How do you feel about your country's leader?

[evanaurora]

What do we think of them as a leader or as a choice in-game? LOL.

Teddy Roosevelt's... policies... re: US imperialism.... I'm not a fan. To put it mildly. That said, I'm happy it's not the slightly obvious Lincoln/Washington, I guess.

 

[evanaurora]

4 years of reign for a nation with 1200+ years of history. No Great war, No Wonder, No decisive political agenda, nothing...
I'm sorry for Women but we didn't have any great woman leader like Victoria, Elizabeth or Catherine. History isn't fair and our greatest leaders are all men.

Louis XIV, Saint Louis, Napoleon Bonaparte, Charles de Gaulle, Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu, Jules Mazarin, even Francois I would have been a better choice.

I know American's firms love to travesty our history (there is no french in battlefield one, strange, I believed we lost 3 millions people in this war ) but they could try to hide it ...

I'm curious.... what are you defining as a decisive political agenda??????? she was a key player in the Catholic/Huguenot conflicts of the day, and certainly had a decisive personality.

 

[Civbra]

So, we've been able to guess most leaders from the leaked image. While there's a chance they won't be correct, let's assume they are. How do you feel about the leader chosen for your country? Do you, personally, like the choice? Do you feel it's a good representation of your country's history?If not, who would you rather see in their place?
I'm brazilian, and while I am happy to see Brazil included in either the vanilla or the first DLCs, I absolutely hated that they chose Pedro II. Brazil has only been included in one game so far, and we had him as our leader there. I understand the devs's reasoning to put him there, but I would much rather see Getúlio Vargas, and I think including him instead would lead to a much different gameplay for Brazil.

Nice to see another brazilian here, I'm too, and I have to agree with you on that! I understand that the dev team choose Pedro II - he is not the worst - but Getulio Vargas or Jk, in my opinion, should provide a lot of new ways to play with Brazil!
Especially because the theme of the game is the expansion era!

 

[durfal]

How do you feel about the leader chosen for your country? Do you, personally, like the choice? Do you feel it's a good representation of your country's history?If not, who would you rather see in their place?

You presume that there is a leader for every civilization in Vanilla.
Since I'm Dutch there is no leader yet, at least if the portrait E1 is (and stays) Philip II. So not happy about that, but to be honest I wasn't expecting one in Vanilla .
But since I didn't expect other European (based) civilizations in Vanilla either I'm a bit bummed. I have to wait until an Expansion or DLC I guess and in the meantime download a mod or make one myself .
If the Netherlands comes I expect William of Orange again but if they want to change it up and have another leader I would take Prince Maurice of Orange (his son and a General during the 80 years war) and if they want a female leader I would choose Queen Wilhelmina but Maurice would be my first choice after William.

 

[LDiCesare]

If Catherine de Medicis is confirmed, then I'm unhappy.
It's putting a woman there because of her sex, and he wouldn't show in the 10 or 20 most influential politicians/rulers of France (I think all of the following would be more appropriate because at least they left a mark on the country:
Clovis Pepin-le-bref Charles-Martel Charlemagne Hugues-Capet Philippe-Auguste Louis-IX Louis-XI François-I Henri-IV Louis-XIII Louis-XIV Louis-XVI Robespierre Napoleon Napoleon-III Clemenceau Petain de-Gaulle Mitterand Mazarin Richelieu).
The only thing she's associated with in popular culture/memory is the slaughter of the St Barthelemy, which she was unable to prevent. She was a woman of influence, but not enough influence that she actually had any effect on the country.
So, definitely, she should not be ruler of France in civ.

 

[AriochIV]

I'm a Washington fan (as you could probably guess), but I'm just bully about Teddy.

I really like that they've added more unique attributes and seem to have put a lot of effort into making each civilization play differently.

 

[SMcM]

I am happy with Victoria. Though she never was actually a ruler, simply a figurehead, that does not matter; all she needs to be is a big, bold, figurehead to represent the greatest achievements of our nation. And considering the progress the British made in all sorts of fields during her reign long reign, the large scale expansion of the British empire, and how iconic a figure she is (I'm fairly sure she is the best known queen in history, possibly the best known monarch of either gender as well) she definitely ticks that box.

4 years of reign for a nation with 1200+ years of history. No Great war, No Wonder, No decisive political agenda, nothing...
I'm sorry for Women but we didn't have any great woman leader like Victoria, Elizabeth or Catherine. History isn't fair and our greatest leaders are all men.

Louis XIV, Saint Louis, Napoleon Bonaparte, Charles de Gaulle, Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu, Jules Mazarin, even Francois I would have been a better choice.

I know American's firms love to travesty our history (there is no french in battlefield one, strange, I believed we lost 3 millions people in this war ) but they could try to hide it ...

Not French, but I very much agree with this, and though I posted this in another thread, perhaps it is more relevant here:

You can agree or disgree with it, but the arguement agaisnt Catherine De Medicis is clear. It is not that she was a woman, but that was really not that powerful in the grand scheme of things! She was the ruler of France in a Europe dominated by Spain. France alone is not significant enough to be included in the vanilla game when it is in a region of the world where there are already several other nations in the game. It is through its imperial might that France can be justified as a nation to be included in the vanilla game, so why choose a leader without one?

Obviously you will be aware of this, but I feel that many who are in favor of Catherine De Medicis ruling the French in Civ VI aren't quite aware of how much more important a player in world politics France has been at other points in its history.

Under Catherine, only territory was held in modern France, whilst Charles V dominated Europe and the Americas:

Spoiler :

Louis XIV, however, ruled a large empire with large amounts of territory in Africa, India and the Americas, in a time when Spain was ruled by the mentally and physically disabled Charles II:

Spoiler :

Napoleon dominated Europe probably more so than any other European leader at the peak of his empire, with Spain being among France's satellite states:

Spoiler :

And France had one of the largest empires in the world between the world wars under leaders such as Clemenceau, with it maintaining control of its empire through this time, whilst the British empire started to lose its grasp, with the large, resource rich nations of Canada and Australia gaining independence:

Spoiler :

 

[blackcatatonic]

It's hard to argue with Victoria as an iconic leader, and while her personal power was much diminished compared with pre-Civil War monarchs, she coincided with the greatest extent of the British Empire, and had a wide cultural influence that persists to this day. It's also gratifying to see her in her younger days, rather than the usual dour-faced widow.

It would be nice to one day see a different leader from the usual suspects of Elizabeth I, Victoria and Churchill - an Anglo-Saxon ruler like Alfred, or a medieval ruler like Henry V, for variety's sake. But it's good to have female rulers, and England just has obvious candidates in that regard.

I agree with this. She's a solid choice, she's just not my favourite. Of those three 'usual suspects' I'd have much preferred Elizabeth, but the odds were never good with her having been featured in Civ 5. And if multiple leaders are added for England we have some great medieval kings who definitely tick the 'big personality' box: Henry II, Edward III, Henry V, maybe even Henry VIII - the biggest personality if them all!

 

[Leyrann]

4 years of reign for a nation with 1200+ years of history. No Great war, No Wonder, No decisive political agenda, nothing...
I'm sorry for Women but we didn't have any great woman leader like Victoria, Elizabeth or Catherine. History isn't fair and our greatest leaders are all men.

Louis XIV, Saint Louis, Napoleon Bonaparte, Charles de Gaulle, Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu, Jules Mazarin, even Francois I would have been a better choice.

I know American's firms love to travesty our history (there is no french in battlefield one, strange, I believed we lost 3 millions people in this war ) but they could try to hide it ...

What do you think about Joanne d'Arc?

 

[Phalanx300]

I'm afraid the Dutch will not be featured in the base game. In which case I suppose the Holy Roman Empire through Frederick Barbarosssa becomes the next closest thing.

 

[DarthStarkiller]

Pedro is obviously by far the best leader in the history of Brazil, and it doesn't bother me at all that he is in, but I wish they had chosen Vargas to make it more different from Civ V.

 

[SMcM]

4 years of reign for a nation with 1200+ years of history. No Great war, No Wonder, No decisive political agenda, nothing...
I'm sorry for Women but we didn't have any great woman leader like Victoria, Elizabeth or Catherine. History isn't fair and our greatest leaders are all men.

