Margaret Thatcher for civ 7

[Azzebox]

Hey !
Maybe I'll be insulted, because I know Thatcher's historical figure is divisive and controversial, but love her or hate her, you have to admit that she left a mark in the history of the UK, the cold war and the world at large, all while being a woman in a male environment.
Here are the bonuses that I offer (do not hesitate to tell me if you find that OP).

Iron Lady: Your cities are immune to amenities sanctions. You definitely gain +50 gold per turn for each mine destroyed from the Industrial Age ( destroyed mines are turned into brownfields and cannot be rebuilt ). +3 MP and +4 military power for 10 turns to all your ships if any of your cities outside your home continent is conquered by another civilization.

"No ! No ! No !" - Margaret Thatcher

What do you think ?

 

[Zaarin]

She's too recent to be included in Civ; she only died a few years ago. The most recent Civ leader to date is, if I'm not mistaken, Mao Zedong (d. 1976). Other relatively recent Civ leader deaths include Haile Selassie (d. 1975), Charles de Gaulle (1970), and Wilhelmina (1962).

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

I wouldn't mind her as an alternate leader, but she really is too contemporary to be the sole representative of a nation as old as England. There's no chance she'd be in though.

 

[Azzebox]

She's too recent to be included in Civ; she only died a few years ago. The most recent Civ leader to date is, if I'm not mistaken, Mao Zedong (d. 1976). Other relatively recent Civ leader deaths include Haile Selassie (d. 1975), Charles de Gaulle (1970), and Wilhelmina (1962).

You will allow me to disagree with you gentlemen.
First of all, with regard to the seniority rate, what matters is not so much the year of her death but the year of her mandate, the one during which she governed the United Kingdom. However, I note that she began her career as Minister of Education in 1970, six before the end of Mao's reign. She became Prime Minister in 1979 until 1990. When we know that civ 4 comes out in 2005 and that Mao is present in the game 29 years after the end of his reign, it is quite possible in my opinion that Margaret will make her appearance at least 31 years (if we take 2021) after the end of his mandate.
Second, concerning the seniority in England, we have seen that there is no lack of examples in the game where very old countries were ruled by recent leaders (Wilhelmine, Mao, De Gaulle, Haile Selassie etc ...). I believe that we need diversity in terms of seniority of leaders, so as not to have, for example, only leaders from Antiquity or the Middle Ages. Diversifying brings additional wealth. In addition, we noted a real desire on the part of developers to highlight female figures of history, more or less known, in order to highlight the fundamental role of women in the history of our civilizations. In this context, Margaret would be a new alternative to Elizabeth 1 and Victoria that we have already known in previous games.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

The Lioness that 'restored British Empire' after British victory over Falkland War of the 80s
If she's to be British leader in Civ7 (or Civ6 Mod potential if any of you believe she has any). Then
1. A late game leader, under her leadership, England may ONLY CULTIVATE Communism and Socialism civic but WILL NEVER EVER BE ABLE TO USE such policy card. (Reflecting on her total disregard of Government Corporates. By her time, Railroads which began in Britain as entirely private corportates but Nationalized during a PM (can't remember his name but he beat Churchill in 50s Election), By then it was a decline of railroading and many countries began neglecting once proud RR networks and began serious investments on nationwide Tarmac Highway networks (which began SERIOUSLY in Nazi-era Germany in '30s --The famed Autobahn -- which operated by Deutsch Reichsbahn (?? German government owned RR operator)!! Many Third World countries which had planned rail lines in addition to any other existing lines shelved these plans and replaced with highways--especially those allied with USA in Cold War as RR situations there heavily suffered in place of postwar Highways and Airways boom. To this end i'm not sure if thses private owend RRs incurred losses to the point of near bankruptcy and the government 'intervened' by becoming sole operators as an 'Euthanasia'. Or my hypothesis regarding to RR nationalizations in Britain is wrong and more like Labor won the election and Labor party policy usually antagonizes Free Economy under the 19th Century lens and say 'Big Government should put these greedy richmen in line'. In either case Nationalization was proven utterly unfeasible--government fed these state owned corporates with tax money paid by national citizens and failed to generate substantial income generated by these 'Business Bureaus'. Then came a recession (or depression) in 80s and Thatcher believed that these 'state owned fat cats =^w^= will be better off if operated by private enterprises--governments will earn taxes collectible as private companies rather than spending budgetry as a government bureau.
Well. This means anything outside military and Civil Service infrastructure incurs no maintenances.
2. UU
A. Since Falklands were fought at sea. her UU might be Type 42 DDG.
or
B. Challenger MBT: 'Clean sheet' casaulty records compared to Abrams.

