It is a good question.
- coat of arms of Austria in game
- old polish coat of arms - white eagle in a red shield.
- polish coat of arms today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Poland - article
Isn't strange???
Coat of arms of Austria is black eagle, not white eagle in a red shield...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Austria - article
It could be the Austrian eagle with Austrian colours
It's too hard to tell from that picture to be honest.
And besides, there are many, many countries with an eagle as an emblem.
To be fair, it's not like the Civ series has ever given a damn about consistency or accuracy in these matters. Look at France: Bonaparte as a leader and Ancient Regime as a tech, complete with fleur-de-lis.
Also, why does the Netherlands have the coat of arms of Finland?
(Or Czechia, Spain, Scotland, Belgium, Macedonia, Kenya, Norway (although he has an axe), Ukrain, Luxembourg, Spain, etc.)
LOL, colors for Austria should include black as main color of Austria's coat of arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of...l_coat_of_arms
Austria-hungary-imperial-colours.gif:
http://www.fotw.net/flags/ah.html
It is so stupid.
I assume it's an in-joke, because it's genuinely difficult to be that ignorant.
Having said that the symbols in 5 are a step above those in 4.
Alternatively, if you look at flags of Austria (rather than Austro-Hungarian Empire), as can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Austrian_flags, you find an eagle involved in the state flag or the standard, along with the colour red...
Indeed, the figure of the coat-of-arms looks a lot like that logo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coat_of_arms_of_Austria) and the colour red is present there as well.
Looking at SamBC's link above, I don't see any problem. Austria's flag is red and white, and features an eagle. Sure, it's also similar to Polands, but that's because Poland's flag is so similar to Austria's in actuality. Only thing they could really do is make the eagle black, but to maintain the two-color scheme that they've been using they'd have to make the border/cities on the map black, and I don't think that'd work out.
Don't use post-Versailles communist symbols as any sort of argument.
The symbol for Austria should either be the red-white-red banner (which goes back to the 12th century) or the Habsburg family lion (red on yellow with blue claws) as it represents the family who ruled Austria and a vast swathe of other territories for centuries.
Most civs have features that cover a vast swathe of the country's history ("sun never sets", a reference to the British Empire, on a civ ruled by Elizabeth I?). Using the modern armorial icon seems perfectly reasonable.
Also, communist? Communists don't have a monopoly on the imagery of the hammer and sickle.
I';m missing something here...how are the OP's two examples anywhere the same... both follow heraldric conventions for Europe but are different symbols.
But this "eagle" was BLACK during centuries! Never WHITE! Only stupid, ignorant junkies might not understand it.Originally Posted by SamBC
Last edited by Nefliqus; 04-09-2012 at 07:23 AM.
1. Colours on the civilization symbol are the same as the colours of their borders
2. Red and white are good colours for Austria
3. Eagle is good symbol for Austria
4. There are limited combinations of colours avalible, that are good looking - and black-yellow is taken by Russia in Civ
5. Colours of civilizations not always fits historical combinations
6. Red and white (and blue) are common coulors in european flags/coat of arms history
7. There are some other polish symbols, that could be used for our represantation in game - i.e. Kotwica http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kotwica (Znak Polski Walczącej) or some of battle banners - I know that they are not the best symbols, but this is just a game
Gewar, quit being so reasonable! People are trying to be angry!
If you want to use white-red colors for Austria dont use engel as symbol, you can use sth like this:
or
Last edited by Nefliqus; 04-09-2012 at 03:13 PM.
Yes, eagle is a good symbol for Austria but not White Engel but black one.
We are not talking about symbol for Poland because Poland is not included as a civ.
Graphically, that would be by far the most boring Civ symbol in the game. It looks like a traffic sign. In fact, it is a traffic sign. No graphic designer would allow that to go to print.
The symbols are icons. This means being an actual picture. The choice of picture is reasonable, the choice of colour is reasonable, but you're complaining about the combination? Come off it.
The symbol posted above would be the most correct.
At first glimpse it reminded me of the HRE imperial banner:
Which overall would make sense as the Habsburgs were the emperor for nearly 4 centuries.
Although it's too small to clearly see.
Perhaps it was just an early design? Perhaps Poland will never make it in in the first place. I mean unless we start going into the streets demanding Poland I doubt they will be included. I am not saying they don't deserve it, to be honest they do, but I doubt they will make it in. So this whole conversation really doesn't matter.
Let us say they do get in, Poland's symbol and Colors will be taken. I do not like this, red and black would have been nice, but since this symbol for me has nailed the final nail in the coffin and shipped the Poland idea to the graveyard.
You can also use Counts of Habsburg Arms and yellow and red colors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co...sburg_Arms.svg
e.g.
You can also use white Royal Scepter on red background e.g.:
Last edited by Nefliqus; 04-09-2012 at 09:31 AM.
No, because that would clearly be used as the symbol of the HRE - not an Austrian civilization.At first glimpse it reminded me of the HRE imperial banner:
Which overall would make sense as the Habsburgs were the emperor for nearly 4 centuries.
Although it's too small to clearly see.
Red/white/red or the Habsburg lion seem the most obvious.
It's simple, red and white also happen to be Austria's colors and they also have an eagle coat of arms. Their colors aren't red and black (even if heraldic eagle is black, that's not their colors). They also clearly wanted to use modern Austria's colors instead of the Habsburg yellow and black.
Also, Poland is simply not going to be in the game.
I thought white on red was already used for England?
You know, that's a good point. We got 7 new civs as DLC after the release of Civ 5. Exactly how many more DLC Civs will there be post G&K? Especially considering G&K has 9(!!!) new Civs... I wouldn't be surprised if they released as little as 4 more DLC Civs afterwards. I wouldn't be shocked if they didn't release any, assuming the last Civ is Zulu.
I mean... REALLY, who's missing right now? Portugal & Zulu, then Sioux, Indonesia and Brazil as possible but tentative choices. They've flooded Europe, so much that it's really lowered Poland's chances of inclusion.
@Thetford, England is maroon and white. The difference in reds should make it easy to differentiate between them. But this kinda proves the point that they ran out of unique color combinations ages ago.
Not sure about "ran out of unique color combinations", as much as "ran out of unique, suitably contrasted, and not horribly ugly" combinations
If Austria is in, Poland won't be. Simple as that, Poland lost their Colors and Symbol. Doesn't matter how great Poland was and is. The simple fact is Poland won't get in. They won't get in in G&K and they won't get in the next expansion [if there is any.] Zimbabwe, Congo, Benin, Tibet, Indonesia, Brazil, none of them will be made into a Civilization. No matter how much we want any of them people will always question their inclusion. Portugal and the Sioux might get in, MIGHT being the key word. Perhaps Portugal will be in the next expansion. Perhaps so will Poland, The Zulu, Brazil, Tibet, etc. but that is still a year away if it is coming.
Don't you understand that as a result Austria will use symbol of other country and this is ridiculous. They can use so many other symbol and red-white colors for example symbols connected with Austrian’s unique trait, e.g.:
Zulu, Sumer, and Portugal are the most prominent missing legacy civs. Zulu has been in 5 games, Portugal and Sumer in 2. Then you have the Sioux and Hittites who were in 1 each. Besides those 5, the only legacy civs missing are the ones that have been replaced, so to speak (Khmer-Siam, Mali-Songhai, HRE-Austria, Vikings-Denmark, Native Americans-Iroquois).
We already have 34 civs, I think it's highly probable there won't be a second expansion and if the Zulu are the last civ there's a good chance there may be no more DLC.
If there is future DLC, I would say the only real safe bets are the Zulu, Sumer, and Portugal at some point. All three would sell well. The Sioux might get in, and would probably sell. As much as I would love the Hittites again, they never seem to be very popular and I don't see them getting in. If the developers really do look at our polls, I can see the Majapahit making it in. Brazil won't be added before Portugal, at which point DLC and expansions may already be done. Israel's never going to make it in. Tibet, in my opinion, really needs to be packaged in an expansion (it doesn't really work for me as a stand-alone DLC). Again, I'm doubtful there will be a second expansion
Being optimistic, I can see 4-5 DLC civs. Assuming none of the above are the last spot (which, as part of a package can easily be a new or lesser known civ), I would be surprised if they're not filled with the Zulu, Sumer, Portugal, Sioux, and maybe the Majapahit (if the developers look at the forums).
Poland is most likely not making it into Civ V at this point.
They're not using a symbol from another country. Red, White, and the Eagle just also happen to be symbols of Austria.
It is not a truth. Not Austria for sure. Maybe some of minor Habsburgs land yes but Austria uses always black eagle.
Always, as in since the 20th century? Anyway, they selected Maria Theresa as the leader for Austria, who ruled over the Habsburg regions, and in the 18th century! By your own admission, this seems to be a good fit if they mean to represent 18th century Austria.
Besides, who are you arguing against? It's not like if you convince me they're going to change it. Also your white scepter on red would be rather difficult to read when sized down... Not saying it's impossible, but also a lot of nations have very similar scepter orbs. It doesn't seem very Austrian to me.
I agree with you. If the Zulu are the final Civ in this expansion there likely won't be any more expansions. I don't want that. To be honest I don't really play as the Zulu often [atleast I haven't in past games] so I don't need the Zulu. I'd perfer a new civilization. I CALL BETS ON SWEDEN/FINLAND COMBINATION.
I doubt the Hittites. They where already in a scenario, I think that's as far as they will go. Brazil I don't think will ever make it in. I could be mistaken though, I hope I am. Tibet I hope will make it in, but if not in G&K, then never. The Sioux won't make it in for G&K but they still have a chance along with Portugal Sumer and the Zulu. Majapahit are likely. I dunno. Let's wait and see.
Sumeria was also in the Wonders of the Ancient World scenario alongside the Hittites weren't they? I really enjoyed them but it seems unlikely they'll be pulled out of that scenario and made into fully realized Civs. So it seems if there are gonna be any post-G&K DLC's, there will be very few of them -- or they'll just have to do with things not related to new Civs. Scenario packs, or a Wonders pack? Could be, could be...
It was just an example that they can use other symbol than polish coat of arms.
Official near-future enhancing "scenario", a la Future War?
It's the Austrian coat of arms, just in a different colour... in fact, that's just the little icon, for all we know the full-size one will be black.
Sorry, the lion's already taken by the DutchYou can also use Counts of Habsburg Arms and yellow and red colors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co...sburg_Arms.svg
e.g.
Posting Permissions
