They're the same company.
The lack of a unique model for a unique unit from Great Britain is an embarrassment.
- Thread starter Maiq
- Start date
To what level of granularity are you going to play the corporate spin game? None of us here knows who and at what level made these decisions. Don't pretend that you do.
U
user746383
Guest
Facebook is not Meta, Google is not Alphabet - didn’t you know?
When you spend a couple of weeks in England and in the London area especially, there are reminders everywhere that this nation basically ruled the seas (and the world) for at least three centuries. They were the Roman Empire of the Industrial Age with global reach.
From what I'm reading and seeing, it's quite bizarre how Great Britain feels like it's reduced to an afterthought in Civ7. As if it's a conscious choice.
Then again, I have many things to say about this game in its current form, but that's for another time/thread.
From what I'm reading and seeing, it's quite bizarre how Great Britain feels like it's reduced to an afterthought in Civ7. As if it's a conscious choice.
Then again, I have many things to say about this game in its current form, but that's for another time/thread.
While I can see the general point of that argument that Britain was very important and needs to be strong in civ, a hyperbole like „at least three centuries“ doesn‘t help your point. They hardly ruled the sea before the 1750s, and stopped having that trait around WWI, so, it‘s not even two centuries (which is super impressive, don‘t understand that wrong!). And obviously, even in their high times, they had rivals that they couldn‘t really win against (see for example the great game), so they didn‘t rule the world, even if they‘ve been the #1 empire for quite long.
Why would you think that? Just because they aren‘t looking super strong? Or because you dislike some aspects of the design as they don‘t match your perception of Britain? I think a WWII battleship is indeed a left field choice for a nation that ruled the seas in the centuries before. But the rest? Economy, industry and archeology are perfect focuses, no? And there‘s even a bit of science and culture in the mix.
My gripe with them is that they are not focused enough on one area, which makes them a bit weak in the current modern era victory race, but I guess if they would be industry or archeology only, some other people would complain. But thematically, they seem a good fit. City list aside, but somehow civ 7 can barely get a proper city list for any civ. I don‘t think that‘s an argument specifically about Britain.
The English fleet started its journey from being insignificant to European dominance, in the period after the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. By the 1700s, they completely eclipsed the naval power of France and the Netherlands too, not to mention the tonnage of the British merchant fleet at that time.
I feel this is a pointless argument. Yes, the chart looks like it's from 1720 (and not 1750, my bad) that one can talk about a naval hegemony. But that's still only two centuries then, no?The English fleet started its journey from being insignificant to European dominance, in the period after the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588. By the 1700s, they completely eclipsed the naval power of France and the Netherlands too, not to mention the tonnage of the British merchant fleet at that time.
Maiq
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2025
- Messages
- 133
Exactly, just blame everyone involved. There are way too many issues in this game to lay it all at the feet of one person or company.
I also would have expected an early 20th century warship for Britain as UU, not something from WW2. But I suppose this UU isn't WW2 either, just a generic "modern age" battleship, and they may have thought that it should be relevant for longer.
In which case, however, it is even more of a gimmick
Maybe an earlier-than-game-techtree-provided tank (WW1) would have been a better option. But much like with a Dreadnought, this would mean your UU is just a shock unit that becomes obsolete in twenty turns or similar.
In which case, however, it is even more of a gimmick
Maybe an earlier-than-game-techtree-provided tank (WW1) would have been a better option. But much like with a Dreadnought, this would mean your UU is just a shock unit that becomes obsolete in twenty turns or similar.
Last edited:
The inherent problem with the tier/age system is that if they choose an early UU it will be around for the longest time but will look out of place for most of the Age; having an Age of Sail UU for Britain would mean you have wooden ships wailing against battleships and submarines by the end of the age, which feels silly. But if they choose a late game unit, it's not around long enough to matter. So what they end up having to do is to either choose a tier 2 (~WWI) unit like Revenge or Mikasa, or else choose WWII units like the Zero or Stuka but have them available a tier early.I also would have expected an early 20th century warship for Britain as UU, not something from WW2. But I suppose this UU isn't WW2 either, just a generic "modern age" battleship, and they may have thought that it should be relevant for longer.
In which case, however, it is even more of a gimmick
Maybe an earlier-than-game-techtree-provided tank (WW1) would have been a better option. But much like with a Dreadnought, this would mean your UU is just a shock unit that becomes obsolete in twenty turns or similar.
