I know it's an old debate but I just got back into it again and it just baffles me how historically inaccurate it is:
1. Associating old civilizations to modern nation-states: HRE to Germany, Vikings to Norway, Majapahit to Indonesia, etc.
2. Making up fake civilizations:
-Mali, Kongo, Zulu were just a bunch of hillbilly tribes that wouldn't even be considered states outside Africa (let alone civilizations).
-India has never been a single united civilization prior to British colonization.
-Canada/Australia are just extensions of British civilization, not unique civs. Gran Colombia is an extension of Spanish civilization.
3. Choosing irrelevant ""leaders"" over real ones just because they're female: Eleanor of Aquitaine, Elizabeth, Catherine de Medicis, Gitarja, Dido, Jadwiga, Kristina, etc.
It's frankly insane that England has 4 leaders, France 3 and not a single of them is male.
I'm not against women or minorities being included in the game, I'm not even a political person myself but I just can't really bear this kind of forced propaganda in what is supposed to be a neutral historical game. It feels like they're just using history as a tool to fill their diversity quotas and push their egalitarian agenda.
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Jadwiga was a cool choice actually
No she's not, she's barely relevant in Polish history. Casimir III or Bolesław I would've been much better picks. You only think she's cool because her character is hot.
>You only think she's cool because her character is hot.
Yes
Casimir was already in Civ.
Jadwiga's main selling point is that she's unique, most of the "relevant" monarchs would have been Casimir reskins
Uhh but look at those hips
I agree, Anna Jagiellon is a much better choice if they want to put a queen as the Polish leader.
Jedwiga wasn't a queen, that's the main factoid people remember about her.
I think most people know her because she was there when the dynasties were changing and most important events in polish history were happening
Jogaila would be a good pick too but he was a lithuanian you cant even say he was polonised like later jagieillonians because he didnt speak polish or latin(and couldnt read at all)
Catherine didn't speak French, that didn't seem to stop them from making her leader of France.
You are absolutely moronic.
Jadwiga is worshipped as a Catholic Saint and was basically a symbol for Polish people and is included in countless most important polish literature. There is not a single Polish person who went through basic education who doesn't know about her.
LOL kurwa
może nawet LMAO
Isn't of dunking on him in polish, can you explain why he's wrong so we can all understand?
Not him, but she's just not that particularly relevant and revered in popular memory. True, if you asked people to name Polish queens she'd be easily one of the top picks(not that she has lots of competition, most people would struggle to name more than three), but in terms of overall monarch memorability she's B-tier or so. It's a far cry from the recognizability of Elisabeth I or Victoria in Britain.
Kek I see. Thanks anon.
Not the guy you ask but her biggest accomplishment was being the wife of the grand prince of Lithuania Władysław II Jagiełło, who was de facto the real ruler of Poland through jure uroxis law, which BTW applied to most of these female leaders in Civ games (except for Britons since they're OG cucks of Europe, conquered and reshaped by Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans).
She was pretty insignificant character in her lifetime. However the other anon was right about young Polish children hearing about her in literature, as to some extend postmortem she became a symbol of Poland in legends and writings of future poets. Her symbol are literally shoes so feet gays could start praising her.
>You only think she's cool because her character is hot.
correct
shes only there for coombait
And I feel for it
>Sneaking slovakia
Even fricking Albania is more impactful than African "civilizations"
ther isnt enough porn of her
First post stealing because these israelite jannies are out of control. Saw someone post Humankind boxart of the viking bawd and Black person doctor and I don't think they even said anything inflammatory and it got taken down. MANAGERS IN CHARGE OF THESE GLOWBlack person REDDIT MODS, TELL THEM TO ALLOW ANY AND ALL RACIST AND MISOGYNISTIC POSTS! I COME HERE TO SHITPOST ABOUT HOW STUPID ALL THE SUBHUMANS ARE, STOP BANNING SHIT THAT IS JUST TELLING YOU HOW IT IS!
don't think this will get much discussion since the viewpoint is universally shared on Ganker
>Eleanor of Aquitaine, Elizabeth, Catherine de Medicis
>irrelevant
huh??
>idiotic bawd that caused the 100 years war
>illegitimate heretic, also major bawd
>scheming b***h that accomplished absolutely nothing
yes. But gameplay wise it is fun to take over cities with the power of love... and later go on total war against what is left and has high loyalty.
I play this game to kill billions and conquer the world. Not for the history or the boobas.
Where were you for the past decade? Video games are a minor part of the movement. Every aspect of pop culture has been redefined. You even had top Wikipedia editors making their life goal to redact articles and promote obscure women as contributors in every field.
Neutral historical game?
>Video games are a minor part of the movement
Not him but It's a crucial pillar regardless. The video game industry outgrew even traditional giants like movies by now. Hence the wide-scale subversion in the last decade plus. Shit like the abundance of female leaders in Civ6 is only the tip of the iceberg.
swiping left on your culture war thread
Is Civ 6 complete better than 5? I've played vanilla 6 on Game Pass and it felt lacking in every way and the art style made me never want to pick it up again
I got 300 hours out of it comfortably beating it on deity then went back to 5 with VP. Not as good imo but still fun and different enough that its worth a buy especially on sale.
nta but how do i get to run vox populi on my game? i always get some of the ui elements bugged (like diplomacy screens), should i switch to english language for mods?
I've only used it with English and EUI, never had any problems.
5 with VP is an excellent experience.
6 depends on taste, you might find it a better gameplay (that's my case) or worse. In Singleplayer you'll get sick of the moronic AI eventually (it's the only civ game I can beat 100% reliably on Deity, I'm not even close to that in the other ones).
Civ6 Multiplayer is a pure delight for me but I dislike how long and intense the MP simultaneous sessions are - so I play asynchronous (Cloud/PBEM automated) instead.
It's a perfectly good game on its own merits but it plays nothing like any previous game in the series. V outside of 1UPT and the use of hexes instead of diamonds was mostly more of the same. That being said, people these days seem to forget that V ALSO sucked before G&K came out.
Only picked up Civ a few times on GP some time ago but
>and the art style made me never want to pick it up again
Wow, really? The artstyle was what caught my attention in the first place. I thought the leaders looked amazing and were super well animated.
>open thread
>save image
>close thread
>Civ is historically inaccurate
no fricking shit moron
No game is historically accurate especially the civ franchise with Gandhi leading the Indians (lol) in pretty much all entries, arbitrary tech trees and wonders being built anywhere in the world, but I don't see you b***hing about that
Rest of your post reeks of ineducation and pop history
>what is supposed to be a neutral historical game
Never has pretended to be one.
5 had plenty of "diversity" too and things that checks the boxes you don't like and yet we didn't see you complaining
And yet I see no complaints about the red-blooded American Renaissance.
Go frick yourself.
the zulu were in the first game moron.
Well I guess the whole post is invalid then and there is no overrepresentation of insignificant people and cultures.
France doesn’t have Louis the 14th or Napoleon? LMAO
/pol/tard impotent rage is funny
>1. Associating old civilizations to modern nation-states: HRE to Germany, Vikings to Norway, Majapahit to Indonesia, etc.
>-Mali, Kongo, Zulu were just a bunch of hillbilly tribes that wouldn't even be considered states outside Africa (let alone civilizations).
>-India has never been a single united civilization prior to British colonization.
That's really nothing new to Civilization, they've been doing that since Civ 2.
Also
>Elizabeth
>irrelevant
What the frick
A few of their new female leaders choice are decent like Catherin de Medici, Gitarja, and Nzinga but most of them are completely dumb pick. They are either completely irrelevant like Gorgo/Seondok or complete joke like Kristina the traitor.
Imagine destroying your game with 1 poster
>Imagine destroying your game with 1 poster
Did you honestly forget the announcement trailer which featured African tribesmen led by the blue-haired "Lucy" gallantly slaughtering Romans and making them kiss their feet, followed by a majority-black noble banquet where a white man played rock music on a mandolin?
Don't worry they fixed it with WMAF when their game was already in a nosedive, LOL!
This is going to sound a little unconventional, but Crusader Kings 3 has a very in-depth Culture/Religion mechanic where you can craft completely new societies who practice worship in strange and unusual ways.
jesus, did they really think people didnt like their game only because of a pozzed pic?
In what year was this released? Looks AI-generated.
that's not why it flopped, the game was just ass
link? i don't remember seeing that
>link? i don't remember seeing that
And then, for their "actual" launch trailer, they went as ambiguous as possible on skin tone because of the reaction to the prior trailer, hahaha.
you said she made the romans kiss the feet of africans but she didn't
they're just slaughtering people
hard to think of a worse trailer
it could've worked if they showed actual fricking gameplay
>(insert newest Civ title) is good bro, you just have to wait until 4 years after launch where all the expansions and content that should have been there from the start are implemented
This has been a problem with the series since arguably Civ 3
Well to be fair civ 6 only became more trash with every xpac, and every power creeping single civ dlc, and then they just stopped supporting the servers entirely and multiplayer barely works and people need mods to fix it and even those are buggy as shit
>Well to be fair civ 6 only became more trash with every xpac
BULLSHIT it does, how can you go back to vanilla after playing with Secret Socities/Dramatic Ages/Monopolies and Corporations turned on?
if you sincerely enjoy Dramatic Ages you belong in some kind of institution
It helps weaken the issue with steamrolling endless golden ages because of early wonders by increasing how much you need for each age and making it so you have to actually work towards shit to keep a dark age from happening.
which would be fine if the AI could deal with that even slightly, you don't need to steamroll shit when half the enemy civs have been wiped out by dark age rebellions by the midgame
I mean those are only good because we have been buckbroken into the OP unbalanced rush through the ages playstyle, they added all this shit that increases yields without ever rebalancing the eras around that but seriously the biggest crime of this dogshit worst entry in the series is the servers.
Civ 6 broke the trend by continuing to be shit even after all the dlc.
she looks like she belongs in a grubhub ad
I'm impressed that they found a way to promote BMWF in an image like that.
There are civs that should be in the game but lost their spot to Africans and too much European and MENA "centricity".
I mean where the frick are the Normans, the Hitties etc? Where are the Irish or Slovakians etc who while not as impactful as the bigger European countries tower above the Africans "civilizations" .
Normans would be tough to do, how do you depict a civilization that deliberately assimilated itself into the cultures it conquers? Give England/France/Italy Norman leaders with uniquely Norman perks instead, I'd play the shit out of that
>how do you depict a civilization that deliberately assimilated itself into the cultures it conquers?
Gain the UA or special buildings of the civ you conquer or something?
would be sick gaining a new UU or stealing each civ's bonus district as you conquer
Firaxis could later add these civs or they could.... make 5 other games noone ever played.
Cant remember when they last added a civ. They certainly wont add Normans or Hittites or overlapping civs as a rule for some reason. They added Portugal on St Patricks Day as slap to the Irish, kek.
I prefer 5 and holding out for 7 anyway...
Italy, Romania, Austria, Switzerland, Finland, Serbia, Armenia, Assyria, Mamluks, Morocco, Seljuks, Iran...
All of these countries are much more deserving of being in the game than fricking Mali or Zulus
>Italy
Florence, Venice, Lombardy, Naples, or Sicily?
>Italy
>Austria
>Assyria
>Mamluks
>Seljuk
>Iran
Already in the game
The rest don't deserve the position more than Mali, though we should have Morocco.
>Italy
>Austria
>Assyria
>Mamluks
>Seljuk
>Iran
None of them are in Civ 6 except Assyria and Iran (ancient Persia, not Islamic Iran)
>The rest don't deserve the position more than Mali, though we should have Morocco.
Switzerland, Finland, Serbia, Armenia, Romania are infinitely more historically relevant than Mali
>None of them are in Civ 6 except Assyria
Rome, HRE, Babylon, Egypt, Ottos (adjacent), and Persia.
>Iran (ancient Persia, not Islamic Iran)
They're the same civ, just at different points in time.
Italy is a distinct civilization from Rome
Austria is a distinct civilization from Germany (although having being part of the HRE)
Assyria has nothing to do with Babylon, they were two different empires
Ancient Egypt is a distinct civilization from Islamic Egypt
>>Iran (ancient Persia, not Islamic Iran)
>They're the same civ, just at different points in time.
I think they're different enough to deserve two different civs but fair enough
>Italy is a distinct civilization from Rome
It's an extension of Rome. Even Venice is just "Island Rome".
>Austria is a distinct civilization from Germany (although having being part of the HRE)
It isn't. It really isn't.
>Assyria has nothing to do with Babylon, they were two different empires
True, but they're nigh-indistinguishable to the average player.
>Ancient Egypt is a distinct civilization from Islamic Egypt
No, it's just the same civilization at different points in time.
>It's an extension of Rome. Even Venice is just "Island Rome".
Italy is a daughter civilization of Rome but it's not Rome. Italians descend from ancient Romans but they're not ancient Romans. And if we follow your definition, France and Spain shouldn't have dedicated civs either since they're also extensions of Rome and Rome is already in the game.
>It isn't. It really isn't.
It is. It really is. Austria has always been a major power in Europe and it's unique enough to deserve its own civilization.
>True, but they're nigh-indistinguishable to the average player.
And? I'm sorry but this argument is extremely moronic
>No, it's just the same civilization at different points in time.
You could argue that for Iran but definitely not for ancient Egypt.
The continuity is completely broken: they don't speak the same language, don't have the same culture, don't practice the same religion. There's nothing ancient and modern Egyptians have in common besides genetics.
>Italy is a daughter civilization of Rome but it's not Rome.
It's Rome.
>France and Spain shouldn't have dedicated civs either since they're also extensions of Rome and Rome is already in the game.
Those are states influenced by the Roman civ.
>It is. It really is. Austria has always been a major power in Europe and it's unique enough to deserve its own civilization.
Yeah, and it has one. As the HRE.
>And? I'm sorry but this argument is extremely moronic
This is how civs are chosen. There's a reason we only have one Indian civilization.
>You could argue that for Iran but definitely not for ancient Egypt.
I can, because that's literally what it is.
>The continuity is completely broken: they don't speak the same language, don't have the same culture, don't practice the same religion. There's nothing ancient and modern Egyptians have in common besides genetics.
Yeah, because they changed. You could say the same thing about Celts and Irish.
>It's Rome.
Italian culture is distinct from ancient Roman culture, Italian language is distinct from Latin, Italian history is distinct from ancient Roman history. By saying "Italians are just Romans" you're denying the existence of the Italian nation itself.
>Those are states influenced by the Roman civ.
Spain and France were fully part of Roman civilization and are, just like Italy, daughters of Rome
>Yeah, and it has one. As the HRE.
HRE is assigned to Germany in the game
>This is how civs are chosen. There's a reason we only have one Indian civilization.
And this choice isn't historically motivated, which is precisely what players criticize. Assyria isn't less relevant than Mali or Zulus and definitely has it place in the game.
>Yeah, because they changed. You could say the same thing about Celts and Irish.
By this logic the US, Brazil, France, Spain and many other peoples shouldn't be in the game as they're just a culturally different version of a previously existing people.
>Italian culture is distinct from ancient Roman culture, Italian language is distinct from Latin, Italian history is distinct from ancient Roman history.
It's the direct outgrowth and continuation of Roman culture.
>Spain and France were fully part of Roman civilization and are, just like Italy, daughters of Rome
They were more akin to adopted children than actual descendants. Like the way Japan and Vietnam relate to China.
>HRE is assigned to Germany in the game
And Germany doesn't deserve a civ, so pretend it's Austrian.
>And this choice isn't historically motivated, which is precisely what players criticize.
I believe it has more of a gameplay motivation. The major question is what you're getting that other civs don't provide. Mali has a unique niche in the game. Zulus shouldn't be in the game, sure, but they're only in because they're a legacy pick from the days when Zulus were seen as the Spartans of Africa.
>By this logic the US, Brazil, France, Spain and many other peoples shouldn't be in the game as they're just a culturally different version of a previously existing people.
You could make a strong argument that colonial states shouldn't be in the game, but they're in for marketing and gameplay reasons, not due to their histories.
Okay? Rome is the one in the game, so there you go.
If people choose between Roman culture and Italian culture, not ONE person, including italians themselves, would choose Italy.
Islamic Iran is represented by Nader Shah being a leader for Persia in 6
Youre trying way too hard to gey cool history guy points.
Euroshitter leaders are bloated at this point
calling Dido an irrelevant leader of Carthage is pretty fricking moronic OP
Jadwiga has all the religious and folk tale embellishment going for her, she's an acceptable choice.
Yeah they did the same shit with Portugal in CIV 5 with Maria. Portugal only ever had 2 queens out of like 50 rulers. This b***h didn't even do anything relevant as far as I recall
I don't have a problem with cartoony artstyles because I'm not so young that I automatically associate games with a cartoony look with fricking Clash of Clans (or if you're older, World of Warcraft as that was the previous go-to for anything that looks cartoonish), my issue is entirely that civ's is completely inconsistent. They run the gamut of "slight cariacature but otherwise looks like a normal person" to "hyper-stylized shit that might as well be from an old Looney Tunes short"
I see what you mean, you have Alexander the great who has some exaggerated facial proportions but still looks human and then Megamind Ghandi resembling a poo-ified Roswell grey with water on the brain, in the same game
>Canada shouldn't be its own country
Thats a bit rude
i get what you are trying to say but
>Eleanor of Aquitaine, Elizabeth the Great
>irrelevant ""leaders""
lmao ok
Eleanor was relevant but not as a leader just as a prostitute
how come the woman with the gun suddenly got blue hair in later iterations of this image?
she reached 2nd year in her liberal arts degree
They tried to trick people into buying this at first, the image even cut a bit lower so the hand holding didn't show. After it came out they dropped all pretense this wasn't civ 5 california edition
bro, it is an American game. it has to be pozzrd. But gameplay is ok. I am here for the gameplay. I have a swastica on my wall and still love to play OP civs. in civ 5 I played Poland. yes, Poland. Its a good thing that Poland is now shit and China is the new OP civ with Yongle.
I'm genuinely amazed that they've managed to make warfare even worse than in fricking Civ.
and with this my expectations of 4x games fricking plummeted
civ 7 when
do not do it. Do not wish for 7. In current year it will be giga shit. Civ 6 still came out in a year where the west could produce something ok. Need I remind you of Bethesda and how the next Elder Scrolls game can kill the franchise? Better to have Skyrim and civ 5/6 forever and use mods to update then into current gen games.
>Listen I do not like soft left wing politics being inserted in my games, how about we just insert hard left wing policies instead?
Based because I will not play it that way.
>Associating old civilizations to modern nation-states: HRE to Germany, Vikings to Norway, Majapahit to Indonesia
>India has never been a single united civilization prior to British colonization.
These are non-issues but you're right with the rest. I mean I guess you could make North India and the Tamils seperate civs but it's sort of unnecessary
I would just remove India from the game and the world. I literally talk every day to people irl how if just 1 billion Indians die the world will improve
Bit tired of these games about real civs and the drama they create every time
Give me one where you make your own instead
rimworld
>Give me one where you make your own instead
Humankind is kind of this, but it's so pozzed you might as well ignore it.
That one still has you playing as real civs, even if you hop between different ones and play dress-up afterwards
Not really, it has the player hop between different civs depending on the ages. What would be interesting is something like the nation designer in EU4 but in-game rather than pre-game. For example when discovering a tech, have an event that has you shift your civ/culture towards using the tech for culture or war and depending on what you choose, it'll give different bonuses. EU4 everything is set before the game, so there's fewer places for player expression, in regular Civ you only have very small bonuses and a unique building/unit it might as well be a cosmetic change really.
The politics don't really stop there either, Civ 1 and 2 were practically only military, since 3 there's been a decline in military victories and a big increase especially in 5 and 6 for diplomatic, cultural or other victories.
civ 6 military is pretty cool, way better than 5 at least
Too bad Civ can't be like Dynasty Warriors and just say frick it in the name of the rule of cool. Have George Washington dual wield axes while Napoleon summons ethereal cannons and shit.
Zulus have been in civ since the first game. Yeah it might be unaccurate but really man? Its just a game to have fun. Dont think about politics just enjoy and play you fricking plebeian. Not a Black person just saying man...
>Dont think about politics
The designers of the game do. Why don't you tell them that instead of complaining when we notice them being political?
Why do you care about it so much? We are just people who can't chance a shit in this wolrd. We are here to enjoy things. You are literallty nothing but a slave to pay taxes just like me. Try to enjoy your life for once.
how dare you say reasonable things in Ganker
>You are literallty nothing but a slave to pay taxes just like me.
Not everyone is as powerless as you, stop projecting.
my man go outside, it's spring
I want to play as the Thracians, and I want to recreate the Massacre of Mycalessus, I will raid, rape, and ravage everything in my wake, age, sex, species matters not, I will desecrate every temple, spilling the blood of the priesthood in said temples, and just for good measure, I’ll burn the plant life to the ground, not just the crops, no I mean ALL plant life.
Why does everyone fail at making a 4X game nowadays?
Everyone wants to copy civ5 instead of the superior civ4
I always favored CIV III, I liked nuking the planet and not having the game end so gayley due to the crust breaking apart.
>civ4
civ4 is fine and playable even now, all i want is proper SMAC remaster with modern control scheme and QoL
Everyone fails at making any kinda game nowadays, unless they have an indie budget, cause then you have a 23% chance of making a good game.
This was fun as an actual game. UI and graphics were low budget, but it was a much better "customize your civ through the ages" game than Humankind.
The problem is that "customize your civ" games are not historically authentic and that's a problem for a HISTORICAL 4X. You pick Japan but there's literally nothing Japanese about your empire except city names like Chinpoko unless you go out of your way to make it that way. Just make a fantasy or sci-fi 4X if that's what you want to do - AoW4 is great.
On the other hand, Caveman2Cosmos did it great where you don't pick your civ at the start, you have to actually acquire characteristics of a real-life civilization in order to earn the label, along with the unique units, etc.
Depicting ancient royal figures as 3/10s should be considered a form of historical vandalism. It dishonours the pious, Christian rulers of old.
Royals were a bunch of inbred degenerates with a misplaced sense of self worth. Any positive portrayal of them is about as trustworthy as caucasian Jesus.
Why do trannies think jesus couldn't have been white? Alexander the Great crusaded through the area 400 years earlier and even if you dispute his whiteness he brought with him the red haired people who became the Galatians and the Galatians then enjoyed privileged status in the middle east as prized mercenaries for centuries. The scythians were in the area in the 6th century bc and everyone from rome to china described the scythians as blonde haired and blue eyed. There were blonde pharaohs in 1400 bc, and there are white people in the middle east still today. Considering the kind of people browns are today and the kind of people whites are today how could anyone think jesus could be anything but white?
not him but jesus is not white
he is a brown israelite, and you worship him
>Why do trannies think Jesus couldn't have been white?
Because trannies think diversity only goes one way, from white to brown. Medieval England is always portrayed as having a significant black population, because England *now* has a significant black population... But if you mention that there should be white people in portrays of West Africa, because the Carthaginians and the Portuguese had been around there a fair few times over the centuries, they'll have conniptions.
Do you consider Carthaginians and the Portuguese white?
Did whites live in fricking mudhuts and killed themselves for nothing while the Romans beat them to shit for centuries?
Why are you picking current day as a measurement of success for any race?
Also Jesus was, due to the odds, most likely a brown, israeli man. Make peace with it. Your argument is just as straw grasping as those people in Japan that believe Jesus died there.
why has jesus been depicted as white as early as the 200s
He wasn't? He was depicted as generic mediterranean man because the spaniards and latin speaking people worshipped him.
We know he looked like the average israeli man because nobody ever mentions anything unusual about his appearance in the bible, he, by all accounts, looked like a generic person by the standards of the region he lived in, which was mostly brown, israeli people.
Also he managed to hide himself in Egypt during his childhood alongside Mary and Joseph, so they would look like generic enough to not call attention of the romans, so not white or blonde in any way.
Read the bible if you are so interested in Jesus, he was supposed to look like every man and his "current" depiction is just an idealized version of him.
>jesus is supposed to look like every man
>became white when israelites killed him
makes sense
>Jesus the Grey. Jesus the White.
Us whiteys were hired by Bizarro Sweet Baby Inc to commit historical revisionism on Jesus:)
It's not "couldn't" but "was". Those painters were being commissioned to make that time's equivalent of gigachad edits. Euros were going through a phase where they thought of themselves as the center of the universe while branding others as subhumans, only put on this world to serve them. Do you think they would accurately depict Jesus if he turned out to be anything but the palest of white? Having their messiah, a pillar of their cultural identity being a subhuman himself? Hell, the bible doesn't even specify God's race but they still portrayed him as one of them because "he made us in his image". Point is, those portrayals are biased as frick and shouldn't be taken as historical evidence, just like all the portrayals of nobles as attractive looking people.
>Why do trannies think jesus couldn't have been white?
Because the people who knew him and recorded his life said his skin was a bronzed tone, as you'd expect from someone living in that region.
I am not sionlioning, but do you have any source on this?
sealioning*
what the frick is sealioning, and why does it feel like phrases like this are being cranked out at rapid speed to slap a label on common behaviours to stop people from discussing shit?
today's propaganda comes in the form of forced memes
the megacorp state thinks you'll hate what they tell you to hate if they create easily digestible buzzwords with a negative connotation to describe it
>Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity, and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate", and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings.
Jesus fricking christ
>a form of trolling where the person politely asking you for proof of your claims is actually secretly a big troll trying to trick you into researching ragebait
I'm genuinely offended by this term and I am convinced the only people that would unironically use it work for the CIA.
Not him, but I've experienced it plenty. It's that thing Martin Luther accused the israelites of doing. It's horrifically annoying and dishonest.
If anything it sounds like zionist propaganda to silence criticism or to demonize people asking for an actual answer and not a non-answer that was previously given.
I don't understand why people feel so compelled to upload their opinions to public forums only to get upset when their inflammatory wienery statements are engaged with by the public.
>If anything it sounds like zionist propaganda
KYS.
Why?
propaganda can include bad faith takes on both sides
>where's your source? uh that's not a valid source, valid sources include [list of zog sites]
>stop challenging my baseless assertions, you're just sealioning!
the intent of both these statements is to make critical thinking and fact-based debate impossible and to shame and humiliate anyone who attempts it until they're too demoralized to continue
now that you discovered the meaning of the word, could you please provide source? Im genuinelly interested in the topic
Sure thing, I cited the Merriam-Webster definition
https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/sealioning-internet-trolling
However if you can find a better source for the origin of the phrase and its current meaning I'd love to see it so I can be more certain of my stance on the subject.
no, I mean the source on Jesus' bronze toned skin
You have replied to the wrong person, common mistake.
>some moron draws a comic with an annoying sealion in it because she didn't want to engage with people who have different opinions than her on the internet
>she was so addicted to social media that she conflates people asking her questions online with somebody coming into her house uninvited
>this moronic comic has now been immortalized in official dictionaries
frick this gay earth
She never did explain her baseless bigotry toward sea lions.
The sealion really was being polite and civil about it as well, and this comic portrays the situation as if the sealion is intruding on a private conversation between two people.
The phrase is implied to reflect behaviour in public forums, not private conversations and yet the sealion is shown irritating these people in private places and invading private conversations.
There is a massive difference between saying "I hate all sealions" in a twitter post, and saying it in a private conversation between two people.
Yeah, and if you say "I hate all israelites" then you can forget debating - suddenly just straight up assaulting you is acceptable and justified.
Nevermind. I misremembered the context of his arrest.
>dont think about politics bro just dont think about it
>*nonstop floods your hobby with obnoxious politics*
>why are you thinking about it bro just stop just stop thinking about it
>India has never been a single united civilization prior to British colonization
Bro? Your Asoka?
Don't forget that there is a whole expansion about the made up fake bullshit called "climate change"
>It's frankly insane that England has 4 leaders, France 3 and not a single of them is male.
I can't believe this is true
OP you are the definition of Dunning-Kruger.
>endless space and endless legend were really good should we make more
>no just make a civ clone
buddy, this is a game where i can play as zulus, build an entire legion of killer death robots, nuke every civilzation and still get a culture victory where everyone wears our loincloths and listens to our zulu screeching music
who gives a shit
why does france and england have exclusively female rulers when some of their best rulers werent women
because numbnuts, they already did that the last game. and the game before that. and the game before that.
also the french suck, so wgaf
napoleon and charlemagne
>napoleon
already used 4 times
>charlemagne
is not a french leader
>the french suck
Reddit homosexual
sorry. you guys just really suck. polnareff is like the greatest thing to come from you guys. and it wasnt even you guys.
>I must hate France like the redditors told me to
Go back
is reddit in the room with us right now?
>so terminally online that the only interaction with french people he has is redditors not liking them
Dabbing on the French has been a thing long before Reddit existed.
WW2 sealed your fate as white flag waving frogeaters in the memeworld.
Cretin, that started when we left NATO. Muttoids become angry and seethe to this day, even after that manlet Sarkozy put France back into NATO.
Nobody cares homosexual, you need to go back
says the man shidding and crying over france of all places.
I'll shittalk any Redditor behavior I see on this board, doesn't apply solely to your moaning about the French
>I'll shittalk any Redditor behavior I see on this board, doesn't apply solely to your moaning about the French
so you concede
>they already did that the last game
France has plenty, and I mean plenty of male rulers to pick from and they're all infinitely more relevant than Eleanor of Aquitaine or Catherine de Medicis
How is Serbia or Croatia less relevant than fricking Mali or Zulus?
>How is Serbia or Croatia less relevant than fricking Mali or Zulus?
Because Croatia was a completely unremarkable extension of Hungary and HRE/Otto politics even at its best, and Serbia is Jamaica-tier. Zulus are in solely because of that one time they beat the British army in a fight, which they've been playing up ever since because it was embarrassing, and Mali is the chosen representative of all of West Africa, playing up the gold episode, the resulting human capital acquisition, and the long-distance land trade aspects.
female sexo
Mali, the Kongo and the Zulu where all states, Mali in particular was a empire for a few years and as a kingdom it lasted centuries, if Colombia is a extension of Spain then the US is a extension of the brit bongs and Elizabeth and Dido are extremely important wtf are you talking about
>Mali in particular was a empire for a few years
What do you mean, "a few years"? From Sundiata to Sunni Ali is 200.
>no South Slav nation as a civ because they're not marketable enough or something moronic
well i mean none of those places have done anything notable in their entire existence.
i think mexico has a better chance of getting in, and they've done literally nothing good.
Really? Bulgaria has done nothing notable in its entire existence? Go have a look at what kind of civs make it into the game if you're not trolling.
yes.
ill give you serbia. they get an inch over mali and canada
Civilization is for babies and baby-brains. Play a grand strategy game if you don't want to be pandered to
mali and kongo were not hillbilly tribes you dumb Black person they were urbanized societies
>urbanized societies
>arcadey sandbox style game about people born thousands of years apart from each other interacting isn't historically accurate
No friggin way...
>Pointless thing to complain about
>Needless generalization when you had a point with the Zulu
>Pretending anyone cares enough about India to distinguish
>Faulting the devs for something the players demanded
>Ignoring the gameplay implications of these decisions
You are a politically-minded person, and a fragile one. You won't be satisfied with normal games, so find one where the only characters are European men and try to find some peace in that.
Nta but who asked for a Canadian/Australian civ? who asked for female leaders?
me
>Nta but who asked for a Canadian/Australian civ?
Canadians and Australians.
>who asked for female leaders?
Some players of previous games, and some devs who wanted to ensure civs had multiple victory options and needed theming justification to explain why Sweden would ever be a cultural power.
>Nta but who asked for a Canadian/Australian civ?
I would imagine people who live in Canada and Australia? They're pretty big countries.
Why do dipshits think that just stating that something wasn't specifically requested is a reason in itself for it to not exist
nothing wrong with france is there??????????
everything is part and parcel??????
>Paris
>France
I've unironically heard nothing but things about Paris. 90% is about just how dirty the city is.
Just wish civs went to war more often. Too many times I get to 150+ and barely any damage has been done. If it isn't me fricking them up they don't do it to themselves
I've never played a single 4x/history rts
where do I begin?
Civ is the most entry level one. I'd start there.
Total War games have some good older entries like Medieval if you prefer RTS over turn based.
>England has 4 leaders, France 3 and not a single of them is male.
That can’t be real. I’ve never played 6 because it looked like Pixar ass. So is there no hope for 7?
My real question is, why did they make these historical leaders look so frickable? Most of them would be inbred, no?
None of them are habsburgs except Philip II (and he didn't get CHIN'd so much) so no
>India has never been a single united civilization prior to British colonization.
Like Italy, Germany, and Finland?
diversity is a good thing in a long running franchise, not in the woke DEI sense but rather giving you options instead of the same old thing every time
imagine if street fighter had the same roster for five games straight. that's how it would feel if they were like oh here's Napoleon, Gandhi, Lincoln, Bismarck, Montezuma, and Tokugawa AGAIN
>im not even a political person
>i just hate everyone who doesn't align with my narrow minded schizo political worldvie
lol, lmao even.
I loved when they added that Korean queen and there was mass outrage by Koreans because
1. She was just a puppet of China
2. Her skin was too dark and she had Black facial features
In the end the company backed down and made her look more Korean and then later they added Sejong the great anyway like people had been demanding from the start.
>le powerful Anarchist revolutionary Spanish kween
>Black scientist holding hands with a female Viking (totally no reason for such a specific pairing)
>"Humankind" because just "Mankind" isn't inclusive enough
Kind of a miracle it even sold enough to get two (?) DLCs made for it.
>Vikings to Norway
wasn't hardrada king of norway specifically
don't forget how the Korean and Swedish leaders are both reviled as catastrophic rulers and traitors.
Remember when we could have dictators as leaders and no one cared? Gutless cowards, these modern devs.
"Dictators" has nothing to do with it. Qin Shi Huang was just as brutal and tyrannical than any dictator in the last 100 years, if not more so.
>"Dictators" has nothing to do with it. Qin Shi Huang was just as brutal and tyrannical than any dictator in the last 100 years, if not more so.
You're 100% right in that assertion, but it's your turn to admit other autocrats like Alexander, Trajan, and Louis XIV were just as tyrannical and genocidal. The difference is Qing Shi Huang went on wars and brutal campaigns of violence and oppression to against his own people/unify his country, while the others I listed engaged in wars of territorial conquest, don't pretend there isn't a distinction. If you're gonna make blanket assertions, make sure you cover all your bases. And don't for one second try that "t-they just want those heckin chink dollarydoos, that's why!" lmao get the frick outta here, Civ, especially Civ 6 is massively unpopular in China, nobody plays this pozzed dog shit.
Louis XIV genocided who? Huguenots? Reach.
>he thinks the persecution of the Huguenots wasn't a genocide
Then call it a crusade if you wish, makes no difference to me. But personally I'd call 'enacting policies that made it so protestants had no choice to but leave everything behind and flee their homes and country' to be on par with an ethnic cleansing. Oh yeah and there was also that 9 years war thing, you know that time where 800k people died because he tried to annex everything west of the Rhine and annexed Alsace/Lothringen and enacted anti German policies that would last up to today.
Unifying your country at a time of a massive Civil War isn't the same as Alexander trying to conquer the entire world and only stopping at India because he contracted super aids, that's all I'm trying to say, yet western leaders get all the representation they want. Two can play at that game. Stop pretending you're being heckin oppressed/I-it's white genocide because a bunch of soiboys at Firaxis didn't include Hitler as a leader.
I think you're attributing to me an opinion that I didn't express. The person to whom I originally replied posted Stalin as a example of "remember when we could have dictators". Hitler has never been in the game, and I don't want him in. The only thing notable about Hitler is being one of the first warlords in the era of global and mechanized warfare. Personally, I would prefer that other unremarkable warlords also don't make the cut next time.
I don't understand what objection you're raising to my post. I didn't mention those autocrats because yes, genociding your own people is objectively worse than genociding other people. A leader has a responsibility to those he leads - this is a timeless and universal ethical principle. That's why Qin is on the same level as monsters who will never be officially represented, like Misc Pot, whereas those you listed are not.
>Civ, especially Civ 6 is massively unpopular in China, nobody plays this pozzed dog shit.
That doesn't account for the tons of chinese-language stuff on the workshop
>elizabeth
>irrelevant
there's an era named after her
god I wanna sex west slavic girls
>1. Associating old civilizations to modern nation-states: HRE to Germany, Vikings to Norway, Majapahit to Indonesia, etc.
That's not "woke" it's impossible to have any Civ variety if you made this a restriction you homosexual. The way a civ progresses in the series does not allow that kind of differentiation. Besides Humankind tried something different like you wanted and ended up being shit
>2. Making up fake civilizations:
>-Mali, Kongo, Zulu were just a bunch of hillbilly tribes that wouldn't even be considered states outside Africa (let alone civilizations).
This is true but it lets them balance out a True Start map better. Also Mali and also Songhai are definitely less of an offender than Nubia.
>-India has never been a single united civilization prior to British colonization.
>-Canada/Australia are just extensions of British civilization, not unique civs. Gran Colombia is an extension of Spanish civilization.
See my reply to your point one. Just go play EU4 or Vic2 already you absolute moron.
>3. Choosing irrelevant ""leaders"" over real ones just because they're female: Eleanor of Aquitaine, Elizabeth, Catherine de Medicis, Gitarja, Dido, Jadwiga, Kristina, etc.
>It's frankly insane that England has 4 leaders, France 3 and not a single of them is male.
This is also true but it only came in with Civ 6 and doesn't make your other points more legitimate.
I'll grant you that Eleanor, Gitarja, Catherine de Medici and Kristina were terrible leader choices, but Elizabeth is remembered as one of England's best monarchs, Dido literally founded Carthage, and Jadwiga created the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. I wouldn't call any of them bad choices, and Elizabeth and Dido specifically have been series mainstays for a long time.
HRE was German. The emperor literally had the title "KING OF GERMANY".
Elizabeth was a good queen.
But otherwise, agree. In Civ 2 you could be Mao and Stalin, right?
In Civ 2 the distinction between different leaders for the player was purely fluff. You could just type in whatever name you wanted. You could be Mao or Stalin or Poopfart for all the difference it made.
For AI rivals, Lenin was the default male leader for Russia and Mao was the default male leader for China.
Jadwiga was a real leader you seething incel
I really hope Civ7 gets away from this cartoonish environment jack off session that is Civ6. 6, compared to 5, is so fricking easy is what a chore to play. Not saying I'm that good, I only played on difficulty 7 out of 9 on 5 but even so, 6 was hilariously easy. There were some nice things. I somewhat liked districts, I liked the way they handled city states. Other than that, it's an ugly fricking EPA simulator. Seriously want the political, cultural, and militaristic stuff back. Not the muh heckin 6 pack plastic is killing muh turtles shit