British or English Civ? Morphing?

[speeechless]

Two ideas...

1. What are people's thoughts on having a "British" civ rather than an "English" civ?

I think that it would be a good idea. It would be more inclusive and add another historical dimension to this civ, not to mention, make it more realistic in the mid to later stages of the game. In ancient times, there wasn't an England, Scotland or Wales, but there was Britannia for a time and an island of mixed peoples, Britons. Prior to the Union of the Crowns, England was one of many significant players in Europe, but it was under the British flag that it began to have a world impact and dominate Europe, in which the other home nations played a very significant part. In particular, Scotland contributed heavily in education, philosophy, engineering, medicine and in war. I think there is a good argument for having "Britain" rather than "England".

2. I favour having "Britain", but there is another option. Perhaps England could have an "historical event" (if the player chose to accept it) that turned the civ into Britain, perhaps triggered by a golden age or a technology. Maybe morphing into this new civ could bring some extra benefits or the possibility to change leader/civ traits part way through the game. That would add to strategic play.

Other civs might also benefit from this idea - Rome to Italy, Prussia to Germany and so on.

[danangleland]

Could be interesting. I like the idea of changing into Britain with a technology or what have you. Although England has been a single nation a bit longer than it was part of Britain, our kings were, naturally, always trying to unify the mainland. Futhermore, our biggest influences on the world and the height of our empire, technological and industrial supremacy was as Britain (although we were important before as well ).

[Hitman H94]

would the english have binge drinking as a form of fighting?

[Imp. Caesar Leo Augustus]

Definetly English, with British monarchs, why?
We have Celts in previous games, with Boudicea (Briton queen), they represent Welsh, Irish, Scots (and Gauls also). But it should be nice to see Scots (with William Wallace, Mary Stuart and Robert the Bruce), Britons (with Boudicea, King Arthur and Cunobelinus), Gauls (with Vercingetorix, Brennus), and Irish (with Brain Boru) as nations, no as Celts.
Celtic nation is as stupid, as Slavic or Germanics ones.

[Sagitario]

Two ideas...

1. What are people's thoughts on having a "British" civ rather than an "English" civ?

I think that it would be a good idea. It would be more inclusive and add another historical dimension to this civ, not to mention, make it more realistic in the mid to later stages of the game. In ancient times, there wasn't an England, Scotland or Wales, but there was Britannia for a time and an island of mixed peoples, Britons. Prior to the Union of the Crowns, England was one of many significant players in Europe, but it was under the British flag that it began to have a world impact and dominate Europe, in which the other home nations played a very significant part. In particular, Scotland contributed heavily in education, philosophy, engineering, medicine and in war. I think there is a good argument for having "Britain" rather than "England".

2. I favour having "Britain", but there is another option. Perhaps England could have an "historical event" (if the player chose to accept it) that turned the civ into Britain, perhaps triggered by a golden age or a technology. Maybe morphing into this new civ could bring some extra benefits or the possibility to change leader/civ traits part way through the game. That would add to strategic play.

Other civs might also benefit from this idea - Rome to Italy, Prussia to Germany and so on.

I ALWAYS thought of this in the previous games.

Boer/Afrikaner > South African
New Spain > United Mexican States (Mexico)
Israelites > Israelis
Carthaginians > Berbers

[Imp. Caesar Leo Augustus]

I ALWAYS thought of this in the previous games.

Boer/Afrikaner > South African
New Spain > United Mexican States (Mexico)
Israelites > Israelis
Carthaginians > Berbers

Israelites to Israelis ? Hebrews to Israelis is better. Israelis and Israelites was rather used as synonim. Evolution of nation's name is that what I miss in Civ.
Carthaginians to Berbers, lol? If someone is continuator of Carthaginians and Phoenicians, Lebanese Maronites and eventually Maltese are. Numidians are Berbers, not Carthaginians.

