Oppositions to Arabs

[LouLong]

Originally posted by Ikarus
I have played the Civilization series for a very long time and consider myself an expert of civ 2 (soon civ 3), but I am newbie here. After browsing around the website I came across many people who were disappointed that the Arabs were introduced to the Play the World expansion. There argument was that the Babylonians and Persians are Arabs, and that, because of this, are not to be considered a civ.

I was just curious if these people felt the same way towards the Americans, as they are basically the English.

Babylonians are Semites, a linguistic group that includes both Arabs and Jews.

But Persians are not Arabs at all. They are Indo-European and their language and many traditions are completely different. The fact that they are now Muslims makes them sound or look a bit like Arabs but they are different, which lead to long historical troubles between them.

The Arabic peninsula is not only a desert and you have population and ressources in the Hedjaz (where you have Mecca now) or in the South (Hadramawt or Happy Arabia), area of the Queen of Saba rich thanks to its incense. It might be difficult for them to grow a civ there and they will have to invade neighboring areas to develop, which is historically correct. Starting from Medina, the Moslems took Mecca that became of their religious center but as soon as they could get out of the Peninsula, they built their capital in Damas in Bagdad that were for them like paradises.
Whatever, they are one of the main civilizations of the world, and partly a transnational one too and deserve to be there. Hard to play maybe which is why they get a strong and fast UU.

BTW, I am no Arab but French (even thogh they will represent the bulk of the population soon) so it is not pride that speaks but reason.

[candybo]

Again, how can anyone neglect THE MIGHTY POLISH EMPIRE !?!... J/K, it hasn't occured... YET..


Seriously, tho, even though I AM a history buff (and who here isn't?), I don't really care too much about which civs and which traits are included, as it relates to Civ. What difference does it make? You could just as easily use sports-team names, or whatever. Personally, someday I plan to really, actually found the tribe/civ/ethnic group to end them all: The Grand NationWorld of the Scooter Crunches!! All the same in the obituary pages, right?
Thank you, and goodnight.

[Blue Moose]

I'd add in that Egypt was also certainly the most powerful country in the world in the distant past.

Of course, all of the countries named could never touch any of the North or South American civs like the Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, Hopewells, etc. Considering that, I think they should be in there too.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by candybo
Seriously, tho, even though I AM a history buff (and who here isn't?), I don't really care too much about which civs and which traits are included, as it relates to Civ. What difference does it make? You could just as easily use sports-team names, or whatever. Personally, someday I plan to really, actually found the tribe/civ/ethnic group to end them all: The Grand NationWorld of the Scooter Crunches!! All the same in the obituary pages, right?
Thank you, and goodnight.

I actually mostly agree here. The Civ games are basically about rewriting history, so I find the civ traits themselves seem a bit odd to me, as well as unique units. I guess it would have been a bit more work to make the whole thing more generalized though. Unless the traits were balanced with each other perfectly, then perhaps a system like AC's unit creation could have been used. Civ specific units could just be customized versions then.

Makes more sense that way, hehe. Afterall, consider America's Sherman Tank. Hmm, 10/6/2, costing between 60 and 80 shields, or something like that. Though, if they had units requiring buildings to build, it would need a factory in the city to be built. Hmm, I seem to ramble off-topic in too many threads.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by CivilopediaCity
Indonesia, Malacca and Ceylon. In territory we weren't the biggest in territory, but in might and power we sure were! We, in Holland, call that period The Golden Age. In that period WE could say: Holland rules the waves.

And don't forget numerous holdings in (southern) Africa and the Americas!

[Martinus Magnificus]

Originally posted by Ribannah
And don't forget numerous holdings in (southern) Africa and the Americas!

We Dutch love to remind the Americans that New York was once called 'New Amsterdam'! (Harlem=Haarlem, Brooklyn=Breukelen!)

what different could the U.S. have been if we hadn't traded NY for Suriname!

Sorry for this off-topic post guys, but I couldn't help myself...

