they fit the perfect description of a civ. Stalin should be leader and it would allow easteren europe to be represented.

no they don't.

they fit the perfect description of a civ. Stalin should be leader and it would allow easteren europe to be represented.

I can see it now... "Eastern Bloc has capitulated and has become the vassal of Russia!"

they fit the perfect description of a civ. Stalin should be leader and it would allow easteren europe to be represented.

Only if NATO gets to be a civ as well. Of course, you'd run out of civs pretty fast if you do it that way ... but you're not serious about it anyway, are you?

Ummmm..... heh heh heh.....
EASTERN EUROPE IS F***ING REPRESENTED ALREADY!!!
HRE, Russia. (Which is practically all of Eastern Europe)
There's probably more, but if I hear one more thing about this, I'm going to snap my mouse in half!!!
EASTERN EUROPE IS REPRESENTED!!!!

While we're at it, how about the Terry Fox Foundation?

Warned - Inappropiate Language

Ummmm..... heh heh heh.....
EASTERN EUROPE IS F***ING REPRESENTED ALREADY!!!
HRE, Russia. (Which is practically all of Eastern Europe)
There's probably more, but if I hear one more thing about this, I'm going to snap my mouse in half!!!
EASTERN EUROPE IS REPRESENTED!!!!

While we're at it, how about the Terry Fox Foundation?

Number One, HRE represents central Europe and like 3% of EE. Number Two, almost every non-russian Eastern European would not want to be represented by Russian.

Look at this map

http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?image=234or8.png

Red is present day Russia and the Holy Roman Empire at around 1500. In the coloured boxes represent different parts of Europe, Notice the Eastern Europe box is quite lacking of red?

Now suggesting that HRE and Russia can represent EE just because they conquered it is as bad as saying Japan can represent Korea because of the 1910 annexation or the Ottomans can represent Hungary because of the Battle of Mohacs. Now thats just bad taste

Maybe Transylvania/Romania with Vladimir Dracula as a leader :D

isnt Greece and Byzantine Eastern Europe? Also.. Didnt they ottomans rule parts of EE? I think... the Philippines are underrepresented.

The only part of the world not represented very well is Southeast Asia/ Austrailia region. There is really no civs from there if you look at all the civs on a world map.

HRECentral Europe.
Russia. (Which is practically all of Eastern Europe)An Eastern Orthodox state cannot adequately represent the largely Catholic Eastern Europe. This includes Russia, the Byzantines, and the Greeks.

I'm not one of the people clamoring for Eastern Europe to be better represented, but claiming that they are represented as it is now is just false.

Personally? I'd like to see the Teutonic Order as an Eastern European civ.

Maybe Transylvania/Romania with Vladimir Dracula as a leader :D

Man, I travelled to Transylvania recently, it was awesome (hills, villages, churches, castles, gipsies and off course PA'LINKA)! You got my vote!

edit: Latvia is somewhat represented by Germany, Russia, HRE and off course Vikings,
I'd love to see Balts anyway, but I can just rename Celts for that metter:)

[QUOTE=Peng Qi;5901138]Central Europe.
An Eastern Orthodox state cannot adequately represent the largely Catholic Eastern Europe. This includes Russia, the Byzantines, and the Greeks.
QUOTE]

The point is to represent regions, not religions.

The point is to represent regions, not religions.Culture and religion are often very close to synonymous. This is why Poland's culture developed so differently than Russia's and why Polish posters are not at all satisfied by the inclusion of Russia. This is why Romanian is a latin-derived language and not a Cyrillic or Greek alphabet-based one. Properly representing cultural border zones (which turn out to almost always be religious border zones) isn't exactly an unfair demand for people to be making.

Maybe Transylvania/Romania with Vladimir Dracula as a leader :D

I think Wallachia would be the most appropriate name for that civ.

they fit the perfect description of a civ. Stalin should be leader and it would allow easteren europe to be represented.

