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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Uncle Paul

Bittereinder
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
491
Location
Die Ou Transvaal
That's irrelevant, because you're ONCE AGAIN, after I brought up yesterday for you doing it twice, and several other times since you started posting, assuming the player base of Civ games lacks the greater knowledge of, and interest in, broader world history and figures within that they do, in fact, have above the typical Western, "everyperson," and assuming interest in Civ's is only is major European and European-descended Civ's, and, outside that, only with hugely-known names to the average Western, "everyperson." Every time you state this (false) assumption, you presumptuously insult the whole Civ player base, including everyone else in this thread and the several others you're involved in. Could you kindly cease and desist this practice?
Fine.
Now you want Civ7 to have Boers with BETTER uniques than all the rest of the civs in the game? Is that a joke?
No, I think that the Boers did an admirable job in a tough situation, and their uniques should reflect that, compared to a civ like USA that just got lucky and found a giant, mostly empty (because of diseases) piece of farmland, no dangerous neighbors, no British attempts to annex them after their original Independence War.
Most of the local natives in the USA were long gone by 1776, because of European diseases, whereas the local natives in South Africa had much more immunity and resistance to European diseases.
No, you are.
No, you are.
Might I suggest reading more carefully? I said from Algeria to Zimbabwe: from A to Z. So that includes basically everyone from the Akan to Benin, to Morocco, to the Swahili or the Yoruba.
All of those (except Morocco and Swahili) are obscure, compared to the Boers.
Nothing comparable to the Boer Republics.
Again, I suggest reading more carefully, I said if you filter the results specific for those topics instead of a general web search, which is exactly what I have done (you’ll note the search term says “Ashoka (King)”).
You could make a better Kruger leaderhead, since there are actually photos of Kruger in existence. Ashoka, it's just a guess at what he looked like. (ancient art wasn't photorealistic)
Way late to the party on this point, but I totally want Haiti as a civ. The first revolution that was really about freeing themselves from the bonds of slavery.
That doesn't make them an important or interesting Civ to include in the game, and they're just as much a colonial civ as the Boers are.
According to your link Ashoka is more commonly searched up in the U.S.
And may I remind you that there is a very large population of people from the Indian Subcontinent that lives in Western countries as well.
Yes, I am aware of mass migration into the West. The question is - is Civ popular amongst the Indian diaspora? PS: Indians like Gandhi just as much if not more than Ashoka.
I don't view it as particularly anti-Western sentiment in wanting to include actual wonders of the world like Taj Mahal in the game.
Then why is the Voortrekker Monument not in the game?
My family's native tongue is English, but if you're arguing that only Afrikaans South Africans are expected to know these figures that you're claiming are universally acclaimed (above and beyond extremely important historical figures like Ashoka), you're shooting your own argument in the foot, given there are ~3 million Afrikaans speakers world-wide.
Ashoka isn't important in the West. Kruger is.
Anyway, that's going to be my last post in this thread - Uncle Paul has gone so far past the point of reason that they're either trolling, or so completely deluded as to the importance of Boer an Afrikaaner culture worldwide that I don't think there's any point in further discussion.
I'm male, so it's "he's", not "they're", and I'm not trolling, I'm just highly ethnocentric.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,376
Location
Texas
Then why is the Voortrekker Monument not in the game?
My point was that the Taj Mahal is a world wonder in real life.
Ashoka isn't important in the West. Kruger is.
You do realize that the West is bigger than just South Africa? Kruger has had no impact on history in the U.S. at all. And as mentioned above Ashoka was the main reason for the spread of Buddhism across East Asia, which you can definitely argue is more influential from a global perspective than Kruger was.
Yes, I am aware of mass migration into the West. The question is - is Civ popular amongst the Indian diaspora? PS: Indians like Gandhi just as much if not more than Ashoka.
You do realize that they included Chandragupta in Civ 6 because of civ fans wanting another leader? All I'm proposing is repeating the same thing with both Gandhi and Ashoka, who has already appeared once before.
 

sukritact

Artist and Modder
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
2,923
Location
Bangkok
You could make a better Kruger leaderhead, since there are actually photos of Kruger in existence. Ashoka, it's just a guess at what he looked like. (ancient art wasn't photorealistic)
“Hey guys, I’ve got some bad news. You see creative license has been cancelled, so we can’t come up with creative interpretations of how people would have looked anymore. We’ll have to remove Gilgamesh, Qin Shi Huang, and Charlemagne from the game since we don’t have photos or realistic contemporary depictions of them”

All of those (except Morocco and Swahili) are obscure, compared to the Boers.
That doesn't make them an important or interesting Civ to include in the game, and they're just as much a colonial civ as the Boers are.
Nothing comparable to the Boer Republics.
Nah.

