Why have the Boers never made it into a Civ game?

[Patine]

Interesting...I never played Civ 2, how hard is it to learn if I only know 3,4,5? Could a modern computer even play it?

It is playable on a modern computer with a simple mod or two. I also believe there is a GoG version, now. The scenario I speak of is fan-made, though.

 

[FishFishFish]

I didn't say there would be no war, I said there'd be less.

Geopolitics are practically impossible to predict given the sheer impact the Caliphates had on the world and how many butterfly effects that would cause.

I know people who are Armenian, Assyrian, Jewish, and Levantine Christian...absolutely none of them have a positive opinion of the caliphates, or the expansion of Islam. This may sound harsh, but I wish that Islam had never militarily expanded out of its birthplace in the Arabian Peninsula.

This is going to sound even harsher, but the only reason those groups exist today is because Islam tolerated them.

Also applying a modern lens is silly. I would suggest you search into contrary perspectives on Christian/Jewish lives under the Caliphates, of course there will always be groups that sought freedom and felt oppression under an Islamic Theocratic system, but compared to how other religious-majority states treated their religious minorities, you'll find the caliphates were remarkably relatively tolerant for their time. The treatment of medieval Jews in Muslim lands compared to the treatment of Jews in Christian lands was so much better.

Yes, but it was a mostly negative impact on the world, whereas the Boers produced some of the greatest medical advances (Dr. Barnard) and statesmen (General Smuts) of the 20th century.

And the Abbasids kicked off the Islamic Golden age, something that is far more scientifically important then anything the Boers ever did.

 

[Patine]

This is going to sound even harsher, but the only reason those groups exist today is because Islam tolerated them.

Also applying a modern lens is silly. I would suggest you search into contrary perspectives on Christian/Jewish lives under the Caliphates, of course there will always be groups that sought freedom and felt oppression under an Islamic Theocratic system, but compared to how other religious-majority states treated their religious minorities, you'll find the caliphates were remarkably relatively tolerant for their time. The treatment of medieval Jews in Muslim lands compared to the treatment of Jews in Christian lands was so much better.

Yes, I knew this part, myself. Forced conversion is anathema to true Quranic scripture as much as it is to the actual Ministry of Christ - whatever modern IslamISTs (the suffix to the word being of immense import) OR Crusaders, Inquisitors, or Colonial-era missionaries (or residential schoolmasters), who are in grave error in practicing their respective faiths - may say.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Geopolitics are practically impossible to predict given the sheer impact the Caliphates had on the world and how many butterfly effects that would cause.

Indeed, but the caliphates and the rise of Islam were a very, very bad thing.

This is going to sound even harsher, but the only reason those groups exist today is because Islam tolerated them.

That's like saying "the only reason American Indians exist today is because Euro-Americans tolerated them".

Also applying a modern lens is silly. I would suggest you search into contrary perspectives on Christian/Jewish lives under the Caliphates, of course there will always be groups that sought freedom and felt oppression under an Islamic Theocratic system, but compared to how other religious-majority states treated their religious minorities, you'll find the caliphates were remarkably relatively tolerant for their time. The treatment of medieval Jews in Muslim lands compared to the treatment of Jews in Christian lands was so much better.

Not always. Also, Muslim leaders used shady tactics to convert the people they conquered...such as Muslims having a tax break compared to Christians and Jews, in order to entice poor people to become Muslim...imagine the outrage of the US government gave tax breaks to Evangelicals in an effort to entice poor people to become Evangelical.

And the Abbasids kicked off the Islamic Golden age, something that is far more scientifically important then anything the Boers ever did.

Christiaan Barnard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, I knew this part, myself. Forced conversion is anathema to true Quranic scripture as much as it is to the actual Ministry of Christ - whatever modern IslamISTs (the suffix to the word being of immense import) OR Crusaders, Inquisitors, or Colonial-era missionaries (or residential schoolmasters), who are in grave error in practicing their respective faiths - may say.

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate" (Sura 9:73)

 

[Evie]

At the time the caliphs were taxing unbelievers, European kingdoms were burning them at the stake unless they converted. And expelling them. And seizing their every asset.

But clearly taxes are worse.

 

[Uncle Paul]

At the time the caliphs were taxing unbelievers, European kingdoms were burning them at the stake unless they converted. And expelling them. And seizing their every asset.

But clearly taxes are worse.

That was not every European kingdom...

 

[Evie]

No, some instead had angry mobs attacking jewish neighborhoods and slaughtering the inhabitants.

It's a very rare European kingdom that did none of these things, and any of them alone is worse than a tax.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I think the Boers never will be in Civilization because it was a very racist society, who made the Apartheid.

 

[Patine]

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate" (Sura 9:73)

This quote, if I recall correctly, is made of the context of defensively fighting unbelieving invaders of Muslim lands (like the Crusaders), and does not apply to the spreading of the religion.

Indeed, but the caliphates and the rise of Islam were a very, very bad thing.

That's like saying "the only reason American Indians exist today is because Euro-Americans tolerated them".

Not always. Also, Muslim leaders used shady tactics to convert the people they conquered...such as Muslims having a tax break compared to Christians and Jews, in order to entice poor people to become Muslim...imagine the outrage of the US government gave tax breaks to Evangelicals in an effort to entice poor people to become Evangelical.

Christiaan Barnard - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate" (Sura 9:73)

At the time the caliphs were taxing unbelievers, European kingdoms were burning them at the stake unless they converted. And expelling them. And seizing their every asset.

But clearly taxes are worse.

No, some instead had angry mobs attacking jewish neighborhoods and slaughtering the inhabitants.

It's a very rare European kingdom that did none of these things, and any of them alone is worse than a tax.

Also, as I said, even though it has a long history of being done by both those professing faith to Christian and Islamic ideals, forced conversion is anathema to both religions as enjoined by their founders, Jesus Christ and Mohammed, respectively. And polities and groups claiming to profess Christianity used shady, disingenuous carrot tactics, rather than always forceful stick tactics, to convert people, too. Such people are a stain upon both religions.

 

[Uncle Paul]

This quote, if I recall correctly, is made of the context of defensively fighting unbelieving invaders of Muslim lands (like the Crusaders), and does not apply to the spreading of the religion.

The Crusades were 100% righteous, a response to centuries of Islamic incursions into Christian territories, harassment of pilgrims, treating Christians as second-class citizens, etc...

Also, as I said, even though it has a long history of being done by both those professing faith to Christian and Islamic ideals, forced conversion is anathema to both religions as enjoined by their founders, Jesus Christ and Mohammed, respectively. And polities and groups claiming to profess Christianity used shady, disingenuous carrot tactics, rather than always forceful stick tactics, to convert people, too. Such people are a stain upon both religions.

Well, as a believing Christian who believes that the only non-Christians who have a shot at Heaven are Jews, I disagree with you here.

I think the Boers never will be in Civilization because it was a very racist society, who made the Apartheid.

The Boer Republics (which lost their freedom in 1902) had nothing to do with Apartheid (which began in 1948).

No, some instead had angry mobs attacking jewish neighborhoods and slaughtering the inhabitants.

It's a very rare European kingdom that did none of these things, and any of them alone is worse than a tax.

And angry Islamic mobs attacked Jews and Christians in the Middle East...what's your point?

 

[Patine]

The Crusades were 100% righteous, a response to centuries of Islamic incursions into Christian territories, harassment of pilgrims, treating Christians as second-class citizens, etc...

The Crusaders were nothing more than brutal thugs in armoured blessed by the POLITICIANS in Rome, using the Lord's Name in vain, and committing what, by the much later Geneva Convention, would be considered monstrous war crimes, as a cynical land grab, and didn't even attempt to convert, or minister to, anyone, in those Crusader States, but just subjugate them - including Jews and Middle Eastern Christians - wholesale.

Well, as a believing Christian who believes that the only non-Christians who have a shot at Heaven are Jews, I disagree with you here.

There is nowhere in the New Testament where it lists chances or certainties of ANYONE of being judged worthy or damned by the Father Day on Judgement, funny enough.

Now I'm winding this segue up before the, "Viking's hammer," strikes.

 

[Uncle Paul]

The Crusaders were nothing more than brutal thugs in armoured blessed by the POLITICIANS in Rome, using the Lord's Name in vain, and committing what, by the much later Geneva Convention, would be considered monstrous war crimes, as a cynical land grab, and didn't even attempt to convert, or minister to, anyone, in those Crusader States, but just subjugate them - including Jews - wholesale.

Yes, the Crusaders did some bad things, especially to innocent Jewish people, but the overall idea of the Crusades was good. Keep in mind, the Levant was Christian before it was Islamic.

There is nowhere in the New Testament where it lists chances or certainties of ANYONE of being judged worthy or damned by the Father on Judgement, funny enough.

