Israel civ - Page 10

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 6, 2003, 15:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
The Jewish-Roman conflict was a relatively large one, and judea was a well-known province, for it's rebel spirit, But the civ game demands a civilization or a family of civilizations that existed for thousands of years ( Or is the US

). Just as the times there were a united India, or China were numbered, and just as the babylonian civ actually represents all of the Two-river civilizations, I propose a canaanite civ that would encompass the canaanites, the Hebrews, and the phoenicians, as well as their children, the Carthaginians and the Israelis of the modern age. I propose their strengths to be religious, for the hebrews' advances in theological and thus, phylosophical thinking, and commercial to represent the carthaginians' and their ancestors, the phoenicians' strength in commerce. Their leader could be Hebrew or could be carthaginian, these are all details. But they deserve a place in civ. (as many more civs do, btw. )

A good compromise, but I really want fiery Yahweh's chosen people in there.

Sorry. They've just got so much good drama and bloodshed in their history.

XarXo · January 6, 2003, 18:05

Um OK, Sorry.

About Israel in the game, what about include minorities in civs?

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 6, 2003, 18:17

Quote:

Originally posted by XarXo
Um OK, Sorry.

About Israel in the game, what about include minorities in civs?

Isn't that what resisting and unhappy people you've conquered are meant to represent?

Az · January 7, 2003, 06:23

Actually, I'd rather start with hundreds of different tribes around 10000 BC, and then work my way towards space exploration, merging tribes, city states, etc. along the way.

XarXo · January 7, 2003, 13:44

No, minorities related with the goodie huts, they never formed part of a civ and have special affinities to some civs.

I.e.: Incans or Olmecs.

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 7, 2003, 14:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Actually, I'd rather start with hundreds of different tribes around 10000 BC, and then work my way towards space exploration, merging tribes, city states, etc. along the way.

I agree... that's the only way to make Civ really life like... because, really, are the "Babylonians" any better than the (currently "barbarian") Sumerians? The Sumerians came first... and how different are these people really than the Akkadians, Assyrians, and numerous other groups of the Ancient World Near East? Why single out the Aztecs and not have the Inca or Maya?

But you'd need a pretty damn fast computer to really make that happen...

Az · January 7, 2003, 15:15

I say, it would happen in Civ 5 or so.

But they really have to beef up economics, change manufacturing, etc.

remember, we'd have processors that would handle it easily in about 4 years or so. It's not that much time, actually.

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 7, 2003, 15:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

I say, it would happen in Civ 5 or so.

Good Lord, I hope I'm married or something by that time and NEVER SEE ANOTHER VERSION OF THIS GAME THAT CONSUMES MY LIFE AGAIN!!!

Az · January 7, 2003, 16:53

Civ 3 hardly consumed my life. well, just a little bit .

joncnunn · January 7, 2003, 17:20

No discussion of the Jewish-Roman conflict can be complete without including the Samartians.

And prior to Rome annexing Isreal, there was a conflict between the Syrian Greeks & Isrealis.

America is not the only civ that hasn't been around thousands of years:

Ethicly, France was a mixture of the Gauls that were present there and the Germanic Tribe of Franks that moved in, settled down and intermarried with the Gauls roughly around the 8th century AD.

England a mixture of the native Celts, tribes of Anglos & Saxons from Scandendia, and Normans, which eventually intermarried roughly around the 11th century AD.

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
The Jewish-Roman conflict was a relatively large one, and judea was a well-known province, for it's rebel spirit, But the civ game demands a civilization or a family of civilizations that existed for thousands of years ( Or is the US

). Just as the times there were a united India, or China were numbered, and just as the babylonian civ actually represents all of the Two-river civilizations, I propose a canaanite civ that would encompass the canaanites, the Hebrews, and the phoenicians, as well as their children, the Carthaginians and the Israelis of the modern age. I propose their strengths to be religious, for the hebrews' advances in theological and thus, phylosophical thinking, and commercial to represent the carthaginians' and their ancestors, the phoenicians' strength in commerce. Their leader could be Hebrew or could be carthaginian, these are all details. But they deserve a place in civ. (as many more civs do, btw. )

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 7, 2003, 17:21

Quote:

Originally posted by joncnunn

America is not the only civ that hasn't been around thousands of years:

Well put.

Look in the Civilopedia itself if anyone disbelieves this statement!!!

Az · January 7, 2003, 17:58

I know that, jon. I've said that my preference would be to have tribes mixing with each other, and falling to pieces, like in real life. Read my post in the 'Ukriainian civ' thread in this forum.

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 8, 2003, 11:17

Here, perhaps, is the problem with an Israel Civ, a Scot Civ, a Maya Civ... in my opinion, also with many Civs in PTW, especially the Scandanavians and Celts...

These Civs grow - in the game - to be giant, long lasting empires! However, this never happened in real life.

It always bothers me, as a "history nerd," to see the Chinese suffering while dominated by the Spanish and Scandanavians, to name but one of very much totally absurd combinations...

Someone needs to get the AI right where these Civs either are "happy to be small" (you could add the Swiss this way) or expand so rapidly that it's disastrous to their own Civ.

Actually, the Aztecs DO seem to do that a lot, and the Zulus. But the Mongols always seem to make it through to the end, unless the player his/herself takes control and wipes them out. In real life, even though their empire was huge, it lasted an incredibly brief time.

I don't know... the AI is pretty impressive, in my opinion, but maybe some more tweaking. What did the Mongols and Scandanavians care about OTHER than battle (and a little looting)? Historically, not much. Should they really be building Shakespeare's Theatre in Civ?

Az · January 8, 2003, 12:43

I think they should. They should start with some basic culture, that would be the stem of their future cultural developement. Under certain circumstances, I think it would be ok that they'd build Shakespear's theatre.

I would like the corruption to heavily depend on amount of centralization that you enact, in the way that there is always of maximum efficiency for different types of construction, that would consider the amount of communication technology: at the beginning, max de-centralization is best, but nothing really holds the state/tribe together. After you invent certain communication techs, centralization would become less inefficient in general economy, and would be actually better in terms of national projects and certain products.

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 8, 2003, 12:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
I think they should. They should start with some basic culture, that would be the stem of their future cultural developement. Under certain circumstances, I think it would be ok that they'd build Shakespear's theatre.

Well, I do love to see weird cultures become huge and powerful in Civ, as they never did in real life... just not all the time. That the Scandanavians should always have a huge, impressive Civ, really bothers me. (That's what generally seems to happen in my Regent games)

Quote:

I would like the corruption to heavily depend on amount of centralization that you enact, in the way that there is always of maximum efficiency for different types of construction, that would consider the amount of communication technology: at the beginning, max de-centralization is best, but nothing really holds the state/tribe together. After you invent certain communication techs, centralization would become less inefficient in general economy, and would be actually better in terms of national projects and certain products.

A fine idea. Why are massive telephone installations neglected in Civ? Furthermore, a great small wonder would be the National Mail Service... think about it... all sorts of potential benefits!

The constant struggle between centralizers and de-centralizers, though maybe too abstract to represent in Civ, should at least be considered. It's one of the most important and constant in history! (barons vs. kings, states vs. federal gov't, cities vs. capital cities, popes vs. rogue priests, etc.)

Panag · January 8, 2003, 12:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Actually, I'd rather start with hundreds of different tribes around 10000 BC, and then work my way towards space exploration, merging tribes, city states, etc. along the way.

hi ,

who knows , maybe we get 64 civ's with CIV IV , .....

have a nice day

sabrewolf · January 8, 2003, 14:22

Yahweh Sabaoth,
i don't agree with you. the whole idea of civilization is to write your OWN history. imagine if the vikings would have started in a hot, dry, sea-less region or the egyptians down near the south pole in a tundra-region... and so on.

the civs in real life didn't choose where they started. and they had to work from that point on, under the given circumstances.

the only thing really unflexible are the traits and the UU, but that was done for playing purposes.

if the game would make it impossible for the celts to rule the world and impossible for the chinese to be weak, why should anyone play with the celts?
and if you'd want perfect realism, ICMBs should be disabled until at least year 2003, because 'till now, there hasn't been a nuclear war yet. also, nearly all civilizations would have to be replaced, because 4000 BC they didn't exist yet. and the americans would have to appear sometime end of the medieval age.

i know this all sounds trivial, but i basicly want to say that the more real-world based restrictions, the less fun it is to play

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 8, 2003, 14:33

Quote:

Originally posted by sabrewolf
i know this all sounds trivial, but i basicly want to say that the more real-world based restrictions, the less fun it is to play

No, it doesn't sound trivial, and I mostly agree with you.

It's just that I think some of the Civs are a little... unbalanced. For example, the Scandanavians. They weren't even united. If you could rule one specific group of Vikings, that'd be one thing... but to see them rise, consistently, to a mighty empire because of their great UU and their expansionist trait is always a little upsetting. The Zulu, too.

But on the other hand, I do like the "weirdness" of the game... for example, when a powerful Iroquois Empire joins forces with India to attack my globally dominant Chinese empire... etc., etc. That IS one of the best parts of the game.

I guess the only Civs that bother me becoming "great powers" consistently in the game would be the Scandanavians, the Iroquois, and to a lesser extent, the Mongols and Zulus.

Everyone else... it makes sense when they have their "day in the sun" late in the game.

And I have nothing against people of Scandanavian, Zulu or Iroquois ancestry.

Silpy · January 10, 2003, 06:08

Dont trust the Civpedia! Perhaps it is because it is my country, but I found the decription of post-war England rather poor. I had to re-do it for my modded version. If you dont beleve me, look at it. It jumps from victory in WW2 to Tony Blair, missing out our 'specal relationship' with the US, decolanisation and several silly wars (Falklands, etc). Perhaps people form outher countrys find it the same with their nations Civpedia notes....

Az · January 10, 2003, 10:48

You can't put the entire history there. It was a bunch of highlights.

Yahweh Sabaoth · January 10, 2003, 11:11

Well, that's true, the Civilopedia is not where I'd go to get research on a country

but it's not the end of the world. I find their depiction of Mao atrocious, but still, you got to give them SOME credit... they could just crank out some nonsense... I'm willing to bet that the Civilopedia contains more history than most Americans' minds!

High_Lord · January 11, 2003, 03:02

I have the History Channel

Watching it makes me want play Civ

Az · January 11, 2003, 08:16

I could have the history channel, but my folks are cheap.

Edan · January 11, 2003, 11:13

Quote:

Originally posted by High_Lord
I have the History Channel

Watching it makes me want play Civ

Admit it, what doesn't make you want to play Civ?

Az · January 12, 2003, 06:34

for me, It's most things.

+1

Panag · January 12, 2003, 13:45

hi ,

what traits should the Israeli civ be , ....

have a nice day

sabrewolf · January 12, 2003, 13:48

definetly religious

otherwise
- militaristic if you consider modern day israel
- commercial if you consider that jews are famous for banking families across the world.

Panag · January 12, 2003, 14:48

Quote:

Originally posted by sabrewolf
definetly religious

otherwise
- militaristic if you consider modern day israel
- commercial if you consider that jews are famous for banking families across the world.

hi ,

, well in some mods some civ's have more then two trait's , should this be the same in this case , ....

have a nice day

sabrewolf · January 12, 2003, 14:55

this thread is not about a specific scenario, it's about the general inclusion (if or if not) of the hebrew/israel civ.
so firaxis or whoever decides would have to agree on just TWO traits.

Panag · January 12, 2003, 14:59

Quote:

Originally posted by sabrewolf
this thread is not about a specific scenario, it's about the general inclusion (if or if not) of the hebrew/israel civ.
so firaxis or whoever decides would have to agree on just TWO traits.

hi ,

why wait until they bring it in , a MOD would be good , .... a MOD of one civ , well why not , ...

have a nice day