Queen Victoria must be the leader for England

[Bast]

Enough is enough. She ruled over the British Empire at its height and had a longer rule at the time than anyone else in British history. Civ IV did a great job at recognising her greatness and including her as leader. Now is the time for her to be the leader in Civ VI.

No one else in British history compares, except maybe Elizabeth I. But how many times have we had Elizabeth? It's time for a change and it's time to recognise the greatest ruler in British history.

 

[Thormodr]

Queen Victoria would be an excellent choice. She was a remarkable monarch and had an entire era named after her.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Queen Victoria did not rule England. She reigned over Britain, but the monarchy had little practical power by the time she was in charge.

 

[JFD]

Queen Victoria did not rule England. She reigned over Britain, but the monarchy had little practical power by the time she was in charge.

Not the Kingdom of England, and not England as a sovereign state, but certainly as a nation and as a country, as constituent of the UK.

The monarchy had relatively less power than previous monarchs, of course, but Vicky wielded a vast amount of practical influence. She of course also retained many legal prerogatives. Take a look at this for an overview, if you're interested.

Enough is enough. She ruled over the British Empire at its height and had a longer rule at the time than anyone else in British history. Civ IV did a great job at recognising her greatness and including her as leader. Now is the time for her to be the leader in Civ VI.

No one else in British history compares, except maybe Elizabeth I. But how many times have we had Elizabeth? It's time for a change and it's time to recognise the greatest ruler in British history.

Hear, hear

Though Lizzy has now reigned longer, but still

 

[Krajzen]

Queen Victoria did not rule England. She reigned over Britain, but the monarchy had little practical power by the time she was in charge.

She was however national and cultural icon, widely known, from her such terms as "victorian era", "victorian morality" and "victorian culture" are known. She also ruled during arguably golden era of British history.
All that is pretty much considering civ series always prefer coolness over historicity - and Victoria is still much more leader of England than Gandhi was ever leader of India

Also: Pacal was not ruling "Maya" but merely one of numerous Mayan city states, Boudicca wasn't ruling "Celts" but small Iceni tribe, Theodora wasn't ruling alone Kamehameha wasn't ruling Polynesia (only Hawaii) etc
^^^Victoria isn't maybe 100% "ruler" of England, but she is still more legit leader of a civilization than all of aforementioned figures. Which makes her fine for me.

By the way, I hope Victoria would be depicted as younger self rather than more common and boring old widow:

I hope Victoria is in, as Firaxis seems to aim at different rulers this time, and Victoria is simultaneously great personality and female (and Firaxis loves certain amount of leaders to be female )

 

[GenyaArikado]

Young Vicky isnt iconic. Sorry darling

 

[Zaarin]

No thanks. If they're shooting for personality, she's not nearly as interesting as Elizabeth I (or any Tudor except Edward, for that matter), to say nothing of the fact that she was a figurehead who only exerted a little more power than the modern figurehead monarchs. If they're going for someone new, I'd suggest either Henry VIII or a Stewart (sure, they weren't popular, but they were colorful).

 

[Loaf Warden]

I would adore having Victoria in the game, on the condition that the civ be called Great Britain instead of England. I am aware, of course, that even during her reign, "England" was often used even by British (chiefly English, one assumes) writers as a shorthand for what was then the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of course its empire. But if the civ is to be called "England", with a city list consisting only of English cities, and a UU like the Longbowman (for example), then Victoria would not have the right feel. If they called it Great Britain* and gave it the Redcoat for a UU (for example), with Scottish and Welsh (and maybe Irish, though that could be controversial) cities in the list, then I would wholeheartedly endorse Victoria 3's release. I mean, Victoria as their leader in Civ VI. That's what I meant. *cough*

*Strictly speaking, "United Kingdom" would be a more historically apt name for Victoria's reign, but I would hate to see a word like "kingdom" directly in the civ's name. Especially in a game like Civ VI, where there will be so many different governments to choose from, and there's no guarantee the ol' UK of GB and I would remain a K in any given playthrough. "Great Britain" seems the simplest compromise.

 

[j51]

Just being The symbol of the empire and the ruler with the most stuff named after her in history is enough to merit her being included. Also, make the civ Britain and not England.

 

[Mobfire]

Elizabeth or Henry VIII certainly bring more personality to the table, but I feel that Victoria as leader of Great Britain would ultimately be better for the civilization roster as a whole. The Britain of that time period was without a doubt the strongest version of England there ever was (and debatably the strongest version of any civ there ever was) and would also eliminate the need to add a Scotland/Wales/Celt type civ to the game. That way more focus could be given to different civs from different parts of the world.

 

[Zaarin]

would also eliminate the need to add a...Celt type civ to the game.

You're aware, of course, that the Celts once inhabited the bulk of Central and Western Europe from Turkey to Spain and that the Insular Celts are arguably the least significant representatives of the culture? But I'd love to see "The Celts" replaced by the Gauls led by Vercingetorix.

 

[Mobfire]

I am aware of that, but Firaxis seems to be focusing on the versions of the celts that lived in the British isles with their Celt civs. In CiV their city lists were composed of Edinburgh, Dublin, Cardiff etc. which made it seem like they were implementing it as a blob replacing the need for civs that would otherwise have these cities like Scotland, Ireland, or Wales.

What I basically meant was that having Britain in the game instead of England would cover those kingdoms and regions instead, leaving room for civs from other regions outside of europe.

I'd also love to see the Gauls, but only down the line.

 

[Zaarin]

Yes, and it made me cringe. On the rare occasion I played as the Celts I kept a map of Gaul and Roman Britannia near at hand to replace all my city names. That the Gauls would be an expansion civ goes without saying, just as the Celts have been.

 

[Loaf Warden]

I am aware of that, but Firaxis seems to be focusing on the versions of the celts that lived in the British isles with their Celt civs.

They're not all by Firaxis, but the Civ series as a whole has flip-flopped on whom exactly "the Celts" represent. In Civ II, the leaders and cities were all Insular. In III and IV, the leaders were Gallic (with the sole exception of Boudicca as an alternate choice in IV), the UU was Gallic, the UB in IV was apparently Insular, and the cities were ancient cities of both Insular and Continental regions. In V, the leader and UU were ancient Insular, while the UB and city list were based on modern regions that identify as "Celtic" (To be precise, the descendants of Insular Celts, as the Bretons of France are descended from the Britons and not the Gauls.)

In other words, they're all over the place about it, and assuming the Celts get into VI, there's no predicting what form they'll take.

In CiV their city lists were composed of Edinburgh, Dublin, Cardiff etc. which made it seem like they were implementing it as a blob replacing the need for civs that would otherwise have these cities like Scotland, Ireland, or Wales.

No Civ game has really done well with the Celts, but in my view V was the worst of the lot. I agree that giving them the names of modern cities served only to preclude any modern Celtic nations from getting in, whether this was deliberate on their part or not.

What I basically meant was that having Britain in the game instead of England would cover those kingdoms and regions instead, leaving room for civs from other regions outside of europe.

I'd also love to see the Gauls, but only down the line.

I want to see the Gauls put in as their own civ, and I would have no objection to a Boudicca-led Insular Celt civ under one name or another popping up as well.

As for Scotland and Ireland, I am of two minds. A Great Britain civ led by Queen Victoria would certainly include Scotland and (probably) Ireland within it, encompassing all three in one. A pre-Union England civ would allow for the possibility of Scotland and Ireland getting in separately as themselves later. (Not that they ever have before, but it's far too soon to guess how long the development cycle of this game will be, how many expansions it will get, or how many individual civs will be made as minor DLC.) Either of these options (England + maybe Scotland, Ireland, and/or Gaul, or Great Britain + maybe Gaul) would be okay with me. As long as the Celts don't get the Civ V treatment again.

