Changing Leader Mechanic in Civ 7

[Evie]

Yengesse in no way sound like "Yaqui". What it does sound like, though, is how an English speaker unused to the French silent S, might imagine the pronunciation of French "L'Anglais" (The Englishman) sounds like. Or possibky a not too terrible pronunciation of French l'Anglaise, "the englishwoman".

Which was a common theory, back in the nineteenth century (when that novel was written), to explain the origin of Yankee: that it was a Wendat mispronunciation of L'Anglais. But the problem with most theory like this is: they never check that the "native" word they claim exist, actually does. There's zero evidence, and certainly not a novel written by a man who never as best as can be determined had any close contact with the Wendat or related Wyandot, that the Wendat ever actually used that term.

Even if they did use that word (which, again, they probably did not), the above explanation (that the Wendat, French allies, who lived in French-occupied territory near Quebec City and often interacted with the French, got the name from a mispronunciation of what the French called the English people) is infinitely more likely than the harebrained idea that they got it from a word used all the way over in Central America and Mexico to designate a completely different people.

But the Dutch explanation is far, far, far more likely.

 

[luca 83]

Yengesse in no way sound like "Yaqui". What it does sound like, though, is how an English speaker unused to the French silent S, might imagine the pronunciation of French "L'Anglais" (The Englishman) sounds like. Or possibky a not too terrible pronunciation of French l'Anglaise, "the englishwoman".

Which was a common theory, back in the nineteenth century (when that novel was written), to explain the origin of Yankee: that it was a Wendat mispronunciation of L'Anglais. But the problem with most theory like this is: they never check that the "native" word they claim exist, actually does. There's zero evidence, and certainly not a novel written by a man who never as best as can be determined had any close contact with the Wendat or related Wyandot, that the Wendat ever actually used that term.

Even if they did use that word (which, again, they probably did not), the above explanation (that the Wendat, French allies, who lived in French-occupied territory near Quebec City and often interacted with the French, got the name from a mispronunciation of what the French called the English people) is infinitely more likely than the harebrained idea that they got it from a word used all the way over in Central America and Mexico to designate a completely different people.

But the Dutch explanation is far, far, far more likely.

One of the many reasons why there's no need for leaders you can't even agree on the name of civilization : I'd suggest manual federation action , Confederation , kingdom but agreeing on leaders removing them would be easier by introducing politics and ideology!

 

[Evie]

That has nothing to do with the post you quoted.

 

[Henri Christophe]

But the Dutch explanation is far, far, far more likely.

The Dutch explanation can be more likely, but we cannot ignore Yaqui/Yengesse hypothesis.
Since because Yaqui is way more cool then little Yan. Yaqui was the white invaders who came from the North Sea, fit perfectly in US outfit.

you can't even agree on the name of civilization

Untill today is used America to refer to US, but I hope someday we can use Yankee as something officially.
The only head of state who called US citizen as Yankees was Hugo Chavez.And when he made it, it's sound US as an evil capitalist state.

 

[Evie]

We can and should ignore the Yaqui hypothesis because it has no basis in fact other than two words used at separate ends of the continent. You present no realistic mechanism or chain of transmission to document how the term traversed the continent. You ignore more likely explanation of the one similarity you found (yengesse), as well as the fact that this one similarity is generally considered discredited.

You are trying to assign patterns to coincidence, without any supporting evidence. There's no reason to assign your theory any credence.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

One of the many reasons why there's no need for leaders you can't even agree on the name of civilization : I'd suggest manual federation action , Confederation , kingdom but agreeing on leaders removing them would be easier by introducing politics and ideology!

I don't even understand what this means?

Untill today is used America to refer to US, but I hope someday we can use Yankee as something officially.
The only head of state who called US citizen as Yankees was Hugo Chavez.And when he made it, it's sound US as an evil capitalist state.

All the more reason to not use the term.

 

[luca 83]

I don't even understand what this means?

All the more reason to not use the term.

Removing the obsolete leaders instead introducing ideology, politics and internal politics, we would stop talking about Canadians, Americans, Mexicans, Aztecs, because it is the old civ info leaders who make states, already created instead it should be the leaders who make states players

 

[Evie]

Most of us actually participating in these discussions are doing it because we enjoy them. Stopping them is...not exactly a desirable goal for us.

I don't know where you get the idea that "if we abolish leaders we won't have these discussions!" is actually a good selling point for your ideas - when it'd actually make the forums considerably more boring for a lot of us.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Removing the obsolete leaders instead introducing ideology, politics and internal politics, we would stop talking about Canadians, Americans, Mexicans, Aztecs, because it is the old civ info leaders who make states, already created instead it should be the leaders who make states players

So, do you not want pre-defined civilizations in the game either like America, China, Egypt, France etc.?

 

[BuchiTaton]

Byzantium was a Christian defensive civ
Rome was a Pagan offensive and construction civ

Well CIV6 have as the same Persia the historical:
- Achaemenid "pagan" offensive and construction civ
- Afsharid muslim civ
The "defensive" part for Byzantium is kind of funny since the early "Byzantine" emperors were the only ones really trying to do the "Renovatio imperii Romanorum", a dream never fully achieved and replaced with a long overdue and very slow fall. So we can see these "Two Romes" as...
- The Rising Rome civ
- The Decadent Rome civ
So Afsharid Empire is still a lesser version of Achaemenid Empire, but to make the double standards more blatant, these two Persias are 2000 years apart of each other, included multiple centuries of foreing dynasties of Arab, Turkish, Mongol and the forced implantation of a new religion. While Rome>Constantinople was a long gradual transition done by ROMANS whose kept their own identity without interruptions. Despite this the two Persias are the same civ but the two Romes are different civs.

