Why Poland SHOULD be included in one of the official sets

[DonJoel]

Is this whole thread a joke?

[LoD]

Why do you consider this a joke?

[Master Marcus]

Civ is an already european-centric game, so maybe POLAND should have been a starting civ within a much larger number of players ( let's say, 32 like the upcoming MoO3 ). In Civ3, must we replace the French ( so much despised and I understand that, but leave them alone- they had an overall stronger influence in the past than the Poles - ask a historian ) then ? The Zulus?

And we're talking to put further civs in a Civ3 expansion...like Spain, Vikings...other european civs. I would prefer more asians, not only the Mongols, and more native americans.

[LoD]

Master Marcus:

Civ is an already european-centric game, so maybe POLAND should have been a starting civ within a much larger number of players ( let's say, 32 like the upcoming MoO3 ).

I'm argumenting about including Poland to the expansion. 16 basic civs + 16 expansion civs = 32 total civs.

In Civ3, must we replace the French ( so much despised and I understand that, but leave them alone- they had an overall stronger influence in the past than the Poles - ask a historian ) then ? The Zulus? And we're talking to put further civs in a Civ3 expansion...like Spain, Vikings...other european civs. I would prefer more asians, not only the Mongols, and more native americans.

OK, more Asian, what nations to be specific? We've already got Indian, got Chineese, got Japaneese. Same goes for Native Americans.
BTW, from what I counted just now, only 4 civs in the basic (out of 16) are European. European-centered? I don't think so.
Sure, Poland has been of less impact to the overall course of history, as far as steady influence is concerned, but it has totally twisted its course a couple of times.
In other words :
If it wasn't for Poland in 1683, you'd probably be a sex slave of some Ottoman basha.
If it weren't for good 'ol Polish soldiers in 1920, you'd probably be reffering to me and all your European friends (or even yourself) as "comrade".

LoD

[Ubik]

OK, LoD, I'll elaborate more on this, trying to give you a round aspect of what I believe on it.

Poland was one of the many kingdoms that emerged in Europe, had some influence for some time, lost power, got overwhelmed by neighbours and eventually made it to the 20th century.

It produced (as almost every nation did) some interesting personalities that influenced things here and there.

It also had a fancy military unit, the "winged hussar" (love the way it plays in "Cossaks" - Poland is my fav in that game)

Beyond that... what?

The same can be told for a couple of dozen other kingdoms in Europe. Should they include them all in the game? Would that be possible with all the impressive artwork and nitbits here and there?

I really do not think so.

Eurocentric is a word that should think of. Already, too many European civilizations are in. Not too many american native civs - There were actually many dozens of great civs in the pre-colombian americas. You want me to name them all? Shall take us long...

So, Europe (the second largest market for Civ3 and Firaxis, second only to USA) is represented with a adequate number of civs: German, French, English, Roman, Greek, even Russian... that is hardly what I'd call "correct representation". Because we have two civs in Africa (Egypt - it couldn't be left out, it falls in the category "too good to miss" - and Zulus. Ok, the latter are definitely not a good example of "black africa" civ, but they are in for the sake of carrying on with the mistakes of the past - see Civ1) and they are not enough. At least one more should be in. We got five in Asia: China, India, Japan, Babylon and Persia. Are they enough? Come on! Literary hundreds of civilizations bloomed in Asia, especially in the middle east. Why only two (Babylon and Persia) to represent them all?

And why the heck aren't the Mongols in? And why aren't the Turks in? They could count for Mongols too (mongolic kin).

And most of all... why aren't the Arabs in?

Americas... ok, three is not a bad number, but I'd rather see Mayan or Inca or Olmek or Toltek instead of Iroqui.

OK, I too would be pissed off if my country wasn't in, but luckily we got that great background (founders of science and democracy, fathers of the western civilization and all) so they've got to include us - not to mention that only few civilizations survived that long.

Lighten up, buddy, you shall be able to customize your civ and create Polish too! I am going to make my Minoans the greatest civ in the earth... after I finish with Greeks the work Alexander left in the middle

[Kc7mxo]

""""""""""""""""""
If it wasn't for Poland in 1683, you'd probably be a sex slave of some Ottoman basha.
If it weren't for good 'ol Polish soldiers in 1920, you'd probably be reffering to me and all your European friends (or even yourself) as "comrade".
""""""""""""""""""

Naw. didn't you play c&c red alert? we wooped em!

[LoD]

Kc7mxo: Yeah, Read Alert was a good game, but it historical accuracy sucked . Poland was within the borders set by the Jalta treaty of 1945, as if it had been taken of over by Nazis. And, to make matters worse, it was under Soviet control, which would never hold true if WWII did not happen.


Ubik: First of all, read my reply to Master Marcus' post. To clarify - I don't consider Greek and Roman civs European in strict sense, since their area of influence extended well beyound what we consider the continent. I would rather call these two Meditteranean.

Also, the last two sentences of my riposta to MMs post apply to your questoning the importance of Poland. Sure, Poland was one of the dozens of kingdoms in Europe, but unlike most of them, and like only a few had a the opportunity to change the course of world history (like mentioned above).

Another sidenote: OK, so I've mentioned Copernicus, one of the most known scientific figures in history. Here's a completely random example of another Polish achievement in that field. You know who was the first to cool down oxygen into a liquid state (and to solidify CO2 and C2H5OH)? Two Polish scientists, Wróblewski and Olszewski in 1883.

And for the nth time, I'm not saying that Poland is the most important nation in the world, or even in Europe. I'm only stating that the number of civs that were left out of the main set, and should be included in the expansion, and are more important than Poland is less than 16.

Also, I realize that I will be able to make my own civs, but its not the point (I made a Polish faction for SMAC some time ago ). The point it, Poland needs finally at least some sort of recognition. And Copernicus' Observatory is not enough.

[Ubik]

LoD, I can understand what you say and I am fully with you - but I believe half a dozen other European civilizations have a far more impressive "palmare" to show than Poland.

But that's ok. What is not ok is that you do not consider Greek and Roman civilizations "European". What do you consider European then?

Are you aware that "Europe" is a Greek name, for instance? Are you aware that the foundations for the modern science (bloomed first in Europe in the Rennaissance) were set by the Greeks? Do you know that all western European languages derive directly from Latin? Have you any idea why 90% of the vocabulary in all traditional sciences is Greek and Latin?

So, please, define European. It is not a matter of how influental a civ was - by the same means you can suggest that England wasn't European too (UK influenced many, many people throughout the world) and Spain also.

Is Poland more "European" than Greece or Rome? Please...

[LoD]

Heh, seems like my imprecise phrasing got me into an another misunderstanding . Ubik, I'm sorry if you felt offended, but I never said that Greece was not European, let alone less "European" than Poland. What I meant is that neither Rome nor Greece cannot be supplied as an argument proving "euro-centerization" of Civ3, since they are both civilizations that extended their influence over more than just Europe. Specificallly what I mean is that they are the two basic civs that had to be included in the set. Can you imagine the reaction of the people? "What, no Romans!? Are you kidding Firaxis!? Sid, go back to school!" And what would you say, Ubik, if there were no Greeks in the basic set?

LoD

PS. Yes, I do realize all those fact, and imagine that I even know the myth about Europe and Zeus .

[Henrik]

We had 5 allies? Wow, didn't know about that .

Depends on how you count, the direct allies where:
Denmark, Brandenburg (started out as Swedens allies but switched sides), Transylvania (started out as Swedens allies but switched sides), Holland (technicaly allied whit the danes)
The Russians only took back what Poland had taken from them while they where cought up in civil strife, and then attacked the Swedes (so they definatly helped get rid of the invador)...

[St Leo]

If it wasn't for Poland in 1683, you'd probably be a sex slave of some Ottoman basha.

Yawn. All nomad conquerors are assimilated, so Vienna mattered little in the grand scheme of things.

If it weren't for good 'ol Polish soldiers in 1920, you'd probably be reffering to me and all your European friends (or even yourself) as "comrade".

Uh huh. How exactly would Polish SSR help the Soviet Union? It might even be less likely to quarrel with Hitler, thus preventing the formation of a full Warsaw Pact.

[LoD]

Henrik: Alright, I'll dig up some historic sources and we'll return to that later .

St Leo: *cough*
1. The Ottoman Empire was a country, not a nomadic tribe. Nuff' said .

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.

LoD

[El hidalgo]

I played as Poland in Civ 2. Leader: Casimir the Great; Capital: Cracow. What do you think, LoD, should Warsaw or Cracow be the capital? (And should it be Cracow or Krakow?) I agree, Poland should be in. We need a civ between the Russians and the Germans! On some maps, at least. I for one plan to build a huge European map (and I'm sure I won't be the only one). There will be plenty of opportunity for everyone's favorite civs, including all the great European civs. That's why I'm more concerned with the structure of the game than the details. It's more important that you can make your own unique units, for example, than whether or not the Jaguar Warrior is a good unit (and that hussar looks totally cool; I had no idea about that! ). And it's more important that we can make our own civs than which civs are included, though I too wish my favorites had been included (Turks, [Timurid] Mongols).

Great thread; very interesting!

[Edit: asked question about expansion pack; found answer in another thread]

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Ubik
OK, LoD, I'll elaborate more on this, trying to give you a round aspect of what I believe on it.

Poland was one of the many kingdoms that emerged in Europe, had some influence for some time, lost power, got overwhelmed by neighbours and eventually made it to the 20th century.

The same can be told for a couple of dozen other kingdoms in Europe. Should they include them all in the game? Would that be possible with all the impressive artwork and nitbits here and there?

Yes, any major civilization that existed should be included in the game... Including the Mighty Indus Civilization

Eurocentric is a word that should think of. Already, too many European civilizations are in. Not too many american native civs - There were actually many dozens of great civs in the pre-colombian americas. You want me to name them all? Shall take us long...

We have
-Americans
-Aztec
-Iroquois

As far as I can see the only American Civs that MAY have a right to exist are:
-Anasazi (A bit too primitive...)
-Mississipians (Of Snake Mound Fame)
-Olmecs
-Maya
-Inca (But they lasted less than 200 years, and only were a major civ for the last 50.)

So, Europe (the second largest market for Civ3 and Firaxis, second only to USA) is represented with a adequate number of civs: German, French, English, Roman, Greek, even Russian... that is hardly what I'd call "correct representation". Because we have two civs in Africa (Egypt - it couldn't be left out, it falls in the category "too good to miss" - and Zulus. Ok, the latter are definitely not a good example of "black africa" civ, but they are in for the sake of carrying on with the mistakes of the past - see Civ1) and they are not enough. At least one more should be in. We got five in Asia: China, India, Japan, Babylon and Persia. Are they enough? Come on! Literary hundreds of civilizations bloomed in Asia, especially in the middle east. Why only two (Babylon and Persia) to represent them all?

Mongolia should be there, but technically even though Assyria and Babylon were different civilizations, they were closer in culture than Persia and Babylon. Hebrews may belong. Philistines- no. Phonecians- they were not a great warlike civ (great defined in: they didnt destroy everything in their path Notice that all the civs included were great war powers... There is no true pure mercantilistic or scientific culture)

And yes, Turks should be in and perhaps the Huns... The many cultures of China truly should be split up, for they were all different- but Civ takes a larger view and considers them all one nation, this makes China the greatest of the CIV nations, but in reality, China has, through its history, been as fragmented as Europe.

And most of all... why aren't the Arabs in?

Because they weren't really united... Excepting the Turks, (this is supposing that during the Crusades the Arabs were truly Turks)

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by LoD

Finally, Polish scientists had a huge contribution in most fields of human progress. Probably the most famous one is a guy that revolutionized a lot of areas of life with his brave but simple theory. Can you guess who?

LoD

I'm not going to argue that Poland doesn't deserve honorable meantion however if you are refuring to Einstein and his theory of Relativity then I must point out that he was not Polish. In fact he was a German Jew from Eastern Germany; he never spoke a word of Polish in his entire life (just German, English, & Yiddish). His parents evidentally didn't consider themselves Polish either and almost disowned him when he took a Slavic wife.
Just because Eastern Germany is now controled by Poles doesn't mean that the historical persons who lived there were Polish.

[Oerdin]

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/showthrea...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]

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

[Oerdin]

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???