After all the European nations did colonize there too...

I voted no, since Africa is vastly different from America. It's much closer to Europe (nearly had a border with Spain) and is directly attached to the Middle East. It seems there are lots and lots of new variables, which'd require far more effort to implement than making a map in the editor. Same goes for India, Southeast Asia, etc.

Mods, albeit very difficult, would be nice, but I'm glad the official work remains focused. Overambitiousness can and has killed many games with a lot of potential. The colonization of other regions of the world is best left to either expansions or other, equally-focused games.

Maybe we could mod Paul Krueger of the English in.

I'm not adverse to a Scramble for Africa mod (in fact, I may very well make one if nobody beats me to it) but I see no reason why it should be in the main game. It's pretty obviously geared towards the Americas in every way and, while you may argue that it shouldn't have been, to change that in the main game would pretty much make it a completely different game.

I'm not adverse to a Scramble for Africa mod (in fact, I may very well make one if nobody beats me to it) but I see no reason why it should be in the main game. It's pretty obviously geared towards the Americas in every way and, while you may argue that it shouldn't have been, to change that in the main game would pretty much make it a completely different game.
Exactly. That's what I mean.

Ahhhh, I actually voted "Yes", but I was thinking along the lines of what Lord Shadow and Dryhad said-i.e. I *would* like to see Africa in, but only as a mod or-eventually-an expansion.

Aussie.

I agree with Africa being added as a mod or an expansion.

I can see the title now: Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Colonization - Africa. ;)

What a convoluted title that would be! :lol:

I voted no. Just because it was colonized it does not mean that it should have anything to do with this game as the focus of the game was and always has been the colonization of America.

I voted no.Civ4:Col doesn't seem to me a real sequel and i'm sure Firaxis doesn't have the necessary resources to include also Africa

No for sure. Africa (and Asia, for that matter) was very different, and most of it wasn't colonised until after the time span of the game. I kind of liked the idea of an Africa screen for buying slaves or whatnot, but as slavery isn't going to be implemented in any official version or expansion, it's a clear negative from me.

I wouldn't want Africa in. Its a game about the colonisation of the new world, not colonising in general. You need a different game (eg Europa Universalis) for that. I hope there is some inclusion of the slave trade since that was a major omission from the original.

Certainly not.

Colonization of the New World was different kind of process than with Africa and the idea of game, to become independent would be rather nonsensical then.

I voted no because the scope of this game is meant to be the Americas.

I would love for a game of this quality and depth to come out someday that has the entire world as it's scope, but this is not it. The good news is that this game is modable, and I am sure that someone will create an Africa mod, but I don't think it should be in the original.

If africa were to be involved, it would be an expansion pack, but i'm unsure if they'd go for southern asia and aussie first.

Of course Africa must be in the game...col2 must be an evolution game and not the same with different graphics or minor changes...
Africa is important to America because it was a continent that make a big contribution to the development of America. the slaves who manufacture the sugar in the west indies, the slve labour in the southern and some in the northern colonies, all in all Africa shape the new world tht was America.

But slavery's barely in the game, so your argument is kind of pointless.

Civ4Col is a remake of the original, not a sequel. There's more to it than just improved graphics. Some of the gameplay changes are hardly minor, like the reworked founding fathers system and the extended options when dealing with the natives.

Of course Africa must be in the game...col2 must be an evolution game and not the same with different graphics or minor changes...
Africa is important to America because it was a continent that make a big contribution to the development of America. the slaves who manufacture the sugar in the west indies, the slave labor in the southern and some in the northern colonies, all in all Africa shape the new world that was America.

That is one of the best damn answers I've heard... But i was surprised the poster below you said Slavery wouldn't be in the game significantly... Then again I don't think slavery became America's crutch/issue until after the Revolution but it certainly was the main source of labor in S. America and the Caribbean

i'm portuguese, and my people found colonies in Africa and was one of the major nations in the slave traficc. i'm not proud of that, but it was in other times, it's not a excuse because the African slaugther of that times must be remember every day. they say slavery his not in the game...ok, but it's an error. this game must be an educative game not only an adventure. and this is the sequel, not a simply remake. and it's true the africans suffer a lot in the new world and without his free labour the great fortunes of this continent never appeared. and without this fortunes maybe a robert e lee, or a george washington and all his efects in history never appeared. so this game must remember the africans, and the african americans of that day. they were important.

ps: excuse my english, is not my native language.:)

Personally, I don't really care whether Africa is in the game or not. I feel that this game is about the colonization of the New World (North and South America), and even though slaves from Africa were very important to the economy of the Southern Colonies, slavery isn't really dealt with in this game. :rolleyes:

Bright day
No. With several exceptions, the process in Africa was very different to colonization of America. I do not see how CIV: Colonization would be able to acomodate Danish trade posts, old French colonies like Senegal or the Portuguese inteaction with kingdom of Makongo.

i'm portuguese, and my people found colonies in Africa and was one of the major nations in the slave traficc. i'm not proud of that, but it was in other times, it's not a excuse because the African slaugther of that times must be remember every day. they say slavery his not in the game...ok, but it's an error. this game must be an educative game not only an adventure. and this is the sequel, not a simply remake. and it's true the africans suffer a lot in the new world and without his free labour the great fortunes of this continent never appeared. and without this fortunes maybe a robert e lee, or a george washington and all his efects in history never appeared. so this game must remember the africans, and the african americans of that day. they were important.

ps: excuse my english, is not my native language.:)

Oh your English is good so don't worry about it. All that matters is the point is understandable... Anyway Africans sold each other off to the Portuguese and other European nations so everyone is to blame... but so many benefited from such a wretched thing... you have to hate balance sometimes

I voted for all 4.

Of course Africa must be in the game...col2 must be an evolution game and not the same with different graphics or minor changes...
There is a difference between an "evolution game" and a completely different game who's only tie to the original is a name for the purposes of leeching its popularity.

I said including Africa in the core game would make the game totally different and I'm sticking to that! The colonisation of Africa was totally different to that of the Americas, and would require a totally different game. Really, the game should have been called "Colonization of America" or "Sid Meier's New World" because that's what it is! It's not about Africa, that's a completely different story.

Are you asking if you want Africa as a nation in or the concept of slavery in?
I'd say no to the former, most definitely yes to the latter.

I voted know, the aspects of the game are clearly slanted towards the America's, with the U.S.A in particular. Immigration based on religious descent, type A mercantilism, founding fathers and "liberty bells" to garner support for a revolution definitely sounds like new world stuff to me.

Yes, Africa should be involved. You should be able to sail a Galleon to northern Africa and replace the rum sitting in your cargo holds for freshly captured slaves.

And then see how many of those poor wretches survive the trans-atlantic journey for resale in the Dutch West Indies.

Additionally, you should be able to sail around to Hong Kong to trade your furs for opium, tea and silk.

It would be sensible if the game was about trade, but the game is called Civilization: Colonization, not Civilization: Mercantilism. You have to remember that the point of the game is to build a strong colony and separate from the motherland.

It would be sensible if the game was about trade, but the game is called Civilization: Colonization, not Civilization: Mercantilism. You have to remember that the point of the game is to build a strong colony and separate from the motherland.
It would make sense if the game was about colonization, but as I said it's about the colonization of the Americas specifically. For some reason people don't seem to understand this; they hear "Colonization" and think that everywhere that was ever colonized ought to appear in the game.

By not including it, it allows them to create a possible expansion pack adding it. Which means more money for them.

It would make sense if the game was about colonization, but as I said it's about the colonization of the Americas specifically. For some reason people don't seem to understand this; they hear "Colonization" and think that everywhere that was ever colonized ought to appear in the game.

I'm sorry, you misunderstood; I was a little rushed for time when I said that. I completely agree you. My above statement was directed at sirsnuggles.

What would the victory conditions be for Colonization Africa? Slowly withdrawing your government and letting chaos overtake the land?

I think this would be a better game with Africa in, but obviously the game of "Colonization!" is really the game of "American Independence!".