Russia obviously is the civilization which represents the eastern bloc. Stalin is even one of the available leaders.

The whole block basically is just Russia and its vassals (in civ terms), started at about 1950 AD (instead of a lot earlier, like the other civs) and ended not even 50 years later, making it very unsuitable as a civ imo.

If anything, they should add a civilization like Czech, Hungaria or Poland (I don't want to start that discussion again, to me the civ choices are fine as they are).

Well i'll start the Polish Hijack, since it'll happen soon anyway.

If it's any civ that deserves to be in, and is in europe and will give nice representation to most E european countries that don't want to be represented by russia, then Poland is the prime choice.

Oh and that Eastern Block thing is completely stupid, ignorant and pathetic.

And HRE can't represent E europe as it's germanic and not slavic/romanian or magyar. (so it ain't eastern european)

Yeah I agree, Poland should be the Eastern Representative. Also disagree with the Eastern Bloc thing. That's like having the United Kingdom in the game... Try to push that one past our Celtic friends, hah!

Please, please... there's an obvious solution to all of this... ;)

We just create a Civilization called Commieland led by Mikhail Gorbachev representing every European country east of Germany and everybody's happy:mischief:

:goodjob:

Ok, then can we have "Free Poland" protests like they do for Tibet? ;)

I could see some kind of Slavic civ, but there really hasn't ever been a true united Slavic nation or anything.

The only part of the world not represented very well is Southeast Asia/ Austrailia region. There is really no civs from there if you look at all the civs on a world map.

Southeast Asia has Khmer and two leaders for India... Now, I'm not going to say it shouldn't have more, of course, but they're there. Australia's an interesting case because it'd have to be the Aboriginal cultures, and they're not really what you'd consider a Civ, per se. It can't be modern Australia because--and, mind you, this is just an opinion--the population isn't large enough and it hasn't been around long enough. As I said, that's an opinion and as such has about as much weight as you'd expect for an opinion =P

Polynesian cultures could be done... But then you run into the problem of over-generalizing. Unless you could point to a specific nation (ie: Tahiti, Hawai'i, etc) you'd be saying that all of them, taken together, amount to one civ. That's a little insulting, again an opinion. More patronizing than insulting, but still both.

Yeah I agree, Poland should be the Eastern Representative. Also disagree with the Eastern Bloc thing. That's like having the United Kingdom in the game... Try to push that one past our Celtic friends, hah!Honestly, I think the Teutonic Order would be a better choice. :D

they fit the perfect description of a civ. Stalin should be leader and it would allow easteren europe to be represented.

Could you tell me why they fit perfectly the description of a Civ? I'm not seeing it.

Would you care to back up the Teutonic Order? If it were up to me, I'd have two "German" civs in the game: Prussia and Austria. None of this HRE garbage. Although, my interest is somewhat piqued as to why you would suggest the Teutonic Order.

Could you tell me why they fit perfectly the description of a Civ? I'm not seeing it.

Would you care to back up the Teutonic Order? If it were up to me, I'd have two "German" civs in the game: Prussia and Austria. None of this HRE garbage. Although, my interest is somewhat piqued as to why you would suggest the Teutonic Order.

Yes i completely agree with Antilogic. (as always :P your name doesn't make sense comapared to the comments you make! :P ) I would've thrown away Germany, and added Prussia and Austria straight from the beginning.

That way, HRE is quite represented,
There is no hitler crap
and IMO Austria and Prussia alone have been more influential and more "amazing" then germany has.

AND the Teutonic order is represented through Prussia

AND WE GET AUSTRIA!!! (YAY)

Yes i completely agree with Antilogic. (as always :P your name doesn't make sense comapared to the comments you make! :P ) I would've thrown away Germany, and added Prussia and Austria straight from the beginning.

That way, HRE is quite represented,
There is no hitler crap
and IMO Austria and Prussia alone have been more influential and more "amazing" then germany has.

AND the Teutonic order is represented through Prussia

AND WE GET AUSTRIA!!! (YAY)


You may want to give the Mod I'm working on a try, then...it's a Minimal Mod, so there aren't a whole bunch of new features or anything, but I revised a number of things Firaxis did that I don't care for all that much. All I'm doing right now is renaming the HRE, Charlemagne, and reworking the city list, but it's a start. :)

I think a separate Austria and Prussia (with some shared city names for central Europe) most accurately reflects central European history, gives the dynamic of having them fighting each other or allied, etc. The only thing I'm unhappy with is that I would not be able to add Otto I, Barbarossa, or Charlemagne in...which I think are quite deserving leaders, but simply do not fit with this model. Prussia would have Friedrich and Bismarck, and Austria Charles V. Not sure about any others that could be added...

You may want to give the Mod I'm working on a try, then...it's a Minimal Mod, so there aren't a whole bunch of new features or anything, but I revised a number of things Firaxis did that I don't care for all that much. All I'm doing right now is renaming the HRE, Charlemagne, and reworking the city list, but it's a start. :)

I think a separate Austria and Prussia (with some shared city names for central Europe) most accurately reflects central European history, gives the dynamic of having them fighting each other or allied, etc. The only thing I'm unhappy with is that I would not be able to add Otto I, Barbarossa, or Charlemagne in...which I think are quite deserving leaders, but simply do not fit with this model. Prussia would have Friedrich and Bismarck, and Austria Charles V. Not sure about any others that could be added...

Hey, post this to Cybrxkhan, we're working on a mod to, you might want to check it out. a link is here (http://forums.civunited.net/viewforum.php?f=90&sid=dc07298366f345b3a856a0726a73fa07)

I could see some kind of Slavic civ, but there really hasn't ever been a true united Slavic nation or anything.

No, and why would there be one when you consider the population, the religion, and the distance between Slavic civs? Western Europe is just as fragmented, hence Firaxis made Western European civilizations the most numerous group in the game.

Hey, post this to Cybrxkhan, we're working on a mod to, you might want to check it out. a link is here (http://forums.civunited.net/viewforum.php?f=90&sid=dc07298366f345b3a856a0726a73fa07)

This'll be my last off-topic post, then I'll get back to debating whatever it was we should have been debating (I'm waiting for some defense of the Eastern Bloc).

I've seen some of your work on WoL, but my mod is a more casual thing I'm doing with the XML--not really compatible with your more ambitious projects. I'll probably be done with most of the work in another week or two of casual "hour here, hour there" XML modding, and I'll post it on Civfanatics, of course.

Well the mongols just had a bunch of vassal states and they got in.

Would you care to back up the Teutonic Order?
...
Although, my interest is somewhat piqued as to why you would suggest the Teutonic Order.1. It's a form of governance not currently represented by any country in the game. Heck, there's not even a civic for "Knightly Order;" Representation/Vassalage/Theocracy would probably be the closest you could get.
2. Their coat of arms is freaking sweet.
3. They brought Christianity to Prussia and pressure from them helped convert the Lithuanians.
4. They consolidated power in the Baltic when they absorbed the Livonian Order.
5. They had a reputation for being completely invincible until the Battle of Grunwald.
6. They still exist today, just on a much smaller scale and no longer as warriors.

Oh, and I'm not saying that Poland shouldn't be in the game. I'd just personally prefer the Teutonic Order if we only got to have one eastern European civ. :D

1. It's a form of governance not currently represented by any country in the game. Heck, there's not even a civic for "Knightly Order;" Representation/Vassalage/Theocracy would probably be the closest you could get.
2. Their coat of arms is freaking sweet.
3. They brought Christianity to Prussia and pressure from them helped convert the Lithuanians.
4. They consolidated power in the Baltic when they absorbed the Livonian Order.
5. They had a reputation for being completely invincible until the Battle of Grunwald.
6. They still exist today, just on a much smaller scale and no longer as warriors.

