Civilopedia Commentary/Error Correction

[SlickSlicer]

The Civilopedia is actually one of my favorite features in these games. So I think we should have a thread about it. I tend to like these kinds of encylopedic efforts in history-based video games, even if they aren't necessarily the most reliable sources of information.

Comments-

First thing I should ask is: Is there a way to have the Civilopedia be accessible from the main starting menu (where you can set up new games, etc.)? I know you could access it in Civ 4 from the main menu, which I thought was a lot more convenient.

My second comment is that the Chinese civilization page is a little bit short in my opinion. Japan's entry is much longer, which seems arbitrary to me. I know they were trying to condense China, but I think they did a little bit too much condensing. I think there should have been at least some information (a few sentences at least) on all the major dynasties. Let's assume that "major" means Shang, Zhou, Qin, Han, Tang, Song, Ming, Qing. Yuan is excluded because they can be covered in the Mongol page. I find it odd that the civilopedia page would bother to give more information about the Xia, a pseudo-mythical dynasty, than any of the really important ones. I think maybe a little bit more information about the Warring States could be added too, such as the fact that aside from being an "agonizing" period for China, as the civilopedia page puts it, this period also gave birth to the so-called "Hundred Schools of Philosophy," including Confucianism, Daoism and Legalism. They could probably add something about modern China (particularly Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping) as well.

Second. Few errors I've noticed:

Askia's title is listed as "Ursuper" instead of "Usurper." We all know Askia was super, but that's not the significance of that title.

From Nobunaga's Civilopedia entry: "His two lieutenants, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu, would complete the job, reunifying Japan blah blah blah" My gripe here is that I think it's erroneous to call Tokugawa Ieyasu "Nobunaga's lieutenant." The statement can apply pretty well for Hideyoshi but not for Ieyasu, who was an allied factional leader rather than a simple subordinate.

From Alex's entry: "Alexander the Macedonian is unquestionably one of the great warlords of all time." This should say "greatest warlords of all time."

From Ramesses II's entry: "He is regarded by later Egyptians as the greatest pharaoh in history, a conclusion it is difficult to dispute." I think this should read, "He is regarded by later Egyptians as the greatest pharaoh in history, a conclusion that is difficult to dispute."

[sectoid]

First thing I should ask is: Is there a way to have the Civilopedia be accessible from the main starting menu (where you can set up new games, etc.)?

There is no way to access Civilopedia without loading or starting a game first. I thought it was annoying too, since all the previous Civs had this feature. It became less annoying after I found this online version of the Civilopedia.

http://civilopedia5.com/

Its handy for checking stuff up without launching the game.

[RideASpaceCowboy]

My guess as to why Firaxis would condense the Chinese Civilpedia entry would be fear of censorship from the leaders of those territories in rebellion against the Republic of China (the only true Chinese government).

Firaxis' priority of political correctness for the sake of profits over artistic integrity and historical accuracy has already been demonstrated in their ban on user-made modification featuring Hitler as Germany's leader, which is why I think it likely they are trying to appease those seditious communists calling themselves the "People's Republic of China."

[SlickSlicer]

My guess as to why Firaxis would condense the Chinese Civilpedia entry would be fear of censorship from the leaders of those territories in rebellion against the Republic of China (the only true Chinese government).

Firaxis' priority of political correctness for the sake of profits over artistic integrity and historical accuracy has already been demonstrated in their ban on user-made modification featuring Hitler as Germany's leader, which is why I think it likely they are trying to appease those seditious communists calling themselves the "People's Republic of China."

I laughed. This is really silly. I also like how you state the Republic of China is the only true Chinese government. It's like I'm really living in the Cold War!

Fortunately there is absolutely nothing controversial about expanding information about China's pre-modern history. "Those seditious communists" aren't going to care about universally agreed upon facts regarding China's Imperial History (such as significant Emperors, accomplishments and failures of the various dynasties throughout this history). Information about modern China might get a bit touchier, but I think the Chinese government would be happy to hear Deng Xiaoping being flattered, as he inevitably would and should be.

There is no way to access Civilopedia without loading or starting a game first. I thought it was annoying too, since all the previous Civs had this feature. It became less annoying after I found this online version of the Civilopedia.

http://civilopedia5.com/

Its handy for checking stuff up without launching the game

Thanks for that. It's really convenient.

[Valkrionn]

My guess as to why Firaxis would condense the Chinese Civilpedia entry would be fear of censorship from the leaders of those territories in rebellion against the Republic of China (the only true Chinese government).

Firaxis' priority of political correctness for the sake of profits over artistic integrity and historical accuracy has already been demonstrated in their ban on user-made modification featuring Hitler as Germany's leader, which is why I think it likely they are trying to appease those seditious communists calling themselves the "People's Republic of China."

Actually, the aforementioned ban has nothing to do with Firaxis, or 2K, wanting to be politically correct.

Representations of Hitler are outlawed in Germany. The game is sold in Germany, and mods are available to Germans; Therefore, they must follow that particular law, given that the mod database is global.

[Pouakai]

That link (civilopedia5.com) is out of date, and the data is from original game (No DLC, Nat. Wonders still show 2 Production, 3 Gold etc.

[Floating Pants]

My guess as to why Firaxis would condense the Chinese Civilpedia entry would be fear of censorship from the leaders of those territories in rebellion against the Republic of China (the only true Chinese government).

Firaxis' priority of political correctness for the sake of profits over artistic integrity and historical accuracy has already been demonstrated in their ban on user-made modification featuring Hitler as Germany's leader, which is why I think it likely they are trying to appease those seditious communists calling themselves the "People's Republic of China."

Hah, this is a good post. I love how the most corrupt communists place the title "People's Republic" before their country to make it seem any bit better. How is modern China for the people at all? When their censor blocks any and all opinions of the people and silences any true and influential world events.

And even better for North Korea, the "People's Democratic Republic", is just laughable.

-"Father Kim Jong-il, what should we title this glorious new country?"
-"Irony is funny, let us call it 'Democratic' and 'for the people.'"
-"O comrade, you truly are a genius! Let us rejoice in your honor!"

[whoward69]

And even better for North Korea, the "People's Democratic Republic", is just laughable.

-"Father Kim Jong-il, what should we title this glorious new country?"
-"Irony is funny, let us call it 'Democratic' and 'for the people.'"
-"O comrade, you truly are a genius! Let us rejoice in your honor!"

But have you never heard that "Democracy is One Man One Vote" and it just so happens that Kim Jong-il is that one man with the one vote

[RideASpaceCowboy]

I laughed. This is really silly. I also like how you state the Republic of China is the only true Chinese government. It's like I'm really living in the Cold War!

Hey, if rednecks can still be fighting the Civil War 150 years later, why can't some of us still be fighting the Cold War as well?

[Magic_Hotdog]

Maybe some threads should be locked to prevent necro...

[Shiav]

Maybe some threads should be locked to prevent necro...

Have you seen the Civ 6 thread? I think the forum has been well into the apathy stage for about a year now

Hey, if rednecks can still be fighting the Civil War 150 years later, why can't some of us still be fighting the Cold War as well?

You may have bought my video game, but you are now my sworn enemy.

[RideASpaceCowboy]

Actually, the aforementioned ban has nothing to do with Firaxis, or 2K, wanting to be politically correct.

Representations of Hitler are outlawed in Germany. The game is sold in Germany, and mods are available to Germans; Therefore, they must follow that particular law, given that the mod database is global.

Freedom of speech is an inalienable right given to Man by his Creator and not a privilege that comes from any government. Firaxis should make the game as they would, allow the modding community to modify the game as they would, and if the neo-Nazis censoring speech in Germany try to oppress their citizens' right to play the game, that's simply one more opportunity for the German people to reject totalitarian policies and work to change such fascist laws.

(Yes, I realize my rhetoric is hyperbolic, but such is not in order to troll, but rather to properly reflect my level of passion and very real support of free speech for all men and opposition to censorship of any kind whatsoever.)

[SamBC]

People can mod the game how they like. The companies hosting the mod repository (Firaxis and GameSpy, I suppose) get to decide what's on there, because they will be held responsible for it. You can distribute mod files by any other means you like.

[SlickSlicer]

What does this have to do with the Civilopedia?

[circuitrider]

@SlickSlicer
@Sectoid

To get to Civilopedia without loading or playing the game.

From the Main Menu: Other: Then click of Civilopedia.

[chrisjwmartin]

Representations of Hitler are outlawed in Germany.

Try telling that to the makers of Downfall.

[chrisjwmartin]

From Alex's entry: "Alexander the Macedonian is unquestionably one of the great warlords of all time." This should say "greatest warlords of all time."

From Ramesses II's entry: "He is regarded by later Egyptians as the greatest pharaoh in history, a conclusion it is difficult to dispute." I think this should read, "He is regarded by later Egyptians as the greatest pharaoh in history, a conclusion that is difficult to dispute."

These are unnecessarily pedantic. "One of the great warlords" is fine. "A conclusion it is difficult to dispute" is fine.

[tfordp]

Representations of Hitler are outlawed in Germany.

Actually, they're not outlawed. Images glorifying Hitler are frowned upon, and holocaust denial is outlawed.

I post this here again because there seem to be a lot of people here who actually think it's true, when it isn't, and use it for an excuse the Hitler isn't in the game. Hitler isn't in the game because he was a crap leader, because there are loads of better leaders for Germany, and he would be in very poor taste.

It has nothing to do with alleged, non-existent laws in Germany.

[stethnorun]

Try telling that to the makers of Downfall.

I think it's actually just specific to areas where the government deems that "fun" is being had with Nazi imagery (including Hitler). So Downfall wouldn't apply because it's "art" showing Hitler's final days. Being able to play AS Hitler in a GAME is very much different to those people.

Personally, I find that elitist BS insulting to all Germans (treating them like children), but then again, I find Europe in general to be a horrible place, philosophically.

[SamBC]

ISTR that the Nazi swastika and SS-glyph are prohibited except in a well-established, non-glorifying historical context. Holocaust denial is illegal. Representations of Hitler may be considered bad taste, depending on details, but bad taste isn't illegal (unless it's really extreme).

[stethnorun]

ISTR that the Nazi swastika and SS-glyph are prohibited except in a well-established, non-glorifying historical context. Holocaust denial is illegal. Representations of Hitler may be considered bad taste, depending on details, but bad taste isn't illegal (unless it's really extreme).

I don't know how anyone can consider Holocaust denial "illegal". Wasn't thought-crime the very NATURE of Nazism in the first place? And as soon as we conquer that evil, the new regime uses the EXACT same logic? Retarded.

[SlickSlicer]

I don't know how anyone can consider Holocaust denial "illegal". Wasn't thought-crime the very NATURE of Nazism in the first place? And as soon as we conquer that evil, the new regime uses the EXACT same logic? Retarded.

Welcome to Deutschland.

[tfordp]

I don't know how anyone can consider Holocaust denial "illegal". Wasn't thought-crime the very NATURE of Nazism in the first place? And as soon as we conquer that evil, the new regime uses the EXACT same logic? Retarded.

The theory behind it is to stop it happening again. If someone starts claiming it never happened, it's only a short step to meeting in Bierkellers and storming the palaces, and needs to be stamped out.

[stethnorun]

The theory behind it is to stop it happening again. If someone starts claiming it never happened, it's only a short step to meeting in Bierkellers and storming the palaces, and needs to be stamped out.

That's a stupid way of approaching anything. You don't see us arresting 9/11 "truthers". All this tells me is that the Germans are even more Hobbesian than I realized, believing that as soon as they turn their backs, out come the swastikas and hate, as if the only reason people don't become animals is the law. Utter nonsense.

[tfordp]

There are a lot of countries that have different yet similar laws about holocaust denial, not just Germany. Maybe you should read up on it before hyperbolically jumping to conclusions.
Also, my post was half tongue-in-cheek, which you seem to have missed.

[donald23]

There are a lot of countries that have different yet similar laws about holocaust denial, not just Germany. Maybe you should read up on it before hyperbolically jumping to conclusions.
Also, my post was half tongue-in-cheek, which you seem to have missed.

Or even about other events, thinking Turkey and Armenia here...

I *think* denying the holocaust happened is actually illegal in most European countries...

[stethnorun]

There are a lot of countries that have different yet similar laws about holocaust denial, not just Germany. Maybe you should read up on it before hyperbolically jumping to conclusions.
Also, my post was half tongue-in-cheek, which you seem to have missed.

Why does the fact that it's more than Germany with stupid laws somehow make it not stupid? They are two different points entirely.

[stethnorun]

Or even about other events, thinking Turkey and Armenia here...

I *think* denying the holocaust happened is actually illegal in most European countries...

Makes me want to be patriotic for the first time in a few years. Makes me want to spout off holocaust denial rhetoric simply because I can and I'm so happy for that.

[SamBC]

I think part of the logic is that holocaust denial tends to go hand-in-glove with various sorts of hate-promotion. There are limited prohibitions on hate speech even in the UK (incitement to violence being part of it, incitement to certain categories of hatred, such as racial hatred, being another, IIRC). Freedom of speech, like all freedoms, is always subject to some limitations, generally those which involve compromise of other freedoms - who was it who said "your freedom to swing your arms ends at my face"? Your freedom to express ideas ends at the point where it's likely to cause considerable and objective harm to others.

[tfordp]

Why does the fact that it's more than Germany with stupid laws somehow make it not stupid? They are two different points entirely.

Whatever. They are stupid laws in your eyes. That doesn't make them stupid laws. That's another one of those opinion things.

Now, I haven't studied the whys and wherefores because they were there before I was, and my having an opinion about them and looking closer into them wouldn't change them whether I wanted to to or not, but scholars and survivors found reason to make those laws, and I'm sure they considered the pros and cons slightly more than 'that's stupid'.

My opinion on them is just as irrelevant as yours, but I wasn't expressing any opinions, just offering information.

