Civilization IV The Fascist Edition

[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..

[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?

[Uesugi Kenshin]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Papewaio]

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?

[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.

[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)......

[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.

[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

[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.

[Komutan]

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.

[Leet Eriksson]

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.

[Steppe Merc]

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...

[LeftEyeNine]

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

[Leet Eriksson]

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.

[King Henry V]

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

[Papewaio]

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

[BDC]

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.

[King Henry V]

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