The Holy Roman Empire? Seriously?!

[Shrapnel12]

Originally posted by Niall Becc
Adding what is in essence a duplicate Germany with a chronologically impossible leader (the HRE didn't exist in Charlemagne's time) is really bad. And I'm especially sad that another civ has lost its place to this.

Charlemagne was the (1st I believe) Holy Roman Emperor. How could he be Emperor of something that didn't exist yet? I thought we already established that there are two different Holy Roman Empires in two different time periods, the second of which was comprised of mostly German states. Yet we also established that it was not the same as Germany. Since when has Germany as we know it today ever included parts of France, and been ruled by a Spanish ruler? This is not a defense for it being in Civ IV, but enough with the constant misinformation already.

[LDiCesare]

Charlemagne was Roman Emperor. Otto was a Holy Roman Emperor. Charlemagne of the Franks would make sense, but the Holy Roman Empire never owned much in France.

[Blaupanzer]

A few quick thoughts:

Poland seems as worthy as the Netherlands. What's particularly unique about the Netherlands? Lots of nations had/have dikes and mercenary soldiers. Poland is actually more unique. Hungary also. Why did the Netherlands get included?

Karl der Grosse/Karolus must have been called something in the records of the Vatican. Chances are they got the spelling/naming right from Carl's point of view, since he was standing right there to see it written.

Native Americans is all wrong. None of the 500+ nations called themselves that until very recently. (Most called themselves some variation on "the people" in their native tongues.) Naming them Native Americans is a gross example of PC thinking. (Talk about a nation that never existedhistorically.) Also, Sitting Bull was in charge of the encampment where Custer snatched defeat from victory. How is that a great accomplishment? Among the Natives of North America, great leaders included Pontiac and Roman Nose, both of whom united previously warring tribes in attempts to defend their homes (albeit unsuccessfully).

"Dog soldiers" are Cheyenne, another tribe that ended up on the Great Plains with the leader named Roman Nose. However, the Cheyenne were nomads with no real cities or permanent trading sites.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Why did the Netherlands get included?

Probably because the Dutch had an empire. Not as big as Spain or England, but significant as far as having a worldwide influence on history.

Wodan

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Shrapnel12


Charlemagne was the (1st I believe) Holy Roman Emperor. How could he be Emperor of something that didn't exist yet? I thought we already established that there are two different Holy Roman Empires in two different time periods, the second of which was comprised of mostly German states. Yet we also established that it was not the same as Germany. Since when has Germany as we know it today ever included parts of France, and been ruled by a Spanish ruler? This is not a defense for it being in Civ IV, but enough with the constant misinformation already.

If you think the HRE existed in 800, then there's little I can do to help you. He was made "Emperor"; the Holy Roman Empire was a later name for the Kingdom of Germany, after wardship of the Western Empire fossilized with the German kings.

And if you think the HRE wasn't Germany, then go tell that to the scores of chroniclers and other writers from the middle ages who routinely call it that, or to the guy who later came up with the title "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation".

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Locutus


It hasn't. The defining factor is the number of leaderheads, civs are very easily added or removed, unlike leaderheads they take few resources to create. And if Charlemagne hadn't been leader of the HRE he'd probably have been leader of the French and/or German, so then BtS would simply have had new 9 civs and 7 new leaders rather than 10 and 6 respectively.

How do you know that? Possibly if they'd added Charlemagne to the French they wouldn't have created De Gaulle, and they'd have had "more leaderhead time". In reality, it seems more likely to me to have been about tasking: 10 new civs, 6 new other leaders ... go do it. Hence, Israel, Poland, the Mapuche, Malays, the Uighurs, or whoever, lost their place to a duplicate Germany.

Or am I missing something?

Originally posted by Locutus

Move the LEADER_CHARLEMAGNE entry from the HRE to Germany in CIV4CivilizationInfos.xml and disable the HRE by setting bPlayable and bAIPlayable to 0. Copy the BUILDING_RATHAUS and UNIT_LANDSKNECHT to the German section as well to give them the HRE UB/UU.

OK, that's helpful. But, how do I change his name to Otto in the files? I've not been able to figure out how to do that.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Niall Becc
How do you know that?

Locutus knows because he has been helping Firaxis with CivIV since the beginning. Open up your CivIV manual and turn to the back; his name is even in the credits there.

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Alexander I


Locutus knows because he has been helping Firaxis with CivIV since the beginning. Open up your CivIV manual and turn to the back; his name is even in the credits there.

Ah yes, I see a 'Wouter "Locutus" Snijders' as a 'Scenario and Tutorial Designer'. But I won't assume that's the reason until he says it is.

[Virdrago]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
A few quick thoughts:

Poland seems as worthy as the Netherlands. What's particularly unique about the Netherlands? Lots of nations had/have dikes and mercenary soldiers. Poland is actually more unique. Hungary also. Why did the Netherlands get included?

Karl der Grosse/Karolus must have been called something in the records of the Vatican. Chances are they got the spelling/naming right from Carl's point of view, since he was standing right there to see it written.

Native Americans is all wrong. None of the 500+ nations called themselves that until very recently. (Most called themselves some variation on "the people" in their native tongues.) Naming them Native Americans is a gross example of PC thinking. (Talk about a nation that never existedhistorically.) Also, Sitting Bull was in charge of the encampment where Custer snatched defeat from victory. How is that a great accomplishment? Among the Natives of North America, great leaders included Pontiac and Roman Nose, both of whom united previously warring tribes in attempts to defend their homes (albeit unsuccessfully).

"Dog soldiers" are Cheyenne, another tribe that ended up on the Great Plains with the leader named Roman Nose. However, the Cheyenne were nomads with no real cities or permanent trading sites.

Hey Plaupanzer:

The Dutch had a large trading empire that stretched around the world. Poland didn't. Poland may be worthy, but not as much as the Dutch, in my estimation. Hungary, too.

Probably Carolus, since the Church would have used his Latin name. That wouldn't help when we're trying to figure out what his proto-French and proto-German speaking subjects called him (besides "your majesty" ).

We've had many people make the same point about the Native Americans, including me. It's not going to change, though. We'll just have to do some modding.

Thanks for the info about the Dog Soldiers. I asked which tribe they were from about a week and a half ago, and nobody answered me then.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Niall Becc

Ah yes, I see a 'Wouter "Locutus" Snijders' as a 'Scenario and Tutorial Designer'. But I won't assume that's the reason until he says it is.

Here's something he said on the "Third XP: Yay or Nay" thread. (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=167218)

Originally posted by Locutus
So a hypothetical third expansion could do with a few more female leaders as well: Cleopatra, Dido, Wilhelmina, Maria Theresa, Zenobia, Roxelana, Wu Zhao, Theodora, etc. (I gotta say though that I take part of the blame here, I think without knowing it at the time I had a fairly big say in which leaders were included in BtS and didn't include any women in my list of suggestions )

You can trust what he says to be accurate.

[Niall Becc]

Originally posted by Alexander I


Here's something he said on the "Third XP: Yay or Nay" thread. (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hreadid=167218)



You can trust what he says to be accurate.

No no, don't get me wrong, he seems to know what he's talking about; all I asked is how he knows that HRE didn't take another civs place.

[Kuciwalker]

Because he works with Firaxis.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Because he works with Firaxis.

Yes, I thought that was the whole point we've been trying to make.

[Kuciwalker]

And he wasn't getting it

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And he wasn't getting it

Well, obviously.