The nation of Poland has not been around very long and has not made any significant impact on history. Maybe the Prussian civilization though.
The nation of Poland has not been around very long and has not made any significant impact on history. Maybe the Prussian civilization though.
Are you sure about this?Originally Posted by MagnaCaesar
Are you f*ing kidding me? Prussia can never be a new civilization,because they are already represented by Germany . Also,significant impact on history isn't even a pre-requisite for a civilization to be a worthy choice . More important is the flavour that such Civ gives . Poland could be a interesting Civ,IF such Civ is really unique . I'd like that someone answer me what would be the UA of Poland,that isn't neither too generic,neither too similar to the UA of other's civ .
Don't make me come in here.
Nobody commented on my Poland template.
Shiav, it's no secret that Poles and Russians are "best friends forever." But that shouldn't be a reason to discredit Poland. I agree that of the two, Russia was far more significant and noteworthy overall. Poland had its moments though, and though in more recent history Russia had military dominance over Poland, in an earlier period the balance of power swung the other way from what I recall...
I posted a suggestion on the earlier page.I'd like that someone answer me what would be the UA of Poland,that isn't neither too generic,neither too similar to the UA of other's civ .
I admit it wasn't very good. I definitely feel like Poland needs to have a UA that recognizes their unique government in comparison to other European states in history. See my posts on the previous page. Some kind of limit on fiscal power in exchange for a boost in military seemed like a good representation of Poland during their golden age, to me. I could see them maybe gaining a culture boost as well. The idea here is that Poland's government did not develop into an absolute monarchy like many other European states. Instead they formed a parliament and a democracy of szlachta (nobles, albeit a very large and diverse group of nobles: read the quoted bit below). From this I think you can come up with a template where Poland's UA results in a "loss" of one thing (money or production of non-miiltary units for example) in exchange for something else (culture, happiness, military production, etc.).
from britannica:
Ranging from the poorest landless yeomen to the great magnates, the szlachta insisted on the equality of all its members. As a political nation it was more numerous (8–10 percent) than the electorate of most European states even in the early 19th century.
Throughout most of Europe the medieval system of estates evolved into absolutism, but in the Commonwealth it led to a szlachta democracy inspired by the ideals of ancient Rome, to which parallels were constantly drawn. The szlachta came to see in its state a perfect constitutional model, a granary for Europe, and a bulwark against eastern barbarism. Its inherent weaknesses in finance, administration, and the military were ignored.
The end of the Jagiellonian dynasty meant the beginning of unrestricted election to the throne. The first king elected viritim (i.e., by direct vote of the szlachta) was Henry of Valois, the brother of the king of France. On his accession to the throne (reigned 1573–74), which he quickly abandoned to become Henry III of France, he accepted the so-called Henrician Articles and Pacta Conventa. Presented henceforth to every new king as a contract with the noble nation, the former document provided for free election (but not during the reigning monarch’s lifetime), religious peace, biennial meetings of the Sejm (with a standing body of senators active in the interval), and the right to renounce the allegiance to the king should he break the contract.
Last edited by SlickSlicer; 06-05-2012 at 06:52 PM.
Having a unique government,compared to their neighbors,isn't really a unique thing,IMO . The kind of system we know as a Democracy first appear in Greece,in a time where Civilizations were ruled either by despots or by kings . But the UA of the Greece doesn't even mention that . Instead,it makes reference to their union agaisnt the Persians(Hellenic League),which is really an unique thing from Greek history . I'd rather prefer something else,because Poland's policy nowadays isn't unique,as it "used to be" .
Well it wasn't really a full on Democracy either. It was a system unique to Poland. Note that France has Ancien Regime, which is a reference to the French government (a government type that was even less unique than Poland's, actually). This is easily comparable, in my opinion.
