Polynesia? Seriously!?

[Louis XXIV]

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

I wouldn't necessarily go with "better" things, but certainly different things.

 

[Arsenic Steel]

When I first inserted the Civilization floppy into my Amiga I was like 14 and I couldn't really understand what are Americans doing on the list of empires. I thought it was very haughty of a barely 200-years old nation to try and fit into the league of historically really important empires. Then I saw Zulu and everything was made clear - the author of the game knows about history as much as Sam Cooke.

From that time Firaxis or Sid Meier or whoever made great strides in the right direction. One of them is introducing Polynesia. I'm sure "the very important empires" will make it into the game eventually.

I am not sure which is more impressive, that at 14 you we making criticisms about the validity of the inclusion of some nations in civ and questioning the history knowledge of those game developers or that you had your own Amiga then.

 

[Fredric Drum]

Guys, what's all this empire talk? This game isn't called Empire V, it's called Civilization V.

Being an empire isn't a requirement to be in the game. But I would argue that the Polynesians are definitely a civilization.

There are of course other civs that could or should be in before them... but I don't hate this choice. I guess they want to include something new and refreshing.

 

[brxbrx]

I am not sure which is more impressive, that at 14 you we making criticisms about the validity of the inclusion of some nations in civ and questioning the history knowledge of those game developers or that you had you own Amiga then.

the sam cooke reference threw me off

 

[Camikaze]

Polynesia has consistently been one of the in demand civilizations on these forums. Right up there with the likes of Portugal, Poland and Carthage.

 

[Reginleif]

OP, you reek of ignorence.

1. Maps are always misleading. Rome may have been large, but actual control asserted states wouldn`t be identifiable by a modern person. They were grouped in small isolated regions in most of Europe and in places like the caucas, control was nothing more than a few fortresses, having no real political control.

2. You really seem to only want European civilizations. I know that you are ignorent on most of the world your elementary teacher didn`t tell you `bout, but the West is not World History.
Moderator Action: Flaming is not allowed here.

3. Stop using historical importance as a means to justify yourself. It is a buzz word of ignorent people.

 

[Arsenic Steel]

the sam cooke reference threw me off

HAHA I sort of ignored that bit. I had to wiki his song list as the name of the song didn't not come to me upon reading bibor's post.
A 14 year old being aware of the lyrics to a 1960 Sam Cooke song is also all kinds of impressive.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

Have I made the point that the two words have the same meanings?

Far from it...

Europe was once a bunch of Tribes.
While Egypt was building Kheops or before, the Polynesian went ashore near modern Peru.
That isn't Control or Dominate for them... more like transmitting in generations worth that Venus & Jupiter trails are to be written in Mayans Codex or be carefully hidden in some Yucatan peninsula located Aztec Temples along with Gold & Gems Treasures brought in boats from some 5000 miles away.

Naval Empire. Yep, just Polynesia.

 

[Teperi Blaze]

Vikings controlled the countries they chose, they never dominated them.

Any country with sea access could be controlled by the vikings, so these countries tried to find ways to trade inland, which wasn't often successfull because of raiders and stuff.

So trading by sea was always the safest route for many, except when they were in a conflict with the vikings. Who simply waited for the slow galleys to try to hike down the coast, easy pickings. Call it Zone of Control or whatever, but they made fortunes of this and mostly without bloodshed. So soon countries and city-states paid ransom.

A Viking longship could hold 60-80 people, it could manouver in waterdepths of 4 feet, if lower the ship was so light, they could carry it over a sandbank or whatever.

It also had 2 sterns as it was built, so you just put in reverse in a second by flipping the rowers around, to go in the other direction.

Canute is said to have had over a 1000 of these ships at his hands, when he started his conquests. Think about that manpower! Not to even touch the tacticts they used when in war, like tying ships together, to keep a strong platform.

All this blabbling aside, I do not disagree with a new civ like Polynesia, anything new is a refreshment. But I love Vikings.

 

[SHaW1986]

I think its great they decided to include to include the polynesians... i just wish they would include more at a time, allow us to pick and choose.

 

[esemjay]

OP, you reek of ignorence. Ignorance

1. Maps are always misleading. Rome may have been large, but actual control asserted states (Do you mean "controlled areas"?) wouldn`t be identifiable by a modern person. They were grouped in small, isolated regions in most of Europe and in places like , such as the caucas Caucasus (Caucas is a river in Columbia, Caucus is a meeting). Control was nothing more than a few fortresses, having no real political control. (Consider rephrasing)

2. You really seem to only want European civilizations. I know that you are ignorent ignorant on most of the world that your elementary-school teacher didn`t tell you `bout, but the West is not World History.

3. Stop using historical importance as a means to justify yourself your argument. It is a buzz word of ignorent ignorant people.

Right...

<SNIP>
Moderator Action: Grammar nazism is not allowed in this forum here.


----


EDIT: For an actual On-Topic bit -- I think that Polynesia was a weird choice... it doesn't seem to make sense from a historical standpoint, but they are something new. I just can't help but feel that their cultural trait will be a bit OP, though... and entirely wasted if the AI can't figure out how to cross oceans.

 

[builer680]

<SNIP>
Moderator Action: Grammar nazism is not allowed in this forum here.

But moderators comparing posters to nazis is allowed. Go ahead, infract/ban me... w/e. You're out of control dude (The_J).

Moderator Action: PDMA (Public Discussion of Moderator Actions)
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[chips2150]

But moderators comparing posters to nazis is allowed. Go ahead, infract/ban me... w/e. You're out of control dude (The_J).

Actually it's quite a common expression for grammar fanatics, so I wouldn't get too excited.

 

[Thormodr]

Back on topic, Polynesia is a fine choice.

I was in Hawaii just after Christmas and I picked up a huge book on Polynesian history. I think the sucker must weigh 20 pounds.

That and a couple of books on learning Hawaiian. Fascinating language I must say.

It is quite remarkable what they accomplished with so little really.

The Pacific islands are deficient in many things (especially metal) but they adapted and thrived in a very hostile environment.

I always thought that Civ was kind of like making do with what the terrain gave you and doing the best you could. Adapt or die.

I'm sure Portugal, the Dutch, Korea, Carthage and others will be coming soon enough anyway so there's no need for any cultural snobbery by anyone.

Polynesia is a good choice for many reasons and especially for offering a very interesting game style.

I'll criticize Firaxis for many things but I won't here. Bravo Firaxis.

 

[The_Quasar]

I think Polynesia is a good choice, for gameplay, I'm looking forward to trying them...

Polynesians have a rich culture, as anyone that knows anything about them will tell you. There are several forms of the Haka, for example, which has survived to the current day, and is performed by the New Zealand, Tonga (called Kailao there), Fiji (called Cibi there) and Samoan (called Siva tau there) rugby teams before matches. It is a traditional war dance that has it's variations all over Polynesia.

As for the Vikings, they were great explorers too... after all, they found america (as evidenced by the viking remains in Newfoundland)... and Prince Henry, the Navigator, was probably 150 - 200 years behind them. LOL, just shows what rubbish is taught in history at schools, Columbus was, iirc, over 100 years after that, a very poor third, but he is taught in schools, why?

 

[builer680]

Actually it's quite a common expression for grammar fanatics, so I wouldn't get too excited.

Who's excited?

The other 'n' word is pretty common too. Guess no one should be surprised when someone uses it because it's common.

Don't care about your next comment (which will probably also start with 'ACTUALLY' pronounced in a loud, annoying, high pitched and nasal tone)... so don't even bother replying. You're already ignored.

Moderator Action: Flaming
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Louis XXIV]

All this blabbling aside, I do not disagree with a new civ like Polynesia, anything new is a refreshment. But I love Vikings.

Actually, I agree completely, although I still don't think they should be called the Vikings (Norse most likely, although Scandinavians and Danes are OK as well, with Swedes as a possibility to include Gustavus Adolphus in the mix).

If I had a choice, I would say a Rome's enemy pack next (Carthage and Celts) and then the Norse (my real goal would be the Norse, Byzantium, and Al-Andalus/Moors). But the Polynesians are a great choice right now.

 

[HorribleHarald]

Taking Polynesians with is same kind of mistake than in civ4 native americans. They are too big group and too separated. What's next? Native africans? Slavic civ? Latin americans?
If they want some polynesian civ, why not choose direct hawaiians. They had own kingdom until evil imperialistic americans conquered their lands and make whole archipelago one their own state.
But is there really more important civs? This sounds as bad as mythic natural wonders, devs are gone nuts.

 

[Bibor]

Taking Polynesians with is same kind of mistake than in civ4 native americans. They are too big group and too separated. What's next? Native africans? Slavic civ? Latin americans?
If they want some polynesian civ, why not choose direct hawaiians. They had own kingdom until evil imperialistic americans conquered their lands and make whole archipelago one their own state.
But is there really more important civs? This sounds as bad as mythic natural wonders, devs are gone nuts.

Having a single leader per nation and nations themselves are already bad. It works in SMAC or Colonization, but not for Civilization.

 

[Fabiano1979]

I agree with the Horribleharald.

Everybody is thinking: "Oh, great, firaxis want to diversify, want to be a democratic game with civs from all corners of the earth. Wow how good they are, how generous.."

Actually, as I said on the DLC POlynesia thread, what they are doing is being ignorant and kind of racist.

You guys dont see that probably because you come from a major power, like US or EU.

The polynesian are a ethinicty, and grouping together all the countries that have this heritage is generalization. This island countries are pride of thei land and own culture, and really have a rivalry with each other. Samoans dont like the tongans who dont like new zeland. All of then will hate be under a hawaiian king.

Like Horribleharald said, lets do a Latin Civ then. Im brazlian and if firafix created a new civ for latin america under, I dont know, Simon Bolivar..I would quit the game.

Maybe is easier to you to see that if I suggest: lets unify US and England and create the Anglo Saxon Civ...under Washington (to make the brits angry )