Apparently Dale will have a mod riding on the distribution which, HOPEFULLY, will broaden the game beyond the original. But realistically this game is mostly a remake.

Africa would make more sense as an imperialist (viceroyalty) and trade. But historically it was also important part of advancing European exploration of the world and the first success of finding a trade route to Asia, which was the real impetus for European exploration.

I don't think it's too focused on the United States. Many South American countries had wars of independence as well. Perhaps with less retaliation from the motherland (Spain, most of the time), but they were still armed conflicts. Just because the French and Dutch colonies didn't have to fight for their independence doesn't mean the game is US-centric.

I'm sorry, you misunderstood; I was a little rushed for time when I said that. I completely agree you. My above statement was directed at sirsnuggles.
Oh I know, I was agreeing with you! I was just kind of expanding on what you said, to emphasise the point that it's not really Colonization in general.

Oh I know, I was agreeing with you! I was just kind of expanding on what you said, to emphasise the point that it's not really Colonization in general.

Damn you computer communication restrictions!

I kind of wonder if people aren't overly conflating the first and second periods of African colonization by the European powers. Cape of Good Hope, anyone? During approximately the same period that Europeans were sailing to the Americas, they were also busy trying to get around Africa on their way to India and China. They didn't exactly make those trips without setting up way stations on the continent.

The establishment of the first colonies in South Africa by the Dutch falls smack dab in the middle of the period covered by the game. Some of you may have played the European colonization scenario that was in C3C (I think it was in that one, I could easily be mistaken) - that scenario included an African coast that ran all the way down to the Cape, and obviously, one that could be colonized.

(Never mind that colonization in that game was a fool's errand - I usually just took over all of Europe as fast as I could...:lol:)

I don't see why that same spirit couldn't be applied to the current game, notwithstanding the fact that it wasn't in the original.

It would actually make sense in a game about the age of discovery since they were not separate things, they were hapenning at the same time for the same reasons, in fact the American continent was only discovered because Spain and later England/France, were trying to get to Asia the other way around while avoiding Africa, in which Portugal had a very strong presence and a monopoly over those routes. The problem is that the first colonization is really a game about the new world and all the game mechanics are geared towards that, colonization in Africa was very diferent and I don't think the game mechanics would make sense if they weren't completly redone, which I don't think is the purpose of this exp.

Btw, I really hope Portugal will be there this time... I understand Firaxis will rather sell games in Holland than in Portugal but please... read a book.

I voted no. Let's try the game first.
Africa may be a great mod though.

I voted no, since Africa is vastly different from America. It's much closer to Europe (nearly had a border with Spain) and is directly attached to the Middle East.

True, but if one really wanted to include African colonization, all that needs to be done is restricting it to sub-saharan Africa and leaving out the North that is part of the eurocentric concept of the 'Old World'.

In which case you'd have only half of Africa to colonize. :rolleyes:

Africa, or the other places listed, will be in the expansion pack. Thay always make an expansion pack for Civ games now. They already know what to leave out so they can put it in the expansion.

So there will be an expansion pack to this expansion?

So there will be an expansion pack to this expansion?
No, that's just the ramblings of people too cynical for their own good. If there is an official expansion it will not include Africa for the reasons I explained earlier in the thread.

Actually, some may remember the game "Heart of Africa" for the Commodore 64. That was a pretty fun game, and a lot like "Seven Cities of Gold" if anyone remembers that one.

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

I like the idea of having other places that were colonized. Not just Africa, but India and Australia, each with a different flavor to them. However, those would be good ideas for mods or expansions to the new Colonization. The Original Colonization only featured America, and was very Americentric in that regard. So, while I voted for "Why not other places too?" I would expect those to come out in modpacks from some of our astoundingly brilliant modders here, or alternately as an expansion pack, not as part of the core game.

No, that's just the ramblings of people too cynical for their own good. If there is an official expansion it will not include Africa for the reasons I explained earlier in the thread.

:)

Actually I agree, there will be (probably) be no Africa officially released.

