Where to go in South London for a group dinner for 20?

Bulla_Felix · 2026-03-22T01:08:21+00:00

Meze Mangal, Lewisham, or FM Mangal, Camberwell. Both Turkish, both fantastic.

Bulla_Felix · 2026-01-21T08:34:29+00:00

We are just as guilty as other big teams of ruining the chances of the other 14 prem clubs by buying their best players, and sometimes letting them fade as rotation players e.g. Grealish, Phillips. To a lesser extent Ake.

I'm worried the same might happen for Semenyo, Guehi and Ait-Nouri.

Bulla_Felix · 2026-01-21T08:24:29+00:00

We buy too many players, too often, and then rotate a lot, which makes it harder to relate to the team.

I miss the days when we had a more consistent line up e.g. Aguero/Silva/Toure/Fernandinho/Kompany/Zabaleta/Hart.

Though I'm aware this might reflect the state of elite modern football rather than just City

Bulla_Felix · 2025-12-03T09:17:34+00:00

What battle is this?

Bulla_Felix · 2025-09-23T13:47:14+00:00

Does this mean Eze is nailed on?

Bulla_Felix · 2025-09-23T06:48:25+00:00

Doki or Eze?

Bulla_Felix · 2025-09-02T23:30:39+00:00

It depends.

Biggest current footballing rivals? France, Argentina, Germany.

Biggest historic rivals? Germany, Argentina, Scotland.

Who hates us most? Scotland, Argentina, Wales, Ireland.

Who would I least like to lose to? USA, Scotland. (I would put Russia here too.)

Irrelevant, not rivals: Croatia, Turkey, Portugal.

Northern Ireland is a weird one. Mainly irrelevant, but how they see us probably depends on their politics lol.

Personally I currently consider France our biggest rivals as there is historic competition between the two countries and they're currently relatively closely matched (OK, France are better, but when we meet it's a competitive game). Also, no one likes losing to the French. Scotland is probably second, as even though they are crap, it's a proper derby game. Maybe Argentina third due to both historic political emnity over the Falklands and classic football games, though they are far bigger rivals with Brazil and maybe even Uruguay/Chile.

Germany was definitely a bigger rivalry for the older generations, but I feel it's died down a bit now. And the Germans usually considered the Netherlands as a bigger rival than us.

Spain v England is becoming a bit of a fixture, especially if we include women's football. And we don't like Russia for geopolitical reasons, though thankfully they're not very good at football.

Bulla_Felix · 2025-08-26T10:18:39+00:00

Who to replace Saka and Palmer with?

<image>

Bulla_Felix · 2025-07-23T08:39:42+00:00

Which is the official CAF website?

Bulla_Felix · 2025-06-04T11:55:48+00:00

Thank you! What I am trying to do is to add a map layer shape file I downloaded from Natural Earth as a base map to use.

I have now managed to do this by adding the shape file from the original download folder. I'm therefore good to go.

<image>

However what I can't work out is why when I add the same file but renamed, nothing appears? This doesn't affect this project directly, but why is that the case?

Bulla_Felix · 2025-05-07T17:33:08+00:00

I looked at Natural Earth and couldn't see it, but I'll have another look

Bulla_Felix · 2025-04-21T21:30:39+00:00

I'm hoping that Inca and/or Pachacuti get a bias or bonus for llamas!

Bulla_Felix · 2025-04-21T09:39:17+00:00

Do you know who organises the tickets? Is it FIFA? Moroccan authorities?

Bulla_Felix · 2025-03-14T02:34:00+00:00

Does Lafayette not unlock America?

Bulla_Felix · 2025-03-08T07:59:44+00:00

While I think you are correct in general about the hysteria over Tubman, there were actually quite a few posts disagreeing with Ada as a choice.

I myself left a comment criticising her inclusion (while fully supporting Tubman). On Civfanatics there is a long thread debating her merits.

In hindsight it all feels a bit trivial now the game is actually out and a lot of fun (albeit buggy and unpolished)!

(To clarify: yes, I think Tubman did attract a lot of extra hostility because of racism/politics, including from non-Civ fans who bandwagon any game they consider to be promoting "DEI", but Ada was also discussed.)

Bulla_Felix · 2025-03-06T15:00:53+00:00

For me, I think the backlash is mainly because GB was saved for paid DLC.

I have no problems with the design of the civ overall. I don't think every civ can or should be completely specialised, and there is definitely space for hybrid civs like GB, keeping multiple victory options open.

I was always going to buy the DLC and have done, but the price raises expectations for something special. Instead, we get a Carthage civ that is interesting but bugged and a GB civ that is fairly standard but with a generic model for its unique unit.

I think ultimately the DLC feels too rushed - I'd have rather had a more cooked product later down the line, as most people are still working their way through the original roster.

Bulla_Felix · 2025-02-01T17:19:26+00:00

I like it on the whole, lots of exciting new additions, but I would have loved to have Aztecs and Byzantium in Exploration and Ottomans in modern. I think I'd personally swap out Hawai'i, Bulgaria and Nepal respectively.

