Islam is represented in Civ, sort of...

[Sava]

For the people that complain there are no Arab Civs...

Persia... while Ancient Persia was not Islamic, Iran held the title of Persia up until the early 20th Century.

Egypt... I know the game creators meant this to be Ancient Egypt, modern day Egyptians are Islamic.

If it makes you Muslims feel better, Israel wasn't in Civ 3 either .

[MrWhereItsAt]

I doubt either Microprose or Firaxis ever thought of marketing Civ to predominantly Islamic nations.

[Sava]

I don't think they did.

[ranskaldan]

They didn't think of marketing it to predominantly Aztec countries either.

In my opinion, the worthiness of Arabs to be in Civ is up there with the Romans, Greeks, Chinese, and Indians.

[dervish]

I think Persians were initially Zoroastrian ditheists (evolving into early monotheism) and fireworshippers (no offence meant, actually, some guys get pissed off at being called this way - I see nothing wrong with fire, I respect fire as well)
They actually gave birth to Judaism, Christianity and Islam to all major monotheistic beliefs. Think logically over this schematic - Polytheism, Ditheism, Monotheism, huh? And then somewhere in between these we have Atheism.
Ancient Egyptians were polytheists to be politically correct and pagans to be unpolitically non-correct.

[ranskaldan]

Which is why this thread is called
Islam is represented in Civ, sort of...

[dervish]

Yeah, right.
I am also a Muslim sort of

[ranskaldan]

well, whatever the reason is for the underrepresentation of Islam, i'm glad that it's being rectified with the inclusion of the Arabs and Turks in PtW.

That, together with Persians and Egyptians, makes the situation much better.

[dervish]

I recommended to introduce Ethnic Trees, which would include all nations. And speaking of Arabs and Jews - they might as well start the game as Afro-Asiatic barbarians (that covers whole Africa and Middleastern semito-hamites gradually evolving into modern national and whatver states).
Check out my other link.
http://civ3.1bigcommunity.com
Click Messages Tab - and there, in Civ4 Suggestions, look for "Name the game Civolution..." thread.

[ranskaldan]

Ethnic trees however would be pretty hard to simulate in a game.

[Imp. Montezuma]

Originally posted by dervish
... And then somewhere in between these we have Atheism...

Idea: Tech or Small Wonder 'Atheism' (prereq Communism and Scientific Method) makes obsolete in late Industral era Sistine Chapel, J.S. Bach's Cathedral.

[ranskaldan]

Not bad.
Maybe that could tie in with that Religion concept that should have been in Civ 3.

Then, with Atheism, libraries, like temples, would start creating happy faces....!

[Ribannah]

The tech you're looking for is probably Humanism.
(In my tree: from Theology / The Guild, and leading to Biology (with Arts), Empiricism (with Engineering) and Enlightenment (with Leadership).
Related wonder: Utopia (reduces production costs or faster workers? - because of the extra motivation for a better life on Earth).

[Imp. Montezuma]

Originally posted by Ribannah
The tech you're looking for is probably Humanism.
(In my tree: from Theology / The Guild, and leading to Biology (with Arts), Empiricism (with Engineering) and Enlightenment (with Leadership).
Related wonder: Utopia (reduces production costs or faster workers? - because of the extra motivation for a better life on Earth).

Well, Ribannah. If in late Medieval before Atheism, not makes obsolete religious Wonders.

[Fresno]

Originally posted by Ribannah
The tech you're looking for is probably Humanism.
(In my tree: from Theology / The Guild, and leading to Biology (with Arts), Empiricism (with Engineering) and Enlightenment (with Leadership).
Related wonder: Utopia (reduces production costs or faster workers? - because of the extra motivation for a better life on Earth).

Humanism should be in - but not lead immediately to Atheism. For example - Thomas More, writer of Utopia, was a strong catholic and has been canonized after his death. His friend Erasmus, the most important Dutch humanist, was catholic too. Besides, instead of bringing atheism, humanism brought the Reformation.

I think Atheism should come up later in the game - for example with Communism.

[Imp. Montezuma]

Originally posted by Fresno


Humanism should be in - but not lead immediately to Atheism. For example - Thomas More, writer of Utopia, was a strong catholic and has been canonized after his death. His friend Erasmus, the most important Dutch humanist, was catholic too. Besides, instead of bringing atheism, humanism brought the Reformation.

I think Atheism should come up later in the game - for example with Communism.

Just see previous two my posts.

[Imp. Montezuma]

Well, so...
1. Tech: Humanism, Late Medieval, Prerequisites: Printing Press and Education, Related Great Wonder - The Utopia increase Culture points, decrease slave wokers production capability. Humanism are prerequisite for Democracy.

2. Sm Wonder: Atheism, Late Industrial, Prerequisites: Communism and Scientific Method, decrease points of Temples and Cathedrals, increase Culture, happy faces, increase Science, makes obsolete Sistine Chapel, J.S. Bach's Cathedral.

[Fresno]

I agree with you about the order of the techs and wonders. This would probably be the best way to include both Atheism and Humanism.

Apart from Communism, it would be good to have Socialism as well. The two are to different from eachother to make it one government.

However, your idea of Atheism creating more happy faces will probably be much too controversial. And in real life it didn't increase culture. In my opinion it should indeed increase Science and decrease the benefits of temples and cathedrals, but that would be it.

[Pythagoras]

double post :-/ stinkn busy server.

[Pythagoras]

Originally posted by Sava
For the people that complain there are no Arab Civs...

Persia... while Ancient Persia was not Islamic, Iran held the title of Persia up until the early 20th Century.

Egypt... I know the game creators meant this to be Ancient Egypt, modern day Egyptians are Islamic.

If it makes you Muslims feel better, Israel wasn't in Civ 3 either .

Islam is a religion, complaining that 'Islam' isnt represented is like complaining 'hinduism' isnt represented. The Arab people are a national group not nescesarilly related to islam. Many early arab nationalists were in fact christian and christianity is still a significant minority in arab societies. The adjectives 'Islamic' and 'Arabic' are not interchangeble, there are indeed many non-Arabs that are Islamic and many non-Islamic Arabs. Interestingly much of the population of Israel is made up of Arab-Jews booted out of their 'home' nations after the horrible Arab defeat on the hands of Israelis in the '48 war.

That aside Arabs were very influential in world history. An Christians were drowning in religous fanaticism and barbaric acts of terror, Arab civilizations were producing much of the worlds intellectual material while preserving a considerable amount of greco-roman culture. Their influence spanned an empire that rivaled the Roman's during the middle ages and their troops gived westerner's a solid whoopn a good deal of the time.

The only problem with Arab nationalists is that its so hard to define who is Arab these days. The lines are not as clear as the distinction between English and German. My Arab-Israeli dispute teacher told me he had to translate between an Arabic speaking person of Morroco and one from Syria. There are so many dialects that its hard to nail down the 'lines'. Even turkish is very similar to Arabic.

[Imp. Montezuma]

Originally posted by Fresno
...
Apart from Communism, it would be good to have Socialism as well. The two are to different from eachother to make it one government.
...

But according to classic communism theory at communism formation didn't government. Communism nor as formation, nor as government never exist. Tech: Egalitarianism Theory Gov: Sovdepia

[Fresno]

With Communism I meant the government of the USSR. I know that's not what communism meant originally, and I also know that the USSR called itself a socialist state instead of a communist one. But I think most people will call the soviet system communist. Actually, I do that myself.

With Socialism, I meant the state pursued by democratic socialist parties in most European countries, the system in which the vulnerable are protected, and given a strong voice in politics. I discussed about a Socialist government in Civ3 with Willem, somewhere on the Civ3 general forum. He stressed the difference between the US government and the European democracies. I found it a good idea.

[Kramerman]

Yes.

I personally think that in an ideal civ game that a civ should be able to chose both its economic system (say capiolism, or communicm) and its government type (such as democracy or monarchy) separately. Because it is very possible and even maybe ideal to have something like a democratic communism. That is, a nation that elects its officials directly and lives under a communal economic system.

But like mentioned earlier, communism has this sort of stigma of Soviet communism, or a corrupt totalitarian state that has a communist system. Many people also dont understand the difference between governments and their economic policies, whether they be free market, socialistic, communist, or some other system.

It is equally concivable to have a totalitarian USSR style government with a capitolist system. I believe that is what Fascism is all about, though its "capitolism" is highly regulated by government.

My point is, that i would like to separate economic systems from types of government.

I also think Athiesm should make religous place less happy and increase scientific output, because that is only logical.

And perhaps World Cup Soccer should be a Great Wonder that would allow all civs to build soccer rioters and also be a prerequiste along with Islam to allows civs to build Fanatics

[Solmyr]

Originally posted by Pythagoras
That aside Arabs were very influential in world history. An Christians were drowning in religous fanaticism and barbaric acts of terror, Arab civilizations were producing much of the worlds intellectual material while preserving a considerable amount of greco-roman culture. Their influence spanned an empire that rivaled the Roman's during the middle ages and their troops gived westerner's a solid whoopn a good deal of the time.

Uhh, I hope you aren't saying that all Christians were drowning in religious fanaticism (a feature certainly not unknown in medieval Islam as well) and barbaric acts of terror (likewise) while the Arabs were these paragons of enlightenment. People too often dismiss the "Byzantine" Empire, when in fact it had preserved a considerable amount of Greco-Roman culture as well. The Italian Renaissance started in part due to Greek refugees fleeing the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. The Byzantines gave the Arabs a "solid whoopn" a good deal of the time as well (Nicephorus Phocas and Basil II come to mind). Finally, one reason why Europe isn't speaking Arabic is the successful defense of Constantinople against repeated sieges by the Arabs, which is at least as significant to containing Arab expansion as their defeat by Charles Martel at Poitiers.

So while I totally agree that Arab civilizations were flourishing during the Middle Ages, all of Europe was definitely not a dark pit of backwardness. That is why I also want the Byzantines as a civilization in the game

[Kramerman]

So while I totally agree that Arab civilizations were flourishing during the Middle Ages, all of Europe was definitely not a dark pit of backwardness.

To me it seems that as the enlightening ancient times in Europe came to an end at the fall of western Rome, It was just beginning in the arab lands. And as enlightenment returned to the west during, you guessed it, the age of enlightenment, the arab lands were descending into the dark ages that they are currently in now (for the most part). Note the parallels between Christian fanatasicm (crusades) during our middle ages and Islamic fanatcism (terrorism) during their "Middle ages". I dunno, just thought of that, kinda stupid really...

Kman

P.S. Ever heard of the thing called the "Childrens' Crusade". I remeber readng about it in my history book and then ROTF laughing my guts out. If you are not familiar, look it up, im sure it'll give you a chuckle, if it is wriiten about corectly .

[Solmyr]

Originally posted by Kramerman


To me it seems that as the enlightening ancient times in Europe came to an end at the fall of western Rome, It was just beginning in the arab lands. And as enlightenment returned to the west during, you guessed it, the age of enlightenment, the arab lands were descending into the dark ages that they are currently in now (for the most part). Note the parallels between Christian fanatasicm (crusades) during our middle ages and Islamic fanatcism (terrorism) during their "Middle ages". I dunno, just thought of that, kinda stupid really...

As I said, the Byzantine Empire remained a beacon of European civilization throughout the Middle Ages - all of Europe was far from being "unenlightened". And Islamic fanaticism can be considered to have started in earnest with Saladin, and can be traced to earlier historical events as well, all the way to the original Arab conquests (contrary to popular belief, the Arabs were far from being nice and tolerant to everyone).

[tomcat ha]

The arabs never came that far
The selcuks or something where coming near istanbul
Osmanle empire conquerd it (that`s how we turks say ottoman empire)

[Prince]

Not only is there Persia & Egypt, there's also the Babylonians. They have lived in the middle-east for ages, being banished to Egypt and back to Israel or whatever it was, which are details. Point is, they were there

[tomcat ha]

Dervish do you post at PA?

[Christantine The Great]

Originally posted by Solmyr


Uhh, I hope you aren't saying that all Christians were drowning in religious fanaticism (a feature certainly not unknown in medieval Islam as well) and barbaric acts of terror (likewise) while the Arabs were these paragons of enlightenment. People too often dismiss the "Byzantine" Empire, when in fact it had preserved a considerable amount of Greco-Roman culture as well. The Italian Renaissance started in part due to Greek refugees fleeing the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople in 1453. The Byzantines gave the Arabs a "solid whoopn" a good deal of the time as well (Nicephorus Phocas and Basil II come to mind). Finally, one reason why Europe isn't speaking Arabic is the successful defense of Constantinople against repeated sieges by the Arabs, which is at least as significant to containing Arab expansion as their defeat by Charles Martel at Poitiers.

So while I totally agree that Arab civilizations were flourishing during the Middle Ages, all of Europe was definitely not a dark pit of backwardness. That is why I also want the Byzantines as a civilization in the game

The Byzantines were by FAR religious fanatics at many times in their history; the Iconoclasts come to mind. And the whole Schism.

All of Europe WAS a pit of backwards-ness. In 500, the only big towns you could find were inside Byzantine and Persian borders.

Although the Byzantines were able to hold off Arab invasions, it was due more to the odd strong emperor and an important technological advantage, like Greek Fire. Also, the Caliphate was usually ridden by internal problems. Did you know that Egypt and Jerusalem handed themselves to the Arabs? The Patriarch of Jerusalem gave Caliph Oman a tour.