Why Only Four Civs?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by 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.

if you want to get persnickety, from what was it, 1580 or so, to 1640, Portugal was controlled by Spain. Put THAT in your pipe and smoke it.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Torkkeli
Hows about Sweden? They had colonies in the New World.

Delaware. I mean sheesh, if it wasnt for the stupid turnpike and the damned tolls, you'd hardly notice it on the way from DC to New York. I mean geez, the Dutch colonists were able to take them out.

Oh and St Barts, so you have this cute little French town in the carib where theyve got swedish flags at the harbor.

But yeah, they were there. And deleware even had finns, and they gave us the log cabin, for which we are eternally thankful. Though we didnt manage to pick up the sauna, not at that point anyway.

[joncnunn]

Inclusion of Protogal would result in having to decide what to do about it's fairly complex history going on in the Iberian [sp?] Penisula at the time.

Spain itself was still two seprate kingdoms in 1492 (Aragon & Castille) with their monarchs married to each other. It wasn't until their kid assumed the thrones that they had the same ruler.

At some point a few decades later thru marriage Portugal become part of Spain.

Then at some point during the religious wars in Europe there are multiple revolts against the Spainish rule in Madrid. The uprising in Portugual succeeds and becomes an indepedent country again while the uprising in Castalonia [sp?] is supressed.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


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.

Actually, there were a few persons from Spanish America among Col1's founding fathers. Sepúlveda was there ( ), Cortés was there ( ), and I'm pretty sure there was one else.

[DRoseDARs]

Russia controlled Alaska 1787 to 1867.

Poor Russia, no one cares.

[conmcb25]

We need the German Bankers!

Lets see who can guess what board game that references

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Russia controlled Alaska 1787 to 1867.

Poor Russia, no one cares.

These people care:

http://www.russianheritageinn.com/

I dont think these people care all that much, though

http://www.russianriverfestivals.com/

[Niptium]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Russia controlled Alaska 1787 to 1867.

Poor Russia, no one cares.

No one should either... 1787 is hardly 1492 or 1608 for that matter.

[Dale]

But considering that between 1492 and 1787 Russia colonised between Kazan and the Bering straight, Russia MORE than legitimises their claim to be a colonising nation. Alaska was the smallest of their colonisation efforts.

[snoopy369]

I think most people are only including North American colonization...

Russia also 'colonized' the black sea area, couldn't you argue?

[Dale]

Ahh...... a typically North American view that colonisation of North America is the ONLY colonisation that occured between 1420 and 1800. Wouldn't you say?

What about Africa, Middle-East, Asia, South America, Siberia and the Khanates, Oceania, Australia & New Zealand? North America is only a small portion of the total colonisation efforts of Europe.

[snoopy369]

I'm not disagreeing with you, just observing the other comments

Col, however, does seem rather NA-centric, given the area played on. If you expand the map to a larger area, it makes more sense

[Dale]

Yes granted Col is very Americas-centric (including SA). But it doesn't need to be.

Also remember that American game companies in the early 1990's were very patriotic, and the US market was definitely the biggest by a massive margin than anywhere else. Thus I believe Col1's NA leanings. But I don't think we'll see so much of that in C4C. I think we'll see more true Americas reflection in the new one.

But then that screams more that Portugal should be in. (Which BTW I agree with).

[Niptium]

Yeah yeah yeah.

Russia, OE, blablabla

Let's get real. We are talking about colonization here... remember, the American colonization (in the continental sense). Leave the black sea and 19th Century Alaska where it belong - in another time epoch than Sid Meier's Colonization is.

Cause if we are gonna start talking about the OE and Russia, why not include the Vikings, the Roman Empire or the Israelites of the Zionist movement of the XXth Century ?

[Dale]

I don't think anyone's brought up OE, but if you want to. lol.

But seriously, why not the Russians? They colonised the area recognised as the most concentrated with natural resources. They kept the Poms and Yanks out for ages, till finally agreeing to sell it.

They played quite the card in North America / Alaska, and during the time depicted by the game.

Vikings? Possible considering they had colonies in North America centuries before anyone else. Romans are way over the top far-fetched though.

With the Vikings, Swedes, Courland and German colonisation I wouldn't mind a combined "Scandanavian" nation.