 |
| |
|
|
Emma
|
|
i don't really think brazil or canada should be in (next people will be wanting pakistan, Luxumburg, belgium, monaco and lichtenstein), but portugal, poland (and Ankh Morpork) should be in  .
i don't think italy would be very good. they weren't really one nation, just like germany, it was split up into a few countries.
no honest, their are so many civs who deserve to be in the game, but if they don't exist anymore (Burma for example), or if not enough people in that land buy the game, i don't think they'll make it to next xp.
.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
-proletarian-
|
 |
TorontoCanada
Aug 2002
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Nope, I'm a Kansan.
Poland has been a prominent world power at several times in world history. There's no way you can classify them with "civs" like the Canadians or Brazillians. |
Yup, I know their history (albeit in a pretty rudimentary way, but still.....) and know that for a while they were a quite a big power within Europe. My feelings on them being a possible expansion civ are thus;
1) There are already enough European civs in this game
2) Because of that, Firaxis should only include the greatest European civs to have ever been. They have already done that. Poland was never as powerful as France, germany, Rome, Spain, or Britain during their respective "golden ages".
3) Geez, no more European civs, please, there is still a whole empty continent (south america) and one that could house another civ or two (africa).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bigvic
|
 |
Columbia, S.C.
Nov 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by -proletarian-
Honestly, I tried to complete your poll, but I just couldn't. There are only one or two civs missing now that PTW is coming out in my opinion, namely the Inca (we need a civ in south america, no?) and another one to fill out west africa.
I mean, really, can Poland, Canada, Brazil etc. really be considered as civilizations? To me they are modern nation-states, nothing more. Yes, some would also say this about Germany, England etc., but they have their roots going back a thousand years or more, and have both played a huge part in world history since then, as well as fighting some of history's most devestating wars.
To be honest, I could live without any new civs after PTW comes out. To me, the biggest things missing now are farms and more military units. That's it.
Just my two cents..... |
yeah,same could really be said for americans(!)
i kind of started running out of options there - wish i had remembered the byzantines, though i kind of have the same reservations about them as the italians. they really should, i think, have included cities like venice, milan, etc. under rome, and some byzantine specific cities under greek
i suppose the next incarnation of civ might include some provision for morphing of civs, arising of new civs, etc, when we all have supercomputers that will be able to handle it all.
mine were hebrews, incas, dutch, portuguese, west african, polynesian, some kind of southeast asian, and, of course bigvicites
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bigvic
|
|
Columbia, S.C.
Nov 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
ok, byzantine issue aside (and, monkspider, your persistant insistance is beginning to turn me to your opinion), so far for the next 7, the public wants.......lets see......
incas
hebrews
mayas
dutch
portuguese
polynesians
poles
hmmm.......ok, the way i see it, we have to make way for another african civ, should make way for anotherr asian civ, though polynesians could fill that role......
my suggestions are to throw out mayans and keep incas, insert west africans (which i will refer to as maghreb now, though this could be any of 3-4 of a succesion of powerful states, songhai, mali, etc.)and, you know? i think, despite the eurocentrism of it all, would keep it as is. so....
inca, dutch, portuguese, poles, hebrews, maghrebi, polynesians
UU's?
inca - sun warrior? sounds like something i've read about, though i think they were called sun knights and i suggest a swordsman type, 3-2-2 (really looking at game balance issues here)
dutch - statholder militia? like pikemen but 2-3-1? or fluyt? improved galleon?
portuguese - some kind of souped up caravel?
maghreb - some kind of improved horseman, maybe 2-2-2?
poles - lancers, what, super cav that does not require saltpeter?
hebrews - either zealots (archers, 2-1-2) or armored infantry (mech infantry with blitz)
polynesians - outriggers - galleys with extra movement
traits?
incas - industrious/religious
dutch commercial/scientific
portuguese - commercial/expansionist
hebrews - religious/scientific
poles - militiristic/expansionist
maghreb - commercial/religious
polynesian - expansionist/religious?
hmmm..........bedtime
|
|
| |
|
|
|
monkspider
|
 |
banned
Aug 2001
time: 23:23
|
|
As interesting as the Polynesians are, I would say their chances of getting in are quite slim. Not as slim, as some of the really longshots like Austria, or Brazil. But I would advise our local Polynesian fans not to hold their breath.
Unfortunately, Polynesia just doesn't have the marketability that is needed for a game like this. The average gamer has little idea who they were. While their actual accomplishments are probably greater than some civs that are in the game, or are likely to be in the game. They just aren't famous or marketable enough.
You could maybe argue from the space-filler perspective, but they just don't fill a space as crucial as say, Sub-Saharan Africa, South America, etc. Although the space-filler arguement is probably their best chance of getting in. Maybe Firaxis deceides they want a pacific island civ and they think they can create some sort of clever leaderhead for them (I'm imagining a fat, jolly Hawaiian looking guy).
So, in conclusion, even though I think the Polynesian civ is really cool, I just don't think it can make it in. There's always a chance though, so don't lose all hope.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bigvic
|
|
Columbia, S.C.
Nov 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
well, polynesia could inlude micro/melanesia, or at least sort of represent them, including easter island, though technically these werre distinct peoples. Polynesia was the biggest, most rejnowned, with an amazingly well developped mythos, and incredible ability to span the pacific. the hawaiian queen - uh, what was her name, uh...lillukanaii? i know thats off, but just woke up and polynesian multivowel names words are a bit too much for me right now - as well as the maoris of new zealand (ever seen the movie, Once Werre Warriors?) make a strong case to me for their inclusion, as well as the space filler issue. also i would like to see some programming tricks that made it more likely that civs would start out in areas geographically similar, if possible to their historical starts. i like playing the english, for example, but will sometimes restart adozen times to get them on an island, which feels more "english". also hate things like iceberg zulus and jungle germans sometimes - lol.
yeah, polocks (no offense, thats what they call themselves, right?) definately deserve to be in. noot sure my assessment of mil/exp was good though. perhaps rel/expan - seems to support the big cultural figures as well as tip the hat to the greatest pope since the middle ages. historical poland is a classic example of a civ that got wiped out in game terms "we have eliminated the solid poles! would you like to see the big picture?" you know, however, religious might not be a good trait - they seemed to collapse more as a result of a very long period of anarchy more than anything else. any suggestions? and stay away from scientific unless we can get away from expansionist (no duplication of russia, please) yeah militaristic - they kicked some serious @$$ in their heyday. i think mil/expan is good, as mil/sci would duplicate their other arch nemesis/neighbor, germany.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bolt
|
|
I would like much more new features instead of new civs. Civs can all the fans do but its harder at add things like custom rail movement and extra ages (like 6 instead of "just" 4).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Raiche23
|
|
ummm...lets see hear.
Austria-Hungary was one of the most powerful nations for like 200 years.
Poland was around for a while to, but they were invaded many times, weird how every single time they got their country back, only to lose it again........
To me Ithink Austia-Hungary was more of a civ then Poland.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Tiberius
|
 |
Europe
Jan 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
To me Ithink Austia-Hungary was more of a civ then Poland. |
Maybe in terms of power, but otherwise... Austrians and Hungarians are 2 different nations, bonded together by
their common history and friendship, but they are not really one civ (different nationality, different origins, different language, etc).
From the XIth to the XVIth century: Hungary a big Europen power (on the peek of their power, they ruled territories that are known today as: Slovakia, Bosnia, Croatia, Transsylvania-part of Romania, Vojvodina-part of Serbia, parts of Ukraina, etc); Austria a small kingdom
Pope Calixtus called Hungary "the shield of Chistianity" for defeating in 1456 the mighty Turkish army of Mehmet II at Belgrade and thus stopping the Turkish advance into Western Europe.
XVI-XVIII: Hungary now under Ottoman rule, increasingly important Austria. It was now their turn to stop the Ottomans (together with the Poles)
XVIII-XIX century: Hungary liberated from turkish occupation, but now under Austrian rule; Austria is now big and powerful
Following the Hungarian national revolution in 1848, when the Austrian and Russian millitary were able only together to suppres the revolution, the Austrians allowed more and more freedom to the Hungarians and in 1867 the Austria-Hungary monarhy was formed. It lasted only 50 years (until WW1) but for both nations it was kind of a "golden age".
About Poland: they were a big European power for centuries. I'm not an expert, but IIRC from the XIVth to
the XIXth century.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:23
|
|
quote:
Poland was never as powerful as France, germany, Rome, Spain, or Britain during their respective "golden ages".
|
Saying that Germany (until end of XVIII century) was stronger than Poland is silly. Poland was not as strong as Rome, or France even, but I dare to compare it to Britain and Spain in certain moments on Polish favour,
and anyway You must remember about one important thing: We were in very other region - You don't compare
African civs to Europeans, do You - we were stronger than Russia for most of our history, and were a dominant power in eastern Europe for several centuries
- Austria was pretty weak until XVIII ventury, and even then it wasn't all that strong, as every war has shown.
Anyway, Austria isn't Austria... It was a part of Germany
until XIX century - and only it makes Germans bearable as a civ.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Amadan
|
|
Hmm...
Inca/Maya -- S. America needs another civ.
Portugese and Dutch -- Both expansionist powerhouses
Thai -- Long history, and I just like them
Ethiopia / Mali -- with the addition (as has already been suggested) of an 'African' culture group.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Traelin
|
|
Miami, FL, US
Nov 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
Hey, I prefer Constantinople myself, but to each his own.
At least I'll take Byzantium over Istanbul any day.
|
Hehe agreed. 
quote:
Originally posted by monkspider
And of course, you're right in regards to the Dutch being Commercial. But I just had to fit in Scientific somewhere, and there are already so many commercial civs in that list. Maybe Firaxis can give Dutch commercial and one of the other civs can arbitrarily given scientific. |
This is one of the things I'm torn on. Should Civs be arbitrarily chosen to have a certain trait, or should the Civs have their "correct" traits? Game balance could possibly be affected if historical realism is applied, but then again, I'm a realist-lover. I dunno, I can see both sides of the argument.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
nationalist
|
 |
None of your Goddamned business
Nov 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
Poland should definately be included. Western Europe may be crowded, but Eastern Europe is not. I'd pick Poland over the Dutch. I'd also add the Finns.
Add the Incas and Mayans, along with two African Civs, preferably Mali and Ethiopia. (I agree with the person who said that there should be an African ethnicity. Make the Zulus African instead of Middle-Eastern.)
Add the Byzantines and possibly the Khmer or some other southeast Asian civ. Include the Hebrews, but don't add any more Mid-East civs after that. The mid-East is more saturated than Western Europe. After these civs are included, then add the Portugese and the Dutch.
Last edited by nationalist on 29-10-2002 at 07:16
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Novaya Havoc
|
|
Bah -- no new civs.
The only ones I would even consider adding are Inca, Khmer, Srivijaya (Indonesian with super-distance one-unit unsinkable galley unit ;D -- this is actually just my own prefence, although the idea of their inclusion is bizarre and highly unlikely), Mali, and Ethiopia.
Canada? Why Canada? What has Canada done in terms of warfare? Culture? Sure it has an influence, but compared to places like Russia, the United States, England, Spain, and China how does Canada compare?
Brazil? What makes Brazil more of a candidate than, say, Argentina? At least Argentina has a recognizable "great leader" in Eva Peron, which wouldn't only balance out the "need" for SA civs, but also for female leaders.
I see the enthusiasm for additional civs, but come on. The amazing armies of "The Grand Duchy of Poland-Lithuania CRUSHES THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!"? More importantly, during the reign of Catherine II, her former lover and father of her soon-deceased daughter, Anna, was placed on the throne of Poland making it a subservient state to Russia.
I recognize that Poland has its own culture and history, but that can be said about every state everywhere. What can you tell me that Poland-Lithuania has done that is not only HIGHLY influential, but also fairly common knowledge?
The Russians have their size, their lavish expenditures, and their communism. The Chinese have an ancient empire, gunpowder, and was a main driving force in the exploration of the Europeans. England's colonies shaped much of the modern-day world and the language is becoming more and more used. Rome brought order to most of Europe, the Greeks and their philosophers brought new ideas to the world. America redefined Democracy and shaped the world as we know it today, whereas India was a center of culture.
Sure, you can argue the Iroquois, and you can argue some of the PTW civs like Korea, and Carthage. However, tossing in the "Jews," although the Jewish state and sphere of influence is miniscule compared to any other civ in-game, sounds silly. "The Jews" fighting Russia?
Poland tackling America?
Polynesia becoming the cultural envy of the world?
Limit the civs. There are very few that MUST be included, and much less than 7 -- especially from that list.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
bigvic
|
|
Columbia, S.C.
Nov 2001
time: 00:23
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Novaya Havoc
Bah -- no new civs.
The only ones I would even consider adding are Inca, Khmer, Srivijaya (Indonesian with super-distance one-unit unsinkable galley unit ;D -- this is actually just my own prefence, although the idea of their inclusion is bizarre and highly unlikely), Mali, and Ethiopia.
Canada? Why Canada? What has Canada done in terms of warfare? Culture? Sure it has an influence, but compared to places like Russia, the United States, England, Spain, and China how does Canada compare?
Brazil? What makes Brazil more of a candidate than, say, Argentina? At least Argentina has a recognizable "great leader" in Eva Peron, which wouldn't only balance out the "need" for SA civs, but also for female leaders.
I see the enthusiasm for additional civs, but come on. The amazing armies of "The Grand Duchy of Poland-Lithuania CRUSHES THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!"? More importantly, during the reign of Catherine II, her former lover and father of her soon-deceased daughter, Anna, was placed on the throne of Poland making it a subservient state to Russia.
I recognize that Poland has its own culture and history, but that can be said about every state everywhere. What can you tell me that Poland-Lithuania has done that is not only HIGHLY influential, but also fairly common knowledge?
The Russians have their size, their lavish expenditures, and their communism. The Chinese have an ancient empire, gunpowder, and was a main driving force in the exploration of the Europeans. England's colonies shaped much of the modern-day world and the language is becoming more and more used. Rome brought order to most of Europe, the Greeks and their philosophers brought new ideas to the world. America redefined Democracy and shaped the world as we know it today, whereas India was a center of culture.
Sure, you can argue the Iroquois, and you can argue some of the PTW civs like Korea, and Carthage. However, tossing in the "Jews," although the Jewish state and sphere of influence is miniscule compared to any other civ in-game, sounds silly. "The Jews" fighting Russia?
Poland tackling America?
Polynesia becoming the cultural envy of the world?
Limit the civs. There are very few that MUST be included, and much less than 7 -- especially from that list. |
hmmm
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
26-10-2002 01:18
|