Why?
I remember back in Civ 3 there were plans to realease a israeli civ, but it never happened.
And it aint gonna happen with Civ5 Brave new world.
Because Sid Meier hates Jews?
For what it is worth, back in Civ II I played with a custom Israeli civ. :hug:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 09:10:33 AM
Because Sid Meier hates Jews?
But likes Judaism? :hmm:
Quote from: Siege on June 27, 2013, 09:03:46 AM
Why?
I remember back in Civ 3 there were plans to realease a israeli civ, but it never happened.
And it aint gonna happen with Civ5 Brave new world.
What would be the fun of playing a civ whos special unit specialized in being carried off into bondage?
In my last Civ game I had jewish samurai just killing everything in sight. :showoff:
Quote from: Legbiter on June 27, 2013, 09:23:53 AM
In my last Civ game I had jewish samurai just killing everything in sight. :showoff:
That's what happens when warriors learn Jew-jitsu. ;)
:bleeding:
Because you'd run out of city names too fast, as Israel has always been a pretty small place. The same reason that they don't ship the games with Albanian civs either.
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2013, 10:14:15 AM
Because you'd run out of city names too fast, as Israel has always been a pretty small place. The same reason that they don't ship the games with Albanian civs either.
Nonsense. You can certainly do it. Of course you wind up using the names of places that weren't much larger than villages, but there's plenty of place-names to use.
Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2013, 10:22:45 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2013, 10:14:15 AM
Because you'd run out of city names too fast, as Israel has always been a pretty small place. The same reason that they don't ship the games with Albanian civs either.
Nonsense. You can certainly do it. Of course you wind up using the names of places that weren't much larger than villages, but there's plenty of place-names to use.
Does Civ typically use village names?
Because Israel, Lebanon and parts of Jordan is a pretty shitty empire when you think about it.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 27, 2013, 10:28:10 AM
Because Israel, Lebanon and parts of Jordan is a pretty shitty empire when you think about it.
I see what you did there. :D
Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2013, 10:22:45 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2013, 10:14:15 AM
Because you'd run out of city names too fast, as Israel has always been a pretty small place. The same reason that they don't ship the games with Albanian civs either.
Nonsense. You can certainly do it. Of course you wind up using the names of places that weren't much larger than villages, but there's plenty of place-names to use.
It can be done, but it typically isn't.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2013, 10:24:48 AM
Does Civ typically use village names?
If you get big enough some of the Babylonian place names sound pretty gimpy.
I don't think the Celts or Zulu were particularly urbanized either.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 27, 2013, 10:35:08 AM
I don't think the Celts or Zulu were particularly urbanized either.
Excellent examples. Back on the list, probationary status.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 27, 2013, 10:35:08 AM
I don't think the Celts or Zulu were particularly urbanized either.
Did any of the earlier Civ versions have the Hittites?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 10:39:53 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 27, 2013, 10:35:08 AM
I don't think the Celts or Zulu were particularly urbanized either.
Did any of the earlier Civ versions have the Hittites?
I believe Civ 3 had them in an expansion. Age of Empires 1 also had them.
Quote from: Barrister on June 27, 2013, 09:10:52 AM
For what it is worth, back in Civ II I played with a custom Israeli civ. :hug:
:thumbsup: I DID TOO!!
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 27, 2013, 10:35:08 AM
I don't think the Celts or Zulu were particularly urbanized either.
Fair.
Actually in the discussion we had in game forum, Civ series has always played rather fast and loose with civs. Really not sure one can develop a coherent narrative on what states should be included and what shouldn't.
I actually think, now that emphasis has shifted away from having to have a gigantic empire, the Jews make sense as a Civ to include in the game.
OTOH, from a marketing standpoint including them as a playable Civ makes no sense if they want to be able to sell their product in the Middle East. :(
Quote from: Caliga on June 27, 2013, 10:50:41 AM
OTOH, from a marketing standpoint including them as a playable Civ makes no sense if they want to be able to sell their product in the Middle East. :(
It'll sell in Europe though as it'll be the first empire players will try to crush, or at the very least stuff into ovens.
Quote from: Caliga on June 27, 2013, 10:50:41 AM
I actually think, now that emphasis has shifted away from having to have a gigantic empire, the Jews make sense as a Civ to include in the game.