Now I'm winding this segue up before the, "Viking's hammer," strikes.

Yes, let's stop the theological discussion now.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Fair enough, but can you at least admit the Boer Republics were a noble endeavour, and a force for good, unlike the Caliphates?

Noble and good fit in the mind of the muslim armies that conquered from Pyrenees to the Indus, whatever we agree or not with their believes for them their armies were doing the work of their prophet and God, at that point christians had some centuries doing the same time to time. Hate Caliphates for do it in a more effective way are just double standars.

The primitive pagan cults of pre-Christian Europe hardly count as real religions, and I say that as someone whose ancestors must have followed those cults 2000 years ago (since I'm of mostly Northern European descent). I'm grateful that Christianity supplanted them, and the vast majority of people descended from their followers are, too.

So you must realize that the absolute majority of muslim also are happy with their religion despite how their ancestors were converted.

I like a mix of both, since it's nice to have the staples from Antiquity, but it's harder for a modern person to feel a connection to the Gothic tribes (no, the goth subculture isn't the same thing), the Huns, the Sumerians, etc...
How are the Boers "redundant"? As I have established, Boer =/= Dutch. We have the Byzantines coexist with the Greeks and Romans, we have Spain, Portugal, France, and Venice coexist with the Romans, we have Germany coexist with Austria or the HRE depending on which iteration of Civ it is, we have Sweden coexist with the Danish Vikings in Civ V, we have Australia, Canada, America and the UK coexist in Civ VI, we have Canada and France coexist in Civ VI,

I would happily skip many of these precisely for being redundant and only appeal to the limited knowledge of the common player.

we have Babylon and Sumeria coexist in Civ III, we have Babylon and Assyria coexist in Civ V.

Sumerians are not even from the same language group than Babylonians an are way older.

If the Boers and Dutch are really mutually exclusive, just use the Boers instead of the Dutch. The Boers are a lot more relevant in the post-1800 period than the Dutch.

Sorry but not, this is almost like say Metis are more relevant than French. Every civ you listed is far more relevant than Boers.

Yes, but it was a mostly negative impact on the world, whereas the Boers produced some of the greatest medical advances (Dr. Barnard) and statesmen (General Smuts) of the 20th century.

"Mostly negative" if you ignore both centuries of some of the best levels of development and the role of colonialism in the last few centuries. Also just Avicenna worth a lot for the history of medicine.

 

[Arcaian]

I left South Africa early enough that I still had schooling elsewhere in the world, and I can say with certainty that a discussion on the Afrikaans language or ethnicity was not had in any class I studied during my non-South-African schooling career, and the Boers were mentioned in passing for the Boer Wars - perhaps a sentence or two. My knowledge of these groups comes primarily from family discussions, and reading the many South African history books that we brought with us. I'd be highly confident in saying that I know more about the Boers than the vast majority of English-speaking people outside of South Africa - and even then, I didn't know the names of all of the individuals you've referenced in this thread. I do think the Boers have a very interesting history, and I do wish that the atrocities the British committed in the Boer Wars were better known - some people are uncomfortable with the concept that the modern concentration camp was popularised by the British in these wars, a fact that I think many more people should know.

All that being said, there's simply far too little knowledge about the Boers in the public consciousness outside of South Africa for them to make sense as a leader in a civ game, I would say - at least on the basis of their historical appeal. It's easy to feel like everyone is aware of your group when you're in the group, but I think in this case it isn't true. I've certainly done the same thing many times - expected people to know some jargon I used, or to be considerate of an identity that they didn't even know existed.

 

[Uncle Paul]

Noble and good fit in the mind of the muslim armies that conquered from Pyrenees to the Indus, whatever we agree or not with their believes for them their armies were doing the work of their prophet and God, at that point christians had some centuries doing the same time to time. Hate Caliphates for do it in a more effective way are just double standars.

Hate is a bit strong of a word. I dislike the Caliphates, in part because they led to territory/people being lost by my (European Christian) civilization.

So you must realize that the absolute majority of muslim also are happy with their religion despite how their ancestors were converted.

Not sure how anyone could be happy with a religion that requires them to forgo bacon, ham, beer, cocktails, etc...requires them to wake up at odd hours to pray five times a day, requires them to spend a month fasting (not even drinking water during the day), requires them to have part of their genitalia amputated, requires them to learn Arabic regardless of where they live and whether or not it's actually useful in the wider society, requires some level of separation from the surrounding society if it isn't Islamic, etc...
Whereas, as a Christian, I can eat what I want, when I want, I don't have to get body parts cut off, I can pray in my native language when it's convenient for me, etc...

