Hey Traitorfish, I clicked on the link in your signature, you're an artist?
Well, I try. Still pretty amateurish at this point, but I'm improving.

Well, I try. Still pretty amateurish at this point, but I'm improving.

Cool. :goodjob:

So one more time, the New Civs and Leaders:
Leaders for Existing Civs:
Abraham Lincoln
Boudica
Suleiman
Pericles
New Civs/Leaders:
Hammurabi/Babylon
William of Orange/Dutch
Sitting Bull/Sioux
Justinian/Byzantine
Joao/Portugal
Pacal/Maya
Sumeria/Gilgamesh
I think thats all we know so far. :hmm:

Other then it's likely that for 8 it's a SE asian civ.

Yes, but we know nothing yet if it will be khmer, viet, siamese, burms or anything so consider the slot still open even if we can say it is restricted to that area.

@Dutchking : I'm glad you enjoy art. Check ideologies in second revolution and song of the moon rebirth forums.

Yes, but we know nothing yet if it will be khmer, viet, siamese, burms or anything so consider the slot still open even if we can say it is restricted to that area.

@Dutchking : I'm glad you enjoy art. Check ideologies in second revolution and song of the moon rebirth forums.

Could you post a link? :goodjob:

Other then it's likely that for 8 it's a SE asian civ.

I really hope that Firaxis lets us into the loop this week on this one. Fans seem so sure that a SE Asian culture is in, that it would be such a letdown if we find out in July that they aren't in.

C'mon, Firaxis, don't be lame! Can you at least shed some light on the SE Asia question, so that one major debate is put to rest? Or are you going to pull a "Native America" on us, and lump the Khmer/Vietnamese/Siamese/Burmese/Javanese/Malayas/Hmong/etc. all together into a "Southeast Asian" civ?

Please, don't give them any ideas. :lol:




C'mon, Firaxis, don't be lame! Can you at least shed some light on the SE Asia question, so that one major debate is put to rest? Or are you going to pull a "Native America" on us, and lump the Khmer/Vietnamese/Siamese/Burmese/Javanese/Malayas/Hmong/etc. all together into a "Southeast Asian" civ?

If they put in a southeast asian civ i think it should be Siamese, that covers most of the Peninsula that Vietnam/Laos/Thailand/Cambodia are on. Or if they put in Vietnam, will the leader be communist and be favored by Stalin and Zedong or something?

Khmer Empire covered most of the peninsula at its height. Considering only current border is just ridiculous since number of civilizations doesn't exist anymore.

Usually in Earth Maps China and India just split the peninsula in half, so it would be a bit cool to have a southeast asian civ to cover up that peninsula.

Yeah, Firaxis is a real ***** in just telling the obvious "old" civs first. They haven't said anything on the interesting parts (Poland? South East Asia? etc. ... ). I mean, all these civs could have been expected somewhat...

Warned - language. Please refrain from swearing in the forums.

again im lost... ill just start up again from here...

Originally posted by dutchking:
Or if they put in Vietnam, will the leader be communist and be favored by Stalin and Zedong or something?

lets hope not, if it is Vietnam, then the leader will be communist. my reasons are obvious, and need not be explained.

Khmer Empire covered most of the peninsula at its height. Considering only current border is just ridiculous since number of civilizations doesn't exist anymore.

Powerful civs get bigger and bigger, not the other way around. At it height, the DAi Viet Empire covered all of the current Indochina, parts of China,Siam, and Burma. The so-called Khmer Empire has been being vassal of Viet for centuries. While Viet had alot of successful wars against other giants like the Mongols, Chinese .... in Khmer's view Viet is the giant
http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9360/282286910c0cbe33860ozj9.jpg

The map comes back but what was the spiritual and architectural achievements. I don't think it was greater than Khmer or Siam.

What was the spiritual and architectural achivements of Mongolia, Korea and the like? They didnt sacrifice millions of their men to build huge things like others did. Btw, Viet built the first ever university in SEA and one of the first universities in the world. That's spritual achivement.

Siam over every other option... they were able to avoid being divided up amongst the imperialist british and french... that shows some sort of political intelligence.

1 Polynesian Empire
2 Khmer Empire
3 Ethiopian Empire

And then Polish Empire or Austrian Empire.

Ethiopia/Aksum

they had so much influence over the gold trade in Egypt

What was the spiritual and architectural achivements of Mongolia, Korea and the like? They didnt sacrifice millions of their men to build huge things like others did. Btw, Viet built the first ever university in SEA and one of the first universities in the world. That's spritual achivement.

