What after the New Frontier Pass - the end or more

[nzcamel]

Nepal could fill the Tibet niche decently.
And if they gave the Hebrews (don't call them Israel obvi) Samaria as their capital, I don't think they'd be too controversial at that point.

Sure, lets remove the city most associated with the Hebrews and assume that won't be controversial

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Just picked the options I think are most feasible. No reason to prattle on ad nauseam about little civs with little chance of appearing.

But what makes Palmyra greater than Berbers, Ashanti greater than Benin, Goths greater than Nepal, or Ireland greater than Switzerland? What I mean is there is no such thing as "little chance" at this stage

 

[Zaarin]

Sure, lets remove the city most associated with the Hebrews and assume that won't be controversial

The Kingdom of Samaria was richer, more literate, more urbanized, and more powerful than the Kingdom of Judah so they make sense IMO. Not that I would be opposed to a Judahite civ, either, and I don't think it would be as controversial as some people seem to as long as the leader isn't a prophet (i.e., no David or Solomon).

 

[nzcamel]

The Kingdom of Samaria was richer, more literate, more urbanized, and more powerful than the Kingdom of Judah so they make sense IMO. Not that I would be opposed to a Judahite civ, either, and I don't think it would be as controversial as some people seem to as long as the leader isn't a prophet (i.e., no David or Solomon).

Yes, lets keep doubling down on removing the most Hebrew/Israeli identities of this Civ to pander to the easily outraged. Why not?

 

[Villager720]

Sure, lets remove the city most associated with the Hebrews and assume that won't be controversial

Jerusalem wasn't always the capital of the Hebrews. Indeed, it was only one of the capitals of the Kingdom of Judah.
Much like many of the other Civs represented in game, they could easily use some of the other capitals associated with their various past leaders.

 

[nzcamel]

Jerusalem wasn't always the capital of the Hebrews. Indeed, it was only one of the capitals of the Kingdom of Judah.
Much like many of the other Civs represented in game, they could easily use some of the other capitals associated with their various past leaders.

If you're looking at it from a Civ 6 perspective of making the capital the same as the one that was when the leader of the Civ reigned, then sure. Though that still leaves you with Jerusalem for most Israeli leaders. But that isn't your reasoning anyway. You are applying a standard here that you won't to any other prospective/existing Civ. Shame.

 

[Linklite]

The Kingdom of Samaria was richer, more literate, more urbanized, and more powerful than the Kingdom of Judah so they make sense IMO. Not that I would be opposed to a Judahite civ, either, and I don't think it would be as controversial as some people seem to as long as the leader isn't a prophet (i.e., no David or Solomon).

Then who do you, though? To my knowledge, most of the leaders are pretty unknown, seen as bad (or both) by Jews or, as you say, are seen as almost prophets, like David or Solomon. I don't know much about secular history, but from the Bible (I know most of it is probably disregarded by scholars, but I don't have much of a grasp of scholarly history) it would get pretty contentious if you picked Ahaz. Even Saul, David or Solomon might be edgy, I don't know. There a strong religious opinion on pretty much every king. Hezekiah, maybe?

Assuming that we're staying away from the modern State, of course.

 

[Villager720]

If you're looking at it from a Civ 6 perspective of making the capital the same as the one that was when the leader of the Civ reigned, then sure. Though that still leaves you with Jerusalem for most Israeli leaders. But that isn't your reasoning anyway. You are applying a standard here that you won't to any other prospective/existing Civ. Shame.

I was advocating for in the inclusion of the Hebrews in some form or format, having always found their lack of inclusion suspect. If finding a means to do so within the confines of how the game has been structured is shameful, then I'll bask in said shame.
And it feels to me like the only easily outraged one here is you. But you've done a great job reminding everyone why their inclusion is unlikely.

 

[The Kingmaker]

But what makes Palmyra greater than Berbers, Ashanti greater than Benin, Goths greater than Nepal, or Ireland greater than Switzerland? What I mean is there is no such thing as "little chance" at this stage

I think Morocco is more likely than a Berber civ. I could maybe see Benin or Nepal at some point. Switzerland? I really doubt it.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Just this single page of posts, of people talking about how the Hebrews should be in the game, are kind of showing why they won't be.

 

[nzcamel]

I was advocating for in the inclusion of the Hebrews in some form or format, having always found their lack of inclusion suspect. If finding a means to do so within the confines of how the game has been structured is shameful, then I'll bask in said shame.
And it feels to me like the only easily outraged one here is you.

A form that no other current Civ is presented in which focuses more on satisfying those who dislike it, than any other consideration. Any representation is not better than decent representation. Their lack of inclusion as a Civ over decades is also no surprise with that kind of thinking going on.
As to the structure of the game, that has nothing to do with progressive sensibilities.

If the singling out of a particular Civ to be treated differently to the rest makes me easily outraged, then I too will own that. Not that I was suggesting anyone here was easily outraged.

Just this single page of posts, of people talking about how the Hebrews should be in the game, are kind of showing why they won't be.

If other Civs were put in the game in a similar way to how Israel is suggested to be made to appeal to its detractors then the conversations that would erupt would be similar to this.

 

[DJ_Tanner]

Just picked the options I think are most feasible. No reason to prattle on ad nauseam about little civs with little chance of appearing.

Ah this 'ol chestnut. Every civ "deserves" to be in the game, there are all on the table. It really comes down to what the devs want to do from a gameplay or stylistic stance and then find the matching civ.

 

[Zaarin]

Yes, lets keep doubling down on removing the most Hebrew/Israeli identities of this Civ to pander to the easily outraged. Why not?

Not sure how you got that out of what I said...Archaeology and historical records quite clearly show that Samaria was more powerful than Judah, and despite post-Exilic rabbinical narratives the Samaritans were Hebrews. I'm a Christian who believes in a fairly if not entirely literal reading of the Scriptures, but I understand that would not be satisfactory for everyone. There are plenty of options that don't require David or Solomon, whose inclusion would be offensive not only to Muslims but also to some conservative Jews. There's no reason to go out of one's way to tread on the religious sensibilities of others when there are perfectly reasonable alternatives.

Then who do you, though? To my knowledge, most of the leaders are pretty unknown, seen as bad (or both) by Jews or, as you say, are seen as almost prophets, like David or Solomon. I don't know much about secular history, but from the Bible (I know most of it is probably disregarded by scholars, but I don't have much of a grasp of scholarly history) it would get pretty contentious if you picked Ahaz. Even Saul, David or Solomon might be edgy, I don't know. There a strong religious opinion on pretty much every king. Hezekiah, maybe?

Hezekiah is a solid choice for Judah: well-regarded by the Bible and attested outside of it. For Samaria, Jehu is a reasonable possibility, or the long-ruling Jeroboam II.

Assuming that we're staying away from the modern State, of course.

I'd love to see the Kingdom of Israel or Judah included, but I can't think of a single good reason to include the State of Israel. It has had a significant impact on world affairs despite its youth, but it's still less than 100 years old.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Ah this 'ol chestnut. Every civ "deserves" to be in the game, there are all on the table. It really comes down to what the devs want to do from a gameplay or stylistic stance and then find the matching civ.

I didn’t say they didn’t deserve it. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I merely stated that there are a lot of options which are very unlikely to be considered. We’re not getting a playable Vanuatu or Costa Rica any time soon, for example.

 

[nzcamel]

Not sure how you got that out of what I said...Archaeology and historical records quite clearly show that Samaria was more powerful than Judah, and despite post-Exilic rabbinical narratives the Samaritans were Hebrews. I'm a Christian who believes in a fairly if not entirely literal reading of the Scriptures, but I understand that would not be satisfactory for everyone. There are plenty of options that don't require David or Solomon, whose inclusion would be offensive not only to Muslims but also to some conservative Jews. There's no reason to go out of one's way to tread on the religious sensibilities of others when there are perfectly reasonable alternatives.

Perfectly reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. That you are more worried about what Muslims will think about a Civ that is not theirs over most Jews speaks volumes. As I said, I am not interested in a game that panders to the easily offended. I don't expect them to put Israel in FTR. But if they're ever going to, they better do so in the same way they do any other Civ, without this regressive "if we avoid X, we avoid offense" mentality.

In the end if a Samarian based Israel fits better for the right reasons* then I am fine with that. But that it first enters this conversation as a way to avoid having Jerusalem as the capital undermines that. It shouldn't be prioritised for that reason.

*The right reasons can vary on things from edition to edition like say Civ 6's Big Personality focus.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Regardless, I think 2K has probably taken them off the table because there are strong feelings tied to their potential implementation.

We should all ask Sukritact or another skilled modder to put them in instead.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I didn’t say they didn’t deserve it. Please don’t put words in my mouth. I merely stated that there are a lot of options which are very unlikely to be considered. We’re not getting a playable Vanuatu or Costa Rica any time soon, for example.

What we are trying to say is Mapuche, Nubia, Georgia, Gran Colombia, or Gaul were all at some point unlikely to be considered, but here we go... I wouldn't say Goths are more possible than Berbers now because this is just subjective speculation and we have no evidence or decent argument to make such statements. Maybe Portugal is an exception here.

 

[Zaarin]

Perfectly reasonable is in the eye of the beholder. That you are more worried about what Muslims will think about a Civ that is not theirs over most Jews speaks volumes.