Louis XIV, Saint Louis, Napoleon Bonaparte, Charles de Gaulle, Armand Jean du Plessis de Richelieu, Jules Mazarin, even Francois I would have been a better choice.

I know American's firms love to travesty our history (there is no french in battlefield one, strange, I believed we lost 3 millions people in this war ) but they could try to hide it ...

If Catherine de Medicis is confirmed, then I'm unhappy.
It's putting a woman there because of her sex, and he wouldn't show in the 10 or 20 most influential politicians/rulers of France (I think all of the following would be more appropriate because at least they left a mark on the country:
Clovis Pepin-le-bref Charles-Martel Charlemagne Hugues-Capet Philippe-Auguste Louis-IX Louis-XI François-I Henri-IV Louis-XIII Louis-XIV Louis-XVI Robespierre Napoleon Napoleon-III Clemenceau Petain de-Gaulle Mitterand Mazarin Richelieu).
The only thing she's associated with in popular culture/memory is the slaughter of the St Barthelemy, which she was unable to prevent. She was a woman of influence, but not enough influence that she actually had any effect on the country.
So, definitely, she should not be ruler of France in civ.

I'm fairly sure that these reactions will be shared by many French players. Even if most like the choice, if say 40% hate it, that would be bad for sales. Better to choose a ruler that all can respect, such as Louis XIV.

 

[Liex]

I'm brazilian, and while I am happy to see Brazil included in either the vanilla or the first DLCs, I absolutely hated that they chose Pedro II. Brazil has only been included in one game so far, and we had him as our leader there. I understand the devs's reasoning to put him there, but I would much rather see Getúlio Vargas, and I think including him instead would lead to a much different gameplay for Brazil.

I'm very happy with Pedro II. I don't think his inclusion necessarily means that Civ6's Brazil will be similar to Civ5's, since there's nothing in Civ5's Brazil that is exclusive or typical of Pedro II's reign.

If we think this through, the Pracinhas are related to Getúlio's government, so Pedro may actually bring some new unique units, like the Voluntários da Pátria (after all, he declared himself the "first volunteer") or the Pará-class Monitors.

If they want to move away from a culture/tourism oriented Brazil in favor of trade/resource/territory bonuses, Pedro is just as good as any other leader.

Even the graphic representation of him don't need to be similar. Judging by the reference in the leader board, I'd say they are going for a younger version of Pedro this time around.

 

[robaker]

I understand the pressure to include more female leaders and I'm all for it as long as they are historically relevant, but Firaxis should also consider the possibility that by making inane leader choices (such as Catherine de' Medici) just to please a small minority of the player base will end up pissing off the vast majority of the main player base.

 

[Camus]

If it's true that Jadwiga will be Polish leader, then I'm more that disappointed...

 

[Morningcalm]

Hm. So why are Polish players so disappointed with Jadwiga? Was it because of the perception she didn't accomplish much? Isn't she a figure of national renown in Poland? O_o

 

[JtW]

I must say I like Jadwiga.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I'm afraid the Dutch will not be featured in the base game. In which case I suppose the Holy Roman Empire through Frederick Barbarosssa becomes the next closest thing.

Fairly sure they were never in the base game.

 

[m15a]

I understand the pressure to include more female leaders and I'm all for it as long as they are historically relevant, but Firaxis should also consider the possibility that by making inane leader choices (such as Catherine de' Medici) just to please a small minority of the player base will end up pissing off the vast majority of the main player base.

You're assuming that the vast majority of the player base will be "pissed off". I don't think you actually polled a significant representation of the players, so I'm guessing that this assumption is based on the idea that most people have the same opinions as you. If so, that makes it a poor assumption, especially when there is a wide range of reactions more positive than being "pissed off".

 

[Camus]

It's hard to explain, to be honest. Short answer, it feels wrong. Yes, because of her marriage with Jagiello there was union with Lithuania. She was also very pious and generous, she founded Jaggielonnian University (not sure of its name in English).

But she was also very young. Also... tbh, it's not like she had any power in country. Unless some historian can correct me.

And I feel like there are simply better choices, like mentioned Jagiello, Jan III Sobieski, damn, even Józef Piłsudski, even if he would be controversial as well.