More Civs for Civ3!

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Kalgacus
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.

This is exactly what I was saying. The hungarian golden ages lasted only 50 years, because before that they were under turkish and then habsburg rule, and after that they lost WWI and 2/3 of their territories. So of course it pales in comparison with the "Scottish Enlightenment".
The period in which Hungary was a great power wasn't exactly a culturally and scientifically rich period (XIth to XVth century), and by the time other countries entered into reforms Hungary was trapped in between foreign rules and permanent wars between european and asian powers.
For Scotland it was easier because they were allowed to develope under the protection of their union with England.
Do you understand me now? Eastern Europe was historically a much worse environment for reforms, developement and "enlightenments" than Britain.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Kalgacus
The Scots had to fight much of their history for indepedence also, and without the protection of Germans.

It was you who said that the "Scottish topography is much more difficult". It was easier to defend than the hungarian planes of Pannonia. And Hungary had no protection from the Germans. It was Poland and Hungary who protected Austria from the turks.

[Kalgacus]

OK, I understand you now, but that doesn't make Poland or Hungary more more important. I must assume that this is your contention since you are defending Heresson, who said that the Scots were a "silly" inclusion.

[Kalgacus]

Oh, to your 2nd post, Hungary was defended by the Austrian Germans who protected them from the Russian Empire and the other Slav populations of Europe much more recently. As far as I have learned, the Magyars and Germans sought each other's help against their common Slavic enemies.

[Heresson]

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

Australia was never a major power. It's partially independant only for a short time. Despite all my respect for Australian sport, I think that including Australia is silly.

Simple minded people may point to the fact that Poland a large empire in the middle ages

Silly minded people may think that all the times up to the end of XVIII century is "Middle Ages".

n my opinion the unification of Scotland was a much greater achievement than the Polish Empire.

Had it any impact on someone's history excapt for Scottish? Know that unification of Poland was never easy
and territory of all Lechit tribes were never united - even today. Unlike You, who had to deal with English only,
we had such merciful nations like Germans, Russians, Mongols, Swedes on our had.

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

Polish nation was never really numerable... Nevertheless,
Poland remained independant up to 1795. Later there were 123 years of foreign domination over all Poland -
still Polish culture remained strong despite Russian and German oppresion, and political question important.

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.

Avar empire wasn't big, it was temporary and its cultural influence is none.

Huns were bigger, but had no cultural of science achievements and they were a temporary might.
Anyway, both Avars and Huns weren't a state - they were a horde, which is not quite the same.

Australia - ekhem, if half of land is desert and You are surounded with water... Still it was just a British colony,
and even today it hasn't separated from london completely, has it... It was never an important might.

Canada - oh common! Greatest areas of forests aren't
a serious reason to include them. Make a Greenland civ
The question is similar to Australian. It was never any might, I didn't hear about any Canadian contribute to the world too... And its status is the same as Australian.

Incas? Only a bit more serious choice. The empire, or at least the ruling dinasty, existed only for 300 years, was amazingly quickly destroyed. Its influence isn't all that big

Ethiopia has a great tradition. Still even at the peaks of its ancient might, it was only a client of Rome. Later it was a small and weak country whose greatest achievement was surviving against Muslims; its culture, though unique and great, had little influence on anyone else. It was, at its recent peaks, bigger than Poland-Lithuania (1,2mln to
over 1mln without vassals), but it was in XIX and XX century, when no-one would dare to call it a great might.

What do You want from Polish consistency?

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.

We had Golden Age in XVI century and part of XVII century, but even then we had to fight against Germans,
Russians, Austrians, and Turks.

The Scots had to fight much of their history for indepedence also, and without the protection of Germans

what protection of Germans?
Anyway, whom did You fight with? Whith whom do you border with except for the English? Scandinavic and Roman invasions were a long long time ago.
Look; the point is that in last centuries, Scottland was
not invaded by anyone, it could concentrate on polishing
its diamonds, not to using them as bullets against its enemies.

