Why aren't the Jews a playable civilisation in Civ games?

[JerichoHill]

If the Hebrews were to be a Civ, I'd happily suggest how they'd be put out there. I will avoid debate on whether they should be in or not, or what they are in other mods.

Traits-wise they should be Spiritual + Protective. Further, they should be able to research Monotheism at the start.

For the UB, how about modifying walls? Hebrew cities were often built on hills with tunnels underneath, allowing them to suprise attackers from behind. Increase the cost of walls by 50%, have them provide 25% more protection and give 25% bonus to attacking from a city, and +1 culture per turn.

For the UU, let's use the missionary. The Hebrew Missionary ignores borders, gets double movement, and gets +1 gpt from every foreign city with Judaism present.

 

[Bigfoot3814]

Further, they should be able to research Monotheism at the start.

No, that would break the non-biased religion thingy.

 

[MadmanOfALeader]

Of course the Hebrews were a great empire... They wrote a whole book about them, for crying out loud!

 

[frekk]

Like the Castillian crown was not superior to any of the crowns that Philip II had...

He preferred it, but it was Phillip (not the crown) that controlled the empire. It was a personal union, not a union of crowns.

Ok, let's put it this way: Canada is as much independent as England.

That's a good way of putting it, almost. Substitute United Kingdom for England and you've hit the nail on the head.

 

[r_rolo1]

Your definiton of personal union vs union of crowns eludes me.... Can you define precisely both , just to make sure that we are talking about the same thing?

 

[frekk]

Your definiton of personal union vs union of crowns eludes me.... Can you define precisely both , just to make sure that we are talking about the same thing?

A union of crowns federates the territories of two crowns into a single state (eg the United Kingdom) whereas a personal union does not.

 

[Rvil Plum]

I have been thinking about the power that the royal prerogative gives the monarch to protect the constitution, in comparison to the US safeguard, (i.e. their supreme court), and under what circumstances the monarch might exercise the ultimate doomsday power.

I am a UK citizen so I don't know much about the 2000 Gore / Bush election but there were allegations of huge election fraud in Florida, and I do remember that the initial Florida Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent US Supreme Court rulings seemed very muddled / muddied to an objective outside observer like myself.

The thing that has always struck me as wrong about the US system, is that their supreme court appointments are political decisions, and that the judges themselves were often highly political animals in their former lives.

On face value a Supreme Court would appear to be a better constitutional safeguard than a single Monarch, but the Monarch really is so far above and beyond the political fray, that perhaps a modern monarch is a better representative of the will of the people. The monarch has no political axe to grind, is so wealthy that his/her opinion can not be bought or influenced, and has a life time in office that ensures he/she builds up a unique and unparalleled knowledge of good/bad government, via advising and meeting all the various prime ministers, foreign heads of state, etc.

I have often thought over the last 8 years, what would have happened if Gore had been elected rather than Bush? No one can possibly know, but I would guess that:

1) The US wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but would instead have focused their huge enthusiasm and resources on rebuilding a viable Afghanistan and addressing some of of the root causes of Islamic extremism.

2) The US would have signed up to the Kyoto protocol, and then led the world in environmental action.

3) The US would have more actively pressed for a resolution of the Israel / Palestine conflict.

Like I said, I don't know much about the 2000 election, or how bad the fraud actually was, and whether it did effect the ultimate outcome, but if it was bad, then that would have been a case when the royal prerogative would have kicked in. A monarch may well have reached exactly the same decision that the Supreme Court did, but then again, perhaps the decision would have been different.

Providing you have a benign monarch, then I think I prefer living in a country where he/she acts as the ultimate safeguard of the constitution, than I would living in a country whereby the Supreme Court has that power, but is made up of political appointees, who had a very active political former life.

Regards - Mr P

 

[Zhahz]

Thread like this deliver the comedy.

What I don't get is why get so wrapped up in which civs are in/not in the game? It's just a game - the civs are just flavor to wrap up game rules. Why care? Just play and enjoy.

 

[The Almighty dF]

I have been thinking about the power that the royal prerogative gives the monarch to protect the constitution, in comparison to the US safeguard, (i.e. their supreme court), and under what circumstances the monarch might exercise the ultimate doomsday power.

