Oppositions to Arabs

[LouLong]

Re: Oppositions to Arabs

Originally posted by Ikarus
I have played the Civilization series for a very long time and consider myself an expert of civ 2 (soon civ 3), but I am newbie here. After browsing around the website I came across many people who were disappointed that the Arabs were introduced to the Play the World expansion. There argument was that the Babylonians and Persians are Arabs, and that, because of this, are not to be considered a civ.

I was just curious if these people felt the same way towards the Americans, as they are basically the English.

Babylonians are Semites, a linguistic group that includes both Arabs and Jews.

But Persians are not Arabs at all. They are Indo-European and their language and many traditions are completely different. The fact that they are now Muslims makes them sound or look a bit like Arabs but they are different, which lead to long historical troubles between them.

The Arabic peninsula is not only a desert and you have population and ressources in the Hedjaz (where you have Mecca now) or in the South (Hadramawt or Happy Arabia), area of the Queen of Saba rich thanks to its incense. It might be difficult for them to grow a civ there and they will have to invade neighboring areas to develop, which is historically correct. Starting from Medina, the Moslems took Mecca that became of their religious center but as soon as they could get out of the Peninsula, they built their capital in Damas in Bagdad that were for them like paradises.
Whatever, they are one of the main civilizations of the world, and partly a transnational one too and deserve to be there. Hard to play maybe which is why they get a strong and fast UU.

BTW, I am no Arab but French (even thogh they will represent the bulk of the population soon) so it is not pride that speaks but reason.

[candybo]

Again, how can anyone neglect THE MIGHTY POLISH EMPIRE !?!... J/K, it hasn't occured... YET..


Seriously, tho, even though I AM a history buff (and who here isn't?), I don't really care too much about which civs and which traits are included, as it relates to Civ. What difference does it make? You could just as easily use sports-team names, or whatever. Personally, someday I plan to really, actually found the tribe/civ/ethnic group to end them all: The Grand NationWorld of the Scooter Crunches!! All the same in the obituary pages, right?
Thank you, and goodnight.

[Blue Moose]

I'd add in that Egypt was also certainly the most powerful country in the world in the distant past.

Of course, all of the countries named could never touch any of the North or South American civs like the Mayans, Incas, Aztecs, Hopewells, etc. Considering that, I think they should be in there too.

[Blue Moose]

Originally posted by candybo
Seriously, tho, even though I AM a history buff (and who here isn't?), I don't really care too much about which civs and which traits are included, as it relates to Civ. What difference does it make? You could just as easily use sports-team names, or whatever. Personally, someday I plan to really, actually found the tribe/civ/ethnic group to end them all: The Grand NationWorld of the Scooter Crunches!! All the same in the obituary pages, right?
Thank you, and goodnight.

I actually mostly agree here. The Civ games are basically about rewriting history, so I find the civ traits themselves seem a bit odd to me, as well as unique units. I guess it would have been a bit more work to make the whole thing more generalized though. Unless the traits were balanced with each other perfectly, then perhaps a system like AC's unit creation could have been used. Civ specific units could just be customized versions then.

Makes more sense that way, hehe. Afterall, consider America's Sherman Tank. Hmm, 10/6/2, costing between 60 and 80 shields, or something like that. Though, if they had units requiring buildings to build, it would need a factory in the city to be built. Hmm, I seem to ramble off-topic in too many threads.

[Ribannah]

Originally posted by CivilopediaCity
Indonesia, Malacca and Ceylon. In territory we weren't the biggest in territory, but in might and power we sure were! We, in Holland, call that period The Golden Age. In that period WE could say: Holland rules the waves.

And don't forget numerous holdings in (southern) Africa and the Americas!

[Martinus Magnificus]

Originally posted by Ribannah
And don't forget numerous holdings in (southern) Africa and the Americas!

We Dutch love to remind the Americans that New York was once called 'New Amsterdam'! (Harlem=Haarlem, Brooklyn=Breukelen!)

what different could the U.S. have been if we hadn't traded NY for Suriname!

Sorry for this off-topic post guys, but I couldn't help myself...

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus


We Dutch love to remind the Americans that New York was once called 'New Amsterdam'! (Harlem=Haarlem, Brooklyn=Breukelen!)

what different could the U.S. have been if we hadn't traded NY for Suriname!

Sorry for this off-topic post guys, but I couldn't help myself...

300 years ago you chose to do so - now you regret it....

but who knows: in 300 years the global warming and other ecological disturbarnces might change the climate, that present day new york is uninhabitable and surinam is paradise

Sorry for this off-topic post guys, but I couldn't help myself...

