The Holy Roman Empire could be considered many things in addition to German (French, Austrian, Italian, and Dutch). I think Firaxis is really trying represent the Franks with the HRE. If the UU and UB are Frankish, I will change the name to the Franks.
HRE, a joke possibly?
- Thread starter Cato the Elder
- Start date
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
Why franks when france?
Part of a civilization is its language. If a group of people speak a different language than what what is considered the language of that Civilization, it is not part of that civilization. The Franks spoke Frankish.
Vlade Divac
Warlord
Sweet baby Jesus and the apostles this'd better be a joke.
Badesumofu
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 107
The Byzantine Empire is not, in any way, a 'second Greece'. It's not a second Greece anymore than the USA is a second 'Native Americans'. It's an off-shhot of the Eastern Roman Empire, but it has a culture distinct from both that of the Romans and the Greeks.
I'm sorry, but the Byzantine Empire is more deserving of a spot than Poland. 'The Jews' are represented by 'Judaism'.
I'm not on board with the idea of having a single Civ called 'The Native Americans', although I suppose it's marginally less insulting to them than having them be represented by Barbarians. I wonder if 'The Native Americans' will go on the Americas continent in Terra maps.
Despite criticisms, Charlemagne is basically responsible for the creation of the Holy Roman Empire. I don't really like the idea of having it in the game, but oh well, not everything can be to each individual's personal tastes.
Edit: I don't see how, in a single post, you can assert that lumping all the Native American tribes into a single Civ is insulting; and also claim that the Byzantine Empire is 'a second Greece'.
I'm sorry, but the Byzantine Empire is more deserving of a spot than Poland. 'The Jews' are represented by 'Judaism'.
I'm not on board with the idea of having a single Civ called 'The Native Americans', although I suppose it's marginally less insulting to them than having them be represented by Barbarians. I wonder if 'The Native Americans' will go on the Americas continent in Terra maps.
Despite criticisms, Charlemagne is basically responsible for the creation of the Holy Roman Empire. I don't really like the idea of having it in the game, but oh well, not everything can be to each individual's personal tastes.
Edit: I don't see how, in a single post, you can assert that lumping all the Native American tribes into a single Civ is insulting; and also claim that the Byzantine Empire is 'a second Greece'.
flamingzaroc121
Emperor
im not saying Byzantine is a second Greece, but it was founded by a greek city-state, Megara
EDIT: woot woot 701 posts
EDIT: woot woot 701 posts
winddbourne
Prince
Honestly I'd prefer to lump HRE and Byzantium with Rome using the new leader system. Since different leaders almost represent different civ I-III civilizations and those "civs" have very close ties.
On the other hand I'd also rather see the cherokee, Iroquois, and Pueblo as seperate civilizations because they really don't have any common ties in language, culture, or location.
Unfortunately there will always be people on the forums who feel strongly one way or the other, and we could argue forever. One thing is certain . . . after the developers have put all the work into making a whole seperate civilization it's probably too late to ask them to change things.
They aren't going to combine three civilizations/leaders into one, even if it will sound odd to have the romans warring with the holy romans, or even the byzantines. Nor do I think they will MAKE three other civilizations that I feel should be included to replace the two I think shouldn't exist at the same time on the same map.
It's a done deal. The work has been done. I'm sure someone was consulted over the decision, I hear rumours of polls. I missed those so my vote, all our votes, won't count till the next expansion, or until the next version of civilization.
The native americans are in, the pueblo, iroquois, and cherokee are not, the romans, byzantines, and HRE are in, I doubt I'll see a new spanish leader, or to make my point very clear Hitler.
We could argue forever. But why? Does it really alter our game THAT much?
On the other hand I'd also rather see the cherokee, Iroquois, and Pueblo as seperate civilizations because they really don't have any common ties in language, culture, or location.
Unfortunately there will always be people on the forums who feel strongly one way or the other, and we could argue forever. One thing is certain . . . after the developers have put all the work into making a whole seperate civilization it's probably too late to ask them to change things.
They aren't going to combine three civilizations/leaders into one, even if it will sound odd to have the romans warring with the holy romans, or even the byzantines. Nor do I think they will MAKE three other civilizations that I feel should be included to replace the two I think shouldn't exist at the same time on the same map.
It's a done deal. The work has been done. I'm sure someone was consulted over the decision, I hear rumours of polls. I missed those so my vote, all our votes, won't count till the next expansion, or until the next version of civilization.
The native americans are in, the pueblo, iroquois, and cherokee are not, the romans, byzantines, and HRE are in, I doubt I'll see a new spanish leader, or to make my point very clear Hitler.
We could argue forever. But why? Does it really alter our game THAT much?
Badesumofu
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2007
- Messages
- 107
I could maybe accept lumping the Byzantines in with the Roman Empire, especially since the term 'Byzantine Empire' didn't come into use until after the fact.
The Holy Roman Empire though, was not holy, most certainly not Roman, and was only breifly an empire. It has nothing to do with the Roman Empire, nothing at all, except that it occupied some of the same land, and was created as an attempt to rehash the Eastern Roman Empire.
The Byzantine Empire is an evolution or the Western Roman Empire. Sure, it was sort of Greek, there's no denying that, but to call it a second Greece is just wrong. Especially if you object to the lumping of the Native American Tribes, as I do. But the poster above me is correct- this is a fairly pointless argument in the context of a BTS forum.
The Holy Roman Empire though, was not holy, most certainly not Roman, and was only breifly an empire. It has nothing to do with the Roman Empire, nothing at all, except that it occupied some of the same land, and was created as an attempt to rehash the Eastern Roman Empire.
The Byzantine Empire is an evolution or the Western Roman Empire. Sure, it was sort of Greek, there's no denying that, but to call it a second Greece is just wrong. Especially if you object to the lumping of the Native American Tribes, as I do. But the poster above me is correct- this is a fairly pointless argument in the context of a BTS forum.
Onagan
The Dutch
Because it's not the same, it's even not the same area.
why do think that the name means their are the same?
The Roman part in the HRE doesn't mean it's the same as Rome.
Onagan
The Dutch
Franks are a Germanic tribe, just as the Celts where a ancient tribe
Inhalaattori
Emperor
If they wanted to add european civ... Dacia would have been great choice, led by Burebista.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burebista
Poland and Hungary would have been good choices also.
I believe the reason HRE is in the game is that they had made Charlemagne scenario and wanted then to use leaderhead, UU and UB from that scenario.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burebista
Poland and Hungary would have been good choices also.
I believe the reason HRE is in the game is that they had made Charlemagne scenario and wanted then to use leaderhead, UU and UB from that scenario.
Lucky The Fox
Prince
It's a good sign. If HRE and Boudicca are the only faults BTS has, it's bound to be the best expansion ever.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
I can only support that, but I'm afraid most people when seeing that would say something along the lines of "omfg wtf what is this?!!11!". BTW, Burebista is indeed the best choice for their leader, though most people heard about Decebalus, not Burebista.
The thing is they lasted to little... only from 82 BC to 106 AD (though Roman Dacia lasted until 271 AD).
PimpyMicPimp
Regrets His Username.
Will the new Alliance race REALLY be Draenie?!? Come on!
I'm guessing it's true
I'm guessing it's true
How long it takes to remove a civ and put the other into package?
I don't think it is something difficult to do.
Maybe Firaxis checked if HRE is a good idea, said a word about it and now will decide if to put it or not. If they don't include HRE, they would always be able to say - "that was just a joke!"
I don't think it is something difficult to do.
Maybe Firaxis checked if HRE is a good idea, said a word about it and now will decide if to put it or not. If they don't include HRE, they would always be able to say - "that was just a joke!"
Bongo-Bongo
The Master
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2005
- Messages
- 621
One thing that seems to be forgotten is that this is a GAME. It's not a history package. the whole idea of it is to have fun, not to learn. It is essentially a toy. And the people on this forum make up just a small percentage who actually play the game. Obviously, I can't draw up figures, but I would imagine that most of the users have little, or no interest in history, and bought the game simply because they thought it would be fun.
Now, say we have one space for a civ left, and we have to choose between Poland, Austria and the Holy Roman Empire. From a marketing point of view, which one do you chose? Well if we consider that most of the users are likely not have any interest in history, or just don't give a toss, then Holy Roman Empire certainly sounds better. To the average guy, it is likely to sound a lot more interesting then what they would consider a minor country who their nation stuffed 4-0 in the football a week or two ago.
As I have stated in previous topics, HRE would not be my first choice civ, and initially, I was a little dissapointed, but now I couldn't care less. Why? Because it is such a small part of what is going to be such an exceptional expansion pack. If they are well balanced and have a fun UU and UB, then I look forward to playing as them.
Now, say we have one space for a civ left, and we have to choose between Poland, Austria and the Holy Roman Empire. From a marketing point of view, which one do you chose? Well if we consider that most of the users are likely not have any interest in history, or just don't give a toss, then Holy Roman Empire certainly sounds better. To the average guy, it is likely to sound a lot more interesting then what they would consider a minor country who their nation stuffed 4-0 in the football a week or two ago.
As I have stated in previous topics, HRE would not be my first choice civ, and initially, I was a little dissapointed, but now I couldn't care less. Why? Because it is such a small part of what is going to be such an exceptional expansion pack. If they are well balanced and have a fun UU and UB, then I look forward to playing as them.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
but that was a long long time ago, long before Constantine came to the site and said "WTF this is a good site for a new ROME, what the heck, lets build a city here" and Constantinople was born.
Gaius Octavius
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,016
Constantine also looked at the ancient site of Troy when considering locations for the new capital.
Just thought I'd throw that in.
A question for you, cybrxkhan... what do you mean by, "If you meet the Buddha, kill him" ?
Just thought I'd throw that in.
A question for you, cybrxkhan... what do you mean by, "If you meet the Buddha, kill him" ?
r_rolo1
King of myself
....But then a eagle grabed the city plans and took them into the ancient city site of Bizantium. Constantine said that was a God given sign and ordered that the new city should be built in the other side ( so says the legend... )
Similar threads
