Civs I Plan To Create For My Expansion

[brianshapiro]

If you think this should be posted instead under either the Civilizations or Creation forums please tell me, im posting it here in Play the World because i think there is a general interest in it here:

Im considering making my own expansion pack for civilization 3, of course limited to Mods or what else i can do; there are several ideas but right now im thinking about added civilizations, particularly european ones.

With the addition of play the world, i think alll of the major powers will be added to the game, except maybe the Incas. However, because civilization is not about who actually succeeded historically, but a playing out of history, im considering civs that will account for major cultural groups left out. Im first considering those in europe. Here are some ideas for the civs traits and UUs [please comment on this and critique]:

DUTCH. Commercial, Industrial
The Dutch was a major cultural power, not only mercantile, but industrial and was a major art (Rembrandt, other N European artists) and religious center. Adding the Dutch sort of squeezes in other northern european countries like Belgium and Denmark with similar traits, like adding Spain squeezes in Portugese.
UU: SLOOP [replaces Caravel];
modifications: movement 6 (withdraw ability), blitz, bombard 1 with 1 rate of fire; doesn't upgrade to Galleon, requires Iron.
The Dutch had many innovations in shipbuilding, including the Fluyt which the Dutch are famed for. The Fluyt however, was primarily mercantile. The addition of the Sloop is to add something interesting to the game, the first UU naval military unit; sloops were very quick ships often equipped for war with cannons or other weapons, and fleets of sloops would be able to match against more powerful ships as frigates because of sheer speed. Movement of 6, so it allows for the ship to be able to withdraw from combat with frigates and caravels, and blitz. Because it should compete with frigates, the Sloop would not upgrade to Galleon (which could be a disadvantage), and would have poor bombard abilities, but the added ability requires Iron. I believe the large additions and advantages of the Sloop over the Caravel are justified design-wise, because of the limited ability and use of naval power in Civ3 [a pumped-up caravel with limited bombard will not unbalance the game in any important way]

PRUSSIANS. Militaristic, Commercial
This is to account for pseudo-Germanic eastern european cultures left out of the game, including Austrians, [Prussians, of course], Swiss, Lithuanians. At various times in history, each of these had some substantial power, but in general remained a hodge podge without any real supremacy. The same goes for the SLAVS, the next civilization group in the list I will suggest. This group had militaristic backtones, of course seen in the pomp and court culture of Prussians and Austirans, but also in the mercenary armies of the Swiss.
UU: HALBERDIER [replaces Pikeman];
modifications: attack 3, shield cost 2.
The UU, Halberdier obviously derives from the famed Swiss Halberdiers which were used as Mercenaries in many early modern wars, in Italy, Germany, and France. The Halberd adds extra attack from the pike, bringing it equal to its defense: the Halberdier becomes both a decent offensive and defensive unit. The reason I would increase attack to 3 instead of 2 (which i considered) is that in play the world, the medieval infantry also arrives with Feudalism and has an attack of 4; not leaving the Halberdier 'overpowered', it also does not have the defense of 4 that comes with Musketmen. The lowered shield cost reflects the mercenary nature of the units. What this allows the Prussians is the ability to rapidly create units to defeat swordsmen and protect units, while still having a defensive disadvantage to longbowmen and medieval infantry. In otherwords, i think it mainly only allows to the Prussians the advantage of a stonewalled defensive, allowing them to keep attackers at bay, [and make only limitedly advantageous offensive maneuvers--ie moving in to attack while not fearing as much destruction through counter-offense].

