Choose seven alternative leaders you'd most like to see on Civ6

[Morningcalm]

Very few American presidents have been the portrait of moral rectitude. I agree that America doesn't need a second leader and I agree that Jefferson wouldn't be my first choice for an alternate American leader, but I hardly think that Jefferson's actual actions fell short of his loftier opinions should disqualify him from consideration. If sainthood is required for consideration, I think we're down to Tamar and Jadwiga.

I don't think sainthood is required for consideration, but compared to Jefferson surely Adams (who saw slavery as sinful and utterly repugnant) is more a saint. Heck, Adams prevented war with France to boot (over Hamilton's protests, I might add). Even Lincoln, though he didn't like Native Americans, would be waaaay better than Jefferson, though he too is controversial (surprisingly) in some quarters. I think we may have discussed this before too.

We've disagreed on this many times, but I'd simply say that in an iteration of civ that emphasizes big personalities, Civ6 is a prime opportunity to include Akhenaten, who through the sheer force of his charisma managed to transform an extremely conservative society for the duration of his lifetime. I'd argue that Akhenaten was probably one of the biggest personalities in Egyptian history. Also, as you point out yourself, the Amarna period was a golden age of Egyptian cultural expression. Akhenaten himself was a poet who wrote a number of hymns to Aten. Who knows but that Akhenaten's reforms might have lasted had he not grown weaker from ill-health in the latter part of his reign and had he not been succeeded by an easily-controlled child-king who was essentially the puppet of the priests of Amun for the duration of his brief reign?

As far as I'm concerned, Akhenaten shook things up in the way the current leader of the US did--in mostly not-good ways. His failure to protect Egyptian vassals in the Near East to the Hittites set dangerous precedent for Hittite aggression, and while Akhenaten striking down the priesthood of Amun made his kingship more powerful, it stirred powerful, popular resentment, which is speculated to have led to Akhenaten's assassination by some (like in the opera Akhnaten).

Having lots of culture is well and good, but Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, and Senusret III also had cultural blooms in times when Egypt was both wealthy and powerful. Egypt under Akhenaten squandered its treasury and lost its military potency and reach. At least the child-king Tutankhamun was more popular with his subjects.

As far as reforms, I can remember Akhenaten only "reforming" religion to bow to one god--if destroying something is reforming it, we have indeed found another parallel to a certain contemporary leader (though let's be careful not to delve too much into contemporary politics).

In short, Akhenaten didn't have accomplishments to back up his personality. I don't think accomplishments need to last for eons to be worthy accomplishments, but in Akhenaten's case I am troubled by the lack of accomplishments other than his attack on the priesthood, and his foreign policy deficiencies and unwise city-planning are quite problematic as well, since pharaohs were traditionally expected to be fierce against Egypt's enemies, and pharaohs were also expected not to do stupid things like making capital cities in the middle of the desert away from water sources (which every Egyptian likely knew from their cultural practices and placement of existing Egyptian cities was a rare occurrence indeed).

Also, Akhenaten was widely detested by future pharaohs in more powerful ways than Hatshepsut was (as evidenced by the fact that Thutmose III, he who defaced some Hatshepsut monuments nevertheless chose to be buried next to Hatshepsut, and didn't thoroughly destroy her monuments in less-public areas, which has led historians now to think she was condemned more for being a female who seized the pharaonic crown than because she was a bad leader--if anything, the record demonstrates she was a potent and successful pharaoh, especially compared to Akhenaten).

Very much agree. Henry VIII is certainly a big personality, but Henry V is no less so and has real accomplishments to back up that personality.

Indeed! Here's to Timothee Chalamet, who will be portraying Henry V in an upcoming Netflix movie. Let's hope it brings Henry V to a wider audience worldwide.

If Henry IV (The founder of Bourbon Dynasty) is to be French alt. leader, then well what should there be French UU?
A. Royal Musketeer (Light Cavalry, YES they ARE mounted infantry and fights with muskets when dismounted )
B. Garde Francaisse (Replaces Pike and Shot).

Honestly, either sounds fine. Civ VI strayed more than some prior Civ entries in terms of having a UU that fit the era of its leader so likely anything French is fine for Firaxis' purposes (Civ V was arguably closest to having units matching its leaders, with some exceptions like Bismarck's German units.)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Indeed! Here's to Timothee Chalamet, who will be portraying Henry V in an upcoming Netflix movie. Let's hope it brings Henry V to a wider audience worldwide.

I will be amazed if he can chew up the scenery any more than Sir Laurence Olivier did in the wartime movie version of Shakespeare's Henry V, but it will indeed be interesting to watch him try . . .

If Henry IV (The founder of Bourbon Dynasty) is to be French alt. leader, then well what should there be French UU?
A. Royal Musketeer (Light Cavalry, YES they ARE mounted infantry and fights with muskets when dismounted )
B. Garde Francaisse (Replaces Pike and Shot).

On principle, I dislike using as a UU a unit that was never more than a tiny fraction of the original army, like the Rough Riders (1 regiment) or the Imperial Garde (actually the Grenadiers of the Guard, 2 regiments out of 150 in Napoleon's infantry alone).
On the other hand, the first of the Vieux Corps - the original Permanent Regiments of infantry of the Royal French Army, were established in 1569, just a few years before Henry IV became king, and were the premier line infantry of the French Army until the revolution swept everything Royal away.
Originally there were 6, by the end of Henri's reign 12 regiments, and while they were authorized 2 battalions each, most of them had 3 or 4 because everybody wanted to serve in these 'prestigious' regiments. That means they formed a Corps of over 30 battalions, the size of a small army all by themselves, whereas the Gardes Francais were never more than 6 battalions and frankly, spent too much of their time hanging around the Royal Household to be very good field troops.

Likewise, the Musketiers a Cheval are very well known, but usually mistaken for infantry, which they never were. In fact, they were only 2 squadrons of the Maison du Roi, the king's Household or Guard cavalry - a minuscule fraction of the French mounted forces.

The "Old Corps" could not only replace Pike and Shot, but might have either an Automatic Recovery attribute, since they were so prestigious that they never had any trouble getting recruits (Heals 10% per turn regardless of other activity?) or Automatically Upgrade to a Garde Imperiale/Red Coat type unit, since they were among the first infantry anywhere to remove all their pikes and replace them with Fusils in 1699, becoming all-flintlock musket units with all their advantages.

Graphically, they were in 'gris-blanc' (gray-white) or white coats with colored cuffs, vests and lapels ("turn backs") and carried large flags with the white Bourbon Cross prominently displayed. Should make them pretty easy to spot on the map!

 

[Zaarin]

I don't think sainthood is required for consideration, but compared to Jefferson surely Adams (who saw slavery as sinful and utterly repugnant) is more a saint. Heck, Adams prevented war with France to boot (over Hamilton's protests, I might add).

Your preaching to the choir. I adore both the Adamses. I think they're terribly underappreciated. John Adams is my top pick for either a second US leader or Civ7's US leader. I don't like Thomas Jefferson, and he doesn't make my shortlist of presidents I'd want leading the US in Civ. I'm just saying I don't think morality is particularly an important factor in selecting Civ leaders.

Even Lincoln, though he didn't like Native Americans, would be waaaay better than Jefferson, though he too is controversial (surprisingly) in some quarters. I think we may have discussed this before too.

We have. I detest Abraham Lincoln, and he ranks far lower than Jefferson in my book.

As far as reforms, I can remember Akhenaten only "reforming" religion to bow to one god

I'd like to point out that Akhenaten's Atenism was not monotheistic but monolotrous, like the majority of religions in the Ancient Near East and like Egyptian religion probably was prior to Scorpion and Narmer. Historians exaggerate Atenism's uniqueness, particularly historians who would like to suggest that Atenism was the antecedent for Judaism (which IMO needs no antecedent outside of Canaan, not even from a purely academic perspective).

Also, Akhenaten was widely detested by future pharaohs

So was Qin Shi Huang, yet here we are.

if anything, the record demonstrates she was a potent and successful pharaoh

Considering Hatshepsut was my initial hope for Egypt's leader and was, in my opinion, easily one of Egypt's best leaders of either sex, I'm not arguing against Hatshepsut, albeit I think she conceptually inhabits too similar a space to Cleopatra insofar as Hatshepsut's obvious affinities would be for trade, just like Cleo.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I think Khufu would make for a good builder Egypt to give wondermakers like Qin a run for their money.

Akhenaten would be a good fit if they tweak religion to be more like the government/civics card system as I’ve suggested elsewhere.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I will be amazed if he can chew up the scenery any more than Sir Laurence Olivier did in the wartime movie version of Shakespeare's Henry V, but it will indeed be interesting to watch him try . . .



On principle, I dislike using as a UU a unit that was never more than a tiny fraction of the original army, like the Rough Riders (1 regiment) or the Imperial Garde (actually the Grenadiers of the Guard, 2 regiments out of 150 in Napoleon's infantry alone).
On the other hand, the first of the Vieux Corps - the original Permanent Regiments of infantry of the Royal French Army, were established in 1569, just a few years before Henry IV became king, and were the premier line infantry of the French Army until the revolution swept everything Royal away.
Originally there were 6, by the end of Henri's reign 12 regiments, and while they were authorized 2 battalions each, most of them had 3 or 4 because everybody wanted to serve in these 'prestigious' regiments. That means they formed a Corps of over 30 battalions, the size of a small army all by themselves, whereas the Gardes Francais were never more than 6 battalions and frankly, spent too much of their time hanging around the Royal Household to be very good field troops.

Likewise, the Musketiers a Cheval are very well known, but usually mistaken for infantry, which they never were. In fact, they were only 2 squadrons of the Maison du Roi, the king's Household or Guard cavalry - a minuscule fraction of the French mounted forces.

The "Old Corps" could not only replace Pike and Shot, but might have either an Automatic Recovery attribute, since they were so prestigious that they never had any trouble getting recruits (Heals 10% per turn regardless of other activity?) or Automatically Upgrade to a Garde Imperiale/Red Coat type unit, since they were among the first infantry anywhere to remove all their pikes and replace them with Fusils in 1699, becoming all-flintlock musket units with all their advantages.

Graphically, they were in 'gris-blanc' (gray-white) or white coats with colored cuffs, vests and lapels ("turn backs") and carried large flags with the white Bourbon Cross prominently displayed. Should make them pretty easy to spot on the map!

1. So 'Royal Musketeers' didn't even use muskets too did they? (AFAIK when dismounted) They fight wars with rapiers as portrayed in flicks and Alexander Dumas Jr. ? (and rapiers aren't really battle worthy weapons, they suit functions of duels rather than actual battlefield combat, correct?) did this unit really charged into La Rochelle when Bourbons (or personally Richelieu) wanted to get rid France of Calvinist Heresy?
is this unit also charged into The Netherlands? did D'artagnan lead them?
What's wrong with Firaxis or Sid himself?. in Civ1 and 2, the term 'Musketeers' referred to Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment mainstray infantry (it included both, and back then not worth any upgrades from pikemen) also the UU concepts didn't even exists yet.
2. Did the 'Old Corps' the first to use plug bayonets after one of French officials observed a skirmish between two basques that involved plugging knives into a musket barrel?
3. And again. Firaxis did miss upgrades for either Musketmen or P&S in Industrial Era. Neither Redcoats (Should be Anticav, oh well you don't agree with civ6 class systems at all) nor Imperial Guard (Should be Grand Army Grenadiers instead) are made by upgrading any existing units, but treated as separate 'melee class' unit that's upgradeable! (to Mech Infantry! OMG did Firaxis think that Red Coats included both British Line Infantry of the Enlightenment Era and pre WW1 Infantrymen of the British Empire? (Ones that duked out against Zulu Impis in 1780s)
4. Also graphic representations of Old Corps. should they be P&S or 'early Line Infantry'? A sarge, to the leftermost with pike or halberd (French prefers halberds), and the rest with guns.
5. And should there be Riflemen as a upgrades to P&S upgrades aforemented?
6. And 'Recon class' lineage. I began to disagree with Firaxis on this one. Scouts upgraded to Ranger (where Skirmishers as intermediate unit in GS). Firaxis think recons and 'light infantry' are the same and forgot that recons are mounted too! whatchu think of this? should there be 'light infantry' class separately?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