Architecutral achievements of Korea:
Bulguksa (dates back from the Silla period and is one of the most important temples in Korea
Cheomseongdae (constructed during the Shilla period under the rule of Queen Seondeok, it is one of the oldest observatories built in Asia)
Changdeokgung (one of the palaces of the Joseon period; Changdeokgung differs from other palaces in that it is more uniquely Korean)
Haeinsa (another major temple; the home of the Tripitaka Koreana, which is considered to be the best extant and most complete collection of Mahayana Buddhist literature in the world)
Hwaseong (the great fortress near Suwon; constructed during the mid-Joseon period).

As for Mongolia... Couldn't really find any monumental specimens although they did build cities (Khanbalik, Karakorum, and Kazan, for example).

And yes, the Vietnamese Van Mieu ("Temple of Literature") is one of the oldest universities in Southeast Asia.

By the way, www.orientalarchitecture.com is a great site to see the architectural achievements of each country in East and Southeast Asia.

I'ma back, (3 infraction points for being australian) and I'm ready to say.

No Native Americans, no Polynesia, and none of the rest.
Gimme, Austria, Israel & the great Khmer.

No Iraq or North Korea. The current set of nutters don't deserve any recognition. Oh and no Poland. Not quite. There good, but... just not that good.

I am on retirement, but I cannot resist myself ...

@Psyringe: Please stop using word 'nationalist' cause you simply do not understand the meaning. :lol:

btw. And stop being so egocentric. Your opinion on this case does not count a bit. Poland will be included (or not) without your intensions ...

I'ma back, (3 infraction points for being australian) and I'm ready to say.

No Native Americans, no Polynesia, and none of the rest.
Gimme, Austria, Israel & the great Khmer.

No Iraq or North Korea. The current set of nutters don't deserve any recognition. Oh and no Poland. Not quite. There good, but... just not that good.

Hey Menzies... i was wondering where you went. i mean... im so used to you exploding at everyone... o well...

valid points as always.
however, it is too late for the Native American Argument...

Siam/Khmer either one works for me
then Poland (hopefully)
then Ethiopia/Abyssinia
I'd love to have polynesia to, but i'm afraid they won't make the cut this time.

The Celts, Vikings, Zulu, Native Americans, Mali were never "empires" and there in the game. Empire basically (god i'm gonna get flamed at real hard) A Country, State or Nation who has counquered an area and has some sort of government. and tons of other things that i can't think of.

That's where you're very, very wrong.

The Zulu conquered many other tribes.
The Vikings conquered quite a bit, and also settled down and founded many modern nations that take a large chunk out of Europe (practically the whole of Northern Europe).
The Native Americans had empires. Sioux? Iroquois? Powhatan? They where all empires that conquered other tribes.

In closing: POLAND SUCKS. Eastern Europe is a VERY small area (if you don't include the eastern part of Southern Europe, at least), and Russia is definately the best rep for the area. A good enough rep, I would say.

First of all i never heard the name Viking Empire, Just Vikings, Viking Civilization, Norseman and Northman, Never Viking Empire..

to be an Empire you don't have to conquer other tribes/places.

POLAND SUCKS.

Ok, are you trying to be racist or offensive?

I'm not sure but East Europe might even be bigger then West Europe if you count certain areas such as Greece and turkey. I'm looking at it right now.

here's a map of Europe for you

http://i12.tinypic.com/4th0xw1.png

Orange is ones that are in civ 4.

Notice how West Europe is completely full while East Europe is completely empty except for Russia?

Look at the map carefully, i would consider Ukraine or Romania

Ukraine is too close to Russia to desserve a civ in this exp and Romania can be viewed as the legacy state of the eastern roman empire. With this in mind, I think Poland is more likely to be included. At a lesser extent, Yougoslavia gets my vote too but I must fear neither Poland nor Yugoslavja will be in BtS.

Yeah, we really should add Ukraine, the true home of the Cossack!

Everyone reading Rhye's mod's forum in C&C should get this joke.

Powerful civs get bigger and bigger, not the other way around. At it height, the DAi Viet Empire covered all of the current Indochina, parts of China,Siam, and Burma. The so-called Khmer Empire has been being vassal of Viet for centuries.


Vietnam was a poweful kingdom, but they never extended rule into Siam or Burma. Nor did Either give tribute to Vietnam. For a time Vietnam controled all of modern day laos and much of Cambodia. That is the extent of Vietnamese control in Indo china

The map you show there while an intersting piece of antiquity is a bit off historically

In closing: POLAND SUCKS.

I agree that Poland won't be in Bts or anything, but I wouldn't say that they completely suck. :lol: Just kidding. I looked at the map TheLastOne96 put up and I think they should put Austria-Hungary (that or one or the other) to put more representation into Eastern Europe. :goodjob: This is a game about WORLD history, so we need to please everyone in the WORLD! :king:

Powerful civs get bigger and bigger, not the other way around. At it height, the DAi Viet Empire covered all of the current Indochina, parts of China,Siam, and Burma. The so-called Khmer Empire has been being vassal of Viet for centuries. While Viet had alot of successful wars against other giants like the Mongols, Chinese .... in Khmer's view Viet is the giant

I'm not sure where you heard that, but I'm pretty sure Dai Viet never gained the whole of the Indochina region.

