If Israel were a civ, what would be its specifics?

[Pangur Bán]

Modern Israel has got little connection with the ancient Hebrews. I support the inclusion of ancient Hebrews though.

Anyways, ideas for modern Israel:

Leader: Ariel Sharon: Aggressive & Financial
UU: Zionist Lobbyist: A unit which goes to the strongest civ and gets an alliance, free units and lots of gold per turn
UB: Settlement: Can build in adjacent cities belonging to other civs; increases Israeli culture until city swings

We could add special abilities, such as being able to ignore UN resolutions and being able to respawn after conquered; in games featuring the Arabs, should be able to respawn with some of their cities.

 

[Vrenir]

If we want to continue to harp on modern Israel, we need to also mention something about the only benefits of state religion being public relations (an excuse for doing whatever you want) and absolutely nothing to do with a religious lifestyle or set of values. Wait, that's almost how religion works in Civ already; modern Israel would be perfect.

Disclaimer: I have no problem with Israel as an idea or with Israelis in general. I do have a problem with using a Scriptural covenant as the basis of your nation's claims while you fail to abide by your part of that covenant in any way, shape, or form, and in fact blatantly disregard its stipulations on how to respectfully treat foriegners within your lands.

I'm guessing that this thread is going to get shut down before long for being both completely off topic for the BtS forum (nothing about the expansion, the Holy Roman Empire, or Poland) and for being political, ideological, and even ocassionally anti-semitic.

 

[Rusty Edge]

You mean the post where the Great People are performing various miracles? I'm pretty sure that one was mostly facetious.



The thing is, the actual patriarchs of various religions aren't in the game. You'll note that Jesus isn't in as a Great Prophet. Abraham is solely a figure of religious significance: I wouldn't say he did any actual empire-leading.

More or less facetious. Usually I favor realism over game play. This is a subject I've contemplated from time to time since CivIII. How to represent it in Civ terms. As a tiny civ with no strategic resources and Bronze Age technology in the Iron Age? It wouldn't survive.
The official history of ancient Israel tells of God selecting instruments to work miracles from time to time. So I settled on Great Leaders as the basis for the UU, before religion and priests were even in the game. This thread asked the question, and I decided to express my thoughts on UU and UB in terms of Warlords.

The results remind me of the Omens scenario. Interesting and fun for part of a game, to be played once or twice. If God is against you , you can't win. If God is on your side , you can't take any credit. It's a no win game and no fun.

It's hard to model. How do you walk the line between viable and overpowered ? Maybe a more realistic UU is a priest .Maybe he is cheaper to produce. Perhaps he can spread the religion to more than one city? Perhaps he brings in extra commerce or beakers somehow? Or allows extra specialists? I don't know which.

I always figured David would be the leader. I just threw Abraham out there because he hadn't been mentioned . While he was a Great Leader having also lsuccesfully led 318 men against an army to recover his nephew, Lot, he was a leader of nomads, not a Civ, so you're right- he doesn't belong.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

The leader should be Davis or Solomon (I prefer Solomon, but only slightly), certainly not Abraham. Israel did not exist yet for him to lead it. Israel cannot be said to exist until the birth of Jacob (aka, Israel), and wasn't really a nation or civ until leaving Egypt. The Idea of calling them Hebrews instead is rather silly; that is just a linguistic distinction.

 

[Jamesds]

Yes, Solomon's reign did split the nation (After he died though) But it was more because his son wanted to make the people work even harder.
If he had of not done that and made it easier they would have stayed.

Plus he acquired more $$ than anyone else ever will..

Someone mentioned having great people do different stuff.
That makes it seem like it is the person doing the great stuff, not God as the Bible credits it (whether you believe it or not.) You think Moses who was scared even to talk to Pharaoh, his step-dad actually split a sea in half himself? Or Gideon scared those guys all by himself (Using God's plan anyways.)
And the Ark itself was not powerful, look what happened when they thought that themselves? They took it to battle trusting in it not God, and they got slaughtered, and the ark taken. (Though even then God used it).

I would say give them a UU that can remove religions from cities and a UB that if the only religion in the city is Judaism, the units get a +200 defensive (God) bonus. I know it is a little farfetched, and would not work, but cool to think about.

Yes, I totally agree with what you are saying. And you are right about Solomon, it was his son Reheboam that caused Israel to be split when he tried to make them work more, for less.

As for the Great People post, I thought it was quite funny to read about a "Civ-interpretation" of what they did, but I also believe that it was God working through them. However, as you said, the game has to be balanced, so I guess the UU that is chosen would have to be only as powerful as it would be without God's help (because with God's help it would be toooo powerful!).

 

[Jamesds]

More or less facetious. Usually I favor realism over game play. This is a subject I've contemplated from time to time since CivIII. How to represent it in Civ terms. As a tiny civ with no strategic resources and Bronze Age technology in the Iron Age? It wouldn't survive.
The official history of ancient Israel tells of God selecting instruments to work miracles from time to time. So I settled on Great Leaders as the basis for the UU, before religion and priests were even in the game. This thread asked the question, and I decided to express my thoughts on UU and UB in terms of Warlords.

Yes, it is hard to get the balance right. By giving units the power that they are given from God as it was in ancient Israel, they would be so overpowering in the game. Yet to not credit God for their success and successive victories would be forgetting half the story.

The results remind me of the Omens scenario. Interesting and fun for part of a game, to be played once or twice. If God is against you , you can't win. If God is on your side , you can't take any credit. It's a no win game and no fun.

I think you are looking at this in a pessimistic way (like "the glass is half empty"). If God is against you, you cannot win - but if God is on your side, you have the victory, and you place the credit in God for giving you the victory! I don't see how God giving you the victory is no fun...the Israelites still had to trust in Him, which sometimes can be no easy thing. It was at times that they thought they weren't strong enough, and only saw themselves fighting the battle and not God, that they failed.

It's hard to model. How do you walk the line between viable and overpowered ? Maybe a more realistic UU is a priest .Maybe he is cheaper to produce. Perhaps he can spread the religion to more than one city? Perhaps he brings in extra commerce or beakers somehow? Or allows extra specialists? I don't know which.

Yes, that is possible I guess, but will probably not affect the gameplay as much as other UUs do for their civ. It really should be a military unit or settler/worker as is for the other civs.

I always figured David would be the leader. I just threw Abraham out there because he hadn't been mentioned . While he was a Great Leader having also lsuccesfully led 318 men against an army to recover his nephew, Lot, he was a leader of nomads, not a Civ, so you're right- he doesn't belong.

Yes, I agree. I knew you weren't seriously considering him a leader.

 

[Margim]

A bit of biblical chronology (just the way the bible says it, which is the only source we've got if we are including it as a civ) for you, with some thoughts re. leaders

Abraham led basically an extended household on a nomadic voyage. He didn't really settle down, but wandered between modern Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Babylon.

He had two sons of note, Ishmael (father of the Arabic Tribes) and Isaac.

Isaac had two sons, was also quite nomadic... had two sons, Jacob and Esau. Esau eventually set up camp at Edom... which eventually became the people who set up the city of Petra.

Jacob wandered for a bit, eventually took on the name Israel, set up shop somewhere in Canaan, but was still essentially a nomad.

It wasn't until one of his sons, Joseph, eventually rose to power in Egypt that the Israelites put down roots.

Several generations pass by, Israel becomes a slave people in Egypt. Moses leads them out of Israel, sets up the formal religion of the people with Aaron. They move in to Palestine/Canaan, taking what we'd call the 'East Bank' of the Jordan. Moses then dies, military leadership is passed to Joshua. Much of Canaan is taken, but not Jerusalem, and not the land of the Philistines.

Another several generations pass. The Israelites have no centralised government. They are a very loose confederation of tribes, occaisionally uniting behind warlords and priests.

After a time, they chose a king... Saul, who is a particularly average bloke. Doesn't do anything remarkable, replaced by David. David captures Jerusalem, and solidifies power over the region. He is succeeded by Solomon, who expands further with trade and diplomatic manouevering. After Solomon, Israel is split into the north (Israel, of which Omri is probably the most notable king) and south (Judea, of which Hezekiah and Josiah might be of note).

Centuries pass, the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians and Greeks all take their piece. Eventually, the Maccabees gain some measure of indepedence, but are soon politically overpowered by the Romans. The Herods are essentially Roman puppets.

This leaves you with only one really strong era - the three kings of the united Israelite kingdom - to draw from, and only two kings worth mentioning. David and Solomon are the only remote possibilities for an Israelite civ. Everyone else is an imitation

 

[LightSpectra]

David is the lovable leader that everyone admires, like Washington in America and Tokugawa in Japan.

He conquered Jerusalem, united Israel when it was about to collapse into civil war, wrote the psalms, set an example for his people and future generations with his incredible piety and reverence for God and expanded the kingdom of Israel.

His preferable traits are Spiritual/Creative, perhaps Spiritual/Charismatic.

 

[Danielos]

As Israel have one of the best intelligence agencies in the world, I think a proper UB should focus on bonus on espionage, great spy probability and intelligence.

 

[Otto von B.]

Maybe the UU should be a settler that can settle in enemy territory^^

 

[Margim]

Maybe the UU should be a settler that can settle in enemy territory^^

Or a settler with offensive capabilities...