I am a UK citizen so I don't know much about the 2000 Gore / Bush election but there were allegations of huge election fraud in Florida, and I do remember that the initial Florida Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent US Supreme Court rulings seemed very muddled / muddied to an objective outside observer like myself.

The thing that has always struck me as wrong about the US system, is that their supreme court appointments are political decisions, and that the judges themselves were often highly political animals in their former lives.

On face value a Supreme Court would appear to be a better constitutional safeguard than a single Monarch, but the Monarch really is so far above and beyond the political fray, that perhaps a modern monarch is a better representative of the will of the people. The monarch has no political axe to grind, is so wealthy that his/her opinion can not be bought or influenced, and has a life time in office that ensures he/she builds up a unique and unparalleled knowledge of good/bad government, via advising and meeting all the various prime ministers, foreign heads of state, etc.

I have often thought over the last 8 years, what would have happened if Gore had been elected rather than Bush? No one can possibly know, but I would guess that:

1) The US wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but would instead have focused their huge enthusiasm and resources on rebuilding a viable Afghanistan and addressing some of of the root causes of Islamic extremism.

2) The US would have signed up to the Kyoto protocol, and then led the world in environmental action.

3) The US would have more actively pressed for a resolution of the Israel / Palestine conflict.

Like I said, I don't know much about the 2000 election, or how bad the fraud actually was, and whether it did effect the ultimate outcome, but if it was bad, then that would have been a case when the royal prerogative would have kicked in. A monarch may well have reached exactly the same decision that the Supreme Court did, but then again, perhaps the decision would have been different.

Providing you have a benign monarch, then I think I prefer living in a country where he/she acts as the ultimate safeguard of the constitution, than I would living in a country whereby the Supreme Court has that power, but is made up of political appointees, who had a very active political former life.

Regards - Mr P

That's probably one of the most idiotic posts I've read in awhile. I can only assume you're a troll who is simply trying to turn this thread into a flamewar.


I've been thinking.
I think it would be best to simply add in the the Kingdom of Jerusalem at its height, pre-Israel, under King David. It's what a lot of modders have added to Civ4 and I have to admit... it feels kinda historically accurate. Especially when you have Babylon in the same game.
They did have more of an impact than some of the other empires that have been added to Civ, even if their history is marred with them being conquered and somewhat assimilated. And if that disqualified anyone from being in Civ, there would be no Native Americans or Korea. Possibly not Celts, it depends since Celt is still a very loosely defined group.

However. Since this may make some religious people angry (I don't get why, I'm not Jewish and I'm perfectly okay with a Jewish leader), I say we fill in some gaps. We've already got a Christian, a Muslim, and a Hindu leader. I see no problem with adding in leaders with close ties to the remaining religions (Buddhism, maybe Tibet though that'd open up another can of worms. Confucianism and Taoism.)

 

[say1988]

Ok, let's put it this way: Canada is as much independent as England.

Actually, it would be more independent than England, which is definitely not independent.
Canada is as independent as the United Kingdom.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Actually, it would be more independent than England, which is definitely not independent.
Canada is as independent as the United Kingdom.

The best way to put it is that Canada is as independent as Australia.
Still Commonwealth, but still mostly independent.

The level of freedom from the crown goes:

India and Ireland > Australia/Canada > North Ireland, Wales, Scotland.

Still off topic, though.

 

[mboettcher]

They're a race of people. And they have a glorious history. BUt they do not have as much of a claim for a civilization as those other groups simply because as a nation (not a people) they were insignificant in the fact they ruled themselves about 20% of the time until the romans kicked them out for 1800 years until 1960! ALso, as a nation again, they had very little influence on the course of the neighboring civilizations being little more than an ancillary outpost to the empires of the region. Heck the only reason Egypt bothered was for the timber in the area.

Again its not a comment on the people. As a country they are/were too small in size, population and resources to be considered a major nation and player in the course of civilization history. Its the same reason none of the northern or eastern european nations (excluding russia) are in the game. Size basically.

 

[Rvil Plum]

1) Why do you think it's idiotic?

2) The "Kingdom of Jerusalem" you refer to was an 11th - 14th century crusader kingdom, so I have no idea what you are talking about.