And actually, it was the Ayutthaya kingdom that was the giant that stomped on the Khmer Empire. The Thai kingdoms gave the Khmers the most headaches. Ayutthaya assaulted and sacked Angkor. The Khmer kingdom was still around afterwards, except that the main seat of governance moved south to Phomh Penh.

Uhmm, no one see my map?

Yes, we've seen your map. But it looks more like it's from the French Colonial period when they established a unified "Indochina." The Emperors of Vietnam were still in place, but under French power. Also one thing of note is that the name of the Thai kingdom is "Siam." "Siam" was the name of Thailand in the 18th century, before that and before the Burmese invasion, it was Ayutthaya.

Uhmm, no one see my map?

Yes I have seen that map 3 times now and as interesting as it is as an antique, it is incorrect. But then again I am not sure how you can make out much any way; it isnt very clear. But it looks like it is saying Annam ruled Lanna, small part of Siam over to Burma. Uhmm no. This is historically wrong. Vietnamese never ruled these parts of indochina. Siam did, Vietnam never did. Just becouse it is Old doesnt mean it is historically accuarate. In fact I have seen many old maps that are useless historically.

The so-called Khmer Empire has been being vassal of Viet for centuries.

I respect your love of your motherland but I must call it when it is wrong. Vietnam was the sole "ruler" of Cambodia/Laos for 10-15 years In that only it recieved tribute and had troops stationed there. However These countries where vassels of Auyyuthaya (Siam) many times since about the 15th cent. For many years in the 19th cent Khmer had two masters though Siam held more power. This is evident by the fact that Khmer paid triannual tribute to Vietnam and Annual tribute to Siam also pledging men in times of war.

This is not to take away from Vietnam! Vietnam was able to repel a massive Siamese invasion in the early 19 cent. (though there were other factors as well)

But it looks more like it's from the French Colonial period when they established a unified "Indochina."

This makes more sence but even then it is an exageration. French control never reached the Burmese border much less take any burmese territory. That belonged to the English. Also French had no control in N. Siam (Lanna)

But really I cant make out much at all from that map. Oh and actually Ayuthaya was known as Siam. The names was interchagable in Europe I believe (though the Thai NEVER called themselves Siamese though some now want to change back....go figure?)

At a lesser extent, Yougoslavia gets my vote too but I must fear neither Poland nor Yugoslavja will be in BtS.

Yugoslavia would be nice, but the state didn't exist long enough to be in Civ.
I'd rather see Medieval Serbia under Stefan Uroš IV Dušan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Uro%C5%A1_IV_Du%C5%A1an_of_Serbia.
Serbia was not an important factor in history when compared to Germany or the later colonial powers of Europe, but it helped to kick off World War I and all the "important civs" of Europe are already in the game (well, except Austria-Hungary).

Yugoslavia? umm... try no!
that reigon is too unstable... the land of the serbs, croats, and slovanes are still at civil war...
please... Romania would be better. and on Ukraine... they are a different race than the Russians. there are White Russians (Belarussia) Red Russians (Russia) and Ukraineians...

Ukraine is still to much like Russia, so could we stop talking about Ukraine?

Bulgaria and Romania are nice options, but over Poland and Austria? come on!

This makes more sence but even then it is an exageration. French control never reached the Burmese border much less take any burmese territory. That belonged to the English. Also French had no control in N. Siam (Lanna)

Now that you mention it, that is quite peculiar. Wonder from what period did this map come from? Perhaps it was simply made by European mapmakers that didn't know about the other kingdoms in the area?

Now that you mention it, that is quite peculiar. Wonder from what period did this map come from? Perhaps it was simply made by European mapmakers that didn't know about the other kingdoms in the area?

My guess is that it's probably around 1700 (judging from the fact that it's "Siam" not "Yudia"). Around this time Burma and Vietnam were quite powerful but nevertheless Vietnam never controlled any Siamese territories. The extent of its control is Laos and Cambodia which was soon lost to Siamese armies.

I actually find it very Eurocentric that people are saying 'Eastern Europe has too little representation'. I think of Europe as a whole. Plus, if you believe in the definitions 'Southern Europe' and 'Northern Europe' Eastern Europe is even smaller.

Also by that logic, we need another Southern Asian civ, since we only have 1 (if you don't include Persia). For that matter, we only have one civ from the Arabian Peninsula and only one civ from Western Africa. Those areas are the size of Eastern Europe, if not bigger!

And Stefan Dusan would be a better choice than Stefan Uros, not that I want Serbia in ;) .

