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

[frekk]

In order to continue providing me with new versions and the occasional bug-filled patch, he/firaxis needs to make a profit. So they do their marketing studies. Usually instead of play testing. And they find what demographics are most likely to BUY the game. This has a larger impact on choosing civs than anything else.

Now that's just a little too cynical. Besides the US and UK, I'm certain the next largest buyer is Canada and I've never seen a Canadian civ. As for people of this/that descent in the US itself, where's Ireland? Brian Boru? Okay, maybe it would be hard to justify - but Italy wouldn't be. Birthplace of the Renaissance, and all.

No, I don't think this is the chief decision. It may weigh in on occasion, but I doubt it's why the Jews aren't included (pretty sure that more Jews buy the game than Portuguese ...)

The criteria, more than anything else, seem to be that at one point, the civ in question was at least moderately powerful relative to other powers on the same continent. This explains pretty much every civ in the game. The Portuguese and Dutch were once colonial powers, Mali had no competitors for thousands of miles, even Korea was once a regional power believe it or not (eg 5th century Goguryeo - China was in disarray and Goguryeo was, for a time, the pre-eminent power in that part of the world). But Israel, well, it never really came close to matching Persia, Babylon, the Assyrians, etc. They were a power but only in the context of a very small area (the Levant).

 

[brucedecatz]

The criteria, more than anything else, seem to be that at one point, the civ in question was at least moderately powerful relative to other powers on the same continent.

If only "moderately powerful" is enough, I think modern Israel qualifies. Without which it is unable to commit the "war crimes" some people here are bitter about.

 

[frekk]

If only "moderately powerful" is enough, I think modern Israel qualifies.

So does Brazil and about 50 other countries. Heck, where's the EU?

The game is supposed to be a historical one, not a current affairs simulation.

 

[brucedecatz]

Precisely. That means "being moderately powerful at one point" is not the SOLE deciding factor about whether a civ should be in or not. Heck, America is really only powerfully influential for the last 100 years, so where do we draw the line about what is historical and what is current?

 

[Gudinsdiv]

Now can we put aside retards trying to understand politics and focus on what the actual topic is?

Not much for tangents, eh? Even if they're someone elses?
I would expand a bit on Chomsky and his relevance not only to modern linguistics but also to a better understand of the nature of power in the modern world, but you are probably one of those bullet-biting, gun-totting, "kill 'em all" knuckleheads that sees the world in red, white, and blue.

Good heads up for me, though. I know to avoid your ilk around here.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Not much for tangents, eh? Even if they're someone elses?
I would expand a bit on Chomsky and his relevance not only to modern linguistics but also to a better understand of the nature of power in the modern world, but you are probably one of those bullet-biting, gun-totting, "kill 'em all" knuckleheads that sees the world in red, white, and blue.

Good heads up for me, though. I know to avoid your ilk around here.

Actually I'm quite the non-interventionist.
Nice try, douchebag.

 

[frekk]

Precisely. That means "being moderately powerful at one point" is not the SOLE deciding factor about whether a civ should be in or not. Heck, America is really only powerfully influential for the last 100 years, so where do we draw the line about what is historical and what is current?

America was definately a notable power in North America, historically. Presuming the 19th century is history and not current affairs that is.

I'd define "historical" as outside of living memory, in this case. Do you know any veterans of the War of 1812?

 

[The Almighty dF]

America was definately the pre-eminent power in North America, historically. Presuming the 19th century is history and not current affairs that is.

Yeah. It's actually a common misconception, even here in America, that we only recently became a real power.
I mean we weren't #1 back in the 1800s, but we were still a power. Partially because let's face it, we got lucky with resources. Especially food related resources. We (As in myself and other Americans) practically live on in a nation made entirely of food. Of course we also had tobacco, cotton... we basically kinda hit the resource jackpot. ...Though we did have to -really- fight for beaver fur (Funniest almost-war ever.)

 

[CheScott]

Well... I'm not going to read 11 pages of this, just to earn the right to foul all of your minds with my opinion, since I can do so without reading all that.

Despite the fact that I have a general loathing for the state of Israel, I don't really have any objections to it being added as a civilization. But on that note, I don't have any objections to Nazi Germany and Hitler being added either, despite the general loathing I have for them too.

And I think there-in lies the problem; it's just too contentious an issue to really want to approach and you're probably just gonna piss more people off than you'll please. Read the two paragraph disclaimer they have in the Civilopedia about the inception of religions. And think about how flavorless each religion is, in the game. The only difference between Buddhism and Judaism is how soon you can get them.

The designers clearly are trying to avoid stepping on toes, leaving that to the mod community, to whom they've enabled vastly.

So, iffin the Canaanites want a Civilization to themselves, they're going to have to do like Moses and journey 40 squares through the desert of Modding and carve one out of the rocks, because the UN isn't going to sanction it for them this time.

 

[frekk]

Yeah. It's actually a common misconception, even here in America, that we only recently became a real power.

Well, only recently a global power, that's true. But definately it was a continental power ever since the Revolution.

 

[CheScott]

If only "moderately powerful" is enough, I think modern Israel qualifies. Without which it is unable to commit the "war crimes" some people here are bitter about.

