Ideologically Free Poll for One's Most Desired New Civ

[PachaMinnie]

Too bad they couldn't stop the other people. You know the ones with the Tanks that destroyed half of Europe. That one, yeah?

Don't start that dude. Besides I think that if the battle of Vienna wasn't won by the Europeans, then we'd be looking at a different map my friend.

[Hawk]

I just realized that this thread needs to be redone or the discussion merged with the other 'which civs do you want' threads. Several of the poll options are being added to G&K, which makes the poll obsolete.

I agree, this poll is outdated.

[Vlynor]

Don't start that dude. Besides I think that if the battle of Vienna wasn't won by the Europeans, then we'd be looking at a different map my friend.

Of course that Battle was significant, but you can't honestly tell me that one battle would've decided the fate of Europe. There's no way to know for sure, but the war most likely would've continued and either side could've still won.

Too many factors would have to be taken into account.

[PachaMinnie]

Of course that Battle was significant, but you can't honestly tell me that one battle would've decided the fate of Europe. There's no way to know for sure, but the war most likely would've continued and either side could've still won.

Too many factors would have to be taken into account.

Back then, those types of battles decided the war. That battle was like Stalingrad, if the Europeans lost, they'd be done. Their armies crushed and one of their most cultural cities taken the Muslims would've poured through Europe, beating any army in it's way.

[Vlynor]

Back then, those types of battles decided the war. That battle was like Stalingrad, if the Europeans lost, they'd be done. Their armies crushed and one of their most cultural cities taken the Muslims would've poured through Europe, beating any army in it's way.

What stopped them from pouring through beforehand?

Geographically speaking, the Ottomans probably would've had a harder time after that battle, seeing as Vienna, Austria would've been completely surrounded on the North, East, and Western fronts.

But who knows, maybe it would've been a different map.

[PachaMinnie]

What stopped them from pouring through beforehand?

Geographically speaking, the Ottomans probably would've had a harder time after that battle, seeing as Vienna, Austria would've been completely surrounded on the North, East, and Western fronts.

But who knows, maybe it would've been a different map.

True, the Ottomans would've struggled. However I think that their army was able to defeat most Euro armies. I suppose it depends. We'll never truly know.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

True, the Ottomans would've struggled. However I think that their army was able to defeat most Euro armies. I suppose it depends. We'll never truly know.

If the Battle of Vienna was won by the Ottomans, I'd wager they wouldn't start falling back (if they ever would) until they went up against the French or Spanish. They would have been able to take northern Italy and Germany, for sure. Possibly Poland and such. It would be hard for them, but I'd wager that central Europe would be predominantly Islamic rather than Protestant today if the Battle of Vienna hadn't been won for the Europeans.

[Hawk]

I'll make an updated poll, now that we know all the new civs for G&Ks, and that Austria, Ethiopia and Sweden made it, so I think it's appropriate.

[Hawk]

Done, made the new poll: http://forums.2kgames.com/showthread...-new-civs-poll

- Please read the first post before voting!

[chrisjwmartin]

Brazil is now a larger economy then the UK, bringing the shocking total of Western nations in the top six status to 3.

When did Brazil move into the Eastern hemisphere?

[chrisjwmartin]

If it's about King Arthur or something, and someone says Britain, we know they mean England.

Actually, King Arthur was very specifically NOT English. He was a Briton, who fought against the invading Anglo-Saxons who would give their name to Angle-land|England.

[stethnorun]

Actually, King Arthur was very specifically NOT English. He was a Briton, who fought against the invading Anglo-Saxons who would give their name to Angle-land|England.

Wasn't he, ya know, fictional?

[Hawk]

Wasn't he, ya know, fictional?

There was a historical character, but he was nothing like the modern pop-culture version. I don't think he was a king though?

[SamBC]

There may or may not have been a real person behind the myth. Or several. One common version is that he was a Roman-Briton.

Note that the difference between Briton and Britain is important. The mythic Arthur is generally called "King of the Britons", which is, of course, cognate with Breton. The Britons were celts. Confused yet?

[stethnorun]

There may or may not have been a real person behind the myth. Or several. One common version is that he was a Roman-Briton.

Note that the difference between Briton and Britain is important. The mythic Arthur is generally called "King of the Britons", which is, of course, cognate with Breton. The Britons were celts. Confused yet?

All of which reinforces my point: who cares? In our modern English language, all of the descriptors end up at the same place. Language is majority rule.

[SamBC]

All of which reinforces my point: who cares? In our modern English language, all of the descriptors end up at the same place. Language is majority rule.

Britain and England are not the same place... England is a subset of Britain. Scotland is in Britain, not in England, and Scots tend to get annoyed when people say it's in England.

[Black Gate of Mordor]

Britain and England are not the same place... England is a subset of Britain. Scotland is in Britain, not in England, and Scots tend to get annoyed when people say it's in England.

We understand that, but almost everyone understands that Britain/England/UK almost always refers to the same thing. If someone's referring to Scotland or Wales, they'll say so (unless they actually don't know about Scotland or Wales, in which case it's a serious case).

[stethnorun]

Britain and England are not the same place... England is a subset of Britain. Scotland is in Britain, not in England, and Scots tend to get annoyed when people say it's in England.

Then the Scots need to calm their britches. If someone claimed that Maryland was part of "New England", you wouldn't see me getting all pissy. I understand the technical difference, what I'm saying is, it's along the lines of a distinction without much of a difference.

[SamBC]

We understand that, but almost everyone understands that Britain/England/UK almost always refers to the same thing. If someone's referring to Scotland or Wales, they'll say so (unless they actually don't know about Scotland or Wales, in which case it's a serious case).

You wouldn't believe the number of Americans I've seen/heard say that Scotland is in England. Also, there are important legal points to distinguish when something is just referring to England, not GB or the UK.

[SamBC]

Then the Scots need to calm their britches. If someone claimed that Maryland was part of "New England", you wouldn't see me getting all pissy. I understand the technical difference, what I'm saying is, it's along the lines of a distinction without much of a difference.

Well, there's always the legal difference. There are laws that are UK-wide, but a considerable amount of law is separate between Scotland and "England and Wales" (as they were one polity long before the Acts of Union), including criminal law, tort law, marriage law, contract law...

So no, it's not a distinction without a difference. It's more like saying DC is part of Maryland (or Virginia, if you prefer) - it's wrong, and there are legal consequences to the fact it's not the case.

[stethnorun]

Well, there's always the legal difference. There are laws that are UK-wide, but a considerable amount of law is separate between Scotland and "England and Wales" (as they were one polity long before the Acts of Union), including criminal law, tort law, marriage law, contract law...

So no, it's not a distinction without a difference. It's more like saying DC is part of Maryland (or Virginia, if you prefer) - it's wrong, and there are legal consequences to the fact it's not the case.

Right, none of which is a huge deal when talking about a PC game on an internet forum, is my point. Again, I get the distinction, but in this context, there is little difference.

[SamBC]

Right, none of which is a huge deal when talking about a PC game on an internet forum, is my point. Again, I get the distinction, but in this context, there is little difference.

You're the one who brought up the matter of principle - in relation to criticising the laws of another country. I merely illustrated how that principle is not absolute.

[stethnorun]

Alright fair enough. I concede the point. But my other point stands: none of this is worth getting upset over when people don't care to be specific about it.