Expansion Civilizations
- Thread starter Xineoph
- Start date
- Status
Xineoph said:
I'll level with you, I didn't know that. OK, so that's central government of a sort, but no civil society. It's still a long way down a very long list. There is no way any Polynesian civ should be included as long as some manifestation of Indonesia - influential, well-connected and populated, cultured and incredibly prosperous - continues to be excluded.
Inspector Javert
Prince
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2005
- Messages
- 510
Regarding the imblance, that may be, perhaps set it up so that certain units can attack them but not enter the terian.
Panther_GR
Chieftain
jar2574 said:
Yes. Exactly that.
SkippyT
Who?
Aleas,
Surely Poland was large at the time. But as I've said before, Poland was weak. And I think Poland has always been weak. I did look at the map, but Scandinavia wasn't on the map. They've gotten stomped over and I don't know of any war Poland's taken part in, they haven't really been trashed during. Fx., the WWII. Germany, peacefully, offered Poland alliance and a big slice of their land, for the city Gdansk. I'm not saying that Germany was fair in WWII!! Not at all! But the Polish were dumb and they put a curse on their country saying no. If Poland wouldn't have got the help from UK (I can't understand why they declared war on Germany, they didn't have alliances with them or nothing) and later the French, which the British dragged into the war ... I don't know where Poland would be right now.
Polish soldiers are usually among the best? I sure don't think so. I've said it before and I say it again. They were trashed. The 30-year war between Sweden and ...well... most of the baltic countries (including Poland). The Swedish peasant soilders won Russia and Poland, well, it isn't really weird that Poland was stomped over by such a powerful force. But in the final battle for Germany, the Swedish lost. The Kalmar Union was waay bigger than Poland. Swedish Kingdom also (Sweden and Finland). So was the Danish Kingdom (Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Greenland). Well, I do think Scandinavia should be repesented in Civ as Scandinavia though Denmark and Sweden themselves have what it takes.. But just the whole of Scandinavia is bigger and larger and more of an empire. Sure, we didn't have any wonders. We had bunch of artist and some Swedish scientists. We didn't have prophets, we had engineers and we had merchants. I don't know why there aren't many more artists, engineers and merchants from Scandinavia in the game.
And..nobody has ever, ever, taken over Scandinavia. Russia got Finland and that's it. We founded Russia, traded with Indians in N-America and Arabians, raided the whole of Europe. Sailed to Constantinople and found America (first of white men). And we didn't take Indian cities. We traded with them peacefully. But Greenland is considered part of N-America and Scandinavians settled there around 1000. Why is it then said that Colombus found America? Because after him people settled in America? We did also. Our culture is also rich and our modern countries richer. We are the wealthiest in the world and we are also special.
And I vote for Queen Margareth (Exp/Fin) and King Gustav Adolf (Agg/Org) as leaders. Or the best berserk would be Harald Hardrada (Agg/Exp).
..I would also like to see the seafaring leader trait. That would make Margareth Exp/Sea. - New naval units start with 2 exp and naval units shield cost is lowered by 25%. Double production speed of lighthouse, harbour and drydocks.
I also miss the scientific leader trait. It should also be added since new leaders are coming in. - Get 1 new technology at the start of a new era. Double production speed of library, observatory and labratory.
New nations:
Israel
Babylonia
Aborginees
Portugal
Korea
Sioux
Ethiopia
Vietnam
and sorry I forgot last time.. Ottoman Turks
Surely Poland was large at the time. But as I've said before, Poland was weak. And I think Poland has always been weak. I did look at the map, but Scandinavia wasn't on the map. They've gotten stomped over and I don't know of any war Poland's taken part in, they haven't really been trashed during. Fx., the WWII. Germany, peacefully, offered Poland alliance and a big slice of their land, for the city Gdansk. I'm not saying that Germany was fair in WWII!! Not at all! But the Polish were dumb and they put a curse on their country saying no. If Poland wouldn't have got the help from UK (I can't understand why they declared war on Germany, they didn't have alliances with them or nothing) and later the French, which the British dragged into the war ... I don't know where Poland would be right now.
