 |
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Cidifer
|
|
thankfully America dropped the useless silent U making it a much nicer and easier version of English.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
LionQ
|
 |
Capelle aan den IJssel [near Rotterdam], The Netherlands
Jul 2002
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
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? 
quote:
Originally posted by sabrewolf
which means "armoUred fighting vehicule number five"
when was that built? |
I don't know. 1943, or so?
quote:
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. 
quote:
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. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozymandias
|
|
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
|
 |
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
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.
Last edited by Zero on 09-10-2002 at 04:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozymandias
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LionQ
|
|
Capelle aan den IJssel [near Rotterdam], The Netherlands
Jul 2002
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ozymandias
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.
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.
Peace,
Oz |
Oz, if you're thinking a Arabian / Muslem Civ should be in the game, then you're absolutely right. Like you said (see quote): the Arabs / Muslems conquered a large part of the world after Mohammed and up to 1917! On the Israelian / Hebrew / Jewish Civ point, I agree with you too. They're territory was very small in the whole history and they didn't had much influence in world history. So, I think they shouldn't be in the game.
Sorry, Israeli's....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CivilopediaCity
They're territory was very small in the whole history and they didn't had much influence in world history. So, I think they shouldn't be in the game.
Sorry, Israeli's.... |
Umm if the Jews didn't have much influence on world history (ergo, on world culture), then what do you call the Pentateuch? The entire Old Testament? Remember, culture and the definition of "civilization" can be more than meets the eye. 1/6 of the world population is Catholic, and who knows how many Jews and Protestants there are. I'd say the Bible -- being the world's best-selling book -- and, therefore, the Jewish culture/"civilization", have had much more profound influences on the world than many of the Civs who did nothing but land-grab. And no, I'm not Jewish
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ozymandias
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Traelin
Umm if the Jews didn't have much influence on world history (ergo, on world culture), then what do you call the Pentateuch? The entire Old Testament? Remember, culture and the definition of "civilization" can be more than meets the eye ... I'd say the Bible -- being the world's best-selling book -- and, therefore, the Jewish culture/"civilization", have had much more profound influences on the world than many of the Civs who did nothing but land-grab. And no, I'm not Jewish |
It's not a matter of "influence on world culture" ... actually, it's a question of terminology -- of what is a Civ. In my first post above, I mention:
"I doubt most of us agree on what a Civilization is -- nation? ethnicity? religion? ethos? government type?"
If, as I think your post suggests, religion and not "land-grabbing" should be important -- how do we model this in Civ terms?
If a Civ is defined as a religious-cultural unit, then should there be a Buddhist Civ? A Confucian Civ? A Hindu Civ? -- In short, is religion the primary "engine" of civilization and conflict? If so, does "Maoism" get modelled as a "religion"? How about "Non-sectarian Democracy"? What about atheism and "lost" religions which might have out-competed other monotheistic creeds?
Does Nationalism become wed solely to religion? If so, is there now a world "Protestant" Civ stretching from California to Berlin? How meaningful is this as we view the way history has unfolded?
I am not necessarily disagreeing with your basic point about "influence; it's just that (for example) the Civ Culture model doesn't account for "influence" beyond Cultural Conversion -- which would still translate into conquest of one form or another. And I can't think of any way of awarding "points" for Judaism begetting its heresies of Christianity and Islam, let alone having all of these undergo further bloody, schismatic "disagreements".
-- Granted, some decent mechanisms for Revolution might suffice, but, alas, we ain't got none ...
-Oz
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ozymandias
I am not necessarily disagreeing with your basic point about "influence; it's just that (for example) the Civ Culture model doesn't account for "influence" beyond Cultural Conversion -- which would still translate into conquest of one form or another-Oz |
The definition of a Civ is probably the root of the issue. We would perhaps all define a Civ differently, as you pointed out. Perhaps a Civ should be defined as a sum of all the previous posters' points. But then the next question arises: How do you "normalize" the Civ attributes? That is, which ones are weighted to be more significant?
Let's take the example of Temples and Cathedrals. As we all know, both of these improvements provide cultural bonuses, and both are symbolic of religion in general. Obviously, the developers intended to represent religion as a key facet of culture, hence a key facet of any Civ. Wouldn't the Hebrew doctrine fall into the category of providing religious culture?
Now let's take it a step further. Would the Buddhists, Hindus, etc. also fall into this category? My answer would also be yes. However, if we view a Civ as being a SUM of different attributes, one can ascertain that Judaism transcended religious bounds. We are all aware of their trials and tribulations in freeing themselves from Egyptian tyranny, and in their struggles to find and "settle" the Promised Land. For the sake of avoiding a lengthy historical discussion, let's just say it took a heck of a lot of work to do so, and, at various times in history, they were upended by various Civs.
But the point being is this. Many people's posts have placed the utmost of value on the geographic extent of a Civ's empire. I think this is a mistake, because look at some of the most important Civs in history and their actual territories (or territorial claims). I wouldn't consider the Netherlands to have had a prodigious GEOGRAPHIC empire. Sure, they had colonies and their homeland, but their power (IMHO) was represented in their economy, trade, etc. Yes, they had an extensive navy too, but that's OT. And yes, I feel they should have been one of the original 16 Civs. Call me biased toward the Colonial Era, but I just feel they played a very important role in history...important enough to be one of the 16.
Since the Buddhist, Hindu, etc. religions really didn't expand to other Civ attributes as "strongly" as the Hebrews, I would argue that they would not be Civs, but would rather be part of the culture of Eastern Civilizations such as the Indians.
Another example...I absolutely love the Mongols and their history. I don't know why, but it's just always fascinated me. However, they can really be described as a Barbarian Horde. That is, they didn't contribute much at all (if anything) to religious culture, and were really only known for their military conquests. Why is it, then, that we can include such a uni-faceted Civ in Civ3 and not include a more multi-faceted Civ like the Hebrews?
OK, this post is getting too long...let me know what you think.
EDIT: Oops, I forgot to mention that another thing in favor of the Hebrews/Israelis is the fact that they play a key role in the world today. Granted, Israel as we currently know it is young. But they are arguably the superpower of the MidEast. I would take it even further and say they fall into the category of global superpower. If anyone knows anything about their military, they know it's tenacious, incredibly well-armed, and veteran. Some of our troops (i.e., the U.S.) have actually trained with their elites. It seems they don't get as much respect as other countries because of the volatility of the MidEast and for other reasons. Nevertheless, I would dare any country within a couple thousand miles to threaten them.
Last edited by Traelin on 11-10-2002 at 02:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Zero
|
|
Bouncing back and forth
Sep 2002
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Traelin
Since the Buddhist, Hindu, etc. religions really didn't expand to other Civ attributes as "strongly" as the Hebrews, I would argue that they would not be Civs, but would rather be part of the culture of Eastern Civilizations such as the Indians.
Another example...I absolutely love the Mongols and their history. I don't know why, but it's just always fascinated me. However, they can really be described as a Barbarian Horde. That is, they didn't contribute much at all (if anything) to religious culture, and were really only known for their military conquests. Why is it, then, that we can include such a uni-faceted Civ in Civ3 and not include a more multi-faceted Civ like the Hebrews?
|
Whoa Whoa buddy, Buddhism didnt expand to other civs as "strongly" as the hebrews? How far did judaism spread? Only jews believe in judaism (though there are some forein conversions) Christianity had big impact on the world not judaism. True, Christianity did derived from judaism and are greatly influenced by it, but its no where the same religion. And coming back to the point. Buddhism is as big as christianity. It is the christianity of the east so to speak. And just like christianity, buddhism branched off into many different sects that differ from indian, tibetians, koreans and japanese practice. To call buddhism insignificant sounds like you need to brush up on asian history studies!
mongols are militaristic civilization that impacted the world thru militaristic conquest. You may wonder what that has to do with civilization where "civilized" people should be in. But like you said, one's definition of civilization differs, my thought of going to a ball dance and sipping tea maybe lame to others.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Calc II
Whoa Whoa buddy, Buddhism didnt expand to other civs as "strongly" as the hebrews? How far did judaism spread? Only jews believe in judaism (though there are some forein conversions) Christianity had big impact on the world not judaism. True, Christianity did derived from judaism and are greatly influenced by it, but its no where the same religion. |
Correct. Judaism is not the same religion as Christianity. However, its cultural influence is clearly seen in said religion. I don't know how many people adhere to Judaism in the world, but if you include Christianity AND Judaism in the same group of influence, I think you'll find there are well over 1/3 of the world's population included.
