Poland as a new civ in Conquests

[Wycoff]

I updated/edited the original post for this thread for clarification.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Vince278

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.

I guess "late middle ages" wasn't a very good description of the time period. Reformation or early Modern era might have been a better description. Here is a quote on the extent of Polish power.

"Between 1579 and 1582 Batory came to the aid of Inflanty (Livonia: modern day Estonia and Latvia) which has been attacked by the Muscovite Tsar, Ivan the Terrible. After a successful campaign and a brilliant victory at Pskov Batory accepted the Muscovite plea for peace; Livonia joined the Commonwealth and Poland was now recognised as the greatest power in Central Europe and only the Turkish Sultan ruled over more extensive territories. "

This quote is from the Polish History website:

http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/HistoryPolska.html

Poland was the premier power in Eastern Europe for a hundred years, declining only after the brilliant victory against the Ottomans in 1683.

Read the website and I'm sure that you'll add Poland to your list of European powers of the "late middle ages"

[Orz]

Thanks for the link, Wycoff!

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Wycoff
This quote is from the Polish History website:
http://www.kasprzyk.demon.co.uk/www/HistoryPolska.html

Thank-you! Very informative.

Originally posted by Wycoff
Poland was the premier power in Eastern Europe for a hundred years, declining only after the brilliant victory against the Ottomans in 1683.

Read the website and I'm sure that you'll add Poland to your list of European powers of the "late middle ages"

I never intended to belittle the great achievements of Poland or its people (the Holy Father is from Poland too...). The subject of the thread is about Poland in Civ, not the real world. Being ascendant for about 100 years (Only 10 turns, I believe, at that time period) does not make one a major power.
Guess it is hard to accurately model some nations in Civ. My own country arose only recently (in 1776) and only achieved greatness by the end of WWII (1945).

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Vince278

The subject of the thread is about Poland in Civ, not the real world. Being ascendant for about 100 years (Only 10 turns, I believe, at that time period) does not make one a major power.
Guess it is hard to accurately model some nations in Civ. My own country arose only recently (in 1776) and only achieved greatness by the end of WWII (1945).

I agree, which is why I'm not arguing that Poland should be in instead of Japan or Rome or something. I'm arguing that Poland is just as worthy for inclusion, if not more so, than the Portuguese, Dutch, or Hittities, civs that many people think are going to be included for more than just scenarios. The Hittites (and the Sumerians) are already included in the Babylonian civ, which is meant to represent all of the ancient Tigris-Euphrates civs (other than Phoenicia, Israel, and Persia.) The period of Portuguese ascendancy or Dutch ascendency wasn't much more than 100 years. The Poles have had at least as much of a cultural impact on the world as the Portuguese, and probably as much as the Dutch. If they are to be brought into an already crowded Europe, the Poland deserves to be brought in as well. Eastern Europe needs a civ between Germany and Russia.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

What would be really cool would be for start out with the base tribes that were around during 4000 BC and allow the other civs to branch off of them. Say the French, English, and Germans branch off the Germanic tribe, and the Canadians and Americans later branch off the French/English and German/English civs.

Would be somewhat comlicated to work out programming wise, but it would still be kinda cool.

[Chilean Presidentâ„¢]

a Civolution game would be really cool and could allow a lot of new civs.
Anyway the starting civs wouldn't be a lot.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Chilean President
a Civolution game would be really cool and could allow a lot of new civs.
Anyway the starting civs wouldn't be a lot.

Did I miss something? What is Civolution?

[Chilean Presidentâ„¢]

Is a game concept that I heard long time ago in this site in a thread-debate that was asking if the US should be a civ or not.

A "civolutive game" would be something similar to which you said before, a few 'original' tribes from where new empires or nations born. Like in RL.

[ISTANBUL]

Originally posted by Wycoff


I agree, which is why I'm not arguing that Poland should be in instead of Japan or Rome or something. I'm arguing that Poland is just as worthy for inclusion, if not more so, than the Portuguese, Dutch, or Hittities, civs that many people think are going to be included for more than just scenarios. The Hittites (and the Sumerians) are already included in the Babylonian civ, which is meant to represent all of the ancient Tigris-Euphrates civs (other than Phoenicia, Israel, and Persia.) The period of Portuguese ascendancy or Dutch ascendency wasn't much more than 100 years. The Poles have had at least as much of a cultural impact on the world as the Portuguese, and probably as much as the Dutch. If they are to be brought into an already crowded Europe, the Poland deserves to be brought in as well. Eastern Europe needs a civ between Germany and Russia.

Hi,
I'm new here.
Hittites do not overlap with Babylonnians or Sumerians geographically or chronologically.
But, I'm against the Hittites and also the Polish, whether they were great or not. Southeast Asia, Australia and Israel need to be in, I think.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by ISTANBUL
Hittites do not overlap with Babylonnians or Sumerians geographically or chronologically.
But, I'm against the Hittites and also the Polish, whether they were great or not. Southeast Asia, Australia and Israel need to be in, I think.

Hittites conquered Babylon and dominated Mesopotamia for about 400 yers. The Sumerians came before the Babylonians in the same geographical area, and were a great influence on their culture. However, I know that they were historically distinct cultures. That's not what I'm trying to say. What I mean is that the Babylon civ as it is in the game is meant to represent all of those ancient Mesopotamian civ. For example, Uruk and Ur, Sumerian cities, are cities in the Babylonian civilization list. My point is, why include new civs (Sumer, Hittites) if they are already represented by the Babylonians? That is too much overlap when there are other major, unrepresented civs such as Poland, Israel, Khmer, Mali, Ethiopia, Polynesia.

Here is a website that gives a good, short summary of Mesopotamian Cultures.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/SUMER.HTM

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I agree with Wycoff, especially since you then have the same city names being used by multiple civs to the point that one civ only has 1-2 unique names.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
What would be really cool would be for start out with the base tribes that were around during 4000 BC and allow the other civs to branch off of them. Say the French, English, and Germans branch off the Germanic tribe, and the Canadians and Americans later branch off the French/English and German/English civs.

Would be somewhat comlicated to work out programming wise, but it would still be kinda cool.

That is also something I'd like to see. We could still start with the ancient civs and have them continually evolve/devolve once they reach a certain point. A large civ could break up and give you a choice on with piece to play and which piece to hand off to the AI. (Or you could voluntarily "free" a "colony" to help avoid such a breakup)

[Vince278]

Originally posted by ISTANBUL
Hi,
I'm new here.
Hittites do not overlap with Babylonnians or Sumerians geographically or chronologically.
But, I'm against the Hittites and also the Polish, whether they were great or not. Southeast Asia, Australia and Israel need to be in, I think.

I thought Australia was in. Ooops, that must be CtP2, not Civ. Come to think of it, I believe the Hebrews are in CtP2 as well. Both civs work well in that game so I don't see them being a problem in Civ either.

[Loui]

I find it funny that everybody talks about Poland as a new civ, even mentioning the Austrian/Hungarian Empire, but not nominating it.

The Austrian/Hungarian Empire was one of the major political powers in Europe until WW1. I do not vote for another European power to be added, but if there is one it should be Austria/Hungary, not Poland. Then you could even have Prague and Bratislava as cities, plus Vienna as the Capital, Budapest, Graz, Linz, Maribor, Zagreb, Salzburg, Innsbruck......