Polish soldiers are usually among the best? I sure don't think so. I've said it before and I say it again. They were trashed. The 30-year war between Sweden and ...well... most of the baltic countries (including Poland). The Swedish peasant soilders won Russia and Poland, well, it isn't really weird that Poland was stomped over by such a powerful force. But in the final battle for Germany, the Swedish lost. The Kalmar Union was waay bigger than Poland. Swedish Kingdom also (Sweden and Finland). So was the Danish Kingdom (Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Greenland). Well, I do think Scandinavia should be repesented in Civ as Scandinavia though Denmark and Sweden themselves have what it takes.. But just the whole of Scandinavia is bigger and larger and more of an empire. Sure, we didn't have any wonders. We had bunch of artist and some Swedish scientists. We didn't have prophets, we had engineers and we had merchants. I don't know why there aren't many more artists, engineers and merchants from Scandinavia in the game.
And..nobody has ever, ever, taken over Scandinavia. Russia got Finland and that's it. We founded Russia, traded with Indians in N-America and Arabians, raided the whole of Europe. Sailed to Constantinople and found America (first of white men). And we didn't take Indian cities. We traded with them peacefully. But Greenland is considered part of N-America and Scandinavians settled there around 1000. Why is it then said that Colombus found America? Because after him people settled in America? We did also. Our culture is also rich and our modern countries richer. We are the wealthiest in the world and we are also special.
And I vote for Queen Margareth (Exp/Fin) and King Gustav Adolf (Agg/Org) as leaders. Or the best berserk would be Harald Hardrada (Agg/Exp).
..I would also like to see the seafaring leader trait. That would make Margareth Exp/Sea. - New naval units start with 2 exp and naval units shield cost is lowered by 25%. Double production speed of lighthouse, harbour and drydocks.
I also miss the scientific leader trait. It should also be added since new leaders are coming in. - Get 1 new technology at the start of a new era. Double production speed of library, observatory and labratory.
New nations:
Israel
Babylonia
Aborginees
Portugal
Korea
Sioux
Ethiopia
Vietnam
and sorry I forgot last time.. Ottoman Turks
KingCruz said:And PLEASE no Canada.
If you're gonna add Canada, you might as well add Mexico!!!
Canada has been a wee bit more influential than Mexico tyvm
However, Brazil or another South American colonial state would be
!I know ppl will diss Canada, Brazil and Australia but America needs other modern countries with it.
8 for me would be:
Canada (home & native land) uu: Mounties Leaders: Sir John A. MacDonald or Pierre Trudeau
Scotland/Ireland/Celt
Brazil
Australia or Polynesia
Zulu or Bantu
Hebrew/Isreal
Viking/Scandinavia
Iroquios
I say the more civs the better!!
Flamegrape
Warlord
I can't remember if I've posted in this thread already. But I'll post my choices.
Phoenicia
Scandinavia
Korea
Maya
Iriquois
Cherokee
Sioux
Anasazi
Khmer
Zulu
Babylon
Sumeria
Mongolia
Australian (aboriginal)
Heck, there should be allowed a limitless number of tribes. We should be able to easily make them ourselves.
Phoenicia
Scandinavia
Korea
Maya
Iriquois
Cherokee
Sioux
Anasazi
Khmer
Zulu
Babylon
Sumeria
Mongolia
Australian (aboriginal)
Heck, there should be allowed a limitless number of tribes. We should be able to easily make them ourselves.
Koelle
King of Kings
SkippyT said:
No, that wasn't it. Germany took over Norway within a few days and Denmark within even a few hours. Anyway, i agree that Scandinavia should and surely will be in the expansion while Poland shouldn't and definately won't
Why do u want Austria-Hungary???It was just an artificial state.Hungary is much more older than Austria.Hungary has been a christyan state since 1000 AD.When the half middle-european region was the part of the hungarian kingdom the Habsburgs were just a simple family somewhere in the Holy Roman Empire.I think we need for east europe these states.
