Including Israel as a civilization in future Civ's

[sherbz]

Now before anyone tells me, I am already well aware that Israeli civs have been modded on to civ 4. However, im kind of posting this thread as a result of what i read in the paper recently (i live in London, England). It concerned a picture of Israel, which had been paid for by the Israeli tourist board, and included a picture of Israel (the map version). It did not, however, include a demarcated line for the Gaza strip or the west bank. This upset many Palestinian groups and even prompted the Syrian embassy to lodge a formal complaint with the Israeli embassy in London (because the Golan heights were not displayed either, effectively suggesting that Israel had forever annexed the territory).

This got me wondering about a possible future civ that included Israel: and whether Firaxis would have the balls to do it. I think it would be difficult to do so without upsetting many many people in the middle east: A fairly substantial proportion of whom dont actually recognise Israel as a legitimate country, let alone civilization (in reality, im not talking about the game now) .

Considering the lengths that Firaxis went with the whole religion thing so as not to upset anyone, it would seem contraversial to include an Israeli civ. A bit like having Hitler as one of the German leaders. The last thing Firaxis would want to do is to upset huge demographics of people. Who lets be honest, to Firaxis are all potential customers.

Think im being over the top in any of this? I dont think I am. I remember a recent film about the spartans vs persians in the battle of thermopalye (it was called 300) and it was seized upon by Ahmedinejad as further examples of western arrogance\racism etc. Now Thermopalye was more than a thousand years ago, and Israel's existance is far more controversial and modern. Its certainly not inconcievable that someone like Ahmedinejad would seize upon such a thing.

So what do you all think? Personally i dont really care one way or the other. i suppose they could diffuse the situation by including a palestinian civ. But I can definately see that including Israel in the game might seem to some like a political message or decleration: meaning that Firaxis might choose to stay well away from including Israel in any future civ.

 

[Protozoan]

well let's see.

Going with Controversy, should they also include Hitler?

I agree completely with Israel, but Hitler as well? That would be steeped in so much controversy.

 

[EvanMeisterX]

I think Israel should be in there. Along with a few other countries in the Middle East that are making their mark. Iran, for example. Oh, and as for Hitler, though he was a horrible, disgusting monster that deserved to be killed, he did help bring Germany out of a depression and united her people. I personally think he shouldn't be in there, as he was a genocidal maniac, but, hey, Stalin is in there and he killed millions of Russians. But in WWII, he beat Germany, and History is written by the victor. Anyways, yes, I think Israel should be a civ. That's be cool. Sorry for getting carried away with that. lol.

 

[Badtz Maru]

Israel was pretty small even at the peak of it's power, and the historical accuracy of the Biblical claims about it's history has become very questionable in scholarly circles as archaeological evidence that contradicts the semi-mythical stories grows. I can't think of another civilization currently in the game that was that small, even the more obscure smaller ones were much bigger and more influential than Israel.

 

[sherbz]

well let's see.

Going with Controversy, should they also include Hitler?

I agree completely with Israel, but Hitler as well? That would be steeped in so much controversy.

Im not saying they should include Hitler. But they have already included Stalin. And Hitler arguably killed fewer people than he did. So perhaps it would not be so controversial. All of this assumes that the actions taken by the game developers are made into a political point by someone. Its like in my example: The portrayal of Israel by their tourist board did not become a political point until it was made so by the Syrian embassy. The same could be said in including Israel in Civ.

 

[Badtz Maru]

I think Israel should be in there. Along with a few other countries in the Middle East that are making their mark. Iran, for example. Oh, and as for Hitler, though he was a horrible, disgusting monster that deserved to be killed, he did help bring Germany out of a depression and united her people. I personally think he shouldn't be in there, as he was a genocidal maniac, but, hey, Stalin is in there and he killed millions of Russians. But in WWII, he beat Germany, and History is written by the victor. Anyways, yes, I think Israel should be a civ. That's be cool. Sorry for getting carried away with that. lol.

Iran is in the game, as Persia. The modern Iranian state has done nothing to qualify for great civilization status.

Stalin ruled the USSR a lot longer than Hitler ruled Germany, and left his nation more powerful than it was when he came into power, while Hitler left his country divided and occupied.

