Let's Talk About the Civs that WON'T Make It In Despite Popularity

[say1988]

The only people who won WW1 was America and any nation to get its land back...ie Poland....

Canada, Japan, Australia, etc...

 

[ancestral]

If you guys want a game where you can literally play any of these nations, you should really try out Europa Universalis III. You will not be disappointed.

It takes place in 1399 and ends just after the Napoleonic wars and you can be pretty much any nation in the world. It's an awesome strategy game.

 

[kazapp]

C'mon, this thread is clearly broken.

Only on the thirteenth post somebody brought up Poland...

 

[DroopyTofu]

C'mon, this thread is clearly broken.

Only on the thirteenth post somebody brought up Poland...

I think there are enought North African civs already.

 

[Arakhor]

No one's mentioned the Nazis yet! Oh, wait...

 

[Ahovking]

I cry everytime i think of this.....WW1 screw Hungary up the most....I mean they took 1/3 of our land and half our ethnic population was outside of the natural/historical borders.....

The only people who won WW1 was America and any nation to get its land back...ie Poland....

EDIT I'd love to see an expansion pack that focuses on Europe/middles ages maybe...so you can have Polish/Czech,Hun,Romania,Finnish kingdom....maybe a pipe dream....

lol America know nothing about history is sad really Britain and France win the Peace treaties was signed by Britain and Germany not America you only became a powerful nation after WW2 because you entered WW2 late come one you been late for the past 2 world War.

and here read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country

 

[say1988]

You a) don't understand what he was saying, and b) don't actually know what you are talking about.

a) The US was among the countries that gained the most out of WWI, with massive profits from trade with belligerent nations (prices for just grain were extraordinarily high) and it significantly decreased the power of the European countries relative to the Americans.

b) The US was a major economic force even before WWI and was capable of deploying significant military power, as seen by their fairly quick build ups in WWI and WWII. They were not a superpower, but they were significant, to say the least. As of, at the latest, the Civil War the US had to be considered a major power, having demonstrated its ability to field large armies and its economic power.

 

[Ahovking]

You a) don't understand what he was saying, and b) don't actually know what you are talking about.

a) The US was among the countries that gained the most out of WWI, with massive profits from trade with belligerent nations (prices for just grain were extraordinarily high) and it significantly decreased the power of the European countries relative to the Americans.

b) The US was a major economic force even before WWI and was capable of deploying significant military power, as seen by their fairly quick build ups in WWI and WWII. They were not a superpower, but they were significant, to say the least. As of, at the latest, the Civil War the US had to be considered a major power, having demonstrated its ability to field large armies and its economic power.

a) Before WW1 No nation could compare to Europe power over the world it controlled more than 70% of the earth.

b) And yeah Before WW1 America told Europe what it do, Europe controlled over 70% of the world and you are saying that America that controlled lest than 5% told Europe what to do. When world war 1 was over Europe was weaker but it still was far more powerful than every Nation on earth and yes you become stronger you still cant outdo Europe only when WW2 was over America be a true power.

c) you entered late again in WW1 USA entered a year before the war ended 1917-1918

 

[deanej]

So to be a power you must be more powerful than all of Europe combined?

In the sence of how the treaties worked you are correct that Britain and France won, but that does not change the fact that the US saw the most benefit. No amount of snootiness over how much Americans know history is going to change that.

 

[Ahovking]

yeah US saw the most benefit as Europe fall the us slowly took the place of Europe and no you can be a superpower lest powerful than all of Europe combined it just America wasn't a superpower until 1945.

 

[mechaerik]

I completly agree, besides maybe #5.
I guess australia will never be in any civ game or expansion (just as example).


Other popular civs, which will probably not be in:
- Poland

Why not? There aren't that many Eastern European civs.

 

[say1988]

a) Before WW1 No nation could compare to Europe power over the world it controlled more than 70% of the earth.

Just like Germany wasn't powerful because the rest of Europe controlled 65% of the world?
Of the British Empire wasn't powerful because they couldn't beat the rest of Europe?
The US was one of the top economic powers (at least third) and capable of being a major military power at the beginning of the 20th century. That is a fact.
We aren't talking about the Cold War or modern era with 2 or 1 superpower, before WWI there were a number of major powers, including Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire, and the US. None alone could defeat more than one or two of the others, with the exception of US and Britain that had enormous defensive advantages.

c) you entered late again in WW1 USA entered a year before the war ended 1917-1918

a) I am NOT American.
b) Who cares? The US benefited more than any pre-war power (with the possible exception of Japan), relative to its loss. Hell joining late actually added to this.
c) Just because they chose not to get involved in a war between countries on the other side of an ocean that they had no reason to join does not diminish their power. Because they chose not to maintain unnecessarily large military forces during peace time also does not indicate a lack of an ability to mobilize a large army in a crisis, as the two world wars showed.

 

[Tee Kay]

5. Siamese, Indonesian-based, Vietnamese, and other Southeast Asian Empires not called the Khmer or possibly Burmese-based Empires
I'm honestly wondering-Did any of these countries actually build, conquer, or influence any significant amounts of territory, people, etc.?

Yes. A lot.

The only thing the Siamese and Vietnamese empires did was carve up a Khmer empire in decline

After they did that though, they became full-fledged states rivalling the former Khmer Empire in power. Ayutthaya was one of the world's largest cities at one point.

Indonesia-based Empires where mostly trading/pirate empires, and did not really leave a significant mark anywhere except make the straights of Malacca not safe and have to be patrolled first by the Chinese, then Dutch, then British.

Taken as a whole, modern Indonesia with 240 million people is the world's fourth most populous country (Malaysia adds another 28 million), third largest democracy and the largest Muslim country. The maritime empires were based in what is now the most populated parts of the country (Java, Sumatra, and also Malacca on the other side of the strait) and were responsible for the spread of Hindu, Buddhist and, later, Islamic cultures around South East Asia. Srivijayan Palembang was a major Buddhist center of learning; medieval Aceh, of Islam. These empires played important roles in trade and helped patrolled the Strait of Malacca rather than being the cause of piracy (in most cases, anyway). The Dutch and the British never completely subdued the Malay states in Sumatra, Java and Malaya until the end of the 19th century.

 

[Ahovking]

WW1
Russia:12,000,000
Great Britain : 8,905,000
France : 8,410,000
United States : 2,355,000 A Militray power no way
WW2
Russia:12 million
Great Britain :1 million
France :8 720 000
United States :7 650 000 ok the us is slowly getting there
Post-WW2
Result Allied victory

* Creation of the United Nations
* Emergence of the United States and the Soviet Union as superpowers
* Creation of NATO and Warsaw Pact

USSR :5.3 million USA :2.3 million Hay they made it

 

[Abaddon]

Needs Moar Amazons!

 

[say1988]

Come off it. Those statistics are MEANINGLESS and wrong.
First: The US had twice that many men in uniform, that is just what served overseas.
Second: You are comparing countries that spent a decade building up for the war and four years fighting it to a country than participated for less than two with little build up before hand, having less than 150,000 (including reserves) in 1914 and no large body of trained men to be called upon or conscription in place until 1917. In contrast to the millions of men the Europeans had ready to be called upon.
Note that the United States was capable of fielding over 3 million men during the 1860s, they could field far more in 1917 if they so chose to.

And you completely ignore their economic power.

 

[i_diavolorosso]

As for Indonesia, they were not established from East India. Their origins are not well known, but it is certain that Indians did not come over and colonize the area, although certianly there was a large Hindu influence. As for the Khmer being a regional superpower, even that is not as impressive as it looks. The Indonesian Empires of Srivijaya and Majapahit had spheres of influence as large as the Khmer, and they were just as well-developed and prosperous, with or without the Khmer. In fact, the Khmer Empire started as a vassal of Srivijaya that rebelled! And as for Vietnam, it was never really a vassal of Khmer, and its own history is more intertwined with China rather than India, unlike most of SE Asia. We just fought against the Khmer a lot, and we have had our long history for about 2500 years without much Khmer influence.

Yes, i'm agree
My history teacher told me that although the origin of indonesian, or the hindu influence in indonesia is hard to trace back, but the historian sure that indonesia was never became India colony, and India was never conquered Indonesia.
Because around that time 0-400 ad, in India, the caste system was strictly enforced. That mean, only 3 caste have an opportunity to come to Indonesia. The priest, the knight, or the merchant. But the knight and the merchant, was never allowed to spread hinduism, nor they are has a deep information about hindu itself. The information, all about the ritual, and everything about it, was only able to be learned by the priest itself. The other caste has no right to study the religion.
That's why, the historian make a suggestion, that hinduism was spread in the archipelago, through east indian priest, that was invited by some of Indonesian king, to spread hinduism. And that means, around that time, the area itself must be already prosperous, because they could fund a priest's journey from india to the archipelago, which i predict, was expensivce at that time

And about srivijaya and majapahit, yeah both of them is as big as khmer, although, yeah they're much much much less popular than the khmer.

 

[Ahovking]

Come off it. Those statistics are MEANINGLESS and wrong.
First: The US had twice that many men in uniform, that is just what served overseas.
Second: You are comparing countries that spent a decade building up for the war and four years fighting it to a country than participated for less than two with little build up before hand, having less than 150,000 (including reserves) in 1914 and no large body of trained men to be called upon or conscription in place until 1917. In contrast to the millions of men the Europeans had ready to be called upon.
Note that the United States was capable of fielding over 3 million men during the 1860s, they could field far more in 1917 if they so chose to.

And you completely ignore their economic power.

this is Meaningless but im having fun.
superpower of the time was arguably Great Britain with a global empire upon which "the sun never set." Of all the combatants in World War II, the U.S. suffered little or no war damage (apart from a Japanese balloon attack in the Pacific Northweat which did little damage). Hawaii was not yet a state so the Pearl Harbor attack doesn't "count." The only American territory occupied by a foreign army was an island in the Aleutians, which the Japanese seized hoping to lure the American fleet north. The U.S. didn't take the bait but let the Japanese have the island (which was ultimately recaptured). With the country intact and the economy thriving, the U.S. emerged as the dominant postwar power. And for a time, it enjoyed a nuclear monopoly, giving it extra clout. Britain, on the other hand, had been devastated by constant air attacks, and after the war it was a shadow of its former self as its vast empire began to disintegrate. we bleed they feed

 

[Ahovking]

It was immediately post WW2 that the USA became a superpower.
If you look at the size of the American army, for example. In 1939 the US Army had about 175,000 men. It was roughly one-sixth of the size of the Polish Army.

America was also pursuing policy of detachment if not of isolation, in the inter-war years. Not the projection of a superpower.

America was a power, especially in international trade, from before WW1. This demanded and justified a significant navy.
But I can't see how you can support claiming anything more

 

[Emperor_Jackal]

I'd very much like a South Africa with Nelson Mandela as a leader.