View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently 19 Oct 2019, o 19:36



Reply to topic  [ 23 posts ] 
 Lack of Celtic/North American Civs 
Author Message
Trainee

Joined: 9 Jul 2010, o 15:43
Posts: 11
Post Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
Hi, 1st of all id like to say. great mod! i really think you all did an amazing job and appreciate your hard work. however, there is one thing that i wish was in this mod and its the representation of north american civilizations, or any of their celtic roots. england sort of is... but still no ireland, scotland, or just plain celtic. which would be many of the 1st europeans to north america. (well you have celtic but not on the world map and just celtic is broadly general).

also south america has the mayans and central america the aztecs, but nothing in north america, which is a huge land mass and would be really fun to start on for a change. because with only 2 civs it is very difficult to play the world map starting in the americas.

i think having at least one north american native civ would be really fun. the mohawks would be very cool. they were also one of the most aggressive native groups. also canada and the usa should really be in the game. they are 2 of the by far largest and wealthiest countries in the world, both members of the g8 with 2 very different cultures and histories. you have civs like the mali, turks, polish, korea, and, zulu. which all all great and very rich in their cultures but they just never had the power/wealth or controlled a massive territory like usa and canada have.


9 Jul 2010, o 16:07
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007, o 17:19
Posts: 543
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
RomanKing wrote:
also south america has the mayans and central america the aztecs, but nothing in north america, which is a huge land mass and would be really fun to start on for a change.


I think you did not quite understood the name and purpose of our mode. Total Realism . Realism is on first place, fun is on second. What you suggest is unrealistic.

Quote:
because with only 2 civs it is very difficult to play the world map starting in the americas.


That's why both Americas were so easily conquered as they were underdeveloped and disorganised. The history could be changed a bit but general rules of trade, cultural development, scientifical progress remain the same - the more neighbours and cultural mixture you have the faster you progress by just "exchange of thoughts". We do not desire to change the history only for fun, that's why any north american tribes do not deserve to be a fully developed civilisation.

If you want to play the hitorical world - then you play World Map. If you want to play for fun - then you have random maps where you can use Celts, Americas, Incas, Aztecs in a different way their history went...

Quote:
you have civs like the mali, turks, polish, korea, and, zulu. which all all great and very rich in their cultures but they just never had the power/wealth or controlled a massive territory like usa and canada have.


Seems like somebody needs a bit of history lesson (no offence) ;) . Especially in the reasons of where does the current area/power of USA/Canada come from and for how long is it like this... Sometimes 200 years is nothing compared to centuries of other civ history...
We are not nationalists over here, so the argument "USA have to be in cause they are sooo powerful" just does not work :)

_________________
The only worse thing than being talked about is... not being talked about.


9 Jul 2010, o 17:39
Profile WWW
Trainee

Joined: 9 Jul 2010, o 15:43
Posts: 11
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
Vitez wrote:
RomanKing wrote:
Seems like somebody needs a bit of history lesson (no offence) ;) . Especially in the reasons of where does the current area/power of USA/Canada come from and for how long is it like this... Sometimes 200 years is nothing compared to centuries of other civ history...
We are not nationalists over here, so the argument "USA have to be in cause they are sooo powerful" just does not work :)


history lesson? i really dont think so... explain to me when civs like the mali, turks, polish, korea, and, zulu. where nearly as powerful, wealthy, or controlled as much territory as canada or the usa?

i understand what you are saying about things having to be realistic, but you must understand that for it to be entirely realistic these civs must be represented in some way... you cant say that the modern would would be the way it is today without these civs... the usa and canada liberated many of these european countries during WWII. helped restructure eastern europe and created east/west germany. and provided aid so they can re-build their countries. also the usa was the driving force behind much of the worlds global economy and advances in warefare. the usa also hold a lot of political leverage and power around the world and pretty much owns certain 3rd world countries through the arms trade and multinational corporations. the cold war is another important example, the nuclear arms race.... etc.

im not saying the usa should be in because they are the superpower... but im saying they should because it would be like not including rome because the country didnt exist when babylon did. mostly all of the countries that exist in the mod were colonial states or originated from another civ at one point in time.

is it realistic to have north america controlled by several random countries? isntead of usa & canada? also the natvies did have societies and political structures. they just got beat by gunpowder, disease and better technology

either way it seems to me that you have some bias against americans, especially by suggesting that i dont know any worlds history and need a history lesson.... however it doesn't matter but fyi im not an american and dont really much care for them either, but they should be represented... its kind of silly to have nuclear weapons in the game, but not the country that created them....


9 Jul 2010, o 19:06
Profile
RI Team
User avatar

Joined: 12 Jul 2007, o 09:23
Posts: 2916
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
In BtS, where colonies can be liberated, there is a fair chance of USA appearing the way it should on the World Map. If/when we implement Revolution mod, the chance will go up even more, and we will probably add other colonial revolters. As for Canada, Australia and New Zealand (and some other parts of the Commonwealth), they pretty much did no significant independent (not coordinated with the UK) actions in their history, so actually they can still be considered a part of the English civilization (not country, mind you - a civilization is a transnational term). USA has clearly won its right to be considered a separate civilization, and so it is in our mod.

World Map for BtS will have North America populated quite densely by different native tribes; that already consumed lots of our effort (they won't be playable though). Celtic-rooted civilizations are all represented by the Celts; they will definitely be on BtS world map, but whether they'll be playable we aren't decided yet.


9 Jul 2010, o 23:51
Profile
RI Team
User avatar

Joined: 12 Jul 2007, o 09:23
Posts: 2916
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
BTW, you brought in some very dubious arguments. To illustrate some of them, I will bring in some illustrations.

Here, for example, is the modern extent of Turkic civilization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map-T ... guages.png
I think it's pretty impressive, and was even more so some 100 years ago. Once again, you're mixing up civilization and nation.

In its heyday, Poland (or to be more precise, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) had more territory than any other European state apart from Russia (but Russia hardly counts, as you can't have more territory than Russia :D). I don't think any other country had ever controlled that much territory in Europe for more than several years, except for probably the empire of the Habsburgs - and that would be comparable too. To reiterate, Polish civilization occupied most territory and was among the most influential in Europe exactly at the time when the world was pretty much Eurocentric - for several centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polis ... ion%29.svg

That's more than Germans, for example, ever managed outside of XX century (and in XX century, the Third Reich has managed to expand beyond proper German territories only for some 5-6 years).


10 Jul 2010, o 00:05
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007, o 17:19
Posts: 543
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
RomanKing wrote:
history lesson? i really dont think so... explain to me when civs like the mali, turks, polish, korea, and, zulu. where nearly as powerful, wealthy, or controlled as much territory as canada or the usa?


The world was much smaller in the past. Not physically smaller, just by means of travel, knowledge, terrain 'wisdom', cultural influence, information flow etc. You have to scale this to compare civs fairly.
Practically every civilisation represented on our World Map has at least once a big empire, power, culture, finance compared to the known world of given era and compared to its neighbours.

Quote:
i understand what you are saying about things having to be realistic, but you must understand that for it to be entirely realistic these civs must be represented in some way... you cant say that the modern would would be the way it is today without these civs... the usa and canada liberated many of these european countries during WWII.


I can say otherwise. There are so many turnarounds in the history that you can't say we exist or are free today only by USA influence in such a tiny piece of human history like WWII. What would be in place of USA if France did not help them in Independence War? What would be the USA engagement in WWII if Confederates won the Civil War (check out the movie "Confederate States of America" ).
There are too many "whatifs" to consider and nowadays power/influence is not a good point in trying to force the opinion "this civ has to be there" .
Your main problem is that you focus on last 100-200 years history while 'organised' (civilised?) mankind history is at least 10000 years or more... (starting in 4000 BC is a huge rounding; Qaramel - 13 000 years ago, Jericho - 12000 years ago, Uruk and Sumerian civ - more than 6000 years ago ; these are some of the oldest cities!)

We had these discussions "which civs to include on World Map" quite a lot of times and decided to _represent_ people that settled some are for considerable amount of time (surely more than 200 years and some origin), having quite an organised structure, quite developed and consistent culture plus they had quite a big influence on history in some point in time where some moves/decision could change the history at all (example: Hannibal of Carthage... if only he marched and razed Rome instead of negotating capitulation there could be no Roman Empire what could even mean there would be no Christianity... and so on - again too many 'whatifs').
Therefore, from so many thousands of years of human history - those _countries_ formed mostly by colonial conquer do not fit into the total history since 4000 BC and are not considered _civilisations_ . Don't mistake a civilisation with just a country. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA - would be nothing without England and France. Mexico, Argentina, Brasil, Jamaica, Cuba etc - would be nothing without Spain and Portugal. Majority of middle and south african countries would be nothing without Netherlands, France and England. And so on - these are just shortcuts of our thoughts.

So from technical point of view - you do have some of the "civilisations" you mentioned as part of our mod. But to play them on the World Map you either have to add them manually using World Builder, or wait for BtS options so these countries can be created from colonial conquer.

The main fun from playing Civilisation and especially on the World Map is that you can shape the history in any kind you want. You are given some foundations, basics of history, then do what you want. Forcing some countries to appear only because somewhere in the history they somehow emerged is not much fun, as then you concentrate too much on replaying the history, not shaping it by yourself.
Enjoy the power to have fun!

_________________
The only worse thing than being talked about is... not being talked about.


10 Jul 2010, o 03:51
Profile WWW
Trainee

Joined: 9 Jul 2010, o 15:43
Posts: 11
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
Vitez wrote:
RomanKing wrote:
history lesson? i really dont think so... explain to me when civs like the mali, turks, polish, korea, and, zulu. where nearly as powerful, wealthy, or controlled as much territory as canada or the usa?


Vitez wrote:
The world was much smaller in the past. Not physically smaller, just by means of travel, knowledge, terrain 'wisdom', cultural influence, information flow etc. You have to scale this to compare civs fairly.
Practically every civilisation represented on our World Map has at least once a big empire, power, culture, finance compared to the known world of given era and compared to its neighbours.


None of those civs were even close to being a superpower or a rival to the superpower. civs that i would be comparable to the usa today would be rome, persia, mongolia, china, england, france, and spain. they were all world superpowers at one time, or in some cases close to it.

Quote:
i understand what you are saying about things having to be realistic, but you must understand that for it to be entirely realistic these civs must be represented in some way... you cant say that the modern would would be the way it is today without these civs... the usa and canada liberated many of these european countries during WWII.


Vitez wrote:
I can say otherwise. There are so many turnarounds in the history that you can't say we exist or are free today only by USA influence in such a tiny piece of human history like WWII. What would be in place of USA if France did not help them in Independence War? What would be the USA engagement in WWII if Confederates won the Civil War (check out the movie "Confederate States of America" ).
There are too many "whatifs" to consider and nowadays power/influence is not a good point in trying to force the opinion "this civ has to be there" .


are you serious? maybe you need a history lesson. europe would have been taken over by the natzi, gaurenteed. england and russia were on the brink of falling and what lead to the turn around was the surge of american and canadian troops into western europe that caused hitler to have to pull some forces out of russia to compensate. canada alone lost over 100,000 troop liberating some european countries. thats a pretty big what if. and im not trying to force an opinion, im making one... seems to me like you are trying to force yours.


