Poland as 1 of 10 new Civilizations added in BTS? [Archive]

mitsho

Apr 01, 2007, 12:18 PM

If anything, I would propose Casimir III (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_III_of_Poland) (the Great), as leader of Poland. Though some might argue that giving him peaceful/builder traits will perpetuate the myth that he was an entirely peaceful king (he wasn't--he did a fair share of conquering, particularly in Ukraine) his greatest achievements were really in the internal development of Poland into a viable power.

An alternate would be Queen Jadwiga (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadwiga_of_Poland), his grandniece (or somesuch) whose reign was similarly prosperous. As if that wasn't enough, she's a saint (patron saint of queens and United Europe).

Again I want to propose Taddeusz Kosciusko as the Polish Leader:
a) He is not a king
b) He is a liberal thinker, great statesmen and a great military too, he united the Polish people
c) but he lost? that doesn't bother me, it was in his time when Poland was regarded most* (for being parted in three). We do not need necessarily take the leader from the time the Empire was at its biggest geographical spread. I do think Poland had a bigger impact in time of nationalism, when - under pressure - it forged the first (Second) constitution and was an example for one nation, one goal besides being split up into three countries.
But that doesn't mean that I won't applaude to Casimir, he's a great choice too (I just think we have enough kings already).

Yes, the argument of Heterogenousity is brought up a lot against Austria-Hungary, but I do not think it's valid. With that stretch you can actually include a vast territory of the Balkans into a citylist without using up more slots for more civs which I do think is a good intention.

Besides, we can have them both, just cut the Hittites or whatever the second "mesopotamian" civ is out. ;)

mick

EDIT: *example: In 1848, the first German national assembly during the March Revolution used up half (or a third?) of its time debating the "Polish Problem" and the "Polish Brothers".

Tulx

Apr 01, 2007, 12:22 PM

I personally dont like Poland as one of the new nations but because demand is so high it will be probaly added.

Thedrin

Apr 01, 2007, 12:27 PM

The problem with Austria-Hungary is that it is very heterogeneous: nobody considered him or herself "Austro-Hungarian." You were Austrian, or Venetian, or Hungarian, or Croatian, or Bohemian, or Romanian, or....you get the point.

I've seen very few people calling for the inclusion of the Austro-Hungarian empire. I've seen plenty requesting just the Austrians. Austria's time as a world power lasted a lot longer than the length of time during which it acted as the leading partner in a two state federation.

sourboy

Apr 01, 2007, 02:01 PM

Comrade Aart

Apr 01, 2007, 02:12 PM

I've been following the "We want Poland to be added"-spiel for quite a while and even read 90% of the posts made in the forum concerning it.

You can't persuade me to sign the petition, because I think it is up to Firaxis to add the civs they find best to add. At the other hand, you could find me sympathic to the addition of Poland to BtS. But at the moment I'm not really sympathic.

First of all, I think that all the major/most important/most influencial civs (it is just perspective how you define a civ) are already in the game (after Warlords that is). This is not really bias, I think, since I'm Dutch myself and they are going to be added in BtS (which is of course not a part of Warlords). Of course I like this, but I wouldn't mind if Firaxis would let them out. If I really want to play them, I mod them in.

I think the Polish players, who really would like to see the Polish should have a similar attitude. In the petition it is even said that the whole (I could be wrong on this) Polish mod is ready already. I think this is even a con to the petition instead of a pro.

Besides that, I think most countries in the world (which are not represented yet) also could make such a list of important people (see petition). This is not a bash on Poland, it is just the simple truth.

Then comes accomplishments. I think all civs we could add, are either to much like civs that are in, or lack accomplishments in the period that they existed. Porugal and the Netherlands (who are going to be added in BtS) have of course a colonial history, but Portugal was consumed by Spain and the Netherlands was immediately crippled by the English. Their accomplishments were certainly notable, but only in a short amount of time. After that they still had accomplishments, but not in such big scale (maybe a nice impact but not in favour of their nation). The Polish also had accomplishments, but mostly in warfare and for their own (and direct region).
What would make me stop from adding Poland is that most accomplishments were in the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, which would mean making that a civ instead of Poland alone and the fact that their influence and accomplishments were not world-wide, but instead only for Poland or the region.
If there is space in the game, I wouldn't object the addition though.

So as you can see I'm pretty neutral. What really bothered me about the whole issue, is that some of the Polish forum-members (not all of them, only a few) act more nationalistic than reasonable. Also the petition implies that Poland is almost more "worth" to be added than other nations. It is not directly said, but for instance "Game-Related argument 1" in the petition, implies that a new Western or Southern European nation should be second to Poland. I don't agree. The Slavs are indeed in some way underrepresented, but it makes sense, since Eastern Europe was pretty much always the battlefield of Europe.

Sorry for the long post. :(

kristopherb

Apr 01, 2007, 02:28 PM

i think poland would not be included at will by firaxis but because of your petition it will be added as the 11th civ.

Lockesdonkey

Apr 01, 2007, 04:53 PM

Lance of Llanwy

Apr 01, 2007, 07:41 PM

Antilogic

Apr 01, 2007, 08:01 PM

Austria-Hungary didn't stand alone culturally...Austrians are ethnic Germans, and the rest of the peoples are various ethnic groups. It didn't exist as a "nation" per se(where nation is an ethnic group like the French) and was merely a state composed of many different, mostly seperate, groups. IMO, having Germany and Austria would be like having Makedonia and Greece as seperate civs. The Byzies would be little better, being little more than Greeks who styled themselves Romans. I'd just hate to see them get in over more distinctive groups like the Poles and Vietnamese, who, IMO, are much better picks...

We are getting a little off-topic here, but I just had to respond to this one.

The Austro-Hungarian Empire (and for awhile, the Holy Roman Empire) were simply a group of subject peoples to the Austrians, which are closely related to their ethnic German brothers and sisters. It did exist as a nation, under the dominion of the Hapsburgs (or Habsburgs, if you prefer that spelling), and was more of an empire with several vassal states (to use Civ4 terminology). It's kind of like how you describe it, although I am sorely tempted to compare it to colonization but within Europe. It's one of those strange cases that really don't fit a historical model all that well. I very much want the Austrians included (alone, if necessary) simply to represent the Hapsburgs, one of the longest-lasting royal families of Europe. Not to mention one of the most influential.

That being said, I think renaming Germany "Prussia" and adding Austria is a good way to go because for the longest time in history, the Germans were not united under a single flag. Having two German nations more accurately reflects that. Now, whether or not that historical tidbit is worthy of two civilization slots in Civ is something that would inspire some debate, and I suspect more than a few in this thread would come down on the "no" side. It's not quite a Macedon-Greece thing, because those were actually separate cultures that grew together, not one ethnicity that grew apart from itself and ended up in a ferocious rivalry.

Now, back to the topic at hand: I think Poland is looking at a 50/50 chance of being included. I don't know whether or not Firaxis will pay attention to the petitions, but I'm betting Poland is in consideration for being included. It's just that they have to compete with the Mayans and Hittites, to name a few, that are just as worthy of inclusion. Also, Firaxis may go with their old mainstays, the Byzantines, Austria, and the Iroquois from Civ3, instead of adding a new player. We just have to wait to find out which way they will go.

Mirc

Apr 02, 2007, 03:10 AM

mitsho

Apr 02, 2007, 05:04 AM

@mitsho:

My problem with Kosciusko is that he was never a government leader. In Civ IV, all but one of the leaders were at some point the head of that country's government; the sole exception, Hannibal, lived in a society without a single leader (decisions were made between the heads of the aristocratic families by consensus), and being the general of the biggest most important army was the closest thing.

Slightly wrong in two points: Kosciusko was the leader of the 1794-uprising (called Kosciusko-uprising :rolleyes: ;)) and acted as the head of government during that time. (until 1795 when Poland was parted a third time). And Hannibal is not the only leader that wasn't the head of his country (I'd say he was). What about Gandhi? Churchill wasn't technically too ("head" is still the Queen/King ;)). Did Shaka really unite all the Zulu tribes? Dito with Ragnar and especially BRennus. I know you are directing not at this, but at the fact that he or she had to be a leader or leading figure of his own people. And I do think he did that.

If you go for the opposite, Queen Victoria doesn't suit again, as it were mostly her prime ministers who "made the decisions"... ;)

mick

Martinus

Apr 02, 2007, 05:55 AM

Kosciuszko would be a horrible leader choice. He was a commander of a failed uprising, fought for a short period that followed in Poland being erased from maps.

It's like making Monmouth leader of the English. :rolleyes:

LDeska

Apr 02, 2007, 06:40 AM

I'm really looking forward to read the full list of new civs. I hope that thanks to so many request from players, Firaxis will finally add Poland as a playable civ.

MusX - you should join our club: forum.kac.org.pl - we discuss there petition and other civ-related issues. But first of all we PLAY civ4 :D

Martinus - I don't think that Kościuszko would be a bad choice. He is regarded as a national hero... I would be grteful to see him in. There is also few other leaders to be considered (beside Queen Jadwiga and Casimir The Great): Marshall Józef Piłsudski, King Władysław Jagiełło, King Stefan Batory, King Jan III Sobieski.

Mirc

Apr 02, 2007, 08:19 AM

LDeska

Apr 02, 2007, 08:39 AM

As I read in Wiki - he was a Prince of Siedmiogród (Seven-city) and King of Poland and Lithuania. I don't know if he is regarded as a hero in Hungary, but in Poland he is (he was the best of elected kings - for some time nobles in Poland were electing the king in a semi-democratic way).
Władysław Jagiełło was also not Polish, he was a Lithuanian Prince, who married Polish Queen and become King of Poland, but we still would like to see him as a leader of Poland (though in fact he was a leader of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).

In medieval times many kings were from other countries... it was normal. If we would like to stick to purely Polish Kings, we would have to use Piast dynasty - they ruled Poland from the beginning (X century) till 1370.

Mirc

Apr 02, 2007, 08:41 AM

Seven-City - Siebenburgen - Transilvania - Transzilvanya, Transylvania.

They all mean the same thing. ;)

I was not contesting him. I was merely pointing out a funny fact. :)

Yakk

Apr 02, 2007, 08:54 AM

Pactically, they should look at the demographics of their purchasing audience, and make a few civilizations based off of where their buyers are. :)

Kietharr

Apr 02, 2007, 09:05 AM

Having your nation as a civ in the game dosn't really make it any more appealing. I never play America, nice to know it's in but it really dosn't matter. But I have to echo what has been said about austro-hungary, it wasn't really a civ so much as a large group of civs united under one crown. Poland is a good choice for an eastern European nation, but there are certainly others that had a larger impact on the world scale that i'd rather see first, same goes for Canada and Australia but even moreso, they're both even younger than the USA and havn't had 1/10th of the world impact.

Martinus

Apr 02, 2007, 10:20 AM

I think it would be cool to see Poland in, both as an interesting choice and as a nod to what seems like a large player base (that being said, maybe it is not so large, just that it seems so from the perspective of being a Pole myself). However, I don't think Poland "deserves" to be in Civ4 more than other civs, if only because the choice of civilizations seems arbitrary and based on playability rather than actual historical importance or anything (which is the way I like it).

Ishon

Apr 02, 2007, 11:20 AM

A loud 'YES' for Poland. There is no civilization in Civ IV + Warlords that I would kick out to put Poland instead, but now when we're adding 10 new civilizations it would be a hopeless mistake not to include Poland just as it would be a bad mistake not to include the Netherlands.

Poland has a consistent culture and considerable cultural achievements (the Copernicus Observatory - yes, Poland - no?), a long history, it strongly influenced the history of Europe, it is a 55 million nation in the middle of Europe and it went through most historical periods - way more than the U.S. did.

To my mind there's simply no way not to include it among the 10 new civilizations and put some.. Khmers/Sioux/Iroquis instead.

Austria-Hungary had: no consistent culture and no long history. It wasn't even a nation.

Austria by itself is too insignificant and it's culture is not distinct enough.

But I do support adding Israel - mostly because of the cultural factor (Judaism without Israel?) and an ancient history.

Sweden - no, because we've already got the Vikings. The Netherlands, Portugal - yes (impact on the history of the world).

PolskiKrol

Apr 02, 2007, 01:52 PM

Does it take a lot to include a new civilization? The hardest thing I can think of would be the CG animation in the trade screen.

Mirc

Apr 02, 2007, 01:56 PM

You have to create a leader (or more, but one is minimum), which implies making a new animation, finding a name that people aren't upset about, make a Unique Unit, meaning you have to make the graphics, and make the stats for it (strength, bonuses, etc) find some traits, get a good city list, which has to be accurate - must consider bigger and smaller cities, but also their date of creation and importance in history - and you have to play with it to see if it's balanced. And you must take care that it's actually an important civ. There were many people that didn't agree with Korea when the expansions for Civ3 came out. You can't just include anything and say "you know, it's an extra one, be happy about it". ;)

Hero

Apr 02, 2007, 01:59 PM

Here's your leader:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41238000/jpg/_41238147_plumber_afp_203.jpg

TheDuckLover

Apr 02, 2007, 02:21 PM

No offense, but Poland never had a great empire or anything.

LDeska

Apr 02, 2007, 02:31 PM

All the job is done: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=144016
AFAIK Polish mod was the first one with animated leaderhead (maybe I'm wrong). List of cities, UU, leaders, traits - it's all done.

Hero - great joke :D I think that most of female civ-players would choose Poland then :) at least that's what happened in France :D

TheDuckLover - read my thread http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=193894 and petition (link is in my sig) - you'll see how wrong you are...

Mirc

Apr 02, 2007, 03:33 PM

Unfortunately, they can't use fan-made material. It might have copyrights... Like props with which the model was made, site from which clothing is took from, etc. And they can't risk that. :)

I was just answering to PoskiKrol. :)

.Shane.

Apr 02, 2007, 03:40 PM

I like the idea of Austria-Hungary or the HRE much more than Poland. I'd love it if they added Atlantis for Sn'G. :)

Looks like the Sioux, but I'd prefer the Iroqois Confederacy.

Didn't we also see Charlemegne referenced in the news item?

MarkM

Apr 02, 2007, 04:44 PM

Look, it's a game, not a nationalistic competition. What unique traits/AI play style would a Pole leader bring? Maybe its due to my ignorance of polish history, but I can think of a lot of other leaders who might be more "fresh" and varied from existing leaders than another generally obscure mid-tier european. Say, Tecumseh? Boudica? These are leaders that many people are familiar with and have established, striking images of (so they might have a visceral idea of what to expect from them if they encounter them, and not have to look them up to begin to even have a clue what kind of AI personality & traits they might have).

Please don't lose sight that the most important thing is to keep this a great game, and not mess that up with desires to fulfill nationalistic pride.

LDeska

Apr 03, 2007, 01:59 AM

Martinus

Apr 03, 2007, 03:01 AM

To my mind there's simply no way not to include it among the 10 new civilizations and put some.. Khmers/Sioux/Iroquis instead.

On Sioux or Iroquis I may agree with you, but Khmers...??? You seem to have no idea about history.

LDeska

Apr 03, 2007, 03:31 AM

I agree - Khmers are/were a civilization (I'm not speaking about Red Khmers of course :) they were barbarians...), though native Americans were tribes...

kdaag

Apr 03, 2007, 04:24 AM

While it's understandable that you want to add your own country I don't agree with your arguments for Poland being among the great civilizations that somehow shaped world history.

Your arguments about the glorious polish history could basically go for any nation of reasonable size throughout history. It is not difficult to pick out examples in history of great battles won or great persons that belonged to a specific nation. I could easily write a petition for a swedish civ using many of the same arguements: For example Sweden "saved" Northern Europe from the Papacy (catholicism) in the 30-years war. This definately influenced world history greatly but is it a reason for a Swedish Civ? This is an examples of a historic fact that could just as easily be considerd good as bad, depending on if you're a protestant or catholic.

Too counter some of your arguments:

1. Yes western civs are overrepresented but this may be due to the fact that they have been overrepresented in world history and greatly influenced the world through colonization and trade. I know Civ sometimes includes nations that did not really influence history in order to be politically correct, ie the Sioux if they arrive etc. I however do not feel that Poland influenced history enough to be a truly great civ, although a nice country!

2. Well if their is already a functional civ mod why is there a need for an official version?

3. I'm sure that if you made a poll in any country people would miss their own country this is not unique to Poland. Also stating that 10 million people in the US are of Polish descent is a bit odd. If you put together all people by country descent in the US you would get a lot more than the official population simply because people have more than one ancestor. This could easily be used as a reason for a jewish civ, an irish civ, a finnish civ etc...

4. Once again good for the polish community, why again is this a reason/need for an official polish civ?

Historical reasons:

1. Many countries trace their history back a long time. Some nations have however accomplished a lot more in a short time and influenced world history. Poland and Sweden share a long history but really neither has influenced world history that much...

2. The Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth was not a modern ethnic state but more of a multiethnic feudal based elective monarchy. (I'm not a novice in polish history and have read many books and other sources of history) The elective monarchy and the overpowered nobles were more of an obstacle to the development of a strong polish nation than a benefit. We have a saying in sweden called "polsk riksdag" (polish parliament) meaning chaos and fractionalism. The nobles in Poland we're very well off but the majority of the population lived in utmost misery. The one really strong king Jan Sobieski III who rescued Vienna from the turks being a major exception but after him Poland was once agains sqwandered by the nobles and their self interests.

3. A constitution is not a sign of greatness. Many historical powers had absolutely no constitution and Great Britain still has none!

4. I'm really happy that you managed to break free from Soviet vassalship and join the EU and Nato, but sorry if I say that so have many other countries.

5. Poland is very unlucky historically being stuck between the very agressive germans and russians and having no natural borders to protect you. There is no question that you have suffered greatly and that many many Poles fought galantly to preserve/regain your freedom against fascist and communist dictators as well as nasty Tartars (mongols) and imperialistic grandeurs of the Swedish king Charles X who devastated Poland and its people. (sorry for that)

Naturally Poland being an old nation you have your glorious moments in history such as the saving of Vienna, the battle of Legnica (where you and the germans stopped the mongols) as well as defeating the Teutonic knights at Grünwald. The battle of Kircholm is not a good example as you squandered the victory and later lost all of Livonia to Sweden. The Polish-Soviet war of 1920 and the miracle at the Vistula was also more a result of Soviet overstrech and french officers and also resulted in Poland abandoning its ally Ukraine and Simon Petlura to the Soviets. The Soviets we're in no position to take over Europe even if they we're hoping for a rising of the German workers.

6. Lastly you do have a lot of great people in your history! Some of them good however be argued to be jews, germans, lithuanians, masurians, kashubians and slovincians by these nations. In fact they could have been more than one ehtnicity as this was not important before the birth of the modern ethnic state. Examples Copernicus in some sources is german in others Masurian, Mickiewicz is considered Lithuanian by them and Rubenstein is definately jewish.

I'm not trying to say that Poland does not have a great history and that you should not be proud. I'm just saying that history is not always objective and how one country views its history and creates its "national mythology" may be very different to another. For example many of our Swedish warrior kings were outright bastards who murdered and plundered other countries. Charles X for example indirectly killed 1/4 of the population of Poland, this is NOT a good thing! I know for example that you're very proud of the Polish pope Johannes Paulus II and he did many good things but in many countries his refusal to accept contraception and adopt it into the catholic church and stem the spread of AIDS is considered very bad so there are always two sides to the coin.

Man I'm I going to get many irretated responses from Poles now, but please try to read my post obejectively...

corazone

Apr 03, 2007, 05:04 AM

Poland should be represented. They even once in history burned down Moscow, and had the livonian knights order.

Special building should be a religious building like improved cathedral or something.
Special unit should be a replacement for either maceman or knight. (Google for boyars/bojar, a "light knight" maybe a knight with same function as keshik dunno)

kdaag

Apr 03, 2007, 05:53 AM

...to have burned down Moscow? This is NOT a reason to be considered a great civ in history and be included in Civ 4!

corazone

Apr 03, 2007, 06:07 AM

They also had a great significance in spreading christianity throughout europe. Whatever you say, they have been doing numerous wars as a nation, the fought battles and defended themselves and never had the oppurtunity to expand. They had their small golden age of time and was quickly forgotten in the 1900:s the day hitler blitzed their cavs

kdaag

Apr 03, 2007, 06:26 AM

Well the part of the Polish cavarly attacking german tanks is a myth created by the Nazi propaganda machine! Poland ofcourse had cavalry components in its army bt so had every other army in WW2.

When it comes to spreading christianity to NE Europe this should be more attributed to the crusader order of Teutonic Knights and the Livonian Order who were mostly german knights. The later spread of christianity into the Lithuanian part of the commonwealth has more to do with the catholic church cooperating with local nobles, and not Poland as a nation as there was basically no central government at the time that could enforce any religion from above.

Yakk

Apr 03, 2007, 07:19 AM

Modern ethnic state?

Most great powers haven't been single-ethnic states. UK, France, Spain, USA, Russia: all have ethnic seperatists, and people from 'different ethnic backgrounds' as part of their "core".

Unless you define "ethnic" to mean "from a nation", which is an act of pulling boots over one's head. ;)

Martinus

Apr 03, 2007, 07:19 AM

They also had a great significance in spreading christianity throughout europe.
Even if you consider this a good thing, this is not true - Poland never had any serious missionary bent.

MusX

Apr 03, 2007, 07:28 AM

huh... how do you guys can even compare addition of Austria-Hungary and Poland?!?
Austria-Hungary wasn't a nation! there were many nation in it.
The problem with Austria-Hungary is that it is very heterogeneous: nobody considered him or herself "Austro-Hungarian."
Aus-Hun is much better civ for some scenario not for epic games!
Poland has formed own nation in AD 966 and it has own culture for all those years! NOT JUST A TEMPORARY AUS-HUN without own nation and culture. Poland deserve not for beeing scenario civ but for normal playable civ in epic games!

MarkM

Apr 03, 2007, 07:34 AM

Mirc - as I'm working on a petition to Firaxis to add Poland, I'm quite well informed about Polish mod. We have already agreement from almost all of authors of this mod. If we will gather agreements from all authors of this mod, we will transfer copyright to Firaxis. Then we have two plans: plan A: Firaxis prepares Polish civ for next add-ons, plan B: Cenega, Polish distributor of civ, bundles Polish mod with civ4 and sales it together.

MarmM - yes, it's because of ignorance. Tecumseh? Boudica? Never heard of them, maybe they are called totally different in Polish, but probably you're thinking about some tribes which never created even a city, not speaking about Civilization...Well, I already admitted my ignorance of Polish history (pre-1900 anyway). But I don't see you making the point I'm looking for, nominating some iconic historical Polish leader. You seem to be starting from the point "I want something called Poland," then flailing about trying to figure out civ unique aspects and digging up a half-notable leader. For gameplay, you want to start with an iconic leader and/or civ, then call it Poland.

Tecumseh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecumseh)Tecumseh (c.1768? - October 5, 1813), Tecumseh whose given name might be more accurately rendered as Tecumtha or Tekamthi, was a famous Shawnee leader. He spent much of his life attempting to rally disperate Native American tribes in a mutual defense of their lands, which eventually culminated in his death in the War of 1812.

Tecumseh remains a respected icon for Native Americans and is considered a national hero in Canada. Even his longtime adversary William Henry Harrison considered Tecumseh to be "one of those uncommon geniuses which spring up occasionally to produce revolutions and overturn the established order of things."(p.s. - there's a bone for the Canadian contingent! ;)

Boudica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boudica)Boudica (also spelled Boudicca, formerly better known as Boadicea) (d. 60/61) was a queen of the Brythonic Celtic Iceni people of Norfolk in Eastern Britain who led a major uprising of the tribes against the occupying forces of the Roman Empire....

The chronicles of these events, as recorded by the historians Tacitus[1] and Cassius Dio,[2] were rediscovered during the Renaissance and led to a resurgence of Boudica's legendary fame during the Victorian era, when Queen Victoria was portrayed as her "namesake". Boudica has since remained an important cultural symbol in the United Kingdom.I could add others, say gilgamesh of the Sumerians (main importance: the first great historic leader we know much of anything about. He's from 2600bc, so long ago that he's come down to us as half-mythic, 1/3 human and 2/3 god).

Anyway, all that is tangential to the point. The point is that each of these leaders have very dominant/semi-unique character traits that they are well known for, and set them somewhat apart frmo the "typical" leader. So they translate well to the game. I am neither Canadian, British, or Native American so I take no "pride" iin suggesting them. But I think they fit the needs of gameplay.

Yakk

Apr 03, 2007, 07:40 AM

Gilgamesh!

It would be like having a civilization led by Hercules.

But without the annoying centaur sidekick.

kdaag

Apr 03, 2007, 08:28 AM

huh... how do you guys can even compare addition of Austria-Hungary and Poland?!?
Austria-Hungary wasn't a nation! there were many nation in it.

Aus-Hun is much better civ for some scenario not for epic games!
Poland has formed own nation in AD 966 and it has own culture for all those years! NOT JUST A TEMPORARY AUS-HUN without own nation and culture. Poland deserve not for beeing scenario civ but for normal playable civ in epic games!

By nation I mean country, when I talk about people with separate languages and culture I use ethnic groups.

The Austro-Habsburg empire is definately a more worthy candidate for Civ-status than Poland. It only became Austria-Hungary in the middle of the 19th century. It managed to resist the strongest military power of the day, (ottoman empire) for a couple of hundred years and finally push i back into the balkans as well as partake in the dismemberment of Poland...

Tomek

Apr 03, 2007, 08:44 AM

yeah, Canada and Australia has also quite big history

to be honest...
Canada and Australia have ~200 years of history as a country
but I would not say that there is sth like Canadian or Australian nation
In both examples theres only a mixture of other nations: there are French Canadians, English Canadians, Chineese Canadians, natives, a bit of Poles, German, Spanish and Swedish Canadians - but not Canadians itself
In Australian soil we have Greeks, Chineese, Italians, offsprings of English banits of course and natives

With a great respect to the people who live in these countries - I dont think these countries should be on the top of the list of most significant civilisations.

Yakk

Apr 03, 2007, 10:39 AM

*nod*, Poland, Canada and Austrailia are all pretty mediocre sources for an epic civ. They are all decent choices for a mod. :)

On the other hand, adding civilizations of nations that buy lots of copies of the game might be a good thing.

I think, as a minimium test, a civilization must be top-notch in it's era. Ideally during it's era, the region it is in must be top-of-the-heap world wide.

Geographically, if a region has no other civilizations, adding the "most advanced" or "most impressive" native to that area makes some sense. Factor in the length of the civilization's dominance.

Equatore

Apr 03, 2007, 01:13 PM

Xyqtt

Apr 03, 2007, 01:18 PM

MusX

Apr 03, 2007, 01:33 PM

Did Poland as a country/civilization did anything that had impact on the world? The same for Canada And Australia. There great countries but really not very influental on the world. IN my history lessons I neder saw something like poland
i don't know where are you from and what studing level was in your school but do you know the earth is circular? you know who discover this? ;) not the stonehage builder for sure :lol: also Chopin's works are very important for it's music genre. also Poland's stamina during WWII was very heavywieght. in close future the Anti-Rocket shield which might be build (by US gov) in Poland might save your ass :D

Xyqtt

Apr 03, 2007, 01:44 PM

So copernicus en Chopin are to be made great people or are already great people. Don't remember ever getting them. And just because they got attacked during WWII isn't a real archievement. But you don't say anything that they commited as an country/civilization to the world. Just an action of induvidials.

Scaramanga

Apr 03, 2007, 02:33 PM

i don't know where are you from and what studing level was in your school but do you know the earth is circular? you know who discover this? ;) not the stonehage builder for sure :lol: also Chopin's works are very important for it's music genre. also Poland's stamina during WWII was very heavywieght. in close future the Anti-Rocket shield which might be build (by US gov) in Poland might save your ass :D

Hey - don't forget Maria Skłodowska-Curie. But, you know, every great nation has its share of great people. With the Dutch at least you had a nation that journeyed to the far parts of the world and at its height was one of the grandest nations on earth (considering its size) - making everyone take notice. I admire your spirit, but perhaps Poland doesn't quite fit in with the game right now. Comparing Poland to smaller or more "primitive" nations already in the game to make Poland appear more illustrious isn't really a good argument. Firaxis has its own agenda for picking civs I guess. As a Canadian-born Dutch person who's never been to Holland and can't speak a word of Dutch, I'm thrilled the Netherlands is going to be in Civ 4; I expected they would appear eventually after they made it to Civ 3, although I was very surprised when that had happened. If Canada, however, made it into Civ 4 I'd be a little confused.

Xyqtt

Apr 03, 2007, 02:43 PM

And on top of it. We are not going to add Ireland becasue of U2 so why add Poland because of chopin?

Martinus

Apr 03, 2007, 02:51 PM

i don't know where are you from and what studing level was in your school but do you know the earth is circular? you know who discover this? ;) not the stonehage builder for sure :lol: also Chopin's works are very important for it's music genre. also Poland's stamina during WWII was very heavywieght. in close future the Anti-Rocket shield which might be build (by US gov) in Poland might save your ass :D

Uhm, sorry MusX, but Euclid established that the Earth is round several centuries BC.

Copernicus formulated the heliocentric theory but it had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth - it concerned the fact that planets orbit the sun, rather than planets and sun orbit the Earth.

See guys, arguments like this make the whole petition look silly and make Poles look like fools. I'd like to see Poland in Civ4 because I'd like to play my own nation and it would probably provide some geographical/ethnic diversity (only Russia for Slavic people), but arguing that it "deserves" to be in due to some groundbreaking achievements is just plain silly - Bohemia or Hungary would be equally valid choice, for example.

Martinus

Apr 03, 2007, 02:56 PM

By nation I mean country, when I talk about people with separate languages and culture I use ethnic groups.

The Austro-Habsburg empire is definately a more worthy candidate for Civ-status than Poland. It only became Austria-Hungary in the middle of the 19th century. It managed to resist the strongest military power of the day, (ottoman empire) for a couple of hundred years and finally push i back into the balkans as well as partake in the dismemberment of Poland...
I'm not sure about Austria - it was essentially an offshoot of Germany, that later grew into a country of its own. Sure, you can say it's like having America as a civ, but America became a world power.

Like Poland, Austria never amounted to world power - it was at best a regional power. Also, for the most part of the existence of the Holy Roman Empire, Austrian Archdukes were Emperors of HRE (i.e. Germany) - so in a sense you can say they are simply part of the German civilization.

Martinus

Apr 03, 2007, 03:00 PM

All really great civilizations have already place in CIV.
These 10 could be at best medioacre. Considering civilizations like: Mali, Zulu, Aztec, Inca, Khmer, Hittites, Iroquis or Sioux - Poland was and is military and cultural "superpower", and have longest existence.

First of all, you are mixing apples and oranges there. Some of the civilizations you list were mediocre, but some were supreme in their area and period.

And secondly, more importantly, the thing with all these civilizations is that they were the most advanced ones in the area from which their hail. For an European civilization to be included in game, the bar is raised much higher - otherwise, you could easily have only European, Mediterranean and Asian civilizations in game.

As it is now, there is no European civ currently in game (or that is planned to be included) that was inferior to Poland.

Scaramanga

Apr 03, 2007, 03:07 PM

I think putting Poland in the game just so there is more Slavic representation is not a very good reason and might detract from actual Polish culture and achievements.

XxtraLarGe

Apr 03, 2007, 03:19 PM

mitsho

Apr 03, 2007, 03:35 PM

The Polish Hussar is probably the best contender. It has a distinct name, existed really and freed Vienna from the Turks... ;). Light cavalry replacing knight or so.

mick

Ishon

Apr 03, 2007, 04:21 PM

I said I would not add the Khmers, because if we do, then we should also add the Incas, Mayas, the Franks and some dozen other civilizations which were of significant importance at any historical period. But I agree that I went much too far putting the Khmers next to the Sioux. And Angkor Wat is an argument comparable to the Copernicus Observatory argument in favor of Poland.

The problem is that we're speaking of 10 new civs, not 12 or 15. Somebody must be left out, just as Poland was left out in favor of the Vikings, Korea, etc (and rightly so). Sumer had more influence on the history of the world than the Khmers or Mayans did.

Comparing Chopin to U2 is sort of pitiful :P.

Ishon

Apr 03, 2007, 04:25 PM

And for several good reasons Israel beats the Khmers too (cultural significance - Judaism beats Angkor Wat).

Antilogic

Apr 03, 2007, 05:29 PM

Comparing Chopin to U2 is sort of pitiful :P.

You beat me to it.

And on Austria-Hungary...first, call it Austria, because the Germans in Austria were always in control of it, and since the 13th century it was called Austria.

Also, I think Austria is a good pick for an East European civ because of the fact it was so heterogeneous: you really only have Russia as an East European civ right now. The Western Europeans have Britain, Germany, France, Spain, Netherlands, Portugal...and Greece and Rome really deserve to be in the Mediterranean category. So picking one civ that represents several of the Eastern Europeans (Slavs of every kind, Germans, some Poles) wouldn't be a bad idea--that's why I'm going with Austria.

Failing that, Poland isn't a bad pick either--it was among the strongest of the East European countries, and in its day was quite powerful (along with Lithuania). The Balkans have just been picked over, and no truly strong civilization has lasted in East Europe besides the Poles and Austrians.

So, for the region, I would say they are solid picks if you want to add more East Europeans into the game.

burak

Apr 03, 2007, 05:48 PM

How about some maps, cause i feel some posters have only bleak idea how Poland really looked then:

1097
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8d/Europe_mainland_d1097.JPG/800px-Europe_mainland_d1097.JPG

1387 Poland and Lithuania after union made largest country in Europe.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/Poland_and_Lithuania_1387.PNG/607px-Poland_and_Lithuania_1387.PNG

1600. Poland in Europe
http://www.histgeo.ac-aix-marseille.fr/enseign/houot/anc_reg/eu1600.gif

1630 Poland at its heighth. Polish troops conquered Moscow in 1612, and in 1620s held off against Sweden and Turkey simultaneously - two great powers of that time.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/Rzeczpospolita_1600.png/765px-Rzeczpospolita_1600.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/35/Location-Pol-Lith-Commonwealth.png

1772 Partitions. before partitions Poland was 4th largest european country (by population)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Rzeczpospolita_Rozbiory_3.png/765px-Rzeczpospolita_Rozbiory_3.png

1918 Poland reborn. It was 10th most populated independent country that time.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Rzeczpospolita_1920.png/782px-Rzeczpospolita_1920.png

Scaramanga

Apr 03, 2007, 07:00 PM

^^

Great pictures but Canada is, like, fifty times bigger than Poland ever was and you'll never see them adding the Canucks anytime soon! :goodjob:

MusX

Apr 04, 2007, 02:19 AM

Martinus

Apr 04, 2007, 02:38 AM

it's bigger but it's empty :lol: Canada is indeed important country that should be added but it's colonial country so it doesn't have as much own culture and ethic group like Poland ;) if i can pick living in Poland or Canada i will pick Canada :D

Not to be a devil's advocate, but most of the Lithuanian part of Poland-Lithuania was quite empty as well. :p

Ishon

Apr 04, 2007, 03:27 AM

It's not only about the territory, it's about how long the history of a given civ is, about its cultural achievements and influence on the history of the world. France also controlled a lot of what we call "empty" land, but for obvious reasons it's one of the 14 main civs.

Why is France in the game? It's because it's one of the most important European states, it has a long history with considerable military achievements, it has had important cultural achievements and it's been involved in many major wars.

Poland has a long history with considerable military achievements, less cultural influence and a less important role in the modern world. Yet it was a major European power and today in many aspects it is the most influential state in its region. It is the 6th state in the European Union in terms of the number of seats in the European Parliament following Germany, France, Italy, the UK and Spain. All the above mentioned civs have been included in the game (the Romans->Italy). The Netherlands are 8th, Portugal is... 13th.

Poland vs. Portugal?

Portugal was important for quite a short time in history and I'm not sure whether Poland or Portugal is a more obvious choice for the BTS expansion. Portugal: one wonder (Magellan's Exp.). Poland: one wonder. Poland for obvious reasons could not colonize South America, but instead it did "colonize" one fifth of Europe.

Poland is one of the two countries that managed to capture Moscow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Muscovite_War_%281605%E2%80%931618% 29) and it even attempted to install its own tsar in the Kremlin. Today Portugal is facing a lot of developmental problems and it is but a minor European state, playing no serious role in the world. Putting Portugal in and leaving Poland out would be a proof of total ignorance of the Firaxis team, which I don't expect.

Martinus

Apr 04, 2007, 03:46 AM

kdaag

Apr 04, 2007, 03:50 AM

Come on you must be kidding! Poland being on par with Portugal in world history? The Portuguese more or less "discovered" the rest of the world while Poland was preoccupied with internal strife and bickering. Showing a bunch of territorial maps from a time in history to exemplify greatness is a lousy way of advocating for a civ. Every time Poland was threatened by other countries' armies the system of government with a powerless regent made dependant on the nobility made it impossible to raise an army to defend the country. Most surrounding countries have successfully invaded Poland over and over again through history, how come Poland has never done the same except in 1920? (when the Soviets were occupied with their civil war as well as fighting allied powers trying to intervene)

A bunch of powerful noble families ruling fast tracts of land (and wilderness in Belarus) and only nominally recognizing a central power does not mean that the country is a great historical power. I would say that Sweden who for hundreds of years managed to keep the russians at bay as well as stopping the papists (catholics) from taking over Europe would be just as good a candidate for a civ as Poland...

Seriously being proud of your on country is not the same as being objective enough to see if it has really influenced world history... (which at least is my criterion for a in game civ)

The Khmers did influence the history of SE asia greatly for example helping to spread Hinduism and culture thoughout, even though it was later replaced by Buddhism and Islam. The west africa empires (collectively known as Mali in civ) helped to spread islam, as well as learning in west africa and were at their time greatly influencing.

I also have to comment people wanting Canada, Brasil and other major countries today to achieve civ status. Seriously size is not the only thing that matters. Just because you have big land areas today and in brazils case a large population your legacy on the world is at least at the moment totally negligible. This may ofcourse change with time but the biggest reason right now is size and this is more thanks to the British and Portugease that colonized your lands in the first place. (and french in Canada)

Martinus

Apr 04, 2007, 03:58 AM

I agree with kdaag about the colonial countries - America is in, for a number of reasons making it unique (from purely marketing ones to a recognition of the fact that it has been a superpower for nearly 100 years), however I'd stop it at that and wouldn't include any other colonial country.

Mirc

Apr 04, 2007, 04:08 AM

Onagan

Apr 04, 2007, 04:48 AM

I don't want the Polish in Civ, I want Sweden in it. with Globe Arena as WorldWonder

Equatore

Apr 04, 2007, 07:41 AM

Those maps are SOOOOOO flawed. :rolleyes:
When did Poland conquer Moldova? :lol:
Where's Florence on that last map?
When did the Ottomans conquer Crimea or Wallachia, or Moldova?
Are you sure? ;)
Actually Moldova has another colour than Poland - it was vassal state of Poland 1387-1497, and vassal of Ottomans after 1497.
Chan of Crimea was a vassal of Ottomans since 1475.
Vallachia was a vassal od Ottomans since 1526.
During Ottomans rule, especially after XVIIc - hospodars od Vallachia and Moldova were only sultans subordinates - these countries were in fact part of Ottomans Empire. Chan of Crimea has more independent status.
Was Poland&Lithuania largest?
In 1387 two countries were similiar size - Golden Orde and united Scandinavia. And probably Republic of Novogrod - not empire in typical sense - rather net of merchant factories in large barren land that will become later North Russia.

Scaramanga

Apr 04, 2007, 08:40 AM

Portugal controlled a world-spanning empire for a couple of centuries. The result of its influence include most of the South American continent (where people speak Portuguese as their official language).

Poland doesn't come even close, and I say it as a Pole. (Even if you stretch the definition of colonization immensely, and include Lithuania and Ukraine, this colonizations was not too succesful, since the people there do not speak Polish as their native language).

So far it's not Firaxis that is proving its total ignorance.

And what does controlling Moscow have to do with a claim to being a great civilization? (Especially as the time Poland controlled Moscow, it was a private enterprise of some Polish nobles who allied with a faction in the Russian civil war - it was not a formal war between Poland and Russia). It's not like everybody tried it anyway - only the madmen like Hitler or Napoleon saw anything worth in it - I'm sure Victoria or Washington did not sit in their cabinets, in tears, worrying that if they don't capture Moscow, their countries will always be overshadowed by the mighty Poles. :rolleyes:

In short, your post is a collection of factual errors and ommissions, coupled with unsubstantiated claims.

I agree that if you're comparing Poland over any of the Western European nations in terms of being in Civ 4 you should first answer this question: Are there any other countries in the world besides Poland that have Polish as an official language?
If not, they've just lost out to the English, the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Dutch... maybe even the Germans, I'm not sure.
I don't actually know the answer to the question myself so...
ARE there any other countries in the world besides Poland that have Polish as an official language?:mischief:

Martinus

Apr 04, 2007, 09:34 AM

No. Unless you count Chicago. :p

burak

Apr 04, 2007, 09:35 AM

I agree that if you're comparing Poland over any of the Western European nations in terms of being in Civ 4 you should first answer this question: Are there any other countries in the world besides Poland that have Polish as an official language?
If not, they've just lost out to the English, the French, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Dutch... maybe even the Germans, I'm not sure.
I don't actually know the answer to the question myself so...
ARE there any other countries in the world besides Poland that have Polish as an official language?:mischief:

And how many countries in the world have Dutch as official language? Netherlands and Suriname:rolleyes:

And about the arguments about Netherlands and Poland being world empires, while Poland was only a local power. How many people lived in these Dutch and Portuguese colonies in, say, XVII century? How much important was Portuguese Angola or Dutch South Africa then. Not more, i think that one polish province in Ukraine. True, Portugal and Netherlands both had their era of colonial power, but how long it lasted? Portugal started seafaring around 1400 and founded some colonies around the world, but since 1580 they were under Spain, and later didn't play much role in europe or world, except creating Brazil. Dutch goldn age was short as well. They gained independence from Spain only in 1579, and prospered for some 140 years, until war of spanish succession in 1713. After that, i don't see dutch making anything important. While in their golden age both countries could have more importance than Poland ever had, you must notice it only lasted for 1-2 centuries, while Poland remained quite important in European stage for most of its existence (except partitions era).

Mirc

Apr 04, 2007, 09:44 AM

Actually Moldova has another colour than Poland - it was vassal state of Poland 1387-1497, and vassal of Ottomans after 1497.
Chan of Crimea was a vassal of Ottomans since 1475.
Vallachia was a vassal od Ottomans since 1526.
During Ottomans rule, especially after XVIIc - hospodars od Vallachia and Moldova were only sultans subordinates - these countries were in fact part of Ottomans Empire. Chan of Crimea has more independent status.
Was Poland&Lithuania largest?
In 1387 two countries were similiar size - Golden Orde and united Scandinavia. And probably Republic of Novogrod - not empire in typical sense - rather net of merchant factories in large barren land that will become later North Russia.
So if a king is vassal to another, is it normal to draw it inside the borders? Then let's put Hungary in Poland too, they were a vassal for some time too! And at the time of the Hundred Years War the English king was a vassal of the French king. Is it OK to draw England in France? :eek:

hospodars od Vallachia and Moldova were only sultans subordinates - these countries were in fact part of Ottomans Empire.
Where did you copy that text from? :rolleyes: Prove it.

Martinus

Apr 04, 2007, 10:08 AM

Mirc

Apr 04, 2007, 10:23 AM

The King of England wasn't a vassal of the King of France - the person who also held the English throne was a vassal of the King of France in his capacity as the Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine (and paid quite a lip service at that) - at no point in history England was formally subject to French rule.

Learn history before posting, please.

Did I say it was formally subject to French rule? That's what I was trying to prove wrong! That being a vassal of some king does not make your country formally subject to another ruler.

You are right in what you're saying, Beginning with Rollo, the leaders of Normandy were vassals to the king of France, and they were still vassals after they became kings in England. How does this contradict what I said? Isn't it exactly what I said? "The kings of England were vassals to the French king". How is this wrong? You just tried to appear smart by using words like Aquitaine which you probably thought I've never heard about! :lol: You picked the wrong person, don't tell me to learn history!

