Giaur
War Dancer
Just try to read me carefully and try to understand. I do not fight with you. And if you do not understand ask me, I will answer. I hope it will remain a disscussion. And I am not nationalist. I put cards on the table, that's all.
Poland as 1 of 10 new Civilizations added in BTS?
- Thread starter MusX
- Start date
- Status
TheDuckLover
Chieftain
They've been wiped off the map 3 times.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
So, I did expect that you were talking about Franks not Frenchmen.
You are actually trying to prove how France is Germanic?
Listen, this logic is so flawed, so wrong, and so lacking arguments that I do not even know how to start. Be prepared to change your opinion, but NOT from my post, from the rest of the world. Find me one historian or one real French guy to agree with you.
Let me try to prove it:
There are several ways in which I can "shoot down" this theory. Here's one:
- the Franks are related to modern French as much as the Hittites are related to modern Turks. Or as much as the Algerians are Phoenicians, or as much as the Mongols are Huns.
- here's another way, let's take it after historic facts: the Franks are migrators. They came over the Roman population that inhabited that area. They founded a state. The founders of a state have nothing to do with the population of the country (modern Greece was founded by an Armenian, Romania was founded by a Cuman, America was "discovered" by Spain. Do I need to give more examples? I can...). The language is still Roman, after the invasions. The tradition are Roman (holidays, songs, etc). Popular clothing is very much like the Italian one. How much exactly do you need to prove the belonging to a cultural family of a country?
- the name does not say anything. Anything at all. Guinea Bissau and Equatorial Guinea and French Guinea, and Guyana are NOT the same country, not inhabited by the same people, and in different continents! Romania has nothing to do with the Romany population (gypsies) or with the Byzantine Empire which is also nicknamed Romania. Iran has nothing to do with Iraq. Do I need to say more?
Listen, these are just some of the possible ways to prove you wrong. Any of these can be explained in a post the length of this one, and I could probably think of at least 2 more ways. I told you, this is so far from true that I don't know how to answer.
Oh really? Stronger than Germany? Than Italy? And do you really want it to compare with countries that existed during its history but that are no more today? Stronger than the Holy Roman Empire? Than today's Sweden? Than Portugal or Netherlands? (they were a colony of Portugal for some time) Than Austria-Hungary? Than the Byzantine Empire? (the Balkans and Italy are in Central Europe, and I can prove it with a map) Stronger than the Soviet Union? Than the Tsarist Empire?
You've got to be kidding me!!
And this thread made me be even more sure about my opinion. This is just the nationalistic and egoistic wish of some nationalists from Poland.
I'd rather have the Holy Roman Empire or Austria-Hungary over it. Heck, I'd rather have the Papal States!
Giaur
War Dancer
So I say goodbay or rather: Farewell.
@Mirc: This was an article, not mine. If were not lazy enough you would clicked the link I left, would not you? Is that so hard? If no, you will stay for me as an ignorant.
edit: learn some basis history before posting ...
@Mirc: This was an article, not mine. If were not lazy enough you would clicked the link I left, would not you? Is that so hard? If no, you will stay for me as an ignorant.
edit: learn some basis history before posting ...
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
It's amazing - when you talk to me and I say something that I prove, you bring no argument and tell me to read history!! God! Talk about ignorance and blind nationalism!! Do you realize you said nothing?! You told me "go read some history". Sorry but so far I proved I know much more than you. Everything I wrote was from what I knew, and I did write a couple of posts here. You just copied an article and told me to read history! And when I disagree with the article, you tell me it's not yours!
Oh and yeah, I clicked the link, before you told me. And it's identical to what you posted. You copied and pasted every single bit of it. Nothing to see there, except for a map. Thank you, but I already knew where Poland is.
johnny5000
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2006
- Messages
- 97
What is Poland's Unique Unit going to be? I have a suggestion, from an old joke:
"Did you hear that Poland just ordered 5,000 septic tanks? As soon as they learn how to drive them, they're going to invade Germany!"
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
In all seriousness though, what would be a good Polish UU? How about a Ghetto Fighter (Infantry w/Commando)? Or maybe a Polish Cavalry w/Ambush?
I was waiting for a joke about their grenadiers or submarines.
So, I did expect that you were talking about Franks not Frenchmen.
I'm not a historian, nor do I care, just forwarding my source... the point initially was that Poland was a good representation (though not the only) of the slavic migration in eastern europe, much like the celts and germs in northern & western europe, as well as a legitmate nation for european 'gunpowder' scenarios likely to come with BTS.
MarkM
Cow Herder
my god ... coming back to this after a day, I see the "draft Poland" committee has really gone off the deep end!
Seriously, I think you long ago made your best impression and most convincing argument for Poland. I think continuing in this back and forth is hurting your cause more than it helps (I'm just guessing -- I haven't tried to wade through all these maps etc, to see what was actually said. But that's kinda my poinit, I don't want to have to wade through all that any more). Just some honest friendly advice!
Seriously, I think you long ago made your best impression and most convincing argument for Poland. I think continuing in this back and forth is hurting your cause more than it helps (I'm just guessing -- I haven't tried to wade through all these maps etc, to see what was actually said. But that's kinda my poinit, I don't want to have to wade through all that any more). Just some honest friendly advice!
Ishon
Warlord
I don't think the topic of this discussion is "which new civ is advocated by most people", but exactly: why should Poland be added as a civ in the incoming expansion pack.
It is obvious that Polish players are more in favor of adding Poland than non-Polish players, but this does not change the fact that the Sioux could not build Barracks.
I do not claim that Poland should have been included in Warlords. No, it should not have been included in Warlords.
I claim that Poland must be included in BTS, because there are simply no better 10 candidates. There are strong arguments in favor of the Khmers, Portugal, Netherlands, Babylon, Sumer, etc. But the Sioux/Iroquois were not civilizations. Austria has no single wonder (does it?), it's too similar to Germany and it would be totally mad to put Austria in and leave Poland out. Austria-Hungary does not equal Austria. Sweden? We've got the Vikings. Italy? Let's not found two Romes. Canada/Australia/Brazil - very short history, few achievements.
Some might complain about "Polish nationalism" (forgetting that these "nationalists" are saying the obvious truth that there is simply no way to leave Poland out), but then in turn the non-Americans might complain about the obvious bias of the game in favor of the U.S. The idea of adding the Sioux as a civilization are also part of this. If we add the Sioux, let's add Scythia. Why not add all the primitive folks of the world. What makes the Sioux more important than.. the Vandals? Even Dacia were more of a civilization than what the Sioux were. The Metropolitan Area of Wounded Knee?
Poland played a crucial role in the history of Europe and it's been active on the scene for a thousand of years with a 123-year break. Unlike the Vikings.
By the same token, Hungary deserves to be put in in the X expansion pack that theoretically would come after BTS.
It is obvious that Polish players are more in favor of adding Poland than non-Polish players, but this does not change the fact that the Sioux could not build Barracks.
I do not claim that Poland should have been included in Warlords. No, it should not have been included in Warlords.
I claim that Poland must be included in BTS, because there are simply no better 10 candidates. There are strong arguments in favor of the Khmers, Portugal, Netherlands, Babylon, Sumer, etc. But the Sioux/Iroquois were not civilizations. Austria has no single wonder (does it?), it's too similar to Germany and it would be totally mad to put Austria in and leave Poland out. Austria-Hungary does not equal Austria. Sweden? We've got the Vikings. Italy? Let's not found two Romes. Canada/Australia/Brazil - very short history, few achievements.
Some might complain about "Polish nationalism" (forgetting that these "nationalists" are saying the obvious truth that there is simply no way to leave Poland out), but then in turn the non-Americans might complain about the obvious bias of the game in favor of the U.S. The idea of adding the Sioux as a civilization are also part of this. If we add the Sioux, let's add Scythia. Why not add all the primitive folks of the world. What makes the Sioux more important than.. the Vandals? Even Dacia were more of a civilization than what the Sioux were. The Metropolitan Area of Wounded Knee?
Poland played a crucial role in the history of Europe and it's been active on the scene for a thousand of years with a 123-year break. Unlike the Vikings.
By the same token, Hungary deserves to be put in in the X expansion pack that theoretically would come after BTS.
Scaramanga
Brickhead
And Romans never build riflemen. Kind of sounds like Civ is not the game for you if you can't take these little inaccuracies
.The idea of adding the Sioux is derived from the fact that the developers think they would be an interesting addition - not because they think people associated with America are better choices, that's all in your head. People talk about Civilization games targeting an "American audience", well, personally I think the developers are just making a game they themselves would enjoy playing, which is not a bad way to make a game. The thing is some of the developers just happen to be American.
I think you're taking the game too seriously. This is not a real international institution like the United Nations or the Olympics and no one should base their view of the world and history solely on this game. That would be worse than not reading articles on Wikipedia with a strong critical attitude, although the game is a helpful learning tool.
Vikings are cool. They are simply an interesting lot not to mention their incredible accomplishments (first Europeans to reach North America). All I read on this thread is that Poland is the land of the Poles so they should be in the game. Yay. Could've found that out on my own, thanks.
Martinus
Emperor
Poland doesn't have a single wonder in Civ4 either.
imho the likelihood of Poland being added by Firaxis in the next expansion is equal to 0.01%. (hides from angry mobs)
But I agree Poland should be added, at least, I think as far as Civ in the next expansion goes Poland is a better choice than, say, Sioux or Byzantines.
But I agree Poland should be added, at least, I think as far as Civ in the next expansion goes Poland is a better choice than, say, Sioux or Byzantines.
The outcry of Polish players is so laud, 'cause we are really disappointed with the fact that we were not included in civ.
I can see that some of Polish posters are quite pushy - please understand them: when they see Sioux being added - and probably Poland will not be.
It's impossible to understand it... what will be the UU of Sioux - Scout? UB - tipi?
If you don't want to accept arguments from Poles - read for example BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1054681.stm I don't think you will say that it is flawed...
If I'll manage to contact our distributor, maybe I will finally post here if we are included, but I suspect that there will be Eskimo civilization to keep civ culturally diversified
I can see that some of Polish posters are quite pushy - please understand them: when they see Sioux being added - and probably Poland will not be.
It's impossible to understand it... what will be the UU of Sioux - Scout? UB - tipi?
If you don't want to accept arguments from Poles - read for example BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1054681.stm I don't think you will say that it is flawed...
If I'll manage to contact our distributor, maybe I will finally post here if we are included, but I suspect that there will be Eskimo civilization to keep civ culturally diversified
Martinus
Emperor
Personally, I don't understand the "outcry" to have Poland included in Civ4. Sure, it could be fun (or not) but the accompanying drama is beyond me. You do not see the same kind of thing from, say, Hungarians, Bohemians or Croats.
What is it with us Poles and rabid nationalism?
P.S. For the record, I like to play on World Maps, so I'd rather have Sioux and Mayans added, so that Aztecs, Americans and Incas do not have an unfair advantage over the Eurasian civs.
What is it with us Poles and rabid nationalism?
P.S. For the record, I like to play on World Maps, so I'd rather have Sioux and Mayans added, so that Aztecs, Americans and Incas do not have an unfair advantage over the Eurasian civs.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
Rather than the Byzantines? The Byzantine Empire is a civilization that stood 1000 years more than the Western Roman Empire, under the attacks of hundreds of different tribes of Turks, plus Mongols and Huns, and was abandoned by the western powers (they actually started a crusade against the Byzantines, because they were Orthodox not Catholic, instead of fighting against the Turks), and only fell in 1453, one thousand years after the sack of Rome! An empire under which arts flourished, and people were peaceful. After the turks came, total chaos in the area. It still isn't cleared out today! (ever wondered why there are so many problems with Serbs and Muslims in Bosnia or Kosovo?) I think the Byzantines should have been in Vanilla.
Ishon
Warlord
The fact that there's much empty space in America doesn't mean we need to pretend there was a civilization there that was not there in reality. When I say that the Sioux could not build Barracks I mean that the Sioux were never a civilization and if we add the Sioux, we should also add the Inuit, Aborigines and Polynesians. Unique building: Igloo or Tipi. Wonders: The Great Tipi, the Ultimate Igloo. Units: Canoe, Boomerang Fighters. This is ridiculous and the reason why the world map is not a fair setting results from the fact that Civ 4 is not a simulation of the real world history. Those who want a simulation should try the Victoria-Hearts of Iron marathon - this is the best and only choice available. Civilization will never be a fair simulation of world history, because it has.. United States of America in ancient America. But there are mods and a Terra map that are a quite reasonable alternative.
There's empty space in Australia, but we don't put imaginary civilizations in there.
Poland has no wonder in Civ4, but it has had a wonder in civ1, 2 and 3. Austria has never had a wonder, nor did Hungary have one.
I agree that Hungary should be one of the next 15 potential civilizations (but not one of the next 10). Reason: less cultural achievements, a less important historical role (Hungary was Austria's equal in Austria-Hungary, Poland played a dominant role in the Commonwealth). Hungary played no important role in the World Wars and it hasn't ever had a civ wonder.
There's empty space in Australia, but we don't put imaginary civilizations in there.
Poland has no wonder in Civ4, but it has had a wonder in civ1, 2 and 3. Austria has never had a wonder, nor did Hungary have one.
I agree that Hungary should be one of the next 15 potential civilizations (but not one of the next 10). Reason: less cultural achievements, a less important historical role (Hungary was Austria's equal in Austria-Hungary, Poland played a dominant role in the Commonwealth). Hungary played no important role in the World Wars and it hasn't ever had a civ wonder.
Ishon
Warlord
>I think the Byzantines should have been in Vanilla.
I wouldn't go that far, but I agree that the Byzantines should be included in BTS in spite of their similarity to Rome and the resulting controversy. And Hagia Sophia definitely deserves to be a Byzantine wonder.
I wouldn't go that far, but I agree that the Byzantines should be included in BTS in spite of their similarity to Rome and the resulting controversy. And Hagia Sophia definitely deserves to be a Byzantine wonder.
Martinus
Emperor
There never was a crusade against Byzantium. There was a crusade against Egypt which was persuaded first by Venetians, and then a deposed Byzantine Emperor to help him recapture his capital. When he failed to deliver on his promises of endless Byzantine riches, the crusaders started to plunder Constantinople.
Iirc, they were then excommunicated by the Pope, Innocent III, for this.
Hero
NPC
I would agree with Poland being added but only on the condition that the Polish civ must agree to become a vassal state of the first other civ to demand it.
- Status
Similar threads
