Wretch
Chieftain
I'd vote against Brazil. Portugal just moved their capital. 
Civs You'd Like to See
- Thread starter bioelectricclam
- Start date
modo_komodo
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2005
- Messages
- 9
What about the Scots?
TheLastOne36 wrote:
Long wars? There were 3 partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
First partition:
"On February 19, 1772, the agreement of partition was signed in Vienna. A previous agreement between Prussia and Russia had been made in St. Petersburg on February 6, 1772. Early in August the Russian, Prussian and Austrian troops simultaneously entered the Commonwealth and occupied the provinces agreed upon among themselves. On August 5, 1772, the occupation manifesto was issued; much to the consternation of a country too exhausted by the endeavours of the Confederation of Bar to offer further resistance."
Second:
In the War in Defense of the Constitution, pro-Russian conservative Polish magnates, the Confederation of Targowica, fought against the Polish forces supporting the constitution, believing that Russians would help them restore the Golden Liberty. Abandoned by their Prussian allies, Polish pro-constitution forces, faced with Targowica units and the regular Russian army, were defeated. Prussia signed a treaty with Russia, agreeing that Polish reforms would be revoked and both countries would receive chunks of Commonwealth territory. In 1793, deputies to the Grodno Sejm, last Sejm of the Commonwealth, in the presence of the Russian forces, agreed to Russian territorial demands. In the 2nd partition, Russia and Prussia helped themselves to enough more land so that only one-third of the 1772 population remained in Poland."
Third:
Kosciuszko's ragtag insurgent armies won some initial successes, but they eventually fell before the superior forces of Russian Empire. The partitioning powers, seeing the increasing unrest in the remaining Commonwealth, decided to solve the problem by erasing any independent Polish state from the map. On 24 October 1795 their representatives signed a treaty, dividing the remaining territories of the Commonwealth between their three countries."
No long and hard wars were mentioned, only the demise of once a great union. Austria didn't participate in second partition.
Both countries ( Poland and France ) were crushed in few weeks
Hm... About capturing Moscow. Your sentence hasn't got any logic in it:
"Poland is the only country to have captured Moscow" . France captured Moscow with help of Duchy of Warsaw, Poland didn't capture it You make it sound like it was mainly Poland that did it, that's not true.
And what did you say about Bolshevik wars? I'm searching wikipedia right now and I can't find anything 'bout it. Could you give me some facts?
This post was necessary for me, because I had to remind you something and ask for few facts. I know it's off-topic and sorry for my english.
Long wars? There were 3 partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
First partition:
"On February 19, 1772, the agreement of partition was signed in Vienna. A previous agreement between Prussia and Russia had been made in St. Petersburg on February 6, 1772. Early in August the Russian, Prussian and Austrian troops simultaneously entered the Commonwealth and occupied the provinces agreed upon among themselves. On August 5, 1772, the occupation manifesto was issued; much to the consternation of a country too exhausted by the endeavours of the Confederation of Bar to offer further resistance."
Second:
In the War in Defense of the Constitution, pro-Russian conservative Polish magnates, the Confederation of Targowica, fought against the Polish forces supporting the constitution, believing that Russians would help them restore the Golden Liberty. Abandoned by their Prussian allies, Polish pro-constitution forces, faced with Targowica units and the regular Russian army, were defeated. Prussia signed a treaty with Russia, agreeing that Polish reforms would be revoked and both countries would receive chunks of Commonwealth territory. In 1793, deputies to the Grodno Sejm, last Sejm of the Commonwealth, in the presence of the Russian forces, agreed to Russian territorial demands. In the 2nd partition, Russia and Prussia helped themselves to enough more land so that only one-third of the 1772 population remained in Poland."
Third:
Kosciuszko's ragtag insurgent armies won some initial successes, but they eventually fell before the superior forces of Russian Empire. The partitioning powers, seeing the increasing unrest in the remaining Commonwealth, decided to solve the problem by erasing any independent Polish state from the map. On 24 October 1795 their representatives signed a treaty, dividing the remaining territories of the Commonwealth between their three countries."
No long and hard wars were mentioned, only the demise of once a great union. Austria didn't participate in second partition.
Another thing, Poland lasted longer then France did against Germany dispite being a smaller country, and just got independence 20 years ago
So there you have it, i just disputed your first sentence... Actually, in History, your sentence could be reversed. For example, Poland is the only country to have captured Moscow, and we did it twice, Ounce with Napoleon and the other during the Bolshevik wars.
Both countries ( Poland and France ) were crushed in few weeks
Hm... About capturing Moscow. Your sentence hasn't got any logic in it:
"Poland is the only country to have captured Moscow" . France captured Moscow with help of Duchy of Warsaw, Poland didn't capture it
You make it sound like it was mainly Poland that did it, that's not true.And what did you say about Bolshevik wars? I'm searching wikipedia right now and I can't find anything 'bout it. Could you give me some facts?
This post was necessary for me, because I had to remind you something and ask for few facts. I know it's off-topic and sorry for my english.
LendMeYourTeeth
Professional anti-Mag
Kilroywashere
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2008
- Messages
- 88
with the exception of Austria-Hungary, I don't think most of these civilizations played that much importance in the world stage. But, I still think they should be added, sort of as a psuedo-civ. Like in BTS when you make a colony, you add one of these civ's to your game so that its not taking away from the main pool. Not that there is a use for the main pool after the game has started but I like to play custom games with almost all the civs and it gets annoying when there are two (or sometimes three) civs with the same name.
note: there was this one time when I was Churchill and I was fighting Victoria and Elizabeth. It was weird.
note: there was this one time when I was Churchill and I was fighting Victoria and Elizabeth. It was weird.
Edgecrusher
King
Now I wrote up a long post and never checked if it posted ot was deleted, :sigh:
I actually would like to see a different "Kind" of civ. Austria, Poland, Hungary would all be nice, but what are they? European civs with a Mounted UU? Hussar, Ulhan, or what have you. At risk of offending anyone, IMO they would all turn out pretty similar, with different graphics and city names.
I would like to see 1 of 2 things:
A) New Trait (Nomadic) focusing on movement, giving a Bonus to Civs to units movement and make it harder for the civ to build via settlers. (Maybe even eliminate their ability to build settlers).
Goths, Huns, and your other Barbaric type "empires" Mongolia could recieve a new leader with this trait, as could the native american civ. To me that makes the Civ different. Even an ancient Israel civ could fit this mold.
B) The other would be uber-extreme minor nations.
Best example I can think of is Vatican City. Simply have a civ in the game, call it Vatican City, with the Pope as a leader. Make them the center of a religion, and give them some ability to manipulate others with that religion. That would be all they did. another example (although more of a corporation I was trying to expiriment with was teh Hanceatic Guild from northern/eastern europe
I actually would like to see a different "Kind" of civ. Austria, Poland, Hungary would all be nice, but what are they? European civs with a Mounted UU? Hussar, Ulhan, or what have you. At risk of offending anyone, IMO they would all turn out pretty similar, with different graphics and city names.
I would like to see 1 of 2 things:
A) New Trait (Nomadic) focusing on movement, giving a Bonus to Civs to units movement and make it harder for the civ to build via settlers. (Maybe even eliminate their ability to build settlers).
Goths, Huns, and your other Barbaric type "empires" Mongolia could recieve a new leader with this trait, as could the native american civ. To me that makes the Civ different. Even an ancient Israel civ could fit this mold.
B) The other would be uber-extreme minor nations.
Best example I can think of is Vatican City. Simply have a civ in the game, call it Vatican City, with the Pope as a leader. Make them the center of a religion, and give them some ability to manipulate others with that religion. That would be all they did. another example (although more of a corporation I was trying to expiriment with was teh Hanceatic Guild from northern/eastern europe
moopoo
King
@Edgecrusher Love your A), ummm Severely dislike your B)
For A): That's a great idea that I don't think I've seen before. In addition to the things you mentioned, they could also be rewarded for taking cities (extra money or no resistance or keep all buildings already built there, or something)
For B): In the case of Vatican City, I think the Apostolic Palace was put in the game to represent it. And if you think about it, it does a good job. After all the Vatican is simply a section within Rome. Other Single-city/extremely small Civs would be better represented by a different model of "Barbarians" for the late game: One's whom you wouldn't be at war with. Instead they could generate lots of trade with a single civ, and be located in good spots. That way A civ that wants the spot could invade and take it, and the civ with whom it was trading with would be incited to go to war over it.
