The Normans were far more of a Viking/French cultural hybrid than an "English civ", and they had many implications beyond 1066 especially in Italy and the rest of the Mediterranean. England itself really didn't become "English" until at least the Angevins and arguably even later than that, and the Normans were more of a ruling elite than anything else.
They are an interesting choice for the time period, and may have worked well as a precursor to modern day Britain with their civ switching in mind, but to say that are the replacement of the British Empire seems reductionist and, quite frankly, a poor take. I actually think it's another example of just how poorly fleshed out their system is; civs that could form obvious steps on the civ-switching ladder have been stepped over (Celts, HRE, Byzantines, etc.) and the flow of civ-switching just doesn't make any sense at all. It's clear they have gone far into the direction of board game design ("hey! Make your choices based on mechanics interactions!") and some people may be a fan of that, but they have clearly not put thought into the thematic side of things.
Yes, I think 'mechanics first' players will probably be a lot more excited than 'immersion first' players.
I felt 6 had taken a further step towards board game mechanics to be honest, and although I still clocked 300+ hours on it, it was my least played iteration
To be fair to the developers, reading these forums really does show how many totally different things thst people want from a civ game
Last edited: