Designing England for Civ7

[Haig]

Lord Kitchener would make a memorable leader screen!
No idea how he is regarded today currently but his iconic image has been used a lot. Mysterious man from British Empire golden age..

 

[Phrozen]

He was overshadowed, especially among the 19th century British historians, by the reputations of his sons: Richard the Lion-Headed who never actually ruled, and John who ruled neither wisely nor well.

And, of course, his wife who made it into Civ before he did . . .

I think a better figure for the Angevin era would be William the Marshal. Started off as a tournament knight recruited into Eleanor's court. Henry II saw promise in him and recruited him and ended up making him the mentor to Henry the Young King. When Henry the Young King died he went crusading keeping a promise he made to Henry. After crusading was recruited back into Henry II service during the rebellion of Henry's sons, including besting and unhorsing Richard. When Henry II died, Richard recruited William into his service. William was part of the council that ruled England during Richard's crusade. Fought against John when John tried to seize the crown during Richard's return to western Europe. Had a contentious relationship with John but stayed loyal and John assigned him protectorate and regent of Henry III in which William did much to stabilize and secure the realm including stamping out a rebellion but making a generous peace in exchange for stability.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think a better figure for the Angevin era would be William the Marshal. Started off as a tournament knight recruited into Eleanor's court. Henry II saw promise in him and recruited him and ended up making him the mentor to Henry the Young King. When Henry the Young King died he went crusading keeping a promise he made to Henry. After crusading was recruited back into Henry II service during the rebellion of Henry's sons, including besting and unhorsing Richard. When Henry II died, Richard recruited William into his service. William was part of the council that ruled England during Richard's crusade. Fought against John when John tried to seize the crown during Richard's return to western Europe. Had a contentious relationship with John but stayed loyal and John assigned him protectorate and regent of Henry III in which William did much to stabilize and secure the realm including stamping out a rebellion but making a generous peace in exchange for stability.

William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembrke, or Williame li Mareschal is on my list of Great Ministers: a new Great Person I want to see added, which provides a 'modifier' to Leader Uniques and therefore more variety potentially to Civs without requiring more multiple Alternate Leaders. Also, while he was 'de facto' ruler of the Angevin Empire on several occasions, he was never officially leader of the state (crowned king, elected executive, etc) and I'm trying to keep extraneous folks out of the line up, despite the rather wide net that Civ VI cast for Leaders.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

The real beginnings of England as a World, as opposed to Edge of Europe Power was in the 18th century, and for that period you could use George III - hear me out: if Civ VII is about Great Personalities and doubling down on the animated Leaders, which I think it will be, imagine what they could do with a Leader who was not just slightly over the top but full-blown Batty as a Cathedral Spire. Imagine the diplomatic interchanges: you greet George and he introduces you to the potted plant next to him . . .

UU could be the '74', the ubiquitous 74-gun Ship of the Line that comprised almost half the Royal Navy's major warships, the perfect compromise between mobility and firepower. Its special 'English' bonus would be that an English 74 can enter the territory of any City State and when it does it applies the equivalent of 2 Envoys to the City State - "gunboat diplomacy, don't y'know"

George III, a british king who in his reign, went wars against Americans twice.
And what should be generic 'Ships of the Line' name? Manowar or what? if England can have 'The Seventy Four'.

Do you think British Red Coats are really superior to anyone else Fusilier? (A correct name of 'Linear Infantry' ) did this unit deserves a status as a UU?

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

He was overshadowed, especially among the 19th century British historians, by the reputations of his sons: Richard the Lion-Headed who never actually ruled, and John who ruled neither wisely nor well.

And, of course, his wife who made it into Civ before he did . . .

Is he an English leader who waged a 'Hundread Years War' against France? (And the first person to use converted merchant Cogs as warships?)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Is he an English leader who waged a 'Hundread Years War' against France? (And the first person to use converted merchant Cogs as warships?)

There were several Henry's involved though Henry V who successfully used longbowmen to unexpectedly win the battle at Agincourt is the most notable one. The Hundred Year's War was after Henry II.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Is he an English leader who waged a 'Hundread Years War' against France? (And the first person to use converted merchant Cogs as warships?)

As stated, the Hundred Years' War was waged for about a century, so involved a number of English and French monarchs. It is usually considered to have started "officially" in 1337, so Edward III was the first English monarch involved - about 150 years after Henry II's death.
And although the Cog is first mentioned as a coastal freight-carrier in 948 CE, the first known use of it as a warship was the Battle of Sluys in 1340 - also under Edward III, where the Cogs with their temporary 'castles' or fighting towers fore and aft proved to have a decisive advantage over French low-freeboard galleys.

Hmmmm. If you want a really early English Naval Unique that might be a possibility: the War Cog which, since the towers were temporary, could be used to expand results from Trade Routes as a more sea-worthy freight carrier OR enhance your combat capability on the sea.

Not so sure about Edward III as a Leader for England, though. He beat the Scots repeatedly, but couldn't hold any gains in the country, and he and his son got the first "longbow victories" at Crecy and Poitiers, but he couldn't sustain his military adventures financially and ended up having to renounce his claim to the French throne to make peace before it all fell apart on him. His successes were almost entirely military/naval, which is a bit limited for a good Leader in Civ, for which I'd prefer more variety of potential Uniques.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

George III, a british king who in his reign, went wars against Americans twice.
And what should be generic 'Ships of the Line' name? Manowar or what? if England can have 'The Seventy Four'.

Do you think British Red Coats are really superior to anyone else Fusilier? (A correct name of 'Linear Infantry' ) did this unit deserves a status as a UU?

"Man-o-War" is too generic: Humankind uses it for an 18th century (Flintlock Tech) warship because they carefully do not specify what exactly they are representing, and they don't have separate Frigate or Ship-of-the-Line models in their system of Units.

The Ship of the Line was specific: a warship with at least 2 continuous gun decks built from about 1660 to 1850. During that period it represented the only ships that could stand in Line of Battle and fight it out with similar ships. Consequently every (European) Navy measured its strength in numbers of ships of the line (the same way they later measured everybody's naval strength in numbers of Battleships) - and since in 1793 CE the British Royal Navy had 146 Ships of the LIne, it was Top Dog in the naval world.
Also, the Ship of the Line was the most complex piece of machinery or combination of machines ever built by humans up to that date: each one represented a huge investment in industrial/craft technologies and raw materials. Among other things, several hundred intricate pulley block mechanisms, at least 40 acres of mature trees, and 200 tons or more of iron or bronze cast artillery went into every Ship of the Line..

Oh, and since at that 1793 date 64 out of 146 Ships of the Line in the Royal Navy were 74-gun 3rd rates, the Seventy Four, as I've posted before, would make a great English/British Naval UU

As for the 'Redcoat'. The term dates from the New Model Army of 1645 when Parliament adopted by Ordinance the 'Venetian' (actually, Madder) Red coat for the English army and lasted until (officially) 1902 when Khaki officially replaced British Scarlet as the service dress uniform color. 1885 was actually the last time red-coated British troops appeared on a battlefield, however.
Therefore, Redcoats would be an appropriate English/British UU from Cromwell's time to Victoria's.
Furthermore, the redcoats always had a reputation as very good troops, although up until the War of the Spanish Succession (1702 - 1714) they weren't considered to be as 'reliable' as the best Dutch infantry.

One point: red, scarlet, and/or crimson were also used as uniform colors by a large number of other troops in the same period: Swiss and Irish troops in the service of France wore red coats, including the Swiss Guards, Scots in Dutch service, the entire Saxon army, Croat light troops in Austrian service - and those were just infantry. French, many German, and Russian dragoons all wore red coats as well, so that the color was by no means exclusively British/English.

 

[Uberfrog]

I am torn between "I'd love to see medieval England, especially Anglo - Saxon" and "I'd love the series to finally turn them into industrial superpower, because arguably the industrial revolution is the most damn important thing they gave to mankind".

But in both cases I want to see some super - university anyway, because come on Oxford, Cambridge and English scientific revolution that dates to the 12th century.

Ideally, Civ 7’s design could do both!

I really hope Civ designs are less set around one specific era. This makes no sense in a game about leading civilisations through history!

Humankind has done a great job in having medieval England alongside industrial Britain, or Zhou alongside Ming and the PRC, or classical Persia alongside industrial Persia. I hope the devs at Firaxis take note and come up with some more holistic designs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Ideally, Civ 7’s design could do both!

I really hope Civ designs are less set around one specific era. This makes no sense in a game about leading civilisations through history!

Humankind has done a great job in having medieval England alongside industrial Britain, or Zhou alongside Ming and the PRC, or classical Persia alongside industrial Persia. I hope the devs at Firaxis take note and come up with some more holistic designs.

I agree though there are people that do not like it and find it immersion breaking. Frederick Barbarossa with a U-boat comes to mind.

That being said Humankind does it easily but that's because England and Britain are also considered different factions. Though I admit I might find it interesting if they did design a Medieval Anglo Saxon England and then gave us a separate British civ incorporating Scottish and Welsh elements too. Not sure how popular that would be though.

I'd probably much rather have Elizabeth and Victoria as alternate leaders with a Sun Never Sets civ ability, Longbowmen UU, and Royal Navy Dockyard as a shipyard replacement

 

[Zaarin]

I really hope Civ designs are less set around one specific era. This makes no sense in a game about leading civilisations through history!

Yes, but what do you do for civs that don't have long histories? Sumer and the Hittites were major powers that nevertheless managed to be completely forgotten until archaeology rediscovered them, with no history past the Ancient Era; in the opposite direction, America will be in the game but it has a very young history. Also, to play devil's advocate, for every argument you can make for the continuity of Persia or China, there are equally good arguments for discontinuity. Then you get into the knotty mess of nationalist narratives, like modern Egypt trying to claim the heritage of Pharaonic Egypt, modern Iraq claiming the trinity of Sumer/Babylon/Assyria, or Hungary trying to claim the Huns, all of which is nonsense (probably not genetic nonsense in the first two cases, but certainly historical/cultural/political nonsense).

I'd much rather see focused designs myself. Doesn't mean there's no room for some leeway (e.g., I'd welcome dual Achaemenid and Sassanid leaders for Persia), but there are limits. There's a reason civ designs like Germany and India receive criticism for their lack of focus. (Personally I think Civ6's German design is fine; it works well as a package and gives a pretty nice picture of German history, even if the Uboot is useless. India, however, is a mess. Could India not be a bottom tier civ for just one iteration of the game?)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes, but what do you do for civs that don't have long histories? Sumer and the Hittites were major powers that nevertheless managed to be completely forgotten until archaeology rediscovered them, with no history past the Ancient Era; in the opposite direction, America will be in the game but it has a very young history. Also, to play devil's advocate, for every argument you can make for the continuity of Persia or China, there are equally good arguments for discontinuity. Then you get into the knotty mess of nationalist narratives, like modern Egypt trying to claim the heritage of Pharaonic Egypt, modern Iraq claiming the trinity of Sumer/Babylon/Assyria, or Hungary trying to claim the Huns, all of which is nonsense (probably not genetic nonsense in the first two cases, but certainly historical/cultural/political nonsense).

In the case of England, they have had multiple eras where they have had golden years. I think civs that you mentioned like England, China, Germany, and Persia can be designed like this taking attributes from each period of history.

I mean even Korea branched out and had a Silla leader with everything else based off of the Joseon period.

Of course when designing civs like Sumer, Babylon and Assyria most everyone believes you have to stick to the Ancient Era, even Egypt though you could at least go to the Classical Era with them.
I consider modern Egypt being more similar to civs depiction of Arabia anyway, especially with Saladin leading from Cairo.

 

[Zaarin]

In the case of England, they have had multiple eras where they have had golden years. I think civs that you mentioned like England, China, Germany, and Persia can be designed like this taking attributes from each period of history.

I mean even Korea branched out and had a Silla leader with everything else based off of the Joseon period.

To some extent, yes, though I disagree about England. England's golden age was the 16th/17th centuries. After that it wasn't England but Britain, and before that it was a second-rate power on the fringe of Europe. (Not to say I don't love Medieval English history and wouldn't welcome a Medieval English leader except that I really want Lizzy back, but the civ itself should really be designed around Elizabethan/Jacobean England with maybe a small nod to the British era.)

even Egypt though you could at least go to the Classical Era with them.

Been there, done that.

I consider modern Egypt being more similar to civs depiction of Arabia anyway, especially with Saladin leading from Cairo.

To me it doesn't really fit in with either. Modern Egypt has no legitimate claim on Pharaonic Egypt, and Arabia in Civ has always been the Medieval caliphates. While Nasser is a charismatic figure, I think Atatürk or Reza Shah Pahlavi have better claims for charismatic early 20th century Middle Eastern nationalist leaders. (Please no to all of them, though. If we want to change up our Medieval Anatolian Turkish civ, let's have the Seljuks led by Alp Arslan, and if we want an Islamic Persian civ let's have a Safavid.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

To some extent, yes, though I disagree about England. England's golden age was the 16th/17th centuries. After that it wasn't England but Britain, and before that it was a second-rate power on the fringe of Europe. (Not to say I don't love Medieval English history and wouldn't welcome a Medieval English leader except that I really want Lizzy back, but the civ itself should really be designed around Elizabethan/Jacobean England with maybe a small nod to the British era.)

I agree with this and would personally only give them British abilities if Victoria, or another British monarch, was their leader.

To me it doesn't really fit in with either. Modern Egypt has no legitimate claim on Pharaonic Egypt, and Arabia in Civ has always been the Medieval caliphates. While Nasser is a charismatic figure, I think Atatürk or Reza Shah Pahlavi have better claims for charismatic early 20th century Middle Eastern nationalist leaders. (Please no to all of them, though. If we want to change up our Medieval Anatolian Turkish civ, let's have the Seljuks led by Alp Arslan, and if we want an Islamic Persian civ let's have a Safavid.)

Yeah I'm not saying I want a 20th century leader from the Middle East at all, just pointing out that Modern Egypt has more religious and cultural similarities with the Medieval Islamic Caliphates, than Pharaonic Egypt. I also think Arabia should stay represented as the Medieval powerhouse they were.

 

[Zaarin]

I agree with this and would personally only give them British abilities if Victoria, or another British monarch, was their leader.

Next time we get a British monarch, I dare them to choose Queen Anne or George III. (Say what you will about Anne, she knew how to dress. She also presided over a little renaissance of the arts, which means she could function somewhat similarly to Elizabeth but without the scintillating personality, the vibrant intelligence, or the razor wit. )

 

[Lord Lakely]

I think I'll keep this one fairly not-Controversial.

Elizabeth leads England in Sid Meier's Civilization VII

The Virgin Queen is one of England's most iconic rulers and is widely considered one of its best Monarchs. Under the rule of Good Queen Bess, England flourished into a naval powerhouse, a prime protestant power and a lead cultural player.

England's unique ability is Magna Carta, which gives England a free Wildcard Policy Slot when they're in a Golden Age. Also, Pastures, Lumber Mills, Quarries and Mines receive +1 Production and +1 Gold for each adjacent tile improvement of the same type. If these tiles are rearranged in a triangular formation they can no longer be pillaged by enemy forces.

England also has access to the Market Town to further bolster its economy. This unique District replaces the Neighbourhood and is available much earlier (at Medieval Faires). Instead of the regular neighbourhood, which provides Housing based on Appeal, the Market Town provides +2 Housing for each different adjacent completed District, and +2 Food for each different adjacent tile improvement. Market Towns also provide +2 Gold to any trader that passes through its city.

The Ship-of-the-Line is England's Unique Unit. This ranged naval unit replaces the Frigate, can always move after shooting and has +8 Strength when defending from attacks.

Elizabeth's unique ability, Her Majesty's Senior Service, allows England to build up a navy more quickly. If a woods tile or rainforest is cleared near a city building a naval unit, it will finish contruction of that unit outright. Elizabeth also has access to the Yeoman, which is a Crossbowman replacement. Yeomen are slightly stronger (+3 Strength) and can shoot one tile further if positioned on top of a District, Fort or City Centre tile.


As England, your bustling Market Towns will be the key towards your midgame expansion; allowing England to grow tall. In the early game, Magna Carta will help you build up a powerful production base and shield your improvements from unwelcome pillages [at this point in the First Look we see a Norwegian Berserker failing to pillage a pasture]. Should you find yourself under attack, you will always have your trusty Yeomen and Ships of the Line improve your defenses. Be sure to time your Golden Ages right, as that extra Wildcard Policy slot can give you the guidance needed to win the game.

Will you let Britannia rule the waves? How will you lead England in Sid Meier's Civilization VII?

Sigil & Cities

Sigil



It only felt fitting to use England's national flower as their emblem. The Tudor Rose, Burgundy on Silver, especially since I chose a Tudor Monarch. I went for Burgundy on Pink for the alternative colouration, although in retrospect it should have been a slightly paler shade of pink. Oh well.


City Lists



In addition to the cities, England's Market Towns have names upon completion for just a little bit extra Flavour. Styled in lowercase to minimize confusion with city banners.


(frankly this should be part of basegame neighbourhoods, esp now that humankind does sort of the same thing with outposts)

Capital: London
Other Cities: York, Norwich, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Leeds, Sheffield, Canterbury, Nottingham, Oxford, Brighton, Coventry, Dover, Salisbury, Winchester, Lincoln, Shrewsbury, Ipswhich, Exeter, Carlisle, Reading, Bath, Plymouth, Scarborough, Leicester, Great Yarmouth, Berwick, Cambridge, Hull, Worcester, Southampton, Ely, Croydon, Derby, Thetford, Oakham, Durham, Hastings, Lichfield & Ripon

Market Towns: Warwick, Bedford, Tamworth, Bishop's Lynn, Bamburgh, Stafford, Buckingham, Lancaster, Chippenham, Frome, Wakefield, Rochester, Aylesbury, Glastonbury, Middlesborough, Stoke-upon-Trent, Appleby, Darlington, Huddersfield, Doncaster, Wroxester, Bolton, Huntingdon, Stratford-upon-Avon, Chelmsford, Hereford, Guildford, Swindon, Cheltenham, Harrogate, Trowbridge, St. Albans, Bury, Ashbourne, Sunderland, Wolverhampton, Stow-on-the-Wold, Maidstone, Chester, Bradford, Macclesfield, Hartlepool, Beverley, Eton, Lindisfarne, Dunstable, Dorchester, Whitchurch, Chichester, Thetford, Peterborough, Milton Keynes & Sleaford.

Economy, Industry, tall cities. This feels like the England I wish Civilization VI had. My only regret is not adding in a cultural bonus for Elizabeth, but the GA bonus makes up for it.

 

[Zaarin]

It only felt fitting to use England's national flower as their emblem. The Tudor Rose, Burgundy on Silver, especially since I chose a Tudor Monarch.

Nice touch. England doesn't have to have St. George's Cross or St. Edward's Crown every time.

Economy, Industry, tall cities. This feels like the England I wish Civilization VI had. My only regret is not adding in a cultural bonus for Elizabeth, but the GA bonus makes up for it.

I overall like the design, but I agree that it's sorely missing culture bonuses from Elizabeth.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Ship-of-the-Line is England's Unique Unit. This ranged naval unit replaces the Frigate, can always move after shooting and has +8 Strength when defending from attacks.

Elizabeth's unique ability, Her Majesty's Senior Service, allows England to build up a navy more quickly. If a woods tile or rainforest is cleared near a city building a naval unit, it will finish contruction of that unit outright. Elizabeth also has access to the Yeoman, which is a Crossbowman replacement. Yeomen are slightly stronger (+3 Strength) and can shoot one tile further if positioned on top of a District, Fort or City Centre tile.

Any reason why the Ship-of-the-Line is England's UU and the Yeoman is Elizabeth's?. Just curious as it seems it would make more sense the other way around.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Any reason why the Ship-of-the-Line is England's UU and the Yeoman is Elizabeth's?. Just curious as it seems it would make more sense the other way around.

Well, neither one is actually contemporary with Elizabeth.

"Yeoman" as a feudal rank dates back to the 11th - 12th centuries and the "Yeomen Archers" which is what the UA refers to can be dated to Edward I's wars of the late 13th, early 14th centuries. The Yeomen of the Guard (ceremonial) and Yeoman Warders (of the Tower) were in existence in Elizabeth's time and the Yeoman as a small freeholding commoner was an accepted definition of the word in Elizabeth's time (1500 - 1650 CE), but that's the best we can do.

The first Ship-of-the-Line was the Sovereign of the Seas which was launched in 1637 CE - a quarter-century after Elizabeth. On the other hand, the race-built galleon hull that was the basis for all the subsequent Ship-of-the-Line designs was developed by John Hawkins during Elizabeth's reign - in fact, just in time for that ship-type to give the English a decisive advantage over the Armada in 1588.

I would switch them around, simply because Elizabeth's reign really saw the start of England's domination of the seas that lasted for the next 3 centuries, and the Ship-of-the-Line was the mechanism of that dominance.
By her time the Yeoman Archer was, at best, obsolescent: in 1545 the Mary Rose, one of her father Henry VIII's ships, carried 250 longbows, but also 24 cannon and 67 swivel guns or muskets: in 1588 there is no record of any English ship carrying any longbows at all.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would switch them around, simply because Elizabeth's reign really saw the start of England's domination of the seas that lasted for the next 3 centuries, and the Ship-of-the-Line was the mechanism of that dominance.
By her time the Yeoman Archer was, at best, obsolescent: in 1545 the Mary Rose, one of her father Henry VIII's ships, carried 250 longbows, but also 24 cannon and 67 swivel guns or muskets: in 1588 there is no record of any English ship carrying any longbows at all.

I agree. Though if we we really wanted to give her a proper naval UU the Sea Dog would be the most appropriate. But I don't think many people want them to return after how bad they are in Civ 6.