OTOH, from a marketing standpoint including them as a playable Civ makes no sense if they want to be able to sell their product in the Middle East. :(
Just include them as an option, and people throughout the ME can have all the fun of conquering them over and over again. :D
Quote from: Caliga on June 27, 2013, 10:50:41 AM
OTOH, from a marketing standpoint including them as a playable Civ makes no sense if they want to be able to sell their product in the Middle East. :(
I thought people liked the old Kingdom of Israel. You just cannot have Golda Meir as the female leader :P
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2013, 10:52:07 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 27, 2013, 10:50:41 AM
OTOH, from a marketing standpoint including them as a playable Civ makes no sense if they want to be able to sell their product in the Middle East. :(
It'll sell in Europe though as it'll be the first empire players will try to crush, or at the very least stuff into ovens.
Assuming it's even legal to sell it with them in.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 10:53:38 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 27, 2013, 10:50:41 AM
OTOH, from a marketing standpoint including them as a playable Civ makes no sense if they want to be able to sell their product in the Middle East. :(
I thought people liked the old Kingdom of Israel. You just cannot have Golda Meir as the female leader :P
Deborah would be a good Biblical choice. ;)
For male, it could be David or Solomon.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 27, 2013, 10:54:21 AM
Assuming it's even legal to sell it with them in.
I don't see why not. No swastikas. I'm sure little non-specific menorahs and yarmulkes would be fine, though.
Dude, no, if they do include TEH JOOS they definitely need to have the leader avatar be that general dude with the eyepatch. YARRRRRRR CHAVERI
Quote from: Caliga on June 27, 2013, 10:59:01 AM
Dude, no, if they do include TEH JOOS they definitely need to have the leader avatar be that general dude with the eyepatch. YARRRRRRR CHAVERI
Moshe Dayan? That guy was a mega-hardass.
But no, it'd be David Ben-Gurion all day long.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 10:53:38 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 27, 2013, 10:50:41 AM
OTOH, from a marketing standpoint including them as a playable Civ makes no sense if they want to be able to sell their product in the Middle East. :(
I thought people liked the old Kingdom of Israel. You just cannot have Golda Meir as the female leader :P
I think that is exactly the problem. Ancient Israelites = fine.
But anything that says the modern state of Israel is a continuation of the Israelites is sacrilege in certain circles.
Which is too bad - it'd be fun to have an Israeli cov with, as you say, Golda Meier as the female leader, and it's special unit as MOSSAD special agents.
Quote from: fhdz on June 27, 2013, 11:04:44 AM
Moshe Dayan? That guy was a mega-hardass.
Yeah, that guy. :pirate
Quote from: fhdz on June 27, 2013, 11:04:44 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 27, 2013, 10:59:01 AM
Dude, no, if they do include TEH JOOS they definitely need to have the leader avatar be that general dude with the eyepatch. YARRRRRRR CHAVERI
Moshe Dayan? That guy was a mega-hardass.
But no, it'd be David Ben-Gurion all day long.
Dayan was, allegedly, a complete asshole, according to everyone who had to deal with him. A braggart, a compulsive liar, completely untrustworthy, compulsive (and successful) womanizer, etc.
He was especially hated by Israeli archeologists, because he took up archaeology as a hobby and made a habit of going after artifacts with bulldozers. None of that "stratigraphy" bullshit for him! :D
OTOH, he was a successful general, and charismatic ... ;)
Quote from: Malthus on June 27, 2013, 11:11:19 AM
Dayan was, allegedly, a complete asshole, according to everyone who had to deal with him. A braggart, a compulsive liar, completely untrustworthy, compulsive (and successful) womanizer, etc.
He was especially hated by Israeli archeologists, because he took up archaeology as a hobby and made a habit of going after artifacts with bulldozers. None of that "stratigraphy" bullshit for him! :D
So it sounds like what you're saying is "He was the greatest man of all time", basically. :)
Stay thirsty my friends
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 27, 2013, 10:35:08 AM
I don't think the Celts or Zulu were particularly urbanized either.
Don't know about the zulu but the Celts had oppida all over Western europe.
Come on, the oldest cities in the world were in Israel, before Israel, of course.
I wouldn't mind having a caananite civilization either.
Who cares about some little country barely 60 years old :huh:
Quote from: katmai on June 27, 2013, 04:14:03 PM
Who cares about some little country barely 60 years old :huh:
What are you talking about.
