What the hell is up with the historical researchers at firaxis?

[Novaya Havoc]

Russia, under Catherine II's reign, had a shifting emphasis onto science and philosophy. Catherine supported the Enlightenment and people like Voltaire and Rousseau -- in fact, she was one of the largest patrons of the arts. St Petersburg was absolutely amazing in this regard.

Russia can easily be qualified as Scientific -- even under Catherine II.

-Ben

[bigvic]

well, i still think a modicum of historical accuracy is not incompatible with fun.

also, i guess my asinine sense of humor does not translate so well to e format.

well, guess i was kind of jonesin' for a good natured flame war - never been in one........lol and mooohaha

[aaglo]

Dare I say....


3/10

[gsmoove23]

How about just get rid of the attributes all together. I mean really, they just seem to make more trouble besides the fact that they smack of a sort of racism. Like Egyptian workers worked faster then Iroquois or England are better traders then the Egyptians. Most of these traits are just based on matters of circumstance and few of them are absolutely right anyway. Why not forget the traits and just make more different city and unit art styles or even better, you chose the traits you want to play with in the beginning. Say you want to rewrite history with the Iroquois an enlightened beacon of learning and science in the world.

I'm serious, I just thought about it but I like the choosing traits idea.

[gsmoove23]

Originally posted by Traelin
HAHA gsmoove, sometimes I just have fun waiting to see your reaction! Seriously though, I'd love to start a new thread about America, but let me try to stay on topic. I see your point about listing many Civs as Militaristic, but let me remind you that I didn't choose the Era in which each Civ was represented. Firaxis has chosen to display certain leaders for each Civ, ergo I react to them in the manner in which I feel is "correct". If you look at the leaders of the Civs that I listed, you have to admit I'm correct in my reactions.

Its more fun to read the posts you disagree with isn't it. Whats the point in posting if you're not going to start an arguement.

If the choice of leaderhead dictated the traits I would prob choose militaristic/religiousor industrious/religious even better. Even though it was ideologically against religion that style of communism was definately a religion all to itself. It even sounds like a religion. Maoism

Just goes to show traits are more trouble then they're worth read above.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Traelin, we're in danger of going off-topic again. Should start a whole new thread, America, religious civ or no. I so want to write a long response.

Not really a need for a long response.

From Steven Pinker's newly published "The Blank Slate (The Modern Denial Of Human Nature)":

"According to recent polls, 76% of Americans believe in the biblical account of creation, 79% believe that the miracles in the Bible actually took place, 76% believe in angels, devils, and other immaterial souls, 67% believe that they will exist in sime form after their death, AND ONLY 15% BELIEVE THAT DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR HUMAN LIFE ON EARTH." (Probably needless to say, "emphasis added".)

No further comment.

-Oz

[gsmoove23]

Uh oh I'll stay quiet on this one.


I have to question the 15% though.

[Ozymandias]

Originally posted by gsmoove23
Uh oh I'll stay quiet on this one.


I have to question the 15% though.

... You knew I'd do this, right?

---

Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll [August, 1999]

Which do you think is more likely to actually be the explanation for the origin of human life on Earth: the theory of evolution as outlined by Darwin and other scientists, the biblical account of creation as told in the Bible, or are both true?



15% The theory of evolution as outlined by Darwin
and other scientists
50 The biblical account of creation as told in
the Bible
26 Both true
9 Not sure

Survey by Fox News. Methodology: Conducted by Opinion Dynamics, August 25-August 26, 1999 and based on telephone interviews with a national registered voters sample of 902. [USODFOX.083099.R1]

Data provided by The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut.

---------

As Always,

Oz

PS. On the "26% Both True", as is said, colloquially -- Go figure.

-O.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Ozymandias


Not really a need for a long response.

From Steven Pinker's newly published "The Blank Slate (The Modern Denial Of Human Nature)":

"According to recent polls, 76% of Americans believe in the biblical account of creation, 79% believe that the miracles in the Bible actually took place, 76% believe in angels, devils, and other immaterial souls, 67% believe that they will exist in sime form after their death, AND ONLY 15% BELIEVE THAT DARWIN'S THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS THE BEST EXPLANATION FOR HUMAN LIFE ON EARTH." (Probably needless to say, "emphasis added".)

No further comment.

-Oz

But look at my previous post. It's one thing to have a population that is Theist. Heck, approx. 95% of the world believes in a Higher Power of some sort. It's a whole other can of worms to equate a Civ with possessing the Religious trait. As I said before, that is generally linked to theocracies or to Civs whose population was basically one religion. And no, don't group Catholics in with all other Christians. This is a very diverse country, and can hardly be considered a Religious Civ in light of such Religious Civs like the Egyptians. They believed the Pharoah was basically a god himself, with direct linkage to Ra.

[Cyclotron]

I find 76% beliveing in the biblical account of evolution unbelievably high.

ABC News poll: 44%
Gallup Poll, 2001: 57%

Add that to the fact that I don't trust Fox News as far as I can throw their reporters, and we come out with me not beliveing that Fox figure for a second.

I've never met a real creationist. But then again, I live in the land of the hot-tubbers.

Even if those figures were correct, I think that the question of evolution is a pretty poor way to prove that the USA is religious. Keep in mind that until the recent advent of the evolutionary theory, Creationism had the monopoly on explanations since the dawn of civilization. It's not fair to say that because this newcomer is not widely accepted immediately that the USA is a religious civ. I agree with you, the US is religious, but a poll about evolution is just about the worst way I can think of to prove it.

[gsmoove23]

Hah! Well thank you very much!

Ah okay, you see there is no reason why the theory and biblical creation can't work together when the Old Testament isn't read literally. Most of the christians I know believe this. Its a little misleading when you just mention the 15% number alone.

So 41% of the people accept the theory and 9% are unsure which is perfectly reasonable because it is a theory afterall. I'm still amazed by the 50% though.

[gsmoove23]

urgh! Quick somebody say something about historical accuracy or I'm going to respond!

[kittenOFchaos]

A certain kitten did argue for changes to the characteristics...


But ultimately it is easy enough to change if you feel strongly about it...like me and the Spanish being commercial! Indeed the Spanish deserve a nice big penalty against Commerical and Scientific IMHO

[Traelin]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
I find 76% beliveing in the biblical account of evolution unbelievably high.

ABC News poll: 44%
Gallup Poll, 2001: 57%

Add that to the fact that I don't trust Fox News as far as I can throw their reporters, and we come out with me not beliveing that Fox figure for a second.

I've never met a real creationist. But then again, I live in the land of the hot-tubbers.

Even if those figures were correct, I think that the question of evolution is a pretty poor way to prove that the USA is religious. Keep in mind that until the recent advent of the evolutionary theory, Creationism had the monopoly on explanations since the dawn of civilization. It's not fair to say that because this newcomer is not widely accepted immediately that the USA is a religious civ. I agree with you, the US is religious, but a poll about evolution is just about the worst way I can think of to prove it.

HAHA the land of hot-tubbers, that's too funny! Well, I guess I do too, which makes me sort of a hypocrite. But at least I admit it! I'm not going to even touch the Creationism vs. Theory of Evolution debate. I have a weird combination of the two that both ultra-fundamentalist and ultra-liberal people would jump on me for.

[gsmoove23]

Alright, anyone who wants to talk about American civ traits can walk on over to the Civilizations forum if they want to be on-topic. There they will find a nifty little poll as well. Actually, I think that should be done for all the civs. Probably wouldn't get historically accurate results cuz the masses are seldom right but neither is the idea of traits in general so no matter.

[bigvic]

i'm thinking of trying a mod with 3 traits. got ideas for all but indians. any ideas?

3rd traits
america - commercial
iroqois - uh, militaristic
aztec - commercial (had serious merchants, actually)
england - industrious
france - scientific
germany - industrious
rome - industrious or expansionist - close call
greece - expansionist
russia - militaristic
babylon - commercial
zulu - uh, again, tough call, religious?
persia - religious
india - ????????
china - will make them industrious/scientific/militaristic
japan - will make them mil/ind/rel
egypt - again not sure, commercial?

[Gen.Dragolen]

bigvic,

Based on the latest evidence from the Indus river valley, I think commercial and religious would be a good choice.

At about the same time as the Egyptians were building the Pyramids, the peoples in the Indus river valley area had large, well organized cities with extensive trade networks between them. Archeologists working in Pakistan have finally recognized mounds of mud bricks as covered over cities in areas where the rivers used to flow at about 30 sites. And they planned out they're cities better than most modern ones. Populations would have been huge from the irrigation systems.

And as for the religious trait: modern day Hinduism, the Buddha was Indian and there are still several other major religions in India who co-exist in peacefully for the most part.

What I was thinking about for my own modding scheme was to either keep the civs to just 2 traits or dump them all together. Kind of a "Simpler, simpler, simpler" idea for game play since it all depends on which era you are looking at a civilization.

America - Commercial and militaristic
Iroquois - Commercial and Religious
Aztec - Commercial and Religious
England - Expansionist and Militaristic
France - Commercial and Militaristic
Germany - Scientific and Militaristic
Rome - Commericial and Militaristic
Greece - Commercial and Expansionist
Russian - Expansionist and Scientific
Babylon - Scientific and Commercial
Zulus - Expansionist and Religious
Persia - Scientific and Expasionist
India - Commericial and Religious
China - Industrious and Religious
Japan - Industrious and Militaristic
Egyptian - Religious and Industrious

The only thing is that unless you are starting in historically linked starting places, these choices will unbalance the game just a bit...

And yes, many of these traits can be considered a little racist as generalizations, because it has been my experience in life that you will find people worth their weight in gold and others you wouldn't waste the lead to shoot, no matter where you go.

I'm going to try to use no traits to describe each civ, and see how well the AI Civ's hold their own against a wiley human player. That will also need attention on the "Build Often" settings. Details, details, details...

Wish them luck...

D.