Oh, and I'm not saying that Poland shouldn't be in the game. I'd just personally prefer the Teutonic Order if we only got to have one eastern European civ. :D


Barely civ worthy with the Points you mentioned.

well if what he says is hardly a civ then how about one that was united in the 10th century fell apart in the 12th century. then reunited again, went into a golden age only to have its land and people terrorized because they werent strong enough to keep out invaders, and then have a completely backward government leaving it in Anarchy, and eventually being erased from the map.
Then relies on the French to reestablish them. only to be ripped apart again a few years later. Then had to be restored by the United States a hundred years later. then a few years later completely conquered and ripped apart again, becoming a place of death to 6 million people. Then restored by Russia as a communist Puppet nation. and finally made itself a nation.

I mean I have nothing against said nation, and think it would be an ok add on but others are more deserving, and it really is bordering the East and Central, so it shouldnt be the represenative. And dont get mad I only shot this down cause you said his was barely a civ, when the Said nation was ripped apart and reestablished by other nations and through most of it's history wasn't listed on a map.

Frankly the Warsaw Pact and NATO are the modern equivalents of the HRE, which got in. So bring 'em on (or kick Burger King's fake civ out, I say).

Barely civ worthy with the Points you mentioned.I disagree, obviously. They were pretty much the major power in their region for a few hundred years, even repeatedly defeating the Poles and Lithuanians who were much larger and had more manpower available.

Has anyone ever made a list of all of the best candidates to represent Eastern Europe?

How Austria and Poland got passed up in favor of the HRE will always be amazing to me.

How Austria and Poland got passed up in favor of the HRE will always be amazing to me.

Hell I'd put 6 Scientists in Antarctica in before the HRE.

How Austria and Poland got passed up in favor of the HRE will always be amazing to me.Seems like Wallachia, Serbia, and Hungary would have been better choices in my opinion, as well (Wallachia for the same reason Zulus are a nation: famous and potent military leader).

Maybe they were copying Medieval II? :p

The reason for the HRE is clear enough - they really wanted to put Charlemagne in but Firaxis are a bunch of moral cowards and didn't want any controversy over whether he should be a leader for France or Germany or whatever. And so, the HRE is born!

I really cant get it why people are so obsessed by the lack of eastern european civ's. Whats the big deal here? Would it make you feel better?
Its a game allright? And if you REALLY want to play as one of those countries, just chose a leader / civ of your choice and rename it. The option is there, its up to you to use it.

I really cant get it why people are so obsessed by the lack of eastern european civ's. Whats the big deal here? Would it make you feel better?
Its a game allright? And if you REALLY want to play as one of those countries, just chose a leader / civ of your choice and rename it. The option is there, its up to you to use it.

And how about the real leader? and the UU and UB?

I disagree, obviously. They were pretty much the major power in their region for a few hundred years, even repeatedly defeating the Poles and Lithuanians who were much larger and had more manpower available.

Has anyone ever made a list of all of the best candidates to represent Eastern Europe?

If tehre's a lsit, i think it goes something like this:

1. Austria and Poland tie
2. Hungary
3. Romania
4. Serbia/yugoslavia
5. Ukraine

Not sure about 4 and 5. They could be switched around.

Austria Is Not F****cking Eastern European!!!!! Not In Any Respect!!!!!!!

Warned - Inappropiate Language

Austria Is Not F****cking Eastern European!!!!! Not In Any Respect!!!!!!!

Depands on how you see it.

I think it's debatable if Austria is in Eastern Europe or not.

If you don't include Austria, then Poland's the #1 option. :D

And how about the real leader? and the UU and UB?

You tell me, why would they waste time and my diskspace with leaders that never accomplished something.

I can think of one polish person that did something remarkable, and that was Nicolaus Copernicus, but he was a astronomer, not a leader. (just an example, dont cry to me about racism).

To evil twin: The warsaw pact and NATO are not like the HRE because all they were were alliances during a war...also, while you could make a strong argument for or against Poland being in, don't say Poland will help represent the other countries not in. Unless their city list goes like this:
Warsaw
Krakau
Prague
Budapest
Wallachia etc.
Now, though eastern europe is rather underrepresented, there are plenty of less deserving people than the HRE. Why aren't people shelling them for putting three leaders on some civs and some deserving civs (arguably Austria, making two native american civs, and poland) don't get any, I don't know. The reason people are shelling the HRE is because they 'took' Poland's spot. BS. They should be shelling De Gaulle, Churchill, and Lincoln (or any less deserving leaders, be they Louis XIV, Lizzy, etc.) because this is the true imbalance. England and France get three while Austria and Poland cease to exist? The Celts get two while Spain and Japan get one? Lincoln comes in instead of a Sioux/Iroquois split?

You tell me, why would they waste time and my diskspace with leaders that never accomplished something.

I can think of one polish person that did something remarkable, and that was Nicolaus Copernicus, but he was a astronomer, not a leader. (just an example, dont cry to me about racism).

well Boudica and Brennus are leaders, and they accomplished just as much as Sobieski did. Same could be said about a couple of other leaders to.

To evil twin: The warsaw pact and NATO are not like the HRE because all they were were alliances during a war...also, while you could make a strong argument for or against Poland being in, don't say Poland will help represent the other countries not in. Unless their city list goes like this:
Warsaw
Krakau
Prague
Budapest
Wallachia etc.
Now, though eastern europe is rather underrepresented, there are plenty of less deserving people than the HRE. Why aren't people shelling them for putting three leaders on some civs and some deserving civs (arguably Austria, making two native american civs, and poland) don't get any, I don't know. The reason people are shelling the HRE is because they 'took' Poland's spot. BS. They should be shelling De Gaulle, Churchill, and Lincoln (or any less deserving leaders, be they Louis XIV, Lizzy, etc.) because this is the true imbalance. England and France get three while Austria and Poland cease to exist? The Celts get two while Spain and Japan get one? Lincoln comes in instead of a Sioux/Iroquois split?

What i meant is, would a slovak rather be represented by Poland or Russia? The answer: They'd rather be by none, but if they'd have to chose between 1, they'd rather be represented by poland then by russia.

NATO exists outside of wartime. So did the Warsaw Pact.
They're military alliances.. but what in the hell do you think the HRE was? For all it's pomp and delusions of grandeur, that's what it was - a military alliance of Christian nations. It was not a nation, not an empire and sure as bloody hell not a civ.

If tehre's a lsit, i think it goes something like this:

1. Austria and Poland tie
2. Hungary
3. Romania
4. Serbia/yugoslavia
5. Ukraine

Not sure about 4 and 5. They could be switched around.

Ukraine before Bulgaria?? Strange, maybe if you count Kievan Rus' as Ukraine, otherwise I don't see the logic.

Ukraine before Bulgaria?? Strange, maybe if you count Kievan Rus' as Ukraine, otherwise I don't see the logic.

gah got bulgaria and romania mixed up.

i meant 3. Bulgaria, 4. Serbia/yugoslavia 5. Ukraine and 6. Romania.

Well the mongols just had a bunch of vassal states and they got in.

Yeah, I mean conquering half the of Asia and subdueing the China, the greatest nation on earth then while being the biggest threat to Europe since Atilla and producing two other great empires (Mughal)(Timurd) is so easy

well if what he says is hardly a civ then how about one that was united in the 10th century fell apart in the 12th century. then reunited again, went into a golden age only to have its land and people terrorized because they werent strong enough to keep out invaders, and then have a completely backward government leaving it in Anarchy, and eventually being erased from the map.
Then relies on the French to reestablish them. only to be ripped apart again a few years later. Then had to be restored by the United States a hundred years later. then a few years later completely conquered and ripped apart again, becoming a place of death to 6 million people. Then restored by Russia as a communist Puppet nation. and finally made itself a nation.