 

[Zaarin]

First of all, with regard to the seniority rate, what matters is not so much the year of her death but the year of her mandate, the one during which she governed the United Kingdom.

International law disagrees with you; Firaxis would have to pay her estate for the use of her likeness, assuming they even agreed to allow it. Firaxis has no motivation to pay royalties to an estate when they have a thousand years of leaders with no estate to pay from which to select leaders.

Second, concerning the seniority in England, we have seen that there is no lack of examples in the game where very old countries were ruled by recent leaders (Wilhelmine, Mao, De Gaulle, Haile Selassie etc ...). I believe that we need diversity in terms of seniority of leaders, so as not to have, for example, only leaders from Antiquity or the Middle Ages.

That's a matter of taste. Personally I'd exclude any leader more recent than about 1750 because they're just not interesting (to me).

In addition, we noted a real desire on the part of developers to highlight female figures of history, more or less known, in order to highlight the fundamental role of women in the history of our civilizations. In this context, Margaret would be a new alternative to Elizabeth 1 and Victoria that we have already known in previous games.

Plenty of options without turning to someone who ruled yesterday (in historical terms). While I dearly want Lizzy back, if we want a new female leader of England I suggest Empress Matilda; there's also Mary I Tudor (negative reputation aside she was a skilled and highly effective ruler who wasn't actually hated in her own time until she married Philip II of Spain) and Anne Stuart (who developed a reputation for passivity, but, I mean, we've had Victoria twice so...).

 

[CatboyEmperor]

Having Margaret Thatcher as the English leader is an even worse/more divisive pick than having Reagan for the American leader lol

There is a reason why "ding dong the witch is dead" became such a popular meme in the UK after she died, to a greater extent than anything comparable for Reagan

 

[Zaarin]

There is a reason why "ding dong the witch is dead" became such a popular meme in the UK after she died, to a greater extent than anything comparable for Reagan

Which was frankly pretty sleazy behavior no matter what your opinion of her politics--but a nice reminder that Americans aren't the only dysfunctional society in the world...

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

I'm not opposed to Margret Thatcher being a leader for a Great Britain or United Kingdom civilization, especially since there'll definitely be an arbitrary female leader quota that Firaxis will try to hit, but there are definitely other leaders for British and English civilizations that I'd prefer to see included over her. Ideally, there'd be four civilizations from that geographical area: Britain, the Anglo-Saxons, England, and the United Kingdom

Potential British leaders:

• Ambrosius Aurelianus
• Leir
• Boudica

Potential Anglo-Saxon Leaders:

• Hengist
• Alfred the Great
• Æthelstan

Potential English Leaders:

• Richard the Lionheart
• Edward III
• Oliver Cromwell

 

[Evie]

How about NOT squandering civ slots (which are pretty limited) on filling up one fraction of one archipelago at the edge of one continent?

With about sixty civs being an optimistic count of what we might get after expansion, spending four of them on the same part of the Britih isles (not counting any Scottish or Irish civ we might also get) is realy impossible to justify.

As for Thatcher, I agree with Zarinn. She's just too recent.

 

[Phrozen]

Potential English Leaders:

• Richard the Lionheart
• Edward III
• Oliver Cromwell

Richard the Lionheart spent about maybe 6 months of his life in England and didn't really care about it.

Edward III is good for a king as well as Henry II, Edward I Longshanks, Henry V. If you want Angivin empire leader than William Marshal is your best bet.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm not opposed to Margret Thatcher being a leader for a Great Britain or United Kingdom civilization, especially since there'll definitely be an arbitrary female leader quota that Firaxis will try to hit, but there are definitely other leaders for British and English civilizations that I'd prefer to see included over her. Ideally, there'd be four civilizations from that geographical area: Britain, the Anglo-Saxons, England, and the United Kingdom

Potential British leaders:

• Ambrosius Aurelianus
• Leir
• Boudica

Potential Anglo-Saxon Leaders:

• Hengist
• Alfred the Great
• Æthelstan

Potential English Leaders:

• Richard the Lionheart
• Edward III
• Oliver Cromwell

Personally I don't mind if they are all relegated to one civilization, called England, but just have different leaders. Well except the Britons, which is what you refer to as the British.
To my knowledge Alfred the Great is considered the first King of England, so I have no problem with lumping in Anglo Saxons and the British Empire with the English civ. Others I know see it differently but if we had to get a male leader for England I wouldn't mind him or Henry V.

Also I agree with others in saying that Margaret Thatcher is too recent and that would cause several problems in trying to depict her. And using Mao as reference isn't the best idea to go off of.
There's no reason to not keep using Elizabeth or Victoria in my mind if we want to consider using a strong female leader for England.

 

[Zaarin]

Personally I don't mind if they are all relegated to one civilization, called England, but just have different leaders. Well except the Britons, which is what you refer to as the British.

Indeed, and the Britons are a very, very low priority IMO. They were behind the Gauls by virtually any metric you care to use, and after the Roman conquest (which is the earliest point we have reliable records for them) they were heavily Romanized.

To my knowledge Alfred the Great is considered the first King of England, so I have no problem with lumping in Anglo Saxons and the British Empire with the English civ. Others I know see it differently but if we had to get a male leader for England I wouldn't mind him or Henry V.

I don't feel quite comfortable with lumping the Anglo-Saxons in with post-Norman England, but I'm also sad that that basically means we will never get any kind of Anglo-Saxon representation.

There's no reason to not keep using Elizabeth or Victoria in my mind if we want to consider using a strong female leader for England.

Honestly any of the other three women I listed are better choices than Victoria IMO. Well, we can argue about Anne. But Mary I and Empress Matilda are without question better choices than Victoria.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't feel quite comfortable with lumping the Anglo-Saxons in with post-Norman England, but I'm also sad that that basically means we will never get any kind of Anglo-Saxon representation.

Which is why I mentioned it.

Honestly any of the other three women I listed are better choices than Victoria IMO. Well, we can argue about Anne. But Mary I and Empress Matilda are without question better choices than Victoria.

Not really into having "Bloody" Mary any time soon.
Empress Matilda would be interesting but she falls into the category of never really lead England. Though I suppose we just had Eleanor so I guess she is possible. I'd personally want a male leader if we get a Medieval representation of England.

Well in all honesty I wouldn't mind in Civ 7 if Victoria came back and gave England more scientific abilities to coincide with the Victorian Era/Industrial Britain. Though I do admit it's probably because I've been watching the Victoria T.V. series lately but doubt they are going to depict Prince Albert in the game though it would be interesting if there would be references to him.

 

[Zaarin]

Not really into having "Bloody" Mary any time soon.

Mary's negative reputation has been overstated. She was an effective ruler and was fairly popular until she became betrothed to Philip II; Elizabeth I was often as harsh on Catholics as Mary was on Protestants, despite her reputation as a religious moderate.

Empress Matilda would be interesting but she falls into the category of never really lead England. Though I suppose we just had Eleanor so I guess she is possible.

She kinda sorta led England briefly. She certainly ruled parts of England at various times.

I'd personally want a male leader if we get a Medieval representation of England.

England's in the unique position of having several competent and qualified female leaders so I wouldn't hold my breath. It is a shame, though, because England has had plenty of interesting kings.

Well in all honesty I wouldn't mind in Civ 7 if Victoria came back and gave England more scientific abilities to coincide with the Victorian Era/Industrial Britain.

I find Victoria unspeakably boring. She was involved in politics behind the scenes, it's true, but on the whole she was a passive, hands-off figurehead best remembered for not having any personality worth mentioning. I'm still confused how she of all people got chosen for the iteration advertising its "big personality leaders." (Honestly Civ5 should have gotten Victoria and Qin Shi Huangdi and Civ6 should have gotten Lizzy and Wu Zetian.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Mary's negative reputation has been overstated. She was an effective ruler and was fairly popular until she became betrothed to Philip II; Elizabeth I was often as harsh on Catholics as Mary was on Protestants, despite her reputation as a religious moderate.

Yeah but I can only see Firaxis portraying her as a female version of Phillip II which to me isn't what I would want from England.

England's in the unique position of having several competent and qualified female leaders so I wouldn't hold my breath. It is a shame, though, because England has had plenty of interesting kings.

Well I think Medieval England is the best chance. Either that or we go back to Winston Churchill or Henry VIII.

I find Victoria unspeakably boring. She was involved in politics behind the scenes, it's true, but on the whole she was a passive, hands-off figurehead best remembered for not having any personality worth mentioning. I'm still confused how she of all people got chosen for the iteration advertising its "big personality leaders." (Honestly Civ5 should have gotten Victoria and Qin Shi Huangdi and Civ6 should have gotten Lizzy and Wu Zetian.)

Maybe they really wanted a leader who could come with Redcoats as a UU and decided not to go with the other big personality, as in George III.

 

[Zaarin]

Yeah but I can only see Firaxis portraying her as a female version of Phillip II which to me isn't what I would want from England.

Fair. If they want a religious England, my vote goes to Edward the Confessor.

Maybe they really wanted a leader who could come with Redcoats as a UU and decided not to go with the other big personality, as in George III.

TBH I think he could be fun. I mean, he's not my first choice. He's not even in my top ten. But he was generally a more competent ruler than his popular image (especially his popular image in the United States--can't imagine why Americans don't like him ), and he could be fun.