Israel is the history of survival.
In Civ5 terms, the romans conquered it, taking it out of play, then after over 1800 years, it came back into play recuperating its capital, not because somebody granted it, but independently.
It is a third world shithole. :rolleyes:
The ancient kingdom of Israel was pretty insignificant in terms of history of civilization. Why include them and not Damascus, Philistia, Edom, Moab, etc (just limiting to Iron Age kingdoms of the immediate region)? The only reason why people outside of a few archaeologist specialists know anything about Israel is that about 100 years after Israel was utterly destroyed, some literary works came out of its former sister kingdom of Judah that turned out to have a curious-- and at the time entirely unexpected -- influence on history.
Quote from: Siege on June 27, 2013, 04:10:41 PM
Come on, the oldest cities in the world were in Israel, before Israel, of course.
Yeah, Jerusalem, Jaffa and Acre are all really old, but they're not really 'Israeli cities', you know? I mean, they're part of modern Israel right now, but because the ancient Israeli occupation was a relatively brief period during their thousands of years of history, it just doesn't seem to fit them. Maybe Jerusalem, but I think that's a cultural thing caused by Christianity.
Israel is way too controversial. Germany, Russia and China are not.
Anyone know what the current thinking is on "the world's oldest city?"
I've read that the oldest continually inhabited place is Antioch, but that's not the same thing.
Lovecraftian or regular?
Jeric
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 04:33:12 PM
Anyone know what the current thinking is on "the world's oldest city?"
I've read that the oldest continually inhabited place is Antioch, but that's not the same thing.
Jericho, or however you spell it in english.
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2013, 04:32:04 PM
Israel is way too controversial. Germany, Russia and China are not.
I have always said, Brain is the funniest guy in Languish.
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2013, 04:29:21 PM
Yeah, Jerusalem, Jaffa and Acre are all really old, but they're not really 'Israeli cities', you know?
In what sense? I think you are saying none of those cities were actually founded by Israel but it is not like Paris was founded by Frenchmen.
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 04:40:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2013, 04:29:21 PM
Yeah, Jerusalem, Jaffa and Acre are all really old, but they're not really 'Israeli cities', you know?
In what sense? I think you are saying none of those cities were actually founded by Israel but it is not like Paris was founded by Frenchmen.
It wasn't?
Yes, that's what I mean.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 04:33:12 PM
Anyone know what the current thinking is on "the world's oldest city?"
I've read that the oldest continually inhabited place is Antioch, but that's not the same thing.
Damascus claims that title.
Depends on what you mean by city. Some of the oldest settlements known do not seem to have civic buildings, rather they are mostly/all domestic with perhaps a few ritual sites. Also, agriculture at the earliest sites was different. Some of the Syrian sites show crop harvesting but not planting at the earliest times.
Still, some of the southern Turkish or northern Syrian sites are probably the best bet for the title.
There was no such thing as a Frenchman when Paris was founded. When can we say there emerged an actual Israeli identity?
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 04:40:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2013, 04:29:21 PM
Yeah, Jerusalem, Jaffa and Acre are all really old, but they're not really 'Israeli cities', you know?
In what sense? I think you are saying none of those cities were actually founded by Israel but it is not like Paris was founded by Frenchmen.
Paris was founded by the son of Priam.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 27, 2013, 04:26:52 PM
The ancient kingdom of Israel was pretty insignificant in terms of history of civilization. Why include them and not Damascus, Philistia, Edom, Moab, etc (just limiting to Iron Age kingdoms of the immediate region)? The only reason why people outside of a few archaeologist specialists know anything about Israel is that about 100 years after Israel was utterly destroyed, some literary works came out of its former sister kingdom of Judah that turned out to have a curious-- and at the time entirely unexpected -- influence on history.
Odd isn't it.
And people from all over the place and different backgrounds have obsessed about the place ever since. :hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 04:40:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2013, 04:29:21 PM
Yeah, Jerusalem, Jaffa and Acre are all really old, but they're not really 'Israeli cities', you know?
In what sense? I think you are saying none of those cities were actually founded by Israel but it is not like Paris was founded by Frenchmen.
