 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
bobbo008
|
 |
The Wisconsonian Empire
Dec 2002
time: 23:29
|
|
"If this is the case, I'm dissappointed... not that they didn't contribute to history, but how Eurocentric can you get? And in terms of gameplay, how more crowed can "Europe" get?"
I think with most people playing the game of European decent, they just want to cator to their audience. And when you think two hundred years ago that Europe basically controlled all of the land in the world with their colonies, it makes sense. When I play world maps, I will do things along those lines, such as France in West Africa and Spain in South America.
another point is that it is easier to relate to. Basically, I'm annoyed when civilizations that havent existed for quite some time are intercepting my stealth bombers, such as the Babylonians.
If you still dont like it, look on the bright side: maybe in 20 years there'll just be an EU civ.
edit: and we must not forget how centered on the Middle East the game is, as well. While Europe is crowded with civs, the civs in the Middle East just overlap each other way too much. For example: Egypt, Babylon and most of the Ottoman Empire could just be in the Arabian civ. This isn't to say that Egypt doesn't have a place in the game, it's just its quite hard to play the game when its like this, at least for me. Sorta like how Rome can have Byzantium and the Ottomans can have Istanbul
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yahweh Sabaoth
|
 |
The Heavens
Dec 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
Some of that overlap bothers me as well, and the tendency of the Celts and Carthage to survive to the modern age and be huge, whup-ass empires also is quite irritating. Still, I am of European descent, entirely, but I'm also an (amateur) historian, and with no particular bias (except that I'm quite partial to China), and to the European domination of the world, I must say: yes, Europe did dominate the globe for hundreds of years. But hundreds of years is a small amount of time when written history as a whole is examined.
I have nothing against the Dutch and the Portugese. The more the merrier. But it's the neglect shown to the rest of the world that bothers me. The Turkmen have had a large impact on the history of the world... it's arguable that the Uighurs have had as much impact as the Dutch... the Berbers of North Africa certainly had as much impact as the Celts.
Now, the Portugese DID colonize notably. And I know Atari/Firaxis/Whomever can't alienate a mostly European fan base. Still, it just isn't right. That's like saying the homosexuals can't get married because America was founded on "Christian" values. The statement's true, but what it implies is negative.
And one other twist, sort of contrary to the rest of my argument: Civ could use more civilizations for the Europeans to ANNEX, which is what they did to achieve their dominance after all. What of the Punjabis? The Nez Perce? The Khivans? etc. Putting in more "forgotten" or conquered civs gives more opportunity for the evil-minded civ player - and let's face it, "evil"'s a big part of the appeal of this game - to conquer, slay, enslave, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
What gets me is that they are bringing in the Sumerians and Hittites. I hope that they aren't going to be standard civilizations, because I feel that they are far too small. I think that Babylon, when interepreted loosely, is sufficient to represent the tribes of the ancient near east. After all, doesn't the Babylonian civ include about half of the Sumerian cities? I don't know this period of history that well, but maybe, since the Hittites adopted much of the Babylonian culture, and the Babylonians adopted the Sumerian culture, all of the groups could simply be labeld Sumerian. Or, since the Hitties conquered all of the ancient Mid-East, they coould just be called the Hitiites. In otherwords, though I know that it is historically incorrect, couldn't all three be seen practically as the same culture?
Wouldn't including the Hittites, Sumerians, and Babylonians be like including the Franks and the French? Why not add the Lydians, Chaldeans, etc.? Why not add the Picts, the Anglo-Saxons, the Goths, etc. To sum up, it bothers me that such redundent civs (from the viewpoint of the average 21st century person) are picked in place of Mali, Khmer, Poland/West Slavs, and other, more diverse cultures.
Last edited by Wycoff on 12-07-2003 at 01:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wycoff
What gets me is that they are bringing in the Sumerians and Hittites. I hope that they aren't going to be standard civilizations, because I feel that they are far too small. I think that Babylon, when interepreted loosely, is sufficient to represent the tribes of the ancient near east. After all, doesn't the Babylonian civ include about half of the Sumerian cities? I don't know this period of history that well, but maybe, since the Hittites adopted much of the Babylonian culture, and the Babylonians adopted the Sumerian culture, all of the groups could simply be labeld Sumerian. Or, since the Hitties conquered all of the ancient Mid-East, they coould just be called the Hitiites. In otherwords, though I know that it is historically incorrect, couldn't all three be seen practically as the same culture?
Wouldn't including the Hittites, Sumerians, and Babylonians be like including the Franks and the French? Why not add the Lydians, Chaldeans, etc.? Why not add the Picts, the Anglo-Saxons, the Goths, etc. To sum up, it bothers me that such redundent civs (from the viewpoint of the average 21st century person) are picked in place of Mali, Khmer, Poland/West Slavs, and other, more diverse cultures. |
Sumerian and Egpy culture go father back may-be as far back as 12000 BCE(Before Common Eras) which mean they are petty old. They found writing in Egpy that goes back to
pre-first dynastic peroid than there was 3 pre-dynastic peroid and the writeing was just as sophiate and complex as the dynastic writeing and there is good evidtion that Egpy was than united kingdom.
The orginate Sumerian where different group of people who die out for than unknow reason it wasnot military in natural they pass they culture on to their friend who live with then near-by the Babylonians.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
 |
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Israel should not be included. The only reason why it still exists is constant USA aid. |
hi ,
*sigh*
and now you are going to tell us how much we are going to get to the last dollarcent , and then some-one else is going to write all the technological research that the US gets for free , ......
or some-one is going to point out how the US could not build or research about an abm and used Israel to do so anyway , .....
then someone is going to point that there is for each Israeli a jew or Israeli in the good old US of A and that those people pay taxes in the US also , and then some-one is going to calculate that the portion of what those people pay , only small fraction goes to Israel as "aid" , or some-one with knowledge is going to say and point out that most of that money has to be spend inside the US of A , so the us gains twice , ......
can we please keep this game related , ....... thanks in advance
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sheik
|
|
quote:
Israel should not be included. The only reason why it still exists is constant USA aid
|
oo oo I know, let's take all the civilizations out of the game! You see all these civs at one time were a new nation. Why they succeeded or failed can be very complex. To say Israel shouldn't be included because they get US aid is like saying the US shouldn't be included because we got French help during our revolution. Your arguement is complete rubbish.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:29
|
|
Right on Heresson the French only help us gain freedom from
English rule. They didnot have to give use contant foreign aid
for the last 227 years of our existance as than nation.
It was not only the French that Help us it was the Prussian General who came over to help train our troop to fight like the Euporean armies did. The Spainish and Dutch also help.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Orz
|
|
Tartu, Estonia
Dec 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
Why the existence of Israel *as a civ* is so important? Well, they are definitely/maybe (Armenia) the only old civilization left from the ancient times. And - there are the Americans. How many jews live in America and how many in Israel? Irish (Celts?) should have quite a large amount of descendants in USA also, although I (again) do not know the number... Anyway, I believe that the scientific leaders are the field where the Jews (not Israel) shine brightly, very brightly.
Considering Carthage and Celts are in the list, adding Israel does not sound unjust in spite of their geographically diffuse culture. I'd prefer to see a SE Asian civilization and Ethiopia instead of those, though, because those are surviviving and quite large, unlike the Celts, Aztecs and Iroquis - the "big losers" - and the Jews whose long history is much different.
When talking about cultures overlapping, then whole Europe and Middle east is a ever-changing ever-evolving mix of cultures, starting with the Greeks and ending with the Americans. One culture has become another. I'm not even talking about if the American civ (USA) ever WAS in ancient age! Even the English Civ is a synthesis of Greco-Roman, Celtic and Scandinavian culture!!!
Last edited by Orz on 13-07-2003 at 18:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Orz
|
|
Tartu, Estonia
Dec 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Mad Monk
I think Israel would probably do well with religious and agricultural -- they made the desert bloom. |
Well... The Jews are quite a commercial nation, I think. When we are not talking about the Jews as a nation but about Israel as a state, then Militaristic would be an option, too, wouldn't it?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
panag
|
|
MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Oct 2000
time: 07:29
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Orz
Well... The Jews are quite a commercial nation, I think. When we are not talking about the Jews as a nation but about Israel as a state, then Militaristic would be an option, too, wouldn't it? |
hi ,
 , industrious , militaristic and religious would be the best , .....
some civ's really should get three traits instead of two , others only one , ......
have a nice day
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Orz
|
|
Tartu, Estonia
Dec 1999
time: 05:29
|
|
Well, European nations have choices of playing Romans, Germans, Greeks - Romanians, Austrians, Albanians for example. The ancient Greeks and nowadays greeks aren't anyway the same nation.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29.
Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-07-2003 21:52
Hopefully there are 2 civs left and not 1, that are yet to be unconfirmed.
|