The remaining Civ

[Furius]

I know, it's insane.
I have to say I think it ought to be Mali simply because Africa has such poor representation.

 

[aaminion00]

Xen - you mean the byzantines are confirmed???

Wickedsmurf - I know. Don't think that cause I included the Polynesians in there I wanted them. Read my posts about that in the last few pages of Calgacus's thread about the "7 new civs vote". I completely agree. However, if I included them, you'd just see 50 people voting for "other". People here simply LOVE the Polynesians. Though I have to agree on modern Israel, I think they have made some nice contributions in the past and are one of the 5-6 civs that actually deserve a shot at being in.

Also, I ASKED (along with others) if the Dutch and Portuguese are in. The answer I got was that they were IN and that we should have more trust in this site.

 

[WickedSmurf]

Forgive my obvious ignorance in modern time history, but what are those "nice contributions"? Annihalation of the palestinians? As far as I know that's pretty much all they've done, but please, do enlighten me. Is there anything important I don't know of I am more than willing to accept their introduction in the game.

 

[aaminion00]

Please don't turn this into an off Topic debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Your desire to point out Sharon's attrocities in what is merely a talk about the actual game is very obvious. So much so that you've ignored about 10 posts dealing with Israel in the game. Here's a hint. Go back about 3 pages. I know full well about the thousands of Palestinians that were killed by Sharon, and when talk comes up about the modern day area, I am pretty much on the Palestinian side of the arguement (Notice back when I said that I didn't see how modern day Israel was such a great accomplishment). Notice the bold text for modern day. It's there because the choice I put in the poll (As I've already explained at least twice) does not referr to only the Israel of the past 50 years (I opted to use "Israelis" baceuse that is the word I thought best-described the civiilzation I was talking about). The "nice contributions" are NOT talking about modern-day Israel, although I guess I should have italicized modern to make it easier for you to understand. I am quite surprised that any idiot would assume something as stupid as that. Especially after I talked about the fact that I don't like putting in modern civs such as America already (Again, maybe you should've read back a few pages). The civilization I suggested referrs to the ancestors of most of the Israelis in modern day Israel, the ancient kingdom, and the contributions of the people in between. I hope I don't have to actually make a list of contributions those people have made, because there are quite many. If you have a significant reason why that civilization shouldn't be the remaining one, then please, by all means, contribute it, just like several others have already done in this thread. Meanwhile, if you merely wish to go on a political surge, leave it to the off-topic forum because I know I'm not the only one who doesn't want to argue the modern day Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a thread debating the other two-thousand years or so of their history that you've accidently left out.

 

[WickedSmurf]

I wasn't at all trying to highlight any conflict at all, I just pointed out that all I know Israel of today is what I typed in my previous post. I have no intrest at all in starting any kind of debate (or mudkicking, it always seem to end that way in these forums) so I agree that we can leave that out. Like I said, just said what I know of the present Israeli state.

You wrote "Though I have to agree on modern Israel, I think they have made some nice contributions in the past and". That was what I responded to. It appeared you meant that modern day Israel have made contributions, that was what you wrote.

I don't have the time nor the intrest to read through 50 ignorant and insignificant posts to find 1 good one. Live with it.

Let's keep this out of the kindergarten level of discussions. You have made your point and I have made mine.

This ends here.

 

[wildWolverine]

Warning: First part slightly off topic...

First,

thousands of Palestinians that were killed by Sharon

is a little bit excessive. The Israelis have not "annihilated" anyone. I believe that they are far to heavy-handed, but it is easy for me to say that while I can enjoy sitting in a coffee house or going to a grocery store without having to worry about being blown up.
Second,

please, do enlighten me

In the eighties, Israeli aircraft destroyed a near functional nuclear reactor in Iraq (there is no ambiguity here; no false CIA reports -- there actually WAS a reactor); the rest of the western world's hands off approach ("Let them build it...") to that situation could have drastically changed the outcome of the first Gulf War... Also, Israel abided by the United States' wishes, and did not retaliate for the Scud attacks on Israeli targets during the first Gulf War (to prevent unsettlement among the U.S.'s arabian allies). How many other countries would be willing to sit there and take missile strikes to its cities and not retaliate, "for the greater good"?

Definitely ON topic:
That aside, I still wouldn't put the Israelis in.

I chose Mali, because I've actually heard of them and I want more African civs.

I question the selection of a civ based solely on the lack of prior representation of an area(I thought the game was supposed to have the most influential civs in history...), but I do admit that the game is very top heavy w/ European civs. Therefore, for another African civ, what about the Nubians? They had a fairly large and powerful empire, especially in the earlier days of the Egyptian empire, and exist in some form down to the present.

 

[Xen]

Originally posted by Furius
I chose Mali, because I've actually heard of them and I want more African civs.
I disagree with a Polynesian civ because the Polynesians are not one civilization. However, I might be willing if it were the Maori (They being the largest Polynesian civilization).
I hate to get into and arguement with Xen (though I can beat him) but Byzantine wont get in because everything that makes it different (aside from the fashion thing which dosen't count) could be done to the Roman Civ during a game of civ III. Its fundamental statistics (Expansionist etc) are almost identical to Rome's.
Finally, a prophecy does not make Isreal the greatest civilization ever. When (If) that prophecy came to pass it would probably be included in the game (As USA has been for its superpowerdness). Of course I've heard a prophecy that claims the world will end in 2012 so that dosen't give much time for Isreal. Finally I must question a prophecy that claims a king will live for a millenium.

P.S. @ Xen, does that mean you acknowledge equivalent Gods (Jupiter=Baal) or just Roman ones?

sure sure furius- you just got lucky, and its still an open topic you havent won yet

-remember the culture of the eastern mpire was ALWAYS differnt from that of the west
-even after Rome conqoured the area, Greek was still the major language
-army compisition,uniforms, and opponents were diffent then those of the west (which lead to a re-forming of a legion type structure, after the empire was spilt in two- remember folks, constantines greatest folly was abandoning the legion system in full
-deep rooted theological differnces also seperated the two empires

when dealing with the Byzantine, and Roman empires it is best to look at it like this- a relation ship of father, and son-
The father would be the old Roman empire, the son, the Byzantine empire, while alike, they are fundementally diffent, in both appearence, mannerisms, and thoughts- and yet they are able to claim the same title,and last name- the last name in this case, is "Roman"

also,about the religion thing- its just Roman ones, remember, even if another god is held as the equvilent dose not make it the same- though I have the distinct feeling that the names simply beat around the bush about the gods, and the fact that so many nations have essentially the sam,e set of gods with a differnt name leads me to a few more theological conclusions, but thats for another thrread...

simply answerd no, Iupiter is not Zeus, and Baal is not Zeus, and Ra is not Baal, and so on, however, a tactict for peace in the ancient was to equait the deitis of one nation with those of another- which lead to some "interesting" results.... but it often lead to peaceful interactions- one of the reasons the greeks didnt like the Hebrew way of worship- they refused to equaite thire god with any other- even Zeus

we Romans on the other hand... well we generally didnt give a sh*t unless you broke the law or didnt pay your taxes (alot the like the US gov if you ask me )sure there were some crazys like Hadrian (a BAD ruler for instigating the thrird jewish rebellion, in fact they all could have been avoided)

One of the best things about old Roman theology is that you dont punish another person for there belifes no- you the gods deal with them however they see fit

(all those christians were accused and found guilty of a crime under roman law- common since christianity for its early history was considerd an under world religion, for the poor, and and the shady, the most common crime, was a serious one of disturbing the civic peace, it also didnt help that most romans didnt like them anyway)

 

[Xen]

The Byzantines arnt confirmed- yet

 

[aaminion00]

1. I don't know much about the Nubians except that they're almost always tied in with the Egyptians. Anyone have some good information on them?

2. I still stand by what I said about Sharon, and I've got good solid reasons. But no need to get into them here.

3. Didn't know about the reactor, that's interesting

 

[Lord Beverage]

I would love to lead the Poles to a few conquest victories for the irony alone.

 

[wildWolverine]

<-- enjoys debating w/ civilized, reasonable people like aaminion00

Personally, I do not have a vast amount of knowledge about the Nubians either -- just small pieces of info from a text I read several years ago. I just think tha tif you're going to get another African civ, spread it out -- get one from the south (Nubia)

 

[puglover]

I want either the Israelis or the Sioux.

 

[Xen]

I guess I'm not civilised then

any way this site has a LOT of good info about the Egyptians and the neighboring states-(the link goes to an article I was reading about chariots I think)

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/chariots.htm

 

[mrtn]

Originally posted by wildWolverine
[B...Personally, I do not have a vast amount of knowledge about the Nubians either -- just small pieces of info from a text I read several years ago. I just think tha tif you're going to get another African civ, spread it out -- get one from the south (Nubia) [/B]

I've always had the impression that Nubia was quite close to Egypt, in Sudan or somewhere like that. So in civ terms it's still quite close to Egypt. Mali/Ghana/Songhai however is in Western Africa, which is empty (if you haven't Carthage going south, which is very unhistorical).

 

[SoCalian]

Well with Frixis' craptastic picks for new civs, I wouldn't be suprised to see the Byzantines in.

 

[Xen]

The Byzantines are among the BEST choices for the next european civ

 

[Xen]

The Byzantines are among the BEST choices for the next european civ

 

[wildWolverine]

@Xen: I wasn't referring to you...

 

[Xen]

I was joking

if you had been I figure you wouldnt have debated with me in the first place - despite the fact that I tend to be a bit of an ass in debate....

 

[SoCalian]

Originally posted by Xen
The Byzantines are among the BEST choices for the next european civ

But there shouldn't be any more Eruo civs