I mean I have nothing against said nation, and think it would be an ok add on but others are more deserving, and it really is bordering the East and Central, so it shouldnt be the represenative. And dont get mad I only shot this down cause you said his was barely a civ, when the Said nation was ripped apart and reestablished by other nations and through most of it's history wasn't listed on a map.

Poland for a good 600 years kept invaders out and even took the capital of its greatest Rival, Russia. You make poland sound too like its a piece of crap when its not. Take any nation and I can write about it that way. Lets take China for example, we can all agree it was one of the greatest empires ever I can easily say:

Had Centuries of Civil War before being establish under cruel dictatorship, fell apart and seperated and rejoined several times before having a golden age then got super weaken by a peasant rebellion than collaspe, more civil war then invaded by "barbarians" twice then turned into a puppet of western powers then collaspe, then get invaded by Japanese and crush and relied on American help to win. Then another civil war and a revoloution and massacre. That is the history of China

See what I mean?



If tehre's a lsit, i think it goes something like this:

1. Austria and Poland tie
2. Hungary
3. Romania
4. Serbia/yugoslavia
5. Ukraine

Not sure about 4 and 5. They could be switched around.

I would have place it as

1. Poland - 1000 years of self rule, history, conquest, victories, failures and richness and also the only nation in my top 5 never to be ottoman. I call it most worthy
2. Wallachia - The biggest pain to Ottoman before 1700 other than Austria
3. Hungary - See 1, scratch ottoman bit and shorten number of years
4. Bulgaria - Posed as a great threat to the Byzantiums
5. Serbia - Was actually a nation before 1850

The civs are also split in time groups. Taking this under account, my list is:

Early Medieval - Bulgaria. The best UU for Bulgaria would be an anti-knight unit that fits well with Bulgarian victories v. the Byzantines, the Arabs, and the 4th Crusade. I good UB would be religious/educational one that reflects Bulgarian importance for the spread of the Cyrillic alphabet and Orthodox Christianity. Such an UB will also "explain" how Bulgaria resisted the cultural influence of Constatinople in game terms.

High Medieval - Hungary. I see Hungarian UU as a mounted unit good for raiding, for which they were much feared throughout Europe. Hungarian UB may be a Castle version. When the Mongols invaded, the Hungarian army was defeated however the castles withstood the invasion. Sure, the Mongols did not put much effort in siege as they did in China, but it is a fact Hungary had some of the best castles of the time. Moreover, a castle UB better portraits the Hungarian decline against the Ottomans and their gunpowered units.

Renaissance and beyond - Poland. Winged Hussars (Cuirassiers with bonus v pikes/muskets, obviously weak v Cossacks). My Polish UB idea is a Grocer that improves food in some way (+ health on grain resources, or +1 food for each grain resource in the fat cross, or slightly improved granary effect for growth).

^^^ the only problem with that is that Poland (and hungary to i think) were states long before those era's.

And Poland even had a golden age before the Renaissance.

Austria Is Not F****cking Eastern European!!!!! Not In Any Respect!!!!!!!It is as Austria-Hungary.
well Boudica and Brennus are leaders, and they accomplished just as much as Sobieski did. Same could be said about a couple of other leaders to.Actually, Boudica accomplished almost nothing. The only reason she is well known is because she was female. She basically butchered a few local militias, and as soon as an actual army showed up her men (and their families) were slaughtered in one of the most horrific and catastrophic battles the world has ever seen.
4. Bulgaria - Posed as a great threat to the ByzantiumsWhat I think is cool about Bulgaria and the Byzantines is that the Bulgarians realized what a threat Mehmed was and actually randomly showed up to help the Byzantines a few times when Constantinople was under siege.

Actually Boudica is mostly known for razing Londinium in revenge for Roman atrocities. Granted, this was largely due to the Roman garrison being complacent and ineffective.
Then again having a "Celtic" civ at all is silly, let alone it's leaders.

Actually Boudica is mostly known for razing Londinium in revenge for Roman atrocities. Granted, this was largely due to the Roman garrison being complacent and ineffective.
Then again having a "Celtic" civ at all is silly, let alone it's leaders.Well, a lot of Celtic history is non-recorded. I mean, they were as far south as Spain, so their history would probably be a lot more interesting if we knew more about it.

1. It's a form of governance not currently represented by any country in the game. Heck, there's not even a civic for "Knightly Order;" Representation/Vassalage/Theocracy would probably be the closest you could get.
2. Their coat of arms is freaking sweet.
3. They brought Christianity to Prussia and pressure from them helped convert the Lithuanians.
4. They consolidated power in the Baltic when they absorbed the Livonian Order.
5. They had a reputation for being completely invincible until the Battle of Grunwald.
6. They still exist today, just on a much smaller scale and no longer as warriors.

Oh, and I'm not saying that Poland shouldn't be in the game. I'd just personally prefer the Teutonic Order if we only got to have one eastern European civ. :D

I would say 1. is an issue with the civics system, not with a player civilization. That being said, having 5^5 options for Civics choices is still pretty solid for a game like Civ, and as you said, Representation-Vassalage-Theocracy does give that impression. I don't see this as a problem or reason to include the Teutons.

I won't even respond to 2. Try to guess why.

6. Has little to do with whether or not some civilization is entered into the ranks of "Civilization" civs. Babylon and Sumeria don't exist today in any form close to their original states, Ethiopia is long past its prime, China and Egypt have been around in some form or another for millenia, and the United States, counting the Colonial period, is roughly only 400 years old.

3-5, I will consider as serious arguments for them. Religious influence on masses of people and martial prowess are two things that will earn places in Civ... But, Prussia exists as more appropriately Germany, and simply having influence on the politics or religion of another country isn't a strong argument for inclusion. Besides, Austria was a preeminent Catholic nation at the time, and representative of the HRE for centuries. They have an important role in European religious history as well (see Charles V or the Thirty Years' War). Consolidating power in a small area doesn't necessarily warrant inclusion as well: several civilizations, such as Poland and the Hittites, have done the same. Having a strong military reputation is good as well, but the Hittites also had an incredible reputation for slaughtering Egyptians.

I would rather see Prussia and Austria instead of Germany and the HRE. If I had to pick more, I would select the Hittites before anyone else, unless somebody else can post a very convincing argument.

Boudica is an oddball choice for a leader--highly overrated, if you ask me. If they really wanted to include another woman, they could have probably gone for two Byzantine leaders, and picked Basil II and Theodora over Justinian.

@meatwad4289: Poland actually was on the map quite often during its history, and was quite large, for several hundred years. How about you actually take a look at some of these maps before commenting further on the matter: www.euratlas.com. If you count the Polanes as their precursor, they are on all the maps from 800 CE onward (if you only count a formal "kingdom" or "duchy", then 1000 CE onward) to the 1700 CE map. The 19th-20th centuries saw them not at their prime, but to say they weren't even on the map for most of their history is flagrantly inaccurate. The 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th century maps are of particular interest.

It is as Austria-Hungary.


which isnt the same as Austria. No more than Russia is the USSR

which isnt the same as Austria. No more than Russia is the USSRAnd yet Stalin is a leader of Russia in Civ 4.

Yeah, I mean conquering half the of Asia and subdueing the China, the greatest nation on earth then while being the biggest threat to Europe since Atilla and producing two other great empires (Mughal)(Timurd) is so easy



well the eastern bloc goes from the far end of Asia all the way to eastern Europe and it also has spawned several successful nations. Not to mention they where also more influential then the mongals.

well the eastern bloc goes from the far end of Asia all the way to eastern Europe and it also has spawned several successful nations. Not to mention they where also more influential then the mongals.

Really? More influential than the Mongols? Care to qualify that statement?

And yet Stalin is a leader of Russia in Civ 4.

I know, but its wrong. the man was never the "leader of Russia", he wasnt even Russian, but as he was one of the most influential people with the top job in the Kremlin ever, he got in. But he was not 'leader of Russia'

The eastern bloc was an entity for 45 years, and that's counting generously. That's like a squirrel's turd in a dungheap from a thousand camels in the greater scheme of things. There is more to history than the 20th century, you know.

The only reason to include the eastern bloc would be some stupid scenario about the cuban missile crisis or the vietnam war leading to WWIII or some crap like that (totally boring if you ask me, but to each his/her own i suppose).:deadhorse:

I'd love a cold war scenario, so obviously that would include it. but otherwise, not a chance

There is more to history than the 20th century, you know.

:D

And I didn't have to say it! Thank you!

Poland for a good 600 years kept invaders out and even took the capital of its greatest Rival, Russia. You make poland sound too like its a piece of crap when its not. Take any nation and I can write about it that way. Lets take China for example, we can all agree it was one of the greatest empires ever I can easily say:



lol my point wasn't to say Poland isn't deserving, it was that the poster I was responding to rejected another posters idea by saying the Civ he wanted in was Hardly a civ. So I took certain points in polish history and gave negative spin towards it, never referring to poland( or atleast I tried not lol) in the text as a subtle hint saying that you want these guys in, and yet everytime they existed the got conquered, making them "hardly a civ"

I didn't wish to give the impression I was anti poland, I just ment to say, don't turn down other peoples ideas especially when there's really no bases to turn them down. I could careless if Poland is in or not, it be one more civ bowing before me. But I'd rather have one that I know is gonna be a good challenge. I don't need the same personalities that most in the European Civs have, 9 times otu of 10 i feel like i'm dealing with the same people. Thats why Shaka, Monty, and Toku are really nice to have in a game. Stalin doesn't live up to his potential. the Modded in Hitler is always fun choice. Gilgamesh I hate so much, but thats cause he kicked my ass in a game where if he wasnt involved I would of been fine lol. but the Caesars, Alexander, Bismark, Fredrick, Churchill, Victoria, and Degaul all seem about the same to me. They select one or two enemies through out the game, and love everyone else. Alexander is the only one of them that I think changed in BtS because He acts a little bit like a mix of Augustus and Gilgamesh. but idk thats just my opinion.

Really? More influential than the Mongols? Care to qualify that statement?They spread communism all over the planet where it still survives today in places like china Vietnam and north korea and countless communist rebel groups

...

The Eastern Bloc and the Soviet Union aren't the same thing, for one. The Eastern Bloc is comprised of a bunch of smaller, mostly East European countries that are beneath the Soviet Union, and essentially (in Civ terms) vassal states of the Soviet Union, which itself is a conglomeration of various "countries" under the Bolsheviks and the Communists that came after them. I would credit the Soviet Union with spreading communism, but not the Eastern Bloc. Didn't those Eastern Block countries stage uprisings against the Soviet Union as well?

And the spread of "Communist" ideology really took off in Revolutions of 1848, the writing and publishing of the Communist Manifesto, decades before the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc existed. There were strong advocates and unions in favor of communist policies long before the Eastern Bloc appeared on the scene. And, on the Eastern Bloc "spreading" communism to China and East Asia...well, the Chinese communists were fighting the Nationalists before WW2 started, and the Warsaw Pact, the alliance of countries which I presume is what the "Eastern Bloc" above is referring to, was formed after WW2. So, the chronology doesn't really work out for you, there. Unless, of course, your definition of "Eastern Bloc" and mine differ.

Also, you do realize there is more to history than the 20th century, right? Spreading communism to Vietnam isn't exactly a bragworthy accomplishment, especially compared to the Mongols, who built the largest empire the world has ever seen, invented tactics literally centuries before their time, held tolerance of many religious faiths instead of inquisitions, and restored trade routes linking the Western Europeans with China?