Civilizations, Leaders (Traits, Fav. Civic, Fav. Religion)

[The Almighty dF]

The only one issue I have with giving Japan a Seafaring leader, now that I have read up on all of them a little bit (well just Wikipedia), is that there is really no basis to give it to any of them really. If anything maybe Meiji actually. There is really no reason to give it to Jingu or Tokugawa. And Hirohito could really have any traits almost, I mean he did reign for a long time, and on top of that he is more or less there to represent Japan rather than himself if that makese sense.

Jingu -did-, allegedly, lead a naval and land invasion of Korea.
Again though, since Jingu's only really known for one thing (which even Japan doesn't believe happend since there is no evidence supporting Japan ever controlled Korea at that time), it's kinda hard to give her traits period.

That's why for Jingu I'd vote Seafaring (in-part naval invasion of a foreign nation) combined with a trait to show off her alleged rule of Korea (Org, Imp, Exp)

 

[The Capo]

Well, I don't think it would really require one to be Seafaring to make the short trip from Japan to Korea, but I suppose I could fudge it a bit.

 

[Omega124]

I say Elizabeth should get Seafaring. While the navy was stronger over Victoria, she got a ragtag fleet to defeat the Spanish Armada. That's a feat by itself. Plus, she laid down the plans to colonize the new world, specifically Virginia, but she only got to see the most earliest settlements (Roanoke and Jamestown) before her death. Victoria might had colonized, but they were most likely mediocre, unimportant islands at best (No offense to those mediocre, unimportant islands).

I say Hitorito gets Sea/Nat, for all reasons said above. No need to re-post them.

 

[The Almighty dF]

I say Elizabeth should get Seafaring. While the navy was stronger over Victoria, she got a ragtag fleet to defeat the Spanish Armada. That's a feat by itself. Plus, she laid down the plans to colonize the new world, specifically Virginia, but she only got to see the most earliest settlements (Roanoke and Jamestown) before her death. Victoria might had colonized, but they were most likely mediocre, unimportant islands at best (No offense to those mediocre, unimportant islands).

I say Hitorito gets Sea/Nat, for all reasons said above. No need to re-post them.

I'm against Hirohito getting Sea/Nat. Sea/Imp, yes. No matter what, Hirohito needs Imp. I mean come on, Imperial Japan. Hirohito.

However, you do bring up a good point on Elizabeth. I guess either of the two queens fit well.

 

[nutnut]

I think Elizabeth having seafaring is inappropriate. Victory over the Spanish Armada was almost entirely pure luck. The English fleet was a disorganised, under-funded joke at the time. Terrible weather combined with a few miscalculations by the Spanish were the problem for the Armada.

 

[The Capo]

I think Elizabeth having seafaring is inappropriate. Victory over the Spanish Armada was almost entirely pure luck. The English fleet was a disorganised, under-funded joke at the time. Terrible weather combined with a few miscalculations by the Spanish were the problem for the Armada.

Exactly, he is completely correct in saying this. In fact it wasn't the English navy that defeated the Spanish Armada, it was the weather on the seas that defeated the Spanish Armada.

 

[The Almighty dF]

I think Elizabeth having seafaring is inappropriate. Victory over the Spanish Armada was almost entirely pure luck. The English fleet was a disorganised, under-funded joke at the time. Terrible weather combined with a few miscalculations by the Spanish were the problem for the Armada.

Skill and luck... eh. It's debatable. It always is. Any time a small force defeats a much larger force, it can easily be one of the two.

Personally, I'm still leaning towards Victoria as her navy did -much- more, but I can be persuaded otherwise. So, a list of the seafaring actions of both could help settle this debate.

 

[nutnut]

Victoria getting Sea/Imp makes loads of sense.

 

[The Capo]

Eh, I'm not going to totally diss England here, but seriously there was a hell of a lot of luck involved. The Spanish weren't there to engage England in a naval battle, they were there to invade England, but the army in the Netherlands wasn't ready so they had to stay put for a while, which allowed England to use fireships and attack them at night, when they attempted to withdraw from the battle their ships were destroyed at sea by natural occurances. Not only that, but as they were an invasion force rather than a pure naval-attack force they didn't have the right artillery/cannons or what have you set up on their ships. I'm not saying England didn't deserve the victory, or that it was even a poor victory for them, it was very important. But there were so many things that had to go just so for England to win that battle, and they all did, with little or nothing to do with English preparation. In fact, they were so underprepared they already had an army waiting for the Spanish to land.

So how exactly is this not luck?

 

[Omega124]

I think Elizabeth having seafaring is inappropriate. Victory over the Spanish Armada was almost entirely pure luck. The English fleet was a disorganised, under-funded joke at the time. Terrible weather combined with a few miscalculations by the Spanish were the problem for the Armada.

That's the EXACT reason why Elizabeth should get Seafaring! How could such a weak and pitiful fleet defeat the best in the world? Luck? Maybe, but I think Skill is a much better reason. Imagine what would have happened if the fleet wasn't disorganised and under-funded. Also, I point to the colonization cause. While Victoria's empire was larger, she did none of the actual colonization. Elizabeth started the colonization of Virginia, something Victoria can't say she done.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Eh, I'm not going to totally diss England here, but seriously there was a hell of a lot of luck involved. The Spanish weren't there to engage England in a naval battle, they were there to invade England, but the army in the Netherlands wasn't ready so they had to stay put for a while, which allowed England to use fireships and attack them at night, when they attempted to withdraw from the battle their ships were destroyed at sea by natural occurances.