SLAVS. Religious, Industrial
Similar to the Prussians, this is meant to account for a large hodgepodge of cultural groups identified as "Slavo-Baltic" in eastern europe left out from Civ3, in this case, including, Poles, Czechs, and though not technically 'slavic' , 'baltic' ethnicities associated with the Slavs, as Hungarians and Serbians. As is obvious this reigous has been the center of focused religious, ethnic, and cultural conflict; in many cases accompanying strong religious sentiment, hence accounting for the Religious characteristic; and the industriousness reflects the periods under Communist programs more than anything though I think it could be made to relate to earlier slavic history.
UU: MOUNTED SCOUT [replaces Scout - civ starts with unit even though not expansionistic];
modifications: movement 3, invisible, doesn't upgrade to Explorer, requires Horses.
Admittedly I didn't really have a strong historical basis for this; i didn't feel like giving a military UU to the slavs and instead came to the idea of giving an advanced type of scout; something about the atmosphere of the region led me to think a mounted scout was a good variation; my ethnic background is slavic, Hungarian and Ukranian, so don't lecture me for being naive; i just think of images of horsemen steathfully riding through the Carpathians, stories of Vlad the Impaler leading horsemen and cavalries. At any rate, despite whatever historical basis it has, I think its a good idea for the Civ :) . Competing with the ability of explorers in some way, it does not upgrade to Explorer (it has movement of 3 rather than 2 instead of having the 'treat all terrain as roads' ability of explorers), and is able to remain invisible so to travel through the territories of competing civs; however, unlike the standard scout, requires Horses [requiring Horses also postpones the use of the scout unit until later in the game when cities and trade are established so the added movement bonus and invisibility isn't too much of an advantage].

also if i were to make a modern europe scenario i would want to include italians but i think romans can substitute for their cultural force in general games. italians i think would be religious, commercial.

[brianshapiro]

if i did add the italians i would maybe make the UU a mercantile/crusader version of the caravel which has added transport capacity.

[brianshapiro]

someone can argue the italian redshirts replacing riflemen but i dont think it would be a good as a UU and besides the redshirts relied on mass naval landings that would be provided by an enhanced caravel transport.

i do plan on working on these civs , i was also thinking about doing a scenario that spans the only 19th century and in detail to the century. so with the same number of techs and units but in detail to the century. civs like genoans, prussians, etc.

another idea ive had was to do an Imperialism scenario which divides the four ages along similar lines present in 'age of empires'/'imperialism' type games involved in 'nation building': middle ages [feudal warfare] (starting at middle ages so it can be specialized this way), exploration age [expansion and development], industrial age [revolutions, unification, alliances], modern age [world wars]. in turn the units would be specific, so like in the industrial age the units would be like in Imperialism [etc] and in the exploration age like in Imperialism II [arquebusiers,culverins,tc.]. the civs would be all european , and barbarian tribes would have unique units of their own--mounted warriors etc., to represent natives. Also, resources like cotton, tin , etc like in those games would be there.

very interesting things i think can be done with MODs i hope people dont fall into the trap of making boring scenarios

[Hagbart]

Hi brian,
take a look at the 'Apolyton Extra Pack' in the Civ3-Civilizations forum. It will soon be finished (I think).

[Gangerolf]

and though not technically 'slavic' , 'baltic' ethnicities associated with the Slavs, as Hungarians and Serbians

Baltic? Do you mean Balkan(ic?)? I'm pretty sure that Serbs are Slavic, btw. At least their language is, and they are part of Yugoslavia.

[XOR]

Incans, Mayans...

[brianshapiro]

yes i meant balkan althoguh baltic should be included ; i was sleepy when i wrote it so made many mistakes , for instance some grammar and also i wrote that it would be the first naval UU which is false

[Tiberius]

A slavic civ would be fine, but I really don't see a reason for including Hungary there. As for Vlad the Impaler: what has he to do with the whole thing? He was romanian (counting as Roman in civ3).

I think that if you want to include all these civs in a game then better try to make an Eastern European scenario (with Poles, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Serbs, Turks, and so on).

[Sonic]

Baltic is completely different for slavic. If you wanna create baltic, create Lithuanian Great Duchy.

[brianshapiro]

I think some of you are missing the point. I really am aware that Magyars were not slavic but what i was considering is how to account for the varieties of cultures in europe without either a. including too specific nations that really didnt have any great influence or power individually; b. being too broad as to make the categories really improper. First off, i think the idea of looking at Eastern europe as a group of related cultures is a good idea , but also it would be stupid to have the civ 'Eastern Europeans'. The most obvious thing to include is Slavs which cover many eastern european culutres, but it doesnt cover anything so i included Prussians for more germanic based ones. Magyars/Hungarians are sort of the odd example but i think by themselves theywerent a major cultural force and if anything they can be intimately related with slavs, balkans, and baltic culures; the closely related austrians covered in the prussian civ. This is a rough division i k nwo but i think it works better than any other combination i could think of. as for baltics, many linguistics consider there to be one balto-slavic / slavo-baltic language group , covering both slavic and baltic cultures; and lithuania is close to poland in many ways. i feel comfortable grouping them. tiberius, youre right that vlad was romanian, i didnt mean to suggest he was hungarian. though the region of transylvania at various times in history has switched borders and most people in romanian transylvania have hungarian ethnicity and speak hungarian language. so i closely associate the two cultures. Sonic, i didnt want to create a lithuanian culture because i didnt want to go that specific unless i was creating a europe specific scenario; i consider it specific because not a world cultural force and can be 'abstracted' into another group even if it technically in scientific terms doesnt work. As i mentioned i by including dutch i thought it accounted for belgian and dutch cultural mores even though these cultures are substantially different when looked at in certain ways; for the purpose of the game i think it makes up for their loss. like i dont want to add italians because of romans, which can be a substitute, even though italians can be said to be based on other cultures like etruscan and in some ways are much different. I didnt want to include Austrians, even though, unlike others, i think Austria is substantially different than Germany, because still politically it was closely tied with germany, the only way i found i could account for them legitimately was by abstracting them into Prussians.

I want your critiques and comments just please first take into account what im trying to do. Maybe someone could suggest a better more intelligent solution to what im doing, given the obvious discrepancies in including magyars into slavs etc. without suggesting magyars etc be a different civ

[brianshapiro]

moldavians
?

[Sonic]

brian, Slavic (except for Polish maybe) are mostly influated by Russians, which are already in the game, so, no more need for another Slavic culture. The following big non-russian countries were in Eastern Europe (most of them did much influence to the region and to the world for a lesser extent):
Lithuanian Great Duchy
Polish Kingdom
Prussia
Austria-Hungary
Also maybe the newest one, Yugoslavia

[Tiberius]

Brianshapiro, I understand, but I'm afraid you can't do this right, not in the way you want it to.

IMHO, a civilization is a society in an advanced state of intellectual, cultural, and material development, developed by people with common origins and the same nationality, religion, language, traditions, etc; things generic called in civ3 culture&nationality.

Like you said, having an 'Eastern Europeans' civ would be silly. A slavic civ would be OK, but including hungarians there makes no sense. They have a totally different "culture&nationality". They are, and always were, a culturally distinct nation in Central/Eastern Europe.

tiberius, youre right that vlad was romanian, i didnt mean to suggest he was hungarian. though the region of transylvania at various times in history has switched borders and most people in romanian transylvania have hungarian ethnicity and speak hungarian language. so i closely associate the two cultures.

Transsylvania basicaly switched borders only once, in 1918. It was an integral part of Hungary until 1526, when the turks occupied Hungary. The Kingdom fell apart in 3 parts, with Transsylvania remaining the only (half) independent hungarian territory. It was for 2 centuries the only keeper of the hungarian culture. Hungary was never allowed to completely reunify again, not even during the Autria-Hungary empire (which lasted only 50 years, btw). After losing WW1, Hungary lost 2/3 of its territories, including Transsylvania.
The romanians are a romanic civ. Dacia was conquered by the romans in 106 and this is when the history of the romanian nation begins. Romania, as a country, was born in 1859 with the unification of the 2 romanian principalities, Muntenia (Wallachia) and Moldavia (moldavians are romanians, Brianshapiro).
To make it short, hungarians and romanians are 2 totally different nations. For some time, the romanian principalities were vassals of Hungary, but that's all. (for example, the famous Vlad the Impaler was thrown in prison by the hungarian king Matyas Corvinus, who later put him back on the throne). After the decline of the Hungarian Kingdom, the romanian pricipalities became vassals of the Ottomans. They gained independent in 1829. The Moldavian Republic is a part of Moldavia that was annexed by Russia in 1812 and in 1944 by the Sovjet Union.
Obviously 2 nations that have been neighbors for so long influence each-other’s culture, but that doesn’t make them one civ. Romania, especially Muntenia, has a powerful turkish influence due to the long turkish rule, but that doesn’t make them turks, right?

