Oppositions to Arabs

[Cidifer]

yeah look at the panzers, then look at the rest of the civs tanks, they look more like shermans, I think it's clear that it's meant to be a WWII tank.

[Zero]

About the whole civ thing, if you goto civlopedia they give you a timeframe...

and I disagree with the wholeness part... to me civilization is like an era for a nation not the nation itself. So to me, English Civ of Queen elizabeth is a totally different civilization of British empire though they are in a sense a same country. (well minus the terminology of UK, Britain, England thingy)

and looks like I have to apologies again, though the digression was already there when I arrived on this thread, it seems as anywehre I go, I either start Digressing or only worsen it. Many apologies :b

[LionQ]

With Panzer Firaxis didn't just mean the German word for tank or armo(u)r. They meant exactly the Panzerkampfwagen V: the Panzer.

[sabrewolf]

Originally posted by CivilopediaCity
With Panzer Firaxis didn't just mean the German word for tank or armo(u)r. They meant exactly the Panzerkampfwagen V: the Panzer.

which means "armoUred fighting vehicule number five"

when was that built?

[sabrewolf]

btw: i prefer the "correct" way of writing: armour WITH 'u' ... same like colour and favourite ... and of course it's aluminium, not aluminum

sorry, this was totally OT

[Cidifer]

thankfully America dropped the useless silent U making it a much nicer and easier version of English.

[Ikarus]

I like American English.

[notyoueither]

Heatheun!

[sabrewolf]

back to the panzerkampfwagen V: i looked it up

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/html/germany/pzkpfw_v.html

http://www.google.ch/search?hl=de&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22panzerkampfwagen+V%22&btnG=Google-Suche&meta=

it's also known as (and the name i remembered) "panther"

if you have a look here, in the right column you'll see the tanks... all of the tanks where called panzerkampfwagen (PzKw), even the light tanks.

probably the allies called number V "panzer" because it's the only part they understood

[LionQ]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
btw: i prefer the "correct" way of writing: armour WITH 'u' ... same like colour and favourite ... and of course it's aluminium, not aluminum

sorry, this was totally OT

I never know what is was: armor or armour. In Civ II it was called Armor, so I thought it was armor, but it's armour, I understand?

Originally posted by sabrewolf
which means "armoUred fighting vehicule number five"
when was that built?

I don't know. 1943, or so?

Originally posted by Ikarus
I like American English.

And I HATE Queen's English!!! And I LOVE American English!!!
For those who don't know: I'm a language freak.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
it's also known as "panther" ... all of the tanks where called panzerkampfwagen (PzKw), even the light tanks.

probably the allies called number V "panzer" because it's the only part they understood

Indeed the Panzerkampfwagens were a German serie of tanks. And the Allies used codenames so the Panzerkampfwagen V was called the Panther. The Panzerkampfwagen VI, for example, was called the Tiger.

[Caliban]

Originally posted by CivilopediaCity
Indeed the Panzerkampfwagens were a German serie of tanks. And the Allies used codenames so the Panzerkampfwagen V was called the Panther. The Panzerkampfwagen VI, for example, was called the Tiger.

These "code names" weren't allied inventions. The Germans still use animal names for their military vehicles. For example "Fuchs" (fox) or "Leopard" (cheeta)...

[LionQ]

I didn't say the Allies invented the code names. But they used them, I said. Look to the Normandy Landing Beaches: Omaha, Utah, Gold, Iuno and Sword.

[Ozymandias]

So many OT thoughts in one thread ...

Note that all my comments are limited to the assumption of a "real world" map -- and "real world" -- and attempting to simulate these within the context of Civ's limitations (i.e., I doubt most of us agree on what a Civilization is -- nation? ethnicity? religion? ethos? government type? ...)

1. To automatically think anti-"Arab" / anti-Israeli is just the sort of simplistic thinking that starts and perpetuates wars. Viz. this I would recommend to everyone so inflamed all the recent writing on Abraham as the "father" of all three momentous monotheisms. Cultural honors go both ways. Monotheism; modern mathematics; the preservation of ancient texts for later European rediscovery; etc.

