I was playing as Bolivar last night...

[Tonheuru]

And I found it interesting how when I declared independence the video showed the declaration of independence of the United States of America, complete with star spangled banner, and when I won it was English Redcoats surrendering to Americans under a star spangled banner.

4 factions, but only one independent state on the western continent?

 

[Tavenier]

Yes, why not have Spain form Mexico/Argentina?
I believe the old Col had that. On the same level I find it strange that in old Col the Dutch had a historical correct Stadtholder and in this version the have a King.

 

[ikki]

heh, well.. there was the burgundian dukes or city councils probly more exact
also the holy roman emperors
then the spanish kings
finally a republic of their own
..but then replaced by a monarchy yet again



Wouldnt that be funny, just after the 80 years war.. rebelling against the republic in order to form a monarchy?

 

[Tavenier]

Do I sense a mod?

Well, in the timespan of Col the Dutch were a republic. It lasted until Napoleon was defeated in 1813. Then the Netherlands became a monarchy (and still is). The Dutch voyages of exploration was financed by rich burghers/merchants. They had the power in Holland, not the nobles, like most countries in those days.

 

[KebraNoir]

Yes, why not have Spain form Mexico/Argentina?
I believe the old Col had that. On the same level I find it strange that in old Col the Dutch had a historical correct Stadtholder and in this version the have a King.

Didnt the dutch get a king in 1815?

 

[ikki]

Do I sense a mod?

Well, in the timespan of Col the Dutch were a republic. It lasted until Napoleon was defeated in 1813. Then the Netherlands became a monarchy (and still is). The Dutch voyages of exploration was financed by rich burghers/merchants. They had the power in Holland, not the nobles, like most countries in those days.

If it starts in 1492, you are very much sent away by burgundians or local nobles.

The republic wasnt founded until after the 80-year-war had atleast started..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years'_War

 

[Tavenier]

Didnt the dutch get a king in 1815?

1813, see my second post. After Nap was defeated (the first time, before Waterloo) the victors agreed upon a (relative) large country to the north of France, so present-day Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg became one country under one king.

Before that Holland had a king for a couple of years, who was the brother of Napoleon.

And before that (centuries before that) the provinces of the Netherlands had the King of Spain. During the 80 years war the Dutch started to explore and colonize. End it ended before Napoleon (East India Company lasted until 1799 for example).

 

[Tavenier]

If it starts in 1492, you are very much sent away by burgundians or local nobles.

The republic wasnt founded until after the 80-year-war had atleast started..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighty_Years'_War

Nope, the stadtholder was in charge way before 1648. The only difference after that year was that Spain (the powerhouse of Europe) recognized it. From the start of the war (1568) there was a stadtholder. Actually there were several, but the most powerful one was that of the province of Holland.

1492 was chosen because of Columbus. If they wanted to make it more accurate the Dutch would have the Spanish king until 1568. Then a stadtholder. And in 1492 only two countries were colonizing and one of them isn't in the game. It is a bit like starting with the Americans in 4000 BC.

Anyway, it is way more accurate to have a Dutch stadtholder. A Dutch king is never correct, in any year of the Col timespan.

 

[ikki]

Nope, the stadtholder was in charge way before 1648. The only difference after that year was that Spain (the powerhouse of Europe) recognized it. From the start of the war (1568) there was a stadtholder. Actually there were several, but the most powerful one was that of the province of Holland.

1492 was chosen because of Columbus. If they wanted to make it more accurate the Dutch would have the Spanish king until 1568. Then a stadtholder. And in 1492 only two countries were colonizing and one of them isn't in the game. It is a bit like starting with the Americans in 4000 BC.

Anyway, it is way more accurate to have a Dutch stadtholder. A Dutch king is never correct, in any year of the Col timespan.

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

Most of what is now the Netherlands and Belgium was eventually united by the Duke of Burgundy in 1433. Before the Burgundian union, the Dutch identified themselves by the town they lived in, their local duchy or county or as subjects of the Holy Roman Empire. The Burgundian period is when the Dutch began the road to nationhood.

&

Through inheritance and conquest, all of the Low Countries became possessions of the Habsburg dynasty under Charles V in the 16th century, who united them into one state. The east of the Netherlands was occupied only a few decades before the Dutch struggle for independence.

 

[Tavenier]

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

Most of what is now the Netherlands and Belgium was eventually united by the Duke of Burgundy in 1433. Before the Burgundian union, the Dutch identified themselves by the town they lived in, their local duchy or county or as subjects of the Holy Roman Empire. The Burgundian period is when the Dutch began the road to nationhood.

&

Through inheritance and conquest, all of the Low Countries became possessions of the Habsburg dynasty under Charles V in the 16th century, who united them into one state. The east of the Netherlands was occupied only a few decades before the Dutch struggle for independence.

Really? I teach Dutch history...

I never said otherwise. But which one of these facts allows for a Dutch king instead of a stadtholder in Col?

 

[ikki]

Really? I teach Dutch history...

I never said otherwise. But which one of these facts allows for a Dutch king instead of a stadtholder in Col?

oh none

rather a burgundian duke, to be replaced by a hre emperor.. spanish king,.. and only then that stadtholder

 

[Tavenier]

oh none

rather a burgundian duke, to be replaced by a hre emperor.. spanish king,.. and only then that stadtholder

Why don't we start the game in 1568 and start out with Spain already owning a few colonies?

But back to the original topic.......

I find it strange that al colonies get the Anglo-Saxon ending. Why not Quebec, Mexico and Surinam (wasn't that the one for the Dutch in Col1?)?

 

[ikki]

guess spain would walk all over everyone and their 2 colonists, when they sit on top of.. umm.. 40 cities at size 12+ by then

 

[Tavenier]

Well, by the time other Europeans arrive they have +20.000% inflation. And give every European a couple of privateers!

 

[ikki]

Well, by the time other Europeans arrive they have +20.000% inflation. And give every European a couple of privateers!

Just might work.. i mean, maybe even those english could set up 13 colonies... making about a quarter of frances haiti.. and still win?
Nah, that would be awfully ahistorical

 

[tour86rocker]

I don't know why, but I had the impression from press releases that the nation's king would change over time during the game. However, I might have misunderstood something about the player's ability to choose between two leaders to play as.

The computer animation would have been a pain, but it would have been interesting if different phases of the game had different kings behaving differently. My understanding of American history is that the American revolution occurred in part because BEFORE King George, the previous ruler had let the colonies run themselves, giving them more latitude.

But regarding the CGI cutscenes in the game, I'm American but I understanding the annoyance that there is only American vs British movies in the game. I play almost always as the French. Since they didn't make one for each colonial power, I think they should have left those cutscenes more visually ambiguous as to who was involved.

 

[ikki]

The computer animation would have been a pain, but it would have been interesting if different phases of the game had different kings behaving differently. My understanding of American history is that the American revolution occurred in part because BEFORE King George, the previous ruler had let the colonies run themselves, giving them more latitude.

Yes, the colonial money was a big reason... and then it was banned, turning everyone destitute, forcing them to get english pounds.
Pounds they had to pay intrest on..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936