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus


We Dutch love to remind the Americans that New York was once called 'New Amsterdam'! (Harlem=Haarlem, Brooklyn=Breukelen!)

what different could the U.S. have been if we hadn't traded NY for Suriname!

Sorry for this off-topic post guys, but I couldn't help myself...

300 years ago you chose to do so - now you regret it....

but who knows: in 300 years the global warming and other ecological disturbarnces might change the climate, that present day new york is uninhabitable and surinam is paradise

Sorry for this off-topic post guys, but I couldn't help myself...

[Panag]

Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus


We Dutch love to remind the Americans that New York was once called 'New Amsterdam'! (Harlem=Haarlem, Brooklyn=Breukelen!)

what different could the U.S. have been if we hadn't traded NY for Suriname!

Sorry for this off-topic post guys, but I couldn't help myself...

hi ,

thats whats so great about civ , you can play the world the way you like it , ......

lets hope that with that new "enhanced editor" we can make a scenario about it , ....

have a nice day

[Your.Master]

Why they changed it, I don't know, I guess they liked it better that way...

Sorry, song's over.

I don't see how that really matters. Toronto was once called York (parts of it still are), Kitchener (which you've probably never heard of but is not too far from Toronto and is where most of Microsoft comes from, via University of Waterloo...technically, that's Waterloo, but Kitchener-Waterloo cities mix up into basically a big Kitchenar) was called Berlin, before the World Wars. Heck, the British royal family had a very German-sounding name before the wars, although it escapes me at the moment.

What's in a name? Why does it matter?

We have a stinky swamp nearby called "Holland Marsh". It's famous for growing good-tasting fruits and also for being a stinky swamp called "Holland Marsh".

Just across the border, in Michigan, there is a town called "Gaylord". That's right, "Gaylord". Residents can travel the world, saying that they are Gaylordian or Gaylordish or Gaylordi or something.

London was Londinium, France was Gaul, Iraq/Iran/Other was Persia...

No offense to your nationalism, but sometimes the niggling things that people can be proud of get me to laughing. Again, no offense, but I just have to make an exaggerated impression of you:

"Hee hee. Big American city with lots and lots of money used to be called the same as big Dutch city that used to have lots and lots of money before big American city had lots and lots of money".

It's kind of self-demeaning to have nationalism for something great in the States, when you're not American.

[Kramerman]

Just across the border, in Michigan, there is a town called "Gaylord".

Oh man that sucks. The only thing worse than coming from a town ( oh god i hope no one out there is named Gaylord If there is no offense intended ) called Gaylord, would be to have the name Gaylord. Well, i take that back, there are other more blatent names i would rather not have, like ***** Galore, or Biggus Dickus or somethn like that.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by Your.Master
Toronto was once called York (parts of it still are),

Even better: it started with the Seneca town of Teyagon, just like Montreal began with the Huron town of Hochelaga.

[LionQ]

Originally posted by candybo
...Personally, someday I plan to really, actually found the tribe/civ/ethnic group to end them all: The Grand NationWorld...

Well, in Europe were busy with it. Look to the Euro and the European Union. But if you look to English people, I don't think they want to give up there traditions.

[Sonic]

I agree Jews should be added (instead of Carthaginians), but Arabs seriously did more than Jews. They had one of the biggest empires in history and contributed much to the world culture. Everyone is saying Arabs should be not in just for political reasons (or because they are racists). If computer games would be introduced in like 1930s now everybody would object Zululand (because they are blacks).

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Sonic
I agree Jews should be added (instead of Carthaginians), but Arabs seriously did more than Jews. They had one of the biggest empires in history and contributed much to the world culture. Everyone is saying Arabs should be not in just for political reasons (or because they are racists). If computer games would be introduced in like 1930s now everybody would object Zululand (because they are blacks).

what!? Zulus are in the game!? Son of a *****! I didnt know that... well, looks like i cant play this one anymore...

[LionQ]

Originally posted by Sonic
I agree Jews should be added (instead of Carthaginians), but Arabs seriously did more than Jews. They had one of the biggest empires in history and contributed much to the world culture. Everyone is saying Arabs should be not in just for political reasons (or because they are racists). If computer games would be introduced in like 1930s now everybody would object Zululand (because they are blacks).

I don't think Jews have to replace the Carthaginians. The Jews had a small Kingdom on the Middetereanen (?). But compared to the Carthaginians, I think the Carthaginians has to be in the game, because they did had a large empire, traded much and had a great fleet. Besides, even Rome feared the Carthaginian WarElephants.
Indeed Arabs did seriously more than Jews. I think Arabs HAVE to be in the game. They've had an empire from Persia, via Turkey and Egypt, to whole NorthAfrica. In 732 they were even in the middle of France. And they've had the Balcan in their mighty grip for centuries and centuries.
Conclusion: Arabs have to be in the game, but not as a replacement of the Carthaginians, because they (Carth.) have to be in the game too.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Sonic
I agree Jews should be added (instead of Carthaginians), but Arabs seriously did more than Jews. They had one of the biggest empires in history and contributed much to the world culture. Everyone is saying Arabs should be not in just for political reasons (or because they are racists). If computer games would be introduced in like 1930s now everybody would object Zululand (because they are blacks).

hi ,

Sonic , when are you going to stop to post such things , .....

try the OT forum , ....

and post when you know something about what you are posting , ....

have a nice day

[sabrewolf]

panag, actually sonic isn't off-topic at all... this thread is called "opposition to arabs" and that's exactly what he's talking about.

but anyway - the PTW civs are definitive, so whatever you guys want different: mod it

[Sonic]

Panag...

So this is me who should ask you the same thing this time... When you will stop attack me on each my post, which has at least something to do with Jews?

Many people said Arabs did more in history than Jews (which Arabs really did), but you chose me to attack.

And again, if you are implying I am uninformed, please say why. In my former post everything I said was true. Or do you mean Kingdom of Israel was bigger than Arab Caliphate?

Also, sabrewolf is right, I talked about PTW not about something Off-topic.

Have a nice day.

[sabrewolf]

which civilization belongs in the game imho depends of the historical impact and not if the the civ is good or evil.

that's why i think america has to be inside - because in the last 150 years it's been the the most powerful nation of the world (economically, militarically und even culturally (yes, cinema also is culture) [i can't believe what i'm saying ]).

the mongols were brutal murderers, rapists and pillagers - and that's why they had a great impact on the world

same with the leaders. even though stalin was one of the most evil men of all time, he made a great impact on the world (well, mainly in the soviet union, but still)

so to come back on-topic: arabs made (and still are making) a great impact on history, culture, wars, science and philosophy, so no non-biased argument can be brought in against the decision to include them in PTW.

[Kramerman]

same with the leaders. even though stalin was one of the most evil men of all time, he made a great impact on the world (well, mainly in the soviet union, but still) same with the leaders. even though stalin was one of the most evil men of all time, he made a great impact on the world (well, mainly in the soviet union, but still)

Thats why I think hitler should be the leader of Germany. He was one of the most influencial men in history, this fact is indeniable. It very well was his wickedness that made him so influentual, as can be said for other world leaders, like Stalin, who has already been mentioned, and others.

[brianshapiro]

kramerman its difficult to tell how hitler will be thought of a century from now , otto von bismark was also very influential

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Kramerman
Thats why I think hitler should be the leader of Germany. He was one of the most influencial men in history, this fact is indeniable. It very well was his wickedness that made him so influentual, as can be said for other world leaders, like Stalin, who has already been mentioned, and others.

OT:

You make an interesting point Kramerman. I'm torn between your idea of using Hitler as Germany's leader, and using someone less repugnant. My problem is that I'd make a concerted effort to wipe Germany from the game so I didn't have to see Hitler's ugly mug. Call me crazy, but my hatred of him and his policies would actually enter into the game.

[Explorer579]

Arabs do not see themselves as a religious entity/state, though most of them are muslims.

Israelis define themselves as a jewish state/entity.

