So, No Britain?

[trev1972]

...but Ed Beach had his heart set on the Normans, so Normans we get.

(And as far as invading dynasties and emoires from outside not counting, then China (foreigners Qin don't count) and India (foreigners Mughals don't count) don't have full representation, so I will laugh at anyone who claim to want a full Anglo-British "like China" but refuse to count the Normans, or even the Romans for it).

If someone had suggested romans-> normans-> british, I could have understood that, except the normans aren't an exploration age civ really. If we had a medieval age then I think that they would fit perfectly.

Looking on the 2k Web site, I can't agree that the civ 7 normans are '100% english' either, they have some English elements, but other elements that are clearly French.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah exactly, Normans are English normans, so, no England in exploration. However I do have a hunch that when "Great Britain" comes it will "lean into exploration England" flavour to compensate (instead of WWII nods, like other civs)

I'm expecting Pax Britannica Victorian Era with Redcoats honestly.

Other than the wonder I don't know what make the normans 100% English in this game. Charlemagne is their associated leader. What makes them English in medieval exploration is longbows, sea dogs and an English monarch (as in after William I)

I wouldn't say it's100% English. I would say their attributes and uniques are more than 50% on the island of Great Britain compared to attributes toward the Duchy of Normandy in northern France. The majority of their civics have to do with the Norman dynasty in England.

If someone had suggested romans-> normans-> british, I could have understood that, except the normans aren't an exploration age civ really. If we had a medieval age then I think that they would fit perfectly.

The Exploration Age, in game, covers the Medieval period as well. They are in the Exploration Age in game, so I'm not sure what else there is to say?

 

[thecrazyscot]

If someone had suggested romans-> normans-> british, I could have understood that, except the normans aren't an exploration age civ really. If we had a medieval age then I think that they would fit perfectly.

Looking on the 2k Web site, I can't agree that the civ 7 normans are '100% english' either, they have some English elements, but other elements that are clearly French.

100% agree that the Exploration Age timespan is quite awkward

And to be fair Normans weren't 100% English - they were conquerors and fundamentally altered English culture with French elements.

 

[trev1972]

But Rome isn't specially England or Britain it's most of Europe. Same goes for Normans. Fine for a stand-in and I'm fine waiting. You say they only deserve to be in the modern age and they didn't even make the cut there.

I think for the rest of the world you are nearly there but for Europe no. Because if you want a France, Britain Germany and Russia in the modern era those civs don't all have a historical path from the other eras to get to them civs. You'd have to have something like Gauls-Kindgom of France-French Empire or Huns-Muscovy-Russia for all civs to get to that point. Could be done in future DLC but that will be done after about 2 years.

Yeh, I think if tsl ever happens it would be down to the modders, but it would need the paths as you say.

Looking at how many times the mappack by geddemon was downloaded it seems there is a good number of tsl players but I guess there are not enough to be considered financially significant by the developers.

 

[TheGrayFox]

England's colonization efforts in the Americas were pretty small expeditions that only took root because they weren't really directly competing with the more important continental powers and because the indigenous people had been decimated by plagues, so the land was pretty empty. And even then quite a few of their early colonies were horribly incompetent. England got supremely lucky in North America.

A world power at this stage? Nah - world-class sailors and pirates, sure, but they didn't do much but rob from actual world-class powers. They certainly were a regional power in their specific area but could easily be completely ignored by most of Europe, the Mediterranean, Asia, and, well, everywhere else.

I didn't say anything about Hawaii.

England's colonization efforts led to them to becoming the largest empires the world has ever seen.. Even during the period where they were just an upstart among the colonial powers, they were among the strongest powers in Europe directly competing with the Spanish on the seas at their height and the French on the continent. The fact that the Americas were decimated by disease following contact with Europeans (which also applies to Spanish and Portugese) does not change the realities that England colonized, extracted wealth and projected power onto another continent becoming one of the largest and richest empires of Europe and in the world during this period.

Again this seems like a lot of excuses try and downplay the rise a major world power and eventual largest empire the world has ever seen and the entire argument rings incredibly hollow when you see they included Hawaii over England during the Exploration Age.... I'm pretty sure London alone had a larger population than all of Hawaii..

