Does Mali Deserve To Be In Civ IV?

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

Nein, in der Tat nicht.

Nein, das ist aber schade!

[Vince278]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
For some reason, I have trouble imagining a boer playing as the Zulus...

How about any African playing a Boer? The one (white) South African I know has an appreciation of the ethnic heritage and history of his region.

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
Some of you people are too uptight about a computer game.

Thats why we're here.

Originally posted by vStauffenberg
2. america is only eupean history part 2, anyway (*duck and RUN*)

Actually, we are World History part 2. (ducking)

[Jethro83]

I have no opinion as to who deserves/doesn't deserve to be in. If you don't like the choices, just mod the game (hopefully that will still be able to happen).


That said though, I'm kind of glad Mali is in. Seing as how I don't know much about Mali, playing a few games of Civ IV either as Mali or against Mali might spark my interest in reading more about them. It worked for the Zulu, Iroquois and Sioux in previous Civ games, all of whom I knew very little (if any) about prior to playing Civ.

[vStauffenberg]

Originally posted by Vince278
Actually, we are World History part 2. (ducking)

first:
yes, i think in civ-terms, the u.s. may be seen as having won by cultural victory around 1989... (hollywood, 'californication', fall of biggest cultural counterpart)
but if this is so, YOU (america) dominate US (the rest, or as americans call it: ROW), ... which in turn means that for you there is no need to duck!

second:
the phrase 'european history part 2' really makes a lot more sense:
1. after all, america is basically a union of former european colonies (dutch (n.y.), british (boston), french (nouvelle orléans)) and so on
2. those colonies were fed over the centuries by new settlers mainly from germany/scandinavia/italy/ireland, and today from spanish-origin mexicans.
3. for centuries, america has been a save harbor for all sorts of non-conformist people until recently originating almost only from europe resembling an endless source of skills and creativity, setting forth all kind of european cultural and scientific movements that europe either was too traditional or too narrow-minded to allow (like all sorts of religious movements, jewish scientific elites (A.Einstein, O.Morgenstern,...), or too weak to hold (O.Hahn, Wernher von Braun,... why do you think america built the bomb / the moon rocket first?)

the vast majority of americans has either exclusively or mostly european blood, only a very small minority of americans has no european blood at all, america's elite is still almost entirely european (wasp), ALL americans speak european languages (english or spanish), they are almost all of european (christian) faith, etc., etc.


conclusion: in civ-terms, america is more like you start on a small continent together with a few others, and then late in medieval age, one of your ships finds a HUGE landmass in the west inhabited by a civ still in ancient era, which you and your opponents conquer quickly and then the settling race starts.
this is why america should not be a civ to start with in 4000BC!

sorry if i have bored or offended anyone! but i am right, am i not...? ....?

[patcon]

First off, I am an American (actually a United States of American, but that's too much to say or type) and damn proud of it! (Can you hear Yankee Doodle Dandy playing in the background?)

That having been said, I have never played the Americans in Civ3. I don't like the traits and the leaderhead for Lincoln is absurd. Plus I couldn't bear the shame of letting my country down if I got defeated.

But I also never play against the Americans because I couldn't bring myself to ever fight them. OK, I probably would if it became necessary, but I would do so with pain in my heart. OK, "necessary" would probably be very loosely interpreted. but I would still take little joy on making Abe my bee-yotch. And I'd have to wipe them off the face of the Earth as quickly as possible so that their shattered remains wouldn't serve as a continual reminder of my disloyalty.

[Spiffor]

@ Stauffenberg

France, Britain, Spain, Germany, Russia, Rome, Greece, Aztecs, Mali et al. also deserve not to start in 4000 AD then

Most civs in the Civilization series have started way after the archaic times. This includes all European civs, even Greece.

So, either we accept that some Civs get featured despite them not existing in 4000 BC, or we play with 4 times fewer civs

[Alex]

Yes, Mali is a good choice to represent 'black Africa'.

(Actually, I don't care that much. All I wanted was for the Greeks to be in the game, because I have this personal honorable tradition of always starting a new game of civ (I, II and III) with them and I wanted to keep the tradition. I'm relieved the Greeks are in the game. )

[LDiCesare]

The definite answer is thus to only have Sumer as a civ, as all other civs aren't archaic enough:
Civ IV: "Sumer versus the barbarians!"

[patcon]

Originally posted by Spiffor
France, Britain, Spain, Germany, Russia, Rome, Greece, Aztecs, Mali et al. also deserve not to start in 4000 AD then

Most civs in the Civilization series have started way after the archaic times. This includes all European civs, even Greece.

So, either we accept that some Civs get featured despite them not existing in 4000 BC, or we play with 4 times fewer civs

Well said (except I think you meant 4000 BCE, not AD).

I think the point is "What if the German, American, Malinese, Celtic, whatever civilization had started at the dawn of recorded history?" So the argument about whether or not a given civ has been around long enough to be considered "worthy" of inclusion. So rather than saying "The Aztecs had their posteriors handed to them by a few Spanish conquistadors" because they had not had the time to advance far enough to fight back, we should be saying "I wonder if the Aztecs could have withstood the Spanish if they both started at the same time on an equal footing."

There is a very interesting novel by Orson Scott Card called Timewatchers: The Redemption of Christopher Columbus in which one possible time-path has Columbus not discovering the New World, giving the Aztecs time to consolidate their power and become advanced enough to develop ocean travel, at which time they came to the Old World and dominated by virtue of their warlike character and military skill against a divided Europe. This time-path was obliterated by people in the future influencing events in the past and getting Columbus to come to the New World and our current time-path was created. In the book (and maybe our future) timewatchers in our future time-path become aware of this alteration and seek to correct the problems in our time-path by tweaking our past. It may sound hokey, but if you're into civ and science fiction, it's a great choice.

[Datajack Franit]

Aw c'mon

[Xorbon]

Wow. There's a pretty even split between those who picked "yes" and those who picked "no" (18 votes each). (The remaining votes go to "I don't care" with 5, and "banana" with 8. Although, Sabre2th's banana vote is actually a "yes" vote.)

[Sabre2th]

Count mine as a banana or I don't care...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Mali

They are deserving.

[vStauffenberg]

i forgot to vote!
here i go:
mali should be ... in!

[Vince278]

Originally posted by vStauffenberg
but if this is so, YOU (america) dominate US (the rest, or as americans call it: ROW), ... which in turn means that for you there is no need to duck!

Sometimes the bigger you are the more you need to duck.

Originally posted by vStauffenberg
conclusion: in civ-terms, america is more like you start on a small continent together with a few others, and then late in medieval age, one of your ships finds a HUGE landmass in the west inhabited by a civ still in ancient era, which you and your opponents conquer quickly and then the settling race starts.
this is why america should not be a civ to start with in 4000BC!

I've always wanted to see colonial spin-offs in Civ.