why no hebrew civ ???

[Willem]

If Europe also conquered Africa, would that make them African? I think not.

Umm, Europe did conquer Africa.

Why do you think that both Dutch and English are spoken in South Africa? Or at least the Dutch that's now known as Afrikaans. And Algeria speaks French.

 

[Willem]

Don't forget the English.



True, but Civilization doesn't begin in 2005.
The Pilgrim Settlers where indeed English.

But there were also Dutch settlers (New York), Spanish (Florida, California, New Mexico, Texas, Arizona), and French (Mississippi, Louisiana) in what is today known as America.

 

[Willem]

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

It's a "strategy" game, not a simulation!

 

[Willem]

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

The British were actually quite accomodating to the native peoples, as were the French. That was why the Iroquios sided with the British against the Americans.

Damn, I'll never figure out how to spell Iroqoius. Confuses the hell out of me everytime.

 

[Jonathan]

It's a "strategy" game, not a simulation!

No need to shout. Like lots of other games, it's both a strategy game and a simulation game. It simulates history, and allows you to use strategy in doing so.

I'm amazed that some people don't seem to know what a simulation game is.

 

[Jonathan]

To return to the nominal subject of this thread, the Jews had a respectable if not very long period as an independent ancient civilization. After leaving Egypt, they acquired land by taking it by force from the Canaanites. Then (according to Wikipedia):

1030 BC. The tribes were settled in the land of Israel. It was a time of unrest and strife. Saul became the first king of the Israelites in approximately 1020 BC. David succeeded him in c.1006 BC, and moved the capital from Hebron to Jerusalem. David waged several, successful military campaigns, annexing Philistia, Edom, Moab, Ammon, and parts of ancient Aram (Syria) known as Aram-Zobah, and Aram-Damascus. Aram itself became a vassal state of Israel under David.

David was succeeded in about 965 BC by his son Solomon, who constructed the First Temple at Jerusalem and had a prosperous reign. However, on Solomon's death in c. 926 BC the kingdom began to fragment, bisecting into the kingdom of Israel in the north (including the cities of Shechem and Samaria), and the kingdom of Judah in the south (containing Jerusalem).

In 922 BCE, the Kingdom of Israel was divided. Judah, the southern Kingdom, had Jerusalem as its capital and was led by Rehoboam. It was populated by the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon (and some of tribe of Levi). Simeon and Judah later merged, and Simeon lost its separate identity.

Jeroboam led the revolt of the northern tribes, and established the Kingdom of Israel, consisting of nine tribes: Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, Dan, Menasseh, Ephraim, Reuben and Gad (and some of Levi), with Samaria as its capital.

Israel fell to the Assyrians in 721 BCE; Judah fell to the Babylonians a little over a century later, in 597 BCE.

 

[stannis]

Is it possible to add civs with the editor? If so, knock yourselves out. I don't see why there should be a Hebrew civ personally.

 

[Willem]

No need to shout. Like lots of other games, it's both a strategy game and a simulation game. It simulates history, and allows you to use strategy in doing so.

I'm amazed that some people don't seem to know what a simulation game is.

NO, THIS SHOUTING, this is emphasizing. And I find myself saying it so many times lately that apparently it deserves emphasis. And the game doesn't simulate history except in the very broadest sense. For the most part it uses historical developments in order to advance strategic elements in the gameplay. That doesn't qualify as a simulation IMO.

 

[Benjie]

NO, THIS SHOUTING, this is emphasizing.

IF THIS IS SHOUTING and this is emphasizing then what's this called?

 

[Jonathan]

this is emphasizing

Emphasis is best used in moderation. Emphasizing your whole message isn't likely to make people take you more seriously. Rather the reverse.

the game doesn't simulate history except in the very broadest sense.

That's the sense I was referring to. If we can agree that it simulates history in a broad sense, fine.

It simulates the building of cities, the linking of cities into nations, conflicts and trade between nations, the spreading of religions and cultures. This is the stuff of history that we're playing with. It's emphatically not an abstract game.

The fact that it's an inaccurate simulation doesn't disqualify it from being called a simulation. Few games are accurate simulations, though some wargames aspire to accuracy.

 

[civaddict098]

I think anyone with nukes deserves to be in the game, wich Israel has

 

[MRM]

I think anyone with nukes deserves to be in the game, wich Israel has

Hmmm - North Korea as a seperate civ ???

 

[civaddict098]

i dont think north korea has nukes, just a program, but i guess your sorta rite.

 

[elderotter]

To return to the nominal subject of this thread, the Jews had a respectable if not very long period as an independent ancient civilization. After leaving Egypt, they acquired land by taking it by force from the Canaanites.

Look I can understand the history of the Hebrews, and it did create some things most notably A great Book, a religion, and a Holy City. Also I do think that it is crazy to had have a religion in the game which is about the relationship between one people and that people's God without having the people in the game.
But, even given the history you related, The Hebrew Nation spend a great deal of history as "Occupied", and a lengthy period of that time as "Dispersed".
I think they need to do more than currently possess some Land in the
Middle East that has no oil and perhaps possess Nukes.
And besides they weren't even in the 36 of the Civ 3's Conquest pack. (of course Mali wasn't either) . I think that if the total count ever exceeds 36 then perhaps they should be included but not until then. Problem is, is that History is full of "also rans".

 

[Carver]

I think anyone with nukes deserves to be in the game, wich Israel has

But they don't admit it.

 

[civaddict098]

they dont deny it.

I think it is pretty much assumed by most governments today that Israel posseses some nukes.

 

[tmarcl]

EDIT: Just to explain what I was ranting on about: I don't really like how modern America and other hostile takeovers are represented within the rules. I think that it would be nice if America was handled, for example, like prestige classes are handled within D&D. Where after certain requirements have been met, Civ "A" can defeat Civ "B" and go on to found Civ "C" on their land. Either as a close ally controlled by computer AI, or a division of the founding empire. Perhaps both with independence rule-stuffs.
Except in a game of Civilization, America might be founded by the Polish after they defeat the Koreans.

4000BC has nothing to do with it.

To respond to what I *think* you're saying:

I've seen this idea mentioned before-civs that start later in the game broken off from previous civs. The problem is that if the human player chose to play it, s/he'd be starting late in the game, and would miss the fun of the early game. If the AI played it, it would kind of be pointless, as all it would really do would be to add just one more rival. You might enjoy that, I don't know. I don't think I would, though.

What you're talking about is kind of like the Civil Wars in Civ II, where if you took a country's capital, there was a chance it would break off in to two different civs. Again, all it really did was add just one more rival to the mix. It didn't, in my opinion, increase enjoyability.

Marc

 

[lukedukekiwi]

Civ is a pretty politically correct game really, alot of things seem to not be part of the model so as not to offend people. I think the reason there is no Hebrew civ in any version of the game is the same reason Hitler is never the leader of the Germans.

 

[Alphawolf]

That was why the Iroquios sided with the British against the Americans.

Not long ago I had to do a research paper on the Amerindians and The American Revolution and it is both true and false that the Iroquois sided with the British. The Iroquois were a confederation of five tribes and these tribes were split as to what to do about the Americans, I can't remember of the top of my head but I think it was 2 tribes helping the British, 2 helping the American and one neutral.
-AW

 

[tmarcl]

To return to the nominal subject of this thread, the Jews had a respectable if not very long period as an independent ancient civilization.

Israel fell to the Assyrians in 721 BCE; Judah fell to the Babylonians a little over a century later, in 597 BCE.

<snipped for brevity's sake, only. If you want to read the whole thing, scroll up>

The problem is though, there's no real historical evidence that the Exodus, the Conquest of Canaan and the reigns of David and Solomon actually happened. The only document that talks about them is the Bible, and with no non-biblical support, it's hard to accept.

From what we actually know as historical fact about the Jews, Israel (in my opinion, at least) doesn't deserve to be in vanilla Civ IV.

Marc