Öjevind Lång

Apr 04, 2007, 10:42 AM

I don't think Poland would be added based on their status as a power, so much as they are a big representation of Slavic based people.

I mean you have many Germanic peoples represented throughout most of Europe, from Scandinavians to French to Germans themselves, but you don't get anything in Eurasia other than Russia. When you look at the choices, Poland is the most notable (or one of) unused slavic peoples.

The French are not a Germanic people; they speak a Romance language. As for Eurasia, that term means the whole of Europe and Asia. Eurasia is represented in the present game by England, France, Spain, the Vikings, the Celts, the Romans, the Greeks, Russia, Germany, India, China, Japan, Persia, Arabia, Mongolia and Korea. In the XP, they will be joined by the Netherlands, Portugal and Babylonia. I'd say that Europe and Asia are very well represented in the game whereas Africa is quite underrepresented. What about Ethiopia, for example? There are also civilizations or peoples such as the Maya, the Hittites, the Maori and the Iroquois which I would find much more interesting to have in the game than Poland.

Mirc

Apr 04, 2007, 10:50 AM

The French are not a Germanic people; they speak a Romance language. As for Eurasia, that term means the whole of Europe and Asia. Eurasia is represented in the present game by England, France, Spain, the Vikings, the Celts, the Romans, the Greeks, Russia, Germany, India, China, Japan, Persia, Arabia, Mongolia and Korea. In the XP, they will be joined by the Netherlands, Portugal and Babylonia. I'd say that Europe and Asia are very well represented in the game whereas Africa is quite underrepresented. What about Ethiopia, for example? There are also civilizations or peoples such as the Maya, the Hittites, the Maori and the Iroquois which I would find much more interesting to have in the game than Poland.

Thanks! :D I said that too, but nobody seemed to care. ;)

Giaur

Apr 04, 2007, 10:58 AM

What is Poland's Unique Unit going to be? I have a suggestion, from an old joke:

"Did you hear that Poland just ordered 5,000 septic tanks? As soon as they learn how to drive them, they're going to invade Germany!" :lol:

Sorry, I couldn't resist. :blush:

In all seriousness though, what would be a good Polish UU? How about a Ghetto Fighter (Infantry w/Commando)? Or maybe a Polish Cavalry w/Ambush?

We have in Poland similar jokes of other peoples. These jokes were made by immatured people with inferiority (or other) complexes. Those jokes do not bother me. I am only saying that nations are laughing with other nations. So what's your purpose of saying what you said? You can say: "Poles are ...", when all around the globe people have such opinion, not in particular country.

to be continued (edited) ...

1) Polish nation history lasts 1000 years. During this time, we fought more wars than any other country in Europe. That's true we dissappeared from the maps for 110 years. But as someone said, we have been put beetween very agressive civs: Germans, Russians, Mongols and Tatars. So one set-back is the reason to deny our rights to be a nation? I say no ... cause we were agressive too. And what's more important: efficient. We came back to life, after 1WW. And that's not impressive fact? Tell me how many nations were resurected after 1WW? Ukraine was not so quickly, needed 80 years more. That points that Polish culture was the strongest of all central-European nations. And that's not the argument? Even Israel was not so efficient to come back to life. Some of you might say it was luck, but: The Polish did not sat on chairs when 1WW was taking place. They fought their way to independance. Also 2WW points the fact that we were tightly keeping the life. We were probably scared of loosing a nation again, I guess. Tell me, whose scientists bulid Enigma machine, that decoded Hitler's orders? Or tell me who many German fighter's were down due too Polish pilots, seccuring The Battle of Brittain?
And now the facts ... If you find the second nation on this world with greater will to live, tell me. There are stats, I do not know the numbers, but Poland in 966 had probably less population than Prussia. If we divide current_population/population(in 1000AD) (of every country in Europe) we get weird results pointing that Poland has enormous cultural achievments and very strong national sovereignty. Add to these numbers all Poles, who died in battles, and you would find out that Poland as a civ would be even stronger. We've been the only pure-katholic nation of all the Europe. That's not the argument of being one?

And I would give my head, that Europe would be divided by Islam and Communism, if there was not nation of mine.

2) in our Golden Age, we had our own deadly weapon: Winged Hussars. There are books that point, that Hussars were more efficient than standard heavy horseman. So I guess, we have at least achievement

3) And the interesting thing: Russian Empire: 200k troops, German Empire: 200k troops, AustrioHungarian Empire: 200k troops, Polish Empire: 16k troops. (general levy). And it was enough to fight one war after another (unfortunately one day there was one war AND another)

You might say we were barbaric. You might say we were back with economy. You might say we had bad kings. You might say some of us are nationalists. But you can't say we are not a Civilization (with no own culture and national sovereignty) and we had no impact on the history. The problem with us is that, we had passive impact, not active. We were blocking from attacks from Tatars, Turks, Mongols, Russians. Netherlands had active (colonizing) impact. And maybe that's why some of you are not very objective.

Öjevind Lång

Apr 04, 2007, 11:02 AM

By nation I mean country, when I talk about people with separate languages and culture I use ethnic groups.

The Austro-Habsburg empire is definately a more worthy candidate for Civ-status than Poland. It only became Austria-Hungary in the middle of the 19th century. It managed to resist the strongest military power of the day, (ottoman empire) for a couple of hundred years and finally push i back into the balkans as well as partake in the dismemberment of Poland...

It might be better to call such a civ "the Habsburg civilization". But as I have said before, I think there are more than enough European civs in the game as it is. It seems to me that the repeated Polish calls for an inclusion of Poland are due to nationalism, not to Poland being one of the great civilizations of history.

Antilogic

Apr 04, 2007, 11:29 AM

Here's another good European map site: www.euratlas.com. It has some great maps, at least one per century of the world from AD 1 to AD 2000 in Europe. Good reference.

@Öjevind Lång: I would rather call them Austrians simply because that was the name of the country. We don't call the English the Tudors or Windsor-ians or Hanoverians or House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. We don't call the French Bourbons, so why call the Austrians Hapsburgs? Just because they have a mixed empire doesn't change the fact the Austrians ruled it.

The thing is, as I have pointed out, there are several Western European civs (Spain, Portugal, Britain, France, Germany, Netherlands) in the game, and there are plenty of Mediterranean civs in the game (Greece, Rome, Egypt, Carthage), but the only truly East European civ is Russia. If you are looking to add a nation that has Slavs and other East European peoples simply to bump up representation, then Poland or Austria are the best picks of those available, and were successful in their own rights hundreds of years ago.

Mirc

Apr 04, 2007, 11:49 AM

Here's another good European map site: www.euratlas.com. It has some great maps, at least one per century of the world from AD 1 to AD 2000 in Europe. Good reference.

Yes, it has good maps. But there are complaints (even on their site) about the 700 AD map and about another, very early, one. Never mind though, it's not related to this topic. :)

Giaur

Apr 04, 2007, 11:54 AM

Also our population growth is possitive, while in Germany and Russia (our greatest age-long competitors) is negative. That's not an argument?

Mirc

Apr 04, 2007, 12:07 PM

Also our population growth is possitive, while in Germany and Russia (our greatest age-long competitors) is negative. That's not an argument?

It's negative in all three. :lol:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Europe_population_growth_2006.png

And how it this an argument? It's really positive in Bosnia, let's include them too! :run:

Antilogic

Apr 04, 2007, 12:31 PM

Yes, it has good maps. But there are complaints (even on their site) about the 700 AD map and about another, very early, one. Never mind though, it's not related to this topic. :)

Agreed, being that Poland didn't exist during this time period. :)

Psyringe

Apr 04, 2007, 12:32 PM

My god, is this argument still goin on ...?

Personally, although I was sympathetic to the addition of Poland in the beginning, I've come to the conclusion that I don't want them to be added. The reason for this are actually the numbers of Polish nationalists that recently appeared in the boards of many strategy games, demanding that the alleged glory of their nation "must" be recognized.

While I *was* sympathetic of their cause in the beginning, after some months the constant demands, debates, and bickering, start to become an annoyance. They also start to change my image of Poland. The constant nationalism of several people across several forums simply turn me off, and it has reached a point where I simply wouldn't want to have Poland in my game, let alone play as them, because it would constantly remind me about this unnerving nationalism. And I certainly wouldn't want to identify with that.

Also, I found "who cries loudest gets served last" a very effective method of bringing people back to reasonable discussions instead of maximizing demands.

Anyway, I'm sorry for the Polish players who aren't nationalistic and who may feel hurt or misunderstood if they read this post ... but in all honesty, this Polish petitionism has reached a point where I just hope that Firaxis includes another nation that I'll have more fun playing. The recent behavior of many Polish people on the internet have, sorry to say, kind of spoiled it for me.

