There should be an unlockable playable Chinese colonists in this game just for laughs. :p

No way.......

I'd quite like an alternative history scenario in which all the civs that might've reached America but didn't or did but failed to colonise or may've reached it (if you give any credence to this (http://www.1421.tv/) sort of speculative "history") were available. Hopefully it'll be possible to mod it.

1421 is just a very well written alternate history novel being passed off as a non-fiction work to create buzz for the book and sell more copies. I thought everyone knew this by now!

Exactly!! Civ is all about althernate history... no?

1421 is just a very well written alternate history novel being passed off as a non-fiction work to create buzz for the book and sell more copies. I thought everyone knew this by now!

Yep. Thats why I put history in quotation marks when referring to it. it would make a good basis for a scenario though.

Or vikings... They should have a 1000 year head start on everyone else! :goodjob:

While it would be nice to have some fun "scenarios" with perhaps the Viking, Japanese, Chinese, and whoever... It would be nice to expand the game to a bit more than just the original four. I don't think it would be out of the realm of reason to include additional civs such as the Portuguese and Swedish.

1421 is just a very well written alternate history novel being passed off as a non-fiction work to create buzz for the book and sell more copies. I thought everyone knew this by now!

Not so well written.... if the guy was a naval savant as he claims to be , he would know for sure that if a sail ship reaches Azores from the west, he'll be pushed to the Portuguese coast both by winds and currents. But no recordings of Chinese ships reaching Portugal in 1421...... Wierd , I would had thought that a so large fleet would caught the eye of the pirate alarm network we had at the time :p

On topic: Why not? But only after Portugal, Russia and the Norsemen ;)

The guy that made 1421 is now claiming that China started the European Renaissance and wrote a new book about it.

Seriously, he's a nutjob.

Anyway, the only civ that i want to see outside of Europe, is Polynesia. Polynesians are the ONLY non-european people we have evidince of landing in the Americas.

oh no its not canon
BURN MENZIES

You guys sound like the Spanish Inquisition.

:confused:

I actually read his book, and being one of those amateur naval historians, that flaw of his theory that I mentioned became extremely clear to me. I simply pointed that if a Chinese expedition came from America to east propelled only by sail, it would had to beat in some european shore and given that the author claims that they made the Corvo statue ( unfortunately lost ) in Azores, they would be driven both by wind and currents to the Western shore of the Iberian penisula. Given that a huge fleet ( by European standarts ) of strange looking ships would be hard to miss and that the Chinese would probably need to make some repairs ( making a landing likely ), that part of his rationale is wrong. And that is the only way of a hypotetical Chinese fleet to go back to China from the Americas by the Atlantic......

oh no its not canon
BURN MENZIES

You guys sound like the Spanish Inquisition.

...

They pointed out that his theory is stupid. Therefore (if he believes his own nonsense), he's stupid too.

I must've missed the part where they were calling for his head.

Col2 defo needs the Portugese in it, so the Spanish don't get a free hand in the whole of the south of the continent, if nothing else.

It would be cool to have the Chinese in it, only able to come from the east side of the map. Then we'd see how great the Europeans can be.

Then again, the Natives they'd first meet would be the Apache or something.......

If you're going to say that, why not say the game should start in 1000 AD when the Vikings reached America.

If you're going to say that, why not say the game should start in 1000 AD when the Vikings reached America.In fairness it would have to be then 10,000 BC.

Given that this is running on the Civ 4 engine, I'm wondering if they'll keep it open for MODs. I'd definitely enjoy some alternate history colonization of America (what if Asia got to it first or if the Vikings stayed!)

In fairness it would have to be then 10,000 BC.

How about when Pangea split up then? :lol:

It's Colonization, red Indian civilizations didn't colonize America, they were based there. The Vikings however were based in Europe, and colonized North America (a little bit).

It's Colonization, red Indian civilizations didn't colonize America, they were based there. The Vikings however were based in Europe, and colonized North America (a little bit).And "red indian civilizations" were based to Asia before some of them colonized Americas (all of it). ;)

However if we are talking about Colonization period of New World by Europeans we come to the years which are portrayed in the game.

And "red indian civilizations" were based to Asia before some of them colonized Americas (all of it). ;)

However if we are talking about Colonization period of New World by Europeans we come to the years which are portrayed in the game.

Errrr... I think you missed what I said. They weren't ever civilized in Asia, they never became civilized until they formed civilizations in the Americas.

Errrr... I think you missed what I said. They weren't ever civilized in Asia, they never became civilized until they formed civilizations in the Americas.So europeans weren't civilized before found civilizations to Americas as well?

Apparently you use definition for colony and colonization the newer more political meaning of colonizing being part of nation's process to find new land for it while disregarding the biological and much more understandable one. And it seems also for "civilization" you use the rather weak point of agricultural development. Very eurocentralized view of things.

Of course that is entirely about the definition of what "civilization" means if you are saying they weren't "civilized" before arriving to americas. Some might claim they weren't "civilized" even when europeans arrived there.

BTW How do you proclaim natives of americas weren't first based or "civilized" to Asia before moving to Americas? How do you define it?

So europeans weren't civilized before found civilizations to Americas as well?

Apparently you use definition for colony and colonization the newer more political meaning of colonizing being part of nation's process to find new land for it while disregarding the biological and much more understandable one. And it seems also for "civilization" you use the rather weak point of agricultural development. Very eurocentralized view of things.

Of course that is entirely about the definition of what "civilization" means if you are saying they weren't "civilized" before arriving to americas. Some might claim they weren't "civilized" even when europeans arrived there.

BTW How do you proclaim natives of americas weren't first based or "civilized" to Asia before moving to Americas? How do you define it?

Dude really...

A society in an advanced state of social development (e.g., with complex legal and political and religious organizations).

I am using the definitions from dictionary.com, whether they are overly eurocentric or not you decide for yourself, but I'm going with this.

Though no need to argue over this anyway, it was in essence a joke anyway.

You're right, no need to argue.

Then it is just different definition.

My point wasn't exactly joke since some people claim "New World was discovered by vikings etc."

It wasn't. It was discovered ages ago before that but during the days that game of colonization describes europeans discovered it for themselves and started colonization process that has continued until this day and led to the current geopolitical situation.

History quite often is about definitions and we might even say that civilizations born and die out of our descriptions before our eyes.

If we aren't careful we're also bound example to call natives as savages while europeans of that time were by our current moral standards by the very definition savages as well.

I think C~G is missing QwertyKey's point. He's talking about when a civilization in an advanced state of civilization--culturally, technologically, and politically--discovered the Americas, not a nomadic and fragmented group of hunter gatherers that just randomly wandered into the Americas. He's not denying the fact that it was discovered earlier by others, he's just saying Colonization is relevant to the period where a civilization in a much more advanced state discovered it. Though I think QwertyKey shouldn't have used the word civilized when describing his argument, since that word has negative connotations. Or red indians... wait, QwertyKey is a racist jerk. I take back defending him. Sorry C~G LOL Burn in hell, QwertyKey.

Also somebody discovered it 50,000 years ago, not 10,000. But the people in question is under debate, because they all died off.

Or maybe I understood the point but wanted to make an argument that things can be seen bit differently.

Also in general I want to challenge the idea of civilization in sense that hunter-gatherers couldn't have quite well established habits and traditions.

For me it's bit similar as drawing line between popular and high culture. How does one draw that?

Of course "colonization" what you talk about happens only in particular type of established civilization and requires (let's not use term sophisticated) quite complex cultural and political context which of course negates the idea of hunter-gatherer group colonizing anyone.

But my original point as you can see easily was actually counter that Vikings would differ so much from these hunter-gatherers in sense of that could they really be establishing "colonies" so far away from their base (just like hunter-gatherers who were originally "based" in Asia) and keep touch to their homeland that the requirements for calling it "colonization" would be achieved.

Also there are biological definitions for "colonization".

Theodorick, you seem to be sensible fellow so you probably understand what I tried to do.

About the Viking "discovery" of America: Some rebel Norwegians fled westwards after pissing off their countrymen in Iceland. They found Greenland (which is actually a part of America, mind), and subsequently went even further to the west, and established a settlement in Eastern Canada, probably on Newfoundland or Nova Scotia. That settlement was abandoned/destroyed shortly afterwards, and the rebel Vikings who founded it never told anyone about it. The petty kings of Norway never knew nor cared, and the chieftains on Iceland probably didn't care much, either. Now compare that to the Spanish explorers of the fifteenth century: Columbus discovered the Caribbean islands in the name of the Spanish king (and queen), and the Pope almost immediately confirmed Spain's claim to the new lands. It really isn't he same story, is it?

That said, Portuguese and Irish fishermen, and probably Icelandic fishermen, as well, knew there were lands to the west of Greenland long before 1492, since they hauled in a great deal of cod off the coast of Canada on a regular basis. But that did not mean that Portugal, Ireland or Norway "discovered" North America in the traditional sense.

I just needed to get that off my chest.

Are you sure that Portuguese and Irish fishermen hauled loads of cod off the coast of Canada? I've never heard that before. What's your source?

Well, it isn't confirmed as a historical fact, per se, but numerous papers on economic history from the period make good points on it. I can't point you to a source right now, but I will if I come across it again. It has been a few years since my history studies, unfortunately.

While it isn't proof, as such, trade ledgers from Portuguese docks in the mid-1400s describe species of fish which are native to the Canadian coast. This is just one example, which I happen to remember.

There was more than one settlement of vikings on the north amercan continent i watched a tv documentary a few years back and if i remember right they found atleast 3
small but still.
So not a single incident they traveled back and forth probably from norway that far predates columbus he just made a big fuzz about it but the vikings discovered america that the knowledge then was lost matters not.

There is also some funny speculation about some viking drugtrades from south america to egypt.
The vikings where the only ones to have good ocean crossing boats and the navigation tech to do this at the time , those pharaos sure liked their drugs :)
I dunt remember what drug plant it was but it only grew in south america at the time and the pharaos could pay for such a jurney such as it would actualy pay off.
I hope they will find some prof of this theory that would be fun then we need to mod civ a bit "trade with egypt +1" hehe :)

There was more than one settlement of vikings on the north amercan continent i watched a tv documentary a few years back and if i remember right they found atleast 3
small but still.
So not a single incident they traveled back and forth probably from norway that far predates columbus he just made a big fuzz about it but the vikings discovered america that the knowledge then was lost matters not.

Even so, they were not representatives of Norway or any other country. I know for a fact that there is no written legacy of these settlements in Norway, and it is highly unlikely that the powers that be in Norway at the time knew anything about them at all.

There is also some funny speculation about some viking drugtrades from south america to egypt.
The vikings where the only ones to have good ocean crossing boats and the navigation tech to do this at the time , those pharaos sure liked their drugs :)
I dunt remember what drug plant it was but it only grew in south america at the time and the pharaos could pay for such a jurney such as it would actualy pay off.
I hope they will find some prof of this theory that would be fun then we need to mod civ a bit "trade with egypt +1" hehe :)

That sounds HIGHLY unlikely, unfortunately. Besides, the Vikings were not contemporary with the Egyptian Pharaos. By the time the Vikings started exploring, Egypt had been converted to Islam, and the Pharaos were centuries gone.