Fine.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?
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.Now you want Civ7 to have Boers with BETTER uniques than all the rest of the civs in the game? Is that a joke?
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.
All of those (except Morocco and Swahili) are obscure, compared to the Boers.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.
Nothing comparable to the Boer Republics.
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)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)”).
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.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.
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.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.
Then why is the Voortrekker Monument not in the game?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.
Ashoka isn't important in the West. Kruger is.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.
I'm male, so it's "he's", not "they're", and I'm not trolling, I'm just highly ethnocentric.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.