Poland as a new civ in Conquests

[Vince278]

I believe Civ, as a globally oriented game, should only include civilizations with a global impact. It may be personally satisfying or fun to have your own or a favorite civ in a game but it isn't always realistic.

[The Mad Monk]

Since when is Civ realistic?

[durfal]

but i don't believe these are in. with hititties (i prefer this spelling ), sumerians, dutch, portuguese (thunderfall, a beta tester has confirmed these), most probably inca - 5 of 7 spots gone...

You forgot to mention the Maya. They were confirmed by Atari itself.
So there's only one spot left .

[sabrewolf]

were they confirmed for the main game or just the mesoamerican scenario?

[durfal]

They are confirmd for the main game.
There UU is the Mayan Javalin.

[bobbo008]

"I believe Civ, as a globally oriented game, should only include civilizations with a global impact. It may be personally satisfying or fun to have your own or a favorite civ in a game but it isn't always realistic."

unfortunately i think most of the civs with a big global impact are already in the game. to my knowledge, the only thing Carthage did was have a few wars with Rome and invade Italy. It seems to me that they only deserve to be in a scenario. i was also angered to see the Iroquious. Living in the Midwest of the USA, nobody here has even heard of the Iroqious. I'd think something like the Crow or Sioux would be better. Or maybe those tribes are more famous here...

edit: looking at the above post, it may be difficult to understand my rambling.

i dont think Carthage deserves to be a civ when there are more deserving civs not in the game. I also think that the Iroqious are a poor choice for a Native American civ.

there we go

[Vince278]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
Since when is Civ realistic?

We have people in this and other threads discussing real nations and history. By your reasoning such talk is irrelevent. You can't have it both ways.

What I was trying to say is that we shouldn't get carried away adding additional civs to the game. Nations such as China, France, Russia, and England have made a huge impact on the world. My own country, the US, is still relatively new (and evolved from English colonies). Poland, historically speaking, has been a speed bump between Germany and Russia (no insult intended to our Polish friends ).

[Gen8]

Originally posted by Vince278
Poland, historically speaking, has been a speed bump between Germany and Russia (no insult intended to our Polish friends ).

Much more than "speed bump"

[Wycoff]

Poland wasn't just a speed bumb. As I said before, Poland was a major power in the late middle ages.
If one considers the other Slavic peoples that I mentioned and their various contributions to civilization, it is apparent that they should be added as a civiliazation, either as a Slavic civ, or by having the Poles (the most influential of the West Slavs) represent the Slavic nations.

[Orz]

Well, I understand the point that Poland was a bump between Russia and Germany indeed but I disagree when it is said that Poland is *just* a bump. Negative. I really disagree. The Poland has had a strong cultural influence on the Eastern Europe reaching from South Estonia to Bessarabia, (?) perhaps the Poland and Sweden would have probably not declined in XVIII century if they would not have attacked each other.

Well, this bump thing is true also - the location between Russia and Germany has not brought happiness to any country, I suppose ;-). When Poland has succeeded qualifying as a bump between those two very powerful countries then just this fact reinforces the importance of Poland.

Size differences of the countries and civs are quite big indeed: China, Russia, India, USA - those are behemoths when compared to any European country with an exception of Germany, perhaps. Well, EU would be not first in either production capability or population in those terms...

[GePap]

Poland is just a good a civ as the Hittites, who were about the same: an important regional power witha golden age that then went into relative decline, plus Poland porbalby will last longer.

I like the HUssar as a replacement, but it would make more sense to replace Cavalry than Knights. Maybe lower defense to 2, give it 4 moves, or remove the saltpeter requirement for it. As for the Leader, a medeival or reneaissance king would be best. Prague should remain a German city (if it is not yet, the Czechs were part of the Holy Roman empire), not POlish.

[Wycoff]

GePap,

Having Hussars replace cavalry would probably be a good idea, though it still isn't completely satisfying. I'd give them a movement of 4 and a slighty increased cost.
My problem is that I think Cavalry comes too early. I'd think that military tradition should come after Nationalism. The Cavalry units look like they are at the earliest Napoleonic-era units. (at least the units look like they do) The time of Hussar (1550-1700) dominance was well before the Napoleonic era. The perfect solution would be if Cavalry and Military Tradition were moved after Nationalism and replaced with new technology that would create a Dragoon unit or something similar. Then, the Hussar could replace the Dragoon.

However, I think that I like the idea of a 2-5-1 Musket Man replacement a little better than the Hussar. There is an abundance of Calvary and Knight UUs, and the Polish infantry was famous for its rate of fire. During the 1550s,on a man to man basis, the Polish Infantry had ten times greater firepower than any other European army.

I'd only include Prague and the other non-Polish cities if there was a pan-Slavic or an Austria-Hungary civ, not in a Polish civ. I went back and clarified that point on my original post.

I think what makes the Poles more significant than the Hitties (duration aside) is the fact that Poand, though it has been conquered and dominated for long periods of time, has retained its distinct culture and language. The Hittite culture was submerged and assimilated, and is overall less distinct when compared to the existing Babylonian civ than a Polish civ (or a Slavic civ)would be vis a vis the German or Russian civs.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Wycoff
Poland wasn't just a speed bumb. As I said before, Poland was a major power in the late middle ages.

When I think of major European powers in the late middle ages the following countries come to mind: England, France, Spain, Holy Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Sweden, and Russia. Depends on what you call "major" I guess.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Orz
The Poland has had a strong cultural influence on the Eastern Europe reaching from South Estonia to Bessarabia,

You have just described the city radius of one or two cities on most CIV world maps.

Originally posted by Orz
Size differences of the countries and civs are quite big indeed: China, Russia, India, USA - those are behemoths when compared to any European country with an exception of Germany, perhaps. Well, EU would be not first in either production capability or population in those terms...

On a Civ scale the "behemoth" civs play best and are more realistic. The EU would be awesome if counted as a single entity. Many nationalities in the world would be comparable to the non-player villages that dot the map. I can certainly understand the desire of people to see their own country or nation represented (and it would be satisfying to see Andorra win a game ).

[bobbo008]

"You have just described the city radius of one or two cities on most CIV world maps."

he's also just described almost all european civs, egypt, japan, etc.