Italy
- Thread starter ZachScape
- Start date
would be very much appreciated.Charles Martel, I have much enjoyed the debate so far and I think that at the end of the day you are essentially right. But it's probably a waste of time to reply to the angry posters. Some posters can get quite vocal but aren't that much interested in history, let alone historiography! If I were you I'd ignore the angry posters. After all, this is only a gaming forum and you cannot expect to engage in a detailed historical discussion with any civfanatic who doesn't agree with you.
Pottery, I hope what you said was a joke. Not about him being right, but the angry poster stuff. Nobody who is arguing with him is angry. Just the people trying to get him to shut up on this topic unless he is discussing the mod.
usi
Shogun
Actually, the debate did become informative, and I kinda appreciate both sides.
But at least I don't like some comments like "STFU." That's not a very...
But at least I don't like some comments like "STFU." That's not a very...
I know. I realised I would have offended people. But I was like that little guy in the corner that when he does talk, gets ignored. So I said something explosively so people would pay attention. I mean, I have been trying to calm people down the entire thread, which got really big. 200 out of 205 posts so far have been about history, which wasn't needed on the thread.
I didn't mind reading the history, especially seeing two points of view, but I'd rather see it somewhere else.
Now when I tried to hush them down last page, Ondedreamer and Rhye said they would stop, but Charles kept on going. It was a slap on the face, really. And although typing "stfu" was a little much, it was needed. I'm sorry to offend you. Know that I neither think little of you, Charles, nor do I dislike you, but you (along with others) became a pain on this thread... (a) very knowledgeable pain(s).
I'm just frustrated, and I'm sure people understand. Out of 500+ posts, this was the first time I have done this (lose my temper in text. I usually just yell at the computer like this kid).
I didn't mind reading the history, especially seeing two points of view, but I'd rather see it somewhere else.
Now when I tried to hush them down last page, Ondedreamer and Rhye said they would stop, but Charles kept on going. It was a slap on the face, really. And although typing "stfu" was a little much, it was needed. I'm sorry to offend you. Know that I neither think little of you, Charles, nor do I dislike you, but you (along with others) became a pain on this thread... (a) very knowledgeable pain(s).
I'm just frustrated, and I'm sure people understand. Out of 500+ posts, this was the first time I have done this (lose my temper in text. I usually just yell at the computer like this kid).
fireclaw722
Imperial Guard
Come on, after 11 pages of arguing I'd think that this "debate" would get old by now.
blizzrd
Micromanager
I must say that I am impressed with this thread, even if it is now heading back on topic.
In 11 pages of circular argument, there were nine mentions for Korea but no mentions of Ukraine? What is going on people?
In 11 pages of circular argument, there were nine mentions for Korea but no mentions of Ukraine? What is going on people?
I cant believe how rude some of you are being to Charles Martel, the STFU comment was well out of order.
Also I cant see how Charles has gone off target the original point of this thread is are italy deserving of their own civilization in the 600AD start and I think charles has quite comprehensively shown that italy and rome are the same civ.
The reason that he has not agreed to end the argument is that he has repeatably backed up his opinions with sources in organised and coherent manner where as some other posters only come back is ok lets call an end to this.
Right if you want to get back to what to do to the game I would suggest that if any official changes are to be made then we really need to keep in mind the 3000BC start rather then the 600AD start which I see as more of a scenario. If the changes are going to unofficial ie a ModMod why doesnt the person who suggested it just get on with it ?
Hence I would suggest the dynamic naming system some how needs to keep in mind the number of respawns. Ie first spawn of italian CIV known as Romans second or more spawns known as Italy.
This would also be of great advantage to several other CIVs ie Perisa first spawn Persian, Second Parthians, Third Sassinids etc etc etc to Iranians. Babylonia to Iraq.
Or some how the dyanmic naming system links the spawn date to the calendar date to choice how to name the CIV.
As mentioned in another thread a larger number of leaderheads would also be of use.
The only Civ this leaves this are Aztecs, Incas and Maya. Personally Im not sure what this respawned CIVs are meant to represent. Are they meant to represent the Indepedance of Colonies ie Mexico, Peru, Guatamela/Belieze or something else.
These Civ are radically different from thier parent CIV and although there is some cultural continuarity. For instance unlike the italians who dont speak german and arent arians these CIV's have taken on the conquerors languages and religion ie spanish and christainity (catholism).
Possibly these CIV's could do with new UU/UB/UP.
Also I cant see how Charles has gone off target the original point of this thread is are italy deserving of their own civilization in the 600AD start and I think charles has quite comprehensively shown that italy and rome are the same civ.
The reason that he has not agreed to end the argument is that he has repeatably backed up his opinions with sources in organised and coherent manner where as some other posters only come back is ok lets call an end to this.
Right if you want to get back to what to do to the game I would suggest that if any official changes are to be made then we really need to keep in mind the 3000BC start rather then the 600AD start which I see as more of a scenario. If the changes are going to unofficial ie a ModMod why doesnt the person who suggested it just get on with it ?
Hence I would suggest the dynamic naming system some how needs to keep in mind the number of respawns. Ie first spawn of italian CIV known as Romans second or more spawns known as Italy.
This would also be of great advantage to several other CIVs ie Perisa first spawn Persian, Second Parthians, Third Sassinids etc etc etc to Iranians. Babylonia to Iraq.
Or some how the dyanmic naming system links the spawn date to the calendar date to choice how to name the CIV.
As mentioned in another thread a larger number of leaderheads would also be of use.
The only Civ this leaves this are Aztecs, Incas and Maya. Personally Im not sure what this respawned CIVs are meant to represent. Are they meant to represent the Indepedance of Colonies ie Mexico, Peru, Guatamela/Belieze or something else.
These Civ are radically different from thier parent CIV and although there is some cultural continuarity. For instance unlike the italians who dont speak german and arent arians these CIV's have taken on the conquerors languages and religion ie spanish and christainity (catholism).
Possibly these CIV's could do with new UU/UB/UP.
I only want to say this: I am italian and I do NOT share Rhyes opinion on this argument. I respect a lot Rhye for his great mod but I think that his opinion on Italy's history after the barbaric invasions is a bit simplistic. Rhye you are a great modder but please do not pretend to speak in the name of all italians. 
I hope I will not offend anyone... this is only my humble opinion.
I hope I will not offend anyone... this is only my humble opinion.
Bonci
King
here is where you are wrong
this thread is about creating a modmod that adds Italy for the 600AD start...Zach never asked if Italy deserves it or not...
Some of you? It was just me. Everyone was debating with him properly, probably mumbling to themselves at the computer about how EACH person thought the other was a "wall". I didn't say shut up to his points, but to the debating all together. And I only said it to him because he is the only one who didn't wrap his argument up. He wouldn't stop. He just kept going "like the itty-bitty energizer bunny from hell."* He deserved what I typed, possibly even more than.
This is where you are both wrong. This thread was about MAKING a mod for Italy, not DECIDING if Italy deserved their own civ. Whether or not he is right or wrong on if Rome=Italy doesn’t matter to me (well it does, but I am not going to take sides on THIS thread).
For about 2 years, I would almost always play the 3000 BC start. I even went as far as deleting the 600 AD start from the folder to save room. But recently, 600 AD was all that I’ve been playing (I guess just a change of interest). So I suggested a playable version of Rome in the 600 AD start. There is enough diversity without one, and there is absolutely no reason to not replace Rome with Italy if you want a definite spawn (for 600 AD). It is just coding, not rewriting a whole $%&#ing text book; like what you (not just you and Charles, but a lot of people) made it out to be. Italy spawned in 1870 when it Unified. I don’t remember Rome unifying, do you? And we can pretend it is Rome, but the difference is replacing the four letters of R-O-M-E with I-T-A-L-Y. I don’t understand how that is so hard to understand. If you want more of an explanation of this, I will type one (but I warn you, I am very frustrated right now and I will jam it down your throat).
Do you have any idea how easy this is? Now what you are probably thinking is to add it to the 3000BC start (which is a completely separate mod from 600 AD. 600 AD got rid of Celts and put the Byzantines in if that is enough evidence for you). Why can’t we just give Rome a makeover? And don’t get started with Greece or Babylon or Persia or Egypt, because I really don’t care (in this thread at least)! We are not rewriting history, just a wee-bit of the code! Why are you giving such a fight with this?!??
Now, I just want to discuss the mod!
And thanks Bonci.
And by now, I think I have a right to be frustrated! If you think I am normally like this, read all of my other 560 posts. Don't think I am an [insert bad word] just because I'm getting fed up with a couple people on this particular thread.
*gotta love the Tuturro quote
fireclaw722
Imperial Guard
Here's a few ideas.
Spoiler :
blizzrd
Micromanager
AnotherPacifist
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2007
- Messages
- 4,878
I can say the same for myself and onedreamer. Hopefully both of us have matured enough. 
Well, all ZachScape earned from me was the first entry on my ignore list. It's completely legitimate to discuss things like this, especially when Rhye participates and general principles in the mod are discussed. The title of the thread is just Italy, plain and simple, and the discussion clearly went in another direction than the OP suggested it should - so what? That the OP somehow sets the exact limits for what you can say in a thread is childish, especially when there is clearly more interest in discussing other things.
Throwing pearls to pigs...
Throwing pearls to pigs...
blizzrd
Micromanager
Not when you're asked not to, repeatedly. Not legitimate.
There were many requests to bring the circular discussions to an end and most (including Rhye) heeded those requests and wrapped up their arguments. Some did not.
I fail to see how Rhye's involvement in an OT discussion makes any difference. At least Rhye was able to stop when enough was enough.
Start your own thread if you want to "discuss other things".
You clearly acknowledge by this concluding comment that even you agree that the discussion was not on topic, but was "other things".
bastillebaston
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 61
I totally agree with TDK. I can't believe that the flaming is still going on... where is the "report to the mods" button? At least I appreciated the discussion... up to the STFU! and I-slap-your-face! comments that ruined everything.
Let's lighten up guys! At least thanks to this thread we have gained precious insight into SIX DOGMAS OF RHYEISM
I. Romans are not Italians!
II. Holy Romans are Germans!
III Latin is like Japanese!
IV. Barbarians are like... aliens... but not quite, sort of...
V. Whatever Porcopius said is fact!
VI. None of the above is open to dispute... the heretic, he who "does not listen" shall be called "The Wall"
And before any STFU bully jumps at me too... Im just kidding to throw some water on the flames.
Let's lighten up guys! At least thanks to this thread we have gained precious insight into SIX DOGMAS OF RHYEISM
I. Romans are not Italians!
II. Holy Romans are Germans!
III Latin is like Japanese!
IV. Barbarians are like... aliens... but not quite, sort of...
V. Whatever Porcopius said is fact!
VI. None of the above is open to dispute... the heretic, he who "does not listen" shall be called "The Wall"
And before any STFU bully jumps at me too... Im just kidding to throw some water on the flames.
