Excuse me? 99% Catholic. No, seriously though, Poland would make an excellent civilization, using the Ulan as a UU to replace knight or cavalry.Originally Posted by mitrydates
Excuse me? 99% Catholic. No, seriously though, Poland would make an excellent civilization, using the Ulan as a UU to replace knight or cavalry.
I didn't mean they should be leaders. I just gave a general idea about some well known Poles.
And Gierek isn't good example of a leader. He took so many credits that PL payed them untill 2005... Still some people remember "the good Secretary General" lol
I hope the designers considered allowing players more freedom to customize their game and civilization.
There are something like 250+ recognized nations... It would be nice if a player could start the game by uploading a picture for his "leader picture", a "national flag picture", and entering the desired text for the nation he would be using.
IF you play multiplayer games and wanted to represent your nation of say......... Palau you could do so...
You can then choose cities with Western/Eastern/Middleastern/New World achitecture....
It would also be nice to allow a player to "build" their special unit for their "custom" civilization.
The player would choice a unit from the existing "normal" units. He would then be given two "unique attribute points to use"
If you decided to have a unique Rifleman unit, you would select the pre-existing Rifleman unit and choose from a list of "special" upgrades. (such as bonuses of attack power,movement,or attack against other types of units...
When you research the normal technology required for the normal Rifleman unit, you would then be able to build your uniquely named unit... And give you that small edge in the game, durring that time period...
I just hope they don't neglect these obvious oversights of the past...
Tiberius
I love this idea. The whole thing. I'm assuming the same design for unique units could apply to Unique Buildings. But how will the leaders be represented?
Today. But not in XV-XVII century. Jews came to Poland in Middle Ages fleeing persecussions in Spain and France. Protestants arrived from various parts of Holy Roman Empire. And Muslims settled along the eastern and southern borders.
That would be good information for the Civilopedia, but I think the abstract playability of a religiously tolerant Poland would be difficult for a lot of people.
The leaders would be people who appear in the game like events. Face it, this game isn't about the leaders, it's about the civilizations!
When creating your civilization you could choose which direction you wanted it to go within each new era. If you want to be historically accurate, you could. If not, you could start one era with aztec warriors and than move into the next with European medieval units. So long as the game was programed to do a bit of balancing while you were building, like not allowing certain traits to be placed together or certain unit types to be fitted with others.
I think History bears witness to the fact that a people are uniquely reflected in its leaders as much as leaders are uniquely reflected in their people.
You can't characterise without studying character.
The leaders are simply products of their time and culture. A fictitious U.S. president is just as significant in the game as a real one.
It doesn't matter if you're playing as Abe Lincoln or Tom Cruise. The general narrative of your game will be the same, because it will be the civilization that shapes it, not the immortal leader who has lead the civilization since the dawn of time to now.
The real leader of the civilization is you! Abe Lincoln is not an avatar to your self, he is simply a picture on the screen that has no significant impact on the narrative of the game aside from the little bonus he provides. Thus, it would be neat, if as time progressed you could elect new leaders for your civilization to rule under you that bring different attributes to the table.
Last edited by Broken Clock; 02-20-2010 at 10:15 AM.
I'm not sure I'd be singing the praises of a Civilization game that had Tom Cruise offer me a military alliance.
I'd be more, um, Mr. Cruise, shouldn't you be filming a movie somewhere? Aren't you a movie actor? And he'd be all, "No, I'm the President, do as I command."
And I'd be all, "No, I don't think you realise what I'm saying, I need the historical truth in this game, and we do not give into threats because Canada just isn't like that," to which he'd answer, "And what is this 'truth' you keep talking about."
Then I'd have to say, "You want the truth? You can't handle the truth," and that's about when I'd figure something went wonky in the Civilization world...
Mea culpa, I mean Charles Wojtyla as great leader, under civil name (as Great Priest, Actor).
About Gierek he have very good page rank in country (Komuno Wróć!) and he really modernised country with these credit's money (unlike today politics), I saw him as one of most normal commies and still - He is not Jaruzel
. But I better stop, it is rather funny when monarchist said good words about commie
.