Ideally they would have visual upgrades to lessen this visual disconnect, but as evidenced by this whole issue with the Revenge graphic, that's apparently too expensive for them to do.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Just to clarify, the HMS Revenge was built in 1915, during WWI and was never upgraded like the Queen Elizabeth class, so it remained a WWI-era 'dreadnaught battleship' until it was scrapped in 1949. Frankly, its class of ships were second class in speed and protection and used as second class vessels for most of WWII: the Queen Elizabeth class would be a much better emblem of British naval superiority in the early 20th century, since they were all upgraded in the 1930s and remained in front-line service throughout WWII.I also would have expected an early 20th century warship for Britain as UU, not something from WW2. But I suppose this UU isn't WW2 either, just a generic "modern age" battleship, and they may have thought that it should be relevant for longer.
In which case, however, it is even more of a gimmick
Maybe an earlier-than-game-techtree-provided tank (WW1) would have been a better option. But much like with a Dreadnought, this would mean your UU is just a shock unit that becomes obsolete in twenty turns or similar.
The Civ VII Dreadnaught unit is in any case a comically bad choice for a unit. No matter how you define it, the original dreadnaught designs only lasted from 1906 to 1915, when the Queen Elizabeth and Revenge classes ushered in the oil-fired, faster Battleships with all big guns carried on the center-line so they could deliver broadsides of maximum firepower. That makes the 'dreadnaught' the most ephemeral unit in the game - only matched by the "Landship" which was designed for the specific purpose of overcoming a heavily-fortified trench line and had, literally, no other use: it was introduced into battle in 1916 and was obsolete by 1928 when the Vickers Medium and 6-ton tanks were introduced with mobility better than that of a sloth dragging an anchor.
More disappointing, by concentrating their efforts on the WWI land and naval units with mayfly-like lifespans, they left out the entire 19th century developments of armored and protected cruisers, steam-auxiliary-powered steam frigates and ships of the line, and all the developments of rifled firearms that transformed battlefield tactics by and before 1914.
Sorry for the rant, but I am Not Happy with the Modern Age tech and military developments: it's not like any of this is Secret or hasn't been written about extensively since the 1960s . . .
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Visual Upgrades would have been about the only way to make the Age-long units palatable, especially in Modern Age when military technology was changing radically every 20 - 50 years: I can make a solid argument for at least 4 tiers of units between 1750 and 1950, but that, of course, would have unraveled the 3-Tier system they arranged for the game in each Age.
The argument that visual upgrades might be 'too expensive' does not, IMHO, hold any water at all. Modders in the Anno 1800 game have introduced entire fleets of WWII combat ships, including specific battleship models like the Bismarck class, complete with animated firing and maneuvering sequences and exquisite visual detail. If individuals or small groups of amateurs can produce this kind of quality work on their own time, I am very suspicious when a corporate entity claims it cannot be done economically.
Nitpicking, but isn't the official term "Dreadnought" (instead of the arguably more logical, by etymology, "Dreadnaught")?
Dreadnought - Wikipedia
Although come to think of it, maybe the ship's etymological meaning alludes to "fearing nothing", instead of being a "nautical vessel that causes dread".
Yes.Nitpicking, but isn't the official term "Dreadnought" (instead of the arguably more logical, by etymology, "Dreadnaught")?
Dreadnought - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Jeppetto
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2018
- Messages
- 1,021
It's an emotional support ship that means 'fear not'Nitpicking, but isn't the official term "Dreadnought" (instead of the arguably more logical, by etymology, "Dreadnaught")?
Dreadnought - Wikipedia
Although come to think of it, maybe the ship's etymological meaning alludes to "fearing nothing", instead of being a "nautical vessel that causes dread".
RedCourtJester
Emperor
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2024
- Messages
- 1,068
I'm stealing this name for my next dog, thanks.
Touché, but saying “they’re the same company” carried the same implication in how I read it
It doesn’t matter though, regardless someone made these ridiculous decisions and we’re dealing with the fallout
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Absolutely correct, and the Royal Navy has been spelling it the same way for every ship with that name since 1553. This is what I get for spelling something the way it sounds, rather than the way the word was developed from Latin roots.Nitpicking, but isn't the official term "Dreadnought" (instead of the arguably more logical, by etymology, "Dreadnaught")?
Dreadnought - Wikipedia
Similar threads
