 |
| |
|
|
Buck Birdseed
|
 |
Khoon Ki Pyasi Dayan (1988)
Nov 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
It's one unique unit per civ. You don't need to make three desperately unfunny satirical threads about it. 
You want arguments against it? Fine. (a) by 4000 BC, environmental factors had already played enough of a part in determining many cultural aspects. (b) I can personally state that no other civilization in history except the Japanese had samuraii. Does this make me a racist? No. It makes me rather redundant (I mean, duh), but that's another issue. So we can uneqivocally state that there have been differences in military technology between countries. That's all we're talking here, no more. (c) Wasn't the Civ2 characterisation of leaders as "Militaristic" or "Perfectionist" more racist than this one unit can ever be? If you disapprove of that, too,m I can point out it is supposed to symbolise individual people and not the civ as a whole. (d) By all accounts, the units will be balanced in strength. (e) Civ is not a cultural simulator, it does not simulate the rise of cultural differences. If you want to do that, fine, go play SimGeobiology or something. (f) One unit, mark well one unit will not make any way near the amount of difference you're suggesting. (g) Why do you consider discussions of cultural differences racist? You're surely not suggesting that *gasp* your own culture is superior to every other one and that therefore the military technology of your culture should be the only represented? Now that's racist.
Sorry, I'm not supposed to get worked up like this, being news editor, but this is just too stupid to pass up on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't think his post is satirical. Unless there is some sort of ongoing issue here I might not know about? If this isn't a joke, I personally think set unique races are an unfitting idea. Environmental determinism for the most part is a thing of the past, let's move on to possibilism.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zylka
|
|
Determisism is the concept that you can determine exactly how a people/race will turn out from their environment. Possibilism is the idea that nature does set the stage for certain paths of outcome, but that it is not concrete. Physical surroundings give certain choices from which a civilization picks (over time, indirectly and directly), thus carving their own culture. Possibilism is kind of the middle road between the arguments of scientificly/phsyically determined fate vs. completely random outcome.
Even this in itself does not account for the vast forces of outside influence. A good example of determinist thinking is the blank statement that "deserts are very influential in forming relgions" based on the rise of Judaism(sp?), Christianity, Islam, etc... A possiblist thinker would counter by agreeing that more religions have formed in the deserts of our world, but that it could very well be due to the fact that the deserts were the crossroads of many cultures, and such activity increase the possible formations of religion.
Either way, labeling someone a racist even if they think in completely determinist terms is a weak, hyper liberal argument. 1 special unit for each civ is not enough to start bellowing the racist horn, quite a reactionary response.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yin26
|
 |
This space reserved for Darkstar.
Apr 1999
time: 14:12
|
|
DIFFERENT WAYS OF THINKING AND BEING
Let me clarify something here: Different civilizations DO have different ways of thinking and being. If you don't know this, YOU are the ignorant one. It's this homogenous bull that's ruining a great deal of what's nice about the world: Our different ways of thinking and being.
Your liberal professors in their arrogance might see diffence as the enemy, but in trying to eradicate the notion of difference, what do they impose as "reality"? Their own world-view, of course. Talk about racist.
Now, if you degrade others for these differences and ignorantly assume you know what the other person always thinks and is, using this as justification for unfair treatment, that is another kind of racist.
So let's recap: One kind of racist says there ARE NO differences, so let's all be "just like me." The other says, there ARE differences "but let's harm those not just like me." You might not realize it yet, but you are the first kind of racist.
By the way, the only difference between the first and second kind of racist is the first one went to college.
Travel around the world a bit (and when you do, don't just stay at the Hilton and eat McDonalds). I daresay you'll post about different ways of thinking and being with a bit more understanding.
Now...as for the game:
If making some things unique to a given civ makes the game a whole lot more fun, PUT IT IN! If not, leave it out. Very simple. And if you don't want any kind of significant changes, go back and play Civ2...cause with any luck an actual Civ3 juuust might be coming. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26 on 05-06-2001 09:03 PM
DIFFERENT WAYS OF THINKING AND BEING
Let me clarify something here: Different civilizations DO have different ways of thinking and being. If you don't know this, YOU are the ignorant one. It's this homogenous bull that's ruining a great deal of what's nice about the world: Our different ways of thinking and being.
Your liberal professors in their arrogance might see diffence as the enemy, but in trying to eradicate the notion of difference, what do they impose as "reality"? Their own world-view, of course. Talk about racist.
Now, if you degrade others for these differences and ignorantly assume you know what the other person always thinks and is, using this as justification for unfair treatment, that is another kind of racist.
So let's recap: One kind of racist says there ARE NO differences, so let's all be "just like me." The other says, there ARE differences "but let's harm those not just like me." You might not realize it yet, but you are the first kind of racist.
By the way, the only difference between the first and second kind of racist is the first one went to college.
Travel around the world a bit (and when you do, don't just stay at the Hilton and eat McDonalds). I daresay you'll post about different ways of thinking and being with a bit more understanding.
|
I'll respond to Yin, since he recaps the arguments for unique civs, and does so better than the other posters. However he misses my point.
Yes civs differ. If a game about WW2, starting in 1939, shows Germany as having distinct military units, I would accept it. In fact if it did not, I'd have major porblems with its historic accuracy.
A game like EU (which I have not yet played) should show national differences in 1492, when it begins. A militaristic, religious Spain, an England which is already alienated from the papacy, (though not yet Protestant) etc, etc. Because yes, thats the way it was in 1492. And in EU the players chance to change history is only AFTER 1492.
Civ is different. It starts in 4000 BC. Their may have been differences in 4000 BC, - there are some who think that some of the distinctive attributes of Chinese civilization go back that far - but even that is disputed - certainly the notion that English commerical superiority, or German skills in land warfare go that far back are absurd.
Yes, Germans had superior armor in the first years of WW2. But this was not inevitable in 4000 BC, but a result of various events, most of which happened post-1789.
Some nations like Mcdonalds some do not - Much resistance in France - was this inevitable in 4000BC - no, it probably results from a more devloped food culture in France than say in England, which may be a result of the development of gastronomy there under the influence of Italian chefs who were imported by Louis XIV. Give England a weathy absolutist state in 1670, and give France a Puritan revolution, and isolation similar to Englands, and voila, you get France succombing to AMerican McDonalds, and England boycotting them in the name of its cultural traditions.
History is contingent, and to the extent its determined, its by geography and related factors. The notion of unique civ charecteristics determined in 4000 BC, and independent of geogrophy, is either nonsense, supported by nothing, or is based on racial theorizing.
Some have pointed out that there will only be one unique unit per civ, and thus it will be minor aspect of gameplay. If so, i have no problem with it. It has been suggested elsewhere that the limit of 7 civs is due to the large impact of unique civs. It is to that possibility that i am responding.
LOTM
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26 on 05-06-2001 09:03 PM
DIFFERENT WAYS OF THINKING AND BEING
Now...as for the game:
If making some things unique to a given civ makes the game a whole lot more fun, PUT IT IN! If not, leave it out. Very simple. And if you don't want any kind of significant changes, go back and play Civ2...cause with any luck an actual Civ3 juuust might be coming.
|
Fine - lets give the romans the panzers, and give the germans the superior phalanxes. Same effect on gameplay as the reverse - but a very different historical lesson.
And BTW, i do look forward to changes. I think the trade, cultural model, and stacked armies all sound like great changes. Only change so far i dont like is the unique civs - and that seems to be coming in lieu of larger number of civs, which would, IMHO, be a more desirable change.
LOTM
LOTM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26 on 05-06-2001 09:03 PM
DIFFERENT WAYS OF THINKING AND BEING
Let me clarify something here: Different civilizations DO have different ways of thinking and being. If you don't know this, YOU are the ignorant one. It's this homogenous bull that's ruining a great deal of what's nice about the world: Our different ways of thinking and being.
|
No its multiculturalist emphasis on the inability of people of one racial background to understand another culture that is ruining our world.
I am an English-speaking American. NOT ONE of my distant ancestors was part of any enlgish speaking civilization - they all came from a profoundly different cultural background. Dont matter. Humans can learn different things. There are differnt cultures - islamic, confucian, etc.
But people of any race can adopt any one. Here in America people of white, black, brown and yellow, jew and gentile, slav and teuton can all participate in a common culture. In France people of white and black and brown, jew and gentile, natives and immigrants all can participate in a common culture (one which is different from enlgish speaking culture)
There is a considerable body of opinion in the world which denies this -which would say that certain cultural things are more "Authentic" to blacks or Asians than other things. this is racist.
what applies to individuals applies also to groups. Ancient egypt had a maginificent culture, one dramtically differnt from say that of GReece- doffernt in its approach to change, to indiviudalism, to religion, etc. But put the Greeks in the Nile Valley, with its endless cycles, its agricultural wealth,etc?
LOTM
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mokael
|
|
hmm, does anybody else realizes that this is an argument about nothing?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
markusf
|
|
What is wrong with you people? Unique units are great. I guess the next thing firixas will have to do is give all civs made up names, so a bunch of pissed of idiots won't post every time they come up with a "new" idea. All i can say is if you don't like the game don't buy it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
|
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by yin26 on 05-08-2001 12:45 AM
LOTM:
I understand your point and have worries about it myself. The implementation is crucial here. For example, if Germany ALWAYS gets a Panzer bonus or something at some hard-coded year in the game, that would be silly. But what if Germany had to meet certain guidelines say in econ, military and tech? If all those were there by a certain point in the game, THEN they get this bonus.
That would allow a player to effectively strip Germany of this bonus by taking away the environment that would make it possible. Would also add a very strategic element to the game: Do you pound on Germany to keep them from getting their tanks or do you pound on some other civ to stop THAT bonus?
On the other hand, if it's just one bonus like a powerful tank or something, the game will get a bit tedious. But if unique bonuses were to pop up throughout the game for all civs depending on their progress at that point, I can't imagine how much character and variety that could give the game...of course, balancing all that could be a nightmare, but it would be really fun.
I hope that gives you a better sense of what I imagine is the right way to handle this.
|
Well i assume that Germany has ot have (in civ2 terms) automobile and steel before they can get panzers. I never thought germany got panzers if the are only have chariots and legions in 1939.
But what if Germany is a commercial Republic, leading to a wealthy demo by 1939? More a Hanseatic league Germany, rather than a Prussian Germany?
Do they still get oppurtunity to research pnazers that others cannot? The assumption is that the emergence of a Guderian when GErmany gets armour is foreordained, back when they are teutons in the woods of eastern europe. With the implication that German superiority in Armour is based on some genetic or very deep cultural predilection that would emerge as soon as appropriate tech stage is reached, rather than the result of a chain of accidents. 1. Unification of Germany by Prussia, rather than anyone else
2. Nature of Junker ruling class, due to unusual circumstance of formation of Ducal Prussia - when Order of teutonic knights was secularized after the Reformation 3. The formation of the TK to crusade against Lithuanians, when crusades in Middle east petered out.
Any of a multitude of slight changes in this history (lithuanians convert to Catholicism earlier, mideast crusades last longer, Russia expands west early, etc) would halt this chain of development.
Louis XV of France: we must destroy Frederick, instead of allying with him. We msut throw all our resources against him.
Advisor: Why your majesty, it is Pitt and the English who are the real threat,no? Any day Quebec will fall.
Louis: If we do not crush Prussia now, they will go on to unite Germany in 1871. In 1939 they will emerge iwth a huge advatnage in armour and all will be lost.
Advisor: I see, your majesty.
LOTM
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-05-2001 09:38
What do you mean by that? Fill in the blank for me: "Every society has a potential to 'succeed', but only some of them do because ________".
|