Yes, I can understand the inclusion of Franklin. Not sure about Tubman. I had never heard of her. I am sure that there are many US presidents that they could have added as leaders. Just like there are so many British Kings, Queens and Prime Ministers.
It's do obvious that these types of leaders are being held back for paid for dlc.
Considering that Firaxis has had male leaders for England twice ever, the only one's they're likely holding back for DLC are Elizabeth I and Victoria, as either one, the other, or both have been in every iteration of Civ since 1991.
No it is not... while Lincoln, Washington, Roosevelt (Teddy or FDR) have been in civ before, I doubt any of them will Ever be in Civ7 as a DLC.
There are many far more other interesting people to show around the world and throughout time, and Franklin is a really good representation of US Political Leadership (honestly he would preferred over any president other than the ones listed).. and Tubman makes a good representation of more Modern (post 1850) America
It is possible that a one or Maybe two British/English Monarch/Prime Minister would be in a DLC.. but it is possible there are none.
Mostly because
1. Leaders are expensive (voice and graphics)
2. they seem to be moving to a 2:1 Civ: Leader ratio in DLCs
So I doubt Civ7 will see more than 50-60 Leaders (maybe more with Persona)
Well, I would say "watch this space".
Next year, I fully expect to see lots of leader and Civ dlc's. I expect to see lots of leaders that we have seen in previous versions of the game being released. Ramesses, Elizabeth 1, Robert the Bruce etc etc.
I don't mind the non leader leaders lol.
But, I prefer to play proper Kings, Queens, Prime Ministers, Presidents etc etc. But there are far too few of those types in the game. No doubt all held back for rip off paid for dlc.
As a Brit, I find it an insult that we only got Ada Lovelace as a British leader, and I had to pay extra to get her. No, Churchill, Victoria, or Elizabeth 1st etc.
I suspect the Yanks among us feel the same thing, with the American leaders that they got.
It's an interesting view of our history. You can enjoy it or not, but calling it an insult is a massive over-reaction and a very unfair characterization.
It's an interesting view of our history. You can enjoy it or not, but calling it an insult is a massive over-reaction and a very unfair characterization.
I consider it an insult because Lovelace was the only British leader we got, and we had to pay extra for her.
Plus we also had to pay to get the British Civ itself.
I think it's reasonable that people are put out when things come as DLC, especially given the state of the game on release. But I don't think it's insulting to Britain specifically given the new Age structure.
Similar to how we're only just getting Ottomans now, which are just as recognisable. And that's months later (admittedly, for free, but I can't imagine that was the original plan).
(my posts keep on being messed up by the ad banner interfering with screen space on mobile, argh)
I consider it an insult because Lovelace was the only British leader we got, and we had to pay extra for her.
Plus we also had to pay to get the British Civ itself.
Britain being dlc over Prussia was such a huge tactical error, yes. Or at least putting them behind a paywall instead of patching them in for free, like Ara History Untold did with Canada.
I do hope we get an English monarch down the line, as Britain is defined by its monarchy.
As an aside, I don't really consider Teach as specifically British either. I see him more as a designated "free agent" commandeered by his Civ to commit acts of piracy. He's the only leader so far that I think should lead a random Civ every Age.
I consider it an insult because Lovelace was the only British leader we got, and we had to pay extra for her.
Plus we also had to pay to get the British Civ itself.
Most countries are not represented in civilization series neither as civilizations or by their leaders. Some are represented by city-states, some don't have even it. For some reason I don't see, for example, Czech players coming to say that it's insult to be represented by Prague CS only in the whole Civilization series.
Most countries are not represented in civilization series neither as civilizations or by their leaders. Some are represented by city-states, some don't have even it. For some reason I don't see, for example, Czech players coming to say that it's insult to be represented by Prague CS only in the whole Civilization series.
Yes, but England is one of the OG civs from the series. Its a bit like not including Blanka or Dhalsim in a new Street Fighter game. I was irritated by the exclusion from England as well. And then to go ahead and make it a paid DLC, especially after such a rocky and polarizing start, was just in bad taste.
Yes, but England is one of the OG civs from the series. Its a bit like not including Blanka or Dhalsim in a new Street Fighter game. I was irritated by the exclusion from England as well. And then to go ahead and make it a paid DLC, especially after such a rocky and polarizing start, was just in bad taste.
Britain being dlc over Prussia was such a huge tactical error, yes. Or at least putting them behind a paywall instead of patching them in for free, like Ara History Untold did with Canada.
I do hope we get an English monarch down the line, as Britain is defined by its monarchy.
As an aside, I don't really consider Teach as specifically British either. I see him more as a designated "free agent" commandeered by his Civ to commit acts of piracy. He's the only leader so far that I think should lead a random Civ every Age.
I mean, both Britain/England and Prussia/Germany have been series staples over the years, so if your choice was which of the two to leave out, if you're being pedantic about not leaving out a series regular, the answer would have been "both make it", and you would have had to leave out one of Buganda, Mexico, or Siam as the "newcomers" to the series.
I do think at some point down the line, we have to get one of the British Queens, because they are so powerful as characters, and are legitimately strong female rulers from history. I like that they have branched out to some leaders-who-weren't-rulers like Tubman or Lovelace, but that shouldn't preclude those who actually ruled, like Liz, Victoria, Jadwiga, Wu Zetian, etc...
I mean, both Britain/England and Prussia/Germany have been series staples over the years, so if your choice was which of the two to leave out, if you're being pedantic about not leaving out a series regular, the answer would have been "both make it", and you would have had to leave out one of Buganda, Mexico, or Siam as the "newcomers" to the series.
I do think at some point down the line, we have to get one of the British Queens, because they are so powerful as characters, and are legitimately strong female rulers from history. I like that they have branched out to some leaders-who-weren't-rulers like Tubman or Lovelace, but that shouldn't preclude those who actually ruled, like Liz, Victoria, Jadwiga, Wu Zetian, etc...
I'd like to have at least one leader-really-leader.
Variety is cool but there are plenty of possible leaders who were really leaders. England or China, for example, have so much available choices.
All the empire? Modern era in civ is from
1750-1950 (although the beginning is hard to pin down, as most of 1600-1750 seems missing from the game). Britain was founded in 1707 (?) though, so it could hardly have been anything else.
I mean, both Britain/England and Prussia/Germany have been series staples over the years, so if your choice was which of the two to leave out, if you're being pedantic about not leaving out a series regular, the answer would have been "both make it", and you would have had to leave out one of Buganda, Mexico, or Siam as the "newcomers" to the series.
I do think at some point down the line, we have to get one of the British Queens, because they are so powerful as characters, and are legitimately strong female rulers from history. I like that they have branched out to some leaders-who-weren't-rulers like Tubman or Lovelace, but that shouldn't preclude those who actually ruled, like Liz, Victoria, Jadwiga, Wu Zetian, etc...
Well, yeah. I personally would have shuffled some of the Civs around (I would have done Franks instead of Normans, which would somewhat justify Britain base & Prussia DLC, while also leaving room for England), but eh. History Is Built In Layurzzz and all that.
I consider Elizabeth one of the 'Big Dog' leaders which are currently absent but absolutely should be added somewhere down the line, and preferably sooner rather than later :3. The others are Alexander, Montezuma, Shaka and Gandhi.
Well, in my mind it was a mistake to put Britain as a Civ. It should have been England, then a Scottish and maybe a Welsh Civ. Just like how it was in previous versions.
Even adding something like The Norman's is not really realistic. After the Norman Conquest they didn't rename England to something else.
Well, in my mind it was a mistake to put Britain as a Civ. It should have been England, then a Scottish and maybe a Welsh Civ. Just like how it was in previous versions.
Even adding something like The Norman's is not really realistic. After the Norman Conquest they didn't rename England to something else.
If we apply this kind of details to the rest of the world, we'll have 200+ civs. No doubt completely bland, as it's impossible to create 200+ unique civs.
It's not like the Normans are exclusively covering the Normans who conquered England - while they definitely are included, it's also including the significant Norman conquests of southern Italy. It can cover both!
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
