hear of the Grand Canal or of the Forbidden City?
The Grand Canal of China is the world oldest (started in 486 B.C.!!!) and longest (1,795 Km) canal.

It is another question that for gamebalance purposes Firaxis could change this, just like they did with the romans who should be industrious, no doubt about it.

As second trait for China I'd also choose scientific.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by statusperfect
Civ 3 is a fantasy game, not a simulation. This thread is braindead. A strong cause could be made for all traits in Chinas case, even seafaring.

I don't agree. Civ is both. Fantasy as well as simulation. You cannot deny its link with history and reality. Otherwise we would just play with imaginary civs, orcs, elves and whatnot.

Civ is more likely a what-if type of history simulation, based on real civlizations, inventions and human achievements. We accept who and what the romans and the huns were but we like to play with the idea: what would have happened with Europe's history if the huns had defeated the romans at Chalons? Would France still be what it is today? This is both history and fantasy.

From this PoV it is important to know the main characteristics/talents of ancient civs.

[neomax]

First, it is insulting that the game uses Mao as Chinese leader. Why aren't Hitler and Stalin selected as German and Russian leader respectively?
Second, it is ok that China is agricultural. But China did not always have a huge population as it does today. Only in the 17th and 18th century under Emperor Qianlong's rulership did China have a enormous population boom.

[Sheik]

I wouldn't mind having an ancient China that is commercial and scientific. They have made many contributions to science, their ideas were implemented in Europe to create some very powerful weapons, gunpowder is one example. China's ideas were also exported with trade, hence the Commercial trait.

Militaristic is not the best choice IMHO.

[GePap]

What I had heard was, besides that the Mongols went into the Chinese, that since the Great Wall was militaristic and industrious, and it was a wish that making the Great Wall gave the Chinese a GA, the chinese were gievn these stats.

I always switch three civ, the Romans, Persians, and Chinese: I give China Persia's traits, Rome China's, and Persia Rome's so it ends:

China: Scientific, Industrious
Rome: Militaristic, Industrious
Persia: Commercial, Militaristic

I think this fits all three much better.

As for Mao, he is as good an Emperor as any of them. Yes, millions died during his reign, but so did millions in other reigns, when China had far less people as well.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by neomax
First, it is insulting that the game uses Mao as Chinese leader. Why aren't Hitler and Stalin selected as German and Russian leader respectively?
Second, it is ok that China is agricultural. But China did not always have a huge population as it does today. Only in the 17th and 18th century under Emperor Qianlong's rulership did China have a enormous population boom.

1) Stalin was included with no qualms whatsoever in Civ 1

2) Again, it is obvious you haven't truly realized how important Mao was to Chinese history. I suggest you read a little more about him before tagging him as a simple mass murderer.

3) China obviously didn't have the population it had today, yet compared to the rest of the world, China has had a huge population, probably larger than any other single country or empire since much much much earlier than the 17th century.

[statusperfect]

Originally posted by Tiberius
I don't agree. Civ is both. Fantasy as well as simulation. You cannot deny its link with history and reality. Otherwise we would just play with imaginary civs, orcs, elves and whatnot.

Civ is more likely a what-if type of history simulation, based on real civlizations, inventions and human achievements. We accept who and what the romans and the huns were but we like to play with the idea: what would have happened with Europe's history if the huns had defeated the romans at Chalons? Would France still be what it is today? This is both history and fantasy.

From this PoV it is important to know the main characteristics/talents of ancient civs.

The link with reality is cosmetica put over the game mechanics. If you scratch the surface you will find very few similarities with reality.

You could say it is a fantasy game covered with RL graphics.

[Arrian]

I always switch three civ, the Romans, Persians, and Chinese: I give China Persia's traits, Rome China's, and Persia Rome's so it ends:

China: Scientific, Industrious
Rome: Militaristic, Industrious
Persia: Commercial, Militaristic

Heh, that does kinda work. Though if I was going to mess around with things like that, I would make the "immortal" the bowman (immortals were apparently lightly armed archer types, not badass swordsmen). Dunno what to do with China's UU, or Babylon's for that matter.

See, once you start screwing around trying to make things "right" it never ends. And as has been pointed out, the longer a civilization is around, the more traits you can argue for. China is a great example of that. You could argue for everything (except for seafaring, despite their period of sea exploration, it's pretty clear they're not big into sailing the seven seas, so to speak).

-Arrian

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Master Zen
2) Again, it is obvious you haven't truly realized how important Mao was to Chinese history. I suggest you read a little more about him before tagging him as a simple mass murderer.

Well, the Great Leap Forward was more like a great leap backwards. The Cultural Revolution didn't do much for China's culture either. The book The Sayings of Chairman Mao was almost as twisted as Mein Kampf. Important and influential to Chinese history? Yes, but someone like Sun-Yat-Sen did more for his country whereas Mao did more to his country. He is more than just "simple".