And to first post, Rome to Italy is too not good idea... First Italian countries was created, when true Roman Emperors with continuation line from ancient times ruled over Eastern Roman Empire (Donatio Constantini is false). Venetians, vassals of Romans (Doge - Dux) if I am right was first, even they was consuls.
Venetians -> Italians should be better. But history of Italian State was actually very complicated (many saws Sabauds as foreign dynasty).
About Prussia you are right. Teutonic State (not Teutonic Knights) -> Saxon State (under Henry I, not English Saxons) -> Unholy Roman Empire (First Reich, under German rule) -> Prussia (Teutonic Order/Realm, later Second Reich, Teutonic Knights colony) -> Germany (Third Reich, later GDR and FRG) should be good line.

[Sagitario]

Israelites to Israelis ? Hebrews to Israelis is better. Israelis and Israelites was rather used as synonim. Evolution of nation's name is that what I miss in Civ.
Carthaginians to Berbers, lol? If someone is continuator of Carthaginians and Phoenicians, Lebanese Maronites are. Numidians are Berbers, not Carthaginians.

And to first post, Rome to Italy is too not good idea... First Italian countries was created, when true Roman Emperors with continuation line from ancient times ruled over Eastern Roman Empire (Donatio Constantini is false). Venetians, vassals of Romans (Doge - Dux) if I am right was first, even they was consuls. Venetians -> Italians should be better.

You're correct but you could also say Moors for Berbers.

How about, Ancient Egyptians > Coptic Egyptians?

Assyrians > Syriac Iraqs/Syrians?

Well even Judeans > Israelis.

[Imp. Caesar Leo Augustus]

You're correct but you could also say Moors for Berbers.

How about, Ancient Egyptians > Coptic Egyptians?

Assyrians > Syriac Iraqs/Syrians?

Well even Judeans > Israelis.

Very nice timelines.
I am not sure about Moors and Berbers. Two mods (for Civ 3, and Age of Empires 3 if I good remember) present they as other nations in mediæval times, I must ask good historian but I think today Moors are not mediæval ones and all migrated to Al-Andalus.
Altought Amazighs -> Numidians -> Berbers can looks good.
Hebrews (Solomon and earlier) -> Israelites/Judaeans (partition of Israel) -> Israelis (today) should be very nice timeline.
Syriacs... They changed their name, or still calls themselves Assyrians? I always thinking, that Nestorians, Syriacs (Suroye) and Chaldeans, even Arameans (but this is insulting name if I good remember) belong to one Assyrian nationality.
Egyptians -> Copts I always support that change, I doubt why Boutros Ghali Pasha was never presented as Egyptian leader, he is very good for modern Coptic times .

[yubnub]

would the english have binge drinking as a form of fighting?

I would have thought it would be better as a unit upgrade, like a powerup !!!

[Sid Meir's older brother2]

Add Britain! and Add Hitler!

[speeechless]

I agree with the post above that the Celts are not a very sensible civ. Also, in relation to the Scots and Welsh, I think only part of their populations could be traced to 'celtic' ancestry. The highland (and predominantly celtic, I think) population of Scotland is dwarfed by the lowland, non-celtic population. If the majority of Scotland and probably Wales too, are to be represented, then I think it would make sense to include them as part of a "Britain" civ. For the reasons I gave above, I think they strongly merit inclusion in the game.

After London, the next city founded could be Edinburgh, then Cardiff and so on.

Also - it is actually a little offensive to some people to have Victoria and Churchill as leaders of England!! It should be Britain.

[Nerdfish]

I like this, civ morphing seemed very reasonable and interesting.
Here's another idea along the same line.
Each "Phase" of civilization should have its own unique unit. This effectively give each civilization several period appropriate unique units.

[Bob Ilyani]

Wouldn't the advantages from "morphing" civs make these civs totally overpowered in comparison to a nation that cannot morph, like, say, the Americans?

[Hitman H94]

or when a foriegn enemy takes over your city - the population of that english town go on a drinking binge and just be unproductive and drain the financial system of the enemy for 30 turns or until they're in 300bn debt.

[Imp. Caesar Leo Augustus]

I like this, civ morphing seemed very reasonable and interesting.
Here's another idea along the same line.
Each "Phase" of civilization should have its own unique unit. This effectively give each civilization several period appropriate unique units.

Personally I think all nations should have 2, if not 3 unique units. But actually it is immpossible to give units to all phases/eras. For example:
For Franks/French: Throwing Axeman (Dark Ages); Templar or Paladin - May better fit Dark Ages (Mediæval); [Royal] Musketeer (Renaissance).
For Angles/English: Yeoman or Billman (Mediæval) - Longbowman; Beefeater (Renaissance) - Yeoman as Longbowman, Beefeater as Pikeman/Halberdier, I know that this is evolution; Redcoat or Man o' War (Industrial).
For Romans/Byzantines: Legionary or Praetorian (Antiquity); Cataphract or Clibanari (Dark Ages); Dromon/Fire Ship (Mediæval).
For Teutons/Germans: Teutonic Knight (Mediæval); Landsknecht - Pikeman/Halberdier or Doppelsoldner - Two-Handed Swordsman (Renaissance); Waffen SS or Panzer (Modern).
For Ruthenians/Russians: Druzhinnik (Dark Ages) - Light Cavarly/Rider; Vityaz (Mediæval) - Knight; Strelet - Musketman or Oprichnik - I think good replacement for rather ugly Cossack (Renaissance).
For Lechites/Poles: [Winged/Heavy] Hussar (Renaissance); Uhlan (Industrial); Rosomak (Modern).
For Venetians/Italians: Condottiere (Mediæval) - Knight; Stradiot (Renaissance); Alpine (Industrial).
For Mongolians: Keshik (Dark Ages) - Light Cavarly/Rider; Mangudai (Mediæval) - Horse Archer; Cannon Elephant (Renaissance) - Like the ones used by Tamerlane.
For Scots: Woad/Gaelic Warrior (Dark Ages); Gallowglass (Mediæval) - Swordsman; Highlander (Renaissance) - Musketman.
For Arabians: Ansar Warrior (Dark Ages); Assassin (Mediæval) - But they can better fit Persians; Mameluke (Renaissance).
For Turks: Ghulam (Dark Ages) - Rider; Spakh (Mediæval) - Knight; Janissary (Renaissance) - Musketman.

There are more examples for unique civilization's units through the ages, but it can be hard to find for some civilizations.

Wouldn't the advantages from "morphing" civs make these civs totally overpowered in comparison to a nation that cannot morph, like, say, the Americans?

New English -> Yanke/Confederate -> American .
But colonies imo does not fit to Civilization standards (as authors of Civ 3 wrote) and Call To Power authors was insane with Mexicans, Australians, Brazillians, Nicaraguans, Canadians...
Many nations change their name throught the ages, I always miss that fact in Civ games.

[AykayUK]

As an Englishman I would be fine with a change to a British civilization, I can see a good historical argument for either one of them to be in the game.

The morph idea sounds interesting but would run into problems - either you start the game as England but found non English cities like Edinburgh and Swansea, or when you change to Britain you will only have English places around. Also could it be a bit insulting to Scots/Welsh/N.Irish, making it look like Britain is simply a development of English culture?

I really don't think its going to happen. They have had plenty of chances to do it before now.

[JefA]

Two ideas...

1. What are people's thoughts on having a "British" civ rather than an "English" civ?

I think that it would be a good idea. It would be more inclusive and add another historical dimension to this civ, not to mention, make it more realistic in the mid to later stages of the game. In ancient times, there wasn't an England, Scotland or Wales, but there was Britannia for a time and an island of mixed peoples, Britons. Prior to the Union of the Crowns, England was one of many significant players in Europe, but it was under the British flag that it began to have a world impact and dominate Europe, in which the other home nations played a very significant part. In particular, Scotland contributed heavily in education, philosophy, engineering, medicine and in war. I think there is a good argument for having "Britain" rather than "England".

2. I favour having "Britain", but there is another option. Perhaps England could have an "historical event" (if the player chose to accept it) that turned the civ into Britain, perhaps triggered by a golden age or a technology. Maybe morphing into this new civ could bring some extra benefits or the possibility to change leader/civ traits part way through the game. That would add to strategic play.

Other civs might also benefit from this idea - Rome to Italy, Prussia to Germany and so on.

Ha this is comong up on multi threads

eg

Transposed from 18 civilization thread

I wonder Whether Vergennes Idea about having deloping Civs is the one.

Start as Indo European....later develop hinduism..have a CULTURAL Revolution and become Indian...maybe wth new leader choice
or develop Bronze n writing have a CULTURAL revolution and become Greek or Celtic maybe wait get iron and have the option of Cultural rev to Roman.

Could have a whole new Mechanism starting with a few Ancient Cultures that go thru cultural revolutions to successor states.

Later on an Indo european might go - Celtic (Hallstadt culture) - German(saxons or Franks) the tree franks to french saxons to English (or stay German

Have cultural development like the political

Be a bit of a change but could be fun

Tht'd be on my wishlist

So now have
Tec development
Political Dev
Cultural Dev

With changes to all giving Cultural revolutions that let you name the new Country/Civilization

It would be a major step forward in the franchise which I have loved from the start (despite nearling causing a divorce when i played the original 36 hours straight thru b4 the wife hit the ceiling)

[speeechless]

From what's been said above, it looks like morphing wouldn't be without it's problems. Getting the historical aspect correct would be difficult and might, if devised too strictly, limit gameplay. It that proves to be the case, then I doubt we'll have morphing in the game - we all know that gameplay should be the priority.

It might make more sense to use city states here. Specifically in relation to England/Britain, if there was an England civ rather than a British civ, then 'Edinburgh' could be an AI city, effectively a minor civ - the Scottish. The same could be done for Wales and Ireland. If they were the 'minor civs' located near England (perhaps not in every game, but say more often than not) then this could give England the opportunity to conqueur these city states or ally (and eventually merge) with them. Perhaps at that point, the game could allow your civ to be renamed if you like - to Britain. A different flag could also be adopted. A small addition to the game to allow this possibilty to happen would be fun.

Coming back to whether we have England or Britain in the first place, I agree that there are good historical arguments for both. If England is to remain, however, I think it would be a good idea to remove Victoria and Churchill - Elizabeth I, with the addition of Henry VIII (or another) would be more appropriate. The redcoat unit should also be replaced, perhaps with a specialist longbowman, a knight or a naval unit.

We've had an England civ in the past four games. I think it would refreshing to have Britain this time. It would also be more inclusive and I'm inclined to favour the historical agrument over that for England.

Well, I think I've set out my stall there... we'll just have to see what happens now!

[speeechless]

Having said what I just did in relation to morphing... maybe it could work like JefA has suggested and be a cultural revolution. That would be a major change to the game. I guess we'll have to wait and see if the developers will be that bold!

[JefA]

I agree with the post above that the Celts are not a very sensible civ. Also, in relation to the Scots and Welsh, I think only part of their populations could be traced to 'celtic' ancestry. The highland (and predominantly celtic, I think) population of Scotland is dwarfed by the lowland, non-celtic population. If the majority of Scotland and probably Wales too, are to be represented, then I think it would make sense to include them as part of a "Britain" civ. For the reasons I gave above, I think they strongly merit inclusion in the game.

After London, the next city founded could be Edinburgh, then Cardiff and so on.

Also - it is actually a little offensive to some people to have Victoria and Churchill as leaders of England!! It should be Britain.

Celts were fine.. a major civilisation that dominated most of Western Europe for centuries. They burnt Rome...Vae Victis (Kinda Woe to the Vanquished) isnt a Roman expression.. its what the Romans believed that the Celtic leader (maybe called Brennus or Brennan) said when they complained his scales mesuring the Ransome of Rome wernt fair. Supposedly said as he threw his sword onto his side of the scales. (prob Roman anti Gallic propoganda mind)

The fact they were displaced to the Atlantic celtic cultures later doesnt matter..And many many were amalgamated into the Saxon Jute Angle invaders of scotland and england with the girls at least becoming mothers of the next Generation.(and Franks in FRance and with incoming Tutonics in Germany the high mark of Celtic culture is prob the Hallstadt culture)

Britain is really more AngloCeltic than we think

And then the whole Island had several waves of Scandinavians.. Danes and Norse (Danelaw anyone) and then the second hand Norman (Norseman) French

And with Dal Riada scots Irish kingdom then various platations into Ireland the Pale, Ulster, etc ... there is more cross connection that some would hold.

