What the civ list should be

[Mongoloid Cow]

General Tacitus, the Babylonians conquered the ancient Jewish peoples a lot of times, enslaved them, burnt their cities to the ground, etc. They were far more powerful. Also the Babs represent the Babylonians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Sumerians, Mittanis, Hittites, Elamites, Chaldeans, Arameans, etc.

All you care about is territory, the Aztecs were larger than present day Isreal though

And Indignator was responding to your question where you said that the Japanese were little more than islands until WW2, suggesting that you think they are in ther game solely because of WW2.

Anyway, I want:
Mongols, Spanish, Malis, Incas, Koreans/Thais, Carthaginians, Ottomans and Vikings. I don't care if only two of these are in, as long as the Mongols are in which they are.

[lateralis]

just wanted to jump in real quick on the hebrew thing. I've been lurking here for a while so please don't flame me for not getting it
the current hebrew calendar tallies to the year 5 thousand 7 hundred and 60 something. It is an unbroken calendar that has been counting for almost 6000 years. the only other continuous calendar I know of that even comes close is some asian one which is over 4200 years long right now. why does this matter? although some would argue that hebrew (or jewish) is a religion and therefore not a civ, most religious scholars (that i've come across anyway) reffer to judaism as more than just a religion but as a culture, ethnicity, religion and civilization. THe fact that they haven't had land to call their own for their whole history is hardly a reason to disqualify one of the longest continuous and culturally influential peoples ever. the fact that all currently practiced western religion has it's roots in a culture that both pre-dated and currently post dates: the egytians, the greeks, the roman empire, the babylonians, the spanish inquistion, the third reich (sp?) and the USSR (all of whom tried to exterminate them at some point in history) should speak volumes about the strenth of the hebrews as a civ.
oh, and the whole israel thing: israel is tiny. it has half the land mass of ohio. it has also been in an almost constant state of war scince its inception in 1948. it also (although many don't know it) has the ability to completely destroy the ENTIRE middle east it it were to so choose. it has had this option since the mid fifties, it's called the samson option. (like if I'm going down you're all comin with me but they have yet to do it. this is one reason that peace is always so weird over there. the PLO wants them gone but they know they will be taken out too, blah blah blah.

Israel's ability to have existed as a nation (even when they didn't have a NATION) for almost 6000 years I think would make for a fun civ to play, maybe their UU could be something a diaspora jew, a wanderer who doesn't fight but just hangs out under the surface of other nations waiting without picking a fight while their people get exterminated.


ok that didn't sound as good as I though it would
maybe it's not viable for that UU but I still think they would make a good civ. that's it, I hope that wasn't too long of a post!

lateralis

[Indignator]

In it's day Israel was just as big.

Please supply a historical map that shows Israel with an area bigger than that of the Assyrian empire, which at it's height included present day Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and parts of Turkey and Egypt.

Your point? I'll have to check the exact boundaries, but I was talking about territory, not population.

However you slice it, Aztec empire was larger than the Hebrew ever was.

I haven't seen anyone who thinks that Japan should be in solely because of what they conquered in WW2.

But I have seen a lot of people who think Rome was important because of what they conquered.

Another point of view: The Japanese nation emerged on a world scale at the beginning of the 20th century, especialy after their defeat of the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. If the modern Japanese nation was relatively as strong and influential as it was in the 19th century, it wouldn't be included. The moment of greatness for the Japanese - for better or for worse - came in the 20th century. There was another nation that emerged on a world scale at about the same time Japan did, and had its greates moments of glory (so far) in the 20th century- the United States.

Mongoloid Cow, thanks for your support.

lateralis, you make a very good point, far better than claiming that Israel was larger than Japan, Aztecs or the civilizations of Mezopotamia. It seems that everyone has different reasons which civs should be included, and which not.

[GeneralTacticus]

And Indignator was responding to your question where you said that the Japanese were little more than islands until WW2, suggesting that you think they are in ther game solely because of WW2.

Another point of view: The Japanese nation emerged on a world scale at the beginning of the 20th century, especialy after their defeat of the Russians in the Russo-Japanese war of 1904-1905. If the modern Japanese nation was relatively as strong and influential as it was in the 19th century, it wouldn't be included. The moment of greatness for the Japanese - for better or for worse - came in the 20th century. There was another nation that emerged on a world scale at about the same time Japan did, and had its greates moments of glory (so far) in the 20th century- the United States.

Mongoloid Cow, thanks for your support.

I mentioned Japan in response to Indignator's statement that the Hebrews had never been more than a small nation on the shores of Mediterranean. I don't think that the Japanese should be in because of WW2, but because generally they were a significant civ.

But I have seen a lot of people who think Rome was important because of what they conquered.

Comparing Japanese and Roman conquests is just ridiculous. The Romans conquered an empire that they were able to impose a common culture and law in, and that was effectively a single nation: they all considered themselves Romans, not Celts or Gauls or Greeks. The Japanese Empire was a collection of territories that were conquered and kept down almost solely by the army.

Please supply a historical map that shows Israel with an area bigger than that of the Assyrian empire, which at it's height included present day Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and parts of Turkey and Egypt.

I was speaking on the basis of what I have read, which stated that in Biblical times Israel stretched from the Nile to the Euphrates. I know it's not as big as the Assyrian Empire, but that is irrelevant. I was making a general statement.