3) As you mention "King David" I assume you mean a unified Jewish kingdom that may or may not have been formed circa 1,000 - 900 BC, but as I have already explained there is little archaeological evidence, or contemporary accounts from other civs of that time period to support its very existence. Yes, there is a huge amount written in the Old Testament, but all the civs in Civ are based on actual kingdoms and empires that we know historically existed via archaeological evidence, their own records, and the accounts of contemporary civs. You suggest we base its inclusion upon the King David period as that was to quote you, "its height", but what on earth are you talking about. No one even knows the kingdom existed, and even if it did, what were the extent of it's borders, the size of it's population, it's scientific artistic and cultural achievements, etc. If we are going to start including civs on the basis of what's written in the Old Testament, then can I put my vote in for Atlantis, Crimmeria and Gondor.

4) Have you ever read a history book? Yes, many world civs were invaded, occupied and governed by regional super powers, from time to time, but they had either already created a civ, or went on to create a civ. I explained in a previous post, (and I strongly suggest you go and read it on page 3 of this thread), there are more questions than answers regarding the origin of the Hebrew / Israelite peoples and the foundation of their country, but like I also explained the present government authorities are reluctant to give out the permits to the international community that would allow some independent archaeology into the subject. In fact any form of archaeology in Israel is an incredibly sensitive subject, not only about what it might or might not reveal about the foundation myths of the country and it's religion, but also because many sites in Jerusalem itself are sacred to two and sometimes even three world religions. Yes, there is copious amounts of evidence, (supported by archaeological finds, their own records, and the records of contemporary civs,), of later Jewish kingdoms, but these were very small in terms of national borders, population size, etc. Civ is a history game about world spanning civs, and if you had bothered to read this thread you will discover that most people do not consider them as a contender for inclusion, but are open minded enough to be swayed by rational argument that might think otherwise. However, as I have eloquently explained, you have dismally failed to put forward a coherent argument for their inclusion, that stands up to even the flimsiest of analysis.

Regards - Mr P

 

[frekk]

ALso, as a nation again, they had very little influence on the course of the neighboring civilizations being little more than an ancillary outpost to the empires of the region. Heck the only reason Egypt bothered was for the timber in the area.

Actually it was just a pitstop on the way to the Lebanon Cedar ... which was just north of Sidon and Tyre.

 

[Gudinsdiv]

I have been thinking about the power that the royal prerogative gives the monarch to protect the constitution, in comparison to the US safeguard, (i.e. their supreme court), and under what circumstances the monarch might exercise the ultimate doomsday power.

I am a UK citizen so I don't know much about the 2000 Gore / Bush election but there were allegations of huge election fraud in Florida, and I do remember that the initial Florida Supreme Court ruling and the subsequent US Supreme Court rulings seemed very muddled / muddied to an objective outside observer like myself.

The thing that has always struck me as wrong about the US system, is that their supreme court appointments are political decisions, and that the judges themselves were often highly political animals in their former lives.

On face value a Supreme Court would appear to be a better constitutional safeguard than a single Monarch, but the Monarch really is so far above and beyond the political fray, that perhaps a modern monarch is a better representative of the will of the people. The monarch has no political axe to grind, is so wealthy that his/her opinion can not be bought or influenced, and has a life time in office that ensures he/she builds up a unique and unparalleled knowledge of good/bad government, via advising and meeting all the various prime ministers, foreign heads of state, etc.

I have often thought over the last 8 years, what would have happened if Gore had been elected rather than Bush? No one can possibly know, but I would guess that:

1) The US wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but would instead have focused their huge enthusiasm and resources on rebuilding a viable Afghanistan and addressing some of of the root causes of Islamic extremism.

2) The US would have signed up to the Kyoto protocol, and then led the world in environmental action.

3) The US would have more actively pressed for a resolution of the Israel / Palestine conflict.

Like I said, I don't know much about the 2000 election, or how bad the fraud actually was, and whether it did effect the ultimate outcome, but if it was bad, then that would have been a case when the royal prerogative would have kicked in. A monarch may well have reached exactly the same decision that the Supreme Court did, but then again, perhaps the decision would have been different.

Providing you have a benign monarch, then I think I prefer living in a country where he/she acts as the ultimate safeguard of the constitution, than I would living in a country whereby the Supreme Court has that power, but is made up of political appointees, who had a very active political former life.

Regards - Mr P

When you do start paying more attention to US politics you might notice there is no real difference between Republicans and Democrats. Slick Willy destroyed welfare as a viable relief for the poor, sold out US military secrets to the Chinese, and gift wrapped NAFTA for the biggest corporations in the country--and he was "liberal".
If Al Gore had won, we'd all be speaking Chinese by now, while he reminisced about his former life as a boxer and a world famous ballet instructor.

Read Noam Chomsky if you wish to understand US and world politics.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Read Noam Chomsky if you wish to understand US and world politics.

Or if you're too cheap to read Noam Chomsky, just find a pothead and ask him about how the "corporations are raping the world and bringing about wage slavery."

Noam Chomsky is a deranged socialist weasel and his fanbase is made almost entirely of people who want to be rebellious. It's the same drunk young-at-mind "rebels" that join PETA and talk about how KFC is killing chickens, but really they're just repeating protest signs and streaking. I mean if you want to get high and streak, feel free. Just don't make out like you're doing it for the good of a cause.

Now can we put aside retards trying to understand politics and focus on what the actual topic is? That is Israel, either modern day or the popular image of what they may have been years ago (Yeah it's possible they weren't really much of an empire even then, but come on. Civ4 has Ragnar. -Ragnar-. And Gilgamesh. King David suddenly doesn't sound silly.)

 

[frekk]

(Yeah it's possible they weren't really much of an empire even then, but come on. Civ4 has Ragnar. -Ragnar-. And Gilgamesh. King David suddenly doesn't sound silly.)

No, not really. The Vikings controlled a large territory, at one point an empire that included England (under Canute), founded Russia, discovered the New World, and traded as far as the Middle East.

The Sumerians invented civilization. They were the first to build cities and develop agriculture, writing, etc. (Yes, before Egypt).

King David may or may not have ruled a tiny kingdom, about one-third the size of Ohio (at its brief, greatest extent under Solomon - before Edom and the Damascus rebelled), that lasted a few decades before it fragmented, and two centuries later found itself included among the minor possessions of various empires. Ancient Israel is roughly comparable to Wales, except it wasn't independant nearly as long.

 

[CivCorpse]

The Jews definitely deserve a spot in the game.

Oh and Btw Israel has committed no such crimes, all Israel has done is protect itself from the crazies who want to destroy it. Israel is our only real ally in the mideast besides Afghanistan and Iraq.

So before you start whining about the palestinians and how they're "oppressed" and such look at the facts, in the 1940s the U.N proposed modern day Israel be divided into two separate states one for the Jews and the other for the Palestinians the Jewish government accepted, the Palestinians however did not. The Palestinians could've had their own country but no, they couldn't share so they resorted to terrorism. The Palestinians dug their own grave.

So then 6 countries ganged up on Israel and tried to destroy it, but Israel against all odds defeated the Arab aggressors, and now Israel is hated for it, hated for defending it self from the tyrannical islamic regimes in the mideast.

So basically if someone showed up on your doorstep and said "Hi, I lived here a long time ago and I want to live here again" and a bunch of other people said. "Hey, make it a duplex and you can both have half of a house"...would you give up half your house because someone wanted a place of their own?

 

[The Almighty dF]

No, not really. The Vikings controlled a large territory, at one point an empire that included England (under Canute), founded Russia, discovered the New World, and traded as far as the Middle East.

I'm not talking about the vikings.
I'm talking about Ragnar. I'm not even going to claim the vikings aren't deserving, hell they deserve a 2nd leader more than Germany does.

Besides, we're going more by the impact they had on the world, now how great they were at the time. The world would be a -much- different place had it not been for the Hebrew people.

 

[WhiteEagle22]

I'm not talking about the vikings.
I'm talking about Ragnar. I'm not even going to claim the vikings aren't deserving, hell they deserve a 2nd leader more than Germany does.

Besides, we're going more by the impact they had on the world, now how great they were at the time. The world would be a -much- different place had it not been for the Hebrew people.

You said it! Where would the Bible be or would Islam (founder influenced by both Judaism and Christianity) exist or be the same?