The KOREAN Civilization: Things Every Civ Player Should Know

[yin26]

I think it's quite good, in fact, to think of yourself as a member of the human race. And it gets people nowhere to say: "I am spotless." On that, we agree.

But you have to understand the the truth about Japan in the 20th century is still trying to surface. Certainly when I took Asian history courses at UCLA, all we learned about Japan was "the good stuff." Learning the good stuff is fine and great. And there is a LOT of amazing stuff about Japan, and I am not condemning the average Japanese person (though I condemn its right-wing that continues in power today).

BUT: The "might makes right" argument is horribly flawed and will get you in BIG trouble one day with people who suffered under the kinds of things I linked above. That is all.

As for you personally, I have taken no offense. I realize you can get heated about this topic as well. If you care to continue the discussion, I'm sure we can do so civily (pun intended).

[yin26]

By the way, the "I like brutality" comment stems from the "Might makes right" argument. You might not techinicall "like" brutality (obviously you don't), but when you praise a country for being powerful etc., you have to look at HOW they became powerful.

That is a very misunderstood and overlooked point, unfortunately, for otherwise we as a human race directly and indirectly set ourselves up for the next round of horrid images. This is why more peaceful examples SHOULD and MUST be made more public.

[Pembleton]

Originally posted by yin26
By the way, the "I like brutality" comment stems from the "Might makes right" argument. You might not techinicall "like" brutality (obviously you don't), but when you praise a country for being powerful etc., you have to look at HOW they became powerful.

I just want to make a quick point to clear up a misunderstanding but I no longer want to debate this anymore. When I said "that's the way it is", I didn't mean "might makes right". I don't think it's right but I don't believe it can change. I believe people just abuse power because it's in their nature. I wish it was otherwise, but it's unfortunately not to be.

Instead of these weighty matters, I'd rather discuss silly things such as whether a particular wonder is better than another or whether a civ-specific unit in an unimportant things such as a game is balanced or not. I'm old and have had these debates many times before, and I just don't have the energy to continue because I get emotionally involved and I don't want that. I'd rather be happy. Sorry.

I'm sure you'll find plenty of other people to discuss these things. If we discuss again, it will be about games such as Civ3 rather than philosophical issues.

[yin26]

I'm old and have had these debates many times before, and I just don't have the energy to continue because I get emotionally involved and I don't want that. I'd rather be happy. Sorry.

Totally understood. Perhaps we will meet on the battlefield of silliness one day! Thanks anyway for your contributions in this thread. Your comments made me bring up some other important issues. Thanks, and have fun with Civ3.

[Jeje2]

Originally posted by yin26
Jeje:
And you are right, the decision to include a civ should be based on 1) representing civs somewhat evenly around the world

Iikk!!!
Did I say that? I hope not, at least it wasn't my intention.
What I did say is that there should be different types of civs. I didn't measn by this that they would have to be spread around the globe with this.

Couse I think that having a collection of different nations with same special abilities would be boring. Take a look at the Civ3 - Developper Update. The Civilization Abilities map shows how they try to induvidualize each nation. OK, some with same do exist (Ex. Aztecs&Japaneese), but mostly they are different. I think this is the right way.

So if you want to have in Civ3 nations with different abilities you have two possibilties:
1) You give two abilities to a random nation
2) Select two abilities and then try to find a nation/people that would be described by those well

I know which method I would prefer.

[yin26]

Ah, I see. I was assuming too much. Within the confines you mention, though, it would be nice to have civs from around the world so that you can play on a world map and try all kinds of things. It needn't be that way, of course, if that makes for a weaker game.

By the way, I've been in Korea for 5 years. I decided to come here for a variety of reasons, not least of which is I really like the people.

[ruckus9]

I like heated debates!

Instead of these weighty matters, I'd rather discuss silly things such as whether a particular wonder is better than another or whether a civ-specific unit in an unimportant things such as a game is balanced or not. I'm old and have had these debates many times before, and I just don't have the energy to continue because I get emotionally involved and I don't want that. I'd rather be happy. Sorry.

I have read alot of threads in these forums and to me it seems inevitable that people will eventually get very passionate about these topics.

Why?

Because Civ is about competing cultures and it's almost impossible to be unbiased about it as long as everyone has their culture and compares it to others (Even for those who say they believe in only the human race). For example, noone wants to hear about their culture not being "worthy" enough to be in the game.

But to tell the truth when the topics get heated I really like reading them. (Not so much posting my own ideas because I know you guys are a lot smarter than me )And also things may be learned in the process. We can't just avoid these issues anyway. Anyway that's my take on it.

Also, I'm far from a Korean nationalist, I think of myself as more of an American but for my mother's sake the Korean pride can get to me sometimes...

Feel free to refute me. I figure there's always someone out there to prove you wrong no matter how good an argument you make, anyway

[Jeje2]

Originally posted by yin26
Ah, I see. I was assuming too much. Within the confines you mention, though, it would be nice to have civs from around the world so that you can play on a world map and try all kinds of things. It needn't be that way, of course, if that makes for a weaker game.

By the way, I've been in Korea for 5 years. I decided to come here for a variety of reasons, not least of which is I really like the people.

Thx.
Yes of course we can have from around - I would also like it, but I do not consider it as a requirement.

OK, had you visited Korea before your desision to move or was it blindfolded?
(And I do not count in the trip - were you made your workcontract)

Originally posted by ruckus9
(Not so much posting my own ideas because I know you guys are a lot smarter than me )

Ok - I'll tell you a well kept secret (Don't tell others though
This is not true, they aren't any smarter - they just want to give such an impression. So be smart, join in and see through their illusion, couse they don't bite.

[Adm.Naismith]

What a complex and difficult thread!

Yin, you did a great research showing how relevant Korea was/is.

Now you are shifting into a "Korea deserve a better aknowledge and Civ "awards" than Japan", showing us important (and yes, horrific) images of Japanese soldiers.
That's more relevant than any game debate, but now is becoming off-topic (IMHO), so please go back splitting the two arguments.

The hardest obstacle is Civ limits: it can't represent in a playable game (as deep it can go into a simulation) the complexity of mankind history for the last six thousand years.

Lot of tribes where interesting, but fail to fit into the game. Relevant countries never fit in our western history (and viceversa) because they wheren't more relevant at the time we encountered them or are already disappeared (how many Civ crushed in game before we ever meet them?).

We can (and must) cut somewhere, and doing so we are always privileging one Civ aspect over the others: tech research is more relevant of trading abilities? What about painting? And oral traditions? Songs? Musical instrument? Early medicine? A complex language? Fancy way to have sex? (no, really! some tribes had sexual culture quite different from western habits, at least as common for centuries).

Ask Napoleon, or Alexander the Great about more relevant trait of a Civ and you surely would have different opinion from Ghandi, Leonardo da Vinci, Beethoven, Pascal, Socrate...

We are reducing all that complexity of million, then billion of people for 6000 years, into a Civ box
Let me say that's not only a PkZip effort, is more like a real picture to Jpeg heavy loss translation

We can chose a different "loss" algorithm, a different "pattern", different "options"... Call them different Civ Packs, or MODs, or Scenario: everyone will privilege only as many facet of the real history (or alternative history, if you like) as the Civ engine can manage, but surely not everyone.

We are not perfect, too: look at history books printed under different political government! History change a bit every time, not only because of new discover (good) or political heavy censure (bad), but because we live in a society, and every society force us to look at some target and not to others.

While isn't Civ model forcing us as a victory condition to feed enough every people on Earth?

It isn't acceptable for Western culture the moral effort to be sure every man, woman and child on earth can have a home, a honest job, a decent medicine help, enough food and fundamental needs fullfilled to have a similar life duration than ours?

Please, look around and ask yourself the victory conditions of most of games around here (is not a Firaxis/Civ limit, I mean). Is this the best we can desire out of our life? A greater theme park? Coolest furniture of our house? A sure, painfull dead for every enemy around here? (and come on, if you are usually alone against everyone, aren't all enemy but you?).

Don't worry, now I'm shutting down philosophic mode forever.

Only please don't fight anymore about what civ/country deserve to be in Civ (if not under a well defined grid of element you want to use for limits).
Ask why you deserve to be into THIS civ... and take the consequences

[yin26]

We are reducing all that complexity of million, then billion of people for 6000 years, into a Civ box Let me say that's not only a PkZip effort, is more like a real picture to Jpeg heavy loss translation

EXCELLENT comment! LOL! I agree with you totally. And as I said, I understand why Korea is not in Civ3, and it won't bother me if it never makes it. My goal (which is accoplished at least to anybody who reads the opening) is to highlight that Korea is not a shadow on the map. It has a proud history and future.

As for the "who is better" debates, I'm actually not that interested. And as for Japan, I have said my peace. The images and the slowly correcting history books speak for themselves. But for some here, this might have been the first time to really consider Korea and its relationship to Japan. If it has been enlightening, I will be happy.

[YefeiPi]

Pembleton

This is ridiculous. You are so blinded by your championing of Korea that you can't look at anything objectively.

Japan is no more guilty of atrocities than any other "great" civilization. Any form of warfare is by definition an atrocity. Just to mention a few examples, China has slaughtered millions with the cultural revolution, the Americans had slavery and slaughtered the Native Americans, the Germans during the Hitler era I need not mention the details, etc. etc.

Are you going to argue that Korea is not guilty of any brutality? Until only recently South Korea was ruled by corruption with an "elected" president thanks to rigged ballots. Did the political prisoners have a fun time? Even now, under the new Nobel Peace Prize winning president there are still political prisoners not freed.

Should I even mention North Korea? Or I guess with your blindness they don't count. I guess they're not Korean?

Your denigration of Japan is just as racist and repugnant as the worst that they have done and are now doing. In the end, we are all human, and all humans are capable of atrocities as well as kindness or great achievements.

Ok, so every great country has had its own share of bloodshed. It's just that what Japan did was way too inhuman. Do you know what Chinese army do to the Japs when they are captured? They actually feed them well and later release them. But when Chinese soldiers are captured, they are tortured, severed, beheaded, chemically tested on and all sorts of worse-than-animal acts performed on them.

I mean any country who did that kind of mega atrocity and does not admit it, is not a worthy country. I mean even the Germans admitted their crimes to the jews, and their crimes, even though cruel, are not quite so much as the Japanese barbarianism.

In terms of civilization, I'd put Korea way on top of Japan

[Imran Siddiqui]

Intelligent move by the Japanese? NO! Oh I know, maybe because you haven't personally experienced or even heard of the pain and suffering the japs had done to other Asians. You still don't know why Japan is hated by so many people in Asia, do you? It's because not only they take land but the way they kill people! They gang rape pregnant women and slice their stomachs for their own perverted sexual pleasures, actually I won't get into detail of what they did because those acts are just inhuman and shame to human civilzation, hell, not even animals behave like the Jap soldiers during WW.

So now someone who admires rapid technological advancement by adoption of other civ's technology, and then using that might to conquer those nations that didn't adapt, also condones atrocities done by that civilization? Jeez, this is just like the Political Correctness debate!

So Japan is hated by Asia.... that, IMO, makes them more worthy of being included in Civ3. They had SUCH an impact on Asian politics and future, how CAN you exclude them? The fact of the matter is that Japan's Empire had a greater impact to 20th Century Asia than any other, even China!

Because they committed atrocities during it, they shouldn't be included?! Then perhaps Russia should be taken out because of their atrocities, as well as the English.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by yin26
EXCELLENT comment! LOL! I agree with you totally.

Thanks!
Now, if you or anyone else with english as his/her first/mother language can help me to clean up any mistake, I'll probably use it as my new signature here at Apolyton

Not the whole post, only the sentence

We are reducing all that complexity of million, then billion of people for 6000 years, into a Civ box Let me say that's not only a PkZip effort, is more like a real picture to Jpeg heavy loss translation

by Private Mail, please.

Thank you in advance!

[YefeiPi]

Imran

So Japan is hated by Asia.... that, IMO, makes them more worthy of being included in Civ3. They had SUCH an impact on Asian politics and future, how CAN you exclude them? The fact of the matter is that Japan's Empire had a greater impact to 20th Century Asia than any other, even China!

The fact that Japanese committed those atrocities certainly make them unworthy of being included in Civ3. It's like saying Germans deserve to be in Civ3 because they killed so many jews in such cruel ways.

Japan's impact on 20th century Asia is undoubtedly big, but why don't you ask yourself if the impact is a positive or negative one? I mean say if Thailand started attacking its neighbours and raped and tortured people, does that make then a big impact on Asia's history? It's a shameful impact that one self-respected country want to take claim of.

[Imran Siddiqui]

WHO CARES if it was positive or negative? Was it or was it NOT an impact?

If we are including morals over who gets to be in Civ3. I guess the only nations we'll be able to play are Switzerland and French Guyana!!!

And if Thailand was able to conquer even HALF of what Japan conquered, then yes, they should be included. Are you then making the argument that Germany should be excluded because of WW2?