2. However noble the virtues of Hebrew / Jewish / Israeli civilization, as a Civ they've occupied a very small part of the world map, and were conquered by just about everybody until modern Israeli independence.

2a. Jewish cultural influence via the diaspora is not readily simulated in Civ -- unless some editor gives the ability to identify certain population components as different than the founding Civs. And then I suppose somebody will want rules for pogroms and "ethnic cleansing"... (insert a deep and sad *SIGH* here)

2b. Also note that the most cosmopolitan European medieval culture was based in the south of France, freely enjoyed intermingling Christian, Jewish and Islamic aspects -- and was the object of the only Crusade proclaimed in Western Europe, the so-called Albigensian Crusade, from which the infamous quote (spoken by a Christian bishop) emanates about killing them all and letting God sort them out ...

3. Ca. 1000 AD the Fatimid (Arab) and Umayyad Capliphates (granted, the armies of the latter were principally Berber, but how finely do we wish to impose ethnicity upon civilizations? -- How about an Ashkenazy vs. Sephardim slugging match?) ruled most of Spain, all of North Africa, and the entire eastern coast of the Med up to Anatolia. Go back to ca. 770 and the Abbasid Caliphate ruled from the Atlantic to India, with borders in the north on both the Black and Caspian Seas.

3a. For any global, post-Mohammed scenario, the Arabs make excellent sense.

4. Viz. my first point, tying in Nazism IN ANY WAY into this thread is repugnant. -- GERMANY and its UU, as a digression, is another matter entirely, and I would submit that the problem is terminology -- it's not the "panzer" but the "blitzkrieg" which I believe is being simulated. And, pesonally, I like the SMAC notion of having to research military "doctrines" -- Blitzkrieg (aka modern combined arms warfare) being but one.

5. Ironically, I'm going out on a limb here -- for a modern (post-WW2) scenario, I would suggest that the best possible SIMULATION of "Israel" WITHIN THE SCOPE AND CONFINES OF CIV is as an American city -- think about it.

Peace,

Oz

[Zero]

Re: So many OT thoughts in one thread ...

Originally posted by Ozymandias
4. Viz. my first point, tying in Nazism IN ANY WAY into this thread is repugnant. -- GERMANY and its UU, as a digression, is another matter entirely, and I would submit that the problem is terminology -- it's not the "panzer" but the "blitzkrieg" which I believe is being simulated. And, pesonally, I like the SMAC notion of having to research military "doctrines" -- Blitzkrieg (aka modern combined arms warfare) being but one.

Oz

Why is discussing about nazism repugnant? True we did go off topic, and its a sin, but that would remain the same as with any other topic, not just because we were talking about nazism. And also, I liked the SMAC style better too, but this isn't smac, so i suspect firaxis wanted a nazi germany since it seems to reflect it. It's not a bad thing, Nazi germany was very scientific and militaristic and was very successful in conquering europe. Its just that things get iffy with hitler and the holocaust and all so im guessing if even if they intentionally wanted it they would have avoided it.

EDIT: In addition to why I think era is important is that Japan's capitol is kyoto... as most of us knows thats an old capitol name and capitol now is tokyo... if u disagree thats ok, buts thats wat i think, civilization is supposed to portray a specific era of nation at its height of power, culture etc.

[Ozymandias]

Re: Re: So many OT thoughts in one thread ...

Originally posted by Calc II
Why is discussing about nazism repugnant?

Apologies, I probably wasn't clear.

Discussing Nazism is by no means repugnant.

However, it seemed that, in places, the thread risked slipping from the merits of having an Arab Civ in the game to the relative merits of an Arab Civ AS OPPOSED TO to an Israeli / Hebrew / Jewish Civ.

I've noticed that threads along these lines can get extremely heated, and the notion of a thread -- however inadvertently! -- positioning Arab and Nazi (as opposed to German) Civs on one side of a conversation and Israel on the other seemed rather like waving a match over a bucket of gasoline. That's why I differentiated Nazi Germany from Germany in my comments re: Blitzkrieg.

... And I agree with you about Kyoto.

Hoping that clears things up --

-Oz.