What Civ Would You Have Included? - Page 4

Ned · April 24, 2002, 18:23

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
To include Arabs and not Jews would be taking sides, but to include Jews and not Arabs wouldn't be? Sounds like you got a side to me.

Anyway, I don't think including either one/both would be taking sides, and I don't think current events in the Mideast were the reason to not include Arabs.

I think the only reason was there weren't enough slots to fit in everyone, and there were only 16 slots because of the completely backwards, shallow, and stupid (in my opinion) choice to include funny-face graphics instead of lots of civs.

If you want my attitude about the Arabs, I would make their special unit the "martyr" with a icon of a 10 year old boy with explosives strapped to his chest. Images of the burning World Trade center would illustrate their contribution to civilization.

Even if a thousand years ago the Arabs (Islam) continued and even expanded on the ancient civilizations in certain scientific areas, they had an enormously destructive influence on Europe and the Eastern Roman Empire, the precedessors of the West.
Their destructive influence continues even 'til today with their assaults on Israel and Bin Laden's jihad against the West.

True they are an important civilization. But including them in the game will create a lot of controversy, which is why, I suspect, they are not included, and probably will not be included.

Ned

punkbass2000 · April 24, 2002, 18:36

I believe Bin Laden's jihad is justifiable (though I don't support his actions.) The US has killed hundreds of thousands in the Middle East for years, and no on cared. Then they attack back and kill 7000 people, and all of sudden it's "We gotta kill those horrible bastards." Moral: People only care when it affects them.

Denday · April 24, 2002, 19:16

It's silly to include the americans and other nation similar.
You should only have countries which were there at 4000bc because thats were you start the game.

N. Machiavelli · April 24, 2002, 19:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Denday
It's silly to include the americans and other nation similar.
You should only have countries which were there at 4000bc because thats were you start the game.

Sooooo, only include the Egyptians, Sumerians (not even Babylonians yet), *mabye* the Chinese? Fun stuff.

Ethelred · April 24, 2002, 19:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Denday
It's silly to include the americans and other nation similar.
You should only have countries which were there at 4000bc because thats were you start the game.

So just how many countries would that give Firaxis to work with.

The answer is none. The first nations don't show till nearly one thousand years later. I don't think the game would be much fun if we could only play Egypt and Sumeria.

MagisterMilitum · April 24, 2002, 20:31

Based on their military feats, contributions and advances on the fields of
the arts, science, arquitecture, medicine, philosophy, etc.

Based on their impact on other Civilizations, by way of culture, or commerce, or conquest, or plain contact and the result of such impacts and their achievements on all fields of human knowledge, as i said; and also in their "survival", or the fact that there are today political entities that can claim descendance to this/their early origin, though this aplies not over all of them, I`ll put these Civilizations in the game:

_The Spanish Civilization ( Just think of Latin America. Portugal could be placed togheter with Spain, they had an impact on Europe, though limited in time. )

_The Arab Civilization ( Their military ascendance assured the growth of Islam, actually reaching western Europe, along with all the social-
pushing economical-pushing political-pushing cultural-not necessarily on this exact order-consequences of their expansion. )

_The Viking Civilization ( Their expansion had quite an impact on Europe - especially over England and France, not to say that they had a part on the birth of Russia. )

_The Mongol Civilization ( Their conquests sure affected other civs in a way that cant be ignored. )

_The Turkish Civilization ( Direct descendant from the Otoman Empire, and Turks were a factor in the Mameluk Empire on Egypt. They were Muslins but not Arabs. )

_The Hebrew Civilization ( Can I say "Hebrew Civilization? Their impact on Western Civilization -past or present- sure is inquestionable. )

_The Assyrian Civilization ( Their Empire, based solely on military conquest, was the first experiment of the kind, and sure influenced the views of the time, that a people could conquer and put other peoples into submission, and develop the necessary means to sustain their conquest - on this case, massive deportations was what they tried to do. )

Im sure there are other deserving Civs, but I can think of these I just listed, along those in the game, as the ones whose impact on world history marks them as the most influent civs of all time.