I also simply don't understand why Poles who want to play as Poland don't just mod it in. The driving force behind the whole discussion doesn't seem to be a desire to play as Poland (because then putting together a modding team would be much more effective than starting petitions), but a desire to be recognized as a glorious nation. But if that's the point, then a computer game simply is the wrong place to press it. Sorry.

sourboy

Apr 04, 2007, 12:32 PM

How are the French Germanic? :confused: Do you mean the Franks? And if you do, they are not in Civ4 anyway. And in case you didn't know, there are much more than just slavics in Eastern Europe and Russia.
The French are not a Germanic people; they speak a Romance language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks

The Franks or the Frankish peoples were one of several west Germanic federations. They were not originally grouped into one official tribe, but "as with the other barbarians, they belonged to much smaller groups that would join constantly changing confederations."[1] The confederation was formed out of Germanic tribes: Salians, Sicambri, Chamavi, Tencteri, Chattuarii, Bructeri, Usipetes, Ampsivarii, Chatti. Most of those peoples were living at the northern borders of the Rhine in what was then called Francia in the panegyrici Latini.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France

The name France comes from Latin Francia, which literally means "land of the Franks or Frankland".

Algeroth

Apr 04, 2007, 12:38 PM

...And what's more important: efficient. We came back to life, after 1WW. And that's not impressive fact? Tell me how many nations were resurected after 1WW? ...
Well, besides Poland:
Czechoslovakia
Yugoslavia
Finland
Estonia
Lithuania
Latvia

These 6 nations are same efficent as Poland. Why don't add Finland as a new civ?

Giaur

Apr 04, 2007, 12:50 PM

My sources say different: 0,03. Still possitive.

Quoted:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The regions of Poland
Poland is situated in Central Europe, on the Baltic Sea. It covers an area of 312685 km² and is the 9th largest country in Europe. The total population amounts to 38.6 million inhabitants, occupying in this regard 8th place in Europe. Average population density amounts to 124 people per km². Poland is bordered on the east by Russia Federation (Kaliningrad District), Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine, on the west by Germany, on the south by the Czech Republic and Slovakia, and on the north by the Baltic Sea.

The origins of the Polish State reach date back to the IX-X centuries, when the tribes living in the Oder and Vistula river basins united. In 966, Poland adopted Christianity. In its more than 1000-year history, Poland has experienced both, periods of glory, being one of the richest and most powerful country in Central and Eastern Europe (XVth and XVIth century), as well as of downfall, including the loss of independence and the division of its territory between Austria, Prussia and Russia at the end of the XVIII century. After a period of 123 years, Poland regained independence in 1918 only to lose its sovereignty again in the Second World War when invaded by both Germany and the Soviet Union. Its current borders, not determined until the Jalta and Potsdam Conferences and later agreements with Germany and the USSR, enclose territory 78 000 km² smaller than before the war and an ethnically virtually homogeneous population.

In 1989 the first partially free elections in Poland 's post-war history concluded the Solidarity movement's ten-year struggle for freedom and resulted in the defeat of Poland’s communist rulers. In 1998 Poland joined NATO and began negotiating its full membership in the European Union.

A sovereign Polish State, as understood in International Law, was deprived of independence, however, through remaining within the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence (among others, the Warsaw Pact and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance). Since 1989, as a result of changing the political system, Poland became an independent democratic state, with a bicameral National Assembly (Sejm and Senate) elected for a 4-year term as well as with a President chosen in general elections for a 5-year term. In April 1997, the National Assembly passed a new Constitution which, after being affirmed through a national referendum, will replace the existing regulations.

On 1 I 1999 a new fundamental three-tier administrative division of the country was introduced, including the following territorial levels: gminas, powiats and voivodships. A total 308 powiats and 65 cities with powiat status as well as 16 voivodships were created. This change did not affect gminas (the basic unit of the country’s territorial structure).

The Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistical Purposes (NTS) was introduced by a Regulation of the Council of Ministers, dated 13 July 2000. NTS is a five-level hierarchic classification used in the process of collecting information, conducting statistical surveys and presenting their results in spatial terms. The Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistical Purposes (NTS) divides Poland into territorial units on 5 levels: level 1 – regions (6); level 2 – voivodships (16); level 3 – subregions (45); level 4 – powiats and cities with powiat status (314 + 65); level 5 – gminas (2478).

Poland is a lowland country, the average above sea level elevation amounts to 173 m, and areas below 300 m above sea level account for 91% of the country’s area. The country is situated between the Baltic Sea and a bow in the Carpathian Mountains within intermediate geographic latitudes, in a zone of moderate climate with a transitional character between an oceanic and continental climate. A host of historic and cultural sites of European importance and offer numerous tourist attractions are Poland’s 26 national parks and 8 World Heritage sites.

Soils in Poland are characterised by a high degree of diversity; light, low fertility soils, however, predominate. The large diversity of the natural resources, particularly abundant are deposits of hard coal (exploited in the mines of Upper Silesia) and brown coal, extracted through the open-pit method, deposits of copper, sulphur and zinc-lead ores, is closely connected with the geological differentiation. Various rock raw materials as well as rock salt have large economic significance. Poland also has vast deposits of geothermal water. There are numerous sources of therapeutic waters, among others, chloride, hydrogencarbonate and sul phur waters.

The raw material resources and industrial development resulted in the fact that, after the Second World War, Poland became an industrial-agricultural country. The dynamic development of the private sector is based on the continuous inflow of Foreign Direct Investment
and the high level of entrepreneurial activity of the Polish population. Dominant industries include metalwork, steel, chemical and textile production. Increasingly trade, high technology and service sector play an important role in for employment and restructuring of the national economy.

Polish culture is an integral part of European culture. The greatest Poles were: Copernicus
– the astronomer, Fryderyk Chopin – the great composer and pianist, Maria Curie-Skłodowska – the outstanding scientist. Two Polish poets Czesław Miłosz and Wislawa Szymborska have been awarded to the Nobel Prize for literature. A long musical tradition is continued by such world-renowned composers as Krzysztof Penderecki and Henryk Górecki. Films of Andrzej Wajda, Krzysztof Kieślowski and Roman Polański contributed highly to the world and European cinema. Polish art and theatre are well known thanks to works of Jerzy Grotowski, Tadeusz Kantor and Magdalena Abakanowicz.

Poland has 884 cities in which 62% of the country’s population lives. Small cities (below 10 thousand inhabitants) decidedly predominate, while almost half of the urban population live in 42 cities with populations of more than 100 thousand inhabitants. The largest is Warsaw, the capital and the country’s economic and political centre, with about 1.6 million inhabitants. Other Polish cities such as Gdańsk, Kraków, Poznań, and Wrocław are also world-known for their cultural heritage and tourist attractions.

http://forum.europa.eu.int/irc/dsis/regportraits/info/data/en/pl.htm

Giaur

Apr 04, 2007, 12:56 PM

Just try to read me carefully and try to understand. I do not fight with you. And if you do not understand ask me, I will answer. I hope it will remain a disscussion. And I am not nationalist. I put cards on the table, that's all.

TheDuckLover

Apr 04, 2007, 01:13 PM

All the job is done:
TheDuckLover - read my thread [url]http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=193894 and petition (link is in my sig) - you'll see how wrong you are...

They've been wiped off the map 3 times.

Mirc

Apr 04, 2007, 01:37 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France

So, I did expect that you were talking about Franks not Frenchmen. :shake:

You are actually trying to prove how France is Germanic? :lol:

Listen, this logic is so flawed, so wrong, and so lacking arguments that I do not even know how to start. Be prepared to change your opinion, but NOT from my post, from the rest of the world. Find me one historian or one real French guy to agree with you.

Let me try to prove it:

There are several ways in which I can "shoot down" this theory. Here's one:

- the Franks are related to modern French as much as the Hittites are related to modern Turks. Or as much as the Algerians are Phoenicians, or as much as the Mongols are Huns.

- here's another way, let's take it after historic facts: the Franks are migrators. They came over the Roman population that inhabited that area. They founded a state. The founders of a state have nothing to do with the population of the country (modern Greece was founded by an Armenian, Romania was founded by a Cuman, America was "discovered" by Spain. Do I need to give more examples? I can...). The language is still Roman, after the invasions. The tradition are Roman (holidays, songs, etc). Popular clothing is very much like the Italian one. How much exactly do you need to prove the belonging to a cultural family of a country?

- the name does not say anything. Anything at all. Guinea Bissau and Equatorial Guinea and French Guinea, and Guyana are NOT the same country, not inhabited by the same people, and in different continents! Romania has nothing to do with the Romany population (gypsies) or with the Byzantine Empire which is also nicknamed Romania. Iran has nothing to do with Iraq. Do I need to say more?

Listen, these are just some of the possible ways to prove you wrong. Any of these can be explained in a post the length of this one, and I could probably think of at least 2 more ways. I told you, this is so far from true that I don't know how to answer.

My sources say different: 0,03. Still possitive.

Quoted:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Poland has experienced both, periods of glory, being one of the richest and most powerful country in Central and Eastern Europe (XVth and XVIth century), as well as of downfall, including the loss of independence and the division of its territory between Austria, Prussia and Russia at the end of the XVIII century.