I am cynical about new releases. Colonisation is not an expansion pack, its stand alone. And I do believe they are planning an expansion to it because it will (most likely) be a good game that sells well, so an expansion to it will most likely sell well.

I think its fairly safe to say that certain developer LOVE releasing expansions. An example is the Total War crew, they have released expansions for every Total War game.

One side of the fence is "cynical", I say the other side of the fence is "off in la-la land" if they think there is not even talk within the company of an expansion! :p

Peace.

One side of the fence is "cynical", I say the other side of the fence is "off in la-la land" if they think there is not even talk within the company of an expansion! :p
Far off la-la land is where people believe Africa was "left out" of Colonization for the sole reason that it could be later included in an expansion :p

Maybe this could be the big "African Conspiracy Theory"?

This version is basically just an updated graphic conversion of the original.. thats why it's being called Civ4/Colonization .. If there ever is to be an actual Colonization II , (not holding my breath as it took 14 years just for this remake ) there would really be a need to be more diverse with nations, units, victory conditions etc, or why bother ..? :)

You're still missing the scope of the game: the Americas.

Saying this version is just a 'graphical conversion' is like saying Civ2 thru 4 are 'graphical conversions' of Civ1, just because the scope wasn't made broader by including additional planets, science fiction tech trees and, hell, aliens.

Civ4Col does have new features (basically like every Civilization sequel), but you keep dismissing those. In which case, through that line of thinking, Civilization IV is just a 'graphical conversion' of the original Civilization. The new features are to be ignored, since the game's scope is the same.

In my mind, decided by reading about the game, is that it is more of a Col 1.5 than a Col 2. The new features are not that radical, pretty much the game will play the same. Having said that I do acknowledge I have not played the game, I am open to surprises.

If anyone have not played to original version then this will be a great experience for you. For me I'm not excited because the game just aint that different. I believe it will be a better experience than playing the original, and not just for the graphics, but really will it be different like the differences between, say, Medieval Total War 1 and 2?

I think there will be enough differences like those between Civ1 and Civ2.

No one is missing anything , Lord... I said "basically" it's the same game.. I'm well aware of the borders now etc.. but it still the same gameplay and same Victory condition. That's a fact you want to overlook.. I've played every version of Civ and the original Col so stop preaching to the choir.. :)

I voted 'indiffrent' [sic]. I think there's a logical size to games when they first come out (except for semi-historical simulations such as Europa Universalis and Romance of the Three Kingdoms). That's why I don't have a problem with the people who provide my entertainment making a profit from expansions. In fairness to Firaxis/2K they give our marvelous modders all the tools to extend the game; perhaps they even cherry-pick the most popular amateur creations for the next addition to the game.

I'm looking forward to an expansion that allows for protecting trade routes, the inclusion of other continents (as well as other civilisations) and the redevelopment of international relations with former colonies.

I voted "why just Africa".... after all, having just France colonizing America is non-historical too.. Imagine French being the official language of USA :D

They say in 50 years time the most spoken language in USA could be Spanish.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/By-2030-Spanish-Will-be-the-World-039-s-Second-Language-After-Chinese-62509.shtml

Are they including slavery this time? If they do an Africa expansion then they could include the dynamic of slavery. Its not a topic that is pretty and also could result in vocal cranky people. If they included the dynamic of slavery then in the "original" campaign you could get slaves from the natives (due to it being coded in). How historic is that? I have no doubts it happened somewhere, but on what scale?

I believe slavery happened in two ways, 1 slaves where taken by force by the Europeans and 2 slaves were captured by other tribes and sold to the Europeans. I don't know what the ratio between the two were, but it could be slaves could be another commodity.

Is including slavery a touchy subject for anyone?

I voted "why just Africa".... after all, having just France colonizing America is non-historical too.. Imagine French being the official language of USA :D
Uh, New France is not in the USA, it is in Canada. It is called Quebec, and they do speak French there. France colonising America is plenty historical.

