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.
George III, a british king who in his reign, went wars against Americans twice.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"
Is he an English leader who waged a 'Hundread Years War' against France? (And the first person to use converted merchant Cogs as warships?)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 . . .
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.Is he an English leader who waged a 'Hundread Years War' against France? (And the first person to use converted merchant Cogs as warships?)
Is he an English leader who waged a 'Hundread Years War' against France? (And the first person to use converted merchant Cogs as warships?)
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?
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.
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.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.
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 really hope Civ designs are less set around one specific era. This makes no sense in a game about leading civilisations through history!
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.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).
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.)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.
Been there, done that.even Egypt though you could at least go to the Classical Era with them.
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.)I consider modern Egypt being more similar to civs depiction of Arabia anyway, especially with Saladin leading from Cairo.
I agree with this and would personally only give them British abilities if Victoria, or another British monarch, was their leader.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.)
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.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.)
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. )I agree with this and would personally only give them British abilities if Victoria, or another British monarch, was their leader.
Nice touch. England doesn't have to have St. George's Cross or St. Edward's Crown every time.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 overall like the design, but I agree that it's sorely missing culture bonuses from Elizabeth.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.
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.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.
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.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.