More Civs for Civ3!

[rob.derosa]

Originally posted by Heresson
Scotland may have some inventors, but so did Poland. Scottland was never a real empire - while Poland, since XIV
to XVIII century was one of the biggest (biggest for some time), strongest and most liberal states in Europe. We were stopping Russian, turkish and Austrian progress in eastern Europe for several centuries. If not Polish intervention, turks would have taken Wien twice, enough to say.
Hungary was a major power - only in Middle Ages though. Poland remained an important power until XVIII century. Hiding Poland behind Serbia is silly, and putting Scottland and Finland (which got independant only after Iww) is plain dumb. Serbia was a major power, but also only in regional scale, only under Stefan Duszan, in teh first part of XIV century. Also, its culture doesn't differ much from Russian,
while Poland represents another half of Slavic population, which is not orthodox.

Scotland WAS an empire when they were with the British.

Originally posted by TheStinger


Because all scotland did as an independant nation was fight the english. Once england and scotland were joined Britain went on to gain an empire.

That was correct, the economic gains of the joingin of our two nations allowed Britain (England with Scotland) to be one of the largest empires of the modern day

Another English civ like Canada, Australia, Ireland, etc

This should be 'Another British Civ' as the English are only in England , the British are all over the world.

[Heresson]

I think "British" instead of "English would make Scotts happy.
When it comes to two maps,
some comments;
1360;
western Podolia belonged to Poland - the boardershould be the same as on teh second map. Lithuania should stretch a bit more eastwards. Note that Silesia, Pomerania, Brandenburgia and Meklemburgia were still majorly Polish when it comes to nationality of citizens (lets say laregly when it comes two last ones), and ruled by Polish princes/marchgraves when it comes to most of Silesia, Pomerania, and theoretically Meklemburgia (later it turned into Polish-descent).By Polish I mean Polabian as well.
Second map;
the same with Silesia and Pomerania,
not that Lithuania was "added" to Poland,
which theoretically meant annexion, practically union and
quick polonisation of Lithuania. Bohemia with Hungary were under rule of Polish-Lithuanian dinasty
Teutonic Prussia, Moldavia and sometimes Vallachia and Pomerania were Polish fiefs.
Btw, I think that Bosnia was annexed by turkey in 1460 or
so.

[N. Machiavelli]

If I had to choose 6 more civs for a future expansion, they'd likely be (in no particular order):

-Inca
-Ethiopia
-Scottland
-Hungaria
-The Netherlands
-Australian

Some are admittedly personal preferences rather than who some feel are more 'worthy', but are fine additions nonetheless.

Does anyone else notice that the American culture group is the smallest now?

[Heresson]

Inca and Ethiopians - OK, though it's rather political correctness.
Netherlands - good choice
Australia - are You nuts?
Scottland - silly,
Hungary - questionable;
they were a major power in Middle Ages, but later...
make it Hungary + Austria + Czechs that would have some sense (though wouldn't be good too... choices choices)

[N. Machiavelli]

Hence the whole "personal preferences" part. But hey, thanks.

[Heresson]

Which exactly of those do You treat as personal preferences?

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Heresson
Australia - are You nuts?

Excuse me?! I would like to ask, WHY IS IT 'NUTS' TO INCLUDE AUSTRALIA?!

I may seem biased being Australian myself, but the Australians have made a good addition to my game (as I modded them in).

I made them Scientific/Industrious with the Anzac (more powerful marine with all terrain as road) as the UU. I have managed to develop a few strategies using them, and they have enhanced gameplay (even playing against them can be somewhat of a challenge if I let them survive to the late Industrial age).

Besides, play on a world map such as Marla's and the Australians would be a perfect one to add, so as to evenly distribute each civ across the world. A reason why I would disagree with Portugal and the Netherlands being included (face it, how much of Europe did they hold? On most world maps in this game, Amsterdam is merely two-three squares away from Berlin, and Lisbon is merely two or three squares from Madrid. Surely Europe is overcrowded as it is having England, France, Germany, Spain, Celts, Vikings, Russia, Rome and Greece to contend for such small space)

You may have your own opinions about who should and shouldn't be included, but saying "are you nuts?" about it is a bit heavy-handed. "I disagree" would have sufficed. No problem with that. Even I recognise some of the reasons why Australia shouldn't be included. I just believe myself that the reasons why outweigh the reasons why not.

[Kalgacus]

Originally posted by Heresson
Inca and Ethiopians - OK, though it's rather political correctness.
Netherlands - good choice
Australia - are You nuts?
Scottland - silly,
Hungary - questionable;
they were a major power in Middle Ages, but later...
make it Hungary + Austria + Czechs that would have some sense (though wouldn't be good too... choices choices)

And excuse me, why is Scotland a silly choice and the Netherlands a good one. I can only put that down to total ignorance on your part. No it's not silly at all. Simple minded people may point to the fact that Poland a large empire in the middle ages, but this doesn't matter. The terrain in that empire was very easy to conquer and rule, wheras Scottish topography is much more difficult absolutely. When the Romans had conquered modern day England and Wales they decided to spen a large proportion of their GDP on a massive wall rather than attempt to rule. In my opinion the unification of Scotland was a much greater achievement than the Polish Empire. If the Polish empire were really great it might just have survived the amount of time you'd expect for a people as large as the Poles. But no. If you are simple minded and you value only territory sizes, the Avars are a much better choice as are the Huns, the Australians, Canadians, Incans and Ethiopians. Ah but, I forgot, consistency is not important for you.

On the Dutch point, Holland is/was smaller than Scotland, it had less colonial impact, it's younger than Scotland, it's not as distinctive and, in my opinion, has achieved less. But go on, who's stopping you: say the Netherlands is a good choice and Scotland is silly, but don't expect everyone to let your ignorance rampage freely.

[TheStinger]

The land that was not conquered by the Romanns was not Scotland anymore than Gaul was France. The people who lived in those lands have no connection other than their location to the people who live there today.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Kalgacus
Simple minded people may point to the fact that Poland a large empire in the middle ages, but this doesn't matter. The terrain in that empire was very easy to conquer and rule, wheras Scottish topography is much more difficult absolutely. In my opinion the unification of Scotland was a much greater achievement than the Polish Empire. If the Polish empire were really great it might just have survived the amount of time you'd expect for a people as large as the Poles.

You can view this from a different point of view, also. Once united, Scotland was easy to defend and it was easy for them to maintain independance. Yet what did the scots achieve before the union with England?

Poland and Hungary were permanently under fire, fighting with the turks and the russians from east and with the Prussians or the Hapsburgs from west.
They defended Europe for centuries from the Ottoman Empire. In 1456 Pope Calixtus III called Hungary the “Shield of Christianity” in honor of his heroic defence against the turks. In 1683 it was Sobieski who, at the request of the Pope, marched to the besieged Vienna and defeated the turks.
Without Byzantium, Poland, Hungary and others who fought against the turks, Europe could be mostly muslim today.
I understand the Scots' great contribution to the developement of arts and sciences, but how can you compare them in these terms with nations who had to fight in all of their history to maintain independence? I don't know about Poland, but Hungary basically had 50 years of "golden ages", during the Austria-Hungary empire, period in which they were able to develope their society.
I'm not trying to diminish the achievements of the scottish people, but your comparison is limping.

[Kalgacus]

Originally posted by TheStinger
The land that was not conquered by the Romanns was not Scotland anymore than Gaul was France. The people who lived in those lands have no connection other than their location to the people who live there today.

Thank you for your intelligent insight TheStinger, but you completely missed my point. I was using that as evidence that topography poses difficulty for any would-be conquere.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Kalgacus


Thank you for your intelligent insight TheStinger, but you completely missed my point. I was using that as evidence that topography poses difficulty for any would-be conquere.

fair enough, its interesting that the Romans did occupy the (relativley) lowland bits of Scotland for a while but never got hold of the Highlands( They may have just though it was too bloody cold I suppose)

[Kalgacus]

Originally posted by Tiberius


You can view this from a different point of view, also. Once united, Scotland was easy to defend and it was easy for them to maintain independance. Yet what did the scots achieve before the union with England?

Poland and Hungary were permanently under fire, fighting with the turks and the russians from east and with the Prussians or the Hapsburgs from west.
They defended Europe for centuries from the Ottoman Empire. In 1456 Pope Calixtus III called Hungary the “Shield of Christianity” in honor of his heroic defence against the turks. In 1683 it was Sobieski who, at the request of the Pope, marched to the besieged Vienna and defeated the turks.
Without Byzantium, Poland, Hungary and others who fought against the turks, Europe could be mostly muslim today.
I understand the Scots' great contribution to the developement of arts and sciences, but how can you compare them in these terms with nations who had to fight in all of their history to maintain independence? I don't know about Poland, but Hungary basically had 50 years of "golden ages", during the Austria-Hungary empire, period in which they were able to develope their society.
I'm not trying to diminish the achievements of the scottish people, but your comparison is limping.

The Scots had to fight much of their history for indepedence also, and without the protection of Germans. I am actually aware now of Hungary's "golden Age", but it pales in comparion with the Scottish Enlightenment, and I don't think any serious historian of the history of ideas would dispute that. And, incidentally, the Scots had more independence during their golden age than the Hungarians, not that I think that's important, but some people clearly do. All the Union did for the first century or so was take away the right of the Scots to decide foreign policy alone and added to their trading power.

So I don't understand how my comparison can be "limping". Come to think of it, it isn't actually clear what you mean.

[Kalgacus]

Originally posted by TheStinger


fair enough, its interesting that the Romans did occupy the (relativley) lowland bits of Scotland for a while but never got hold of the Highlands( They may have just though it was too bloody cold I suppose)

that is true, but maintaining rule was all but impossble with only this because the small areas of lowlands were covered in forest and are vitually surounded by highlands.

[TheStinger]

Originally posted by Kalgacus


The Scots had to fight much of their history for indepedence also, and without the protection of Germans. I am actually aware now of Hungary's "golden Age", but it pales in comparion with the Scottish Enlightenment, and I don't think any serious historian of the history of ideas would dispute that. And, incidentally, the Scots had more independence during their golden age than the Hungarians, not that I think that's important, but some people clearly do. All the Union did for the first century or so was take away the right of the Scots to decide foreign policy alone and added to their trading power.

So I don't understand how my comparison can be "limping". Come to think of it, it isn't actually clear what you mean.

Scotland and England have certainly had more wars than most. Infact the people who lived on and around the borders probably lived in a constant state of fear for several hundred years due to the almost constant skirmishing and raids. Hungary was probably more foramly independant but Scotland has alway supplied a large number of British leaders