How's about no, shut up and vote Hitler [in to the game]. Europe is some of the best land on the planet whilst the Arabian penisula is quite frankly not so good in the agricultural department. Currently Saudi Arabia has no rivers and it makes up a good 90% of the arabian penisula. Now if everything was based on size and not populous and how good a civilization. The following "civs" would be in it. Canada, Australia, Brazil... big countries. We don't need to represent everyone, this isn't just some democratic election. This is picking the most significant civilization of History and having them in with their most significant leaders, not: 'WAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, I'M 1/64 POLYNESIA [incredibly vague discription] AND THEIR NOT REPRESENTED!!! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH, WHYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!! THEY MIGHT ALREADY BE REPRESENTING EVERY OTHER PART OF ME BUT NOW I WANT TO SEGREGATE THE USA INTO THE EUROPEANS AND THE NATIVE AMERICANS INSTEAD OF SHOWING SOME GOD DAMNED NATIONAL SPIRIT AND SHOW I'M A SELF RIGHTIOUS [generic swering] AND I WANT TO KEEP RELIVING PEOPLES HARD SHIP AND UNWILLINGNESS TO GET ON WITH THEIR LIVES OVER AND OVER AGAIN THROUGH THIS GAME!!!!'

I'm going to create a threat for people like you to winge on. So just keep this winging out of here. It's going to be called WIIIIINNNNGGE!!!!. Just type any ol' ALP sort of thing in it.

two words, calm down

http://i12.tinypic.com/4th0xw1.png

Orange is ones that are in civ 4.
That settles it folks. The remaining two civilizations are Greenland and Azerbaijan. :lol:

Obviosly Tunisia is the modern version of Carthage. In the same way that the Byzantine and the Ottoman empire [along with the roman] were all the same thing. Now for someone talking about past 'great' empires you are using an awefully new map. If fact newer than July last year when Montenegro split from Serbia and became a country.

Also Greenland is a part of Denmark, which is equaly not in the game. Unless you count the Vikings, and even then Greenland should't be part of that.

Now that you mention it, that is quite peculiar. Wonder from what period did this map come from? Perhaps it was simply made by European mapmakers that didn't know about the other kingdoms in the area?

I am kinda getting that feeling. I can think of no time that that map represents accurately... but then again I cant really read any of the names on the map so who knows it could be completely accurate and we are just reading it wrong?

I can, RIGHT NOW!!!

And Stefan Dusan would be a better choice than Stefan Uros, not that I want Serbia in ;) .

I think we are talking abuot the same guy. Stefan Uros IV Dusan who doubled his teritory by conquest and proclaimed himself emperor of all Serbs and Greeks.

But right now CIV is too eurocentric.
Africa is only representated by Catrhage, Mali, and the Zulu, they should at least add Aksum.

That settles it folks. The remaining two civilizations are Greenland and Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan is represented by Persia, Tunisia is represented by Carthage, All of Scandinavia is represented by Vikings, Ireland is represented as the British Isles, Arabs are everywhere on the Middle East that's why i colored them Orange and Turkey is represented by the Ottoman Empire.

Why isn't most of north Eastern Europe shaded since, by your logic, it's covered by Germany and Russia?

Also Greenland is a part of Denmark, which is equaly not in the game. Unless you count the Vikings, and even then Greenland should't be part of that.

But Greenland was settled by the glorious nation of Iceland about 1000 years ago. Icelanders were Vikings too, you know. = representation in the game.

But Greenland was settled by the glorious nation of Iceland about 1000 years ago. Icelanders were Vikings too, you know. = representation in the game.

glorious???????

anyway, id like to see a few commonwealth nations added

anyway, id like to see a few commonwealth nations added
What do you mean by "Commonwealth nations", exactly? If you mean African countries, I'd suggest using their own native kingdoms instead of using the often arbitrary British designations, and if you mean Canada, Australia, etc. then they are effectively represented by England itself.

What do you mean by "Commonwealth nations", exactly? If you mean African countries, I'd suggest using their own native kingdoms instead of using the often arbitrary British designations, and if you mean Canada, Australia, etc. then they are effectively represented by England itself.

but they formed own identities!!

have you never watched Gallipoli?

Post deleted.

Why isn't most of north Eastern Europe shaded since, by your logic, it's covered by Germany and Russia?

Don't ever say Poland could be represented by Russia and especially Germany in Poland, You'll get beaten up for that.

Germany only covers Austria which in my opinion could be debatable in whether there east or west Europeans.

Russia, Well most Slavs outside of Russia would hate being represented by only Russia, mainly because of there recent history with Russia. i don't want to get into another posting war but please believe me, Slavs don't like to be represented by Russia. And Poles especially don't like being represented with Germany.