 

[Protozoan]

Im not saying they should include Hitler. But they have already included Stalin. And Hitler arguably killed fewer people than he did. So perhaps it would not be so controversial. All of this assumes that the actions taken by the game developers are made into a political point by someone. Its like in my example: The portrayal of Israel by their tourist board did not become a political point until it was made so by the Syrian embassy. The same could be said in including Israel in Civ.

I actually agree with you. Israel should be. And I could seriously see a case for Hitler being in Civ V. Though if he started next to me, I'd rush him in an hour like a Jackie Chan movie.

@ Badtz Maru> What about Alexander? He left a divided and fractious empire. And Hannibal? Carthage was sacked after him. Napoleon left France pretty nearly bankrupt. Let's not forget Boudica; the Celtic resistance was effectively wiped out completely, and her army was decimated against the Romans.

Hitler in terms of what he made Germany was probably a lot more important than someone like...Boudica or even leaders of 'lesser' nations like Zara Yaqob, or Suryavarnam.

 

[EvanMeisterX]

Oh, right, I forgot Persia was Iran. And truly, Hitler didn't leave his country divided and occupied. The Allies divided and occupied it, after Hitler committed suicide. Good thing they did, too. Anyway, I did say he shouldn't be in, anyway. He was a genocidal monster, but for a while, at the beginning of WWII, he did pretty well as a ruler. That doesn't make up for his downfalls, though.

P.S. @Protozoan: Lol about Jackie Chan.

 

[sherbz]

Iran is in the game, as Persia. The modern Iranian state has done nothing to qualify for great civilization status.

Stalin ruled the USSR a lot longer than Hitler ruled Germany, and left his nation more powerful than it was when he came into power, while Hitler left his country divided and occupied.

Well based upon that we could say that Israel has already been covered by the French (crusading kingdom), ottomans, Romans, Persians, British and the Americans. I suppose it depends on whether you are talking about the geographical location (palestine: which has had all of the above as owners), or its inhabitants (jews: but this is only a very recent phenomenon). Furthermore, if you say that Jews are entitled to the land of palestine, then that holds Zionist connotations, which could easily be picked up by Zionist opponents. Interesting debate i think.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

well let's see.

Going with Controversy, should they also include Hitler?

I agree completely with Israel, but Hitler as well? That would be steeped in so much controversy.

I wouldn't cry over the inclusion of either, but I'd only LIKE to see Israel.

Coming into power, suppressing one's populace, declaring war, getting spanked, and getting your country split up in a big dogpile is not the stuff of great leadership, regardless of whether the person was the best leader ever or an atrocious psycho that even his generals hate. Putting hitler in the game is like putting in Nero or Dan Q (not my polycast co-host, the one you get for having a ZERO score, which is what hitler would have had at the end of world war II...if he'd lived).

 

[LegioCorvus]

Just so everyone knows why...

Hitler isn't in the game because of German law.

That's the reason. They've got very strident laws about allowing Nazi symbolism around, and are also quite strict about violence in games. Understandable after your civilization has a brush in with mass genocide and world conquest. Allowing someone to play as Hitler and take over the world in a civilization simulation? Yeah, that's very very illegal.

The media storm that would surround that one would be epic.

But in WWII, he beat Germany, and History is written by the victor.

Yet both Boudica & Hannibal are in the game. Both famous leaders of civilizations that quickly grew to power only to get squashed even quicker.

-

 

[sherbz]

I actually agree with you. Israel should be. And I could seriously see a case for Hitler being in Civ V. Though if he started next to me, I'd rush him in an hour like a Jackie Chan movie.

But would the game developers do such a thing? The problem is if they offend the sensibilities of loads of Germans, they might not end up buying the game in Germany, which would not be a smart move. Similarly with Israel, if they included it as a civ, this might upset many other people. So would you do it? If it was my call I dont think i would.

 

[sherbz]

Just so everyone knows why...

Hitler isn't in the game because of German law.

That's the reason. They've got very strident laws about allowing Nazi symbolism around, and are also quite strict about violence in games. Understandable after your civilization has a brush in with mass genocide and world conquest. Allowing someone to play as Hitler and take over the world in a civilization simulation? Yeah, that's very very illegal.

