Civilization IV The Fascist Edition

[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.

[Byzantine Prince]

The title of this thread is hillarious.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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

[Meneldil]

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.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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....

[LeftEyeNine]

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

[GoreBag]

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.

[Papewaio]

The title of this thread is hillarious.

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.

[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)......

[Del Arroyo]

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.

[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.

[InsaneApache]

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

Anyhow can't you still rename a Civilisation?

see Pape has already pointed the way