Henry VIII

if they have and british guy it should be david camron

aceflamingo23 said:

if they have and british guy it should be david camron

Click to expand...

They should have a leaderhead for each era.

I don’t usually bother about the detail of leader attributes in Civ, but have a few points to add here as an interested Brit:-

• Both Victoria and Churchill have appeared as leaders in previous Civ versions
• The English UA (spy, water mobility) is not a bad fit to Elizabeth, but neither of the UU are characteristic of the Tudor period. A UU based on pike or cannon would be more appropriate:- witness the Battle of Flodden Field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Flodden; albeit in Henry VIII reign), arguably the most important battle leading to union between England and Scotland but generally given a wide berth by both parties due to the horrific carnage meted out by the English on Scots royalty and nobility.
• Longbow:- either Edward III or Henry V, both charismatic warrior-kings
• Ship of the Line:- George III, who ruled throughout the “Nelson period”, but who is generally belittled as “The King Who Lost America”. UU/UB based on the ironclad, factory or Public School would be a better fit for Victoria.
• As mentioned in previous posts, George and Victoria were constitutional monarchs and Prime Ministers such as Pitt, Gladstone or Disraeli would be more appropriate “leaders” in their stead (rather like Bismarck acts as leader for Germany).
• Only the English UA fits with Churchill (we always love our spies, warships and explorers, win or lose).

The reason why the leaderheads have units and abilities that don't be necessarily match them is because they wanted to represent the civilization more than just a certain period. I guess that's also an argument for multiple leaders, but I, for one, prefer more civilizations over more leaders for each one.

The_Quasar said:

Henry VIII actually put in place many of the policies that Lizzy benefited from, like a modern navy. His marriages were a distraction, but the English, and later British Empire was all the stronger for his rule. His achievements are mostly overlooked because folk tend to focus on his marriages.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Britain and the monarchy was damaged severely by H8.

First, his father left him and the country with very full coffers which Henry very successfully squandered away on tourneys, conspicuous consumption and ill advised military campaigns which had no long term strategic vision (swinging between French then Holy Roman Empire then back to French alliances based on Henry's mood). No matter how depraved the monasteries etc might have become, they were dissolved in part so Henry could refill his coffers.

And it was not just various wives he did away with. Days after his coronation, he had the 2 ministers who put the kingdom in such good financial shape arrested and executed. Likewise Cardinal Wolsey, Cromwell, Thomas Moore were all dismissed and executed (W. had a heart attack when summoned) when they displeased HRM. Add to that several bishops and cardinals who resisted and you have a despot.

The realm was nearly bankrupt when Liz came to power - the religious swings of Edward and Mary didnt help, but it was Henry who did the most damage. I cant recall the amount estimated to have been spent at the Field of Cloth of Gold alone, but Henry's horse was decorated with over 2000 oz of gold and 1000 pearls - for an event that yielded nothing except to the egos of Henry and Francis.

Secondly, Henry irrevocably damaged the institution of the monarchy. He knew he could not simply proclaim himself head of the Church of England, so he resorted to having Parliament 'petition him' to become head; likewise he repeatedly resorted to Parliament to dissolve unwanted marriages.

In doing so, he put in play that Parliament has a say in the scope and nature of the monarchy. In less than 100 years, Parliament would find it proper and constitutional to depose and behead kings they dislike and later even decide who might be king and define the limits of the power of the monarch.

As for the navy, Henry did expand it as much for reasons practical to an island kingdom as to be seen as one of Europe's power brokers. More important was creating institutions like the Admiralty and royal shipyards which would eventually combine to become the Royal Navy. The navy itself - the ships - went into steady decline because about half had been financed from the proceeds of the monasteries and you can only pillage them once.

It was under Liz that the Dreadnaught and full rigged and 'race' ships were introduced and all naval warfare was changed with a new focus on guns, gunnery tech, speed and maneuvers. Where Henry's ships were bigger, Liz's redefined naval warfare with credit due to both of them.

Morningcalm said:

Edward Longshanks is a solid choice....if you want to enrage any Scots playing the game. Henry V is probably a better option--and more recognizable. That said, I would like to see them go with Victoria in a later game--v. recognizable, and also female.

For other female leaders they could pick Hatshepsut (warrior, architect, trader, monument builder), Jadwiga of Poland, a successful female ruler who also held the title of "King" Finally, Queen Seondeok of Silla Korea (warrior, artist, monument builder, astronomer, deeply religious ala Wu Zetian). So that takes care of some of the females. Russia having a male ruler would work--but then you'd probably have to preserve Dido for Carthage, Theodora for Byzantium--which, since they're relatively new on the stage, isn't a bad thing. China could definitely use Qin Shi Huangdi or Kangxi as a new ruler (he ruled China for the longest period of any emperor, and ushered in an era of peace), and India needs Akbar, the religiously-tolerant warrior-artist, instead of Gandhi for once (though Akbar was Mughal).

Click to expand...

Akbar being Mughal isn't really an issue since the Indian Ub is the Mughal Fort. Russia could work easily with a male leader. Peter the Great, Ivan the Terrible, Alexander II or Lenin could all work well as leader. Phillip II Augustus (successfully strengthened royal power and weekend the English in France) or Louis XIV would be good choices for France. Interesting choices for Germany could Charles IV (peaceful, cultural and scientific leader) or Frederick I Barbarossa.

Art Grin said:

Akbar being Mughal isn't really an issue since the Indian Ub is the Mughal Fort. Russia could work easily with a male leader. Peter the Great, Ivan the Terrible, Alexander II or Lenin could all work well as leader. Phillip II Augustus (successfully strengthened royal power and weekend the English in France) or Louis XIV would be good choices for France. Interesting choices for Germany could Charles IV (peaceful, cultural and scientific leader) or Frederick I Barbarossa.

Click to expand...

Good point on the Mughals. I didn't say Russia wouldn't work with a male ruler--but that you'd have to compensate for the lack of Catherine (female ruler) by keeping female rulers of other nations. I think Peter the Great would be the best choice there.

Louis XIV for France I think--he's so often associated with French cultural power that he's impossible to ignore. Plus, they could present him as both the powerful and fru-fru leader that he was without resorting to *too much* French stereotype.