Oh really? Stronger than Germany? Than Italy? And do you really want it to compare with countries that existed during its history but that are no more today? Stronger than the Holy Roman Empire? Than today's Sweden? Than Portugal or Netherlands? (they were a colony of Portugal for some time) Than Austria-Hungary? Than the Byzantine Empire? (the Balkans and Italy are in Central Europe, and I can prove it with a map) Stronger than the Soviet Union? Than the Tsarist Empire?

You've got to be kidding me!! :lol:

And this thread made me be even more sure about my opinion. This is just the nationalistic and egoistic wish of some nationalists from Poland.

I'd rather have the Holy Roman Empire or Austria-Hungary over it. Heck, I'd rather have the Papal States!

Giaur

Apr 04, 2007, 01:44 PM

Mirc

Apr 04, 2007, 01:53 PM

So I say goodbay or rather: Farewell.

@Mirc: This was an article, not mine. If were not lazy enough you would clicked the link I left, would not you? Is that so hard? If no, you will stay for me as an ignorant.

edit: learn some basis history before posting ...

It's amazing - when you talk to me and I say something that I prove, you bring no argument and tell me to read history!! God! Talk about ignorance and blind nationalism!! Do you realize you said nothing?! You told me "go read some history". Sorry but so far I proved I know much more than you. Everything I wrote was from what I knew, and I did write a couple of posts here. You just copied an article and told me to read history! And when I disagree with the article, you tell me it's not yours!

Oh and yeah, I clicked the link, before you told me. And it's identical to what you posted. You copied and pasted every single bit of it. Nothing to see there, except for a map. Thank you, but I already knew where Poland is.

johnny5000

Apr 04, 2007, 02:45 PM

sourboy

Apr 04, 2007, 02:52 PM

So, I did expect that you were talking about Franks not Frenchmen. :shake:

I'm not a historian, nor do I care, just forwarding my source... the point initially was that Poland was a good representation (though not the only) of the slavic migration in eastern europe, much like the celts and germs in northern & western europe, as well as a legitmate nation for european 'gunpowder' scenarios likely to come with BTS.

MarkM

Apr 04, 2007, 02:59 PM

my god ... coming back to this after a day, I see the "draft Poland" committee has really gone off the deep end!

Seriously, I think you long ago made your best impression and most convincing argument for Poland. I think continuing in this back and forth is hurting your cause more than it helps (I'm just guessing -- I haven't tried to wade through all these maps etc, to see what was actually said. But that's kinda my poinit, I don't want to have to wade through all that any more). Just some honest friendly advice!

Ishon

Apr 04, 2007, 05:28 PM

I don't think the topic of this discussion is "which new civ is advocated by most people", but exactly: why should Poland be added as a civ in the incoming expansion pack.

It is obvious that Polish players are more in favor of adding Poland than non-Polish players, but this does not change the fact that the Sioux could not build Barracks.

I do not claim that Poland should have been included in Warlords. No, it should not have been included in Warlords.

I claim that Poland must be included in BTS, because there are simply no better 10 candidates. There are strong arguments in favor of the Khmers, Portugal, Netherlands, Babylon, Sumer, etc. But the Sioux/Iroquois were not civilizations. Austria has no single wonder (does it?), it's too similar to Germany and it would be totally mad to put Austria in and leave Poland out. Austria-Hungary does not equal Austria. Sweden? We've got the Vikings. Italy? Let's not found two Romes. Canada/Australia/Brazil - very short history, few achievements.

Some might complain about "Polish nationalism" (forgetting that these "nationalists" are saying the obvious truth that there is simply no way to leave Poland out), but then in turn the non-Americans might complain about the obvious bias of the game in favor of the U.S. The idea of adding the Sioux as a civilization are also part of this. If we add the Sioux, let's add Scythia. Why not add all the primitive folks of the world. What makes the Sioux more important than.. the Vandals? Even Dacia were more of a civilization than what the Sioux were. The Metropolitan Area of Wounded Knee? :D

Poland played a crucial role in the history of Europe and it's been active on the scene for a thousand of years with a 123-year break. Unlike the Vikings.

By the same token, Hungary deserves to be put in in the X expansion pack that theoretically would come after BTS.

Scaramanga

Apr 04, 2007, 06:44 PM

It is obvious that Polish players are more in favor of adding Poland than non-Polish players, but this does not change the fact that the Sioux could not build Barracks.

And Romans never build riflemen. Kind of sounds like Civ is not the game for you if you can't take these little inaccuracies ;).

...the obvious bias of the game in favor of the U.S. The idea of adding the Sioux as a civilization are also part of this.

The idea of adding the Sioux is derived from the fact that the developers think they would be an interesting addition - not because they think people associated with America are better choices, that's all in your head. People talk about Civilization games targeting an "American audience", well, personally I think the developers are just making a game they themselves would enjoy playing, which is not a bad way to make a game. The thing is some of the developers just happen to be American.

I think you're taking the game too seriously. This is not a real international institution like the United Nations or the Olympics and no one should base their view of the world and history solely on this game. That would be worse than not reading articles on Wikipedia with a strong critical attitude, although the game is a helpful learning tool.

Poland played a crucial role in the history of Europe and it's been active on the scene for a thousand of years with a 123-year break. Unlike the Vikings.

Vikings are cool. They are simply an interesting lot not to mention their incredible accomplishments (first Europeans to reach North America). All I read on this thread is that Poland is the land of the Poles so they should be in the game. Yay. Could've found that out on my own, thanks.

Yakk

Apr 04, 2007, 08:37 PM

The sioux provides another civilization to place in north america on world maps. :)

Martinus

Apr 05, 2007, 01:58 AM

Austria has no single wonder

Poland doesn't have a single wonder in Civ4 either.

taillesskangaru

Apr 05, 2007, 02:10 AM

LDeska

Apr 05, 2007, 02:29 AM

The outcry of Polish players is so laud, 'cause we are really disappointed with the fact that we were not included in civ.
I can see that some of Polish posters are quite pushy - please understand them: when they see Sioux being added - and probably Poland will not be.
It's impossible to understand it... what will be the UU of Sioux - Scout? UB - tipi?

If you don't want to accept arguments from Poles - read for example BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1054681.stm I don't think you will say that it is flawed...

If I'll manage to contact our distributor, maybe I will finally post here if we are included, but I suspect that there will be Eskimo civilization to keep civ culturally diversified :D

Martinus

Apr 05, 2007, 04:11 AM

Personally, I don't understand the "outcry" to have Poland included in Civ4. Sure, it could be fun (or not) but the accompanying drama is beyond me. You do not see the same kind of thing from, say, Hungarians, Bohemians or Croats.

What is it with us Poles and rabid nationalism?

P.S. For the record, I like to play on World Maps, so I'd rather have Sioux and Mayans added, so that Aztecs, Americans and Incas do not have an unfair advantage over the Eurasian civs.

Mirc

Apr 05, 2007, 04:34 AM

imho the likelihood of Poland being added by Firaxis in the next expansion is equal to 0.01%. (hides from angry mobs)

But I agree Poland should be added, at least, I think as far as Civ in the next expansion goes Poland is a better choice than, say, Sioux or Byzantines.

Rather than the Byzantines? The Byzantine Empire is a civilization that stood 1000 years more than the Western Roman Empire, under the attacks of hundreds of different tribes of Turks, plus Mongols and Huns, and was abandoned by the western powers (they actually started a crusade against the Byzantines, because they were Orthodox not Catholic, instead of fighting against the Turks), and only fell in 1453, one thousand years after the sack of Rome! An empire under which arts flourished, and people were peaceful. After the turks came, total chaos in the area. It still isn't cleared out today! (ever wondered why there are so many problems with Serbs and Muslims in Bosnia or Kosovo?) I think the Byzantines should have been in Vanilla.

Ishon

Apr 05, 2007, 04:34 AM

The fact that there's much empty space in America doesn't mean we need to pretend there was a civilization there that was not there in reality. When I say that the Sioux could not build Barracks I mean that the Sioux were never a civilization and if we add the Sioux, we should also add the Inuit, Aborigines and Polynesians. Unique building: Igloo or Tipi. Wonders: The Great Tipi, the Ultimate Igloo. Units: Canoe, Boomerang Fighters. This is ridiculous and the reason why the world map is not a fair setting results from the fact that Civ 4 is not a simulation of the real world history. Those who want a simulation should try the Victoria-Hearts of Iron marathon - this is the best and only choice available. Civilization will never be a fair simulation of world history, because it has.. United States of America in ancient America. But there are mods and a Terra map that are a quite reasonable alternative.

There's empty space in Australia, but we don't put imaginary civilizations in there.

Poland has no wonder in Civ4, but it has had a wonder in civ1, 2 and 3. Austria has never had a wonder, nor did Hungary have one.

I agree that Hungary should be one of the next 15 potential civilizations (but not one of the next 10). Reason: less cultural achievements, a less important historical role (Hungary was Austria's equal in Austria-Hungary, Poland played a dominant role in the Commonwealth). Hungary played no important role in the World Wars and it hasn't ever had a civ wonder.