-Hungary
-Poland
-Bulgaria
-a Baltic state
-Suomi
-Czheh
-Hungary
-Poland
-Bulgaria
-a Baltic state
-Suomi
-Czheh
Panther_GR said:Yes and no
The Greek Churches have Greek inscriptions. All Orthodox Churches around the world have Greek in them. Exept the Russian Orthodox Churches who use Cyrrilic texts. That's the yes.
Latin are used in Catholic or Agglikan (Protestant) churches and latin is a translation of the original Greek text. That's the no (going to Greek being a translation)
Um, INRI was a Latin acronym put on the Cross by Latin speaking Roman soldiers. At least, that's how it's explained in the Latinate West. I imagine the actual event has been lost in time.
MrPaladin
Warlord
John 19:19-20
19Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.
Referenced also in Matthew 27:37
37Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
19Pilate had a notice prepared and fastened to the cross. It read: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20Many of the Jews read this sign, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and the sign was written in Aramaic, Latin and Greek.
Referenced also in Matthew 27:37
37Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS.
...and of course Sweden during 30 year war learned an important lesson all Civ players should learn too: expanding too quickly will damage your empire. Sweden of that time did have far too small population to handle a country covering all the surroundings of Baltic Sea...
SkippyT
Who?
yes, Scandinavia has never fallen, Sweden is the largest slice of Scandinavia and surely Norway fell, and Denmark but Iceland didn't and Sweden didn't so.. and Breunor, in the 15th century they were razed over by Sweden but in the 14th century I see no militaristic power. Well, weakness and strenght is not based on military powers, but that was what I meant. And their military power, as later was shown, was weak. And what Junichiro is saying is 100% true. Sweden had a peasant army and they were jealous of Denmark getting land in Germany and their population was not over 4 million, they went to get more land. They were just greedy. But that just proves Scandinavian strenght! More than any other, Scandinavia belongs in Civ IV exp. pack.
Greetings from the tropical islands of the Northern Atlantic Ocean ;]
Greetings from the tropical islands of the Northern Atlantic Ocean ;]
Ukas
Pthooey of Tomainia
Who I truly miss are the Zulus with those cool assegai spears. And Babylonians. Hungarians and Ottomans. Sioux or Iroquois. And finally Vikings.
About Swedes, the Finns often raided their coast and razed their towns about 900-1150 AD. So, basicly you can't call Sweden a virgin anymore. Then, of course, they got bored and organized and conquered Finland as a retaliation/pre-emptive move.
About Swedes, the Finns often raided their coast and razed their towns about 900-1150 AD. So, basicly you can't call Sweden a virgin anymore. Then, of course, they got bored and organized and conquered Finland as a retaliation/pre-emptive move.
MasterShake
Goofy Boots
will this thread ever die out?
Skippy,
Sigh. No matter how I present the history, you are going to use your judgement to say that Poland wasn't a power. I can give you over 30 quotes from military historians to the contrary.
(Here is one -- Trevor DuPuy ' Poland was one of the great military powers of Europe'). (The Encyclopedia of Military History, second reivsed edition, pg 490.). You admit Poland was 'large', which is objective. But you interpret them as 'weak' despite their cavalry controlling all the way to the Dneiper. Their power WAS a military power. After the union on Poland and Lithuania, they were a great power in Eastern Europe until the late 16th century.
I'm a military historian and an American. I don't have an agenda here. But I don't want to get into a flame war. It seems that your zeal to promote the Scandanavians have made you downplay Polish history. I think that's a shame.
Best wishes,
Breunor
Sigh. No matter how I present the history, you are going to use your judgement to say that Poland wasn't a power. I can give you over 30 quotes from military historians to the contrary.
(Here is one -- Trevor DuPuy ' Poland was one of the great military powers of Europe'). (The Encyclopedia of Military History, second reivsed edition, pg 490.). You admit Poland was 'large', which is objective. But you interpret them as 'weak' despite their cavalry controlling all the way to the Dneiper. Their power WAS a military power. After the union on Poland and Lithuania, they were a great power in Eastern Europe until the late 16th century.
I'm a military historian and an American. I don't have an agenda here. But I don't want to get into a flame war. It seems that your zeal to promote the Scandanavians have made you downplay Polish history. I think that's a shame.
Best wishes,
Breunor
sneakerback1
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 1
You know Canada can be an excellent expansion civ. I think the reason they became autonomous without war is a excellent reason. But I was thinking the Canadian civ more like the Barbarians.
You can't play as a Canadian civ but Canada can come into play (appear on the map) after half way or so into to the game (they can even start a city in another civs borders). On one hand you would want Canada to remain in the game because they would offer a huge boost to trade, but on the other hand they can expand fast and start taking over your lands, they can completely take over another civ lands without ever going to war. But the problem with going to war with them would be, because they are a peaceful nation all other nations even the war type nations would remain peaceful with them, the only time a AI nation would go to war with them is if it is a war type nation (very unlikely a peaceful nation would go to war with them) and Canada is taking over to much of their land, but then of course that would cause all other nation to war with them (the war type nation, or the nation that declared war on Canada). So if you go to war with Canada you bring on all other nation on your door step.
Canada could bring more strategy into the end game, and could change the face of the continent. They are open to all other religions but don't receive the penalty for this. If they land in your borders what do you do? If they land in another civ borders you could be dragged into war. And for even more variety Canada may or may not make an appearance in any given game. That would add alot of replay ability to the game.
The more I think about it the more I like the idea, but I guess there would be those that would not, and that's why Canada would come with one of those check boxes, to turn them off.
You can't play as a Canadian civ but Canada can come into play (appear on the map) after half way or so into to the game (they can even start a city in another civs borders). On one hand you would want Canada to remain in the game because they would offer a huge boost to trade, but on the other hand they can expand fast and start taking over your lands, they can completely take over another civ lands without ever going to war. But the problem with going to war with them would be, because they are a peaceful nation all other nations even the war type nations would remain peaceful with them, the only time a AI nation would go to war with them is if it is a war type nation (very unlikely a peaceful nation would go to war with them) and Canada is taking over to much of their land, but then of course that would cause all other nation to war with them (the war type nation, or the nation that declared war on Canada). So if you go to war with Canada you bring on all other nation on your door step.
Canada could bring more strategy into the end game, and could change the face of the continent. They are open to all other religions but don't receive the penalty for this. If they land in your borders what do you do? If they land in another civ borders you could be dragged into war. And for even more variety Canada may or may not make an appearance in any given game. That would add alot of replay ability to the game.
The more I think about it the more I like the idea, but I guess there would be those that would not, and that's why Canada would come with one of those check boxes, to turn them off.
SkippyT
Who?
Breunor,
I'm sorry and I didn't mean to be rude or anything but my point is, if they had this magnificent cavalry and were so great and all, why couldn't they stop a peasant army? I know lot about Polish history since 1,5% of Iceland's population are Polish immigrants, and one of my best friends is Polish. Polish history also cuts into Scandinavian history since Canute, one of Scandinavia's greatest leaders, was Half-Polish. His father was Svein Forkbeard and his mother was Gunnhild (leader for Scandanvia in CivII btw), a Polish queen. Her real name was something like Zwiatozlawinava.. Sorry I don't remember. Canute was a Danish king who conquered England. I'm just saying that Poland is being set on a higher horse than they should really be on. My intentions were not to downplay the Polish nation, not at all.
Ukas,
Nobody knows anything about that. All our Icelandic sagas were about Danish, Norweigan and Swedish kings. As we learn here in my home country, Finland wasn't really, I don't know, mentioned 'til the introduction of Christianity and with Swedish domination in the country for almost 700 years. But Sweden, I say, is a virgin. They've been neutral in WWI and WWII, and was a part of the alliance with Great Britain during the Napoleon wars and with that expanded their empire to the west by getting Norway after the wars since Denmark supported France and this was a "punishment" to Denmark. I just don't know what to say more. And so was Iceland never "conquered" since they, peacefully, walked into the Kingdom of Norway, 1262.
And I'm sorry to all Polish about before! I was just so dependent on saying how great Scandinavia is and all. But I do say that Scandinavia is the best candidate for another European civ, followed by Portugal. And as usual I wanna say:
Scandinavia (Queen Margareth, Exp/Fin and Gustav Adolf, Agg/Phi)
Israel (King David, Spi/Org and King Solomon, Spi/Phi)
Babylonia (Hammurabi, Org/Fin)
Aborginees (Chieftain Yagan, Agg/Exp)
Portugal (Henrique the Navigator, Exp/Fin)
Korea (Sejong The Great, Cre/Ind and King Taejong, Agg/Fin)
Sioux (Sitting Bull, Spi/Agg)
Ethiopia (Sheba, Fin/Cre)
Vietnam (Ho Chi Minh, Agg/Org)
Ottoman Turks (Mehmed II, Cre/Exp and Selim I the Brave, Spi/Ind)
And I really mean this, I was a little bit over the top and lost myself proving that Scandinavia is much greater than Poland has or ever will be and they've never fallen and I'm sorry
I'm sorry and I didn't mean to be rude or anything but my point is, if they had this magnificent cavalry and were so great and all, why couldn't they stop a peasant army? I know lot about Polish history since 1,5% of Iceland's population are Polish immigrants, and one of my best friends is Polish. Polish history also cuts into Scandinavian history since Canute, one of Scandinavia's greatest leaders, was Half-Polish. His father was Svein Forkbeard and his mother was Gunnhild (leader for Scandanvia in CivII btw), a Polish queen. Her real name was something like Zwiatozlawinava.. Sorry I don't remember. Canute was a Danish king who conquered England. I'm just saying that Poland is being set on a higher horse than they should really be on. My intentions were not to downplay the Polish nation, not at all.
Ukas,
Nobody knows anything about that. All our Icelandic sagas were about Danish, Norweigan and Swedish kings. As we learn here in my home country, Finland wasn't really, I don't know, mentioned 'til the introduction of Christianity and with Swedish domination in the country for almost 700 years. But Sweden, I say, is a virgin. They've been neutral in WWI and WWII, and was a part of the alliance with Great Britain during the Napoleon wars and with that expanded their empire to the west by getting Norway after the wars since Denmark supported France and this was a "punishment" to Denmark. I just don't know what to say more. And so was Iceland never "conquered" since they, peacefully, walked into the Kingdom of Norway, 1262.
And I'm sorry to all Polish about before! I was just so dependent on saying how great Scandinavia is and all. But I do say that Scandinavia is the best candidate for another European civ, followed by Portugal. And as usual I wanna say:
Scandinavia (Queen Margareth, Exp/Fin and Gustav Adolf, Agg/Phi)
Israel (King David, Spi/Org and King Solomon, Spi/Phi)
Babylonia (Hammurabi, Org/Fin)
Aborginees (Chieftain Yagan, Agg/Exp)
Portugal (Henrique the Navigator, Exp/Fin)
Korea (Sejong The Great, Cre/Ind and King Taejong, Agg/Fin)
Sioux (Sitting Bull, Spi/Agg)
Ethiopia (Sheba, Fin/Cre)
Vietnam (Ho Chi Minh, Agg/Org)
Ottoman Turks (Mehmed II, Cre/Exp and Selim I the Brave, Spi/Ind)
And I really mean this, I was a little bit over the top and lost myself proving that Scandinavia is much greater than Poland has or ever will be and they've never fallen and I'm sorry
- Status
Similar threads
