I know Polish history, and it (the repeated suggesting that Poland has had more of an impact than many of the other European countries featured or that fans want featured) seems more like nationalism on the part of polish players. I mean don't get me wrong, they weren't some little empire that didn't do anything whatsoever, it's just that compared to many other European nations they didn't have that much of an impact.
I will say that their culture is pretty unique, though. Or was, rather. Polish culture ended up spreading more across east europe during the USSR, so it's not entirely unique anymore (though you can say that they had it first.) That's why I'm putting them in the same group as Australia, Canada, Ireland, etc.
Honestly, I kinda wonder if they would instead make an Centralish-Eastern European group-civ, like how they made a Scandinavian group-civ.
You obviously have no clue...
I guess i will have a quote war after all.
(the repeated suggesting that Poland has had more of an impact than many of the other European countries featured or that fans want featured)
Who has claimed that? Every country in Europe (except maybe Liechentstein) had a major impact in European history. Including Poland. For Example, without Poland, There would be no Lithuania, Austria would be an ottoman state, Ottoman expansion would of continued, I have no clue what would happen to Russia, but i doubt it would become a power, There would be no more WWI or WWII (due to the lack of Austria) and much more.
seems more like nationalism on the part of polish players
The Polish Nationalism isn't about us having a major impact on European history(even though we did) but about making other people understand why people think Poland should be in the game.
I mean don't get me wrong, they weren't some little empire that didn't do anything whatsoever, it's just that compared to many other European nations they didn't have that much of an impact.
Covered by the above. I could go through an "alternate" history and see how the impact of the lack of Poland would be. I doubt that without Poland, the Modern world would look like the way it does today.
I will say that their culture is pretty unique, though. Or was, rather. Polish culture ended up spreading more across east europe during the USSR, so it's not entirely unique anymore (though you can say that they had it first.)
And you claim that you know Polish history...
That's why I'm putting them in the same group as Australia, Canada, Ireland, etc.
I don't see the world much different with Canada being apart of America, Australia still a british colony, or Ireland still part of the Union. I do see a Europe without Poland drastically changing the world however.
Honestly, I kinda wonder if they would instead make an Centralish-Eastern European group-civ, like how they made a Scandinavian group-civ.
I don't see how we could group Germany, Austria-Hungary, Switzerland, Poland, Bohemia, and Slovenia into one civ. And there is not Scandinavian Civ. Just a Viking civ which represents the People from 750-1100 that lived in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. I do think that a Scandinavian civ representing all of scandinavia from 750-now should be in the game.
European:
England
France
Spain
Portugal
Rome
Greece
HRE
Germany
Russia
Netherlands
Celts
Vikings
Middle-Eastern:
Ottoman
Persian
Babylonian
Egyptian
Carthagian
Sumerian
Asian:
China
Mongolia
Korea
Japan
Khmer
India
Western Hemisphere:
American
Native American
Aztec
Mayan
Incan
African:
Mali
Ethiopia
Just curios as to why there is a
next to the netherlands
I probably missed some. Point being, Europe is well covered, as is the Middle East, really, with or without an Israeli civ.
We need more from Africa and Asia, I think. Tibet, for instance, and maybe Liberia.
And why not Jamaica?
Tibet is an ok idea, i do think that some central asian civ should be included, not sure which though.
Why Liberia? I think that some other sub-saharan civ are more deserving, such as a unified Swahili civ, or Congo, and north of the Sahara, the Moors.
And what has Jamaica accomplished in the world? I understand the American bias, but from a european, this sounds like a very strange suggestion.
Note, you have 12 European vs. 10 Asian civs. Byzantines could be added to either, or both.
Carthage is definately African. The original Phoenicians came from the Middle East, but they aren't Carthage. And Egypt and Ethiopia are Africans. That brings them to 5, the same as the Americas.
I seriously hope Liberia is a joke. I don't know much about Africa, but Liberia better be a joke.
How is Carthage African? They were Populated by caucasions. The Pheonicans are the descendents of the migrating "sea peoples" who were from Greece/Italy/Anatolia. The Carthagians would've looked like Greeks or Romans. (i hope you don't think that africans above the sahara are black).
Same goes for Egypt, they are Caucasian. Your only right on Ethiopia.
For those who insist that playing a Jewish instead of a Hebrew civ makes no sense, and go on to dismiss the Hebrew state was too unimportant, here is my thought on this:
We have civs in the games as the English, the French, the Germans, the Chinese. We do not have them as the Anglo-Saxons, the Franks, the Goths, the Vandals or the Hans (not the Huns, though some may argue that they deserve a place as well). By the logic that one has to play as the Hebrews and not the Jews, then the same thing applies to the Anglo-Saxons or the Vandals.
It is not the original manifestation as a ethnic-nation-state that defines a civilisation, but their level of sophistication, the extent of cultural influence and the achievement of military might that the said group has accomplished over the ages that does.
The Jews, as some people have pointed out, are a special case. Their claim to a large empire is a laughing case, their military might non-existent for a long time, but their cultural influence long and profound, and what makes them superior to the Egyptians or the Romans or the Byzantines, is that they managed to survive and have a modern nation-state, which looks up Solomon and David as their forefathers. The length of their cultural consistency may only be matched by the Chinese. The longevity somewhat makes up for their lack of military might (and for goodness sack, they have it now!) and an empire.
Let me summarise: empire, culture, and military are what makes a solid civ in the game, I doubt anyone disagree on that. Some civs have all three, English (or rather British), American, Roman, Greek, or Chinese. Some lack one or two, Mongolian (culture), Dutch (military), etc. Some has none, like Korean and HRE. With all these in mind, can we not have the Jews kicking out the Koreans? (and pro/fin suits them rather well) But to keep the market in Korea, maybe we should leave the Koreans in and simply add the Jews for something else.
We have civs in the games as the English, the French, the Germans, the Chinese. We do not have them as the Anglo-Saxons, the Franks, the Goths, the Vandals or the Hans (not the Huns, though some may argue that they deserve a place as well). By the logic that one has to play as the Hebrews and not the Jews, then the same thing applies to the Anglo-Saxons or the Vandals.
That makes no sense, There are African(black) Jews, Central Asian Jews, European Jews and Israeli Jews.
It is not the original manifestation as a ethnic-nation-state that defines a civilisation, but their level of sophistication, the extent of cultural influence and the achievement of military might that the said group has accomplished over the ages that does.
What?
Sophistication? At that Time go to China or to Rome. Surely a higher level of Sophistication.
Cultural Influence? That was there Religion, not them.
And what achievement of Military? Modern Israel? I thought we were talking about Judea and the ancient Israel.
The Jews, as some people have pointed out, are a special case. Their claim to a large empire is a laughing case, their military might non-existent for a long time, but their cultural influence long and profound, and what makes them superior to the Egyptians or the Romans or the Byzantines, is that they managed to survive and have a modern nation-state, which looks up Solomon and David as their forefathers. The length of their cultural consistency may only be matched by the Chinese. The longevity somewhat makes up for their lack of military might (and for goodness sack, they have it now!) and an empire.
Again it was there religion which had a large cultural influence, not them. We could add a separate Islam and Christian civilization to the game then.
Egyptians or the Romans or the Byzantines, is that they managed to survive and have a modern nation-state,
Very bad example.
Egypt is still a state today, and the people building the pyramids back then still have 80+ Million descendants in modern day Egypt. The Romans is a bad example for two Reasons, 1 is, that the ancient romans are still alive, as the Italians, (i admit with some genetic interference mainly from the germans and in southern italy, the arabs) and 2, Rome was a vast Empire. 1000's of ethnic groups lived in it. Byzantines never existed. They were the eastern roman empire. The byzantines is a word that was made up by 20th century historians to describe the part of rome that survived after the fall of the city Rome. Besides the Byzantines do have a modern state. It's called Greece.
Also Modern Israel is a made up state supported by the American Govornment. It isn't a continuation of Ancient Israel.
The length of their cultural consistency may only be matched by the Chinese.
Wow, do i really need to argue this? Think of Greece, Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, India just to name a few.
The length of their cultural consistency may only be matched by the Chinese. The longevity somewhat makes up for their lack of military might (and for goodness sack, they have it now!) and an empire.
Would they have a military might if it wasn't for America? no. And the Longevity doesn't matter mainly because modern israel isn't a continuation of ancient Israel. IF you are talking about the jews, then the jews is a religion. There are Ethiopian Jews, European Jews, Middle Eastern Jews, Central Asian Jews and so on.
@LastOne - what utter crap about Lithuania! At the last count they were 80% Lithuanian, with a larger Russian minority than Polish. When the Soviets arrived the proportion of ethnic Lithuanians. If you want someone to take you seriously, then you have to take other people seriously too. PS - as a Polish speaker and a wielbiciel (enthusiast) of your nation, I still don't really think Poland should be in the game. It may have been the most powerful nation in Europe at one point, but I don't think it really had much clout in the longer run. I think to be honest Poland had more global/geopolitical impact during the 20th century as the victim of Hitler and Stalin (though granted Wladyslaw Szpilman said in his book The Pianist that Warsaw was one of the richest cities in Europe...though probably in one of the poorest countries at that time) than it did at any time when it was a large Eastern European empire; if it had been more influential it probably wouldn't have succumbed to the partitions in the late 1700s. The HRE evolved into the Habsburg/Austro-Hungarian monarchy, which was one of the partitionists along with, erm, Russia and Germany/Prussia. Please don't let national feelings cloud your judgement or allow yourself to stoop to such utter lies about Lithuania. Take a step back from your own nationality and allow yourself to see a bit more clearly from a global perspective. I accomplished this by spending three years overseas allowing me to look at Britain in a more critical light when I got home (or even allowing me to look at her in a more favourable light when I got home!). I suggest you try the same sometime.
Oh dear...
@LastOne - what utter crap about Lithuania! At the last count they were 80% Lithuanian, with a larger Russian minority than Polish.
Sorry to say this, but you are a complete idiot(sorry about the personal attack) if you think i'm talking about now. Obviously i'm talking about pre-Soviet times.
When the Soviets arrived the proportion of ethnic Lithuanians. If you want someone to take you seriously, then you have to take other people seriously too.
First of all, i don't know what your saying in that first sentance.
Second of all, i only take people who understand seriously, and try to help the people who don't, understand.
PS - as a Polish speaker and a wielbiciel (enthusiast) of your nation, I still don't really think Poland should be in the game.
Everyone has there own opinion, and In my opinion, i only care if ONE of the following civs: Austria, Poland, get in. I don't care which one as long as one does get in, and that has been my opinion since they announced BtS. (and of course the HRE took the place of both Austria and Poland!!!).
I think to be honest Poland had more global/geopolitical impact during the 20th century as the victim of Hitler and Stalin
Really? I think that's on an Impact on American and Western European Culture. Politically, Without Poland, WWII might not have started until it was to late, and the Enigma code was after all cracked by us.
if it had been more influential it probably wouldn't have succumbed to the partitions in the late 1700s.
We did have a big Influence. After all we had the biggest Continental Empire in Europe at that time! (excluding of coarse Russia). And it was 3v1 in 3 wars! And due to our govornment system, the nobles had to much power, and some nobles actually sided with the austrians/russians/prussians rather then to the king of Poland.
Please don't let national feelings cloud your judgement or allow yourself to stoop to such utter lies about Lithuania.
Only saying what is true! Here's a quote from Wikipedia which for sure is a much less "biased":
In the years 1920-1939 Poles made up 65% of the population, Jews 28%, 4% Russians, 1% Belarusians 1% Lithuanians[13]. Lithuanians therefore were a very marginal minority (less than 3% immediately after World War I, and less than 1% later in 1930s).
The jews there, were mostly Polish Jews. I hope i proven a point.
Take a step back from your own nationality and allow yourself to see a bit more clearly from a global perspective.
Again, i'm Polish, but i also had an education in Canada, and lived alot of my life in Canada. I am "less nationalistic" then many poles, (and i heard the poles in Ireland are even worse...) but i'm just defending my country from ignorant comments that are constantly being made.
That's what I mean. And because there is a decidedly modern slant to the game, and in modernity we consider the ME from about Morroco to Iran, those civs are more representative of the Middle East than the African continent proper. Which are, largely, and I mean LARGELY, semetic peoples and cultures. That's what defines the Middle East.
Kind of funny that none of you are arguing that those other "Middle-Eastern" civs should be considered Asian. Ponder it a bit and you will understand why I count them as Middle Eastern.
Liberia--no, not kidding, and for this reason: it is a modern state founded by former slaves from North America. I like the idea of representing in some form a civ that has ties to the modern African-American experience in some way. Obviously proposing a civ for Detroit or Northeast Philly wouldn't meet much approval.
You are right in your first paragraph, except for one thing. Alot of People in Northern Africa, are Caucasion, not semetic. (for example, the berbers).
In your second paragraph, Now i understand. I though you were talking about the original game, not colonization.
----
I think i started a quote war..
----
).