As a conclusion, if you want some of these nations in civ3, my suggestions are:
- the best way (if possible): make a scenario with Eastern Europe and use all these nations separately. I'd be happy to help you on this one
- include a generic slavic civ (poles+serbs+ukranians+...)
- include a polish-lithuanian civ (they formed a powerful union that lasted quite long)
- include Hungary (along with Poland and Lithuania, they were the most powerful kingdom of Central and Eastern Europe until the Ottoman conquest; they became important again during the Austria-Hungary empire).

I'm posting 2 maps with Europe in the middle ages, hope this helps clarifying some things.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/maps/1360eur.jpg
http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1500.htm

Finally, you can use any civ you want to. After all, this is a question of personal preferences and view of history, including the "what if..." type of rewriting history.

PS You can use the "huszar" or "hussar" special unit. The word is of Hungarian origin and was used to describe a soldier of the light cavalry. Later the Poles, the Austrians and other nations also developed their own Hussar regiments, often retaining the Hungarian style uniforms.

[Sonic]

In my opinion creating such generic Slavic civ wouldn't be a good idea, because it would be against civ3 principles. In civ3, such ethnic groups aren't included, just countries which were once independent. For example, let's take Zululand. If they've (civ3 creators) wanted to create every nation of about the same actual influence to history, they had to put whole "Africans" or "Blacks" civ. But instead, they've chosen ZUluland to represent African civs. Something like that in my opinion should be done with EE - one of the civs (Prussia, Austria-Hungary, Poland, Lithuania), should be included. Civs could look like that (example for Lithuania):

Lithuania - leader Duke Gediminas, King Mindaugas or President Smetona
gls - Duke Vytautas, Duke Gediminas (if someone else would be chosen as a leader), Duke Kestutis, Duke Jaunutis, other dukes
Cities - Vilnius (capital), Kaunas, Klaipeda, Siauliai, Panevezys, Alytus, Taurage, Utena, Trakai, Kernave, Ukmerge, Palanga, Kretinga, Anyksciai, Kedainiai, etc.
UU - ANBO aircraft, which changes fighter but requires no resources to build (real ANBO aircraft were built in the late interwar period by not a factory, but single man (no need for resources comes from here) and formed Lithuanian Air Force then)

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Sonic
In civ3, such ethnic groups aren't included, just countries which were once independent.

Not necesarely. They are more likely nations with a common or very closely related cultural identity (like the Germans and Austrians or the Babylonians and Assyrians or now the Arabs in PTW).

Not that I would have anything against a Lituanian civ. However, a Lithuanian-Polish civ might have greater chances to earn a place in an already crowded Europe.
I know they had a "Commonwealth", a powerful union that lasted several centuries. I'm not very sure about the cultural link, though. Could you tell me more about this?

[Caliban]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Not that I would have anything against a Lituanian civ. However, a Lithuanian-Polish civ might have greater chances to earn a place in an already crowded Europe.
I know they had a "Commonwealth", a powerful union that lasted several centuries. I'm not very sure about the cultural link, though. Could you tell me more about this?

Indeed, that is true! In 1386 the princess of Poland married a lithuanian prince. This resulted in a union between Poland and Lithuania that created a giant country reaching from today’s Lithuania to the Black Sea! A large part of the country we know as Ukraine today was Lithuanian at that time. But this giant expansion led to inner problems (corruption and waste in Civ terms!) and made the Lithuanian-Polish union vulnerable for foreign influence (by Russia for example). So the union rapidly lost its power after instituting free elections for the Polish king in 1572, which led to struggles between local aristocrats who just wanted to promote their interests and only obeyed to the ruler they did like.
Culturally, the Polish king considered all Lithuanians and Poles as Polish citizens of common origin...