For A): That's a great idea that I don't think I've seen before. In addition to the things you mentioned, they could also be rewarded for taking cities (extra money or no resistance or keep all buildings already built there, or something)
For B): In the case of Vatican City, I think the Apostolic Palace was put in the game to represent it. And if you think about it, it does a good job. After all the Vatican is simply a section within Rome. Other Single-city/extremely small Civs would be better represented by a different model of "Barbarians" for the late game: One's whom you wouldn't be at war with. Instead they could generate lots of trade with a single civ, and be located in good spots. That way A civ that wants the spot could invade and take it, and the civ with whom it was trading with would be incited to go to war over it.
modo_komodo
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2005
- Messages
- 9
"Seconded.
God knows what the UU/UB would be though. Robert the Bruce for leader?"
I totally agree with Robert Bruce. Not sure about UU/UB. I think something related to the Scottish enlightenment would be suitable.
Seeing as Adam smith was an enlightenment scot. how about their UU being a corporation / corporatie executive others cant use?
The Scots do not fall under the Celt category any more than the English. When Boudica was racing about on her chariot, they were all the same people weren't they? if this is the case, then it seems you can have Celts and English but not Celts and Scots? broken logic. I dont know.
Ultimately, I feel that the scots contributed enough to the world as a nation to warrent a nod in the game - but this is my opinion.
God knows what the UU/UB would be though. Robert the Bruce for leader?"
I totally agree with Robert Bruce. Not sure about UU/UB. I think something related to the Scottish enlightenment would be suitable.
Seeing as Adam smith was an enlightenment scot. how about their UU being a corporation / corporatie executive others cant use?
The Scots do not fall under the Celt category any more than the English. When Boudica was racing about on her chariot, they were all the same people weren't they? if this is the case, then it seems you can have Celts and English but not Celts and Scots? broken logic. I dont know.
Ultimately, I feel that the scots contributed enough to the world as a nation to warrent a nod in the game - but this is my opinion.
jcghln
Chieftain
I too would like to see Scotland in the game. Major contributions to world history are in the areas of invention, military, and migration (US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, England et al), and I like modo komodo's suggestions. For leaders, the Stuart monarchs were of course Scottish.
Of course I have to declare an interest: I am myself a proud Scot.
Of course I have to declare an interest: I am myself a proud Scot.
modo_komodo
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2005
- Messages
- 9
Jcghln, you reek of style! lol
AljayBoy
Warlord
1st of all, on the HRE; Poland; Austria; Austria-Hungary debate, I'd rather see Austria-Hungary included instead of HRE or Poland.
Secondly, as much as I'd love to see Scotland included I don't see happening, and would feel guilty if it ever did.
I agree the Scottish contribution to the world of medicine; invention; political and philisophical thinking, is immense and, when you take into consideration that we are a small nation with a small population, we really have punched above our weight on the national level.
As for a Scottish leader, I'd agree with Robert The Bruce and go for a Protective and Philisophical traits.
Unique Unit: Clansman/Highlander unit, replacement for Swordsman, and start with a 10% retreat bonus and Guerilla 1 Promotion.
Yeah the unique building is a tough one although one of the mods I downloaded had a Mercat Cross, which replaced the market and thought that was ok.
On that note there are a lot of good mods which have the nations being discussed about on this forum, I'd suggest people use them if they want to play as a specific civ.
Secondly, as much as I'd love to see Scotland included I don't see happening, and would feel guilty if it ever did.
I agree the Scottish contribution to the world of medicine; invention; political and philisophical thinking, is immense and, when you take into consideration that we are a small nation with a small population, we really have punched above our weight on the national level.
As for a Scottish leader, I'd agree with Robert The Bruce and go for a Protective and Philisophical traits.