 

[Groucho Marx]

Enough is enough. She ruled over the British Empire at its height and had a longer rule at the time than anyone else in British history. Civ IV did a great job at recognising her greatness and including her as leader. Now is the time for her to be the leader in Civ VI.

No one else in British history compares, except maybe Elizabeth I. But how many times have we had Elizabeth? It's time for a change and it's time to recognise the greatest ruler in British history.

While it is fine to vaunt about Victoria (after all it was a time when Britain "had a place in the sun" as one of most expansive empires within the World) there are many other English monarchs I happen to think of as good candidates. George III, Henry VII, or even Charles I as they all encapsulate the idea of a true King: autocratic and opulent in manner.

 

[Zaarin]

While it is fine to vaunt about Victoria (after all it was a time when Britain "had a place in the sun" as one of most expansive empires within the World) there are many other English monarchs I happen to think of as good candidates. George III, Henry VII, or even Charles I as they all encapsulate the idea of a true King: autocratic and opulent in manner.

I'd prefer James I, but if we don't get a Tudor I do hope we get a Stuart.

 

[EulerMcE]

I sincerely hope that Firaxis never ever creates a British civ to encompass Ireland, especially not on the the centenary of the 1916 rising. In perspective even terms like "British Isles" are somewhat despised by many in Ireland and an inclusion of Ireland in a UK civ would really only serve to piss people off even if it's representative of a historical period.

 

[King Jason]

Ahem..

Spoiler :

I mean, if they're going for personality..

 

[Birdjaguar]

She was however national and cultural icon, widely known, from her such terms as "victorian era", "victorian morality" and "victorian culture" are known. She also ruled during arguably golden era of British history.
All that is pretty much considering civ series always prefer coolness over historicity - and Victoria is still much more leader of England than Gandhi was ever leader of India

Also: Pacal was not ruling "Maya" but merely one of numerous Mayan city states, Boudicca wasn't ruling "Celts" but small Iceni tribe, Theodora wasn't ruling alone Kamehameha wasn't ruling Polynesia (only Hawaii) etc
^^^Victoria isn't maybe 100% "ruler" of England, but she is still more legit leader of a civilization than all of aforementioned figures. Which makes her fine for me.

By the way, I hope Victoria would be depicted as younger self rather than more common and boring old widow:

I hope Victoria is in, as Firaxis seems to aim at different rulers this time, and Victoria is simultaneously great personality and female (and Firaxis loves certain amount of leaders to be female )

Young Vicky isnt iconic. Sorry darling

With a little more cleavage, young Victoria would be a hit with all the players.

I would adore having Victoria in the game, on the condition that the civ be called Great Britain instead of England. I am aware, of course, that even during her reign, "England" was often used even by British (chiefly English, one assumes) writers as a shorthand for what was then the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of course its empire. But if the civ is to be called "England", with a city list consisting only of English cities, and a UU like the Longbowman (for example), then Victoria would not have the right feel. If they called it Great Britain* and gave it the Redcoat for a UU (for example), with Scottish and Welsh (and maybe Irish, though that could be controversial) cities in the list, then I would wholeheartedly endorse Victoria 3's release. I mean, Victoria as their leader in Civ VI. That's what I meant. *cough*

*Strictly speaking, "United Kingdom" would be a more historically apt name for Victoria's reign, but I would hate to see a word like "kingdom" directly in the civ's name. Especially in a game like Civ VI, where there will be so many different governments to choose from, and there's no guarantee the ol' UK of GB and I would remain a K in any given playthrough. "Great Britain" seems the simplest compromise.

Why not have Dublin, Edinburgh and Djgwoplnnwyynddz as city states that always spawn near to an England start and if England conquers them, she become GB or UK?

 

[Atwork]

Nigel Farage as leader? jk