We have had one America, how about a second?

This has been mentioned in a thread before but I think its worth saying again. If you wanted to have a theme for the USA it could be New World powers. If USA is to the English, then Mexico/Gran Columbia/Argentina is to Spain and Brazil to Portugal. Have the immigrant cards. Have some of the same units. Have the states ages up mechanic (get 2 cards). Release these DLC civs every six months. Profit


It still is a little different. Like 50 years or more in difference to be exact. I can understand (albeit dont agree) with the inclusion of the USA whose revolution predates the 19th century, and whose 13 colonies already had a large number of independence from britain.

This is not true with most american colonies, which apart from Haiti only gained independence after the napoleonic wars.

Perhaps a new mode of play called revolution can please the player base and not send new civs, by using the current structure of the game


That would be all good, if it was not for the inclusion of California as a federal state age up. Suggesting the game is at least acknowledging up to 1850 and not just the 13 colonies. Also the presence of the Lakota suggests a game time of at least 1876 (battle of little big horn).

Brazil declared independence 1822, recognized 1825 and became a republic 1889 (last point is currently outside game timeline of 1492 and 1876). Mexico’s a similar time, declared 1810, recognized 1836. If we can accept Napoleon as a leader (reign from 1804 – 1814 or 1815) or Gall (1876) then we could accept Mexico. Shoot, Porfirio Díaz (1876-1911) had became president at that point.

1 Like

Yes the time line is between 1500 and 1880 (the end of the meiji restoration), but the issue is how late the civs come.
The Lakota were in the game way before little big horn.
The USA appears formally as a civ in 1776 but they were fairly independent from the british through out the 18th century, so… yeah i can understand their inclusion.

The remaining countries that you mention are way too late into the game, (1810-1820 and up). And as a colony didnt have the authonomy that the 13 states had. In this way i think that the revolutions depict them more accurately than a fully fledged civ. (and demonstrates their fight for independence)

1 Like

Wrong, if the USA gets to be a civ, teh Revolution system is meaningless, and miore successor civs need to be added.
Brazil, Mexico and Gran Colombia now need to be in the game, since they were all large successor empires, like the USA.


I agree with Brazil and Mexico but Grand Colombia wasn’t very long lasting.

Stil was a big empire, and a better way to include many states into a civ.

A Revolutionary Civilisation that has itself revolutions?

Yeah long lasting isnt the most important factor i dont think

I dont think the late timeline is a big problem. Could mean they start out sharing more of there mother civs traits, like unit roster, then diversify in the late game.

Personally i think South and Central America are under represented in the game and do not think it is beyond the possibility for them to be included.


if you don’t want to make a lot of new American civs, and to avoid having all the Latin American nations make an Iberoamerican nation that gets refined in each age up.

  • In Colonial you could be new spain, so not a lot of interesting bonuses here
  • and in fortress you could pick North, Center or South America,
  • and in industrial you could pick Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Argentina or Chile

Looool y just realized that you can play like this if you play as spain! But it was unintentional

1 Like