So, No Britain?

[Uberfrog]

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.

The two most famous English Queens have of course been done to death at this point, and I’d have been very bored to see either Lizzy or Vicky again.

Of the rest I don’t think Anne or either Mary is a great choice. Eleanor was an inspired medieval choice. Matilda would fit here too, but is most famous for the huge war to oust her. Emma of Normandy or Æthelflæd would be my favourite early medieval picks, but I guess they lack name recognition and would feel quite disjointed from a modern British civ.

So actually I am quite happy to have a non-royal leader, Britain has many suitable options. Ada Lovelace is a good way of representing science and modernity.

 

[trev1972]

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.

I honestly cannot see earth maps ever being a thing in civ 7, i just cant see how they would ever work with the distant lands mechanic and with the lack of civs offering geographic progression
I am gutted about it, since they will probably keep this distant lands and ages thing in civ 8 as well

 

[Arcaian]

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.

Plagues are infamously relevant to the classical era (~500-600 CE at the latest) - the Antonine and Cyprian plagues both being within a century are widely thought to have contributed significantly to the downfall of the western roman empire, the migrations of germanic tribes started about 300 CE and ended before 600 CE, the pre-classic Maya were definitely settled by 1000 BCE and the classic Maya's peak was before 600 CE. The Khmer, Mississippians, and Silla (I must've missed that being confirmed somewhere?) are all part of an effort to ensure that Antiquity civs are dealing with an effort to create the first large states in their area, interacting heavily with non-state actors, and so on - it's not saying that the Antiquity era represents the height of the Khmer (which would be like 1200, far too late), it's saying the Khmer are being shunted back in time a little bit to ensure thematic consistency of each age. I don't think there's really much evidence that the age of Antiquity is taking too much of the early medieval - some amount of it is being skipped by the time jump though.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

i am very unhappy with the leader choice. Why does England always have to have a female leader? Nelson, Wellesley, so many PM choices, not to mention alot of the kings. all get excluded because firaxis have this idea that UK must be female led. very disappointed with this choice. however, on a positive note, i am very pleased that a proper Great Britain appears to have finally made it into the game. hopefully they will focus on the characteristics of the global empire and not just focus on the english aspects.

 

[queenpea]

i am very unhappy with the leader choice. Why does England always have to have a female leader? Nelson, Wellesley, so many PM choices, not to mention alot of the kings. all get excluded because firaxis have this idea that UK must be female led. very disappointed with this choice. however, on a positive note, i am very pleased that a proper Great Britain appears to have finally made it into the game. hopefully they will focus on the characteristics of the global empire and not just focus on the english aspects.

If you don't like Ada Lovelace, as luck would have it, you have about 100 male leaders to choose from instead, as leaders are now completely independent of their civilization.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If you don't like Ada Lovelace, as luck would have it, you have about 100 male leaders to choose from instead, as leaders are now completely independent of their civilization.

Both Napoleon personas would be happy to lead it.

 

[Evie]

When Firaxis give women leaders to civilizations other than England/Spain/Russia: "No, they should focus on actual famous leaders"
When Firaxis actually focus on famous women leaders: "Not that either because we're tired of always having the same leaders for those civilizations"
When Firaxis give a non-usual woman leader to a civ that traditionally has them: "No we should stop having women lead this civ"

This fanbase sure is into its sausage-fests.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

If you don't like Ada Lovelace, as luck would have it, you have about 100 male leaders to choose from instead, as leaders are now completely independent of their civilization.

first, its not because she is female. the only reason i care is that her inclusion excludes figures i wanted like Nelson, Wellesley... etc. Nothing against her, but the spot she is taking makes leaders i wanted unlikely now to appear.

 

[queenpea]

This fanbase sure is into its sausage-fests.

I would like to submit the "Leonidas as leader" thread as evidence, your honor.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Anyways going by the fact that Ada Lovelace is a potential leader, and Oxford might be their associated wonder, I assume we can at least figure out that Britain might be a science powerhouse?