As I said i have great Grandfathers from both Kingdoms (now united) the principality the republic and in fact Cornwall. Prob half Celtics well slightly under half as the Irish ones are in large measure from the far West

Oddly Brittish seems quite sensible to me

Rambling on so stopping

[Terra]

Earlier references to these islands would go back as far as Albion.

The land-bridge led to colonisation of pre-modern humans maybe 500,000 years ago, modern humans 30,000 years ago and during the ice-age they became civilized (guess).

As far as I know, the people of these islands where not Celtic, not Angles, Saxons or Jutes (or any Gothic tribe from the dark ages).

Archaeologists have found evidence of monuments from as early as 8000BC (10,000 years ago, around the end of the ice-age).

So the people of Albion who built these monuments, which required a civilized society - by the bronze age (about 3000BC) they where exporting copper and tin where being exported around Europe.

All of that aside, the Celts arrived here about 1200BC, the Romans around the 1st Century AD, then the angles, Saxons and jutes around 5th-9th century AD, followed by the Vikings, Normans and from the birth of the English/British Empire the mass immigration from almost every culture in the world.


It would be nice if civilization had culture-tree's as well as technology tree's allowing further customisation of empires and not have a set historic civilization. But I can see the game is too late in development for such an addition.

I guessed the creators of civilization simply did not want to offend any modern-governments or organisations as Scotland has the Scottish National Party, the welsh have PC (welsh independence party), and Hibernia was divided early in the 20th century.

If Albion was to be included as a single Civilization Britons, as in Bythantic Celtic Iron Age Britons would probably be the best option.

[JefA]

Wouldn't the advantages from "morphing" civs make these civs totally overpowered in comparison to a nation that cannot morph, like, say, the Americans?

The Americans should arise as the result of morphong from an earlier culture.. english French or German.... all might have come to dominate the colonies in the diff histories that Civ engenders

[JefA]

Having said what I just did in relation to morphing... maybe it could work like JefA has suggested and be a cultural revolution. That would be a major change to the game. I guess we'll have to wait and see if the developers will be that bold!

I saw idea from Vegennes and yes can see its major change... but could have the opportunity for Players to accept or rename the culturally revolting new states (hehe) That way people could develop towards their ideal Canadian or Polish cultures.

And also stealing others ideas...maybe then use an Alpha Centauri "Lite" unit definition to enable the newly revolting cullture to choose from A list of improvements and name a unit....i choos musketeers add improved rate of fire (from 2 deep line) and get Redcoats. I choose tank and add better attack value and get Panzer. I choose Cavalry and add outragously stupid uniform and get Hussar etc

[Imp. Caesar Leo Augustus]

From what's been said above, it looks like morphing wouldn't be without it's problems. Getting the historical aspect correct would be difficult and might, if devised too strictly, limit gameplay. It that proves to be the case, then I doubt we'll have morphing in the game - we all know that gameplay should be the priority.

It might make more sense to use city states here. Specifically in relation to England/Britain, if there was an England civ rather than a British civ, then 'Edinburgh' could be an AI city, effectively a minor civ - the Scottish. The same could be done for Wales and Ireland. If they were the 'minor civs' located near England (perhaps not in every game, but say more often than not) then this could give England the opportunity to conqueur these city states or ally (and eventually merge) with them. Perhaps at that point, the game could allow your civ to be renamed if you like - to Britain. A different flag could also be adopted. A small addition to the game to allow this possibilty to happen would be fun.

Coming back to whether we have England or Britain in the first place, I agree that there are good historical arguments for both. If England is to remain, however, I think it would be a good idea to remove Victoria and Churchill - Elizabeth I, with the addition of Henry VIII (or another) would be more appropriate. The redcoat unit should also be replaced, perhaps with a specialist longbowman, a knight or a naval unit.

We've had an England civ in the past four games. I think it would refreshing to have Britain this time. It would also be more inclusive and I'm inclined to favour the historical agrument over that for England.

Well, I think I've set out my stall there... we'll just have to see what happens now!

