No Britain at launch

[Mightymagyar]

Insane.

[Drorith]

Ed Beach I believe mentioned there is a lot more to come for England & great Britain after those dlc.

So as an Englishmen it would be nice to see some more iconic figures.

England age civ (with leaders such as Harold Godwinson (pair with William the conquer as a Norman leader), Alfred the Great, Boudica of the Iceni tribe (good alternative to fight Rome)

Then for more expansion on Great Britain have the likes of Churchill, Nelson (any of the Elizabeth's, Victoria and so on.

There is a lot of potential to be seen.

[Elliott]

As a Brit I really don't care England isn't in on launch. There are always 'big' omissions on every Civ launch.

Civ V did not have Spain or Inca.
Civ VI did not have Ottomans or Mongols.

Ed Beach the game director is a self confessed Anglophile there is no way it was some deliberate snub. If anything the DLC/Expansion civs usually get more interesting/unique mechanics so If you love playing British civs it might work out better.

The only Civs I think they would never omit from the launch of a new Civ are America, China and Rome for obvious reasons.

As for leaders I do hope we get a Prime Minister for a change. Attlee would be cool but Churchill would also be a good pick as a powerful war leader perhaps leaning towards defense.

[Drorith]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Elliott:

As a Brit I really don't care England isn't in on launch. There are always 'big' omissions on every Civ launch.

Civ V did not have Spain or Inca.
Civ VI did not have Ottomans or Mongols.

Ed Beach the game director is a self confessed Anglophile there is no way it was some deliberate snub. If anything the DLC/Expansion civs usually get more interesting/unique mechanics so If you love playing British civs it might work out better.

The only Civs I think they would never omit from the launch of a new Civ are America, China and Rome for obvious reasons.

As for leaders I do hope we get a Prime Minister for a change. Attlee would be cool but Churchill would also be a good pick as a powerful war leader perhaps leaning towards defense.

Churchill indeed would be very good choice. Attlee less so imo.

[Aragorn83]

Oprindeligt skrevet af JM64:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Aragorn83:

I just don't understand why you Brits complain about that situation. For 400 hundred years your civilization robbed other parts of the world for your prosperity luxury and wealth, leading the world into the capitilist age of your success.

You're right, Britain was the only civilisation ever to do this; every other civilisation that flourished before or since was a peace loving hippy culture who never did anything bad or hurt anyone or took anything that anyone else could say was theirs.

Who cares what others did? You just get what you deserve and what you were fighting for. Why are you complaining?

[Ramesses XII]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Nats:

Just looked at the list of countries per age:

The exploration age looks really lame there is only the Normans I would pick (ok maybe Spain) the rest are crap. But what exploration did the Normans ever do? They only went to Britain lol.

And the modern age - no Britain but they have got Buganda? WTF? Who the hell is Buganda?

Are these dev nuts? How to ruin your game franchise.

Egypt can't win this thing, right? Because nobody wins at the antiquity age, okay?

So fellow British, support diversity, equity and inclusion of civilizations, make the antiquity age, survive the exploration age, play Buganda and fight for the hegemony of the Commonwealth of Nations at the modern age.

Who needs the UK when Buganda is the icing on the cake?

Note: This is my attempt at British humour to show my solidarity with this topic.

[Qoojo]

I saw video where they said England was difficult to add in civ 6 and they had to redesign stuff after completing due to issues, and that shouldn't be a problem this time. Not sure what was so difficult about adding to civ 6, but might be part of reason why not in release of civ 7.

[Nats]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Qoojo:

I saw video where they said England was difficult to add in civ 6 and they had to redesign stuff after completing due to issues, and that shouldn't be a problem this time. Not sure what was so difficult about adding to civ 6, but might be part of reason why not in release of civ 7.

But it is going to be in the game, but only if you buy the dlc. So thats a load of rubbish isnt it? If its in the March dlc they could easily add it into the release. They have deliberately made the decision to exclude it from the base game.

[Elliott]

I'll admit I'm not familiar with all the civs in Civ 7 including Bugunda but it takes me back to my formative years playing Age of Empires 2 and Civ 4. Then as now I was confronted with civs I'd never heard of before.

Goths? Byzantines? Aztecs? Never heard of them. History education in my school was basically Roman Britain - Tudors - Industrial Revolution - WW1 - Rise of Nazis/WW2.

Those games prompted me to look into those civs myself and learn about something new. So personally I don't see the inclusion of civs I'm not familiar with as a problem.

[neonhigh]

I'm glad we're getting it at all tbh. Especially given that the leader we get is one of my favourite historical figures. She's the reason we're even able to use computers.

[k8507185070]

It;s obviously all about money,put popular civ in the first dlc to make players buying it.
I can remember back when CIV6 launch there is although a lot business controversy,but CIV7 is just another level,the price,the propaganda,GB in dlc blabla.

[Smoked]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Mightymagyar:

Insane.

No stress, you can buy em for mere 30 dollars after one week lol

[JM64]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Aragorn83:

Oprindeligt skrevet af JM64:

Who cares what others did? You just get what you deserve and what you were fighting for. Why are you complaining?

Don't think I was complaining was I? I may have been commenting on the logic of another post

[Aragorn83]

Oprindeligt skrevet af JM64:

Oprindeligt skrevet af Aragorn83:

Who cares what others did? You just get what you deserve and what you were fighting for. Why are you complaining?

Don't think I was complaining was I? I may have been commenting on the logic of another post

Ok. Maybe I misunderstood your message

[Foulcher]

They need to keep content for DLCs

[Sledge]

Oprindeligt skrevet af Aragorn83:

Oprindeligt skrevet af friglite2006:

Britain consists of England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. (Apart from Wales perhaps) the most influential and culturally powerful civilisations we have, both regarding technology, ideas, and literature.
At least one of them deserves to be in the base game and the rest through DLCs.

I just don't understand why you Brits complain about that situation. For 400 hundred years your civilization robbed other parts of the world for your prosperity luxury and wealth, leading the world into the capitilist age of your success. Now you get that capitalistic culture of splitting games into pieces like DLCs to earn more mone for capitalistc companies like 2K. We all know that England was excluded from the game so that people would buy more DLCs and spend more money on the game. That is what Britain wanted and that is what you get. Why do you complain? It's just simple logic.

400 years of history and the largest empire in recorded history, all the more reason to have it included at launch.

The very PC you'll be playing this on is rooted in British history, ingenuity and invention, only to be further Pioneered and innovated on by the North Americans, a country born of the result of British colonisation

"That is what Britain wanted" : Really? How so? I'd actually love for you to elaborate on this one because I'm quite interested in your educated take on this?

Have you actually read "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith? Genuine question.

--

Anyway, going to pass on C7 for now, plenty to play as it is and I can always fall back to previous instalments if necessary.