However you slice it, Aztec empire was larger than the Hebrew ever was.

Assuming that my information above was correct, the Hebrew Empire at it's height would have been several times bigger than the Aztec one.

lateralis, you make a very good point, far better than claiming that Israel was larger than Japan, Aztecs or the civilizations of Mezopotamia. It seems that everyone has different reasons which civs should be included, and which not.

Do I need to remind you that it was you who started this argument off by asking:

-Hebrew
I'm a little confused about this. At what time in history was the Hebrew civilization anything more than a small nation on the coast of the Mediterranean?

You were suggesting that size is an important reason for including Civs. I was pointing out that there have been other civs which are already in but have been smaller than Biblical Israel. Hell, if we were working with size alone the Incas would have made it in instead of the Aztecs.

General Tacitus, the Babylonians conquered the ancient Jewish peoples a lot of times, enslaved them, burnt their cities to the ground, etc. They were far more powerful. Also the Babs represent the Babylonians, Assyrians, Akkadians, Sumerians, Mittanis, Hittites, Elamites, Chaldeans, Arameans, etc.

1) I suppose you could say that they do, yes. It would be pretty stupid to have masses of Civs all from Mesopotamia.

2) Various Europeans did the same thing far more effectively to the Aztecs and Iroquois. Should they be removed because of this? Of course not. Having been conquered by other Civs does not disqualify a Civ from being included (If it did, then we'd be reduced to having America, England and Russia out of all the ones we currently have).

Anyway, I think that is all.

[Indignator]

How nice, you have a map of the Aztec empire, where is the map of Israel?

You were suggesting that size is an important reason for including Civs. I was pointing out that there have been other civs which are already in but have been smaller than Biblical Israel. Hell, if we were working with size alone the Incas would have made it in instead of the Aztecs.

I wasn't suggesting that size was important, but 'might.' By asking when the Hebrew were anything more than a 'small' civ, I was trying to say that they didn't have much might - though much culture.

Comparing Japanese and Roman conquests is just ridiculous. The Romans conquered an empire that they were able to impose a common culture and law in, and that was effectively a single nation: they all considered themselves Romans, not Celts or Gauls or Greeks. The Japanese Empire was a collection of territories that were conquered and kept down almost solely by the army.

Yes, it was a stupid comparison. My bad. But they didn't consider themselves all one nation.

[Panag]

hi ,

in the new editor whe shall have the ability to make new civ's , ......loads of them , maybe we can start to talk on who the best of the best true-out history is good enough to put on that list , ....

have a nice day

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

in the new editor whe shall have the ability to make new civ's , ......loads of them , maybe we can start to talk on who the best of the best true-out history is good enough to put on that list , ....

have a nice day

Indeed! For instance, then we could start a North American map with our own Apaches, Comanches, Sioux, Navajhos, Iroquese... etc. (yeah, loads of them)
All culturally opposing English, French, Dutch, Spanish, and maybe even making alliances thereafter?!
Not as cool as good old Colonization, but something about there...

[Panag]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat



Indeed! For instance, then we could start a North American map with our own Apaches, Comanches, Sioux, Navajhos, Iroquese... etc. (yeah, loads of them)
All culturally opposing English, French, Dutch, Spanish, and maybe even making alliances thereafter?!
Not as cool as good old Colonization, but something about there...

hi ,

one thing we really should hope for is that there should be more "civ specific abilities" , ....

Firaxis , ......

have a nice day

[Nuctemeronn]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

one thing we really should hope for is that there should be more "civ specific abilities" , ....

Firaxis , ......

have a nice day

Firaxis said on civfanatics friday chat that no new civilization specific abilities will be included in PTW. Also, mongols are Expansionist and Militaristic (like zulu) and spanish are Religious and Commercial (like india).

cya

[Panag]

Originally posted by Nuctemeronn


Firaxis said on civfanatics friday chat that no new civilization specific abilities will be included in PTW. Also, mongols are Expansionist and Militaristic (like zulu) and spanish are Religious and Commercial (like india).

cya

hi ,

maybe its in the editor , .....you never know , ...
also , we actually dont know that they will not put it in PTW , maybe they do so at the last moment , it would really be nice , ...

have a nice day

[Mongoloid Cow]

Im sorry if it seemed like I was ganging up on you General Tacitus. I just don't like the idea of the Hebrews as a civ.

[dunk]

What the civ list should be....

Infinite.

That way, no one gets left out.

[Panag]

Originally posted by dunk999
What the civ list should be....

Infinite.

That way, no one gets left out.

hi ,

behold , with the new editor coming , you shall be able to do so , ....

have a nice day

[dunk]

Originally posted by panag


hi ,

behold , with the new editor coming , you shall be able to do so , ....

have a nice day

I hope so. I have a feeling that there is some kind of limit to the number of civs we'll be able to add.

I like the "behold".

[Panag]

Originally posted by dunk999


I hope so. I have a feeling that there is some kind of limit to the number of civs we'll be able to add.

I like the "behold".

hi ,

behold again , ....there is room fo a total of 31 civ's , ...
in the game , as for the new editor , one of the points to realease it is , to create scenario's , so therefore it should be , at least that is logical , 31 .

have a nice day