The Last One 36:
Don't ever say Poland could be represented by Russia and especially Germany in Poland, You'll get beaten up for that.

I'm not saying that Poland could be represented by Germany or Russia in exactly the same way that you're not saying that Ireland (or Scotland or Wales) could be represented by England. But, as you accurately pointed out, England did rule those territories just like Germany and Russia ruled the territories of north Eastern Europe.

You shaded in a number of territories on the map (such as Azerbaijan) because they were ruled by other countries. Why didn't you also shade in Poland due to German and Russian control and why didn't you shade in much of south Eastern Europe due to Ottomann and Greek control?

Germany only covers Austria which in my opinion could be debatable in whether there east or west Europeans.

Austrians don't like being represented by Germany, me being a fourth Austrian myself, I think the two have their own unique and different cultures. Besides the fact that they're both "Germanic". :goodjob:

Azerbaijan is represented by Persia, Tunisia is represented by Carthage, All of Scandinavia is represented by Vikings, Ireland is represented as the British Isles, Arabs are everywhere on the Middle East that's why i colored them Orange and Turkey is represented by the Ottoman Empire.
Yes, I figured as such. I was just making a joke. ;)

First of all i never heard the name Viking Empire, Just Vikings, Viking Civilization, Norseman and Northman, Never Viking Empire..

to be an Empire you don't have to conquer other tribes/places.

Ok, are you trying to be racist or offensive?

I'm not sure but East Europe might even be bigger then West Europe if you count certain areas such as Greece and turkey. I'm looking at it right now.

here's a map of Europe for you

(snip silly map)

Orange is ones that are in civ 4.

Notice how West Europe is completely full while East Europe is completely empty except for Russia?

That could be because Russia and Greece are the only countries in eastern Europe which have exerted, or still exert, an influence on world civlization as a whole. Size doesn't matter; a lot of empty steppes don't matter unless the Mongols suddenly appear from them and turn Eurasia upside down. On top of that, I think Europe is overrepresented as it is. As far as I am concerned, they could take out some European civilizatiosn instead of adding more, and they could start with the Vikings, for all I care.

Incidentally, Turkey is not in Europe, apart from that little strip of land west of the Bosphorus. Ireland may be represented by the Celts, but it can't possibly be "represented by the British Isles". Tunisia is Arabic, not Carthaginian; the Punic language, and all Carthaginian traditions, died out a couple of centuries after the birth of Christ. The popualtion first became Romanized and then Arabs. Greenland sure isn't Scandinavian, and Azerbaijan isn't Persian despite the linguistic kinship, any more than Poland is Russian despite the linguistic kinship.

However, what it finally boils down to is this: Civ isn't the United Nations! What matters is historically important civilizations (which are also fun to play), not "geographical areas that must be given representation."

Technically, Azerbaijan is represented by Persia (Samarqand is a Persian city in the game), but otherwize I agree with you.

Don't ever say Poland could be represented by Russia and especially Germany in Poland, You'll get beaten up for that.
In Taiwan, you'd get beaten up for being pro-Communist.

So by that logic, all communist leaders (Mao and Stalin) shouldn't be in the game.

Samarqand is an Uzbek city and it was under the Persian empire.

Azerbaijan is represented by Persia, Tunisia is represented by Carthage, All of Scandinavia is represented by Vikings, Ireland is represented as the British Isles, Arabs are everywhere on the Middle East that's why i colored them Orange and Turkey is represented by the Ottoman Empire.
I hope you're not suggesting that Belgium is being "represented" by The Netherlands! :mad: Although we do have historical ties of course. The ideas of ancient civilizatiosn/empires being represented by modern nation-states is quite rediculous by the way, because in most cases the historic links have become very small. E,g, The name of my own country refers to the "Belgae", a Gallic tribe who lived in the North of France and the Low Countries around the time of Julius Caesar. So they were a Celtic tribe. But at the end of the Western Roman Empire, they were invaded by the Franks, a Germanic tribe, and the Dutch Language is a decendant of West-Frankish.

Anyway, I don't think there's any need for more European civilizations. Even The Netherlands and Portugal weren't necessary IMO. I'd much rather see more "exotic" civs from Africa, Asia and Oceania.

Azerbaijan is represented by Persia, Tunisia is represented by Carthage, All of Scandinavia is represented by Vikings, Ireland is represented as the British Isles, Arabs are everywhere on the Middle East that's why i colored them Orange and Turkey is represented by the Ottoman Empire.

