Why Only Four Civs?

[snoopy369]

To some extent I might suggest leaving Russia out simply because Col is interesting, in part, because of the east-only starts. I would have to see how a west-start affected things, gameplay wise; it certainly would be interesting, but there is something to be said for the intense early battle for land, between Eng/Fra and Spa/Port.

That's one reason I hope the map isn't too much bigger (unless things are changed to make movement faster and territory larger in general) - if it's a settle your own area builder game right up front, with no strategic decision between settling the Haitian area as France, or settle Canada; or settling the Caribbean versus south america versus florida as Spain, Col is a lot less interesting.

[Dale]

I always found where to settle depended on what sort of game I wanted to play. If I was playing conquest, I wanted near Aztec/Inca. If I was playing economic, I wanted near the middle so I could stretch slightly north and south to reach tobacco and sugar lands. Apart from that, I want hills and silver for my first city to boost early growth.

So for me it doesn't matter who I play.

Besides, adding in more nations into Col will give more options. Do you play east or west? Which nation do you play? It adds replayability.

[OzzyKP]

Yea, I agree. More nations adds replayability. We obviously don't need 32, but some more variety would help greatly.

[Standup]

Lets see who can guess what board game that references

Conquistador isn't it? Need to check when I get home. It's a while since I played but didn't Portugal get a raw deal in this game? It was a way of adding a fourth player but you had a bit of a handicap.

[jkp1187]

I agree with including Portugal for sure....possibly Russia and some of the lesser Euros who participated in the colonization of America (Denmark --> Danish Virgin Islands, for example. Or even the Vikings if one wanted to play a really early start?)

This will probably be the FIRST mod made no doubt. I am so glad they are sticking with the Civ IV engine.

[Andemagne]

Re: Why Only Four Civs?

Originally posted by OzzyKP
At the minimum there should be those 5 civs.

more Civs this isn't 1994 any more.

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.

yes, atleast portugal. I had also Sweden and Denmark in mind. Russia is a good option too.

[Zealot]

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, the game Colonization WAS about the whole new world! How can you not remember the "accurate" american map, where you had both north and south america to play on? And why did you have the brazilian indians but not the Portuguese who enslaved them but were the first country in the world to abolish slavery?
San Marino doesn't count.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zealot


Dude, the game Colonization WAS about the whole new world! How can you not remember the "accurate" american map, where you had both north and south america to play on? And why did you have the brazilian indians but not the Portuguese who enslaved them but were the first country in the world to abolish slavery?
San Marino doesn't count.

My point was that it was very USA focused, despite the map. While i stand corrected as to the founding fathers, i still think it was heavily USA centric in concept. Maybe I need to reinstall and play the original again.

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Dale

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

I like the fact that you don't include the Swedes in your "Vikings". We all know that REAL vikings were the Danes and Norwegians

Asmodean

[Niptium]

Well, yes I'm prettyyyyy surprised they havent added the Portuguese in the lot... Well, we'll see.

[Smiffus]

According to the preview on Gamespy only the 4 original countries will be in but modtools will be provided as well.

[Niptium]

The preview on gamespy is quite a deception... the guy spends most the time explaining the game - like we don't know how to play Colonization. Gimme the differences... the then and now...

[Felch]

Originally posted by Niptium
The preview on gamespy is quite a deception... the guy spends most the time explaining the game - like we don't know how to play Colonization. Gimme the differences... the then and now...

Would you mind linking? I know I could dig through and find it, but I'm lazy and I hate digging through those ad-heavy websites.

[Niptium]

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/civilization-game-untitled/884502p1.html

[SandroTheMaster]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


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.

Oh, but Portugal has the most interesting history during that period. They were controlled by Spain, right, but they still had a lot of autonomy during that time, and it only happened because their monarch decided to go die on a cruzade... without any heirs. How the closest relative was Spainish, the monarchic rule was shown a big hole in it.

But come on. Vasco da Gama practically invented colonization and the navigation era (Christopher Columbus? A wimp, he thought he had found India, and never believed otherwise in his life. Also he did 4 disastrously failed expeditions back to America, only to show his lack of navigation skill in the oceans). Brazil was the only American nation to achieve the status of Empire when the Portuguese royal family ran away from Napoleon to their biggest colony and, uppon return, left part of itself in the colony.

Also, this story of Portuguese Colonization being similar to Spanish doesn't coup. Spain ruthlessly conquered all territory it went in America, leaving lifeless carcasses of the natives on its wake. Portuguese enslaved the local populance AND (since the natives in South America were fragmented, and not a single estate or allied ethnic, like the Aztecs and northern Indians) allied with it at the same time. Sure they also slaughtered tons of natives, but it took some time for it, when Portugal finally decided expanding into the dense vegetation and native territory.

Also, for the person who said portugal was the first to abolish slave labor... it's not exactly true. Brazil was the last independent nation to abolish it, and only for pressure from the capitalist England. The thing is that this was the black slavery. Indian slavery was abolished thanks to the influence of the Jesuit religious faction who were against the Indian slavery (they wanted to use the Indians a sub-human paid labor).