Why Should Portugal/Brazil be on the game

[kazapp]

Colonization is a game which covers the colonization and independence of a Northern America-ish continent. The simple reason Portugal isn't included is that it was a non-factor there and then.

 

[Tullaris]

Something for your history classes, then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Brazil

Pay attention to the section "The gold cycle (18th century)". If you look at a map, you will realize Minas Gerais are not at all located on the coast...

Cheers,

Mad Hab

What the hell is this supposed to mean? How is this relevant at all? Just because they established a territorial province does not mean it is densely populated. Additionally your quoted topic is about the 18th century, at the end of the games scope.

I know you would all love to have your country in the game but this topic asked for opinions. I'm against the inclusion of Portugal. I think these powers represent the colonial powers well.

You should not look at which countries became powers afterwards and which countries did not. You should look at the balance of power back then and then see what could have happened had history played out differently.

The reason why for example the Dutch have left no large Dutch speaking nations is that the Dutch were in it for the profit. Trade = profit. Colonization = building power base. That does not mean that the Dutch didnt try.
However their homecountry was the richest in the world and most free country in the world, nobody particulary was keen on leaving for an adventure in the new world. In contrast many poor English, French and Spanish farmer would have been willing to leave his country. Additionally the Dutch republic had less population than the other powers. Some Dutch companies wanted to use culturally close poor German farmers to populate Dutch colonies.

 

[r_rolo1]

Colonization is a game which covers the colonization and independence of a Northern America-ish continent. The simple reason Portugal isn't included is that it was a non-factor there and then.

If that is true, why the hell the Incas and the Tupi appeard in the original one? I'm sure that they had a huge role in the history of Northern America

 

[lumpthing]

I seem to recall that in the original Colonization manual it specifically stated that they didn't include Portugal because their American colonial history was too similar to Spain's; they didn't think it would add much.

 

[r_rolo1]

^^ Too similar, right... so similar that there is one Brazil and not 3556 and a lot of new Spains and not simply only one.... I think that says something by it self ( just to not clutter the thread with a page long rabble about Firaxis ever-lasting diminuishing of the Portuguese paper in History in her games ).

 

[lumpthing]

yep i always thought it was stupid. i expect they thought five european powers would slow down the game too much. but that's no excuse now

 

[cephalo]

The original game very often had multiple continents. Usually north and south, but sometimes even east and west. The west one usually stayed undeveloped.

 

[Pigmerikan Mao]

I think that the exclusion of Brazil and Portugal on the bases of how their nation came to exist as its own empire is a mistake. The whole point of the civilization series is to rewrite history. Excluding other empires limits the ability of the gamer to do that. I feel more than the empires included should have been to widen the possibilities. Portugal, Sweden and Russia all had stakes in the Americas but were not included. Germany was also a large empire based on the profit of the exploitation of colonies and was not included. Granted that any German stakes in the new world were minimal at best, it still begs the question of what could have been. Perhaps those civilizations will be included in a later expansion pack (they always are) though the lack of empires to choose from makes the game a little less desirable for me. Just my ranting opinion though.

 

[Shurdus]

What's all this 'yes but this is a game of alternative history' crap? If you believe that, you will also have no trouble imagening that in this alternative history, Portugal did not regain independence from Spain and so you can play Spain and pretend Portugal is included.

Problem solved.

 

[r_rolo1]

And how about to pretend that the Dutch rebelion failed and remove them from the game? And how about pretend that England won the 100 years war and remove France from the game? And how about pretend that the Armada was sucessful and remove England from the game? And how about to pretend that Portugal won the Toro battle and that the Catholic kings never united Castille with Aragon and remove Spain from game?

Problem Solved... we have no European civs in game

 

[mboza]

yep i always thought it was stupid. i expect they thought five european powers would slow down the game too much. but that's no excuse now

The reason that two of the European powers always merged as soon as you reached 50% rebel sentiment was so that the King's Expeditionary Force could replace the smallest European power as the third AI. I think it was memory consumption more than game speed causing the problem.

 

[apenpaap]

In th 16th century, Portugal was, after Spain, the most powerful colonial power in the world. Though they didn't colonise much of North America, They did get A lot of South America.

 

[GIO888]

Portugal wasn't in the original Col because it was beyond the technical scope of the software at the time. I think someone said already?

No probs now, so it should be in there -for game balance as much as anything, frankly, the Spanish are on their own on the whole South of the continent while the French, English and Dutch are crammed into the North!

 

[bob bobato]

I seem to recall that in the original Colonization manual it specifically stated that they didn't include Portugal because their American colonial history was too similar to Spain's; they didn't think it would add much.

That's one thing I've never liked about civ's designers (and the closely related col designers); its horribly offensive sense of self importance and cultural arrogance. Who do they think they are? They're game designers, not historians, they don't have the right to say things like that. What did they do, look at pretty pictures of Spain and Portugal and say "these buildings look the same. They must be the same country", read a few pieces of Spanish and Portuguese literature and go "this looks like the same language to me (at least I can't see a difference), so it must be the same thing".
And it's not just colonization. It's other things to. In civ games, for example, France has been lead by Jean d'Arc, and India is lead by Gandhi, both of whom were never head's of state. What did the designers do, look at a list of historical people from those countries and pick the first names they recognize? And in the booklet that came with Civ chronicles, they said that they got complaints about in their civopedia, because there were wrong dates and names. And they didn't acknowledge their mistake, they just started talkin about different people having different opinions!
But the thing that bothers me the most is that they don't seem to realize that they, of all people, don't have the right to simplify and diminish other countries and peoples, and they certainly don't have the right to change their history to suit their silly game's purposes. It's that horrible sense of entitlement and arrogance that's so typical of the american stereotype ('if it weren't for us, you'd be speaking german' comes to mind). And I'm done with my ranting about obscure and trivial subjects for today.

 

[bob bobato]

Turns out I double posted.

 

[apenpaap]

That's one thing I've never liked about civ's designers (and the closely related col designers); its horribly offensive sense of self importance and cultural arrogance. Who do they think they are? They're game designers, not historians, they don't have the right to say things like that. What did they do, look at pretty pictures of Spain and Portugal and say "these buildings look the same. They must be the same country", read a few pieces of Spanish and Portuguese literature and go "this looks like the same language to me (at least I can't see a difference), so it must be the same thing".
And it's not just colonization. It's other things to. In civ games, for example, France has been lead by Jean d'Arc, and India is lead by Gandhi, both of whom were never head's of state. What did the designers do, look at a list of historical people from those countries and pick the first names they recognize? And in the booklet that came with Civ chronicles, they said that they got complaints that there were errors in their civopedia, because there were wrong dates and names. And they didn't apologize!
But the thing that bothers me the most is that they don't seem to realize that they, of all people, don't have the right to say to simplify and diminish other countries and peoples, and they certainly don't have the right to change their history to suit their silly game's purposes. It's that horrible sense of entitlement and arrogance that's so typical of the american stereotype ('if it weren't for us, you'd be speaking german' comes to mind). And I'm done with my ranting about obscure and trivial subjects for today.

I agree with you. But on the other hand, it's a game. Not a representation of history, so it's meant to be fun primarily, though in this case, adding portugal would be more fun.

By the way, you doubleposted.

 

[Zenon_pt]

What's all this 'yes but this is a game of alternative history' crap? If you believe that, you will also have no trouble imagening that in this alternative history, Portugal did not regain independence from Spain and so you can play Spain and pretend Portugal is included.

Problem solved.

Shurdus. I have remained neutral on this topic, since I was the one who asked the question. But I get furious with the Spanish question. How about the Netherlands NEVER had independecia from Spain? Problem solved!

(The guys from here know my opinion about Spain.)

 

[r_rolo1]

@bob botato

Minor picky stuff: there is no such thing as a "Spanish" language. There is a Castilian language.... Talking about "Spanish" language is like saying that in UK you speak United Kingdomish as prime oficial language ( Ok , I noticed that you didn't explicitely said Spanish language, but it is clearly embebeded in your speech )

I'm somehow disgusted of how Sid Meier's games treat Portugal for a long time: unexistent in Col, 2nd pack material in both Civ III and IV ( even Behind Ragnar of the Vikings... as it is in one CFC member sig states, the equivalent of a Cowboy civ leaded by Zorro or Lucky Luke ).... and the traditional choice of Henry the Navigator as leader on Civ III... ( D. João II is a far better choice.... ). I don't think that simple market laws explain it all.... not seeing a strong Mali lobby group in the US . Probably it is simply part of the American under-performance in terms of Historical knowledge, combined with "They sound the same to me" attitude , like you state ....

@apenpaap

I'm pretty sure that a game meant to be a recreation ( more or less faithfull ) of the European colonization of Americas will be far less fun if the designer decides to censor one of the top players of the european colonizators of America ( far more important than the Dutch or even the French... ). It just does not seem right

 

[volbound1700]

Portugal was the most dominant naval power in Europe from 1420- 1540s. Also they colonized Brazil and some of the Caribbean. However, most people are right, Portugal mostly colonized Africa and the Pacific. However, they still were enough player IMO to earn the 5th and last spot. I don't think another civ would be proper but I do think some events such as a random Swede group showing up in Delaware at a certain time period could add flavor.

 

[Rex rgis of Ter]

Has anyone noticed Portugal and Poland start with P?