Unique Unit: Clansman/Highlander unit, replacement for Swordsman, and start with a 10% retreat bonus and Guerilla 1 Promotion.
Yeah the unique building is a tough one although one of the mods I downloaded had a Mercat Cross, which replaced the market and thought that was ok.
On that note there are a lot of good mods which have the nations being discussed about on this forum, I'd suggest people use them if they want to play as a specific civ.
modo_komodo
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2005
- Messages
- 9
Why would you feel guilty if the scots were included?
I think the idea of highlander is a bad one and just goes further to stereotype the scots.
I think by having a unique support character like a corporate executive, you eliminate the cliche predictability.
I think I agree with Robert Bruce's traits though.
I think the idea of highlander is a bad one and just goes further to stereotype the scots.
I think by having a unique support character like a corporate executive, you eliminate the cliche predictability.
I think I agree with Robert Bruce's traits though.
AljayBoy
Warlord
I'd feel a tad guilty as I believe there are other nations who probably deserve to be included more than Scotland (Austria-Hungary for one), although I'd put Scotland ahead of the current American Indian civ, and possibly ahead of HRE.
Yes the Highlander UU is mainly just a stereotype but based on the fact the highland clans used their knowledge of the terrain to their advantage when at war with England.
It's also worth noting that stereotypes are inevitabley going to occur in games like thes, just read further back to the Japenese Samurai. I'd prefer if the UU was called a Clansman (complete with huge claymore) but wouldn't mind if it was a Highlander.
I've got to say I disagree with your suggestion for a UU, yes, I understand your reasoning that the Scotsman Adam Smith outlining the capitalist way of economics in the Wealth Of Nations is one of many things for Scots to be proud of, however I don't think that should be related to our UU.
modo_komodo
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2005
- Messages
- 9
That's fair enough. I respect your opinions.
When Boudica was racing about on her chariot the ancestors of the English were living in Denmark and Germany. I'd suggest we don't need an English (or American) civ, Germany will do for both. Replace them with the Welsh, Scots and Irish.
Wretch
Chieftain
Ekmek
on steam: ekmek_e
A broader "Jew" civ would be downright ridiculous - what would be its cities?Broader Jewish civ = Judaism in game.
Israel was important in its day, and it's a source of much world focus today, for better or for worse. Israelites/Hebrews revolted I don't know how many times and proved to be a thorn in the sides of the Roman and Greek empires. Of course, just being good at revolting is not sufficient to warrant inclusion... well, except for Boudica.But they were also significant regionally in religious practice, commerce, trade, and to a lesser extent the arts.
I like the idea of an Israel civ. But I cringe at seeing the in-game message "King David founds(or converts) to Islam" So I'm content to see it represented as a religion instead of a civilization.
I've noticed a lot of talk over Hussars and various mounted or medieval units for Austria/Austria-Hungary. Personally I am not sure why no one has mentioned a Infantry replacement, since Austria-Hungary was probably its biggest during that time period. It could be called "Soldat" or something. Secondly, I think the Scots would be awesome to add, but the unfortunate truth is that many people consider them too Celtic, even though that really is not the case. Well I have compiled a list of civilizations I have heard people talk about adding, here's a list!
-Austria/Austria-Hungary
-Poland
-Scotland
-Ireland
-Sweden
-Confederate States of America (CSA)
-Mexico
-Brazil
-Israel
-Vietnam
-Tibet
-Australia
-Canada
-Assyria
-Hun
-Hittite
-New Zealand
-Polynesia
-Congo/Kongo
-Uighur
-Serbia
-Bulgaria
-Redone Native America (Separate civilizations or more accurate)
-Redone India (Separate civilizations or more accurate)
-Austria/Austria-Hungary
-Poland
-Scotland
-Ireland
-Sweden
-Confederate States of America (CSA)
-Mexico
-Brazil
-Israel
-Vietnam
-Tibet
-Australia
-Canada
-Assyria
-Hun
-Hittite
-New Zealand
-Polynesia
-Congo/Kongo
-Uighur
-Serbia
-Bulgaria
-Redone Native America (Separate civilizations or more accurate)
-Redone India (Separate civilizations or more accurate)
Similar threads
