Why Only Four Civs?

[OzzyKP]

I know the original had four, but they are really missing out on some other civs that would fit very well in such a scenario. First and foremost, Portugal. Obviously they also had a big impact on colonizing the new world.

At the minimum there should be those 5 civs.

If they wanted to be ambitious then perhaps include Russia (could come from the western side of the map) and maybe like Denmark or Sweden something.

But at the very least, they have got to include Portugal.

[snoopy369]

One of the huge advantages of doing Col with the Civ4 engine backbone is that they will be able to easily make it XML-moddable (like Civ4). The amount of work required to add a civ is minimal ...

Dale's already working on concept-devleloping a mod (Age of Discovery: Col) that will include Portugal, I believe.

I almost wonder if it's better that they stick to only the core 4 civs - the ability to mod in a Portugal or whatever based on your preferences for gameplay, balance, etc. is half the fun...

[Dale]

Yeah, I think skipping Portugal may end up being a contentious decision. It was one of the main complaints about the original.

But I'm assuming we'll be able to mod the new one like we can mod Civ4, so I think Portugal mods will be some of the first we see.

[OzzyKP]

Mods are great, I'm a big fan of them, but we shouldn't have to turn to them for a key element in the game. If WW2 scenario leaves out Italy, we shouldn't excuse it by saying modders can simply add them in.

Portugal is a pretty critical civ for this scenario.

[lord of the mark]

Its fairly obvious why the four civs are what they are.

In the original game, who are the founding fathers? Any brazilian dudes? Any Viceroys of New Spain?

The game is, at bottom, conceived thinking about the birth of the United States. So England obviously. The Netherlands, which fought important colonial wars with England in the 17th century, aside from founding New Netherlands, playing a key role in the rise of the Iroquois, running much of the West Indies,etc. France for running Quebec (which dude, is like an easy drive from NY or Boston) much of the West Indies, and for fighting all those 18th cent wars. And participating in the Am Rev. And spain, which, more importantly than having latin america, ALSO fought wars with England, held florida (man you can go see their fort in St Augustine, plus the REAL fountain of youth, ya know?) , fought during the 18th c in Georgia and SC. Cant leave them out.

I mean portugal didnt fight with england, that anyone remembers. No colonies within hailing distance of the 13. Russia is fine and did alaska and that town in Calif, but they didnt come close to contact with the US of A till well after the period of the game.

now if you want a game about the whole NEW world, thats something else. Not a bad idea. But thats not what Colonization originally was.

[Verrucosus]

I would need to look it up, but I think a passage in the Colonization manual explains that Portugal may have been a more important colonial power than Holland, but that her colonial approach was already represented by Spain, so they chose to include Holland's distinctive focus on trade instead.

[Torkkeli]

Hows about Sweden? They had colonies in the New World.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Its fairly obvious why the four civs are what they are.

In the original game, who are the founding fathers? Any brazilian dudes? Any Viceroys of New Spain?

The game is, at bottom, conceived thinking about the birth of the United States. So England obviously. The Netherlands, which fought important colonial wars with England in the 17th century, aside from founding New Netherlands, playing a key role in the rise of the Iroquois, running much of the West Indies,etc. France for running Quebec (which dude, is like an easy drive from NY or Boston) much of the West Indies, and for fighting all those 18th cent wars. And participating in the Am Rev. And spain, which, more importantly than having latin america, ALSO fought wars with England, held florida (man you can go see their fort in St Augustine, plus the REAL fountain of youth, ya know?) , fought during the 18th c in Georgia and SC. Cant leave them out.

I mean portugal didnt fight with england, that anyone remembers. No colonies within hailing distance of the 13. Russia is fine and did alaska and that town in Calif, but they didnt come close to contact with the US of A till well after the period of the game.

now if you want a game about the whole NEW world, thats something else. Not a bad idea. But thats not what Colonization originally was.

Dude but Colonization is not about England and our America. Its about making a developing a colony and getting independance. Sure its Amero-centric. But you have people like Simon Bolivar who can join the continental Congress.

I think Portugal is a must.
They had lost of interesting people and they ended up being an empire if I rember right. Brazil is even today one of the most important NW countries.

Also they should really include one of the Scandinavian civs, their many attempts at colonizing the New World where very important, they introduced lots of new stuff like log cabins.

PS The reason Portugal didn't fight Britain was because it was its ally most of the time.

[Dale]

Why not Norway then? They had Viking colonies in Iceland, Greenland and north eastern Canada many many many years before Columbus. In fact, the last of those colonies was abandoned after Columbus.

[Lord Avalon]

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Verrucosus
I would need to look it up, but I think a passage in the Colonization manual explains that Portugal may have been a more important colonial power than Holland, but that her colonial approach was already represented by Spain, so they chose to include Holland's distinctive focus on trade instead.

Indeed - this is the main point, I think. As with all Civ games, decisions are made here because of gameplay purposes, not because of historical accuracy (except when it does not conflict with gameplay). They decided (back then) than 4 civs was the right amount (whether because of budget, or because of room on the map), and thus chose four distinct civs with different gameplay.

While I certainly wouldn't mind Portugal being added (and you'd pretty much have to add a sixth - not sure whom, perhaps Russia?) I don't care if they leave them out, either. I think letting modders add them in is perfectly fine. Come up with a game that is fun and balanced, and if it means only having four civs, that's fine by me.

[Heraclitus]

No need to put in a 6th civ. Just put in Portugal.


If they don't have a problem with historical accuracy, why can't they "change" the Portugese tactic to be something interesting and gameplay enriching.

[snoopy369]

Because four civs was better for the map size and gameplay, as I said? The quote mentioned by Verrocosus made that clear.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heraclitus


Dude but Colonization is not about England and our America. Its about making a developing a colony and getting independance. Sure its Amero-centric. But you have people like Simon Bolivar who can join the continental Congress.

I forgot about Simon Bolivar. Okay, I will modify my statement, though I still think it reads better unmodified. Its MAINLY US centric, despite the map, and thats PART of the reason for the 4 civs, PLUS what was said above, about the gameplay reasons.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Dale
Why not Norway then? They had Viking colonies in Iceland, Greenland and north eastern Canada many many many years before Columbus. In fact, the last of those colonies was abandoned after Columbus.

I think the point is they stopped playing on the mainland over 400 years before Columbus, so theyre not part of the story. Im not sure which colonies they abandoned after Columbus - I thought greenland was abandoned earlier, but I could be mistaken. Iceland of course was never abandoned.