hidden racist agenda

[Mkinser]

Maybe I am a simpleton, but...

The last time I checked, this was a game! Don't read too much into it...it's a game.

You aren't going to change anything in the world by playing it. The leader of the free world isn't one day going to come to you and say "gee you were really great at playing CIV3, would you like to be my military advisor.." It's a game!

Take it as an opportunity to toss your personal agendas, conceptions, and cares out the window for a few hours. Realx and enjoy it for what it is...a trivial piece of fodder dreamt up in the mind of one person that can be used to pass time...aka - a game!

[Captain]

interesting discussion. I've been away a while and a lot has been posted and I'll do my best to respond. please be patient.

While I'm fairly firm in my convictions, I do try to read with an open mind and am considering every serious response.

Thanks Cyclotron, for responding in a non-dismissive manner. I appreciate your comments. About the insults, my apologies. Shouldn't have called you shortsighted, I merely meant your initial post. As for ignorance, I didn't mean you in particular, allow me to explain (see next).

thank you to all those who have contributed to this thread whether for or against, and thank you to those who have supported me, even if they didn't necessarily agree with my post. AJ, I really appreciate it!



So... starting with the thread title, why call it "hidden racist agenda" if I don't actually believe that? well I suppose you can think of it as a newspaper headline, meant to grab your attention. in fact, the starting post's first line gives my intentions.
is it an inflammatory title? yes. but what about the content of the post? I don't think it's all that unreasonable to ask for.

sure, it's out of character for me, as many here can probably attest to, but not surprisingly, it's the only thread I've started that got more than passing interest. Even the anti-infinite RR thread I started a while ago, that almost everyone is pushing for now, was far less than this. So does attention grabbing justify the title? no. but I'm sure I've paid for that mistake already. besides, you can't change thread titles once they're posted.

(on a side note, those familiar with political theory will realize that inflammatory remarks, extremism, and violence are the most effective ways of forcing people and govts to deal with your questions. ex. without violent protest, less media coverage is given, thus less exposure. even the non-violent protestors get more attention, more of a voice, than without. terrorism may be wholly unjustified, but it works to force people and govts to deal with the issues. It may overshadow the issues in the short term, but it raises awareness in an immmdiate fashion, andf ledns a sense of urgnecy to resolution. if a group stays quiet and only acts through legal means, the powers can easily stonewall and they do. is this fair? no, but it's reality.)

So, that aside, what is this about? I'm not saying Firaxis is racist, or that the game is, just that it leads towards certain conclusions that don't sit well with me. I specified a few things I thought would help make the game better, more fun, for me. Some others agreed, some didn't. No need to be derisive.

Consider, some people don't like the terrain graphics. Bluer water! Less red mountains! So they changed it. It affects the atmosphere of the game and thus our enjoyment of it. Others couldn't care less. Some people hate mining grasslands. Some people don't care. But there's no need to insult those who want a nicer looking game. Some people want wonder movies, others don't. I want racial features to stay. But currently there's no way of changing this in the editor.

I would like a distinction between unity and uniformity. The former is good, the latter is frightening.

For example, there are all kinds of different people in New York, but most of them consider themselves American first. They're loyal, and there's no way New York would ever leave the USA to join, say, Italy, despite a large number of people with Italian descent. But look at the downtown, they don't look all the same. I'd like my cities to reflect that.


I don't want to make this post too long, as I'm sure people are tired of reading it so I'll respond to posts one at a time now.

[Cyclotron]

Captain, although I agree on your point of uniformity vs. unity, but I think you are interpereting Civ3's ethnic model in a different way than was intended. Nationality doesn't so much represent the physical race of a people as much as the people's mindset.

Consider: In WW2, many ethnic Germans, Japanese, and Italians lived in America. Now, there's no disputing that they were, in genetic backround, "foreign." But the vast, vast majority of those people supported the war against the Axis, and never considered fighting against the country they lived in just because America was fighting their genetic "homeland."

The point is, assimilation doesn't represent the eradication of other cultural/racial backrouds so much as an attitude change. If I invade France, french people will be mad at me, and will resent my continued fighting against their "mother country." But if the part of France I took remains under my rule for hundreds of years, it is very likely the people there will not still hate me for being antagonistic towards the French. They may still be genetically French, and they may still even speak French, but they have lived all their lives (and so have their parents, and grandparents) in my culture and have not been unduly oppressed. You and I think of these people as Frenchmen... but in the terms of Civ3, they no longer behave like foreign nationals. They behave like citizens and patriotic countrymen of my nation. That is Civ3 assimilation... it is not racial bias, or wanton destruction of ethnic heritage.

[Captain]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
I think it's a bit of a stretch to think that a game is a propaganda tool. Now, it's true that everything we create is an extension of our beliefs, but it seems unlikely that the feature of "assimilation" was purposely included to promote racial theories. What you are interpereting as a "propaganda effect" to me seems like you're just reading that into the game.

I don't think it's intentional, but that doesn't mean it can't have propaganda effects. It depends on how you look at it. I see Hollywood's recent trend of war movies as propaganda that shores up support for the Afghanistan war, others don't.