1. So 'Royal Musketeers' didn't even use muskets too did they? (AFAIK when dismounted) They fight wars with rapiers as portrayed in flicks and Alexander Dumas Jr. ? (and rapiers aren't really battle worthy weapons, they suit functions of duels rather than actual battlefield combat, correct?) did this unit really charged into La Rochelle when Bourbons (or personally Richelieu) wanted to get rid France of Calvinist Heresy?
is this unit also charged into The Netherlands? did D'artagnan lead them?
What's wrong with Firaxis or Sid himself?. in Civ1 and 2, the term 'Musketeers' referred to Renaissance and Age of Enlightenment mainstray infantry (it included both, and back then not worth any upgrades from pikemen) also the UU concepts didn't even exists yet.

The Mousquetaires de la Garde were always intended for both mounted and dismounted action - with muskets dismounted, with sword and pistol while mounted. They were always classified, however, among the Cavalry of the King's Household (Maison du Roi), so should be basically represented as Mounted Troops. There were only 2 companies of them, each about 150 - 200 men, and called the Black Musketeers and Gray Musketeers, but that referred to the color of the their horses and nothing else.
And, yes, there was a historical D'Artagnan, who was a captain of musketeers in the 17th century.

2. Did the 'Old Corps' the first to use plug bayonets after one of French officials observed a skirmish between two basques that involved plugging knives into a musket barrel?

Specifically, the Regiment du Roi of the '2nd wave' of the Vieux Corps, formed in 1616, was first issued plug bayonets in 1671 - their Colonel was Martinet, whose name became a noun for "ferocious discipline"
BUT a Chinese manuscript from about 1606 also describes a "sword that can be inserted into a musket barrel" so the plug bayonet may have been invented outside of Europe a half-century or so before the European armies started to use it.

3. And again. Firaxis did miss upgrades for either Musketmen or P&S in Industrial Era. Neither Redcoats (Should be Anticav, oh well you don't agree with civ6 class systems at all) nor Imperial Guard (Should be Grand Army Grenadiers instead) are made by upgrading any existing units, but treated as separate 'melee class' unit that's upgradeable! (to Mech Infantry! OMG did Firaxis think that Red Coats included both British Line Infantry of the Enlightenment Era and pre WW1 Infantrymen of the British Empire? (Ones that duked out against Zulu Impis in 1780s)

The 'Red Coat" was adopted for Cromwell's New Model Army in 1645, but was a dull red from Madder dye until 1873, when "Scarlet" - a bright red from artificial aniline dye, was adopted officially for all ranks. The Khartoum Campaign of 1885 was the last time British troops officially wore red/scarlet into battle - by then 'khaki' *'dust colored') had been adopted for overseas, and the scarlet coats were only for "home service" in Britain. The "Khaki Battle Dress" was officially adopted universally in 1902.

The "Red Coat" then, covers Pike and Shot (New Model Army) to 18th century fusiliers to the Zulu Wars (1879 - 80) breech-loading riflemen, But NOT, in battle at least, the Boer War of 1899 - 1902 (magazine rifles, or "Great War Infantry" to borrow from Civ V) or the twentieth century.
Of course, since Red Coats were specifically not worn overseas after the middle of the Industrial Era, giving the UU a bonus for overseas service is Dead Wrong.

4. Also graphic representations of Old Corps. should they be P&S or 'early Line Infantry'? A sarge, to the leftermost with pike or halberd (French prefers halberds), and the rest with guns.

They started out as classic Pike & Shot in the late 16th century, with originally about 1/3 pikes to muskets. By the time they turned in the last of their pikes in 1699 they were down to only about 1 pike to every 5 muskets. For approximately 130 years, then, they were Pike & Shot, for another 90 years they were Fusiliers with flintlock musket and socket bayonet, before they disappeared in the French Revolution.
Graphically, whether or not they have a pike showing, the Sergeant would carry a halberd-type pole arm, an officer was supposed to carry a half-pike (long spear) but rarely did, preferring a sword and a large white sash as a visible Insignia of Rank, and the unit would carry a large flag (sometimes one for each company in addition to the regimental and battalion flags) with a prominent white Bourbon Cross and a white sash/ribbon hanging from just below the finial above the flag.

5. And should there be Riflemen as a upgrades to P&S upgrades aforemented?

I've posted this before, but to Summarize: the Rifleman, despite its prominence in the US Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War during the Industrial Era, was less important than the Upgrade from Pike and Shot to Fusilier. The Fusilier - carrying a flintlock smoothbore musket with socket bayonet - combined most of the anti-cav bonus from the pikes with about 2 - 3 times the firepower of the matchlock Musket. It was the first Near-Universal Infantryman, and dominated the battlefields of the world for over a century.
By contrast, the Upgrade to black powder rifles, even breechloaders, in the 1850s made very little change in tactics or formations by itself except to complete the relative impotence of cavalry: fusilier squares could already stand them off with ease, riflemen didn't even have to form square to shoot horsemen to pieces. The next Major Upgrade was to the smokeless powder magazine rifle in the 1890s - the "Great War Infantry". This doubled the effective range, doubled the effective rate of fire, and coincided with Hiram Maxim's invention of the modern machine-gun. It made infantry absolutely Supreme on the Battlefield for about 20 years - until artillery learned to shoot over hills and at targets the guns themselves couldn't see, after which, despite all the publicity given to tanks and aircraft, Artillery became the greatest killer on the 20th century battlefield, accounting for up to 70% of all casualties inflicted everywhere on any terrain.

6. And 'Recon class' lineage. I began to disagree with Firaxis on this one. Scouts upgraded to Ranger (where Skirmishers as intermediate unit in GS). Firaxis think recons and 'light infantry' are the same and forgot that recons are mounted too! whatchu think of this? should there be 'light infantry' class separately?

@Victoria has already shown that Recon class units make perfectly good "light infantry" in the game As Is: potentially providing Flanking, and ZOC-type Bonuses to other friendly units. If I were going to do anything to the Recon Class, I would be tempted to change their Upgrade Path to reflect the most important Light Troops historically:

Classical Era: Peltast - a 'scout' with an Anti-Cav Bonus - most of them carried both javelins and a long spear, were used by armies as different as Greek, Roman, Macedonian, Persian, and Thracian, Gallic and Spanish "Barbarians"
Renaissance Era: Dragoon - moves as mounted, fights dismounted
Modern Era: Armored Car - extremely fast but Terrain Dependant
Atomic Era: Special Forces/SAS/Spetsnaz - as in the game now

 

[Victoria]

has already shown that Recon class units make perfectly good "light infantry" in the game As Is:

Well light means skirmish, and that’s exactly what light cavalry are supposed to be also. They are implemented too strong in the game. Horsemen should be an early form of HC and there should be a mounted skirmisher type butbI guess this game is primarily not a wargame despite people’s needs to shoehorn.
I have played a lot with skirmishers, playing on prince primarily with them for example. Once they can move after firing they are perfect.
‘Scouts’ being a few people and their dog is appalling and not a military unit, the symbol should be changed to a crossed bow/javelin or similar. I mean they are a military unit with a ZOC and do work like light apart from they should be able to recoil by default rather than as a second level promotion. This would make them much more realistic.
With the modern age there is really no place for them and they do become spec ops which should be right. Rangers is just a mix up in their class, where are the napoleonic light infantry and light horse?
Basically they have melded 2 types of unit into one class. Likely because the board is not large enough for real skirmish action on a larger scale ... but it does work really for the skirmisher class and as rangers. People are just not using them right, go to the other side of a civs lands and start pillaging, draw some troops away from the main battle, it works well.
Before engagement, the scout in front validates the enemy position and even can disrupt it... that’s just right.

 

[AsH2]

..
‘Scouts’ being a few people and their dog is appalling and not a military unit, the symbol should be changed to a crossed bow/javelin or similar. I mean they are a military unit with a ZOC and do work like light apart from they should be able to recoil by default rather than as a second level promotion. This would make them much more realistic.
..

Then I would suggest to use the Cat Scout appearance instead..

 

[Victoria]

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Here is a good rendition of a Peltast, the Classical Era 'scout' or Light Infantry unit I was talking about. This fellow represents a late Thracian, Greek or Macedonian, but he's typical of everybody's type.

 

[Zaarin]

They fight wars with rapiers as portrayed in flicks and Alexander Dumas Jr. ?

Rapiers were sport weapons. They very rarely saw real combat.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I Forgot one thing.

The "Old Corps" could not only replace Pike and Shot, but might have either an Automatic Recovery attribute, since they were so prestigious that they never had any trouble getting recruits (Heals 10% per turn regardless of other activity?) or Automatically Upgrade to a Garde Imperiale/Red Coat type unit, since they were among the first infantry anywhere to remove all their pikes and replace them with Fusils in 1699, becoming all-flintlock musket units with all their advantages.

Graphically, they were in 'gris-blanc' (gray-white) or white coats with colored cuffs, vests and lapels ("turn backs") and carried large flags with the white Bourbon Cross prominently displayed. Should make them pretty easy to spot on the map!

RGB Codes for this 'gris blanc' Bourbon Army uses please. Did the Ancient Regime French Army uses the same white pigment for European continental troops as well as in North American campaigns (Both in the 7 years war, and in the end stage of American Revolution)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I Forgot one thing.

RGB Codes for this 'gris blanc' Bourbon Army uses please. Did the Ancient Regime French Army uses the same white pigment for European continental troops as well as in North American campaigns (Both in the 7 years war, and in the end stage of American Revolution)

There was considerable debate among French military historians years ago as to what, exactly 'gris-blanc' meant as a color, but given that various forms of gray, iron gray, gray-white, dark, light, and medium gray were used by most of the armies of Europe as a coat color for uniforms, and providing uniform coats was a major new expense for all governments in Europe from the 1650s on, they finally realized that 'gray-white' simply was, like all the rest, Unbleached Wool. So, it was whatever shade of gray you got from the flock of sheep you sheared for the thread, and the best you could hope for was that everybody in a given unit was wearing roughly the same color of gray,

When I was painting miniatures of these troops years ago I ended up with over 20 different shades of gray paint just so that I could catch the variations in 'gray' coats amongst the French, Austrian, Palatinate, Circles of the Empire, and other troops during the War of the Spanish Succession. I never felt the slightest guilt that I was not getting the shade of gray precisely right, because there simply wasn't any such thing, given the variations of the original wool combined with weathering after a few months of wandering around Europe getting rained on at least one day out of every 5 and splashed with mud by every passing horseman.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ So these 'le Gris Blanc' should be considerable darker because of such exposures to outdoor soldiery conditions (not just battlefield).
The Austrian (And maybe Spanish) also uses white uniforms for their infantrymen. The Austrian ones are considerably brighter

And what about American Blue. What really is? Is it actually the same as Prussian Blue or different? (and even does it has the same OFFICIAL RGB code as seen in the Flag of the United States of America? I've seen the Federal Government even defined RGB Codes for each individual colours in the flag)

