The lack of a unique model for a unique unit from Great Britain is an embarrassment.

[tman2000]

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.

The Jerusalem theme and the diorama look peg this GB as the “satanic mills” mode of British history. Which, frankly given the age system’s way to more precisely represent different civilizations, is an appropriately novel take on Britain.

 

[tman2000]

The Jerusalem theme and the diorama look peg this GB as the “satanic mills” mode of British history. Which, frankly given the age system’s way to more precisely represent different civilizations, is an appropriately novel take on Britain.

You can think of England as kind of a colonized but higher caste satrapy of the British empire in its own right, and this GB is that side of things which is inclusive of the declined empire but will hints or spices of its glory.

The age system skips problematic periods. It’s colonization without colonialism. World war without World War II’s post war consensus moral framing of 20th century history

 

[EvaDK]

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?

18th, 19th and 20th covers a period of three Centuries. The British Empire saw its final decline after WW2.

 

[Siptah]

18th, 19th and 20th covers a period of three Centuries. The British Empire saw its final decline after WW2.

With the same logic, it’s a millennium, because it isn‘t necessary to fully cover the years

But I guess this argumentations is a good way to avoid the question why you are so unhappy with Britain in civ 7.

 

[Haig]

I was hoping for HMS Dreadnought or Spitfire uu gor Britain, and I am happy with the Revenge and actually generally with the design.

It just feels weird to see so dramatic things written about "just" a computer game. I have serious and sad events in my life currently and for so it is surreal how much hate some people put on a game. Not necessarily here on Civfanatics btw

 

[Ryansinbela]

Revenge helped me when the entire world declared war against me

 

[Kyriakos]

I was hoping for HMS Dreadnought or Spitfire uu gor Britain, and I am happy with the Revenge and actually generally with the design.

It just feels weird to see so dramatic things written about "just" a computer game. I have serious and sad events in my life currently and for so it is surreal how much hate some people put on a game. Not necessarily here on Civfanatics btw

By that logic, there's no reason to be negative about anything short of what is potentially lethal ^^

 

[EvaDK]

With the same logic, it’s a millennium, because it isn‘t necessary to fully cover the years

But I guess this argumentations is a good way to avoid the question why you are so unhappy with Britain in civ 7.

Well, you better get busy writing to the online Wikipedia, Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, Quora and some historical sources and tell them, that their timeline for the British Empire is wrong, then.

I haven't avoided any question.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Well, you better get busy writing to the online Wikipedia, Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, Quora and some historical sources and tell them, that their timeline for the British Empire is wrong, then.

I haven't avoided any question.

I wouldn't bother, there are a few users here who will bend over backwards to try and downplay and/or belittle the largest and one of the most important empires history has ever known.

 

[Siptah]

I wouldn't bother, there are a few users here who will bend over backwards to try and downplay and/or belittle the largest and one of the most important empires history has ever known.

You know you are on the internet when whether 1950-1720 < 300 or 1950-1720 > 300 needs a discussion with multiple posts.
I don't think I've belittled or downplayed the UK by the way, it wasn't my intention and I think I even said so. But hey, who cares? As I said above, Britain is a bit weak in civ 7, but I hardly think this is intentional to somehow mock the UK and its achievements or because the UK was intentionally neglected in a way. In my opinion it's simply because they tried to get so many (thematically very fitting) aspects of the civ into a single design, instead of giving it more focus. Since my original post on this, I was even convinced that the Revenge is a reasonable choice, so my gripe is also lowered. How about yours or that of EvaDK? Anything useful to provide regarding the UK's implementation in civ 7?

 

[EvaDK]

You know you are on the internet when whether 1950-1720 < 300 or 1950-1720 > 300 needs a discussion with multiple posts.

Well, you started that discussion, didn't you?

My response would be the exact same, had they released the game with a different huge, historically significant civilization behind a DLC paywall, instead of including it in the base game like all previous iterations of Civ so far. Be it China, France, America, Russia, Egypt, the Romans...

Releasing a very expensive unfinished game with key content locked away behind a DLC paywall, is disgusting.

 

[Siptah]

My response would be the exact same, had they released the game with a different huge, historically significant civilization behind a DLC paywall, instead of including it in the base game like all previous iterations of Civ so far. Be it China, France, America, Russia, Egypt, the Romans...

Releasing a very expensive unfinished game with key content locked away behind a DLC paywall, is disgusting.

We can easily agree on this. And I don‘t want to defend the decision, but I always felt the same for the poor Ottomans, and up until a few iterations ago, Spain. But that‘s what a limited roaster and many competing interests does. I personally would have preferred Britain and Ottomans in the base game over Siam and Prussia (or America, actually). But I can somewhat comprehend why they made this decision. And in retrospect, I enjoyed Siam more than Britain and Prussia, so there’s at least an upside. So, the „key content“ argument doesn‘t really do it for me, because we always lack „key content.“

The state of the game (while tremendously fun) is hardly excusable. But it‘s also not the end of the world and was not unexpected.

The paywall is mostly an issue for the people that bought it now at full price though. The majority of people will buy the game in the years to come, with reduced prices and attractive bundles that include Britain (the Deluxe version on sale will soon be cheaper than the base version was at release). That’s - again - no excuse for FXS, especially as it penalizes the civ fans most. And how high the paywall actually feels differs a lot from person to person, but I can also agree that it‘s bad in principle.

 

[Maiq]

We can easily agree on this. And I don‘t want to defend the decision, but I always felt the same for the poor Ottomans, and up until a few iterations ago, Spain. But that‘s what a limited roaster and many competing interests does. I personally would have preferred Britain and Ottomans in the base game over Siam and Prussia (or America, actually). But I can somewhat comprehend why they made this decision. And in retrospect, I enjoyed Siam more than Britain and Prussia, so there’s at least an upside. So, the „key content“ argument doesn‘t really do it for me, because we always lack „key content.“

The state of the game (while tremendously fun) is hardly excusable. But it‘s also not the end of the world and was not unexpected.

The paywall is mostly an issue for the people that bought it now at full price though. The majority of people will buy the game in the years to come, with reduced prices and attractive bundles that include Britain (the Deluxe version on sale will soon be cheaper than the base version was at release). That’s - again - no excuse for FXS, especially as it penalizes the civ fans most. And how high the paywall actually feels differs a lot from person to person, but I can also agree that it‘s bad in principle.

Just assuming that the game will be good enough to get those kind of post release sales lol.

 

[Evie]

18th, 19th and 20th covers a period of three Centuries. The British Empire saw its final decline after WW2.

The Royal Navy's hegemony died before the Empire, with its epitaph etched in the 1922 Washington naval treaty. You cannot both have naval hegemony and agree to parity with another naval power, nor can you have hegemony and no longer have sufficient ships to protect all three of your key areas of interest (North Sea, Mediterranean, Far East)

Calling 1720-1922 three centuries is a ridiculous claim on the face of it, of course.

None of which has any bearing on what the United Kingdom should or should not be in the game, nor on the sheer inadequacy of a generic unit graphic for the British UU. Just with correcting bad history where the claim was made.

 

[Kyriakos]

At least the UU wasn't the British grenadier

Some talk of Alexander, and some of Hercules