Yeah, you got the point. Angles should change their name to English in Mediæval, and to British in Industrial. If it is possible, events may be displayed. Political corretness toward Scots, Welsh and Irish is rather pathetic. This is history, not election promises. Historians can agree that English dominate British Union (and see Europa Universalis 2), like Poles do with Polish-Lithuanian Union, or Aztecs with Triple Alliance (Tenochtitlan dominate whole) and this is nothing special actually. But it should be really nice to saw Britons with King Arthur, Scots with Wallace and Irish with Boru as playable civilizations, or minor as you writed.
About mediæval units i give you examples: Yeoman (Longobwman), Billman, very English specific and unique. For Renaissance: Beefeater and for Industrial Redcoat, Man o' War.

About Americans - I doubt why Yanke name was never used? It is not blasphemy and naming US citizens Americans is rather ugly for me, there are other Americans in continent .

[AstuteClass]

Some great ideas in here. I love the idea of Britain instead of England. I'm half Welsh and half English with a hint of Scottish too, so you can imagine I'm a very proud Brit and hate how our constituent countries separate themselves whereas our armed forces has gotten along, unified as one since forever.

[President Kyle]

i didn't know they were different

[JefA]

Some great ideas in here. I love the idea of Britain instead of England. I'm half Welsh and half English with a hint of Scottish too, so you can imagine I'm a very proud Brit and hate how our constituent countries separate themselves whereas our armed forces has gotten along, unified as one since forever.

Me too Astute

Even in our current much reduced state the United Kingdon is a world power.. not super power any more.

Why do we want to become a balkanised state.. Fall apart like YugoSlavia..maybe start ethnic clensing the welsh scots and Irish comunities in london. And the english in scotland.

A wonderful vision of what Alex will bring to the kingdom. And he will keep asking for refernda till one with the answer he wants slips thru. Alba Alba uber alles

[kenjara]

I say keep they countries seperate.

[sk065]

Historically I would argue that Britain influenced the world more than England ever did.

If the devs do go down the route of including England, choose English leaderheads and not Britssh ones please (Queen Vic)....Its a bit of an insult to the rest of the UK nations.

[kenjara]

Historically I would argue that Britain influenced the world more than England ever did.

If the devs do go down the route of including England, choose English leaderheads and not Britssh ones please (Queen Vic)....Its a bit of an insult to the rest of the UK nations.

As long as good old winston makes it back in im happy. I didnt really care for the queen leaders.

[sk065]

As long as good old winston makes it back in im happy. I didnt really care for the queen leaders.

He was British too....

[kenjara]

He was British too....

True in that case I do not really care if they drop England, unless they decide to add some of the Kings.

[JefA]

He was British too....

and american! (oooh contravercial)

[AstuteClass]

Me too Astute

Even in our current much reduced state the United Kingdon is a world power.. not super power any more.

Why do we want to become a balkanised state.. Fall apart like YugoSlavia..maybe start ethnic clensing the welsh scots and Irish comunities in london. And the english in scotland.

A wonderful vision of what Alex will bring to the kingdom. And he will keep asking for refernda till one with the answer he wants slips thru. Alba Alba uber alles

I think it's one of those things that will never be taken seriously enough to matter or effect change. It's like how States in the US all have their differences, but there's not a hope in hell the US would ever fall apart - same for the UK too.

[JefA]

I think it's one of those things that will never be taken seriously enough to matter or effect change. It's like how States in the US all have their differences, but there's not a hope in hell the US would ever fall apart - same for the UK too.

Yes I have scots blood too.. well border reivers anyway...and most of my scots relatives seem sensible enough .. when sober .. no guys please dont hit me

[mcniece_racing]

I think that the civs are like this for a reason the English have been around for over 2000 years and they have only been in union with Scotland for around 500 years. its the same with Prussia they were the most powerful state of Germany and that union has been around for 140 years so i think that in some senarios its ok to do that but on the whole they should be compleatly different. Although in the game they should civs should be able to form a union with other civs by federation and can declare independence from their union if they wish to be so. but how they would choose a leader for the unions i'm not entirely sure but it would be a good thing to see in civ 5