Civ VII Weekly Reveal Guessing Thread

I feel like the Norman/English situation is Castille/Spain in reverse. In Spain we got very little representation for Castille and the reconquista,(but the exploration timeframe suggest Castille) to the point people was suggesting it would be better renamed to Castille (me included). However If a leader like El Cid were to be added to get that castilian flavour I think I would be fine.

Could something like that be done for Normans? getting an English leader that bridges Normans and England? (real question English royalty is not my thing)

edit-added clarification
 
Yes, I would have been okay with Normans + England if the Normans as presented weren't so absolutely focused on the Normans' English holdings. Indeed, I've had liked the Normans better if there were more references to their Mediterranean adventures, especially the Kingdom of Sicily. As is, I would have preferred Tudor England and Francia separately because the Normans are just England with a slightly broader land base for civ switching. We didn't even get William the Conqueror (yet) out of them.

I would prefer a norman civ to be properly norman and inspired by all aspects of them too. As it stands it feels like they are a civ that appeals to noone.

I've seen someone call them the plain option already too. So norman fans don't want to play them, England fans don't want to play them. To the rest they are the beige civ. Why are they in the roster as they are?
 
I feel like the Norman/English situation is Castille/Spain in reverse. In Spain we got very little representation for Castille and the reconquista, to the point people was suggesting it would be better renamed to Castille (me included). However If a leader like El Cid were to be added to get that castilian flavour I think I would be fine.

Could something like that be done for Normans? getting an English leader that bridges Normans and England? (real question English royalty is not my thing)
I expect Ellizabeth I to eventually be in the game, whether that be the base game or DLC/Expansions. That might be the closest thing we get for something English proper.
 
Could something like that be done for Normans? getting an English leader that bridges Normans and England? (real question English royalty is not my thing)
I suspect we will see at least one Exploration Age English leader; Elizabeth I is inevitable, and we could see more. But for me the problem is that the Normans already feel very, very Medieval English (Early Modern English would be more exploration/colonization/culture focused IMO) to the exclusion of all the other interesting things that the Normans did. The end result is very bland. I was one of the people who was excited by the idea of the Normans as an interesting take, but the actual implementation of them was very bland.
 
I feel like the Norman/English situation is Castille/Spain in reverse. In Spain we got very little representation for Castille and the reconquista,(but the exploration timeframe suggest Castille) to the point people was suggesting it would be better renamed to Castille (me included). However If a leader like El Cid were to be added to get that castilian flavour I think I would be fine.

Could something like that be done for Normans? getting an English leader that bridges Normans and England? (real question English royalty is not my thing)

edit-added clarification

Yeah having just a different military unit and unique infrastructure would have gone a long way towards making them more medieval Castilian. So that they wouldn’t be almost exclusively focused on overseas conquest. As it stands the Tercio makes no sense within the framework of the Exploration Era and their unique district looks like it it will only get built once, twice, at most three times.
 
I suspect we will see at least one Exploration Age English leader; Elizabeth I is inevitable, and we could see more. But for me the problem is that the Normans already feel very, very Medieval English (Early Modern English would be more exploration/colonization/culture focused IMO) to the exclusion of all the other interesting things that the Normans did. The end result is very bland. I was one of the people who was excited by the idea of the Normans as an interesting take, but the actual implementation of them was very bland.

Yeah I too was excited for the Normans at first but their implementation is dry. We can hope they eventually get refurbished like England did in Gathering Storm.
 
I suspect we will see at least one Exploration Age English leader; Elizabeth I is inevitable, and we could see more. But for me the problem is that the Normans already feel very, very Medieval English (Early Modern English would be more exploration/colonization/culture focused IMO) to the exclusion of all the other interesting things that the Normans did. The end result is very bland. I was one of the people who was excited by the idea of the Normans as an interesting take, but the actual implementation of them was very bland.
This made me think of something: could it be that the Normans' design was deliberately crafted this way to give us two options of Englands in the future? If you want a fully medieval England, go with the Normans; if you want a colonial and cultural England, go with Tudor England. Perhaps they thought this approach would be better than placing the Normans in antiquity.
 
This made me think of something: could it be that the Normans' design was deliberately crafted this way to give us two options of Englands in the future? If you want a fully medieval England, go with the Normans; if you want a colonial and cultural England, go with Tudor England. Perhaps they thought this approach would be better than placing the Normans in antiquity.
I'm pretty sure it was mentioned that they also have a Scandinavian historian on the team. So, I wouldn't be surprised if it's intended to make them one of the branches of an Antiquity Norse civ in the future. The Norse then could go into the Normans, or instead into Exploration Denmark and finally into Modern Sweden.
 
Last edited:
This made me think of something: could it be that the Normans' design was deliberately crafted this way to give us two options of Englands in the future? If you want a fully medieval England, go with the Normans; if you want a colonial and cultural England, go with Tudor England. Perhaps they thought this approach would be better than placing the Normans in antiquity.
That's more England than I need personally, despite kind of missing my culture-focused Tudor England, but it wouldn't shock me, either.
 
That's more England than I need personally, despite kind of missing my culture-focused Tudor England, but it wouldn't shock me, either.
I can agree with that especially when, not if, a Modern British civ will eventually arrive. Not to mention we need room for an Exploration Irish civ. :mischief:
 
You know, I really wish I knew where that exploration Ireland idea comes form, seeing as the long and short of Irish exploration history is medieval legends :-p
 
The game is coming from an Anglophone developer, being made in English for primarily an English-speaking audience.
Even if that weren't the case, English is the global Lingua Franca, due to the British Empire having a truly global footprint.
If any geographic region deserves multiple civs across two or three Ages, it's absolutely the British Isles, far for so than China or India.
 
You know, I really wish I knew where that exploration Ireland idea comes form, seeing as the long and short of Irish exploration history is medieval legends :p
Because presumably Ireland would go into a Modern British civ. Since the cultural victory/legacy condition is collecting relics by spreading religion through missionaries, Ireland could easily fit that.

If any geographic region deserves multiple civs across two or three Ages, it's absolutely the British Isles, far for so than China or India.
I wouldn't mind 3 civs from there, such as Anglo-Saxons>Normans/England>British, but I wouldn't go as far as saying they are more deserving of it than China or India, let alone Persia etc.
 
Ireland, focusing on the history between 400-900, seems ideal for the age of exploration. I don‘t see how all the famous and influential missionaries don‘t have enough merit. Could have unique mechanics, like that great persons are able to build the monastery UB in foreign settlements.
 
You know, I really wish I knew where that exploration Ireland idea comes form, seeing as the long and short of Irish exploration history is medieval legends :p
I'd assume they'd be missionary-focused, not exploration focused.

If any geographic region deserves multiple civs across two or three Ages, it's absolutely the British Isles, far for so than China or India.
I feel like that's a perspective only an Anglophone would have, and from a historical perspective it feels rather like a Serb saying there should be three ages of Serbia or a Slovenian saying there should be three ages of Slovenia. The British Isles were a backwater for two of the three ages (the most backward of backwaters in Antiquity). I'm not saying inclusion is or should be meritocratic (indeed, I think that would make the game infinitely less interesting), but if it were, the British Isles really only "deserve" Modern representation. (And it's perfectly fair to have special interests in backwater areas. That's not the point. But England does not remotely "deserve" multiple civs more than China or the entire subcontinent of India. "Deserve" in quotes both times because, again, Civ is not and should not be a meritocracy, and merit is to some degree subjective. Though there are objective arguments that England was a second-tier regional power at the best of times until roughly the 17th century at earliest, i.e., the dawn of the Modern Age.)
 
Irish missionaries and Book of Kells style illuminated manuscripts as relics? Sounds good to me.
 
New victory condition: Save Civilization.
 
:confused:
 
I don't feel strongly about the Isles having representation in Antiquity, I think both Rome and an eventual Norse civ will be fine enough there. I would love to see an exploration based England civ though, especially with a focus on piracy. It felt like Ed was alluding to this on the last stream when someone asked about about attacking treasure-fleets without going to war, though I don't have time to find the exact quote right now. Of course, there are other civs that could fit pirate gameplay, but my mind immediately jumps to England.

Sure, it might geographically overlap with the Normans some, but I feel like they'd play very different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
I expect Ellizabeth I to eventually be in the game, whether that be the base game or DLC/Expansions. That might be the closest thing we get for something English proper.
I think Normans seeming more early Exploration Age is precisely reason to think we will get a more Renaissance take in a proper Englad EA Civ in DLC.
EDIT: I see retroactively that Xandiho has already raised this point... :|
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom