Do you prefer the Holy Roman Empire to Poland?

[azzaman333]

You used wrong word. You mean (or at least it's the truth) that all arguments against Poland had been shot down.

So, you were the most powerful nation when no one else was powerful. Great work! You are just so incredibly awesome that you could be the biggest whilst all others were tiny and separated.

IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU DESERVE TO BE IN CIVILIZATION.

You have had lots of great people! Well isn't that just awesome. Despite most of your great people doing their work in countries other than Poland, you still claim that they are all so incredibly fantastically Polish and this makes you worthy of being in civ.

IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU DESERVE TO BE IN CIVILIZATION.

From memory there haven't actually been any other arguments for Poland, so I don't need to shut them down.

 

[LuKo]

IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU DESERVE TO BE IN CIVILIZATION.

Great example of shooting down arguments. Shooting arguments don't mean saying "It's a bad argument"- it's saying why it's a bad argument.

 

[azzaman333]

Great example of shooting down arguments. Shooting arguments don't mean saying "It's a bad argument"- it's saying why it's a bad argument.

Sure, you may have been a successful nation at some points in history, but every other civilization in civ has been more important and more influential than Poland. Poland was at its strongest conveniently when the rest of Europe was still recovering from Black Death. It's not much of an achievement compared to all 34 civs currently in Civ4.

 

[0R4NG3]

Sure, you may have been a successful nation at some points in history, but every other civilization in civ has been more important and more influential than Poland. Poland was at its strongest conveniently when the rest of Europe was still recovering from Black Death. It's not much of an achievement compared to all 34 civs currently in Civ4.

Oh please, surely there are a number of civs in the game that were less important than Poland, come on be objective.
What is it with Australians and Poland? Did Poland invade you or something? Or perhaps you are just bitter that Australia will never make it into the game?

 

[LuKo]

Sure, you may have been a successful nation at some points in history, but every other civilization in civ has been more important and more influential than Poland. Poland was at its strongest conveniently when the rest of Europe was still recovering from Black Death. It's not much of an achievement compared to all 34 civs currently in Civ4.

Compared to Aztec? Maya? Inca? Mali? Zulu? Khmer? Ethiopia? Sumeria? Native Americans? Carthage? Korea? Of course there are some nations that are clearly MUCH more important than Poland (my favourite Rome, England (GB), China, etc.) but Poland deserves to be in civs before less important "civilizations". Or at least before "doubling" civs (Celts->France, HRE->Germany, Byzantium<-Greece).

 

[TheLastOne36]

You have had lots of great people! Well isn't that just awesome. Despite most of your great people doing their work in countries other than Poland, you still claim that they are all so incredibly fantastically Polish and this makes you worthy of being in civ.

Works both ways. Now you can consider Pilsudski a famous Pole.

Sure, you may have been a successful nation at some points in history, but every other civilization in civ has been more important and more influential than Poland. Poland was at its strongest conveniently when the rest of Europe was still recovering from Black Death. It's not much of an achievement compared to all 34 civs currently in Civ4.

Notice how our golden age wasn't when we were stronger then everyone else?

and somehow the zulu, native americans, incans, aztec, mayans, etc were all more important and influencial then poland?

i think malta was more influencial then those nations.

3 vs 1. you can't win. And chopin and squonkaren't even here yet.

 

[Wodan]

You guys are still all confused.

There are several reasons to be a Civ. Only one of those reasons is how strong or influential it has been.

Furthermore, there are only one or two reasons to disqualify you as a Civ.

So, here it is: if a civ was very strong or influential at some point, is that reason enough to include it? Yes, of course.

OTOH, if a civ has NOT been very strong or influential at some point, is that reason enough NOT to include it? No. This is not a reason to disqualify it. This does not mean it is qualified (it still has to qualify via a different reason), but it does not disqualify it either!

Wodan

 

[Traitorfish]

Compared to Aztec? Maya? Inca? Mali? Zulu? Khmer? Ethiopia? Sumeria? Native Americans? Carthage? Korea?

Sumeria were the forerunners of all European, Near & Middle Eastern and Indian civilisation. There are few civilisations more important than Sumeria.
Carthage represents not just the Carthaginians, but all of Phoenician culture, which, as a major influence on the development of Hellenistic culture, also had a significant effec

but Poland deserves to be in civs before less important "civilizations". Or at least before "doubling" civs (Celts->France, HRE->Germany, Byzantium<-Greece).

Celts = France? . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Sure, the Celts as they are presented now is heavily slanted towards the Gauls, but that doesn't mean that Celtic culture is simply early French culture. It's not. France doesn't even speak a Celtic language, it speaks a Romance one.
After all, out of the surviving Celtic countries- Ireland, Wales, Scotland, Cornwall, Isle of Man and Brittony, only one is in France, the rest are in Britain, and even that's a Brythonic country, not a Gallic one. The Celts, if anything, need to be made more distinct from France- at present, they only really represent ancient Romano-Gallic and Romano-British culture, they don't represent the surviving- primarily Gaelic- cultures of post-Roman Europe.
Whether or not Poland "deserves" to be in the game more than the Celts, it's just plain inaccurate to write Celtic culture of as "early France". At the very least, it's "early England" as well.

 

[0R4NG3]

Whether or not Poland "deserves" to be in the game more than the Celts, it's just plain inaccurate to write Celtic culture of as "early France". At the very least, it's "early England" as well.

Yah and England is in the game also, so his point stands. Unless you're going to say that the Celts in the game represent Scots, the Irish and the Welsh, in which case it is not "doubling".

 

[Rex rgis of Ter]

Iiiiiiiiittttttttttt Bbbbburrrrrrrrrrrrrrrnnnnnnssssssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[cybrxkhan]

its very amusing how this thread is STILL alive... 74 PAGES!!! maybe together, we can make this the longest lasting thread of CFC history!

anyhow, some thoughts:

- INFLUENCE =/= the gold standard for inclusion in Civilization
- its not only just which civs deserve to be in. its also which ones DONT.
- Poland can be in... after Vietnam!!!

There are few civilisations more important than Sumeria.

these would be:

- Atlantis
- Vietnam

 

[Rex rgis of Ter]

I think people fail to realize that just because you live somewhere, doesn't mean it needs to be included in civ. No offense, but Vietenam isn't that influentail, even today. Sure, it had a big war, and is quite powerful, but it isn't quite civ material.

 

[cybrxkhan]

No offense, but Vietenam isn't that influentail, even today. Sure, it had a big war, and is quite powerful, but it isn't quite civ material.

i agree with every part of that except for the very last part.

with the HRE, most suggested civs are civ material anyhow...

and the vietnam thing above was a joke, obviously, hence the "".

 

[Traitorfish]

Yah and England is in the game also, so his point stands. Unless you're going to say that the Celts in the game represent Scots, the Irish and the Welsh, in which case it is not "doubling".

Yeah, I suppose it would've been more straightforward to put it like that...
Like I said, the heavy slant towards Romano-Gallic and Romano-British culture for the Celts does give the impression that it's merely doubling up France and England, which is why I think Firaxis should have included greater representation for Wales, Scotland and Ireland, e.g. Gaelic/Brythonic city names (rather than all the Romanised Gallic/Brythonic names we have now) and a Gaelic leader (Brian Boru would probably be the best candidate, in my opinion) instead of Bouddica. At present, the only non Scottish representation is the Dun UB, Wales only has some loose connection to Boudicca and Ireland is completely unrepresented.

 

[Rex rgis of Ter]

really, I don't think Vietenam is civ standard influentail, like poland. Personally, I would like a polynesian civ, perhaps the moaia. Great seamen, artists, and warriors.

 

[azzaman333]

Oh please, surely there are a number of civs in the game that were less important than Poland, come on be objective.
What is it with Australians and Poland? Did Poland invade you or something? Or perhaps you are just bitter that Australia will never make it into the game?

I would like to see Australia in the game, but I doubt it will ever happen. It's about time Poland had a reality check and realise that it is in the same situation.

Compared to Aztec? Inca?

Most powerful in their own regions at the time the Spanish came.

Maya?

Highly advanced civilization considering their relative isolation.

Mali? Khmer? Ethiopia?

Don't know enough to be sure, but they were probably the most powerful in their region.

Zulu?

Were clearly the most powerful in their region until Britain came.

Sumeria?

IIRC, Sumeria was the first civilization.

Native Americans?

Should've been Iroquois and Sioux, who were the most powerful when Europe started colonise America.

Carthage?

Was the greatest threat to Rome. Carthage had the potential to become more powerful than Rome and greatly challenged them in a war.

Works both ways. Now you can consider Pilsudski a famous Pole.

Never heard of him.

Notice how our golden age wasn't when we were stronger then everyone else?

What is so great about a European civ whose Golden age meant that at least 5 other nations in Europe were developing much faster and building up significantly for the future whilst Poland just collapsed and fell into oblivion after its golden age. Add to that the much more powerful and influential Ottoman Empire, and Poland looks silly.

and somehow the zulu, native americans, incans, aztec, mayans, etc were all more important and influencial then poland?

In their respective regions, yes. Much more influential than Poland.

i think malta was more influencial then those nations.

Somehow I highly doubt that...

3 vs 1. you can't win. And chopin and squonkaren't even here yet.

Which is the problem. You people won't give up the fact that you aren't in civ. If you're that desparate, download a mod already!

 

[LuKo]

Most powerful in their own regions at the time the Spanish came.

LOL So Switzerland is most powerful civ between France, Germany and Italy! This civilizations compared to i.e. Poland were VERY weak (~500 people conquered this "civilizations").

Highly advanced civilization considering their relative isolation.

Not considering they wasn't. Especially compared to Europeans.

Don't know enough to be sure, but they were probably the most powerful in their region.

"Don't know enough" says all.

Were clearly the most powerful in their region until Britain came.

In Africa? No. They "spawned" (RFC) very late with old techs and primitive army (who fought with British. Of course lost with big casualties).

IIRC, Sumeria was the first civilization.

Another civilization in Mesopotamia region. From wikipedia: "Babylonia was a state south of Mesopotamia, in modern Iraq, combining the territories of Sumer and Akkad." So adding Sumer and Babylonia is like adding England and GB.

Should've been Iroquois and Sioux, who were the most powerful when Europe started colonise America.

Were the most powerful in America, because nobody else habited that lands. There was very weak compared to Europeans.

Was the greatest threat to Rome. Carthage had the potential to become more powerful than Rome and greatly challenged them in a war.

Cartage and Macedonia fought to be no. 1. But Carthage didn't used it's potential properly. BTW: Celts were bigger threat to Rome.

Never heard of him.

Congratulations.

Add to that the much more powerful and influential Ottoman Empire, and Poland looks silly.

Especially in 1683.

In their respective regions, yes. Much more influential than Poland.

But considering only power- not region Poland was much more influential. I prefer to be 12th in Premier League than first in Football League Two.

Which is the problem. You people won't give up the fact that you aren't in civ. If you're that desparate, download a mod already!

But it's problem for you. I think that you already feel that you're not right but it would look stupid if now you would say "OK, you are right".

 

[azzaman333]

But it's problem for you. I think that you already feel that you're not right but it would look stupid if now you would say "OK, you are right".

I would be perfectly fine with Poland being in civ if there was any good reason for it. There hasn't been a single thing to convince me in over 70 pages. Give a good reason or give it up, this thread has long outlived its purpose.

 

[LuKo]

I would be perfectly fine with Poland being in civ if there was any good reason for it. There hasn't been a single thing to convince me in over 70 pages. Give a good reason or give it up, this thread has long outlived its purpose.

You can always say: "It's not good reason for me". IMHO there were many good reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoDaRkPUH5E
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/224875277?ltl=1167748976 (scroll down for arguments).

 

[Gerino]

I would be perfectly fine with Poland being in civ if there was any good reason for it. There hasn't been a single thing to convince me in over 70 pages. Give a good reason or give it up, this thread has long outlived its purpose.

What are the reasons for any nation to be included in Civ series? "Age", like Summerians? Russian Empire is pretty young, as the America is. "Power", like Rome (then), England (later), America (now)? As was stated before, there are many civs that weren't great powers at all.

The reason, why Poland was not included for such a long time - and still is not - is that Poland is a bit forgotten. We see the Pyramids, and we see the glory of Egipt. We remember the Cold War, and we remember the power of Russia. But Poland don't have any World Wonders, as Poland was a battlefield for ALL it's history. Nowadays we have probably one of the longest times of peace - it is over 50 years now. Poles didn't have time to build some great monuments of their power, because they were fighting and working for all the history.

There isn't a lot of not-Polish people that are aware of history of this region - why would they? - so the stereotypical image of Poland is that it lost to Germans in WWII (actually in the end we won, as Polish soldiers and rest of Poland - occupied or not - were fighting the Axis with the Allies, and the later won...), and that Poland is nowadays a second-world country (Allies left us for USSR to exploit, oh well.)