-FC-Commando
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 114
Netherlands, why? Because im a chauvinistic pig.
That use of 'must' define truths of existence. A must exist for B to exist. This is not the case in how you use it. Spain must be in Civ5. Spain does not determine the truth of existence for Civ5, and Civ5 will exist without Spain. Therefore if it is not a truth of existence then you are using 'must' in the other way, an ultimatum.
You are insulting people on this board by your use of the word Must as an ultimatum. Please cease using it. And btw, 'will' is opinion based not ultimatum based. So your use of "Spain will be in Civ5" is not bothering as it expresses your opinion. Whereas "Spain must be in Civ5" is a pure demand, ultimatum and insult to some readers of this board.
Giordano Léonce;9032162 said:On the contrary, the "must" of necessity (or, if you like, of "existence") is roughly how I use the term. Roughly, a truly complete version of Civ 5 cannot be said to "exist" without Spain, for such a Spain-less version would be lacking a crucial feature. More precisely: the inclusion of Spain is an necessary pre-requisite for the game's completeness. Clearly, this is in no way an insult to Firaxis, for nobody expects vanilla to be complete. Completeness will be achieved with future expansion or add-ons that include Spain and other essential features. In other words: Spain must, and indeed will, be in the final version in order for the game to be complete. Such a use of "must" need not imply a demand of action, let alone an "ultimatum".
Yet another use of "must" that need not imply a demand or an obligation to act is the "must" of logical inference and supposition ("Given A, then it must be case that B"). There are several strong arguments for the inclusion of Spain. On the basis of those arguments, it can be reasonably supposed that Spain must be in the complete version of the game. Once again, such a use "must" need not imply an "insult"of any kind. At any rate, I have already explained that an "ultimatum" is not what was meant. So there is no reason to get over-sensitive and take offence for a mere semantic matter, especially considering that the statement that "Spain must be in the complete version of Civ" is supported by relevant examples and constructive argumentation.
IMPORTANT MISSING OPTION: Mayans, Norsemen (as a modern European state; say Sweeden, Denmark, Norway or Kalmar Union, NOT as norse raiders)
Celts (as medieval galeic-ascent countries: Ireland, Scotlant & Wales; NOT as Roman era raiders)
a) By Civfans I meant "people on the Civfans website"
b) Yes, its not representative of the total player fanbase... but its the best evidence we have.
c) Do you really think that the statement "a majority of civfans would see Spain as a priority in an expansion" as an unreasonable or inaccurate statement? This seems pretty uncontroversial to me.
I will again say: This here is a western civsite. Look at the poll above 8 out of 24 choices are pure european. I doubt a cambodian website would come to the same results
@Léonce While I absolutly agree that (Civ 4 Colonization would be stupid without Spain it is not a mandatory part of a Civ game that spawns several millenia. This game is about Civilization and not about Colonization
And Dale, are you the modder who did those good mods about the Age of Discovery? I dont understand your point of view.
But i must say that for mods and scenarios would be useful having a spanish civ. Of course that will be made by modders if not.
Well, if you think in temporal terms, how may years "civs" like the USA or Germany are relevant for the history of the world? 60-70 years? That is less than 300 or 400, isnt it?
Germany was already around at 962 A.D. and it dominated European politics for the most of it's existence. One thing I don't understand is why the HELL people think that there was no Germany until 1871. Germany didn't exist as a unified State for around 68 years, from the disbandement of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nations in 1803 too 1871. So to put it clear Germany is around 1040 years old and not 139 years like some people prefer to think.
Where do you think that most Civ-players come from? I would wager that there are rather more Civ players in Europe, North America and Australia/New Zealand than there are in Cambodia. I doubt that even Korean/China/Japan/Taiwan/Singapore combined are more than 1/5 of the Civ market.I will again say: This here is a western civsite.
I doubt a cambodian website would come to the same results
Agreed. But don't let this bias basic logic.My point of view is easy: I don't like the insulting and demanding way certain people have posted regarding Spain. Civ5 will work, be playable, and be complete regardless of what Civs are represented.
Well, if you think in temporal terms, how may years "civs" like the USA or Germany are relevant for the history of the world? 60-70 years?
I think at the very least people would include Prussia, so I'd give Germany 250-300 years.You are right, sorry, but i see german civ (from civilization games) as modern days germany
I don't like the insulting and demanding way certain people have posted regarding Spain. Civ5 will work, be playable, and be complete regardless of what Civs are represented.
yes. germans have a history of 3milleniums but those germans are ancestors and/or partly ancestors of many nations in europe, not only germany.I think at the very least people would include Prussia, so I'd give Germany 250-300 years.
* even if we consider american superiority as 100years, it is still a rather short period compared to many other empires in history.And the US has been the largest economy in the world for over 100 years (and one of history's rare super-powers).