Also I may be wrong on the short listings of the civs achievements I exposed as a piece of reasoning as to why i chose such CIvs. If so i beg your pardon, and please correct me; so I will know better.

Oerdin · April 24, 2002, 22:06

Quote:

Originally posted by punkbass2000
I believe Bin Laden's jihad is justifiable (though I don't support his actions.) The US has killed hundreds of thousands in the Middle East for years, and no on cared. Then they attack back and kill 7000 people, and all of sudden it's "We gotta kill those horrible bastards." Moral: People only care when it affects them.

This shall be the very first time I have ever directly insulted someone on this forum and I hope I do not get banned for it, but, I can simply not sit here and listen to that filth.
By saying such things you are a totally ignorant sod! Since when did the U.S. kill houndreds of thousands in the middle-east? There is no excuse for you uttering such bold faced lies!
I truly hope that you are just uneducated and that you are simply another child running off at the mouth about things he knows nothing about.
In the future may I suggest you get your facts straight before you go trying to justify the unjustifiable?

Cyclotron · April 24, 2002, 22:25

Ehhh... yes, Oerdin, that's a good way to put it.

As for America, it's obvious that in Civ3 they are much more important than, say, the Romans. Why? The Romans only were around for less than one of Civ3's technological ages, from about the mid ancient era to the late ancient era. The Americans, on the other hand, started in the equivalent of the late midieval era, and are still kicking in the modern era.

Therefore, since the Americans have been around for over 2 Civ3 ages, and the romans less than one, I have more cause to say the Romans should be kicked out of Civ3 than you have to say the Americans should be kicked out.

punkbass2000 · April 25, 2002, 07:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin

This shall be the very first time I have ever directly insulted someone on this forum and I hope I do not get banned for it, but, I can simply not sit here and listen to that filth.
By saying such things you are a totally ignorant sod!

What, exactly, am I ignorant of? Ifyou'e unaware of the United States' actions in the Middle East, then I submit that I am not the ignorant one.

Quote:

Since when did the U.S. kill houndreds of thousands in the middle-east?

Since, "The terrorists need to be brought to justice and to be tried before an international court. No doubt during that trial they will raise the issue of the 700,000 dead Iraqi children as a result of the U.S. attack on Iraq and subsequent embargo. Nothing can justify the terrorist attacks of September 11; and nothing will ever justify the death of 700,000 innocent Iraqi children. The universal condemnation of all violations of human rights, whether it be Bin Laden terrorism or a U.S. military intervention or CIA covert operations or Taliban oppression or the insane religious rhetoric of U.S. fundamentalists of Robertson and Falwell, is the stance of the Free Press." http://www.freepress.org/DefaultMain...ent&Category=2

Quote:

There is no excuse for you uttering such bold faced lies!
I truly hope that you are just uneducated and that you are simply another child running off at the mouth about things he knows nothing about.

Uneducated? No. Just aware that more exists than the United States' perspective.

Quote:

In the future may I suggest you get your facts straight before you go trying to justify the unjustifiable?

That's not really a question, but I would be inclined to say the same to you.

Ned · April 25, 2002, 09:49

Punkbass, I almost agree with you. The Arab world, with the exception of some leaders, indeed has declared at least a cold War on the United States. They are now acquiring weapons of mass destruction. I believe the United States will soon turn this cold war into a hot war in self defense. If we don't act, Israel surely will - perhaps with nuclear weapons.

I don't see a way to avoid this unless the Arab world suddenly becomes democratic or the mullah's stop preaching hatred of the West and the United States. I would not hold your breath.

Ned

Andrew Cory · April 25, 2002, 11:55

Quote:

Originally posted by punkbass2000

Since, "The terrorists need to be brought to justice and to be tried before an international court. No doubt during that trial they will raise the issue of the 700,000 dead Iraqi children as a result of the U.S. attack on Iraq and subsequent embargo. Nothing can justify the terrorist attacks of September 11; and nothing will ever justify the death of 700,000 innocent Iraqi children. The universal condemnation of all violations of human rights, whether it be Bin Laden terrorism or a U.S. military intervention or CIA covert operations or Taliban oppression or the insane religious rhetoric of U.S. fundamentalists of Robertson and Falwell, is the stance of the Free Press." http://www.freepress.org/DefaultMain...ent&Category=2

*sigh* Let's see if we can make sense of this:
Iraq invades Kuwait
World (lead by US) goes to war to liberate Kuwait (let's ignore all the whys for now, as they are immaterial)
World stops short of toppleing Hussain, even though he has been known to use nerve gass on his _own_ civilians.
Due to Husain's past, world (lead by US) declares embargo and no-fly zones to protect the kurd and shiite populations; also in the hopes that they might topple Husain.
Iraqi children starve
World decides that letting Iraq sell oil to feed and medicine his children is ok.
Iraq sells oil; buys weapons. Iraqi children still starve.
World decides to cut back on the amount of oil that Iraq can sell, instead decides it just give food to Iraq.
Iraqi children still starve. Iraqi millitary still well fed...

How is this the fault of the US? How is this _not_ the fault of Husain?

nato · April 25, 2002, 12:29

I'm gonna make a daring attempt to bring this back to Civ3 a little...

Even if you blame the entire Arab civilization for terror attacks like WTC, I would still want to include them as a civ in Civ3.

They had a long history of great contributions, and 50 (or so) years of terrorist actions doesn't negate that to me.

Similarly, I still want China, even though I hate Mao and the first 30 or so years of the Communist regime. I still want Russians even though I hate Stalin and their early Communist regime. I still want Japan even though I hate what they did during WWII. And of course the Germans, even though I hate Nazism.

In fact, I want Americans even though I hate what we did to the Native Americans.

There is plenty of bad history to go around ... I don't think terrorism is, by itself, enough of a reason to not include such a major and contributing civilization like the Arabs.

Andrew Cory · April 25, 2002, 12:46

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
I'm gonna make a daring attempt to bring this back to Civ3 a little...

Even if you blame the entire Arab civilization for terror attacks like WTC, I would still want to include them as a civ in Civ3.

They had a long history of great contributions, and 50 (or so) years of terrorist actions doesn't negate that to me.

Similarly, I still want China, even though I hate Mao and the first 30 or so years of the Communist regime. I still want Russians even though I hate Stalin and their early Communist regime. I still want Japan even though I hate what they did during WWII. And of course the Germans, even though I hate Nazism.

In fact, I want Americans even though I hate what we did to the Native Americans.

There is plenty of bad history to go around ... I don't think terrorism is, by itself, enough of a reason to not include such a major and contributing civilization like the Arabs.

I'll agree with you in spirit, and offer only this complaint about adding the "Arabs": Adding the "Arabs" is about like adding the "Whites" (not the russian varity, but the European ones), or the "Blacks", or any simmilar psudo-racial* grouping. Civilization (the game) is about _nations_, not psudo-races. Incuding the "Arabian" civilization, is just fine, however...

*I use the term "psudo-race" as there is no actual biological justifcation for our view of races. The distintions are arbitrary at best, and rather desctuctive at all times. cultural groupings are to be prefered.

nato · April 25, 2002, 12:51

Ok, though I disagree about the races. To my understanding, Arab is a version of white ... Mediterranean white I think, not sure.

Anyway, please see my post on page 2 of this thread. It is the very first post on that page.

It deals with that, and is pretty good IMHO.

Andrew Cory · April 25, 2002, 13:16

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
Ok, though I disagree about the races. To my understanding, Arab is a version of white ... Mediterranean white I think, not sure.

The whole problem with using racial catagories is that the sets are _very_ fuzzy, and have no actual meaning in a biological sense. My understanding is that "Arab" is a "race". Lacking evidence one way or the other, though...

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
Anyway, please see my post on page 2 of this thread. It is the very first post on that page.

It deals with that, and is pretty good IMHO.

I read it after you pointed it out. Yep, pretty good. Change "Arab" to "arabian", and I will agree 100%...

caliskier · April 25, 2002, 13:25

The Hebrews should have been added. I modded them into my game. Judea is the name of the country and Hebrew is the adj. Yep like Isreal today we kick all kinds of butt!

nato · April 25, 2002, 13:34

Arab should be Arabian ... noted.

I didn't really know that was a distinction before. Learn something every thread!

punkbass2000 · April 25, 2002, 13:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Andrew Cory

*sigh* Let's see if we can make sense of this:
Iraq invades Kuwait
World (lead by US) goes to war to liberate Kuwait (let's ignore all the whys for now, as they are immaterial)
World stops short of toppleing Hussain, even though he has been known to use nerve gass on his _own_ civilians.
Due to Husain's past, world (lead by US) declares embargo and no-fly zones to protect the kurd and shiite populations; also in the hopes that they might topple Husain.
Iraqi children starve
World decides that letting Iraq sell oil to feed and medicine his children is ok.
Iraq sells oil; buys weapons. Iraqi children still starve.
World decides to cut back on the amount of oil that Iraq can sell, instead decides it just give food to Iraq.
Iraqi children still starve. Iraqi millitary still well fed...

How is this the fault of the US? How is this _not_ the fault of Husain?

World lead by US

How ethnocentric. Of course, the US has to save the other barbarian civilizations around the world. NOt unlike the white man's burden. The US was once an ally of Hussein's, incidentally. The US also funded Bin Laden, "Saddam may be a threat, as well as the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia. The real threat is our lack of intelligence in the region and our history of supplying our enemies with weapons and funds....As late as May 21, 2001 we gave the Taliban 45 million dollars because they were destroying poppy fields. Now, we are supposed to believe that they are getting their funding from drug dealing?" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...lk/index2.html
I think your overview of the events are strongly biased towards the US, in that it gives the impression the US was just doing the right thing to protect the world against evil. That is one of the United States' biggest problems, IMO. Its arrogance causes it to think that it needs to intervene, whether the world wants it or not. I do not think that Hussein is good, nor do I think he had nothing to do with anything, but this does not mean the United States' hands are clean. The US continually props up fascist groups like the Taliban, yet few hear about it. The US also supports the World Bank and IMF, to of the most corrupt and unethical organizations in the world.http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/experts.htm

Ned · April 25, 2002, 13:39

While we are on the topic, should the USSR be included as a distinct "nation," separate from the Russians?

Ned

ACooper · April 25, 2002, 13:44

Wanna take bet's on how long it takes this thread to be closed or moved.

BTW, I would include Incas, Hebrews, Vikings, Spanish, Mongols, another Native American civ, another African Civ and another Arabian civ. And just for grins the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon man.

Ned · April 25, 2002, 13:46

Punk, Again I somewhat agree with you. We, the U.S. are always propping up corrupt dictatorships, only to later rue the day we did. I also think that the only reason we intervened in Kuwait was becuase of our "alliance" with Saudi Arabia. We should have left Iraq alone, IMHO. But we didn't. Now, we have created an enemy that we have to deal with. FUBAR.

Ned

nato · April 25, 2002, 14:14

Quote:

While we are on the topic, should the USSR be included as a distinct "nation," separate from the Russians?

As long as there is only a limited number of civs, I would vote no. I would rather have a totally new civ than one that is (at least slightly) redundant.

If there were unlimited civs (and I don't see why there weren't, except the fancy graphics) then I would say sure, why not!

However, even with the change in government, I think the USSR was in many ways distinctly Russian, and it was the same group of people mostly (the Russians), so a seperate civ isn't really necesary ... but if you had unlimited civs, go for it!

I would say the same thing about the Chinese and their communist government, which came up in another thread a while ago.