I'm asking for RGB code because i'm working on a big mod (now i've finished adding Rifleman into the entry. well next version I might consider different options whether to add Light Infantry class as separate unit class and 'Recon' restructured that Scout successors will be mounted (Recon needs speed too!). And i feel like I have to conclude this version soon because of faulty Asset Editor. and YES this is a modding tool (more details in modding discussions which I will not elaborate here) that came in a packaged set with Modbuddy. Historical accuracy (Theoretical or real, since many civs emerged, existed, and fell in a very different respective eras and many were never actually meet IRL), between Unit skins and tintings are vary. (and more so often than not, inaccurate, even with favorite pop culture represtations, let alone actual history) so tints are needed to add such accuracy, particularly Germans, and Russians respectively. (Since my mod have Enlightenement Era units)..
And about 'Rifleman' (which Firaxis often represented every regular infantry from Napoleonic Line Infantry to early WW1, but usually has American Civil War looks. while sometimes they could represents Prussian infantry with Dreyse Needle Rifle, they might as well represented Austrian Line Inf. with Lorenz muskets (also exported to the two factions in the ACW) which Prussian soldiers outclassed them. if you don't agree with separate graphic representations (since their uniforms aren't really upgraded much, Shakos are more or less retained by many army along with Kepis).
Should there be represented with tech bonus earned after Rifling tech is earned? (and how to represent Koniggratz with this?)

About paints you used before. did you use Games Workshop Citadel paints?

And What do you think of 'Pike and Shot' unit name? Do you think 'Footman' is better? (English 'New Model Army' P&S unit is called 'Foot' while any cavs are called Horse. They didn't yet aware that cannons are better organized in one dedicated unit than allocating to various regiments).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

^ So these 'le Gris Blanc' should be considerable darker because of such exposures to outdoor soldiery conditions (not just battlefield).
The Austrian (And maybe Spanish) also uses white uniforms for their infantrymen. The Austrian ones are considerably brighter

Gris blanc, especially for 'elite' regiments, should be a fairly light gray. Very early on, in fact, some of the 'Old' regiments like Picardy and Champagne began bleaching their coats so that their uniforms were white rather than gris-blanc, and since gris blanc translates as "gray-white" my assumption is that it started out as a very light gray, but probably got darker and grimier as the campaigning season wore on. Ordinary infantrymen, even in Guards or elite line regiments, only got a new coat issued every two years, so I would expect quite a bit of color variation between the spring it was issued and two years and two campaigning seasons later when it was turned in.

White, as mentioned above, was not colored or dyed at all, but simply bleached wool. One Austrian officer wrote that white was the best color for a uniform, because you could always bleach it back to white again whereas, in the 18th century, there was no way to adequately clean any other color of wool uniform.

And what about American Blue. What really is? Is it actually the same as Prussian Blue or different? (and even does it has the same OFFICIAL RGB code as seen in the Flag of the United States of America? I've seen the Federal Government even defined RGB Codes for each individual colours in the flag)

Officially, the US Army uniform from at least 1812 on was Prussian Blue, which is a metal salt, the first stable 'artificial' dye (non-vegetable). The color is actually a dark blue-gray, and by the time of the US Civil War it was sometimes achieved using aniline chemical dyes that had just been invented in the previous decade. That means some of the state uniforms, and 'non-standard' issue uniform coats like those for higher officers and musicians were probably Indigo, which is a much 'truer' blue than Prussian Blue.

I'm asking for RGB code because i'm working on a big mod (now i've finished adding Rifleman into the entry. well next version I might consider different options whether to add Light Infantry class as separate unit class and 'Recon' restructured that Scout successors will be mounted (Recon needs speed too!). And i feel like I have to conclude this version soon because of faulty Asset Editor. and YES this is a modding tool (more details in modding discussions which I will not elaborate here) that came in a packaged set with Modbuddy. Historical accuracy (Theoretical or real, since many civs emerged, existed, and fell in a very different respective eras and many were never actually meet IRL), between Unit skins and tintings are vary. (and more so often than not, inaccurate, even with favorite pop culture represtations, let alone actual history) so tints are needed to add such accuracy, particularly Germans, and Russians respectively. (Since my mod have Enlightenement Era units)..
And about 'Rifleman' (which Firaxis often represented every regular infantry from Napoleonic Line Infantry to early WW1, but usually has American Civil War looks. while sometimes they could represents Prussian infantry with Dreyse Needle Rifle, they might as well represented Austrian Line Inf. with Lorenz muskets (also exported to the two factions in the ACW) which Prussian soldiers outclassed them. if you don't agree with separate graphic representations (since their uniforms aren't really upgraded much, Shakos are more or less retained by many army along with Kepis).
Should there be represented with tech bonus earned after Rifling tech is earned? (and how to represent Koniggratz with this?)

Color standardization except for Black and White was only approximate before the artificial 'chemical' (coal tar/aniline) dyes were invented in the 1850s. Everything before then was colored with natural dyes except for Prussian Blue, which was not extracted from the metal salts until about 1706 and was only adopted by the Prussian Army (largely because it was cheaper than Indigo). Everybody else in Europe after the 17th century used Indigo for blue, Madder for red, and tried not to use green for uniforms at all because there is no natural color-fast green dye - every one of them fades when exposed to weather and sunlight. By the Napoleonic Wars pink shows up a lot as a color for piping and braid and cuffs, simply because bright red was much too expensive - pink was cheap, it was just faded red!
As I wrote once in an article for war-game painters, you cannot be realistic in depicting pre-late Industrial Era uniforms, because if you did the result would be Hideous: in northern or central European summers, the troops are guaranteed to be rained on at least once a week from May to September, so that very quickly all the dyes would have either washed out or faded, the wool coats would lose all their tailored shape, and the felt tricorn or bicorne hats would be reduced to shapeless masses of dirty felt hanging off their heads. All the bright leather would be sweat-stained to near black and any metal buckles, buttons, and braid would be tarnished green-brown-black.
In gaming we have to do what the painters did in portraits of the time: paint everybody as if the uniform they are wearing was just issued hours before and hasn't even been out in the sun yet.

