 |
|
tniem
|
|
Hope College
Apr 2000
time: 00:15
|
|
So those that know India history better than I, is religious commercial a proper placement?
Were the traders? I just don't know enough to say much but would like to hear the rationale.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jsw363
|
|
I was wondering about this myself. I don't know that much about Indian history, but I had never considered them a particularly commercial civ.
It's also interesting that they are religious considering that they are very proud of the fact that they're a secular state.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Akron
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jsw363
It's also interesting that they are religious considering that they are very proud of the fact that they're a secular state. |
Actually, it is quite fitting that they are religious. Two of the world's biggest religions, Hinduism and Buddhism, originated in India.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Don K Hotay
|
|
Boston
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
I am not so much satisfied with the specials given to India in CIV3. I suppose it makes a little sense to give it the war elephant, considering that India really never had any other noteworthy military aspect in its ancient history (the war elephant was used in a very very limited way, and I guess it became world renowned when hannibal used them against the Romans). In modern times, however, it is notable to mention the Ghurka regiment created by Great Britain, as a truly lethal special elite force (and what have you) to be reckoned with. I've just heard stories, about their tenacity, I really don't know all that much about them. Also about this inherent ability to produce war elephants, does this mean an elephant is not a resource comparable to a horse? Is it something that just sort of naturally occures wherever indians are placed on a CIV3 map...makes no sense!
I guess what I'm trying to get to is that not all civs can be assigned a civ specific unit in a credible way, and I just don't think its a good fit to the game unless it is more expansive. That is, why have just one civ specific unit? In most cases, it will not be available until a certain time, and it is bound to eventually become obsolete. It is a sketchy feature.
And about the attributes of a civ. Do they remain constant for real civilizations? I guess for India, Religion is actually a very good fit for it because indeed Indians are very religious peoples, perhaps the most religious and unfanatical practictioners of it on the earth. But then I see Japan with militaristic, which makes no sense in this modern age (they have almost no military today) or in the preindustrial age. And of course there are other discrepencies. Obviously, all 16 civilisations offered in CIV3 have gone through major changes throughout history, and it just doesn't seem plausible to have two rather random attributes that will define them for the whole game. Its a good thing that this feature can be turned off.
Has nobody else noticed this!
Quixote
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Don K Hotay
|
|
Boston
Aug 2001
time: 00:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by jdd2007
......today japan is not military oriented, but still has the second biggest 'defense' budget after usa |
I did not know that! I find it hard to believe and will checkup on that after posting this.
I guess I am arguing their militarism from a different perspective. Throughout their history, they have been quite isolationist, and have generally been on the recieving end of Chinese influence. I don't recall Japan ever staging military campaings in Asia (outside of Japan), and thats what I meant when I disagreed with their militaristic attribute. No doubt, there feudal society with samurais and what not were quite , but it wasn't until after they industrialized that the went imperial and launched campaigns in Asia and the Asia Pacific. That stage of their history I consider to be blatant evidence of militirism, as in Germany in the early 20th, or France under Napolean, or the Mongols.
What I was really trying to point out is that these civs change over time time.
Quixote
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jsw363
|
|
Ironic that they ignore the most famous battle that elephants feature in, no? Hannibal would be pissed...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Somebody please buy Firaxis a book that contains pictures of famous leader through history! That is not Ghandi. Lincoln looks like Gen. Thade for christsakes! Alexander is having a really bad hair day. Animated leader may be nice or whatever (to me they just look like a pain in the ass complication for scenario makers), but maybe its time to reconsider photos. Looks like another mod job . . .
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kestrel
|
|
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Jul 1999
time: 05:15
|
|
quote:
In many ways, Elephants were the tanks of the ancient era: massive, hard to kill, (????) and incredibly dangerous |
"The elephant's tactical importance apparently stemmed in large part from its willingness to charge both men and horses and from the panic that it inspired in horses. Although generally impractical as mounts due to their slow speed, (certainly not as fast as horses), the mere mental impact of seeing such massive beasts included in the advancing enemy ranks could provide an attacker with the element of surprise. "
Unfortunately they also proved to be very susceptible to ham-stringing by ground forces and so did not long remain as an effective weapon on the battlefield.
I would question a defense rating of "3" for War elephants.
(compare with Civ II - 4/1/2 ).
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
14-09-2001 22:55
|