I think we need to start thinking about what civ we want to be. So here are a couple of links to get the discussion ball rolling on this issue:

Basic Informative Table (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/info/civilizations/) - Good table for forming first impressions on the Civ4 civs. Source: Civfanatics, of course!

115701 - This file is a trait matrix of the civs. Also very useful. Source: This thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=140226)

I'm still reading up on things, so I'll hold my opinion back for a little bit.

Just surfing around and came across this poll ... best leader (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=158447) started 10th Feb, so early days yet ;)

Leading results ... Total votes 39

7 votes ... Washington/Rosevelt
6 votes ... Catherine/Peter and Fredrik/Bismark
5 votes ... Mao Zendong/Qin Shi Hung

It's great to start thinking about all of this, but bear in mind that the Game Admins will likely offer us a choice of only a few civs. I think that's how it worked in the Civ3MTDG, right?

[foot in mouth] EDIT: Just read the thread in the UN. So I guess I was way off, and we can start seriously ranking our choices, based on the map parameters.

Okay, after using some free time at work, I have come to a few conclusions.

Note: The zip file, 115723 includes two excel files. The first is one that I found in the strategy forum for Civ4. It includes a lot of good information, and is basically a civilopedia. The second is one that I derived from the civilizations worksheet in the first one. I added a few columns, and gave scores (highly opinionated) to the different civilizations.

Explaining my scoring: I gave a 1-5 score (actually 2-4; there were no 1's or 5's) for each Leader Trait, Favored Government, Unique Unit, and Technology. Then, I added up those scores to get a final tally for each civ. I was actually surprised at what I found. I also listed the total cost of the free techs provided to the civs.

Summary of results:

Civs - total score:
1. France w/ Napoleon, England w/ Victoria, Japan, and Rome all had 22 points
2. Spain - 21 points
3. America (George), Egypt, France (Louis XIV), Mali, Mongolia (Genghis), and Persia - 20 points
4. America (Franklin), China (Mao), Greece, Inca, India (Asoka), and Mongolia (Kublai) - 19 points
5. Aztecs, China (Qin), England (Elizabeth), Germany (Bismarck), India (Ghandi), and Russia (both) - 18 points
6. Arabs - 17 points
7. Germany (Frederick) - 16 points
Civs - highest tech cost:
1. Egypt and France - 120
2. Arabs, China, Inca, Mali - 110
3. America, India, Japan, Mongolia, and Persia - 100
4. Aztecs, England, Germany, Rome, Russia, and Spain - 90
5. Greece - 80
Opinion on Scoring
Traitsa. Aggressive - 4 (Due to the benefit of the free melee and gunpowder unit upgrades and faster barracks production. Should come in handy in case of a surprise attack)
b. Creative - 3
c. Expansive - 4 (Due to the benefit of fast granary production.)
d. Financial - 3
e. Industrious - 2 (I just don't find much use in wonders, but that may be because they cost so much :p )
f. Organized - 3
g. Philosophical - 2 (Compared to others, this one just doesn't stack up)
h. Spiritual - 3
Favored Governmentsa. Universal Suffrage - 3
b. Theocracy - 2 (benefits aren't as good compared to others)
c. Police State - 3
d. State Property - 4 (No upkeep costs or maintenance costs due to distance? :cool: )
e. Hereditary Rule - 3
f. Representation - 4 (Low cost, high benefit)
g. Free Religion - 2 (low benefit)
h. Mercantilism - 3
i. Free Markets - 3
Unique Units
a. Navy Seal - 3
b. Camel Archer - 3
c. Jaguar - 3
d. Cho-Ku-Nu - 3
e. War Chariot - 3
f. Redcoat - 4 (looks like a powerful, powerful unit - but comes later in game)
g. Musketeer - 4 (same as Redcoat, but a little earlier)
h. Panzer - 3
i. Phalanx - 4 (great, cheap defense in early game.)
j. Quecha - 2 (comes too early - how often are you going to need a step up from a warrior in this type of game?)
k. Fast Worker - 4 (workers are extremely helpful)
l. Samurai - 4 (powerful unit in middle game)
m. Skirmisher - 4 (powerful early-middle unit)
n. Keshik - 3
o. Immortal - 3
p. Praetorian - 4 (powerful early-middle unit)
q. Cossack - 4 (increased power for cavalry)
r. Conquistador - 4 (increased power vs. Melee)

Starting Techsa. Fishing - 4 (brings pottery faster)
b. Mysticism - 3
c. Agriculture - 4 (brings pottery faster)
d. Hunting - 2 (low benefits)
e. Mining - 3
f. The Wheel - 4 (roads are important)
Conclusion: I think after this lengthy analysis, I prefer any of the Civs that scored 22 points - France (Napoleon), England (Victoria), Japan, and Rome. From there, I'm not sure which would be best.

Thanks for getting this conversation started Gbno1fan!

However, I have to really disagree with your methods and conclusions. I can totally see how'd you come to these conclusions from reading the manual, or looking at the stats – I remember thinking the same way before I got the game… but in-game experience significantly changed my perspective on what's "good" or not.

First of all, the traits don't mean nearly as much individually as they do synergistically. The inter-play between the traits is really what makes a civ powerful. For example, you ranked philosophical the "worst" of the traits. In fact, philosophy was involved in a combination of traits that Firaxis deemed to be so over-powered, they actually removed it from the game. That's why there are no "Philosophical-Industrious" civs in Civ4. (almost every other combination exists – there's no Creative-Organized either). It would just be too good. My point being, that Philosophical is actually a truly awesome trait, when used correctly. Personally, I would rank spiritual as my least favorite trait – but then again – in the right combo, it can also shine.

Synergy is why Washington (America) is so highly valued. The combo of Financial and Organized means you can pull down money (and therefore science) at an amazing rate.

The UU rankings are also something you have to be careful with – I'm by no means a master of the game, but my hands-down favorite UU is the Cho-Ko-Nu. Until you've played Civ4, you won't realize how truly horrifically hard it can be to capture a city if the enemy knows you're coming. In one LAN game, I held off 2 players, 20+ Roman Pratorians, and an equal number of elephants and swordsmen… all with a city with only about 5 archers in it. My city was on a hill, my archers were upgraded with city defense enhancements, and I had a very high a culture defense bonus. I literally never lost a single unit. Now, my enemy's made many mistakes, but the biggest mistake was attacking without siege weapons. Without siege weapons, taking a city is almost always suicide. And that's why the Cho-ko-nu's are a thing of beauty – they do collateral damage, just like a catapult. They are stronger than a catapult, get first strike chances (things of beauty), and you don't have to haul a load of catapults with your army if you want to take a city. They come at just the right part of the game when I'm ready to start capturing some land… drool drool… anyway. All the other UU's are awesome also – and I've only really played with a few of them… but I just wanted to say, we need to be cautious about ranking abilities and UUs.

What's better or worse depends on what you're going for!

We may need to talk about our team strategy a bit before we pick a civ. We planning to win by economic dominance? By Industrial Might? By Overwhelming culture? By Military Force? Early peace & late war? Early war & late peace?

I know we can't control what will happen and what the other teams will do – but if we have a plan in mind, then we can make a much more intelligent choice on what civ we want to play.

Just my 2 cents!

Those are some good points, General!

I had realized that I was limited due to my lack of experience, but I wanted to get at the ball rolling on the topic.

As for strategy, I've always played with a peaceful approach, and try to limit wars to what I must do. I will *usually* not attack someone unless I have to. When I drew up my analysis, I used the thought process that we would be following along a relatively peaceful approach, though that may not be the best method in Civ IV!

It may be worthwhile to change around the excel sheet I made for different strategies. Then you could rank the civs according to what path we hope to follow.

My post in the Itroduction thread basically sums up my postion on who to be and what strategy.

Lets be the inca, found an early religion, learn bronze and if we have to, iron, build masses of axes, take over the world!

If Serian is making the map I doubt that he would make a map that that could happen on, and anyway, I'm sure that teams like Delta (ie Whomp) are probably thinking about the same stratagy as you are. so it would be better most likely to move to a (slightly) more builder startagy.

From my experiences in Multiplayer, it is very hard to counter Axemen, unless you have more than your opponent. Horse Archers and chariots work, until there are spears with the axes.

My favorites:
1. Mansa Musa (early religion, early defense, fast research, and can hop into Pacifism whenever we need great people!)
2. Huayna Capac (dominate the early game, fast research)
3. Elizabeth (dominate research)

I've been reading up some more on the traits and units that we might consider.