Vitez wrote:
Your main problem is that you focus on last 100-200 years history while 'organised' (civilised?) mankind history is at least 10000 years or more... (starting in 4000 BC is a huge rounding; Qaramel - 13 000 years ago, Jericho - 12000 years ago, Uruk and Sumerian civ - more than 6000 years ago ; these are some of the oldest cities!)


and i have a problem now do i?

im not focusing on the modern world. im just saying it must be represented somehow. you cannot say that the world would be what it is today it it wasnt for these civs, just like it there was no roman empire. say if there was no usa, then there would be no electricity, no cars, so internet, or telephone, nuclear power, or weapons.... the modern world would not exist basically. also another very big what if.


Vitez wrote:
Therefore, from so many thousands of years of human history - those _countries_ formed mostly by colonial conquer do not fit into the total history since 4000 BC and are not considered _civilisations_ . Don't mistake a civilisation with just a country. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, USA - would be nothing without England and France. Mexico, Argentina, Brasil, Jamaica, Cuba etc - would be nothing without Spain and Portugal. Majority of middle and south african countries would be nothing without Netherlands, France and England. And so on - these are just shortcuts of our thoughts.


but also those countries would not exist if canada and the usa hadn't joined WWII.... same situation. electricity, cars, so internet, or telephone, nuclear power, nuclear weapons... where did they come from? and you say that the usa is not a civilization?? those things re-shaped the world! how can you not include the civ responsible for creating these advances, but still have them in the game. you have a wonders the manhattan project, statue of liberty, hoover dam...? it doesn't make sense and isn't realistic.

my advice to you would to be not so narrow minded. just because civilization originated in the old world does not mean that there isnt civilization in the new world.


10 Jul 2010, o 13:54
Profile
Trainee

Joined: 9 Jul 2010, o 15:43
Posts: 11
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
Walter Hawkwood wrote:
BTW, you brought in some very dubious arguments. To illustrate some of them, I will bring in some illustrations.

Here, for example, is the modern extent of Turkic civilization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map-T ... guages.png
I think it's pretty impressive, and was even more so some 100 years ago. Once again, you're mixing up civilization and nation.

In its heyday, Poland (or to be more precise, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth) had more territory than any other European state apart from Russia (but Russia hardly counts, as you can't have more territory than Russia :D). I don't think any other country had ever controlled that much territory in Europe for more than several years, except for probably the empire of the Habsburgs - and that would be comparable too. To reiterate, Polish civilization occupied most territory and was among the most influential in Europe exactly at the time when the world was pretty much Eurocentric - for several centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polis ... ion%29.svg

That's more than Germans, for example, ever managed outside of XX century (and in XX century, the Third Reich has managed to expand beyond proper German territories only for some 5-6 years).


thats very interesting about poland. i never knew that!

Walter Hawkwood wrote:
In BtS, where colonies can be liberated, there is a fair chance of USA appearing the way it should on the World Map. If/when we implement Revolution mod, the chance will go up even more, and we will probably add other colonial revolters. As for Canada, Australia and New Zealand (and some other parts of the Commonwealth), they pretty much did no significant independent (not coordinated with the UK) actions in their history, so actually they can still be considered a part of the English civilization (not country, mind you - a civilization is a transnational term). USA has clearly won its right to be considered a separate civilization, and so it is in our mod.

World Map for BtS will have North America populated quite densely by different native tribes; that already consumed lots of our effort (they won't be playable though). Celtic-rooted civilizations are all represented by the Celts; they will definitely be on BtS world map, but whether they'll be playable we aren't decided yet.


that sounds very reasonable to me. i would just like to see north america playable because although its history is much shorter its still very interesting. and being a canadian i would like to see a canadian civ, but also understand that canada has a much smaller history and much lesser influence on the world as did the other civs in the game. however, english and french colonies would be very much appreciated.


10 Jul 2010, o 14:22
Profile
RI Team
User avatar

Joined: 12 Jul 2007, o 09:23
Posts: 2916
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
Well, if we make a later start scenario for the World Map - and we wanted to make one for a long time now - USA will surely find its place there. I don't think we'll go so late as to include Canada as well; actually even in WW2 scenario it would probably be more accurately, in mod terms, represented as a part of the English civ.


10 Jul 2010, o 14:35
Profile
Trainee

Joined: 9 Jul 2010, o 15:43
Posts: 11
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
so usa will or will not be playable on the world map? i dont quite understand.


10 Jul 2010, o 14:41
Profile
Trainee

Joined: 9 Jul 2010, o 15:43
Posts: 11
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
what about some colonial cities for england, france, and spain could be included that would behave as barbarians, but be much more difficult to defeat? and could conquer some native cities? they would represent early english, french, and spainish settlements, but not be a part of their countries in the game?


10 Jul 2010, o 14:51
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007, o 17:19
Posts: 543
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
RomanKing wrote:
but also those countries would not exist if canada and the usa hadn't joined WWII


If UK and France did what they were supposed to do as Poland allies in the very beginning of WWII then USA and Canada would not even had the time to think about joining the war. And we would possibly not have nuclear weapons. Like I told you - too many "whatifs" in the history. Sadly I smell a USA fanboy over here and discussion with such type of people is just pointless.

_________________
The only worse thing than being talked about is... not being talked about.


10 Jul 2010, o 17:56
Profile WWW
Trainee

Joined: 9 Jul 2010, o 15:43
Posts: 11
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
Vitez wrote:
RomanKing wrote:
but also those countries would not exist if canada and the usa hadn't joined WWII


If UK and France did what they were supposed to do as Poland allies in the very beginning of WWII then USA and Canada would not even had the time to think about joining the war. And we would possibly not have nuclear weapons. Like I told you - too many "whatifs" in the history. Sadly I smell a USA fanboy over here and discussion with such type of people is just pointless.


your just ignorant.

the point is UK and France didn't do what they were "suppose to" and history went down the path that it did whether you like it or not. it lead to the rise of the american empire and revolutionized the modern world whether or not you admit it. you dont have to "be a fanboy" of americans to admit that this is fact and therefore such comments should not have even entered into the discussion.

your comment just proves my point that you are bias against americans which is why you originally told me to get a history lesson assuming i was an american, (which i am not for the record) and the fact that you also had your mind made up before this discussion even started, and therefore, was not even open to any thing i had to say. saying "your problem is this," "looks like you need a history lesson," "sadly i smell a USA fanboy over here and such discussion with such type of people is just pointless."

if you want to have an intelligent discussion/debate that's based on logic and not biases, then that's fine, but i will not partake in your foolishness narrow-mindedness because i believe that such discussion with that type of people is just pointless. ;)


10 Jul 2010, o 19:07
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2007, o 17:19
Posts: 543
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
RomanKing wrote:
your comment just proves my point that you are bias against americans which is why you originally told me to get a history lesson


You proved already that you don't know the history. Let me quote you:
RomanKing wrote:
thats very interesting about poland. i never knew that!


First you said you don't have to learn history, then you admit you don't know history. Hypocrite?

Next time prepare yourself before you call any civ "not worthy compared to the mighty USA".
Mali had their empire some time in history too, Zulu were and still are very widespread (maybe not an 'empire' as we may think but still quite a consistent culture of pack of tribes along very large area) and so on and so on - first check their history, then say anything about given civ.
As now you have jumped with your "explain to me when civs like the mali, turks, polish, korea, and, zulu. where nearly as powerful, wealthy, or controlled as much territory as canada or the usa" being totally unprepared. I will not be your history teacher - you can find this basic knowledge easily by yourself.

Quote:
assuming i was an american, (which i am not for the record)


From the very beginning I knew from your IP address that you are Canadian. Therefore I didn't have to assume anything.

You on the other hand incorrectly assume I'm against USA. No - I'm not generally against USA, quite contrary - I would like to live and work there some day if possible as I'm quite fond of this country, culture, achievements. I'm against calling them "civilisation" (as I call USA - country) from historical point of view, compared to other civilisations, especially those that we have in our game and mod. Therefore I'm against forcing the one and only true history path in this mod, not against USA in particular. That's the bias of "analitical thinking" about world history, not directed against any particular country/nation.

_________________
The only worse thing than being talked about is... not being talked about.


11 Jul 2010, o 00:51
Profile WWW
RI Team
User avatar

Joined: 12 Jul 2007, o 09:23
Posts: 2916
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
Would you both please relax a bit? I think every party involved has already had all the necessary clarifications.


11 Jul 2010, o 01:47
Profile
RI Team
User avatar

Joined: 12 Jul 2007, o 08:02
Posts: 726
Location: Verdun, France, Europe, Earth, Milky Way,....
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
Yeap. I agree with Walter.

Staying cool would be nice.

Many things can be done but not all at one time. All suggestions are read, some are added, other aren't. In all case, we take time reading at comments and suggestions.

_________________
Member of TR Team.


11 Jul 2010, o 06:11
Profile
Trainee

Joined: 9 Jul 2010, o 15:43
Posts: 11
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
sounds good to me! i've got no hard feelings here.


11 Jul 2010, o 13:01
Profile
King
User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2007, o 18:27
Posts: 402
Location: Brazil, Latin America
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
Interesting discussion. It has been proposed to change the English Empire to the British Empire?


13 Jul 2010, o 11:54
Profile
RI Team
User avatar

Joined: 12 Jul 2007, o 09:23
Posts: 2916
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
Well, current implementation of England has moved exactly the opposite way during TR development. It is now predominantly Anglo-Saxon and Norman, with very few units related to the celts (I don't remember if there even are any). Also, in BtS we are hoping to have one more faction with early Celtic roster. I remember having lots of fun making units for it. ;)


13 Jul 2010, o 13:46
Profile
King
User avatar

Joined: 7 Sep 2007, o 18:27
Posts: 402
Location: Brazil, Latin America
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
Having seen some previous threads, I seem to be criteria to include in this mod a civilization or not. Below are some I managed to 'catch' with this long time relationship with the TR:

1) Time: newer civilizations tend not to enter.
2) Size: civilizations with large areas tend to enter.
3) Importance: the most influential civilizations culturally tend to enter.
4) Language: civilizations with similar cultural roots tend to exclude each other.
5) Geographic Location: places with few civilizations tend to be filled by barbarians, or be filled with a kingdom more marked in the region.

Below are some brief explanations about why a civilization has entered, not meaning that it does not belong to more than one group:

1) This is the case of U.S., Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia and other countries that do not belong to the old world. This is in my opinion, the fact that the map begins in TR in 4000 years before Christ and there are many 'ifs' with the change of historical fact. I believe that launching a map of civilizations of the nineteenth century, it would be interesting and included these countries. A north america occupied by Britain in my view is almost the same as having the United States there. (sorry) The same goes for South America with the Spaniards, Australia and Canada also with the British.

2)This is the case of Mongolia, Poland, Russia, China, and others.

3)Imagine all of the cultural heritage of ancient Greece, Rome, Babylon as the cradle of civilization, etc...

4)I think this is one of the most important: English is spoken in many countries, and this cultural base makes the exchange between countries is facilitated. It is also the case in Spain with all the countries of South America excluding Brazil who has this same relationship with Portugal.

5) This location makes less prominent civilizations like Mali appear in the game.


13 Jul 2010, o 17:04
Profile
Trainee

Joined: 9 Jul 2010, o 15:43
Posts: 11
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
Cruel wrote:
Having seen some previous threads, I seem to be criteria to include in this mod a civilization or not. Below are some I managed to 'catch' with this long time relationship with the TR:

1) Time: newer civilizations tend not to enter.
2) Size: civilizations with large areas tend to enter.
3) Importance: the most influential civilizations culturally tend to enter.
4) Language: civilizations with similar cultural roots tend to exclude each other.
5) Geographic Location: places with few civilizations tend to be filled by barbarians, or be filled with a kingdom more marked in the region.

Below are some brief explanations about why a civilization has entered, not meaning that it does not belong to more than one group:

1) This is the case of U.S., Canada, Brazil, Argentina, Australia and other countries that do not belong to the old world. This is in my opinion, the fact that the map begins in TR in 4000 years before Christ and there are many 'ifs' with the change of historical fact. I believe that launching a map of civilizations of the nineteenth century, it would be interesting and included these countries. A north america occupied by Britain in my view is almost the same as having the United States there. (sorry) The same goes for South America with the Spaniards, Australia and Canada also with the British.

4)I think this is one of the most important: English is spoken in many countries, and this cultural base makes the exchange between countries is facilitated. It is also the case in Spain with all the countries of South America excluding Brazil who has this same relationship with Portugal.


this makes a lot of sense and i agree for the most part. I guess where yours and my thinking differs would be on how "playable" north america is currently in the game and what the colonization of the americas was really like because its not so clear cut.

the english and french colonies of north america were "at war". their was also mercantilism enacted, but trade existed between english & french colonies, and the natives in north america, pratically since the colonies were formed and on most cases their was no conflict, they cooperated, so even then you can't really say that they were a part of england and france. these things were enforced in some places, but not others. they were mostly only enforced when the troops were sent over from england and the acadians (the french) were deported from nova scotia to several places, but mostly what is the southern usa presently. even then they weren't called the french, but acadians. also most of the "english" (excluding the soilders that were sent over) were really scottish and irish escaping from the english empire. they were considered "english," but hated them. so to say that they were english and french colonies is only partly true... and the natives is a completely different can of worms.

why do you think we all opted for independence?....

i agree with you that canada and england are both fairly similar and have strong ties historically, however i believe that the usa is a country of a very different culture and politics which varies from many of the opinions held in europe and canada. the rest of the world is becoming slowly more liberal, while the usa is becoming more conservative (the free market, anit-solicalism, overt-patriotism, pro-gun, "right to bear arms", anti-abortion, anti-gay rights etc.). their political structure is also unlike any other countries, their are little federal laws that apply to every state. each state has a much larger authority to create and regulate its own laws. similarly this is how their economy is run, low regulation; "the free market." its their culture, militant and reduced regulation... just look at how they achieved their independence. they fought a war, then a civil war, whereas canada just asked for it and even accommodated a french province and have 2 official languages which is very different from the rest of the world.

my point is that the usa has a distinctive culture from canada and the rest of the world, holds a large territory (in an area with currently only barbarians), has a very different language & culture from the mayans, aztecs and other native groups. and has historically changed the outcome of world history, either by war, inventions, political pressure, or economically.

i was thinking that their could be north and south america with the most prevalent native nations and what would be some of the modern coutries that were once england and spain. instead of having many random civs attempt to colonate the americas late in the game, or have the aztecs controlling the north and the mayans controlling the south. the point of this would be to attempt to have a new world that would somewhat resemble they way it is today, similarly to how the old world is in the game currently. haha, but we all know how easy it is to change history....


16 Jul 2010, o 16:38
Profile
RI Team
User avatar

Joined: 12 Jul 2007, o 09:23
Posts: 2916
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
We had two maps for TR Warlords - with and without playable civs in the New World. We'll likely keep it that way for BtS. New BtS colonial mechanics allows for a perfectly legitimate appearance of USA from European colonies in the New World. Later on, we'll likely add other colonial civs this way, like Mexico, Brazil etc. Can't promise they'll be playable on random maps, but they will be releasable by respective host civs (if we like the new concept well enough, we'll probably supply every civ with its colonial counterpart).


17 Jul 2010, o 03:25
Profile
Trainee

Joined: 9 Jul 2010, o 15:43
Posts: 11
Post Re: Lack of Celtic/North American Civs
Sounds great, can't wait!


18 Jul 2010, o 15:56
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 23 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.