[Sonic]

In fact it was a bit different...

COuntries didn't united to one in 1386, just some alliance against Teutonic knights was written up. The unification followed much later after many years. It happened because of lack of lands in Poland and also because Lithuania, which had huge lands, was losing a war against Russia in Livonia. So countries united. However, new Poland-Lithuania was just a shade of former Lithuanian glory. PL did failed to introduce absolute power for kings which was then common in Europe. Instead coutry was ruled by kings elected by "parliament". Although this could seem democratic, this didn't helped country to defend (yes, corruption was one of problems) and after some time Lithuania was annexed by Russia, while poland - by Austria-Hungary, Prussia. In it's last years Poland-Lithuania applied a constitution, which was third in the world.

Yes, PL lasted for several centuries, but Lithuanian Great Duchy also did. And only at a start PL was such a powerful country.

More discution on werether Poland or Lithuania had more influence in the world here (look to posts made by me and Heresson):

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...light=greatest

As for closely related countries I agree. For example, I think Roman Empire stands for not only Roman Empire in civ3, but also Byzantine Empire, short-lived Western Roman Empire and maybe current days Italy (well, it would be almost impossible to create Italy as a civ anyways, because cities would overlap and there would be for example 2 Romes if both civs would play). I do also agree it is possible to include Poland-Lithuania or Austria-Hungary. However, I don't think Slavic would make any sense. Most of Slavic people were from Russia, which means Russia already represents them in civ3. Others were from Poland, etc. It wouldn't make a sense to have Russia, poland and "slavs" in one game. This would be the same as create both Israelis and Jews.

[Heresson]

I think that if you want to include all these civs in a game then better try to make an Eastern European scenario (with Poles, Hungarians, Lithuanians, Serbs, Turks, and so on).

While Lithuanians were for several centuries one nation with us, and Hungarians could theoretically have something in common with us, Serbian and Turk history, religion, culture
is completely different, and they can not be merged with us into one civ. Turks should be a nation of their own.
Serb shouldn't be mentioned, unless You wish to create a Balkan Slav or Balkan civilization. But even then, a better nation to represent Balkans would be Bulgaria without a doubt.

Lithuanian Great Duchy would be a good choice, except for Poland. There would be two Polish civs, then.

Prussia... Well, it was unique, but in fact name Prussia is misleading. The origin of "Prussian" militarism, autocratism
etc, is Brandenburg. Prussians themselves were tied to more "democratical" rules and had been revolting against
Hohensollerns in the name of them and of Poland.
Up to they realised that sadly, Poland lost interest in them, and even let their leader to be kidnapped and executed.

Slavic civ makes no sense, if Poland would be in it...
Panslavism was a Russian invention, welcomed warmly but minor Slavic nations such as Czechs, but never Poles.
Polish delegates weren't present on Slavic council in prague and generally we were always claimed by Russians to be the traitors of Slavic brotherhood.
You see, being Slavic is by Russians associated to being
orthodox. While saying something about cultural unity
of Serbs and Russians for example may have some sense,
it does not have sense when it comes to Poles and Macedonians for example... Religion is very important here... Croatans and Serbs speak the same language,
but they distinguish themselves by religion...
And even if the religion is common, as in between
Poles and Croatians or Slowenians, the historical ties are
close to none. I'd say that merging Slavic civilizations is like merging all Romanic civs, from Brasilians to Romanians, or Germanic from Americans to Danes.

Dacia was conquered by the romans in 106 and this is when the history of the romanian nation begins

That's Romanian propaganda. The truth is that Roman settlers were withdrawen when Romans left the area,
and Vallachs came later, when they were pushed out
from south of Donau.

Don't forget that Moldavia and Vallachia were vassals of Poland too - Moldavia for a really long time, Vallachia quite short

Lithuania - leader Duke Giedymin, King Mindog or President Smetona
gls - Duke Witold, Duke Giedymin (if someone else would be chosen as a leader), Duke Kiejstut, Duke Jawnuta, other dukes
Cities - Vilnius (capital), Kaunas, Klaipeda, Siauliai, Panevezys, Alytus, Taurage, Utena, Trakai, Kernave, Ukmerge, Palanga, Kretinga, Anyksciai, Kedainiai, etc.
UU - ANBO aircraft, which changes fighter but requires no resources to build (real ANBO aircraft were built in the late interwar period by not a factory, but single man (no need for resources comes from here) and formed Lithuanian Air Force then)

I'd rather have it this way
Litwa - leader Wladyslaw Jagiello or Alexander or Zygmunt August or Jozef Pilsudzki
gls - Krzysztof Mikolaj Radziwill, Mikolaj Krzysztof Radziwill, Krzysztof Radziwill, Pawel Jan Sapieha, Jozef Pilsudzki
Cities - Wilno (though capital in Warsaw), Kowno, Klajpeda, Szawle, (Poniewiez, Olita, Taurogi, Uciana), Troki, (Polaga, Kretynga), Kiejdany. Grodno, Witebsk,
Polock, Smole?sk, Mohylew, Mi?sk, Homel, Nowogrodek,
Pi?sk, Brzesc Litewski
UU - the same as Polish

Seriously, as You backed off from Lithuanian tradition by
banning Polish language out of your heart and of your state, You can claim only for the post ww1 history, which You in fact do, claiming only for cities that belong today to Lithuania.
Polish-Lithuanian, or Polish civ would be better.

Culturally, the Polish king considered all Lithuanians and Poles as Polish citizens of common origin...

Lithuania was kind of absorbed into Poland; it was put under iurisdiction of Polish church, and Lithuanian families
were "adopted" by Polish noble families so that they could
claim for a coat-of-arms. Lithuania quickly polonised; though Lithuanians were tied to the separatity of their Grand Duchy, they felt open to Polish culture, and Lithuania was kind of new Poland - just the way as Polish duchies in the west turned German. Lithuanian language as something else than a language of peasants was completely abandoned except for Klajpeda region,
which was outside of Lithuania; Lithuania was Polish and
it gave out many Lithuanians - Poles, as Mickiewicz, S?owacki, or Pilsudzki. Sadly, in modern times Lithuanian extremists managed to rebuild the feeling of national separatity towards Poles in the western Lithuania, while eastern remained faithful to its tradition.

COuntries didn't united to one in 1386, just some alliance against Teutonic knights was written up.

Not true. Lithuania was "applicare" to Poland according to the treaty. This could mean several things, including
theoretical incorporation.

Polish-Lithuanian constitution (which in fact finally
destroyed the last separations of Lithuania to Poland)
was second in the world, not third. Works over French started earlier, but were ended later.

[Zero]

If you can prove to me that X was once a great civilization, I think it deserves to be in civ. Would agree.
Of course though, geographically spreading the civ should be important for world map and not have all the civ start out in europe (the most troubled crowd spot.) But other than that, why exclude the possibility of one civilization to enter the game called civilization? (and especially especially when someone just wants to unofficially mod a civ)

I agree with sonic about ethnicity tho, ethnic groups dont make a civilization.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Heresson
While Lithuanians were for several centuries one nation with us, and Hungarians could theoretically have something in common with us, Serbian and Turk history, religion, cultureis completely different, and they can not be merged with us into one civ. Turks should be a nation of their own.

Was this addressed to me? Because you quoted me in the beginning and then wrote like I was in opposition with you, while I've said exactly the same thing as you, that it's not a good idea to combine all these nations in a common civ. An Eastern European scenario would mean using all these civs separately.

Edited: The only difference is that I thought a slavic civ would be OK. I guess it's not.

That's Romanian propaganda. The truth is that Roman settlers were withdrawen when Romans left the area,
and Vallachs came later, when they were pushed out
from south of Donau.