[stethnorun]

Whatever. They are stupid laws in your eyes. That doesn't make them stupid laws. That's another one of those opinion things.

Now, I haven't studied the whys and wherefores because they were there before I was, and my having an opinion about them and looking closer into them wouldn't change them whether I wanted to to or not, but scholars and survivors found reason to make those laws, and I'm sure they considered the pros and cons slightly more than 'that's stupid'.

My opinion on them is just as irrelevant as yours, but I wasn't expressing any opinions, just offering information.

By that logic, why question anything ever? After all, if Plato figured it all out 2,000 years ago, who am I to argue?

Apathy or tacit approval of anything evil IS evil. And thought crimes, no matter how well-intentioned, are about as evil as it gets.

[stethnorun]

I think part of the logic is that holocaust denial tends to go hand-in-glove with various sorts of hate-promotion. There are limited prohibitions on hate speech even in the UK (incitement to violence being part of it, incitement to certain categories of hatred, such as racial hatred, being another, IIRC). Freedom of speech, like all freedoms, is always subject to some limitations, generally those which involve compromise of other freedoms - who was it who said "your freedom to swing your arms ends at my face"? Your freedom to express ideas ends at the point where it's likely to cause considerable and objective harm to others.

Except hate speech doesn't cause actual harm (beyond "emotional", but it's impossible to objectively measure that, so it's an inadequate criteria). Once again, I'm damn proud to be an American, where the KKK and Westboro Baptist church can spew hate all day long without being arrested. It's a beautiful thing.

[SamBC]

Except hate speech doesn't cause actual harm (beyond "emotional", but it's impossible to objectively measure that, so it's an inadequate criteria). Once again, I'm damn proud to be an American, where the KKK and Westboro Baptist church can spew hate all day long without being arrested. It's a beautiful thing.

There's objective likelihood of causing objective harm where you're promoting acts that are harmful and illegal. I completely agree that it's okay to restrict speech where that speech is encouraging other people to kill, firebomb, harass (to the extent the harassment is illegal), illegally discriminate, etc.

Saying that it shouldn't be illegal to discriminate (or, I suppose, to harass, firebomb or whatever) is fine - telling people to do so even though it's illegal isn't.

[stethnorun]

So the person who commits the actual violence is equally guilty to the man that suggests the violence in the first place? How does that work? It basically sends the message that people have no free will, that we are all just mindless savages that do whatever horrors we are told to do. It reminds me of liberals who said that people like Rush Limbaugh were responsible for the Gabrielle Giffords shooting because he wasn't being "civil" enough. That's utter nonsense. The only guilty person in a violent act is the person committing the violence. Period.

[SamBC]

So the person who commits the actual violence is equally guilty to the man that suggests the violence in the first place? How does that work? It basically sends the message that people have no free will, that we are all just mindless savages that do whatever horrors we are told to do. It reminds me of liberals who said that people like Rush Limbaugh were responsible for the Gabrielle Giffords shooting because he wasn't being "civil" enough. That's utter nonsense. The only guilty person in a violent act is the person committing the violence. Period.

Nice straw man. I didn't say equally guilty - I just said that it's reasonable to restrict the freedom in that way. Someone suggesting a crime does not absolve the person who actually commits it of responsibility, and incitement to violence shouldn't be considered equivalent to the violence itself, but that doesn't stop it being wrong. A person inciting violence is not necessarily guilty of the resulting violence (I'd take that case-by-case), but they are certainly guilty of inciting violence. There doesn't even have to be any actual resulting violence for that to be the case - much as attempting murder or conspiring to commit murder can occur without the actual murder happening.

[stethnorun]

So where does that slippery slope end? Where does casual conversations about violence end and "incitement" begin. Some regimes consider any negative speech about their government to be calls for revolution (China). There is no principle whereby some speech is okay and other speech isn't. It's all "I'll know it when I hear it" subjectivity that turns everyone "guilty", as you just demonstrated by saying "I'd take that case-by-case". Any time you are evaluating morality on a case by case basis, you are no longer using principle, you are using practicality (and maybe even more sinister motives, like favoritism).

[chrisjwmartin]

What an interesting discussion of the Civilopedia this is...

Could we perhaps have less of the ranting about free speech?

[stethnorun]

What an interesting discussion of the Civilopedia this is...

Could we perhaps have less of the ranting about free speech?

You're right, sorry. I concede all points

[slowtarget]

Indeed.

Either return to topic or I'll close the thread.

[civdiss]

Indeed.

Either return to topic or I'll close the thread.

Most threads at some point go off-topic, in most cases unintentionally, so what are you going to lock every single thread? I think locking threads where the discussion remains polite is a mistake and serves no real purpose.