About paints you used before. did you use Games Workshop Citadel paints?

Not much. I collected miniature acrylic paints since the 1980s, so I had Armory, Citadel, early Vallejo, Testor's Model Master acrylics and lots of Floquil Poly-S, which were by far the best as to uniformly-ground pigments and chemical consistency.

And What do you think of 'Pike and Shot' unit name? Do you think 'Footman' is better? (English 'New Model Army' P&S unit is called 'Foot' while any cavs are called Horse. They didn't yet aware that cannons are better organized in one dedicated unit than allocating to various regiments).

The full term from about 1640 to 1750 was "Horse, Foot and Dragoons", since the dragoons were considered neither infantry nor 'true' cavalry. Artillerymen were considered 'artisans' and not soldiers util the mid-17th century, when Sweden and then France set up Artillery Regiments and started putting the 'gunners' into uniforms. It was another 100 years or more before all the artillery got Professional, though - armies were still hiring local farmers and their teams to tow the guns onto the battlefield right up to just before the 7 Years' War broke out: the idea that the government should actually have permanent, military teamster and draft horses took a long time to catch on.
A "Footman" is a servant for a nobleman. "Foot" referred to pike and shot and early musket-armed infantry units, after 1650 always counted by numbers of battalions in the Orders of Battle that have survived. Even after the fusilier- the flintlock musket - was adopted and technically all the regular infantry were Fusiliers, because that was a French word the British Army still referred to their infantry units as "Foot" until late in the 19th century. For example, the Defense of Roarke's Drift in the Zulu War of 1879 was by a company of "the 24th Regiment of Foot" of the British Army.

 

[Morningcalm]

Your preaching to the choir. I adore both the Adamses. I think they're terribly underappreciated. John Adams is my top pick for either a second US leader or Civ7's US leader. I don't like Thomas Jefferson, and he doesn't make my shortlist of presidents I'd want leading the US in Civ. I'm just saying I don't think morality is particularly an important factor in selecting Civ leaders.

I think morality is important insofar as it's a barrier to certain leaders being included. Firaxis is no stranger to controversy, but I am fairly sure they like to keep their fans happy. This is why certain leaders (You-Know-Who) will never be in Civ. And the slavery-sex controversy with Jefferson is frankly far more worrisome in the modern day than say, an ancient ruler who, like everyone else, waged war.

Of course, I note that Stalin and Mao have been in Civ before...but they are at least considered "ok" by the contemporary governments that succeeded them (though not necessarily liked by all Russians or Chinese people today).

We have. I detest Abraham Lincoln, and he ranks far lower than Jefferson in my book.

I personally think Lincoln did quite well at managing one of the worst wars in US history, and I appreciate he took a stand on the issues that led to the war rather than simply kowtowing to the South. After reading Team of Rivals my opinion of him went up even higher. It was no hagiography, mind. Lincoln's flaws were described and delved into.

I'd like to point out that Akhenaten's Atenism was not monotheistic but monolotrous, like the majority of religions in the Ancient Near East and like Egyptian religion probably was prior to Scorpion and Narmer. Historians exaggerate Atenism's uniqueness, particularly historians who would like to suggest that Atenism was the antecedent for Judaism (which IMO needs no antecedent outside of Canaan, not even from a purely academic perspective).

Functionally speaking the terminology matters little--what we know is that he cast down the priesthood of Amun and diverted substantial state resources and funds to his new religion at the cost of popular worship of other gods. Whereas Genghis Khan was religiously tolerant and militarily successful, Akhenaten was not.

So was Qin Shi Huang, yet here we are.

Qin Shi Huang was detested by later pharaohs?

In all seriousness though, I don't think Qin Shi Huang was anywhere near as reviled as Akhenaten by his own people, either in his time or after (in the modern era he is respected for improvements in Chinese society, such as simplifying the language, currency, getting state infrastructure running, etc.) He became a model for later (aggressive, somewhat cruel, but also successful) Chinese emperors. Of course, Qin Shi Huang wasn't popular among scholars, and was rightly condemned by historians for his cruelty. But modern Chinese people seem to like Qin Shi Huang, because of his association with developing the Chinese nation, and several of its most famous cultural items (Great Wall, Terracotta Army). Also, he had more long-lasting influence than Akhenaten, because Qin Shi Huang's developments were adopted by successive rulers and dynasties, and other aspects of his reign, like the Great Wall, further developed. Akhenaten by comparison was an interesting (for bad reasons) ruler who had relatively little impact beyond his lifetime (except serving as an example of what a pharaoh should *not* be).

Considering Hatshepsut was my initial hope for Egypt's leader and was, in my opinion, easily one of Egypt's best leaders of either sex, I'm not arguing against Hatshepsut, albeit I think she conceptually inhabits too similar a space to Cleopatra insofar as Hatshepsut's obvious affinities would be for trade, just like Cleo.

I think Hatshepsut could be more luxury/faith-based--the trip to Punt in 1493 BCE brought back living incense trees, which was the first known historical instance of transplanting foreign fauna, and which became quite useful. These incense trees flourished in later centuries. Moreover, Punt was essentially a legendary/mythic land to Egyptians, so that Hatshepsut's voyage was a political as well as economic coup. As Ancient Encyclopedia puts it, "The Land of Punt was long associated with the gods and Egypt's legendary past partly because so many of the materials from Punt were used in temple rituals. The leopard skins from Punt were worn by priests, the gold became statuary, the incense was burned in the temples".

Also, Hatshepsut was more militarily successful than Cleopatra, so there's that.

I think Khufu would make for a good builder Egypt to give wondermakers like Qin a run for their money.
Akhenaten would be a good fit if they tweak religion to be more like the government/civics card system as I’ve suggested elsewhere.

Many of the successful Egyptian pharaohs, like Rameses II, Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, and Senusret III were big monument-makers, and certainly made more of them than Khufu. Moreover, we know far more about them than we do about Khufu.

If we need a religious leader in the game, we can easily look to other ancient civilizations. Sumeria in particular could use the priest-king Gudea of Lagash,

 

[Zaarin]

Functionally speaking the terminology matters little--what we know is that he cast down the priesthood of Amun and diverted substantial state resources and funds to his new religion at the cost of popular worship of other gods.

We lack the necessary insight to comment on the sincerity of Akhenaten's religious ecstasy, but I think it would be naive to overlook his political motivations here. The priests of Amun had been encroaching on royal power for decades, and I'm sure many a pharaoh would have liked to reduce their power. I think it's also worth noting that the primacy of Amun was itself relatively new, replacing the primacy of Ra (and before that the primacy of Horus and before that the primacy of Ptah).

Whereas Genghis Khan was religiously tolerant and militarily successful, Akhenaten was not.

I don't think having religiously zealous leaders is a bad thing.

Akhenaten by comparison was an interesting (for bad reasons) ruler who had relatively little impact beyond his lifetime

It's hard to have an impact beyond one's lifetime when every reference to your existence has been erased. However, he's in good company in terms of being forgotten until the modern era. Hatshepsut was also unknown until archaeologists rediscovered her despite her damnatio memoriae being far less thorough, and outside of Egypt the entire Hittite and Sumerian civilizations were forgotten (despite Sumerian continuing as a liturgical language in Babylon and Assyria for centuries).

Also, Hatshepsut was more militarily successful than Cleopatra, so there's that.

Not to slight Hatshepsut's military successes, which were impressive, but being more successful than Cleopatra is setting the bar awfully low.

Many of the successful Egyptian pharaohs, like Rameses II, Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, and Senusret III were big monument-makers, and certainly made more of them than Khufu. Moreover, we know far more about them than we do about Khufu.

Indeed, if we're going with an Old Kingdom pharaoh Djoser or Narmer probably makes more sense.

If we need a religious leader in the game, we can easily look to other ancient civilizations. Sumeria in particular could use the priest-king Gudea of Lagash,

IMO Gudea should have been the leader of Sumer in the first place instead of having The Epic of Gilgamesh civ.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Gris blanc, especially for 'elite' regiments, should be a fairly light gray. Very early on, in fact, some of the 'Old' regiments like Picardy and Champagne began bleaching their coats so that their uniforms were white rather than gris-blanc, and since gris blanc translates as "gray-white" my assumption is that it started out as a very light gray, but probably got darker and grimier as the campaigning season wore on. Ordinary infantrymen, even in Guards or elite line regiments, only got a new coat issued every two years, so I would expect quite a bit of color variation between the spring it was issued and two years and two campaigning seasons later when it was turned in.

White, as mentioned above, was not colored or dyed at all, but simply bleached wool. One Austrian officer wrote that white was the best color for a uniform, because you could always bleach it back to white again whereas, in the 18th century, there was no way to adequately clean any other color of wool uniform.



Officially, the US Army uniform from at least 1812 on was Prussian Blue, which is a metal salt, the first stable 'artificial' dye (non-vegetable). The color is actually a dark blue-gray, and by the time of the US Civil War it was sometimes achieved using aniline chemical dyes that had just been invented in the previous decade. That means some of the state uniforms, and 'non-standard' issue uniform coats like those for higher officers and musicians were probably Indigo, which is a much 'truer' blue than Prussian Blue.



Color standardization except for Black and White was only approximate before the artificial 'chemical' (coal tar/aniline) dyes were invented in the 1850s. Everything before then was colored with natural dyes except for Prussian Blue, which was not extracted from the metal salts until about 1706 and was only adopted by the Prussian Army (largely because it was cheaper than Indigo). Everybody else in Europe after the 17th century used Indigo for blue, Madder for red, and tried not to use green for uniforms at all because there is no natural color-fast green dye - every one of them fades when exposed to weather and sunlight. By the Napoleonic Wars pink shows up a lot as a color for piping and braid and cuffs, simply because bright red was much too expensive - pink was cheap, it was just faded red!
As I wrote once in an article for war-game painters, you cannot be realistic in depicting pre-late Industrial Era uniforms, because if you did the result would be Hideous: in northern or central European summers, the troops are guaranteed to be rained on at least once a week from May to September, so that very quickly all the dyes would have either washed out or faded, the wool coats would lose all their tailored shape, and the felt tricorn or bicorne hats would be reduced to shapeless masses of dirty felt hanging off their heads. All the bright leather would be sweat-stained to near black and any metal buckles, buttons, and braid would be tarnished green-brown-black.
In gaming we have to do what the painters did in portraits of the time: paint everybody as if the uniform they are wearing was just issued hours before and hasn't even been out in the sun yet.

So colour pigments were not so consistent then? Apart of Prussian Blue, what else at 1750s were mineral based?
Is the same Prussian Blue also used by British artillery crew and some cavalry units? (which one). And why the Continental Army choose Prussian Blue? was it inherited from 'American Provincials' that participated in the 7 years war?

The full term from about 1640 to 1750 was "Horse, Foot and Dragoons", since the dragoons were considered neither infantry nor 'true' cavalry. Artillerymen were considered 'artisans' and not soldiers util the mid-17th century, when Sweden and then France set up Artillery Regiments and started putting the 'gunners' into uniforms. It was another 100 years or more before all the artillery got Professional, though - armies were still hiring local farmers and their teams to tow the guns onto the battlefield right up to just before the 7 Years' War broke out: the idea that the government should actually have permanent, military teamster and draft horses took a long time to catch on.
A "Footman" is a servant for a nobleman. "Foot" referred to pike and shot and early musket-armed infantry units, after 1650 always counted by numbers of battalions in the Orders of Battle that have survived. Even after the fusilier- the flintlock musket - was adopted and technically all the regular infantry were Fusiliers, because that was a French word the British Army still referred to their infantry units as "Foot" until late in the 19th century. For example, the Defense of Roarke's Drift in the Zulu War of 1879 was by a company of "the 24th Regiment of Foot" of the British Army.

So 'Footman' (Warcraft came to mind because these are basic infantryman recruitable in that setting by Humans/Alliance faction) shouldn't be used, and thus is Pike and Shot is correct term? If not then what?

 

[Morningcalm]

We lack the necessary insight to comment on the sincerity of Akhenaten's religious ecstasy, but I think it would be naive to overlook his political motivations here. The priests of Amun had been encroaching on royal power for decades, and I'm sure many a pharaoh would have liked to reduce their power. I think it's also worth noting that the primacy of Amun was itself relatively new, replacing the primacy of Ra (and before that the primacy of Horus and before that the primacy of Ptah).

Exactly--he was likely knocking down the priesthood Amun at least in part for political reasons. A shame he made little of it after. And the numerous questionable decisions--a city in the desert, with no water, and a capital city, no less? Pfeh! Even Civ VI player newbies know better.

I don't think having religiously zealous leaders is a bad thing.

One can be religiously zealous and tolerant. We don't know if Akhenaten was really religiously zealous, or forming the new religion to establish political power (religious and political power were especially intertwined in Egypt).

It's hard to have an impact beyond one's lifetime when every reference to your existence has been erased. However, he's in good company in terms of being forgotten until the modern era. Hatshepsut was also unknown until archaeologists rediscovered her despite her damnatio memoriae being far less thorough, and outside of Egypt the entire Hittite and Sumerian civilizations were forgotten (despite Sumerian continuing as a liturgical language in Babylon and Assyria for centuries).

First, we know enough about Akhenaten, so the erasure matters less now. In terms of impact, he could have had an impact despite being erased if his practices continued in some form. They did not, because his major contribution (Atenism) was undone and widely hated throughout all Egypt. Whereas Qin Shi Huang's brutal methods at least brought about some popular practices (unified currency, language, state infrastructure, etc.)

Also, the damnatio memoriae against Hatshepsut was less thorough because Thutmose III respected her (he chose to be buried next to her, allowed some less public mentions of her name to last, delayed erasure of them for many years, etc). In fact, because the erasure was delayed until late in Thutmose III's reign, it technically wasn't even a damnatio memoriae, since that would require erasure from the public far earlier in his reign (present memory).

Not to slight Hatshepsut's military successes, which were impressive, but being more successful than Cleopatra is setting the bar awfully low.

To be fair, Cleopatra was dealt a bad hand. I think she did better diplomatically than people thought. The problem is her tactics weren't as adaptable to Augustus. Though notably the Nubians got Augustus to stop invading them after beating him (a rare feat indeed).

Indeed, if we're going with an Old Kingdom pharaoh Djoser or Narmer probably makes more sense.

IMO Gudea should have been the leader of Sumer in the first place instead of having The Epic of Gilgamesh civ.

Agreed on both fronts. And we have a good idea of what Gudea looks like, thanks to those realistic statues, which is a bonus. Having a priest king who worships a military god and had a cultural flourishing would be interesting indeed. Sumeria being represented by Gilgamesh is a bit old now, so here's hoping we get Gudea, Ur-Nammu, Shulgi, etc instead, Gudea being my personal favorite.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

So colour pigments were not so consistent then? Apart of Prussian Blue, what else at 1750s were mineral based?
Is the same Prussian Blue also used by British artillery crew and some cavalry units? (which one). And why the Continental Army choose Prussian Blue? was it inherited from 'American Provincials' that participated in the 7 years war?

Color pigments were not consistent before the 19th century because the precise chemical processes taking place were not well understood. Dyeing was a Craft - personal experience and expertise was the key to getting the right results, which means that variations in the experience level of the dye master could make a difference in what you got as a color. One Colonial American dyer, for instance, estimated that it required 14 times more man-hours to produce a bright red than to produce a dull red, because of the extra care that had to be taken in all the steps and processes - one major reason why bright red cloth was far more expensive than dull red or Madder Red.
Nobody used Prussian Blue except the Prussians in the 18th century. The US Army only adopted it after the War of 1812. Before that the Colonial American forces used Indigo for blue, because the Indigo plant grew well in the Carolinas of North America - in fact, Indigo was the first cash crop there starting in the mid-18th century and continuing util it was replaced by Tobacco and Cotton after 1800. The French and British Armies also used Indigo for their blue cloth, because Indigo grew well in southern France and in British India , so was relatively easy to obtain for both of them. Napoleon's army was almost entirely clad in Indigo and chlorine-bleached white, since the chlorine-bleaching process had also been discovered early in the 18th century. One major reason why the Royal French Army as well as the Austrian Imperial Army adopted white coats by the mid-18th century was that white wool cloth was relatively cheap and you didn't need a master to obtain a consistent color: white is white.

So 'Footman' (Warcraft came to mind because these are basic infantryman recruitable in that setting by Humans/Alliance faction) shouldn't be used, and thus is Pike and Shot is correct term? If not then what?

Pike and Shot is the descriptive term for the standard infantry type all over Europe from approximately 1590 CE to 1700 CE, but because it was so universal it wasn't actually used to describe individual troops. They were referred to as 'Foot', because their distinguishing feature was that they were not mounted cavalry. Since all of them carried the same matchlock muskets and pikes there was no need to mention their weapons, at least to contemporaries.
For our purposes, since in the game we do have to distinguish between Units armed with different weapons and combinations of weapons, Pike and Shot is a good generic term. That also leaves available specific terms for possible UUs, like the Tercios of Spain, Squadrons of Sweden, or Streltsi of Muscovite Russia - all units armed with various percentages of 'pike and shot' (well, in the case of the Streltsi 'axe and shot', but tactically used the same way).