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.

[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.

[Kraxis]

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.

[LeftEyeNine]

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.

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.

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.

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..

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 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.

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..

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

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

Are the Getai in the game?

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

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)

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 !

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.

[Shahed]

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.

[Papewaio]

Meh, the expansions are always better...

[Efrem]

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

[LeftEyeNine]

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.

[The_Doctor]

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.

[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.

[Geoffrey S]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[LeftEyeNine]

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..

[The_Doctor]

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

[Ironside]

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)? 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.

[LeftEyeNine]

@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..

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..