Bring in the Hebrews

[rozman]

I am upset about one thing. Where are the Hebrews? It was once a one of the greatest and most prosperous early civilizations (Solomon, David until the Roman War), where Jerusalem was up to 2 million dwellers. The Jewish history is one of the most important in tales of Epic, suffering and victory and its missing. Their wars with phonecians, egyptians, babylonians, assyrians, greeks, romans, crusaders, spanish, german, polish, russian and most recently Arab instigators are known to ALL, where some of the latest Civs in CIV3Conquests are barely known.

 

[JonathanValjean]

I agree with you, they are very historically significant, and have an amazing legacy. I think they are being left out in order to avoid anti-semitism from rearing its ugly head... I think it is a decision based on political correctness more than anything else.

 

[dojoboy]

Agree w/ JonathanValjean.

They'd have to be in every epic game w/ America, so the Arabs et al won't wipe 'em out. Too predictable.

 

[Packer-Backer]

It's diguisting that including the Hebrews is controversial. Why isn't have the Arabs controversial? But if you want to see Israel in the Mesopotamia conquest than go to the C&C forum and in the main forum there is my thread, "Poll: The New Biblical Scenario Project" (Sorry, I don't know how to post a link.) I am planning on three, four, or maybe five scenarios. The three definent ones are one involving the Exodus, the reign of David and Solomon, and the Faminine in Canaan forcing you to settle in Egypt.

-PB

 

[Faboba]

The trouble is - with few exceptions - all the cvis included have at different points in history had the word 'Empire' attached to their name. The Arabs ruled an empire stretching from Southern Spain to Eastern Persia. The Jewish people didn't.

I'm all for the Hebrews being in the game - but I can understand why the development team didn't include them.

What would your choice for UU be? The Merkava?

 

[Packer-Backer]

I have no idea as for UU. But the Hebrews did have kind of an empire, from vassals in Syria to pretty much the modern Israeli border on the Sinai. And really it wasn't plane "Arabs" who had the empire, it was Cordovans, Fatimids, Abbasids, Ummayads, Almohads, Sassanids, and Moors. Korea has only had a very small empire, has been less influental, and is less "famous" as far as civs go.

 

[Faboba]

Originally posted by Packer-Backer
It's diguisting that including the Hebrews is controversial. Why isn't have the Arabs controversial? But if you want to see Israel in the Mesopotamia conquest than go to the C&C forum and in the main forum there is my thread, "Poll: The New Biblical Scenario Project" (Sorry, I don't know how to post a link.) I am planning on three, four, or maybe five scenarios. The three definent ones are one involving the Exodus, the reign of David and Solomon, and the Faminine in Canaan forcing you to settle in Egypt.

-PB

Shocking what passes for English in Michigan these days

( Kidding... I realise you're probably a non-native speaker. Don't flame me )

 

[Packer-Backer]

Hey I just typed this out quickly. See what I just typed out, just a couple seconds so there will be typos. I usual write better, honest.

 

[Faboba]

Originally posted by Packer-Backer
I have no idea as for UU. But the Hebrews did have kind of an empire, from vassals in Syria to pretty much the modern Israeli border on the Sinai. And really it wasn't plane "Arabs" who had the empire, it was Cordovans, Fatimids, Abbasids, Ummayads, Almohads, Sassanids, and Moors. Korea has only had a very small empire, has been less influental, and is less "famous" as far as civs go.

Well all right - but you have to admit the middle east is pretty crowded at the moment.

How about the next XP if I can have Khmer and the Sioux you can have the Hebrews, deal?

 

[rozman]

To Faboba:note the "few" exceptions. Zulu empire? netherlands? Cmon. The Kingdom of Israel in ancient times stretched throughout most of Asia Minor in addition to Palestine, Sinai and cutting into ancient Mesopatamia. After David there were Hebrew Kings that extended the country's borders bigger then at least 50% of the other civs, until it's split into Judea and Israel. Even under Roman rule Israel stood as a sovereign state, until it's rebellion and ultimate destruction of Jerusalem.

My point is this: the people of Israel stood up to the most powerful of the world's conquerors and nations, everyone vowing to wipe the hebrews out, but they have fought and fought to this day. Every time they endured defeat they were nearly wiped out but their sole resiliance and strenght of human character, is what allowed them to stay an independent peoples, strong enough that 2000 years after the Diaspora they were able to found their own country, bearing the same laws and traditions. Is this not what makes a great civilization?

 

[Emperor Xerxes]

The Netherlands had a large empire based in Indonesia but also colonies in Africa as well as assets in America and were major explorers. New York was called New Amsterdam until the British 'yoinked' it from them. So to say that the Netherlands shouldn't be in because they did not have an empire is redundant.

 

[Packer-Backer]

BRAVO, rozman! The Netherlands had kinda an empire with the colonies, but civ NEVER puts colonies on the city lists. Instead of adding Austria as a bonus it should be Israel. Then they could Austria, Poland, Sioux, Tibet, Khmers, Hungary, and whatever else they want to add.

-PB

 

[Portuguese]

Don't attack existing ones lightly. Although Hebrews should be in...

I would take of Mayas or Incas or Iroquois.

 

[Portuguese]

Originally posted by Packer-Backer
BRAVO, rozman! The Netherlands had kinda an empire with the colonies, but civ NEVER puts colonies on the city lists.
-PB

Play Portugal

 

[Packer-Backer]

I agree, I never said the Dutch should be out, just that Israel is more deserving. Mayas have a great UU, and the Inca I thought should be in, so bye-bye Zulu, and India to include Austria, and maybe America to have Poland just because I don't want to play against my beloved country. Just because I like the look of the Mounted Warrior I'll keep the Iroquois, even though it is innacurate to have the UU of a native tribe require the resource of a non-native animal!

 

[rozman]

I am well aware of the Dutch colonialism. To put more realism on the game I think there should be a seperate control over colonies that civs can create. In late 16th, early 17th century the Dutch have indeed had some great colonies, including in the New World, however their terretorial posessions were not nearly equal to ANY of the other major European powers at the time (Holy Roman Empire, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Sweden, France). The Danes were more known for 1) Vikings and early Norseman conquests, 2) scientific and technological achievements, revolutionizing Renaissance into Enlightenment. And a large Navy.

 

[Ringo]

Agree they should be included, but I'm torn about the UU.

Ancient: Shepherds with slingshots?

Modern: Bulldozers, maybe?

 

[Packer-Backer]

Wow, great joke. Lay off the Palestinian issue or else I'll shoot you down. Perhaps the slinger, as a replacement for the archer with an extra movement maybe because of they were quick-moving.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I would want Assyria.

BTW, I might put Judah in my edited Mesopotamian Conquest, but I think I might end up not (space problems, it would hurt the Phoenicians).

 

[Ringo]

Originally posted by Packer-Backer
Wow, great joke. Lay off the Palestinian issue or else I'll shoot you down. Perhaps the slinger, as a replacement for the archer with an extra movement maybe because of they were quick-moving.

Sorry, not meant to be a joke. No offense meant, the bulldozer was just the first really unique unit I though of for the modern age. Didn't mean to offend.

I like the slinger replacement for archer, but maybe a boost to offense instead of movement for those unlikely aimed shots against armored opponents?

-r