- Do you agree with this: Should Portugal/Brazil be on this game?

- What do you know about Brazilian Independence? Does this "Grito do Ipiranga", tells you something?

- Give reasons if you said ye or ney.

- Ever heard about Pedro Alvares Cabral?

- Did you know Brazil was first an Empire after his declaration of independence, and much later was a Republic.

Well I think Portugal obviously was important, but you can say that about other kingdoms as well. Portugal was a very important power though. But that is not the main thing to this thread that makes we want to vote yes.

The main reason I voted yes was I would like to see some other scenarios for different nations to obtain independence. Right now I think only the US is made by declaring independence. I would like to see different independence movements that are unique but that not is colonization. But I think it should be one thing added anyway. Like say Mexico, Gran Columbia, Brazil, or Hati (would be nice if they would include slavery).

Well anyway I wish it would just be more accurate is all. I would like to play the Natives as well. Like the Iroquois Confederacy, or how about the Aztecs so that it relates to Mexican independence later in some way. I know crazy thoughts.

Portugal has to be in the game for it to be any good. I mean, if their not going to include portugal, how many countries could there possibly be? England, Spain, France, and Portugal were the only real colonizers in the new world. Netherlands could be considered colonizers, but that would be a stretch. And if you really want to stretch you could include Sweden (who could forget New Sweden). So, discounting an Africa/world scenario, thats only 4 shooins and 2 stretches, not very many.

When I say others I think Portugal should be added first above others. But here is a reference I mean if other time periods would come into play.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_colonization_of_the_Americas

Russia is the next I am thinking of but it would of start at a later period. So if you wanted to start with all of the possibly of ones there is a bigger list, but I would think that the lesser ones should start with a late time disadvantage just as if you were allowed to play the natives should have a disadvantage.

Either way what would be good I think would to be have events that are unique to what country you began colonizing with and where on a map you colonize first so you could have a different history not just the generic "Kiss the Pinky Ring" messages popping up.

Portugal has to be in the game for it to be any good.

I think the game will still be good even without them. ;)

That said, it would be even better with them. Brazil is a pretty significant chunk of South America and adding another major European power would make things more interesting, particularly if they've added a new "conquest" victory option where you eliminate all your Old World rivals.

Although I feel the four civilizations that were in the original Colonization would suffice for the upcoming release, like Gaius Octavius posted: "it would be even better with them" if a map of South America is included with the game. :agree:

I just wish to echo the sentiments of Gaius and Greybriar. Good without them, better with.

Portugal (why Brazil ??) should be in by logical reasoning, but since we aren't making the game we can't really know. A game designer has to take into consideration a bit more than what has been posted in the thread.

Yes, they should be in as they were hugely influential during the beginning stages of the age of exploration and colonisation.

The reason Portugal were not in the original was apparently that the game engine could only support 4 european factions. Hence the inclusion of an event that merged the smallest faction into another AI, which occured as soon as you could declare independence, so that the King's Expeditionary Force could occupy the 4th slot.

Evidently Portugal were fifth on the list.

I honestly could couldn't care less if they are included or not. Apparently there are guys out there who want it - and won't shut up about it :P - so I hope for those players that they will be included, but for me it is not an issue. I voted no.

I would like them in only for the sake of variety, not because they "deserve" to be in, because they don't. All the hoohah and the venom and crap, though, is a major turn-off for their cause. They act like they owned more of the New World than Spain did. Yeah, like I really wanna support a monkey that throws excriment at everyone it possibly can.

Yes Portugal should be in it.
Holland should too. They founded NY and many upstate towns along the river. The dutch at St Eustatius were also the first nation to recognize the USA. They also conquered much of the Brazilian coastline and ran it for two generations.

Not sure who that guy is. But IIRC The king of Portugal send his son to Brazil as viceroy just before Portugal was overrun by Napoleon. His instructions to him were to keep Brazil in the family and declare Independence with himself as King/Emperor if necessary and not loose Brazil to the French or Bourbons. Sometime after that Independence was declared. Not sure if Angola was included as it was administrated from Rio rather than Lisbon at the time (due to the prevailing winds and currents).

AFAIK Colonization focuses on North America, thus portugal is out, with only small and insignifigant colonies. The four powers in the game are in there because of their large peice of North America.

England- Eastern America, Canada, and Oregon
France- Louisiana Territory
Spain- Almost all America east of Louisiana Territory and Centeral America
Dutch- Large colonies throughout Carribean and some in North East America
Portugese- None that I know of (any ideas?)

So if we were to go based on North America, Portugal is out.

I've played the original Colonization (still do from time to time), and I always thought that the greatest thing missing from that game was Portugal. Just look at this map of Portuguese colonies and you'll understand why:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Portugal_Imp%C3%A9rio_total.png

Also, while Spanish colonies declared independence as a multitude of small to medium sized nations, Portuguese colonies in the New World achieved independence as a unified country - Brazil, the largest country in South America. In a game about colonies and their revolutions, I consider that quite significant, as opposed to the Dutch colonies for instance.

I considered that omission to be due to technical constraints, which mbosa's post seems to verify, but there is no excuse for it now.

Also, Sid Meyer's Colonization focused on both North and South America (remember the Incas?). The Dutch, although significant merchants and colonizers, weren't even an independent nation until the mid 17th century, and their most important colonies were in Indonesia.

If it is confirmed that Portugal is out of Col, first thing I'll do is to mod Col to include Portugal ;)

@gusi

You're not that far from the truth.... but what happened is that all the Royal family fled to Brazil in front of Nappy's armies and when a uprising in Portugal demanded the comeback of the Royal family some years later, the heir of the throne decided to stay in Brazil and decided to declare indenpendence some time later.

Rises the question...

Expansion pack?

I'm against Portugal being included in the game.


Because I study history mainly. I'm going to give you three reasons.

1) Yes Brazil is an important country now, but at the time covered, only the coast was colonized. The back land was jungle filled with indians.

2) Portugal was united under the Spanish crown from 1580-1640.

3) When Portugal regained independence in 1640 is was a weak and almost broke country. It had very small fleet. It was in no position at all to challenge the big powers Holland, England, France and Spain for the new world.

Especially the third point I value heavily. Portugal conquering vast parts of the Americas? Unlikely, extremely unlikely. They could barely hold on to their only possesion Brazil.

The Spanish were the biggest force in the 16th century. The Dutch had arguably the strongest navy in the world for most of the 17th century, additionally they dominated world trade. The English overtook that position in the 18th century. The French were always a power of importance during those days. Portugal? Yes they did well for themselves establishing a colony in Brazil. But they were never a big power in Europe.

Ofcourse you can look at Brazil today and observe that they are a large country and that Portugal must have been important. But this is historically incorrect. Brazil only became what it is today after their independence. For 1500-1800 this is irrelevant.

I'm against Portugal being included in the game.

Because I study history mainly. I'm going to give you three reasons(...)

Something for your history classes, then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Brazil

Pay attention to the section "The gold cycle (18th century)". If you look at a map, you will realize Minas Gerais are not at all located on the coast...

Cheers,

Mad Hab

2) Portugal was united under the Spanish crown from 1580-1640.

3) When Portugal regained independence in 1640 is was a weak and almost broke country. It had very small fleet. It was in no position at all to challenge the big powers Holland, England, France and Spain for the new world.


These points actually do have some very large and possibly unpleasant gameplay consequences. Not only do you have european powers merging, but also dividing. Certainly you can work out a system that causes powers to merge, and also to decide who gets what after a split, but that's alot of development time for what can only ever amount to a distraction from the main game flow.

Another option is just to pretend those things didn't happen and include Portugal as a separate power. That would probably be fine actually.

Colonization is a game which covers the colonization and independence of a Northern America-ish continent. The simple reason Portugal isn't included is that it was a non-factor there and then.

Something for your history classes, then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Brazil

Pay attention to the section "The gold cycle (18th century)". If you look at a map, you will realize Minas Gerais are not at all located on the coast...

Cheers,

Mad Hab

What the hell is this supposed to mean? How is this relevant at all? Just because they established a territorial province does not mean it is densely populated. Additionally your quoted topic is about the 18th century, at the end of the games scope.

I know you would all love to have your country in the game but this topic asked for opinions. I'm against the inclusion of Portugal. I think these powers represent the colonial powers well.

You should not look at which countries became powers afterwards and which countries did not. You should look at the balance of power back then and then see what could have happened had history played out differently.

The reason why for example the Dutch have left no large Dutch speaking nations is that the Dutch were in it for the profit. Trade = profit. Colonization = building power base. That does not mean that the Dutch didnt try.
However their homecountry was the richest in the world and most free country in the world, nobody particulary was keen on leaving for an adventure in the new world. In contrast many poor English, French and Spanish farmer would have been willing to leave his country. Additionally the Dutch republic had less population than the other powers. Some Dutch companies wanted to use culturally close poor German farmers to populate Dutch colonies.

Colonization is a game which covers the colonization and independence of a Northern America-ish continent. The simple reason Portugal isn't included is that it was a non-factor there and then.
If that is true, why the hell the Incas and the Tupi appeard in the original one? I'm sure that they had a huge role in the history of Northern America :lol:

I seem to recall that in the original Colonization manual it specifically stated that they didn't include Portugal because their American colonial history was too similar to Spain's; they didn't think it would add much.

^^ :lol: Too similar, right... so similar that there is one Brazil and not 3556 and a lot of new Spains and not simply only one.... I think that says something by it self ( just to not clutter the thread with a page long rabble about Firaxis ever-lasting diminuishing of the Portuguese paper in History in her games ).

yep i always thought it was stupid. i expect they thought five european powers would slow down the game too much. but that's no excuse now

The original game very often had multiple continents. Usually north and south, but sometimes even east and west. The west one usually stayed undeveloped. :lol:

I think that the exclusion of Brazil and Portugal on the bases of how their nation came to exist as its own empire is a mistake. The whole point of the civilization series is to rewrite history. Excluding other empires limits the ability of the gamer to do that. I feel more than the empires included should have been to widen the possibilities. Portugal, Sweden and Russia all had stakes in the Americas but were not included. Germany was also a large empire based on the profit of the exploitation of colonies and was not included. Granted that any German stakes in the new world were minimal at best, it still begs the question of what could have been. Perhaps those civilizations will be included in a later expansion pack (they always are) though the lack of empires to choose from makes the game a little less desirable for me. Just my ranting opinion though.

What's all this 'yes but this is a game of alternative history' crap? If you believe that, you will also have no trouble imagening that in this alternative history, Portugal did not regain independence from Spain and so you can play Spain and pretend Portugal is included.

Problem solved.

And how about to pretend that the Dutch rebelion failed and remove them from the game? And how about pretend that England won the 100 years war and remove France from the game? And how about pretend that the Armada was sucessful and remove England from the game? And how about to pretend that Portugal won the Toro battle and that the Catholic kings never united Castille with Aragon and remove Spain from game?

Problem Solved... we have no European civs in game :lol:

yep i always thought it was stupid. i expect they thought five european powers would slow down the game too much. but that's no excuse now

The reason that two of the European powers always merged as soon as you reached 50% rebel sentiment was so that the King's Expeditionary Force could replace the smallest European power as the third AI. I think it was memory consumption more than game speed causing the problem.

In th 16th century, Portugal was, after Spain, the most powerful colonial power in the world. Though they didn't colonise much of North America, They did get A lot of South America.

Portugal wasn't in the original Col because it was beyond the technical scope of the software at the time. I think someone said already?

No probs now, so it should be in there -for game balance as much as anything, frankly, the Spanish are on their own on the whole South of the continent while the French, English and Dutch are crammed into the North!

I seem to recall that in the original Colonization manual it specifically stated that they didn't include Portugal because their American colonial history was too similar to Spain's; they didn't think it would add much.

That's one thing I've never liked about civ's designers (and the closely related col designers); its horribly offensive sense of self importance and cultural arrogance. Who do they think they are? They're game designers, not historians, they don't have the right to say things like that. What did they do, look at pretty pictures of Spain and Portugal and say "these buildings look the same. They must be the same country", read a few pieces of Spanish and Portuguese literature and go "this looks like the same language to me (at least I can't see a difference), so it must be the same thing".
And it's not just colonization. It's other things to. In civ games, for example, France has been lead by Jean d'Arc, and India is lead by Gandhi, both of whom were never head's of state. What did the designers do, look at a list of historical people from those countries and pick the first names they recognize? And in the booklet that came with Civ chronicles, they said that they got complaints about in their civopedia, because there were wrong dates and names. And they didn't acknowledge their mistake, they just started talkin about different people having different opinions!
But the thing that bothers me the most is that they don't seem to realize that they, of all people, don't have the right to simplify and diminish other countries and peoples, and they certainly don't have the right to change their history to suit their silly game's purposes. It's that horrible sense of entitlement and arrogance that's so typical of the american stereotype ('if it weren't for us, you'd be speaking german' comes to mind). And I'm done with my ranting about obscure and trivial subjects for today.