Therefore, if you include Israelis/Hebrews, you should also include "Muslim" and "Christian" civilizations. However, religious civilizations, are actually more of a mode of government (a stage of progression) than a civilization. In this aspect, the civ people got it right. Keep the fundamentalist religious entities a mode of government and do not inlcude hebrew, muslim, or christian civilizations.

As for Israeli enthusiasts, when you go and make your fifty-year old country/"civilization" secular, you can them claim a right for inclusion in civ. We will then make Sharon your leader and have him say in diplomacy screens, "Don't mess up with me, I destroy civilians' houses!" Otherwise, Israelis are now just a theocracy, which is a form of government in civ -- and rightly so.

Wanna play Hebrews? Then chose Babylonians and stick to a fundamentalist regime!

[Zero]

We will then make Sharon your leader and have him say in diplomacy screens, "Don't mess up with me, I destroy civilians' houses!"

lol very funny explorer579, and im sure jews with sense of humor can laugh wit that one.. as for many hebrew enthusiast, i have one nice and one bad thing to say to you all. first, Incas, clearly a very achieved civilization, didn't make it to the game. And almost everyone is complaining about Inca's absence. So don;t feel bad about Hebrews not makin it. Firaxis only has so many to work wit ya kno? Second, don't persuade yourself into thiking "yeah hebrew deserves to be in this game" because of this and that... Israel is still too young to be considered a longstanding civilization. So Modern Israel is out, despite whatever excuses youd use to persuade ur brain it belongs there. As for ancient Israel, it's a possibility I guess that could have been in the game. After all didnt Bible mention during king davidish - solomon era, that israel was very powerful. anyways bottomline is it didn't make it cause no matter how many civ firaxis makes, if they dont make ALL SOMEONE will be complaining. just live wit it (or use the editor to satisfy urself.)

On a side note, I'd gladly take my own country out to put Incas. When I here the word civilization Incas is sooo the depiction of civilization over korea... thats just the image i get i guess (that and egypt). At least Im just glad civ didnt go with modern day korea (modern day korean civ is quite new as israel! [post WW2] ) as a civ and went far back enough.

btw, speaking of eras. why can't civ have same country in different era as civs? I guess it would be unfair for country to take up two slots i guess but I miss the political incorrect russians of Civ I (with leader stalin. didn't they mean Soviet Union?) I want soviet Union back! their possible trait could be militaristic, scientifc, industrious or expansionistic.

[LionQ]

Originally posted by Calc II


lol very funny explorer579, and im sure jews with sense of humor can laugh wit that one.. as for many hebrew enthusiast, i have one nice and one bad thing to say to you all. first, Incas, clearly a very achieved civilization, didn't make it to the game. And almost everyone is complaining about Inca's absence. So don;t feel bad about Hebrews not makin it. Firaxis only has so many to work wit ya kno? Second, don't persuade yourself into thiking "yeah hebrew deserves to be in this game" because of this and that... Israel is still too young to be considered a longstanding civilization. So Modern Israel is out, despite whatever excuses youd use to persuade ur brain it belongs there. As for ancient Israel, it's a possibility I guess that could have been in the game. After all didnt Bible mention during king davidish - solomon era, that israel was very powerful. anyways bottomline is it didn't make it cause no matter how many civ firaxis makes, if they dont make ALL SOMEONE will be complaining. just live wit it (or use the editor to satisfy urself.)

On a side note, I'd gladly take my own country out to put Incas. When I here the word civilization Incas is sooo the depiction of civilization over korea... thats just the image i get i guess (that and egypt). At least Im just glad civ didnt go with modern day korea (modern day korean civ is quite new as israel! [post WW2] ) as a civ and went far back enough.

btw, speaking of eras. why can't civ have same country in different era as civs? I guess it would be unfair for country to take up two slots i guess but I miss the political incorrect russians of Civ I (with leader stalin. didn't they mean Soviet Union?) I want soviet Union back! their possible trait could be militaristic, scientifc, industrious or expansionistic.

Soviet Union? Inca's? Hebrews? All right. But then I have a wish to: where's Holland, hay? We were the mightiest country of the world a time in the 17th Century. The CSU has to be then a good VOC Frigate.

[Sonic]

Maybe in the next xpack... Remember, there are still 7 civ slots left. I think they should choose the following countries for 2nd xpack:

Netherlands/Holland
Incan Empire
Lithuanian Great Duchy
Portugal
Israel

For the remaining slots I think modern civs should be chosen (with modern UUs), because there are only 2 such civs - USA and Germany. I'd propose either Australia (mostly because there are no civs in Oceania), either Pakistan, South African Republic, Yugoslavia, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, etc.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Sonic
Maybe in the next xpack... Remember, there are still 7 civ slots left. I think they should choose the following countries for 2nd xpack:

Netherlands/Holland
Incan Empire
Lithuanian Great Duchy
Portugal
Israel

For the remaining slots I think modern civs should be chosen (with modern UUs), because there are only 2 such civs - USA and Germany. I'd propose either Australia (mostly because there are no civs in Oceania), either Pakistan, South African Republic, Yugoslavia, Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Cuba, etc.

lithuanian? intesting why them?

my list would be something like this:

- incas
- mayan (another one for the scarsely used american civs)
- inuit (never that powerful, basicly because of the bad "starting location"
- dutch
- portugese
- hebrews
- khmer
- polish (another slavic civ)
- sumerians
- scandinavians
- ugric (hungarians)
- polynesian
- indonesians
- vietnamese or thai

for the modern countries:
- cuban (just the leader is reason enough to take 'em )
- brasilians
- argentinians
- australians
- kazachs
- pakistanis
- nigerians
- south african
- canadian

well, that's more than 16, but why not?

[LionQ]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
lithuanian? intesting why them?

Because they had an large Empire in the east of Europe in the MiddleAges

my list would be something like this:

- sumerians

And the Assyrians too, then! And were are the Hittites???

[Cidifer]

I think you people are taking this stuff too seriously, this isn't a history book, it's a game. Which is why you shouldn't just decide who to include on the basis of how big their empire was, or how much they influenced the world.

They should look at the most interesting civs, then find out which ones can be made into an entertaining, funtioning civ then decide which one most people would play. To this day I've yet to play as the Zulu for example, simply because I don't really have an interest in them.

You've also got to remember that you people are actually the minority of Civ gamers, most people who bought this game don't come to this forum. Most forum goers happen to be really into history which is why they stick around because others are too, but the average gamer isn't, it's misleading when you see how many people know history here, it makes you think everyone who plays does too. However this isn't true, and the casual gamer want to be able to open up the box and recognize most if not all of the civs they see, it wouldn't make much sense to release 4 or 6 new civs if only 10% of the gamers will ever even try them, they could spend that time making or fixing something much more useful.

The developers also want things that people will recognize even if they don't know the history of the country (like war elephents), and will make the player try these new civs because that's what will draw more players to the civs, not what kind of history they have of trading from back in the 1500's.

[Caliban]

Originally posted by Kramerman
Thats why I think hitler should be the leader of Germany. He was one of the most influencial men in history, this fact is indeniable. It very well was his wickedness that made him so influentual, as can be said for other world leaders, like Stalin, who has already been mentioned, and others.

Are you crazy??? Things like this suggestion really make me angry!
I like playing my own country and I want a leader I can identify with!! Hitler was a godforsaken warmonger and the most disgusting creature in human history!!!!! I would NEVER play a Hitler-led Germany!
Bismarck, as you maybe know, was not really a man of peace, but he was not mad! He tried to establish stable political conditions in Europe (with a strong Germany of course...) and did not try to kill all non-German European population!
And it was Bismarck who CREATED the country you today know as Germany (he did this by short wars, but not by genocide!) So Bismarck was the one who really started a period of relative stability and prosperous unity for the German people, wheras Hitler only led us into a dark and terrible age we will never forget... or recover from.