I would happily skip many of these precisely for being redundant and only appeal to the limited knowledge of the common player.

You can't really have a Civ game that omits major European nations. That would just be weird. Would you really rather have a bunch of small, uninfluential civs than Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, etc...

Sumerians are not even from the same language group than Babylonians an are way older.

However, to the vast majority of modern people, they are both just "ancient Mesopotamian peoples".

Sorry but not, this is almost like say Metis are more relevant than French. Every civ you listed is far more relevant than Boers.

But some civs in Civ V are not. The Shoshone are not more relevant than the Boers, they're a cool civ with cool uniques and a nice leaderhead, but they're not at all relevant to the greater scheme of things, they're only in there because the game developers are American, so they are presumably a familiar tribe to Americans. It would be like a South African studio making a Civ game and including the Basuto.

"Mostly negative" if you ignore both centuries of some of the best levels of development and the role of colonialism in the last few centuries. Also just Avicenna worth a lot for the history of medicine.

The parts of the erstwhile Roman Empire that stayed Christian are way better off today than the parts that became Islamic. Would you rather live in Venice or in Baghdad? Athens or the erstwhile Constantinople? Madrid or Damascus?

I left South Africa early enough that I still had schooling elsewhere in the world, and I can say with certainty that a discussion on the Afrikaans language or ethnicity was not had in any class I studied during my non-South-African schooling career, and the Boers were mentioned in passing for the Boer Wars - perhaps a sentence or two. My knowledge of these groups comes primarily from family discussions, and reading the many South African history books that we brought with us. I'd be highly confident in saying that I know more about the Boers than the vast majority of English-speaking people outside of South Africa - and even then, I didn't know the names of all of the individuals you've referenced in this thread. I do think the Boers have a very interesting history, and I do wish that the atrocities the British committed in the Boer Wars were better known - some people are uncomfortable with the concept that the modern concentration camp was popularised by the British in these wars, a fact that I think many more people should know.

I'm upvoting your comment for the last couple of sentences in this paragraph.

All that being said, there's simply far too little knowledge about the Boers in the public consciousness outside of South Africa for them to make sense as a leader in a civ game, I would say - at least on the basis of their historical appeal. It's easy to feel like everyone is aware of your group when you're in the group, but I think in this case it isn't true. I've certainly done the same thing many times - expected people to know some jargon I used, or to be considerate of an identity that they didn't even know existed.

Are the Boers really any more obscure than the Hittites, Songhai, Maori, Cree, Shoshone, Iroquois, Georgians, Mapuche, Nubians, Scythians, or Venetians?

 

[Arcaian]

Are the Boers really any more obscure than the Hittites, Songhai, Maori, Cree, Shoshone, Iroquois, Georgians, Mapuche, Nubians, Scythians, or Venetians?

In my experience? Yes. I'm obviously coming at it from a different angle to most, given I do know of the Boers and have from a young age because of my family and where I was born, but haven't seen the Boers discussed almost anywhere else. I've seen discussions of all of those groups except the Mapuche prior to their inclusion in Civ, most of them fairly repeatedly. Partially I think it's due to who they interacted with - the Scythians might not be very famous, but they interacted with famous historical figures that most Civ players know about, like Phillip of Macedon. It's also just the part of the world - anything that's close to the Mediterranean is more likely to come up in an English-language history education because of the importance of that region to the history that we are taught, and anything in North America is likely to come up more often because of the cultural dominance of the US in the Anglosphere. The Maori might not be as commonly discussed for people in Europe or NA though - I've lived in the Oceania region, where it's naturally going to come up more.

I think the other reason many of these groups were included is because they could find a unique gameplay mechanic for them - the one-city empires of Venice, for example. A suggestion of the Boers as a civ with a unique mechanic that will attract attention is likely to get a lot more leeway - perhaps something around the Great Trek?

 

[Uncle Paul]

In my experience? Yes. I'm obviously coming at it from a different angle to most, given I do know of the Boers and have from a young age because of my family and where I was born, but haven't seen the Boers discussed almost anywhere else. I've seen discussions of all of those groups except the Mapuche prior to their inclusion in Civ, most of them fairly repeatedly. Partially I think it's due to who they interacted with - the Scythians might not be very famous, but they interacted with famous historical figures that most Civ players know about, like Phillip of Macedon. It's also just the part of the world - anything that's close to the Mediterranean is more likely to come up in an English-language history education because of the importance of that region to the history that we are taught, and anything in North America is likely to come up more often because of the cultural dominance of the US in the Anglosphere. The Maori might not be as commonly discussed for people in Europe or NA though - I've lived in the Oceania region, where it's naturally going to come up more.