I dunno. Personally that's the most interesting thing I find about Polish history. It differentiates them from every other country in Europe more than anything else Poland has. Applying presentism obfuscates the uniqueness of things from a historical perspective. For example: a civil service based upon meritocracy is easy to take for granted nowadays. However, when historians talk about Chinese history, they always mention the civil service exams that Imperial China had as a unique feature of Chinese civilization. Although other civilizations eventually developed a similar literati class, China was one of the first to do so.
Moreover, the name doesn't matter as much as what benefits it confers. I really feel like they were grasping at straws with the name of Ethiopia's UA: They named their UA after a battlefield victory. I think we'd all agree that this is even more far from unique than what I mentioned for Poland. Most civilizations have had at least one military victory that they can be proud of. However, from a gameplay perspective, Ethiopia has a very interesting UA!
I thought what I proposed on the previous page wasn't very strong from a gameplay perspective, but it kinda worked. It would orient Poland toward domination victories, which makes sense to me because they were a military powerhouse for a long time. Although they had cultural and scientific achievements, in some ways these pale in comparison to the cultural and scientific achievements of other civilizations. Their winged hussars and domination over battlefields during their Golden Age, however, seems worth noting. Hence I like the idea of giving them a UA that helps them achieve military superiority.
Henrician Articles [UA]: The gold bonus you receive during a golden age is halved (so each tile that produces gold produces .5 extra gold instead of 1 extra gold during a golden age). However, production of military units is increased substantially during a golden age (I'm bad with math. Does double military production sound too broke?)
Last edited by SlickSlicer; 06-05-2012 at 07:47 PM.
About the Ethiopia's UA,their name is based on their battlefield victory,but such UA reflects their whole history of winning against greedy empires who tried to conquer them and failed miserably . Such list includes empires who were much bigger and have much better military forces than Ethiopia,like the Romans,Arabs,Egypts,Ottomans,etc . And one of the things that make the "Ancient Regime" of the France very unique is the enormous difference with the "Nouveau Regime" .
About the "Szlachta",I've read a bit about it and I though that,instead having a different GA bonus,which is your suggestion,why not having a UA somehow related to Specialists? From what I see,the relationships with Specialists is perfect,since such most of the members of "Szlachta" lived in the cities,rather than outside of them . What do you think?
Last edited by luciferkid; 06-05-2012 at 08:35 PM.
I'm sorry, but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yytbDZrw1jc
I really don't want to turn this into another Poland war (This usually happens on the internet) but I feel like I must so that maybe you will be less ignorant.
Poland was founded in the 9th century A.D. That's not new. Compared to Prussia who was made 1701. Poland is an old country.
Poland made significant scientific discoveries, captured Moscow, won the Battle of Vienna, beat the Teutonic Order, was one of the biggest empires in Europe, beat the soviets in the Polish-Bolshevik war which stopped the communist take over of Europe, and fought many of the best European empires in very successful wars. Not as much as some empires (I must say Russia so Shiav doesn't come in here and argue, I would hate to mess up his retirement with stories of Poland) like Russia. However, we shouldn't put Civilizations in the game based only on what they have done, but rather, will they be fun to play as.
How do I put this... Prussia is Germany. Otto Van Bismark was a Prussian bro.
Note: I am not saying Poland should get in, but I am fighting a thoughtless comment.
Poland, no way. There are many other Civ's I'd rather see - the Zulu's for one. Actually, that's the only other one I'd really want to see now that I think about it....
Sounds like a good idea, but what do you propose for specialists, exactly?
It'll depend if Poland have 2UU or 1UU/1UB . If they would have an UB,the UA should avoid overlapping the bonus with the UB . But,from the little I know of the Poland's history,It'd be better if they have 2 UU,just like most of the European Civs . A little of Brainstorming here could find a perfect UA to reflect the Szlachta part of the Poland's history . I guess that the Polish from the forum could help it on suggesting this UA,instead involving in pointless discussions . But I'd like to make it very clear that I'd prefer non-european Civs for future expansions and dlcs,with the exception of Portugal .
