Yes the rifle was invented in the 18thc, and that may well be where Firaxis got a historicical model for a rifleman. However due to the difficulty in in proper ammo, it was difficult developing a rifle that could be used as a standard infantry weapon. A rifleman was basically a sharpshooter specialist. Full units of riflemen did not come into play until the American Civil War, when the "minie ball" made the US made Springfield and the UK made Lee-Enfield into standard infantry weapons. Indeed in the early battles of the ACW, (EG 1st Manassas- 1861) infantry was armed with muskets. The first battle (IIRC) in which the rifle was decisive was Fredericksburg (1862), and the unfamiliarity with the impact of mass use of the rifle was largely responsible for the very bloody results of that battle.

Ergo a Civ3 rifleman unit should wear 19thc dress (as did the Civ2 and Civ:TOT riflemen) and not 18th c dress.

And yes some of us dont want to bother with modpacks, so it does matter.

It's cool that you know your history and all, but I'm sorry, but I can't possibly convey how unimportant this trivial detail is.

We're talking about a game where history-as-we-know-it can end up with fascist dictators controlling the world with Elephants and musketeers by 1100 AD, and where planes take 5 years to fly around the world, and you're worried about how many corners the guy's bloody hat has.

No im not a stickler for historical details, i dont play with the fascism patch, i'd rather have the inaccuracy of loads of alpines than add a patch that will introduce elements the AI doesnt understand.

But accurate looking riflemen was something that Civ2 got right. What is to be gained by having Civ3 get it wrong?

Some people want accuracy to enjoy the game more. It is a CIV game after all.

------------------
"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender!" -Winston Churchill

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark on 12-21-2000 04:42 PM But accurate looking riflemen was something that Civ2 got right. What is to be gained by having Civ3 get it wrong?

You absolutely right!

Then it comes to simple stuff like the looks of units, city-improvements, wonders, tile-improvements and techs, there no reason whatsoever why Civ-3 shouldnt be 100% accurat and realistic.

quote: Originally posted by Steve Clark on 12-21-2000 05:39 PM You don't like the representation of the conceptual Riflemen? Fine...then either 1) design your own unit or 2) download a modpack. Why is this so hard to understand?? Do you have any idea how many different ways folks here have portrayed the warrior unit (for example) in Civ2? Why even bother to complain about these units when we will be able to design our own or to download what others have designed? Why am I asking so many pointed questions?

I HATE IT WHEN PEOPLE SAY STUFF LIKE THIS.

Why should we have to bother? If we pay for the game, it is their job to make sure it is correct. Why should we have to do their work for them?

------------------
"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender!" -Winston Churchill

quote: Why should we have to bother? If we pay for the game, it is their job to make sure it is correct. Why should we have to do their work for them?

Correct? Correct for what?

quote: Originally posted by Steve Clark on 12-21-2000 05:55 PM Correct? Correct for what?

"If you desperately tries to please everybody, you may very well end up with pleasing nobody".

However this comes down to what Firaxis are aiming for. Are they after the period the unit first appeared, or when it was used to a great effect?

quote: Originally posted by The Kaiser on 12-21-2000 06:42 PM I agree with LotM as regards getting it right first time, we shouldn't always need to MOD stuff the minutes it's released.

Getting it right? IT's a freakin HAT!

Heh.. Man, I'm sorry I went for lunch. This thread exploded while I was gone.

No-one's advocating having giant Volkswagons with guns, or planes with 2 pairs of wings... but the point is, CIV 3 is not HISTORY. IT's a GAME. Firaxis has better things to do than redo all their art because you guys have an aversion to 3-pointed hats. \

I'm not saying to deal with it and wait for a mod pack - I'm just finding it hard to believe that L.O.T.M. is worried about details on a graphic that will probably be too small to see in-game anyways. And you know what Lord? I don't have a problem with reusing Civ 2 graphics or army markers. Heck. Use the pieces from Monopoly for all I care. Games like this aren't good because the pieces look pretty. It's nice, but very low on my list of priorities.

Having said that, I think we all know this game WILL look beautiful. Firaxis won't release an ugly game. So why gripe about the graphics before you've even seen them?

(PS: In my first post, I wasn't referring to playing with a 'fascism patch'.. I've never played with such a thing. I was merely trying to point out that this game isn't about recreating history. It's about building a civilization to stand the test of time. )

If you think Civilisation is "just a game" why are you on these Forums?

IT IS IMPORTANT what the Rifleman looks like, because how it is graphically portrayed gives us clues as to where it appears in the Timeline/TechTree for example. Is it earlier or later than in Civ2? Would another unit be needed to fill the gap?

quote: Originally posted by The Kaiser on 12-21-2000 08:20 PM IT IS IMPORTANT what the Rifleman looks like, because how it is graphically portrayed gives us clues as to where it appears in the Timeline/TechTree for example. [This message has been edited by The Kaiser (edited December 21, 2000).]

Hehe.. Sorry Kaiser.. couldn't resist.

"Ha.. the fool is coming at me with just three riflemen.. it's hopeless! He'll be.. uh wait.. those riflemen have THREE CORNERED HATS! Muster the defenses! We're doomed!"

Alright so I'm giving you and L.O.T.M. a hard time, but you have to admit that nitpicking details this tiny is pretty trivial. True, they may be changes that you WANT, but can you imagine the look on the face of the Firaxis artist when you walk up to him and say "I don't like it. His hat's wrong/the tank has a gay little cross on it/the phalanx's shield looks like it's constipated..." You know what he/she'll be thinking.

But at the same time, I have 'fashion tastes' too. (AKA: an opinion). It is *my* opinion that some people focus on this game as an earth-simulator, and don't consider the applications for alternate history. The more I am forced to relive hitory as it occurred on earth, the less fun I am going to have.

In my history, maybe there was only one world war, fought with Gyros and Dirigibles. Maybe the last remaining Democracy on my continent shares a border with a newly risen communist regime. Maybe the polar caps melt and society is driven to the seas where it thrives under the leadership of Kevin Costner.

1: Just make the unit name-convention consistent with the overal looks of the unit. Its really as simple and uncomplicated as that. Just like it was in Civ-2.

I never knew if that old civ-2 musketeer uniform, or the civ-2 rifleman uniform, ever had any exact real-life historical uniform counterpart - and i never cared.

Maybe it was just summarized abstractions of uniforms from those eras. I never cared.

All i cared about - seen from an non-historical laymans point of view - was that the Civ-2 musketeer-unit had the quintessential looks of any non-specific 18:th century musketeer. And that the Civ-2 rifleman-unit had the quintessential looks of any non-specific 19:th century rifleman.

1. Some people seem to have gotten the idea that i was complaining bitterly about the rifleman in 18th c dress. I was not. If they keep the rifleman in 18thc dress I am sure Civ 3 will still be a good game. I thought it POSSIBLE that the artists had happened on an illustration in a history book of a rifleman in 18th c dress and had used that. I thought nothing would be lost by pointing out why it would be MORE appopriate to put a riflemen in 19thc dress (anything from 1862 to whenever the next infantry unit appears)
If it is too late to change thats ok.

2. WRT to history simulator vs alt history game

But I'm just interested in the clues the Graphics gives us about what the finished game will look like. Yes we are feeding of crumbs at the moment, but it's all we've been given so far, so we're stuck with it. I guess we won't have a better idea until the full site goes up in the new year.

All I will say is if Firaxis are not trying for accuracy in their unit portrayal's, why have they produced a near perfect image of a Panzer III tank? As opposed to the abstract Armour unit in Civ2.

First, this artwork is concept art. It isn't necessarily "final" or even "what the final game may look like". It's merely designed to give you an idea of what our artists are working on. Nothing more.

Secondly, given the disclaimer that the ART is concept and not final, you should also assume the naming conventions for the units are also conceptual at this point, and *not* final. It's entirely possible that the model we labeled the "Rifleman" could be called something completely different in the finished product. I already alluded to this in an email that was posted regarding the "Panzer Tank" render, but I want to make sure this is clear.

I point this out only because it seems there is a debate over something which could (and probably will) change before the game hits the streets. Rest assured that we *do* want to make sure everything in the game fits into the proper historical perspective, so I wouldn't worry about that too much..

That being said, please resume the festivities =)

Although it seems now that it will probably change, can I just say that I for one don't mind a 3 pointed hat on my Rifleman unit as I feel it represents when the weapon first appeared.

And thats that!

------------------
"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender!" -Winston Churchill

Native American: "Me tradum you furs for gun."
Trader:"Sure thing, oh and here's your 3 cornered hats."
Native American:"Hats? We no need."
Trader:"What? You can't have a gun without a 3 cornered hat, it just doesn't exist."

Of course, now that the official site is up, we have the whole panzer/abrahms and f15/MiG theory... that a particular unit may have multiple illustrations based on who built it.

quote: Originally posted by The Kaiser on 01-08-2001 01:41 PM Which might not be as daft as it sounds, as it puts the Musketeer and Riflemen earlier in the timeline. Thus suggesting that there are new defensive units to bridge the gap between Riflemen and Mechanised Infantry. [This message has been edited by The Kaiser (edited January 08, 2001).]

I would have expected an "infantry unit" to represent WWI era infantry. If rifleman is late 18thc this might suggest a late 19thc unit as well - what they'd call it i dont know? let say Zouave?

so our foot gunpowder units go musketeer (1500 - 1780)

Rifleman (1780 - 1820)

Zouaves (1820 - 1890)

Infantry (1890 - 1935)

Mech infantry (1935 - on)

This nicely distinguishes Napoleonic era foot soldiers from earlier ones (too bad the Nap. era ones didnt use rifles)

Infantry should really overlap with mech infantry.

BUt i aint gonna argue it - lets see how the game comes out first.

Anyone really interested in this stuff is encouraged to play "Age of Rifles" by Norm Kroger.

quote: Originally posted by hHydro on 01-08-2001 03:08 PM Of course, now that the official site is up, we have the whole panzer/abrahms and f15/MiG theory... that a particular unit may have multiple illustrations based on who built it.

It would seem that Firaxis wants more units in the modern ages than just a Fighter and a Bomber in the air and one tank unit. To split this into a two tank types and two plane types is perfectly acceptable in my book. There should be a change as modern technology has changed more rapidly than the past ages.

LOL!

Hydro, I'm with you on this one. I can't believe where this thread has gone but I'm sure glad I finally ran into it!

I must have been hanging around the CTP2 forums for too long. The complaints there are quite serious: lousy AI, mediocre interface, etc. Then I come here and read complaints about what ... a STUPID HAT! I'm still laughing about it as I type! I enjoy history, but if I want serious history, I'll read a book.

It seems to me that some people are destined to wander this earth with their eyes half shut, not being able understand the finer details of matters.