Poland

[KrikkitTwo]

And Krikkitone...
I don't agree at all with you. Poland doesn't fails anything. It has a perfect geographical balance, and if you want to talk about "recognizability as historically significant" Poland is the most important nation of all the mentioned above. Learn it!

L8r.......

Um there are at least 5 existing civs within 1,000 miles of Poland, that's nearly a third of them

You say there is only one Eastern European Civ... well there is only one South Asian Civ, only one South American Civ, only one Eastern North American Civ, only one Western North American Civ, only one West African Civ, No East African Civ, No South African Civ, no Central Asian Civ, No Australasian Civs... all of those areas are bigger than Eastern Europe.

As for significance, The Austrians and the Vikings were at least as major impacts as Poland on Europe, and the Dutch and the Portugese had a bigger impact on the world as a whole. Poland has done some neat things but there are plenty of other civs that are at lesast as worthy of that crowded 'new European spot'... and plenty of other non European civs that deserve a new spot more.

 

[Baloo]

As for significance, The Austrians and the Vikings were at least as major impacts as Poland on Europe, and the Dutch and the Portugese had a bigger impact on the world as a whole. Poland has done some neat things but there are plenty of other civs that are at lesast as worthy of that crowded 'new European spot'... and plenty of other non European civs that deserve a new spot more.

I think this is the reason why certain civs weren't included, overcrowding. As much as I would like Poland or Canada or Australia to be included, there's just too many civs around the area. Holland and Portual did great things, but there's Spain, France, Germany, England, Rome already included. Although this is civ, just because in real life some civs are close together, doesn't meant they will be in the game...

But I also agree with having, for example 20 or 30 or whatever, civs to be available in the game, and you only get to choose 18 to play with...

 

[Eskel]

I would like to see Poland as a selectable civilization in Civ4, at least in expansion pack.

Why?
First of all, culture. There are few hundreds millions ppl living in Eastern Europe, but authors of Civ4 had noticed russian culture only . I want to say that Poland was Russia's greatest rival in this area for centuries, and significant cultural alternative, as russians preferred despotism while poles personal freedom. Nicolai Copernicus, Maria Curie-Sklodowska, Walensa and Solidarity movement, John Paul the Second - they are all polish contribution to world's culture. Josef Bem played a vital role in the Spring of Nations (ca. 1848 liberational wars throughout Austria, Germany and Russia), while Americans should remember Pulaskis and Kosciuszkos as well.

Second, history. We were always important part of Europe, from the very beggining till today, and in XV-XVII century, in union with Lithuania one of the greatests powers (biggest country with the largest population, nearly 25% of the whole european population lived in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth ). Battle of Grunwald was one of the biggest battles in medieval times, and the Battle of Vienna was one of the most important battles in european history. Northern Wars (Fights for Dominium Mare Balticii), between Poland, Russia, Sweden and Prussia were an event which forged the future shape of whole Europe.
To people diminishing Polands importance - please, if you want to talk about european history, look wider and catch the whole context, not only the peak of your nose. Don't be so self-focused..

Third, balance. Try to play Europa Universalis, Medieval Totalwar, Knights of Honour and see, how the presence of Poland changes strategical situation, goals and alliances.

Four, the number of civs for the different culture groups:

West Europe:
France, England, Germany, Spain, Vikings, Celts

East Europe:
Russia mad

Mediterranean:
Romans, Greeks, Carthaginians

Mideast:
Arabs, Persians, Ottomans

Far East:
Chinese, Japanese, Mongols, Koreans

South Asia:
Indian

Africa:
Egyptian, Malinese, Zulu

North America:
US, Aztecs

South America:
Inca

Please tell me, which group has smallest representation and explain - why ?
Of course, I would see as well a new civ for South Asia region (Khmers?), and at least Iroquis civ for America, maybe Ethiopian (I find them better then Zulu) for Africa, but for me Poland is next in the queue.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well one thing that might be nice to have in the game is 'Name only civs'

These civs have Nothing but a Flag, and a City list. When they show up in the game because a Human is playing them, they get imposed on top of one of the other Major civs in the game.

So the
'Polish' civ might get randomly put on top of the Chinese with Mao.

so it would be just like facing the Chinese with Mao Except
1. The Name of the leader would be 'Polish Leader'/Poland
2. The Picture of the leader would be the Polish Banner
3. The Name of the cities would be Polish
4. The Name of the UU would be Polish Crossbowman
5. The Banner used by the units would be the Polish Banner
6. The units would speak English (instead of Chinese)
7. The Name of the UBuilding would be "Polish...."

That would be good in that it would require a minimum of work (so a large number of 'Name only civs' could be added), and still preserve the 'trait distinctiveness' of the Civ. (because the Stats would all be the same)

Ideally a player could pick
Major Civ/Leader (for picks+UU+UBuilding)
and
'Name' Civ+Leader (for Banner, default City names, UU name)
and seperately (like now) they would pick
Leader Name + Civ Name.


And the AI civs could be assigned which 'Name' to pick (Poland, Random European, Random Ancient, Random, same as Major..which would be the default where they automatically pick for a 'Name' the same civ/leader they pick for their Picks+UU+UBuilding)

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Four, the number of civs for the different culture groups:

West Europe:
France, England, Germany, Spain, Vikings, Celts

East Europe:
Russia mad

Mediterranean:
Romans, Greeks, Carthaginians

Mideast:
Arabs, Persians, Ottomans

Far East:
Chinese, Japanese, Mongols, Koreans

South Asia:
Indian

Africa:
Egyptian, Malinese, Zulu

North America:
US, Aztecs

South America:
Inca

Please tell me, which group has smallest representation and explain - why ?

Let me edit that

West Europe:
France, England, Germany, Spain, Vikings, Celts

East Europe:
Russia

West Mediterranean:
Romans, Greeks, Carthaginians

Mideast:
Arabs, Persians, Ottomans, **Egyptians**

Far East:
Chinese, Japanese, Mongols**, Koreans

Central Asia:
NONE (maybe Mongols)

South Asia:
India

South East Asia:
NONE

Australasia:
NONE

Andes:
Inca

Amazon:
NONE

Argentine region:
NONE

Southern N. America:
Aztecs

Western N. America:
NONE

Central N. America:
NONE

Eastern N. America:
Americans

Western Sub Saharan Africa:
Mali

Eastern SSA:
NONE

Southern SSA:
Zulu


Of the regions of the World (almost all of which are bigger than or as Eastern Europe) about 1/3 of them have NONE

if you want more 'Realistic groupings'

Non-Mediterranean Europe:
France, England, Germany, Spain, Vikings, Celts, Russia

Middle East/North Africa:
Romans, Greeks, Carthaginians, Arabs, Persians, Ottomans, Egyptians

Eastern Asia:
India, Chinese, Japanese, Mongols, Koreans

SS Africa:
Mali, Zulu

N America:
America, Aztec

S America:
Inca



Which actually seems almost reasonable (given those areas relative powers throughout history.. I'd a change a few and add maybe one more to E. Asia or Middle East) The fact is Europe is too crowded.

 

[Bungus]

Poland would be a reasonable addition. As someone mentioned, it is the largest slavic country (beside Russia, but I think they have Nordic roots too).
Unfortunetly there can only be so many of course. But what I don't understand is some morons here saying **** like "Mali Inca? WTH!? POLAND is way better and the best civ in the world it sould be the first civ in the game!!"
Mali belongs not only because it is the only african civ, but it was an extremely rich, powerful state during the middle ages and a major player in mediterranean and african trade

PIECE OF SHKIT QASITEE CKEEPS ****ING LOGGING ME OFF AFTER 5 MUINUTES SUCK DONKEY DICK CRAPASS PIECE OF ****

 

[dh_epic]

I think there's enough room for everybody but it's a question of priorities. Mali and Inca made a bigger impact in their regions than Poland did in Europe, but not as big as Russia or Germany did in Europe. That said, I would add Poland before I added Nubia or Kush, and I'd add those before I added Bulgaria or Croatia.

Like I said, it's a question of priorities.

 

[Poltjek]

Um there are at least 5 existing civs within 1,000 miles of Poland, that's nearly a third of them

You say there is only one Eastern European Civ... well there is only one South Asian Civ, only one South American Civ, only one Eastern North American Civ, only one Western North American Civ, only one West African Civ, No East African Civ, No South African Civ, no Central Asian Civ, No Australasian Civs... all of those areas are bigger than Eastern Europe.

As for significance, The Austrians and the Vikings were at least as major impacts as Poland on Europe, and the Dutch and the Portugese had a bigger impact on the world as a whole. Poland has done some neat things but there are plenty of other civs that are at lesast as worthy of that crowded 'new European spot'... and plenty of other non European civs that deserve a new spot more.

I must admit that you are right concerning these civilizations, but still I think Poland should be given a higher priority than the mentioned above.

If it's not a problem for the Civilization-programmers to create som civilizations, why just dont make plenty of different civics? I know it would take time and money, but then I think it would be more attractive for consumers all over the world. You see my idea?

And because of overcrowding with civilizations, the Civilization-programmers should make this option in the game, where it is up to the players choice about choosing specific number of different civilizations. What do you think guys? But all this costs a lot of work. I know..

L8r..

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well its been clarified that it would be a waste of resources to make the hundred or so civs to just fill spaces.

I personally thing they should have Civilizations that are only "Skins" ie a Civilization Name, City List, and Flag

That "Skin" could then be put on top of any existing "Real" Leader /Civ Combo

So the Kazakhs could be put on top of the Americans with FDR for
an Industrial Organized leader named "Kazakh Leader" with the Kazakh Flag for the graphic.
the "Kazakh Marine" for a UU, and the "Kazakh Mall" for the UB
and then get a Kazakh City List.

You could possibly even have the player pick their own choice of banner from a list (since that seems like it would be the most work, assembling a City/Civ List shouldn't take too long)

That way complex balancing, interesting trait and UU combos can be focused on a few civs, and then the "Skins" can be made so that one can get the interesting 'historical feel'... by picking whatever trait-UU combo you think goes best with that particular skin... play the Polish skin over Asoka to emphasize what You consider the strength of their religion and their hard work... or play it over Genghis to emphasize what You consider their farming, militaristic lifestyle.

Now you lose the picture of them... but that probably acceptable.

 

[vilemerchant]

I've just thought of a great UU for Poland. The 'Nazi Collaborator'!!

 

[Poltjek]

I've just thought of a great UU for Poland. The 'Nazi Collaborator'!!

I don't think so!

Stop being a fool...

What do you say about this, vilemerchant:
I've just thought of a great UU for Australia. James Cook's slaves...

Learn it

 

[vilemerchant]

I don't think so!

Stop being a fool...

What do you say about this, vilemerchant:
I've just thought of a great UU for Australia. James Cook's slaves...

Learn it

Get it right! We're convicts not slaves.

 

[Poltjek]

Get it right! We're convicts not slaves.

I don't care vilemerchant

The point is that you don't like I call it for slaves and I don't like that you suggest an UU for Poland as a "Nazi Collaborator". So keep your comments about this for yourself..

 

[Ball Lightning]

They forgot Australia

 

[rilke]

Many of the more or less interesting nations that people want added to the game as distinct civilizations are just nationstates that, though they have some distinction, history and sometimes even some reason for being in the game on their own, could just as easily be piled together with their neighbours: Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Iceland for example. Call them the Vikings and work from there.
Done. Cliché, but who cares. As the vikings they grow more distinct and are liberated from their modern day mediocrity.
The opportunity to relive the "great" days of Sweden as a European power will be lost, but it's for the greater good. It's a pretty mediocre "civ" all in all, despite some periods of influence and power. (I am from Sweden btw)

I wouldn't want a game with 100 civs to chose from, I like it as it is, but a few more cool, exotic, important and (for god's sake) unique civilizations would be nice. Poland seems like a good idea from what I've read here, Carthaginians and Ottomans are cooler though.

 

[dh_epic]

Personally, I would include Eastern Europe as some kind of meta-civ... like the Slavs. The same way that the Persians are somewhat of a meta-civ for the Sassanids and Iran, or the same way that Mali is a meta-civ for Ghanna and Songhai.

In the longer run, I'd flesh all of these out into their individual nations.

 

[Sohan]

If they had a hundred unique traits, maybe they could have a whole bunch of those lovely civs. Oh, and a much much larger world map.

Anywho, for Eastern Europe one could have the Slavs, although that might run into a problem with the Russians perhaps?

Of course, the other option is that skin option. Have a base set of 30-ish or however many trait combos as they plan on having at the end of all the expansions, and then making it so multiple civ "skins" can be applied to each combo of traits. So, one could choose to have two specific traits, and then based on that make a choice of a wide variety of civs and leaders that fit those two traits. It's a nifty idea.But, how the programmers would deal with this on the world map I have no idea.

 

[Eskel]

Personally I think most accurate would be the system, in which we could play the entire culture and ethnic groups, not particular nations. But I doubt if it was as playable as it is now, because instead of many european countries we should have then only one - western european civ; instead greek, etruscan, roman - one mediterranean, etc. More balanced, less europocentric, but boring and without the flavour. Civ groups wouldnt ever raise so much emotions as nations.

So, let's stay with nation-civilizations.
Some people here says, that we cannot afford more civs in Civ4, because they will get too similar. Right, but... why the developing team gave some nations so many leaders then???

Krikkitone's grouping is incomplete without taking this into consideration. In place of two or even three leaders per civ, some new civs could be added. For example Ethiopian, Khmer, Babylonian, Iroquis, Mayan, Sumerian...

However, in my oppinion there is still place for Polish civ. Not because it is more important for global history than for example Sumerian - well, it isnt for sure - but because of fun and to please some of over 120 mlns not-russian Slavs and many other people living in Eastern Europe, who dont want to play Russians only.

If somebody put Koreans or Zulu in Civ4, why not Polish then? If there are Celts and Vikings, why not Slavs?

Thats why Polish are worth to be included in scenario or expansion-pack.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

If they had a hundred unique traits, maybe they could have a whole bunch of those lovely civs. Oh, and a much much larger world map.

Anywho, for Eastern Europe one could have the Slavs, although that might run into a problem with the Russians perhaps?

Of course, the other option is that skin option. Have a base set of 30-ish or however many trait combos as they plan on having at the end of all the expansions, and then making it so multiple civ "skins" can be applied to each combo of traits. So, one could choose to have two specific traits, and then based on that make a choice of a wide variety of civs and leaders that fit those two traits. It's a nifty idea.But, how the programmers would deal with this on the world map I have no idea.

The Russians are more distinctive. Though they are, technically, Slavic, historically their fate, fortune, power and, to a lesser extent, their culture has been distinct from the Slavic norm. I do think some sort of pan-Slav Civ would be good. It's an imperfect solution, but perhaps the best one when faced with many different peoples who were all seperately moderately influential but collectively crucial to Europe. I'd prefer a pan-Scandanavian civ to a Viking one though...

As for favoring Poland over....say, Mali....are you saying that East Africa, which spawned three empires, all of which were mighty, influential, and respected and feared by Europe and the Mideast, shouldn't be represented AT ALL so that Poland, a relatively unimportant player on the world stage and a semi-important one in Europe(through no fault of their own...they just ended up in a bad position relative to their neighbors)?

 

[Eskel]

Well, Lance...
Have you read what have we written about Poland before?
If you didn't notice, in borders of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth lived once 25% population of Europe, thus Poland was one of the greatest powers in Europe. Poland had fought victorious wars with Kievan Rus, Germany, Sweden, Russia, Tartars, Ottoman Empire, which were major powers that time. Poland was fourth allied power during WWII(after US, USSR and UK - before France). Poland had played a vital role in ending of cold war. Don't call Poland unimportant player, unless you think all of that is worthless.
Now Poland is 2nd league, but it shoudnt affect evaluation of its whole history. If you want do this, then lets evaluate Mali or Zulu the same way - was their impact comparable? What do you mean saying they were respected by Europe? Poland wasn't or was less respected? What has left of those fallen civilizations - they arent even 2nd league now...Is that a reason we should forget them and ignore in future?
I hope not. And I hope you will not say : "oh, Poland is unimportant" - only because of your ignorance in this matter.
I am trying to be not ignorant and remember that Europe is not a centre of the world. Thats a place only 10% of global population live! Thats why I still insist, that many new civs, especially non-european should be added. For the same reason, I think Western Europe is over-represented in game, and East Europe deserve for at least one more (other than Russia) civ. Would it be Commonwealth, Western Slav, Kievan Rus, Ukraine or Poland (of course I favor Poland as I am Polish) - doesnt matter.
Important is that we would have choice, and we will not be namelss Russia shadow any longer (as 120 mlns non-Russian ppl living in EE didnt exist).