Man what is wrong with you? You don't like it you don't buy it. Simple.
Poland-Lithuania
Capital: Krakow
Leader: John III Sobieski (1629-1696)
UA: Religious Freedom. Poland-Lithuania was the world's first democracy (of a sort). They had an elected monarch, elected by the nobles (comprising of 15% of the population). They had a substantive guarantee of rights for the populace, including fairly liberal guarantees of religious freedom. -30% Unhappiness from every city and citizen.
UU: Winged Hussar. Replaces Lancer. They were heavily armored and their primary tactic was to charge right in and smash through infantry formations. Plus, their horses were bred to be able to carry a great deal of weight over long distances and still be able to make a charge after all of that. Cost 250, not 220. Strength 26, not 22. When being flanked by the enemy there is no bonus. The flanking bonus is +20%, not +15%.
UU: Ulan Cavalry. Replaces Cavalry. Cost 290. Movement 4, not 3. Strength 23, not 25. +25% on attack. No penalty vs other mounted units.
Strategy: Poland's UA heavily favors expansionism, as they get a significant unhappiness reduction across the whole empire. This means you can expand early without too much worry about your people being unhappy about it. Poland really comes into its own in the late Renaissance/early Industrial era, when it receives its two UUs; the Uhlan Cavalry and Winged Hussar. Stock up on pikemen, because Poland will come charging in with some VERY powerful mounted units. The Uhlan Cavalry is slightly weaker but makes up for it on the attack and it doesn't have the usual combat penalty against mounted units. Winged Hussars are a super-powered Lancer unit, with tons of extra strength as well as no flanking penalties and extra flanking bonuses, making Poland a very fast and dangerous entity to deal with mid-game. The extra happiness will help resolve any unhappiness that may come from warmongering, so don't be shy about blitzing your opponents.
Favoured Win: Domination.
That's not a democracy. That's not even a republic. That's an oligarchy.
It's a democracy by technicality. The Greeks weren't wholly different. They limited who could vote as well. There were numerous classes of citizens totally excluded from voting. Also see what I posted above. The people who could vote were a diverse group and quite a range as far as wealth. The electorate was larger than other European countries of the time, in any case. It may be "less democratic" than what exists now, but it was more democratic than other countries for its time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_sejm Poland was a mix of a democracy and Oligarchy, and you should read that wikipedia page, it's interesting.
Urm, I'm not sure how to have two quotes in the same message, so: Nefliqus Poland should be a turtle civilization, not a Domination civilization. They should focus on Faith and Culture with bonuses to happiness and defense.
Poland
Leader: Who ever
Color: Don't know
Symbol: the one of the Polish Home Army
Unique Ability: Poland is not yet lost: +33% defensive bonus to all units and cities in friendly territory, -33% defensive bonus to units in enemy territory. +2 faith from every attack from an enemy unit in your boundries (Is that to overpowered? If it is then during golden ages)
Unique Building: Old Town: Replaces Museum: +2 Faith and +1 science, OR +25 defensive bonus to the city
Unique Unit: Uhlan: Same as above.
Alt: P.H.A.: Replaces World War 2 Infantry: The Polish Home Army was known for their defense of Warsaw so: +1 faith when garrisoned in a city, all units attacking the city must first go through them.
I think I overused the colors..
The UA is too similar to the Indian, and I believe 2 horse UU isn't a good idea (even the Huns are not that horse-centric...)
I'm indifferent about Poland, mainly due the relatively high (and even excessive) number of European civs, but if these are the only features Poland can offer, I'm really not interested. I bet there are civs in Africa and the Americas that are far more unique.
By the time Museum or WW2 Infantry comes out, I believe faith isn't that important anymore. +1 or +2 faith wouldn't help.
About the UA, I believe +2 faith from every attack is overpowered (mind the early barbarians, and units taking longer to die). But I believe it becomes weak if it's restricted to Golden Ages (and a bit boring and unreliable).
Perhaps +2 faith from every unit destroyed in your borders.
I don't really know when faith will go out of style, but I know that it will play a hand in culture. Perhaps 8 culture instead of 2 faith and +2 science? And for the infantry, +2 Culture?
I don't like the idea of Poland being a defensive civ. They weren't all that strong defensively. They were partitioned and conquered a few times, but they also did the conquering themselves here and there.
Considering that Poland has been target practice to most European Powers (Holy Rome, Sweden, Russia, Austria, Hungary, Turkey, Nazi Germany), I don't think that they would be really good in a civ game...
Maybe their UA can be something that will make the enemy think twice about invading, maybe extra unhappiness from Polish conquered cities and extra turns of resistance against the invader.
I dont understand why people give as UA things like, if enemy Civ captures YOUR city the enemy recieves 30% unhappiness or something like that. I have read this as a suggestion for a Slavic UA on another thread. It is not a very "first hand experience" for the gamer. It is something the AI experiences if you can see what I am trying to say. The UA of a civ should be something that the gamer can take advantage of first hand. Makes the UA more likeable.
All of their conquering were lost shortly after. They were conquered twice I think... One was due to great diplomacy on the part of the Ruskies, and the other was due to great leadership on the part of the Germans. Even during World War 2 the Polish did some heroic things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wizna
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Westerplatte
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...3w_Trybunalski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...ska_G%C3%B3rka
Poland fought off many Teutonic Order invasions, Russia, Prussia, Austria, Hungary, Ottoman, Sweden. they didn't have many successful offensives against them however...
I also agree with mastika09 (surprise surprise)
I've seen people mention science a few times already in this thread maybe rather than yet another militaristic UA does anybody else think a science focused UA might be nice? I'd kind of like to see a couple more science civs since there's only two right now. Maybe excess happiness adds beakers or something like that.
As far as whether they should get in or not I'm for it. TBH it might be a good selling point since a good portion of the game's demographic have some Polish blood in them (really I think this is why there are so many euro civs compared to others). Obscure civs that fill regional voids aren't going to be what gets Joe Schmoe to buy DLC or the game in general. Also honestly, as long as the UA is interesting I don't see why it matters how many civs are European, really it's only aesthetic differences anyway. As long as a civ has an interesting history with notable accomplishments I'd say they're deserving.
Ts must be a troll.
Well, yes, but what on Earth could we give the Polish without making them a European Ethiopia?
There's more to their history than war you know...
I don't like these UAs at all either. UAs should not be something that lets you "fail less." They should be something that gives you a direct advantage to succeed.
Partitioned by several countries, taken over by Germany and Russia in WW2, conquered by Sweden at one point in the 17th century as well.All of their conquering were lost shortly after. They were conquered twice I think... One was due to great diplomacy on the part of the Ruskies, and the other was due to great leadership on the part of the Germans. Even during World War 2 the Polish did some heroic things.
I'm not really trying to denigrate their defensive prowess, but I don't think giving them a defensive UA really fits them. They had a mixed record of defensive and offensive victories, in my opinion. Also some of their great victories, such as John Sobieski's at Vienna, were not really in defense of Polish land per se.
As for offensives, Poland expanded significantly, which is partly how it got to such a large size at various points (diplomacy is also to blame though). They defeated the Teutonic Knights at Tannenberg while marching toward the Knights' stronghold at Marienburg. Later Poland reclaimed the territory of Gdansk which had been taken by the Teutonic Knights many decades ago. They seized Livonia through a war with Muscovy. During Russia's Time of Troubles, they occupied Moscow itself.
I feel like for Poland, it'd be better to give them a UA that gives them some kind of military bonus that's neither offensive or defense, but rather neutral and helps them all-around.
I personally see wars as the main aspect of Civilization V. You can win in multiple ways, but wars help in all of those. For culture victories, it's worth it to puppet cities. For science victories, the same thing applies. For any victories really, it's always good to capture wonders, receive gold from sacking cities and so on. That having been said, I don't mind that a lot of civs have UAs related to the military. It makes sense because that's of great importance to the game and there is a lot more that can be done with perks related to combat than with perks related to culture/science/city state diplomacy/etc.I've seen people mention science a few times already in this thread maybe rather than yet another militaristic UA does anybody else think a science focused UA might be nice? I'd kind of like to see a couple more science civs since there's only two right now. Maybe excess happiness adds beakers or something like that.
With the inclusion of Sweden, I think they have enough civs that specialize in diplo victories. The only thing I would add is one civ with a UA that gives them more influence for completing city-state quests/offering gold, perhaps.
I think 2 science civs is enough actually. Also I'd want science civs to mostly be DLC because I think science bonuses are kind of broken.
With culture...there's a ton of civs there already. However, admittedly there's a lot that can be done with culture and I could see Poland getting some kind of cultural bonus.
The thing with military is that you can break it down into a wider variety of sub-categories. There are defensive bonuses, offensive bonuses, siege units, naval units, cavalry, infantry. A lot of perks haven't touched upon some of these. For example, in Rise of Nations the Turks received bonuses with their siege weapons and with assimilating cities. I don't think any civ currently in the game has some kind of siege weapon bonus UA like that.
I do like the idea of giving a civ a UA that has to do with specialists. It hasn't really been done before as far as I know. Whether that fits Poland, I'm not sure.
Last edited by SlickSlicer; 06-06-2012 at 01:31 AM.
I see in this thread (and the other threads about this subject) plenty of discussion about Poland's history, colour schemes, various units and abilities, but unfortunately nothing at all to convince me that Poland would introduce anything new or original to the game.
Now, I'm a fanboy and would buy any new civ DLC whatever, but honestly, there is no reason to introduce a civ for nationalist reasons.
On the other hand, my personal experience of Poles is of a hard working people, so instead of always thinking about military and warfare/defence, go the infrastructure way and give workers bonuses, construction speeds, unit building speed bonuses, etc.
But still, seriously, Poland won't make the cut.
Edit:
Yeah, that sort of thing, for engineers or priests maybe.
They were partitioned once and taken over by Germany and Russia once. Sweden never took them over, however they did try.
Jan's victory at Vienna was defensive, not offensive. He was defending Vienna from the Ottomans, not going into the Ottoman empire and attacking them.
Poland's defensive wars are better remembered than their offensive wars. The taking of Moscow was no great achievement, Russia was going through a time of famine and disorder and the Russians didn't even defend Moscow. Most of the battles during that war were in Poland's favor ( With the exclusion of Klushino ). Poland was able to defend itself against Sweden in the Deluge even though they were outnumbered by thousands of troops. Then again they were able to defeat the Bolsheviks after they invaded even though they were still out numbered by thousands of troops. Vienna, Wizna, and the Battle of Warsaw (Both Polish-Bolshevik War and WW2) were all defensive battles and they were all the greatest battles in Poland's history. The Battle of Tannenberg was also because of the Teutonic invasion, and Marienburg was a failed siege.
Defensive bonus, or a faith/culture/scientific bonus. Not a happiness, offensive military, or one of those "If you lose a city"
bonuses.
Oh dear, here is a animated maphttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAVVWlUywO0
Religious freedom should also increase the spread of foreign religions in your territory too
Sweden did take them over, albeit briefly.
By my understanding, this means they began the occupation in 1655 (though perhaps did not occupy the entire country by this point) and were finally driven out 5 years later by the Treaty of Oliwa. So while it was a short occupation, it was still an occupation nonetheless.The belligerent and ambitious Charles X Gustav of Sweden worried lest the extension of Muscovy upset the balance of power in the Baltic, which he aimed to turn into a Swedish lake. The refusal of King John II Casimir Vasa, the successor and brother of Władysław IV, to give up his claims to the Swedish crown offered a good pretext for resuming hostilities with the Commonwealth. Aiming originally to seize Polish and Prussian harbours, Charles Gustav saw, after the first successes, the possibility of gaining the Polish crown and the mastery of the Commonwealth.