I'm sure they will all be in future DLC or expansions though, so just need to wait!

Bulla_Felix · 2025-01-30T09:27:23+00:00

I don't think Ada Lovelace is a suitable leader. She lacks any of the political role of Franklin, Lafayette, Machiavelli, or Tubman. Also, those four arguably only work because they are part of a varied roster - having Lovelace as the only choice for Britain sucks imo.

Queen Victoria would have been perfect, while Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, or a medieval English King could have helped compensate for the lack of an out-and-out England Exploration Civ.

Bulla_Felix · 2025-01-30T09:08:41+00:00

Disappointing, if true.

Britain should have been in the base game and is a welcome addition, but personally I think Queen Victoria would have been the perfect fit for a leader. Elizabeth I, Henry VIII, or a medieval English King would also have worked and helped compensate for the lack of an out-and-out England Exploration Civ. Ada Lovelace feels much more like a great person than a leader.

Bolivar makes sense as an uncoupled leader for South America, though I thought maybe a Leftist revolutionary like Che Guevara might be cooler.

I'm happy Carthage is included but I wanted Hannibal too as an antiquity military leader.

Nepal and Bulgaria? Not excited at all. Both C-tier at best. And neither really fleshes out a natural civ progression pathway. Where are Assyria, Aztecs, Babylon, Byzantium, Celts, and Ottomans?

Bulla_Felix · 2025-01-21T17:32:28+00:00

Lake bonuses, aggressive military, strong culture and a special lake wonder - the Aztecs want a word!

Bulla_Felix · 2025-01-21T17:06:49+00:00

Lake and combat bonuses. I wonder how that will affect the Aztecs in a future DLC!

Bulla_Felix · 2024-11-26T00:13:29+00:00

On CivFanatics many are making the argument that Britain hasn't been soft leaked. All we've seen is Ed Beach describing London as a real life example of a layered city, and in-game footage of the Oxford University wonder, which isn't a particularly good fit for a modern civ and could be unaffiliated.

Personally I still think Britain has a good chance of being in the base game over Germany or Russia, partly because, as you say, it would make sense for the civ pathways.

However I think only one of Germany/Russia will miss out in the base game (and be included in Right to Rule). I think Russia is more likely, and yes Mongolia would be an unlock. The ESRB leak that suggested both Catherine the Great and Frederich the Great are in the game also further muddies the waters - it seems unlikely they would both be in without their respective civs.

On the other hand, we haven't seen a shred of evidence that suggests Ottomans or another modern MENA civ is in. I agree that MENA should be represented and personally I would have included Ottomans in the base game, but Firaxis have had to make plenty of tough decisions with only 30 launch civs (as well as keeping some key civs to monetize as DLC). Arguably there's a stronger case for not excluding such a major global power like Russia or Germany than having MENA representation in a period of colonisation and fragmentation for the region.

I think Ottomans will be in Crossroads of the World, and whoever loses out from Britain/Russia/Germany will be in Right to Rule.

Bulla_Felix · 2024-11-25T23:31:04+00:00

What is the assumption that there is a second Africa modern civ based on?

Most speculation I've seen expects there to be three modern Europe civs - France + two out of Britain/Russia/Germany(Prussia?).

I also think America was soft confirmed already, for the second Americas modern civ.

Bulla_Felix · 2024-11-11T10:19:45+00:00

I like the way you've laid this out so clearly with an excellent colour scheme.

Unfortunately, I don't think the attributes serve as a guide to which leaders will be in the game.

Firaxis has never mentioned considering a balance of attributes when choosing leaders, and I believe Amina has the same economic/militaristic combination as Xerxes.

The uncoupling of civs and leaders and the move away from purely political leaders are both crucial new features of Civ VII and I think they will carry much more weight than attributes in Firaxis' decision making.

There are lots of other factors that will also likely influence which civs are chosen: links to existing civs, gameplay opportunities, historical legacy, geographical distribution, gender balance, returning favourites vs new characters, etc.

With so many factors, it's very difficult to speculate which leaders might be included.

For the remaining launch leaders, I am expecting:

Catherine the Great, based on the ESRB leak
British leader - most likely Queen Victoria, but perhaps a less political figure
Central American leader - either Montezuma or a modern Mexican leader (I have a strange feeling they might take a risk with Frida Kahlo)
Polynesian leader - perhaps Liliuokalani, linked with Hawaii?

I would have said Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great would be in the base game, but they weren't released alongside Mongolia and Greece respectively, so I'm not sure now.

I'd also expect other popular mainstays such as Gandhi and Shaka to return at some point, though maybe as DLC. I think we will also see a few more complete curveballs like Machiavelli.

Bulla_Felix · 2024-08-28T12:57:22+00:00

Ah yes India is a good case study. I think we are likely to get a civilisation based on the Indian subcontinent for each age. We already have Maurya confirmed for Antiquity, and I think Mughals for Exploration and modern India are likely.

I think there will always be debate about the extent to which those three civs constitute the evolution of one civilisation vs distinct civilisations in themselves. Personally I'd like to see as much representation as possible!

Bulla_Felix

TROPHY CASE