EDIT: I think it's a fair assessment to include Christianity as an influence of Judaism for yet another -- more obvious -- reason. Approx. half the Bible is inherited from Judaism. I forget which Books of the OT the Jews don't adhere to and that the Christians do (I think it's Ruth and 2nd Maccabees?), but my point is that the Bible can be considered 50% Jewish (so to speak). If we want to get REALLY technical, 100% of the Bible is "Jewishly" inherited, since -- as I mention below -- Christ was a Jew.
The last I checked, there are approx. 350-400 million Buddhists worldwide. And as I said before, they can really be included as part of an Eastern Civ's culture (ala Indians, etc.). That does not diminish its influence as a religion at all. I mean after all, 400 million people is a heck of a lot of people. I'm just arguing that Judaism (i.e, the religious influence, disregarding the political and geographic influence) is considered the most prevalent religion in the world. That is, if you include its influence on Christianity, which has to be considered (since Christ was a Jew Himself).
Please don't mistake my post as anything other than an argument for the Hebrews to be a Civ in Civ3, that's all I'm arguing. I'm arguing that we have to include the Hebrews as a Civ, because their culture transcended pure religion and had a profound influence on other factors, such as the history of its related region of the world (the Philistines, etc.).
Again, numbers don't tell everything. As we all know, they can be misleading. However, I think the history of the Hebrews speaks for itself as reason to include them as a Civ in Civ3.
To migrate a little more toward the topic, one has to also distinguish between the Sunni and Shiite Muslims. One of the differences between these two sects of Islam are that (if I'm not mistaken) the Sunnis give more homage to Abu Bakr and his relationship with Muhammed. The Shiites differ subtly in their philosophy, and it has something to do with the number of Khalifayahs (sp?), but I haven't discussed religion with my Muslim friends in awhile and thus don't remember the details.
So to include ALL Arabs under the leadership of Abu Bakr is a bit misleading.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
There's gotta be more than 14 million Jews in the world. I mean 6 million alone were killed during the Holocaust. But like I said before, numbers can be misleading.
The reason I didn't include Islam as part of the Jewish sphere of influence is for two reasons.
First, Ishmael was the son of Abraham, I concede that. But Abraham is looked upon as the father of Judaism AND the father of Islam (depending on which philosophy you follow, of course). So Judaism and Islam were separate entities stemming from the same person, and coexisting in the same region of the world.
Second, Islam is now the religious portion of the culture of the Arab Civ under the leadership of Abu Bakr. That is, any Temples and Cathedrals built by the Arabs can more appropriately be viewed as Mosques, or any other Islamic type of religious house of worship.
So now we have all MAJOR (READ: MAJOR) religions represented in Civ3/Civ3:PTW, with the exception of Judaism. For instance, Hinduism is represented in the religious cultural achievements of the Indian Civ. Catholicism is represented by France's religious culture. Protestantism is represented by many countries, and Buddhism is represented by a couple Eastern Civs. We can go on and on with this list, but suffice it to say that Judaism is in no significant way represented in Civ3. That is perplexing to me, because of the Hebrews' incredible cultural achievements.
