So, No Britain?

[Arcaian]

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.

How is Rome not historically connected to England? You seem to be arguing that the most appropriate track from a Britain game would be something like Britons -> England -> Britain, but realistically, the Britons aren't even in the top 3 cultures in terms of historical impact on Britain. I'd say it seems pretty clear that you could go Anglo-Saxon, Roman, or even some form of Norse as more impactful than the Britons were. Why the obsession with the people on the island, if you're wanting historical connections to the historical superpower?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd argue for 1066 CE myself as modern English identity is the result of the fusion of Anglo-Saxon and Norman cultures.

The Norman conquest to the Union of the Crowns would have spanned basically all the Exploration Age, in this game.

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.

What about extracting artifacts?

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'm also expecting Edo Japan to be the anti-exploration civ in the Exploration Age, based off of what we also saw for Tokugawa in Civ 6. They might acquire relics without sending missionaries outside of their settlements and acquire Treasure fleets in their homeland somehow.

 

[Zaarin]

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?

500 CE is roughly the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England; 1066 CE is the Battle of Hastings. It's not based on conquest; it's based on cultural heritage. The influence of the Britons on English culture is negligible, almost nonexistent (not to mention they were themselves culturally Roman by the time the Anglo-Saxons invaded, at least in urban areas). The Romans are far more culturally ancestral to England than the Britons are.

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

Yes, even if connections are not the devs' priority, it will feel more connected as more civs are added.

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

I'm chiefly interested in the historical elements; I just have a different view of what is historical.

 

[thecrazyscot]

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..

Britain should be in the Modern Age - 100% support from my end. If Modern Britain were already in I don't think we'd be arguing about Exploration England. An Exploration Age England - as others and myself have mentioned - would make sense with a Tudor England implementation. But before the Tudor period England was just not very important on the world stage. A nothingburgher (hehe), if you will.

We already have an acceptable "England" stand-in with the Normans - the problem is that it is acceptable for most of Civ7's Exploration Age except for the last, say, 10%. But anyways England doesn't peak until well into Civ7's Modern Age, so that's the best place for it.

It's honestly a bit galling that the Exploration Age falls when it does given that it's entire theme comes from a fraction of the time period it represents.

Firaxis has their own approach re: including Hawaii and I'm not arguing either for or against it.

 

[Stomper66]

How is Rome not historically connected to England? You seem to be arguing that the most appropriate track from a Britain game would be something like Britons -> England -> Britain, but realistically, the Britons aren't even in the top 3 cultures in terms of historical impact on Britain. I'd say it seems pretty clear that you could go Anglo-Saxon, Roman, or even some form of Norse as more impactful than the Britons were. Why the obsession with the people on the island, if you're wanting historical connections to the historical superpower?

It is historically connected but it is also connected to most of Europe, so it's not specifically to England. I want to play the native people and the culture, not whoever invaded and ruled the place at the time. If you wanted to apply that logic you'd be playing one quarter of the worlds landmass as Britain in the modern era. What if you wanted to play Maori in the game and I gave you Moari with 100% British design. And if you said 'hey where are the Maori?'' I told you that the British had conquered New Zealand in 1840 so your playing British Maori because they have been more impactful on developing the country. Do you see where I'm getting at here? I want to play the civ not the occupiers.

500 CE is roughly the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England; 1066 CE is the Battle of Hastings. It's not based on conquest; it's based on cultural heritage. The influence of the Britons on English culture is negligible, almost nonexistent (not to mention they were themselves culturally Roman by the time the Anglo-Saxons invaded, at least in urban areas). The Romans are far more culturally ancestral to England than the Britons are.

So by that logic the British ruled and influenced India for 200 years, that covers most of the modern age in this game, so you'd have the British Raj leading India in the modern age?

 

[thecrazyscot]

Also, happy to have breathed new life into this argument

 

[ehecatzin]

What about extracting artifacts?

I mean...jokes aside, that might actually be a thing Great Britain does in game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

500 CE is roughly the Anglo-Saxon conquest of England; 1066 CE is the Battle of Hastings. It's not based on conquest; it's based on cultural heritage. The influence of the Britons on English culture is negligible, almost nonexistent (not to mention they were themselves culturally Roman by the time the Anglo-Saxons invaded, at least in urban areas). The Romans are far more culturally ancestral to England than the Britons are.

The time period is off, but I'd be totally down for Antiquity Anglo-Saxons. Especially if they get the chance to fight Antiquity Norse as well.

Britain should be in the Modern Age - 100% support from my end. If Modern Britain were already in I don't think we'd be arguing about Exploration England. An Exploration Age England - as others and myself have mentioned - would make sense with a Tudor England implementation. But before the Tudor period England was just not very important on the world stage. A nothingburgher (hehe), if you will.

I think there is a disconnect between the different names being used. Not specifically you, just throwing it out for everyone.

(Great) Britain is the island that all these civs we are talking about lived on. The Modern Age name, in my opinion, should be the British (Empire). England, whether Norman dynasty or Tudor should hypothetically be Exploration, before they were united with Scotland.

 

[Isengardtom]

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.

Im sure they’ll add more but probably in later leader DLC when it’s mostly the real fans just buying those


Personally I quite like the leader choice. And definitely like some of the Civ choices

I’d prefer to see some more civs from the southern part of Africa or from South America before Europe and I’m European

 

[Zaarin]

The time period is off, but I'd be totally down for Antiquity Anglo-Saxons. Especially if they get the chance to fight Antiquity Norse as well.

