• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

in defense of base game Britain

I think if the Normans were just renamed to England, maybe that would make everyone feel better? Because it's definitely designed to be the England/Britain of the base game.
 
Yeah it's a crazy decision not to have Britain in the base game. They hit every X in '4X', especially in the 19th and early 20th centuries on which the Modern Age is specifically based. The truth is that America is the Anglophone empire that should have been relegated to DLC, but Civ is an American game from an American perspective so that was never going to happen.
They could have added England, instead of Normandy, as an "Exploration Era" Civilization in the base game and leave Britain as a "Modern Era" Civilization for future DLCs. That way, there were only one Anglophone Civilization per era in the last two eras.

I guess the devs thought that the Normans were enough English representation. But, the thing is, even if a Norman dynasty ruled England, the Normans are still Normans, not English.
 
Last edited:
Theh could have added England, instead of Normandy, as an "Exploration Era" Civilization in the base game and leave Britain as a "Modern Era" Civilization for future DLCs. That way, there were only one Anglophone Civilization per era in the last two eras.

I guess the devs thought that the Normans were enough English representation. But, the thing is, even if a Norman dynasty ruled England, the Normans are still Normans, not English.
This is not necessarily criticism and also pure speculation, but looks like Civ 5, Civ 6, and Civ 7 each has a distinct "Ed Beach's choice" in the roster. It was Venice for 5, CdM for 6, and now Normans for 7. For better or worse.
 
This is not necessarily criticism and also pure speculation, but looks like Civ 5, Civ 6, and Civ 7 each has a distinct "Ed Beach's choice" in the roster. It was Venice for 5, CdM for 6, and now Normans for 7. For better or worse.
Really? I didn't know that. Interesting.
 
I think if the Normans were just renamed to England, maybe that would make everyone feel better? Because it's definitely designed to be the England/Britain of the base game.

Not really, because the Normans are mainly the Duchy of Normandy + the White Tower, with their capital at Rouen, and their focus is on European land warfare. Given the theme of the Exploration Age, an Exploration England would be better off centering on navy, Early Empire, and overseas expansion similar to Spain.
 
Not really, because the Normans are mainly the Duchy of Normandy + the White Tower, with their capital at Rouen, and their focus is on European land warfare. Given the theme of the Exploration Age, an Exploration England would be better off centering on navy, Early Empire, and overseas expansion similar to Spain.
Lundres (London), Haestings (Hastings), Wyncestre (Winchester) are all Norman cities. Domesday Book and Common law are civics which are associated with Norman England. It's certainly not full one or the other, but it's at least something.

Don't get me wrong, I would have preferred a proper Exploration Age England, but we'll just have to wait a little while for a proper British Empire in the Modern age.
 
I think if the Normans were just renamed to England, maybe that would make everyone feel better? Because it's definitely designed to be the England/Britain of the base game.
They strike me more as the "generic medieval European civ". Hence why the game recommends Charlemagne to go with them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
Lundres (London), Haestings (Hastings), Wyncestre (Winchester) are all Norman cities. Domesday Book and Common law are civics which are associated with Norman England. It's certainly not full one or the other, but it's at least something.

Don't get me wrong, I would have preferred a proper Exploration Age England, but we'll just have to wait a little while for a proper British Empire in the Modern age.
One of the 'Tubers showed the transition to Normans at Exploration and the intro read by Christie literals says "Cross the Channel and seize the world..."

It comes off as a cop out that combines both medival England and Medival France.
 
I’m actually more bothered that the Norman civ makes no reference to Sicily or Ireland, which were also significant Norman conquests during the Middle Ages. A real missed opportunity, as it would have cemented the Normans as a valid pick in their own right rather than just a half-baked England/France.
 
Absurd monetisation plan from 2K/Firaxis (I don't distinguish between the two, because from the customer perspective it makes no difference). I don't want to engage in some sort of jingoist argument about who deserves to be in a Civ game more, so I won't. But to parcel Britain off as paid DLC is extremely off-putting. Sadly it is becoming normal for "AAA" publishers to remove content that you would expect to be in the core of the game to be sold later in its life.