 

[Evie]

The unholy fascination that military leaders have on far too many people doesn't help there, granted. People really buy into the idea that poking people with sharp sticks and tiny balls (or ordering people to do it for you) is some kind of ultra special contribution to human history.

 

[Archanist]

Anyways going by the fact that Ada Lovelace is a potential leader, and Oxford might be their associated wonder, I assume we can at least figure out that Britain might be a science powerhouse?

This is what I think. I'm trying to rake my brain on how they can make Ada Lovelace do more than flat bonuses to science or production.

Considering she's nobility and collaborated with a lot of people in real life, I could imagine she has some bonus when using civ specific great people (or unique civilians or civilians in general)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This is what I think. I'm trying to rake my brain on how they can make Ada Lovelace do more than flat bonuses to science or production.

Considering she's nobility and collaborated with a lot of people in real life, I could imagine she has some bonus when using civ specific great people (or unique civilians or civilians in general)

So Scientific/Diplomatic for her. And Britain itself I could see being Scientific/Economic.

 

[trev1972]

first, its not because she is female. the only reason i care is that her inclusion excludes figures i wanted like Nelson, Wellesley... etc. Nothing against her, but the spot she is taking makes leaders i wanted unlikely now to appear.

I would have liked to play Nelson as well, assuming Britain had a naval flavour

I am guessing they are steering away from that, and going for a scientific civ, hence Ada ..

Did she have the same impact as say.. Newton? No. But I guess if they are adding a modern Civ they need a modern leader and she is fine as a modern scientist.

Not sure how I feel about paying for dlc in order to get to play GB to be honest, i felt the DLC got a bit crazy in 6. I also suspect the reason they left GB out of the base game was they felt it would sell well as DLC

 

[Sagax]

So Scientific/Diplomatic for her.

Will be interesting to see how she differentiates herself from Ben Franklin and Wa Himiko, who fill a very similar niche.

 

[Zaarin]

how she differentiates herself from Ben Franklin

She probably won't hate everyone who breathes like Ben does, but then again we haven't seen her agenda yet.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

The unholy fascination that military leaders have on far too many people doesn't help there, granted. People really buy into the idea that poking people with sharp sticks and tiny balls (or ordering people to do it for you) is some kind of ultra special contribution to human history.

The unholy fascination that military leaders have on far too many people doesn't help there, granted. People really buy into the idea that poking people with sharp sticks and tiny balls (or ordering people to do it for you) is some kind of ultra special contribution to human history.

warmonger leaders and civilizations are a huge draw to the game and are important to keep sales up.

 

[Zaarin]

warmonger leaders and civilizations are a huge draw to the game and are important to keep sales up.

Not for everyone. The huge number of warmongers in the game currently means I will be hand-selecting my leaders until we either get a leader pool or a more balanced leader lineup.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

I would have liked to play Nelson as well, assuming Britain had a naval flavour

I am guessing they are steering away from that, and going for a scientific civ, hence Ada ..

Did she have the same impact as say.. Newton? No. But I guess if they are adding a modern Civ they need a modern leader and she is fine as a modern scientist.

Not sure how I feel about paying for dlc in order to get to play GB to be honest, i felt the DLC got a bit crazy in 6. I also suspect the reason they left GB out of the base game was they felt it would sell well as DLC

When Firaxis give women leaders to civilizations other than England/Spain/Russia: "No, they should focus on actual famous leaders"
When Firaxis actually focus on famous women leaders: "Not that either because we're tired of always having the same leaders for those civilizations"
When Firaxis give a non-usual woman leader to a civ that traditionally has them: "No we should stop having women lead this civ"

This fanbase sure is into its sausage-fests.

the implicit decision by Firaxis to have GB, in the last 5 iterations of the game, only be led by females has severely hindered the potential leaders for GB.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

Not for everyone. The huge number of warmongers in the game currently means I will be hand-selecting my leaders until we either get a leader pool or a more balanced leader lineup.

i generally do not start warmongering until i am attacked to be fair. but the useless irrational AI definitely encourages me to keep the assault on.