It would be nice. They've always felt like one of those "nice to have" civs that didn't really fit, but ages change that.

 

[TheGrayFox]

We already have an acceptable "England" stand-in with the Normans - the problem is that it is acceptable for most of Civ7's Exploration Age except for the last, say, 10%. But anyways England doesn't peak until well into Civ7's Modern Age, so that's the best place for it.

This is where I and several others here would disagree. The Normans with a capital at Reoun are a pretty poor stand in for English representation during middle ages and early modern with such a heavy themeing around new world discovery and colonization.... they should've given us the standard Tudor England affair but that's of course subjective.

It's honestly a bit galling that the Exploration Age falls when it does given that it's entire theme comes from a fraction of the time period it represents.

Firaxis has their own approach re: including Hawaii and I'm not arguing either for or against it.

fair enough. I'm just pointing out how your logic doesn't even apply to Firaxis' approach. If global Importance is the measure than surely a Tudor England is more deserving than the Normans, Hawaii and the Shawnee.

 

[Arcaian]

Do you see where I'm getting at here? I want to play the civ not the occupiers.

I get that, but what confuses me is the conflation you're doing between the civ and the occupiers - if you want to play the Britons, I get that, but why are you treating the Britons like they're needed because of their connection to England/the British Empire specifically? I don't think you've said anything about the Britons themselves that makes you want to play them, your only justification for their existence is their connection to the people who functionally destroyed their society and culture completely.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This is where I and several others here would disagree. The Normans with a capital at Reoun are a pretty poor stand in for English representation during middle ages and early modern with such a heavy themeing around new world discovery and colonization.... they should've given us the standard Tudor England affair but that's of course subjective.

I'd settle for just calling it England, and it could have had attributes from the Norman conquest to the Tudor Period. I'd at least have Medieval Yeoman (Longbowmen), but the rest could be based off of the Tudor period.

 

[Stomper66]

I get that, but what confuses me is the conflation you're doing between the civ and the occupiers - if you want to play the Britons, I get that, but why are you treating the Britons like they're needed because of their connection to England/the British Empire specifically? I don't think you've said anything about the Britons themselves that makes you want to play them, your only justification for their existence is their connection to the people who functionally destroyed their society and culture completely.

I want them in game so that you can play Britons in Britain on a real world map and also for immersion and diversity in play. When I say that I mean design, music, army look, unique units, leader, events, wonders etc

If its Rome and Normans how are all the other European nations going to share these throughout the game? Ive heard the argument that Romans and Normans represent all these European countries because they ruled and influenced these nations at these times. But when we go into the modern era and I tell you Buganda became a British colony in the late 1800s the idea of the game goes out of the window and you want to pretend Buganda was never ruled or influenced by another civilisation. What it seems to be is history is built in layers and we'll let you play the people who conquered Britain, but we don't want to let you play Buganda or India as the people who conquered it, because they want to represent those cultures regardless of what happened in real history. If you can't see the double standard here I don't know what to tell you other than we are going around in circles.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please do not stray into current events, that is for the OT forum. Two posts deleted.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

There wasn't really anything of note going on in the British Isles before the Romans. I could see late in the development cycle getting Antiquity Anglo-Saxons, though, since they're not using an absolute timeline. I think Normans being 100% English in their design makes any other version of Exploration England unlikely, though. You could easily mod their name to England, though.

The Anglo-Saxons should absolutely be in the Exploration Age.
They should be subsequent to Rome, given that they invaded during the Sub-Roman period of Britain.
They should be contemporaneous with the Normans, with whom they warred (briefly and to tragic results, but still).
But most importantly, they embody the mechanics of the Exploration Age: a new civ on the heels of a former’s fall due to crisis, setting out and sailing West across the sea to settle new lands.

 

[AriochIV]

For maximum flexibility the Celts can be represented as a broader European Celtic Antiquity civ, and the Germanic and Scandinavian settlers can be represented as broader European Germanic and Scandinavian Exploration civs, and the Normas are already represented, so I think in game terms for the current Age structure Modern Britain is really the only one that stands out.

 

[8housesofelixir]

The problem with the awkward Exploration Age is not only that it includes both Medieval and Early Modern times but also that the Antiquity Age includes both Classical (and pre-Classical) and Medieval elements as well (plague, barbarian invasion, Maya, Khmer, Mississippians, and Silla in the DLC).

The usual Medieval Age timespan is basically cut in half around the year 1000-1200 CE, with everything pre-1000 (what we call "Early Medieval") going to the 1st Age, and everything post-1200 (what we call "High Medieval" and "Late Medieval") going to the 2nd. Normans are indeed largely a High Medieval culture/polity, and got slotted into the 2nd Age.

 

[Ebon-Hawke-]

I'm surprised those who have complained about lack of Britain in this thread haven't complained about the leaked leader choice yet,

Spoiler :

Ada Lovelace

.

Personally I'm not that excited for her solely as I wanted a royalty who could double as a Norman leader as well. And there has famously been British Queens so it's usually an easy pick.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

I'm surprised those who have complained about lack of Britain in this thread haven't complained about the leaked leader choice yet,

Spoiler :

Ada Lovelace

.

Personally I'm not that excited for her solely as I wanted a royalty who could double as a Norman leader as well. And there has famously been British Queens so it's usually an easy pick.

She’s English and a Leader, but I doubt very much that Firaxis regards her as an English Leader. I suspect that she displaces someone like Marie Curie rather than Elizabeth or Victoria