Charlemagne

[TyrannusRex]

Been thinking about potential leaders with the recent leader pass and all. Charlemagne came to mind, and I wanted to skim the surface here for opinions.
Charlemagne ruled a realm, Francia/the Kingdom of the Franks, that encompassed most of modern-day France and Germany. So, would you erect a unique new civ for him or give him dual leadership like Eleanor or Kublai have? Would Charlemagne even fit in well in Civ 6 in your opinion?

 

[Evie]

From a strictly historical perspective there's a good case to be made that the Franks are a separate civilization that predate (and is ancestral to) both France and Germany's existence as civilizations.

But from a game perspective I doubt very much new civilization will happen even in a hypothetical leader pass II, and I'm loathe to introduce a Frankish civilization when Europe is already so full and other parts of the world already so underrepresented, so I think IF Charlemagne were to be added he'd have to be added as a twin France-German leader as a compromise.

 

[TyrannusRex]

From a strictly historical perspective there's a good case to be made that the Franks are a separate civilization that predate (and is ancestral to) both France and Germany's existence as civilizations.

But from a game perspective I doubt very much new civilization will happen even in a hypothetical leader pass II, and I'm loathe to introduce a Frankish civilization when Europe is already so full and other parts of the world already so underrepresented, so I think IF Charlemagne were to be added he'd have to be added as a twin France-German leader as a compromise.

Right; and I'm not trying to speculate on future leaders, just sort of engaging in thought exercise.
Plus, for instance, Frederick Barbarossa didn't rule over a unified kingdom called "Germany" really, and the Holy Roman Empire isn't its own civilization (in THIS game anyway), so I'm inclined to agree with the France/Germany split.

 

[Evie]

The Holy Roman Empire included (at least from the XIth century) the crown of the Kingdom of Germany, which, wasn't a unified nation (neither was the Kingdom of France at the time!), but was a distinct political, geographic, demographic (not in a nationalistic sense, but in the sense that a chain of fealty theoretically existed linking the people of that land to the crown of that land) and cultural concept that is recognizable as the same concept that underlies the state of Germany today. The specific boundaries have changed some, and the demographic definition has shifted somewhat, but the core of the concept of Germany can be recognizeably traced from 10th century Germany to modern Germany with relative ease. So Barbarossa may not have ruled over a unified state of Germany, but he did rule somethign that was recognizably Germany.

On the other hand, in the days of Charlemagne, that concept did not exist, because the concept at the time was of Francia, the Frankish Realm, and the concept of splitting Francia only took hold a couple generations after him, when his son died ; and in turn it took a few more generations to go from splitting Francia to recognizing each part of the former Francia as distinct geographical, political and demographic constructs.

So, having Charlemagne lead Germany and France is anachronistic ; neither concepts existed in his time. But it may be the best compromise possible.

 

[Xandinho]

Please, no more dual leaders. If Charlemagne is ever included, he should lead the Franks. On the other hand, while the inclusion of the Franks could be interesting, their inclusion could be interpreted as blatant Eurocentrism. Do we need more European overrepresentation to the detriment of other parts of the world? I would advocate including the Franks if the game had at least 70 slots for civilizations.

 

[Evie]

Frankly, there *are* leaders out there who are perfectly legitimate double leaders, so I find the throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater backlash a bit over the top. Firaxis misused it in VI, that's no reason never to do it again.

 

[Zaarin]

Frankly, there *are* leaders out there who are perfectly legitimate double leaders, so I find the throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater backlash a bit over the top. Firaxis misused it in VI, that's no reason never to do it again.

For me it's not that there aren't leaders that could legitimately do it; it's more that it's not what leaders should represent in Civ. If a leader is the face of their civilization, I should know what civilization I'm facing as soon as a leader appears. I think it's counterintuitive and gimmicky. (Personally, I'd prefer a return to "one civ, one leader," but I do understand the appeal of multiple leaders--but not for leaders leading multiple civs.)

 

[Evie]

That point at least I can see. I think the goal is reachable making better use of other visual cues on the leader screen without ditching the idea (and may be preferable in some ways because facial recognition isn't a thing everyone is very good at, I'm downright crap at it) but I agree with the goal.

(Uh. Apparently this is what I'm spending my 10 000 post on, lol)

 

[Zaarin]

I mean, I think that can be reasonably accomplished by other visual cues in the leader screen that appear at the same time.

That point at least I can see. I think the goal is reachable making better use of other visual cues on the leader screen without ditching the idea (and may be preferable in some ways because facial recognition isn't a thing everyone is very good at, I'm downright crap at it) but I agree with the goal.

That's fair. They could definitely go a lot further than they did with Eleanor and Kublai Khan to show which civ a leader is attached to. I'm still not very fond of the idea, though; I just don't think it's what leaders should represent. But that's just my personal take.

(Uh. Apparently this is what I'm spending my 10 000 post on, lol)

Welcome to the 10,000+ post club. I don't think I even noticed my 10,000th post, actually...

 

[Patine]

Been thinking about potential leaders with the recent leader pass and all. Charlemagne came to mind, and I wanted to skim the surface here for opinions.
Charlemagne ruled a realm, Francia/the Kingdom of the Franks, that encompassed most of modern-day France and Germany. So, would you erect a unique new civ for him or give him dual leadership like Eleanor or Kublai have? Would Charlemagne even fit in well in Civ 6 in your opinion?

From a strictly historical perspective there's a good case to be made that the Franks are a separate civilization that predate (and is ancestral to) both France and Germany's existence as civilizations.

But from a game perspective I doubt very much new civilization will happen even in a hypothetical leader pass II, and I'm loathe to introduce a Frankish civilization when Europe is already so full and other parts of the world already so underrepresented, so I think IF Charlemagne were to be added he'd have to be added as a twin France-German leader as a compromise.

I'd prefer a separate Frankish civ, myself, as they were really, VERY different, from what I've read, than even Medieval French or Germans. They had some very unique features as a people and civilization, and were NOT just French and German leader material. Besides, for those hung up on official earth maps (of which I am not one - I always play on a random map of some sort), Aix-La-Chappelle is on the Franco-German border, and south of Amsterdam.

Please, no more dual leaders. If Charlemagne is ever included, he should lead the Franks. On the other hand, while the inclusion of the Franks could be interesting, their inclusion could be interpreted as blatant Eurocentrism. Do we need more European overrepresentation to the detriment of other parts of the world? I would advocate including the Franks if the game had at least 70 slots for civilizations.

I'm not a big supporter of dual leaders, either. But I'm also less of a supporter of arbitrary and artificial continental civ quotas and/or caps, as that would make things wonky and distorted, and would definitely be seen as having priorities that were not based on historical portrayals, but modern revisionism and forced narratives, regardless of who was the source of them. I will elaborate on this statement no more.

 

[Zaarin]

Besides, for those hung up on official earth maps (of which I am not one - I always play on a random map of some sort), Aix-La-Chappelle is on the Franco-German border, and south of Amsterdam.

It's also currently the capital of the German civ since Aix-la-Chapelle is Aachen so I don't think you're winning over the TSL crowd.

I agree on preferring Charlemagne lead a Frankish civ, but I also can't say I feel a strong desire for a Frankish civ--especially if it's just Charlemagne: The Civilization like Civ6's Macedon and Sumer(ia).

 

[Patine]

It's also currently the capital of the German civ since Aix-la-Chapelle is Aachen so I don't think you're winning over the TSL crowd.

I agree on preferring Charlemagne lead a Frankish civ, but I also can't say I feel a strong desire for a Frankish civ--especially if it's just Charlemagne: The Civilization like Civ6's Macedon and Sumer(ia).

Clovis was also a fairly a interesting individual, even aside from Dan Brown's belief they were the blood descendants of Christ turned into a glorious, and then mad and debauched dynasty eventually overthrown by their Palace Mayor Charles Martel (Charlemagne's grandfather). Even the historically verified Clovis is interesting.

 

[Evie]

Which, it pretty much would be.

Arbitrary quota are not good, but neither is representing every single European culture in history while India is still a blob and Africa only ever gets one of the numerous civ of the Sahel at a time. That's not about quota, that's about "yeah, if we only hace so many civs maybe we shouldn't make the list completely dominated by every European grouo under the sun"

There"s a balance to be had between arbitrary quota and excessive overfocus, and that balance is not having Franks AND French AND Germans all together but limiting India to one blob and Africa to only one out of Mali or Songhai while no Ghana, Hausa or Kanem-Bornu are ever allowed.

 

[Xandinho]

I'm not a big supporter of dual leaders, either. But I'm also less of a supporter of arbitrary and artificial continental civ quotas and/or caps, as that would make things wonky and distorted, and would definitely be seen as having priorities that were not based on historical portrayals, but modern revisionism and forced narratives, regardless of who was the source of them. I will elaborate on this statement no more.

It's not about quotas, it's about the game being about civilizations, not about European civilizations.
Unless they broadly extend the number of civilizations in the game, my point is that Franks being included in place of a civ from anywhere else, in a game that already has France and Germany, would be an obvious case of Eurocentrism. It's totally normal that Europe has more civs than the average of the continents, and I don't complain about that, but looking at the current picture of Civ6, there are still continents that are quite underrepresented - Africa and North America could have, each one of them, at least two more civilizations to be properly represented. Whereas in Europe, the only representation that I see really needed and that is missing from Civ6 is an Italian representation.

 

[Patine]

It's not about quotas, it's about the game being about civilizations, not about European civilizations.
Unless they broadly extend the number of civilizations in the game, my point is that Franks being included in place of a civ from anywhere else, in a game that already has France and Germany, would be an obvious case of Eurocentrism. It's totally normal that Europe has more civs than the average of the continents, and I don't complain about that, but looking at the current picture of Civ6, there are still continents that are quite underrepresented - Africa and North America could have, each one of them, at least two more civilizations to be properly represented. Whereas in Europe, the only representation that I see really needed and that is missing from Civ6 is an Italian representation.

Personally, I mostly believe that civ's derived European colonial constructs should not, inherently, be in the game (I had a proposal of a revolution/independence war/commonwealth system for far-flung,multi-continental in a given game, regardless of who that civ is). And I have always been for dethroning Gandhi and having multiple Indian civ's (China may not be necessary or desirable to break up - especially given its own history and self-concept). I agree that other parts of the world need to be filled out (I've made quite a few suggestions, myself), though quite a few ideas proposed have been dubious, lacking attestation, and/or possibly highly mythologized, though there have been some very good ones, too. However, when labels like, "Eurocentric," are brought in such an arbitrary way, that begins to politicize the intent of the game. In the modern zeitgeist, I try to remain neutral and pragmatic in the so-called, "Culture War," and terms like that - or their counterparts - pollute a game like this with that sort of clamour.

 

[Evie]

Oh, my, whatever shall we do, we're "polluting" the game.

Lol

 

[Xandinho]

Personally, I mostly believe that civ's derived European colonial constructs should not, inherently, be in the game (I had a proposal of a revolution/independence war/commonwealth system for far-flung,multi-continental in a given game, regardless of who that civ is). And I have always been for dethroning Gandhi and having multiple Indian civ's (China may not be necessary or desirable to break up - especially given its own history and self-concept). I agree that other parts of the world need to be filled out (I've made quite a few suggestions, myself), though quite a few ideas proposed have been dubious, lacking attestation, and/or possibly highly mythologized, though there have been some very good ones, too. However, when labels like, "Eurocentric," are brought in such an arbitrary way, that begins to politicize the intent of the game. In the modern zeitgeist, I try to remain neutral and pragmatic in the so-called, "Culture War," and terms like that - or their counterparts - pollute a game like this with that sort of clamour.

I also don't think any civ around the world should be added just because they aren't European, but there are many good options in the Americas, Africa and Asia that could be in the game in place of yet another minor European kingdom. And even if they cut out all modern nations, the game should still have a fair representation of continents.

 

[Patine]

I also don't think any civ around the world should be added just because they aren't European, but there are many good options in the Americas, Africa and Asia that could be in the game in place of yet another minor European kingdom. And even if they cut out all modern nations, the game should still have a fair representation of continents.

Again, I said nothing to dispute this idea, if you read what I said. I feel as if my intent is being misunderstood.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Ideally, I would want a separate Frankish civ for Charlemagne, but if it's for Civ 6 I would tolerate him as a dual leader.

It's also currently the capital of the German civ since Aix-la-Chapelle is Aachen so I don't think you're winning over the TSL crowd.

I agree on preferring Charlemagne lead a Frankish civ, but I also can't say I feel a strong desire for a Frankish civ--especially if it's just Charlemagne: The Civilization like Civ6's Macedon and Sumer(ia).

I mean by Civ 6 TSL standards that could be one tile to the left of where the current German capital of Aachen starts, just like the current Byzantines and Ottomans situation.
Supposedly Ludwig will have Munich as his capital, so that would also make more room.

I think a case could be made in Civ 7 for making Charlemagne it's own civ if:
1) Alexander goes back to Greece
2) Ireland gets in, so we don't need Gaul
3) Germany is more Prussian designed

 

[Zaarin]

I mean by Civ 6 TSL standards that could be one tile to the left of where the current German capital of Aachen starts, just like the current Byzantines and Ottomans situation.

Yes, but the TSL people will still throw a fit about it, even though Constantinople/Kostatiniyye isn't even the only city that's present in multiple places in Civ6. I mean, Aleppo is on Arabia's list twice.