Ashoka isn't important in the West. Kruger is.
Yeah, no one knows who Kruger is unless they’re from South Africa. Ashoka is part of basically every well-rounded history education. Kruger is important in SA, and neighbouring countries, nowhere else. Ashoka is important to world history in general.

People have heard of Mansa Musa, Gandhi, Mandela, Ashoka, and Tang Taizong. People haven’t heard of Kruger (I can tell you the first time I heard of the guy was when someone made a Boer Civ 5 mod). I didn’t even pay attention to the Boers in the Scramble for Africa scenario.

You are gravely mistaken if you think otherwise. And it probably says a fair bit about your world view if you think this.
I'm just highly ethnocentric.
As I was saying…

My point was that the Taj Mahal is a world wonder in real life.
I’ve never even heard of this Voortrekker Memorial, and I bet you most people would say the same. The Taj Mahal, everyone knows.
 
Last edited:

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,833
Ashoka isn't important in the West. Kruger is.

You do realize that the West is bigger than just South Africa? Kruger has had no impact on history in the U.S. at all. And as mentioned above Ashoka was the main reason for the spread of Buddhism across East Asia, which you can definitely argue is more influential from a global perspective than Kruger was.

Yeah, no one knows who Kruger is unless they’re from South Africa. Ashoka is part of basically every well-rounded history education. Kruger is important in SA, and neighbouring countries, nowhere else. Ashoka is important to world history in general.

People have heard of Mansa Musa, Gandhi, Mandela, Ashoka, and Tang Taizong. People haven’t heard of Kruger (I can tell you the first time I heard of the guy was when someone made a Boer Civ 5 mod). I didn’t even pay attention to the Boers in the Scramble for Africa scenario.
Several years ago, a friend of mine on the Civ2 Scenario League was making a remake of a much older classic custom scenario he loves playing by a member of that community who left years ago, called Imperialism, which is a global stratagem scenario in the late 1800's and very 1900's witch goes into the WW1 era and technologies. There are a couple of Boer cities on the map, including Pretorius, and I actually did float Paul Kruger as a leader option. This friend, who's from Scotland, was unfamiliar with him, except maybe his name. I gave a few of his most notable traits, and my friend said, "sounds like he'd make a good leader for the Barbarians."
 

Uncle Paul

Bittereinder
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
491
Location
Die Ou Transvaal
My point was that the Taj Mahal is a world wonder in real life.
So is the Voortrekker Monument. It's a monument to the courageous Boers who trekked over rivers, plains, and mountains to be free. The Taj Mahal, to the best of my understanding, is a monument to a Moghul Emperor's lust for one of his many wives.
You do realize that the West is bigger than just South Africa? Kruger has had no impact on history in the U.S. at all. And as mentioned above Ashoka was the main reason for the spread of Buddhism across East Asia, which you can definitely argue is more influential from a global perspective than Kruger was.
South Africa becomes less Western with each passing year, sadly. There's no shame in losing when you fought a good fight for a righteous cause.
You do realize that they included Chandragupta in Civ 6 because of civ fans wanting another leader? All I'm proposing is repeating the same thing with both Gandhi and Ashoka, who has already appeared once before.
If they really wanted another Indian leader, why not Victoria? She was the Empress of India. If not her, Edward VII, George V, or George VI could all qualify. (I omitted Edward VIII, since he ruled for less than a year and is mostly famous for abdicating to marry his divorced, American mistress Wallis Simpson). You could even have Lord Mountbatten as the leader of India.
“Hey guys, I’ve got some bad news. You see creative license has been cancelled, so we can’t come up with creative interpretations of how people would have looked anymore. We’ll have to remove Gilgamesh, Qin Shi Huang, and Charlemagne from the game since we don’t have photos or realistic contemporary depictions of them”
Gilgamesh was likely not even a real person.
You really think Haiti, a small, poor country with no global influence is a better fit for Civ than the much larger and wealthier Boer Republics, which produced a man (Jan Smuts) who was the only person to sign the peace treaties for both World Wars?
Yeah, no one knows who Kruger is unless they’re from South Africa. Ashoka is part of basically every well-rounded history education. Kruger is important in SA, and neighbouring countries, nowhere else. Ashoka is important to world history in general.
Ashoka is not part of the history curriculum in most Western countries, if any. Maybe university students learn about him.
People have heard of Mansa Musa, Gandhi, Mandela, Ashoka, and Tang Taizong. People haven’t heard of Kruger (I can tell you the first time I heard of the guy was when someone made a Boer Civ 5 mod). I didn’t even pay attention to the Boers in the Scramble for Africa scenario.
Gandhi and Mandela, yes. Musa, possibly. Ashoka and Taizong, no.
You are gravely mistaken if you think otherwise. And it probably says a fair bit about your world view if you think this.
I see you're from Bangkok. Perhaps the Thai educational system spends more time on Ashoka, given Thailand's proximity to India.
As I was saying…


