Poll: Which Civs to be Added

[Veera Anlai]

Somehow I doubt Honest Abe would be a big fan of Mushroom Clouds either ^_^

 

[€ønqui$tadør]

actually, i think the Dalai Lama does hold religious and secular authority (b4 it was part of PRC China), in a sense he is also somewhat the head of state/govt, or to quote encarta,"spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism and formerly the ruler of Tibet."

if i remember correctly the Dalai Lama introduced railways (or was it build roads), communications and other things into Tibet in early 20th century when it was independent.

so i think it is OK to to use Dalai Lama for tibet civ's leader.

juz my 2 cents worth

 

[ViceRoy]

what I said about Dalai Lama.

I just realized that India is lead by Gandhi so there goes the whole idea.
It's kinda sad (and also partly funny ) that Gandhi has ended up into game where nukes can be used to annihilate the enemy.
I can just imagine him saying:
"I am become death, the shatterer of worlds."
(words said by Robert Julius Oppenheimer, scientist and the leader of the Manhattan project who took those words out of the Indian national epic Mahabharata)

So I guess after that Tibetians with Dalai Lama are OK.

What comes to Joan and Abe...Even though Joan is said to be Saint (and same goes to Abe too if you ask U.S citizen) they were borh wartime leaders and so therefore they fit into game much better than wholeheartedly peaceful leader.
It's kinda bad that there can't be "peaceful civilizations" that would work like neutrals in the game. In scenario that could be made with high war weariness government type and units would mostly be immobile so they could defend their cities but not very well attack.

Maybe we should add whole bunch of "lost civilizations" that could have been something but just didn't make it because of luck.

 

[Isak]

Originally posted by €ønqui$tadør
actually, i think the Dalai Lama does hold religious and secular authority (b4 it was part of PRC China), in a sense he is also somewhat the head of state/govt, or to quote encarta,"spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism and formerly the ruler of Tibet."

He is - Tibet is today a Theocracy (or would be, if not for China) - but it was not a Theocracy during it's golden age from around 570 AD to 842 AD - it was then a Kingdom. I think picking Dalai Lama would be sending the wrong signal about which Tibet is portrayed - but again, it's stuff for a different thread - suffice to say, I don't think Great Leader candidates should be decisive in determining which 7 civs are to be put in the game.

 

[Kal-el]

Well, now we are getting into a subject that I was hoping to talk about today anyway. Possible alternative leaders for some of the civs. Some of the leaders that they have chosen to represent the Civs just don't jive. They were either never leaders of their civilization, e.g. Joan of Arc, do not represent the civilization at its true height, Mao, or never heald any true political power and are way too peace loving, Ghandi. I am sure there are others that people would like to see changed as well.

But rather than take this thread on a tangent I am opening up a new thread on the subject of alternative leaderheads. Go here to discuss the matter.

 

[OmniMower]

Hey Kal-El,
Do you know wich civs that are refered to the Vikings package?????

 

[Kal-el]

Well, you are from Sweden and Isak and RobO are both from Denmark, so I guess I better watch what I say here.

As I am sure you know, the "Viking" label was given to Scandinavian warriors who raided the coasts of Europe and the British Isles from the 9th century to the 11th century. The region of Scandinavia evolved into what we now know as the kingdoms of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. Many times the Vikings would settle the lands that they had raided. The Scandinavian raiders in Russia were known as Varangians; their leader Rurik founded the first Russian state. Elsewhere the Vikings came to be known as Danes, Northmen, Norsemen, or Normans.

I am planning on renaming the Vikings to the Norse or Scandinavians, as I think either is a better term that encompasses the whole region.

 

[OmniMower]

you are quite right Kal-el,
but if I dont recall wrong the original Vikings were the Norwegians, therefor the name Norse - Normans, as we call them Swedes call the norwegians: Norrmän... but as I stated before I havent plough through a bunch of books for this... this is a hunch.
/OmniMower ps* sorry my eng now*

 

[Isak]

Originally posted by OmniMower
you are quite right Kal-el,
but if I dont recall wrong the original Vikings were the Norwegians, therefor the name Norse - Normans, as we call them Swedes call the norwegians: Norrmän... but as I stated before I havent plough through a bunch of books for this...

I have I am skinny and pale as a result of that

Anyway

Norse/Normans: The word was used first by people in the contemporary Carolingian Empire. It means "Men from north", and north of the Carolingian Empire was Scandinavia. It was not specifically about the Norwegian vikings - presumably, the vikings all looked the same to the Carolingians

Vikings: There are no records of this word being used in the days of the vikings - It is most likely a word invented much later.

 

[OmniMower]

Sorry about that Isak, didnt mean to scare you =)
I admit that I got the words wrong here, what I ment was the origin of the word "Vikingar".
Doesnt the word "Viking" come from (in eng: Men from the Bay), "männen från viken"? And by the word "viken" they ment the Oslofjord?

And you are qiute right about the Northmen thing, I messed up the word, sorry about that.

/OmniMower

Ps. Didnt the English refer the Vikings as Danes?

 

[Kal-el]

The English did refer to the Vikings as Danes. The French refered to them as Normans and those who invaded what is now Russia were known as Varangians.

 

[OmniMower]

Hehe.... hey Kal-el,
great that I got ONE thing right, since I got my head bashed in last night on the Polish thing.... I think I stick to the 3D modelling instead of participate in history things......... but it is interesting how good the folks on this Forum know there history.

/OmniMower

 

[Pangur Bán]

My vote:

Aborigines, Inca, Hittites, Israel and other ( the Scots)

Oh, why are the Austrians on the poll? They're not a civ separate from the Germans. Why don't you include Venice on the list or Tuscany?

 

[Exsanguination]

Originally posted by Veera Anlai

Macedon I am not voting for a civilization that sounds like a cookie. Besides, aren't they just a division of Greece, or am I mistaken?

No! No! No! Macedonia was entirely independent of Greece! There is evidence that they may be descended from the same lineage as Greeks, but not the Greeks of their time.

I only said Macedon in an earlier thread cause I thinkAlexander the Great is the greatest man who ever lived . And I still voted for them.

 

[Chris85]

Here's My Votes
Inca
Ethiopia
Poland
Israel
Polynesia
Siam/Thai
Mali/Songhay

 

[Kal-el]

I included 19 civs that I had seen promoted somewhere on the boards. By listing them in the poll I was not trying to valuate them in any way. Just listing the civs I have seen proposed for people to choose from. And since I can only make a poll with 20 options I was somewhat limited.

However, Austro-Hungarian Empire was quite independant of the Prussian Empire.

My personal vote, and the civs I am including in my mod:
Abyssinia
Inca
Poland
Polynesia
Siam
Tibet
Sioux

 

[Kal-el]

In DyP Tibet's UU will be the Sherpa. The Sherpa will be a combination Longswordsman and Pikeman having stats falling in between the two and also treating all terrain as roads. i.e. better offensive but lower defensive stats than the pikeman and better defensive butlower offensive stats than the longswordsman. Tibet will be restricted from building either the Longswordsmen or the pikemen.

 

[hzm]

Originally posted by Isak
He is - Tibet is today a Theocracy (or would be, if not for China)

If Tibet ever gains autonomy in China the government in exile based in India will take over. The government in exile is a democracy and the only connection to a theocracy is that His Holiness will inevitably end up being the president until he dies. I don't know if Tibet would be a democracy now if china had never invaded but you have to remember that democracies were still minorities in that time.

And aren't sherpas nepalese?

 

[Isak]

Originally posted by hzm
If Tibet ever gains autonomy in China the government in exile based in India will take over. The government in exile is a democracy and the only connection to a theocracy is that His Holiness will inevitably end up being the president until he dies.

- Having a religious leader as automatic president until he dies, sounds a lot like a theocracy to me. I'm having a hard time connecting it with Democracy.

 

[hzm]

lol. What I mean is that it is pretty inevitable that he will continuously be voted into office. He will of course be the father of the new tibet. Unless there is a term limit in their constitution I don't know about.

EDIT: Actually now that I think of it he said he would step down as the leader of Tibet so this is just a big never mind.