Choosing Harald Bluetooth as a Danish leader=******ed

EDIT* Changed the word "ret*rded" from the Title. Would have changed it earlier, but since it's ages that I started this topic, I thought it would "die", but seems to go on and on.

BY ALL MEANS I DID NOT MEAN it to refer to "a person with a medical condition", that didn't even cross my mind. And NEVER would I do that. Some of my American friends use that "ret*rded"-word fairly often so I didn't know some people would get offended. Now I know better. I am very sorry for everyone that got offended by that word.

*Havuoksa

All respect to unifying Denmark a bit more, and especially turning to Christianity, forcibly or not (pretty moving story he removed his father's grave from a Viking burial mound to a Christian grave), the single most True leader would have been Knut (Canute) The Great. Meaning, ruling aside Denmark, ENGLAND etc. etc.! I can confess that I am a distant distant distant relative to Knut The Great, believe it or not, but anyone who knows the slightest of Nordic history would agree with me.

Maybe another Civ5-rant? Didn't mean that, it's just the way things have gone down since the most incredible game of Universe has ever experienced: Civ4 Beyond The Sword. City-States are almost the only thing better from the previous. (Looking seriously forward to Gods & Kings on Tuesday's mail.)

I paid the astounding amount of one Euro and 50 cents for this Denmark, so guess I'm playing it happily.

Agrees, disagrees?

Moderator Action: Please watch your language (considering the title).

******ed is such a strong word.

But then how could they make an achievement related to Bluetooth technology?

It doesn't bother me much. Harald looks and sounds great in the game and has the best "defeated" animation in the game.

drubell said:

But then how could they make an achievement related to Bluetooth technology?

It doesn't bother me much. Harald looks and sounds great in the game and has the best "defeated" animation in the game.

Click to expand...

LÖL. Looking forward to that defeat.
Still I hail for Knut The Great, he's George Washington of Denmark. (Same as picking an earlier, some at that time English, less less lesser leader for USA.

I'm of Han ethnicity and I had never heard of Wu Zetian until the release of CiV. I've lived in Canada all my life though so my knowledge of Chinese history isn't exactly complete. Qin Shi Huang and Kubilai are still way more famous and I bet if you ask anybody in China, they'd be like "what? who's Wu Zetian?"

ptoss1 said:

I'm of Han ethnicity and I had never heard of Wu Zetian until the release of CiV. I've lived in Canada all my life though so my knowledge of Chinese history isn't exactly complete. Qin Shi Huang and Kubilai are still way more famous and I bet if you ask anybody in China, they'd be like "what? who's Wu Zetian?"

Click to expand...

Well, yeah. But there has been Mao Zedong and another leader that i don't remember. This is the first leader of Denmark. I do somehow understand Gods&Kings decision of Kustaa Aadolf (is that Gustaf Adolphus?) of Sweden because at his conquers (with Finnish Hakkapeliittas) he made such an impression to Europe. Again, anyone who'd ask, it would be Kustaa Vaasa (Gustaf Vasa) in Sweden at the very top of leaders choice.

Game-makers have problems of history outside USA/France/England?

Has England and France ever not have Napoleon and Elizabeth?

As for France I would be a little upset that Napoleon was their defining leader. The guy was nothing but a power grabber and warmonger essentially being France's Hitler. I don't think he executed millions of people like Hitler though.

It feels to me like using the most prominent leaders or civs from history has not been the only priority this game. Composing the game of interesting or diverse leaders has been an important factor as well. It doesn't really bother me.

drubell said:

But then how could they make an achievement related to Bluetooth technology?

It doesn't bother me much. Harald looks and sounds great in the game and has the best "defeated" animation in the game.

Click to expand...

I like Harald. He's not too obvious, but at the same time he's deserving. George Washington or Elizabeth I didn't rule their countries at their period of greatest extent. Relatively few of the included leaders were 'unifiers' (the Maya certainly weren't unified under Pacal the Great, for instance, nor were the Celts under Boudica). Oda Nobunaga didn't rule a unified Japan, nor did he unify Japan; that was his immediate successor. You wouldn't say Napoleon isn't a worthy choice of French leader because France was already unified when he ran it.

There have been leaders chosen for Civ V who people have argued strongly against, but on better grounds than "Canute was more important". Harald was an important Danish ruler.

Also, there's another consideration. In personality and appearance, Harald in Civ V is a bit of an oaf; a fun guy if you're on his side, but not very bright and not someone who knows when to quit. Being at least slightly obscure, he has the advantage that I don't know enough about him to know if that's a fair portrayal - but I do know it wouldn't seem right for Canute. The designers specifically wanted a stereotype Viking for the civ's leader, and Canute really doesn't fit that mould - he was a conqueror rather than a raider, he was a good administrator, and he established the limits of his realm in England through negotiation, not really 'Viking' traits.

As for France I would be a little upset that Napoleon was their defining leader. The guy was nothing but a power grabber and warmonger essentially being France's Hitler.

Click to expand...

Napoleon was an extremely capable administrator and set the basis for the modern liberal legal code throughout mainland Europe (known, by an odd coincidence, as the Napoleonic Code). He was certainly a very successful general and empire-builder, but it's hard to see why that's a bad thing in the context of a game like Civilization.

And no, France didn't have Napoleon in Civ I - the Civ I leader was Philip I.

PhilBowles said:

And no, France didn't have Napoleon in Civ I - the Civ I leader was Philip I.

Click to expand...

Philip sure looks like Napoleon.

Junuxx said:

Philip sure looks like Napoleon.

Click to expand...

Hmm, I was sure Philip I was the French leader in an early Civ game - and that the capital was Rheims rather than Paris.

If they want to use a viking Denmark, Harald is the obvious choice. Anyone who reigned after him was king of a Christianized Denmark, and vikings without Norse mythology would just be weird. He was also the first king to rule over a unified Denmark, so earlier kings are also weaker choices.

For a post-viking Denmark, you could argue for Knud/Canute, but he'd be completely eclipsed by Christian IV, the obvious choice.

The only place I could see Knud in a civ game would be as the leader of a Scandinavian civilization, but I doubt we'll see that particular civilization again; future civ games will probably have Denmark and Sweden as DLC forever. He or Margrethe I would both be good choices, and hopefully they'd be used over Ragnar Hairybreeches.

Good points, PhilBowles,

but, how much Viking does it have to be for DENMARK, really?

And, I don't think it's gonna be Denmark and Sweden forever now for forthcoming editions, why would it? (Finland has to come someday for example, I'd like it to be a mix of ancient things, like Rune-singers posted on these forums, and ultra-modern).

holmes yall europeans be all too obsess about yall heritage. in missippi, everyone don no who they ancestors be because we have are own identity.

aceflamingo23 said:

holmes yall europeans be all too obsess about yall heritage. in missippi, everyone don no who they ancestors be because we have are own identity.

Click to expand...

...got nothing to do with heritage. Especially not with my heritage, which is Finnish, regardless if some Knut The Great did something 1000 years ago. Thought it was Americans who are always so keen about heritage.

Anyway, this is purely about Denmark and it's best leader of choice, for the first appearance of Denmark in Civilization.

havuoksa said:

Good points, PhilBowles,

but, how much Viking does it have to be for DENMARK, really?

And, I don't think it's gonna be Denmark and Sweden forever now for forthcoming editions, why would it? (Finland has to come someday for example, I'd like it to be a mix of ancient things, like Rune-singers posted on these forums, and ultra-modern).

Click to expand...

They chose Denmark, I think, to represent the Vikings (as the Civ was called in both Civ III and Civ IV), not the Vikings to represent Denmark - they felt (rightly, in my view) that associating the Viking civ with a specific nation was more characterful than just having "The Vikings". And given the inevitably Anglophone bias of the game generally, the Danes were the most natural choice - they were the most successful, and feared, Norse group to raid in England, while the Norwegian Vikings are best-known for having their fearsome leader drown in his own blood at Stamford Bridge.

I'm a bit nonplussed by Sweden as a civ, but in principle I like the idea that Scandinavia is represented not just by Vikings but by a civ showcasing its later role in European affairs. I wouldn't want to play as Sweden, but my first game with them as an AI presented an interesting decision, since DoF with them gives me a bonus, but would (and did) upset more powerful rivals - to renew or not renew? AI civs that give specific bonuses based on your diplomatic relations are I think a nice idea.

You know what ticks me of as being Indian. The Indian Civ. UA prevents you from going for a wide empire and despite all the things that Gandhi did he wasn't even a Civ like leader. It would be like having MLK for USA. That being said there were alot of much better historical civs they could have used. The Mauryas, Guptas, Mughals, Harrapans, Tughlaks and great militaristic leaders like King Porous (stopped Alexander), Shivaji.

Rant aside but for the OP, have you tried the 1066 scenario. It actually features several different Civs from the region?

What SERIOUSLY "ticked me" when i found out about Sweden about Gods&Kings, their ABSOLUTELY SECOND, let me repeat second, city was Helsinki! Could there be a more humiliating thing to all Finnish Civ-buyers??
Yes, there could, Sweden is FILLED with those unimportant towns "crowned to" town-status in 1900's here in Finland. Like LAHTI, ot KOUVOLA for Chrissake!!! Those towns that took the refugees out of Stalin's attack in a MINUTE (and therefor got population).

Wow.

Just.

Wow.

ptoss1 said:

I'm of Han ethnicity and I had never heard of Wu Zetian until the release of CiV. I've lived in Canada all my life though so my knowledge of Chinese history isn't exactly complete. Qin Shi Huang and Kubilai are still way more famous and I bet if you ask anybody in China, they'd be like "what? who's Wu Zetian?"

Click to expand...

Actually, I think she is fairly well known - at least to my Cantonese relatives. They all think of her as extraordinarily ruthless but a great empress, and I'd say that qualifies her as the Civ leader pretty well.

Yeah and all these rants!

Maybe it's about having Denmark as the most prominent "Scandinavian" Civilization... Can't handle that? I wouldn't.

On those posts I found that people "dissed" the actual most prominent, Sweden-FINLAND (Finns who did the most of wars, Hakkapeliittas in Gods&Kings a one example). "Hakkapeliitta" comes from a Finnish rant of "hakkaa" and "päälle", too familiar to Soviets also in 1939...

BUT,
Denmark as the size of Finland, and a tiny proportion of land of it, maybe you'd say next time of "Scandinavian CIV" more closely, the REAL match of all history maps and books.

Sweden(-Finland) would without a doubt be THE Civilization of "Norden". Not Denmark.


PS.Too damn tired to say in US /Canada that Finns are NORDIC not Scandinavian (purely Norwegian and Swedes, not even Danish). Well, nobody would figure?