Andrew Cory · April 25, 2002, 14:42

Quote:

Originally posted by punkbass2000
World lead by US

How ethnocentric. Of course, the US has to save the other barbarian civilizations around the world.

Oh? Are you saying the alliance was _not_ headed by America? Beyond that, did you not note that parts where I mentioned actions taken by "world" that did not contain the words "Lead by US"? This was not an accident.

Quote:

Originally posted by punkbass2000
NOt unlike the white man's burden. The US was once an ally of Hussein's, incidentally.

Yes, I know this. That is why it was our _job_ to clean up that mess. The fact that we did a half assed job of it doesn't mean that we were not moraly responsible for _doing_ it.

Quote:

Originally posted by punkbass2000
The US also funded Bin Laden,

That is a myth, BTW. The US gave money to Pakistan, which funded its intlegence beuro, which helped to fund the Taliban, of which, bin Laden was an ally. That is a pretty tenuous link. It would also be proper to say that America gave food to Afganistan, as well as medical help, but that is a long way from saying that the US funded bin Laden...

Quote:

Originally posted by punkbass2000
"Saddam may be a threat, as well as the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia. The real threat is our lack of intelligence in the region and our history of supplying our enemies with weapons and funds....As late as May 21, 2001 we gave the Taliban 45 million dollars because they were destroying poppy fields. Now, we are supposed to believe that they are getting their funding from drug dealing?" http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...lk/index2.html

I agree.

Quote:

Originally posted by punkbass2000
I think your overview of the events are strongly biased towards the US, in that it gives the impression the US was just doing the right thing to protect the world against evil. That is one of the United States' biggest problems, IMO. Its arrogance causes it to think that it needs to intervene, whether the world wants it or not. I do not think that Hussein is good, nor do I think he had nothing to do with anything, but this does not mean the United States' hands are clean. The US continually props up fascist groups like the Taliban, yet few hear about it. The US also supports the World Bank and IMF, to of the most corrupt and unethical organizations in the world.http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/experts.htm

I won't say the that US doesn't have those _exact_ problems. I will say that whatever my biases may or may not be, nothing changes the fact that Sadam Husain, and _only_ Sadam Husain is responsible for the starvation of his own citizens, given the fact that he is able to legaly, cheeply and easily import food, and the fact that he does so.

Of course, none of this is relevent to the topic at hand: Which civ would you have included...

nationalist · April 25, 2002, 15:46

Quote:

Originally posted by punkbass2000
I believe Bin Laden's jihad is justifiable (though I don't support his actions.) The US has killed hundreds of thousands in the Middle East for years, and no on cared. Then they attack back and kill 7000 people, and all of sudden it's "We gotta kill those horrible bastards." Moral: People only care when it affects them.

WTF have we been doing to kill hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East? That is COMPLETE BULLSHIT!

Oerdin · April 25, 2002, 16:16

Quote:

Since, "The terrorists need to be brought to justice and to be tried before an international court. No doubt during that trial they will raise the issue of the 700,000 dead Iraqi children as a result of the U.S. attack on Iraq and subsequent embargo. Nothing can justify the terrorist attacks of September 11; and nothing will ever justify the death of 700,000 innocent Iraqi children. The universal condemnation of all violations of human rights, whether it be Bin Laden terrorism or a U.S. military intervention or CIA covert operations or Taliban oppression or the insane religious rhetoric of U.S. fundamentalists of Robertson and Falwell, is the stance of the Free Press." http://www.freepress.org/DefaultMain...ent&Category=2

You asked what you are ignorant of and then provide me with an excellent example. That 700,000 dead Iraqi children figure is a total exageration fabricated by the Iraqi government to gain world simpathy. The U.N. embargo allows for the importation of food and medical supplies, however, Sadam refuses to distribute most of it so as to creat a false delema. If the food and medicine are there but a dictator refuses to give it to his people, for shallow political reasons, then who is really to blame?
It is also noticable that Kurdastan, still technically part of Irag and subject to the embargo but which operates as a pseudo-independent country, does not suffer the same shortages of food & medicine. Why? Could it be that the Iraqi government has something to do with it?

Quote:

Uneducated? No. Just aware that more exists than the United States' perspective.

As am I. In fact if you name the issue I could probably tell you the perspective of any interested party. Politics, history, and current events are all my forte.

Now, back to the original question. Were/are religious extreamists justified in killing 7000 noncombatants in New York? You have contended that that it was, however, this ignores the Geneva and Hage conventions' protections of noncombatants as well as international standards of conduct. It ignores the teachings of their own professed religion.
It is also interesting to note that Islamic extreamists use the same logic to justify attacks upon, Hindus in India, Buddists & Confusians in China, Orthodox Christians in the former USSR, Catholics & Protestents in Africa, and indeed any and all non-Muslims in the world. Indeed, even other Muslim factions who they don't see eye to eye with them.
Are they also justified in murderning these people as well? Do the polices of the leadership of these countries/religious groups mean that it is open season on all of them? Every man, woman, and child? If you say yes then, by the same logic, would I not be justified in planting a bomb in Ottawa because I disagree with the Canadian government's polices towards native Americans?
Think on that for a bit.

Oerdin · April 25, 2002, 16:34

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
There is plenty of bad history to go around ... I don't think terrorism is, by itself, enough of a reason to not include such a major and contributing civilization like the Arabs.

I don't think anyone ever contended that terrorism did exclude Arabs from being included. In fact a case could be made for the inclusion of just about any group/nationality in the world, however, we will only have room for eight or 16 new civs. So the question becomes which 16 do we include? What criteria do we use to make the desession upon?
I myself would like to see the Ottomens, Celts, Mongols, Spanish, and Vikings included first but if there is still room then the Arabs could also come aboard.

nato · April 25, 2002, 16:40

That bit you quoted from me was in response to Ned's post, the very first one on this page. In that context my post makes sense.

nato · April 25, 2002, 16:53

If we had 16 new civs to work with, I bet like 95% or more people could be made very happy with the ones who made it.

If we only had 8, there will probably be a good amount of people not happy ... not sure how many.

I bet most people still could though ... there aren't THAT many big contenders.

Lets see... Arabians, Turks, Mongols, Vikings, Spanish, Portugouse, Celts, Khmer (I don't know who these guys are!), someone from Africa (not sure who), someone native to America (not sure who), Polynesians ...

Did I miss anybody major? (this isn't my want list, it is who seems to be most wanted by everyone)

edit: Canadians! There are a lot of feirce Canadians around!

Thats 12 that I think a lot of people want ... so I really think 16 would satisfy almost everyone, and 8 would satisfy most people but not all.

I sure hope an expansion pack will have that many! My guess is more like 4 ... but I am pessimistic about these things.

Oerdin · April 25, 2002, 16:57

Quote:

Originally posted by punkbass2000
Snipe long diatrabe

I have noticed it is commonly the very people who critize international involvement the most who also attempt to crusify it for not getting involved in places like Bosnia, Rowanda, and Isreal. These people will never be happy. We are damned if we do and we are damned if we don't.

BTW that link which railed against the WTO and the IMF was total nonsense. It has become something of a celebrity cause amoungst the far left to attack these organizations for not being sensitive enough to the needs of the common man. The ironic things is that IMF mandated reforms have, and will, do more to help the average worker then any thing else. Low public debt, relatively free markets, and privite enterpirse dominated economies are good government policies which will create higher growth and thus higher standards of living.
This is the proven formula which the the enitre west plus Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Malasia, and... have all followed.

Andrew Cory · April 25, 2002, 17:16

Quote:

Originally posted by nato
Khmer (I don't know who these guys are!)

The Khmer are from Cambodia. (I know this Khmer woman...) Anyway, if we are going to pick from that region, I would rather have the Burmeese or the Tai...