The media storm that would surround that one would be epic.



Yet both Boudica & Hannibal are in the game. Both famous leaders of civilizations that quickly grew to power only to get squashed even quicker.

But Hitler was in Civ II and that was never banned? Isnt he in Civ IV too, only under one of the add ons like world at war or soemthing.

there are restrictions on the swastika and Mein Kampf in Germany. But to my knowledge there isnt anything similar for a cpu game like civ.

 

[ori]

Just so everyone knows why...

Hitler isn't in the game because of German law.

This is a common misperception of German law - adding certain emblems of the nazi regime and/or denying or glorifying the atrocities committed by the regime could arguably make the game fall under regulations that could make it unsellable for all intents and purposes - just adding Hitler as a playable leader would not even remotely go there. It would just cause a public relations nightmare - but not cross any legal lines.

Moderator Action: moved to Civ Ideas

Edit: x-post with sherbz: Mein Kampf is not banned in Germany - the copyright holders (the State of Bavaria) just do not allow new publication of it - the copyright will expire on April 30th 2015 after which there will be no impediment for renewed publication of that book in Germany. The Swastika is banned for non-educational use (though there is an art exception as well - games have a hard time meeting either of those).

 

[LegioCorvus]

Coming into power, suppressing one's populace, declaring war, getting spanked, and getting your country split up in a big dogpile is not the stuff of great leadership, regardless of whether the person was the best leader ever or an atrocious psycho that even his generals hate. Putting hitler in the game is like putting in Nero or Dan Q (not my polycast co-host, the one you get for having a ZERO score, which is what hitler would have had at the end of world war II...if he'd lived).

Again, Boudica & Hannibal.

Hannibal got his entire civilization raised from the very Earth, and then salted.

Hitler was more effective than both of these leaders, and can be said to be of equivalent rank of Stalin. It really does have to do with a) not making the game illegal in Germany, and b) not dealing with the massive media storm from Germany's protest of the game.

 

[EvanMeisterX]

I would not like if Hitler was added, and I'm just making a point. He did do a lot for the world, through an awful way. He brought the US and the Soviet Union forth as two superpowers. His starting of WWII also helped bring the US out of the Great Depression. Anyways, I would like if Israel was in. Another Civ I think might be controversial, but I think they should add is Vatican City / Papal States. The Pope had a lot of influence a long time ago, so I think it should be in. This might cause a bit of controversy with non-christians, though.

 

[LegioCorvus]

This is a common misperception of German law - adding certain emblems of the nazi regime and/or denying or glorifying the atrocities committed by the regime could arguably make the game fall under regulations that could make it unsellable for all intents and purposes - just adding Hitler as a playable leader would not even remotely go there. It would just cause a public relations nightmare - but not cross any legal lines.

Moderator Action: moved to Civ Ideas

Nur weil ich neugierig bin... bist du Deutsch? Ich habe nicht da seit lang gewohnen, und errinere nicht alle die Regeln genau.

At any rate, I certainly don't think the game would be allowed to sell in stores.

 

[ori]

Nur weil ich neugierig bin... bist du Deutsch? Ich habe nicht da seit lang gewohnen, und errinere nicht alle die Regeln genau.

At any rate, I certainly don't think the game would be allowed to sell in stores.

Moderator Action: please post in English or provide an English translation in non-English posts

Yes I am a German temporarily working in the US

There is a distinction between being legally allowed and between merchants touching the product

 

[LegioCorvus]

I would also not like if Hitler was added, and I'm just making a point. And I would also like if Israel was in. Another Civ I think might be controversial, but I think they should add is Vatican City / Papal States. The Pope had a lot of influence a long time ago, so I think it should be in. This might cause a bit of controversy with non-christians, though.

The Apostolic Palace is in the game, though.

Not to mention the papal state system would work just like vassals under a theocracy in the game system.

 

[EvanMeisterX]

Well then what about Vatican City as a civ? As I said, the Pope was a very important figure around Medieval times and for some time later. He influenced the world with the Holy Roman Empire and stuff.