 

[Tboy]

Serious suggestion here: since modern Israel is famed for its air force, possibly an aerial UU?

That is, if we were to represent modern Israel and not ancient Israel; I think the latter would be much easier to do and a lot less controversial (as we have seen in this thread already).

 

[Provolution]

UB: Pawnbroker (to signify Israel as center for diamonds and other goods, this would be an improved Grocer).
UU: Hagana (improved infantryman)
Traits: Finance, Creative (The creative part will emulate the settler part).

 

[NYHunter]

Since Israel isn't in BTS this thread has no place in this forum.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I think you are looking at this in a pessimistic way (like "the glass is half empty"). If God is against you, you cannot win - but if God is on your side, you have the victory, and you place the credit in God for giving you the victory! I don't see how God giving you the victory is no fun...the Israelites still had to trust in Him, which sometimes can be no easy thing. It was at times that they thought they weren't strong enough, and only saw themselves fighting the battle and not God, that they failed.

God isn't overpowered, He's infinitely powered. I was speaking from a gameplay standpoint- you can't win against an impossible handicap, and you can't take much pleasure in winning with one.
Since I often say that Civ is a game, it's meant to be fun, and while it could make a fun movie , I don't see a way too make it fun as a game.

 

[Vox Mentis]

Serious suggestion here: since modern Israel is famed for its air force, possibly an aerial UU?

That is, if we were to represent modern Israel and not ancient Israel; I think the latter would be much easier to do and a lot less controversial (as we have seen in this thread already).

I don't think Israel makes its own aircraft, so I don't think it should have an aerial UU. A Merkava tank UU could work, but that would be modern armour and I don't really care for late UUs.

[edit, for clarity: The part below is not to Tboy]

Also, the people complaining about modern Israel being included based on controversy are being hypocritical. How about Stalin or Mao for controversy? How about any of the colonial empires and their treatment of various native populations? I could make a sarcastic joke about the Chinese UB being a hospital that creates an extra trade route by selling the organs of political prisoners to sick but wealthy foreign citizens. If you only want civs with a clean conscience you're not going to have much of a game.

If you really hate Israel that much, I'm sure you could either stomp them into the ground each game, or mod them out of existence.

 

[Jamesds]

Since Israel isn't in BTS this thread has no place in this forum.

??? This thread is here, because Israel were debated as a possible Civ in BTS. Anyway, this is a civ related thread, so where else would it go? It is fine here !! I think a mod would have moved earlier otherwise...

God isn't overpowered, He's infinitely powered. I was speaking from a gameplay standpoint- you can't win against an impossible handicap, and you can't take much pleasure in winning with one.

Yes, I see what you mean. Basically, to keep it fair, the UU shouldn't be represented as being supernaturally stronger, since no other unit in the game is like this. This won't be historically accurate, but good enough for a game. And lots of stuff in Civ isn't completely accurate anyway, but edited for smooth gaming.

 

[Tigerclaw]

Masada might make a good unique buidling. A replacement for Walls or Castles... Although I'm not sure what the effect should be... Disbanding all your units in the city?

 

[Tigerclaw]

I don't think Israel makes its own aircraft, so I don't think it should have an aerial UU. A Merkava tank UU could work, but that would be modern armour and I don't really care for late UUs.

[edit, for clarity: The part below is not to Tboy]

Also, the people complaining about modern Israel being included based on controversy are being hypocritical. How about Stalin or Mao for controversy? How about any of the colonial empires and their treatment of various native populations? I could make a sarcastic joke about the Chinese UB being a hospital that creates an extra trade route by selling the organs of political prisoners to sick but wealthy foreign citizens. If you only want civs with a clean conscience you're not going to have much of a game.

If you really hate Israel that much, I'm sure you could either stomp them into the ground each game, or mod them out of existence.

There is a point to be made in that the factors which made Stalin and Mao controversial took place in the past, whilst Israel's controversy is happening in the present day, and the overall sitatuation is unresolved.

And I don't think it's a matter of "hating" (modern) Israel, I think it's more people wanting to avoid the controversy that would come through including it. Could you imagine the reaction in the media and wider public to the possibility of the Civilization Engine allowing the German civilisation to attack and exterminate the Israeli civ? Or the same, either way round, between them and the Arabs? It would overshadow the whole Civ experience, and we would constantly have to defend Civ4. The media wouldn't care that Civ allows the possibility for a Jewish Arab state to wipe out an Islamic Israel, they'd just flare up... Same with Hitler: there might be reasonable historic grounds for including him, but it just wouldn't be worth it...

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Where is the media outrage over being able to call a crusade against your religious enemies in BtS?