I started off by only looking at Philosophical civs, as that's my flavor of the week :)

The Choices:
Russia (Peter) philo + Expansive Cossack
Greece (Alex) + Aggressive Phalanx
Germany (Fred) + Creative Panzer
England (Eliza) + Financial Redcoat

I've heard people here preferring Financial while disdaining Creative (and Spiritual), and I think we should be looking for a later UU, rather than an Ancient one. This leaves England or Russia

If we are Russia, we will bring war to someone with a very powerful unit. We will have good early growth, and a powerful UU. We just need to make sure we get that far. If we are England, we can ensure our security, maintain a robust research pace, and aim for a later war (if necessary) or angle for a peaceful victory.

The Inca also have some late UUs - every gunpowder unit gets a free promotion.

The problem with Russia is it's too predictable. Everyone will have defenses and/or protective alliances up by the time you get cavalry. Or worse, they'll come after you before you get cavalry.

Or worse, they'll come after you before you get cavalry

That's one of the problems I've been wrestling with for any non-AA units. But going with a defensive UU could discourage an attack, while going with a later offensive unit could have the opposite effect.

Another way I've been trying to look at our civ choice is from a reactive standpoint: What civs/leaders are the other teams likely to choose (big black box here!), and therefore which civs/leaders will be a good counter across the board?

Just fishing here:

Ghandi?

Here's (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=3417143&postcount=3) and interesting post on the benefits of the fast worker.

One of the advantages over the other UU's is that it lasts all game long. I suppose the extra movement becomes less and less useful as the game advances, but the boost to early growth would continue to earn interest.

If we play as Mali, we can change our civics as often as we like, and we get the obvious bonuses of finacial. We would also have the Skirmisher, to protect us from an agressive neighbour.

Good discussion everyone!

The spiritual trait still makes me really nervous because I just don't see the big value there (compared to other traits).

Getting an early religion is wonderful – but I think it will be much less wonderful in a all human game. Think about it – none of the other teams are going to want to give us Line-of-Sight into their cities. They also don't want to give us 1 gold pert turn for each city that has our religion. In fact, they will want to avoid these things very strongly, and spreading our religion may very well start a way. Thus – religion has an opposite effect in MP than it does in SP – instead of boosting our relations with our neighbors, having a Holy City of a large religion is likely to paint a great big bulls-eye on that city. Not good if we're hoping to be peaceful.

Therefore, I still like the idea of Elizabeth or Qin-Shi best.

If we WERE going to do a spiritual leader, I like the idea of Mali (Mansa Musa) best. The huge boost to early city defense is beautiful (thanks to the Skirmisher UU).

If a smaller map gets voted in – then we may want to totally reconsider and get an aggressive civ.

I think spiritual is really nice for a demogame. We can change our mind about civcs any time we want.

Having religion is all your cities is nice alternative to Creative or Stonehenge.

I would propose a general policy of PAYING opponents 1gpt (plus improvement multipliers) per city with our state religon. This would hopefully encourage the spread of our religion, or at least stop them from complaining.

I think spiritual is really nice for a demogame. We can change our mind about civcs any time we want.

Having religion is all your cities is nice alternative to Creative or Stonehenge
Very good points. And I agree!
But is this as useful as reduced upkeep costs every turn (organized) or as helpful +2 health per city (expansive) etc? There are several traits that help every turn. I'm just very skeptical of a trait that only saves us 1 turn of anarchy we we switch civics.

Having a better shot at an early religion is VERY nice - and, in my mind, is the best part of Spiritual. (I'm not opposed to Spiritual... just skeptical of it compared to the other traits)


I would propose a general policy of PAYING opponents 1gpt (plus improvement multipliers) per city with our state religon. This would hopefully encourage the spread of our religion, or at least stop them from complaining.
That's a clever idea…

Couple issues though:
1) We can't give anyone gold till we learn currency. Sometimes, it's quite awhile before I get currency – so many other techs are much more pressing. Will people be willing to wait and trust us to get that gold?

2) Would we allow our neighbors to gain line of sight into our cities in exchange for 1gpt (plus modifiers)? Would we allow ourselves to be dependant on the goodwill of a potential enemy for a stream of gold income? For both reasons, I'd be inclined to reject this same proposal if another team suggested it to us. (Unless we had no religion, and were desperate to get one… even then, I might accept the deal, but would start advocating a war to capture the Holy City of our new religion).
I'm worried the other teams will react the same way I would – making the spreading of our religion very tough to do.

I'm really open to changing my mind! I just don't see how this is a good deal for the other teams. (And therefore unlikely to happen)

How close are we to getting 5 civs?
I assume we are going to poll and get the top 5 ... how many choices in the vote?

Aside ... I'm kind of intreged by India and the worker bonus.

India would be nice, but I'm not a fan of the spiritual trait either.

The main bonus of spiritual is that we can use the civic that suits us the most at any time. If we're planning a war, we'd switch to theocracy and vassalage asap, and possibly police state (i think). If we need our people to be happy and we have some garrisons, then we go to Heriditary Rule. Now we need some great people so we go to Pacifism and Caste System. The key to spiritual, is to remeber that you can change whenever you want with no penalty.

Hi,

damn, I knew I couldn't hold up my "lurk only" stance for long... :lol:

Some comments on traits and civ choice, taken with a grain of salt as I've played single player only:

- while I think financial, industrious or creative are stronger traits than spiritual, remember one very nice, kind-of hidden late game feature of spiritual: Drafting. Being spiritual has saved my behind more than once when an enemy suddenly declared war on me and landed troops near a remote city. Being able to switch to nationalism to do some emergency drafting without delay was critical there.
But then nationalism comes quite late in the game, and humans probably make sure they have a large enough attack force for that not to matter much...

- India's fast worker is less powerful than many people believe. They do not work faster, they only move faster. So their only advantage is that they can move on a hill or forest, and start working on the same turn. We are talking about saving one turn on hills or forests only.

- While it's nice to have a general plan about it, we cannot really decide how we want to win the game before it has even started. :crazyeye: A lot will depend on the map - terrain, how close our neighbours are, etc. It would be better to choose a civ with a general approach which could handle all situations equally well (early war, peaceful builder, etc.), than choosing a civ with a specific plan in mind which we won't be able to carry out due to the circumstances.

- That said, in SP I find financial a very strong trait on its own, regardless of second trait - extra commerce helps every strategy. ;) Industrial is very nice too, for getting critical wonders, especially in MP. Creative is underrated too - the free border expansion in new cities means you won't need to build obelisks or whip an early library/temple, it's great for cultural border conflicts, and even more important: Larger borders give you a larger area to spot incoming enemy stacks, which can be important against humans. Having an extra turn to prepare defenses against a sneak attack can be critical!

Don't overlook the building boni of the traits! Cheap forges for industrious can be awesome, for example, especially if we have gold/silver/gems, as can be cheap courthouses with organized, etc.

- I agree that religions are probably much less powerful in MP than in SP, as their main use in SP is forging diplomatic alliances (which won't work against humans), and shrine income (which will be much lower against humans than against the AIs).

-Kylearan

Can some one give a brief description of each of the traits? Thanks.

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/info/civilizations/

I did want a bit more of a real game play description rather than the generic terms, becuase it is how they work in game is what I am looking for.

Hi,

okay, here's my subjective take on the traits.


Financial: Nearly broken. Very, very good. To use it to its full advantage, you need lot of cottages, so it benefits most from lands with lots of flood plains and flat grasslands, plus lakes and coastal cities with lighthouses. It works throughout the whole game.
Only downside: Double speed banks are not that great - but that's not really a downside! Again, nearly a cheezy trait.


Aggressive: Nice for warfare. The free combat I promotion not only means your units fight 10% better, this also means melee and gunpowder units can get more useful promotions right out of the gate, at least when built in a city with barracks (which should you do anyway). I guess MP play will see more wars than SP, so this is an overall nice trait to have, especially in the beginning of a game.
Downside: Double speed barracks are not that great, as they are not expensive to begin with. Also, if there's no early war but war breaks out only later in the game, you've played the initial game with one trait only (the other one), as the aggressive trait won't help you at all in the builder phase.


Creative: Free border expansions for new cities is very nice. Provides better scouting range as a warden against sneak attacks. You don't have to worry about cultural border wars too. Overall a "convenience" trait, maybe a bit weak, but I still like it. Double speed theatres are useless, as they are cheap anyway, and double speed colisseums are, well, mediocre. I don't build much colisseums in my games anyway, as I try to leave the culture slider at 0%.


Expansive: The health bonus means that you can chop more forests in the beginning, which is nice - although you should be careful not to overdo this, as you may regret that later when your cities lack production... Apart from that, I have more happiness problems in my games than health problems, so that bonus overall is mediocre at best. Double speed granaries on the other hand are nice, but harbors are cheap anyway, so the double speed for them is quite useless. Overall one of the weaker traits in my book.


Industrious: Nice, probably especially in multiplayer when you face humans who handle the wonder race better than the AIs. Double production speed for forges is very nice too, and awesome if you have access to gold/silver/gems. I like that trait!


Organized: The most tricky to assess trait. Depending on which civics you use, it can be nice, or not really noticeable. Definately weaker than financial. Its major bonus, which makes it stronger than, for example, the expansive trait, is the production bonus for courthouses. They are expensive to build, and when you have the tech to build them, building courthouses does wonders to your economy! Finishing some courthouses often allows you another wave of founding new cities. Nice!


Philosophical: Very nice if you rely heavily on great people - the difference between philosophical and non-philo civs is really noticeable, although the difference diminishes the longer the game runs. If you're not gearing your game towards great people, it's one of the weaker traits. Universities are quite expensive though, so the bonus for building them is nice! But I'm not sure if such a late-game bonus is worth it in a MP game. If I'm not specifically going for great people, I consider it a weaker trait.


Spiritual: Like creative, I consider this to be a "convenience" trait. Being able to switch to bureaucracy for building a wonder, then to military civics for war, then back to peace-time civics for research for free is very nice! Also, if you survive that far, adopting nationalism to draft an army and then back to whatever is very nice too. Downside: You have to remember that you have this trait! In many games, people forget to monitor their civics, and often forget to make use of this trait.
Double-speed temples are nice, but no game-breaker.



Hope that helped a bit. Hm...how many people on our team actually know the game, by the way?

-Kylearan

Thankyou for this ... very informative :thumbsup: ... better be carefull or you will lose your lurker status ;)

In our own (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=158188) Sign Up Thread ... I asked the cIV question.

As of now we have ... 13 players :salute:

3 have yet to sign on ... and 6 have cIV working ... with a further 3 that will have to upgrade their systems.

Looking at the choices from a "Total-Game-Awareness" view, it seems that a couple of trait pairings will be strong and useful throughout the whole game, but since we all seem to be leaning towards Financial, we can narrow down our options:

Financial & ?
Organized = America (George) drawback: very late UU
Industrious = Chian (Qin Shi Huang) drawback: ?
Expansive = England (Victoria) drawback: somewhat late UU, expansive weaker than industrious
Philosophical = England (Elizabeth) drawback: must go for Great People to maximize trait
Aggressive = Inca (Huanya Capac) drawback: tough to capitalize on Mysticism as a starting tech in multiplayer
Creative = Russia (Catherine) drawback: ?

I only considered drawbacks because I see the formation of our list as primarily a process of reduction.

Therefore, I submit the following ordered list for our choice of civilization:

1. China (Qin Shi Huang)
2. Russia (Catherine)
3. England (Elizabeth)
4. Engalnd (Victoria)
5. Inca (Huanya Capac)

Discuss away!

I would also like to suggest that these lists of preference not be made public. It will take some of the fun and challenge out of the game if we knew before making the list which civs the other teams wanted.

So you're voting Mansa Musa and Washington off the island.

I can agree with those 5, though my order would be totally different.

Thanks for the great info Kylearan! Good to see you jumping in! :goodjob:

From my pretty limited experience, I'd pretty much have to agree totally with your synopsis of the traits.


I also like Peter's list a lot. The UUs of Russia and England will come pretty late for a MP game (I don't know if we will even make it that far!) but if we do last that long, their UU could be the game-breaker for us.

Only thing I would change is that I would NOT have the INCA on the list – the warrior-replacement UU is just not appealing to me at all. I'd replace him with Mansa Musa (Mali) – Financial-Spiritual. Just because I like the UU so much better. However, I would still have them as a 5th place choice. Hopefully we'll get one of our first 4 choices anyway!

Otherwise, I totally agree with that order of choices.

I'm not voting anyone off the island. I'm just putting up a list to get the ball rolling. Put up an alternate and let's discuss!

Don't forget: I can't play the game (I have an old Mac :)), so my list should be read from an academic stance.

The only Civ with an early UU that you picked was Inca, and they were at number 5. I would REALLY like to see us as Mali, (finacial and spiritual, with an archer UU). It is likely that there will be early wars, and if we want to play (relatively) peacefully, then we need to be able to with an attack. If we choose Qin Shi, then the best defender we have will be the Archer or Axeman, depending on the situatiion (and promotions.) If we have Skirmishers, we will be much better at repelling an attack.

My list
1. Mansa Musa (mali)
2. Tokugawa (Japan)
3. Cyrus (Persia)
4. Alexander (Greece)
5. Catherine (Russia)

Hi,

I can agree with those 5, though my order would be totally different.
How would it look like?

-Kylearan

Hi,

If we choose Qin Shi, then the best defender we have will be the Archer or Axeman, depending on the situatiion (and promotions.) If we have Skirmishers, we will be much better at repelling an attack.
Can any MP player relate to how often it gets to war so early?

Consider what type of unit an early attacker would come with, and that the game favors the defender. Again, I have no MP experience, but archers, spears and axemen are fine to defend with most of the time; only when it comes to kill off pillaging units it can become hairy - and the archer replacement won't help in that regard. Early attackers would attack with axes/sword or praets for example, for which axes are the best counter for anyway. Against war chariots or keshiks, spears are better than Mali's UU, and so on.

I would hate to see Qin not on the list at all. The cho-ko-nu is one of the most awesome UUs in the game (besides the praetorian of course, and cossacks), and comes reasonably early. I don't argue China has to be #1 on the list; I'm really not sure about the ordering. But not having China at all in there would be a shame!

-Kylearan

I've played some multi, but not for a while. It depends opn your neighbours as to how early your attacked. Any civ with an early aggresive UU is likely to attack early to utilise their UU. The Skirmisher can counter nearly any attacking unit, and can leave your axes/swords/chariots for the aggression, or picking off injured enemies. It doesnt need any resources either. There's no point having a strong offence if we cant defend. I dont want our game to be finished before AD.

Hi,

Can any MP player relate to how often it gets to war so early?

Consider what type of unit an early attacker would come with, and that the game favors the defender. Again, I have no MP experience, but archers, spears and axemen are fine to defend with most of the time; only when it comes to kill off pillaging units it can become hairy - and the archer replacement won't help in that regard. Early attackers would attack with axes/sword or praets for example, for which axes are the best counter for anyway. Against war chariots or keshiks, spears are better than Mali's UU, and so on.

Basically early war between 2 good players is useless. But there are always bad players, or good players playing badly.

If you can hit the victim before they get any resources connected, and keep them disconnected until your axes/swords/horses arrive, it's pretty much game over for them. They will turtle inside their cities until your catapults arrive.

With a big stack of horses you can usually outmaneuver defenders and capture their weakest city. Again pillaging is the key, you don't want their cities building spearmen while you run around their land. This mainly works against someone who didn't anticipate your horseman attack and forgot to build spears.

When catapults come into the picture, city defenders lose their advantage and it's all about stack size. The goal is to sneak attack the lowest person on the power graph and march towards 2 of their cities. Cut off their roads, and attack the city with the weakest defense.

The problem with early war is that it's all-or-nothing. You must give the minister of defense full control of the economy, which pretty much destroys the concept of demogame.

I've just been thinking about the civ choices.

Because we're playing against humans, that will change the relative value of certain traits.

I think Creative could have more effect here than in single players games. The rush to land-grab could be pretty intense. Having an automatic bonus to expansion could really tip the early game in our favor - unlocking resources earlier than others.

Couple that with Financial, and you've got a real edge in the early game, and a strong trait to carry you the rest of the way. And, you're Catherine, so you've got a great UU with some real power behind it. But the key is to capitalize on that early expansion.

Just pondering :)

My current top 5:

1. China (Qin Shi Huang)
2. Russia (Catherine)
3. America (George)
4. England (Elizabeth)
5. England (Victoria)