Eastern Europe is NOT under-represented

Status
Not open for further replies.
This freakin' thread is still open??! :eek: Jeeze...Eastern Europe is ___ Under-represented!

...

...still waiting...who gets the kudos?
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're getting at, but I'll try my best for the kudos:
  • Eastern Europe is THE OPPOSITE OF Under-represented!
  • Eastern Europe is NOT Under-represented!
  • Eastern Europe is POSSIBLY NOT Under-represented!
  • Eastern Europe is POSSIBLY Under-represented!
  • Eastern Europe is RATHER Under-represented!
  • Eastern Europe is TOTALLY Under-represented!
  • Eastern Europe is BANANA Under-represented!
:)
 
I'm more ready to agree with that- Hungary would probably fill in that gap.

Why not Poland or Austria?

Well, what other civs are there? All the other SA civs were, to the Western eye, near enough indistinguishable from the Inca. (Not that ignorance is a justification, it's just that I doubt adding any other SA civs would add much to the game, so is a pretty low priority.)

A modern day country is possibly what he means.

Venezuela or Brazil would fill it in very nicely.

I don't see what that has to do with people wanting their countries in...

I think the point is that most westerners seem to forget about european history on the other side of the Iron Curtein, (other then Russia) and they would like fireaxis to take notice of that.

The Zulu where more important to Southern African history than Poland was to European history.

1. Was Zulu that Important to African History? You comparing Zulu to a part of a continent while your comparing Poland to the entire continent.
2. Should Fiji be in because there important to Polynesian History? Should the Olmecs be in because they were important to central American history? should the Caribs be in because they were important to Caribean history?
3. Did the Zulu have to compete with England, France, Dutch, Belgium, Germany, HRE, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Rome, Greece, Byzantines, Ottomans, Russians, Swedes, Finns, Vikings, Danes, Croats, Serbs, Bulgarians, Romanians, Cossacks, Lithuanians, Austrians, Swiss, Hungarians, Bohemians, Bavarians, Saxons, Catalonians etc, to get in the game?

3 Indian civs would be pretty new and exotic.


But will it be fun?

Yes, the majority would be in some way related tot he English of the 16th century.

Would that situation be any differint in America and Australia?

SA doesn't seem to HAVE anything other than the Incas, atleast based on what I've seen in Wikipedia.

Gran Colombia, Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay are all options. + a feel native american civs are also.

... i'm starting to get tired with all this writing...

Above is a represented map, where blue is represented. Find problems with it. I really don't think Eastern Europe underepresented, the Ottoman and Russia has held all of it at one point or another, and the Holy Roman Empire covers the rest of Central Europe. Modern boarders mean nothing.

So does China represent Tibet because they hold Tibet nowadays?

So does Mali represent all those others little African Nationalities in Western Africa?

So does England represent all of Canada, America, And Australia because Britatin ounced controleld it?

(i bolded Australia to strike you hard! ;) )

Does England Represent Scotland and Ireland even though the civ is England and not Britain?

And how is Finland Represented? Sweden isn't very clearly represented by Vikings either.

How is Hungary represented? Austria isn't in, and Hungary isn't german.

How are the Crimeans represented?

How is Romania and Bulgaria represented? Serbia? Crotia?

Almost Every Pole is offended to be called a Russian/German. If you said that on the streets of Poland, i'm sure that you'll get beaten up realyl badly. (chances increase by alot when near a party or a pub)

beg to differ, at their hights the Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire and the Russian Empire covered pretty much all of this land (at different time). The Holy Roman Empire during the late 14th Century, Ottoman Empire in the late 15th Century and Russia in the Early 20th Century. I think there might be a tiny spec that might not be covered, but can't be bothered figuring that out.

So nationalities mean nothing to you? I don't see why as you were offended when i called you english then.

Ottomans= only reached vienna before being turned back

By the Poles of course! :D

Austria having been part of the HRE at one point, but that's a fairly weak argument.

