I would love to play England as Nelson.
If only that were true. 98% of Civ7's leaders are straight from a middle school textbook, and even the one's that aren't have big pop culture presence. I miss Civ6's more interesting leader choices.
Middle school textbook leaders get people to play the game. Most people here in the forums are some sort of history buff, but random people scrolling steam see Alexander the Great and want to play him, or they see Ancient Rome and want to play as that. We can’t completely abandon pop history or the game becomes too niche.
they fumbled. if it were between germany, britain, france, russia, i would say Britain is the one you would NOT leave out of this group.As a Brit myself i would have to agree our relevance has diminished
Fortunately this is a game and the developers state that a criteria for selection is how much the civ has influenced the world, and for good or ill the British have had a massive influence on the worlds history. It is a real head scratcher that they left out the largest empire in history in a game that is about empire building and colonisation. Anyway time will tell- the dlc will soon be out
I'm not advocating for every leader to be a deep cut, but even just one would be nice. Some people's terror of learning is something I will never understand.
Alternate perspective: we have England-in-all-but-name in Exploration and America in Modern. Britain will come in time, but this allows a more diverse roster in the base game. Should Britain have Prussia's slot? Maybe. But then people would be whining about no Germany.
Most of them you could Find in a middle school textbook, but only because it has lots of little details that most people don’t remember.
i think a diverse roster is important and agree with you. i guess it just shocked me to actually confirm no Britain but i suppose you couldn't possibly leave out USA or Germany so it is what it is. i definitely think Britain should have had Germany's spot if it were up to me though.Alternate perspective: we have England-in-all-but-name in Exploration and America in Modern. Britain will come in time, but this allows a more diverse roster in the base game. Should Britain have Prussia's slot? Maybe. But then people would be whining about no Germany.
Eh, Civ7 has overwhelmingly leaned towards "big names" like Augustus, Xerxes, Charlemagne, Ben Franklin, Hatshepsut, Tecumseh, Napoleon, Isabella, Catherine the Great, Harriet Tubman...Most of the remainder have big pop culture presence like Machiavelli, Himiko, Confucius...I think Ibn Battuta and Amina were the only real surprises, and neither was new to me. I miss leader choices like CdM, Hojo Tokimune, Jadwiga, Tomyris...For all the doors non-leader leaders opened, Firaxis has played it very safe with the leader choices. And I get it: they're trying to balance out other big changes for the general audience. But it's disappointing.
What it really comes down to is that Normandy is a pretty poor fit for the game considering how they've broken up the eras. Including Normandy caused them to not have England (whether the Anglo-Saxon or Norman "versions"), which then led to not having a modern Britain. If there was a medieval era, Normandy would make far more sense. But for exploration it really makes little sense, particularly with how they designed the Norman civ.
I liked Normandy when they first announced it, but when it turned out to be "England by any other name" with no references to their Mediterranean adventures or the Kingdom of Sicily and barely anything even relevant to their French duchy, I found it very disappointing.
The Modern Period in this game covers 1750-1960ish. It was known as the British Empire for that whole time period. I don't see any other way around that. I think it's more likely that any hypothetical England, Scotland, or Ireland would be Exploration, which could then progress into the British Empire.
I think your perspective might be a bit skewed given how well-read you are
"New to you" if you are (at minimum) a history buff or someone who researches historical texts professionally is vastly different from "new to you" for the majority of the population. Sure, there are big names but looking at a large part of the roster the names are "regionally big" but not "globally big". Which means they're going to be new to a lot of people.
That's not in dispute. But Civ6 introduced me to a lot of interesting historical figures, even as someone who is well-read and has studied history professionally. Again, Civ7 has gone for very safe choices, a lot like Civ5 did.I think your perspective might be a bit skewed given how well-read you are
Well, they will most likely be "fixing" this by adding another pre-Modern Age, delivered in the form of paid DLC.
I think a lot of this "there is no Britain?!?!?!" anxiety could have been avoided by renaming "Normans" --> "Norman England" and fussing around with the city names a bit, making London the default Norman capital in place of Rouen, for example.
We don't need to harp on the subject as it has already been widely discussed, but there are just too few "slots" in the base game to satisfy most players.Alternate perspective: we have England-in-all-but-name in Exploration and America in Modern. Britain will come in time, but this allows a more diverse roster in the base game. Should Britain have Prussia's slot? Maybe. But then people would be whining about no Germany.
This. Every civ included is another civ excluded.
Sure, but didn't most of the deeper cuts in Civ6 come after the base game was released?
