Expansion Civilizations

[guayar]

I have got a question - why Poland was never included in Civilization? It was one of the most powerful european country until 1793. Polish-Lithuanian dynasty ruled a half of europe (Czech, Hungury and so on). Our Hungurian king Stefan Batory kicked ass of Ivan the Terrible (which was a part of Civ game). Poland had two coasts (from Balck sea to Baltic sea). Poland was the only one country that captured Moscow (for not so long but Poland did it). And in the Poland those days people bath more often than any nation in Europe (about two times a month - the rest European countries about one in half year!! ) Yes - lithuanian dynasty was on Polish throne but it was Poland united with Lithuania (Lithuania was bigger than Poland Lithuania had Belarus and Ukraine uder their rule - but Poland has one of the most powerful and modern army - unstopable kawalery and havy kawalery (Husaria) ). First parilament (seym) was set in Poland - first democratic regional autonomy ever. It was not so good for Polish but that's not a point. We have so many achievments - and significant role in several centuries that I think such young nations as americans shouldn't be included - less than 300 years of history. So if you included so young nation which was indeed founded by european imigrants and not naturaly born like nations in Europe why Poland is not included? ;> Wladyslaw Jagiello was a king of Poland from 1386. Untill Poland lost her independency in 1793 - over 400 years it was great country and written a history of modern Europe. Half europe would be an islamic nation if not Jan III Sobieski - we helped Austra in war with Turkey. so many battles so great history - never included in such a great game.ehhhh

[nebuchadnezzar]

@quayar
there are lots of civs that are not included in the game. poland is a cool civ to be added in the game, but imho poland is a far better choice for europe-based scenarios, not the whole game. because europe is too crowded.

by the way, if jan iii sobieski would have failed, europe will be half-muslim you say. it would be good for europe, because muslims used to bath every day in those days (don't be offended)

[Jvlivs Parvvs]

Originally Posted by cabert

i was just joking!

I think portugal deserves a civ. After all, half of South America speaks portuguese.

Eh eh :-) Portuguese is the 6th world language; If I recall correctly, it's something like chinese, russina, urdu, english, spanish, portuguese; extensive parts of Africa speak it too. It didn't produce fragmented regions but coherent countries.

For a couple of centuries it ruled the *coasts* of more than half the globe, and ruled in the scientific and technological front, well before the English, Dutch, French or German. Never mind now.

Actually, when we use a caravel, we're using a distinctive feature of the portuguese empire's early expansion, as distinctive as the pretorians are regarding the romans, and as interesting as a deep space probe. (Another distinctive feature would be the trade post and the mulatta, eh eh...) Caravels started building our World Map as we know it today.

If I were to put up names:

1. King D. Manuel. Ruled at the height of expansion (that means he started the downfall, eh eh). A macchiavelic guy, who say "the Spanish will love that" to Columbus, based upon the secret World Map and knowledge of the earth's dimensions. Willing to please the spanish Reyes Catolicos, as he wanted to marry an infanta to unify the peninsula under him, he ordered the Lisbon Massacres and allowed the Inquisition in. Known to order european kings as the "Grocer King" from part of his title: "King of Trade".

2. The wigged Marquis of Pombal. Rebuilt Lisbon after the earthquake. Ruled with an bloody iron hand and absolute power in the absence of the King, and his execution methods would have Vlad the Impaler interested in a tech trade. One day, he stepped on the palace door to have someone announce him he was no longer required. Died soon after, in the country.

2. Salazar. A fascistoid dictator in the manner of Franco; a university professor with a thin, high-pitched voice and an attraction for douplespeak and thought police (he would have a Ministry of Truth too, and was very close to that). Neutral during WW2, like Franco, he turned Lisbon into a den of spies of all colors. Invented football (that's soccer in the US eh eh) as a diversion from politics. Only after his death in 1970 was some turn of history possible, with the 1974 military coup which led in 1975 to the independence of all colonies (to the exception of Timor, invaded by Indonesia on behalf of Cold War geostrategy).

[Botanicus]

Sorry, I will not buy a next expansion pack, when the Dutch are not in it. I think the developpers should also listen to their sales department, and do something extra for the countries where their game is sold most.

Apart from that, the Dutch were the third civ to sail the world, after the Chinese and the Portugese. Main Dutch feature was trade. The East Indies Company (VOC) was the first enterprise in the world giving out shares and having a stock market quotation (1602 - 1795). We only lost most of our overseas properties to the English, because of our 'French' revolution, and the subsequent occupation by Napoleon. Though deeply Protestant, and harbouring Protestant refugees from Catholic countries, we did not try to impose either language or faith to other civilizations. We just built trade posts and tried to trade.

Perhaps this kind of colonization could be implemented more in Civilization. Why not discern a 'home country' and additional colonies. Perhaps starting from a date or an event (invention of sail or reaching another continent).

Anyway, een Goedenavond nog!

[Jvlivs Parvvs]

Thanks for your reply. If the expansion pack is "Warlords", then neither is in (I have it). Also, most certainly scoring points for coastal trade posts only, would require an important change in the game's philosophy. I'm happy enough with the base game. Have fun!

[Botanicus]

I have Warlords too, bought it despite the fact of no Dutch, but will not do that for a next expansion pack I think. In the rest of my note, I just wanted to express an idea or two for further development of the game. Does not need to happen tomorrow. But it would be nice if the game came as close as possible to historical realities. And one of them is, that there always was a difference between the home country of the colonizers and the regions they colonized. The last could become independent for instance. Or the first could lose its independence... The way of colonization is also different per culture. One brings settlers and tries to impose its culture on the native people, if not eradicate them, and others just want to trade - or take products without much interest in physical colonization. Look at the Greek empire of Alexander; still Greece is the only place where people speak Greek (and Cyprus, OK), he did not export his culture very much. Romans were different; we have a whole family of Roman languages today (French, Spanish, Rumanian etc).

[Karam]

Babylon, they must be in the very next expansion people!

DON'T FORGET THE CRADLE OF CIVILIZATION!

[lonu]

I totally agree that Lithuania would make a very interesting civ.

However, I can't help to comment. It is just very interesting how the history is taught in different countries, which facts are emphasized etc.

Especially, the names:
Lithuanian Gediminaiciai dynasty - I think it is only known in Lithuania by this name, elsewhere it goes by the name Jagiellonian dynasty (after Jogaila better known as Jagiello).
Jonas Karolis Chodkevicius would be probably most surprised to hear or see his name written or spoken in this form. He actually was a Lithuanian nobleman who as many other nobleman from Lithuania, Ruthenia and Ukraine became completely polonized and never used a word in Lithuanian language. He actually called himself Jan Karol Chodkiewicz but most likely would use Latin version to in writting (most Polish/Lithuanian/Ukrainian nobleman at the time used Latin in writing and speaking) - Joannes Carolus ...

Originally Posted by username Nr.1

You look at Lithuania and you think - ech, who cares.... small, insignificant.... nowhere close to a great nation.... and you wrong!!!!!

some facts:

1. Lithuanian language is one of the most archaic in whole world, it's the closest existing language to Sanscrit

2. Village 30km north of capital Vilnius called Kernave was a town/city for ~11.000 years until it was destroyed by Teutonic knights in 14th century. A complex of 5 huge castle mounds still remains and is inscribed in UNESCO world heritage list as a site of highiest cultural worth

3. Lithuania was the fearcest country in Middle age Europe and retained religion of our forefathers (remained pagan) up until 1413 when the most stubborn lithuanian tribe, samogitians were christianized - we were by far the last pagans in Europe

4. Kyevan Rus beeing in it's prime, attacked Lithuania many times, but the result was always the same - failure

5. Inscription in cathedral of Visby (Viking town) says: God save us from plague, smth else.... and from lithuanians

6. 1223 - dukes Erdvilas, Vykintas and Zivinbudas take united army of Samogitians, Youtvingians and Highlanders (lithuanian tribes) and defeat Mongol army of Gingis Khan lead by his military comanders near Dniepr and Pripiat rivers

7. 1320's duke Gediminas enters Kyiv and ends history of Kyevan Rus empire

8. 1328 - duke Algirdas pillages Saxony and Brandenburgland

9. 1363 - Lithuanian armies comanded by Algirdas defeat mongol hordes of Golden Horde and stop their invasion to europe once and for all

10. brothers Algirdas and Kestutis (1341-1387) - dukes of Lithuania terrify whole christian world, no power can stop them - mongols crushed, slavic states either incorporated in Grand duchy or under vassalage, border with Poland beeing constantly pushed to the west, Teutonic knights (whole christian world with Pope infront) beeing defeated in every single battle... if not Algirdas' armies coming to help - Muscovy would only dream about victory in Kulikov Battle

11. 1392 - sons of Algirdas and Kestutis, cousins... Jogaila sits at throne of Poland and Vytautas at throne of Grand duchy of Lithuania, forming the most powerfull alliance in Europe

12. 1410 - greatest battle in the middle ages, Armies of Lithuania and Poland defeat Teutonic order

13. 1420's - Lithuania is the biggest and strongest country in Europe, Vytautas - the most powerfull man alive... in meeting of Lutsk (1428), all nobleman including emperor of Holly Roman empire bow to Vytautas

14. 15th-16th century - Lithuanian Gediminaiciai dinasty rule kingdoms of Bohemia, Poland, Hungary and Grand duchy of Lithuania - lands streching from Adriatic to Black and Baltic sea's - one of the most powerfull alliance the world has ever seen
http://viduramziu.lietuvos.net/pav/jogailaiciu.jpg

15. 1605 - considered by most historians and military people as probably the greatest defeat ever, battle of Salaspilis (Kircholm). The legendary heavy cavalry - The Winged Hussaria... 3000 lithuanian Hussars comanded by Jonas Karolis Chodkevicius (one of the greatest military comanders in europe's history), meet ~15000 best possible armed and trained Swedish troops. The outcome - battle lasted for ~20 minutes, - 8000 Sweed's slaughtered, 7000 taken into prison and only!!!!! ~100 lithuanians dead and 200 lightly injured

That's what Lithuania was and still is in all of the hearts of it's people!!!!!!!

sorry for this very long post

[lonu]

The selection of civs have always puzzled me ever since Civ I.
It only shows how differently the history is presented in various parts of the world.
I personally would vote for the civs that would bring new interesting units or other features to the game. Based on that I would vote for:
1. Turks - it is so strange they are not in the Civ, one of civs that had such tremendous impact on the world history for a few centuries. They ruled a part of Europe, Asia and Africa with a very distinctive features.
2. Celts - very distinctive civ once spread across most of Europe
3. Huns - they clearly had a shot to conquer firstly China, later Rome and subjuguted vast part of Asia and Europe in the process
4. Magyars (Hungarians) - not as famous at present but if you asked somebody back in the 9th century who would they rather face Vikings or Magyars the answer might aas formidable as Vikings for a couple of centuries
5. Poland - the 'winged' hussars in 1500s and 1600s were truely doing the job of tanks in the pitch battles just smashing to pieces the best armies of sometimes outnumbered 1 to 4. To me it is really amazing the Cossacs are actually such a formidable cavalry unit in CIV while they could not hold field to Hussars on almost any occasion.
6. Czechs - the Hussite Wars are often believed to start the true revolution in the military technique - the infantry defeating even much larger armies of heavy knights
7. Byzantium- it's really not the same as Rome or Greeks, it's been a superpower for several centuries with very unique features (how about greek flame - the weapon that even today we don't know how was made but certainly won several wars for Byzantium)
8. Maya - astounding scientific achievements of their time

[Wodan]

Part of what I enjoy about Civ is that it teaches about periods of history that aren't necessarily taught or emphasized in the history books. Based on that I would favor pretty much all of the "lesser known" civs.

Wodan

[Antilogic]

Eh...the Turks are in the game now...as are the Celts...I second the Mayans and Byzantium definitely. No questions asked there...Babylon/Sumeria should also be in the game. Come on!

As for the Huns...eh...maybe. Magyar, Lithuania, Poland, Czechs...let's limit the selection a little. There is some cultural overlap between the countries as well as political overlap (check out www.euratlas.com in Europe in the Middle Ages--look at a certain "Grand Duchy of Poland and Lithuania").

I'm all for representing as many great civilizations as possible, but when it comes time to only select 6 or so for an expansion, or even 19 (?) for the base game, some guys have to get the axe. I think that's why some of the more deserving civilizations got knocked out of the running. Not because they aren't deserving, just because they are up against popular opponents.

And, if since Civ1 you have dispaired...at least they are getting better. I'm glad the "bad" leaders of Civ3 were removed (Cleopatra, "Saint" Joan of Arc, Xerxes, etc.). They are going in the right direction...

[Hitti-Litti]

Byzantium? Nah, it was a great nation, but it is actually East Rome, what developed into Byzantium. Poland yes, Magyar and Lithuania no, Maya if you wish and Huns? Robbers.

Khmer is my wish, and some African.

[Head Serf]

The Khmer, Maya, and Iriqouis should all be included, their areas of the world are badly underrepresented.

[Wodan]

Originally Posted by Hitti-Litti

Byzantium? Nah, it was a great nation, but it is actually East Rome, what developed into Byzantium.

Perhaps it started that way, but it was very much dominated by Greek culture. Byzantium was much more of a Greek empire than anything to do with Roman.

Wodan

[dgonaz]

New Civs and why:

Ethiopia: One of the oldest countries in the world and from one of the most lacking areas of representation in the game.

Maya: Just to flesh out the last of the Central Americans

Poland: Think it has been expounded upon well enough.

Babylon/Sumeria: Cradle of civilization, long time most powerful area

Crete: Oldest of the "European" Civs that still maintains a fairly unique culture

I would like to see a third leader for Egypt, with 4000 years of history they have enough variety of strong leaders to warrent a third, Thutmose perhaps as as a Spirtual Aggressive? Also a third leader for China for the same reason. Some civs were shapers of history for much longer periods than others, compare China and Egypt with thousands of years of history to the other civs and there is just so many more leaders you can pick for them just because they had more time to produce very different yet effective leaders.

I would like to see a second leader for Persia, Greece, and Japan.

[Antilogic]

This is the first time I've ever heard Crete as a serious suggestion for a Civ, but your other selections are sound. Especially the Mayans and Babylonians. You can't have an expanded Civ game without those civilizations. Maybe not the core, but the expansions, yes.

Third for Egypt? How about "not Cleopatra"? I hear he/she is great. Did a lot of great things for the Egyptian people.

Here are my suggestions for those very civilizations that you mentioned--I've posted them elsewhere, but nobody's commented on them yet, and thus I will mention them again:

Persia: Darius the Great (Imperialistic, Industrious, Hereditary Rule)
Greece: General Pericles (Creative, Philosophical, Free Speech)
Japan: Emperor Meiji (Charismatic, Industrious, Free Market)

[dgonaz]

Originally Posted by Antilogic

This is the first time I've ever heard Crete as a serious suggestion for a Civ, but your other selections are sound. Especially the Mayans and Babylonians. You can't have an expanded Civ game without those civilizations. Maybe not the core, but the expansions, yes.

Third for Egypt? How about "not Cleopatra"? I hear he/she is great. Did a lot of great things for the Egyptian people.

Here are my suggestions for those very civilizations that you mentioned--I've posted them elsewhere, but nobody's commented on them yet, and thus I will mention them again:

Persia: Darius the Great (Imperialistic, Industrious, Hereditary Rule)
Greece: General Pericles (Creative, Philosophical, Free Speech)
Japan: Emperor Meiji (Charismatic, Industrious, Free Market)

By Crete I am talking about the Minoan Civ. I would also include the Hittites but there would be too much overlap in cities with the Turks, the Minoans and the Greeks don't overlap in cities as the majority of Minoan cities were destroyed before the Greek city states every came to be. Obvious leader would be Minos.


Darius: Imperialistic Industrius sounds like a good combination for him, or perhaps Imperialistic, Organized though Caesar already has that combination.

Pericles: I thinik you have him perfect.

Menji: Not sure about his trait combination. It isn't that I disagree with your choices it is that I am not sure what I would choose for him myself. Anything that makes him play and behave (AI) completely different than Tokugawa.

Another possible leader for Egypt: Akenaten. Perhaps one of the few Egyptian Pharoahs (not including the Greek or Persian ones) you could argue into not having the Spiritual trait since he took so much power away from the temples. Creative, Philosophical perhaps?

China third leader I am not so sure who to pick, but someone not who wouldn't be considered protective in the least. Zhao Kuangyin (first Song Emperor) perhaps as an Organized Aggressive?

[Antilogic]

I guess I should clarify my choices a little...

I also picked combinations that I believed would be relatively balanced as well as combinations that aren't in the game. That's why I picked Industrious over Organized for Darius, largely due to Caesar already having the Imperialistic/Organized Combo.

Well, the traits just made sense for Pericles. It's a wonder he isn't in the game already...

As for Meiji...I'm not sure about his favored civic, but I wanted to represent the modernizing/industrializing Japan of the early 20th century with him (Industrious trait). I picked Charismatic over Financial (the obvious one, I think) just because again, Industrious/Financial is already in the game (Inca). The favored civic, again, I have no clue about. But I want to emphasize this is the trading, non-xenophobic side of Japan and thus it won't be Mercantilism.

I've heard several suggestions for new Chinese leaders including Emperor Liu Che and Zhao Kuangyin (and some female Empress...forgot her name). I don't know enough ancient Chinese history to comment on those.



Now that you mention it, I have heard about Minoa being requested...I don't know what UU and UB could be assigned though (I haven't studied much on Minoa). I would like to see the Hittites in the game myself, but they are further down on the list than some other civs...

[Ego_and_his_own]

Originally Posted by MattJek

Can someone care to explain why Canada should be a civ? If Canada should be in it then why not South Africa, New Zealand or Montenegro for that matter

What you have against Montenegro? I play it all time and they allways win...

[Rahl]

It's very simple - the Irish need to be in it, not the Celts.

You know why Ireland was made so small? If it was any bigger we'd have conquered the whole world by now.