[Panag]

Originally posted by Martinus Magnificus


We Dutch love to remind the Americans that New York was once called 'New Amsterdam'! (Harlem=Haarlem, Brooklyn=Breukelen!)

what different could the U.S. have been if we hadn't traded NY for Suriname!

Sorry for this off-topic post guys, but I couldn't help myself...

hi ,

thats whats so great about civ , you can play the world the way you like it , ......

lets hope that with that new "enhanced editor" we can make a scenario about it , ....

have a nice day

[Your.Master]

Even old New York, was once New Amsterdam...

Why they changed it, I don't know, I guess they liked it better that way...

Sorry, song's over.

I don't see how that really matters. Toronto was once called York (parts of it still are), Kitchener (which you've probably never heard of but is not too far from Toronto and is where most of Microsoft comes from, via University of Waterloo...technically, that's Waterloo, but Kitchener-Waterloo cities mix up into basically a big Kitchenar) was called Berlin, before the World Wars. Heck, the British royal family had a very German-sounding name before the wars, although it escapes me at the moment.

What's in a name? Why does it matter?

We have a stinky swamp nearby called "Holland Marsh". It's famous for growing good-tasting fruits and also for being a stinky swamp called "Holland Marsh".

Just across the border, in Michigan, there is a town called "Gaylord". That's right, "Gaylord". Residents can travel the world, saying that they are Gaylordian or Gaylordish or Gaylordi or something.

London was Londinium, France was Gaul, Iraq/Iran/Other was Persia...

No offense to your nationalism, but sometimes the niggling things that people can be proud of get me to laughing. Again, no offense, but I just have to make an exaggerated impression of you:

"Hee hee. Big American city with lots and lots of money used to be called the same as big Dutch city that used to have lots and lots of money before big American city had lots and lots of money".

It's kind of self-demeaning to have nationalism for something great in the States, when you're not American.

[Kramerman]

Just across the border, in Michigan, there is a town called "Gaylord".

Oh man that sucks. The only thing worse than coming from a town ( oh god i hope no one out there is named Gaylord If there is no offense intended ) called Gaylord, would be to have the name Gaylord. Well, i take that back, there are other more blatent names i would rather not have, like ***** Galore, or Biggus Dickus or somethn like that.

[Ribannah]

Re: Even old New York, was once New Amsterdam...

Originally posted by Your.Master
Toronto was once called York (parts of it still are),

Even better: it started with the Seneca town of Teyagon, just like Montreal began with the Huron town of Hochelaga.

[LionQ]

Originally posted by candybo
...Personally, someday I plan to really, actually found the tribe/civ/ethnic group to end them all: The Grand NationWorld...

Well, in Europe were busy with it. Look to the Euro and the European Union. But if you look to English people, I don't think they want to give up there traditions.

[Sonic]

I agree Jews should be added (instead of Carthaginians), but Arabs seriously did more than Jews. They had one of the biggest empires in history and contributed much to the world culture. Everyone is saying Arabs should be not in just for political reasons (or because they are racists). If computer games would be introduced in like 1930s now everybody would object Zululand (because they are blacks).

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Sonic
I agree Jews should be added (instead of Carthaginians), but Arabs seriously did more than Jews. They had one of the biggest empires in history and contributed much to the world culture. Everyone is saying Arabs should be not in just for political reasons (or because they are racists). If computer games would be introduced in like 1930s now everybody would object Zululand (because they are blacks).

what!? Zulus are in the game!? Son of a *****! I didnt know that... well, looks like i cant play this one anymore...

[LionQ]

Originally posted by Sonic
I agree Jews should be added (instead of Carthaginians), but Arabs seriously did more than Jews. They had one of the biggest empires in history and contributed much to the world culture. Everyone is saying Arabs should be not in just for political reasons (or because they are racists). If computer games would be introduced in like 1930s now everybody would object Zululand (because they are blacks).

I don't think Jews have to replace the Carthaginians. The Jews had a small Kingdom on the Middetereanen (?). But compared to the Carthaginians, I think the Carthaginians has to be in the game, because they did had a large empire, traded much and had a great fleet. Besides, even Rome feared the Carthaginian WarElephants.
Indeed Arabs did seriously more than Jews. I think Arabs HAVE to be in the game. They've had an empire from Persia, via Turkey and Egypt, to whole NorthAfrica. In 732 they were even in the middle of France. And they've had the Balcan in their mighty grip for centuries and centuries.
Conclusion: Arabs have to be in the game, but not as a replacement of the Carthaginians, because they (Carth.) have to be in the game too.