Again, I don't think Firaxis has an ulterior motives, and agenda was the wrong word to use. But I don't think a person had to be conscious of something for it to have negative effects. A harsh word, intentional or not, can still hurt.

Remember that most southerners didn't think owning slaves was wrong. they even supported it with religion (although the very same religion was instrumental in stamping out slavery).

I apologize if I seemed shortsighted to you.

I apologize for saying it in haste.

I think that your treatment of violence is somewhat unrealistic. Violence, war, and conflict are indeed a part of our lives, and they have been for all time. Most of human history involves what you find objectionable, and to regard these topics as unspeakable is an affront to history and it is also ignoring a basic part of human behavior, tradition, and custom.

I never said they were unspeakable. I don't ignore it. But I don't accept that things have to be the way they are simply because our history has been that way. Otherwise, we could never hope to change anything. I agree with you, we need to understand this and recognize it as valid.

I remember watching the movie Gallipoli, and seeing the thousands of colonial soldiers rushing out of the trenches to attack a line of Turkish machine guns. they were obviously slaughtered. I thought, who are these people? Why on earth would you go to certain death, to gain an objective you don't even know about or care about, for some the cause of some vague concept of empire and duty? I mean, we're talking about the deaths of millions over the course of that war and what's so surprising isn't that the notions of empire and duty faded afterwards, it's that these were ever enough to convince someone to do these things in the first place. These people weren't more brave, more ignorant or more taken with a herd mentality than we are today. WW2 may be a different case, but most of us can agree that WW1 was a colossal blunder that tragically costs many their lives. I don't see that trying to avoid those mistakes these days as a betrayal of their memory.

That's fine, but when you post a thread called "hidden racist agendas" that doesn't sound like a views awareness thread... that sounds like angry propaganda and closemindedness. If you want people to be aware of something, you'd do well not to approach it like you have done with this topic.

fair enough. you have to admit though, the discussion managed to stay fairly on topic and civil, no? if you don't agree, that's fine, we can change starting now.

I don't agree with that. What you see as racism, I see as a valuable and logical game feature. To me, it's gameplay; nothing more, nothing less. I need to point out that Firaxis makes games to be entertaining, not PC.

I was not saying what their goals were, just saying that Firaxis has no obligation to do either. they make games entertaining to sell, to make money. but not everyone does things for money, and not every company has to. just because the majority does, doesn't make it a rule. some people choose careers based on money, others on what they think they have to contribute. a game company could do the same. they may make less money and even lose money, but that's okay if they have different priorities. think of it as the difference between PBS and Fox. One makes informative television to help the community and raise awareness while being entertaining, and the other makes crass tv shows that make craploads of money. It's also our choice as to what to watch and who to support.

Calling something PC is an effective way of dismissing something without considering it. the backlash against PCism has definitely won the day. not that PCism is good, for it turns genuine issues into tokenism, but people use it too often as an excuse for ignoring racial issues. Example: "I'm not racist, but I'm sick and tired of all these minorities asking for special rights!" like fair access to education and job opportunities are special rights. How about not being harassed by police for being black and driving through an affluent neighbourhood? yeah, that's a special right. you don't see it? you live in the nice part of town. besides, the media discriminates as well. black kids go missing? no issue. white kid goes missing? the whole precinct is called out. the newspapers headline it. take a good god damn look around. I'm sick and tired of whites (here in NA anyways) pretending the issues don't exist, that things are already fair, and that they're bending over backwards. God forbid I take one minute of your time from playing a friggin' game so you can think about how you benefit, directly or indirectly, from the oppression of others.

Alright, I'm ranting, but call these issues PC? don't you dare.

remember that it was only in the last 30-40 years that the civil rights movement made headway, and despite the fact that there is so much discrimination, much of it institutionally encouraged, there is already such a heavy backlash of conservatism calling every effort at social justice to be PC.

there are even claims of reverse racism. I'm not saying that minorities aren't racist themselves, but the truth is that the dominant group possesses more power and is more deeply entrenched so that their racism, conscious or unconscious, affects other more strongly.

consider, I don't think we need to feel guilty, but no one starts from a level playing field. a poor boy who had to work to support the family, got lower grades as a result, never learned the upper class social graces or made those connections, couldn't afford the private tutors, or the world travels to broaden his horizons, or many of the school field trips, the tuition to Harvard, can't be expected to have the same level of education or future opportunities that the rich boy does.

if you think historically, in north america at least, whites have had it better. sure they worked harded and earned it, but what did they have to start with? the irish immigrants fleeing the potato famine came with nothing, but at least they owned themselves. Blacks didn't even own themselves. do you even know what that's like? and the irish weren't ostracized by affluent society (well, not as much) and kept out of power, education, and respect because of it.

(on another side note, consider how the Irish and Scottish refugees are considered "settlers" and "founding peoples", whereas Somalis, Southeast Asians, and Arabs are "refugees" It's just language, but it has meaning. )

think of it in civ 3 terms, two equally good players, but one starts in the jungle and the other in a grassland hills river valley with cows and horses and iron.

do we need to give Manhattan Island back to the original native tribe? no, but at least acknowledge, apologize, and hopefully compensate (since they'd be better off nowadays and we'd be worse off, if we hadn't cheated them centuries ago). Not because we did it ourselves, but because we are direct benefactors because of a wrong doing.