*leaves unexploded ordinance lieing around Bruce's neighborhood and wonders how long it'll take before he's bitter about it*

 

[The Almighty dF]

Though it still strikes me as silly that people have no problem with Mao and Stalin (mass murderers responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler) or Saladin (a mass-murdering religious extremist.)
Political correctness is entirely just silly.

Personally I think it shouldn't matter what the leader's moral alignment was, I think their impact on history should matter. I mean let's face it, most of the leaders in Civ4... in reality were actually tyrants. Montezuma, the Khans, Mao, Stalin, Qin Shi Huang, Tokugawa, Ramesses II... If we're going to start a "Only civs that have never done anything wrong in any incarnation of the civilization" rule, we couldn't even add -Canada-.
...Okay maybe we could add New Zealand, but that's all. "NeZ4: Beyond The Sheep" could be the greatest game of all time.

I'll admit Israel has done some horrible crap as of late. Though personally I think both sides of the Israel vs Muslim extremist fight are... well... for lack of a better word, ********. Does this mean I don't want Arab and Israeli leaders? Up until his traits changed, I enjoyed playing as Saladin. He may have been a mass murdering extremist in real life, but he's fun in-game. And it's kinda funny trying to spread Islam.
I'll say that I don't want to see modern Israel in the game, however. Not because omg war crimes, but because I don't want any leaders post 1950. I'd prefer FDR, Mao, Stalin, De Gaulle, and Churchill be the most recent the game gets... with the exception of maybe Fidel and JFK, because with the addition of espionage it'd be fun to have a role-playing game between those two.

 

[frekk]

I have yet to hear from a Jewish player speaking on the issue: where are you? maybe the lack of a Jewish civilisation puts them off from playing the game altogether

I really don't think the Jews, as a whole, are that vain. There are Scots, Canadians, Ukrainians, and loads of others playing who aren't represented in the game in any way, and (with the possible exception of the Poles .. hehe ... j/k Poles) none of them kick up a fuss or just aren't around because they aren't included.

I really hope the franchise doesn't decide to start basing decisions like this on catering to squeeky wheels - especially when it's typically a political set that's squeeking for political/religious fundamentalist reasons, who aren't even members of the group itself.

 

[classical_hero]

...Though we did have to -really- fight for beaver fur (Funniest almost-war ever.)

Who wouldn't fight for that. Oh, I was thinking of the wrong type of beaver.

 

[Oatse]

Saladin (a mass-murdering religious extremist.)

Saladin's a mass murderer? Please elaborate because I've never heard of him described that way before and I'm curious about it.

 

[Rvil Plum]

Saladin = No idea what "The Almighty dF" is on about, but there again neither does he/she, so I wouldn't worry about it.

If you read back through this thread the guy/girl keeps making one unfounded claim after another. First he demonstrates an appalling lack of knowledge about the early history of the people he is championing, then he ignores all arguments for their inclusion based upon the known historical facts, then he/she goes on to say that the vikings and sumerians were not civs. I mean FFS the sumerians invented civilization. Now he's having a go at Saladin, and is clearly someone with more opinions than education.

For those of you who are not familiar with the history of this period, Saladin was one of the good guys, and in fact many Muslim leaders were far more educated, enlightened, cultured and humanitarian than their Christean contemporaries of this period and indeed later. That doesn't mean that all Muslim leaders were good guys, and there were some really bad ones, just as there were some really bad Christan leaders. If anyone wants a balanced view of how Christian / Islamic leaders acted in different ways in similar circumstances, then go read "The Cross and the Crescent" by Richard Fletcher. it's a small but highly readable book that deals with the relationship of Islam and Christianity from the time of Mohamed to the Reformation.

Regards - Mr P

 

[davidis.ca]

Even Christian counterparts of Saladin were amazed by his nobleness he was the one that spared the life of thousands on Christian while Christians slaughtered Muslims. (and i am a Christians thus not really keen of Muslim leaders but you cant change the inconvenient truth.

 

[S.ilver]

Though it still strikes me as silly that people have no problem with Mao and Stalin (mass murderers responsible for more deaths than Adolf Hitler) or Saladin (a mass-murdering religious extremist.)
Political correctness is entirely just silly.

Well, maybe it's just me, but I am bothered by the inclusion of these two leaders.

I think the lack of greater outcry against these leaders is because they and their governments survived, and thrived to certain extents. Nazi Germany was toppled by the allies, and their crimes were revealed to the world when the Jews were liberated.

Who liberated the victims of Mao's great leap forward? Or those who starved and died as a result of Stalin's engineered famines? There was never anyone to speak for those victims and demand vindication, so they are not as universally despised as Hitler.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

Hitler is reviled because he had a focus on killing jews, and jews have alot of political power. Don't turn this into a Hitler thread or the threard will get closed.

The arabs were the heirs of the ancient knowledge and wisdom. While Europe was in the Dark Ages, Arabia flourished. Saladin's rise to power may have been shady, but he did what he had to do to protect his people, and was far better a king than any european serf had ever known. Without the arabs to preserve the philosophy and writings of Greece and Rome, we would be far less advanced than we are today. Don't be hatin' on arabs coz of Osama.

Learn about some of the atrocities the crusaders commited. French knights actually ATE the people of one city when they ran out of food.

 

[CivCorpse]

OK, have you ever wondered how many of the people upset at "war criminal" leaders are the same people that prioritize BW so they can adopt slavery. They should make "hypocracy" a tech requirement for BW when playing a non-tyranical leader.