Why Poland SHOULD be included in one of the official sets

[Dinner]

Originally posted by LoD
Kc7mxo: Poland needs finally at least some sort of recognition. And Copernicus' Observatory is not enough.

I hate to point it out but Copernicus was a German living in east Prussia. He Spoke German and not Polish, the country he lived in was a German state, therefor it would be incorrect to call him Polish. Poles didn't get the territory until Stalin gave it to them (to compensate his stealing half of Poland) in 1945.

[LoD]

El hidalgo: Hmmm, peronally I would have the dillema between Gniezno (the original Polish capital - there's a related legend about the foundation of Poland, the Czech kingdom and Russia - if you want I can present it here ) and Warsaw, although probably a Cracovian guy hearing this would probably want to kill me . Ah, well, you know, local patriotism . And Casimir the Great a very good choice for a leader.
Heh, and I'm glad that you're on our side .

PS. The proper Polish name for Cracow is Kraków, but since we're talking in English here ...

Oedrin: If you were to read the previous posts in this thread, you would know that I was reffering to Copernicus (Einstein was not Polish). Speaking of which:
I'm sorry, but I have to say that everything you said about Copernicus is completely bogus. Copernicus was Polish (if you want sources, check the Oxford English Dictionary for example) - he was born in Poland, he studied in Poland (his first university was Akademia Krakowska), he had spent almost all his life in Poland (except for the time of his studies abroad, 1496-1503), and he had defended Polish land (he commanded the defence of Olsztyn during the Polish-Teutonic war of 1520-1521).
However, the most important argument that you are absolutely wrong is the simple fact that, during Copernicus' lifetime (1473–1543), there was no such thing as Prussia. Prussia came into existence as late as 1618*!
Is this all a part of your plot to convince the public to include the Scots in the expansion ?


LoD


*BTW, East Prussia was added to its territory after the 1st Partition of Poland, 1772.

[Sliparac]

Why Poland SHOULDN'T be included in one of the official sets:

(expansion pack poll)

23. Inuit/Eskimos/Aleutians 194 16
24. Poles 192 18
25. Aborigines 188 13

[LoD]

All: I've just remembered another application for the husar's wings . They have also made it much harder to catch the husar's neck with a rope.


Sliparac:
My serious reply:
The point of this thread was to prove that Poland is worth more than that puny 24th place. And if you would look at the more recent replies in the thread that you are alluding too, you would see that I had some succes. So please, before you post your "witty" replies, take your time to read the thread.


My not so serious reply:
58. Filipinos 40 3
59. Belgians 40 2
60. Confederates 40 2




LoD

[Sliparac]

Originally posted by LoD

Sliparac:
My serious reply:
The point of this thread was to prove that Poland is worth more than that puny 24th place. And if you would look at the more recent replies in the thread that you are alluding too, you would see that I had some succes. So please, before you post your "witty" replies, take your time to read the thread.

I've read the entire thread, just like I read all the "Why Spain should be in Civ3" threads and they're moslty all silly "my country is older than yours" "your country is not a real country" "we defeated the evil persians/mores/turks/germans/communists 1000000 years ago so you should be grateful to us and include us" "we invented this" "no you didn't invent that" "your country was powerless except for 100 years" "we ruled half the world" "zulu's and iroquois shouldn't be in" discussions.

Furthermore, I completely agree with Ubik, this game is already too Eurocentric, and besides, are there really going to be 16 civs in a future expansion pack? Did Firaxis say something about that? If not, expansion packs usually have less new units/civs/techs/levels/weapons/whatever than the original game. I don't want an expansion pack with 50% Euro civs, although an Eastern-European or Balkan civ would be fun to play. There are much more interesting American/Middle-Eastern/Asian civs though.

My not so serious reply:
58. Filipinos 40 3
59. Belgians 40 2
60. Confederates 40 2

But... I'm not asking for the Belgians to be included ( although I did vote for them because the Neanderthals had more votes )

I don't see Belgium as a civ... it's really more like 2,5 civs of which none deserve to be in Civ3 despite a rich history

[Saint Marcus]

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25511

Civ: Poles
Capital: Warshaw
Leader: Mieszko I
Attributes: Sci Rel
Special units: Light Cannon (cannon), Hussaria (dragoon)
Bench: Polish Infantry (musketmen)

Does anyone know any Polish Great Leaders?

[Lung]

Re: Why Poland SHOULD be included in one of the official sets

Originally posted by LoD
Appendix 2: But vodka was undoubtedly made first in Poland !

Well, why didn't you say so in the first place? On that count alone, count Poland in

[Dinner]

Originally posted by LoD
Oedrin: If you were to read the previous posts in this thread, you would know that I was reffering to Copernicus (Einstein was not Polish). Speaking of which:
I'm sorry, but I have to say that everything you said about Copernicus is completely bogus. Copernicus was Polish (if you want sources, check the Oxford English Dictionary for example) - he was born in Poland, he studied in Poland (his first university was Akademia Krakowska), he had spent almost all his life in Poland (except for the time of his studies abroad, 1496-1503), and he had defended Polish land (he commanded the defence of Olsztyn during the Polish-Teutonic war of 1520-1521).
However, the most important argument that you are absolutely wrong is the simple fact that, during Copernicus' lifetime (1473–1543), there was no such thing as Prussia. Prussia came into existence as late as 1618*!
Is this all a part of your plot to convince the public to include the Scots in the expansion ?

Ok, you are right Copernicus was Polish I was thinking about Copernicus's coworker and eventual successor (or at least he continued Copernicus's research after the big man died) Johannes Kepler. Some years after working with Copernicus Keppler mapped out the eliptical orbits of the planets. Sorry for the confusion.

[Fiil]

Originally posted by Sliparac

I've read the entire thread, just like I read all the "Why Spain should be in Civ3" threads and they're moslty all silly "my country is older than yours" "your country is not a real country" "we defeated the evil persians/mores/turks/germans/communists 1000000 years ago so you should be grateful to us and include us" "we invented this" "no you didn't invent that" "your country was powerless except for 100 years" "we ruled half the world" "zulu's and iroquois shouldn't be in" discussions.

LOL

Thats excactly what I'm getting out of these threads - though some serious historical facts are included.

[Col Bigspear]

Leader= Lech Walsa(?). Sorry its spelt wrong but I can't be arsed looking it up. The older leaders may have been some of the great ones but what about Lech! and solidarity
Just a thought

[St Leo]

1. The Ottoman Empire was a country, not a nomadic tribe. Nuff' said.

It became a country. It was a fairly static country, but a larger dominion would have amplified the forces of social unrest.

2. The Bolsheviks weren't after Poland only. They were out to conquer Europe. But I do guess that a German SSR wouldn't help Hitler. And a French SSR. And an Austrian SSR. Etc. Etc.

I am having problems seeing a 1920s USSR conquering much of anything. The economy was in a lousy shape, there were famines, and industrialization was hardly present. Then again, the French Republic did quite well in that respect...

[LoD]

Sliparac:

I've read the entire thread, just like I read all the "Why Spain should be in Civ3" threads and they're moslty all silly "my country is older than yours" "your country is not a real country" "we defeated the evil persians/mores/turks/germans/communists 1000000 years ago so you should be grateful to us and include us" "we invented this" "no you didn't invent that" "your country was powerless except for 100 years" "we ruled half the world" "zulu's and iroquois shouldn't be in" discussions.

OK, so this thread is similar to the others you've mentioned. But that just because it falls into the same category. However, that does not make the argument for the Poles in this thread less significant. Just because you've grown tired of this subject doesn't mean you have to discredit what Poland did, because if you have, then simply don't read it.

But... I'm not asking for the Belgians to be included

I know, and I knew you would reply like that. I just wanted to intimidate you .

Mark L:

Does anyone know any Polish Great Leaders?

Plenty . How many and from what eras do you need them?

BTW, the correct spelling of Warsaw is either that or Warszawa.


Lung: Ahh, another connaisseur of Polish foodstuffs I see .

Oerdin: Alright. Thanks for having personal courage to stand up and admit to your error.

Col Bigspear: Walesa was undoubtedly a Polish hero, but not a great Polish leader. He has proven himself in defeating communism, but that just it - he wasn't very good at being president.

St Leo: 1. It was a country at that time. First of all, don't you think that even a brief occupation of Europe would prove dissastrous to its economical and scientific progress as well to its cultural heritage. Secondly. why are you so sure that it would fall apart? Wouldn't it be equally or even more probable that it would assimilate the conquered?

2. I don't have the exact data (I'll try to obtain them) but I'm quite sure that the Soviet army was the most powerful at that time. I think there is something to it that the Battle of Warsaw of 1920 is dubbed the Miracle at Vistula. BTW, you should know that, during this period the German army was extremely weak, so at least this country would easily fall prey of the Bolsheviks, had Poland failed to win.

LoD

[DonJoel]

Lets face it, most countries have been big and prosperous at sometimes but that doesnt qualify them to be in Civilization.

My own country, Sweden, was one of Europes third most powerful ****ries during the 17th century and we have contributed alot to science, probably more than Poland, especially in the modern age, but I still dont think we qualify to civilization.

Ok, you may argue what the Iroquais have done except being a small indian tribe but the point is that we want civilizations in a wide spread around the world.

But I still wonder why the heck there aint no civilization in South America! This bugged me alot in civ2 when that continent often were left untouched by even the aztecs!
GO INCAS!

[Triped]

(new here)

Poland!?

I'm sorry, but they're relatively pathetic in the big scheme

[Ubik]

LoD, give it up man, you are not making sense any more. Poland saved Europe from the bolshevicks? Yes, that's a good one indeed...


Please, read some unbiased history... the Red Army at the '20's wouldn't be capable of winning a footbal game - actually, the Red army was not an army in the terms we know it today, it became a real army after Stalins reform in the '30's

And definitely Lenin wasn't that fool to think otherwise. His main problem was to stabilize the revolution inside USSR, so he can go on with what he thought at the time was right. And also secure areas that could distress easily...

Going on a rampage against Europe was not an option - hell, they retreated from WW1 only a few months earlier.

So, what the heck are you talking about???