The worlds two largest EVER empires not in game??

[Tee Kay]

I'm Australian and what is this?!?

This is a thread where people complain about why their pet civilization x isn't in the game because they clearly deserve to be for reasons y.

Siam? really? Siam?

i think that they just look for wierdo civs to put in so that they can put like a normal one in the expansions

Siam?

What do you mean, weirdo? Explain yourself! *dons medieval Siamese helmet and wields swords*

 

[Lebowski89]

This is a thread where people complain about why their pet civilization x isn't in the game because they clearly deserve to be for reasons y.

Of course, but I think it has been done perfectly if I have my history correct. The English achieved more than enough to be put in the game by themselves. No need for Britain, Great Britain, United Kingdom.. what ever you want to call it. Judging by the leader of the English civ, they have applied the correct name. Scott's already have a city state, more than most more deserving countries have been given.

 

[Tee Kay]

Besides, the British Empire is primarily an empire of the English. Just ask the Irish.

 

[agirao]

Wiki says :

The Portuguese Empire (Portuguese: Império Português), also known as the Portuguese Overseas Empire (Ultramar Português) or the Portuguese Colonial Empire (Império Colonial Português), was the first global empire in history.[1] [2][3]In addition, it was the longest-lived of the modern European colonial empires, spanning almost six centuries, from the capture of Ceuta in 1415 to the handover of Macau in 1999.

Fireaxis .. Is anybody there ?????

 

[craig123]

Of course, but I think it has been done perfectly if I have my history correct. The English achieved more than enough to be put in the game by themself. No need for Britain, Great Britain, United Kingdom.. what ever you want to call it. Judging by the leader of the English civ, they have applied the correct name.

But unfortunately they haven't. The English trait is called the "Sun Never Sets," which is a reference to the British Empire. One of the English unique units is the Ship of the Line, which were predominantly used in the 18th century - after the Act of Union. Also, if you read the England's entry in the manual, there are more references to Britain than England. (The same has been true in previous Civ titles; for example, in Civ4, Queen Victoria and Churchill were English leaders and the Redcoat was the unique unit.)

One of the (on-topic) arguments in this thread is that Firaxis should choose either England or Britain and try to be consistent. Given that when most people think of England/Britain they think of the British Empire period, and given that - as the OP says - the British Empire was the largest in history, a lot of people are of the opinion that Britain rather than England should be in the game. If instead you think of the Tudor period (which having Elizabeth as leader would imply) then England should be chosen but references to Britain should be dropped (as much as possible).

Of course, most people probably don't care (but then nobody is forcing them to read this thread ).

 

[Tee Kay]

@the Portuguese guy: "Age of Discovery" DLC, I said. Patience my friend.

@the English guy: and the British Empire is primarily an English affair as I said.

 

[craig123]

Besides, the British Empire is primarily an empire of the English. Just ask the Irish.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand you there. Could you explain.

 

[crag]

England? Come on man, you mean Britain. This seeems like my catchphrase now... England =/= Britain. It's been discussed since the first page of this thread.

To me, an American, England and Britain are the same. I know, I know there's a difference. But from my point of view, not much.

And when I say England (or Britain) I'm not including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or India. I mean the British isles, excluding Ireland.

 

[Tee Kay]

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand you there. Could you explain.

The British Empire was, in reality, primarily English-run. England was and is the dominant country in Britain. English institutions became British institutions. The dominant language and to a large extent culture of Britain is English. I guess it could be compared to, to an extent, how Prussia dominated the German Empire between 1871 to 1918, or how Russia dominated the Soviet Union from 1922 - 1991.

By choosing to call the civ "England" rather than "Britain", Firaxis expanded their civ to cover both historical England and historical Britain after 1707. Flexibility is more important for them rather than semantics.

 

[Lebowski89]

If instead you think of the Tudor period (which having Elizabeth as leader would imply) then England should be chosen but references to Britain should be dropped (as much as possible).

Exactly, they should change traits to match the leader of the civ's time frame, and also remove the errors from the manual. At the moment we have a civ and leader that is from Tudor period but with the trait's from a different period, this should be fixed to prevent threads like this popping up.

 

[Me,myself,and,I]

agree with taillesskangaru.

Russia is often used for the USSR because it was really the Russian empire with a different name. For a long time that was the case with England and Britain.

 

[Tee Kay]

Exactly, they should change traits to match the leader of the civ's time frame, and also remove the errors from the manual. At the moment we have a civ and leader that is from Tudor period but with the trait's from a different period, this should be fixed to prevent threads like this popping up.

The whole point of using "England" instead of "Britain" was that they could pull unique units, leaders and traits for that civ from across the whole of English/British history.

 

[CaptainBinky]

Good God this thread is a mess isn't it? I mean, really. The game starts at 4000BC with a whole bunch of leaders and countries whose simultaneous existence makes no sense what-so-ever.

Yeah, fine, have the Welsh, Irish, Scottish, and English in there, but where the hell are they all going to start on the world map? Crammed into 3 hexes?

Call it Britain and it makes no sense for a variety of reasons, call it England and it makes no sense for a variety of reasons. I can build the Great Pyramids in Newcastle. There is much about this game that makes less sense than some slight inconstancies in the naming of Britain/England.

I never play as the English anyway. I like the Iroquois, who also make no sense.

edit: In terms of offence, I'm more offended by that reference to the ghastly Hitch-Hikers film in the post sig above than I am by historical inaccuracies

 

[carm3]

But unfortunately they haven't. The English trait is called the "Sun Never Sets," which is a reference to the British Empire. One of the English unique units is the Ship of the Line, which were predominantly used in the 18th century - after the Act of Union. Also, if you read the England's entry in the manual, there are more references to Britain than England. (The same has been true in previous Civ titles; for example, in Civ4, Queen Victoria and Churchill were English leaders and the Redcoat was the unique unit.)

One of the (on-topic) arguments in this thread is that Firaxis should choose either England or Britain and try to be consistent. Given that when most people think of England/Britain they think of the British Empire period, and given that - as the OP says - the British Empire was the largest in history, a lot of people are of the opinion that Britain rather than England should be in the game. If instead you think of the Tudor period (which having Elizabeth as leader would imply) then England should be chosen but references to Britain should be dropped (as much as possible).

Of course, most people probably don't care (but then nobody is forcing them to read this thread ).

As several people have tried to say, and as someone pointed out a couple posts above, the reason that they went with this choice is that the nation of Britain is recognizable, from a historical standpoint, as a continuation of the nation of England. Given that they wanted to represent in one civilization a nation that was both powerful in the past and continues to be so now (albeit as part of a larger commonwealth) what would you have them do for the modern era? Trying to distinguish for the modern era between "English" and "British" achievement would be absurd, as would be cutting out all references to English history from 1707 onwards (the only viable alternative); creating two separate civs would be even more ridiculous. So no matter what solution they adopted there would be some level of either inaccuracy or absurdity, and I think that most would agree that the solution that they've chosen is the least problematic.

 

[craig123]

As several people have tried to say, and as someone pointed out a couple posts above, the reason that they went with this choice is that the nation of Britain is recognizable, from a historical standpoint, as a continuation of the nation of England. Given that they wanted to represent in one civilization a nation that was both powerful in the past and continues to be so now (albeit as part of a larger commonwealth) what would you have them do for the modern era? Trying to distinguish for the modern era between "English" and "British" achievement would be absurd, as would be cutting out all references to English history from 1707 onwards (the only viable alternative); creating two separate civs would be even more ridiculous. So no matter what solution they adopted there would be some level of either inaccuracy or absurdity, and I think that most would agree that the solution that they've chosen is the least problematic.

I understand the point that you and previous posters are making that in many respects Britain can be viewed as a continuation of England. (As I said earlier, Civ4 was much worse because of having Victoria and Churchill as leaders; I can't have been the only one to cringe at seeing Queen Victoria of the English Empire.) Personally, I don't really mind whether they choose England or Britain, it would just be nice if there was a bit more consistency. For example, if Britain was the civilization, with Victoria as leader, Sun Never Sets as unique trait, and Ship of the Line and Redcoats as the unique units, it would be unambiguously Britain. As it stands (like in Civ4) it seems to be an amalgamation of England and Britain. Now I appreciate that to you and many others that isn't a problem (if you view Britain as being a continuation of England) but other people would like consistency. In particular, I'm sure that some Scottish and Welsh people would want to know why England gets the credit for British achievements.

(I really can't believe this thread is still going. It has just been the same arguments, going round in circles, with a good amount of trolling thrown in.)

 

[Lawrie]

To me, an American, England and Britain are the same. I know, I know there's a difference. But from my point of view, not much.

And when I say England (or Britain) I'm not including Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa or India. I mean the British isles, excluding Ireland

Sure, your entitled to your ignorance but it doesn't make it correct.

 

[Eiat]

I was born and raised in England, but always to refer to myself as being British. I'm proud of the joint history and heritage shared by England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I think its would take a very overly sensitive person to be offended by the inclusion of the English empire only, and besides, in Civ IV at least you can edit your Civ's titles as I frequently do from England to Britain.

 

[Depravo]

"English" is a west GERMANIC language which spread to England and then Scotland.

French and Spanish are derived from Latin. Japanese script was adapted from Chinese. So what?

Also, like most scots I'm bi-lingual, that is I can speak or write both Scots and English. The fact that I choose to write in English is for the same reason everybody else does.

'Scots' is a dialect.

It's simple, before Great Britain, the English weren't very...great. Powerful sure, but nowhere near the power Great Britain as a whole made.

Elaborate.

 

[Lawrie]

'Scots' is to some extent a dialect but it does include many words that are not English as well... again its really something for Scots to determine for themselves.

As for you Eiat, well you say yourself - that you were born and raised in England... that gives you a perfectly English perspective on what constitutes over-sensitivity on behalf of Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish. Ie. typically narrow one.

Scots are proud of their own culture, national identity and history, one of general good humoured antipathy towards England.

Based on the same rational as the English civilisation... (and the all new USA civilisation....) maybe Europe should just be classed together as the European Union Civ...

 

[Lawrie]

In actual fact - a cooler feature, would have been for certain types of policies and or permanent alliances and or revolutions to allow civs to merge or spawn into later day political constructs.

That would be cool (another topic sure)