It's like returning Nazi war loot. You didn't steal it yourself, but it was ill-gotten in the first place. current domestic laws regarding possession of stolen property agree, but it's trickier in the international scene.

I encourage you not to use personally offensive attacks. I would highly doubt that all people who disagree with you qualify as ignorant.

No, that's not what I meant but I can see how one can read it that way.

What I mean is that there are many people who don't think watching violent movies or playing violent games makes them any more violent. There are those who don't think watching sexist or racist movies, or reading misogynist literature affects them in any way. that's ignorance.

there is another thing I meant by it, but I'll get to that later. this is getting too long.

again, yes, it's just a game. but racism isn't. is it overtly racist? no. is it intentionally so? no.
but assimilation so that entire people groups disappear, and having that as an positive objective in the game, is by definition encouraged ethnic-cleanings, in the same way that a FPS is inherently violent.

does it make you a worse person for playing it? no.
do I have a right to voice my concern? yes.
do you have a right to criticize my posts? of course.

back with more in a while.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Civ Old Timer
Captain, I'm sure you mean well, but, my god man, get a grip. People do indeed come together into one entity and this is a good thing. Minority cultures add to and change the cultures they mingle with. In Canada we do have Quebec here, y'know, and it's influence on the political culture of this country at quite out of what with it's size and population. I'm not complaining about it, just pointing out that it's so. It's simplistic in the extreme to think that "the only reasonable thing we can assume is that these people have been ethnically cleansed or assimilated Borg style." C'mon, mate, the world is more complicated subtle than left liberal dogma would have you believe. Furthermore, every culture has subcultures.

Grip gotten. Civ 3 is a game, but not just a game. That's too much of a cop-out for me. Seeing the amount of discussion and how high tempers flared about certain other issues of the game (ex. spearman should never beat tanks ever! America shouldn't be a civ! etc... ) I'm alright with debating this one.

That's the thing about Civ 3, or any of the Civ series. It raises so many ideas and is so educational. Do you think a FPS would raise half these issues or have so many people interested in learning more about Agincourt or Saladin or Mali or Bolivar or Marx or any of those things? No, I venture an FPS forum would have things like "You're a camper! No, I'm not. Yes you are. No. Killed me five times on respawn. No way. Cheater. No. Cheater. No. Let's settle this in the arena. No. Why? You got ten head shots bang on, no misses. You're using a bot. No. I'm really that good." or "The Sniper is better than the AK. No way, the AK is better." or "I don't like the blood spatter. it should go left, not right. " FPS players, correct me if I'm wrong.


True, Quebec is an interesting case. And separatism is currently at a low point. There was that huge referendum a few years ago that the federalists nearly lost. Now, I love Canada a great deal, but I don't adhere to "my country, right or wrong". If we support countries like East Timor separating, then Quebec has the same right to self-determination. I want Quebec to stay, but I'd never force them to. I'd never put a bullet through someone (whether I pulled the trigger or I ordered the military to do so). I'd for sure call out the military if we were attacked, but I couldn't support attacking Quebec to force them to stay in Confederation. A lot of military manoevering is to put the other side in a position of compromise, before a shot is fired. It's called posturing and military historians are sure to be familiar with this. In a sense, to bluff. The problem is. you have to be willing to actually do it or the other side knows you're just bluffing.

(And in case you were curious, Captain refers to directing my own destiny, and vague reference to Lincoln as ironic as that is, not to any military command I hold.)

Back to Quebec, they may not want to be totally Canadian, but they still want our money, our passports, our trade, our economy, our diplomatic status, our military protection (!), and a free border. So essentially, they're Canadian citizens but in name. They'd never rebel to France. They'd support us in a war of defense, but probably not aggression or what was considered an English Canada issue (ex. Boer war, WW1). So they are loyal (in a sense) to Canada, but do agitate and cause problems that would not exist in a homogeneous society. Would it be better if Canada were a monoculture? We can see some obvious advantages, but also some diasdvantages. Remember the Huegenots (sp?), or the Quakers, or the Jews? Driving them out of the country left that nation weaker because they lost skilled workers, financiers, and those with solid entrepreneurial skills.
I'm not entirely sure this can be quantified though, and it also turns people into numbers (though that's exactly what Civ is). Instead of thinking of people as people, they're a loss of skill or labour force or capital. Sad really. But we do it all the time when talking of the brain drain.

In the end, it depends on our particular values and what we think is "better".

My wish upon a star? In Civ 3, have protectorates. So Quebec could separate and become a protectorate of Canada. Like the permanent allies of SMAC. Or as Romans, I take over Greece. They become the Greek province. They run themselves (having lower corruption due to second "capital") and contribute to the empire, but you have less control over what they build. In Civ 2 I used to leave every nation at least one city, comfortably nestled and surrounded by my cities and troops so that all nations would still exist and yet be unable to go to war with each other. Then I built a spaceship. Hey, if it's about rewriting history the way we want, my utopian vision shouldn't be slammed.

Obviously I can't help myself when it comes to writing. I may not convince anyone by my arguments, but I might just wear you down with sheer length!

Yikes! That this upsets anyone freaks me out. We are people first and cultures second. Obsessing over culture is divissive, just the opposite of what you intend - which I take to be a defese of diversity.

Right. Thanks for reminding me of that. I would dearly love to see people treated as individuals first, and culture bearers second (or third or not at all). Robert Bolt put it well in his foreword to "A Man for All Seasons" when he wrote of how economics and politics existed because humans participate in it and create it. Yet economists and political theorists treat it the other way around. I extend this to the idea of cultures. I guess this is partly why I want the icons to stay different, because integration and loyalty to my country isn't necessarily the same as assimilation (which by definition refers to the virtual eradication of the former culture).

Regarding the game, I want them to retain their visual features. Colour of uniform change will do to show loyalty. Small change? Yes. But would make me enjoy the game so much more.

[Captain]

Re: Bah.

[QUOTE] Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
I agree that it would be nice if the face icons didn't change, but its hardly racism or anything even close. The culture is assimiliated, the people interbred, and since your people would(assuming) be the majorirty, they'd all mostly look like your people did. But its not that important overall.
[\QUOTE]

Well, not necessarily. I usually take over the nearest civ in the ancient era, so about half or more of my civ is foreign (since I don't build many settlers, just take over cities). I'd like the icons to reflect that.

I'd rather have them fix infinite rails first, but this is such a small thing to ask too, I figure they can do it easily.

However, i've got to disagree with something else you said. I've heard this arguement alot, that the games we play, movies/tv we watch, and things we read affect how we see things and how we act. This is true, but to a very limited extent. The only things that change us are those that we let change us. I've played countless hours of FPS games, but I don't think any less of death, or people being murdered, or anything else. Perhaps my line between what is real, and what isn't is just stronger then others. But things don't affect how I see things unless I let them, the same with anyone else.

we aren't always conscious of what we let affect us. especially the younger we are. I think you can agree with that? civvers and game players aren't all adults with enough experience to discriminate between positive and negative influences. Why do you suppose most smokers get hooked when they're in their teens? I'm not down on youth, but the facts show that they are easily influenced when unaware of the consequences (they rebel harshly when they think they're being manipulated). we have laws protecting the young and gradually we shield them less and less so they can make their own decisions without undue duress. the laws against underage sex are there because it is altogether far too easy for an adult to convince a younger person to have sex without considering the consequences.
even as adults we are susceptible to ouside influences. consider the whole industry of advertising. it works. that's why they spend so much money on it. yet, how many of us think we are taken in by the ads? when we see that commercial, how many of us think we're being affected? we often say that those things don't work on us, but they do. it's unconscious and it's subtle. I wouldn't be so sure of myself if I were you.

all this is just to say that not everyone is fully aware of how things influence them, and we don't always get to choose what affects us. that's placing a bit too much confidence in one's ability to judge as being independent of outside influences.

now I don't think violent games should be banned, nor do i think censoring television is a solution. good parenting is the key, but failing that, limiting exposure where children are not prepared to deal with the issue maturely. the details are more complex.

To say that peoples perception of war is fogged by war games, and FPS games is just ridiculous.

It isn't ridiculous. I'll back it up below.

Its only if the people believe what they're playing to be truly like war, and how they play the game like the war.

Quite the opposite. The effect isn't because we look at a game as if it were real war, the problem is that we tend to look at war as a game.

Just because I plot years in advance on which Civs I will "annex" doesn't mean I think its a good thing when a country IRL does it. Civ is just a game, and bares no strong comparison to IRL. In Civ I can send countless units to there doom on a various city and not be bothered, I can watch it happen IRL and most certainly be bothered, but then i've always liked to study war history as well.

I don't view war as one blip on a screen moving towards another, I view it as well, war.

That's the thing. due to the nature of modern warfare, we rarely see our enemies. artillery and planes don't have any trouble delilvering. the research indicates that the reluctance to kill is primarily for infantry, because they can see their enemy and the enemy looks human. the pilot only sees a target, the tanker sees another metal beast, the artilleryman doesn't see anything, just coordinates, the ship sees a blip in the screen from the radar mast. modern warfare is heavily missile based. It's not hard to press a button if you don't hyave to see the effects up front. If you don't see the distance factor as important, think of the difference between shooting someone across a football field and taking a knife and stabbing them.

Not that I think militaries should be all that reserved, since if they don't push the button, the other guy will and then their evil state will rule (unless you were the evil side. if neither of you is evil, then why are you fighting?). I'm not naive, but there's no point becoming the enemy we fight against. of course, history is written by the victors, so that might be a moot point. after all, who remembers all the British atrocities? we only remember the German ones. (more recently, America gets villainized for the bomb, but Japan gets off as the victim instead of the rapist of Asia)

Odd as that sounds, I do like watching war, and no, not the slaughter, but the strategys involved and such. I know many die, even those who wern't a part of the fighting at all, and they do have my sympathy. As for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I don't mind it much. Since it doesn't have much to do with me, or has involved people I know, unlike wars America has been involved in. Again, they have my sympathy, but I care less about it then I do a war fought by America. As for trying to emulate it, who would want to have a terrorist scenario? I've heard terrorist units proposed, but never a scenario based around it, it seems a dumb idea to me, but then again i've never played many scenarios either.

Check out the creation forum. it exists.

Also, don't forget about the whole "fascism" thing. Sometimes, I am concerned about the way the discussions go. It's eerie when people talk about fascism in that way. but maybe this is a different generation.

in civ 3, it can be a game concept, but the sheer fervour of some folks for wanting to play this government (no problem playing against it) is disturbing.

as for the inevitable question, have I ever wanted to play as the bad guy? well, no, not really. it's not me.

As for FPS games being used by the military to get soldiers over the inherent resistant to kill, where, and when, and can you post a source? I could see the military perhaps using it to train reaction and accuracy, but in the end a computer image is just a computer image, no matter how large or advanced, the mind knows it isn't real, you can't be more easily motivated to kill someone just becase you have in a game. And again I ask, when have peoples attitudes changed off of games they play? I've never seen any of my buddies suddenly become a jerk after a game of UT, we both usually enjoyed and laugh about it. Do you have a source for this too? Too many things are blamed on tv/movies/games/books, rather then the simple fact that the person is who is messed up.

Source:
The Pyschology of Killing by David Grossman
book

A quick link here gives a good introduction to this (I'm not 100% of the reliability of this site though)
http://users.qx.net/warcat/MilSF/Killing.htm

and no, I don't blame media exclusively. personal responsibility is important and every one is ultimately responsible for the choices they make (even if research indicates that circumstance, rather than any innate traits, dictates one's behaviour). the "I was just following orders" excuse no longer works, but nonetheless, media and leadership have roles to play. if you are advocating certain things, you are partially responsible. the teacher is responsible if he or she encourages his/her students to steal to pay for classroom improvements (yes, there is a real life case of this!). even if you are not actively encouraging it, your silence is compliance. If you witness a crime and do not report it, you become an accessory.

And why exactly are people who play Civ3 different from those who play FPS games? I'm sure a large number of Civ players also play FPS. I enjoy a 12 hour stretch of playing Civ3 just as much as I enjoy a 5-10 minute round FPS match, they just require different abilitys for each one. Civ is hardly a game of only "thinkers" since its quite easy to just go mass war and win through conquest(though not on higher difficulty levels, i'll admit). FPS games take just as much skill to play as strategy games, its just in different areas. I won't even comment on the makers of FPS games being rednecks, thats just a joke, right?

Yes. I'm not entirely humourless, .
(it's also an allusion to Redneck Rampage, one of the FPS games of some popularity a few years ago. that may not make a whole lot of sense.)

btw, I also play FPS every so often. I'm ok with killing evil space aliens and monsters. generally stay away from killing people though. there's a difference, for me, even if it is just pixels on a screen. the imagery matters. after all, books are just letters on a page, or rather, marks of ink on a sheet of paper. in that case, why should nazi hate literature like Mein Kampf affect me differently than say, the New Testament's Sermon on the Mount?

Firaxis makes Civ3 how they want it, but I don't think anything at all in the game can be interpreted as racist unless you actually work at it and want it to be. The face icons changing is like sueing the goverment for not having an equal distrubation of black and white stripes on the flag.

Racism doesn't have to be conscious. There are work arounds where people don't see it the same way I do. Fair enough. I can't bring myself to those workarounds yet, anymore than some people can workaround the idea of mining a cow.

Part of the problem is all the people trying to convince themselves its real, which isn't helped by all those that say its too real, in the end it is JUST A GAME. It matters not in real life, nothing done it in should affect your real life, and nothing you see in it should either. Its bits of code formed together to respond to your actions, it isn't real, and never will be. Those who are affected simply let it or don't have enough will power or logic to tell the difference. More people need to realize this and quit blaming other things for how they act.

Right. It's not about blaming others or failing to take responsibility. It's recognizing how something might affect you if you're not careful. as for bits of code, see above on writing on paper.

I'm not sure I've given you enough evidence to show that these things can and do affect us, and I would be more than happy to continue this discussion. But I'll leave it at this for now because I am writing a lot more than I expected.

Edit- Reply to second post: How does "its just a game" strengthen your arguement, and how are we power players? I control all my workers and pick specific terrain improvements myself, unless i've just got too many(over 40-50) working to keep track of. I usually don't agree with AI placement of things, even though it may work better. And whos said they only conquer? Very few civ players focus ONLY on conquering, many try a multitude of strategys and variations on how they play, myself included.

true. the point about power players was that those folks tended to concentrate on winning the game and milking the score, using any exploits or loopholes, regardless of how ugly or mechanic running that civ became. (e.g mines all over grassland). sandboxers prefer experimenting and a nice looking game, often at the expense of not getting maximum production and crushing the enemy. i think sandboxers might be more concerned with diversity and making diverse cities than power players who'd be just as happy with numbers instead of faces.

I've tryed to help civs survive before also, giving them an uneeded border city or two and extra resources, but simply because I didn't want the other guy taking over that part. I would like more options available for alliances and such, theres not enough as it is now.

right. more options is good.

The UUs are fine, can't you just remove them if you don't like them? Its there to add a bit more of history and theme to the game.

yep, and I do. I don't play with them on. (Ideally, I'd like to make them so they're tied to specific, self-replacing wonders so players can decide which UU they want based on need and circumstance. search the forums for the full idea on that.)

As for civ3 being detached, it is, but it doesn't make us easily order thousands to there doom or anything. :P As for presidents and military officials easily ordering people to be sniped, thats part of there job, they know they have to make the decesion and will answer to it if they are wrong as well. As for cows, if I had to kill one to get the meat from it, I would. But right now the money I pay for to get the meat goes to someone who kills them for a living. I don't consider it killing, I consider it dinner.

True. That is the price of leadership. You have to make hard decisions. But that's what separates a good leader (one that people follow out of respect) from a bad leader (one that people follow out of fear). The good leader sacrifices lives only when deemed necessary and reluctantly so. The bad leader does so callously and flippantly.

Does that mean Civ 3 warmongerers are going to be bad real life leaders? no. but perhaps more hawkish in political support than otherwise.

As for killing your own cow, good to hear it. I don't have a problem with meat eaters or vegetarians, just those who condemn farmers and slaughterhouses for inhuman practices of killing when they are the ones paying for that meat! Or those that have a problem with the "barbaric" countries that eat dogs, cats, horses, and other western Civ pets. Oh, no, how could you kill and eat Fluffy? That poodle was man's best friend! Munch, munch, munch, boy, Bessie the cow sure tastes great! Fluffy always enjoyed eating hamburger, hey let's go kill more animals as long as they're not cute ones!

[Captain]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
That's not the point. When you post inflammatory topics, you'll get inflammatory replies. Your purpose in doing so is irrelevant.

I think I covered this one already.

Yeah, I really never liked UUs either... in fact, I debated against those for a long time before Civ3 came out. The reason for my opposition, however, was not because of UUs being racist... they are not, merely historical. I opposed them because I believe Civ3 and other such games are to re-write history, not re-live it on a different physical map.

well, if they're predetermined, that can only be genetic - not as a result of a civ's particular history. if the english are landbound an entire game, why would they develop superior ships? it should depend on how they play. the fact that it's predetermined means, to me, that it's some kind of genetic predisposition to making good ships. preposterous, and racist. not evil racist, but ignorant racist.

do you remember a time when popular thinking had blacks as physical superiors to whites and whites intellectual superiors to blacks? this was "equality" in some people's views. they didn't see it as a product of culture, society, or history, they said it was genetic. And they didn't think this was racist. well, it is. they meant well, but I'm afraid good intentions don't always help. that popular notion led to a lot of blacks being funnelled into certain occupations and held out of others. still harmful even though people meant well.

Killing is part of history. Civ is an abstract representaion of history. Therefore, it is entirely logical that Civ is a representation of killing. I don't think of FPS players as any better or more moral than RTS players... nearly all of our entertainment makes referense to violence, and it's unavoidable without massive censorship of what is a basic human feature.

You're right. It's also part of everyday life. I don't intend to censor it. But it does have consequences which are not necessarily well modeled in Civ 3. The job done so far is okay, but could be much better.

For example, people don't take kindly to politicians (and military personnel) who needlessly and stupidly throw away the lives of their children, spouses, friends, lovers, etc... There should be severe penalties and rioting if you lose too many units.

[Captain]

Originally posted by DrFell
Well I'm glad they assimilate eventually. After all I'd rather that happened more often rather than me having to raze their city to the ground, butcher the vast majority of the population, and send the rest to either work on the land for the rest of their lives or be whipped to death building my temples (I know, I have a sick imagination), which is what I do most of the time. It's funny that the people in my democracy are not at all bothered that thousands of Aztec slaves have been building my railroads for centuries. Just try to remember it's only a game, it's not as if most of central Europe's cities were razed in WW2, is it?

razing's another thing that needs fixing. since Firaxis' intention was to make it less warmongerish and more builder friendly, why is razing encouraged? And it is, right? it's better to raze a large city (only takes 1 unit to do it) than to occupy and garrison it (tying down lots of units) and risk it flipping? with almost no penalty associated with razing cities, it's the wise thing (oh, the civ I'm already at war with, hates me more? gee, what'll they do? declare war on me?oh wait, they already did!). in reality, there are far more serious repercussions to razing than that. that 12 pop points aren't going to sit idly by while you burn the city, but they'll revolt against 20 mech inf and your govt that rush built temples, libraries and is trying to make them happy?

it's not just the IRL argument, it would also balance gameplay for the builder types.

[Cyclotron]

For example, people don't take kindly to politicians (and military personnel) who needlessly and stupidly throw away the lives of their children, spouses, friends, lovers, etc... There should be severe penalties and rioting if you lose too many units.

If you weren't aware, war weariness increases due to several factors, one of which is losing units. If you're in a democracy, that can lead to the overthrow of your government... how's that for not taking kindly to politicians?

