I understand (Sort of) England being England in the Regular Civ. But for pretty much all of the period represented in Colonization, it was Britain, and nothing else. The Scots settled in southern United States, and played a big role in it. I am not arguing for another civ, but why not make it all inclusive as it should?

Second, why does the English King look down right evil? It seems very stereotypical, and like it is supposed to be playing on the whole revolution thing. And speaking of that, even during the Revolutionary war, we had a most capable administrator for the loyal members of the continent, and not at all evil. More than the match for any George Washington.

And this is not to mention that during this period we were also expanding into India under Clive, another capable administrator, and also gained the French holdings in North America with some great military adventures, a incompetent looking guy does not fit at all.

I understand all the yada about nothing can be perfectly historically accurate, and much more so, about not buying it if I do not like it, but they could at least attempt to not represent all British Leaders as slobs. At times, every country has its share, but unless they are trying to make a point, or are just blind in this regards, they could have done a much better job, in my opinion.

It was capable men who built the biggest empire the world had ever seen, under the British Flag, not evil looking dudes with funny hair.

It was England as well in the original Colonization. You'll be able to change the name through simple modding if it annoys you that much, however. As for the King, well, all four kings are meant to look stereotypically snobbish and dislikeable, since they do nothing but hamper your progress in the New World in the game. I'm assuming it's a general design choice.

EDIT: Here's some pics of the other kings revealed so far...

King of France (http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/pc/c/i/civcpc017.jpg)
King of Spain (http://www.invisibledream.com/images/colonization/thirdbatch/thirdbatch9.jpg)

There are no pictures of the Dutch Statholder for the moment.

Until 1708, it was the separated Kingdoms of England and Scotland. Both were ruled by the same king starting with James Ist (James VIth in Scotland). But the Kingdom of Great Britain in itself only came by in 1708 under Queen Anne. So for the cope of this game 1492-1781...we have 1492 to 1708 as England and 1708 to 1781 as GB... So

I guess you are wrong:king:

I think the game stretches as far as 1850.

But I get your point: it's more England than Britain in the game's timeframe.

I think the game stretches as far as 1850.

First post. Be gentle.

Col Classic stretched to 1850 (600 turns total). This version will only go to 1792 (300 turns) under the default settings.

First post. Be gentle.

Col Classic stretched to 1850 (600 turns total). This version will only go to 1792 (300 turns) under the default settings.
I don't bite. :lol:

You're right. I thought it was like in the original, but I just saw a screenshot (http://www.civfanatics.com/gallery/showimage.php?i=1890&c=31) that confirms the game ends in 1792. The timescale of the original wasn't constant, as turns encompassed different amounts of time throughout the game (less and less the closer you got to the 19th century). But it seems the remake is pretty linear: 1 year = 1 turn, from 1492 to 1792.

Yes, but I was referring more to the actually colonisational efforts coming under the Union Jack. Yes you have Cabot, and Drake, and the Puritans and what not. But the real efforts came under the British Flag..


Since we are talking about Colonization, colonies are important. Ie. 1500-1700:

Newfoundland (1583),
The 13 colonies,
Nova Scotia (1621),

1700-1850:

The Conquest of All of North America
The takeover in India
The loss of the United States
Possesion of Gibraltar (Taken in 1704 but recognized in 1713),
Malta (in 1815)
Singapore (1819),
Hong Kong (1841),
South Africa (1795-1806),
the Falklands (1841),
Aden (1839),
Canada (1763),
India (Completed in the 1700s),
Australia,
New Zealand,
British Columbia (1849),
Burma (1824).

Of course, these are not all, but the bigger, more important ones. The more I read though, the more I think this game is not for me, the whole focus seems to be something I would not enjoy... Like, since when did the Kings want to HINDER the colonies? In fact that was quite untrue, the British at least did a lot for theirs..

The more I read though, the more I think this game is not for me, the whole focus seems to be something I would not enjoy... Like, since when did the Kings want to HINDER the colonies? In fact that was quite untrue, the British at least did a lot for theirs..I don't really understand what exactly is your problem here?

You feel Britain is mispresented?

In general, more the entire era. The UK was the biggest colonizers ever, and our days were indeed during that time, but mainly after. And that being said, the scope of the default game is very limited it seems.<br /> Yes it can be modded, and I know how to do that fine, but it is never the same as if the 'real' guys do it.