 

[Patine]

The "defensive" part for Byzantium is kind of funny since the early "Byzantine" emperors were the only ones really trying to do the "Renovatio imperii Romanorum", a dream never fully achieved and replaced with a long overdue and very slow fall. So we can see these "Two Romes" as...
- The Rising Rome civ
- The Decadent Rome civ

The Byzantine Empire, from about 642 onward, is very much distinct enough, and different enough, from the Roman Empire to easily be considered a separate civ. The majority of historians, and most Civ iterations, concur with me, here.

 

[luca 83]

So, do you not want pre-defined civilizations in the game either like America, China, Egypt, France etc.?

Yes Politics is ideology and more important than animation if instead of France I call a country xyx but I can control politics: being a federation, a confederation, a monarchy, having or not having parties, revolutions, etc with modern ai systems it would make for a much more dynamic game

 

[Henri Christophe]

The Byzantine Empire, from about 642 onward, is very much distinct enough, and different enough, from the Roman Empire to easily be considered a separate civ. The majority of historians, and most Civ iterations, concur with me, here.

I think the name Byzantium is usefull in Historian books to help contextulized we are speaking about a greek/cristian Rome.
But for a game, I still believing Byzantium isn't so distinct from Rome enought to be it's own civ!!!!

Yes Politics is ideology and more important than animation if instead of France I call a country xyx but I can control politics: being a federation, a confederation, a monarchy, having or not having parties, revolutions, etc with modern ai systems it would make for a much more dynamic game

But in civ 5 we are able to change the name of our civilization, I remember to play with Austria and spawn my first city in South Brazil, so I changed the name of my empire to: Rio Grande do Sul and it's appear everytime on the conferencies the name I choice.

 

[luca 83]

I think the name Byzantium is usefull in Historian books to help contextulized we are speaking about a greek/cristian Rome.
But for a game, I still believing Byzantium isn't so distinct from Rome enought to be it's own civ!!!!

But in civ 5 we are able to change the name of our civilization, I remember to play with Austria and spawn my first city in South Brazil, so I changed the name of my empire to: Rio Grande do Sul and it's appear everytime on the conferencies the name I choice.

There is no people's revolution not generated by the player it's not enough to change the name of civilization you need political foundations, laws and institutions that last over time and the eras do you prefer, for example, a federation of tribes that work together in a union like in the United State

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I think the name Byzantium is usefull in Historian books to help contextulized we are speaking about a greek/cristian Rome.
But for a game, I still believing Byzantium isn't so distinct from Rome enought to be it's own civ!!!!

Heraclitus transforming a Romanesque Byzantium into a more Greek one? All of their emperors being Greek or Macedonian or Armenian, instead of Italian or Spanish? What about the name changes? No Roman had "Alexios Kommenenos" or "Zoe Pophyrogenitos"

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes Politics is ideology and more important than animation if instead of France I call a country xyx but I can control politics: being a federation, a confederation, a monarchy, having or not having parties, revolutions, etc with modern ai systems it would make for a much more dynamic game

So no immortal leaders and no set civilizations. You might as well create a whole new IP, and not call it Civilization.

Sorry but that's not what I want in a Civ game, and probably most people.

I think the name Byzantium is usefull in Historian books to help contextulized we are speaking about a greek/cristian Rome.
But for a game, I still believing Byzantium isn't so distinct from Rome enought to be it's own civ!!!!

After four consecutive iterations of having both of them in game how is Byzantium not distinct enough?

 

[Henri Christophe]

After four consecutive iterations of having both of them in game how is Byzantium not distinct enough?

Yes, Fireaxis can draw a Byzantium civ who seems different from Rome, but Fireaxis could also do a Roman Civ who have traces of Byzantium empire, if they made that, it should have more room to others civs in the game, as Haiti.
But we cannot forget the name "Byzantium" was just used after the fall of "Byzantium", I mean, the Byzantine people never called they self Byzantine. Some times I think is almost unrespectfull with this population don't call they Romans, as they died believing they are Romans.
And this Byzantine case is very similar to France, when the Frankish empire appears on History it's pagan, then become Christian and in next milenia it will be muslim, it is 3 fases very distinct of the same civilization, but Fireaxis don't made separete civs for each fase of Frankish civ. Why Rome have the privilege to have their Byzantium era as a separate civ? On my understand this just stole room to other civs who can be made.

 

[Evie]

Byzantium if it were held to the same standards as China or Persia would not get in, but the Byzantine fanbase is abominably vociferous about wanting their chance at restoring the Empire.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Byzantium if it were held to the same standards as China or Persia would not get in, but the Byzantine fanbase is abominably vociferous about wanting their chance at restoring the Empire.

Since you talked about Persia, why Sassanida Persian isn't a separate civ also? I don't have a deep knowledge of Persia, but I'm sure they are distinct enouth too to be a separete civ. If Byzantium can, other civs also should can.
But in my opnion is better to just take out Byzantium then have multiple civs to others nations.

 

[Evie]

Because the Byzantine fanboys are a LOT louder than the people who want separate Persias or separate Chinas.

Yes, it's not a fair standard. Yes, I'd prefer to scrap the Byz. But I'm afraid we're stuck with them.