As for UUs... I don't think you quite get the reasoning behind them. Not to say I agree with it, but there are a lot of people who do.

In Civ2, all civs were essentially the same. Only a few different graphics and some minor behavior variations separated the Romans from, say, the Japanese.

Many people thought this was boring... they believed that each civ should be unique. They wanted the chance to lead a civ that had a special edge in tanks, or knights, or archers. In other words, they wanted unique civilizations. To do this, they wanted unique units.

In many ways, this argument is also a rejection of uniformity, just like your points. People didn't want every civ to be a near-perfect facsimile of every other civ. It's not about racist notions; I don't think anybody pretends that the English have "man-o-war" writen in their DNA. UUs are an attempt to make all civs unique, not caricatured.

EDIT: By the way, razing hurts your reputation in general, not just with the civ whose city you raze.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Andrew Cory

So why haven't you? Why doesn't someon pull a gandi and organize a work stopage? Or even an armed rebellion?

well, scotland's history is replete with rebellions, but I think the killer of unity was culloden where the lowland scots sided with the english against the highlanders. after that, scotland never really had it in them.

also, at that stage in history, I'm not sure Gandhi's tactics would have worked. medieval/early imperialist soldiers didn't have too much of a problem with slaughtering innocents. heck, the British in India slaughtered thousands before their consciences got to them (or rather, the political will to continue the senseless massacres was subject to public pressures). Watch the movie Gandhi, it's long but very informative and interesting.

England also had a larger population than scotland, and the scottish industries weren't as critical to england as india's were. India had way too many people for England to hold onto once they unified under the independence banner.

Gandhi's tactics work to arouse a sense of shame in the oppressor and few people are willing to have their bodies broken and their friends and family killed for decades while the oppressor gets a conscience. Violent retaliation is more natural, and you can see the results quicker. Of course, this gives the oppressor an excuse to "crack down" on the rebels in the name of peace and stability.

If the oppressor has no sense of shame, this doesn't work. For example, many of the fanatics of sierra leone who cut off the hands of the voters! and many communist insurgents who have no qualms using terror tactics. Pol Pot gladly slaughtered half his countrymen without feeling a pang of regret. I admire Gandhi a great deal but if it was Stalin instead of the British, I think India would be depopulated now or still in a massive war of independence.

also, currently, the scottish position isn't quite as oppressive as the Indian one was under British rule.

ok, so I know you weren't expecting this reply, but here it is anyways.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Ninot
This is a good thread, me thinks.

I completely agree that conquered groups (in Civ3) should keep their ethnicity, at least in graphic, and at most.. keep it to the same degree as if they were JUST conquered.

So, I guess it looks like there' more support for this idea than I originally thought. others might not go as far as to call it racist, and that's fine, but I think we're working towards the same thing here.

I know, living in Quebec, that the french of Quebec have been under general "british" rule since 1760. Now, if my history class has been accurate at all, since 1867, Canada hasn't been british, sure... but the French speaking peoples of Quebec have never EVER been overjoyous to start learning english and "assimilating" themselves.

Actually, we have opposite laws. We have laws that are making more french speaking people every day. If you are immigrating to Quebec, and are still of the general schooling age, you MUST attend french school. And, funny enough, you might think that these laws were imposed while the seperatist government has been in charge, but no, they have been around even longer, emplaced by our non-seperatist party.

Oh, and to explain Quebec's seperatist party, since forever (but to be accurate, the 70's), we have had a dominant party trying to make Quebec its own country.

So, as for the "inevitable assimilation" present in CIV3... if it were trying for realism, it would be removed. Many ethnic groups thrive no matter where they go, and they never really fade away.

Heck, if I ever conquered half of Russia in a game of civ3, I wouldn't be opposed to having a nice sized Russian population hundreds of years later. It would make me feel good, and it would rule if they opposed wars that my people didn't.

To explain that... the general english population of Canada completely suported the Canadian troups in WW1 and 2... but the french population of Quebec abhored them.

Right. Despite all these years, the Quebecois are still alive and kicking. Sometimes those kicks hurt (i.e. language laws and the requirement to go to French only schools, they've got a new bill
coming in soon too that will be even more extremist).

But like I said in the post to COT, even though half of Quebec might like to separate, even the separatists don't really want independence. It's "sovereignty association" which means Canadian all but in name plus more specific language and school laws. Distinct society may sounds like special privilege but they're just asking to be recognized as different and for the rest of Canada to stop assuming they're identical. It's just like how most Canadians do not want to be known as Americans, and Scots don't want to be called English, and Ukrainians don't want to be called Russians. They're different, and while they're similar and often get along, they want respect for those differences. They don't want to be forced to be the same as everyone else, unless they choose so.
Canada would do well to give distinct society to the west too. They've been unhappy ever since Petro Canada stole from them. Besides, Canada has always been ruled by industrial Ontario and Bay Street. Chretien's high-handed father knows best approach to politics would've gotten him thrown out years ago if not for the support of main benefactor Ontario.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Zachriel




You have no problem with "obliterating entire people groups from the face of the earth," but you want someone to assuage your conscience.

well, I didn't write that sentence very well! you know what I mean, I hope.

But seriously now. You do get multi-ethnic cities. It's only after hundreds of years that they become assimilated. I take great pride in my multi-ethnic society. I do see cities homogenize over time, unfortunately, but that is a natural result of "globalization."

Right, but I'd like the multi-ethnic cities to stay multi-ethnic. change loyalty yes, but not assimilate. far too "borg"-ish for me.

[Captain]

Originally posted by LaRusso
is this PC thread a joke or was it meant to be serious? how come you do not object to e.g. 'razing cities' and other mass slaughters? starving population to death? sneak attacks? nuclear attacks? communism?

no, not a joke. not PC either. I won't get into a rant about it again.

I do object to razing. But it is something I don't have to do. I can play the "humanitarian" and refuse to raze cities, even though it hurts my wartime efforts by tying down a garrison. I don't have to starve them. I don't have to sneak attack, nuke, or go into communism (although the latter I don't have a problem with as I envision it as an ideal form of communism, not the totalitarian police state of actuality.)

What I don't like is the fact that I don't have an option not to assimilate. I would like to have them integrate, but not eradicate their old culture or their ethnic identity. This happens no matter how I play.

Bad things happen in real life and Civ should allow those. But we can do things to avoid that and play "nice", even if it costs us the game. that's our choice. I do agree that others often start wars and you have to defend yourself, so that's fair. but I don't have to start wars or commit atrocities. If you want to play as a megalomanic that's fine, but I should be able to play my way. I might lose, and you do better (as some would say IRL), but I'd like the option. It's a victory for me to play "ethically" and survive.

[Captain]

Originally posted by LordAzreal
Conquered people definitely need to maintain cultural ethnicity. I actually like to join captured workers to my cities so that there is a sense of multiculturalism. Being Australian, multiculturalism is what I'm used to, and it rocks.

Here's an idea. If people from one cultural group mix in with another, the next citizens should bear the controlling power's colour, but have some physical traits from the first group, then others from the other.

For example, my German forces conquer the Babylonian city of Nineveh. I send my own settlers/workers to join the city, so as to avoid a flip. After growth occurs, there could be a male who looks like an arab (as the Babylonians do in this game), yet has fair skin, from being of German heritage as well. A woman might look like a European, but have dark hair instead of blonde, and darker skin. Every now and then, there may be a pure German, or a pure Babylonian born into the city as well, both bearing the national colour as well.

Just a couple of examples, but I would definitely like to see the results of some cross-breeding if this system were to be implemented.

Good idea, but I'll settle for Bella Hella's idea. Much simpler.
This one's a lot of graphic work and some coding because you'd have to determine which ethnicities blend and what they'd look like afterwards. Not hard for an algorithm and scientists can do with recent gene mapping and high school knowledge of genetics, but would take some doing to get it right. I like the idea though.

Maybe a short label saying Roman-Iroquois would be easier with the previous features kept. The Roman-Iroquois should reproduce too, so it's not just "pure" Romans.

Here's a question for anyone out there, what would a person look like with every major ethnic group in their genes?

I have a friend who is part black, native american, chinese, german, and scottish. He looks like Tiger Woods but with a pointier nose. He was raised in Cornwall, Ontario - a half french, half english town on the border with the USA. That's about the most diverse heritage I personally know of.

[Captain]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
If you weren't aware, war weariness increases due to several factors, one of which is losing units. If you're in a democracy, that can lead to the overthrow of your government... how's that for not taking kindly to politicians?

you're right! my mistake.
what about communism or monarchy? no war weariness there? still think it should have some sort of effect for them too. even the Afghani war was too much for them to sustain. state controlled media can suppress, but your military knows and they might rebel at a war they don't want to fight.

As for UUs... I don't think you quite get the reasoning behind them. Not to say I agree with it, but there are a lot of people who do.

In Civ2, all civs were essentially the same. Only a few different graphics and some minor behavior variations separated the Romans from, say, the Japanese.

Many people thought this was boring... they believed that each civ should be unique. They wanted the chance to lead a civ that had a special edge in tanks, or knights, or archers. In other words, they wanted unique civilizations. To do this, they wanted unique units.

Right, I'm not against UUs. just against the way they're coded. until they change that so it's more dependent on playstyle, I won't use them.

In many ways, this argument is also a rejection of uniformity, just like your points. People didn't want every civ to be a near-perfect facsimile of every other civ. It's not about racist notions; I don't think anybody pretends that the English have "man-o-war" writen in their DNA. UUs are an attempt to make all civs unique, not caricatured.

for me, this is a caricature because civ is about rewriting history and predestined UUs are not in the same spirit. so I take a particular stand and you take yours. I don't look down on anyone because they disagree (apologies for conveying that impression), I do make efforts to defend my position when I feel like it's under attack - not because it's an attempt to prove it wrong, but because it's attempt to invalidate it. play your way, I'll play mine. But i don't have to option to refuse assimilation or confer "distinct society" on my provencals.

EDIT: By the way, razing hurts your reputation in general, not just with the civ whose city you raze.

thanks, I forgot about that. still, the point is that if you're out for blood, a hurt rep isn't what you're concerned with.