Choose the features of your favourite civilization

[Iván de España]

The Ancient Israel wasn't important politically. It was a small Kingdom that was friend of Assyria in order to not be invaded by Egypt. Finally, in the moment that Assyria was weak because of the Neo-Babylonians, Israel dissapeared.
Thanks to Judaism, we know the existence of Israel because, without this religion, Israel would have been as famous or important in the Human History as the Mitanni.

 

[nzk13]

Well, without judaism, israel never would have existed. They were united only by judaism. They were related also, but that's because their ancestors were the first members of the religion.

 

[Iván de España]

I think I can't follow this discussion about Israel because I would have to say that the Torah was written in the 5th century B.C. But you won't believe me and probably insult me (at least in your mind). I know this things about Israel because I was informed by professional historians in books and in the university.
Sorry for this.

 

[nzk13]

well, even if the torah was written in 5th century bc, there was a temple of jerusalem. Can't deny that. Aren't there tablets that attest to king solomon allying with king hiram of Tyre and hiring him to help build the temple? And if there was a state-sponsored temple, that means organized religion. and that means that there was some sort of state religion that unified the country, right?
EDIT: just curious, but which university was this, anyway?

 

[Kyriakos]

Israel will nevel be a civ in an unmodded civilization game, it simply is not important enough. There are many far more important civs, like the already mentioned Ethiopia (which would represent a continent with few civs as it is) that should be there in expansions

 

[Takhisis]

Please, let's not argue about israel, as it'll eventually turn into a discussion on terrorism, despotism, nuclear weapons and the existence or not of the Holocaust. PLEASE.

 

[climat]

Israel in any form will provoke an unnecessary controversy.

 

[OscarWildebeest]

Israel in any form will provoke an unnecessary controversy.

Pour oil on the flames, why don't you.

 

[nzk13]

Israel in any form will provoke an unnecessary controversy.

Maybe you're right, if Firaxis wants to be politically correct they won't put 'em in. In fact, I don't think i ever heard of a strategy game with the hebrews in it, likely for that very reason.

 

[climat]

Maybe you're right, if Firaxis wants to be politically correct they won't put 'em in. In fact, I don't think i ever heard of a strategy game with the hebrews in it, likely for that very reason.

IIRC, Hebrews was in CTP. But that game was released in 1999..

 

[nzk13]

what's ctp?

 

[climat]

It means Call To Power, the game which is not in the CIV series.

 

[nzk13]

oh, Call to Power. I heard of that. RtS, right?

 

[Arakhor]

No. The Civ-style game that is not Civ.

 

[nzk13]

Oh, yeah, the one that wasn't called civ because the publisher didn't own the name anymore.

 

[OscarWildebeest]

Israel in any form will provoke an unnecessary controversy.

Pour oil on the flames, why don't you.

Ah, you meant in the game. Sorry. I withdraw my remark.

 

[nzk13]

No, it might hold true in real life also, OscarWildebeest.

 

[Lord Khorak]

Come to think of it, in terms of England there is one leader I would very, very much like; Henry V.

The English faction has started to become something of an imperialism/trade typecast, and I'd like to continue the variety started by the addition of Churchill in the Civ 4 expansions. Henry V is somewhat unfortunate in that his victory at Agincourt was so great, it has completely eclipsed the fact that he was an organisational genius. Putting aside any opinions on his French campaigns, he is an absolute exemplar of effective kingship and easily able to stand with the well known greats of the entire world. Be nice to have him as the male representation in the English lineup (it's rather matriarchal don't you think?), and concentrating on organisation and militarism.

 

[nzk13]

Come to think of it, in terms of England there is one leader I would very, very much like; Henry V.

The English faction has started to become something of an imperialism/trade typecast, and I'd like to continue the variety started by the addition of Churchill in the Civ 4 expansions. Henry V is somewhat unfortunate in that his victory at Agincourt was so great, it has completely eclipsed the fact that he was an organisational genius. Putting aside any opinions on his French campaigns, he is an absolute exemplar of effective kingship and easily able to stand with the well known greats of the entire world. Be nice to have him as the male representation in the English lineup (it's rather matriarchal don't you think?), and concentrating on organisation and militarism.

Churchill would actually be better for that. If they wanted to have some fun, (which they won't) they would put in Henry VII.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Actually there are a number of medieval English kings that I think could do well as an English leader - William the Conqueror, Richard the Lionheart, Alfred the Great, and so forth. It's a pity medieval european leaders aren't usually in Civ4.