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.

[Mongoose]

/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

[Reverend Joe]

Frosbeastegg?

[Mongoose]

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

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

[Don Corleone]

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?

[PanzerJaeger]

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

[Kaiser of Arabia]

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

Me neither. Slejuks maybe

[Reverend Joe]

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.

[Steppe Merc]

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.

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

[Dâriûsh]

From the original thread.

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?

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[rasoforos]

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

[Shahed]

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).

[Ironside]

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

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.

[The_Doctor]

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

[Del Arroyo]

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

DA

[Divinus Arma]

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.

[Steppe Merc]

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.

[LeftEyeNine]

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

[Ironside]

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.

[Meneldil]

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.

[Reverend Joe]

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.

[Steppe Merc]

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.

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.

[Meneldil]

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.

[Ironside]

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 .
The game is heavily abstracted from history, while still having a history base.