Turns out I double posted.

That's one thing I've never liked about civ's designers (and the closely related col designers); its horribly offensive sense of self importance and cultural arrogance. Who do they think they are? They're game designers, not historians, they don't have the right to say things like that. What did they do, look at pretty pictures of Spain and Portugal and say "these buildings look the same. They must be the same country", read a few pieces of Spanish and Portuguese literature and go "this looks like the same language to me (at least I can't see a difference), so it must be the same thing".
And it's not just colonization. It's other things to. In civ games, for example, France has been lead by Jean d'Arc, and India is lead by Gandhi, both of whom were never head's of state. What did the designers do, look at a list of historical people from those countries and pick the first names they recognize? And in the booklet that came with Civ chronicles, they said that they got complaints that there were errors in their civopedia, because there were wrong dates and names. And they didn't apologize!
But the thing that bothers me the most is that they don't seem to realize that they, of all people, don't have the right to say to simplify and diminish other countries and peoples, and they certainly don't have the right to change their history to suit their silly game's purposes. It's that horrible sense of entitlement and arrogance that's so typical of the american stereotype ('if it weren't for us, you'd be speaking german' comes to mind). And I'm done with my ranting about obscure and trivial subjects for today.

I agree with you. But on the other hand, it's a game. Not a representation of history, so it's meant to be fun primarily, though in this case, adding portugal would be more fun.

By the way, you doubleposted.

What's all this 'yes but this is a game of alternative history' crap? If you believe that, you will also have no trouble imagening that in this alternative history, Portugal did not regain independence from Spain and so you can play Spain and pretend Portugal is included.

Problem solved.

Shurdus. I have remained neutral on this topic, since I was the one who asked the question. But I get furious with the Spanish question. How about the Netherlands NEVER had independecia from Spain? Problem solved!

(The guys from here know my opinion about Spain.)

@bob botato

Minor picky stuff: there is no such thing as a "Spanish" language. There is a Castilian language.... Talking about "Spanish" language is like saying that in UK you speak United Kingdomish as prime oficial language ( Ok , I noticed that you didn't explicitely said Spanish language, but it is clearly embebeded in your speech ;) )

I'm somehow disgusted of how Sid Meier's games treat Portugal for a long time: unexistent in Col, 2nd pack material in both Civ III and IV ( even Behind Ragnar of the Vikings... as it is in one CFC member sig states, the equivalent of a Cowboy civ leaded by Zorro or Lucky Luke ).... and the traditional choice of Henry the Navigator as leader on Civ III... :wallbash: ( D. João II is a far better choice.... ). I don't think that simple market laws explain it all.... not seeing a strong Mali lobby group in the US ;) . Probably it is simply part of the American under-performance in terms of Historical knowledge, combined with "They sound the same to me" attitude , like you state ....

@apenpaap

I'm pretty sure that a game meant to be a recreation ( more or less faithfull ) of the European colonization of Americas will be far less fun if the designer decides to censor one of the top players of the european colonizators of America ( far more important than the Dutch or even the French... ). It just does not seem right ;)

Portugal was the most dominant naval power in Europe from 1420- 1540s. Also they colonized Brazil and some of the Caribbean. However, most people are right, Portugal mostly colonized Africa and the Pacific. However, they still were enough player IMO to earn the 5th and last spot. I don't think another civ would be proper but I do think some events such as a random Swede group showing up in Delaware at a certain time period could add flavor.

Has anyone noticed Portugal and Poland start with P?

And USA and Uzbekistan start with U.....

But nice piece of sarcasm, Rex :p Not that have any kind of reason in what you're implying.

Portugal was the most dominant naval power in Europe from 1420- 1540s. Also they colonized Brazil and some of the Caribbean. However, most people are right, Portugal mostly colonized Africa and the Pacific. However, they still were enough player IMO to earn the 5th and last spot. I don't think another civ would be proper but I do think some events such as a random Swede group showing up in Delaware at a certain time period could add flavor.


Are you kidding me? Portugal the most dominant naval power from 1420-1540s? after that line i stopped reading.

@bob botato

Minor picky stuff: there is no such thing as a "Spanish" language. There is a Castilian language.... Talking about "Spanish" language is like saying that in UK you speak United Kingdomish as prime oficial language ( Ok , I noticed that you didn't explicitely said Spanish language, but it is clearly embebeded in your speech ;) )

I'm somehow disgusted of how Sid Meier's games treat Portugal for a long time: unexistent in Col, 2nd pack material in both Civ III and IV ( even Behind Ragnar of the Vikings... as it is in one CFC member sig states, the equivalent of a Cowboy civ leaded by Zorro or Lucky Luke ).... and the traditional choice of Henry the Navigator as leader on Civ III... :wallbash: ( D. João II is a far better choice.... ). I don't think that simple market laws explain it all.... not seeing a strong Mali lobby group in the US ;) . Probably it is simply part of the American under-performance in terms of Historical knowledge, combined with "They sound the same to me" attitude , like you state ....

@apenpaap

I'm pretty sure that a game meant to be a recreation ( more or less faithfull ) of the European colonization of Americas will be far less fun if the designer decides to censor one of the top players of the european colonizators of America ( far more important than the Dutch or even the French... ). It just does not seem right ;)

Stop blowing up Portugal's role in world history. They were of marginal importance at best.

Read your books, Tullaris, and then come back to talk about History. Your response to volbound show that your knowledge in that area ( history of XV/ XVI century ) is small.

And I'm not boasting anything, I'm comparing.... If you think that a Canadian province that speaks french ( with all the respect I have for Quebec ) or some caribean islands and a patch of jungled land that speaks Dutch is more important than a +100 million country.....

I agree with r rolo1, The Portuguese empire is of high importance- simply because its colonization practices did not influence the American Empire directly, does not make its international role small.

Portugal is no Poland. People argue for Poland because for a period it was a major regional player. Portugal was a major world player. In fact, it was Portugal who ended the world of regions and laid the first stone in the single world system we know today. People think of Portugal's world empire as being confined to Brazil and bits of Africa but in reality Portugal's coastal trading empire, which they pretty much monopolised for over a century, encompassed not only the coasts of Brazil and Africa, but stretched all the way to India and the Malay Archipelago. The southern Atlantic and the Indian Ocean were essentially Portuguese ponds during this period.

And more importantly they were the first to create a globe-spanning trading system. Spain was initially just playing catch-up with Portugal and it would take a very long time before the English, Dutch and French were able to overcome Portugal's domination of the eastern seas. I know this sounds like hyperbole but really, just read your history books.

I'm looking forward to Colonization.
I'm also looking forward to the mods it will inspire.

I'd like to see Portugal included.

I'd also like to see the Vikings with a bad early start, and the Russians with a late one. I'd like to see the Aztec have a chance to settle the mississippi valley. I'd like to see the Iroquois trade for gunpowder and push the other Native Americans west. They wouldn't have to all be playable. Perhaps some civs could have a different victory condition .

I am not Portugeese, nor do I know anyone who is and I have never played (or wanted to play) a Portugeese civ. However, they deffinetly should be in a game proclaiming to have a historical foundation in the colonization of America - if this claim is to be considered even marginally accurate.

I voted no... If Portugal skould be included why not Denmark, why not so many other countries? But this isn't Civ this is Col... and I really couldn't care who is in and who is not as long as the game is just as much fun as the old one. It has already been stated that there is the possibility of releasing a mod including more nations so I suggest you go ahead and do just that. Let Sid focus on putting a great game together for us to enjoy and then we can change all the little factors that we would like to later on.

I voted no... If Portugal skould be included why not Denmark, why not so many other countries?

Because Portugal built a lasting colony on a gigantic chunk of the Americas whereas Denmark's only lasting colony was a few thousand people on an icy wasteland.

I'm sure you do care what countries are in the game really. Or would you be happy with the Czech Republic, Mongolia, Togo and the Roman Empire being the chosen four?

I voted no... If Portugal skould be included why not Denmark, why not so many other countries? But this isn't Civ this is Col... and I really couldn't care who is in and who is not as long as the game is just as much fun as the old one. It has already been stated that there is the possibility of releasing a mod including more nations so I suggest you go ahead and do just that. Let Sid focus on putting a great game together for us to enjoy and then we can change all the little factors that we would like to later on.
I think you asked the wrong question...

The real question is: if the French and the Dutch are in the game, why aren't the Portuguese? Given that the Portuguese got to the Americas earlier than these 2, stayed there more time, made more stuff and lef a bigger and stable leggacy ( read Brazil ), it is a legitimate question historically wise.....

It is the same as if Firaxis decided to make a Civ IV: Rome and forgot about the Etruscans, the Greeks or the Carthaginian, while adding the Dacian, The Visigoths and the Marcomani..... :crazyeye:

If you include Greenland then the danish colonies are big in size (but low in population).

The issue with Denmark and Russia etc is that they didn't colonize in the same way as the other five powers. Does anyone know how many Russians were transferred with the Alaska purchase?

The other nations could perhaps be included as custom powers where you can choose your own name and civ trait.

Perhaps there can be a new type of colonist, the foreign migrant supplied by events, such as "Potato Blight in Ireland sends migrants flocking to the docks." Although I think that most foreign migrants came after the game is finished (ie after independence) and most Huguenot refugees went to South Africa (I think)

Perhaps you could make this work by giving each colonist a religion. As the game starts during the reformation that could be a nice bit of chrome.

There are no logical or technical reasons for Firaxis to stick with just 4 playable civs - unless of course they are planning on making the maps so small that there really isn't room for more civs on the map.

IMO they should not only include Portugal (required really for any historical believability), but also Russia, Denmark and Sweden who all made a bid for the New World (they just 'lost' the race in real history, but maybe the player can change that).

This would make a total of 8 playable civs which seems a perfect number - even for multiplayer.

Portugal was not in the original Colonization game... however that limitation was due to the small size of the map and the small capacity of computer at those times.

In the history of colonization, in america and in the rest of the world, Portugal has been extremely important: it controlled large areas of the american continent, in a way that cannot be ignored.
An independent county came out of their colonization: Brazil.
From this points of view it will make a very good addition to a modern version of Colonization.

Instead, I would say, that is possible to ignore other powers because of their transitory apperanec in the americas that left no legacy in terms of independent states (e.g. Russia and Sweden).

I think you asked the wrong question...

The real question is: if the French and the Dutch are in the game, why aren't the Portuguese? Given that the Portuguese got to the Americas earlier than these 2, stayed there more time, made more stuff and lef a bigger and stable leggacy ( read Brazil ), it is a legitimate question historically wise.....

It is the same as if Firaxis decided to make a Civ IV: Rome and forgot about the Etruscans, the Greeks or the Carthaginian, while adding the Dacian, The Visigoths and the Marcomani..... :crazyeye:

I still think that all the powers in the old col game were good enough... if more than 4 should be added I too would vote for portugal but if the game is based on 4 major powers like in the old version (no matter for what reason) with the possibilties for modding today I would rather have fireaxis and Sid focus on making a great game than adding another major power. Aparently I didn't make myself clear enough in my first post.

Are you kidding me? Portugal the most dominant naval power from 1420-1540s? after that line i stopped reading.

Henry the Navigator made them into a naval power. In fact if you read the diaries of Columbus, the Spanish were afraid the Portugese would attack and sink Columbus' fleet because they had naval bases in the Azores and other island chains on the way West.

104 pro Portugal x 12 against it. And still Firaxis decides to ignore our voices... How sad.

Cheers,

Mad Hab

I really can't believe people are arguing against Portugal! Portugal for god's sake!

I've never seem a Zulu Stealth Bomber IRL either. I think adding multiple nations with unique traits, etc is a great idea.

I never played Col as anything other than the Dutch really though.

Let me add one more topic for thread.
Who could be the Portuguese leaders? (At least two).

The only king/emperor: D. Pedro
The other... hum...

O Tiradentes ;) The only really proeminent Brazilian indenpendence fighter (atleast the only one that could pair with Bolivar and San Martin )

Yes, Portugal should've been included. In terms of size of empire or lasting cultural influence they were more important than the Dutch. I'd guess its US-centric bias. The 4 countries included all had an influence on what is now the US, Portugal didn't, so despite the game covering the whole Americas they got left out.

@AmazonQueen:
I have been thinking that myself. You hit Firaxis' hidden agenda spot on. :goodjob:

Even that is somewhat borked..... Besides founding New Amesterdam, what did the Dutch really done in the current territory of USA? .... ( i'm talking seriously, I don't know of anything else.... maybe ignorance ).

Atleast we gave the Americans the ukalele and the nat. hymn :p

Even that is somewhat borked..... Besides founding New Amesterdam, what did the Dutch really done in the current territory of USA? .... ( i'm talking seriously, I don't know of anything else.... maybe ignorance ).Yeah, 'buying' the entire Manhattan for next to nothing from the natives, where one of the most populous cities ever on the planet Earth is currently located, surely must be considered as an insignificant part of US history. :mischief:

O Tiradentes ;) The only really proeminent Brazilian indenpendence fighter (atleast the only one that could pair with Bolivar and San Martin )

Nah, Tiradentes is just a national symbol, he didn't do much in reality except being a martir. There are plenty of colonial governors that would fit the role better. José Bonifácio would be a good choice too, even though he eventually became a minister of Pedro I he was the greatest brazilian statesman of his era.

Yeah, 'buying' the entire Manhattan for next to nothing from the natives, where one of the most populous cities ever on the planet Earth is currently located, surely must be considered as an insignificant part of US history. :mischief:

Mexico City and Tokyo are both more heavily populated than New York.

Yeah, 'buying' the entire Manhattan for next to nothing from the natives, where one of the most populous cities ever on the planet Earth is currently located, surely must be considered as an insignificant part of US history. :mischief:
1 -I bet that a very important city would rise from the place where NY is, no matter what European, Asian ,African or Martian :p power would colonize it if the English got it as they did later, given his location, features and resources. Why give credits to the Dutch for the later development of NY?

2- Quoting my self:
Besides founding New Amesterdam, what did the Dutch really done in the current territory of USA? ...
Still waiting for a awnser.....

3- I highly doubt that most Americans consider the founding of NY so important as that..... correct me if I'm wrong

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas)

There were quite a few cloggie colonies so I think including them in the game is fair enough. Just not as important as Portugal. Hopefully mods will allow us to play as Russia, Sweden, Courland etc and maybe an alternate history one with Norse, Celtic and Chinese colonisers.

I wouldn't discribe Firaxis as having a hidden agenda as was suggested, just the natural tendency to know and care more about their own history than the rest of the worlds.

Correct your link, AmazonQueen ( one http too much ;) )

Reading that article and the others linked to it regarding other european colonies powers in America makes me think that the Dutch should be even behind Russia..... A lot of failed attempts everywhere and only a small patch in the NE South America ( that both Portuguese and Spanish shunned , otherwise I would bet that none of the Guyanas would exist ) and some islands in the caribean to tell the story.....

BTW the portuguese link has a small innacuracy: the Portuguese didn't payed for Brazil ,technically speaking. They payed for the monopoly of sale of the Portuguese salt in the Low Countries, that was included in the same treaty. In fact The dutch in Brazil were already reduced to almost nothing at the time, largely because they were unable to transform their control of the seas in land power there .....

To end, about any hidden agendaof Firaxis: I never said that. Like I said , I only think that is strange that Firaxis pushes Portugal to the last rank of their games, and putting legendary carachters and short lived kingdows in front of a once major superpower ( probably the first one with a global radius of action ). Sorry if misunderstood.

Correct your link, AmazonQueen ( one http too much ;) )

Reading that article and the others linked to it regarding other european colonies powers in America makes me think that the Dutch should be even behind Russia..... A lot of failed attempts everywhere and only a small patch in the NE South America ( that both Portuguese and Spanish shunned , otherwise I would bet that none of the Guyanas would exist ) and some islands in the caribean to tell the story.....

BTW the portuguese link has a small innacuracy: the Portuguese didn't payed for Brazil ,technically speaking. They payed for the monopoly of sale of the Portuguese salt in the Low Countries, that was included in the same treaty. In fact The dutch in Brazil were already reduced to almost nothing at the time, largely because they were unable to transform their control of the seas in land power there .....

To end, about any hidden agendaof Firaxis: I never said that. Like I said , I only think that is strange that Firaxis pushes Portugal to the last rank of their games, and putting legendary carachters and short lived kingdows in front of a once major superpower ( probably the first one with a global radius of action ). Sorry if misunderstood.

Apologies if I gave the impression I was refering to you there. It was CyberChrist who (mockingly I suspect :lol:) suggested I'd discovered Firaxis hidden agenda.

If Firaxis adapts Civ to Col, then we'll have U.U. for each "civ".
And for the Portuguese/Brazilian you will have The Bandeirantes.
See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandeirantes).