1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Scotland!

Discussion in 'Civ4 - New Civilizations' started by WaxonWaxov, Nov 14, 2005.

  1. camsmith

    camsmith Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2005
    Messages:
    5
    Brilliant.. will try this in a sec..

    Few folk need history lessons in this thread though.. but I ain't gonna start..

    Needless to say.. Firaxis committed the ultimate sin by using only the "English Empire" as a civ.. and even more of a sin by using Queen Victoria as a leader of the "English" Empire when she was the Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland - not England..

    As far as Scotland being a "historical state" - bad use of the words for a start as what constitutes a historical nation?

    Been around as long as England has. At the moment too, (and since the Union) England does not exist as a Nation State.. neither does Scotland..

    "We" (as in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland) exist as the UK (and within that lies Great Britain (only Scotland and England - not Wales or NI - constitute Great Britain).. QE2 is as much the head of state of Scotland as she is of England. In fact she is more Scottish by blood than she is English.

    Strictly speaking, of course we each have our own legal system and education system but constitutionally (although we don't have one by law) Scotland and England exist as two nations within a Nation State (I think that's how it is seen). Unlike Wales, which is a Principality and Ulster which is a province..

    Clear? lol..

    So big boo boo on Fireaxis's part.. Only way round it was to choose Queen Vic as leader and rename the so-called "English Empire" as the British Empire and put up with the English Flag instead of the Union Jack.

    So ta... any chance of a Union Jack to go alongside that? I'm as British as I am Scots..

    Oh, and Ireland has absolutely SFA to do with Scotland as far as I'm concerned.. prefer fellow Britons to that lot.. historically, where I'm from lay in Strathclyde from where the Kings of Briton ruled. The true Britons are the lowland Scots and the Welsh and the Ulster Scots were from Ayrshire. The "Scots" from Ireland settled up in teuchter land and fought the Picts..
     
  2. WaxonWaxov

    WaxonWaxov Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    229
    Location:
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    I hope you enjoy the mod, camsmith. Version 3 will come out sometime this weekend.... probably.
     
  3. Halk

    Halk Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Messages:
    44
    Have to Agree, Firaxis could have put in Elizabeth and William I. And that'd leave Victoria..

    Victoria was, in addition to being the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland (as well as her other territories), Empress of India.

    I hope Sean Connory is a joke :p
     
  4. Sadistik

    Sadistik Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    120
    Location:
    NJ, USA. (but Corcaigh in spirit.)
    1/3 of Ulster lies within the Republic of Ireland.

    NI = Ulster is like FYROM = Macedonia.


    In that regard, just call me a Greek then ;)
     
  5. Sadistik

    Sadistik Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    120
    Location:
    NJ, USA. (but Corcaigh in spirit.)
    Correction: Britons have SFA to do with Scotland, to be technical. You can call it Pictavia or whatever if you want, but Scotland means lands of the Gaels.
     
  6. Pangur Bán

    Pangur Bán Deconstructed

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2002
    Messages:
    9,017
    Location:
    Transtavia
    @ camsmith: Just because you're from Strathclyde doesn't mean you're a descendent of a Briton. In fact, the descendents of Strathclyde Britons probably contributed nothing of the Greater Glasgow population, the vast, vast majority of whom descend from migrants of the 19th century and afterwards, from Scotland-proper (i.e. north of the forth) or Ireland. That's ignoring pre-19th century migration. A similar thing applies to Edinburgh, which is why all mainland Scots have accents which foreigners find difficult to distinquish from Irish.

    Britons have almost SFA to do with Scotland. Gaels founded Scotland, and incorporated conquered Picts and others. In that way, they are no different from the Irish Gaels, who likewise came (probably from Scotland actually) and "took over" pre-Goidelic/Celtic population.

    Great Britain, likewise, has SFA to do with Britons. GB is the successor state of England (just expanded and renamed in fact), and England as everyone knows was baptised in British blood.

    So, all in all, none of your arguments make any kind of sense. :lol:
     
  7. WaxonWaxov

    WaxonWaxov Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    229
    Location:
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    threadjack alert!
     
  8. LAnkou

    LAnkou Breizh A Tao

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,314
    Location:
    Paris, première ville bretonne
    will their be LH?

    by the way, it would have been cool to have the pdf type down in the forum (apart from the fact i have trouble with pdf...)
     
  9. WaxonWaxov

    WaxonWaxov Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    229
    Location:
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    I've tried with the LH, but it doesn't work :(

    Can't figure out what I'm doing wrong.

    The .dds for Robert Bruce leaderhead is there, but I'm doing something wrong in the code. Any thoughts?

    As for the .pdf I'll work on that.
     
  10. lord_graywolfe

    lord_graywolfe Wolfman

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2005
    Messages:
    717
    Location:
    Washington
    i downloaded scotland and installed it with no problem but when i start up a game i cant find scotland anywhere to choose from. did i forget a step somewhere?
     
  11. cthom

    cthom 3,011,451,295

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,307
    Location:
    was clackmannan, now sauchie
    same here... i've checked the xml, etc and everything seems to be there.

    ignore above.
    i downloaded lankou's superciv mod and i've played wallace. only thing is a parse problem with robert.
     
  12. VWClaymore

    VWClaymore Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 3, 2005
    Messages:
    10
    honestly I'd like to see Alexander III as the second alternative... though Sean Connery is an amusing alternative.
     
  13. Moham

    Moham Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    18
    Is there a way to change the territory colour slightly? It's exactly the same as the French and causes headaches when playing against them.
     
  14. WaxonWaxov

    WaxonWaxov Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    229
    Location:
    Charlotte, North Carolina
    I belive the version in Superciv is old.

    I've not tried the mod since the most recent patch. Maybe that's the problem.
     
  15. LAnkou

    LAnkou Breizh A Tao

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,314
    Location:
    Paris, première ville bretonne
    well, i updated scotland, but i kept wallace cause i like him and it's hard to erase a leader without adding a new one, but when you will add other leaders, there won't be wallace anymore (bruce will have the nice music :))
     
  16. Lord Samuel

    Lord Samuel Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2004
    Messages:
    9
    Alexander III is too close to Wallace and Bruce to work, I'm afraid. How about Jimmy Shand! :p

    Good on ye Camsmith. As a Northern Irishman, I also felt ripped off by the 'English Empire'. But it is alright if ye just rename it. I also change some of the cities (especially tin-pot ones like Warwick - no offense to anyone from Warwick but it isn't exactly Glasgow or even Belfast). However Northern Ireland isn't a province. The Act of Union in 1801 made Ireland into a part of the United Kingdom. Prior to that it was the United Kingdom of England and Scotland, but afterwards it was England, Scotland and Ireland. This brought the modern Union Jack into existence by adding the diagonal red saltire which is the Cross of St. Patrick. After the Irish Free State was formed, Northern Ireland was still a 'kingdom' with a parliament initially (until the IRA ruined it for us all!!!).

    @ Calgacus: Great Britain isn't England expanded and renamed. Great Britain technically refers to the Island which includes England, Scotland and Wales but is used informally to refer to the UK.

    Northern Ireland is seperate from England, as much as Scotland or Wales. That's why our football team's seperate! 1-0! "We're not Brrrrrazil we're Northern Iiiiirrrreland!"
     
  17. Pangur Bán

    Pangur Bán Deconstructed

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2002
    Messages:
    9,017
    Location:
    Transtavia
    Indeed. One should be Celtic. It's not as if the Gaelic kings were crap or anything, the Scots had some quite fine ones. David is the most important king in Scottish history, but he (although not as much as William/Guillaume) can barely be regarded as Scottish.

    Civ made a good decision on this one. England represents the greatest historical continuity, and a national, ethnic, and civilizational identity which has existed since the dark ages to the present. Great Britain is just a pseudonym for England. How can one have a Great Britain civilization before the modern time? It would imply the civilization was Welsh. Do you think Welsh civilization should replace English civilization?

    Do you know what a legal fiction is? I wasn't talking about what Great Britain technically means, but what it means as a historical actuality.
     
  18. Rshu

    Rshu Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Going by your reasoning on England, America was never a nation in 4,000 BC and that leads to misleading. How can you call somebody who is the leader of the British civilization just the leader of the English civilization?
     
  19. Pangur Bán

    Pangur Bán Deconstructed

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2002
    Messages:
    9,017
    Location:
    Transtavia
    Er ... hi there. That was not my reasoning. By that reasoning none of the civs would be there is 4000. My actual reasoning is that England and the English, who arrived in Britain in the fifth century (if not earlier), and existed as a state in name until the eighteenth century (continuing under the UK until today) constitutes more reasonable inclusion as a civilization than "Britain", a quite meaningless historico-ethnic/political unit until very recently. Queen Victoria, I presume that's who you're talking about, was as Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, by extension queen of England. On the other hand, Queen Elizabeth was not Queen of Britain. Get why England is more sensible? Of course, the very fact that English today is the language of the whole British Isles (with bi-linguals in much of Wales, and small parts of Scotland and Ireland) is further testament to why Great Britain and England represent one civilizational continuum. I'm afraid too many people here are inclined to impose their own community identity on the historical and cultural realities which ought to shape Civ choice.
     
  20. Rshu

    Rshu Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    Pennsylvania, USA
    Victoria was hardly even English. It is stupid that the whole UK is called "England". England is a part of it. Queen Victoria was queen of a whole civilization, not just an English one. Therefore, it is discrimination against the other countries that are part of that civilization that it is not called the United Kingdom, not a discrimination against England. I would be content with an English civ if they just kept ENGLISH kings and queens. Victoria was not fully of English blood, and therefore is not fully of that culture, meaning that she cannot be considered completely English.
     

Share This Page