why no hebrew civ ???

[Jecrell]

People who say "YOU SIR" before a generic childish insult usually don't have the maturity to put forward a decent argument.

What did I ever do to you? I guess I am Sorry for being too new to these boards to not share your sense of frustration on the topic.

If your too tired to type it out, then how about you don't post at all. Why insult me instead? Is that supposed to help? Contribute? Enlighten me? Educate me? Prove me wrong?

Mister.

I think he was trying to be funny or sarcastic. There's a big problem with sarcasm/humor being taken seriously on the internet. I would not enforce sarcasm brackets -- but sometimes people come off offensive when they don't mean to be.

However, no, the American faction is not the European invaders only. It is a mixture of -- Native Americans, European settlers, African American slaves, and Mexican immigrants. The history of America therefore begins where its settlers originated -- not just from Europe where European history books begin to tell it. We learn even in U.S. history classes that our history starts over 12,000 years ago when there was a small piece of land between America and Eastern Asia that allowed our Native American ancestors to pass through into Canada and the U.S. Incidently enough the Native Americans have passed on a lot of their genetic code into the American generations.

Such as myself --

While you may believe these Native Americans don't count -- much is the same in England's history with conquering and mixing of races.

 

[Jonathan]

The modern english are very much a FRENCH civilization following the same lines.

I don't think so. The English were conquered by Normans in 1066, but (a) the Normans were really Vikings who settled in France, and (b) I don't think the Normans who came over were very numerous: they were only a fairly thin veneer on the top of English society. After a while they merged in and the country was English again.

It would be more correct to describe the English as a Germanic civilization: the Angles who gave the English their name were I think a Germanic tribe.

 

[Jecrell]

I think we've hijacked the thread -- oh dear.

 

[southafrica]

I don't think so. The English were conquered by Normans in 1066, but (a) the Normans were really Vikings who settled in France, and (b) I don't think the Normans who came over were very numerous: they were only a fairly thin veneer on the top of English society. After a while they merged in and the country was English again.

It would be more correct to describe the English as a Germanic civilization: the Angles who gave the English their name were I think a Germanic tribe.

I know, i just made a rough summary as our discussion in the other thread shows (i know where the normans are from, it is sad that people in brittany are losing thier language(culture), much like the basques (sp)) i just wanted to simplify it without starting the whole argument again. The point I was making you made for me however

Thanks for making my point Jonathan, now how come once the Roman empire falls don't the other Europeans start up as well (would make it more accurate.)

-SA (a rare type of historian. American studied history IN Europe (main focus History of European Ideas) married a South African lived there, then moved back to the US and now work for the US gov't...)

 

[elderotter]

several points: 1) this is just a GAME! It is not real life or real history.
2) the hebrew contribution to religion - Judaism - IS in the game
3) tho I regret that the Iroqouis are not in civ4 the Aztecs and Incans are and both are Native American civs - notice Native america does not designate which America north or south. In Civ 3 there were 4: Iroqouis and Aztecs for North america and Mayans and Incans for south america

 

[Jonathan]

Now how come once the Roman empire falls don't the other Europeans start up as well (would make it more accurate.)

Maybe. Certainly looking over the course of history you get a sense of tribes constantly struggling with each other, conquering each other, very often merging with each other, sometimes splitting and going different ways; the merging isn't well represented in Civ and the splitting isn't currently represented at all.

The challenge is to represent all this and still provide satisfaction to game players. Difficult. Not necessarily impossible.

 

[Jonathan]

several points: 1) this is just a GAME! It is not real life or real history.

That's right, it's a game: a historical simulation game. That's why there's so much discussion of history in these forums (perhaps you noticed).

It doesn't simulate history very accurately, and doesn't claim to; but it is marketed as a simulation of history.

 

[Carver]

That's right, it's a game: a historical simulation game. That's why there's so much discussion of history in these forums (perhaps you noticed).

It doesn't simulate history very accurately, and doesn't claim to; but it is marketed as a simulation of history.

If it were a 'simulation' of history there would be no need to play the game, everything would be predetermined.

It's a game where you get to build a nation and compete with other nations. For flavor, the names of historical civs and cities are used. The civs, the city names, the leaders are just flavor. One could imagine playing this game with generic nationalities and techs; the gameplay would still be the same, ppl just wouldn't have the image of Roman Legions seizing whatever city in their head.

 

[GenericUsername]

IMO, one of them should be Native America. Modern America should only be founded if England (or whatever) conquers native America (which is utterly horrible!)

Ok sorry for going off topic.

The entity that was America did far more Native Conquering than the British did.

 

[elderotter]

it is still just a game and I know more historically centered games like rometotal war and knights of honor and they relect a lot of non history because alternate realities are fun - few want to play history exactly as it was - been there done that in Real life - it is just a
game and if you think That Civ4 is historically accurate - well the forums are full of this is not accurate themes. I don't play Civ because of history I play Civ because it is so much FUN.

 

[Varelse]

I'd love to see a Hebrew nation in an expansion pack. Not sure they deserve to be in the vanilla version, just because the religion is already represented, but a Hebrew nation with Jerusalem as a capital would be a great addtion later on. Jerusalem has had alot of influence over history, both ancient and modern.

Oh and just for the record, "redneck" is an offensive term to some rednecks unless it is said by another redneck.

 

[Jonathan]

If it were a 'simulation' of history there would be no need to play the game, everything would be predetermined.

That's a misconception. There are lots of simulation games around: games that simulate battles, wars, management of various industries, etc. In each case, you start off from a particular situation and follow certain rules, but the decisions are up to you. The simulation is in the rules.

If Civ were a very accurate simulation of history (which of course it isn't), you could make your decisions as leader of your nation and the results would be what would have happened in reality if those same decisions had been made. The course of the game would follow recorded history only if you made the same decisions that were actually made at the time. (In fact, probably not even in that case, as the rules would surely incorporate some random factor.)

 

[Tactician Zhao]

Oh and just for the record, "redneck" is an offensive term to some rednecks unless it is said by another redneck.

I have a feeling that was the point

 

[Jecrell]

That's a misconception. There are lots of simulation games around: games that simulate battles, wars, management of various industries, etc. In each case, you start off from a particular situation and follow certain rules, but the decisions are up to you. The simulation is in the rules.

It's not even a simulation of history because it's not even loosely based on any events, historic battles, wars, ect. The closest thing to that is the scenarios function -- which is a different part of the game. A lot of historic pieces have been left in the game that really reflect on the civilization, its leaders, the tech tree, and the wonders of the world. That's it really as far as history goes. Therefore I think we can classify it as a fantasy simulation rather than a history simulation -- since history must follow a set path (I.E., Rome Total War you must conquer territory and become leader of the Roman empire). If it makes sense -- it's better to say that historical simulation games have "specific goals" that need to be achieved according to history. I'm not sure if building a space ship to Alpha Centauri, taking over the world, building the U.N. and causing world peace, ect is considered historically accurate either.

 

[Tactician Zhao]

That's a misconception. There are lots of simulation games around: games that simulate battles, wars, management of various industries, etc. In each case, you start off from a particular situation and follow certain rules, but the decisions are up to you. The simulation is in the rules.

If Civ were a very accurate simulation of history (which of course it isn't), you could make your decisions as leader of your nation and the results would be what would have happened in reality if those same decisions had been made. The course of the game would follow recorded history only if you made the same decisions that were actually made at the time. (In fact, probably not even in that case, as the rules would surely incorporate some random factor.)

I would have to disagree.. in those games you are simulating a certain thing (for example, city building in SimCity).. in Civilization, you could argue you are simulating something as well, but it certainly isn't history.. if anything, its a civilization simulation.. but using that logic, you could call just about any game a simulation anyways

 

[Jonathan]

It's not even a simulation of history because it's not even loosely based on any events, historic battles, wars, ect.

That's like saying that a game of the Battle of Gettysburg isn't a simulation because Pickett's Charge doesn't happen in every game. It doesn't have to. Being a simulation just means that the game follows rules similar to those of the process that's being simulated. It certainly doesn't mean that any of the known historical events have to recur in the game. The events in the game are determined by the decisions of the players.

 

[troytheface]

think people must have started to run out of ideas. This is like the third post on the subject. However, now when i see such a post i will respond by pointing out that Isreal is a little speck of a country that did not fight for anything to be a nation- it was simply given the land. When they were an ancient nation they lasted like two seconds and basically got whipped by everyone.

Masada is a great story for the Isreals. Killing their own women and children because they did not care to stand up and bravely die to the man shows they should definately not be a civ. A suicidal Alamo - now that's a twist.

 

[Jecrell]

That's like saying that a game of the Battle of Gettysburg isn't a simulation because Pickett's Charge doesn't happen in every game. It doesn't have to. Being a simulation just means that the game follows rules similar to those of the process that's being simulated. It certainly doesn't mean that any of the known historical events have to recur in the game. The events in the game are determined by the decisions of the players.

What? No. It's a historic simulation because it's set on the Battle of Gettysburg with as much realism as possible set about it with the goal of winning the battle itself so that history can move right along. However if there was an alternate ending to the battle then it would be leaning moreso towards fantasy than history. Civilization IV has nothing to do with real history at all though -- that's the point.

 

[Tactician Zhao]

Masada is a great story for the Isreals. Killing their own women and children because they did not care to stand up and bravely die to the man shows they should definately not be a civ. A suicidal Alamo - now that's a twist.

most people are starting to realize that was a mostly embellished version of what happened.. but regardless, better to die with a little honor than let the Romans get their hands on you, in my opinion.. weren't exactly known for their humanitarianism

 

[covenant]

??????????????????????????????????????????????????

Because they decided not to include the tech "Guilt"