The Normans do not represent England any more than turkish mamluks could represent Arabia, or the Golden Horde could represent Russia. They were a conquering elite, not the civ itself.

Guess I'll be waiting a few years until this game is -50% on steam. There are plenty of other great games out there until then.
 
A disgrace that England/Great Britain/The United Kingdom isn't represented in any shape or form. Sheer bloody greed on the part of Firaxis, who'd likely fleece you out of £8.99 for them.

With that said, the modding community for the series is prolific enough that I have every confidence Blighty will be in the game sooner rather than later, courtesy of a dilligent fan.
 
In defence of the Norman civ, to England they are like the Qing to China and the Mughals to India but viewed as far less foreign and instead viewed as if they founded England itself. Many schools across England erroneously refer to William the Conqueror as the first King of England despite the first King of England being Æthelstan unless you count Alfred the Great. In fact Anglo Saxon kings aren’t even counted when it comes to lists of English monarchs and are excluded when it comes to the regnal number. For example Edward VIII would be Edward XI if Edward the Elder, Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor were counted.

To England, the Norman Conquest is viewed as dragging the Anglo-Saxons/English out of a backwater and bringing them Feudalism (safe to say England isn’t exactly the kindest about its pre-Norman history). There’s also the added fact that the very same Norman lion has been a symbol of England since 1066 in the form of 3 lions. The Norman civ whilst the capital is Rouen seems to represent England since the Norman Conquest where in a way it still very much feels English. There’s also the fact that the modern day English language is a mess due to the Normans.:lol:
 
The Normans carried out a genocide in northern England around York (its economic centre of the time) and spoke a completely different language with a different root. Where is London in this game? I have just seen Raptor's video on YT, they settled four cities; Rouen, Fécamp, Kaem (Caen), and Falaise. Is London supposed to be the 5th or 6th settlement? The financial capital of the world for hundreds of years.

A better representation of the Normans might be William the Conqueror as a playable Leader.

I am not arguing that the Anglo Saxons should be in Civ VII, as yes they were an insignifcant backwater of history. Great Britain (1700-1950AD) was not. If the French Empire of the Modern Age we would all be screaming where is France!? And no, "Normans" is not a good answer. Other glaring omissions are the Ottomans, Aztecs, Vikings (navigable rivers!).

At €70 for the base version of the game it looks like it's 60% of a finished product. I think the game I was expecting on release will probably end up costing around €200 total. I'll wait.
 
I think if the Normans were just renamed to England, maybe that would make everyone feel better? Because it's definitely designed to be the England/Britain of the base game.
No, because the Norman bonuses do not represent England well enough. The motte-and-bailey is a generic medieval castle for the time and the best preserved mottes-and-baileys in France and England date back to the Normans.

The Chevaler is also not an English unit, but clearly the contemporanous name for French knights (chevaliers).

Plus, the capital is Rouen, which is in France.

So no, you definitely cannot just rename the Norman Civilization as England, without changing visual aspects of the Civ first. England is its own polity, and can (should) be added later, by mods if need be.
I’m actually more bothered that the Norman civ makes no reference to Sicily or Ireland, which were also significant Norman conquests during the Middle Ages. A real missed opportunity, as it would have cemented the Normans as a valid pick in their own right rather than just a half-baked England/France.
They should have been more in line as an Exploration Viking Civ yeah. I like the design of the Norman Civ overall, but it definitely vibes more French than English to me, despite the City list and despite the associated wonder. Going for a blobbier Norman Civ than just Fra + Eng absolultely would have improved their validity in the game over medieval France and England as separate entitites.
 
While I never or rarely played as England in previous Civ titles, I do find it odd that they are not included on day one/Vanilla for Civ 7, not only because the Rome to Normans to modern day London served as the inspiration and explanation of this edition’s implementation of civ switching and the Age system.

It is funny to me that we have Napoleonic France without its historic rival (Prussia and Russia will have to do for now) Industrial Revolution without it’s progenitor, America without its former overlord, and a Norman England civ without its proper successor. As one of you have pointed out, it will feel very odd not to have London in the game.

I do think that some form of England will be included in the Right to Rule game pack, which is probably of very little comfort to you all. I do believe that Firaxis has intended for the Founders Edition of the game to be, essentially, the “director’s cut” of the Vanilla releases. However, I am not advocating for this kind of model. For the record, I believe this is just the result of too few civs being included at launch.

While I can’t really partake in your outrage, I can sympathize with your disappointment. For example, if France wasn’t delivered in some form in Vanilla, I would be similarly upset. (That said, be careful what you wish for as I am not 100% on board with the France we have received for the Modern Age).

All of that said, I can only hope for some quickly delivered DLC for you all, and one that delivers a Civ that scratches the particular itch you have all described.

And to close, there is always the Fourth Age 😉
 
My opinion is:

I think this issue can be very simple by summarizing like this: 31 Civs + 21 Leaders at 2025 vs 39 Civs + more Leaders at 2026.

I think the decision was made not only by devs, the finance team and 2K might are there too. They did a lots of things at the last dev stage of Civ 6 for free, so they need proper income from new title ASAP.

And I prefer this, because I just want that brand new title ASAP too. The Civ and Leader list itself is not even a problem for me. If the game system is solid enough to enjoy, I'll take that.
 
Domesday Book and common law are civics are associated with Norman England.
The Domesday Book is where so many towns and villages in England and Wales can trace their historical roots to. My town simply does not have any recorded history before the Normans (and with a game that features towns I think thats an important point).
They were a conquering elite, not the civ itself.
This is reductionist, they were a conquering elite, who in the span of a hundred years, made their irreplaceable mark on England and the Norman successors
 
The Normans carried out a genocide in northern England around York (its economic centre of the time) and spoke a completely different language with a different root. Where is London in this game? I have just seen Raptor's video on YT, they settled four cities; Rouen, Fécamp, Kaem (Caen), and Falaise. Is London supposed to be the 5th or 6th settlement? The financial capital of the world for hundreds of years.
London has been spotted as the Norman city “Lundres”. Whilst it is true that the Normans carried out a genocide in Northern England, this doesn’t change the irreplaceable mark they left on England even though the Normans and the Plantagenets as a whole were extremely oppressive towards the English. Also it wasn’t until the 1200s where an English king spoke English since the Norman conquest (And wasn’t until 1399 that an English king took an oath in English). In fact some of the Plantagenet rulers didn’t even rule from England at all and instead ruled from somewhere in France (especially during the Hundred Years’ War).

If however we got an England civ for the exploration era (which honestly would’ve been better), it most likely would’ve been based more on the Tudors as that’s when the monarchy was indubitably more centred around England and when it began to build a colonial empire (and the Stuarts that followed were also rubbish).

Without a doubt however, Britain should be in the base game especially since city growth ingame is based on the growth of London and Britain was dominant for most of the Modern era. The same Britain we have today however still is built from Norman rule over England hence why for so long the nobility also spoke French/Anglo-Norman and why it is still used in some legal stuff.
 
The Chevaler is also not an English unit, but clearly the contemporanous name for French knights (chevaliers).

Wrong and then some. The i in chevalier harken all the way back to late latin, and is found in nearly every french languages (now dialect, then separate related languagues). The loss of the i is pretty much found in only two languages, Normans and its direct successor, Middle English, where chevaler (and an impressive array of other spellings all of them lacking the i). English later re-adopted the i from French. In all cases, the term meant "a knight" without distinction of particular culture or tradition. The notion of using a specific language's word for knight to designate knights of that culture is a modern conceit, not an accurate representation of period use.

Non-norman french knights were not especially known as chevaler (only the Normans and Middle English called them that) and the people most likely to be called "chevaler" were, in fact, english and norman knights.

The chevaler in the game is a norman, not French, knight, such as were the dominant form of knights in the British isles throughout the high Medieval period (and even into the late)
 
Top Bottom