A small part of the Indian coast was controlled by Portugal (also small islands and territories by France and Portugal not needed becuz too small). So if you can add Hong Kong and even Macau then why not Goa? Goa was Portuguese since the medical times till the 60's .
In your logic, Germany shouldn't be Nazi as Germans are hiding their past. Africa shouldn't be colonized as African players will hate it. Korea shouldn't be japanese. Czechoslovakia shouldn't be German. Indonesia shouldn't be Dutch. Malaysia shouldn't be British. New Guinea shouldn't be Aussie. Namibia shouldn't be South African.Miradosh wrote:
Also Hong Kong and Macau respect their foreign history-India does not
It is a thing, in HWW mapsMiradosh wrote:
also when was british india a thing in this game?
It isn't are you blind?Miradosh wrote:
And if you say it is 1939 why is bangladesh independent
But you need to understand that none of those country players make up 1/4 of the players of call of war
@Miradosh I'm talking about historic world war 1939 maps, have you seen that? Your talking about world at war maps.
Well why isn't bhutan part of india?why isn't nepal part of india? why isn't burma part of India
SO WHAT THE WHOLE INDIA IS BRITISH INDIA LABELLED WHAT IF A SMALL PROVINCE NEAR THE COAST IS ADDED?Miradosh wrote:
But you need to understand that none of those country players make up 1/4 of the players of call of war
Anyway none of our opinion are the true reasons
Most probably Bytro only know
One likely reason could be because they forgot goa was a thing LOL
We happened to be nerds
Bhutan and Nepal were independent. Burma wasn't part of British Raj. Instead ruled directly by Britain. Did you pass your history test?Miradosh wrote:
Well why isn't bhutan part of india?why isn't nepal part of india? why isn't burma part of India
Lol yeahMiradosh wrote:
Anyway none of our opinion are the true reasonsMost probably Bytro only know
One likely reason could be because they forgot goa was a thing LOL
We happened to be nerds
@DoctorDR1 why isn't this added ??
Bhutan and nepal were kinda independent-not fully
Same was for egypt
Yeah so wasn't indiaMiradosh wrote:
Bhutan and nepal were kinda independent-not fullySame was for egypt
exactly
Lol, that's almost like saying Trump won the election by a landslide... I'd estimate it more like 1% or less.Miradosh wrote:
So What? you need to understand that atleast 1/4 of call of war players are indian
Btw, when were "medical times"? Was it when Florence Nightingale introduced modern medicine during the Crimean war? 
I don't get his point, even is 1/4 is Indian, why will they leave just to see a map more historical?K.Rokossovski wrote:
Lol, that's almost like saying Trump won the election by a landslide... I'd estimate it more like 1% or less.Miradosh wrote:
So What? you need to understand that atleast 1/4 of call of war players are indianBtw, when were "medical times"? Was it when Florence Nightingale introduced modern medicine during the Crimean war?
"Imperial Russia" was wiped of the world over 15 years before.
Ukraine and Belorus weren't independent countries. Caucasus never was a state at all.
USA wasn't split in "N.USA" and "S.USA" on the 22p map, let alone into a dozen national states on the 100p map
On the 100p map, same for Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, China, India, Soviet Union, etc etc
Romania has kind of weird borders on most maps, often even including their arch enemy Hungary
All those Pacific islands didn't really have large cities with production facilities
Not all countries had equal economic power
Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino and Vatican city don't feature on any maps
the list goes on...
point in case:
It isn't really a world map, it's just loosely based on it
I'M TALKING ABOUT THE HISTORICAL WORLD WARK.Rokossovski wrote:
"Imperial Russia" was wiped of the world over 15 years before.Ukraine and Belorus weren't independent countries. Caucasus never was a state at all.
USA wasn't split in "N.USA" and "S.USA" on the 22p map, let alone into a dozen national states on the 100p map
On the 100p map, same for Australia, Brazil, Argentina, Indonesia, China, India, Soviet Union, etc etc
Romania has kind of weird borders on most maps, often even including their arch enemy Hungary
All those Pacific islands didn't really have large cities with production facilities
Not all countries had equal economic power
Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino and Vatican city don't feature on any maps
the list goes on...
point in case:
It isn't really a world map, it's just loosely based on it
Alright, calm down. I don't know much about this Goa stuff previously, but after doing some research, I found that Goa is a small province, slightly bigger than Hong Kong although much bigger than Macau.
Based on the little available information from Wikipedia regarding its history, especially zero mention of its significance in WW2, I would say it is only a marginal territory of Portugal which served little to no purpose in WW2 (any Indians, please correct me if I'm wrong). Meanwhile, for Macau and Hong Kong (Hong Kong especially), there was at least a mention of their roles in WW2. Macau served a very minor role as Portugal was neutral in WW2, being unofficially "occupied" by the Japanese and bombarded by US forces late-war. Hong Kong, meanwhile, was under Japanese occupation from 1941-1945, being attacked on the same morning as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, showing its relative strategic importance to the Japanese.
What's the point in explaining all of this? Different to the tiny territories of HK and Macau, Goa was a very minor territory that didn't serve any role, at least any major role, in WW2. Now, granted, it was part of Portugal, but should the historic map include such a territory? I don't think so.
TL;DR - two reasons why Goa shouldn't be included in the historic map as a Portuguese colony: 1) It is very tiny on the map. 2) Compared to even smaller territories like Hong Kong and Macau, Goa didn't play a role in the war, being part of neutral Portugal.
It is bigger than Macau, and Hong Kong, why it shouldn't be added, it isn't as small as Puducherry or dadra haveli diu islands that are not possible to see. Even if it didn't play a role. We'll just forget it was Portuguese? Boliva played no part in the war, nor did Portugal, why are they on the map? Goa can be seen it's not THAT tiny.Little Racoon wrote:
Alright, calm down. I don't know much about this Goa stuff previously, but after doing some research, I found that Goa is a small province, slightly bigger than Hong Kong although much bigger than Macau.Based on the little available information from Wikipedia regarding its history, especially zero mention of its significance in WW2, I would say it is only a marginal territory of Portugal which served little to no purpose in WW2 (any Indians, please correct me if I'm wrong). Meanwhile, for Macau and Hong Kong (Hong Kong especially), there was at least a mention of their roles in WW2. Macau served a very minor role as Portugal was neutral in WW2, being unofficially "occupied" by the Japanese and bombarded by US forces late-war. Hong Kong, meanwhile, was under Japanese occupation from 1941-1945, being attacked on the same morning as the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, showing its relative strategic importance to the Japanese.
What's the point in explaining all of this? Different to the tiny territories of HK and Macau, Goa was a very minor territory that didn't serve any role, at least any major role, in WW2. Now, granted, it was part of Portugal, but should the historic map include such a territory? I don't think so.
TL;DR - two reasons why Goa shouldn't be included in the historic map as a Portuguese colony: 1) It is very tiny on the map. 2) Compared to even smaller territories like Hong Kong and Macau, Goa didn't play a role in the war, being part of neutral Portugal.
