It's actually that she doesn't sound snobbish enough! Her voice is just a normal, fairly pleasant voice like a BBC news presenter. She needs to be a bit more Hyacinth Bucket!
Hyacinth deliberately did not have an upper class accent - she was a lower-middle-class woman doing what she thought of as an RP accent. There's only a single recording of Victoria, and it's poor quality as it was extremely early, but from what I can make out her voice sounds much closer to what we'd characterise as a modern middle-class RP accent than English stereotypes of aristocratic voices, or the current Qiueen.
Ironically, when John Finnemore wrote a comic radio play based around the story of this recording, Queen Victoria was actually played by Patricia Routledge (who played Hyacinth).
I see lots of attacks on Firaxis and Amplitude saying they are terrible at AI, but I think that comes from a deep misunderstanding. Making good AI takes time, alot of time. I would go so far to say it's the most time consuming part of programming a 4x game. However a AI programmer only has the same amount of time to work on the game as everyone else.
The problem is that they make game systems the AI is not able to use effectively - Civ IV performed better than Civ V, and Civ V better than Civ VI, because the game systems were designed to be more AI-friendly (Civ V wasn't at all AI-friendly, but moreso than Civ VI). Games that have poorly-performing AI are badly-designed games not because of the time devoted to AI coding, but because you shouldn't design systems you don't have the resources to support with additional investment in AI programming. I'd say the Civ V AI did pretty well given that the game it needed to work with was an order of magnitude more complex than Civ IV from an AI decision-making perspective.
There are, however, some areas where the mechanics haven't changed drastically but the AI is making mistakes that older AIs weren't or that were fixed during the game's lifetime - combat in Civ VI is a prime example, with the AI's poor combat priority behaviour, difficulties with using embarking/disembarking effectively, and very limited ability to use aircraft (and nonexistent ability to use AA units, something that in contrast Civ V loved to spam whether or not there were any aircraft anywhere). Some of its poor combat performance relative to Civ V relates to the fact that Civ V AIs got free bonus units en masse and simply had much larger armies, so they could afford a bit more clumsiness in using those units - but there are still individual decisions it makes that indicate the AI is not as well-implemented for exactly the same individual tasks as Civ V's (and it was much worse when Civ VI released)
There are a whole range of English accents other than RP (received pronunciation, the 'TV newsreader' accent) and cockney
I think the problem I have with Victoria is she uses what's called a modern RP - so she sounds too modern to me. If you listen to really old BBC radio recordings that's more the sort of accent I feel she should have. Also she needs to sound more shrill and high-pitched!
FWIW my accent is actually quite close to Victoria's in-game. Maybe that's why I don't like it
ETA: I do get that it's harder to distinguish between regional accents if you're not from that part of the world. For instance I can't always tell if someone is Canadian or American which I probably shouldn't admit to on here
Bear in mind that the Civ leaders are there as stand-ins for caricatures/stereotypes of the civ as a whole, not necessarily an effort to accurately portray the voices or dialogue of those characters. So Victoria deliberately speaks with an accent that reflects the most common type of English accent with which most Civ players will be familiar (come on, Robert the Bruce speaks Old English with what seems to be a deliberate approximation of *a Scottish accent*, which is ridiculously anachronistic).
After some thought, I am predicting the three new civs are, in rough order of priority:
* Timurids
* Vietnam
* Italy/Bulgaria
I'm really hoping this isn't the end, though, because we would still have room in a fourth season pack for really strong concepts like:
* Navajo/Apache
* Burma
* Italy/Bulgaria
* Oman/Swahili
The returning civs are harder to predict. I think Portugal is a fair bet, despite feeling conceptually shut out by Spain, England, and the Dutch. The others all feel like they have qualifiers:
* Byzantium - competing with Bulgaria, could be a Roman alternate.
* Babylon - kind of obviated by Sumeria, should really be released as a pair with Assyria if at all.
* Morocco - deserves to come back, but between the Ottomans, Mali, and Portugal would struggle to find design space.
* Siam - Khmer is serving as a placeholder and Vietnam and Burma would add more; but if we could cram all three in I think the region deserves the attention.
* Denmark - Margaret would be great and chronologically distinct from Harald and Kristina; but not much to offer mechanically to justify a third Scandinavian civ; could easily be sacrifices for the Saami.
* Iroquois - Canada fills this spot on the TSL and other NA regions would likely be prioritized before the Iroquois were added.
* Austria - vicariously represented by Hungary. Pretty unnecessary except to add another female leader.
We will definitely see some of these in some form, it's just difficult to discern which obstacles are more overcomeable.
My expectation, presuming a likely regional breakdown:
Europe: Portugal, Italy?
Asia: Babylon, Vietnam
Africa: Ethiopia (confirmed)
Central America: Maya (confirmed)
North America: Probably an American rather than a Canadian tribe, maybe returning Sioux or Iroquois, possibly a new group such as the Mississipian culture
South America: Gran Colombia (confirmed)
Australasia (if present - this is the most likely to be replaced by Italy): An Australian or New Guinean Aboriginal group
The main difficulty with this breakdown is that it doesn't naturally lend itself to a two-civ pack if that pack is themed. Maya and Gran Colombia have nothing in common, but they do share a broad geography. Possibly there'll be a two-civ European pack with Portugal and Italy.
also, khmer is not a siam placeholder. Both have presumably been alternating because Siam was a khmer breakaway state
I think the developers said outright that Siam was in Civ V in place of the Khmer, and chosen because it was an emerging market for the game (you're not going to get many sales in Cambodia, which is much poorer and has atrocious internet in areas where it's available). I still wish they hadn't used that name - either Thailand to encompass the entire state's history under the modern name, even if focused on a specific part of its medieval history (as with Indonesia) or Sukothai, the name of the period they chose. 'Siam' represents a specific later period centred around Ayutthaya, Lopburi and Bangkok, much further to the south.
Also, both of the SE Asian civs we have in the game are medieval, as Burma/Pagan would also be if added. Vietnam offers later well-known time periods (as indeed does Siam, but then that would be a sufficiently different treatment from Civ V that people who want it back likely wouldn't be satisfied) - and is a very common fan request. I don't think this season pass was any kind of replacement for a 3rd expansion - I suspect it exists just to add fan-requested civs to the roster as I recall quite a lot of dissatisfaction here that Civ VI went too far in adding new civs at the expense of expected/popular returnees, and unlike an expansion it doesn't seem to offer any new mechanical content. So civs that are either returning or have been requested vocally by fans are likely to be the priorities for addition.
)
