What Civ Would You Have Included?

[Ned]

Originally posted by nato
To include Arabs and not Jews would be taking sides, but to include Jews and not Arabs wouldn't be? Sounds like you got a side to me.

Anyway, I don't think including either one/both would be taking sides, and I don't think current events in the Mideast were the reason to not include Arabs.

I think the only reason was there weren't enough slots to fit in everyone, and there were only 16 slots because of the completely backwards, shallow, and stupid (in my opinion) choice to include funny-face graphics instead of lots of civs.

If you want my attitude about the Arabs, I would make their special unit the "martyr" with a icon of a 10 year old boy with explosives strapped to his chest. Images of the burning World Trade center would illustrate their contribution to civilization.

Even if a thousand years ago the Arabs (Islam) continued and even expanded on the ancient civilizations in certain scientific areas, they had an enormously destructive influence on Europe and the Eastern Roman Empire, the precedessors of the West.
Their destructive influence continues even 'til today with their assaults on Israel and Bin Laden's jihad against the West.

True they are an important civilization. But including them in the game will create a lot of controversy, which is why, I suspect, they are not included, and probably will not be included.

Ned

[punkbass2000]

I believe Bin Laden's jihad is justifiable (though I don't support his actions.) The US has killed hundreds of thousands in the Middle East for years, and no on cared. Then they attack back and kill 7000 people, and all of sudden it's "We gotta kill those horrible bastards." Moral: People only care when it affects them.

[Denday]

It's silly to include the americans and other nation similar.
You should only have countries which were there at 4000bc because thats were you start the game.

[N. Machiavelli]

Originally posted by Denday
It's silly to include the americans and other nation similar.
You should only have countries which were there at 4000bc because thats were you start the game.

Sooooo, only include the Egyptians, Sumerians (not even Babylonians yet), *mabye* the Chinese? Fun stuff.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Denday
It's silly to include the americans and other nation similar.
You should only have countries which were there at 4000bc because thats were you start the game.

So just how many countries would that give Firaxis to work with.

The answer is none. The first nations don't show till nearly one thousand years later. I don't think the game would be much fun if we could only play Egypt and Sumeria.

[MagisterMilitum]

I`ll place these civs along those in the game:

Based on their military feats, contributions and advances on the fields of
the arts, science, arquitecture, medicine, philosophy, etc.

Based on their impact on other Civilizations, by way of culture, or commerce, or conquest, or plain contact and the result of such impacts and their achievements on all fields of human knowledge, as i said; and also in their "survival", or the fact that there are today political entities that can claim descendance to this/their early origin, though this aplies not over all of them, I`ll put these Civilizations in the game:

_The Spanish Civilization ( Just think of Latin America. Portugal could be placed togheter with Spain, they had an impact on Europe, though limited in time. )

_The Arab Civilization ( Their military ascendance assured the growth of Islam, actually reaching western Europe, along with all the social-
pushing economical-pushing political-pushing cultural-not necessarily on this exact order-consequences of their expansion. )

_The Viking Civilization ( Their expansion had quite an impact on Europe - especially over England and France, not to say that they had a part on the birth of Russia. )

_The Mongol Civilization ( Their conquests sure affected other civs in a way that cant be ignored. )

_The Turkish Civilization ( Direct descendant from the Otoman Empire, and Turks were a factor in the Mameluk Empire on Egypt. They were Muslins but not Arabs. )

_The Hebrew Civilization ( Can I say "Hebrew Civilization? Their impact on Western Civilization -past or present- sure is inquestionable. )

_The Assyrian Civilization ( Their Empire, based solely on military conquest, was the first experiment of the kind, and sure influenced the views of the time, that a people could conquer and put other peoples into submission, and develop the necessary means to sustain their conquest - on this case, massive deportations was what they tried to do. )

Im sure there are other deserving Civs, but I can think of these I just listed, along those in the game, as the ones whose impact on world history marks them as the most influent civs of all time.

Also I may be wrong on the short listings of the civs achievements I exposed as a piece of reasoning as to why i chose such CIvs. If so i beg your pardon, and please correct me; so I will know better.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
I believe Bin Laden's jihad is justifiable (though I don't support his actions.) The US has killed hundreds of thousands in the Middle East for years, and no on cared. Then they attack back and kill 7000 people, and all of sudden it's "We gotta kill those horrible bastards." Moral: People only care when it affects them.

This shall be the very first time I have ever directly insulted someone on this forum and I hope I do not get banned for it, but, I can simply not sit here and listen to that filth.
By saying such things you are a totally ignorant sod! Since when did the U.S. kill houndreds of thousands in the middle-east? There is no excuse for you uttering such bold faced lies!
I truly hope that you are just uneducated and that you are simply another child running off at the mouth about things he knows nothing about.
In the future may I suggest you get your facts straight before you go trying to justify the unjustifiable?

[Cyclotron]

Ehhh... yes, Oerdin, that's a good way to put it.

As for America, it's obvious that in Civ3 they are much more important than, say, the Romans. Why? The Romans only were around for less than one of Civ3's technological ages, from about the mid ancient era to the late ancient era. The Americans, on the other hand, started in the equivalent of the late midieval era, and are still kicking in the modern era.

Therefore, since the Americans have been around for over 2 Civ3 ages, and the romans less than one, I have more cause to say the Romans should be kicked out of Civ3 than you have to say the Americans should be kicked out.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Oerdin


This shall be the very first time I have ever directly insulted someone on this forum and I hope I do not get banned for it, but, I can simply not sit here and listen to that filth.
By saying such things you are a totally ignorant sod!

What, exactly, am I ignorant of? Ifyou'e unaware of the United States' actions in the Middle East, then I submit that I am not the ignorant one.

Since when did the U.S. kill houndreds of thousands in the middle-east?

Since, "The terrorists need to be brought to justice and to be tried before an international court. No doubt during that trial they will raise the issue of the 700,000 dead Iraqi children as a result of the U.S. attack on Iraq and subsequent embargo. Nothing can justify the terrorist attacks of September 11; and nothing will ever justify the death of 700,000 innocent Iraqi children. The universal condemnation of all violations of human rights, whether it be Bin Laden terrorism or a U.S. military intervention or CIA covert operations or Taliban oppression or the insane religious rhetoric of U.S. fundamentalists of Robertson and Falwell, is the stance of the Free Press." http://www.freepress.org/DefaultMain...ent&Category=2

There is no excuse for you uttering such bold faced lies!
I truly hope that you are just uneducated and that you are simply another child running off at the mouth about things he knows nothing about.

Uneducated? No. Just aware that more exists than the United States' perspective.

In the future may I suggest you get your facts straight before you go trying to justify the unjustifiable?

That's not really a question, but I would be inclined to say the same to you.

[Ned]

Punkbass, I almost agree with you. The Arab world, with the exception of some leaders, indeed has declared at least a cold War on the United States. They are now acquiring weapons of mass destruction. I believe the United States will soon turn this cold war into a hot war in self defense. If we don't act, Israel surely will - perhaps with nuclear weapons.

I don't see a way to avoid this unless the Arab world suddenly becomes democratic or the mullah's stop preaching hatred of the West and the United States. I would not hold your breath.

Ned

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by punkbass2000

Since, "The terrorists need to be brought to justice and to be tried before an international court. No doubt during that trial they will raise the issue of the 700,000 dead Iraqi children as a result of the U.S. attack on Iraq and subsequent embargo. Nothing can justify the terrorist attacks of September 11; and nothing will ever justify the death of 700,000 innocent Iraqi children. The universal condemnation of all violations of human rights, whether it be Bin Laden terrorism or a U.S. military intervention or CIA covert operations or Taliban oppression or the insane religious rhetoric of U.S. fundamentalists of Robertson and Falwell, is the stance of the Free Press." http://www.freepress.org/DefaultMain...ent&Category=2

*sigh* Let's see if we can make sense of this:
Iraq invades Kuwait
World (lead by US) goes to war to liberate Kuwait (let's ignore all the whys for now, as they are immaterial)
World stops short of toppleing Hussain, even though he has been known to use nerve gass on his _own_ civilians.
Due to Husain's past, world (lead by US) declares embargo and no-fly zones to protect the kurd and shiite populations; also in the hopes that they might topple Husain.
Iraqi children starve
World decides that letting Iraq sell oil to feed and medicine his children is ok.
Iraq sells oil; buys weapons. Iraqi children still starve.
World decides to cut back on the amount of oil that Iraq can sell, instead decides it just give food to Iraq.
Iraqi children still starve. Iraqi millitary still well fed...

How is this the fault of the US? How is this _not_ the fault of Husain?

[nato]

I'm gonna make a daring attempt to bring this back to Civ3 a little...

Even if you blame the entire Arab civilization for terror attacks like WTC, I would still want to include them as a civ in Civ3.

They had a long history of great contributions, and 50 (or so) years of terrorist actions doesn't negate that to me.

Similarly, I still want China, even though I hate Mao and the first 30 or so years of the Communist regime. I still want Russians even though I hate Stalin and their early Communist regime. I still want Japan even though I hate what they did during WWII. And of course the Germans, even though I hate Nazism.

In fact, I want Americans even though I hate what we did to the Native Americans.

There is plenty of bad history to go around ... I don't think terrorism is, by itself, enough of a reason to not include such a major and contributing civilization like the Arabs.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by nato
I'm gonna make a daring attempt to bring this back to Civ3 a little...

Even if you blame the entire Arab civilization for terror attacks like WTC, I would still want to include them as a civ in Civ3.

They had a long history of great contributions, and 50 (or so) years of terrorist actions doesn't negate that to me.

Similarly, I still want China, even though I hate Mao and the first 30 or so years of the Communist regime. I still want Russians even though I hate Stalin and their early Communist regime. I still want Japan even though I hate what they did during WWII. And of course the Germans, even though I hate Nazism.

In fact, I want Americans even though I hate what we did to the Native Americans.

There is plenty of bad history to go around ... I don't think terrorism is, by itself, enough of a reason to not include such a major and contributing civilization like the Arabs.

I'll agree with you in spirit, and offer only this complaint about adding the "Arabs": Adding the "Arabs" is about like adding the "Whites" (not the russian varity, but the European ones), or the "Blacks", or any simmilar psudo-racial* grouping. Civilization (the game) is about _nations_, not psudo-races. Incuding the "Arabian" civilization, is just fine, however...


*I use the term "psudo-race" as there is no actual biological justifcation for our view of races. The distintions are arbitrary at best, and rather desctuctive at all times. cultural groupings are to be prefered.

[nato]

Ok, though I disagree about the races. To my understanding, Arab is a version of white ... Mediterranean white I think, not sure.

Anyway, please see my post on page 2 of this thread. It is the very first post on that page.

It deals with that, and is pretty good IMHO.

[Andrew Cory]

Originally posted by nato
Ok, though I disagree about the races. To my understanding, Arab is a version of white ... Mediterranean white I think, not sure.

The whole problem with using racial catagories is that the sets are _very_ fuzzy, and have no actual meaning in a biological sense. My understanding is that "Arab" is a "race". Lacking evidence one way or the other, though...

Originally posted by nato
Anyway, please see my post on page 2 of this thread. It is the very first post on that page.

It deals with that, and is pretty good IMHO.

I read it after you pointed it out. Yep, pretty good. Change "Arab" to "arabian", and I will agree 100%...