You seem to have misunderstood me - yes, Ireland, Scotland and Lithuania existed. My point about not being a state or people was directed to the Teutonic Knights.Séamas;7059072 said:Ahem, the Kingdom of Scotland was founded in the Dark Ages after a union of Gaels and Picts and lasted until the first Act of Union.
The High-Kingdom of Ireland was founded around 600-400 BC 9though they didn't really exercise their power until the restoration of the High-Kingship around 200 AD) and the last High-King died in 1198, with various High-Kings occasionaly exerting complete control over the whole island, and sometimes its colonies. Scottish kings even tried once to name themselves High-King and unite Ireland and Scotland in an attempt to crush England. (The last unofficial High-King was the brother of Robert the Bruce)
These two countries existed, the Teutonic Knights can't be considered a civ, as they were an military offshoot of the Holy Roman Empire.
Um... hello? Rome and Greece? They began "pagan".Yes Lituania,Scotland and the Teutonic Order!
Lithuania:
Lithuania was the last of the Pagan Kingdoms in Europe, so it would be nice to see one pagan nation.
Yes please. Having Scotland as well as the Celts and English would also be very redundant.Scotland:
Do I have to explain it?
So we can have a German military order seperate from the two Germanys that we have already - but an entire region of Africa should be lumped into "Moors"? The Almoravids, Almohads, Cordoba and Grenada where all powerful/important enough for their own civs.As for the Moors, why seperate them?
The only state they had was a small one in Old Prussia.My exact reason for calling them a military state, not a nation.
Um... hello? Rome and Greece? They began "pagan".
Yes please. Having Scotland as well as the Celts and English would also be very redundant.
So we can have a German military order seperate from the two Germanys that we have already - but an entire region of Africa should be lumped into "Moors"? The Almoravids, Almohads, Cordoba and Grenada where all powerful/important enough for their own civs.
Yes, it really does, when the1> excuse me I forgot about the Romans and Greeks.
2> Does it being redundant matter?
3> Fine it does not matter to me, the more civs the better !
Yes, it really does, when the
Malays
Thais
Tamils (Cholas and Pandyans below)
Assyria
Moors, Libyans or Berbers (Almoravids below)
And more not having a single state - giving the Germans three or four (yay - lets have Germany, Holy Rome, Austria and the Teutonic Knights! In fact, why not Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Bavaria and Prussia as well!) would be pretty pointless.
True, my only point was that the Teutonic Knights are pointless, even compared to the large number of unrepresented European civs.This poll is for Europe!
I would like to see Hungary - with Austria incorporated into Germany (Maria Theresia, Charles V or something else could be a German leader, Vienna would be the second or third German city, etc.).I'm a strong defender of Thai's civ in the game. And I agree with you about the over-civ's from Germany. The HRE didn't like it. Germany is Germany and the only one that I agree to add is the Austria-Hungary Empire (AHE), but only, if there aren't no more civ's to gain 'points' to the game...
That is pretty big.it would be great to see Lithuania in civ5, why? You can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithuania
And if you had history in school, you should know, thaht lithuanian forces reached the black sea (Thats Russia!)
Lithuanian and poland ally Jagiellon dynasty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagiellon_dynasty