Petition to add Poland

[Öjevind Lång]

African Tribes? We have Zulu already, no need for others.

I should very much like to see Ethiopia added to the game.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

Well, Ethiopia isn't a tribe. Ethiopia would be neat addition.

 

[Giaur]

I have one thing to say. 345 posts is a serious count, which points this topic is taken seriously. So maybe adding Poland is not stupid thing.

 

[Minnesota]

Poland was around for 200 years? What about Poland-Lithuania commonwealth? Or didn't you count it because it had Lithuania in it's name?

Byzantium? I consider it as a mixture of Greece and Rome, Rome gave it it's lands, Greece gave the culture. It had a great history, I know, but still I would see some other nations before it, like Poland. Byzantium is too similar to Greece and Rome.

Mollacca? You mean Malacca? No. It wasn't a great power in it's area, it was an important trading city. I'd like to see Khmer instead from Asia.

Aborigines? Why?

Native American Tribes? Yes, Iroquois maybe.

African Tribes? We have Zulu already, no need for others.

Anglo&Saxian? We have England, you know?

You give some great counter points.

Byzantium is a mixture of Greek and Roman, but what they provided to the world is very different. They created a wonder in Civ IV (Hagia Sophia). They invented the mushroom top you see in Taj Mahal and other religous buildings. They were a beacon for Christianity. You can also make a case when the capital moved from Rome to Istanbul that that was the beginging of the Byzantium. They also created some very great ideas for city defense.

Mollacca/Malacca are both acceptable. I've seen them both ways. For around 500 years, they were the capital of trading. They are the reason Columbus sailed to the Carribbean. My expierence with the game. They have not put in any trading empires or any trading emphasis. You can trade resources and luxuries, but I believe it falls short of the importance in history.

Aboriginies are just and example of a completely different civ from the game. It would be a nice touch.

African Tribes have played a huge importance in history, and to only give them one tribe is kind of an insult. Ethiopia is a civilization and was once a traveling tribe. Ethiopia would be a great idea.

Anglo & Saxian is completely different from England. England is a copy of France. Anglo & Saxian are the tribes that enhabited it before William crossed the channel. They were a brutal tribe that believed in some serious brutality.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

You give some great counter points.

Byzantium is a mixture of Greek and Roman, but what they provided to the world is very different. They created a wonder in Civ IV (Hagia Sophia). They invented the mushroom top you see in Taj Mahal and other religous buildings. They were a beacon for Christianity. You can also make a case when the capital moved from Rome to Istanbul that that was the beginging of the Byzantium. They also created some very great ideas for city defense.

Mollacca/Malacca are both acceptable. I've seen them both ways. For around 500 years, they were the capital of trading. They are the reason Columbus sailed to the Carribbean. My expierence with the game. They have not put in any trading empires or any trading emphasis. You can trade resources and luxuries, but I believe it falls short of the importance in history.

Aboriginies are just and example of a completely different civ from the game. It would be a nice touch.

African Tribes have played a huge importance in history, and to only give them one tribe is kind of an insult. Ethiopia is a civilization and was once a traveling tribe. Ethiopia would be a great idea.

Anglo & Saxian is completely different from England. England is a copy of France. Anglo & Saxian are the tribes that enhabited it before William crossed the channel. They were a brutal tribe that believed in some serious brutality.

Always ready for a debate.

1) Byzantium is a hard case to solve. It's kinda Rome, but in the other way not. They created a wonder, I agree, but in some cases that's not enough. They got their lands from a previous, falling empire. It's an achievement that they survived from hordes of barbarians when Rome fell, but that's almost their only great militaristic achievement. They conquered some land when Islam rose up, but lost them to Muslims later on. Culturally they actually didn't create very much, except Hagia Sophia and mushroom-tops. This is a case that can be decided on either side by Firaxis, but I don't support Byzantium.

2) Malacca was a great trading city, I agree. But that's their about only, truly memorable thing in their history. There shouldn't be trading empires in Civ, unless the next expansion focuses on trading and improves it greatly(which I really hope for). Both Netherlands and Portugal were bigger trading empires than Malacca.

3) Aborigines aren't a civilization, they were a bunch of tribes which Europeans united under one name. Aborigines would be a different kind of civilization. An unrealistic

4) African Tribes were mostly in the way of colonists. When Zulus won a battle against English, it was maybe the first real victory for Africans against Europeans. I'd say that their only great achievement has been that some of them have lasted for a long time with their unique culture, like Masai. Ethiopia's main reasons to be included are winning a war against Italy and one of the oldest Christian churches. Africa needs more nations, though Ethiopia, Mali and Zulu are enough for me.

5) I admit that I didn't know much about Anglo-Saxons when I answered you. But seriously, what are their great achievements which are memorable in the history of world? I can't say any. They gained control in England on the mid-5th century AD and lost 1066 to William. OK, 500 years is an achievement, but still, is that the only reason?

 

[dragomaster]

"During the September Campaign, the Polish Cavalry would prove to be much more successful than anybody, the Germans included, could have anticipated. Polish Cavalry brigades were used as a mobile infantry and were quite successful against German infantry. Cavalry charges were rare but successful, especially when used against infantry in un-entrenched positions. However, while Polish cavalry matched German panzers in speed and anti-infantry effectiveness, in the end it simply could not stand its ground against the tanks." http://www.braindex.com/encyclopedia/index.php/Polish_September_Campaign

Don't underestimate cavalry, espacially when it didn't need oil to move.

The poles did this in the first battle agains germany. Cavalary vs. tanks can only turn in to one thing... if the poles had modern anti tank weapons the cavalery whod have stod a chans but they diden't. however, Poland maybe have some history but so have every outher nations. I am not intending to insult Poland, I have nothing against this country. But comparing them to outher civilizations like rome, Dutch, English and Aztecs is misleading. Wy not ad denmark, serbs or outher midieval nations who could have made world wide history.

there ar outher nations worth mention, Cambodia, Byzantin and wy not a Juwish nation. I like the ethiopian idea, it whod be fun playing with som outher african civ. The the arabian civilization; all Arabs in to one civilization as this seams to be, have a huge history in philosophy and maths. they introduced number 0 and the modern numbers we use. before that the europeans used the roman figures. witch is beautiful but very complicated.

 

[Öjevind Lång]

I have one thing to say. 345 posts is a serious count, which points this topic is taken seriously. So maybe adding Poland is not stupid thing.

Numberless threads were dedicated to discussions as to whether Hitler should be included as a leader in Civ before the moderators banned further discussions of the subject. So something is wrong with your reasoning. Furthermore, most of the posts are about all the cool civilizations one could include rather than Poland.

 

[a4phantom]

Well, Ethiopia isn't a tribe. Ethiopia would be neat addition.

What makes one group a tribe and another not a tribe? Sigh.


Edit: As for the famous use of cavalry against tanks, Germany was the only country at the time skilled in tank warfare. If Polish cavalry had gone up against American or Japanese tanks in 1943, I would not have guarenteed the tanks' victory. From the perspective of the late 20th century or even 1943 it seems like throwing stones, but it's not strange to use your country's strongest weapon in desperate defense even if it's suddenly become obsolete. It's certainly no dumber than bayonet charges against rifles and machine guns, which occurred throughout the American Civil War, the Crimean War and WW1.

 

[Elandal]

Tribalism civic?

 

[Magnus of Borg]

I agree that Poland should be added in future expansions.

 

[Vertico]

Edit: As for the famous use of cavalry against tanks, Germany was the only country at the time skilled in tank warfare. If Polish cavalry had gone up against American or Japanese tanks in 1943, I would not have guarenteed the tanks' victory. From the perspective of the late 20th century or even 1943 it seems like throwing stones, but it's not strange to use your country's strongest weapon in desperate defense even if it's suddenly become obsolete. It's certainly no dumber than bayonet charges against rifles and machine guns, which occurred throughout the American Civil War, the Crimean War and WW1.

