Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Historical accuracy

  1. #21
    Second Lieutenant Digby_Chinless's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Hanjeman View Post
    That makes me sad, but if the devs want to concentrate on Africa and West-India...there is nothing to argue about.


    If the map ends at Port Blair and Aceh there wont be a Malakka and Batavia and no Nagasaki. I just can´t imagine a VOC without an HQ on Batavia (since 1619) and a fight for Malakka (1511-1641 portugies, -1824 dutch and -1957 britisch) and the Molukken for a spice monopol between the companies. The goal for the VOC was it from the beginning to trade with India, China and Japan from a base in the Malaiic Archipelago.

    And for Japan: Sure it was closed, but before 1639 portugies and dutch had nice profits from trading with Japan. And after 1639 the VOC had a monopol on the trade with Japan and they got ship loads of silver from them for a very good trading rate. Around 1690 were up to 7 ships a year heading for Dejima/Nagasaki from Batavia and despite the financial burden of the isolated outpost on Dejima, the trade with Japan was very profitable for the VOC that got profits of 50% and more. The trade declined however in the 18th century, as only two ships per year were allowed to dock at Dejima and the VOC came into financial trouble.

    Japan was after 1639 only accessable for the dutch, so if the game would be historical correct...yes...it makes no sense in terms of balancing to include that part of the world. But still...it´s a game and we can change history in games. That is what makes it fun. With every new campain we try to do something different. And a battle in south-east-asia for a spice monopol would be exactly what i want for a game that makes the EICs playable. Start with a kontor in europe and get a trading network under my control as far as history would let me possibly get (Nagasaki).

    Anyways, that´s just my oppinion and i still look forward to the relaese


    One last question about the game´s dimensions: What is the covered time period in the game? 1600-1800?
    I'm not saying such trade didn't happen, just that trades with Africa, Arabia and India were so much more significant and it is here the devs have focused the game.

  2. #22
    Second Lieutenant Digby_Chinless's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    150
    Quote Originally Posted by Hanjeman View Post
    Wonderful
    Well... not quite so wonderful. A clock ticks away the months and years but historically no changes are introduced at all. No technological advances in ship rigs and no new ship types or troop types or cargo types and so on. The 'history' of the game is a bit fake and there's no tech tree to speak of like in TW games.

  3. #23
    Major
    Achtung PanzerCities in MotionDiplomacyLegioMagicka
    Sword of the Stars

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Defending Kharkov 1943
    Posts
    640
    Quote Originally Posted by Digby_Chinless View Post
    Well... not quite so wonderful. A clock ticks away the months and years but historically no changes are introduced at all. No technological advances in ship rigs and no new ship types or troop types or cargo types and so on. The 'history' of the game is a bit fake and there's no tech tree to speak of like in TW games.
    I will be interested to see the reaction to this.

  4. #24

    Question John's Company

    New here and waiting for release. I hope these haven’t been asked previously but I have a couple history related questions.

    The British East India Company was referred by Navy personnel as John’s Company (as in John’s Company man or John’s Company ship). Who was John? I don’t think the term was a compliment.

    What was the relationship between the Honorable East India Company and the British navy? From what I’ve read the HEIC had political connections that set them apart. Crews were hand-picked and well paid. Ships were well maintained and over age ships replaced. Seems to me this would create rivalry and tension.

  5. #25
    John Lancaster. He was originally born in Basingstoke, England; in Portugal, learned a great deal of the trade there as well as sea fighting. After the British were kicked out (the Anglo-Portuguese Alliance ended with the union of Portugal and Spain) he returned to London. He was in the fleet that defeated the Armada, in command on the ship Edward Bonaventure.

    In April 1591 he started from Plymouth, with Raymond and Foxcroft, on his first great voyage to the East Indies; this fleet of three ships is the earliest of English oversea Indian expeditions. He didn't trade, though. During this voyage, Lancaster's ships attacked for plunder every ship they encountered. Privateer, or pirate, take your choice.

    In 1600 he was given command of the Company's first fleet (which sailed from Torbay towards the end of April 1601) by the directors, selected over a nobleman; his vessel was the Red Dragon. He established relations in Aceh, founded an East India Company factory there (its first), and finally was rewarded with a knighthood in October 1603 upon his return.

    Lancaster continued to be one of the chief directors of the East India Company until his death in May 1618. It was indeed a compliment, but to his leadership. Rather like calling Microsoft "Bill's company".

    As far as the Navy goes, I really have no idea. But considering the press gangs rounding up every drunk staggering home from the taverns, or catching various farmboys, and the general level of Naval discipline at the time, a professional group would have a great advantage, and probably inspire a lot of jealousy.

  6. #26
    Thanks! That clears up a lot. I can see why officers in the navy would be envious of EIC officers. Understanding the historical background always helps me get into a game even if it has no effect on play.

  7. #27
    Corporal Tommy's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Linköping, Östergötland, Sweden
    Posts
    31
    Quote Originally Posted by Ginko View Post
    Sumer traded with Sarasvati-Sindhu civilizations circa 2500B.C.

    Rogue Trader could you define "discover"? Cause depending on the definition the mesopotamians could have been the first to "discover" India... or the Chinese.

    Actually I've heard that the Indians might have discovered India before both the Mesopotamians and Chinese did.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Rogue Trader View Post
    The Portuguese didn't discover the first route around Africa
    Bartolomeu Dias. Age of Discoveries?
    Henricus Martellus map (c1489), after Dias´s voyage:

    " Huc usque ad illa de fonti pervenit ultima navigatio portugalensium anno Domini 1489"
    " haec est vera forma moderna Africae secundum descriptionem Portugalesium inter mare Mediterraneum et oceanum meridionalem"
    “here is the true modern form of Africa between the Mediterraneum Sea and the southern Ocean, according to the Portuguese description"
    Rosseli map:
    Grear Fish River ” Huc ad ultimam columpnam perverunt nautes lusitani”
    And:
    "Placed here is the entire form of the whole world, which is surrounded by ocean sea, with the part of upper Índia, discovered after the time of Ptolemy, and with the part of África which Portuguese sailors tranversed completely in our times”"
    The Dutch beat them out first
    In the Orient. As for the Dutch, they had been largely defeated in the Atlantic World. It was in the Atlantic that the Dutch lost their global war with Portugal reaching a stalemate in West Africa and suffering defeat in South America.
    In the Orient, Spain played a a much more modest role.
    For the U.K., Spain and Portugal the Atlantic remained the main theatre of their respective overseas empires until the period of Modern Imperialism.
    Last edited by Homero; 24-07-2009 at 21:31.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts