Mali Delenda Est

[DerSchwarzfalke]

Worked for Cato

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by DerSchwarzfalke
Worked for Cato

That was the point.

[Jaybe]

Reasonable discussion can be furthered by ignoring threads that have become unreasonable (other than occasional downfalls such as this).

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Jaybe
Reasonable discussion can be furthered by ignoring threads that have become unreasonable (other than occasional downfalls such as this).

I don't think it's been too bad, as long as people realize that we're talking about a computer game.

[Lancer]

I've had many of my civs start on crap land, have temporary success, then be overwhelmed because expansion city sites are crap. A civ can't stand on one city. Soo...since I'm not multiplaying I'll often start again, but don't tell anyone, ok? Mali's problem is they can't find the button to push to start again. Had they had a better starting location they might have ruled the world, and THAT is why they should be in the game. Perhaps not the first game, or the second or even the third, but the fourth...why not?

[ArchdukeNewell]

Originally posted by Lancer
I've had many of my civs start on crap land, have temporary success, then be overwhelmed because expansion city sites are crap. A civ can't stand on one city. Soo...since I'm not multiplaying I'll often start again, but don't tell anyone, ok? Mali's problem is they can't find the button to push to start again. Had they had a better starting location they might have ruled the world, and THAT is why they should be in the game. Perhaps not the first game, or the second or even the third, but the fourth...why not?

So? China might have been able to colonize America first. But they didn't. Poland might have been able to not be conquered by everyone else on their continent, but they didn't. The Bushmen might have been able to progress beyond the stone age on their own, but they haven't.

Games built on "what might have been" premises are called "Command & Conquer," not "Civilization."

[Alexander I]

Also, had they had better lands to expand into, they would have definitely had more competitors. Who's to say whether or not they would have done as well as they did in such a situation, or whether or not they would have survived? Maybe we only know about them because of where and when their civilization was.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Please don't write posts like a cellphone text message. Saying "pwned" doesn't strengthen your argument.

Of course it does. It showed the level of beating down the Incas.

Anyway, as I've said before, who would you bet on in a cagematch? The Incas, a highly militaristic culture, millions of people spread across the western half of South America, or the Malinese, a confederation of trading cities in the sub-Saharan sahel with gold and camels who were destroyed by disunited Morocco, of all people.

When did we enter into a wargame? I thought we were deciding on Civ? If we want to make Rise of Nations II, then perhaps the Incas deserve to be in more than the Malinese, but not in Civilization.

Gold has been a very big thing in human history. One king affecting gold prices in Egypt for 20 years by his gifts is far more impressive to me than building of roads, no matter where those roads are.

I find many of Africa's contributions to the world to be less substantial than those of other civilizations

Even apparently inferior civilizations of South America .

I'm not "people." Do not make assumptions about what I think based on anything anyone has said to you in the past, rather only upon the things that I say.

It seems your biased world view comes from what "people" have said.

I think I'll borrow a phrase from you,

The Incas ought to be destroyed (does it work for you?)

[Imran Siddiqui]

Games built on "what might have been" premises are called "Command & Conquer," not "Civilization."

Actually I thought that Civilization was entirely based on "what might have been"

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Games built on "what might have been" premises are called "Command & Conquer," not "Civilization."

Actually I thought that Civilization was entirely based on "what might have been"

Pretty much.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, including an African Civ is NOT PC. It's an attempt to have diversification of Civs, making the game more enjoyable. If you make all the Civs cookie cutter, what fun is that? I want to be leading different peoples, with different sounding cities.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

When did we enter into a wargame? I thought we were deciding on Civ? If we want to make Rise of Nations II, then perhaps the Incas deserve to be in more than the Malinese, but not in Civilization.

Point 1: The military is not the end-all criterion, but it is A criterion, and you seem to be very dismissive of it. Remember, Civilization games have dozens of military units available for training, and almost none of any other variety.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Gold has been a very big thing in human history. One king affecting gold prices in Egypt for 20 years by his gifts is far more impressive to me than building of roads, no matter where those roads are.

Point 2: First of all, the amount of precious metals in someone's territory does not mean someone is going to be great, but even if it did, consider how many billions and billions of dollars worth of both gold and silver bullion were extracted out of their empire after the Spanish arrived? And that's not even counting what came before. Affecting one faltering country's gold market for 20 years is nothing compared to Incan gold altering the precious metals market of the world for centuries.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It seems your biased world view comes from what "people" have said.

I think I'll borrow a phrase from you,

The Incas ought to be destroyed (does it work for you?)

Point 3: Well, my modified Cato statement is meant as a running gag. As for your statement of "biased world view," I have gained all of my information from personal study, and have formed opinions accordingly. Where do you get your information? Google Searches?

Again, don't be so hasty to assault me personally. Attack my arguments and information as much as you want, but it's a poor debater who hurls epithets such as "biased," "stupid" and even "Nazi."

You're attempting to antagonize me on purpose. It won't work.

[ArchdukeNewell]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Actually I thought that Civilization was entirely based on "what might have been"

There must be some parameters set. Burkina Faso might have become a world power, but we don't throw them in. Civilization is about building the world's greatest civs, not about Mr. Rogers' Land of Make-Believe, where everyone is the same, with no differences and everyone is worthy of inclusion in one big happy family.

Malinese: "Won't you be my neighbor?"
Ottoman Turks: "Won't you be my court eunuch?"

Inclusion in Civ should be based on a civilization's merit, not on their skin color, race, religion, etc.

"I have a dream, that one day everyone will be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin."

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, including an African Civ is NOT PC. It's an attempt to have diversification of Civs, making the game more enjoyable. If you make all the Civs cookie cutter, what fun is that? I want to be leading different peoples, with different sounding cities.

What do you think PC means? Where do you think the idiotic notion of putting in groups like the Sioux, Iroquois, Zulus, Dutch and Celts comes from, anyway? Trying to have diversification and please everybody. It's so annoying!

Man, you can change the city names for goodness sake! That's been a function since freaking Civ1! Do you call China, India, Britain, Persia, Greece, Rome and America cookie cutter? Each one is very different from the others, and contributed greatly to the outcome of world history.

I wouldn't mind an African civ being in the game if you could find one that actually did something on par with Rome, China or the Ottoman Empire! Good luck, buddy.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, including an African Civ is NOT PC. It's an attempt to have diversification of Civs, making the game more enjoyable. If you make all the Civs cookie cutter, what fun is that? I want to be leading different peoples, with different sounding cities.

Oh, yes it is! Including a civ because of its race or geographical location and not because of what it actually did to deserve its spot in civ is definitely being PC!

[ArchdukeNewell]

I just had a thought. One criterion for civs vying for a place in Civ4 should be whether or not they are capable of constructing a Wonder of the World, not necessarily one included in the game, but something on the same scale.

Example:

Wonder of the World: Machu Picchu - massive Incan city in the mountains that would be difficult to construct today.

Not a Wonder of the World: Malinese Ivory Mask - Seriously, people, who really thought that was a wonder of the world?