I’ve never even heard of this Voortrekker Memorial, and I bet you most people would say the same. The Taj Mahal, everyone knows.
But the Voortrekker Monument is a monument to bravery, courage, and pioneers. The Taj Mahal is a monument to a Moghul Emperor's lust for his wife.
Several years ago, a friend of mine on the Civ2 Scenario League was making a remake of a much older classic custom scenario he loves playing by a member of that community who left years ago, called Imperialism, which is a global stratagem scenario in the late 1800's and very 1900's witch goes into the WW1 era and technologies. There are a couple of Boer cities on the map, including Pretorius, and I actually did float Paul Kruger as a leader option. This friend, who's from Scotland, was unfamiliar with him, except maybe his name. I gave a few of his most notable traits, and my friend said, "sounds like he'd make a good leader for the Barbarians."
Mugabe would be a good leader for the Barbarians. Pray tell, what "notable traits" of Kruger's did you give your friend?
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,833
If they really wanted another Indian leader, why not Victoria? She was the Empress of India. If not her, Edward VII, George V, or George VI could all qualify. (I omitted Edward VIII, since he ruled for less than a year and is mostly famous for abdicating to marry his divorced, American mistress Wallis Simpson). You could even have Lord Mountbatten as the leader of India.

Ashoka is not part of the history curriculum in most Western countries, if any. Maybe university students learn about him.

Gandhi and Mandela, yes. Musa, possibly. Ashoka and Taizong, no.

I see you're from Bangkok. Perhaps the Thai educational system spends more time on Ashoka, given Thailand's proximity to India.
I see you've gone right back to the insulting presumption that most Civ players only as educated as the typical Western, "everyperson," and only has their interests or desires in what to see included in the game (which, notably, would not include Kruger, either), and dismissing the fact that most Civ players are significantly more educated on history and other such subject than is average, and want a broader spread of options in game - despite me bringing up this odious and obtuse line of debate several times, and you even acknowledging a request of mine to stop it. Is there a particular reason for this?
 

Uncle Paul

Bittereinder
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
491
Location
Die Ou Transvaal
I see you've gone right back to the insulting presumption that most Civ players only as educated as the typical Western, "everyperson," and only has their interests or desires in what to see included in the game (which, notably, would not include Kruger, either), and dismissing the fact that most Civ players are significantly more educated on history and other such subject than is average, and want a broader spread of options in game - despite me bringing up this odious and obtuse line of debate several times, and you even acknowledging a request of mine to stop it. Is there a particular reason for this?
Because you keep insisting Ashoka is more important than Kruger. A well educated Western everyman probably knows both, with Kruger edging out Ashoka a little bit.
 

FishFishFish

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
94
Because you keep insisting Ashoka is more important than Kruger. A well educated Western everyman probably knows both, with Kruger edging out Ashoka a little bit.

Gandhi and Mandela, yes. Musa, possibly. Ashoka and Taizong, no.



The fact of the matter is that both Ashoka and Taizong are more popular then Kruger by a lot (even in most western countries). Your petty nationalism and delusions of the Boer's importance cannot change reality.
 

Uncle Paul

Bittereinder
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
491
Location
Die Ou Transvaal


The fact of the matter is that both Ashoka and Taizong are more popular then Kruger by a lot (even in most western countries). Your petty nationalism and delusions of the Boer's importance cannot change reality.
I only know of Ashoka and Taizong because of Civ 4 (Taizong appears in many mods, he was an alternate official Firaxis leaderhead in China instead of Mao Tse-tung). I know Kruger for reasons other than Civ.
 

sukritact

Artist and Modder
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
2,923
Location
Bangkok
I see you're from Bangkok. Perhaps the Thai educational system spends more time on Ashoka, given Thailand's proximity to India.
Definitely not. My high school was unashamedly British. I once argued one of my teachers out of covering the Irish Troubles because it was completely irrelevant to our cultural context. It was in the textbook, but my teacher ended up agreeing and adjusted the curriculum. The Boers were NOT in the textbook. Neither was Thailand funnily enough.

I only know of Ashoka and Taizong because of Civ 4 (Taizong appears in many mods, he was an alternate official Firaxis leaderhead in China instead of Mao Tse-tung). I know Kruger for reasons other than Civ.
Have you considered that perhaps the reason for this is a problem with your history background and admitted ethnocentrism on your part? There have been multiple people in this thread that have said the complete opposite.
 

Edmund Ironside

White Rabbit Object
Joined
Jun 27, 2017
Messages
1,100
Location
Michigan, USA.
Ashoka is part of basically every well-rounded history education.
So anyone who didn't study Ashoka didn't have a well-rounded history education?
Eyebrow.PNG
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,833
I only know of Ashoka and Taizong because of Civ 4 (Taizong appears in many mods, he was an alternate official Firaxis leaderhead in China instead of Mao Tse-tung). I know Kruger for reasons other than Civ.
Well, if that's the case, living in Western Canada, I think maybe Louis Riel should be in game. You HAVE heard of him, right. I grew up learning about him, in a Western nation, since Grade 4. He was a prominent and significant figure in a Western nation. You must know ALL ABOUT him, as opposed to parochial figures like the man who spread to Buddhism to East Asia or one the greatest Medieval Chinese Emperors, or any such, "nobodies," like them, correct? :undecide:
 

sukritact

Artist and Modder
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
2,923
Location
Bangkok
So anyone who didn't study Ashoka didn't have a well-rounded history education?
View attachment 640453
I argue yes. Not necessarily an in-depth "and here's a history of his reign" mind you; just a "and this guy existed", where the only thing that pops up on the exam is "Ashoka was emperor of A) India, B) China, C) Mongolia".
 

Uncle Paul

Bittereinder
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
491
Location
Die Ou Transvaal
Definitely not. My high school was unashamedly British. I once argued one of my teachers out of covering the Irish Troubles because it was completely irrelevant to our cultural context. It was in the textbook, but my teacher ended up agreeing and adjusted the curriculum. The Boers were NOT in the textbook. Neither was Thailand funnily enough.
Interesting, I didn't know that. Yet Siam made it into Civ 5, and the Boers did not. Personally, I'd like to see both Thailand/Siam and the Boers. How did you feel about Ramkhamhaeng representing your nation in Civ 5? Was he a good choice?
Have you considered that perhaps the reason for this is a problem with your history background and admitted ethnocentrism on your part? There have been multiple people in this thread that have said the complete opposite.
I don't know what countries they are from, what kinds of schools they went to, etc...
Well, if that's the case, living in Western Canada, I think maybe Louis Riel should be in game. You HAVE heard of him, right. I grew up learning about him, in a Western nation, since Grade 4. He was a prominent and significant figure in a Western nation. You must know ALL ABOUT him, as opposed to parochial figures like the man who spread to Buddhism to East Asia or one the greatest Medieval Chinese Emperors, or any such, "nobodies," like them, correct? :undecide:
Riel, according to Wikipedia, was an Amerindian leader who fought against Canada. Not really a great representation of the West. It would be like using Shaka to represent the Boers.
 

FishFishFish

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 26, 2021
Messages
94
I only know of Ashoka and Taizong because of Civ 4 (Taizong appears in many mods, he was an alternate official Firaxis leaderhead in China instead of Mao Tse-tung). I know Kruger for reasons other than Civ.

I am assuming from your obsession with the Boers that you are a Boer living in South Africa? Naturally people are going to learn more about their own historical figures over foreign ones.
 

Uncle Paul

Bittereinder
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
491
Location
Die Ou Transvaal
I am assuming from your obsession with the Boers that you are a Boer living in South Africa? Naturally people are going to learn more about their own historical figures over foreign ones.
My own personal background is why I know a lot about Kruger and Boer history, yes, but I get the sense that a lot of young White men living in Anglosphere countries are interested in South Africa and Rhodesia. I've seen Americans posting in the Rhodesia subreddit, for example, very interested in Rhodesia, and admiring Rhodesia.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,833
Riel, according to Wikipedia, was an Amerindian leader who fought against Canada. Not really a great representation of the West. It would be like using Shaka to represent the Boers.
Not quite that simple. But, to the great majority of the world, even the Western world, Kruger is about on par in significance with Riel. Shaka is MUCH more well-known.
 

Uncle Paul

Bittereinder
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
491
Location
Die Ou Transvaal
Not quite that simple. But, to the great majority of the world, even the Western world, Kruger is about on par in significance with Riel. Shaka is MUCH more well-known.
Shaka is famous, yes, but famous as a murderous tyrant.
 

sukritact

Artist and Modder
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
2,923
Location
Bangkok
My own personal background is why I know a lot about Kruger and Boer history, yes, but I get the sense that a lot of young White men living in Anglosphere countries are interested in South Africa and Rhodesia. I've seen Americans posting in the Rhodesia subreddit, for example, very interested in Rhodesia, and admiring Rhodesia.
So the people who want the Boers are White Nationalists and the Boers? Not a glowing endorsement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom