Civs in Civ3: Conquests - Page 4

Panag · July 1, 2003, 23:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Patroklos
Hey All,

I assure you that the designers of video games are normally a diverse crowd themselves, so we really don't have to worry about them leaning to any particully geographic region. Most consumers buy civ to do the "what if" scenario.

"What if" the English did this,

"What if" I had ruled the Chinese.

For this reason the Civs included are those that were world powers OF SIGNIFIGANCE during there day, the ones people know. (i.e. England, Egypt, China, Aztec, etc.).

I have a degree in history, amongst other things, and know of scores of civilizations and nations and sects and tribes and on and on that are infinitly interesting and have contributed to the wealth of human history.
That doesn't, however, make them movers and shakers. We all know the Hebrew/Isrealite were influential, but in all reality they never had a singley continuous reign of more than fifty years without a) bieng conquered or b ) breaking into civil war/disorder. Someone want to tell me the territory maximum they ever held? Lots of potential but they normally stunted themselves or just got rolled over by the civs that are included (Egypt, Babylon, Hitties, Greeks, Romans, Ottamans, Arabs, Persains, Mongols, etc.). You can argue about battles if you want, but Isreal was ultimatley conquered by all these empires and never held dominion over a single one of them in turn.

So, with Isreal as an example, thats how civs should be picked. By relative power at there hieght (note relative, modern Isreal is more powerful than extinct Babylon now obviously, but Babylon was for a time the jewel of the civilized world, Isreal (and I happen to like Isreal) is a second rate modern power).

Also, you need to fill in the map, and for my part I say add the Kmers, Souix, and someone to Africa. When I play huge maps with real starting locations China and India just expolde while I (I play persia) get bogged down in the Middle East.

hi ,

Patrokolos , are you going to give 50 bucks for each year we had a reign after fifthy years , .......

and if Israel happens to be a " second rate modern power " then there are some questions and facts that come to mind , ......

if you put a country that has had for nearly three decades ICBM's down as " second rate " then what do you name a country like Greece that has till this day no ICBM's , .....

no to mention a couple jet fighters and tanks designed from peanuts and some scratch , ...... that now belong in the worlds top ten , ......

not to mention that till this day we have a tank since a long time that happens to be the only tank till this day btw that has room for a stretcher or an infantry unit , a backdoor to make evacuation and operations easy , an engine places in the front and a design that is the only one in the world made to put the emphasis on the protection and safekeeping of its occupants , ..... the french leclerc comes on the second places , about a mile down the line , .....

have a nice day

p.s. : its Israel guys , not Isreal , ....

Tassadar500 · July 2, 2003, 01:02

Israel is the 7th most powerful country in the world

Panag · July 2, 2003, 01:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Nuclear Master
Israel is the 7th most powerful country in the world

hi ,

wanna bet , .....

have a nice day

DarkWolf · July 2, 2003, 18:16

my 2 cents:

Example of a Civilization without a major army but with a MAJOR impact on the world as it's known today:
Portugal

We were sailors, explorers and expanders, we founded many colonies, discovered many things sea-wise and were successful traders, but we never had a big army (we were always a small country... no chance to have a big army!!!)

I'm not saying that it should be included in C3C (Europe is already full), but it would be a more reasonable addition than others (if we forget the "space in the world map" issue), like Brazil or Chile...

Patroklos · July 2, 2003, 22:03

7th eh,

USA
Britain
France
Russia (even in its degraded state)
China
India
Germany
Japan
Malaysia
South Korea
Mexico (make alot of stuff)
Italy
Indonesia
Pakistan (nukes for everyone)
Saudi Arabia (oil, oil, and more oil)
etc. etc. etc.

Most (not all) of these have a military dominance over Isreal, but remember power is also based on economics, which I am afraid Isreal measures not so well on the list above. Guns are only half the equation, and they lose that half to alot of countries as it is. We all love Isreal, and God knows they put up with all kinds of you know what because we won't let them do what needs to be done to truly defend themselves. This bieng said, however, there is no time in human history where Isreal was the most powerful state, or second of third for that matter, in the world. And you to tell me when Isreal was a continous POWER (not geographic location) for more than fifty years (besides its modern incarnation, which everyone has to agree has as much to do with outside help as it does with there own warfighting, they after all didn't design those F-15s, and does anyone remember were the nuclear material in their bombs came from, because I do) without a) bieng a vassal state b)participating in a war that eventually meant their subjugation c) were not divided into the upper and lower portions d) in a state of civil war or e) rotting from internal corruption that led to their overthrough.

Isreal would be a welcome addition, but others are more deserving, especially when you see all the empty spaces outside of the middle east on a world map that need filling. China and India are just unstoppable, and so would the Iraqois and Aztecs if I didn't handicap them to provide a realistic colonization model.

Tassadar500 · July 2, 2003, 22:42

But the Middle East is CROWDED. For example Assyrians, Sumerians, Hittites, Israelis, Babylonians, Persians. And that is not even half the list. Also your facts are not straight Israel can defeat Malaysia ANY day of the week. And in Israel in the ancient era Israel has lasted much longer then 50 years.

History Guy · July 2, 2003, 22:54

Assyrians? They're not in!

Tassadar500 · July 2, 2003, 22:56

I wasnt talking about civ. I was talking about real life

Jon Shafer · July 3, 2003, 01:22

Quote:

Originally posted by panag
maybe they where not in the past , but they are one now , thats for sure , ......

as for england , its funny you mention it in the same post as the indians , they have managed to secure large overseas colonies and fought battles all over the owrld , including in india , ......

Yes, but the army was the means, not the end.

Panag · July 3, 2003, 15:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

Yes, but the army was the means, not the end.

hi ,

and just how many non army citizens went along , .......

have a nice day

Patroklos · July 3, 2003, 16:59

Oh you are right, Isreal would beat Malaysia in a one to one military fight, but military is only half the battle so to say. If you read the entire post you will understand other things besides military strength are involved.

That being said, if Malaysia only had one caneo for its military, its power would still be multiples of Isreal's becaues of its economy.

The previous posts were about Isreal bieng a second rate power, not MILITARY power (which coincidently it is still nothing special, they may be bada%$es, but there just aren't enough of them to make them anything but a regional force, which is all they want to be anyways).

Jon Shafer · July 3, 2003, 17:06

Quote:

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

and just how many non army citizens went along , .......

have a nice day

Heard of the East India Company?

Tassadar500 · July 3, 2003, 17:07

Patroklos I think you should start the argument. You need to know when to stop.

*claps*

Master Zen · July 3, 2003, 17:12

panag FYI, assuming that Israel has more right to be in the game than Greece is just utter BS.

Ever read history? Ever read about how the greeks gave us the basis of culture and philosophy like no other western nation ever has and probably ever will? Ever hear of a guy called Alexander who was history's greatest conqueror to that day?

Sorry, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a Hebrew civ, but how you downplay Greece is just wrong... you don't need ICBMs to be "great", trust me.

Panag · July 3, 2003, 17:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Patroklos
Oh you are right, Isreal would beat Malaysia in a one to one military fight, but military is only half the battle so to say. If you read the entire post you will understand other things besides military strength are involved.

That being said, if Malaysia only had one caneo for its military, its power would still be multiples of Isreal's becaues of its economy.

The previous posts were about Isreal bieng a second rate power, not MILITARY power (which coincidently it is still nothing special, they may be bada%$es, but there just aren't enough of them to make them anything but a regional force, which is all they want to be anyways).

hi ,

we dont want to be a regional military power , ..... we have plenty enough military power , thats how we feel about it , ......

and we are not a second rate power , military or not , .....

our economy still does better then most countries of the EU , ......

have a nice day

Master Zen · July 3, 2003, 17:31

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

and we are not a second rate power , military or not , .....

our economy still does better then most countries of the EU , ......

have a nice day

power, panag, is not measured in ICBMs. Nor is it a measure of software. It is a measure of the military, diplomatic, economic, and industrial might of a nation.

let's see:

1st rate power: USA, no comparison

2nd rate powers: France, Germany, UK, Japan. Russia if only because of their nuclear arsenal. China because of it's potential strength and diplomatic strenght.

3rd rate powers: India, Italy, Canada, Australia, Israel,

4th rate powers: Brazil, Mexico, Netherlands, Sweden, i dunno, something like that...

Yahweh Sabaoth · July 3, 2003, 17:34

Some of you people have some crazy ideas about what constitutes "power," and how to rank it...

Panag · July 3, 2003, 17:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen

power, panag, is not measured in ICBMs. Nor is it a measure of software. It is a measure of the military, diplomatic, economic, and industrial might of a nation.

let's see:

1st rate power: USA, no comparison

2nd rate powers: France, Germany, UK, Japan. Russia if only because of their nuclear arsenal. China because of it's potential strength and diplomatic strenght.

3rd rate powers: India, Italy, Canada, Australia, Israel,

4th rate powers: Brazil, Mexico, Netherlands, Sweden, i dunno, something like that...

hi ,

what would you know , .....

when it comes to health or medicine we are far better then a third place , .....

your first line reads that power is not measured in icbm's , ..... yet you write a bit further down ; russia if only because of its nuclear arsenal , ......

we have more icbm's the france and the uk combined together , ......

have a nice day

Master Zen · July 3, 2003, 18:12

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

what would you know , .....

when it comes to health or medicine we are far better then a third place , .....

your first line reads that power is not measured in icbm's , ..... yet you write a bit further down ; russia if only because of its nuclear arsenal , ......

we have more icbm's the france and the uk combined together , ......

have a nice day

I see... "I have more ICBM's than you" syndrome... are you compensatin' for something?

First of all, Russia, doesn't have "more" ICBMs than Israel. It's has A CRAPLOAD more. Enought to obliterate the world a couple of times. Enough to obliterate Israel or France or the UK and leave a crater where those countries once stood. Coupled with their diplomatic strenght, Russia is far more important in the world stage than Israel if you ask me.

Second of all, from a purely military point of view, ICBMs are not important as other forms of delivery systems. The UK actually DOESN''T have ICBMs

Why? because the UK, like France, base it's nuclear capability on nuclear submarines, their strenght lies not in ICBMs but SLBMs which are impossible to attack while at sea. Israel's ICBMs can eventually be taken out with a nuclear first-strike. Can't do the same to the UK or France.

Thus, it really doesn't matter how many ICBMs you have, it's how many you can deliver and how many you can prevent the enemy to deliver that counts

Patroklos · July 3, 2003, 21:03

Isreal has mostly nuclear bombs, not ICBMs, and the missiles available to them are at best medium range ballistic missiles.

Russia's power is not based soley off its nukes, even in its degraded state it has an economy is multiples of Isreal's.

Isreal's dipolmatic power is based soley on who wants to listen too them outside of their immediate region. If Isreal imposes sanctions on Argentina, do you think they would care? Of course not, Isreal doesn't have an economy of any size that you would miss trading with, and there awesome foriegn built planes and mediocre battle tanks (the stretcher thing is cool, and helps alot I bet in the Palastinian guerrilla war, but doesn't make it any more effective against an M-1, which is its daddy in all respects) have no way of getting anywhere.

Not an Isreal bash, but reality is reality, they are not a world power (hence the 2nd comment) in the true sense of the word. Other civs deserve to be ahead of them if we are going by an a) fill in the map or b) historical signifigance method of including civs. If we are going by a c) what the people want method, well then this thread obviously shows Isreal should be included.

And that above comment is not to say the Jews around the world have done nothing significant, just that if they do great things while integrated into another civ (ie where they live) it is an accomplishment of that civ, which is how those particular individuals would probobly want it.

I stop discussing (argueing is something else entirely) when I stop, you guys are fun to discuss things with

(excuse sp errors, it is hard to find spelling check time while at OCS)

GePap · July 3, 2003, 21:25

Israel is certainly a third rate power, if we go by Master zen's assesment. Israel has little diplomatic strength, has no ability to send significant forces to any other major world areas, has a very small navy (part of the previous post), and even its nuclear arsenal 1) lacks global reach, 2) is mostly a deterrent force against neighbors.

Israel has an economy of 130 billion dollars a year: not bad for a state of 6 million, which gives them a fine PCI, but Singapore also has a very high PCI, and that does not make them a great power.

As for a hebrew civ: it deserves to be in as much as the Inca, so ti would be interesting to see it included.

Tassadar500 · July 3, 2003, 21:26

But Israel has done much more then the Hittites or the Sumerians. But it's true Israel is not "Jews". It is the country of Israel. It may be true about the Navy but Israel has one of he best Air Forces.

Sheik · July 4, 2003, 12:23

Israel is a must have for the game. They included the Arabs in PTW and now it's time to include Israel.

Israel today is the most powerful country in the Middle East, it must be included.

Patroklos · July 4, 2003, 12:40

Isreal has a small airforce of modern jets, but they neither designed nore built those planes (and in most cases earlier in their history didn't pay for them), so giving them a heep of credit for their Airforce is not really correct. Superb pilots, however.

Arabia is included because for a time they had contol of the entire Middle East, North Africa, and were pushing on the gaits of India under the ARAB Caliphates. When the Turks took over they had the same empire with additions in Europe. The Arabs (and when you say Arab what their subjugated populations did at their behest gives credit to them, because they did after all subjugate them) and the Turks both threated to add all of Europe to their plate ie Arabs stopped in France at the battle of Tours and the Turks stopped at Vienna by the Hapsburgs. Again, Every civ included thus far has at one point been a LEADING WORLD POWER, Irseal in any of its incarnations throughout history has never been.

Sumeria guys, if you don't know why Sumeria should be a civ then you need to go back to your high school history books. Sumeria should have been one of the origial civs included if we go by historical significance, they just suffer from bieng to far back in history for people to know about.

My vote is still Souix (sp) and Kmer, just because I need someone to fill in those expances of geography on the many great world maps out there. Another good Africa civ would be nice as well, the Zulu get everything south of the Sahara by default.

nbarclay · July 5, 2003, 08:26

Here's another way of looking at the question of whether Israel should be included. Imagine how different the world would be today if Israel and everything associated with it had never existed. How many of the other civs in the game would provide a bigger impact if they were removed from history? Israel has never been more than a fairly strong regional power in its own right, but the degree to which its religious influence helped shape the world we live in is incalculable. Take away Israel, and Judaeism, Christianity, and Islam, and all their impacts on history, go with it.

Further, Israel fought against several of the civs in the game in the ancient era and against the Arabs in the modern era. So it fits into the tapestry of the game pretty well.

I'm not saying that Israel has to be included for the game to feel complete. Personally, I'm just as happy with it left out because mixing religion and alternative history raises issues I prefer to avoid. But I definitely think its inclusion can be justified.

Nathan

David Murray · July 5, 2003, 10:24

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

Patrokolos , are you going to give 50 bucks for each year we had a reign after fifthy years , .......

and if Israel happens to be a " second rate modern power " then there are some questions and facts that come to mind , ......

if you put a country that has had for nearly three decades ICBM's down as " second rate " then what do you name a country like Greece that has till this day no ICBM's , .....

no to mention a couple jet fighters and tanks designed from peanuts and some scratch , ...... that now belong in the worlds top ten , ......

not to mention that till this day we have a tank since a long time that happens to be the only tank till this day btw that has room for a stretcher or an infantry unit , a backdoor to make evacuation and operations easy , an engine places in the front and a design that is the only one in the world made to put the emphasis on the protection and safekeeping of its occupants , ..... the french leclerc comes on the second places , about a mile down the line , .....

have a nice day

p.s. : its Israel guys , not Isreal , ....

And who provided you with all those great, cultural embellishments (sorry, I mean things to kill people with)?

Panag · July 5, 2003, 16:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Master Zen

I see... "I have more ICBM's than you" syndrome... are you compensatin' for something?

First of all, Russia, doesn't have "more" ICBMs than Israel. It's has A CRAPLOAD more. Enought to obliterate the world a couple of times. Enough to obliterate Israel or France or the UK and leave a crater where those countries once stood. Coupled with their diplomatic strenght, Russia is far more important in the world stage than Israel if you ask me.

Second of all, from a purely military point of view, ICBMs are not important as other forms of delivery systems. The UK actually DOESN''T have ICBMs

Why? because the UK, like France, base it's nuclear capability on nuclear submarines, their strenght lies not in ICBMs but SLBMs which are impossible to attack while at sea. Israel's ICBMs can eventually be taken out with a nuclear first-strike. Can't do the same to the UK or France.

Thus, it really doesn't matter how many ICBMs you have, it's how many you can deliver and how many you can prevent the enemy to deliver that counts

hi ,

read again , ......

and btw , when the term icbm is used in military terms it does count slbm and all the other types as well , ....

and cough , no you cant take us out with a first nuclear strike , ..... we do happen to have the other forms also , ....

what you write is a bunch of "side bla-bla" , its the way in your first post you put the nationas on the places , .....

have a nice day

Panag · July 5, 2003, 16:18

Quote:

Originally posted by David Murray

And who provided you with all those great, cultural embellishments (sorry, I mean things to kill people with)?

hi ,

we did ourselves without any ones help , .....

have a nice day

Panag · July 5, 2003, 16:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Patroklos
Isreal has mostly nuclear bombs, not ICBMs, and the missiles available to them are at best medium range ballistic missiles.

Russia's power is not based soley off its nukes, even in its degraded state it has an economy is multiples of Isreal's.

Isreal's dipolmatic power is based soley on who wants to listen too them outside of their immediate region. If Isreal imposes sanctions on Argentina, do you think they would care? Of course not, Isreal doesn't have an economy of any size that you would miss trading with, and there awesome foriegn built planes and mediocre battle tanks (the stretcher thing is cool, and helps alot I bet in the Palastinian guerrilla war, but doesn't make it any more effective against an M-1, which is its daddy in all respects) have no way of getting anywhere.

Not an Isreal bash, but reality is reality, they are not a world power (hence the 2nd comment) in the true sense of the word. Other civs deserve to be ahead of them if we are going by an a) fill in the map or b) historical signifigance method of including civs. If we are going by a c) what the people want method, well then this thread obviously shows Isreal should be included.

And that above comment is not to say the Jews around the world have done nothing significant, just that if they do great things while integrated into another civ (ie where they live) it is an accomplishment of that civ, which is how those particular individuals would probobly want it.

I stop discussing (argueing is something else entirely) when I stop, you guys are fun to discuss things with

(excuse sp errors, it is hard to find spelling check time while at OCS)

hi ,

know what we have before you write about Israel , .....

we do have ICBM's , both sub , land and air launchable , .... with very long ranges , veeeeery long ones , .....

and as it may be , the M1 or M2 or any other tank in the world for that matter still does not protect its crew like the Merkava , .... engine in front , special compartments , etc , ..... it would be cheaper for Israel to buy the american build M2 , yet we dont do it , you know why , because our design is all about survival , survival on the battlefield , and thats one lesson all those other countries still have to learn , ......

so Merkava versus Abraham's , ..... Merkava any day

foreign build planes , ..... sure , they dont want us to build any more military planes , ...... IAI , has sold thousands of civilian planes btw , and happens to be the uncontested market leader in its class , ....

have a nice day

Master Zen · July 5, 2003, 16:26

Quote:

Originally posted by panag

hi ,

read again , ......

and btw , when the term icbm is used in military terms it does count slbm and all the other types as well , ....

and cough , no you cant take us out with a first nuclear strike , ..... we do happen to have the other forms also , ....

what you write is a bunch of "side bla-bla" , its the way in your first post you put the nationas on the places , .....

have a nice day

Um, panag, sorry but despite your love of all thing military ICBMs and SLBMs are not the same thing military-wise

You will never see a military comparison chart which lists ICBMs as representative of all other types of warheads. If you want to say all nukes, you say simply, Nuclear Warheads which encompasses ICBMs, SLBM, air-dropped bombs, tactical missiles, etc etc etc..

To put it simply panag: do you think Isreal would win in a nuclear exchange against Britain or France?