Guess the New Civs

Pangur Bán;11410965 said:
Using size of territory claimed in Amazonia to make Portugal a top empire is like making any nation today a top empire for claiming the territory of Mars or the Moon.

That's a very ignorant remark, especially considering what I said before. Go read about the Portuguese Empire in Wikipedia, maybe you'll learn something.

I quote the first paragraph:

"The Portuguese Empire (Portuguese: Império Português), also known as the Portuguese Overseas Empire (Ultramar Português) or the Portuguese Colonial Empire (Império Colonial Português), was the first global empire in history.[1][2][3] In addition, it was the longest-lived of the modern European colonial empires, spanning almost six centuries, from the capture of Ceuta in 1415 to the handover of Macau in 1999 or the grant of sovereignty to East Timor in 2002. The empire spread throughout a vast number of territories that are now part of 53 different sovereign states."

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

The map of the Empire is also very interesting.
 
No point about arguing having Portugal as the ninth civ. Lisbon is a city-state.

The dev team prolly couldn't make it unique in trait. It would be similar to Dutch and Carthage.

They had no problems doing that in other Civ games, why would they have now? They always leave Portugal for later. It will certainly be included in a later DLC (probably like Spain) or expansion.
 
Actually, they usually add the Dutch and the Portuguese together. The problem is they never had to make each civ unique, just give them a combination of traits that hadn't yet been used.
 
I can imagine unique traits for Portugal. Perhaps related to the establishment of overseas cities?
Regardless, we know it's not happening.
 
The Unique trait of Portugal doesn't need to be similar to the Dutchs,because Portugal didn't have a Corporation to handle overseas domains,unlike the Dutchs . Some kind of bonus on Great Merchants Points would be nice for them,since there's only one Civ with a UA related to Great People .
 
That's a very ignorant remark, especially considering what I said before. Go read about the Portuguese Empire in Wikipedia, maybe you'll learn something.

I quote the first paragraph:

"The Portuguese Empire (Portuguese: Império Português), also known as the Portuguese Overseas Empire (Ultramar Português) or the Portuguese Colonial Empire (Império Colonial Português), was the first global empire in history.[1][2][3] In addition, it was the longest-lived of the modern European colonial empires, spanning almost six centuries, from the capture of Ceuta in 1415 to the handover of Macau in 1999 or the grant of sovereignty to East Timor in 2002. The empire spread throughout a vast number of territories that are now part of 53 different sovereign states."

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

The map of the Empire is also very interesting.

Radu, I know you mean well and care about your topic, but you're going nowhere here, not understanding the point, and going back to ad hominem.

Portugal got a nice system of trading posts up and colonial cities up and running, and it was a great patron of exploration, but it was never a sizable territorial empire and much of the time it was actually under the monarch of another country.
 
Pangur Bán;11411135 said:
Radu, I know you mean well and care about your topic, but you're going nowhere here, not understanding the point, and going back to ad hominem.

Portugal got a nice system of trading posts up and colonial cities up and running, and it was a great patron of exploration, but it was never a sizable territorial empire and much of the time it was actually under the monarch of another country.

No ad hominem, I'm highlighting you don't know what you're talking about. Not my fault if you speak nonsense. Look at the map, I'm sure you can do it.

And Portugal was under a Spanish monarch for 60 years. 60. Even then, Spain did not take control of the rest of the Empire. And if you consider that "much of the time", you really can't be helped.
 
The problem is, the map is a modern construction based on the territory they legally held. The more important question is "What did they actually control?" Pangur Bán argues that much of their direct control was coastal and their influence in the interior depended on alliances with natives or was limited to expeditions. In that sense, it isn't accurate to count as part of their greatest territorial extent.
 
No ad hominem, I'm highlighting you don't know what you're talking about. Not my fault if you speak nonsense. Look at the map, I'm sure you can do it.

And Portugal was under a Spanish monarch for 60 years. 60. Even then, Spain did not take control of the rest of the Empire. And if you consider that "much of the time", you really can't be helped.

Hey, that's a very harsh response, you should really stop this
Pangur Bán do make some valid points too
In my opinion the reality (or my reality :mischief:) is somewhere between your opinions guys ;)
Portugal was very significant, but the size of it's actual territorial empire was very far from the size of it's colonial empire
 
No ad hominem, I'm highlighting you don't know what you're talking about. Not my fault if you speak nonsense. Look at the map, I'm sure you can do it.

And Portugal was under a Spanish monarch for 60 years. 60. Even then, Spain did not take control of the rest of the Empire. And if you consider that "much of the time", you really can't be helped.

So you are quoting random bits from the Wikipedia article you think will make the "Portguese Empire" sound impressive and hence show my "ignorance", but all you've really highlighted is that you are prepared to throw around insults when you don't like a point someone makes or irks your patriotic ego. I still see no evidence you actually understand the point about Amazonia in relation to the table on the last page. :)
 
Pangur Bán;11411217 said:
So you are quoting random bits from the Wikipedia article you think will make the "Portguese Empire" sound impressive and hence show my "ignorance", but all you've really highlighted is that you are prepared to throw around insults when you don't like a point someone makes or irks your patriotic ego. I still see no evidence you actually understand the point about Amazonia in relation to the table on the last page. :)

How would it be patriotic if I'm not Portuguese? If you made ignorant remarks about the British Empire, or any other, I would point out the same way. I already pointed out how the Portuguese were present in the Amazon and profited from trading its spices.

Also, answering Louis XXIV, if you look at the map, it's quite interesting on how it divides actual possessions, claims of sovereignty and areas of influence and trade. There was indeed Portuguese presence in the Amazon. Mind you, it was a progressive expansion to those regions. Not to mention much of the Amazon was under Spanish rule as well. Besides, even if you took off the Amazon from Portuguese Empire, it would still be pretty large. But following this logic, we would have to shorten most of the Empires in the world, so I don't understand why applying this logic only to Portugal.
 
Pangur, can I ask you 1 thing ?

Is it better to project an empire over rain forest, desert, steppe, tundra or mountain range ?

You seem to evaluate grassland more than anything else but you are misguiding yourself. Every empire start from a geographical location and grom from fear and conivence, or else it stops at a regional level at best (kingdom, emirate, whatever ... ) You can see the persian empire as one, but it was, in fact, many ; and the Majapahit, in this regard, is very much the same.
 
I think jungle is hard to administer while grassland (particularly with rivers) is relatively easy. It's not a value judgment, just a judgment over what effective rule means.
 
Well, it's about understanding how states work. Jungle and mountains don't have many people in them, and it isn't actually possible for a pre-20th century state to rule such regions when they are extensive. Claiming such regions in a state's territory for the purpose of using such an area to evaluate the said state vis-a-vis other "empires" is not very helpful. It's obvious when you think about it. States are about people and settlements. Rome is clearly worthier as an "empire" than Aguirre's "empire of the monkeys", even if the latter laid claim to a larger numbers of acres.

@Radu_Magus, don't think it's a good idea to continue talking to you. I understood you to be Brazilian btw, but I apologize if I mistook your nationality.
 
Jungles and mountains actually have a lot of people in them.. some of the largest cities in the world are in jungles, and many actually are on or near mountains...
 
No, the point is that you need intensely farmed land to support large populations. Jungles and mountains absolutely do not support large populations. No large city takes its food base from jungle or mountain.
 
Perhaps not independently and currently, but many have in the past. Lakeside valleys in the mountains, riverside cities in the jungle - all were (and are, in some cases) quite large.
 
Farming is the prerequisite of state-level society (needed for "empires"), and very basically you need food to have people. There is of course a difference between cities near jungles or in clearings, than in jungles; or on plateaus or valleys, than in mountains. Jungle and mountain themselves are limited in value for a state-level society as long as they exist as jungle or mountain.
 
Top Bottom