So how exactly is this not luck?

True. Going to stick with my suggestion of Sea/Imp Victoria, then.

 

[The Capo]

That's the EXACT reason why Elizabeth should get Seafaring! How could such a weak and pitiful fleet defeat the best in the world? Luck? Maybe, but I think Skill is a much better reason. Imagine what would have happened if the fleet wasn't disorganised and under-funded. Also, I point to the colonization cause. While Victoria's empire was larger, she did none of the actual colonization. Elizabeth started the colonization of Virginia, something Victoria can't say she done.

Well here's what I'd say to that, one victory (I don't want to call it a fluke, but it is known as a great victory because it was a victorious underdog, so in a sense one could call it a fluke, but it was a happy accident for England), no matter how great doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot when we're talking about a "grand scheme" game like Civilization. The English navy at the time of Elizabeth was hardly existant, it was more or less a group of privateers (for lack of a better term) much like the American navy was that fought the British in the revolution. The Americans won a victory or two that they shouldn't have won, but that is no reason to give Washington Seafaring, is it?

The Spanish navy, overall at the time was much more effective and important to that country than the navy of England at the time. Philip II being the contemporary of Elizabeth should get the nod for the Seafaring trait. Now let's fast forward to Victoria, she EASILY had the best navy in the world at the time. So if you take all of these facts together it is a no-brainer to give Victoria the trait over Elizabeth. To me Elizabeth is more important as a figure that was instrumental in creating the modern Nation-state of England and eventually Britain, she established England as a world power indeed and I think this type of development of English culture is more important for Elizabeth, whie Victoria should have the Imperial bent.

 

[AbsintheRed]

My vote goes for Victoria (Sea/Imp) and Jingu (Sea/Exp)
Hirohito is much better at Nat/Imp IMO


EDIT: That would mean these base leaders have Seafaring:
Canute: Agg/Nom
Dido: Fin
Harald Hardrada: Nom/Cha
Henry the Navigator: Org
Philip II: Imp
Salamasina: Cre
Joao II: Exp
Victoria: Imp
Kamehameha: Pro
Johan de Witt: Cha/Phi
Maurits van Nassau: Agg
Jingu: Exp
Pericles: Phi

Other possible ideas:
Charles V: Org - although Capo don't really want Seafaring for him, so probably will stay (Fin, Org)
Pyrrhus: Cha/Imp - I would add the Seafaring trait to only one of the Greeks
Ragnar: Agg - rather not, because I think none of the civs should have any of the traits more than twice
Suryavarman: Cre/Exp - altough he is out too based on TAdF's opinion
Hiram: Fin/Nom - he will only join the others in one of the modpacks
Suharto: Nat - also in the modpacks

The missing traits are Ind and Spi. Altough it's not that bad if these will only be added in the modpacks...

 

[AbsintheRed]

Quick questions:
Can Agueybana (Arawak) or L'Overture (Haiti) be Seafaring? And what about Satur (Minoa)? Maybe Lapu-Lapu (Philippines)?

 

[The Capo]

Quick questions:
Can Agueybana (Arawak) or L'Overture (Haiti) be Seafaring? And what about Satur (Minoa)? Maybe Lapu-Lapu (Philippines)?

You know my response to this, but I'll say it anyway... don't care, those are modular leaders, not an issue to me right now. However, so as not to be totally rude here is a quick response to them in order: don't know, no, probably one of the minoans at least, don't know.

 

[AbsintheRed]

Yeah, I was sure in your response
But I hope to get some opinions from the others too
From those 4 in the previous post L'Overture is out, one of the Minoans should get it. Who does it suit better, Satur or Minos? Still not sure on Agueybana and Lapu-Lapu

 

[The Almighty dF]

Yeah, I was sure in your response
But I hope to get some opinions from the others too
From those 4 in the previous post L'Overture is out, one of the Minoans should get it. Who does it suit better, Satur or Minos? Still not sure on Agueybana and Lapu-Lapu

Satur'd get my vote.

 

[The Capo]

Potentially both actually, but most definitely Minos.

 

[AbsintheRed]

I did not find much about Satur, but apparently Minos founded Crete's naval supremacy of the Aegean Sea
So one more thing for Minos

 

[The Capo]

I did not find much about Satur, but apparently Minos founded Crete's naval supremacy of the Aegean Sea
So one more thing for Minos

I couldn't find much myself, but here is the civilopedia entry I have for him:

What little we know about the Minoan kings from later Greek tradition reveals that they resembled the Egyptian pharaohs in several fundamental ways. The two Minoan rulers known by name, Minos of Knossos and Rhadamanthys of Phaistos, were of divine descent (as sons of Zeus). Minos established the first laws (Laws of Minos) on Crete and acted as judge of the living and dead. Renowned for his justice, Rhadamanthys ruled as king of the dead in the Elysion Fields. The Minoan rulers were divine, established a system of law and order, and were known for their social justice - characteristics that find obvious parallels in the pharaohs of the Middle Kingdom. It seems possible therefore that the first Minoan rulers modeled themselves to some extent on their royal Egyptian counterparts.[PARAGRAPH:2]Kronos (c.1715-1675 BC) known by the Romans as Saturn was probably the Cretan king Satur who ruled at Knossos some time between 1725 and 1675 BC according to Linear A inscriptions. Not much is known of King Satur I at this time other than he is the first named king of the Minoan civilization.

So even in my Civilopedia entry for him there isn't really much information.