Polynesia? Seriously!?

So there are still many, many empires that still need to make their debut in Civ V.
Lets take a look from a poll taken quite a while ago.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=368424

People have voted for many important and influencial civs that they would like to play as. These include:
-Vikings, who controlled the North Atlantic for many years
-Carthaginians, famous empire of North Africa and rivals of Rome
-Portugal, large empire that controlled much of India, Africa, and South America
-Dutch, built a very prosperous empire with territories everywhere
-Sumerians, 1st to develop many early technologies, like writing
-Mayans, built massive pyramids all over the Yucutan penninsula
-Celtics not really a unified state so they can't be placed in this comparison.
and lets not forget the Byzantines who controlled 1/4 of Europe for 600 years.

Yet something doesn't make sense. Out of all these prosprous empires the developers made an odd choice. The Polynesian empire. What?Come Again? Yes, you hear me correctly.

The Lets go pack to those poll results: only 1/10 people voted that the Polynesians should be in the game. They recieved less votes than any other civilization on the ballot.

The Polynesian empire is a non-existen empire lead by Kamehameha I. I'd also like to point out that Kamehameha was Hawaiian. Hawaii is not part of Polynesia and I know Hawaiians come from there.
But Polynesia at no point in history were ever united under one rule. The area is a massive amount of tiny islands spread over thousands of miles.

Polynesia today is made up of:
-French territory
-English territory
-American territory
-Solomon islands
-Papua New Guinea
and Vanuatu

So why, you may be asking did the developers decide over all other civs to put the Polynesian empire in the game? Good Question! Lets get some responses and maybe we can find out!

1) Since when have the developers shown that they care what the majority of civ players want?
2) I think Kamehameha was actually a little bit before Napoleon.
3) He was Hawaiian, but it is disputable whether or not he built an empire. Empire: a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government: usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom. If you consider those who lived on different islands as their own civilizations or cultures, then Kamehameha did build a Hawaiian empire.
4) Yes, Polynesia is not a country today. But neither is Songhai, Siam, Carthage, Rome, Celtia, Aztec, Inca, Maya, Iroquois, or the Byzantines.
5) The developers probably thought that the game needed a civilization from an ignored part of the world, just for a little bit of diversity.

I'd compare them to the Iroquois: Nearly neolithic and insignificant, but more unique than, say, Carthage, and in a more unique area than, say, the Dutch.
Edit: Derrick you beat me to the punch.

People have voted for many important and influencial civs that they would like to play as. These include:
-Vikings, who controlled the North Atlantic for many years

Click to expand...

No they didn't. They dominated the European coastline, settled significant stretches of territroy, and dominated into Ukraine, but they didn't "control" the north Atlantic (that would imply they could exclude it from someone else).

-Carthaginians, famous empire of North Africa and rivals of Rome
-Portugal, large empire that controlled much of India, Africa, and South America
-Dutch, built a very prosperous empire with territories everywhere
-Sumerians, 1st to develop many early technologies, like writing
-Mayans, built massive pyramids all over the Yucutan penninsula
Celtics, controlled much of western europe and also rivals of Rome
and lets not forget the Byzantines who controlled 1/4 of Europe for 600 years.

Click to expand...

Using the same logic as you have for the Celts, how about controlled the entire Pacific ocean from Australia to Hawaii?

But Polynesia at no point in history were ever united under one rule.

Click to expand...

Celts at no point were united under one rule.

As for polls, I've been told the 2K poll is a bit different than the CFC poll.

They topped polls on the 2k forums apparently. I find having a polynesian civ to be a breath of fresh air for the euro centric game.

Louis XXIV said:

No they didn't. They dominated the European coastline, settled significant stretches of territroy, and dominated into Ukraine, but they didn't "control" the north Atlantic (that would imply they could exclude it from someone else).



Using the same logic as you have for the Celts, how about controlled the entire Pacific ocean from Australia to Hawaii?



Celts at no point were united under one rule.

As for polls, I've been told the 2K poll is a bit different than the CFC poll.

Click to expand...

Yeah but celts have contributed something to modern society. Something the polyneisans haven't. And many ares of celti land were unified variously. Not the case with the thousands of miles of polynesian ocea.

jtb1127 said:

Yeah but celts have contributed something to modern society. Something the polyneisans haven't. And many ares of celti land were unified variously. Not the case with the thousands of miles of polynesian ocea.

Click to expand...

Music and paradise dreams.

And Coconut bras.

jtb1127 said:

Yeah but celts have contributed something to modern society. Something the polyneisans haven't. And many ares of celti land were unified variously. Not the case with the thousands of miles of polynesian ocea.

Click to expand...

Why do we care how much they contributed to modern society? And once again, what is modern society, euro centric modern society? I'm sure Hawaii and other Pacific Islands would say they they have a rich heritage.

Polynesians were also able to navigate oceans long before other parts of the world. I am glad we have an under represented part of the world finally represented.

They dominated the European coastline, settled significant stretches of territroy, and dominated into Ukraine, but they didn't "control" the north Atlantic

Click to expand...

Your usage of the word dominate and the usage of my word, controlled, are completely interchangeable. So what point are you making? "No, they didn't controll the north Atlantic, they controlled alot more." Well it suits my cause. So why are you arguing?

jtb1127 said:

Yeah but celts have contributed something to modern society. Something the polyneisans haven't. And many ares of celti land were unified variously. Not the case with the thousands of miles of polynesian ocea.

Click to expand...

try "wiki"

and surfing

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

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

just because they didn't influence YOUR part of the world doesn't mean they aren't influential

Polynesians were also able to navigate oceans long before other parts of the world. I am glad we have an under represented part of the world finally represented.

Click to expand...

Yeah, maybe an under-represented part of the world is finally being represented. But is this part of the world deserving of representation? And I do find the paradise refreshing and warm, but let's put them in after the important civs.

And I don't find their culture inferior, I'm just wondering if this a joke. Which I think it is.

jtb1127 said:

Yeah but celts have contributed something to modern society. Something the polyneisans haven't. And many ares of celti land were unified variously. Not the case with the thousands of miles of polynesian ocea.

Click to expand...

Celts contributed in specific cases (i.e., to Irish and Scottish society, to English or French society). Did it contribute to Russian society? Hawaiian culture has contributed to American society. Polynesian culture has contributed to all of Southeast Asia and Oceanic societies. Australia and New Zealand would be very different places without out them. I could go on, but we have a whole other thread for this. Simply put, the Polynesian Pacific Expansion was one of the greatest achievements in human history.

Also, Celts were never unified, unless you're counting when Rome conquered them. There were small Kingdoms and random coalitions to fight Rome that failed, but that's about it. By comparison, the Tu'i Tonga empire actually had a decent geographic size and was quite different as far as empires go.

jtb1127 said:

People have voted for many important and influencial civs that they would like to play as. These include:
-Vikings, who controlled the North Atlantic for many years
-Carthaginians, famous empire of North Africa and rivals of Rome
-Portugal, large empire that controlled much of India, Africa, and South America
-Dutch, built a very prosperous empire with territories everywhere
-Sumerians, 1st to develop many early technologies, like writing
-Mayans, built massive pyramids all over the Yucutan penninsula
Celtics, controlled much of western europe and also rivals of Rome
and lets not forget the Byzantines who controlled 1/4 of Europe for 600 years.

Click to expand...

Every one of those civs is available in civ4 (and many of them in civ1-3). Polynesia hasn't been in 1,2,3 or 4. I like the variety.

Louis XXIV said:

Celts contributed in specific cases (i.e., to Irish and Scottish society, to English or French society). Did it contribute to Russian society? Hawaiian culture has contributed to American society. Polynesian culture has contributed to all of Southeast Asia and Oceanic societies. Australia and New Zealand would be very different places without out them. I could go on, but we have a whole other thread for this. Simply put, the Polynesian Pacific Expansion was one of the greatest achievements in human history.

Also, Celts were never unified, unless you're counting when Rome conquered them. There were small Kingdoms and random coalitions to fight Rome that failed, but that's about it. By comparison, the Tu'i Tonga empire actually had a decent geographic size and was quite different as far as empires go.

Click to expand...

All right here we have sme answers to why they might be in the game. They traveled great distances across the pacific. That was one of the questions asked in the original post. But still, with no unification, (Celtics had kingdoms) and Kamehameha I being the leader, I ask, why are they going to be in this game when there is not really such a thing? Celtics are eliminated.

Read page 4 here to get some serious facts & skim over a few more replies while you're there... i would have preferred Vikings but i'll take Polynesia - as well.

Yzman said:

They topped polls on the 2k forums apparently. I find having a polynesian civ to be a breath of fresh air for the euro centric game.

Click to expand...

Links to some of the 2k forums DLC polls.

Poll 1
Poll 2
Poll 3
Poll 4
Previous Top 10 Edition
Current Top 10 Edition

Polynesia was the winner in the 3rd one. However, the "Previous Top 10" poll seems to show that Polynesia got less overall votes than some of the Civs from other polls, regardless of what place those Civs got in their particular poll.

It appears they wanted to do a Civ from an under represented part of the world more than they wanted to go with Civs that got the most overall votes.

Celtics had Kingdoms, so did some Polynesians. I just mentioned the Tu'i Tonga Empire for a reason. Tongan Empire and the Kingdom of Hawaii are two notable examples that represent political achievements. Honestly, Celtic Kingdoms were actually kinda small where they existed at all. And I'm saying this as someone who wants the Celts in the game (no good leader really, so I would still recommend Boudica of the Iceni). I don't think the inclusion of one means the exclusion of the other.

I also don't think the Pacific expansion (the greatest migration in human history) can be summed up as "they traveled great distances."

ETA" map of Roman Britain - you can see Boudica's Kingdom (the Iceni) on the far right north of Colchester. And here's one for the continent.

Links to some of the 2k forums DLC polls. I think Polynesia was in one or two of them.

Click to expand...

They're only in poll number 3 which is made up of other indigenous groups.

Louis XXIV said:

Celtics had Kingdoms, so did some Polynesians. I just mentioned the Tu'i Tonga Empire for a reason. Tongan Empire and the Kingdom of Hawaii are two notable examples that represent political achievements. Honestly, Celtic Kingdoms were actually kinda small where they existed at all. And I'm saying this as someone who wants the Celts in the game (no good leader really, so I would still recommend Boudica of the Iceni). I don't think the inclusion of one means the exclusion of the other.

I also don't think the Pacific expansion (the greatest migration in human history) can be summed up as "they traveled great distances."

Click to expand...

Okay so there was a Polynesian empire. But why don't they just make them and not the Polynesians under Kamehameha?

When I first inserted the Civilization floppy into my Amiga I was like 14 and I couldn't really understand what are Americans doing on the list of empires. I thought it was very haughty of a barely 200-years old nation to try and fit into the league of historically really important empires. Then I saw Zulu and everything was made clear - the author of the game knows about history as much as Sam Cooke.

From that time Firaxis or Sid Meier or whoever made great strides in the right direction. One of them is introducing Polynesia. I'm sure "the very important empires" will make it into the game eventually.