Civ3, major disappointment. It's "ordinary".

[Count Brass]

First, let me state my credentials.

I played Civ when it first came out. I bought my first PC solely so I could play it (previously I had to borrow a work laptop!) It's the only game ever to keep me up all night.

Then Civ2 came out, I loved it so much I wrote a pretty popular faq for it.

And when I heard Civ3 was on it's way the drooling began.

But what a disappointment. Same units. Same wonders. Hmm.

Let's see, so what's new. National borders ? Nope those came in AC. The new diplomacy ? Nope, again, they came in AC.

So what does that leave ?

= Strategic resources
= National special units

One a disaster and the other not really worth the effort and difficult to justify.

So, the disaster first then. Strategic resources, sounds kind of cool doesn't it. After all, access to oil was a big deal in WW2. Great, it reproduces that. Well yes, it kind of works for the later resources - but Iron ? IRON ?!? Give me a break, one of the most common elements in the world. Yeah right. Even the Aztecs, once they knew about the stuff quickly found their own deposits.

So for an historical point of view, it can't be justified. How about from a gameplay point of view - perhaps it makes it more fun. Err no. What fun is it, to be on a continent with one other civilisation and the only iron deposit is in their half. So you don't have access to swordsmen - but you have to beat them in a war of conquest in order to even the odds. Yeah right, you might as well quit now and restart. The idea of early "strategic resources" was very badly thought through.

Ok so that's the disaster out of the way. What about the waste of time - national special units. Again lets see if we can historically justify them. Is there really something about the Greeks that makes them inherently develop Hoplites ? Is there something in the English genes that leads them to develop superior wooden warships, or in the Americans that mean only they can develop the F-15. Of course there isn't, in each case it's a product of the society, world position and technology of those people/nations at that time. And those are precisely the things that we are going to vary by playing the game. Maybe my English nation won't start on an Island (very likely in a random map) so why is my penchant any greater than anyone elses to be great sailors ? So from an historical perspective there's little justification. Then perhaps it makes the game more fun ? Well no, frankly these special units are of such limited use that they might as well not be there.

Anyway, rant over. . Just wish it had taken me less than 10 days to realise that Civ3 is just "ordinary", otherwise it would have been taken back to EB.

[Venger]

I guess I too find Civ3 more evolutionary than revolutionary, the way I found Civ2 vs. Civ1. It does sort of feel like Civ2.5.

Alas, once these bugs are fixed and the gameplay patched and tweaked, that will be good enough for me. A nice step forward, but not the step I expected. Civ4 baby!

Venger

[Count Brass]

Civ4 !

By the time that comes out my children's children will have children. And I don't even have children yet ;-)

[mtgillespie]

I'm enjoying civ III, but i have to say i agree about the UU's. I thought the concept was flawed from the start. the reasons that most of them developed was geographical. England/Britain is an island, so they have a good navy. Would Rome have had legions if they couldn't get iron? Of course not. I felt at the beginning, the only way it could work properly would be to have several better units allocated at the start of the game, one to each civ, not nation specific but resource or geograpgy specific. So if you're close to oil, you might get the equivalent of the panzer, near horses you'll get a rider or cossack etc. That could also be quite fun when you not only discover a resource with a new tech, but also get the nice surprise that you've got an even better unit than you hoped for!

[Robert Plomp]

Count Brass,
either you didn't play the game or you don't know the differences.

- culture
- diplomacy mixed with trade
- luxerious system
- settler system (anti ICS)
- workers
- air combat
- roads mixed with trade
- great leaders
- minor wonders
- capturing workers / settlers
- bombarding
- faster units can leave combat
- colonies
- airports harbors mixed with trade

civ3 changed more to civ2 then civ2 did to civ3.
And if you don't know how to use strategic resources, that still doesn't mean the system sucks. I 'm very capable to use it. It's not a game problem, it's a personal problem.

Unique units are nice, no more no less. You can turn it off if you dislike it.

You're allowed to have your own opinion,
but plz........... make it a good one.
the 'only 2 things are new' thingy just makes no sence at all.

[Boracks]

Uhm, I don't think I can apply the word ordinary, unless you mean ordinary CIV game. And the CIV games are above the ordinary TBS games with, IMHO, the MOO series being their only competition.

Unpolished is the word I've used (and someone then went on to give a better explanation of it in the thread I first used it in) and still feel applies.

Strategic resources?
Given their importance in the game, there should be an option to vary their abundance. In another thread, someone proposed an option of 1.5 times (score penalty), normal and 0.75 (score bonus).

But most like the concept. The warriors like having something to fight for (and deny the enemy) and the builders like having another item to use in trade. It just needs some polish.

Unique Units?
I must admit that I generally ignore them. They don't really add much and, given that they are NOT in the upgrade line, they are not worth it. Why would the French build musketeers when they can't upgrade to riflemen?


I think having unique units available to civs that either discover a tech first or build a major wonder would be more to the point. And it would give some use to some of the 'filler' techs that currently do nothing.

Yes, its an ordinary CIV game. Which means I'm still losing sleep over it.

[rid102]

It's not a game problem, it's a personal problem.

But why add in a feature which alienates a chunk of your fanbase?

To me, resources seem akin to CTP's Public Works. i.e. it's very much a personal thing. Many people think it's the best thing since sliced bread, others don't. It's swings and roundabouts.

Saying to someone, "Oh it's you. I can use them fine." is churlish.

You can use the same argument with PW - that doesn't make it good or bad.

You're allowed to have your own opinion, but plz........... make it a good one.

That's just a silly statement. So, according to you, no-one's allowed to make any criticisms of Civ3? No-one's allowed to voice their opinion unless it's positive? Gimme a break.

I'm glad you don't mod here, at least.

[Moraelin]

Amen. Civ 3 looks to me like milking a franchise, not like a new game. (Like we get sports games published again every single year, only with the player names changed.) It barely has enough original content to be an expansion pack to Alpha Centauri.

The changes are totally minor. Like that now rivers are between two squares, instead of through the middle of one. Whoppee. Big freakin' deal. I wouldn't even have noticed, if I hadn't read about that somewhere.

And even in an Earth setting, Call To Power and Call To Power 2 did all that, and did it better. Yes, they didn't have Sid Meier's name on the box, but you can buy CTP2 for like 10 bucks nevertheless. Either way, just pointing out that it's all been done before.

Here's an idea for Firaxis. Instead of having pages after pages dedicated to enlightening us about how totally great a designer Sid Meier is, PROVE IT. Make him actually design a NEW game, not just milk his old franchise with verbatim remakes. Otherwise my conclusion is that he WAS a great designer. Past tense.

And no, I didn't want Civ made into an RTS or any other "modern" thing. But there was so much room for improvement. There was plenty of room for new stuff, while preserving the game's basic turn based idea.

E.g., off the top of my head: Why not give me an actual government? Not "advisors". Actual dukes, high priests, or members of the cabinet, depending on your era or government. People you can give some higher level directives on a national scale, and let them worry about the details. Like "ok, guys, we have enough army as it is, now we need lots of culture, followed by workers as a second priority.". Or "Ok, so we're at war, but stop insisting on producing longbowmen already. Make me some of that new infantry." Basically let me set some priorities, then have those guys follow them to the best of their ability. (Of course, I could still override in some cities, if I want to micro-manage some stuff.)

E.g., if they really wanted to improve trade, why not let me trade manufactured or agricultural goods? Not just some abstract "resources" that appear randomly on the map. Sort of like nowadays Japan. They have to import most of their raw materials, but they more than make up for it by exporting manufactured stuff. Or why not let me manufacture luxuries, instead of just bringing existing ones to the cities? A lot of todays' luxury stuff doesn't grow on trees and hills, but is actually manufactured.

E.g., Alpha Centauri had configurable units. Why not do the same in Civ 3? In fact, see above. Why not give me an overhauled version, that allows for some trade, too? Like I could have one or more cities making swords, others making shields, and others making chain armour, and voila, I could make swordsmen dressed in chain armour. If I can't afford to make chain armour for everyone, I'd try leather instead. If I also have horses, I could make them horsemen instead. And/or I could export the surplus of weapons or armours to my neighbours, or import the stuff that I can't make.

[Wrong_shui]

civ4!

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Moraelin
The changes are totally minor.

The changes that the CTP/CTP-2 team did to their game, was totally major, compared to Civ-2.

What was the results of that? Well, CTP got VERY mixed receptions (mostly bad), but sold anyway because of Civ-2 upgrade expectations. Then came CTP-2 with bad review-scores, and totally catastophic sale-figures. So much for the "change everything for the sake of changing everything" approach.

[Raleigh]

I feel like they updated civ2 nicely but definitely could have added better touches here and there (wonder movies, slightly better interface like civlopedia accessible in building que, etc.) and I think they totally screwed the combat system. In any event, I'm pretty happy with everything ESPECIALLY the strategic resources system. Their lack of abundance is the 1 thing that really keeps the game hopping!

[yin26]

When people start chanting for Civ4 just a few short weeks after Civ3 is released, you know what you have on your hands.

[Dis]

those credentials don't check out. you aren't allowed to post your opinion here . Just kidding. But credentials aren't really necessary. Just post your opinion here, and I'm sure some vets will say you are a moron .

[cassembler]

I happen to like Civ3.
I'm sorry for those that don't.

Flame away. I won't be comming back to this thread.

[cassembler]

Oh yeah, I have played, more than several hundred hour each, Civ1, 2, SMAC, and others... Civ3 is a good game, FLAWED, YES, but once the editor is up and running...

[Simpleton]

Originally posted by yin26
When people start chanting for Civ4 just a few short weeks after Civ3 is released, you know what you have on your hands.

Keep chanting. With the whiney brats at this board they'd be lucky to get an expansion pack! This place is a disgrace. At least 70% of the threads are B!tch threads. Not constructive threads just whine, whine, whine. All these people asking for this and that but not one saying how it could be implimented or balanced. It's pretty easy to complain but it's a lot harder to step up to the plate and offer constructive criticism. What I mean by that is criticism that says exactly how you would solve the problem. Not just I hate UU. The turns are too long when I play with 16 civs. There is no MP.
1) UU: What would you do then? Not include them. Then people will ***** about Civ3 being Civ 2.5. What else?
2) The turns are too long with 16 civs: Well what are you going to do about that? Optimize the code? How? Tell me? You could say Firaxis could just have made it for 16 Civs out of the box. But then what? Then the requirements for the game would be a lot higher and you've just cut out a large part of the buying public. How are you going to address that and still make a profit?
3) MP: How would you program MP? What exactly would you do to avoid complaints from previous MP Civ games? Comon?

Think about it. I'm sure Firaxis wanted to make a great game. I think they did. BUT it's a lot harder than it looks to impliment/program all these "great" and "revolutionary" ideas into a game and make it work.

[Robert Plomp]

That's just a silly statement. So, according to you, no-one's allowed to make any criticisms of Civ3? No-one's allowed to voice their opinion unless it's positive? Gimme a break.

you can't read ?????
A silly opinion is something like when I say that a car is ugly because it's red, WHILE THE CAR IS BLUE.

so is saying that civ3 is ordinary because there are only 2 new things, while there are about 10 new things.

I didn't say anything about that criticism must be positive.
You make things up my friend and you read stuff in my message that I didn't put into it.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by CyberShy


you can't read ?????
A silly opinion is something like when I say that a car is ugly because it's red, WHILE THE CAR IS BLUE.

so is saying that civ3 is ordinary because there are only 2 new things, while there are about 10 new things.

I didn't say anything about that criticism must be positive.
You make things up my friend and you read stuff in my message that I didn't put into it.

it is hard to decide whether to continue arguing with the whining crowd or to let them go. somehow i always think that a poor soul might browse this boards and be convinced that civ3 is the worst game since outpost.

another part of the crowd that absolutely enrages me are attention seekers. those who three times declared solemnly that the game is broken, that they returned it to the shop, that the combat sucks, that they deinstalled it, only to come back with a couple of more 'wise' whines about this and that. jeff morris was actually right. these communities thrive on discontent.

[Akka]

Count Brass,
either you didn't play the game or you don't know the differences.

- culture

Yes.

- diplomacy mixed with trade

That's a side-effect of the introduction of ressources, and in fact the diplomacy system is a step backward compared to AC one.

- luxerious system

Luxuries are another kind of ressource.

- settler system (anti ICS)
- workers

That comes straight from AC (colony and terraforming units).

- air combat
- roads mixed with trade

Right.

- great leaders

You could add "armies" in the sense that armies in Civ3 are quite different than CTP ones. But let's serious, both leaders and armies are gadgets that add nothing to the game. Could as well get rid of them.