But just for the sake of argument, let's forget about everything I just mentioned. Let's just look at the status of the Hebrews and Israel today. Would you all not agree that they are a major political player in the world? So on this fact alone I would argue they should be in the game. Forget about the freaking age of the Civ. I mean really, time is relative. All of the Civs are young in geological time for God's sake. The point here is that Israel has been VERY important at at LEAST one point in its history, ergo it should be a Civ in Civ3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LionQ
|
|
Capelle aan den IJssel [near Rotterdam], The Netherlands
Jul 2002
time: 06:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Traelin
There's gotta be more than 14 million Jews in the world. I mean 6 million alone were killed during the Holocaust. But like I said before, numbers can be misleading.
The reason I didn't include Islam as part of the Jewish sphere of influence is for two reasons.
First, Ishmael was the son of Abraham, I concede that. But Abraham is looked upon as the father of Judaism AND the father of Islam (depending on which philosophy you follow, of course). So Judaism and Islam were separate entities stemming from the same person, and coexisting in the same region of the world.
Second, Islam is now the religious portion of the culture of the Arab Civ under the leadership of Abu Bakr. That is, any Temples and Cathedrals built by the Arabs can more appropriately be viewed as Mosques, or any other Islamic type of religious house of worship.
So now we have all MAJOR (READ: MAJOR) religions represented in Civ3/Civ3:PTW, with the exception of Judaism. For instance, Hinduism is represented in the religious cultural achievements of the Indian Civ. Catholicism is represented by France's religious culture. Protestantism is represented by many countries, and Buddhism is represented by a couple Eastern Civs. We can go on and on with this list, but suffice it to say that Judaism is in no significant way represented in Civ3. That is perplexing to me, because of the Hebrews' incredible cultural achievements.
But just for the sake of argument, let's forget about everything I just mentioned. Let's just look at the status of the Hebrews and Israel today. Would you all not agree that they are a major political player in the world? So on this fact alone I would argue they should be in the game. Forget about the freaking age of the Civ. I mean really, time is relative. All of the Civs are young in geological time for God's sake. The point here is that Israel has been VERY important at at LEAST one point in its history, ergo it should be a Civ in Civ3. |
Guys, I'm changing my point of view: now I think there should be a Hebrew/Israelian Civ in the game. You've convinced me!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
teturkhan
|
 |
Edmonton, Alberta
Nov 2001
time: 05:22
|
|
Some Details about the Upcoming TETurkhan M&M (Map & Mod):
Civs included:
1- Poland
2- Israel
3- Tibetans
4- Incas (in South America of course)
5- Turks are now in Central Asia (freeing up a much congested middle east)
6- Hungarians
7- Songhai (present day Mali)
8- Majapahits (present day Indonesia)
9- Abyssinians (modern day Ethiopia)
Those are all the details I can give you now... the mod will be included on the PTW disk when it comes out.
Ray
Last edited by teturkhan on 12-10-2002 at 01:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
While Israel is important in the world today you really can't say its because of its power or influence. It is a small country in a very shaky and economically important area and while it does dominate its region the reasons for this have as much to do with European and American support then anything else. |
Sure I can. Look at its military size. It's one of the largest militaries in the world, with approx. 2.5 million people ready for military service (Actives, Reserves, call-ups, and what-not). That is amazing, given the country's population of about 6.5-7 million. And they are well-armed and well-trained. Yes, the U.S. does offer assistance to Israel in large monetary, military, etc. numbers, but that does not undermine the sheer force of their military. Not to mention the fact that we SELL a heck of a lot of equipment to them, so it's not like they're getting a free ride. I can't think of any country that is dumb enough in that region to attempt another invasion of Israel. Given their power, how can they NOT be included as a Civ? It's mind-boggling to me.
quote:
Originally posted by gsmoove23
In regard to Islam I think you'd be suprised to learn that they recognize Moses, David, Noah, Jesus and Abraham as great prophets and many of the Old Testament stories are recounted in the Qu'ran, in slightly altered form. |
I'm not surprised at all. I have studied many religions (mostly Occidental and MidEastern) and have read parts of the Koran. Also, two of my good friends are Persian Muslims. Abraham is considered a prophet, but is considered by the Muslims to be the Father of Islam. As I said before, both Judaism and Islam inherited their history from the same root, but diverged with the births of Ishmael and Isaac.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-10-2002 00:56
|