Civilization IV The Fascist Edition

frosbeastegg rightfully indicated that it was the Arena, not the Backroom where the politics were debated. I was not ablr to figure out the exact position of the subject for that time being, sorry for that. However, would not it be to move the thread instead of slamming it shut ? I mean, that was the usual attitude of moderation with misplaced topics up to now. May any Mods clarify whether I'm right or not please ?

Back to the track, I'm copy-pasting the starter here :

Quote:

---

Yes, I'm a pro-Turk.. And hell yes, Turks are nation-oriented nation. And absolutely true that they may show dogmatic reactions when it is a matter of their nationality..

But if you include 18 civilizations in a game including Mali (a great civilization, isn't it ?), but plan to include Turks in expansion packs in a future time, then that is racism, then this is the Crusader mentality in front of a monitor, then this is a "Barbarian Turks Out!" neo-Nazi manifest.

Yes there are 18 civs in Civilization IV game but Turks are excluded.. Point out my kind regards to fascist Sid Meier who can create a simulation civilization with vast dynasty and civilization of Malians and omitting the Turks who have never shown a sign of civilized nation..

I wonder if there is an "Armenian Genocide" option in Game Preferences..

---

This is what meatwad said :

Quote:

---

Never played Civ 4; I stopped with 2. But I have no idea why anyone would do this. The Turks were one of the most influential cultures in history; they remade the Muslim world, and for several centuries, the Ottoman empire was one of the most dominant forces in Europe. And that's just one example. Hell, the Mongols were technically Turks!

---

And this is what Ironside conveyed to me thorugh PM since the thread was closed for the time :

Quote:

---

As the thread was closed before I could post I'll respond directly instead.

Well, some overreacting here I feel. First we have to assume that putting in the Turks has to be as Ottomans, as the point of putting in Turks as Turkey is quite wrong, history important wise. The Swedes would have a better choise in that case.

Second most factions are as old as the game, so it's infact very few choises you can make for factions if you only got 18 to begin with. And they are very Europa centered and that's hardly surpricing.

Third, then they usually try to spread out civs. Mali is much better than the Zulu's for an African civ. Even 600 years after it's fall, the name of the capital is still a know word in Swedish (Timbuktu although very few knows were it comes from). They were hardly some primitive civ.

Fourth, they placed the Arabs in the middle east, so the first spot was taken, and they didn't have room for a second spot. And the choise of Arabs instead of Ottomans has probably to do with the introdution of religion.

The only civs that actually can be considered for replacement is Mongolia, Spain, one of Aztec/Inca (not both) or Japan (and this one can easily fall into the religion category). Not exactly wimpy civs, when it comes to empires in history. It's simply too many empires in history to get them into 18 slots.

And fifth. I hardly think they judge a modern nation in any speciffic way. They actually had Stalin as the leader of Russia in Civ 1 and Mao is still in the game . Not chosing the Ottomans because of what the Turks did 90 years ago doesn't exactly sound like something they would do.

---

/delurk
i've read the other thread, so i know what this is about. but others might be some what confused....

Perhaps it would be wise to Copy and paste some of the content over to this thread?

/relurk

Frosbeastegg?

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=54756

He is trying to move the other thread over here...

Is Froggy the admin in the Arena? I know she lurks in here sometimes, but it's rare we get the treat of a post out of her.

LeftEyeNine was saying that he thought Civ4 was rascist because they didn't include the Turks as one of their 18 civilizations. I'm guessing Froggy told him to take it to the Backroom.

LEN, from what I understand they're not trying to say the civilizations chosen are the greatest ever. They're trying to pick the ones that are the most unique. Hell, in the first 3, they lump 'China' together as one when they could easily have been 5. And including the mongols?

I wouldnt put Turks in either.. sorry.. call me racist lol. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

I wouldnt put Turks in either.. sorry.. call me racist lol. :shrug:

---

Me neither. Slejuks maybe ~;)

My point, and I am sure LEN's point, was that the Turks are a vital civilization to include, because every steppe horde, from the Bulgars (or Khazars, it depends) up to the last one, the Mongols, were Turks. Even as a lump group, they are absolutely necessary for inclusion. To throw them out and leave in Mali is stupid; I don't think it is racist, just bad judgement.