- minor wonders

Yes. Good idea.

- capturing workers / settlers

It's from CTP (remember slavers ?).

- bombarding
- faster units can leave combat

Both from AC, and bombarding from CTP too.

- colonies

Useless. Saving 1 pop just to create a city that don't grow nor generate culture border and that disappear as soon as it's inside another culture borders is useless. Rather build a junk city in order of having a firm grip on the ressource.

- airports harbors mixed with trade

That's the same thing than using road for trade. A great idea but don't quote it twice.

Unique units are nice, no more no less. You can turn it off if you dislike it.

1) UU: What would you do then? Not include them. Then people will ***** about Civ3 being Civ 2.5. What else?

UU are just crap. They COULD be good, but IF THEY WOULD HAVE MADE THEM UPGRADABLE TO AND FROM !!!
What's the point of having a UU if this unit is a BURDEN rather than a gift ???
French unit is the best example to see where the thing is just stupid : you can't upgrade your pikemen to musketeers, and can't upgrade your musketeers to riflemen. It means that the UU which is supposed to give an edge to the French force them to either rebuild entirely their defense twice, either to skip Musketeers and spend all the middle-age era with pikemen.
No need to say that as soon as I saw that, I came to the editor and make UU upgradable to and from. Stop the madness.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
UU are just crap. They COULD be good, but IF THEY WOULD HAVE MADE THEM UPGRADABLE TO AND FROM !!!
What's the point of having a UU if this unit is a BURDEN rather than a gift ???
French unit is the best example to see where the thing is just stupid : you can't upgrade your pikemen to musketeers, and can't upgrade your musketeers to riflemen. It means that the UU which is supposed to give an edge to the French force them to either rebuild entirely their defense twice, either to skip Musketeers and spend all the middle-age era with pikemen.
No need to say that as soon as I saw that, I came to the editor and make UU upgradable to and from. Stop the madness.

well, venger et alia constantly claim that the combat is broken. why not keep musketeers then...if pikeman can kill tanks (allegedly), then a musketeer could certainly knock out modern armor

just turn UU off in the setup screen. it is that easy actually,I find my UUs wasted in a first major war after i get them and i have only a handful left. so yes, it is a tradeoff, as it should be.

[Akka]

Originally posted by LaRusso
just turn UU off in the setup screen. it is that easy

AFAIK, you can't turn off the UU. You can turn off ALL the civ-specific stuff, but not the UU only. And I like the civ-special abilities.
But well, UU is supposed to give an edge, so I don't see why they could not be upgraded to and from. Just make sense.
So here is the editor.

[Barchan]

That is a bit of a problem with several of the UUs, isn't it? England would not have had such a fine navy if they were situated where Austria is. The Roman Legions would not have developed without large deposits of Iron handy. And, of course, the Iroquois didn't even have horses until Europeans brought them over, and even then they were not particularly fond of them (at least not to the extent of the Apache, for example).

Perhaps instead of UUs, or in addition to them, there should have been SUs, or Super Units. SUs could have been available to all Civs and have been dependent on the presence of a strategic resource being within a city's borders. For example, a city with Iron in it's borders could build Super Swordsmen with an attack of 4 vice 3. This would reflect the successful explotation of nearby abundant strategic resources.

Or whatever. But I agree, it seems pointless to give the Chinese a UU that arguably would never have developed without the presence of a large number of horses within their territory when their Civ doesn't even have access to any. Which happened to me once, btw. The English had the only horses on Pangea, and they were buried deep within their territory. I managed a trade with the English to get some, but war broke out between us before I could even build 3 Riders. I was overrun by English knights, with not a single English ship in sight. Oh, well....

[Vympel]

I bought CTP of course, like any civ fan (well maybe some of the fanatic purist wierdos didn't) and I quite liked it ... but I didn't thrash it like I thrahsed Civ I and II. It got deleted after a few months, don't know why.

I quite like the unique units; so what if it's not justified in a historical sense a lot of other stuff in Civ never has been justified (like one year to move a unit from one half of a continent to another with railroads). Personally I'd get very annoyed playing Civ II and seeing the goddamn Chinese with Phalanx units. It is infinitely more preferable, IMHO, to see the Hoplites with Greece and Greece alone, WHERE THEY BELONG.