 

[Zaarin]

I'm not justifying Britains presence for achievement because they were the world superpower for 200 years and the achievements don't even need noting . I'm wanting them in the game for immersion and I think I would rather play them as an unimportant backwater in earlier eras it would be more fun.

Then you'll have to rely on modders because FXS has been clear that civ connections are not their priority in selecting civs. I also can't think of a design for Britons that doesn't involve Baths, Mithraea, and Legions--or in other words that doesn't look more Roman than Rome.

If someone had suggested romans-> normans-> british, I could have understood that, except the normans aren't an exploration age civ really. If we had a medieval age then I think that they would fit perfectly.

We do have Medieval Age. The oddly-named Exploration Age is both Medieval and Early Modern.

 

[ehecatzin]

I'm starting to feel like however thought of pushing Great Britain into DLC is an evil genius. As long as they make the most Britishly British flavoured civ possible alongside with an accompanying leader It's going to sell like crazy,

 

[trev1972]

Then you'll have to rely on modders because FXS has been clear that civ connections are not their priority in connecting civs. I also can't think of a design for Britons that doesn't involve Baths, Mithraea, and Legions--or in other words that doesn't look more Roman than Rome.


We do have Medieval Age. The oddly-named Exploration Age is both Medieval and Early Modern.

Yeh I get that it is supposed to cover a wide date range and I can see why people think I am over obsessing on the name 'exploration age'

To be fair their 'showcase feature' (distant lands, treasure fleets etc) is more akin to how we would view an actual exploration age (or perhaps thst is just me).

I feel that feature essentially forces us into the same scenario every game and will become repetitive personally.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Yeh I get that it is supposed to cover a wide date range and I can see why people think I am over obsessing on the name 'exploration age'

To be fair their 'showcase feature' (distant lands, treasure fleets etc) is more akin to how we would view an actual exploration age (or perhaps thst is just me).

I feel that feature essentially forces us into the same scenario every game and will become repetitive personally.

it's not just you

the Game includes the Middle Ages but it is quite obviously and heavily themed and geared towards the European Exploration age. I also worry it will make the game quite repetitive

 

[Zaarin]

Yeh I get that it is supposed to cover a wide date range and I can see why people think I am over obsessing on the name 'exploration age'

To be fair their 'showcase feature' (distant lands, treasure fleets etc) is more akin to how we would view an actual exploration age (or perhaps thst is just me).

It's definitely a focus, but it doesn't kick in for about a third of the era, before which the big emphasis seems to be on religion.

I feel that feature essentially forces us into the same scenario every game and will become repetitive personally.

Yes, I also have some concerns about how tightly focused the Exploration Age is. I think it will depend on how fun the Distant Lands mechanics are (and I do appreciate that there is an incentive to expand in the midgame, by which point expansion is often over in earlier titles, but we'll see how it works in practice).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Again this seems like a lot of excuses try and downplay the rise a major world power and eventual largest empire the world has ever seen and the entire argument rings incredibly hollow when you see they included Hawaii over England during the Exploration Age.... I'm pretty sure London alone had a larger population than all of Hawaii..

I don't believe Hawaii being in the Exploration Age to be a problem. The problem is they decided to choose an earlier iteration of Norman dynasty England civ, over a proper late Exploration Age Tudor England civ.

 

[Stomper66]

Then you'll have to rely on modders because FXS has been clear that civ connections are not their priority in selecting civs. I also can't think of a design for Britons that doesn't involve Baths, Mithraea, and Legions--or in other words that doesn't look more Roman than Rome.

You could look at Britain from the dawn of time to 43AD. There's a lot of history right there. If civs aren't connected historically buying the game isn't a priority for me. I play the game for historical immersion not for a random goofy fortnite tries strategy game.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I don't believe Hawaii being in the Exploration Age to be a problem. The problem is they decided to choose an earlier iteration of Norman dynasty England civ, over a proper late Exploration Age Tudor England civ.

I don't think it's a problem having Hawaii per se but Hawaii being in the game at launch is a great example to point if somebody wants to try to make the arguement that England during the exploration age wasn't "important" enough to represent properly.

 

[Zaarin]

You could look at Britain from the dawn of time to 43AD. There's a lot of history right there. If civs aren't connected historically buying the game isn't a priority for me. I play the game for historical immersion not for a random goofy fortnite tries strategy game.

That Civ7 isn't catering to a nationalist view of history doesn't make it less historical. I'd argue having England existing in 4000 BCE is a lot more nonsensical than Civ7's approach. The "dawn of time" for Britain is ~500 CE at the earliest; I'd argue for 1066 CE myself as modern English identity is the result of the fusion of Anglo-Saxon and Norman cultures.

 

[ehecatzin]

but it is quite obviously and heavily themed and geared towards the European Exploration age and the mechanics this historical process allows. I also worry it will make the game quite repititve

playing devil's advocate, we've also seen examples of taking those mechanics and fliping them to allow for a variety of objectives, say, Songhai with treasure generation on homeland rivers and Mongols with conquest of homeland continent counting as distant lands. I do hope we see much more of that so that not everyone want to find and settle distant lands every game.

For example, once we get Aztecs I'm hoping their "treasure fleets" turn into tribute that you extract as a diplomatic demand, or by winning wars and enforcing it. I believe they covered the basics and we can expect more varied aproaches to the era mechanics. (I hope so)

I don't think we've seen any modern civ have anything to do with factory goods? I imagine Britain would be an excelent candidate for it to show It's rapid industrialization and naval infraestructure.

 

[Zaarin]

For example, once we get Aztecs I'm hoping their "treasure fleets" turn into tribute that you extract as a diplomatic demand, or by winning wars and enforcing it. I believe they covered the basics and we can expect more varied aproaches to the era mechanics. (I hope so)

I think this is my favorite proposal for the Aztecs I've heard.

 

[trev1972]

I'm starting to feel like however thought of pushing Great Britain into DLC is an evil genius. As long as they make the most Britishly British flavoured civ possible alongside with an accompanying leader It's going to sell like crazy

It could be a plan to sell dlc yes.

By the time that dlc comes out in a year or two, it's possible those of us put off by no British isles representation may have moved on without buying the base game at all.

Personally, no British/ English civ on its own isn't enough to stop me getting the game, it's a number of things that are putting me off the game. But while I am disappointed about it right now (I have never 'not' bought civ at release) , I'll get over it and forget about it eventually

TLDR:- While I am sure the game will sell well, omitting major civs in order to to sell them as dlc may instead cost them sales revenue.

 

[Krikkit1]

I don't think it's a problem having Hawaii per se but Hawaii being in the game at launch is a great example to point if somebody wants to try to make the arguement that England during the exploration age wasn't "important" enough to represent properly.

Plenty important…not unique enough for base game though. (France, Prussia, America, even Japan taking up the Modern space, Normans and Spain taking up the Exploration space)

 

[Stomper66]

That Civ7 isn't catering to a nationalist view of history doesn't make it less historical. I'd argue having England existing in 4000 BCE is a lot more nonsensical than Civ7's approach. The "dawn of time" for Britain is ~500 CE at the earliest; I'd argue for 1066 CE myself as modern English identity is the result of the fusion of Anglo-Saxon and Norman cultures.

I'm not really pushing for antiquity Britain because I really want it in the game. I'm suggesting that every nation in the modern era has two historical path civs so that they can stay in the same place on a real world map and you can immerse yourself in the nations history. What are you basing those dates on? When a civ is conquered or developed by another one? By that logic are you also saying that the ''dawn of time'' for India is 1858 when the British Raj begins?

 

[trev1972]

That Civ7 isn't catering to a nationalist view of history doesn't make it less historical. I'd argue having England existing in 4000 BCE is a lot more nonsensical than Civ7's approach. The "dawn of time" for Britain is ~500 CE at the earliest; I'd argue for 1066 CE myself as modern English identity is the result of the fusion of Anglo-Saxon and Norman cultures.

Yes we had to do some mental gymnastics justifying stone age usa etc in previous iterations. We still got to rewrite history for the civ we were playing. For me and I suspect for others that helped with immersion

If there had been enough civs per era for genuine historical transformations for everyone then maybe I could have got on board with it

Dissociating leaders and civs is by far the most immersion breaking feature for me, when I have watched the videos and seen 'catherine, leader of egypt' or whatever it is really offputting for me.

But, I can appreciate other's view it as a board game primarily and are mostly interested in the numbers etc and could not care less