I edited my last post with the main colonies acquired in each period, up to 1700 and then after. That is my thinking on why it should be the United Kingdom. For Scotland was just as vital to our empire as England was, not ifs ands or buts.
And I do really care about the Empire and the period, that it is represented well.
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/timeline/colonies.htm

Also, in my original post, I did not realize it would be starting in 1492, as MOST of the English involvement started in the late 1500s at earliest.

Second, why does the English King look down right evil? It seems very stereotypical, and like it is supposed to be playing on the whole revolution thing. And speaking of that, even during the Revolutionary war, we had a most capable administrator for the loyal members of the continent, and not at all evil.
Probably cuz all English are downright evil... come on Matt... you know this to be true! :lol:

In general, more the entire era. The UK was the biggest colonizers ever, and our days were indeed during that time, but mainly after. And that being said, the scope of the default game is very limited it seems.<br /> Yes it can be modded, and I know how to do that fine, but it is never the same as if the 'real' guys do it.Real guys?

It's about Colonization of New World.

English had few colonies there and had to compete with the French, Spanish and Dutch for long time and in the game you aren't controlling England but the leader of the first colony of England and you try to make your colonize prosper.

Of course in order to do that you need to bring back all kinds of goods to your Motherland just like most colonial leaders had to (example Columbus) and with those you can buy goods to build your colonies. Of course your king want some taxes from you.

The game isn't about colonization per se but more like building your own nation slowly from the colonies and distancing it from the motherland.

It's clear that all types of colonization including how British did it cannot be presented in the game, but same goes to how Dutch, French and Spanish did.

And you got error right there:
The Conquest of All of North AmericaCertainly not all.

All those other nations had foothold in North America also with English.

I think you are probably thinking that the game is designed to be too streamlined or taking approach you don't like, which is fine. Personally I enjoy playing more colonial leader than the king of any nation.

Whether it's called England or Britain is minor thing don't you think?

Yes, but I was referring more to the actually colonisational efforts coming under the Union Jack. Yes you have Cabot, and Drake, and the Puritans and what not. But the real efforts came under the British Flag..


Since we are talking about Colonization, colonies are important. Ie. 1500-1700:

Newfoundland (1583),
The 13 colonies,
Nova Scotia (1621),

1700-1850:

The Conquest of All of North America
The takeover in India
The loss of the United States
Possesion of Gibraltar (Taken in 1704 but recognized in 1713),
Malta (in 1815)
Singapore (1819),
Hong Kong (1841),
South Africa (1795-1806),
the Falklands (1841),
Aden (1839),
Canada (1763),
India (Completed in the 1700s),
Australia,
New Zealand,
British Columbia (1849),
Burma (1824).

Of course, these are not all, but the bigger, more important ones. The more I read though, the more I think this game is not for me, the whole focus seems to be something I would not enjoy... Like, since when did the Kings want to HINDER the colonies? In fact that was quite untrue, the British at least did a lot for theirs..

This s mirepresentative. This is a list of events in the colonial history of Great Britain not of the actual lenght of such an enterprise. By 1708, most of the colonial empires were established. To your first list (under England) I could add, off the top of my head, 20 events or colonial efforts. You seem to have forgotten the Caribbeans - which were also very important at the time New France, New Netherland and the English Atlantic seaboard came into being.

Anyways, the idea of starting out in 1492 with the British flag is downright ludicrous.

However, starting in 4000 BC with an American flag is just peachy ...

The whole point is that, in the 300 years the game comprises the English flag is correct for 215, and the British one only 85. So, overall, England is a better choice than Britain.

At any rate, remember Colonization, like standard Civ4, uses symbols on the banners, not full flags, perhaps due to the fact flags changed a lot more throughout civilizational histories. England uses St. George's Cross, which despite being the real flag as well, it's primarily a symbol (used by many other territories). So in this regard, the Union Jack isn't appropriate either, as it's a flag constructed from three symbols: the crosses of St. George, St. Andrew and St. Patrick.

However, starting in 4000 BC with an American flag is just peachy ...
That's a different matter. It's not the American flag, but a symbol chosen by the devs to represent the United States. If we delve further into this matter, we'll start arguing about the US being in the game so damn early.