True, next quote:

Poles had 132 of their own 7TP tanks and a few modern imported designs, such as 50 Renault R35 tanks (which never reached Poland before 1st September) and 38 Vickers E tanks, which were capable of destroying any German armour, including their heaviest Panzer IV. Of the 700 odd tanks remaining, 102 were obsolete First World War Renault FT-17 tanks and, not much better than armoured cars, 300 TK-3 and 274 TKS tankettes. In addition to tanks, Poland successfully used armoured trains against German forces, who were unprepared to face this kind of combat vehicle, considered in 1939 obsolete by German planners to be given any serious consideration. Although the trains proved indeed vulnerable to air attack, the losses that the Germans incurred against Polish trains convinced them to reintroduce this type of vehicle into their own army after the September Campaign.

The experiences in the only recent major conflict the independent Second Polish Republic took part in, the Polish-Soviet War (1919-1921), shaped Polish Army organisational and operational doctrine. Unlike the First World War, this was a conflict in which the cavalry's mobility played a decisive role. Thus the Polish high command drew a lesson different from both Western Allies and Germany, with their western front experience. With their victory in the First World War, France and Britain remained conservative and expected the new conflict to be another of trench warfare. German military theories were based upon the notion that successful offenses would be based on new inventions—tanks and planes. Poland stood in the middle: acknowledging the benefits of mobility but unwilling (and unable) to invest heavily in the expensive and unproven new inventions, it turned to cavalry, which the Polish Army considered its elite corps.

 

[a4phantom]

Tell me more about these armored trains, I've heard of trains being armored and armed to defend themselves as they transported people and supplies (and bankrolls to towns in the American Old West), but never as actual combat weapons. I'd think the limiting factor of the track would cripple their use.

 

[Vertico]

I am not intending to insult Poland, I have nothing against this country. But comparing them to outher civilizations like rome, Dutch, English and Aztecs is misleading. Wy not ad denmark, serbs or outher midieval nations who could have made world wide history.

Some reasons for Poland against given some given examples:

II wolrd war, time of fight until surrender to Nazi Germany
Holland: 6 days
Denmark: few hours
Yugoslavia: 11 days

When Poland was able to fight of two fronts against both Germany and Soviet Uniot for more than month (even more than France which was considered as a superpower against just Germany)

History length

Poland was a country with national identiity more than any given "cool civs".
Let's say than hisory of Poland begins with cristianity (and we forget about previous rulers). It happend on 966AD. Please compare with all those Dutch, Serbians, Aborigines, Hittites, Cambodians etc. Even "great" Rome didn't last such long

 

[Vertico]

Tell me more about these armored trains, I've heard of trains being armored and armed to defend themselves as they transported people and supplies (and bankrolls to towns in the American Old West), but never as actual combat weapons. I'd think the limiting factor of the track would cripple their use.

Look here: http://derela.republika.pl/armtrain.htm
Interesting topic btw

 

[Öjevind Lång]

Edit: As for the famous use of cavalry against tanks, Germany was the only country at the time skilled in tank warfare. If Polish cavalry had gone up against American or Japanese tanks in 1943, I would not have guarenteed the tanks' victory. From the perspective of the late 20th century or even 1943 it seems like throwing stones, but it's not strange to use your country's strongest weapon in desperate defense even if it's suddenly become obsolete. It's certainly no dumber than bayonet charges against rifles and machine guns, which occurred throughout the American Civil War, the Crimean War and WW1.

Well, during the First World War, both sides tried to use cavalry on the Western Front, and the cavalry regiments were caught in barbed wire and mowed down by machine guns. Complete fiasco. The generals loved cavalry and hated all those newfangled weapons, so they kept trying to use cavalry for quite a while until they ran out of cavalrymen to send to the butcher's bench. On the Eastern Front, the geographical areas were so vast that one could still use cavalry at that time, but in 1940 that had pretty much become history too.

 

[LDeska]

You reminded me those armoured trains - when I was a little boy my brother was collecting (I don't know how to name it in English) 'stickers'. You had to buy an empty album and then regularly few stickers which you could put in place in this album. Of course it was all described to show what was used for what. I remember those armoured trains that we (Poland) had. It was quite vulnerable I think to air attack (tracks could be bombed) but it was heavily armoured and had turrets with cannons, so it was good against German tanks.
I don't know why someone is still teaching that Poles charged tanks with cavalry... it's so stupid that no one should believe in that. The truth is that German Nazi propaganda made a movie showing such attack and it was Germans pretending Poles, in reality it never happened. It is offending for us - look here, one of my countrymen created such unit for civ4: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95501 there is also some more explanation about this subject.
The count of posts in this thread is really impressive, soon we will post our petition to Firaxis, I hope we will make it to be in second add-on...

 

[a4phantom]

You reminded me those armoured trains - when I was a little boy my brother was collecting (I don't know how to name it in English) 'stickers'. You had to buy an empty album and then regularly few stickers which you could put in place in this album. Of course it was all described to show what was used for what. I remember those armoured trains that we (Poland) had. It was quite vulnerable I think to air attack (tracks could be bombed) but it was heavily armoured and had turrets with cannons, so it was good against German tanks.
I don't know why someone is still teaching that Poles charged tanks with cavalry... it's so stupid that no one should believe in that. The truth is that German Nazi propaganda made a movie showing such attack and it was Germans pretending Poles, in reality it never happened. It is offending for us - look here, one of my countrymen created such unit for civ4: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95501 there is also some more explanation about this subject.
The count of posts in this thread is really impressive, soon we will post our petition to Firaxis, I hope we will make it to be in second add-on...

Do you have a credible source saying that the poles did not use cavalry against tanks? I'm not saying that you're wrong.

Look here: http://derela.republika.pl/armtrain.htm
Interesting topic btw

Thank you. I still have a hard time seeing a train as an effective weapon, since a. it can only go where the tracks go an b. those tracks can be destroyed.

Some reasons for Poland against given some given examples:

II wolrd war, time of fight until surrender to Nazi Germany
Holland: 6 days
Denmark: few hours
Yugoslavia: 11 days

When Poland was able to fight of two fronts against both Germany and Soviet Uniot for more than month (even more than France which was considered as a superpower against just Germany)

History length

Poland was a country with national identiity more than any given "cool civs".
Let's say than hisory of Poland begins with cristianity (and we forget about previous rulers). It happend on 966AD. Please compare with all those Dutch, Serbians, Aborigines, Hittites, Cambodians etc. Even "great" Rome didn't last such long

It's taken awhile but you've convinced me, I'd like to see a Polish civ. I'd be even more enthusiastic about Ethiopia, Assyria and the Hittites, and someone from SE Asia, but I'll sign your petition.

 

[Antilogic]

Do you have a credible source saying that the poles did not use cavalry against tanks? I'm not saying that you're wrong.

The Polish never used cavalry units against German tank divisions--that is a myth. No serious book, that I have ever read, on World War II written by a scholar has mentioned something so crazy unless he/she was referring to the fact that it was a myth and not true. I encourage you to post any battle report or book that says to the contrary (the onus of proof is upon you, not us, to prove such a ridiculous assertion).

 

[a4phantom]

The Polish never used cavalry units against German tank divisions--that is a myth. No serious book, that I have ever read, on World War II written by a scholar has mentioned something so crazy unless he/she was referring to the fact that it was a myth and not true. I encourage you to post any battle report or book that says to the contrary (the onus of proof is upon you, not us, to prove such a ridiculous assertion).

Don't be a jerk, I didn't claim to know that they did, I just asked for a source.

 

[Antilogic]

As am I. Since you are the person asserting that the Polish horsemen attacked the German tanks, you need to show something to prove it. It's not being a jerk, it's obeying the rules for a debate. When somebody says something ridiculous, they have to cite some proof for anyone to take them seriously.