I think the other reason many of these groups were included is because they could find a unique gameplay mechanic for them - the one-city empires of Venice, for example. A suggestion of the Boers as a civ with a unique mechanic that will attract attention is likely to get a lot more leeway - perhaps something around the Great Trek?

The Boers produced General Smuts and Dr. Barnard. What comparable figures did the Scythians, the Maori, or the Shoshoni produce?
One idea for the Boers, based on the Boer Wars, and how once the conventional armies of the republics were defeated, many Boers launched a guerilla campaign for their freedom, is "when a Boer unit is destroyed, all enemy units within a 5-tile radius lose 10 HP".

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Boers produced General Smuts and Dr. Barnard. What comparable figures did the Scythians, the Maori, or the Shoshoni produce?
One idea for the Boers, based on the Boer Wars, and how once the conventional armies of the republics were defeated, many Boers launched a guerilla campaign for their freedom, is "when a Boer unit is destroyed, all enemy units within a 5-tile radius lose 10 HP".

Well Sacagawea was a Shoshone, and is important in American history being a guide for Lewis and Clarke on their expedition. Maori are just a well known people in general throughout the Pacific especially when it comes to New Zealand and Australia.

The real question I think that needs to be asked is not if the Boers are more influential than these groups of people, but what niche would they fulfill in a civ game?
Scythia fills the role of Classical nomadic steppe civ from Eurasia. The Maori are the Polynesian group represented. Shoshone were a last minute replacement to the Pueblo, but the developers wanted another American tribe.

Coming in as an outsider, not from South Africa, the first thing people think of the Boers are a Dutch colonial government that was located in present-day South Africa. I mean it's true we haven't had a Dutch post-colonial nation yet unlike Anglo (U.S., Australia), French (Canada), Spanish (Gran Colombia), and Portuguese (Brazil), but I don't know if that's enough to warrant inclusion.

 

[Patine]

French (Canada)

I still stand that is a great distortion that really bugs about Firaxis' take on Canada for some inexplicable reason. Canada very much has a British post-colonial heritage, just as much as Australia and the U.S., less then 20% of Canadians speak French as their mother tongue, 8 out of 10 provinces conduct their Provincial-level Government business and mainstream public schools (as opposed to alternative, but smaller-scale public options, or private schooling), and signage and labelling, are in English. The political apparatus is extremely similar in structure and base institutions and core theory to Australia and the UK, and we use Common Law, not the Civil Code, except for a significant number exception in Civic Law in the Province of Quebec, alone, and our political institutions do not resemble those of France or a former French colony, really, remotely. Our Queen died less than a week ago, too. And, when he was PM, Wilfred Laurier conducted virtually all officially Government business, domestically and abroad, in English, which he had great fluency in. And, we must not forget, that the, by far, biggest Francophone Province, Quebec, is also home to the largest and most politically successful, by an immense margin, SECCESSIONIST political movement who want to SEPARATE from Canada, and feelings of inequity of language and cultural issues in modern Canada. Firaxis' portrayal, and comments as above that seem to casually remark Firaxis' bizarre design choice as actually being fact, is a pet peeve of mine. I apologize for the rant, but, as someone who lives in Western Canada, it always struck me as a bad design choice with no care for what the majority of Canadians would think (when they bend over backwards to get other cultures to agree to their portrayals, even choosing dubious individuals or groups to, "speak for," those cultures, too), and my anger is not at you, but at Firaxis, and the statement of their legacy as not only being in game design, but lumped into conversation as though termed as a fact, becoming so prominent. And, I know Firaxis doesn't care about what I, or over 80% of Canadians, say about their portrayal of Cananda, despite having a sizable consumer base here...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I still stand that is a great distortion that really bugs about Firaxis' take on Canada for some inexplicable reason.

I mean I can think of at least two reasons:
1) They probably wanted to diversify the leader by letting them speak French, as opposed to just another English speaker like Teddy and John Curtin for the U.S. and Australia.
2) Finally have a native French speaker in the game considering the other two French leaders aren't. Catherine mixes in Italian while speaking, and Eleanor speaks only Occitan.