Conquer Club

Tribal War - Ancient Israel

The 12 tribes of Israel have returned to the land of Israel. Will you unite them according to God's prophecy, or tear them apart and leave a valley of bones?

Wow.

Apologies- link now fixed and poll added.

And what is your point of this??

isaiah40 wrote:And what is your point of this??

Two question marks? I think you already know why this map can be considered controversial.

1) The aim of the map is overtly religious.
2) The aim of the map is overtly political.

Both are contentious.

A nice topic, but it's one for GD . Moved!

BMO

rdsrds2120 wrote:A nice topic, but it's one for GD . Moved!

BMO

Hmm, GD has nothing on religion, politics or history. If you want an active discussion, OT is where it will occur. I understand the move as a point of principle, but it seems likely to bury debate and promote a load of unquestioning "Yes" votes unwilling to outline their thoughts.

Symmetry wrote:

isaiah40 wrote:And what is your point of this??

Two question marks? I think you already know why this map can be considered controversial.

1) The aim of the map is overtly religious.
2) The aim of the map is overtly political.

Both are contentious.

How so? I don't think anyone disputes the historicity of the Jewish tribes living in that territory at the time envisioned by this map. If you take out the word's "God's prophesy," there is zero religious element to it. If you adhere to one of the Abrahamic faiths, it's a nice nod to your religious history. If not, it's not any worse than the fantasy elements on some of the other maps, especially given that it's representative of what the Jews at that time believed. The map is clearly set in ancient times. There are no longer 12 Israeli tribes. If this was a "Defense of Israel" map with modern boundaries and the Gaza strip area set up to bombard Israel (and possibly surrounded by killer neutrals in the adjacent sea zones), then yes. It would definitely take on a contentious political tone. But even then, I wouldn't find it any worse than the "Battle for Iraq," or maybe even "1984" given the current rhetoric.

Symmetry wrote:Two question marks? I think you already know why this map can be considered controversial.

1) The aim of the map is overtly religious.
2) The aim of the map is overtly political.

Both are contentious.

How can this map be remotely controversial? It is not overtly religious, no more than Third Crusade is. As for being political, did not realise that the twelve tribes where running for office any time soon.

koontz1973 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Two question marks? I think you already know why this map can be considered controversial.

1) The aim of the map is overtly religious.
2) The aim of the map is overtly political.

Both are contentious.

How can this map be remotely controversial? It is not overtly religious, no more than Third Crusade is. As for being political, did not realise that the twelve tribes where running for office any time soon.

Are you being sarcastic? I'm not sure if I can tell anymore...

If you're not, read the quote in the OP- it's from the map.

It is sort of weird.

I get the religious point (Are we planning maps of the Inquisition or the rise of Islam? Actually, both might be pretty cool), but this map seems to be similar in scope to Gilgamesh, a map of part of the ancient world that many people view as myth.

Symmetry wrote:Are you being sarcastic? I'm not sure if I can tell anymore...

If you're not, read the quote in the OP- it's from the map.

I know the map, I gave it its first stamp in the foundry. Their really is nothing wrong with having that quote on the map, but if you feel that strongly about it, why did you not post in the thread? That is the normal thing to do. You want to comment on a map, you post in that maps thread.

koontz1973 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Are you being sarcastic? I'm not sure if I can tell anymore...

If you're not, read the quote in the OP- it's from the map.

I know the map, I gave it its first stamp in the foundry. Their really is nothing wrong with having that quote on the map, but if you feel that strongly about it, why did you not post in the thread? That is the normal thing to do. You want to comment on a map, you post in that maps thread.

The maps thread is visited by people interested in the technicalities of map making. Not the implications of the map. If you are genuinely interested, I would suggest you lend your voice to it be being discussed in OT.

I assume your response is a passive acknowledgement of the religious aspect of the map.

macbone wrote:I get the religious point (Are we planning maps of the Inquisition or the rise of Islam? Actually, both might be pretty cool), but this map seems to be similar in scope to Gilgamesh, a map of part of the ancient world that many people view as myth.

I'm sympathetic to this line of thought, but the politics of what constitutes Israel is both a religious and a historical point of contention.

Creating a map based on scripture:

Seamus76 wrote:Description: "All these are the twelve tribes of Israel" Genesis 49:28

Mapmaker's Description of the map

Is just odd when it comes to disputed territory.

ITT, Symmetry remains devoid of historical context.

Looking forward to your response to Doc_Brown.

Symmetry wrote:The maps thread is visited by people interested in the technicalities of map making. Not the implications of the map.

Not at all. Every single aspect is discussed in map threads. If you truly have an opinion on any aspect of any map, post in the maps thread. 2 of my own maps have had discussions along this line. Magyarország and Rorke's Drift have both got stories on them. One just before being played, holding it up for over a month and the other whilst in beta. Players like you have become involved in the threads to get them changed. So get in there and post your concerns.

No point bitching about a map if you are not willing to help produce it.

BigBallinStalin wrote:ITT, Symmetry remains devoid of historical context.

Looking forward to your response to Doc_Brown.

Meh- If the aim of the map, as stated by the map, is to fulfill "God's prophecy", what can I say to Doc when he asks how is the map overtly religious?

koontz1973 wrote:

Symmetry wrote:The maps thread is visited by people interested in the technicalities of map making. Not the implications of the map.

Not at all. Every single aspect is discussed in map threads. If you truly have an opinion on any aspect of any map, post in the maps thread. 2 of my own maps have had discussions along this line. Magyarország and Rorke's Drift have both got stories on them. One just before being played, holding it up for over a month and the other whilst in beta. Players like you have become involved in the threads to get them changed. So get in there and post your concerns.

No point bitching about a map if you are not willing to help produce it.

A wider discussion is available. I'm not sure you're the most reliable source here. Your default position, if I'm reading you correctly, is that it should be a map.

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:ITT, Symmetry remains devoid of historical context.

Looking forward to your response to Doc_Brown.

Meh- If the aim of the map, as stated by the map, is to fulfill "God's prophecy", what can I say to Doc when he asks how is the map overtly religious?

Maybe you misread his post.

1) The aim of the map is overtly religious. DB agrees. It's religious--like the 12 tribes of Israel, God's prophecy, etc. as the story goes.
2) The aim of the map is overtly political. DB disagrees.

What do you mean by '[i]overtly[/] religious'?

How exactly is the aim of the map overtly political?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:ITT, Symmetry remains devoid of historical context.

Looking forward to your response to Doc_Brown.

Meh- If the aim of the map, as stated by the map, is to fulfill "God's prophecy", what can I say to Doc when he asks how is the map overtly religious?

Maybe you misread his post.

1) The aim of the map is overtly religious. DB agrees. It's religious--like the 12 tribes of Israel, God's prophecy, etc. as the story goes.
2) The aim of the map is overtly political. DB disagrees.

What do you mean by '[i]overtly[/] religious'?

How exactly is the aim of the map overtly political?

The map claims all of the territories as Israel as "God's prophecy".

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:ITT, Symmetry remains devoid of historical context.

Looking forward to your response to Doc_Brown.

Meh- If the aim of the map, as stated by the map, is to fulfill "God's prophecy", what can I say to Doc when he asks how is the map overtly religious?

No, you can aim to fulfill God's prophecy, or you can tear them apart. The aim is whichever you choose.

DoomYoshi wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:ITT, Symmetry remains devoid of historical context.

Looking forward to your response to Doc_Brown.

Meh- If the aim of the map, as stated by the map, is to fulfill "God's prophecy", what can I say to Doc when he asks how is the map overtly religious?

No, you can aim to fulfill God's prophecy, or you can tear them apart. The aim is whichever you choose.

Aye, nothing overtly religious there.

Symmetry wrote:A wider discussion is available. I'm not sure you're the most reliable source here. Your default position, if I'm reading you correctly, is that it should be a map.

No, my default position is to go with the community. Like all map makers, we are really at the whim of the community. If a player can say what his concern is, why it is a concern and a possible solution, the map maker must listen unless he can give a viable reason not to. As for a wider discussion, no point having it here as the maker of the map may not see it. And even if he does, he can choose to ignore it here. The only way you can get it changed is to post it there. Anything else is just a waste of time concerning that map. But as to this map, yes, personally I have nothing against it.

Change the topic to should maps have religious overtones on them, you will get a debate worth having.

Symmetry wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:ITT, Symmetry remains devoid of historical context.

Looking forward to your response to Doc_Brown.

Meh- If the aim of the map, as stated by the map, is to fulfill "God's prophecy", what can I say to Doc when he asks how is the map overtly religious?

No, you can aim to fulfill God's prophecy, or you can tear them apart. The aim is whichever you choose.

Aye, nothing overtly religious there.

Is there a rule against religious maps?

DoomYoshi wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

DoomYoshi wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:ITT, Symmetry remains devoid of historical context.

Looking forward to your response to Doc_Brown.

Meh- If the aim of the map, as stated by the map, is to fulfill "God's prophecy", what can I say to Doc when he asks how is the map overtly religious?

No, you can aim to fulfill God's prophecy, or you can tear them apart. The aim is whichever you choose.

Aye, nothing overtly religious there.

Is there a rule against religious maps?

No, we already have Third Crusades.