Poland as 1 of 10 new Civilizations added in BTS?

Do you think the Polind nation should be add to the Civ4 BTS?
before you answer and start discussion you should read this page: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/224875277?ltl=1175424853
and if you want to also sign the petition.

I would like to start discussion "is Poland deserve for beeing added to BTS?"
do you know this names?
Frédéric Chopin (composer)
Nicolaus Copernicus (astronomer)
Pope John Paul II (Pope of Roman Catholic Church)
and lots more can be found on site above

There is similar thread "What 10 Civilizations will be in Beyond the Sword?" but i think many peoples replying there didn't really know what Poland nation it is and how huge history it has. So mods please let this thread stay alive

at the end, I really hope the Poland is one of those 10 which will be added

because of discussion about Polish history in this thread you might interested of this:

LDeska said:

I just found interesting link, for people who would like to see "History of Poland in 10 minutes". It's a point of view of single person, but I think that it's quite similiar to the point of view of most of Poles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuROIMaE2bk

Click to expand...

Don't forget Canada and Austrailia, two nations with about the same population.

I mean, I understand why they include modern nation-states in the game, but it just feels wierd to play as the English under Victoria starting in 4000 BC.

It must be equally weird to play as the Romans in 2000 AD?

malcom X
madonna
magic johnson
ford chevrolet gm
white stripes

hmmm, i can make a list too... maybe the state of michigan should be in the game

yeah, Canada and Australia has also quite big history

Let me put it this way: some of us (myself included) wouldn't mind seeing some more Eastern European representation--all the countries are central/western European (Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Germany, Rome) or Mediterranean (Greeks, Rome)--right now, the only true East European country is Russia.

I'd be in favor of supporting Poland or Austria as a civ, and having ten, they may have included one of them. Unfortunately, I think they have already made a decision on that and have decided whether or not they will be in the game already (they just haven't announced it yet). Noticed how they only announced the big three (Portugal, Netherlands, Babylon)--those were the kind-of obvious ones that would be in the game. The other seven are up for grabs, and they may be distributed to the underdogs, like Poland.

I'd bet the Sioux got a slot (from the artwork). That leaves 6 slots open for Poland to take one. Although they have some strong competition from the Byzantines, Hittites, Sumeria, Mayans, Austria, etc. They may not make the final cut. If the Sioux art is just for a scenario, though, then there could be 7 slots open for the main game. It all depends.

Austrio-Hungary is a big missing one -- the Austrio-Hungarian empire was a pretty big mover and shaker in history.

I might be wrong, but Poland hasn't been a teir-1 world power: in it's heyday, it was an important european state, but that wasn't during the period when Europe dominated the world.

Now, if they are going to make a WWI or WWII scenerio, making the Poles into a minor civ would be worthwhile -- which would provide polish players the core to make a Polish major civ mod.

Hmm. You could also do the Slavic nation, going the prehistory route (like the Celts).

If Firaxis intend to add Poland to a medieval scenario they do not need to add Poland to the epic game. Look at the excellent medieval (post-Charlemagne) scenario that was distributed with CivIII Conquests. It contained many civs that did not feature in the epic game.

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. On the other hand, Poland has a single identity and a single language, with a long, rich history; it was even a Great Power for a time (during the period of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth).

If anything, I would propose Casimir III (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, 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).

If the civ4 polish community is really big i'm almost sure they will make a Polish civ!About me i think some Mesopotamian civs would be a better choice, and in the case a Cetral-Eastern Europe civ should make its appearance, Austria-Hungary would be my pick

Thedrin said:

If Firaxis intend to add Poland to a medieval scenario they do not need to add Poland to the epic game. Look at the excellent medieval (post-Charlemagne) scenario that was distributed with CivIII Conquests. It contained many civs that did not feature in the epic game.

Click to expand...

I have the same opinion of the Sioux artwork we have seen so far. I would bet there is an American West or an American Civil War scenario featuring these American Indians, but I doubt they will be added to the main game. I think the Maya are more deserving of the Native American slot (and let's face it, there will probably be only one more American civ added).

I agree Austria was very heterogeneous, but if they just called it Austria, then added some of the other city names towards the end of the list like they did last time, I'm sure there won't be a problem. Actually, picking a heterogeneous civ like Austria would spread a little more recognition around East Europe, having cities of various Slavic cultures currently not represented in the game. I'd almost count that as a pro-Austria point.

Lockesdonkey said:

If anything, I would propose Casimir III (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, 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).

Click to expand...

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".

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

I think including them would make complete sense, same as an Indochina (Khmer), Amerindian (Iroquois), and Oceanic (debatable) Civ.

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.

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

@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.

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...

Lance of Llanwy said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.