Which Civ would you prefere instead of HRE?

Which civ would you prefer nstead of HRE?


  • Total voters
    371
I didn't read ur post i just skipped it to say that having 1 or another is enough having both is to much. (for 1 expansion)

Yeah, because all that stuff about inventing the wheel and starting off the rise of civilization isn't important. At all.
 
True but it is a given that most people will say no. As it is a given that most people will say no to just about every civ since all the major ones like Rome, China, India are already in...

If you want to determine how people feel about the HRE, then you have to ask the right question. Try, for example, "Do you think the HRE is a good choice for a Civilization?" "Yes." "No." That would tell you if people think it is a good choice--nothing more, nothing less.
 
call it what you want but i simply can't understand why so many people are backing the inclusion of HRE.
i think the same people would cheer if firaxis add sea-people, escimoes, atlantis, elves or other historical crap to the epic game...
 
What about those Charlemagne was indeed the ruler of ? the Franks ?

After all, outside the Byzantines and the Arabs, there's not that many civilizations in the game representing that period of History between 500 AD and 1000 AD.
 
That is an unfair thing to say. The HRE was actually a state that existed for centuries throughout histroy and had a level of importance while sea people and elves are fantastic beings, atlantis regardless of whatever evidence you pull out is nothing more than legendary. So to say one will applaud the others is very poor in my mind.

call it what you want but i simply can't understand why so many people are backing the inclusion of HRE.
i think the same people would cheer if firaxis add sea-people, escimoes, atlantis, elves or other historical crap to the epic game...
 
That is an unfair thing to say. The HRE was actually a state that existed for centuries throughout histroy and had a level of importance while sea people and elves are fantastic beings, atlantis regardless of whatever evidence you pull out is nothing more than legendary. So to say one will applaud the others is very poor in my mind.
Yeah, but the Holy Roman Empire is just medieval Germany, and Germany is already in. Cities are the same, culture is the same, religion is the same... only historical era is different.
 
On a side note, for the guy that said "the HRE is winning", the poll only allowed ONE selection. Had it been a multiple choice poll, "Which civs do you feel would have been better added than the HRE?", I think you'd see the HRE getting thumped.

I selected Israel, but I would have also been happy with Dai-Viet (rather than the Khmer :crazyeye: ), Poland, Austria-Hungary, Tibet, Lithuania, Scotland, Ireland, Canada, Brazil, Mexico, Switzerland, or Cuba.

The HRE was slightly less centralized than the EU. The Emperor fought a tiny, insigificant war for _30 Years_ against itself. Henry VIII was almost elected Emperor! And what will the "nationality" be for it? Holy Roman?
 
Yea, but that is irrelevant to the argument I was engaging in with the other poster who was claiming that supporters of HRE would gladly accept things that have little or no evidence to support their existance.


Yeah, but the Holy Roman Empire is just medieval Germany, and Germany is already in. Cities are the same, culture is the same, religion is the same... only historical era is different.
 
Duuk, I see where you are coming from. But, that claim can go both ways. Maybe someone who voted for another Africa civ would also like HRE as well and vote for both. In fact, I voted for Africa civ and would probably also vote for HRE if I was allowed to vote for more than one choice.

P.S. At least we both agree on Dai-Viet. :)
 
Err, why do people want Poland?! As far as I know, all they have done is exist for a while, get conquered by Germany, get conquered by Russia, then resume existing? :confused:


Also, Israel is a modern country. To include it over Canada or Australia wouldn't be right, as the ancient Israel is represented by Judaism.


Only Polynesia, Hittites and Austria even deserve a chance to be in out of your rather lackluster options.
 
Yeah, but the Holy Roman Empire is just medieval Germany, and Germany is already in. Cities are the same, culture is the same, religion is the same... only historical era is different.

Could it be said that the Holy Roman Empire is the First Reich and the German Empire (under Bismarck) is the Second?
 
But the HRE is about the Germantic tribes(Franks , Saxons, ect), not the country Germany. Seeing as most of Europe durring the early middle ages were Germantic tribes fighting and trying to rule the former citizens of the Roman empire and native peoples of central and western Europe.
 
Yes, it is quite confusing - but the HRE is generally seen as the predecessor to the "Bismarck realm" . Not that I agree, this just seems to be the common point of view.
 
SIAM/THAILAND! Yes we have Khmer(the primitive prcursor to Siam actuallty) already for SEA but if Europe can have 8+ civs and you have Rome/Byzantines, Germany/HRE, Celts/France/Britan I dont think another 1 or 2 for SEA will threaten the European bias that this game has solidly built in.
 
But the HRE is about the Germantic tribes(Franks , Saxons, ect), not the country Germany. Seeing as most of Europe durring the early middle ages were Germantic tribes fighting and trying to rule the former citizens of the Roman empire and native peoples of central and western Europe.
The Holy Roman Empire is not an Empire of the early Middle Age. It's an Empire of High Middle Age and Renaissance.
 
Back
Top Bottom