• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

in defense of base game Britain

We are all assuming England or Britain will be in DLC. Heck I have argued that it is a deliberately ploy to sell DLC. But this isn't guaranteed?

If as I have read, London and Oxford uni are listed as Norman.. perhaps the dev attitude is 'you have the normans'?

I have already decided to wait before buying (I want to see if the forums Modders are able to do the map packs I love) but given the way the Norman's are supposed to 'represent England' I am not sure how they would shoehorn a real England in (unless it's a modern age Britain perhaps)

I still find it astonishing, given that I read in the devs diary that 'impact on history' played a major part of picking the civs. But it is what it is at the end of the day
 
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:

I have never met or seen a historian refer to William as "the first English king" or try to paint the Normans as founding the kingdom of England. You're right about the mark Normans left on English history, langauge, etc being incredibly important but I think you may be overselling it a bit. The idea that English historiography doesn't record or account for its Saxon kings is simply not true.
 
I have never met or seen a historian refer to William as "the first English king" or try to paint the Normans as founding the kingdom of England. You're right about the mark Normans left on English history, langauge, etc being incredibly important but I think you may be overselling it a bit. The idea that English historiography doesn't record or account for its Saxon kings is simply not true.
Apologies, I’ll issue a bit of a correction, whilst many English historians don’t often paint William as “the first English king” this is instead seemingly painted in the education system based on my own personal experience here in England where William is often painted in such fashion to an extent, however I do realise I may be overselling it a bit so that is my mistake.

However, it is still odd that the 3 Anglo Saxon kings named Edward are seemingly not taken into account when it comes to regnal numbers as in the case of William III and William IV, this recognises William the Conqueror as having been William I.
 
Real history: Normans (foreign invaders) slaughter most of the inhabitants of one of the largest and wealthiest towns of England, which existed for over 500 years. Most historians both today and who lived at the time consider it a genocide and a horrific crime respectively.

Civ VII: Normans are the "founders" of the city of York. Make it be spelt the French way!
 
Apologies, I’ll issue a bit of a correction, whilst many English historians don’t often paint William as “the first English king” this is instead seemingly painted in the education system based on my own personal experience here in England where William is often painted in such fashion to an extent, however I do realise I may be overselling it a bit so that is my mistake.

Well I can't really contest with anecdotes, all I can point out is that I wouldn't put too much stock in primary school miseducation. No historian or history teacher worth their salt is going to teach you that the Normans founded England.

However, it is still odd that the 3 Anglo Saxon kings named Edward are seemingly not taken into account when it comes to regnal numbers as in the case of William III and William IV, this recognises William the Conqueror as having been William I.

Not really

They were a different ruling dynasties. the early Anglo-saxon kings had unique Anglo-saxon names and titles that didn't require or use regnal numbers. For example, there were three Anglo-Saxon kings named Edward but there was nearly a century between their respective rules and they are all easily distiguishable by their titles.

Where as Edward I (Longshanks) only became colloqiually known by his regnal number to distinguish him from his son and grandson with the same name who would go on to immediately suceed his rule . By the time a regnal numbering system would find widespread and official usage in England in the late middle ages (14th-16th century), the numbering system would simply continue where Longshank's line left off. That doesn't make the Anglo-Saxon Edwards any less Kings of England. (especially considering that Edward is the only name shared between early kings of England and later lines who would use more familiar contintental names and a regnal numbering system similar to the Papacy and HRE)
 
Last edited:
Not really

They were a different ruling dynasties. the early Anglo-saxon and Viking kings had unique Anglo-saxon names and titles that didn't require regnal numbers. For example, there were three Anglo-Saxon kings named Edward but there was nearly a century between their respective rules and they are easily distiguishable by their titles.

Where as Edward I (Longshanks) only became colloqiually known by his regnal number to distinguish him from his son with the same name who would go on to immediately suceed his rule to be followed by his own son bearing that same name. By the time a regnal numbering system would find widespread and official usage in England in the late middle ages (14th-16th century), the numbering system would simply continue where Longshank's line left off. That doesn't make the Anglo-Saxon Edwards any less Kings of England. (especially considering that Edward is the only name shared between early kings of England and later lines who would use more familiar contintental names and a regnal numbering system similar to the Papacy and HRE)
That makes sense, thanks for the explanation!
 
Britain, Germany, France, and Russia are all imperative for a modern age. The fact that we wont have all 4 at launch is disappointing. The 4 main European drivers of modern conflict and diplomacy deserve a spot. Globally I'd add the US, China, and Japan as essential modern civs.
Unquestionably, there should have been 4 European streams in the base game, with room to add more in DLCs.

Many ways to organize that, but the way they reduced the most important civilization in world history to a fifth of a game about world history is laughable.
 
We are all assuming England or Britain will be in DLC. Heck I have argued that it is a deliberately ploy to sell DLC. But this isn't guaranteed?

If as I have read, London and Oxford uni are listed as Norman.. perhaps the dev attitude is 'you have the normans'?

I have already decided to wait before buying (I want to see if the forums Modders are able to do the map packs I love) but given the way the Norman's are supposed to 'represent England' I am not sure how they would shoehorn a real England in (unless it's a modern age Britain perhaps)

I still find it astonishing, given that I read in the devs diary that 'impact on history' played a major part of picking the civs. But it is what it is at the end of the day
Tower of London is listed as Norman. Oxford is just not associated with anyone.
 
As much as I don't like the Normans' design, or generally vibe with them as a civ. Historically, as an exploration era civ that really did end up all over Europe, they do quite a lot of heavy lifting glueing the continent together. They were a logical choice if you want a "linker" civ. I'd also suspect we'll see a modern era England as opposed to Britain, and Normans in exploration means you step on less design toes. I understand their inclusion even if their design is the blandest thing I have seen in the game thus far.

As for no England in the base game - one Germanic civ is enough in the base game, and Prussia is an exciting inclusion! Plus honestly. if Mexico can stand in for Spain, America can stand in for England...
 
Still pretty sure it will be Britain in modern, and United Kingdom (and United States) in the fourth age
 
Still pretty sure it will be Britain in modern, and United Kingdom (and United States) in the fourth age
I am very skeptical about a 4th age. I expect Firaxis intentionally cut things off where they did to avoid the controversies that come with anything contemporary.
 
Still pretty sure it will be Britain in modern, and United Kingdom (and United States) in the fourth age
Not at launch at least.
 
Still pretty sure it will be Britain in modern, and United Kingdom (and United States) in the fourth age
If there is a fourth age, I would much rather it be a medieval era. Many of the most jarring civ transitions could be smoothed if there was an intermediate step between the ancient and exploration eras.
 
I am very skeptical about a 4th age. I expect Firaxis intentionally cut things off where they did to avoid the controversies that come with anything contemporary.
I think they cut it where they did because it made sense for what they wanted the age mechanics be and the overall age size, and that the three ages makes a complete and long enough game for release. But also think that mention on the Modern Age stream indicates they know that means there is a good amount of things that don't end up included that can easily make space for a fourth age that they likely will want to make at some point in the future.
 
I think they cut it where they did because it made sense for what they wanted the age mechanics be and the overall age size, and that the three ages makes a complete and long enough game for release. But also think that mention on the Modern Age stream indicates they know that means there is a good amount of things that don't end up included that can easily make space for a fourth age that they likely will want to make at some point in the future.
I understand some people really want it, but it seems to me like there's a lot of wishful interpretation here. Just the ongoing logistics in adding enough civs to make and keep a new age interesting are eye-watering. And if it were a contemporary era, you suddenly open yourselves up to all the ensuing controversies. I'd think an earlier era is marginally more likely than a contemporary one, maybe with some existing civs shuffled in era. I still don't think it's either likely or a good idea though.
 
Rather self evidently, especially as we don't have a fourth age yet.
No, I meant the first part of the quote.
 
It's almost like the whole quote speak about a hypothetical future when we gt the fourth era, in answer to someone sayingera 3 would be England, and should not be broken up in little bits to nitpick on a point that's been plastered front and centre of every civ discussion, especially this one, for the past four days.
 
United Kingdom (and United States) in the fourth age
No
No no.

We will not be doing that. We will not let you slip to the dark side. Not you.

Repeat after me: "There will not be a fourth age. There will not be a fourth age. There will not be a fourth age. EVER".

:-)
 
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.
Yeah. I personally wish they would have combined medieval France and medieval Germany into the Frankish Empire/Carolingians, that way we could have gotten a proper England, but oh well.
Calling Winchester a Norman city just simply isn't true. It was one of the most important cities in Anglo-Saxon England and diminished in importance after the Norman conquest. I would say it is the epitome of what is not a Norman city in England.
I was just going by the list of cities that they can found in game. I don't disagree with you considering it was the capital of Anglo-Saxon Wessex.
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.
Sorry I didn't mean just replace the name from Norman to England. Yes, you'd have to change around names, abilities, and uniques but I feel that the hole for a proper Modern Age British civ, would have been filled if the Normans were simply an Exploration Age England civ. :)
 
Top Bottom