Why is Korea not in Civ 5?

[Zhahz]

Where's the "who gives a crap why do people go on and on about this nonsense every time a new version of civ or expansion comes out" poll option?

 

[Tusked]

Can he shoot laser beams out of his eyes? If he can't shoot laser beams out of his eyes, then I vote no.


<cough> India, Persia <cough>

He was probably counting Persia as a middle-eastern civilization - and people often forget India when talking about Asia. The perils of being on a subcontinent.

 

[tifa9292]

nono not kim jung-il or kim il-sung. they were horrible communist leaders that do not represent korea's rich history as a power.
i think either of the king taejos of choson or goryeo would be good and not queen min since she didnt really do anything for korea other than be kill by the japanese

but i cant wait for expansion . anyone know when it wil come out?

 

[bonafide11]

nono not kim jung-il or kim il-sung. they were horrible communist leaders that do not represent korea's rich history as a power.
i think either of the king taejos of choson or goryeo would be good and not queen min since she didnt really do anything for korea other than be kill by the japanese

but i cant wait for expansion . anyone know when it wil come out?

You realize the release of Civ V is still at least six months away, right? They haven't even announced an expansion yet, so nobody knows when it will come out. People are just assuming one will come out and that it will contain Korea, but nobody really knows for sure. At the very earliest, I think an expansion pack would be another year and a half away (fall of 2011).

 

[tifa9292]

As a nation, Korea is such a tragedy......

seriously.......it is a tragedy because they survived between china and japan and doesnt become a part of either of them.

i know this word sounds like racism, but there is no discrimination meaning. this is the miserable fact. honestly, i admire Korean since they are tough enough to survive between china and japan.

only for a short time in history is korea not independent in its history. and korea has 5000 years of history according to science ad recent reserch. i know about the bear myth but it is a myth.

http://www.seoulselection.com/index...ategory_id=12&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=53

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Korea - "Korea, one of the oldest continuous civilizations in the world[1], has over 5,000 years of history.[2] "

5000 years. longer than japan and i think china

 

[cybrxkhan]

<cough> India, Persia <cough>

You are not wrong to say that they should be in. Definitely Persia and India would be in my top 10 civilizations.

It's just that I group Persia as a Middle Eastern civilization, and India I tentatively put as Middle Eastern, even though personally it should deserve it's own category (but historically the game has lumped it together with the East Asian civs, which I see as kind of ridiculous).

Anyhow, point is, when I said "Asia", I meant East Asia (and I guess we can lump Southeast Asia into it too, for argument's sake, i.e. the Khmer would be my next choice after Korea), and not Asia as a whole... As "Asia" is such a large continent that lumping even the broad categories of cultures in it into the Western-centric grouping of "Asian" is in my opinion very insulting.

 

[Dale]

Ah I think you have that wrong. America has the best soldiers not the most.

This is an extremely subjective comment. Whilst there is no definitive answer, if you do some research you'll find the following generally accepted facts:

- Special forces: Australian and UK special forces are the best in the World. Undisputed.
- Air force: Israel has the best trained pilots in the World. Undisputed.
- Navy: UK has the best trained navy in the World. Disputed by US, but most experts still agree on UK.
- Army: General forces whilst US has the best equipped forces, Nepalese Gurkha units are the best in the World. Undisputed.
- Army: Israel and UK have the best general forces training in the World. Disputed by US, but most experts still agree on Israel and UK.

So whilst the US can definitely claim the best equipped forces, they can by no means claims the best forces. They are one of the best, but not the top.

BTW, don't bother arguing these points as I won't be coming back to respond.

 

[Dale]

You forgot Finno-ugric.

That was posted after my comment, so ridiculous.

 

[phungus420]

Why isn't the great Maltese nation in Civ4, I ask? Surely they are just as deserving as anyone else.

 

[Ahriman]

It's just that I group Persia as a Middle Eastern civilization

Persia was really the origin of the Mughals, who I certainly wouldnt' qualify as middle eastern, and half the persian empire (modern AfPak) was Asian.
Persians also often resent being lumped in with Arabs.

and India I tentatively put as Middle Eastern

???
That's a somewhat... unusual... definition of Middle East.

lumping even the broad categories of cultures in it into the Western-centric grouping of "Asian" is in my opinion very insulting.

Indians think of themselves as Asian. At least the ones I know do. Simialrly Bangladeshis. I don't know any Pakistanis.
They see no insult; if anything they are amused that people say "Asian" but mean "East Asian".
There's nothing "western-centric" about "Asian".

If you were in the UK, you'd also find that Asian by default means South Asian; if someone talks about Asian immigrants, they mean Indian, not Chinese.

but historically the game has lumped it together with the East Asian civs, which I see as kind of ridiculous

Not sure what you mean here; culturally linked starting places?
For basic gameplay it makes sense to keep India with Mongolia, China and Japan when you only have ~4 Asian civs.

if you do some research you'll find the following generally accepted facts

While not being American myself, I think you would find that your "facts" are not exactly "generally accepted" at all, to call these "undisputed" is pretty laughable.

But its very hard to separate the quality of soldiers from the quality of their equipment - where the US armed forces have a fairly overwhelming advantage.

 

[Varelse]

This is an extremely subjective comment. Whilst there is no definitive answer, if you do some research you'll find the following generally accepted facts:

- Special forces: Australian and UK special forces are the best in the World. Undisputed.
- Air force: Israel has the best trained pilots in the World. Undisputed.
- Navy: UK has the best trained navy in the World. Disputed by US, but most experts still agree on UK.
- Army: General forces whilst US has the best equipped forces, Nepalese Gurkha units are the best in the World. Undisputed.
- Army: Israel and UK have the best general forces training in the World. Disputed by US, but most experts still agree on Israel and UK.

So whilst the US can definitely claim the best equipped forces, they can by no means claims the best forces. They are one of the best, but not the top.

BTW, don't bother arguing these points as I won't be coming back to respond.

Undisputed? Says who?

 

[toft]

At least include an option for: NO! Not at all!

 

[tifa9292]

and why not? give a good reason why

 

[cybrxkhan]

Persia was really the origin of the Mughals, who I certainly wouldnt' qualify as middle eastern, and half the persian empire (modern AfPak) was Asian.
Persians also often resent being lumped in with Arabs.


???
That's a somewhat... unusual... definition of Middle East.



Indians think of themselves as Asian. At least the ones I know do. Simialrly Bangladeshis. I don't know any Pakistanis.
They see no insult; if anything they are amused that people say "Asian" but mean "East Asian".
There's nothing "western-centric" about "Asian".

If you were in the UK, you'd also find that Asian by default means South Asian; if someone talks about Asian immigrants, they mean Indian, not Chinese.


Not sure what you mean here; culturally linked starting places?
For basic gameplay it makes sense to keep India with Mongolia, China and Japan when you only have ~4 Asian civs.

I guess it's something a good number of East Asians share, that we kind of feel "insulted" when we are lumped together with Indians. For most East Asians I guess it's because of racism against South Asians, but for me it's more so because of historical and cultural reasons. Although India has had much interaction with East Asia, I still see it as a distinct entity. For example, most of Europe and the Mediterranean is highly influenced by Greece and Rome to some degree or another, so I can loosely lump those civs as "Western". And then, for the Middle East, most of those civilizations were highly influenced by Persia and Arabia to some degree or another, so I can loosely lump those civs as "Middle Eastern". All the East Asian civs, then, were highly influenced by China, so I loosely lump them as " 'Asian' ".

The problem with India is that it's a bit of an anamoly. I do agree that lumping it as Middle Eastern does no justice to its unique culture, but in my opinion India has had more closer interaction with the Middle East than with East Asia, so that's why I (reluctantly) consider it to be Middle Eastern, but only for game flavor purposes, really.

The reason I consider the term "Asian" to be Western-centric is because the concept of Asia itself is Western-centric, since technically Europe and Asia are really one continent. The whole idea of Europe as a continent (as opposed to sub-continent) was just for the Europeans to say, "hey look, we're not like all of those people in Asia". Thanks for pointing out the thing about using "Asia" in Britain, I'll be sure to remember that. I think in America "Asia" refers more so to East Asians, since historically there's been more East Asian immigrants than South Asian immigrants.


Anyhow, my whole point is, when I say "Asian", I really mean "East Asian", since that's one less word to say.

 

[Varelse]

Is it bad to refer to Asians of the epicanthic fold having variety as being oriental?

 

[bonafide11]

Is it bad to refer to Asians of the epicanthic fold having variety as being oriental?

Yes, rugs, furniture, clothing, etc. are Oriental, not people.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Is it bad to refer to Asians of the epicanthic fold having variety as being oriental?

Not too long ago it was, but I think as of late it's sort of not too offensive anymore. At least for me as an East Asian growing up in America, I myself don't see it as offensive, and all the East Asians I've interacted with, it seems the same for them as well.

 

[Varelse]

Well "Asian" itself is way too vague. We gotta come up with something that is more specific without being insulting.

Edit: actually according to this Wiki article on the term "Orient" it is used to refer to people and places of the Far East. If the term Oriental itself has fallen out of favor, maybe Far Eastern would be a good term? We could even get a chance to take turns sneering at Californians when they say "far eastern from whose perspective? They're to the west of us!".

As to whether or not it is a Eurocentric perspective, well the game and the forums we chat in are centered around the English language...which is a fairly Eurocentric language, naturally. It would make sense that certain terms that seem Eurocentric when used in the English language might seem more Indo-centric, Afro-centric, Far East-centric when using languages from those regions.

 

[bonafide11]

Well "Asian" itself is way too vague. We gotta come up with something that is more specific without being insulting.

You could use the ethnicity or nationality that they belong to. Oriental just means "eastern" -- it's no less vague than Asian.

 

[Mango Elephant]

You could use the ethnicity or nationality that they belong to. Oriental just means "eastern" -- it's no less vague than Asian.

Oriental means eastern, but it also refers to South and South-East Asia, so it's a bit more specific then Asian. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oriental