And once again you are putting words in my mouth because I. Did. Not. Say. That. You know aniconism is a thing in Judaism, too, right, and also in some branches of Christianity? Perhaps you're aware that all three regard David as a sacred figure? I highly doubt most Muslim countries care what Firaxis does; that's not the point. Just about every time Armenia comes up I point out that 1) Turkey probably doesn't care and 2) it really shouldn't matter if they do. You're barking up the wrong tree if you're accusing me of defending political correctness. The point here is that three major religions regard David as a sacred figure; meanwhile, there are a couple centuries' worth of leaders who are not considered sacred by anyone who have plenty of material to work with.

You also seem to be confusing me with the person who suggested that Jerusalem should be avoided as the capital; I am not the one who made that argument. I think it's a pretty noncontroversial historical fact that Jerusalem was part of the Kingdom of Judah. I'm not sure if you're deliberately straw-manning or just misinterpreting my posts, but you're really projecting a lot of arguments onto me that I didn't make.

In the end if a Samarian based Israel fits better for the right reasons* then I am fine with that. But that it first enters this conversation as a way to avoid having Jerusalem as the capital undermines that. It shouldn't be prioritised for that reason.

And once again, I didn't say they should choose Samaria because it doesn't offend someone. I said they should choose Samaria because it was richer, more urbanized, more literate, and more powerful than the Kingdom of Judah--you know, the reasons civs are usually chosen. The Samaritans were merchants; the Judahites were shepherds. (This would change after the Exile, when the Jews used their pan-Near Eastern communities to foster mercantile ventures, and if you want to argue for a Hasmonean Judea I think that's viable. Salome Alexandra would make a great leader choice--but that's +1 Hellenized leader...)

 

[nzcamel]

And once again you are putting words in my mouth because I. Did. Not. Say. That. You know aniconism is a thing in Judaism, too, right, and also in some branches of Christianity? Perhaps you're aware that all three regard David as a sacred figure?

How many times do I have to say that I don't want a game that panders to the easily offended? Regardless of what religion they are?
But you also do put the Muslims before the conservative Jews, and they before the majority of Jews in order that you list likely objectors. Which is relevant in terms of treating Israel differently to any other Civ/potential Civ. What their detractors think should not be the first consideration.

I highly doubt most Muslim countries care what Firaxis does; that's not the point.

Then don't bring them up.

Just about every time Armenia comes up I point out that 1) Turkey probably doesn't care and 2) it really shouldn't matter if they do. You're barking up the wrong tree if you're accusing me of defending political correctness. The point here is that three major religions regard David as a sacred figure; meanwhile, there are a couple centuries' worth of leaders who are not considered sacred by anyone who have plenty of material to work with.

1) That they do, doesn't mean that they do so equally; and (2) that I can cherry pick another belief systems important figure and add it to my canon doesn't give me any right over it.

You also seem to be confusing me with the person who suggested that Jerusalem should be avoided as the capital; I am not the one who made that argument. I think it's a pretty noncontroversial historical fact that Jerusalem was part of the Kingdom of Judah. I'm not sure if you're deliberately straw-manning or just misinterpreting my posts, but you're really projecting a lot of arguments onto me that I didn't make.

I am responding to more than one person here. And your argument was in addition to their desire to avoid Jerusalem as part of Israel. I accept that your motives are different @Zaarin ; yet it is the wrong reason to be looking at a different capital to Jerusalem for Israel as far as I am concerned.

And once again, I didn't say they should choose Samaria because it doesn't offend someone. I said they should choose Samaria because it was richer, more urbanized, more literate, and more powerful than the Kingdom of Judah--you know, the reasons civs are usually chosen. The Samaritans were merchants; the Judahites were shepherds. (This would change after the Exile, when the Jews used their pan-Near Eastern communities to foster mercantile ventures, and if you want to argue for a Hasmonean Judea I think that's viable. Salome Alexandra would make a great leader choice--but that's +1 Hellenized leader...)

I'm not disagreeing with any of this. Just don't ignore the spring board you jumped off which was a desire to avoid having Jerusalem as capital in an Israeli Civ (or in it at all). That can be affirmed in potential, while simultaneously rejected as a worthy goal on it's own.

I mean it's clear that avoiding offense was central to their introduction to the discussion here. Not only was it considered ideal that Jerusalem not be the capital, but also that it's name not be Israel! Again, you can make cases for other names like Judah etc; but it shouldn't just be let pass that it's not to satisfy progressives sensibilities that anything like that be considered.

 

[The Kingmaker]

What we are trying to say is Mapuche, Nubia, Georgia, Gran Colombia, or Gaul were all at some point unlikely to be considered, but here we go... I wouldn't say Goths are more possible than Berbers now because this is just subjective speculation and we have no evidence or decent argument to make such statements. Maybe Portugal is an exception here.

I don’t recall ever making a direct comparison between the Goths and Berbers.

And I’ve been expecting Gaul to be unpacked from the Celts ever since they started deblobbing civs.