Civilization IV The Fascist Edition

[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 :

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 :

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 :

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.