I'm hungarian so believe me I wish it was true. The truth is we don't know for sure. Probably the roman settlers were withdrawn when Romans left the area,
and maybe Vallachs came later, when they were pushed out from south of Donau, after all it would have been quite impossible to live permanently in this area, with all the huns and avars and bulgars and other warriors moving back and forth all the time. But for sure the romanian is a romanic language so they must have something in common with the romans and also (it it's true) some dacic words survived the centuries in the romanian vocabulary. So maybe it was already the romanians who left and later came back. Not that it matters too much anymore.

[Heresson]

oh, sorry, yes, You are right. I was sleepy I guess...

Perhaps genetic researches could reveal the truth.
But I can't believe that Dacia could be latinised through
just 1,5 century of Roman rules... It would be strange.
Especially that Roman province covered only a part of it.
But n the south of Donau, everything from Black sea
(except for the southern hellenised part) to Adriatic was
latinised - some Aromanians are there left. I think that
Romanians fleed into Carpathes during Avar-Slavic
conquests.

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Heresson
Perhaps genetic researches could reveal the truth.

Now that's an idea that would horrify some historians, I guess.
"Hear this, the real, undiputable truth about the past could be revealed! Horror!

[Heresson]

[Sonic]

Heresson...

Well, firstly I am adressing to your common renaming of Lithuanian cities to Polish names. This shouldn't be done because of many reasons:
1.These cities are now in Lithuania and thus they should be callled Lithuanian names (I am not naming Warshaw "Varsuva" when I am talking about it).
2.In English it is commonly accepted to name Lithuanian cities in those names, and we are currently talking in English forums (I am also not using Lithuanian letters btw, that again shows I am actually writing ENglish names of towns, not Lithuanian. If it would be accepted to call Vilnius "Vilnews" in English, I would do so. Just like I am naming my country Lithuania, not Lietuva in these forums)

As for people names, Mindaugas and Gediminas (and many other dukes) never lived in Poland-Lithuania, just in LGD, so it is obvious Lithuanian names should be used. I am not calling Lech Walesa "Lechas Valensa" in forums.

The only place where naming "dispute" could be risen would be some names of Polish-Lithuanian time, like Jogaila/Jagielo. I however still think Jogaila should be used because he was born at Lithuania and name is Lithuanian. As for Pilsutzki I don't know - probably Polish name should be used here and Lithuanian name for Mickevicius.

Also, please tell what Polish UU should be? I can't think of any possible unit...

As for claiming, I've didn't claimed other cities because most of them weren't actually ethnic Lithuanian. Heartland of Lithuania always was where it is now, I could however claim a few more cities - those are Augustaw in Poland, also Gardin, Lida in Belarus. These cities had more Lithuanian tradition.

Also, seriously not many people at eastern Lithuania wants closer relations with Poland. Also, separarity between Poland and Lithuania really exists (ethnic, not historic) and it is big. Lithuanians are Baltic, while Polish are Slavic for example. People who claims that are not extremists at all. I know however a few people who thinks that Lithuania should retake lost lands in northeast Poland (ones, which were given to Lithuania in 1939) militarily. Those maybe are extremists, but not ones who claims Lithuanians are different from Polish.

[Heresson]

You misunderstood me.
There are two Lithuanian traditions;
one of them is Polish. That's what I wanted to show You all...
Mindog and Giedymin lived in historical duchy (kingdom under Mindog) of Lithuania, a state that later trsnsformed
into one of two parts of the Republic. You can't say
"we're taking tradition up to the union with Poland only"
Either You take it all, or not a part of it.
It's kind of schisophrenia. On one hand You are angry when
I call the Republic Poland, not Poland-Lithuania. On other hand, as we've seen on your Lithuanian mod proposal,
You treat the period after the union with Poland up to
the modern Lithuanian days as if it didn't exist. You don't
feel Polish Lithuania as your own, You cut off from it - than
You cut off also from its earlier history, when it wasn't yet
Polish-cultured
Oh, I noticed my mistake I always make. It's Pilsudski, not Pilsudzki.

