Polynesia? Seriously!?

[sharkles]

Your usage of the word dominate and the usage of my word, controlled, are completely interchangeable. So what point are you making? "No, they didn't controll the north Atlantic, they controlled alot more." Well it suits my cause. So why are you arguing?

He actually told you the difference between the terms in his post.
Something about how "control" would imply that the Vikings would be able to keep other people off the land, which they never did except in England.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Okay so there was a Polynesian empire. But why don't they just make them and not the Polynesians under Kamehameha?

Because Kamehameha is more famous? Because they wanted to include more Polynesian representation than just Tonga (also, Hawaii had a more advanced bureaucracy and civil service). Finally, the idea of a Tongan empire is not without dispute. It's firmly defended by Tonga and there's no doubt that their culture was dominant, but it exists mostly through oral tradition, so it's virtually impossible to prove.

To elaborate on the representation angle. The Civ has a Hawaiian leader, a monument found on Easter Island, warriors from New Zealand (who were badass and absolutely vicious warriors), and who knows about the city list. I realize, in a way, it's like pulling "Native Americans" in Civ4 (which they've thankfully abandoned for Civ5), but it's at least a great start.

 

[Truthy]

Okay so there was a Polynesian empire. But why don't they just make them and not the Polynesians under Kamehameha?

Kamehameha was probably the only historically significant leader of any of the Pacific Islands, therefore they wanted him to lead. Why didn't they just make a Hawaiian civilization? Probably because there wouldn't be enough cities for them to build. This might sound silly but what cities could you build after the Hawaiian islands? For more cities and a unique building they simply created the Polynesians. I acknowledge that all the Polynesians were never a single empire.

 

[Olaf_The_Great]

I don't really understand why people always want the Byzantines and the Holy Romans separate from the Romans and Germans
Medieval Rome="Byzantium"
Medieval Germany=Holy Roman Empire(in essence, atleast)

Celts deserve a civilization slot too.

Then again I'm also one of those people who think America and Zulu shouldn't be civilizations, especially since America is basically Britain+

 

[builer680]

They're only in poll number 3 which is made up of other indigenous groups.

I know, I was still in the process of editing the post to make the info more clear The "Top 10 Edition" threads give a more overall picture of the high ranked Civs from all 4 polls listed.

The "Current Top 10 Edition" doesn't include Polynesia in its rankings, because it's now in the game. So to see how Polynesia compared overall to other Civs in all the polls (while Polynesia's inclusion was still in issue) you have to look at the "Previous Top 10 Edition."

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Yep, i know of a few proxy driven loops that can produce biased results in any kind of online Polls, no matter when & for how long. Call it a group method to tilt influence over preferences just in time for decisions.
You've already voted in this poll! Oh, really? Me too?

The mere statistical randomness of it is perplexing enough to negate sampling of both participation & actual figures.
Debate or arguments for and against aside, we always remain victims of a majority that can still be wrong *or* right.
Gimme 50,000+ voters and i'll risk an explanation for similar flaws.

 

[Louis XXIV]

The medieval (Western/Holy) Roman Empire is clearly represented by Germany in this game. The Eastern half is a bit more ambiguous. It was a substantially different culture, had different cities, and they spoke Greek. They also only rarely had the capital of the Rome in the game and it was never their capital. While Byzantium clearly was Rome and thought of themselves as Romans always, I think it evolved into something separate as well. In that sense (considering it was still impressive and quite cool), I do think there should be Byzantium in the game.

 

[sharkles]

Yep, i know of a few proxy driven loops that can produce biased results in any kind of online Polls, no matter when & for how long. Call it a group method to tilt influence over preferences just in time for decisions.
You've already voted in this poll! Oh, really? Me too?

The mere statistical randomness of it is perplexing enough to negate sampling of both participation & actual figures.
Debate or arguments for and against aside, we always remain victims of a majority that can still be wrong *or* right.
Gimme 50,000+ voters and i'll risk an explanation for similar flaws.

Except the data isn't supporting an argument, the data -is- the argument, since apparently being popular is a requisite to be in the game.
When that's the issue, what else can you use as evidence besides a poll?

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Inca, Mayan, Aztec... yep, i'm absolutely sure they went East too.
Who killed Magellan, should i add as proof?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Personally, while popularity certainly has to be a factor (since people are paying money, they're more likely to pay money for popular civs), I don't think it's the only factor. The three reasons I supported it were diversity of gameplay, the fact that it's never been in before, and that I was impressed with the Polynesian expansion (after I read Guns, Germs, and Steel). I'm sure the 20% support that it got at the 2K forums showed that at least some were interested, but I doubt that's the final reason for the decision.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

When that's the issue, what else can you use as evidence besides a poll?

Reliable source, but certainly not www in origin.

 

[SpearMan153]

its all for the flavour and the alternative history/what if?

now for Australia, Canada and Poland

 

[sharkles]

Reliable source, but certainly not www in origin.

Good luck with that

 

[jtb1127]

I guess a positive thing is that they are a seafaring civ. Being the only other sea faring civs are the English I might play on more archipelagos.

 

[jtb1127]

He actually told you the difference between the terms in his post.
Something about how "control" would imply that the Vikings would be able to keep other people off the land, which they never did except in England.

Yeah, and something about the "dominate" would apply the exact same thing.

 

[sharkles]

Except we've already provided the provision that we're not using dominate to mean that. I was thinking dominate in the sense that they could perform raids when they felt like it, but not hold territory.
Do you have something to say about that, or is semantics just your thing?
Honestly the Vikings were my favorite faction in CIV. I don't think holding a very big empire should be the deciding factor.

 

[jtb1127]

Except we've already provided the provision that we're not using dominate to mean that. I was thinking dominate in the sense that they could perform raids when they felt like it, but not hold territory.
Do you have something to say about that, or is semantics just your thing?
Honestly the Vikings were my favorite faction in CIV. I don't think holding a very big empire should be the deciding factor.

I was trying to say they held a big empire. I was saying they were an empire. While "the Polynesian empire" is nonexistent.

Definition of Dominate:. to rule over; govern; control.
Definition of Control: to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/control
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dominate

Isn't it funny that the definitions of both words use the other word in the definition?
Have I made the point that the two words have the same meanings?

 

[Louis XXIV]

I like the Empire of the North (Cnut the Great!), but I don't think inclusion of the Polynesians require exclusion of the Norse. I disputed controlled because I don't think controlled and dominated are the same thing. To me, controlled implies exclusion (I think of dominance more as a strong, powerful influence that subordinates others without necessarily subjecting them). Also, if we're asking for unity, the period of Viking raiders was marked by absolute disunity among Norse groups. When we get to Cnut and others, the Norse were just like other European Kingdoms in many ways.

 

[Pouakai]

They have a history far richer than many of the civilizations on your list - however said history was oral, the Polynesians didn't have an alphabet until European settlement. They had better things to worry about

 

[sargasm]

People have voted for many important and influencial civs that they would like to play as. These include:
-Vikings, who controlled the North Atlantic for many years
-Carthaginians, famous empire of North Africa and rivals of Rome
-Portugal, large empire that controlled much of India, Africa, and South America
-Dutch, built a very prosperous empire with territories everywhere
-Sumerians, 1st to develop many early technologies, like writing
-Mayans, built massive pyramids all over the Yucutan penninsula
-Celtics not really a unified state so they can't be placed in this comparison.
and lets not forget the Byzantines who controlled 1/4 of Europe for 600 years.

Almost all those civs were in the last game. Are they really what made the game better? There's a lot of talk about the historical importance of various candidate civs but is anyone even claiming that they're less fun to play?

I really don't mind what civilization they come up with as long as it was an identifiable cultural/national group at some point. And the more variety they have, the more opportunity we get to play with unique units that are actually unique. So Polynesia doesn't bother me. I'd also be okay with Tibet, or Austria, or Ireland.

Unfortunately, however, in my experience previous naval-oriented civs haven't been that exciting