Extra Pack Finalization Project (Part 3) - Page 4

Eli · January 6, 2002, 09:57

But then the Golden Age is in the Modern Era.

Solomyr · January 11, 2002, 16:13

so have we decideed to make the Hebrews a modern golden age. i actually think this would make some type of sense. be can we finalized this. so the Hebrews are a modern civ. and the UU is an upgraded armor, Gholam's suggestions of "28.20.2, perhaps 15-20% lower cost than regular modern armor" sounds good to me, however, 28 attack plus the reductin of cost might be a little unbalencing.

and if it's a modern GA, i say we switch King David with David Ben Gurion. the title would be Prime Minester, the desired gov democracy and the shunned communism. what do you all think.

Wernazuma III · January 11, 2002, 18:11

Solomyr: Maybe we could still have a mix, like having an ancient ruler but a modern GA, I don't know...

28+cost reduction also seems unbalancing to me, although there is lettle experience with modern UUs. German Panzer has one more movement like manyy UUs, american F-16 got 2 more attck but is an air unit, thus restricted in its use...
We'd definitely have to pleay around a bit with this. I'll sleep over it and post a sugestion tomorrow.

Solomyr · January 14, 2002, 03:09

An ancient leader and a modern GA…an excellent compromise. I rather like it actually, as it does sort of represent the long, and constant history of the Hebrews. And on that note, should we change the name?

As far as the Merkava goes, I think it should have the attack of a standard modern armor, the defense of a mech. Infantry, only two movement, and a reduction in cost of 20%. So I think this would be 24.20.2, though I am not sure the defense is right (I am a few turns away from computers in my game, and don’t trust the manual) I think a 33% reduction in movement is about equal to a 25% increase in defense and a reduction in cost. Besides, that late in the game, and quality city should be able to pump out modern armor in 5 or less turns anyways. What do you guys think?

oh yeah, and irrelavent of who the leader is, the prefered gov should be democracy.

Rosacrux · January 14, 2002, 09:48

Some objections here.

Since this is about the Hebrews the civilization should have a distinctive ancient flavor. Ancient UU and ancient leader.

I don't think the modern Israel represents the Hebrew history and actually we are getting into a quite controversial issue if we endorse what is considered today a state that performs ethnical cleansing and is heavily disliked by most democratic people on this planet.

This is not an issue with the Isreali people, nor a PC thing - it's merely some amount of respect to the fact that people are dying there everyday.

How would some people like a Yugoslavian civ with Slobodan Milosevich as leader and Serb militia as UU? Or, worst, an Afghani civ with OBL as leader and Al Quaede suicide trooper as a UU? I am sure it would sound unpleasant to most "western" ears.

Well so, a civ that represents modern Israel would sound quite insulting to some of us.

And don't start me with "but other brutal people/nations/leaders are in the game" - there is the era proximity factor. The modern Israel is now violating human rights and is now disliked by so many.
Just my 2c...

Wernazuma III · January 14, 2002, 13:33

Rosacrux: I absolutely can't agree with you. Though I I'm not a special friend of Sharon either, whether a nation is loved or not, is irrelevant here. The Americans are disliked by many too, so are Arabs if you ask around. The latter even more so among the populace of "most democratic states".
To me, it's a matter of respect to include even a "disliked" civ, if it has contributed sth. to man's history. And don't forget: Jews were disliked for most of their history, from hellenistic ages to nowadays (don' go into the reasons of this now please)

Whether modern Israelis should be associated with ancient Hebrews is a matter of point of view, but should not be neglected "just because".

Rosacrux · January 14, 2002, 14:06

Wernazuma

Modern Israel Is not the civ people have voted for in the first place.

If I am not seriously mistaken the vote was for Hebrew, a very ancient civ, dating back to 1200 BC, who had a major impact in human history, as the nation where the Bible come from.

That's the civilization people have voted for. NOT the state of Isreal, an otherwise completely insignificant little state in the middle of nowhere, not better than any other modern state per se and not distinct by any accountable means - it's power derives from the friendship and alliance to USA, it has no significant power itself and it merely is able to exist surrounded by non-friendly nations. Culturally, pollitically and technologically backwards too. So, distinct and special in what way?

Could you tell me what modern Israel would do into an expansion pack featuring the most distinct civilizations that have been left out from the original Civ3 game? Why not Yugoslavia? Romania? Hell, why not Palestine? We voted for Arabs, so let's make the Arabs=Palestine - it's the same like making the Hebrew=modern Israel equation

It has no place in Civ, and that's it. This is not an issue of me not liking Israel, it's an issue of validity of this team effort and of accuracy. Todays Israel is close to nothing on a world scale. Once-upon-a-time Israel has had a major impact on world issues. But that time is over, as it is over for the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Babylonians (they have been vanished, anyway) and many others of the civs included in the original game or the expansion pack.

Therefore, the Hebrew civ should be an ancient civ and that's it.

Think of Greece - what is today's Greece? A small country in the Balkan peninsula and that's it. But nobody questions the including of Ancient Greece, as it was one of the most influental civs worldwide. But I don't see any of the - many - Greeks on this forum insist on putting the "Turkofagos" as the Greek UU instead of the hoplite and Venizelos as the leader instead of Alexander. It would be ridiculous and that's precisely what making Hebrew a modern civ is - ridiculous.

Is there a reason we have to include a modern age unit for Hebrew? Why not go with the Macabee which was the prime choice anyway? Who's agenda are we trying to forward here?

Wernazuma III · January 14, 2002, 15:32

And if I'm not mistaken we lumped Hebrew and Israeli choices in the same pot in the poll. There was even a discussion on how we should name them, that wouldn't have been the case if we hadn't regarded it as almost the same...
Israel is still distinct in its religion, being the only state with a jewish majority. It's distinct in its historical aspect. Most of its inhabitants regard both ancient Hebrew and the history of their Exiles etc.
Thus they inherit also the achievements of those whom they conmemorate as their ancestors.
Politically spoken, the Hebrews haven't been very strong either, they never ruled large territory and they always had to watch out for stronger neighbors.
Your analogy with the palestines is simply incorrect. Palestines are only a part of the bigger arabic civ, whereas Israel can be seen as the ONLY heir of old hebrew civ.
Thus, I think, they can be treated like one, having Hebrews as the more universal name but the Mercava as more unique unit.

Gholam · January 15, 2002, 00:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Rosacrux
If I am not seriously mistaken the vote was for Hebrew, a very ancient civ, dating back to 1200 BC, who had a major impact in human history, as the nation where the Bible come from.

You might have not noticed, but we're still the same people, with the same language, and same culture... (adapted to modern environment of course). All those great civilizations that conquered us in the past have crumbled into dust, yet we keep on hopping...

Quote:

the state of Isreal, an otherwise completely insignificant little state in the middle of nowhere

The middle of nowhere happens to include one of the world's biggest supplies of oil, hmmm...

Quote:

not distinct by any accountable means - it's power derives from the friendship and alliance to USA

Hmm... so please explain me, how did we win War of Independence (vs Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq) with no allies whatsoever, then the 1956 Operation Kadesh, then 1967 Six Day War... FYI, up until 70s, relations between USA and Israel were neutral at best - Israel had very strong socialistic tendencies, and early on, was heavily leaning toward USSR.

Quote:

it has no significant power itself and it merely is able to exist surrounded by non-friendly nations.

So how does it happen that we have the most combat-capable military force in the region? At the moment, with USSR collapsed, there's not a single Arab country (save probably Iraq, Saddam is crazy enough) that would start an open war with Israel and have a chance of winning. For some cold, hard numbers, check here.

Quote:

Culturally, pollitically and technologically backwards too. So, distinct and special in what way?

Well, I dunno what you mean by "culturally and politically backwards", but on the technological side, I can tell you this... there's a good chance that parts of the computer you are using to read this board have been designed in Israel: Intel isn't the only hi-tech company to have research centers here. The "nuclear club" includes USA, Russia, China, France, England, India, Pakistan, probably a few other european countries (can't pull it all off the top of my head)... and Israel. We design our own small arms: Jericho 941, Uzi, Galil, Tavor, Negev; our own tanks and artillery: Merkava Mk.1-3, Rascal, others; our own missiles: Gill/Spike (ATGM), Gabriel (ASM), Python (AAM), Arrow (SAM); our own naval vessels; even our own aircraft: Nesher, Kfir, Lavi - a project that started with the intention of developing a cheap attack aircraft, and ended up with a multirole fighter outperforming F-16 at approximately half the flyaway cost - and was killed by Americans, in the same way a similar Japanese project was killed, because it was going to be too strong a competitor to F-16 and F/A-18 on the export market.

Quote:

Could you tell me what modern Israel would do into an expansion pack featuring the most distinct civilizations that have been left out from the original Civ3 game? Why not Yugoslavia? Romania? Hell, why not Palestine? We voted for Arabs, so let's make the Arabs=Palestine - it's the same like making the Hebrew=modern Israel equation

Maybe because, as I said before, we're the same people, speaking the same language, living in the same area as the "great Hebrew civilization of 1200BC"? The fact that Assyrians, Babylonians and countless other smaller nations have completely disappeared by now, and other nations of that age are mere shadows of their former selves doesn't mean we have to follow their footsteps...

Rosacrux · January 15, 2002, 06:36

Quote:

You might have not noticed, but we're still the same people, with the same language, and same culture... (adapted to modern environment of course). All those great civilizations that conquered us in the past have crumbled into dust, yet we keep on hopping...

...and you ask me why I consider Israel culturally backwards... ?

And why does that distinct you a couple dozen others? After all, Israel was never great in history - significant, yes, due to the bible and all that, but great not. Just a tiny strip of land, usually occupied by others (you don't want a list, do you?).

Quote:

The middle of nowhere happens to include one of the world's biggest supplies of oil, hmmm...

The largest, actually, after Siberian. And, your country hasn't got a drop of it... so it happens

Quote:

Hmm... so please explain me, how did we win War of Independence (vs Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq) with no allies whatsoever, then the 1956 Operation Kadesh, then 1967 Six Day War... FYI, up until 70s, relations between USA and Israel were neutral at best - Israel had very strong socialistic tendencies, and early on, was heavily leaning toward USSR.

Outright lie. US-Israel relationships date back to the creation of the Israel state. Period. You are getting US aid from the early '50's and on. The tanks and plains you won those wars with (bravo for the effort, btw) were bought at a bargain price from USA and european countries (allies of USA). Or given away after WW2 for free by USA and Britain. Period.

Quote:

So how does it happen that we have the most combat-capable military force in the region? At the moment, with USSR collapsed, there's not a single Arab country (save probably Iraq, Saddam is crazy enough) that would start an open war with Israel and have a chance of winning.

Did I questioned your ability to defend yourself? No, not really. Then why throw these on me? Military might does not equal sifnificancy or distinction by any way. And... yes, in the region. If we abandon the region, what is the absolute military might of Israel?

Quote:

Well, I dunno what you mean by "culturally and politically backwards", but on the technological side, I can tell you this... there's a good chance that parts of the computer you are using to read this board have been designed in Israel: Intel isn't the only hi-tech company to have research centers here.

Cheap mind-labour. Same in India and other third world countries. What is this has to do with technologically advanced? I've been there, and it looked more like a third world country to me...
And the fact that you don't know what I mean by "culturally and politically backwards", just proves my point for Israel being excactly that.

Quote:

The "nuclear club" includes USA, Russia, China, France, England, India, Pakistan, probably a few other european countries (can't pull it all off the top of my head)... and Israel. We design our own small arms: Jericho 941, Uzi, Galil, Tavor, Negev; our own tanks and artillery: Merkava Mk.1-3, Rascal, others; our own missiles: Gill/Spike (ATGM), Gabriel (ASM), Python (AAM), Arrow (SAM); our own naval vessels; even our own aircraft: Nesher, Kfir, Lavi - a project that started with the intention of developing a cheap attack aircraft, and ended up with a multirole fighter outperforming F-16 at approximately half the flyaway cost - and was killed by Americans, in the same way a similar Japanese project was killed, because it was going to be too strong a competitor to F-16 and F/A-18 on the export market.

As for the nuclear club thing, I certainly hope you are not reffering to Pakistan and India as "advanced" countries... As for the rest, notice that we are talking only about weapon systems? Is that what a civilization today, in times of peace and prosperity is counted with? Weapons? Doh!

Quote:

The fact that Assyrians, Babylonians and countless other smaller nations have completely disappeared by now, and other nations of that age are mere shadows of their former selves doesn't mean we have to follow their footsteps...

Yeah, I know, you believe the guy up there inherited you the whole world and you act accordingly, but - sorry - this is not how things work right now. And, please, you are just a 5 million small nation in the middle of nowhere (as I said), what makes you any better than Persian, Greek, Egyptian, Chinese and other that you consider "mere shadows of their former selves"? What is Israel giving to humanity today except advanced weaponry and an unaccountable death toll?
Keep on like that and you'll sooner or later join the Babylonians and Assyrians into oblivion. You know, they too fought to the death... to the last of them, actually...

Wernazuma

Your bias shows... I wonder why? Do you insist on this? A modern UU for the Hebrew? And make them a "modern" civ? Is this your final word?

Eli · January 15, 2002, 12:31

I agree with Rosacrux. He exaggerates a lot, but the main point is that Ancient Israel was far more important than Modern Israel.

It should still be called Israel IMO, since the name of the Ancient Kingdom was Israel.

Rosacrux : So there were Hebrews that lived in 1200BC, when the writing of the Bible began. And then the Jews just popped out of nowhere, with no connection to those people?

Ecthy · January 15, 2002, 13:16

Yeah, call it Israel, the name is old as stone.

But the nationality should be Hebrew though now shouldn't it?

Wernazuma III · January 15, 2002, 13:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Rosacrux
Wernazuma

Your bias shows... I wonder why? Do you insist on this? A modern UU for the Hebrew? And make them a "modern" civ? Is this your final word?

It's not my "final word", but there has been, among the participants of this discussion, a strong tendency towards having the Mercava as the Hebrew UU. I originally had the Macabee as a UU, but discussion here proved it less desired than the Mercava. If you read the thread, I asked some weeks ago, if anyone complains if I change the UU due to "public wish". No one did, so I changed it. Now I've changed it and up goes resistance again. I'm not going to switch my first post every now and then, just because of one opinion, that would prove futile, we'd never get on... Thus I'm always trying to defend, simply out of conservativism, the actual version of the first post.
And YOU brand having a modern UU as a "modern civ", to me it's a blend of old and modern...

And if you ask me personally: I think it WOULD be better to have cities like Teheran in the persian list, maybe have Khomeni as a great leader etc. Modern Iran is in many aspects still the cultural heir of ancient persia, they always kept themselves distinct from arabs, something that wouldn't have been possible without their cultural tradition. Same goes for modern jews. They wouldn't have remained distinct as a small minority in the exile, without a strong tradition.

Rosacrux · January 15, 2002, 14:42

Wernazuma

OK, no problem.

Eli

I am not trying to open a vendetta with Israeli around here. And I did not questioned wether todays inhabitants of Israel are descendants of the ancient ones. I questioned the validity of having modern Israel represent the civilization in the Apolyton expansion pack - and I stand to my thesis.

Otherwise, you are not bad people alltogether. Just a bit trigger-happy

Wernazuma III · January 15, 2002, 15:21

Trigger-happy is what every Civ3 player should be, otherwise he wouldn't find the game much fun I think

Eli · January 15, 2002, 15:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Rosacrux
I am not trying to open a vendetta with Israeli around here. And I did not questioned wether todays inhabitants of Israel are descendants of the ancient ones. I questioned the validity of having modern Israel represent the civilization in the Apolyton expansion pack - and I stand to my thesis.

And as I said, I agree with you on this issue.

I dont really like the Macabee UU, but it looks like it's the only option we have if Ancient Israel will be "chosen".

Quote:

Otherwise, you are not bad people alltogether. Just a bit trigger-happy

I cannot judge the behaviour of the soldiers(or are you talking about goverment policies?) until the day I'll stand there and will have to disperse a violent "demonstration"(that includes live fire from their side).
But that's not an issue for this thread.

Solomyr · January 16, 2002, 01:53

Man Rosacrux, you have really got some strong opinions eh? I find it hard to believe you actually think the Jews, because that is who we are really talking about isn't it, aren't such bad people, but credit us for an uncountable death toll and ethnic cleansing while calling us culturally and politically backwards. I seem to recall that ethnic cleansing was taken to its zenith on 5-6 million Jews and 5-6 million other Europeans.

The cultural and political backwards, now, that that is tough to argue, I mean, I can’t think of any names of Jews that have made contributions to science, art or thought. Oh, wait, got one: Einstein. And wasn’t Sigmund Freud Jewish as well, and Karl Marx, and Brauch Spinoza. You know, Chagall and Modigliani painted some nice pictures, and Mendelssohn, Bizet, and Mahler came up with some nice music, but their stuff was all backwards, wasn’t it? May I remind you that Judaism gave birth to Christianity and Islam. Politically, the court system of ancient Israel is remarkable similar to the modern court systems of the US and most of Europe. And I would like to point out that in this time, women had much more freedom and could take on much more responsibility in the community than just about any other example you can think of 2000 years ago.

And that insignificant piece of land was the only land route between Asia, Europe and Africa until…oh, it still is the only land route between the continents that developed Civilization. Only after ocean travel became possible and reasonably safe did the most important piece of land to the dominant western religions cease to be of military importance for the known world.

Rosacrux, if you want to talk politics, send me an email, but leave politics and your own biased opinions out of this thread. Maybe the fact that Modern Israel has such an impact on things today is reason to place its Golden Age in Modern times. Please make your arguments with logic, and not insults.

I for one vote to keep it modern, for GAMEPLAY reasons. The Americans are the only modern civ, and by the looks of the expansion, will stay that way unless the Hebrews/Israelis are a modern civ.

Any political or historical disagreements that do not pertain to our decision please email me. Let’s let Wernazuma III do his job, and try to keep the insults at a minimum.

EDIT: grammer

Killerdaffy · January 17, 2002, 14:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Solomyr
I for one vote to keep it modern, for GAMEPLAY reasons. The Americans are the only modern civ, and by the looks of the expansion, will stay that way unless the Hebrews/Israelis are a modern civ.
.

I second that motion...

Oligarf · January 19, 2002, 10:11

William of Orange, still hasn't changed or am I wrong? About the Flemish cities, I do think the Flemish have played a important role in the Dutch history. They were part of the Netherlands for some while and making a difference between the people in the South of the Netherlands and Flemish is hard I think. Problem with this is that the Dutch civ will be bigger than the Netherlands and a discussion about the city order is reasonable, as well as a discussion Brussel vs. Amsterdam. It's not a bad idea, I see no chance for the Flemish themselves to be form a civ, to implement their cities that way. With adding them to the Netherlands is reasonable and the cities are important enough to have them in the game I think.

Fresno · January 22, 2002, 14:27

Hey, someone posting about the Netherlands again! Wernazuma, there you have your second opinion.

Quote:

Originally posted by Oligarf
Problem with this is that the Dutch civ will be bigger than the Netherlands and a discussion about the city order is reasonable, as well as a discussion Brussel vs. Amsterdam.

I think we should look at historical importance rather as just looking at the current population size. So for example Antwerp, Brugge and Gent should definately be in, as well as the Dutch Hanze cities (Zwolle, Kampen, Deventer, Dordrecht, and others).

When I have some spare time again,

I'm willing to make an alternative, historically accurate city list, using the cities from the current list with some Flemish cities. Is this OK with you, Wernazuma & Oligarf?

Wernazuma III · January 22, 2002, 15:06

Sounds good to me...

siredgar · January 30, 2002, 13:27

The Dutch have always been egalitarian in their principles for government.

Solomyr · January 30, 2002, 19:10

so Wernazuma III, what is the word with the Israeli/Hebrews civ? seem like debate got pretty quite, and i was wondering if the final decisions where going to be made soon. anyways, i still think the Hebrews/israelis should be a moden golden, that spiced up armor the UU, and the favored gov democracy. just my thoughts.

Eli · January 31, 2002, 11:24

Ok.... You convinced me.

It should be a modern Civ, with Democracy as favorable goverment and the UU should be a tank with more defense. But, the name should be Israel and the nationality should be either Jews or Israelis. Because no one is calling himself a Hebrew today.

Wernazuma III · January 31, 2002, 13:54

OK, that's what I want to make if you don't mind:

I still want to make it a "brand" civ of ancient and modern aspects, thus showing more the continuation than the breech in jewish history. Leaders and UUs don't necessarily have to come from the same age, just take the Indians as example.
So, Hebrews will stay Hebrew, the land will be called Israel, David remains as king (?) and the UU will be the Mercava (still not sure about the stats).
Can we agree on this?

Solomyr · January 31, 2002, 20:13

Wernazuma III...

i say we just come out in the open and call the Civ the 'Jews' that's really what it is. It is based on jewish religion, throught, culture, and calling it an ancient name doesn't, IMO, make the connection to the past very well. King David stays the ruler, more people know him than any other Jewish ruler. We have keep forgetting that just becuase a civs UU is in a certain time frame, that doesn't mean their GA will be at the same time. Say the Jewish Civ builds Smith's trading Co....*poof* Golden Age, 150 turns before they can build their UU.

I'm glad we are making some decisions, maybe this rthing well get finalized so we can get on to playing the expansin

Wernazuma III · February 1, 2002, 02:36

Solomyr: I'll rename them to jews as it seems to be accepted. Yeah, I'd like to start playing too, but the graphics problems still persists

I'll launch another advertising in the civ3-creation forum once I've got more time (after Feb. 5)

Solomyr · February 1, 2002, 15:28

cool beans man. i would love to help with the expansion if i could, but i don't have much in the way of graphical or coding skills. if there is another way, let me know.

Oligarf · February 3, 2002, 08:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Fresno
When I have some spare time again,

I'm willing to make an alternative, historically accurate city list, using the cities from the current list with some Flemish cities. Is this OK with you, Wernazuma & Oligarf?

As long as you can prove the historical importance of the cities and their order, fine with me.

Fresno · February 9, 2002, 15:09

Well, I think the order of the cities will always be debatable, but I'll try to make it as accurate as I can.

I'll leave out Brussels, because it isn't a totally Flemish city. Furthermore, Brussels is bigger as Amsterdam and this might cause a problem if I included it; I mean obviously Amsterdam should be the Dutch capital.