 |
| |
|
|
AeonOfTime
|
 |
Overclocking DOSBox
Nov 2000
time: 06:18
|
|
I am quite sure the guys at Fraxis did not go to such lengths to decide which civs to include in Civ4 
As for me, I welcome the Mali as a nice and fresh addition to the game - I look foward to doing some diplomacy with them. As someone stated earlier, Civ has never really been about absolute accuracy, otherwise it would not be Sid meier game, it would be a "Sim Civilization" game from Maxis (Sim Life, Sim Ant, ring a bell?)...
I think you just enjoy arguing too much  I don't care what civs are in as long as I can identify myself with some of them, hate a few and overall have some fun.
But hey, this thread is a wealth of information so go on, I'll "stand aside and look" (quote from Bob Marley's 'Redemption Song', as we seem to have some rastafarians in this thread, too )
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:18
|
|
A random map will look nothing like earth. So, a civ that hit it big and died out gets another chance in Civ. Take Carthage for example. They had their capitol city destroyed, their soil sewn with salt. They shouldn't be in the game! 
...But I like em in the game.
The Americans didn't start out in 4000 BC, they started in 1776. Hell, we haven't even had enough time to build a marketplace, let alone a Civ.  The fact is, Civ is a game, they play with it when they make it, and they do it for fun as well as a paycheck. That's why Mali is in, and that's all the reason they need.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Point 1: The military is not the end-all criterion, but it is A criterion, and you seem to be very dismissive of it. Remember, Civilization games have dozens of military units available for training, and almost none of any other variety. |
Military is A criterion, but you act like it's the be-all, end-all. It's nice to see Civs that didn't value military to the exclusion of all else.
quote:
Point 2: First of all, the amount of precious metals in someone's territory does not mean someone is going to be great, but even if it did, consider how many billions and billions of dollars worth of both gold and silver bullion were extracted out of their empire after the Spanish arrived? And that's not even counting what came before. Affecting one faltering country's gold market for 20 years is nothing compared to Incan gold altering the precious metals market of the world for centuries. |
Oh please. Having gold in the ground or using the gold without influencing any prices or markets does not make a Civ influencial. And after the Incas were conquered and precious materials were taken out, that was gold extraction due to the SPANISH Civilization, not Inca. They weren't Inca's anymore. And that gold extraction in the New World is one of the big reasons Spain qualifies as a Civ worthy of inclusion!
Mali, OTOH, not only extracted gold, but put it on the world market, influencing supply and demand all over Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. Not just that, but it had centers of salt mining as well. Far more influence.
quote:
Again, don't be so hasty to assault me personally. Attack my arguments and information as much as you want, but it's a poor debater who hurls epithets such as "biased," "stupid" and even "Nazi." |
Well, when your statements show you are biased, then I figure, if the shoe fits... 
quote:
Inclusion in Civ should be based on a civilization's merit, not on their skin color, race, religion, etc. |
It is. And Mali surely qualifies. They are probably one of the best examples of a 'builder' Civ.
quote:
What do you think PC means? Where do you think the idiotic notion of putting in groups like the Sioux, Iroquois, Zulus, Dutch and Celts comes from, anyway? Trying to have diversification and please everybody. It's so annoying! |
quote:
Oh, yes it is! Including a civ because of its race or geographical location and not because of what it actually did to deserve its spot in civ is definitely being PC! |
I think both of you need a lesson in what 'PC' is. It isn't including something because of diversity makes a game more fun. Political Correctness is to temper statements or actions so a group won't get offended. Who is going to be offended if Civ doesn't include a 'black' Civ? African-Americans haven't gotten offended in past Civs were African civs were not included. When a black guy is included in a, for example, university for diversity, that isn't PC! That's to enhance the experience.
The inclusion is to make the game feel different when you play a different civ. It's for FUN's sake, not to make no one offended.
Please... "PC" is thrown around like it has no meaning anymore.
quote:
Man, you can change the city names for goodness sake! That's been a function since freaking Civ1! Do you call China, India, Britain, Persia, Greece, Rome and America cookie cutter? Each one is very different from the others, and contributed greatly to the outcome of world history. |
You've described 6 Civs... you want Civ4 to have six civilzations? And Greece & Rome as well as Britain & America are very similar in culture. Sure they deserve to be in, but when you get a bunch of civs which are similar, it isn't as fun as having very different civs that look different on the map (city icon), sound different (voice of soldiers and city names), and thus feel different.
It definetly adds to the fun.
quote:
One criterion for civs vying for a place in Civ4 should be whether or not they are capable of constructing a Wonder of the World |
"Capable" What does that mean? I'm sure Mali could have made a huge golden monument, but chose to trade it instead.
If it is actual Wonders, then what has Germany created? The Brandenburg Gate doesn't court. Neither does Mozart's or Bach's musical pieces, because those really aren't Wonders of the World, but individual accomplishments.
And does the University of Sankore in Timbuktu count? It's collection of ancient learning and manuscripts make it the closest thing to the Library of Alexandria until modern times.
Last edited by Imran Siddiqui on 14-07-2005 at 01:43
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander01
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Military is A criterion, but you act like it's the be-all, end-all. It's nice to see Civs that didn't value military to the exclusion of all else. |
We already have plenty of civs like that. The point is not that Mali had no military, rather that they lost!
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Oh please. Having gold in the ground or using the gold without influencing any prices or markets does not make a Civ influencial. And after the Incas were conquered and precious materials were taken out, that was gold extraction due to the SPANISH Civilization, not Inca. They weren't Inca's anymore. And that gold extraction in the New World is one of the big reasons Spain qualifies as a Civ worthy of inclusion! |
Didn't you just say you DIDN'T like to see militaristic civs? Then why are you so adamant that the rape/loot/plunder Spanish civ should go in? Probably because I said they shouldn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Mali, OTOH, not only extracted gold, but put it on the world market, influencing supply and demand all over Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. Not just that, but it had centers of salt mining as well. Far more influence. |
The Incas put gold on their world market, trading with civilizations all over the Pre-Columbian world. I don't doubt that Mali had gold or traded, only that I don't think it made as much difference as you are trying to say that it did. And give over on the salt market. Salt is plentiful in numerous world empires.
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Well, when your statements show you are biased, then I figure, if the shoe fits... |
Oh, I'm biased! I see! And here I was thinking that a bias was some personal and unreasoned judgment and prejudice, and I thought prejudice was pre-judging. But I guess I'm wrong. Coming to a reasonable decision after considering all the facts was a bias after all! Silly me!
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I think both of you need a lesson in what 'PC' is. It isn't including something because of diversity makes a game more fun. Political Correctness is to temper statements or actions so a group won't get offended. Who is going to be offended if Civ doesn't include a 'black' Civ? African-Americans haven't gotten offended in past Civs were African civs were not included. When a black guy is included in a, for example, university for diversity, that isn't PC! That's to enhance the experience.
The inclusion is to make the game feel different when you play a different civ. It's for FUN's sake, not to make no one offended.
Please... "PC" is thrown around like it has no meaning anymore. |
You're right. The meaning of PC has been watered down. What it currently means is trying to include everybody to make them happy. In case you hadn't noticed, every previous Civ game HAS had at least one sub-Saharan African civ. Why? To be PC!
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You've described 6 Civs... you want Civ4 to have six civilzations? And Greece & Rome as well as Britain & America are very similar in culture. Sure they deserve to be in, but when you get a bunch of civs which are similar, it isn't as fun as having very different civs that look different on the map (city icon), sound different (voice of soldiers and city names), and thus feel different.
It definetly adds to the fun. |
I only wrote about 6 civs because I was TRYING to be brief. If you really want me to write out why ALL 18 civs are diverse, then I will be pleased to humor you. For now, in the interests of brevity, I hope this suffices.
America - current global hegemon, Sid is American
Arabs - Islam, great military and cultural strength
Aztecs - token Mesoamerican Civ, big pyramids (better than Mali), large empire
Babylon - birthplace of civilization, science, religion, etc.
China - longest semi-continuous world civ
Egypt - Pyramids, very long-lived civ, culture
England - former hegemon, dominated the globe, English language, sun never set on it
France - cultural hegemon, Napoleon, Escargot
Germany - almost took over the world twice
Greece - influenced all of western culture, democracy, Alexander
India - great longevity, Hinduism, great culture
Japan - another almost took over the world civ., Shinto
Mali - token Sub-Saharan African civ
Mongolia - largest world empire
Persia - influenced proto-Judeo-Christian culture, big empire
Rome - influence still felt today, technology, culture, etc.
Russia - really big, massive continent spanning
Spain - kinda iffy but they needed an 18th civ
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
"Capable" What does that mean? I'm sure Mali could have made a huge golden monument, but chose to trade it instead.
If it is actual Wonders, then what has Germany created? The Brandenburg Gate doesn't court. Neither does Mozart's or Bach's musical pieces, because those really aren't Wonders of the World, but individual accomplishments.
And does the University of Sankore in Timbuktu count? It's collection of ancient learning and manuscripts make it the closest thing to the Library of Alexandria until modern times. |
How about the Reformation? That changed the entire history of the world. Far reaching consequences.
Anyway, next time try to be more concise. It took me too long to respond to all of your blustering.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vince278
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander01
How about the Reformation? That changed the entire history of the world. Far reaching consequences.
|
Lets also not forget the Gutenberg Bible.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AeonOfTime
|
|
Overclocking DOSBox
Nov 2000
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
@Alexander01: The point is not that Mali had no military, rather that they lost! |
Hmmm, I guess if you want to use that as a criteria, you will have to define what winning and losing means on the scale of a civilization. Pure survival? Prowess in battle?
» The Aztecs did not do much better than the Mali, actually Hernan Cortez precipitated their downfall with only 600 men and about 20 horses...
» The germans tried to conquer the world twice, but they only tried (they survived, however)...
» The Roman empire was great, but it did collapse in a puff of corruption...
» etc...
It takes more than winning an losing to define a civilization, it is more than just a military entity. Some civilizations have come and gone, but they are remembered because they left something behind - they have built foundations that live on through time.
One side of the Mali problem is also that being european, our main focus in school and in general is rather focused on our immediate sourroundings and the other really big nations like america.
I have been in history lessons both in france and germany, and I can tell you that in my whole scholarship the only things I learned about africa is that it's the cradle of civilization, that there are a lot of people there, and that AIDs is the biggest cause of death.
You have to have lived there to actually feel the effects of civilizations like the mali. Of course you won't find as much historical data on them if you search on the net - they don't have the same infrastructure there, there are bound to be less people writing about them. And as I already mentioned, people tend to care more about their immediate surroundings.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AeonOfTime
» The Roman empire was great, but it did collapse in a puff of corruption...
|
Pet peeve. The Roman Empire didn't dramatically collapse, nor did it decline and fall because of decadence or corruption. That's a myth, no doubt perpetrated by the Catholic Church in order to justify the vast temporal power they acquired in the Middle Ages. The Roman Empire fell over a long period of time for many complicated reasons.
Last edited by sophist on 14-07-2005 at 20:29
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander01
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AeonOfTime
» The Aztecs did not do much better than the Mali, actually Hernan Cortez precipitated their downfall with only 600 men and about 20 horses... |
The Aztecs conquered everyone else around them. The only reasons they lost to Spain = horses, guns, smallpox, allies turned against them.
quote:
Originally posted by AeonOfTime
» The germans tried to conquer the world twice, but they only tried (they survived, however)... |
They would have too, if it weren't for the interference of the USA. In fact, the First World War wasn't an attempt at conquest at all, and they still held off everyone else until America tipped the balance. Then they signed an armistice rather than lose more people. In WWII, they did conquer all of Europe, North Africa, and a good deal of Russia. They came dangerously close to world domination.
quote:
Originally posted by AeonOfTime
» The Roman empire was great, but it did collapse in a puff of corruption... |
A puff of corruption that lasted centuries! They were ready to fall until Diocletian revived the corpse in the 3rd Century. Rome itself didn't fall until the 5th Century, and they lingered on after that for a bit too.
quote:
Originally posted by AeonOfTime
It takes more than winning an losing to define a civilization, it is more than just a military entity. Some civilizations have come and gone, but they are remembered because they left something behind - they have built foundations that live on through time. |
Yes, but if they don't have a proper military entity, they won't survive long. All I'm saying is that the military aspect is important! Why is it that when I say one thing, people assume I mean the opposite?
quote:
Originally posted by AeonOfTime
One side of the Mali problem is also that being european, our main focus in school and in general is rather focused on our immediate sourroundings and the other really big nations like america. |
Well, in the USA, most history education is limited to American history of the past 200-odd years. If you want to learn about anybody else, you have to personally choose to. German schools are far superior to US schools.
quote:
Originally posted by AeonOfTime
I have been in history lessons both in france and germany, and I can tell you that in my whole scholarship the only things I learned about africa is that it's the cradle of civilization, that there are a lot of people there, and that AIDs is the biggest cause of death. |
Africa is not the cradle of civilization. Mesopotamia is the cradle of civilization.
quote:
Originally posted by AeonOfTime
You have to have lived there to actually feel the effects of civilizations like the mali. Of course you won't find as much historical data on them if you search on the net - they don't have the same infrastructure there, there are bound to be less people writing about them. And as I already mentioned, people tend to care more about their immediate surroundings. |
Lived where? Mali? That's probably the only place where you'll feel a Malinese influence today.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ArchdukeNewell
Which regions of Africa aren't war-torn... dirt poor... diseased... living in mud huts... and living off the largesse of larger nations who feel sorry for them? |
Today's Mali and several surroundings countries. OK, Mali and Burkina Faso are dirt poor, but they've been peaceful for decades, and they have very low AIDS rates for African standards.
I'd have thrown in Senegal as well, which is better off than Mali and Burkina, but part of that country is hazardous because of a rebellion.
Surprisingly, these three countries have been under the influence of the Ghana/Mali/Songhay empires, which lasted centuries, and not decades as you put it (As an aside, if you didn't spout provocative ignorance, people might take your point more seriously).
Last edited by Spiffor on 14-07-2005 at 19:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aro
|
 |
Ipanema
Jul 2002
time: 02:18
|
|
Ok, I'm just kidding. 
Both sides here have solid arguments, but there's a missed point. Can you build a Civilization to stand the test of time? Beggining as Mali? Or the Innuks (did I spelled correctly?)
In other words, Could Mali be a great Civ IF certain conditions were present?
Civ IS about that, too. I'm just finishing a game playing Romans and I have 280 mech infantry.
Well, Roma never had mech infantry, but IF the barbs and the bureaucracy never happened, IF the corruption and the internal fights happened in other degree, IF a lot of things...
Otherwise, we should play only scenarios, more like the real history. The Roman Empire, The Punic Wars, Mesopotamia, American Civil War, China, Japan and Korea (someone will need to mod Vietnam).
Anyway, a goal was acomplished here: I know more about Mali today than yesterday. This is very civish.
 My english is very bad, I'm sorry. I hope I've made myself clear.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-07-2005 12:36
Attachment: 
|
