Hebrews: Chosen People, but not for Civ?

[Virdrago]

Good to see me being rebuked without any flaming. Still, no-one else really has put any other real reasons forward why we should not have the Hebrews. Just the same, so far I see more "nays" then "ayes". Only Lord Shiva seems to have a reason.

I don't believe having the Hebrews in the game would make it controversial (ie. anti-Semitic). The Arabs are Semitic, and so were the Babylonians (and they may show up later).

This may make me change my vote (if I could).

Keep up the debate, I'm liking it so far.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Isn't it feasible for a user who misses his/her favourite civilization to amend the data file containing city names, leader names, civilization-related nouns and adjectives, (and so on) to match those of his/her favourite civilization?

[ZEE]

Originally posted by Virdrago
no-one else really has put any other real reasons forward why we should not have the Hebrews.

This may make me change my vote (if I could).

i guess i havent made a strong enough case

i must be getting rusty

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
Isn't it feasible for a user who misses his/her favourite civilization to amend the data file containing city names, leader names, civilization-related nouns and adjectives, (and so on) to match those of his/her favourite civilization?

Yes, it is indeed. This thread was to debate whether the Hebrews qualify just as someone's favorite civ on the level of say, the Toltecs, or if they are more than that and should (or should not) be added into the game officially.

I for one think they should.

[Virdrago]

Yep.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Alexander01


Yes, it is indeed. This thread was to debate whether the Hebrews qualify just as someone's favorite civ on the level of say, the Toltecs, or if they are more than that and should (or should not) be added into the game officially.

I for one think they should.

Well, with only 20-odd civs available, there are more worthy candidates. Even just among European nations, the Dutch, Swedes, and Portuguese are more significant historically. Then you have the Khmer, the Iroquois, the Polynesians... from hitherto neglected regions.

Bump the number of available Civs to 40, and then we'll talk.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by AAHZ
i guess i havent made a strong enough case

Yeah, you haven't

[ZEE]

well since i cant make a strong argument... and since the nays are winning... and also since you dont like my tagline... i have one last secret weapon in my bag of tricks... and that is this:

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man

Well, with only 20-odd civs available, there are more worthy candidates. Even just among European nations, the Dutch, Swedes, and Portuguese are more significant historically. Then you have the Khmer, the Iroquois, the Polynesians... from hitherto neglected regions.

Bump the number of available Civs to 40, and then we'll talk.

Well, I think we may be looking at 40 with Civ4 eventually.
Civ1 had 16, Civ2 had 21, Civ3 w XPs had 31 (32 w/ Austria ), so Civ4 is likely to expand accordingly. Right now we're looking at 18 Vanilla + 6 from Warlords for a current total of 24. XP2 is likely to add 6-8 more new civs too, for a total of 30-32.

Here's a good list I found of future civ candidates:

Hebrews
Ethiopia or Nubia
Babylon* or Assyria
Sumer*
Mayans*
Khmer or Thai
Dutch*
Portuguese*
Hittites
Byzantines*
Iroquois* or Sioux
Minoans
Olmecs
Poland

So that's 14 options, enough for two more expansion packs. In my opinion, the problems really don't come until redundancy; adding civs like Austria or the Harappans would be redundant, but the Hebrews are very distinctive.

* = most likely in XP2

[Thedrin]

Agreeing with Virdrago's reasons.

Solver:
As a civilization, though, I think Hebrews warrant inclusion for religious achievements, if you can call them so, alone.

This is covered by having Judaism as one of the seven religions in the game.

AAHZ:
shiite, kurds, sunni, not to mention countries such as the syrians, iranians, jordanians, etc, AS WELL AS the arabs.

Kurds aren't arabs. Iranians are predominantly persian, i.e. not arab. Shiite and Sunni are forms of Islam, i.e. not a racial distinction.

I'd be looking to include some of the following civs:

Austria
Hittites
Abyssinia
Khmer
Sumeria
Zimbabwe
Anasazi
Polynesia
Babylon
Phoenicia
Inuit

[Dis]

who would be the leader? I admit, I know next to nothing about them. They just don't interest me as a civ either. I would have no desire to play them. The arabs are far more interesting to me.

[SebP]

Originally posted by Virdrago
Good to see me being rebuked without any flaming. Still, no-one else really has put any other real reasons forward why we should not have the Hebrews. Just the same, so far I see more "nays" then "ayes". Only Lord Shiva seems to have a reason.

This may make me change my vote (if I could).

Keep up the debate, I'm liking it so far.

My prime reason for voting no was as stated in the poll, i don't even want to see ANY new civs or an expansion but of course we'll get one anyways.

As for historic reasons: They wouldn't fit into the game at all, just because of size. CIV is about empires.

Having the hebrews or any of their kingdoms in for their religions would be alot like having Athens in for the philosophers.

Oh, the Zulu are a joke. Korea and Carthage and the Vikings are odd, too. Only a bit odd are vanilla, Germany, Japan (though germany and Japan did have their cruel shot at hegemony) and Mali. All the other ones were empires, even the aztecs, when compared to their tech level.

[ZEE]

thedrin,

that is quite an impressive list... and thank you for clearing up my INclarities about the islamic civs! though weak as my argument was, my overall point stands firm, although beaten and battered as it might be.

you see im a big believer of game balance. you can dig up my old posts from years ago to discover that. i just thought by adding hebrews they should add some other contraversial civs, be them who they might be. it would BALANCE things out. problems and lawsuits could occur for firaxis later on with these decisions... but im just being paranoid i guess piece

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by SebP
i don't even want to see ANY new civs

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Dis
who would be the leader? I admit, I know next to nothing about them. They just don't interest me as a civ either. I would have no desire to play them. The arabs are far more interesting to me.

If you're refering to the Hebrews, I would suggest either King David or King Solomon, as they were leaders of the people at the apex of their political power, modest as it was.