Ahh and I forgor Joseph Pilsudzki for leaders, and Roman Dmowski for great peoples.
Mitrydates, what nations in your opinion can nicely represent Eastern Europe, excluding Poland and Russia?
Last edited by Imp. Caesar Leo Augustus; 02-20-2010 at 10:21 AM.
The leaders could be added to a communally built website which users could download for their own use as well as multiplayer use. The leaders could be moderated, so that only real world leaders were available to download. The leaders would also have no duplicates. Thus if there are multiple leaders, the community may simply vote on the best one .
After they have been downloaded to the users computer, that user would than be able to pick that leader at a certain period in time and choose them to represent their civilization. When they inevitably grow tired of that leader, they could simply select a new one and provide their own narrative as to why (revolt? regicide? old leader got fat and ugly?)
Having one leader represent your civilization throughout the entire course of human history is bloody ridiculous and has never made sense within the Civilization universe.
There would be only one besides the other 2: Hungary.
That was also a regional power once and its influence was well spread around Europe.
I would think about Bohemia too, but it became part of the Empire for most of their history, so it brought Czechs under the influence of German culture/power rather than created new one.
Impossible in my opinion. Civilization IV, very user-friendly modding game and? All leaders are modification of existing, really there are no new animation, excluding cardinal Richelieu (and of course Tang Taizong imported from Chinese version and imports from Civ Col), eventually Alexander and Hitler (do not sure here). Animating of leaders in Civ 5 for sure is more hardcore.
Hard? Yes. Impossible? What a silly suggestion.
The leaders would not be animated, they would be pictures.
The game would still be user friendly, as the user does not need to do any creating, he/she could simply download them from the site. He/she would not need to manipulate any folders or do anything which would require any sort of competence on the computer, he/she would simply download them from a list within the game, divided and organized by Country and in order of chronological appearance.
If I have not touched upon your points it is simply because I didn't understand them. I apologize in advance.
Seriously, are you smoking crack? The only people that don't like Lincoln are southerners or racists, how could any other logical free thinking person not think Lincoln was a great leader who accomplished great things?
Franklin Roosevelt = worst leader in the history of US? Again I ask, are you smoking crack? By the sounds of it, you think George W. Bush should be considered an option instead.
Not all Southerners hate Lincoln.
I liked how on civ4 multiple leaders represented one civ, and you could choose them. I think they should carry on that addition to civ5 and have your leader and trait options various for each leader... or maybe several leaders of one nation to match all appealing trait options.
In my opinion, Washington is the best chosen leader to represent america as his name is known worldwide, but for the greatest american leaders that would be different. 1. Lincoln, 2. Teddy Roosevelt, 3. Washington 4. Franklin Roosevelt, 5. Jefferson
And no, not all southerners hate lincoln, i'm from texas and many people consider him the best, even here.
As for which civs should be chosen as main civs, the best to include would be America, Aztec, China, Mongol, Rome, Greek, Italy, Japan, Korea, Germany, Russia, Egypt, Persian, UK
Now that's a great list. Finally someone is making sense. I would be happy with a combination of any of those guys.
Not having Hitler as an option is scary. Political correctness is the biggest threat to history today.
Watching TV series from Hollywood with Negroes and Asian actors as members of Robin Hoods merry band, and bloodthirsty Vikings with turbans and now denying the existence of Hitler as one of the most influential German leaders all falls under this "political correctness" threat.
It seems to me that todays youth, especially in the USA, is getting their education mostly from the entertainment industry. If Sid Meier sticks to history in his game, it could be used as learning instrument and raise the average American student skills about geography and history up to a minimum level.
On the other hand, Hitler lost his empire while he was alive, as far as i can see that didn't happen to any of the other leaders in Civilization, maybe thats the reason he ain't a part of the game, who knows?
Last edited by Morgan Pain; 02-20-2010 at 08:54 PM.
Believe me, many neonazis are proud and wants Danzig back :x. Like today communist, it is socialits plague. Do you think Russians are proud of Joseph Stalin? Heard about Orthodox Church, or Patriarch Cyril I?
King Arthur was Briton Celt (or Roman governor), he defend from Anglo-Saxons itselfHow he can rule English kingdom?
Constantine I better fits Romans, if you separate them. Are not Justinian I, Basilius II, or Alexious Comnenus better? And Constantinople/Constantinopolis, New Rome/Nova Roma, not Byzantium, it was rebuilded town.
I totally agree with you, man! Not so many people know about fact, that Mao Zedong in Chinese versions of Civ games was replaced by Tang Taizong! Why we have commies, not nazis? He can be easily replaced by Frederick Barbarossa for example in German version. About Kublai Khan, Genghis Khan was worst.
And do you think, that most of Russians are vodka drinkers red sovietic fans of Stalin? No, there are many white, orthodox supporters ot tsar. And placing of Stalin must be very offensive for they, but this is historical game!
Historical simulation, ask the same question to Mao, or Stalin players.
Hitler can be replaced in German version of game, like Mao Zedong in China. Hitler can become Adenoid Hynkel, swastika can become Greek cross, remember European version German censored of Contra? For censors nothing is impossible. But personally I prefer changing to other historical person.
Actually we can saw Ottomans as continuators of Seljuk Turks (and that is why I like solve from Age of Empires II), of which they was vassals and they are culturally pretty Rumian/Iconium. Continuator of Eastern Roman Empire was Trebizondian Empire (with great Comnenii dynasty). I prefer Justinian I, who led Romans and incorporating "Byzantines" into Roman Empire. Why Western Romans was not separated? Theodosius, Aetius, Romulus Augustulus, etc.
De Gaulle is choice for modern leader, actually Charlemagne, Clovis I and Charles Martel fits very well for Dark Aged French (and these funny claims for "Karl der Grosse" are pointless, Franks are not Teutonic tribe).
:O Are not they culturally Toltec? Mayans are not Nahuatl. The same Sumerians and Babilonians, they are really different (while Babilonians are Semitic, Sumerians was Caucasian, or original).
Too marginal imo.. And Trojans, they are just town, ally for Hittites, as I remember.
As one of ES man said, Hebrews and Philistines was going to be included in AoE, but was deleted for unknown reason :/. Hebrews appeared in Civilization Call to Power 2, but this game is forgotten.
Like ES in AoE II did, but Whites should be included too (Whites are psychopatic evils in Hindu's legends xD).
Hmm, Moors... They are Berbers, or different nations (like in some mediæval mods)? I never was sure here. And Ethiopians (Abbysinians), very ancient nation was really not marginal (to Makurian times), they even have place in Bible.
I totally agree with you! Mayor Eastern European powers was left, only Russia present that region :/.
I can agree with Scythians, do not sure about Roxolani and Sarmatians, Parthians may better fit.
Political correctness is the worst thing today ;/. I can understand censoring of him in German version of game (like Mao Zedong "Chinese Red God" in China), or even changing of swastika to gammadion, Greek cross, but excluding him in whole Civilization game is rather pathetic. Stupid thing is too, that Germans represent only Prussian period (except Civ 2), where is glorious mediæval Unholy German Empire? Not Franks from Civ 4, lol.
About Hitler, we cannot be sure
Last edited by Imp. Caesar Leo Augustus; 02-20-2010 at 09:42 PM.
What is it with the idea of Canada being in a Civ game? I don't want to cause any offence, but unless I have missed some massive factor then it has nothing to warrant inclusion above any other Western country with a small population. How long has it even been as much as a handful of sizeable cities and masses of almost uninhabited land? It hasn't forged an Empire or a unique or long lasting dynasty or succession of governments. It has less to recommend it than Belgium. It is a relatively modern result of colonialism by countries which are worthy of being in Civ 5!
The USA on the other hand, although I think it doesn't have the strongest of cases, is a nation with: a large population; a massive, possibly unrivalled cultural influence on the modern world; a military superpower which has been heavily involved in two World Wars and has been the main nation in many of the high profile conflicts of the second half of the 20th century; is politically very influential.
So do I.
The Hittites were the main rival of Ancient Egypt, nearly beating Ramses II at Kadesh (it was a close "draw" rescuing Ramses II as we know today - finally causing the 1st known written peace-treaty) - and the Hittites were the 1st ones who were able to craft/cast/.. iron especcially as weapons...
Important reasons to treat them in an equal way as Ancient Egypt and have them among the 18 civs.
Last edited by Lykos-Φ; 02-21-2010 at 05:13 AM.
Canada gave the world poutine, dwarfing all other contributions to humanity.
As Iīve already posted in the wishlist, I hope Reagan will be one of the American leaders. Hopefully he replaces Roosevelt, I donīt see the point why he should be in the game and Reagan not.
Wouldnīt it be fun to fight Stalin, Mao and all the other communist leaders
Oh come on. Roosevelt liberated western europe, mobilized the U.S. military into the superpower that is today, brought the country out of the great depression and enacted successful social programs for the middle class.
The hell did Reagan do? Fund Nicaraguan death squads? Haha.
Oh yeah Rome and Italy...
Why are all the Canadians trying to show us how Canada is a "Civilization"?
For me, Korea, Portugal, Dutch, Poland, Romania, Ottoman, Incas, Phoenixians (or Cartago) are by far more important than Canada (in human History).
And I will also think that Hitler must be if Stalin does.
Both of them or neither of them.
You are all missing the point, I haven't been saying Canada should be in civ, I'm saying it has as much right to be in it as America.
America has no place in civ, none whatsoever. America's history is far too short and hasn't contributes nearly enough to be considered a Civilization.Recorded history goes back tens of thousands of years, America has only existed for 250 of those years.
If America is worth being in this game, than so is Canada, so is Austrailia, Mexico, Brazil...
In that case I take it all back! (I had to Google poutine I'm afraid, I am ignorant of Canadian cuisine aside from maple syrup, but it sounds nice)
In that case I take it all back! (I had to Google poutine I'm afraid, I am ignorant of Canadian cuisine aside from maple syrup, but it sounds nice) Perhaps there could be a poutine based Wonder
On Reagan: He sorta y'know brought us out of a major recession AND ended the Cold War (Tear down this wall is one of histories most famous speeches) And please the death squad comment, Grow Up. I'm willing to acknowledge that Clinton was a very good president even though I despise him, so why can you acknowledge Reagan's achievements?
On Hitler: Just cut him out of the German and Israeli versions, if he had died after the fall of France and before, say... '43 he would been acknowledged as the greatest German leader of all time and the death camps would have been ignored the same way they had been before the war.
On Canada: What as Canada achieved in its time? Britain built an empire, France has always played a major role in European affairs, Germany occupied France twice and nearly did so again in WWI, they also occupied most of Russia twice, The Aztecs ruled Meso-America, and don't get me started on the U.S. Canada? no offense but the most they've done is contribute to England and the U.S. Also there is maybe one person who could be used as a Canadian leader. I understand where your coming from but... the only circumstances under which you would include Canada is if you needed another western Civ (Such as Khmer in BTS for Asia)
We have contributed as much to the world as America, we just aren't bullies about it, we don't force other countries into our way of thinking because we decide they're wrong.
I'm not trying to get Canada in the game, however, I want America OUT!
Please don't attempt to turn this into a pissing contest, it's just not important.
The gentleman provides examples of conquest and Canada is not a country built on conquest (unless you count the subjection of indigenous people). Canada has done tons on the world stage as peacekeepers and aid providers. However, these are obviously things the young man doesn't value and that's fine. Also, you must realize that the average individual's concept of history is very ethnocentric. I've seen what kids in high school learn about history in America, it's 50 percent WW2 and 50 percent revolution. There is no time to learn about the achievements of other countries.
Personally, as a Canadian, I really don't feel like I have to prove anything to random individuals on a video game forum, especially if they are American.
Last edited by Broken Clock; 02-21-2010 at 07:58 AM.
This is just getting ridiculous. Look, you own a civilization game, right? Ok, start it up and go to civilopedia. Look up America. Read it.
I'm sorry that the Canadian contributions on the grand scale of things don't add up to that much, but don't be so bitter about it.
I would only support this if at least one of the advisers was turned into a tarot card reader, and only for him. And even then, this would only be for comical value. No way does he belong in the game otherwise.As Iīve already posted in the wishlist, I hope Reagan will be one of the American leaders. Hopefully he replaces Roosevelt, I donīt see the point why he should be in the game and Reagan not.
Wouldnīt it be fun to fight Stalin, Mao and all the other communist leaders
Canadians make me laugh.
The basis of your cultural identity is that you're proud you're not Americans!
I love to pick on Canadians, mainly because of the response it's bound to ellicit, usually comparing themselves favorably to Americans. Let me clue you in, that doesn't make you unique, it just shows the chip on your shoulder.
All kidding aside, Canada is a wonderful country, but here's the skinny:
I am well educated, and a history buff, yet I cannot name a single Canadian leader of note. That's not America's fault, get over it.
Canada, while providing support roles in many global diplomatic missions, and global wars has never been a primary player. In world wars 1 and 2, they stood fast with England, as the ties are very close, however, the wars began with England, not with Canada. Canada supported ably, but was not a primary player.
Canada is among the least densely populated countries in the world, averaging less than 1 person per 10 miles.
Every civ represented in the Civilization game has been, at one point or another in history, a leader in power, trade or influence. That point has not yet come for Canada.
This game is about accurate representations of history, not appeasing a group who wants to be taken seriously.
I don't have any partisan dog in this fight, so it doesn't really matter to me what you think of Clinton. I think he wasted everyone's time for 8 years, as I suspect so do you. But even if I didn't, I shouldn't have to concede Reagan as a great president. I'll give you the recession, but that's not the same as the great depression.
As for the Cold war, that really ran through different administrations for about 40 years. It's not the same as with Lincoln, who fought a war from the start to the finish, or even with Roosevelt, even though he died near the end, the worst was already over. Mostly though, it was the russians who ended the Cold War. Not win it, but ended it.
When you guys compares Hitler to Mao and Stalin using the death count as an argument I think you forgets the most important point, their believes, the basic argumentation the used for kill ppl (not saying that those deaths are accepted, just saying that we have a very big diference here).
Mao and Stalin did killed a lot of ppl as well as Hitler did, most of the leaders did too (specially the one from distant history period), everytime a country (or civ) enter into a war its leader send ppl to death (ppl from his country and of the country it's is fighting against) what make the difference is the reason. Die fighting for freedom is diferent than die fighting for control of other country resources, u see...
I guess the main difference here is their beliefs. Mao and Stalin believed in another type of world and way of production, based on the socialism. Hitler believed in the social darwinism and in the race superiority above others.
U see, as long as the socialist way it's based on a noble principle (besides it failed for a bunch of reason), yet social darwinism have failed too, but is not something that today someone would be proud of defend. Because social darwinism (dunno if you guys use this term in english i did a direct translation) only had lead ppl to racist feeling and comparisons and serach for cientific prooves for race (or culture) supperiority, this kind of thought its not something good, yet, lots of socialist principles have already been incorporated into our modern capitalist society in some way...
The social darwinism thoughts two lines of analysis, was developed by a lot of social diligent like Herbert Spencer, Arthur de Gobineau etc and besides it takes the Darwin name its distort it's biological thesis once Darwin says that the most adaptable species have more chances to survive, not the most superior.
I think that's the big difference, and we MUST keep in mind that "social darwinism" was not only used by the germans, it was very common thought for almost all the states at that period.
Again sorry for my bad english. And thats just what I think about this subject based on what I've studied and expressed in a language that i don't speak very well. Ofc I can be worng and have commited some mistakes. Didin't mean to offend anyone tho.
In theory.... you could search for a historic picture of your desired leader. You would download the picture from the internet. Simply google any historic person, and I bet you will find something to download.
Then you upload the picture image in your pregame setup... The same process for a real national flag image.
I like the idea of "custom civilization"
Using all the ideas involoved... I could be Emperor Bob, of my nation called Bob Land...
I would have a real life picture of my "beautfiful" self... with my own flag image that I made myself...You could make your flag with microsoft paint..lol
And I would have the worlds fastest Warrior unit...he would be able to travel three spaces in one turn. lol
Im canadian and want canada in for sure, but its not gonna happen. America is in because the game is made in the states so why wouldnt they involve it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote