Different capital hypothesis

[nzcamel]

We'll have to take the less relevant parts of our disagreement (i.e. pretty much the whole thing) to a more suitable forum

 

[VermelhoRed]

There's no clear connection between having different capital and different cultural tradition. Rome was the capital of Roman Republic, Roman Empire, Papal States and Italy. If Trajan blocks Roman Republic leaders from appearing, the design decision doesn't look good.

Yeah but all those other stuffs wouldn't be able to appear together in any other model anyways. Papal States can't ever appear in Civ because their capital is Rome and Rome's capital is Rome and there can't be two Romes (and no, neither of these two can appear without Rome!) Similarly, there's no way for a Republican leader and Trajan to appear simultaneously, the only way would be to return to the way in Civ 4 where you could pick your leader but there's only one leader of a single civ on the map. This current "the multiple leaders can fight each other" rule excludes Republican leaders anyway.

I cant see them using Confederate leaders because they don't represent the whole culture, and they will certainly leave Native American leaders for their own tribes.

To play devil's advocate, neither do Gorgo or Pericles represent the whole culture. I can definitely understand the many reservations you guys have against Confederate leaders, but I think it'll be the most interesting way to give America a second leader.

- Italy: Controversial to have them, but Turin and Florence could both have a say, and knowing the Civ series I wouldn't put "Roma" past them.

Yeah maybe we'll finally get Italy! I was against Italy in Civ 5 because from the general rule of Capitals they had back them, it would be unthinkable for Italy not to have Rome as its capital. With Civ 6's new capital rules, we can finally have an acceptable Italy, with Dandolo ruling from Venice, some Medici ruling from Florence or Matilda of Canossa ruling from Canossa, and as long as there's more than one of those, it would make perfect sense!

For example, Sparta and Athens were very different. The idea is that this might be a way to use different leaders as a well to highlight some of the changes that went on throughout the history of a Civilisation. In that context, "here are some popular presidents" doesn't come across as particularly inspiring. Maybe Jefferson Davis isn't such a bad idea in that respect, it would capture the racism inherent in American culture for the vast majority of it's existence. I mean, it's a terrible choice in pretty much every other respect, and that's not really one that they would, or should, touch.

Yes, that's what I mean!

America has never been more or less racist than anywhere else in the world. It's a human condition everywhere.

That is something hard to evaluate, there is no "racistometer" to measure racism objectively, but I'd like to mention that the Ku Klux Klan and the other similar organizations that were found in the US have no comparison in any other American country.

In my opinion it's more interesting if a second leader also represents a different era or focus of civ. This often comes with a different capitol anyway.
Having another leader for Spain, England, France, Germany or Egypt that covers a completely different aspect/era of those civs seems worthy for me (because I still think every one or two alternate leaders will reduce the amount of civs). For all of those, another capital seems possible and easy to find.

I have some problems with another roman emperor or american president, I don't want to talk them down, but to me this wouldn't be as thrilling or new. A leader from roman republican times seems interesting though (Cicero? Cato?). Washington can be interesting if he emphasizes the revolution aspect, I admit that.
Having Lincoln or Jefferson to me (as a German) feels like adding Frederick Stupor Mundi for Germany: an incredible leader, very different from Barbarossa, but still too similar as in 'another medieval one that lead more or less the same thing'. If they would add Bismarck, Prussian Frederick or even a non-leader like Wallenstein the alternate leader would feel much more like a good investment to me.

Agreed completely! You said what I meant to say but better

This all said, to be completely honest, I don't see why America of all civilisations needs more than one leader. It is a young nation with a fairly homogeneous history.

It's not always about outright impact, but about interest and difference. "Here are three white men, who lead the USA in the lead up to, or during wars, and could fit in the period of 100 years". Awesome! Imagine if they went with Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar and Trajan. Imagine how interesting that would be.

Agreed!

Said homogeneous history was a serious front runner to lifting millions of people out of poverty world wide.

First, that is not what makes for an interesting leader or civ in this game. Second, that is extremely arguable, as many Central Americans would definitely say!

 

[ales_]

there can't be two Romes

We had Constantinople and Istanbul.

 

[Rajul]

Milan was the capital of the (Western) Roma Empire from 286 to 402. So we can have Diocletian as a potential roman leader with Milan as the capital. Also from 402 Ravenna was the capital.

 

[Silent23]

I cant see them using Confederate leaders because they don't represent the whole culture, and they will certainly leave Native American leaders for their own tribes. Also, didn't Frederick rule from Berlin? While I'd love to see him back, I think Bismark is a much better candidate for different gameplay from Barbarossa. They will surely have Sweden again, so I doubt Norway will get another leader. And I don't see Sumeria getting another leader either, considering they structured both UAs around Gilgamesh.

Frederick ruled as emperor of Prussia from Berlin, but as king from... what I put in. Admittedly, I copied and pasted that. I went through every civ we have, thought about if there were any other leaders that could have other capitals, and plugged in the ones I found. I don't know enough about Norwegian leaders, so I just put in the one that someone made a custom civ based around. I thought his capital would be Oslo, but it wasn't.

I didn't go for Berlin because I wanted Otto ruling from Berlin. If I were to choose my primary choice for each civ, Bismarck would be my primary German leader, given he's the most prominent leader of Germany as a nation in culture that hasn't been frequently portrayed as a villain or is currently ruling. I didn't list him because I didn't want to retread what had already been said. I just listed any new ones I could throw in. Davis had already been mentioned, but I just listed him to discuss my realization that America was "America" and not the "United States" opened the door for any "American" peoples to be included under the umbrella. It at least holds as much merit as a Byzantine leader ruling Rome... save for Constantine ruling Rome from Constantinople.

Speaking of all the talk of sharing capitals... we've had this trouble for years and years with the Ottomans and Byzantines.

...and as I type this out I got ninja'd by Ales. Curse you, sir.

They're talking about cultural aspects of the nation they lead, not the person.

For example, Sparta and Athens were very different. The idea is that this might be a way to use different leaders as a well to highlight some of the changes that went on throughout the history of a Civilisation. In that context, "here are some popular presidents" doesn't come across as particularly inspiring. Maybe Jefferson Davis isn't such a bad idea in that respect, it would capture the racism inherent in American culture for the vast majority of it's existence. I mean, it's a terrible choice in pretty much every other respect, and that's not really one that they would, or should, touch.

In the 2K Forums segment of the Civ Community, when people argue about the cromulence of a civilizaion and leader as a part of the game, generally people come out and just say "Screw importance/cultural impact/longevity of this civilization. Give me a UA/UU/gameplay mechanic. Give me how it will uniquely work into the game." This is how we got Venice above many other worthy civilizations for inclusion.

You can argue that a few different presidents isn't interesting or lacks variety. I'll say that's a completely insane suggestion. Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and Roosevelt all ruled very different nations in culture and circumstances, and could all play very differently. FDR, who I'd love to see return, would focus on economic advancement through or beside military strength. As we've seen in this game, Teddy is the protector of his neighbors and peacekeeper through military, with a love for the outdoors and preservation of nature on the side. They'd all have different nuanced abilities, units, etc.

Yeah but all those other stuffs wouldn't be able to appear together in any other model anyways. Papal States can't ever appear in Civ because their capital is Rome and Rome's capital is Rome and there can't be two Romes (and no, neither of these two can appear without Rome!) Similarly, there's no way for a Republican leader and Trajan to appear simultaneously, the only way would be to return to the way in Civ 4 where you could pick your leader but there's only one leader of a single civ on the map. This current "the multiple leaders can fight each other" rule excludes Republican leaders anyway.

"Vatican City"?

 

[LAnkou]

For french leaders, there is the obvious Versailles for Louis XIV.
You could go to Reims for capetians king, which is where king are crowned (Philippe Auguste Anyone?)
Orléans could be a ok for Louis XIII and some other kings
If Tours is given to Marie de Medicis, Napoleon could go with Paris...

And just for the joke, London for Charles de Gaulle where he set his famous call...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

For french leaders, there is the obvious Versailles for Louis XIV.
You could go to Reims for capetians king, which is where king are crowned (Philippe Auguste Anyone?)
Orléans could be a ok for Louis XIII and some other kings
If Tours is given to Marie de Medicis, Napoleon could go with Paris...

And just for the joke, London for Charles de Gaulle where he set his famous call...

That would be good...maybe not London (to avoid overlap), but Braazaville or Algiers as a capital might be interesting... (assuming Paris is first on the French list they would eventually found it...Or liberate it if another French leader is in the game)
[is Catherine's capital Paris..or did she primarily reside somewhere else?]

 

[VermelhoRed]

We had Constantinople and Istanbul.

Those have different names so we can at least pretend they were different cities. Rome however has just one name. (Please don't be one of those Roma-ists)

Milan was the capital of the (Western) Roma Empire from 286 to 402. So we can have Diocletian as a potential roman leader with Milan as the capital. Also from 402 Ravenna was the capital.

Oh yeah we could, but why would anyone have Diocletian instead of Constantine?

"Vatican City"?

The Papal States capital was always the full city of Rome, the Popes themselves never resided in the modern Vatican. Vatican City is a city-state formed after the Papal States' dissolution, so I'd say it's fine as a religious city-state but never as the capital of the Papal States. There's Avignon too, but that would be lame. If it's to depict the Papal States improperly, better not have them at all.

For french leaders, there is the obvious Versailles for Louis XIV.
You could go to Reims for capetians king, which is where king are crowned (Philippe Auguste Anyone?)
Orléans could be a ok for Louis XIII and some other kings
If Tours is given to Marie de Medicis, Napoleon could go with Paris...

And just for the joke, London for Charles de Gaulle where he set his famous call...

That would be good...maybe not London (to avoid overlap), but Braazaville or Algiers as a capital might be interesting... (assuming Paris is first on the French list they would eventually found it...Or liberate it if another French leader is in the game)
[is Catherine's capital Paris..or did she primarily reside somewhere else?]

Yeah I'm getting more and more excited with the possibility of Charles de Gaulle ruling from Brazzaville! That would be very cool, even if it's a big stretch.

 

[wildlumberjack]

If they try to have at least one man and one woman then it's more likely Byzantine aka Eastern Rome be led by Theodora (hello again) instead of Constantine.

 

[Manifold]

We had Constantinople and Istanbul.

Vatican City should be at most a CS

 

[What.Do.You.Mean.Its.3AM]

Aachen for Barbarossa? That's quite interesting. I thought Aachen was only capital for Charlemagne, and then abandoned/forgotten in time.

 

[Olleus]

Can someone explain to me why there can't be two cities called Rome or Paris in the same game?

 

[Browd]

Rampant confusion, riots on the classical era roads, cats and dogs living together....

 

[Olleus]

I'm curious, if you manually rename cities in Civ5 (or any others for the matter), are you allowed to give them the same name?

 

[Silent23]

I'm curious, if you manually rename cities in Civ5 (or any others for the matter), are you allowed to give them the same name?

I've come across this situation before, and no, you can't.

 

[nzcamel]

Aachen for Barbarossa? That's quite interesting. I thought Aachen was only capital for Charlemagne, and then abandoned/forgotten in time.

If true, that gives me hope that they will still go for the best leaders who fit the 'big personality' theme regardless of whether they can have their proper capital or not

Rampant confusion, riots on the classical era roads, cats and dogs living together....

Lmao!

 

[Silent23]

There's one thing that sticks in my craw with this whole theory. I know it may be a bit obvious given my avatar, and I don't want to come off too much as a fanboy, but I don't know how it works with Napoleon. Big personality, prominence in history, iconic status in the Civ series... he checks all the boxes for inclusion, but I don't know if you could include him with any capital but Paris. Is there any alternative?

 

[stealth_nsk]

There's one thing that sticks in my craw with this whole theory. I know it may be a bit obvious given my avatar, and I don't want to come off too much as a fanboy, but I don't know how it works with Napoleon. Big personality, prominence in history, iconic status in the Civ series... he checks all the boxes for inclusion, but I don't know if you could include him with any capital but Paris. Is there any alternative?

That's one of the reasons why I don't think the theory is totally right. Surely developers will try to keep different capitals, but in some cases they are likely use same capital anyway.

 

[Ulthwithian]

One easy solution for some Civs is to modify the capital of the existing leader when a new leader for a Civ is released.

I have no idea how easy this would be for CdM in France, but changing Kyoto to Kamakura for Hojo Tokimune (which would not be correct) if they wanted to add another leader for Japan with Kyoto as the capital. (Probably a Fujiwara but who knows?)

Why I say Kyoto for Tokimune is accurate is that Tokimune technically didn't rule Japan for the Emperor. He administrated it. The term bakufu is pretty clear here. Sure, the Japanese Emperor reigned without ruling in this period, but that doesn't actually change the capital of the Japanese State. (And, as someone pointed out upthread, the Hojo were a proxy to a proxy (the Shogun) to the de jure ruler of Japan (the Emperor). Frankly, the entire history of the Japanese State shows an obsession with rule by proxy.

I don't think Tokugawa Ieyasu would be a good choice for leader of Japan simply because of the name of the Civ's UA: Meiji Restoration. Otherwise... he'd be a good choice for an expansion dealing with revolution and such, seeing as he and his grandson (IIRC) created a very effective means of preventing said revolution.

For the person who asked earlier, Godaigo ruled from his grave. A bit of humor there, but he ruled between 1333 and 1336, and it was the last mistake he ever made. (He ruled from Kyoto until his disturbingly sudden death and the formation of the Ashikaga Shogunate.)

If Mao is too controversial as the leader of a Communistic China Civ, Zhou Enlai would be an acceptable substitute to the Chinese. His stature in the PRC is apparently unsurpassed, or so I've been told.

 

[Martinus]

Incidentally, it would be interesting to see Kublai Khan as a leader of China ruling from Karakorum...