Why Lithuanian name for Mickiewicz? He was as Lithuanian as Pilsudski.

Augustow? Lida? They have Polish-Lithuanian tradition.
In Poland, only Sejny over the border have some Lithuanian-Lithuanian minority. And if You don't
claim for historically Lithuanian, but ethnically
not Lithuanian cities, why do You claim for Vilnius/Wilno?

no-one says about that there are no ethnic differences between Poles and Lithuanians. Of course there are.
Still, until very modern days, the language of half of Lithuania, and of all cultural part of it was Polish.

Lithuanian claims to northern Poland? By what?
Except for little Sejny, no-one speaks Lithuanian there.
By historical rights? You backed off from great Duchy tradition - modern day Poland is a continuation of tradition
of both Kingdom of Poland and Great Duchy of Lithuania.

I doubt Lithuanian Lithuanians of eastern Lithuania
want closer relations with Poland - as recent law of
citizenship shows, You are still on a level of looking on everytjing through the glasses of nationalism.
Still, Poles of two regions they are still majority in
want closer ties with Poland.

[Sonic]

Heresson...
There is almost no such Polish-Lithuanian tradition remaining. There is however Lithuanian tradition. That tradition did never dissapeared anywhere, cause if it would have did, we wouldn't now be called Lithuanians. That Lithuanian tradition firstly started in LGD, later after unification with Poland it mostly came to rural citizens, while rich ones were polonised. In the first Russian occupation rural people kept that tradition. Tradition did not only included language, but also folk songs, way of life, etc. After WW1 Lithuania still had two traditions. Polish, mostly used by aristocracy and Lithuanian mostly used by other people. However, in current days Polish tradition is almost nonexistant, because all aristocracy was destroyed (killed, exiled or ran away on themselves) under Soviet regime. We however kept our ages-long Lithuanian tradition.

Well, I am not actually cutting Polish-Lithuanian history off, however I don't think those times were the ones Lithuania was strongest. It was stronger before. In the interwar period although it wasn't strong, it was very modern, also, many things, like flag or anthem, were estabilished at that time.

As for names, I consider Pilsudski Polish because it's Lithuanian writing "Pilsuckis" has the not Lithuanian surname ending "uckis", while Mickevicius has common Lithuanian ending "evicius". I don't know though, i could be wrong.

Vilnius is ethnically Lithuanian now (52% Lithuanians), it was built by Lithuanians, etc. I said I am not claiming cities like Moscow because they although were once controlled by Lithuanians had much more importance to other cultures. While Vilnius for example had the most importance to Lithuanian culture, then Polish, the Russian.

Claim on northern Poland is based on both historical rights and also Lithuanian minority living there. In the same way radicals also claims some Belorussian controlled lands.

What citizenship law? If you mean a law about ability to get double-citizenship than that law is actually non-patriotic at all. Because before now every Lithuanian had to choose weher to live and now he could got double-citizenship... This might just make more Lithuanians to emmigrate.

[Heresson]

Mickiewicz has ending -icz, which means "son of"
in Polish. For example, "Panicz" ment "son of Pan,
son of the nobleman.

Vilnius wasn't built by Lithuanians. By the time it was rebuilt after burning it by Russians in XVII century, it was hardly ethnically Lithuanian. It has Lithuanian origins -as well as Poles in Lithuania - they represent part of Lithuanian society that got polonised, and You for example represent those that haven't. Both have right to Lithuanian tradition.

Your claims for Poland and Byelorus may have historical
reason, but hardly any ethnical. There are no Byelorussian lands inhabited by Lithuanians, but by Lithuanian Poles - that got largely rusificated during last 50 years due to similarity of languages.

I mean the law that says that citizens of Lithuania
that emigrated to country inhabited by their fellowmen (Poles to Poland, Jews to Israel) can't get back their
citizenship, unlike Lithuanians of Lithuanian roots.
Also, You can get back your citizenship onl;y if You claim yourself to be Lithuanian (ethnical), and at least one of your grandparents in Lithuanian.