Somebody started a topic in Rhye's forum about this once... "Change England to Britain"... it had about 20 pages of fighting as I recall. You won't get any better here. :lol:

My advice is not to take it too seriously. Colonization has never been about historical accuracy - it's a game with a clear American perspective and many oversimplifications. From what I have read, slavery is not represented in the game at all, except for the constitutional issue that comes up toward the end. Religion seems to be too homogeneous. Relationships with the natives were always too black and white as well. Oh, and did I mention Portugal is not even included? :D Yet the fact that it succeeded so well in spite of all this is a testament to the gameplay. Let's hope it's even better this time.

It may not be right for you, but I wouldn't blame it on historical inaccuracy alone. Remember that people will start modding the thing as soon as it comes out and you can find something better.

And speaking of that, even during the Revolutionary war, we had a most capable administrator for the loyal members of the continent, and not at all evil. More than the match for any George Washington.

Apparently not... ;)

Just wait for some retentive modder to come out with their ultra accurate mod and stop trolling, you are scaring the normals.

Real guys?

It's about Colonization of New World.

English had few colonies there and had to compete with the French, Spanish and Dutch for long time and in the game you aren't controlling England but the leader of the first colony of England and you try to make your colonize prosper.

Of course in order to do that you need to bring back all kinds of goods to your Motherland just like most colonial leaders had to (example Columbus) and with those you can buy goods to build your colonies. Of course your king want some taxes from you.

The game isn't about colonization per se but more like building your own nation slowly from the colonies and distancing it from the motherland.

It's clear that all types of colonization including how British did it cannot be presented in the game, but same goes to how Dutch, French and Spanish did.

And you got error right there:
Certainly not all.

All those other nations had foothold in North America also with English.

I think you are probably thinking that the game is designed to be too streamlined or taking approach you don't like, which is fine. Personally I enjoy playing more colonial leader than the king of any nation.

Whether it's called England or Britain is minor thing don't you think?

I guess my problem is I think of the Colonization in terms of the whole world from the 1600s to 1918. It was just a thought anyways, and I guess I got peoples replies. :p I will say this, I still disagree, but no need to make a mountain out of a molehill...

I know GeneralMatt very well and I assure you, he was not intent on trolling or starting a controversy by creating this thread. You will be hard pressed to find a more fair person on these forums. Rather, as a fan of British history, he was concerned about a possible stereotype against the British (tyrants, exploiters, etc.) that did not take into account their real strengths as administrators. However, the point of this colonization game, I think, is to give the perspective of the colonists, and the revolutionary colonists -- which is what we are dealing with here -- perceived the British and most of the other European overlords as exploiters and tyrants, right or wrong. That's what's reflected.

Certainly I'm not suggesting that GeneralMatt is a troll.
I might have been bit harsh when I "questioned him". :lol:

I was just asking kindly or in friendly manner what is wrong with the fellow...
However, the point of this colonization game, I think, is to give the perspective of the colonists, and the revolutionary colonists -- which is what we are dealing with here -- perceived the British and most of the other European overlords as exploiters and tyrants, right or wrong. That's what's reflected.Indeed.

But there's also the same point made example about administration of French colonies.

I think it would have been one of possible victory conditions to kind of not go for independency but instead establish well organized colonies for the motherland. Unfortunately such option isn't available and I think in general "imperalism" is seen as bad nowadays so that probably cuts it off to be added to the game in similar fashion as slavery. American perspective as you mentioned...
My advice is not to take it too seriously. Colonization has never been about historical accuracy - it's a game with a clear American perspective and many oversimplifications. From what I have read, slavery is not represented in the game at all, except for the constitutional issue that comes up toward the end. Religion seems to be too homogeneous. Relationships with the natives were always too black and white as well. Oh, and did I mention Portugal is not even included? Yet the fact that it succeeded so well in spite of all this is a testament to the gameplay. Let's hope it's even better this time.I think it will be good game but I'm looking forward for mods that add different flavour to the game and even historical accuracy, maybe at least the peak of GeneralMatt's "problems" can be addressed then. ;)

I will say this, I still disagreeYou are more than free to disagree. The game probably cannot satisfy everyone's needs but mods can help bit with those things. :)

I know GeneralMatt very well and I assure you, he was not intent on trolling or starting a controversy by creating this thread. You will be hard pressed to find a more fair person on these forums. Rather, as a fan of British history, he was concerned about a possible stereotype against the British (tyrants, exploiters, etc.) that did not take into account their real strengths as administrators. However, the point of this colonization game, I think, is to give the perspective of the colonists, and the revolutionary colonists -- which is what we are dealing with here -- perceived the British and most of the other European overlords as exploiters and tyrants, right or wrong. That's what's reflected.

