History questions not worth their own thread IV

[hobbsyoyo]

It's the only polytheistic confession in the whole game, and you automatically get it by researching a blanket-all "Polytheism" tech. You're making mountains out of mole-holes by trying to be precise about what Civ4 portrays.

I sincerely disagree.

 

[LightSpectra]

perhaps you should make a habit of explaining why you disagree in the same post which you proclaim disagreement.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I've already made my thoughts clear on the matter. We have a difference of opinion on what the game contains. What else do you want?

 

[kiwitt]

From here

I am looking at allocating starting technologies based not only on the fact that they actually know the stuff, but really have the ability to actually make the buildings.

e.g. Many African nations may know about factories and industrialisation, but do not actually have the ability to create them, because their infrastructure, schooling, finances, etc. are very poor.

I am considering giving some African cities factories where some level of industry has been attempted with outside financing, but these will be few and far between. I may also use this allocation 'philosophy' on other technologies, like the ability to build universities, etc.

So in fact, many industrial-age technologies (and maybe even some renaissance-era) may end up being removed from some nations, let alone modern-age technologies.

While this may impact on 'balance', it does reflect a more accurate view of the world.

What do you think?

 

[Arakhor]

perhaps you should make a habit of explaining why you disagree in the same post which you proclaim disagreement.

Just because Hinduism is unlocked by the Polytheism technology doesn't mean that Hinduism is thus the stand-in for all polytheistic religions. With that reasoning, Judaism (unlocked by Monotheism) should stand in for all monotheistic religions.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

Wait, are you saying that Christianity isn't just a stand in for every religion that ever developed a Theology? That Taoism is not meant to represent all Philosophies? That every religion with a formal Code is Laws is not Confucian? That the ancient Chinese "Mandate of Heaven" is not inherently Islamic?

 

[LightSpectra]

Just because Hinduism is unlocked by the Polytheism technology doesn't mean that Hinduism is thus the stand-in for all polytheistic religions. With that reasoning, Judaism (unlocked by Monotheism) should stand in for all monotheistic religions.

Wait, are you saying that Christianity isn't just a stand in for every religion that ever developed a Theology? That Taoism is not meant to represent all Philosophies? That every religion with a formal Code is Laws is not Confucian? That the ancient Chinese "Mandate of Heaven" is not inherently Islamic?

Ignoring the BtS modulation that allows you to get any 'religion' from any discovery tech; kinda, yeah. Islam and Christianity are in the game, but not Zoroastrianism, Manichaeism, some sort of representation for certain schools of neoplatonism, gnosticism, Baha'i, Samaritans, the Aten cult, et al. You just have to sort of accept that it would be vastly difficult and nigh-impossible to differentiate these from the core group in the game. So the progenitor of "Monotheism" is the founder of "Judaism" and sits in for all of the above.

Let's face the fact here that Civ4's "religions" are such an egregious oversimplification that if it weren't that way for video game purposes, it would be utter tripe.

 

[Leoreth]

Let's face the fact here that Civ4's "religions" are such an egregious oversimplification that if it weren't that way for video game purposes, it would be utter tripe.

Why are you picking on religions in particular for game elements that are subjected to game mechanic / balance considerations first and historical accuracy second?

 

[LightSpectra]

Because it was brought up.

 

[Leoreth]

Oh, okay. It sounded like you had a particular beef with that aspect of the game.

 

[say1988]

I know what you mean, and that was my thought too. I suppose there would be no other way of putting it, at least not so briefly. But you must admit that if someone who didn't know that the war was fought with a breakaway state (American Civil War-style) were to stumble across the page, the revelation that the Nigerian Civil War was won by the Nigerians would appear unremarkable, to put it mildly.

I can definitely see where you are coming from, but I think if you are writing something like wikipedia, you have to assume the reader is at least going to read the entire summary box, and see that Nigeria and Biafra are the first listed belligerants, or the introduction to the article, which makes it clear the Nigerians were fighting against a breakaway Republic. That said, I would probably add "Biafran independence fails" or something like that below "Nigerian Victory"

A good counterpoint is what we would say if the Biafrans won. Everyone would say it was a Biafran vitory and a Nigerian defeat (although the war would likely be known as the Biafran War of Independence or some such).

 

[Lord Baal]

On the other hand, Nigeria did split into separate states later on, and look what happened.

I'm a little surprised you bring up Biafra without also bringing up Katanga, but sure.

Of course that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been better off split up from an earlier stage. One might say that the bitterness of the Biafran War reflects the determination of some Nigerians to keep Nigeria unified as well as that of others to keep the states separate, and the former was strengthened by the unequal distribution of power among the various peoples that was part of the independence settlement in the first place.

This was kind of my point.

(Tragicomic note: I just looked up "Nigerian Civil War" on Wikipedia, where I see in the sidebar the "Result" is simply "Nigerian victory". Which leads to me to think (a) given that this was a civil war, it tells us nothing, and (b) the results of that war were far more horrific than that simple verdict suggests.)

Liu Kang versus Liu Kang! Fight!

 

[TheLastOne36]

Not exactly where the discussion is at, but I always found this map pretty neat and shows how much we screwed up with African Borders:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/map_i...+by+Roy+Lewis+&+Yvonne+Foy.&style=gmd&legend=

 

[LightSpectra]

I'm a little skeptical that such borders is correlated with violence instability in central Africa. You could probably draw the same kind of borders over Canada or China.

 

[Lord Baal]

I'm a little skeptical that such borders is correlated with violence instability in central Africa. You could probably draw the same kind of borders over Canada or China.

This. I've seen similar maps of the Middle East. Which is not to say, of course, that such ethnic divides sould not have been taken into account during the decolonization process.

 

[Flying Pig]

At times, they were - the British deliberately drew a line down the middle of the Afghans in Afghanistan/Pakistan, called the Durand Line - after several wars with the Afghans, they thought that bringing their entire nation into one state was a recipe for continued violence, and that it would be better to have a weak Afghanistan on the border of British India to serve as a less dangerous buffer state against the Russians.

 

[sophie]

Not exactly where the discussion is at, but I always found this map pretty neat and shows how much we screwed up with African Borders:

We?

I certainly didn't draw those borders.

 

[SeekTruthFromFacts]

Who drew the borders of Africa, I would like names so I can forever include them in the worst people in history. The borders of Africa are stupid, illogical and dangerous. For example Nigeria has 8 Ethnology-linguistic groups!

If you're seriously interested in the 19th century origins of the borders, then you might enjoy these lectures from A Proper Historian speaking to a lay audience:
http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/formal-and-informal-empire-in-the-nineteenth-century
http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-events/the-scramble-for-africa

As others noted, there was also a consensus among the Great Powers and new leaders not to change the borders at decolonization. The technical term for this is uti possidetis.

So If I consider them as "paganism", i.e. none, that will be fine. I'll try that and see.

Have you seen how Dawn of Civilization handles this? It treats paganism as a civic and provides bonuses to Pagan Temples (=BTS Monuments) if you run that civic. There are also classical Wonders that require paganism. That has the possibility of meeting your requirments without adding a new religion.

I am looking at allocating starting technologies based not only on the fact that they actually know the stuff, but really have the ability to actually make the buildings....While this may impact on 'balance', it does reflect a more accurate view of the world.

You could also adjust the costs. For example, make factories vastly expensive and then have advanced units/building require factories. That would effectively divide the world into developed and less developed areas.

Not exactly where the discussion is at, but I always found this map pretty neat and shows how much we screwed up with African Borders:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/map_it...le=gmd&legend=

While I agree with your general point, the map of South Africa looks seriously flawed to me. While the Afrikaaners tried long and hard to remove themselves from "the list of nations that behave in a civilized manner", surely they and the Cape Coloureds are among the "tribes, peoples, & nations of modern Africa"? This map suggests most of the Cape area is majority Cape Coloured.

Also, Hutus and Tutsis are shown as one ethnic group, which is controversial.

 

[NedimNapoleon]

Thanks! I was just looking for such a documentary to watch.

 

[Tee Kay]

preposterous. Substituting aboriginal terms with established Christian names isn't substantially changing their practices to being Christian. It would be like calling Islam "Arabic Judaism".

Not a scholarly expert on Buddhism, but I'm also pretty sure most informed Buddhists would vigorously object to classifying Shintoism as being a subset of their own confession.

It's good enough for game purposes.

On the other hand, Nigeria did split into separate states later on, and look what happened.

As did Congo-Leopoldville. I believe the logic goes something like "why should I be content with half or a quarter of the country, when I can control the whole?".

I am looking at allocating starting technologies based not only on the fact that they actually know the stuff, but really have the ability to actually make the buildings.

e.g. Many African nations may know about factories and industrialisation, but do not actually have the ability to create them, because their infrastructure, schooling, finances, etc. are very poor.

I am considering giving some African cities factories where some level of industry has been attempted with outside financing, but these will be few and far between. I may also use this allocation 'philosophy' on other technologies, like the ability to build universities, etc.

So in fact, many industrial-age technologies (and maybe even some renaissance-era) may end up being removed from some nations, let alone modern-age technologies.

While this may impact on 'balance', it does reflect a more accurate view of the world.

Good idea in theory, the implementation I disagree with. Rather than totally remove the ability to create buildings or units, consider making them too expensive/time consuming to build without outside help or improvements in tech or production.