So, No Britain?

[trev1972]

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.

Its not something i really thought about before to be honest, we had churchill?
Victoria and Elizabeth 1 seem pretty obvious choices if going for a monarch

 

[gdr_willter]

Its not something i really thought about before to be honest, we had churchill?
Victoria and Elizabeth 1 seem pretty obvious choices if going for a monarch

He was in Civ 4 Warlord, not surprisingly next to the two Queens in base game.

 

[agamemnon_of_the-bronze_]

i understand Ada's accomplishments and those deserve to be celebrated but why do France and USA get two leaders while GB only gets one.

 

[Ebon-Hawke-]

i understand Ada's accomplishments and those deserve to be celebrated but why do France and USA get two leaders while GB only gets one.

I don't foresee France or USA getting more leaders especially with Charlemagne already present in Exploration, however Ed mentioned there will be much more British Isles to come throughout the life of the game. I could see an Anglo-Saxon antiquity or exploration civ with an English King or even William the conqueror to tie in with Normans. And some sort of Gaulic/Celtic precursor (perhaps leaderless tho) is also inevitable

 

[untitledjuan]

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.

To be precise, this is the first time Great Britain appears in a mainline Civilization game. We had England in previous games. Sure, it had some features of the British period and British leaders, but it still was refered to as England.

 

[Evie]

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.

By which we mean they've repeatedly used the two most famous (by very very very far) English/British monarchs, who happened to be women (using female as a noun when talking about humans is just creepy). (And as others pointed out, Churchill was in IV so you're not even right about that).

And since no leader lead a specific country in Civ VII, and the inclusion of one leader who originates in a country does not mean theY eon't get, the complaint is entirely pointless until we know the full roster of Britain-born leaders. So we can talk again in a few years.

And frankly people whose entire accomplishment list is in the field of military leadership should be commanders, not leaders. People like Frederick, Napoleon, Alexander who were rulers and commanders, and people who had both military and artistic or scientific careers, or military and scholarly (think: Sun Tzu, Clausewitz), sure. But people who only led armies for other people, thanks but no thanks. Wellesley and Nelson are horrible lesder choices.

 

[thecrazyscot]

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.

Churchill and Henry VIII have also been leaders.

 

[trev1972]

I havent played or bought any civ content for a while, i was actually bought the pass for civ 6 as a present

Based on civ 6 prices what sort of cost are we looking at for the early march release that features 2 civs and 1 leader?
It shouldn't be a lot as that's not a massive amount of content?

 

[Evie]

Henry VIII not in the last five, but Churchill was in four. So yeah.

So, it's only been two (released) games since the last UK male leader, and the question is moot in the next game because leaders, despite the repeated clinging to the past of some people who insist on "X leader represent Y civilixation", are not locked to civilizations. Not scoring high on the "getting facts right" metrics here with that "last five games" nonsense.

 

[Stomper66]

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

Maybe they could be introduced in future DLC when more civs get thrashed out. It's not just world, its wolrd regions like Europe or South East Asia that I like to play in certain time periods. Civ 5 offers some great ones like 'Into the Renaissance' and 'Samurai invasion of Korea' to name a few. It might be really good for Civ7 to focus on this as the game also is broken down into three eras and the return of tall play will prevent city spamming. For example you could play Britain with just three cities like London Edinburgh and Dublin.

I don't mind the distant lands in the main game. In civ 6 you could easily meet everyone well too early. Civ5 was better as you meet everyone in the world congress on continents maps if you haven't explored the oceans already. Distant lands looks more like a return to that. I don't think changing civs will be in civ8 its just a gimmick like the cartoony graphics were in civ6. They'll probably learn from their mistake and have a return to solid civs and leaders in 8 that will be out in like 6 years time.

 

[trev1972]

Maybe they could be introduced in future DLC when more civs get thrashed out. It's not just world, its wolrd regions like Europe or South East Asia that I like to play in certain time periods. Civ 5 offers some great ones like 'Into the Renaissance' and 'Samurai invasion of Korea' to name a few. It might be really good for Civ7 to focus on this as the game also is broken down into three eras and the return of tall play will prevent city spamming. For example you could play Britain with just three cities like London Edinburgh and Dublin.

I don't mind the distant lands in the main game. In civ 6 you could easily meet everyone well too early. Civ5 was better as you meet everyone in the world congress on continents maps if you haven't explored the oceans already. Distant lands looks more like a return to that. I don't think changing civs will be in civ8 its just a gimmick like the cartoony graphics were in civ6. They'll probably learn from their mistake and have a return to solid civs and leaders in 8 that will be out in like 6 years time.

The main issue i have with distant lands is i worry that every game will feel like a terra map essentially. That could get repetitive quickly

I hope you are right about the changing civ feature. I guess it depends on the feedback they get.

I am waiting to see how much they charge for the early march dlc to be honest, i took a look at the pricing today and for the deluxe version of the game which has the march dlc the price is £90.00 (112 dollars). While i can afford that, its not an insignificant amount to waste if i end up not liking the game.

 

[Xandinho]

Ed mentioned there will be much more British Isles to come throughout the life of the game.

I see Ireland, Scotland and maybe England. And we'll almost certainly have Elizabeth again one day.

 

[Stomper66]

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.

To me a female leader for England just feels right. Our most two successful monarchs have been women, and Boudicca is an awesome historical leader in history. Personally I think Charles II, George III and Churchill would be really fun leaders for Great Britain. I'm happy GB's included but not happy its as DLC. Don't know why I should pay extra for the privilege of playing my own country when its previously always been in the base game. They did it with Aztecs in civ6 I suppose and massively influential civs like Mongols and Ottomans were also included in later DLC. Just stings when its you civ.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Ed mentioned there will be much more British Isles to come throughout the life of the game. I could see an Anglo-Saxon antiquity or exploration civ with an English King or even William the conqueror to tie in with Normans. And some sort of Gaulic/Celtic precursor (perhaps leaderless tho) is also inevitable

The Anglo-Saxons will be an Exploration Age civ if I have to single-handedly meme them into existence.

To me a female leader for England just feels right. Our most two successful monarchs have been women, and Boudicca is an awesome historical leader in history.

While I don't think we need parity of male and female Leaders, or female representation for its own sake, I do think female Leaders add a nice variety to the game, like a party that's mixed company instead of a "sausage fest"
One female Anglo-Saxon leader who's iconic and would definitely make for an interesting character model (preferably riding a horse, if possible), would be Lady Godiva

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Anglo-Saxons will be an Exploration Age civ if I have to single-handedly meme them into existence.

I will meme them in as well, but for Antiquity.

 

[Ornen]

I would much rather just have the Kingdom of England in Exploration era, despite Ed Beach's claims that it wasn't really such a thing

for Antiquity I'm sure we'll get at least a couple Norse civ at some point. maybe Anglo-Saxons, maybe just Norse. Goths would count as well, and Varangians would be an excellent predecessor for several Eastern Europe civs in the Discovery era. Celts also seem like a lock

 

[mitsho]

Saxons (not Angels and Saxons) and Goths really cover the Germanic tribes quite well and can lead to a diverse range of European civs.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

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.

I wouldn't read that deep into it - it's a game made by Americans who probably didn't know any other British leaders. It seems to me that for the first few games, Fireaxis just kept the same roster for branding purposes (Monty, Gandhi, Izzy etc..).

That being said, I'm sure there are people from the UK who would have some great suggestions for leaders and uniques. Most people don't want to see the same depiction of their nation over and over again - some variety is needed.

 

[Zaarin]

Most people don't want to see the same depiction of their nation over and over again - some variety is needed.

I think a lot of casual players do want the same leaders over and over; I think it's more of us history nerds who want to see more variety and novelty in leader selection. (Empress Maude for second English leader, please and thank you, and she doubles as a German leader. )

 

[Thenewwwguy]

To me a female leader for England just feels right. Our most two successful monarchs have been women, and Boudicca is an awesome historical leader in history. Personally I think Charles II, George III and Churchill would be really fun leaders for Great Britain. I'm happy GB's included but not happy its as DLC. Don't know why I should pay extra for the privilege of playing my own country when its previously always been in the base game. They did it with Aztecs in civ6 I suppose and massively influential civs like Mongols and Ottomans were also included in later DLC. Just stings when its you civ.

england/britain has always been among europe’s most willing countries to let women rule—Matilda in the 1100s, Anne, Jane Gray, Mary I, Elizabeth, Mary (as in William and Mary), Victoria I.

As for its DLC status, I like it. I think it’s nice that we’re able to get newer and different civs highlighted for once, and i wouldn’t mind other core civs getting rotated in and out over the series (as zulu, mongolia, aztecs, persia, babylon have with time, despite being series regulars). It’s only fair.

i also don’t appreciate how the convo broadly seems to implicitly accept the premise that ada lovelace is somehow a diversity pick for her gender. it ignores her status as a noble, her status as the first computer scientist, the first programmer, the person who discovered that computers could do more than calculations and more. considering the relevance of computer science in human development and the fact that she recognized the potential of the babbage machine over 100 years before it ever got built, it can’t be understated how much she influenced development of modern society. she’s a great pick for an industrial era scientist, and an industrial scientist is a great choice for great britain