In the sense that those cities weren't really inhabited mainly by Israelites and Israelis for most of their history. They were conquered, subjugated and eventually depopulated. Sure, Paris was founded by the Romans, but it was populated by the French for a huge portion of its history. Even when Paris was conquered, the people living there were still French. That isn't the case with the cities in Palestine, where the founders are extinct and they've traded hands many, many times and been ethnically cleansed more than once, even within living memory.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 04:33:12 PM
Anyone know what the current thinking is on "the world's oldest city?"
I've read that the oldest continually inhabited place is Antioch, but that's not the same thing.
I thought one of the early Hittite area 'cities' had a reasonable claim, forget the name, but really that far back some of these cities would now equate for a fortified village in terms of number of inhabitants.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 04:33:12 PM
Anyone know what the current thinking is on "the world's oldest city?"
I've read that the oldest continually inhabited place is Antioch, but that's not the same thing.
I thought the oldest continually inhabited place was between Damascus, Byblos and Jericho.
As for oldest city, I guess that depends on how you define city. Jericho has maybe the oldest walls, while Çatal Hüyük seems to have grown much bigger.
Quote from: Siege on June 27, 2013, 04:37:37 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 27, 2013, 04:32:04 PM
Israel is way too controversial. Germany, Russia and China are not.
I have always said, Brain is the funniest guy in Languish.
and you've always been wrong.
Quote from: PDH on June 27, 2013, 04:44:43 PM
Damascus claims that title.
Close enough. :blurgh:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 27, 2013, 04:26:52 PM
The ancient kingdom of Israel was pretty insignificant in terms of history of civilization. Why include them and not Damascus, Philistia, Edom, Moab, etc (just limiting to Iron Age kingdoms of the immediate region)? The only reason why people outside of a few archaeologist specialists know anything about Israel is that about 100 years after Israel was utterly destroyed, some literary works came out of its former sister kingdom of Judah that turned out to have a curious-- and at the time entirely unexpected -- influence on history.
That's the point though - it's had enough of an influence because of that to warrant inclusion in the game IMO. The history of the ancient Israelites played a fairly big role in the development of western culture and civilization. Anyway, I've always been surprised they haven't been included, but YMMV.
Quote from: Siege on June 27, 2013, 09:03:46 AM
Why?
I remember back in Civ 3 there were plans to realease a israeli civ, but it never happened.
And it aint gonna happen with Civ5 Brave new world.
The Steam Workshop has several versions of an Israel Civ you can mod into the game.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 27, 2013, 07:56:46 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 27, 2013, 04:26:52 PM
The ancient kingdom of Israel was pretty insignificant in terms of history of civilization. Why include them and not Damascus, Philistia, Edom, Moab, etc (just limiting to Iron Age kingdoms of the immediate region)? The only reason why people outside of a few archaeologist specialists know anything about Israel is that about 100 years after Israel was utterly destroyed, some literary works came out of its former sister kingdom of Judah that turned out to have a curious-- and at the time entirely unexpected -- influence on history.
That's the point though - it's had enough of an influence because of that to warrant inclusion in the game IMO. The history of the ancient Israelites played a fairly big role in the development of western culture and civilization. Anyway, I've always been surprised they haven't been included, but YMMV.
YHWH :contract:
Quote from: mongers on June 27, 2013, 04:55:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 27, 2013, 04:26:52 PM
The ancient kingdom of Israel was pretty insignificant in terms of history of civilization. Why include them and not Damascus, Philistia, Edom, Moab, etc (just limiting to Iron Age kingdoms of the immediate region)? The only reason why people outside of a few archaeologist specialists know anything about Israel is that about 100 years after Israel was utterly destroyed, some literary works came out of its former sister kingdom of Judah that turned out to have a curious-- and at the time entirely unexpected -- influence on history.
Odd isn't it.
And people from all over the place and different backgrounds have obsessed about the place ever since. :hmm:
They had a really good literary agent.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 27, 2013, 04:26:52 PM
The ancient kingdom of Israel was pretty insignificant in terms of history of civilization. Why include them and not Damascus, Philistia, Edom, Moab, etc (just limiting to Iron Age kingdoms of the immediate region)? The only reason why people outside of a few archaeologist specialists know anything about Israel is that about 100 years after Israel was utterly destroyed, some literary works came out of its former sister kingdom of Judah that turned out to have a curious-- and at the time entirely unexpected -- influence on history.
What's next mein Fuhrer?
