Poland as 1 of 10 new Civilizations added in BTS?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ishon said:
Canada/Australia/Brazil - very short history, few achievements.
Click to expand...
As much as i would love Australia to be in the game i couldnt agree more with those few not really deserving to being in game.., they should only be added once all the civilisations that have had a true impact on the world have been added. Anyway, what would our(Austalian) unique unit be? A digger(WW1 period)?
Or perhaps just a troop called aussie, a guy in stubies, thongs & singlet with beer can in one hand & tongs in the other :lol:

But i will have to correct you one something, australia doesnt have a very short history, what it has is a very short white man history... you must remember that blacks were here long before we were, its just that their culture was significantly decimated by the arrival of whites, and also due to how far away and isolated it is, it was somewhat left in the dark technologically speaking from the rest of the world.
 
Martinus said:
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.
Click to expand...

You know this is what I meant. You seem to be obsessed with correcting every single historic fact that I post. ;) Yes the crusade was not meant from the beginning to be against the Byzantines.

BTW - as a side note - I can give a link to a poll in a history forum, where the option "the western powers helped the destruction of the byzantines most" has a huge number of votes compared to the other options.
 
I think having Poland would be a great idea. As someone has said, they would represent the eastern european countries as there are too few (basically none) of these in the game. Australia, Canada, etc etc would be cool countries to have in the game, their short history and small significance in the history of civilization means they aren't as important IMO as having Poland as a Civ.

Australia was ruled by the UK wasn't it? So in a way, England represents Australia. I don't know much about Canada, but don't they have some Scottish/French history and hence are represented by another Civ in the game? :confused: - someone put me right on this!!
 
Jamesds said:
So in a way, England represents Australia.
Click to expand...
I dont think theres a aussie born person in the world who wouldnt take some sort of offence to that, dam cricketers. :lol: (even when we win the ashes they still dont let us keep them)

In a way it once did but now our culture is influenced more by other countries than by england, its just too different now exspecially as aboriginal influences are just now starting to really have a noticable impact in aussie cinema and arts, also to quote wiki...
Australian culture has been strongly influenced by Amercan popular culture (particularly television and cinema), large-scale immigration from non-English-speaking countries, and Australia's Asian neighbours. The vigour and originality of the arts in Australia — films, opera, music, painting, theatre, dance, and crafts — achieve international recognition.
Click to expand...
 
:) yes, I agree that Australia is now very different and has a culture of its own. So, if Australia were in the game, which leader, UU, and UB would you pick for them? Looking at the above wiki, maybe the theatre should become a cinema ;). Something to do with the arts, anyway.
 
Yakk said:
Don't forget Canada and Austrailia, two nations with about the same population. :)

I mean, I understand why they include modern nation-states in the game, but it just feels wierd to play as the English under Victoria starting in 4000 BC.
Click to expand...

HAHAHA no they do not have the same population :/ And no their history is not even close. Poland is over 1000 years old as a nation.
 
About the same population:

Poland:38,536,869
Canada:33,098,932
Austrailia: 20,264,082

All three are low-population small states. None of them have been world-dominating powers.

None of them deserve to be in Civ on their own merits. If Sid decides to do a regional game, rolling them into the game as an epic civ makes some sense. Just like Brennus and the Celts: created for the Roman scenerio, and rolled into the Epic game.
 
I think its hillarious how people try to discuss the positives and negatives of countries/civilizations/peoples that will/might/could be included in the game. This is a game afterall, like was said above, playing as Victoria in 4000bc is weird, of course it is, but so is playing as Montezuma in 1776...this is pure fantasy. And while I absolutely LOVE speculation as much as the next guy, telling someone that their country isn't significant in the grand scheme of things, ie Brazil, Canada, Israel, Australia, Poland, etc. is just silly. Each of these countries was led from a small undeveloped period to where they are today. They've grown and shrunk in influence and significance. While the merits of one may be "higher" than another, I think it'll be interesting to see who actually is there, and have it be a nice suprise when we see who actually makes the cut.
 
Hero said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lol?? Has Poland EVER been anyone's vassal state? That was the most stupid post in this thread. The U.S., having been a British colony, have been more of a vassal than Poland ever was. Poland was the one to have vassals, not a vassal. Go back to school, it wasn't successful at educating you.

Comparing Finland with Poland or Portugal isn't the best idea either: no achievements, no wonder, no serious history, small population. Stopping the Soviet Union was nice, but not enough :PP. No, I'm having second thoughts. Nokia would make a great wonder :D (even though I don't like that brand :P).

PS Sorry for editing, but I obviosly didn't mention the fact that Poland together with the rest of Central and Eastern Europe was a "vassal" of the Soviet Union, so what I wrote above is not fully correct.
 
As far as Canada goes, it would not be a civ really because it is split into the French and the English descendants. I think somethign to that effect really should count against. Also new nations, witht he exception of America which really achived world power status, should be excluded and replaced by their classical counteractives. The main reasona gainst Mexico as a civ for example is the fact we have Aztec. Reason against Australia is that we'll have Aboriginal faction I think.

I know I seem like a huge Poland backer, and it is true. Poland isn't really known to Americans because of the curiculum bias in the Histroy classes, which exclude still a lot of nations that were under soviet influence. But Poland had a very big part in history of Europe. As did Finland :)
 
Ishon said:
Lol?? Has Poland EVER been anyone's vassal state? That was the most stupid post in this thread. The U.S., having been a British colony, have been more of a vassal than Poland ever was. Poland was the one to have vassals, not a vassal. Go back to school, it wasn't successful at educating you.

Comparing Finland with Poland or Portugal isn't the best idea either: no achievements, no wonder, no serious history, small population. Stopping the Soviet Union was nice, but not enough :PP. No, I'm having second thoughts. Nokia would make a great wonder :D (even though I don't like that brand :P).

PS Sorry for editing, but I obviosly didn't mention the fact that Poland together with the rest of Central and Eastern Europe was a "vassal" of the Soviet Union, so what I wrote above is not fully correct.
Click to expand...

This smells like BtS to me. Vassalship was a very normal relation in feudal Europe. I don't think there's any country - correction: any region! - which was never a vassal of anyone!
 
Yakk said:
About the same population:

Poland:38,536,869
Canada:33,098,932
Austrailia: 20,264,082

All three are low-population small states. None of them have been world-dominating powers.

None of them deserve to be in Civ on their own merits. If Sid decides to do a regional game, rolling them into the game as an epic civ makes some sense. Just like Brennus and the Celts: created for the Roman scenerio, and rolled into the Epic game.
Click to expand...


Okay...about the same population? By your numbers, Poland's population is 16.4% larger than Canada's (okay, I'll grant that one), and 90.2% larger than Australia (!). Is that about the same, there, for Australia? I think not...

Just saying, I'm not sure what your point was in posting these numbers.
 
Yeah that is true, yet another inaccuracy. Still that doesn't explain why should Poland automatically become a vassal state of the first bidder.
 
I laugh as suggestions for "civs" such as Canada and Australia. They're simply too recent and they don't have enough influence on the world. The United States can classify as a civ in my view as they're very influential for the past 200 years to the point that almost every other country have to obey what ever it says.

Poland, on the other hand, although small in population and area today it dominated Eastern Europe for more than half a century.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mycophobia
Changes in Warlords/BTS to building Wealth and their impact on the value of buildings
Replies
1
Views
866
a pen-dragon
A
E
[BTS] Cradles of Civilizations: 232x112 Equal-Area Accurate Map Earth Equatorial Islands Scenario
Replies
0
Views
832
Expansist
E
Blake00
Rebuilding parts of Civ4! Multithreading & 64bit memory access to increase Civ4's speed in large games?
3 4 5
Replies
86
Views
15K
Blake00
Blake00
The_J
Ara: Preview build v2, changelog available
Replies
4
Views
829
KayAU
KayAU
Nikas Kunitz
What if we just remake this mod anew?
2 3
Replies
40
Views
4K
Nikas Kunitz
Nikas Kunitz
Back
Top Bottom