I'm all for a more militant France on the condition that Napoleon Boringparte emphatically does not
Eh, I'd rather downplay portraying England as Britain. It makes sense in Civ6 with Victoria (disappointingly)
as their leader, but in Civ7 I'd like to see England proper back. And while England was involved in her fair share of wars...honestly she wasn't too successful at them. Since I want Elizabeth back, I'd rather see England as a cultural/economic civ--which again is why I don't
want France as the European culture civ in Civ7.
But by that logic we run into a big problem-before England became Great Britain, it didn't have the cultural power it is more or less known for today. Yeah you have Bill Shakespeare running around but that's peanuts compared to culture of the Italian city states, Austria, and yes, even France. Especially since England proper was a part of France/divided with French nobles running the show until almost the 1600s...and we can just see how the English language has been hugely influenced by France too. I just don't see how England by itself (Not including the Victorian Age/Pax Brittanica) could be that strong of a cultural civ. Economic I can see but on the cultural front, England by itself barely holds it own with the rest of Europe even in it's golden age.Now I'm sure you'll find some argument on why England alone was the most culturally significant civ in Europe...
I also do think that England works best as a part of GB-mostly from a gameplay perspective. Like it or not, we have to have a colonial/globetrotting civ and GB/England fits that bill. Plus as I've said before, it's a monumental part of their history so jumping back to Elizabeth's era exclusively is a bit restrictive. I think how Elizabeth worked in Civ V was fine as the naval bonuses and SotL's strength played to/assisted with the colonial GB history while still wrapping the whole thing with Lizzy's trade agreements. I would be fine with Elizabeth leading Great Britain as colonial bonuses would make sense for her just the same. The reason I'm gunning harder for GB over England is that it snufs out the possibility of us getting another Scotland which I thought was a big waste. I think GB itself (Being both England and Scotland) would satisfy the scots and allow them to make an Irish civ for VII. I don't really want an Irish civ personally, but a LOT of people do and we know how they cave to pressure...and if we get a collective 10 leaders for the anglo-french world I'm gonna be disappointed.
civ before ca. 1800 is a pretty good candidate for religious bonuses. Again, the French were the backbone of the Crusades; Louis IX was sainted (to say nothing of a good handful of non-governmental saints); France was the epicenter of the overwhelmingly religious Gothic architectural movement; and above all France was home to the Sorbonne, which was the chief center for determining theological orthodoxy and interpreting canon law in the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern era. There are good arguments for giving Medieval France religious bonuses, especially if one takes it in a militant direction. There was also the Babylonian Captivity of the Pope when one of the popes was at Avignon, though perhaps many would prefer we didn't talk about that.
The reasons France was not as notable for its religiosity after the Reformation are 1) France had a sizable Protestant minority it had to learn to live with (at the outset of the Reformation the king's own sister was a Protestant sympathizer) and 2) the French Revolution was not just anti-clerical (a sentiment one can see to a small degree in the American Revolution) but downright anti-religious, which reshaped French thinking considerably in the aftermath.
Very true. I never said that France wasn't influenced by religion all that much at all...it's just that it's culture has persisted to this day much moreso than the idea of French catholicism being of such importance. I get the infrastructure like I mentioned (And it being mentioned it the Civ V and VI's abilities) but from a gameplay/regional perspective...there are just better options for religious civs. And on infrastructure...in Civ, wonders are often cultural...so yeah. And while I would like to say that the French crusading was super impactful (I guess it was linguistically), I mean most famous crusaders are English (Dicky the Banned-from-the-Zoo), Germans (Barbarossa who made it into VI), or Italians (Everyone's favorite Venetian). Yes I'm sure that some Henry or Louis had a good run of things and their troops were vital...but I can't see that being a strong enough character to make a more crusade-based/religious bonus.
"Peaceful" is not how I would describe East Asian history. Or any history.
Put another way: ask the Koreans if East Asian history has been peaceful.
Lol that was cherry picked...I meant peaceful when I should have said "scientific", "cultural", or "diplomatic". Basically I was just trying to illustrate how if all the civs in a certain region have the same bonuses, the lines between them start to blur and the non OP ones fall off fast or just end up being boring. Its more dynamic to see different civs specialize in different attributes of their civs history. My middle east example is still the best option regardless of your thoughts on the historical accuracy.
I was talking about the real Sumer, not Gilgabro.
Yeah in Civ VII I hope we ditch Sumaria and but Assyria back in. Babylon is just a bigger deal with less "fictionalized" leaders and it really didn't make sense to have both since they'd play so similarly from a gameplay perspective.
That would be wonderful--but also resource intensive.