A Really Great Civilization Game: A thought experiment

[Mr. Salt]

If the next Civ game is to be great, it has to have the greatest rulers of any Civ game. And who will decide the greatest rulers? Well, this Wikipedia page on which leaders have earned the title "The Great", of course.

Babylon led by Nebuchadnezzar II
Byzantium led by Justinian/Manuel I Komnenos
China led by Taizong of Tang/Kublai Khan
Egypt led by Ramesses II
England led by Canute
Ethiopia led by Iyasu
France led by Louis XIV
Georgia led by Tamar
Germany led by Frederick II
Greece led by Alexander
Hungary led by Louis I
India led by Ashoka
Japan led by Meiji
Korea led by Sejong
Maya led by Pacal
Mongolia led by Genghis Khan/Kublai Khan
Norway led by Canute
Persia led by Abbas/Cyrus/Darius I/Xerxes I
Poland led by Casimir III/Louis I
Portugal led by João I
Rome led by Constantine
Russia led by Peter/Catherine
Sweden led by Gustavus Adolphus

And for civilizations not in Civ 6...

Akkad led by Sargon
Anglo-Saxons led by Alfred
Armenia led by Tigranes II/Tiridates III
Benin led by Ewuare
Bulgaria led by Simeon I
Carthage led by Hanno
Chola led by Rajaraja Chola/Rajendra Chola
Denmark led by Canute
Hawai'i led by Kamehameha I
HRE led by Charlemagne
Judea led by Herod (groan)
Kievan Rus' led by Vladimir
Madagascar led by Radama
Mughals led by Akbar
Pontus led by Mithridates VI
Songhai led by Askia
Thailand led by Naresuan/Taksin/Ramkhamhaeng
Timurids led by Timur

It's cursed but I don't hate it. It's a shame there's nothing for the Aztec, Inca, or Spain, though. And America, obviously, but we haven't been around for quite long enough to christen "JFK the Great".

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It's not a bad starting point, but unfortunately, that's all it's likely to be. Like too much of history, it's extremely patriarchial and the definition of "Great" was too often ephemeral and doesn't stand up well to later examination.

The other problem is that several of them have already been used a little too often, and I suspect that Civ VII, like Civ VI, is going to be specifically attempting to introduce gamers to less well-known Leaders and not trotting out the too-familiar Louis XIV, Gustaphus, Peter and Catherine (of Russia) . . .

 

[Zaarin]

I suspect that Civ VII, like Civ VI, is going to be specifically attempting to introduce gamers to less well-known Leaders

In general I'm all for this, but I hope we at least get Lizzy back. Sad thing is we didn't get Lizzy and yet England still got a familiar (and boring) leader in Civ6. If it couldn't be Lizzy at the very least it could have been Henry V or Empress Matilda. Even James I would have been someone new and interesting (and probably the only tolerable Stuart...).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In general I'm all for this, but I hope we at least get Lizzy back. Sad thing is we didn't get Lizzy and yet England still got a familiar (and boring) leader in Civ6. If it couldn't be Lizzy at the very least it could have been Henry V or Empress Matilda. Even James I would have been someone new and interesting (and probably the only tolerable Stuart...).

I have very mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I love that they can make gamers step outside the well-known and discover something other than what they learned in the 'standard' histories. On the other hand, when they pass over Leaders that are iconic to some aspect of the Civ they are leading in order to show off their erudition or check off some supposed Inclusiveness requirement (left-handed albino hunchback - got one, check) it makes me cringe.

And the words 'tolerable' and 'Stuart' belong at the opposite ends of any sentence that also includes "English Leader" - when it comes to disfunctional British Royal Families (not a short list), they are unique in Always managing to do exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time and never, never, never, never learning from their mistakes

 

[Zaarin]

I have very mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, I love that they can make gamers step outside the well-known and discover something other than what they learned in the 'standard' histories. On the other hand, when they pass over Leaders that are iconic to some aspect of the Civ they are leading in order to show off their erudition or check off some supposed Inclusiveness requirement (left-handed albino hunchback - got one, check) it makes me cringe.

I agree. Learning about new leaders is fun--and I even came to love CdM after being very skeptical about her--but sometimes iconic is iconic. On the other hand, you might have trouble finding two people who agree on which leaders are too iconic to lose. For me that's Elizabeth I, but if we never have Napoleon again it will be too soon. Yet there are other people who are psyched to have Victoria and want Napoleon back. So...

And the words 'tolerable' and 'Stuart' belong at the opposite ends of any sentence that also includes "English Leader" - when it comes to disfunctional British Royal Families (not a short list), they are unique in Always managing to do exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time and never, never, never, never learning from their mistakes

Charles I, Charles II, and James II, I agree, but James I was relatively benign. He had radical ideas about absolute monarchy, but he was intelligent enough to write about them instead of trying to implement them. Should have warned his son not to let those ideas...go to his head.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

. . . Charles I, Charles II, and James II, I agree, but James I was relatively benign. He had radical ideas about absolute monarchy, but he was intelligent enough to write about them instead of trying to implement them. Should have warned his son not to let those ideas...go to his head.

His ideas about absolute monarchy weren't radical at all - except in England. Been rereading Peter Ackroyd's multi-volume history of England and what 'saved' James I from making as big set of mistakes as the other Stuarts was simply that he couldn't do anything without Parliament and he so disliked having to deal with Parliament - where they actually had the effrontery to Disagree with him, and say so out loud - that he didn't call Parliament very much and so did very little overall. He was much happier in Scotland, where they actually took orders sometimes . . .

IF we were to have Napoleon I as a leader, I would hope that they got away from the one-dimensional Militarist view of the man. Certainly he was that, but he also reorganized entire French government administration, the legal code, the formal relationship between the church and the state, and virtually everything that affected ordinary French people in their dealings with the government. He overplayed his hand in the end, but while his military conquests evaporated when his military capabilities did (In 1814 less than 20% of the Frenchmen drafted simply didn't show up - after 17 years of Napoleon and war they were fed up with both)
But modern France is still largely a product of Napoleon, and it would be a nice change to see the Uniques reference his civil an legal reforms rather than strictly military - especially since much of the military excellence was simply his personal talent as a commander applied to a number of reforms already started in the Royal French Army long before the revolution or the Empire.

 

[PiR]

IF we were to have Napoleon I as a leader, I would hope that they got away from the one-dimensional Militarist view of the man. Certainly he was that, but he also reorganized entire French government administration, the legal code, the formal relationship between the church and the state, and virtually everything that affected ordinary French people in their dealings with the government. He overplayed his hand in the end, but while his military conquests evaporated when his military capabilities did (In 1814 less than 20% of the Frenchmen drafted simply didn't show up - after 17 years of Napoleon and war they were fed up with both)
But modern France is still largely a product of Napoleon, and it would be a nice change to see the Uniques reference his civil an legal reforms rather than strictly military - especially since much of the military excellence was simply his personal talent as a commander applied to a number of reforms already started in the Royal French Army long before the revolution or the Empire.

Agree but I don't like to see France locked only in the culture race either.

 

[Zaarin]

Agree but I don't like to see France locked only in the culture race either.

+1 point for bringing back Lizzy and making England the Western European culture civ; let Philippe Auguste lead France and make it a Dom/Religion civ. Or Henri IV for a more commercial France.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

France, in fact, is almost overwhelmed with good Leaders with a wide variety of potential Unique benefits:
First, I'm going to limit the list to Philippe II Augustus (crowned 1180 CE) and after because he was the first to call himself "King of France", instead of "King of the Franks" or "Count of Paris" or some other lesser title. That means such interesting characters as Clovis, Odo of Paris and Hugh Capet will have to wait for a Frankish Kingdom as a separate Civ.

Taking Philippe Augustus first, not only was he one of the most successful Medieval European monarchs at wars, either winning, outlasting or out-negotiating his rivals and expanding France's territory dramatically (largely at the expense of the Plantagenets of England), he also supported the new 'middle class' of urban merchants, which increased the financial stability, and invested a great deal of effort into Paris - started the Louvre (as a fortress) provided new city walls, restarted construction of Notre Dame, built the city's central market (Les Halles) and chartered the University of Paris.
Rather than purely military or religious qualities, I'd give him Diplomatic, Financial and/or possibly a specific boost to building things in his capital

For a religious emphasis, you can't go wrong with Louis IX, or "Louis the Saint". Aside from strictly religious dealings like enforcing orthodoxy and leading two of the most disastrous of the crusades (the second of which killed him) he also reformed the legal system, banned trial by ordeal, and established Royal justice instead of local aristocratic law courts - he was so well-regarded as a judge that he was asked to resolve disputes among other kings, which hints at another Diplomatic Bonus as well.

IF you want to run with culture and possibly science and Exploration, Francis I (Francois Ier) could be your man. He was a huge patron of the arts, invited Leonardo da Vinci to France, started the Royal art collection that later provided much of the basis for the Louvre's collection, improved and enlarged the Royal Library (and started the practice, with the Ordonnace de Montpelier, of requiring a copy of every book printed in France be deposited in it, previewing the practice of the US Library of Congress by over 300 years!). He also built several Chateaus in a new "French Renaissance" architectural style, and the Paris city hall and started the Palace of Fontainebleu.
- Then in his spare time . . . He sponsored expeditions to the Americas that included Cartier's to the site of Quebec, d'Ornesan to Pernambuco, Brazil, and Verrazzano to a site he named New Angouleme but was later settled by the Dutch as New Amsterdam.

Henri IV, or le bon roi Henri ("Good King Henry") is, frankly, my favorite for a previously-unused French Leader. Not only was he a very good military leader with potential bonuses in leading troops (Leader as Great General?) he also made a lot of 'infrastructure improvements' to France, in the form of roads, bridges, canals, new ports and harbors, expanding agriculture, planting trees, etc. His pragmatic and (for the time) very tolerant approach to religion could also be the basis for a set of Uniques, so here we could have a Leader with military, construction/Improvements benefits and Religious potential.

And before we dismiss Louis XIV as 'merely' an expansionist or Cultural Leader, note that he also reformed French Royal finances, provided major support for new industries (notably the French silk industry, but also iron-working, tapestries, and general trade and commerce) founded the Academie Francais, so, counter-intuitively, he could get Commercial Unique benefits as well as cultural or military - and note that his military Uniques should be related to the organization and efficiency of the land forces, since under him the French Army became the first 'modern' army in Europe, complete with uniforms, standardized weapons, and a system of regular recruitment and garrisons to keep the force healthy in either peace or war

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

If the next Civ game is to be great, it has to have the greatest rulers of any Civ game. And who will decide the greatest rulers? Well, this Wikipedia page on which leaders have earned the title "The Great", of course.

This is an extremely shallow gimmick and so it has my full and enthusiastic support.