Your double standards greatly annoy and confuse me. Azerbaijan may have been part of Persia, but it was also part of many other empire, most recently Russia. You cannot cover up stupid mistakes with that. Why have you used a modern map with modern boundries? It makes no sense. Portugal, now represented, quite right. Germany and Russia over the last 200 years have covered most of Eastern Europe with the rest being under the Hapsburgs control, so I don't get the whole baltic states being unhighlighted if Azerbaijan being so. Belgium was part of Netherlands for a very long time, and at other points under the Holy Roman Empire, Franks & France. I actually think the biggest hole is where Austria should be as complete overlord of the Balkans, though the Ottomans and Byzantians can cover this well as well. Also ALL of North Africa by Carthage, if they were just Tunisia they would be laughed out of History like Belgium.

No Poland, no, no, no, are you high, no, no, no, no & shut the hell up. I had enough of this Poland discussion, winge somewhere else about it, not great enough, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was the best they ever where I that wasn't that great anyhow.

A forth Austrian, really. I'm a quarter Irish and I have no idea about the place. But I'm quite firm in my belief that my Irish blood gives me the knowladge aswell.

C'mon, the Germans kicked the ALP out of the Polish, and I'm 6'3 95kgs and can run the 100 m in 12.5 seconds, I'll take those poles on!

Yes, Gallipoli. Winston Churchills greatest plan ever. British, French and the glorious ANZACs'. The french brough more wine than people, the British landed and wasted time with a tea break and the ANZACs' were greeted with Machinegun nests with angry turks in them. It failed horribly and we never made it to Constantanople. But because of how awesome us Australians' where we made a water and bucket mecanism to make our guns fire that we left there to cover up our escape. Gallipoli was a difining moment, but we still are not big enough to become a civ, better than Poland however.

Oh, anything else. That's right. Every game we still fear Hitler too much to put him in, we show he still wins.

"cNo Poland, no, no, no, are you high, no, no, no, no & shut the hell up. I had enough of this Poland discussion, winge somewhere else about it, not great enough, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was the best they ever where I that wasn't that great anyhow. "

:lol: the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was an extremely powerful union, which made the Polish VERY powerful. They had the largest army in the world. The problem was that even though Poland was incredibly strong, it was surrounded by uncooperative countries. Their diplomatic stance with Prussia, Austria and Russia was poor - very poor - and that was actually the reason why they did lose so much land over the times. They was surrounded by enemies. Initially, Poland could beat the heck out of all the countries - even Austria (This is about 1500 or something...)

"But I'm quite firm in my belief that my Irish blood gives me the knowladge aswell.

C'mon, the Germans kicked the ALP out of the Polish, and I'm 6'3 95kgs and can run the 100 m in 12.5 seconds, I'll take those poles on!"

lol... seriously? my Irish blood? physical advantage? Hope it was a joke, it's really ridiculous...

That's right. Every game we still fear Hitler too much to put him in, we show he still wins.
For the 86,584,683,296,462nd time, Hitler isn't put in the game because he was a psychotic idiot who lead his country into the most brutal defeat in history. Not great leader material.I mean, the man refused to build heavy bombers because he thought that having a larger number of medium bombers looked more impressive.
The fact that some people would consider his presence offensive is another matter altogether.

Actually he used light to medium bombers because he thought that in europe at least he could use his blitzkrieg tactics which did take down France, Norway, Denmark, Poland... And worst defeat in History... I can think of many worse defeats, the only difference was this time they had modern technology. Hitler did some impressive things and stupid things. So did Napoleon, Stalin and everyother leader in history. Winston Churchill is hated by anyone older than 60 in Australia because he planned Gallipoli and during the second world war took all of Australia's troops to Europe leaving South East Asia open to attack. Which, japs on bicycles did quite effectivly. I would say he is very deserving. How many leaders can make economically destroyed nations into economic-military super powers in 6-8 years and take on the entire world for 6 years. Come on, tell me some. So far I can think of Hitler.

they would be laughed out of History like Belgium.
I'm sorry? :eek: :mad:

@Menzies The problem is that you're confusing "Nazi Germany" with "Hitler". Hitler himself was not as vital to the development of the Third Reich as is often thought, and whenever he did get personally involved things tended to go down the toiler for them. I mean, the basic reason they lost the war is because Hitler was stupid enough to attack the USSR when he had Britain on it's knees. This was his own, personal decision, against the recommendation of the army.
Yes, Napoleon made mistakes, and I actually do question his presence in the game, but at least when he was winning it was because of his strategic skill. Similarly, Stalin, while he made some terrific blunders, not only managed to defeat the invaders, but also managed to turn a backwards, rural nation into an industrial superpower. And Churchill... Well, he was an ass, no arguments. (Remember, I never said that all the leaders who were in the game deserved to be there, just that Hitler didn't.)
Besides, even if Hitler had been a halfway competent, Germany still has some far more important leaders to draw on.

Keeping him out of the game isn't admitting a fear of him, but putting him into the game would just be going along with the Cult of Personality he constructed around himself, which, in my view, is worse.

Yes, Gallipoli. Winston Churchills greatest plan ever. British, French and the glorious ANZACs'. The french brough more wine than people, the British landed and wasted time with a tea break and the ANZACs' were greeted with Machinegun nests with angry turks in them. It failed horribly and we never made it to Constantanople. But because of how awesome us Australians' where we made a water and bucket mecanism to make our guns fire that we left there to cover up our escape. Gallipoli was a difining moment, but we still are not big enough to become a civ, better than Poland however.
.

bollocks, however we British never got to drink our tea in one of the most famous Great War Battles, The Battle of the Somme, the tea lads with the metal cannisters on their backs were mowed down by maxims, while you were to busy discoviring "australian" identity and moaning how your ration were not kangeroo meat sitting in second line and third line trenches, playing cards with the indian forces, while we did the fighting and the french ran in after we did most the works

If you guys want to discuss this there's a history forum and off topic forum for that. This is not the place for it.

wow... the moderators are really active today...

anyway back to the forum...

the... uhhh... umm... s*** someone bring something up... i cant think of anything to say

09camaro - warned. Please refrain from swearing in the forums.

So one more time the new civs in BtS are:
1.Netherlands ;)
2.Portugal
3.Babylon
4.Sumeria
5.Maya
6.Sioux/Native Americans
7.Byzantine
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's all we know so far. :goodjob:

@Menzies The problem is that you're confusing "Nazi Germany" with "Hitler". Hitler himself was not as vital to the development of the Third Reich as is often thought, and whenever he did get personally involved things tended to go down the toiler for them. I mean, the basic reason they lost the war is because Hitler was stupid enough to attack the USSR when he had Britain on it's knees. This was his own, personal decision, against the recommendation of the army.

Hitler made a lot of remarkably stupid military decisions, but when he decided to invade Russia, his generals shared his belief that Russia would fold in three months. They all underestimated the resilience of the Russians, and the simple fact that the country was so tremendously big that conquering it all was a daunting undertaking. "Never fight a land war in Asia", you know - and they did not even manage to advance to the Asian (and major) part of the Soviet Union. Even today, most of Russia is in Asia.

I don't really share your low opinion of Churchill, and calling him an ass is definitely going over the top. I thought adding a third leader for England was excessive, but I don't think he was unworthy to be included.

Hitler made a lot of remarkably stupid military decisions, but when he decided to invade Russia, his generals shared his belief that Russia would fold in three months. They all underestimated the resilience of the Russians, and the simple fact that the country was so tremendously big that conquering it all was a daunting undertaking. "Never fight a land war in Asia", you know - and they did not even manage to advance to the Asian (and major) part of the Soviet Union. Even today, most of Russia is in Asia.

I don't really share your low opinion of Churchill, and calling him an ass is definitely going over the top. I thought adding a third leader for England was excessive, but I don't think he was unworthy to be included.

We're getting off topic again...:nono: ;) ... back to new civs! :king:

That was THE LAST off topic post in this thread. Next person to do so will receive a 3 day ban for posting off topic in this thread.

Thanks Turner!

You guys think that the Hittites will be making a comback? I think they will, but I would preffer not. And what about Austria? That was going to be in Civ 3, and can still be played if you replace it's info with another civ... do you think they'll be in? If so, that leaves only 1 more civ... hopefully Siam, Khmer, Vietnam, Mahapajit, Sri Vijaya or just any SE Asian civ. But not a united SE Asia or Indochina or anything like that.

again im frickin red-carded!!!
meanie moderators! meanies!
cnat you just leave me alone!?

o well... anyway,
it will probably be Siam... i mean... it would have to go with the "Chinese, Japanese" theme... so it whould end in an "...ese" that makes it either Siamese, or Vietnamese... etc.

i would also prefer to not see the Hittites. and i would love to see Austria!

man, if only i could find my list that i posted... its buried in here somewhere...

Warned for PDMA. If you want a mod to leave you alone, post within the rules.

I have no clue on the last civs. Hittites and Austria have the bonus of being previous Civ civilizations, as do the Iroquois. I originally thought the Sioux had no chance of a come-back from Civ2, and they didn't show in Civ3, but now they are back...

I'm thinking they might stick with all the Civs they have previously included in other Civ incarnations, and just go with that. I don't necessarily agree with that, and the Sioux were a major "Whiskey-Tango-Foxtrot" from my end, but whatever. I'll play the game anyway.

Austria must be in the game, Hittites should be. And if there's Khmer all the better.

I think there is Khmer, or at least some SE Asia civ, as we have seen a war elephant that looks like a UU of a SE Asian civ.

I doubt Hittites are in game, I don't know why. Sweden would be great, and I hope that Ethiopia is in.

What about the Armenians? They are one of the oldest civilizations(more than 3000 years old) and they also have a very interesting history!

I think not. Armenia isn't considered as a world power nowadays, and in history it hasn't been as important as many others.

So one more time the new civs in BtS are:
1.Netherlands ;)
2.Portugal
3.Babylon
4.Sumeria
5.Maya
6.Sioux/Native Americans
7.Byzantine
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's all we know so far. :goodjob:

Another African Civ would be nice (who did the pharoahs have to fight to unite upper and lower Egypt?). The Gauls would make an interesting choice. The fertile cresent and classical era are pretty much covered, though, as are the major empires in the pre-colonial Americas. Another Asian Civ might be good, but the major ones are already in place. Hmm.

I think not. Armenia isn't considered as a world power nowadays, and in history it hasn't been as important as many others.

Armenia is not a world power today but that also applies to most of the civs that r in the game! Armenia was a regional power in the past and in it's 3000 year old history has accomplished more than some of the civs that r in the game or will be in this new expansion!

Some facts about the history of armenians:
1) The Armenian Empire under Tigranis the Great occupied the lands from the Mediterranean sea until the Black sea and the Caspian sea, plus he defeated the roman empire in more than one occasion!
2) Armenia was the first state that adopted Christianity as a state religion
3) The first battle for Christianity was given by the Armenians against the Persians.
4) After the fall of the Armenian Kingdom, lots of Armenian moved to the south of Asia Minor where they created the Cilician Armenian Kingdom which played an important part during the crusades!

of course there r more facts but i think that these should be enough for the time being!:)

1) But who won in the end?
2) So what?
3) So what?
4) They were defeated and had to move, I don't see that as a great achievement. Of course Cilician kingdom was important, but not enough to deserve a place in Civ.

Don't take this as an offence but I think that Armenia isn't important enough to deserve a place in Civ.

Kaching...

*Awesome guitar solo*

heh, look at em yoyos, that's the way you do it

You play the guitar on the MTV

That ain't workin

That's the way you do

Money for nothing and your chicks for free...

*Wakes up from daydreaming and notices something*

So,we still have the Hittites, Austrians and the great Khmer not in the game and you want Armenias.

I'm sorry, but I've run out of giving a damn about the numbered reasons list for the day and I'll tell you why.

1. 90% of the time it's because the person thinks the readers of what he has written can't desipher 3 lines of text with the information actually woven in.
2. Microwave ovens
3. I don't care
4. The numbers are so far to reach

Your numbered list has melted my brain so I'll write the rest of this as the first and last letter of each word.

GOFKYFAAISNTITTOTEVTMYOFTEWDSOGOTOHL

Very subtle, and I type any sware words, flame or do anything else. Anything can be read into this.

-Take that turner

Warned for trolling, swearing and Public Discussion of Moderator Actions.

The Hittites are very likely and would be a nice addition, but I really, really, really hope for more African Civs, like Aksum or the Moors.

The last 3:
as the african civ: Nubia
as the southeast civ: Siam
and as the last one: Polynesia

As the runner ups I would have Austria-Hungary, Israel and Sweden. But Etiopia and Khmer would be fine to. But never Poland.

I think the three last civs will be:
Hitties
Austrians
Maybe the Nubians?

@ Menzies:
dude... we should just leave and go to another topic... discuss everything there...

я подразумеваю, что moderatos имеют работу, чтобы сделать ..., но их говорящий нам, что мы наклоняемся, говорят им, что они являются глупыми, неправильно! против наших прав как люди! таким образом я говорю, что все мы поднимаемся и запрещаем регуляторы!!! whos со мной!?

ok...

as the african civ: Ethiopia/Aksum
as the southeast asian civ: Thailand/Siam
as the other remaining civ: Austria

Ethiopia, Siam/Khmer either one works for me

And for last either Austria or Poland.

Also i'm new to the system, so how long untill i get rid of the "infraction point" or when it expires? if it says anywhere, please redirect me.

Also i'm new to the system, so how long untill i get rid of the "infraction point" or when it expires? if it says anywhere, please redirect me.

I got one too, I asked the moderator and he said its a point and if you get seven in twenty days you're banned...whatever!:lol: We didn't even do anything that bad.:confused:Why do they care so much about this thread?:confused:

ahh happy 200th post to me, and your post was of topic to, lol

anyway back on topic, who thinks Ethiopia will be in?

ahh happy 200th post to me, and your post was of topic to, lol

anyway back on topic, who thinks Ethiopia will be in?

By the way, I added my signature to your poland thing. Anyway, I don't think Ethiopia will be in. Maybe nubia or some other african civ. :king:

dutchking - 3 day ban for posting off topic after being warned not to do so.
TheLastOne36 - warned for PDMA
09Camaro - warned for PDMA.

Thread closed, since y'all can't post within the rules.