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

[Jamesds]

Same with Hitler: there might be reasonable historic grounds for including him, but it just wouldn't be worth it...

Yeah, personally I wouldn't want Hitler in Civ.

 

[Vox Mentis]

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.

China is executing political prisoners to harvest their organs today as well, Russia has a number of human rights abuses such as the assassination of media and others, various Arab countries have a variety of human rights problems such as a lack of freedom of religion and general abuse towards women, etc..

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?

Perhaps there would be some manufactured outrage (I sincerely doubt it), but that's clearly not the intent of the game. You can do any number of bad things in the game already, but nobody is singled out, and there's no graphic depiction of these things beyond clicking the raze city button and getting a heap of rubble. The rest you'd have to insert with your own imagination.

Or the same, either way round, between them and the Arabs?

Or the same way round between them and the Arabs for that matter.

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...

I think you're seriously overestimating how much the media would care about a turn based strategy game. Civ isn't on the radar screen of the kind of people who would try to raise an outcry, and the Jack Thompsons of the world have tried and failed to pass laws against much more objectionable games such as GTA. I'm certain that if an Israeli civ were put into the game, it would be done in a way that would be inoffensive to all.

 

[EviltheMonkey]

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

Frankly, I think the media is more interested in the real quasi-religious war happening out there, RL

Erm, also... Hello Forum! First Post! w00t! and other related exclamations of n00bish delight

 

[Vox Mentis]

Frankly, I think the media is more interested in the real quasi-religious war happening out there, RL

When the media gets interested in a game, it's something along the lines of GTA. Civ isn't graphic enough for them to notice, and adding Israel wouldn't change that.

 

[Jamesds]

When the media gets interested in a game, it's something along the lines of GTA. Civ isn't graphic enough for them to notice, and adding Israel wouldn't change that.

Yes, there are so many more violent/contreversial games out there, and I see no reason why Israel would cause controversy - even the addition of the modern state, acutally.

Welcome to the forums, EviltheMonkey!. I remember my first time here, more than 5 years ago now. I think I was 12 at the time.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

After a time, they chose a king... Saul, who is a particularly average bloke. Doesn't do anything remarkable, replaced by David.

I agree with most of your post, but not this. It was under Saul that Israel first gained the respect of foreign nations, and won a war against Syria, one of the strongest nations of the region. Of course, when the defeated king (to whom God, through Samuel, had told Saul to offered to show no mercy, iirc) offered to become Sauls vassal, Saul sent him away in peace without any such feudal agreement, allowing one of their strongest enemy to regain his strength and become a threat again. Of course, sacrificing to God as if he were a Priest or Prophet was the sin for which he lost his kingdom.

Also, he was not average. He was chosen largely because he was the tallest man of all the tribes of Israel "standing head and shoulders above everyone else." He was probably at least 6' 6", the closest thing Israel had to match Goliath.

Saul was probably a better ruler than most of those who came after Solomon, but was clearly not in the same league as his immediate successors.

 

[vilemerchant]

UB should be the Defense Ministry which collects 3,000,000,000 gold per turn from the American civ.

 

[Margim]

I agree with most of your post, but not this. It was under Saul that Israel first gained the respect of foreign nations, and won a war against Syria, one of the strongest nations of the region. Of course, when the defeated king (to whom God, through Samuel, had told Saul to offered to show no mercy, iirc) offered to become Sauls vassal, Saul sent him away in peace without any such feudal agreement, allowing one of their strongest enemy to regain his strength and become a threat again. Of course, sacrificing to God as if he were a Priest or Prophet was the sin for which he lost his kingdom.

Also, he was not average. He was chosen largely because he was the tallest man of all the tribes of Israel "standing head and shoulders above everyone else." He was probably at least 6' 6", the closest thing Israel had to match Goliath.

Saul was probably a better ruler than most of those who came after Solomon, but was clearly not in the same league as his immediate successors.

I was admittedly getting a little flippant by the end of my post.

I will maintain though that Saul was average for a king - meaning in character, not in appearance.

While I think the records of him in Samuel were skewed against him as propoganda for the Davidic line --and so make him look significantly worse than he was-- he was not that remarkable. He didn't even want to be king, and went to hide when first chosen. It was the Israelites that wanted to be united, not Saul who united the Israelites. He was given the job because no one else wanted it at first, then became jealously obsessive of his power late in life. When Israel was being mocked, he couldn't motivate his armies to take on the Philistines, and was eventually displaced by a shepherd. Depending on how you interpret the varying accounts, he either suicided or was killed by a lowly footsoldier... not the marks of a great warrior.

But I think we essentially agree on the order of suitable leaders anyway.
--

Just to chip in on the modern Israel argument... lets not be ridiculous. Its an entirely seperate entity, with no empire and no particular cultural influence on the world. Its most remarkable aspect is simply that it exists. If modern Israel were to be included, why not Madagascar, New Zealand, Australia or the United Arab Emirates?

 

[danieldaniel]

Why ancient Israel when Phoenicians and Hitites are not in the game?

Israel wasn't a middle east power in ancient times, but they are a regional power nowdays, so IMO it makes more sense to give them a modern leader and UU.

 

[LightSpectra]

Why ancient Israel when Phoenicians and Hitites are not in the game?

Because people recognize Israel more than the Phoenicians and the Hittites. This isn't a revisualization of history, it's a video game. There are much better leaders for Korea than Wang Kon, for example, but most people want to play as Wang Kon.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Because people recognize Israel more than the Phoenicians and the Hittites. This isn't a revisualization of history, it's a video game. There are much better leaders for Korea than Wang Kon, for example, but most people want to play as Wang Kon.

There are also much better candidates for Civs than Korea, but because of the amount of computer game players in Korea, Korea are in, to be only very slightly cynical.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

It's UU would be a Navy SEAL...

 

[cybrxkhan]

on the modern Israel thing -
similar (interestingly) to the Hiter thing, it doesn't realy matter if the proposed addition is in truth legitimate, if people are making a big fuss about it, Firaxis does have to do some lengthy considerations about putting it in.

 

[Margim]

REmembered these guys earlier today, just as a different thought to represent a Jewish civ that wouldn't clutter the middle east. http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-history.html

 

[ChunkyLover53]

Perhaps the unique building could be an upgraded intelligence building. Shin Bet: more difficult to perform espionage missions.

 

[Dennis_Moore]

First of all: /Insert rant about how our society and culture is suffocated by political-correctness crap /


and now for someting constructive: If the reason not to include Israel is to avoid offending the Moslems I have a suggestion for a compromise. As I have said earlier, the Islamic name for Solomon is Suleyman. So why not name one of the Israeli leaders according to the Quran (ie Suleyman) and one according to the Old Testament (ie Saul or David).

 

[Jamesds]

Seriously, if they get offended at such a name, why must we alter it just to suit them? If a muslim is offended by the inclusion of an Israeli civ, well I'm sorry but that is really their problem. I'm sure some are offended by stalin etc being in the game, but it is only a game. If it offends you, you don't have to play it or even buy it.

I'm not trying to be nasty to muslims, but I think we can come to a better conclusion. What is it that offends them anyway? How would making one leader name Islamic please them? I think there is, as Dennis got angry about, too much political correctness ruining our societies.

 

[Uberfrog]

First of all: /Insert rant about how our society and culture is suffocated by political-correctness crap /


and now for someting constructive: If the reason not to include Israel is to avoid offending the Moslems I have a suggestion for a compromise. As I have said earlier, the Islamic name for Solomon is Suleyman. So why not name one of the Israeli leaders according to the Quran (ie Suleyman) and one according to the Old Testament (ie Saul or David).

As Suleiman is already a leader in BTS, that would be impractical.

And surely Muslims cannot object to the inclusion of the ancient state of Israel, which of course Solomon and David belong to? I can see why the new state of Israel could offend, but not the ancient one, which I feel would be more fun to play as.

 

[vilemerchant]

Seriously, if they get offended at such a name, why must we alter it just to suit them?

So they don't put a jihad on you?

 

[InFlux5]

The UU would have to be the Merkava - the hands-down most badass tank in the world.

+50% vs. defenseless refugees?