So What Happened British Empire?

[Paul Saunders]

Well Victoria only joined the game in Civ IV, rather unfairly overlooked in the previous games. Of course, this might've had to do with the fact that multiple leaders only became available in Civ IV.

Has it occurred to anyone else that it's slightly unrealistic to have the same leader as head of an empire for 6000 years?

Yeah I know, it's only a game and all that, but personally I think too much emphasis is placed on the characteristics of the leaders rather than the civs themselves.

I think that a much better way of doing it would be to have many different leaders throughout the course of the game, changing as each leader grows older and dies. Of course, doing that realistically and having hundreds of different leaders for each civ would be impractical, but why not have say a dozen leaders or so?

Perhaps leaders could change every 50 turns, or at a random date, depending on how long they "live" (even though that wouldn't scale correctly). Each turn the chance of them dying would gradually increase, so most would live a normal lifespan, but occasionally one would die young or live to a ripe old age.

This would make a game a lot more unpredictable as aggressive leaders would change hands with peaceful ones, creating a more dynamic diplomatic situation and offering new opportunities to bury the hatchet with old enemies or start wars with previous friends.

From the player's perspective, I think it would be great fun to have leader characteristics change periodically, so you might lose your financial advantage and gain a spiritual one instead. So you'd have to be flexible and adapt your play style to suit your current leader.

Anyone else think this is a good idea?

 

[Troymk1]

Oh, don't get me started on the combat system... As an experienced wargamer the unrealisms involved drive me nuts. Perhaps that's why I try to be a peaceful civ builder when I play? If I want warfare I prefer to play a proper wargame instead.

But then again, it's all abstract anyway, so I play within the spirit of the game. I do think the latest combat system is much better than all the previous ones.

Anyway, where was this thread you wrote? I'd like to read it.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=242446


Here you go mate, although as a caveat some of the answers I receive will probably annoy you more than the game. Amazing that people think they know their sh*t by watching movies eh?


As to the England vs Britain Debate. Am I right in my understanding that the only person arguing that the division is baseless and should be ignored is a non-Brit? If so, shuddup will ya? If they tell you its different and they live there one would perhaps regard them as subject matter experts?

Wisdom is admitting you don't know everything grasshopper.

 

[Bast]

True, but Vic and Winne were leaders of Britain, not specifically of the English.

Imagine, if the British Empire had broken up in the 19th century - shudder - and reduced to just separate countries of England, Scotland and Ireland and all the colonies given independence, which country would have still had Victoria as Queen?

Clearly, only England! And so I hope that settles it.

Keep in mind that King James I inherited the throne of England from Elizabeth. He didn't become King of a United Britain right there and then. He was separately King of Scotland as well as King of England. As it was with him and as it is with subsequent monarchs, one can clearly coexist without the other.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Have you noticed that in the World Cup (soccer) there's no UK football team?

Well, being English, living in England, and being a massive 'soccer' fan, it's kind of hard to miss.

 

[Daily Barrage]

Fun thread.

I know what's what regarding the British Empire and England, and I'm happy with my knowledge, so I won't bother adding my twopenneth on the subject.


No doubt there is a mod already out there but I think I may knock one up anyway just for a laugh.

Stage 1:

Keep Elizabeth as English and move Victoria and Churchill to British with the Union Flag.

Stage 2:

Add Welsh, Scottish, Northern Irish and (with Cornish barbarian separatists ). Just think of all the politically incorrect dilemma's you could find yourself in!

Stage 3:

Add Saxons, Normans, Earlier British Tribes/Kingdoms, etc.

Stage 4:

Do some "Battles of Britain" scenarios on a large British Isles map. Maybe one with other parts of Europe when relevant to the scenario.


Could be a good laugh.

 

[Bast]

Keep Elizabeth as English and move Victoria and Churchill to British with the Union Flag.

This might not be a bad idea. After all, we have Holy Roman Empire AND Germany.

With this change, you can have an English UU as some sort of Longbowman and a UB as something else I can't think right now.

And the Brits can keep the Redcoat and the stock exchange.

Everyone wins.

 

[whb]

Imagine, if the British Empire had broken up in the 19th century - shudder - and reduced to just separate countries of England, Scotland and Ireland and all the colonies given independence, which country would have still had Victoria as Queen?

Clearly, only England! And so I hope that settles it.

Something that isn't often mentioned is that the James I & II and Charles I & II rarely returned to Scotland after James I had inherited the English throne -- they decamped to London and comparatively neglected their Scottish throne, much to the disappointment of the citizens of Edinburgh.

So there was a tendency then to view the throne of England as 'outweighing' the throne of Scotland, just as there is a tendency today for people to think the throne of the UK 'outweighs' the throne of Australia, Canada, etc. (Australians like me rarely feel that she acts as if she really is the Queen of Australia.)

 

[Paul Saunders]

With this change, you can have an English UU as some sort of Longbowman and a UB as something else I can't think right now.

Nope, the Longbow was of *Welsh* origin!

http://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/England-History/TheLongbow.htm

 

[Figaro]

This might not be a bad idea. After all, we have Holy Roman Empire AND Germany.

With this change, you can have an English UU as some sort of Longbowman and a UB as something else I can't think right now.

And the Brits can keep the Redcoat and the stock exchange.

Everyone wins.

Indeed. And don't let me hear anyone say the Scots/Welsh (and Irish) are in the game already as the Celts, because they're not. The Celtic leaders are English & Bulgarian, the UU French, most of the cities mainland european.

 

[3 EMS]

By all means, point it out. American History is not my strongpoint.

I thought that creating an empire involved invading and conquering other countries. What other countries has America conquered? (I don't consider Iraq to count, they're not trying to make that part of an empire, are they?)

What about the American states? They're not the same as different countries, or are they?

They aren't major posessions but Guam and Puerto Rico were both obtained by beating the Spanish. The Philippenes and Cuba are two former posessions that were granted their independance. There are other smaller posessions. Their main significance to America was to be used as refueling stations for our coal powered ships.

 

[GeneralMatt]

There are other smaller posessions. Their main significance to America was to be used as refueling stations for our coal powered ships.

Just to note that places like Singapore, a bunch of little islands in the Pacific to were settled by the UK for that exact reason to.