I think unique units are also a great edge when its their time to shine; again; look at the Hoplite (I ALWAYS play Greece; always have, always will): you get the equivalent of the PIKEMAN from the start of the game ... you are defensively one up on everyone else for a LONG time.

UU's are actually one of the non-problems I have with Civ 3 ... but boy do I have problems with the game on a whole

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Simpleton


Keep chanting. With the whiney brats at this board they'd be lucky to get an expansion pack! This place is a disgrace. At least 70% of the threads are B!tch threads. Not constructive threads just whine, whine, whine.

And that doesn't, you know... make you wonder? If so many of us "whine" about this game, maybe, just maybe there's something wrong with it? Maybe it's not this place that's a disgrace, maybe the disgrace is that Firaxis didn't make a new game, but just made us pay for a re-release.

Yes, it has some "new" stuff, but guess what? It's insignifficant. It doesn't matter if it's 2 new things, or 10 new things, as long as half of them are _minor_ tweaks to what existed already in Alpha Centauri, and the other half are just broken. Gee, that's such an improvement. I'd have taken _one_ fundamental change that actually works, instead of 10 minor tweaks that you wouldn't even notice unless told about.

And yes, I actually HOPE that if some poor soul wanders on this board, they'll get the idea to keep their money instead of buying this crap. They can get Call To Power 2 instead. It should be like 10 bucks from the bargain bin by now. It has everything that Civ 3 has, and a lot of extra stuff that Civ 3 doesn't have. (E.g., an economic model that makes 10 times more sense than Civ 3's model. E.g., wonders and discoveries that actually make sense, not using the pyramids as a giant granary. E.g., units that have different upkeep and hit points, based on whether they're mobilized for war or kept in reserve. Etc, etc, etc.)

[eRAZOR]

Originally posted by Moraelin


And that doesn't, you know... make you wonder? If so many of us "whine" about this game, maybe, just maybe there's something wrong with it? Maybe it's not this place that's a disgrace, maybe the disgrace is that Firaxis didn't make a new game, but just made us pay for a re-release.

Yes, it has some "new" stuff, but guess what? It's insignifficant. It doesn't matter if it's 2 new things, or 10 new things, as long as half of them are _minor_ tweaks to what existed already in Alpha Centauri, and the other half are just broken. Gee, that's such an improvement. I'd have taken _one_ fundamental change that actually works, instead of 10 minor tweaks that you wouldn't even notice unless told about.

And yes, I actually HOPE that if some poor soul wanders on this board, they'll get the idea to keep their money instead of buying this crap. They can get Call To Power 2 instead. It should be like 10 bucks from the bargain bin by now. It has everything that Civ 3 has, and a lot of extra stuff that Civ 3 doesn't have. (E.g., an economic model that makes 10 times more sense than Civ 3's model. E.g., wonders and discoveries that actually make sense, not using the pyramids as a giant granary. E.g., units that have different upkeep and hit points, based on whether they're mobilized for war or kept in reserve. Etc, etc, etc.)

Amen

[Sarevok]

I think some of you are forgetting an important improvement: the AI. I have not been playing for long, but it definitely feels better than civ 2 or AC. When there is no MP, worthy artificial opponents are terribly important.

Just my 2 gold / turn.

[Moraelin]

Originally posted by Sarevok
I think some of you are forgetting an important improvement: the AI. I have not been playing for long, but it definitely feels better than civ 2 or AC. When there is no MP, worthy artificial opponents are terribly important.

Just my 2 gold / turn.

Well, dunno, the AI _really_ didn't impress me. The pathfinding does seem to be better, but otherwise... It feels like just a tweak to the building priorities. The AI still cheats like a pig, instead of actually using strategy.

Besides, on the very second game I played I've managed to produce the most screwed up world war imaginable, where everyone was fighting everyone, including their allies' allies. Like Russia is allies with England, England is allies with France, but France is fighting Russia. France is allies with the Iroquois, but the Iroquois are finghting England. And so on. And in the meantime, I seize half the continent and wipe out two of the warring civilizations. You'd figure that such an advanced AI would grasp the concept of alliance blocks.

[bahoo]

I'd like an example of one real ground breaking addition to the game that wasn't rehashed from AC

The big dissappointment is there really isn't any, it's CivII with some AC features and a few minor enchancements.

There was much room for some real ground breaking additions that would have made the game much more fun and new.

A few possible examples:

Governments - Is the only real difference between governments the tax rate? My democracy is the exact same as yours?

It would be cool if you could make policy decisions such as:

do your citizens have the right to bear arms

do you have socialized medicine

do you allow freedom of the press

should you deregulate utilities

should you legalize drugs

...all these decisions could have different effects on how your goverment operates and your populace reacts.

Other possible government additons:

let's face it, democracy in Civ isn't like real democracy, no democracy would up and go to war because it's leader decided it wanted to take some nice nearby cities

it would be awesome if the government had real officials in it, senators and such with "opposing views" who would need to be either bribed, elected out, or assasinated for you to get the majorities you needed to embark on stuff like war

Espionage - Currently the intelligence agency works exactly as it did before for the most part, and as far as gathering intelligence it's pretty poor, now the only intelligence they gather is unit locations and city garrisons.

It would be nice if my spies reported "intelligence" material such as:

nation X is particularly unhappy with us and looking for an excuse to go to war

nation A is on the brink of war with nation B, we could probably stir things up

the citizens of so and so are unhappy with their government, they may be a good target for occupation or propaganda or vice versa the citizens of our city X are on the verge of revolution

War - It's pretty much the same, the mechanics are a bit different, but you either capture an opposing city or raze it. Would be neat if we could:

liberate cities and instead of keeping or razing them install a new independant government

minimize civilian casualties or all out assault (this would have a huge effect on war weariness as evidenced now with the current situation)

Terrorism - Sure it's a sticky subject but it exists and ought to be part of the game.

should you fund terrorist cells who would on their own commit acts in cities that are somewhat culturally effected by you but not ready to defect (with probable massive political repercussions if you are detected)


Bottomline is, there's a lot of things, a ton more than the few I just listed, that would've have really added to Civ3, not just make it Civ2.5. But in fact all we got new was:

Leaders and armies, which add virtually nothing to the game and aren't used much.

Resources, decent idea, but it seems to have a lot of people pissed off over it's implementation and game breaking effect.

Culture, neat system, but the whole deposing cities thing needs reworked to be more realistic

Citizens nationality, excellent, was definitely needed and adds a lot to capturing cities and going to war.

I guess all of those combined are a decent improvement, but there really could have been/should have been a lot more and this would have been a great game on it's own right, not just another version of a previous great game.

[Tilemacho]

Originally posted by Moraelin

And yes, I actually HOPE that if some poor soul wanders on this board, they'll get the idea to keep their money instead of buying this crap. They can get Call To Power 2 instead. It should be like 10 bucks from the bargain bin by now. It has everything that Civ 3 has, and a lot of extra stuff that Civ 3 doesn't have. (E.g., an economic model that makes 10 times more sense than Civ 3's model. E.g., wonders and discoveries that actually make sense, not using the pyramids as a giant granary. E.g., units that have different upkeep and hit points, based on whether they're mobilized for war or kept in reserve. Etc, etc, etc.)

Thats right CTP2 had a great combat system...I still can't believe that Firaxis chose not to take some ideas from it...i mean...no stucked units....a warrior costs the same as a stealth bomber....

but then of course CTP2 was so unbalanced and had such a stupid AI...

[Moraelin]

Yep, Bahoo, THAT is exactly what I wanted to see in Civ 3. Something that's a whole new approach to running your Empire.

And as another example, instead of having some hard-coded UU types that can't even be upgraded, how about giving me some unique _advantages_ for my units. Stuff that indeed is based on culture, not just one different unit type.

E.g., from SSI's Steel Panthers, the Japanese infantry and US Marines never retreated. But I mean _all_ their units, not just one special unit. Commandos, heavy infantry, light machineguns, whatever. ALL units had that national advantage.

E.g., from Master of Magic, I can't help remember the dark elven units. ALL of them had one point of ranged attack, even the spearmen and swordsmen and whatnot. Now THAT was a racial advantage.

E.g., from real history, the Japanese culture produced fanatical warriors for a long time. The Samurai wasn't just in the age of katanas. Before katanas, the soul of the Bushido were the spear and the bow. Japanese spearmen and bowmen fought with the same fanaticism as their swordsmen. And later, their musketmen and then their riflemen kept that spirit.