More like Austria controlled the HRE at one point...

Let's all face it, we're all represented by Ethiopia!

All humans came from there supposingly so i don't find that a half-bad idea.

if people aren't going to play it, it won't be added.

Oh i'm sure a cool horse with wings, immune to spearmen/pikemen and can beat a cossack, all while being a knight will convince more then enough people to play as poland. ;)

You know what is underepresented, New Zú-landers (swallowed vowels). You could really control you people like sheep, or at least Half-sheep, Half-man things.

Sheep outnumber humans 7-1 in new zealand i think...
 
(Answer on possible Australian representation by Aboriginals)
Definitely. Why wouldn't it be? :confused: The English civ could also build a few settlers and load them onto a Galleon and settle next to the Aboriginal civ. The English could then release the cities as a colony. Pretty decent representation, no?

Eh, that was a bit aimed at Menzies... He meant that as Russians have controlled the area around Poland-Lithuana, Poland-Lithuana is represented. I think, as he is Australian, see the European cultures as fewer, and therefore Polish culture as Russian culture. So I tried making him compare himself to an aboriginal, and wondered if he found himself one.

Heck, Australia would be represented by the Aboriginals, but I'd give my own example...

Denmark civ added, and Sweden is represented because Denmark controlled it once.

See my point?
 
I think the natural consequence of your point is that Swedish, Aborigine, and Polish/Lithuanian peoples would be highly offended if it was true.

Besides, the inclusion of the Native Americans would be a counter-precedent.

Wodan
 
(Answer on possible Australian representation by Aboriginals)


Eh, that was a bit aimed at Menzies... He meant that as Russians have controlled the area around Poland-Lithuana, Poland-Lithuana is represented. I think, as he is Australian, see the European cultures as fewer, and therefore Polish culture as Russian culture. So I tried making him compare himself to an aboriginal, and wondered if he found himself one.

Heck, Australia would be represented by the Aboriginals, but I'd give my own example...

Denmark civ added, and Sweden is represented because Denmark controlled it once.

See my point?

Is Denmark then represented, because Germany once controlled Denmark for 5 years? Denmark controlled all Scandinavia and it's overseas territories, yes, but only for some 150 years so it represents only 150 years of Sweden's history.

Oh sorry :p
I only read your last line and not the whole message :D
 
Is Denmark then represented, because Germany once controlled Denmark for 5 years? Denmark controlled all Scandinavia and it's overseas territories, yes, but only for some 150 years so it represents only 150 years of Sweden's history.

Oh sorry :p
I only read your last line and not the whole message :D
Well, they shouldn't have added Korea then, because China and Japan have at various times controlled it, so it's already represented twice!:crazyeye: In fact, they shouldn't have added China because the Mongols once ruled it! And Britain? They're represented by the Romans....and the Celts! Love that line of reasoning....
 
So let me get this straight...

Bolivian people are represented by the Incans.

Americans are represented by the Native Americans

Russians are represented by the Mongols

Korea is represented by China and Japan

China is represented by Mongolia

India is represented by Turks because the Mughals ounce ruled it

There's no need for the Zulu's as England colonized South Africa

Australians appearently are Aboriginees?

The Moari are represented by England because of New Zealand.

Italy is a stupid idea for the game as there represented by the Romans.

Greece should not be in because Byzantine controlled it?

Polish Culture is the exact same as german because germany ounce controlled it?

Finns are genetically swedes because sweden ounce controlled it?

Native Americans and Canada should not be in because the Vikings ounce settled Vinland and Newfoundland?

Sorry your point makes no sense at all.
 
i love these threads. theres so much irony it deflects each other...
 
I'm sure the original poster lost interest a long time ago
 
^i think it was Saim.

but, well, *technically*, one could say that Eastern Europe is under-represented.

but, the thing is, does it matter to Firaxis? ack. oh well, "if the HRE can be in, so can [insert civ]."
 
Ya, it was, I didn't notice because he had no pic or sig.
 
Eastern Europe is the least represented part of the most represented part of the world. I don't care if Poland is a great civ. Maybe it deserves to be included. But it should not be given special consideration because it is in an "under-represented" part of the world. It is in the most represented part of the world, Europe.
And sorry, but Europe is Europe. One European civ represents all of Europe. Just like Mali "represents" Africa. You can't have a civ like Mali represent Africa or a civ like China represent Asia, but the Netherlands only represents "Western Europe." Doesn't work that way.
Poland is part of Europe. Europe is extremely represented. That fact that it is in Eastern Europe does not entitle it to more consideration than any other civ in a future expansion pack. There is no need to add an Eastern European civ for balance, there are already enough European civs, if another makes it in it will be because it left historical legacy too important to be ignored. Nothing to do with representing Eastern Europe.
 
So let me get this straight...

Bolivian people are represented by the Incans.

Americans are represented by the Native Americans

Russians are represented by the Mongols

Korea is represented by China and Japan

China is represented by Mongolia

India is represented by Turks because the Mughals ounce ruled it

There's no need for the Zulu's as England colonized South Africa

Australians appearently are Aboriginees?

The Moari are represented by England because of New Zealand.

Italy is a stupid idea for the game as there represented by the Romans.

Greece should not be in because Byzantine controlled it?

Polish Culture is the exact same as german because germany ounce controlled it?

Finns are genetically swedes because sweden ounce controlled it?

Native Americans and Canada should not be in because the Vikings ounce settled Vinland and Newfoundland?

Sorry your point makes no sense at all.

Eh, it's not my point, it's Menzies', I just said according to his logic... I never said I agreed with it. :p
 
Western European chauvinism!!!
Hispanic Pride.
I'm sorry, but Europe is one region for purposes for this game, or it is not. If it is, then Africa, South America, North America are all one regioni as well. If there is Eastern European, Northern, Southern, etc., then there is West Africa, Central Africa, North, etc. as well as the same divisions for all other continents. We can't have it both ways.
Europe is Europe for purposes of representation. I'm not saying they are all the same, they are different. But a lot of them are in the game already, a lot of European civs. Eastern European is European. I'm sorry, but that's the way it works.
Make some other case for why a civ should be in, not under representation.
 
Eastern Europe is the least represented part of the most represented part of the world. I don't care if Poland is a great civ. Maybe it deserves to be included. But it should not be given special consideration because it is in an "under-represented" part of the world. It is in the most represented part of the world, Europe.
And sorry, but Europe is Europe. One European civ represents all of Europe. Just like Mali "represents" Africa. You can't have a civ like Mali represent Africa or a civ like China represent Asia, but the Netherlands only represents "Western Europe." Doesn't work that way.
Poland is part of Europe. Europe is extremely represented. That fact that it is in Eastern Europe does not entitle it to more consideration than any other civ in a future expansion pack. There is no need to add an Eastern European civ for balance, there are already enough European civs, if another makes it in it will be because it left historical legacy too important to be ignored. Nothing to do with representing Eastern Europe.
Northern North America, NE Asia, southern South America, and southern Africa are all under-represented! :D
Let's start a new thread for each!

Wodan
 
Hispanic Pride.
I'm sorry, but Europe is one region for purposes for this game, or it is not. If it is, then Africa, South America, North America are all one regioni as well. If there is Eastern European, Northern, Southern, etc., then there is West Africa, Central Africa, North, etc. as well as the same divisions for all other continents. We can't have it both ways.
Europe is Europe for purposes of representation. I'm not saying they are all the same, they are different. But a lot of them are in the game already, a lot of European civs. Eastern European is European. I'm sorry, but that's the way it works.
Make some other case for why a civ should be in, not under representation.

I don't really care but it is a bit chauvinistic when instead of some EE civ they put in the HRE and the Celts... And please don't tell me that those civs deserved to be in instead of some not-European civs, since you are so concerned with Europe having way too many civs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom