1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

why no hebrew civ ???

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by nimrod19, Oct 18, 2005.

  1. Jecrell

    Jecrell Ruled: Civ3 - Civ5

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Messages:
    709
    Location:
    California, USA
    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.
     
  2. Jonathan

    Jonathan Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
    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.
     
  3. Jecrell

    Jecrell Ruled: Civ3 - Civ5

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Messages:
    709
    Location:
    California, USA
    I think we've hijacked the thread -- oh dear.
     
  4. southafrica

    southafrica Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    233
    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...)
     
  5. elderotter

    elderotter Otter King

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    659
    Location:
    Central Upstate NY
    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
     
  6. Jonathan

    Jonathan Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
    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.
     
  7. Jonathan

    Jonathan Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
    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.
     
  8. Carver

    Carver King

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2002
    Messages:
    951
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
  9. GenericUsername

    GenericUsername Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    13
    The entity that was America did far more Native Conquering than the British did.
     
  10. elderotter

    elderotter Otter King

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    659
    Location:
    Central Upstate NY
    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.
     
  11. Varelse

    Varelse Rabble Rouser

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Messages:
    377
    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. :)
     
  12. Jonathan

    Jonathan Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
    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.)
     
  13. Tactician Zhao

    Tactician Zhao Lord Strategist

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    307
    Location:
    Unknown Kadath
    I have a feeling that was the point ;)
     
  14. Jecrell

    Jecrell Ruled: Civ3 - Civ5

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Messages:
    709
    Location:
    California, USA
    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.
     
  15. Tactician Zhao

    Tactician Zhao Lord Strategist

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    307
    Location:
    Unknown Kadath
    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
     
  16. Jonathan

    Jonathan Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2001
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Sant Pere de Ribes, Spain
    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.
     
  17. troytheface

    troytheface Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,262
    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.
     
  18. Jecrell

    Jecrell Ruled: Civ3 - Civ5

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Messages:
    709
    Location:
    California, USA
    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.
     
  19. Tactician Zhao

    Tactician Zhao Lord Strategist

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    307
    Location:
    Unknown Kadath
    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 :sad:
     
  20. covenant

    covenant Warlord

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2004
    Messages:
    162

    Because they decided not to include the tech "Guilt"
     

Share This Page