Quote from: Caliga on June 27, 2013, 10:50:41 AM
I actually think, now that emphasis has shifted away from having to have a gigantic empire, the Jews make sense as a Civ to include in the game.
OTOH, from a marketing standpoint including them as a playable Civ makes no sense if they want to be able to sell their product in the Middle East. :(
Is there actually a big market for Civ games in the Middle East?
Quote from: PDH on June 27, 2013, 04:44:43 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2013, 04:33:12 PM
Anyone know what the current thinking is on "the world's oldest city?"
I've read that the oldest continually inhabited place is Antioch, but that's not the same thing.
Damascus claims that title.
Depends on what you mean by city. Some of the oldest settlements known do not seem to have civic buildings, rather they are mostly/all domestic with perhaps a few ritual sites. Also, agriculture at the earliest sites was different. Some of the Syrian sites show crop harvesting but not planting at the earliest times.
Still, some of the southern Turkish or northern Syrian sites are probably the best bet for the title.
Yeah, there probably some hill with a couple of huts on on top of the ruins of some other huts that go back eight thousand years and nobody knows about it. Those early settlements that existed without public buildings or even agriculture in the same sense we are used to are fascinating.
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2013, 04:58:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 04:40:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2013, 04:29:21 PM
Yeah, Jerusalem, Jaffa and Acre are all really old, but they're not really 'Israeli cities', you know?
In what sense? I think you are saying none of those cities were actually founded by Israel but it is not like Paris was founded by Frenchmen.
In the sense that those cities weren't really inhabited mainly by Israelites and Israelis for most of their history. They were conquered, subjugated and eventually depopulated. Sure, Paris was founded by the Romans, but it was populated by the French for a huge portion of its history. Even when Paris was conquered, the people living there were still French. That isn't the case with the cities in Palestine, where the founders are extinct and they've traded hands many, many times and been ethnically cleansed more than once, even within living memory.
Paris was actually founded as a Celtic oppidum (Paris is a celtic name). Even the Roman city Lutetia which might have shared the same location was not important in the Roman era since Lugdunum was the Roman capital of Gaul.
Paris, as a major city, started with the Franks choosing it for capital in 508. The main settlement of Frank in France was L'Île-de-France (Liddle Franke), the Paris region.
Quote from: Razgovory on June 28, 2013, 02:22:41 AM
Quote from: mongers on June 27, 2013, 04:55:51 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 27, 2013, 04:26:52 PM
The ancient kingdom of Israel was pretty insignificant in terms of history of civilization. Why include them and not Damascus, Philistia, Edom, Moab, etc (just limiting to Iron Age kingdoms of the immediate region)? The only reason why people outside of a few archaeologist specialists know anything about Israel is that about 100 years after Israel was utterly destroyed, some literary works came out of its former sister kingdom of Judah that turned out to have a curious-- and at the time entirely unexpected -- influence on history.
Odd isn't it.
And people from all over the place and different backgrounds have obsessed about the place ever since. :hmm:
They had a really good literary agent.
:lol:
Quote from: Solmyr on June 28, 2013, 04:15:38 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 27, 2013, 10:50:41 AM
I actually think, now that emphasis has shifted away from having to have a gigantic empire, the Jews make sense as a Civ to include in the game.
OTOH, from a marketing standpoint including them as a playable Civ makes no sense if they want to be able to sell their product in the Middle East. :(
Is there actually a big market for Civ games in the Middle East?
Probably not, but think about it.... if they continue to not feature Israel in the game, any Arabs that buy Civ will continue to buy it and so will Jews since they're not totally insane and easily offended by anything and everything. If they add Israel, Jews will continue to play it, but Arabs will boycott it (and possibly put out a fatwa on Sid Meier), so it seems like a poor business decision to me. :sleep:
I suspect Mideastern sales are small enough that the real question to ask is whether the inclusion of Israel(preferably ancient) makes the game more compelling for western customers.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 28, 2013, 05:18:48 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2013, 04:58:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 04:40:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2013, 04:29:21 PM
Yeah, Jerusalem, Jaffa and Acre are all really old, but they're not really 'Israeli cities', you know?
In what sense? I think you are saying none of those cities were actually founded by Israel but it is not like Paris was founded by Frenchmen.
In the sense that those cities weren't really inhabited mainly by Israelites and Israelis for most of their history. They were conquered, subjugated and eventually depopulated. Sure, Paris was founded by the Romans, but it was populated by the French for a huge portion of its history. Even when Paris was conquered, the people living there were still French. That isn't the case with the cities in Palestine, where the founders are extinct and they've traded hands many, many times and been ethnically cleansed more than once, even within living memory.
Paris was actually founded as a Celtic oppidum (Paris is a celtic name). Even the Roman city Lutetia which might have shared the same location was not important in the Roman era since Lugdunum was the Roman capital of Gaul.
Paris, as a major city, started with the Franks choosing it for capital in 508. The main settlement of Frank in France was L'Île-de-France (Liddle Franke), the Paris region.
I don't count barbarian camps.
Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on June 27, 2013, 07:56:46 PM
That's the point though - it's had enough of an influence because of that to warrant inclusion in the game IMO.
Not really. The Israelites themselves really had no influence. As for late Judah, they had no influence concerning most of the things covered in the Civ series: tech development, road building, diplomacy, warfare, etc.
The OT of course had huge influence but not really because of anything that particular civilization did. At the time of its collapse, no one knew of it aside from the exiles.
QuoteThe history of the ancient Israelites played a fairly big role in the development of western culture and civilization.
No - the history of the ancient Israelites was to a great extent unknown to western civilization because the OT is far from an accurate account of that history.
Quote from: Neil on June 28, 2013, 07:34:52 AM
I don't count barbarian camps.
Then I suppose the Oakland Raiders are out.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 28, 2013, 07:57:33 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 28, 2013, 07:34:52 AM
I don't count barbarian camps.
Then I suppose the Oakland Raiders are out.
They show few signs of agriculture and very little in the way of civic organization.
Quote from: Neil on June 28, 2013, 07:34:52 AM
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on June 28, 2013, 05:18:48 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2013, 04:58:14 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 27, 2013, 04:40:24 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 27, 2013, 04:29:21 PM
Yeah, Jerusalem, Jaffa and Acre are all really old, but they're not really 'Israeli cities', you know?
In what sense? I think you are saying none of those cities were actually founded by Israel but it is not like Paris was founded by Frenchmen.
In the sense that those cities weren't really inhabited mainly by Israelites and Israelis for most of their history. They were conquered, subjugated and eventually depopulated. Sure, Paris was founded by the Romans, but it was populated by the French for a huge portion of its history. Even when Paris was conquered, the people living there were still French. That isn't the case with the cities in Palestine, where the founders are extinct and they've traded hands many, many times and been ethnically cleansed more than once, even within living memory.
Paris was actually founded as a Celtic oppidum (Paris is a celtic name). Even the Roman city Lutetia which might have shared the same location was not important in the Roman era since Lugdunum was the Roman capital of Gaul.
Paris, as a major city, started with the Franks choosing it for capital in 508. The main settlement of Frank in France was L'Île-de-France (Liddle Franke), the Paris region.
I don't count barbarian camps.
Then no Franks, no archaic Rome, no Israel of course and no Albertan contemporary "cities" :(
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 28, 2013, 07:50:38 AM
Not really. The Israelites themselves really had no influence. As for late Judah, they had no influence concerning most of the things covered in the Civ series: tech development, road building, diplomacy, warfare, etc.
They should merge ancient and modern Israel then. I mean, their Germany is already an amalgamation of Teutonic barbarians (Furor Teutonicus), HRE (landsknechts), German Empire (Bismarck), and the Third Reich (panzers).
Quote from: Caliga on June 28, 2013, 07:06:23 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 28, 2013, 04:15:38 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 27, 2013, 10:50:41 AM
I actually think, now that emphasis has shifted away from having to have a gigantic empire, the Jews make sense as a Civ to include in the game.
OTOH, from a marketing standpoint including them as a playable Civ makes no sense if they want to be able to sell their product in the Middle East. :(
Is there actually a big market for Civ games in the Middle East?
Probably not, but think about it.... if they continue to not feature Israel in the game, any Arabs that buy Civ will continue to buy it and so will Jews since they're not totally insane and easily offended by anything and everything. If they add Israel, Jews will continue to play it, but Arabs will boycott it (and possibly put out a fatwa on Sid Meier), so it seems like a poor business decision to me. :sleep:
So, basicly we need to become neo-barbarians to get Israel included in the series...