The magnates and gentry of Great Poland capitulated to the Swedes in July 1655. Prince Janusz Radziwiłł, a leading Calvinist and the greatest magnate of Lithuania, hard-pressed by the Russians, broke off the union with Poland and signed one with Sweden. His motives were a combination of Lithuanian and Protestant interests coloured by his own ambition to rule the grand duchy.
The nearly bloodless conquest of the huge Commonwealth came as a shock to many Poles and foreigners. Yet Polish resistance to what turned out to be a regime of brutal occupation developed very quickly. The successful defense of the fortified monastery of Jasna Góra (now in Częstochowa) became a rallying point and provided a symbolic religious-ideological banner. Although the Poles were seldom a match for the Swedish professional troops, they excelled at partisan warfare and at winning minor battles. Not only the szlachta but also the peasants fought the foreigner and enemy of Roman Catholicism. Stefan Czarniecki became the hero of the war.
Returning from exile in Silesia, John Casimir built an international coalition against the Swedes, whose successes were upsetting the balance of power. A cease-fire intervened on the Russian front, and the Cossacks were neutralized by the Tatars, while the Habsburgs, Denmark, and Brandenburg-Prussia went to Poland’s aid. The Swedes were gradually driven out of the Commonwealth, despite an armed intervention on their side by Transylvania’s Prince György II Rákóczi, who aspired to the Polish crown. The war ended with the Treaty of Oliwa (1660), which restored the territorial status quo before the Swedish invasion and brought the final renunciation of John Casimir’s claim to the crown of Sweden.
I wasn't mentioning Marienburg for that reason. I was mentioning it because that whole campaign was an offensive campaign. The fact that it was a campaign in response to former conquests is not exactly relevant. It wasn't Poland defending land it owned at that point. It was Poland going on the offense and winning.The Battle of Tannenberg was also because of the Teutonic invasion, and Marienburg was a failed siege.
Anyways, this probably isn't worth arguing since it's history and not gameplay related. I personally would rather a generalized combat bonus for Poland rather than a defensive one. I certainly feel there are a lot of options still for militaristic civs. They could easily have some kind of cavalry bonus, some kind of promotion achieving bonus, some kind of military production bonus or any number of other potential benefits. Or they could have something which references their unique Democratic government and gives them culture. Either way is fine I guess. I don't think a generalized science bonus is worthwhile at all. With the exception of Copernicus, Poland's history as a "scientific" civ, I feel, is somewhat iffy. If they do want to reference Nicolaus Copernicus though, maybe they could give them a free great scientist with astronomy or allow them to build observatories regardless of whether their cities are nearby mountains. I can't tell if that would be broken or not...probably it would be since science tends to be kinda broke. Also the free great scientist with astronomy makes sense historically, but from a gameplay perspective it's rather stupid considering Poland has little history as a naval civ. So overall...I'm not a big fan of science for Poland.
Incorporating the faith mechanic is an interesting idea. There are still lots of ways they can develop that. Poland has a history of religious tolerance, but this does not translate well in Civ V terms. A UA centered around that would be too dependent on other actors in the game rather than what the Poland player is doing. One thing that might be interesting is a +1 population boost every time a faith is spread (your's or any other) to a new city...or something.
Huh... Never knew that about Sweden... I am glad you brought that up.
Poland was going on the offensive, and failed to capture Marienburg, and all territory they had gained in that offensive was lost shortly there after, thus it was a failed offensive.
I think that what we are arguing about (A argument I am enjoying btw) is useful is establishing what bonus Poland should get in our minds. Offensive or Defensive? Faith or Culture? Happiness or "If you lose a city"?
