phungus420
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,296
Why are the Zulu always in Civilization
- Thread starter volbound1700
- Start date
- Status
volbound1700
Emperor
Mongols had a major military and cultural impact but did not produce a lasting influence nor give the technology, art, or sophistication to society that America has produced.
Mongolia is usually always in the top ten as greatest empires/civs as well.
Top 5 is usually (sometimes it changes)
1. Rome
2. British
3. Greece
4. United States
5. China
2-4 are swapped around a lot
Mongolia is usually always in the top ten as greatest empires/civs as well.
Top 5 is usually (sometimes it changes)
1. Rome
2. British
3. Greece
4. United States
5. China
2-4 are swapped around a lot
civverguy
Emperor
But the thing is the US has only impacted the world for a small amount of time. Unlike other Civilizations, which lived a lot longer than America, and had a large impact throught history, like Egypt and Babylon.
phungus420
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,296
Define short period of time? Almost 250 years is by no means short, even on a historical perspective, by your reasoning the Mongols and Germany are unnecessary. Ergo your argument is a farce.
Edit:
Oh and the Aztec and Mayan Empires existed for similar periods of time, I suppose they they should be removed as well
Edit:
Oh and the Aztec and Mayan Empires existed for similar periods of time, I suppose they they should be removed as well
dannythefool
King
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 657
Oh and the Aztec and Mayan Empires existed for similar periods of time, I suppose they they should be removed as well
No, the Maya empire existed for more than 2000 years; maybe you were thinking of the Inca. But yeah, the amount of time is pretty much meaningless, as is any other single number one could pick. The Mongols are a pretty good example. One of the largest empires that existed in history but it existed for less than 200 years. Only the British empire was larger (and that is even debatable because we don't know the exact borders of the Mongol empire), but the Mongol empire was contiguous and the British one was not. On the other hand, if you only go by size, then Canada is larger than the US but is not in the game. ;-)
phungus420
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,296
I stand corrected. But it's pretty irrelevent, as according to the proposed argument that the US should be removed due to lack of time in existance, my contention still applies. The Mongols, Germany, Incan, and Aztecs only existed for an equivalent (or less) amount of time as the US. Basically I'm asserting those arguing against the inclusion of the US are using entirely specious points.
phungus420
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2003
- Messages
- 6,296
I know this isn't directed at me. But I still want to adress it.
My contention of the OP is that the civs chosen for Civilization4 were done so for marketing purposes. The main drive behind this is Name Recognition, One of the primary motivators with that is Historical influence, but other factors include marketshare (Korea), popular cultural references (Zulu), resistance (exclusion of Israel), etc. As such all the civs included make sense, and I don't see why people really have a problem with any of them. Except the HRE, which is removed in Legends of Revolution
. Which is a side point, it's not like it's hard to remove a civ if you really have a problem with one (you change the 1 to a Zero in the bPlayable tag in the CIV4CivilizationsInfos file).I also find these "The US Doesn't Belong" posts to be absurd. As stated repeatedly the US by any measure has earned a spot in history as a great nation (whether they are a good nation is irrelevent, and I'm not interested in debating ethical standards, we have Stalin and Mao as leaders for Pete Sakes!), this isn't even disputed by most; instead they make assinine proposals that there should be some temporal limit, which would eliminate other worthy civs, like the Mongols. Such foolishness just irks me
dannythefool
King
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 657
My contention of the OP is that the civs chosen for Civilization4 were done so for marketing purposes. The main drive behind this is Name Recognition, One of the primary motivators with that is Historical influence, but other factors include marketshare (Korea), popular cultural references (Zulu), etc. As such all the civs included make sense, and I don't see why people really have a problem with any of them. Except the HRE, which is removed in Legends of Revolution
I take it you are not from Europe if you think that the HRE has no name recognition or had no historical influence. About the only reason to disagree with its inclusion is that formally, it's succeeded by modern Germany and doesn't need to be its own civ. Of course, that's probably why it got its own civ: It has name recognition in many parts of the former HRE where the population would prefer to celebrate the HRE emperors as their own. Make Charlemagne a German leader and you get instant bad press in Austria and France.
That's the short memory of the internet. We're discussing whether a type of game invented in the US, made possible by computers that were invented in the US, on a forum over the internet that was invented in the US, in the language of the US (not the UK), should include a reference to the US, comparing it to other great empires using facts from wikipedia, which was invented in the US, or web sites (that were invented in Switzerland for a change) that we googled, which was invented in the US. "Absurd" is an understatement.
Please. A few minor spelling differences do not make a new language. You speak the same language as the UK. Incidentally, English is a west germanic language.
It's inane to talk about languages as if they were the property of some nation. We're on a Civ forum of all places. Civilisations morphing, changing, branching off and dying throughout time - language is the same.
Spoiler :
I know this isn't directed at me. But I still want to adress it.
My contention of the OP is that the civs chosen for Civilization4 were done so for marketing purposes. The main drive behind this is Name Recognition, One of the primary motivators with that is Historical influence, but other factors include marketshare (Korea), popular cultural references (Zulu), resistance (exclusion of Israel), etc. As such all the civs included make sense, and I don't see why people really have a problem with any of them. Except the HRE, which is removed in Legends of Revolution
I also find these "The US Doesn't Belong" posts to be absurd. As stated repeatedly the US by any measure has earned a spot in history as a great nation (whether they are a good nation is irrelevent, and I'm not interested in debating ethical standards, we have Stalin and Mao as leaders for Pete Sakes!), this isn't even disputed by most; instead they make assinine proposals that there should be some temporal limit, which would eliminate other worthy civs, like the Mongols. Such foolishness just irks me
The good thing about CIV I was that one could customize it tribe. I understand why my nation will never be in CIV and it makes a perfect sence, but at least I could modify one of nations to be a custom nation such as Serbs . This would be a good thing for CIV V to have.
You can change the name, short name and ajective with no modding, or make it permenant with just copy-pasting
dannythefool
King
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 657
Actually, I speak a weird mixture of the UK and US dialects of English. This is because the UK is closer to where I live, but the US culture dominates. As evidenced by me playing a computer game that speaks of things such as harbors and centers.
It doesn't really matter that English is a West Germanic language; so are several others that you likely wouldn't understand.
It does say something if a former colony manages to make its dialect as dominant as US English is today. If we are talking about the US, we obviously can't be talking about timespans and conditions that would make the emergence of a new language a likely occurrence.
And a dialect is just that: a dialect. Not a language.
Well, yes, that was my point. It doesn't matter where a language comes from or where it goes. Maybe I'm being a pedant here - I don't disagree with your argument that the USA is plenty influential for civ 4 - but I simply can't play nice with the sentiment that it's an "us vs them" thing with language (or in general). It's just different dialects and nothing else.
I'm just as quick to point out the same to my peers when "americans are using our language" comments start popping up.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Which is ridiculous. The mongols were quite ruthless...but people forget...
phoenix_sprite
King
Because there would be only Egypt, Ethiopia and Mali to represent Africa.
dannythefool
King
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 657
So were the Americans, but people forget...
It all depends on which side you are, and the Mongols were no more ruthless than your average other 13th century empire. Internally, the Mongol Empire itself was organised very well and ran in a way that brought prosperity and security to its people. Yes, they had the death penalty, but guess what... do note that the Mongols did not accept circumstantial evidence, though.
r_rolo1
King of myself
Mongols built a empire. Empires are not built with pretty words, but by being more effective in military terms than the competition. One of the more beaten paths of being efficient in military terms is being ruthless, because it scares the rest . The Mongols were not the first, were not the last, and it arguable that were the worst doing that.
On topic: the zulus are always in the game because there is aprt of the USA population that has a very profound reverence for the name of Shaka Zulu. Nothing more than that. If you wanted someone to fill the S. Africa area, the Monomotapa would had been far better IMHO
On topic: the zulus are always in the game because there is aprt of the USA population that has a very profound reverence for the name of Shaka Zulu. Nothing more than that. If you wanted someone to fill the S. Africa area, the Monomotapa would had been far better IMHO
thekaje
Godless killing machine
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2009
- Messages
- 474
r_rolo1
King of myself
Atleast the game developers at Firaxis have a profoud reverence for the name of Shaka Zulu ( otherwise why put the Zulus in the game ? ). As most of them are americans...What?
You are a strange cat, man.
Seriously, the game developers should think something along the line you quoted from my speech. I can't think on nothing else to justify the Zulu over the Zimbabwe or the Monomotapa as South African civs...
Atleast the game developers at Firaxis have a profoud reverence for the name of Shaka Zulu ( otherwise why put the Zulus in the game ? ). As most of them are americans...
Seriously, the game developers should think something along the line you quoted from my speech. I can't think on nothing else to justify the Zulu over the Zimbabwe or the Monomotapa as South African civs...
Name Recognition?
I've heard of Zimbabwe (the pre-colonial empire) but not the Monomotapa before but I'm pretty certain a lot of people will never have heard of either. Almost everyone has heard of the Zulus
A civ gets into the game because the designers think a reasonable number of people will want to play it. I can't think of a better criteria for inclusion in a game myself. I just wish more people wanted to play ancient Middle Eastern civs
- Status