France colonizing ,instead of England, what is the today the USA is not historical, it never happened. England by 1763 defeated France for control of America.. So,,it's a "what if" if France does it in the game.. And my point being why not have other countries try that "what if" scenario too.. :)

I even would like a total murge between civilization and colonization. A civilization with a real productionsystem, and no langer with he symbolic recources and shields, but real production of luxery products and real industies with scientific advanances and so on.

France colonizing ,instead of England, what is the today the USA is not historical, it never happened.
And it doesn't happen in the game, to my knowledge. Every reference I've seen to France has been concerning Quebec, not the USA. Why do you keep saying USA?

England by 1763 defeated France for control of America..
*cough*Louisiana*cough*

So,,it's a "what if" if France does it in the game.. And my point being why not have other countries try that "what if" scenario too.. :)
I believe you've misunderstood this thread. It's not about Africa colonising America!

LOL No offense Dryhad but you quote me to correct me and then you are quoting history,,.??. And you are talking about what the cities are called not what area they are.
onthe game map and I never said it was about Africa colonizing America.. You're trying to make out that this game is historically accurate and it's not..only historically flavored. The thread was about africa being in the game,, and the only point I was making is that the game is still a "what if" scenario and in that case I say why not Africa or Itlay,, throw Japan in there too.. Too many people on this board like to "correct" other peoples posts only with their opinions,,not facts.. it gets boring and repetitive..

Ooops hit Enter too soon LOL..
the final word I'll say on the subject is that in the game let's say the English settlements were in the North part of the new land and the French colonize the middle and the Spanish the south,, and I was still living geographically where I am today,I was joking that if that was what happened historical I would be speaking French instead of English.. Got it ?? if not, quote me some more.. LOL :D

I voted No. The scope of the (base) game is the New World.

To portray the colonisation of Africa, India, Asia I think you'd need quite different mechanics.

Consider, in particular, that whilst Africa was a lot more accessible to Europeans than the America's, there was relatively little colonisation. Indeed, it wasn't until the Victorian age that there was a "Scramble for Africa".

I wouldn't want Africa in. Its a game about the colonisation of the new world, not colonising in general. You need a different game (eg Europa Universalis) for that. I hope there is some inclusion of the slave trade since that was a major omission from the original.

Exactly!!
It would be little wierd if they putted in africa in a American-Colonization game...
I think the game is fine as it is... :)

Too many people on this board like to "correct" other peoples posts only with their opinions,,not facts.. it gets boring and repetitive..
You included.

The game certainly allows for what-if scenarios, but always with a mildly reasonable historical base.

Look, if you want Italy, Japan or, hell, Martians colonizing America, Africa, Asia or the Moon, mod it into your game. Nobody's gonna stop you. Just don't try to justify it with history.

LOL No offense Dryhad but you quote me to correct me and then you are quoting history,,.??.
Because I'm correcting your historical statements. I could try to correct you bizarre use of punctuation, if you'd prefer.

And you are talking about what the cities are called not what area they are.
I'm not quite sure I understand what you're trying to say. Are you saying that by the nature of the game each civilisation can settle anywhere so that "not historical"? How on earth does that justify including Africa? This is some slippery slope you've gotten on, why even bother with the French? We should have xenon-breathing creatures from the 27th dimension in this game because everything that didn't happen in history is exactly the same!

onthe game map and I never said it was about Africa colonizing America..
The reason I said that is because you don't make any sense! I'm desperately trying to make sense of your posts but it's very difficult to understand the leaps of logic, made up idioms, and random punctuation. I think I now understand (you're saying that since the French can colonise, say, Florida, in this game but didn't in reality it makes exactly as much sense to include other areas in the game, right?) but that doesn't say much. I thought I understood before, but apparently no.

You're trying to make out that this game is historically accurate and it's not..only historically flavored.
You're the one talking about history!

The thread was about africa being in the game,, and the only point I was making is that the game is still a "what if" scenario and in that case I say why not Africa or Itlay,, throw Japan in there too.. Too many people on this board like to "correct" other peoples posts only with their opinions,,not facts.. it gets boring and repetitive..
Yeeesss... It's not a fact that Quebec was colonised by the French. It's my opinion!

Ooops hit Enter too soon LOL..
the final word I'll say on the subject is that in the game let's say the English settlements were in the North part of the new land and the French colonize the middle and the Spanish the south,, and I was still living geographically where I am today,I was joking that if that was what happened historical I would be speaking French instead of English.. Got it ?? if not, quote me some more.. LOL :D
Yes, I do get it now. See, I thought you were saying that the French's inclusion in this game at all was a historical inaccuracy! Haha, do you see where I got confused?

As far as I know colonization of Africa is not as rapid as in America, since Africa has poorer resources and living conditions and most of it is not colonized until 19th century. I do hope that Africa to be added in an expansion or be included in a world map scenario where we can colonize India, Indochina, East Indies and Australia as well. It would still be happy if Africa is left from the game.

No Lord,, I have never corrected anyone's post with my opinion,, I just make my own feelings and for whatever reason then have to defendt hem against comments like yours.. Just like the last statement you just made.... Get off your soapbox.. LOL

Dryhad,, yes I can't type that good.. that I admit. I'm blind in my right eye and have very bad arthritis..but I try.
Here's my simple response. Maybe ask for clarification first before you feel a need to disect and correct someone on a Board. You say you were correcting my history statements ? What are you referring to ? Are you saying England did not retain control over the colonies in 1763 ? Thats not my opinion, it's in a history book and I just checked it again on Wikipedia.. Are you creating your own history book ? LOL :D
As for the Louisiana area and it's Purchase,, what point you making ? None in what I was reffering to.. None.. LOL

PS...whoever said Quebec was founded by anyone else... not me. go back and read it.. Your defense responses had no meaning to what i even wrote .. :)

And Lord,, I never tried to justify it with History,, In fact just the opposite... I said the game is NOT historical accurate therefore why not allow other nations.. ???? geesh.,, you still don't get it..

Here's my simple response. Maybe ask for clarification first before you feel a need to disect and correct someone on a Board. You say you were correcting my history statements ? What are you referring to ? Are you saying England did not retain control over the colonies in 1763 ? Thats not my opinion, it's in a history book and I just checked it again on Wikipedia.. Are you creating your own history book ? LOL :D
As for the Louisiana area and it's Purchase,, what point you making ? None in what I was reffering to.. None.. LOL
The point I was making is that Louisiana was purchased from France. After 1763. It's irrelevant anyway, it was based on a misunderstanding of your point.

PS...whoever said Quebec was founded by anyone else... not me. go back and read it.. Your defense responses had no meaning to what i even wrote .. :)
That's because your responses had nothing to do with what I wrote. Neither of us understood what the other was talking about. Since I was the first to respond to you, my bad. I can't fault you for assuming I understood you.

This is a distraction. As I said I misunderstood you. Now that I understand, I can see what your actual mistake was. The reason Africa is not in the game has nothing to do with history. You think that the mild historical inaccuracies inherent in any game justify the inclusion of Africa, but that's missing the point. It's not because historically it wasn't colonised, in fact that's patently false. It's because it's a completely different situation to the Americas, in many, many ways. History doesn't come into it.

I'll agree that this has gone on longer than it should.. In any event I'll be buying Colonization when it comes out because I can find faults but still think it was a good game and I look forward to seeing the CIV4 engine version.
And after playing it I look forward to posting more innacurate statements for you to correct ( just kidding LOL ) :D

Hopefully we will see an imperialism mod, slavery mod, maybe even a euro-wars mods, etc.. but realistically Firaxis won't.

Are you asking if you want Africa as a nation in or the concept of slavery in?
I'd say no to the former, most definitely yes to the latter.

I agree with you.

What would the victory conditions be for Colonization Africa? Slowly withdrawing your government and letting chaos overtake the land?

Having the sense not to colonize it in the first place.

After all the European nations did colonize there too...
Except the point of the game is to kinda recreate/relive the birth of the american nation and revolution against its parent, not to recreate the entire imperialistic age. It's a pretty simple premise with a little extra flavor (different nationalities to go for independence with).
The only relavence Africa would have in the context of the game would be slavery/triangle trade.