I do like the idea of a great scientist at astronomy, but it sounds like a blend between the Maya and the Babs. I think the Polish should get a scientific bonus or atleast it is something to really consider. Poland has been home to some pretty good scientists. Perhaps a good military bonus could be "Bonus building units when at war, bonus increases the closer they get to your city you are building said unit in" then it is both Defensive and Offensive. I wouldn't call their government a democracy, it leaned way more to a oligarchy. Only like 10% of the people could vote or something like that, and all of the people who could vote were the rich and powerful. So it was a odd blend of Oligarchy and Democracy. Also, Venice and Italy had a government similar to theirs.
The people who could vote were nominal nobles. Not all of them were wealthy and not all of them were powerful. There was a range of people, but they had electoral equality (so a lowly noble had the same equality as a wealthy one). It was hardly egalitarian, but it was a Democracy nonetheless. I can see why it could be labeled an oligarchy. My personal opinion is that it straddled the line between oligarchic and democratic. In any case, it was very very rare in Europe and particularly rare for a large state such as what the Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth became.
That having been said...I think there are things that can be done with it. The idea is just for the sake of reference, but my basic premise is that it would penalize Poland in one way (likely having to do with revenue) while boosting something else in a significant way (like culture, faith or military production, or even a combination of those). Your military production UA idea is pretty good as well though.
I haven't heard any decent ideas for a Poland unique building. That's one reason why I think their UA should be oriented around military domination. This isn't fully necessary I guess. France has a culture UA even though it has two UUs. Greek has a diplo UA...but it sort of has a military purpose actually since it gives them open borders with city-states. Korea has a science UA despite having two UUs (both of which are defensive in nature). I feel like Poland is best suited for domination, but maybe that's just personal interpretation.
" The nobility is a social class distinguished by high hereditary or honorary rank that possesses privileges, or eminence, and certain rights not granted to members of other classes in a society. The privileges of the nobility often comprise substantial real advantages, including rights of access, that vary from country to country and era to era. " Nobles had more power and money than most, even if their vote was equal they were the elite of the country.
How about a U.A. that combines them all : Bonus to generating a great scientist from observatories and my idea. Then for a U.B. the Old Town idea that gives extra faith and culture, then the Uhlan. Making Poland great for any victory type.
I just suggested science because of a few posts mentioning Copernicus and their focus on science rather than faith. I kind of like that idea of being able to build observatories in every regardless of being adjacent to a mountain or not. I don't think it's OP or anything since, with some planning, another civ could potentially have observatories in all cities too. Even if it is a little OP it still doesn't come in to play until the Renaissance anyway so I doubt it'd be too unbalanced. Add in a free GS at the discovery of astronomy and I think it'd be a nice unique if it could be paired with an early UU or UB to make up for the late UA. Maybe Pacha's idea for faith for every enemy killed inside your borders would give them that early push.
I'm dissapointed . I hoped you could created an really Unique Ability that truly reflects the "Szlachta" system someway . Instead,you mention that they were the first democracy,which isn't even true(Greeks made it even before Poland existed and Szlachta were more like an open Oligarchy than a democracy) . Also,I'm even more dissapointed that you haven't even realized that your suggestion is infinitely overpowered,mainly because it doesn't even have any kind of drawback which could help balance it . If you want to create an UA based on "Szlachta",try to create an UA somehow based on specialists .
I don't think Nefliqus' idea was so bad in terms of concept though. Some kind of happiness system would make sense, but I admit that happiness is VERY VERY dicey when it comes to balance. I'm not sure what a good solution for that is...
I can understand why Polish players would want Poland in the game, but shouldn't it make sence to introduce civilizations that everyone can relate to? - I don't want to offend anyone, and maybe this is my lack of knowledge, but what has Poland ever done that 200 other countries didn't do too?
I'm trying to figure out if you're:
a) joking;
b) uneducated;
c) a troll; or
d) never picked up a history book in your life.
Posting Permissions
