Extremely untrue. At a very early point Native Americans adopted a "Red" identity and adopted slavery in order to make certain that the "Red" race was higher in the race hierarchy than the "Black" race. NB the Seminole were an offshoot of the Creek, who owned large plantations and owned slaves, just like their white neighbors.
Hey fellas remember when that "Black-American Civilizations" thread got locked because the discussion went into a race debate and not actually talking about the civs?
Yeah let's try to move on from that please. There's a whole other thread for that I believe.
Hey fellas remember when that "Black-American Civilizations" thread got locked because the discussion went into a race debate and not actually talking about the civs?
Yeah let's try to move on from that please. There's a whole other thread for that I believe.
as much as we’d like to, there’s someone who keeps forcing the discussion back to their terrible takes here. I’d honestly much rather discuss possible new frontiers civs, believe me
It's not really an argument. Both Scotland and England CUA is related to Great Britain, a state when the kingdoms and wrowns where united. Scottish Enlightment happened well after the union, and England's CUA is literally called Pax Britannica, hence directly linking it to Great Britain, and Great Britain had Scotlad in it.
So I don't see that having a civ with "Polish-Lithuanian Union" for Poland would necessarily meant the end of Lithuania, especially if the devs managed to have fun, unique and engaging gameplays for Lithuania.
This is among the reasons I think Vicky was a poor choice. She had an awful lot of titles, but "Queen of England" wasn't one of them. All the monarchs since Anne have styled themselves "King/Queen of the United Kingdom." The combination of very British England and very British Scotland (despite its pre-Union leader) is strange and, to me, unwelcome.
This is among the reasons I think Vicky was a poor choice. She had an awful lot of titles, but "Queen of England" wasn't one of them. All the monarchs since Anne have styled themselves "King/Queen of the United Kingdom." The combination of very British England and very British Scotland (despite its pre-Union leader) is strange and, to me, unwelcome.
this is very true as well. Robert the Bruce is a great choice for Scotland, don’t get me wrong, but England could’ve gone with Richard the Lionheart, or Elizabeth.
It would’ve been really interesting if Mary was queen of scotland and elizabeth queen of england in the game
This is another reason I think Vicky was a poor choice. They depict her as moody, pitching tantrums when she doesn't get her way. Victoria was renowned for her stoicism, even at a young age; Elizabeth was equally notorious for her mercurial temper (and tantrums). The personality would have suited her better.
But what If... Hear me out... What If... Poland peoples consider themself Poland-Roman Empire?
Also shouldn't they also claim heritage to this... Slavic-Roman thing?
This is among the reasons I think Vicky was a poor choice. She had an awful lot of titles, but "Queen of England" wasn't one of them. All the monarchs since Anne have styled themselves "King/Queen of the United Kingdom." The combination of very British England and very British Scotland (despite its pre-Union leader) is strange and, to me, unwelcome.
Because, let be honest, before the inclusion of Scotland, the vic led by Victoria was Great-Britain/The UK, and not "England".
We have the most representative of the British Monarch.
The ancient ability (British Museum) is named British. And it was at the height of the British Empire. And even Workshops of the Worlds refered to the British era of England. Pax Britannica, once again is plainly british in the name, and once again its peak british.
The Royal Navy Dockyard have been there before the Union but it was at its peak under Great-Britain.
No explanation for Redcoats of course.
Only the Sea Dogs are elizabethans.
The problem is not Victoria leading England; the problem is naming "England" a civ that is clearly British. Problem overlayed with the addition of Scotland.
So I don't see that having a civ with "Polish-Lithuanian Union" for Poland would necessarily meant the end of Lithuania, especially if the devs managed to have fun, unique and engaging gameplays for Lithuania.
Problem solved:
Lithuanian Polish-Union: Being culture bombed converts your city to the majority of that player's religion. If you are in an alliance, their relics provide +4 gold, +2 faith, and +2 culture to you.
The problem is not Victoria leading England; the problem is naming "England" a civ that is clearly British. Problem overlayed with the addition of Scotland.
Why do Romanovs matter? Suddenly you care about opinion of some imperialists and not the people. I never heard of Slavic-Romans.
But what If... Hear me out... What If... Poland peoples consider themself Poland-Roman Empire?
Also shouldn't they also claim heritage to this... Slavic-Roman thing?
I also don't know that much about the Russich people... I try to read their books but are sooo massive. Russias also defeated me XD
I like to think about this kind of Stuffs....
The Ivan Terrible start to call him self the Czar? Or it was a thing before? When start the familly Romanov?
I also don't know... If you have something to help us understand it. It would apreciate.
I also don't know that much about the Russich people... I try to read their books but are sooo massive. Russias also defeated me XD
I like to think about this kind of Stuffs....
The Ivan Terrible start to call him self the Czar? Or it was a thing before? When start the familly Romanov?
I also don't know... If you have something to help us understand it. It would apreciate.
Because, let be honest, before the inclusion of Scotland, the vic led by Victoria was Great-Britain/The UK, and not "England".
We have the most representative of the British Monarch.
The ancient ability (British Museum) is named British. And it was at the height of the British Empire. And even Workshops of the Worlds refered to the British era of England. Pax Britannica, once again is plainly british in the name, and once again its peak british.
The Royal Navy Dockyard have been there before the Union but it was at its peak under Great-Britain.
No explanation for Redcoats of course.
Only the Sea Dogs are elizabethans.
The problem is not Victoria leading England; the problem is naming "England" a civ that is clearly British. Problem overlayed with the addition of Scotland.
Yes, that's what I was saying. I'd prefer England be, oh, I don't know, England. But if it's going to be Great Britain, having two Great Britain civs is even weirder.
Problem solved:
Lithuanian Polish-Union: Being culture bombed converts your city to the majority of that player's religion. If you are in an alliance, their relics provide +4 gold, +2 faith, and +2 culture to you.
Austria - Diplomatic marriage: when your allied with anoter civilization, this civilization gain all bonuses of suzerainty of this city-State and can levy their armies as if they were their suzerain. Your ally can upgrade city-States units with 75% discount. Each time you levy city-States units, all your allies gains two Envoys towards this city-State. You allies can levy city-States armies with your own gold.
Yes, that's what I was saying. I'd prefer England be, oh, I don't know, England. But if it's going to be Great Britain, having two Great Britain civs is even weirder.
I think part of the problem is that people expect and want to be able to play Great Britain. The naval supremacy, the colonialism, etc. taken together are very iconic, and since Civ encompasses all of human history you can't really just leave out perhaps the most influential historical player in the last few centuries. But to most of the world England is synonymous with Great Britain. And while it's of course not true, historically England definitely played a disproportionate role in GB affairs compared to any of the other comprising nations. So we end up in a situation where medieval English history feels contiguous with the history of Great Britain more than, say, the history of Ireland or Scotland. And then England is kind of pigeonholed into having to play at least somewhat into Great British history because it's historically important and a popular niche. But at the same time not having medieval England is weird because people also consider pre-GB English history to be interesting and also worth representing. A Great Britain with longbows and an England with British Museums are both equally strange to me, but I can see from a design perspective how it would be tough to represent both. I definitely don't want both England and G.B. in the same game, that's for sure. I think alternate leaders would have been a great approach (like what they did, but with a clearer distinction), especially if the UUs were tied to the leaders to make it more clear that one was definitely medieval England and the other was G.B.
Definitely agree with the Scotland thing though. From a cultural perspective I definitely get wanting to rep both the Scottish Enlightenment as well as Scottish resistance, but in practice it comes off as another take on the same time period of the same region.
Because, let be honest, before the inclusion of Scotland, the vic led by Victoria was Great-Britain/The UK, and not "England".
We have the most representative of the British Monarch.
The ancient ability (British Museum) is named British. And it was at the height of the British Empire. And even Workshops of the Worlds refered to the British era of England. Pax Britannica, once again is plainly british in the name, and once again its peak british.
The Royal Navy Dockyard have been there before the Union but it was at its peak under Great-Britain.
No explanation for Redcoats of course.
Only the Sea Dogs are elizabethans.
The problem is not Victoria leading England; the problem is naming "England" a civ that is clearly British. Problem overlayed with the addition of Scotland.
I think this would have felt like less of a problem if the very British Scottish civ had been led by James I/VI. Then we could have seen them both clearly as pseudo-alternate leaders of a British civ.
So it's really hard to say whether it was the choice of Vicky representing the union or Bob not representing the union that really ruins what could have been a really elegant pairing.
I do think adding civ synergies or some form of co-op mode/features would add a lot to the game. Before R&F, I was hoping a third expack might introduce some civs with ally buffs and group-hug mechanics, like Sweden on crack.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