From the original thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Yes, I'm a pro-Turk.. And hell yes, Turks are nation-oriented nation. And absolutely true that they may show dogmatic reactions when it is a matter of their nationality..

But if you include 18 civilizations in a game including Mali (a great civilization, isn't it ?), but plan to include Turks in expansion packs in a future time, then that is racism, then this is the Crusader mentality in front of a monitor, then this is a "Barbarian Turks Out!" neo-Nazi manifest.

Yes there are 18 civs in Civilization IV game but Turks are excluded.. Point out my kind regards to fascist Sid Meier who can create a simulation civilization with vast dynasty and civilization of Malians and omitting the Turks who have never shown a sign of civilized nation..

I wonder if there is an Armenian Genocide option in Game Preferences..

---

Calm down.

Yes, they include 18 civilizations in the game, including the ‘newcomer’ Mali. And, I am fairly certain that it is not a vile racist agenda. They’re most likely just including something new, instead of all the usual suspects, while of course keeping the civilizations of their core audience.

However, I noted that while you criticise them for omitting the Turks, you ridicule the civilization of Mali. Why are they less worthy of being included?

It's not anti-Turkish, let alone racist. From a gazillion possible inclusions they had to make a selection of eigthteen. I think they made their pick based on criteria of historical impact, marketing and global spread. And not based on any racial preferences.

They do Include Mongolians. The Turks more or less originated from the same area and had a lot of similarities. Athough its a touch and go reason it might be why they were not included.

Of course the basic reason is that you cannot include all civilisations. There are a lot of them potential candidates left out of the list since only 18 made it... Someone has to stay out :embarassed:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

frosbeastegg rightfully indicated that it was the Arena, not the Backroom where the politics were debated. I was not ablr to figure out the exact position of the subject for that time being, sorry for that. However, would not it be to move the thread instead of slamming it shut ? I mean, that was the usual attitude of moderation with misplaced topics up to now. May any Mods clarify whether I'm right or not please ?

Back to the track, I'm copy-pasting the starter here :

---

About the thread closure, perhaps it would have been wise to move the thread instead of closing it, perhaps. But certainly the topic of the post begs the question is Civ4 racist or condescending towards the Turks. Then it is rightfully a backroom discussion because it is about racism or supremacy or whatever but not about the game itself. Closure or moving the thread is up to the mod's discretion.

I would'nt take offence if I were you (I know you did not just stating it).

I'll quote my post that I sended to LeftEyeNine privately, because froggy closed the thread before I could post there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

As the thread was closed before I could post I'll respond directly instead.

Well, some overreacting here I feel. First we have to assume that putting in the Turks has to be as Ottomans, as the point of putting in Turks as Turkey is quite wrong, history important wise. The Swedes would have a better choise in that case.

Second most factions are as old as the game, so it's infact very few choises you can make for factions if you only got 18 to begin with. And they are very Europa centered and that's hardly surpricing.

Third, then they usually try to spread out civs. Mali is much better than the Zulu's for an African civ. Even 600 years after it's fall, the name of the capital is still a known word in Swedish (Timbuktu although very few knows were it comes from). They were hardly some primitive civ.

Fourth, they placed the Arabs in the middle east, so the first spot was taken, and they didn't have room for a second spot. And the choise of Arabs instead of Ottomans has probably to do with the introdution of religion.

The only civs that actually can be considered for replacement is Mongolia, Spain, one of Aztec/Inca (not both) or Japan (and this one can easily fall into the religion category). Not exactly wimpy civs, when it comes to empires in history. It's simply too many empires in history to get them into 18 slots.

And fifth. I hardly think they judge a modern nation in any speciffic way. They actually had Stalin as the leader of Russia in Civ 1 and Mao is still in the game. Not choosing the Ottomans because of what the Turks did 90 years ago doesn't exactly sound like something they would do.

---

They will probably be in the expansion, like in Civ3.

Take a chill-pill LeftEye, crying racism won't get you any respect.

DA

Are the Getai in the game?


This is silly. There are so many damn civs in history that it is redundant to put them all in. I am not saying turks have a junk civ. I am saying "where do you stop" Whom do you exclude? Where do you draw the line?

Some are big. Some could have been. Some are unique. He is trying to create diversity. If you are hurt then try to understand his point of view. They included barbarian hoardes, right? That should be good enough.~D

Think of Civ games as a football team.

Sure this midfielder might be a much better footballplayer than that goalkeeper, but since we already have an even better midfielder he is not going to play. Redundancy and overlapping are the main issues here.

It is very hard to compare the civs fairly, but location and style are important. The Arabs have the location and the Spanish the style. Sadly that leaves the Ottomans a bit out.

OK, folks first of all, the reason I had to keep silent up to now was since there was a very frustrating error. I could noy quick reply, even somehow I did it told that my messages had to be more than 3 characters. The quotes I tried to copy-paste just did not work etc. I solved the problem by changing the forum skin. The "Experimental" skin has some problem I think, it's the Guild skin right now.

Whatever..

The 18 civs are : America, Arabs, Aztecs, China, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Greece, Inca, India, Japan, Mali, Mongolia, Persia, Rome, Russia, Spain.

Quote:

---

Yes, they include 18 civilizations in the game, including the ‘newcomer’ Mali. And, I am fairly certain that it is not a vile racist agenda. They’re most likely just including something new, instead of all the usual suspects, while of course keeping the civilizations of their core audience.

---

The only new guy on the block is the Malian, that rules out the "let's have fresh air" idea.

Quote:

---

However, I noted that while you criticise them for omitting the Turks, you ridicule the civilization of Mali. Why are they less worthy of being included?

---

I've never heard of Malian civilization as effective as to be called a civilization. May you tell me if you are informed about them please ? That's a neutral request at all. What's more I may have shown a wrong expression over there as well.

Quote:

---

It's not anti-Turkish, let alone racist. From a gazillion possible inclusions they had to make a selection of eigthteen. I think they made their pick based on criteria of historical impact, marketing and global spread. And not based on any racial preferences.

---

Ottomans were included with the first expansion of CivIII. Why was that ?

If you talk about historical impact, driving the history into a new age, being a factor of Migration Period, providing the survival of Islam, building and maintaining a lot of states throughout the history including Huns, European Huns, Gokturks, Uighur Empire, Karakhans Empire, Gazne (Ghaznaids or what ?) Empire, Seljuks, Harezmshahs, Mameluks. Having their own language belonging to Ural-Altay group, having "the consciousness of being a nation" always depending on their heritage and fight for freedom. Enough to stand out I think..

Quote:

---

They do Include Mongolians. The Turks more or less originated from the same area and had a lot of similarities. Athough its a touch and go reason it might be why they were not included.

Of course the basic reason is that you cannot include all civilisations. There are a lot of them potential candidates left out of the list since only 18 made it... Someone has to stay out

---

Sensitive touch from a Greek :bow: Better than saying "Who are they?" for sure. Civ III's first expansion had the Ottomans, rasoforos. If the brand new look is expected from omitting an inveterate civilization, I find it intentional.

What's more, although I even think that it's not much rational, AOE3 included the Ottomans in the game who never participated in the Discovery Era. You may say that they had indirectly great impact on it. Yes, if so, then please remind yourself my paragraph above about the impact of Turks over history.

Quote:

---

About the thread closure, perhaps it would have been wise to move the thread instead of closing it, perhaps. But certainly the topic of the post begs the question is Civ4 racist or condescending towards the Turks. Then it is rightfully a backroom discussion because it is about racism or supremacy or whatever but not about the game itself. Closure or moving the thread is up to the mod's discretion.

I would'nt take offence if I were you (I know you did not just stating it).

---

Yes, I'm just curious about it. Not a big matter of course althoguh I'd be glad to be informed about it..

Quote:

---

I'll quote my post that I sended to LeftEyeNine privately, because froggy closed the thread before I could post there.

---

I had started this topic with you PM quoted, Ironside. But the forum was really weird for the time. It did not work out right even though I tried 3-4 times to edit it. It never responded in the accurate way. Now the topic starter is complete and accurate ~;)

Quote:

---

Take a chill-pill LeftEye, crying racism won't get you any respect.

DA

---

Don't worry for me friend, I'm fine. If it is your style to wander in forums in order to get some respect, I have to tell you that it's not my stuff. I'm happy being here creating and participating in interactions with very different people from all over the world. Happy respect-gaining :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Are the Getai in the game?

---

No, I guess. You may check the Civ list above..

Quote:

---

This is silly. There are so many damn civs in history that it is redundant to put them all in. I am not saying turks have a junk civ. I am saying "where do you stop" Whom do you exclude? Where do you draw the line?

Some are big. Some could have been. Some are unique. He is trying to create diversity. If you are hurt then try to understand his point of view. They included barbarian hoardes, right? That should be good enough

---

Actually I was impressed with your post. I recommend several pragraphs above to conclude about drawing a line for Turks.

Equalizing Barbarian hordes to Turks was an old ugly baseless civilization-fool joke (some "hurt tail" stuff we used to call it ~;) ), you may try geting over it and find new ones (not "roasted Turkey" thing either) ~;)

Quote:

---

Think of Civ games as a football team.

Sure this midfielder might be a much better footballplayer than that goalkeeper, but since we already have an even better midfielder he is not going to play. Redundancy and overlapping are the main issues here.

It is very hard to compare the civs fairly, but location and style are important. The Arabs have the location and the Spanish the style. Sadly that leaves the Ottomans a bit out.

---

For an empire lasted over 600 years having no style or location or any impact is questionable. If Ottomans were a substitute, they would be waiting for Romans to be sent off or be injured. Oh, who's that black guy warming up ? Hey, coach ! :charge: ~D

Actually I am talking about the whole Turkish civilization that was at least "online" since the 4th century (European Huns) in the "network" of history.

The game is not supposed to be historically accurate I believe. It's more a fantasy RTS/"Grand Strategy" IMO. I'm not surprised at this omission but now that you mention the faction list, if Egypt AND Arabs AND Persia are included then well may as well have included Turks too.

Meh, the expansions are always better...

They weren't included because of some executive desision that no doubt had NOTHING to do with racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Efrem

They weren't included because of some executive desision that no doubt had NOTHING to do with racism.

---

Sid Meier is the executive, I guess. They declared that Sid was really leading the job in production of Civ4.

There are no Iroquois either:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=130063

And no Vikings:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=130177

And no Babylon.

If it really bothers you, you can just mod the game.

Any Viking, Iroquois or Babylonian friend may complain as well. I used my right to appeal ~;)

Vikings may be but the other two were not much that effective in history I think.

It's not like Civ claims to be an accurate portrayal of history in any serious way; if that were the case I could imagine why you'd want to complain, for instance if the Turks were left out of MTW. Come on, in Civ they've got Caesar discussing peace-terms with Gandhi! It's clear an accurate representation of history isn't one of the developers goals. As it stands the exclusion of Turkey from the game is probably merely a matter of game-balance rather than an intentional slight on the part of Sid Meier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

The 18 civs are : America, Arabs, Aztecs, China, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Greece, Inca, India, Japan, Mali, Mongolia, Persia, Rome, Russia, Spain.

---

Wot!? No Italians, Carthaginians, Babylonians, Hittites, Byzantines, Thai, Koreans, Mogul Empire, Sumerians etc. etc.? That Sid Meier bloke must a bloody racist, methinks...

Seriously, come on, LEN. Lists like these are always a bit arbitrary, no two persons would arrive at the same list of 18 civ's. Now Turkey, be it the Turkish people(s) or the geographical area, indeed has a very interesting history, of considerable impact. But so have so many others. I fail to see the racism in their decision making. There is a bias towards western nations in the civ's included, but perhaps that has got more to do with marketing?

In M:TW, there is no compelling reason why Sicily and Aragon should be in M:TW, and Scotland, Sweden and Burgundy should not. Just deal with it and accept that they can't include the personal favourite of everybody. It's just a game, not a 10-volume definite account of the history of mankind.

Quote:

---

Wot!? No Italians, Carthaginians, Babylonians, Hittites, Byzantines, Thai, Koreans, Mogul Empire, Sumerians etc. etc.? That Sid Meier bloke must a bloody racist, methinks...

---

Some of your list have already been included as being other nations. For the rest, I can not see a reasonable comparison against all I have told you about Turkish civilization..

It's not Turkey, nor Ottomans. It's Turksthat I think should be included as a civilizaiton, I have to repeat..

@Leny (that is now your nickname), are you going to buy the game?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Some of your list have already been included as being other nations. For the rest, I can not see a reasonable comparison against all I have told you about Turkish civilization..

It's not Turkey, nor Ottomans. It's Turksthat I think should be included as a civilizaiton, I have to repeat..

---

Isn't including Turks (and I mean all turkish people) as a civ a little bit wierd? Huns aren't exactly Ottomans. It would be like putting in Slavs, or Germanic people as a civ.

BTW anyone noticed that the faction leader for the arabs isn't an arab (Saladin)? ~D And that seems to confirm that the only reason they have a civ called arabs is because they represent the first muslim "empire" (very quickly split into different fractions), and that it has to do with the introdution of religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martinus

@Leny (that is now your nickname), are you going to buy the game?

---

LEN is my nickname, don't get what you intend to..

Piracy is all over this country.. Buying it or not buying it does not have much difference from each other.. I'll be trying it for sure..

Quote:

---

Isn't including Turks (and I mean all turkish people) as a civ a little bit wierd? Huns aren't exactly Ottomans. It would be like putting in Slavs, or Germanic people as a civ

---

Take it the way you want. The weirdness still stands..

I would have to agree with you Left Eye. A Turkish faction of some kind should be included. However, it depends on the starting date. If it is before 500, I'm not sure if they could be in. And even after that, they'd have to be the Kok Turks, right? And then the Eastern and Western Khagnate...

So it depends on the starting date, whether or not their could be a Turkish faction in Anatolia (Turkey).
But the Turks had a huge impact in the world, more so than many other places.

Then again, considering how spread out their focus is (American faction? Snore...), then it is inevitable that far more important factions are left out in favor of "fan favorites". But again, it depends on the start date.

If it is the start date, Steepe Merc, take a look at the Civ list please. You'll omit one from the very beginning..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meatwad

My point, and I am sure LEN's point, was that the Turks are a vital civilization to include, because every steppe horde, from the Bulgars (or Khazars, it depends) up to the last one, the Mongols, were Turks. Even as a lump group, they are absolutely necessary for inclusion. To throw them out and leave in Mali is stupid; I don't think it is racist, just bad judgement.

---

Not quite true, Scythians, Sarmatians are Iranians. But after the fall of the Sassanians, pretty much all nomads had at least some Turkish blood. (Well, there were the Alans, but...)
And while Mongols and Turks were related at first, I think evantually they adopted seprate languages, and became less related.

Quote:

---

If it is the start date, Steepe Merc, take a look at the Civ list please. You'll omit one from the very beginning..

---

Good point. ~D
But I'm quite confused. How can Rome, Arabs, and Egypt, much less America exist all at the same time? ~:confused:

The Civilization games never were supposed to be historically accurate, they are made to be enjoyable. I think there should be a Turkish faction in the game, but at least that answers why the Romans, Arabs, and Egyptians can all exist at once.

Steppe you've never played a civilization game right? (only checking)

LeftEyeNine

What turkish empires can honestly come into the list of great empires (from a eurocentric view)? I can say two: Huns (that I've never known were a turkish people) and the Ottoman empire.
The Huns is ruled out because of lack of places, and that they would be a raider civ (like vikings, mongols) and the Mongols are already in and deserve that place better.

So here it remains the Ottomans. And yep they could surely fit into the list of civs, but there is too few spots, if you look at it closely. It's hardly something you can call them on for intentional evil or rascism. Would they include 8 more civs in a expansion and not include the Ottomans, then you can be on to something.

Quite a pointless topic if you ask me.

As many people said, Civ isn't supposed to be accurate. The difference between the factions is quite useless (they get a few techs here and there, different characters, and that's about it).

Calling them racist or fascist is ridiculous. And making fun of the Malian (?) civilisation because you're annoyed isn't the best way to support your arguing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Steppe you've never played a civilization game right? (only checking).

---

Nope, never played, that's why I don't quite understand why America would be in, or Egypt.

Quote:

---

What turkish empires can honestly come into the list of great empires (from a eurocentric view)? I can say two: Huns (that I've never known were a turkish people) and the Ottoman empire.
The Huns is ruled out because of lack of places, and that they would be a raider civ (like vikings, mongols) and the Mongols are already in and deserve that place better.

---

Well, I think that the Avars had a bigger impact on European customs and warfare than the Huns ever did, and they were more interesting, IMO. Or you could have the Kok (aka Gok, aka Blue) Turks.

Steppe, there's no start date or end date with civilisation. You just choose your civilisation, launch the game and play for hours and hours.

Playing as the Romans, you might develop nukes before the Americans. It's not an historical game, just a management/strategy game (kind like Empire Earth, but turn per turn)
And that's precisely why I don't care at all about the faction involved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Any Viking, Iroquois or Babylonian friend may complain as well. I used my right to appeal ~;)

Vikings may be but the other two were not much that effective in history I think.

---

Babylonians...Code of Hammurabi

The United States Constitution was partly modelled on the Iroquois League Constitution.

Anyhow can't you still rename a Civilisation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

As many people said, Civ isn't supposed to be accurate. The difference between the factions is quite useless (they get a few techs here and there, different characters, and that's about it).

Calling them racist or fascist is ridiculous. And making fun of the Malian (?) civilisation because you're annoyed isn't the best way to support your arguing.

---

I have been out of circulation for the last two games (except for a very short time playing Civ 3- and I hated it) , and I had thought they were getting more historically balanced, and hence my argument. Anyway, it really is a moot point for me, because I am not going to buy Civ 4, and Civ 3 was too atrocious to play for more than 5 minutes.

The title of this thread is hillarious. :laugh4:

Menedil Civ 3 had a start date and an end date, yuor point still stands though, just me being hypertechnical.

Menedil Civ 3 had a start date and an end date and I'd assume that Civ 4 does as well, yuor point still stands though, just me being hypertechnical.

EDIT: Sorry for the double post....:embarassed:

Starting from 4000 AD, if I'm not wrong..

4000 AD? You must be wrong..

I don't think it's racism either. I never liked how they mix political groups and ethnic ones as viable factions, but I only played Civ 3...sadly. The Turks were probably considered and rejected for a number of reasons that don't make sense. I wasn't happy when my ancestors weren't a listed faction in Civ 3, but they came around (in a very Gallocentric fashion) in the expansion. I really wouldn't take it so hard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

The title of this thread is hillarious. :laugh4:

---

It is rather, considering that as the player you are the absolute ruler of (normally) a military machine bent over destroying all other civilisations so you can take over the world.

Actually, it would be interesting if a civilisation developed in to each other. The Sioux developed in to Americans for example (even if it's a bad one)......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Uesugi Kenshin

Menedil Civ 3 had a start date and an end date, yuor point still stands though, just me being hypertechnical.

---

Yeah, there's a starting date, but that's just an abstraction. If I remember Civ3 correctly, you could start the game with the Russian or any 20th century faction. Hence why the start date is just merely a useless information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Nope, never played, that's why I don't quite understand why America would be in, or Egypt.


Well, I think that the Avars had a bigger impact on European customs and warfare than the Huns ever did, and they were more interesting, IMO. Or you could have the Kok (aka Gok, aka Blue) Turks.

---

Probably, but how many does know about the Avars, or the Kok Turks? Huns are only known because of Attila.

Civilization simply takes the most powerful and important civs throughout history and put them in one and the same game. It's the basic rule and then you have some other rules that make the picking of civ weird sometimes. Then you play them from 4000 BC until 2100 AD (with slower turns at time, 20 years/turn early on and 1 year/turn later on). And discovers fusion power at 1950 if you're fast in tech ~D .
The game is heavily abstracted from history, while still having a history base.

Anyone who has played any of the 'Civ' series knows that you can edit any of the factions and re-name the cities as well.....so I fail to see the problem ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Anyhow can't you still rename a Civilisation?

---

see Pape has already pointed the way ~:grouphug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bmolsson

Actually, it would be interesting if a civilisation developed in to each other. The Sioux developed in to Americans for example (even if it's a bad one)......

---

Actually, the Sioux got massacred and put on reservations.

I think Turks should be in the game. However, calling the developers rascist just because they did not include Turks in the game is "a little bit" of overreaction.

Lefteyenine, if you think thats annoying, then what would happen if your civ got a non-turk as its leader?

Thats exactly the Arabs case, we get Saladin. Its like a slap to the face.

ggthnxbye

I mean he could have added Al Hajjaj, that guy single handedly expanded the ummayad caliphate from spain to india. but no we get an overrated general instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faisal

Lefteyenine, if you think thats annoying, then what would happen if your civ got a non-turk as its leader?

Thats exactly the Arabs case, we get Saladin. Its like a slap to the face.

ggthnxbye

I mean he could have added Al Hajjaj, that guy single handedly expanded the ummayad caliphate from spain to india. but no we get an overrated general instead.

---

Huh, that is quite funny. You'd think they'd give any of the Caliphates(Al Hajjaj would have been a good choice), or even more logical Muhammed (since there isn't a starting date or whatever).
But Sala Al Hadin was a Kurd, if I'm not mistaken...

Yes he's Kurd. Although some historians say that he was a lot mixed up with Turkish values - may be or may be not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

Huh, that is quite funny. You'd think they'd give any of the Caliphates(Al Hajjaj would have been a good choice), or even more logical Muhammed (since there isn't a starting date or whatever).
But Sala Al Hadin was a Kurd, if I'm not mistaken...

---

Well muhammed wouldn't work as showing his face or trying to imagine how he looks is considered taboo, but i mean if you want the most bang for the buck i'd have chosen al hajjaj, sure he was evil, but he was also a pain in the ass just like the rest of the civs leaders.

And Saladin didn't fight for the arabs, he fought for all of islam, not for a particular race, but the pan-arabists made him their official champion, maybe sid mier got his info wrong.

Well most people, rightly or wrongly, do assume Saladin to be an Arab.

And the French used to get some petite general from a small island called Corsica... does that make Civ racist?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faisal

Well muhammed wouldn't work as showing his face or trying to imagine how he looks is considered taboo, but i mean if you want the most bang for the buck i'd have chosen al hajjaj, sure he was evil, but he was also a pain in the ass just like the rest of the civs leaders.

And Saladin didn't fight for the arabs, he fought for all of islam, not for a particular race, but the pan-arabists made him their official champion, maybe sid mier got his info wrong.

---

Heh, that could be pretty funny. Can just imagine the headlines... "Games developer goes into hiding after showing The Prophet in game".

I suspect it's all kind of irrelevant. Civ games haven't ever been realistic. Oh look it's a democracy but I'm still basically the dictator.

Yes and "Look, as I changed my government to democracy I can tax people at 100%!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

And the French used to get some petite general from a small island called Corsica... does that make Civ racist?

---

Depends on how you want to contribute to the debate..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by King Henry V

Yes and "Look, as I changed my government to democracy I can tax people at 100%!"

---

There was an interesting similar point raised in one of the more recent PCGamer issues. Basically, is it right to reduce religions which are important to many to a mere set of numbers, a mere "Christianity: +10 economy -10 Happiness" or equivalent?

There are plenty of people not born in a particular location, from a particular family or from a particular ethnic group that end up contributing to a larger civilisation.

There are over 180 countries in the world with many different versions of them over 6000 years. So if you choose 18 you can expect at best only covering 10% of the worlds current nations... so Turkey is out there with the other 90%.

You can also rename your civilisation... I always used to play the romans or mongols and rename them... I am not so centric that I only play british nor do I play them in the majority.

BTW do you know which general I am referring to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

There was an interesting similar point raised in one of the more recent PCGamer issues. Basically, is it right to reduce religions which are important to many to a mere set of numbers, a mere "Christianity: +10 economy -10 Happiness" or equivalent?

---

Why the bible has a book of numbers. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Heh, that could be pretty funny. Can just imagine the headlines... "Games developer goes into hiding after showing The Prophet in game".

I suspect it's all kind of irrelevant. Civ games haven't ever been realistic. Oh look it's a democracy but I'm still basically the dictator.

---

Good point, i think when they added Abu Bakr in Civ 3, no one complained, so i guess 3d images are alright or even 2d as long as its cartoony or something.

Quote:

---

BTW do you know which general I am referring to?

---

Napoleon Bonaparte..

What are you trying to do? Moderatorship can give you incentives to look down on me and my knowledge ? Is it a teacher-pupil relationship that you can test me ?

So a grouping is missed out in the original. If the previous Civ series is anything to go by, you can mod the game and include any faction you like. Even MTW/RTW have been modded.

Game designers, will not want to hurt the modding community. There focus is on a balanced game and race is secondary to their considerations. And besides, the game is often played on a abstract world with no relation to the real world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by faisal

Good point, i think when they added Abu Bakr in Civ 3, no one complained, so i guess 3d images are alright or even 2d as long as its cartoony or something.

---

I doubt it. Then the game most likely wouldn’t be available in Saudi Arabia… or Iran for that matter. Some people would be very upset if the Prophet was depicted in any way, even if it is only a game.


Though, I think they did change the leader of the Chinese in the Chinese Civ3 version.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

I doubt it. Then the game most likely wouldn’t be available in Saudi Arabia… or Iran for that matter. Some people would be very upset if the Prophet was depicted in any way, even if it is only a game.

---

I don't mean to be insulting, but seriously, who cares about selling games in Iran or Saudi Arabia ? Chinese might be a huge market, but it wouldn't be the first time a game is not sold in some arabian country for political or religious reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

I don't mean to be insulting, but seriously, who cares about selling games in Iran or Saudi Arabia ? Chinese might be a huge market, but it wouldn't be the first time a game is not sold in some arabian country for political or religious reasons.

---

Granted. But I was merely joking. No, the issue is that the Prophet must not be depicted, and that many people would find it offensive if he was. And by ‘many people’ I mean people from the sizeable Muslim community in the west.

This is out of topic, but I'm fairly sure I already saw ancient paintings of the Prophet in some History books. How is it possible ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

This is out of topic, but I'm fairly sure I already saw ancient paintings of the Prophet in some History books. How is it possible ?

---

I think the Iranian Safavids made some illustrations of the Prophet, but not with his face shown. There are also some famous Turkish illustrations, but again his face is disguised, I don’t remember what they are called, though. Depicting the Prophet is strongly discouraged.

Indeed, I must apologize for this off-topic debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dâriûsh

I doubt it. Then the game most likely wouldn’t be available in Saudi Arabia… or Iran for that matter. Some people would be very upset if the Prophet was depicted in any way, even if it is only a game.


Though, I think they did change the leader of the Chinese in the Chinese Civ3 version.

---

I don't mean the prophet, maybe his companions are ok, since in the UAE they also check games before releasing them. And Abu Bakr passed without a hitch.

Oh and the middle east has a big gaming community, or i'm made to think like that(EA for example has a branch in dubai, we have lots of lan cafes and such). I play online with saudis and iranians i'm sure its big there aswell.

Sorry for derailing the thread in advance ~;p

Twooooot !

*puts the train into the the rail and pulls down the horn*

~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Napoleon Bonaparte..

What are you trying to do? Moderatorship can give you incentives to look down on me and my knowledge ? Is it a teacher-pupil relationship that you can test me ?

---

And Napolean was he born in France and does he represent France in Civ...

Less then 10% of the worlds countries are represented in Civ, I hardly see not including one of the worlds nations as racist. If they included 95% of the world then the last 5% might have a case.

I look down on those who argue racism when it clearly is not... unless the makers of Civ have came out and stated they actively hate Turkey?

I have play Civ since the first version, the third had some good points but really didn't cut it for some reason.

I have never thought that Civ is racist because Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Sweden or Wales are not represented.

Comparing Pacific and Australian nations or the Welsh (considering the length, vigour, durability and test of time) with the one Turks have, you do not have my point.

Sorry, my mistake about ideas or not, this does not give you the right to test me..

You already have stated your ideas rationally, however you do not have the right attitude. I'm not concerned with your posts anymore, Pape.

Thanks..

Oh well at least we have revealed who the true racist is that somehow Turks are above anyone else.

Turkey is younger (1923) then all those other countries. It was the center of the Ottoman empire but not The Ottoman empire.

Australia has been a democracy longer then Turkey has existed as a separate state entity.

No offnse to anyone but its a game for christs sake something fun not something to debate over Im sorry but there has to be something more important:dizzy2:

Turks not Turkey, Turks not Turkey, Turks not Turkey, Turks not Turkey..Turks not Tu..Oh, my wrist hurts..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LeftEyeNine

Turks not Turkey, Turks not Turkey, Turks not Turkey, Turks not Turkey..Turks not Tu..Oh, my wrist hurts..

---

Let's be frank, here. Have you played any of the Civilization series before?