I also want to add that after the American Revolution Britain became much more sensitive to the concerns of their colonists. A while back I read a history of Australia. I don't really remember specifics, but the history of Australian/British relations went like this:

Some year: Australia: We want right X!
UK: Ok! Here, have right Y too!
later year: Australia: We want right Z!
UK: No problem, here you go!
etc.

Every now and then the British would tell them not to kill the Aborigines so much, but that was the only real point of contention. The author noted a few times that this was a colonial office that had taken to heart what had happened in the American Revolution and was determined to learn from the experience.

The British government before 1776 had a quite different view of its colonies (their only purpose was to serve the motherland), and that is the era this game covers. The fact that the other British possessions in the Western hemisphere never revolted while most of the other European possessions did is a testament to how the British changed their policies, but you have to remember they did change.

Baaaawww.

You're just sad because there's no Canada.

No Canada :lol:

You won't find anyone here who agrees more with the NO CANADA tag line. Long live Québec !:goodjob:

However, the point of this colonization game, I think, is to give the perspective of the colonists, and the revolutionary colonists -- which is what we are dealing with here -- perceived the British and most of the other European overlords as exploiters and tyrants, right or wrong. That's what's reflected.

Well presenting the perspective of the 'revolutionary colonists' is very different from presenting the perspective of 'the colonists', many of whom were loyalists, neutrals or were pushed to rebellion as a last resort. Also the revolutionary period only covers a few decades. Before that time views of Britain would not have been so hostile. Even during the revolutionary period general views would have been more nuanced than 'exploiters and tyrants'.

Having said I'm not particularly fussed about the failure to present a more balanced perspective. For a start the one-sided view is, to my eye, directed more at the King than at the British in general, and, in any case, it's a game and I can see how having an exaggeratedly tyrannical king who does nothing but take money without giving anything back and having no possibility of a peaceful resolution contributes to the gameplay.

Second, why does the English King look down right evil? It seems very stereotypical, and like it is supposed to be playing on the whole revolution thing. And speaking of that, even during the Revolutionary war, we had a most capable administrator for the loyal members of the continent, and not at all evil. More than the match for any George Washington.

.

King? I thought they could just use the Elizabeth graphic like France reuses Louis XIV. Spain would have Isabella and the Dutch are obvious.

And someone's gotta say it. WHERE'S PORTUGAL?

King? I thought they could just use the Elizabeth graphic like France reuses Louis XIV.
Because everyone knows the Revolutionary War was fought against George III, so having a queen would just look lazy (and, quite frankly, be lazy).

Spain would have Isabella and the Dutch are obvious.
The Dutch monarch isn't copied from Civ4. He does have some resemblance to Willem van Oranje but looks less like a gothic clown.

And someone's gotta say it. WHERE'S PORTUGAL?
Someone did say it (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=287113)

Someone did say it (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=287113)
Repeatedly. :p

For a long time (pretty much until WW1) the term england refered to the whole of Great Britian. So really, it the point is invalid. Besides, why does it matter so much what the name is>

Uh, as a Yank, I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and perhapsibly stick my nose in where it doesn't belong...

For a long time (pretty much until WW1) the term england refered to the whole of Great Britian. So really, it the point is invalid.

I'll simply say: Not to the Scots and the Welsh.

For a long time (pretty much until WW1) the term england refered to the whole of Great Britain.

Correct, up to a point. England meant the entire British Isles to many people, especially the educated and upper classes. However, it wasn't the only method of referring to the British Isles, as many other terms such as British Empire, The Empire, Britain, Great Britain, and indeed, British Isles all meant roughly the same plots of land under one monarch.

The early comment about changing England to Great Britain in the game is daft because until the Act of Union (early 1700s) there was no Britain in any sense, and even then it was many decades before the concept of Britishness was born and started to be used in Parliament, Literature etc.

England should be England in the game, with the English flag. And yes the monarch should look evil, as well as half-mad, fat, greedy, leud and a bit of thicky.

PS I am English, a Londoner in fact.

PPS Strange how no Canada in the game...

The English King looks evil cos he was actually crazy - otherwise he'd have granted an american Congress and the Union Flag would still fly over "The George House", most probably!

England has always represented about 90% of the "British" population and was always far and away the biggest contributor to "British" emigration.

Our Scots and Welsh second cousins settled in localised areas as is fully understandable, so have pronounced impact on specific regions - the US census's are amusing to me as so many US citizens claim Scots, Welsh, Irish or German ancestry as it's unfashionable to admit English heritage.

It's probably because as the descendants of Viking Pirates and Anglo-Saxon Raiders, the English are in fact Over-Drinking, Wenching and Brawling nightmares, Har Har!

Just a note, it was partly to get their hands on the markets created by the Colonies (and to help bail out the costs of their own failed venture in Panama) that the Jocks agreed to the Union.

Assuming it is on the same basis as the original, this game revolves around colonising the New World, and for the time frame it was (for the most part) an English concern. If it was about World Empires, and included the Africa and Asian conquests then it would indeed be more appropriate to use 'Britain'.

As for the evil looking King, that fits into the backdrop of the ultimate goal to achieve Independence (certainly the French King doesn't look a particularly pleasant chap either). I guess it easy to be a little paranoid though considering Hollywood seemingly have a casting process of "Right we need a bad guy....any English available?"

...and is there any truth in the rumours that Mel Gibson also had a hand in the making the game?

Our Scots and Welsh second cousins settled in localised areas as is fully understandable, so have pronounced impact on specific regions - the US census's are amusing to me as so many US citizens claim Scots, Welsh, Irish or German ancestry as it's unfashionable to admit English heritage.


I don't know, I wouldn't say that. I'm of English ancestry, and I'm not at all embarrassed to say it (I also have Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and German in me, too). If you'll look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_demographics_of_the_United_States#Racial_ma keup_of_U.S._population and scroll down a bit, you'll see that English Americans form the third-largest European ancestry group in the United States (according to the 2000 Census). This is more than double of Scottish and Scots-Irish ancestry combined. :)

GeneralMatt, it's already been pointed out that for most of the period in question it really was England, and the United Kingdom as such did not exist. I see a few other historical inaccuracies here:


Since we are talking about Colonization, colonies are important. Ie. . . .

1700-1850:

The Conquest of All of North America


This never occurred. There was the Seven Years' War (which Americans call the French and Indian War) and the takeover by Britain of Quebec. However, the entire Mississippi valley remained French territory nominally and part of it really was (most of it was controlled by natives actually), while what are today Mexico and the states of California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas were all Spanish possessions. At no time ever did Britain control all, or even a majority of, North America.


Like, since when did the Kings want to HINDER the colonies? In fact that was quite untrue, the British at least did a lot for theirs..

It depends on what you mean by "hinder." The American colonies at least were set up under the principle of mercantilism, with the idea that local industry would be suppressed and the colonists directed into processing of natural resources, so that they would supply those resources cheaply to England and then be markets for British manufactured goods. To the extent that the colonists had ambitions to become manufacturers themselves, this represents a hindrance.

Also, bear in mind that several of the colonies, especially in New England, were established by separatists who left England because they were dissatisfied. This is naturally going to color the colonists' attitudes.

One critique that could have been applied to the original game, and apparently still exists, is that it is very England-centric. The experience of playing French, Dutch, or Spanish colonists is warped to resemble that of the English in America. However, it isn't THAT far off w/r/t the English experience itself, allowing for the fact that it's a game not a history. The Seven Years' War was one that most of the colonists felt little interest in fighting, and felt that the King had gotten them into. And the attempt to pay for it resulted in some ill-considered taxes, and even more ill-considered responses to the protests against same.

The game is more narrow than the global imperialism frame that you described in your OP. It concerns only the colonization of the New World, not the conquest of India or the establishment of British imperial domains in Africa. And it is a rather incontrovertible fact that the British government mismanaged her American colonies. If that were not so, I don't think there would be TWO English-speaking countries in North America, or that the bulk of the population would have rebelled against British rule. It isn't just that Britain lost the war, but that the war happened in the first place: that does not attest to good management in my opinion. It's one thing to see protests against British rule in a place like India, which was a foreign country under foreign domination, but it's something altogether different when people who consider themselves English turn against their own country. That does not happen without something seriously wrong having been done.