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

England and Scottland didn't have as much wars as Hungary and poland, siply because You didn't have that much neighbours...
So people on your shores were living in fear, huh?
Our were being killed in the same time. By a variety
of nations.
To your last claim - so, there should be a British civ.
As You say yourself, Scottland wasn't a might alone
- only as a part of British Empire.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Kalgacus
Oh, to your 2nd post, Hungary was defended by the Austrian Germans who protected them from the Russian Empire and the other Slav populations of Europe much more recently. As far as I have learned, the Magyars and Germans sought each other's help against their common Slavic enemies.

Up to some point, it were Hungarians that were stronger than Austrians and it were Hungarians with poland to protect them. Later Poland was helping Austria when it was in trouble and saved it twice. Germans were doing hardly anything except for endermining both kingdoms and claiming for our thrones.

[Kalgacus]

Originally posted by Heresson
Silly minded people may think that all the times up to the end of XVIII century is "Middle Ages".



Had it any impact on someone's history excapt for Scottish? Know that unification of Poland was never easy
and territory of all Lechit tribes were never united - even today. Unlike You, who had to deal with English only,
we had such merciful nations like Germans, Russians, Mongols, Swedes on our had.

Polish nation was never really numerable... Nevertheless,
Poland remained independant up to 1795. Later there were 123 years of foreign domination over all Poland -
still Polish culture remained strong despite Russian and German oppresion, and political question important.

Avar empire wasn't big, it was temporary and its cultural influence is none.

Huns were bigger, but had no cultural of science achievements and they were a temporary might.
Anyway, both Avars and Huns weren't a state - they were a horde, which is not quite the same.
.

Incas? Only a bit more serious choice. The empire, or at least the ruling dinasty, existed only for 300 years, was amazingly quickly destroyed. Its influence isn't all that big



What do You want from Polish consistency?



We had Golden Age in XVI century and part of XVII century, but even then we had to fight against Germans,
Russians, Austrians, and Turks.

what protection of Germans?
Anyway, whom did You fight with? Whith whom do you border with except for the English? Scandinavic and Roman invasions were a long long time ago.
Look; the point is that in last centuries, Scottland was
not invaded by anyone, it could concentrate on polishing
its diamonds, not to using them as bullets against its enemies.

England and Scottland didn't have as much wars as Hungary and poland, siply because You didn't have that much neighbours...
So people on your shores were living in fear, huh?
Our were being killed in the same time. By a variety
of nations.
To your last claim - so, there should be a British civ.
As You say yourself, Scottland wasn't a might alone
- only as a part of British Empire.

Silly minded people may well do.

If you concede that empire sizes aren't important and that influence is what's important then you agree with me.

Scotland has influenced many nations around, more than Poland. Some of the names particular individual achievements are given on page one:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...0&pagenumber=1

will give some idea.

If you don't think sociology, market economics, television, telephone, logarithms, penicillin, radar, etc have influenced nations the rest of the world, then perhaps you should restart school.
As for political influence. Well, ever heard of the"auld Alliance" between Scotland and France, the longest alliance between two states in post-classical European history. Scottish soldiers arguably won the 100 years' war for France when sometimes Scottish soldiers made up the majority of French armies.
Scotland has also to deal with Norway (as well as the earlier Vikings) and Spain as an independent country and of course, all the nations allied or subject to the English or enemies of France. It's natural that Poland and Hungary would have more enemies but that has got to be the weakest argument for including a civ ever.

You're belief that Scotland has enjoyed centuries of peace is not altogether true. The aftermath of the Jacobite Rebellion and the Highland clearances were some of worst atrocities commited by any European state in the last 500 years. After 1745, Gaelic culture was systematically exterminated and the people killed or deported to the Americas. Is not something which is regularly taught in English schools. Ethnic cleansing commited by the British to fellow Europeans in modern times.

I'm not going to defend Australia and Canada, because I largely agree with you.

But the Avar empire was large and the only reason it is unimportant is because historians have always been too arrogant to take it seriously.

As for a British civ. Nice try! But no! The Scots, if you study them, are very different to the English. Historically they had a distinctive religion or rather religious ideology known to the world as Presbyterianism and different languages. Scotland was originally a Celtic state whereas England was Germanic. The reason for their cultural success laid in being different to the English. The England has always been an elitist centralized state whereas Scotland has historically been the opposite. The only way I would accept that is if there were to be a civ including the Irish and Americans, the Scots and the English.

[Jethro83]

Originally posted by Heresson
Australia was never a major power. It's partially independant only for a short time. Despite all my respect for Australian sport, I think that including Australia is silly.

Australia - ekhem, if half of land is desert and You are surounded with water... Still it was just a British colony,
and even today it hasn't separated from london completely, has it... It was never an important might.

True. Australia was never a major power. And we are still a nation of the Commonwealth. I'm not going to argue there.

But I don't judge my preferences on military might. Come to think of it, the Zulu weren't a major power that could be comparable to European powers, yet I can see how they deserve the place given to them since Civ I. Though they dominated their little piece of the world, there is no way you could compare them with the British, the Americans, or the Germans for example. And what social, technological or economic benefit came of the Zulu's existance as a unified empire?

I base my preferences on the unique cultural identity of each civilization. Even though Australia was a British colonial possession once, it has developed its own cultural identity. Even though one fifth of my heritage is British, I sure as hell don't consider myself even a fifth British. I have NO cultural ties with the motherland at all. And many fellow Australians also feel the same way (some of them even more British in their bloodlines than me). The only reason we voted against being a republic a few years ago is because the system being proposed was terrible (only politicians could elect the president in such a system).

The main reason I DON'T base my preferences heavily on military might is because by doing that, there would be too many European civs. In fact, the only civs outside the European culture group that fit the criteria are America (though they do have European heritage), Japan, China, the Arabs, the Ottomons and the Persians. That's two Asians, one American and three mid-east. Based on military power, there would be more civs in the European culture group (and I am not including the mediterranean Europeans here) than all of them. I'd find such lack of diversity somewhat disturbing.

Incas? Only a bit more serious choice. The empire, or at least the ruling dinasty, existed only for 300 years, was amazingly quickly destroyed. Its influence isn't all that big

You could say the same about the Aztecs, but they have always been a part of Civ. Again, cultural identity is greater reason than military might. I believe that the time they existed is irrelevant. The Americans have only existed not much more than 200 years as an independent nation. That's even less than the Incas.


Anyway, why does this game have to tie in so close to real world history? Last time I checked, it was a game about REWRITING history. When I play, I find RL history to be irrelevant. Though I harbour deepest respect for Otto von Bismarck, Abraham Lincoln and Julius Caesar in RL, I can utterly hate them in the game when I am against them for example. I like to see an alternate world where Australia has a realistic shot at being a great superpower for example.

Lighten up. Its only a game.

[Heresson]

You're talking about science. I'm talking about politics.
Scottland had some cultural and Political influence, while
Scottland had only cultural one.

sociology, market economics, television, telephone, logarithms, penicillin, radar,

It weren't Scotts to create sociology and market economics,
I won't argue with You here, I already once posted a list of some Polish scientists,but i'll repeat some things.
Copernicus f.e. was not only astronom, but also an economist (he was to discover law of Gresham), Wlodkowic formuled the law of self-determination and freedom of nations no matter the religion or nationality, Poland invented constitutional monarchy, Poland pioneered religious freedom, Lukasiewicz pioneered
oil/petrol industry, other Polish scientist discovered vitamines, other radiation...
When it comes to tv, Nipkow discovered mechanical tv much much earlier (not Polish, german)
But OK. Lest say that You beat Poland when it comes to inventions. Did Scottland achieve it on its own, or as a part of Britain? If not, it can't be a support for your claim to make it a separate civ. Was Scottland an important state ever? Did it influence some other culture with its
own? Convinced someone to it? How many people speak Gaelic now? You say about clearings and persecutions...
So was with Poles.

that has got to be the weakest argument for including a civ ever.

You don't understand this arguement.
The truth behind is that You we so many neighbours and fought them, and weren't destroyed, which proves resistance of our cultures. It's what I just wrote about Scottland; how many people speak Gaelic? 100 000?
There are 60mlns of Poles (40mln in Poland, 10mln
in the states, rest elsewhere). Your culture, your language, your state wasn't able to resist the English influence.

I understand your claim... I wouldn't like to be merged with English too... Well, I think it is the same when I think about merging Eastern Europe into 1 civ.
But Eastern Europe was never in one country (except for Hitler's Germany), while You still are in one state, and the differences in between eastern European nations are much bigger than between English and Scotts. I'm aware of the differences a bit. But look; for You probably Poles and Czechs are the same. But see; Poles are most pius nation in Europe probably, Czechs are most atheistic nation in Europe. Poland was a country of nobleman,
Czech was a nation of itizens of small cities.
Czechs build their identity on antereformation hussite movement and opposing catholic Austrians, , Poles - on catholic church and opposing protestants, Muslims, and orthodox.. Poles were generally having uprising after uprising, Czechs for last centuries were rather quiet
and surrendering after first shot. Poland is flat as a board, Czech land is highland and mountains. Poles are beautiful and heroic, Czechs are little snivelling sheeps.
Czechs didn't fight with Hitler, Poland started ww2.
Czechs volunatarily agreed on communism after ww2,
Poles opposed it and emigration gouverment lasted for 50 years.. Czechs love Russians it seems, Poles don't.
Poland was a multinational empire, Czechs were a German province.

Oh, nevermind. Have Celts, and resign of Irish and Scotts.

[Heresson]

Zulus should not be in the game.

If it is overwriting the history, game should contain ancient nations only.

[JtheJackal]

Just because a civilization didn't exist at the begining of civilization shouldn't disqualify it. The Aztecs stopped existing, should that disqualify them?

[N. Machiavelli]

I look upon the game as not so much 're-write history' as 'what if?' What if the Americans were around since the dawn of civilization? Could the Germans, a unified nation for one and a quarter century in our world, maintain themselves longer than our ancient civilizations, the Chinese and Egyptions? Scenarios like that make it interesting to me; and as such, *any* civilization warrants inclusion. If placed in the same situation, could the Zulus or Polish replicate the success of our British Empire? Exceed it?

I imagine most don't think of it this way, but I truly enjoy the "What-ifs' that Civ3 allows. And any civilization in history can fit into his role, be it Australians, Poles, Dutch, or Zulus.

[laissez-faire]

and as such, *any* civilization warrants inclusion

I agree wholeheartedly. For this poll, I was looking for the "ALL" option.

Often I see the complaint on this forum that reads, for example, "What were they thinking when adding the Celts? Another civ to start on the British Isles?" Who cares? These things can be coded against. Maybe they aren't and that's the problem, but I say include as many civilizations as possible! It would make the game quite educational as well.

One thing that irks me about the game is how fast you run out of city names. How easy would this have been to double or triple the city-name lists? I remember once I modded a civ to be Iceland. I had double the cities for the Americans and it took me less than five minutes to find a list!

Scots, Serbs, Hungarians, Mayans, Khmers - all excellent adds!

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Kalgacus
OK, I understand you now, but that doesn't make Poland or Hungary more important. I must assume that this is your contention since you are defending Heresson, who said that the Scots were a "silly" inclusion.

I wasn't defending Herreson and I wasn't trying to prove who is more important.
I've just said that a comparison between a nation who was able to achieve scientifical and cultural developement living in relative peace and safety and one who had to fought all of its history with warmongering neighbors is a limping comparison. You can't underestimate once big powers with the sole argument that they did not achieve cultural or scientifical breakthroughs. When they could, they did.

and as such, *any* civilization warrants inclusion
... but I say include as many civilizations as possible!

I agree completely. Only do it in the proper order