Yes. The general audience is wrong; I cannot disagree with you here. Ultimately though, this is a game, not a course in history and the game starts being inaccurate as soon as America gets founded alongside China.If the point of a history game is to pretend it is supposed to be representative of human history, then no, the general audience is wrong and they should feel bad and petition their government for stronger education programs.
I want a Venetian civilization. Venice is more relevant than the entirety of Italy and added Italy over Venice dilutes the diversity.
Yes. The general audience is wrong; I cannot disagree with you here. Ultimately though, this is a game, not a course in history and the game starts being inaccurate as soon as America gets founded alongside China.
We strive for historical accuracy. Because nothing is more accurate than Japan fighting the Songhai in South America
He carped about semantics instead of anything substantial, and I asked him if he'd anything of the latter to discuss. I'm sorry if that makes you sad. I'm sad for you.Just saying, I wasn't supporting his idea. Just pointing out how sad your counter was. Which as very, very, very sad.
It seems you're holding onto some lofty notion of what makes a civ worthy of being in the game. What exactly makes a civ important in the grand scheme of things?What you fail to understand, Steve, is that Italy isn't important in the grand scheme of things. Sure, they may have produced some great thinkers, but that has nothing to do with the nation itself. Every country that's been along as Italy, ever, has produced similar people. Being around long doesn't equal national greatness, no matter how much you'd like to think differently, otherwise Afghanistan would be in. The thirty-plus civ's currently in the game were all part of that grand scheme?
Additionally, your arguments have centered around one thing: the Rennaisance. So? Whoopdedoo, they made some paintings and stuff. Wow, let's make them represented as a world power!
What exactly makes a civ important in the grand scheme of things?
Korea merits inclusion but Italy doesn't. That's a futile exercise
What word (or words) are you under the impression were used incorrectly? Arbiter? Logical? Fallacies? Misonceptions?He was pointing out you don't know what some words mean
Yeah, we should have a parallel poll:
Should Italy be represented as a full civ in BNW, in any form? (Italy, Venice, Genoa, Florence, Naples, Sicily, Papal States, etc...)
- Yeah, they are a worthy addition
- No, Rome and the city states are enough
I'm sure the no would be winning by far...
I fail to understand why you see the Renaissance as inherently amazing. All it was was people rediscovering the accomplishments of nations already in the game. Who cares if they made buildings along with paintings? What effect does it have on the rest of the world, or even half of Europe? Nada.
Oh, really?
I was under the impression half the european "civilizations" owed quite a bit to the renaissance technology improvements and discoveries. But I guess not. I mean, who cares right? Technology, culture... utterly useless, you can't even bash some skulls with this sh**.
All right, seriously now. Italy's inclusion might raise a bit of stir because of the enormous amount of european civs in game and all, but saying the renaissance was nothing? Makes me wonder which kind of books you read in your history lessons.
Yet you're speaking up to defend him (or at least, to argue against me). So, you sort of support him, but sorta don't as well. Anyway, as you don't have any specific diction to call into question, we'll move on...And I never said he was right. For the sake of The Lord, get over this one point. I am right, and you are wrong.
Great, you're talking about gameplay. That's a fine means of establishing a civilization's distinctiveness. Then again, that begs the question of why haven't such considerations been applied to Italy, rather than focusing on arbitrary notions of what constitutes a civilization. So, let's consder it in that context.Korea merits inclusion because it's one of few (the only) Asian civ that is tall and focused in science, which is good for people who doesn't want to play a wide science game using China or Maya. they also have two very unique units that come relatively at the same time in the renaissance era, the Turtle Ship and Hwacha. Those two units actually existed in real life and they offer a unique experience in wars because they are so different from the units that they replace.
Korea also has 50 million people and many followed Civilization franchise from the start, myself included. So native appeal to Korean players were guaranteed. not only that, it has been available in Age of Empire II and other strategy games and they are presented in a similar fashion, a turtle tech civ with heavily armored units. They were popular in those games because there really isn't a historical alternative to Korea, all the other tall science civs either have ancient units or play more or less the same as all the other civs. Korea has been filling that niche in various strategy games for a decade now.
Oh, really?
I was under the impression half the european "civilizations" owed quite a bit to the renaissance technology improvements and discoveries. But I guess not. I mean, who cares right? Technology, culture... utterly useless, you can't even bash some skulls with this sh**.