Discussion in 'World History' started by Plotinus, Apr 13, 2012.
I sincerely disagree.
perhaps you should make a habit of explaining why you disagree in the same post which you proclaim disagreement.
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?
What do you think?
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.
Why are you picking on religions in particular for game elements that are subjected to game mechanic / balance considerations first and historical accuracy second?
Because it was brought up.
Oh, okay. It sounded like you had a particular beef with that aspect of the game.
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).
I'm a little surprised you bring up Biafra without also bringing up Katanga, but sure.
This was kind of my point.
Liu Kang versus Liu Kang! Fight!
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:
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.
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.
I certainly didn't draw those borders.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks! I was just looking for such a documentary to watch.
It's good enough for game purposes.
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?".
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.
Separate names with a comma.