To me it looks more golden than orange. If they use the same Icon I would expect a brighter version of Orange and maybe make the lion yellow, since that is the color I see on all the various coat of arms.Why did Australia stole the Dutch colors anyways? Are orange and white relevant colors in Australia?
Ugh. God forbid. If we get a male leader for England, let it be Henry V.I hope we get a new leader for England. Oliver Cromwell!
*Cough* Alfred the Great *Cough*Ugh. God forbid. If we get a male leader for England, let it be Henry V.
I want him very badly, but I want him given the Alexander treatment, leading the Kingdom of Wessex.*Cough* Alfred the Great *Cough*
Ugh. God forbid. If we get a male leader for England, let it be Henry V.
What an insipid, predictable choice.Ugh. God forbid. If we get a male leader for England, let it be Henry V.
I'd love to see Matilda. I'd love to see James I (probably the...safest Stuart choice). I'm probably one of the few who would genuinely like to see Mary Tudor. George III would be...entertaining, at least. Especially when he's addressing trees as the king of France.What an insipid, predictable choice.
At least they'd be able to get a decent quote or two for Henry V. (My wife and I
watch the two versions - Olivier's and Branagh's - every year when there's
nothing new around.)
No love for more controversial and/or loopy ones? e.g. Richard III, George III,
Matilda or Mary I?
What an insipid, predictable choice.
At least they'd be able to get a decent quote or two for Henry V. (My wife and I
watch the two versions - Olivier's and Branagh's - every year when there's
nothing new around.)
No love for more controversial and/or loopy ones? e.g. Richard III, George III,
Matilda or Mary I?
I'd love to see Matilda. I'd love to see James I (probably the...safest Stuart choice). I'm probably one of the few who would genuinely like to see Mary Tudor. George III would be...entertaining, at least. Especially when he's addressing trees as the king of France.
That would make me ecstatic (unless it's the Sioux), but I'm not expecting it. I truly, deeply hope there are at least one or two civs indigenous to the Americas, but I wouldn't expect them to be announced second. The first two or three civs have to be the "face of the expansion," after all.I know most people think that it will be a European Civ next, but the Americas haven't received any love since the Aztecs. There is a chance that the next Civ will be perhaps an Indigenous Civ due to the lack of them currently.
I want him very badly, but I want him given the Alexander treatment, leading the Kingdom of Wessex.
Yes. When I think of Alfred the Great or the Anglo-Saxons, redcoats, sea dogs, and the British Royal Museum aren't exactly what comes to mind.I kind of just want him for England. Seondeok was for Korea and not Silla. Would you really want a different infrastructure, unit, and two abilities?
I'd say if we get a second England leader, it's likely to be leader with Longbowmen UU. And this makes Henry V to be top candidate.Ugh. God forbid. If we get a male leader for England, let it be Henry V.
Agreed. India, Egypt, and France are all higher priority for me--but I'd put England right after them. I really don't care for their choice of Victoria.I'd say if we get a second England leader, it's likely to be leader with Longbowmen UU. And this makes Henry V to be top candidate.
However, India is in much more need for alternative leader, so if we have to pick 1, I'd pick 1 for India.
I kind of just want him for England. Seondeok was for Korea and not Silla. Would you really want a different infrastructure, unit, and two abilities?
Agreed. India, Egypt, and France are all higher priority for me--but I'd put England right after them. I really don't care for their choice of Victoria.
Indeed. While I'm not terribly familiar with Victoria as compared to Elizabeth, I understand a level-headedness, sense of propriety, and preference for restraining her emotions characterized her (or at least her public persona) even from a young age. Her tantrums and hissyfits seem much more appropriate for Elizabeth I, who was notoriously moody and mercurial.As I've said before I like the choice a lot.
As to the portrayal ... I am not amused. Her hysteria borders on offensive more than a humorous caricature, especially her tendency to denounce people by sneezing at them.
Indeed. While I'm not terribly familiar with Victoria as compared to Elizabeth, I understand a level-headedness, sense of propriety, and preference for restraining her emotions characterized her (or at least her public persona) even from a young age. Her tantrums and hissyfits seem much more appropriate for Elizabeth I, who was notoriously moody and mercurial.
Philip II's outbursts are also unfitting of his real life personality according to others.