need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
That feels a bit too modern to me. As in, a hundred years from now, or a thousand years from now, no one will know who 'Liz Truss' is.
Civ-specific ranks collection thread
- Thread starter Leoreth
- Start date
Dracosolon
Emperor
I don't disagree but it's hard to come up with joke positions that aren't too obscure and feel sufficiently timeless. I think the initial French guy was Raffarin, whose funny aphorisms are already around two decades old.
Anyway I hope that a hundred years from now Leoreth isn't still working on this.
Anyway I hope that a hundred years from now Leoreth isn't still working on this.
As someone pointed out on Twitter, 50 years from now, "Who was the prime minister of the UK when Queen Elizabeth II died?" will be a fun trivia question.
But anyway, I expect that for virtually all of the lifespan of this mod, everyone will remember who Liz Truss is, and even if not, having the shortest tenure in the entire country's history is a valid rationale.
But anyway, I expect that for virtually all of the lifespan of this mod, everyone will remember who Liz Truss is, and even if not, having the shortest tenure in the entire country's history is a valid rationale.
Last edited:
Dracosolon
Emperor
I mean Dan Quayle was probably only included in Civ IV for the "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" diss.
Not if we can make sure they do.
Logoncal
King
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2016
- Messages
- 715
Starting a Brazilian Rank
1 - Pedro II
2 - Vargas
3 - José Bonifácio
4 - João Goulart
5 - José Joaquim da Silva Xavier (he was a colonial rebel, but the republic turned him into a hero)
6 - Marshall Deodoro da Fonseca
7 - Eurico Gaspar Dutra
8 - Castello Branco
9 - Sarney
Last - Collor
(Yes, i ranked people below a forged hero)
Open for changes cause i may have personal biases here. I'm brazilian after all
1 - Pedro II
2 - Vargas
3 - José Bonifácio
4 - João Goulart
5 - José Joaquim da Silva Xavier (he was a colonial rebel, but the republic turned him into a hero)
6 - Marshall Deodoro da Fonseca
7 - Eurico Gaspar Dutra
8 - Castello Branco
9 - Sarney
Last - Collor
(Yes, i ranked people below a forged hero)
Open for changes cause i may have personal biases here. I'm brazilian after all
It's done!
Here's the link again. 58 lists of 16 leaders, with justifications for almost all of them. I made most lists and revised most that I didn't make. Which means I learned a lot about historical leaders. That was a fun project, if more time-consuming than I initially expected.
There are still several that are marked with "Could use second opinion" because I made them with no feedback and might have missed something obvious, especially to someone who's from the relevant area. Please feel free to comment on them.
Here's the link again. 58 lists of 16 leaders, with justifications for almost all of them. I made most lists and revised most that I didn't make. Which means I learned a lot about historical leaders. That was a fun project, if more time-consuming than I initially expected.
There are still several that are marked with "Could use second opinion" because I made them with no feedback and might have missed something obvious, especially to someone who's from the relevant area. Please feel free to comment on them.
Belusconi's mostly a joke, but it's not my joke, I took it from one of the suggestions in this thread. I guess one could say that Mussolini was at least relatively successful at first. Totally open to changing them though.
Logoncal
King
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2016
- Messages
- 715
Fair, though i should lower Mussolini's rank as his "success" was mainly because Italy before his takeover was a disaster. No moral grounding here, otherwise almost every leader in these ranks would fall below Dan Quayle.
Publicola
King
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 759
Looks great! I added two comments to England and Italy; I agree that both Duke of Wellington and Count of Cavour deserve inclusion, but it's a bit of a mismatch to use their titles rather than their names when everyone else just has a name. When the end-game rank is displayed, will there be any information about the historical figure, or a portrait to show who they are? (Even if there's only a single extra line, it'd work. Something like:
I'd also suggest removing 'Queen' from 'Victoria' and 'Elizabeth I', since none of the other English monarchs are identified as 'King _______'.
...And this prompted me to take a pass to standardize the full list with no titles but only names.
China: remove 'Dr.' from Sun Yat-sen'. Change 'Empress Dowager Cixi' (Most Chinese leaders have '____ of ____', but I don't know what would be applicable here. Can we just use 'Cixi'?)
Nubia: four names are identified as 'Queen _______'
Hittites: 'Queen Puduhepa'
Phoenicia: 'Queen Dido'
Polynesia: four Queens
Persia: one Queen
Maya: four 'Lady _______', one 'Lord ______' <-- these ones we might keep since a) the 'title' is invariably used part of how each one is identified and b) each name is a disputed translation of Mayan, so even the names are iffy.
Ethiopia: one 'Empress'
Vietnam: one 'Queen'
Japan: four 'Emperors'. 'Prince Shotoku' is probably fine, since he's semi-legendary and always identified with his title.
Tibet: one Empress
England: two Queens, change The Duke of Wellington to a name (Arthur Wellesley)
Holy Rome: one Empress
Mali: one Queen
Portugal: change The Marquis of Pombal to a name (Sebastião José de Carvalho e Melo)
Inca: two Queens
Italy: change The Count of Cavour to a name (Camillo Benso)
Aztec: one Queen
Congo: one Queen
Netherlands: one Queen, three Kings
Mexico: one Emperor
Brazil: one Princess (change to "Isabel the Redemptress")
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
The Dutch names should be 'Willem' (as they are known currently) or 'Wilhelm' (the actual name), not 'William'.
Thanks for the feedback! I replied in the doc, but let me make a more complete answer here. Pretty much all of the cases you've enumerated are intentional. I try to maximize recognizability and coolness over consistency, so if a name sounds more natural, well-known, or cool with the title, then it gets the title. The default list was already not consistent, since it had "Emperor Constantine".
For example, Cixi is more likely to be recognized if she's called Emperor Dowager Cixi, which happens to also be the title of her Wikipedia article. In fact Wikipedia titles are often what I used, under the assumption that they already use the most recognizable name for English speakers. That's the case for Queen Victoria too, for instance.
For Wellington, Cavour, and Pombal, there's just no great way to deal with the awkwardness of using their personal name with their far more recognizable title.
In some cases (e.g. Japan, Netherlands, Mexico) the title also serves as a way to distinguish monarchs from others (especially when they have the same name, see William III of Orange vs. King William III).
I did add "Queen" or "Empress" to many female monarchs to point out that they're female, which (unfortunately) is unusual and therefore interesting. For example, how many people would realize that "Boran" was an unusual female monarch of Persia if not for the word "Queen"? However, I recognize that this is an asymmetry and am willing to be convinced not to do this.
Finally, there's also the argument that some non-European names include titles that are less recognizable as such to Westerners, e.g. Genghis Khan, Mahatma Gandhi, Razia Sultana.
Usually the English names are used unless there's a compelling reason not to (again typically following Wikipedia article titles, e.g. William III). But that's not fully consistent either, so feel free to provide compelling reasons.
need my speed
Rex Omnium Imperarium
I would vastly prefer the native name to be used, but that is my default position on anything, and I recognise there will be problems and inconsistencies. This also ties in with 'Emperor Dowager Cixi' or 'Cixi'; I would vote for the second option if those are the only two options, but I would actually read up on them and try to find their full native name (i.e. 'Yehe Nara Xingzhen' in this case; 'Cixi' is the modern transliteration of 'Tzu Hsi' which means 'Empress of the Western Palace', apparently). Yes, fewer people will recognise 'Yehe Nara Xingzhen', but it's an opportunity to learn, and I like representing people properly. As a compromise, stick to the known name but use the native variant, especially if they are similar. I instinctively dislike the Anglicisation of every name - and it's inconsistent too, because you use 'Louis', not 'Lewis', 'Charlemagne', not 'Charles the Great' (nor 'Carolus Magnus', on that note), and ever so on. But I recognise this mostly comes down to subjective opinion.
I totally hear you. I like to see native names too, and I'm glad that's what's implemented e.g. for Great People — it's really immersive! For these rankings, though, the goal is less immersion than having a fun way to compare yourself to historical leaders, and that's not going to be much fun if they're all relatively obscure names like "Yehe Nara Xingzhen". That's why I'm emphasizing recognizability even at the expense of consistency.
Also let's note that there's a long tradition of Anglicizing monarch names (or, more accurately, translating them into whatever language you use). This is what has always been done until recently: so we say Philip II of Spain, but the current king is Felipe VI. Those translations have always been inconsistent and ultimately just depend on whatever norms crystallized. English speakers could have ended up saying "Charles the Great", but for whatever reason, the norm crystallized around "Charlemagne" instead.
Publicola
King
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 759
I noticed this; my main issue was that the lack of consistency, both with men (very few kings identified as 'King ______') and with women (I noticed plenty of other female rulers that were not identified as 'Queen'.
You're absolutely right; some titles are effectively part of the person's name -- 'Mansa' (in 'Mansa Musa') is just the Mandika word for 'king'. This is why I don't have a problem with Lady Six Sky (Maya) or with Prince Shotoku (Japan). I probably wouldn't have a problem with 'Empress Dowager Cixi' if her title were less obtrusive; when 75% of the 'name' is a title, it's hard to see it as a personal identifier.
Basically, I'd prefer that the presumption be to not use titles unless they're a) needed to identify a person and b) unobtrusive enough that they feel like part of the name.
That's fair. Most of my objection is that those three titles so clearly break the pattern; every other name in the English list is clearly a name, but then you get a single 'The Duke of Wellington'. Perhaps 'Arthur Wellington' might work as a compromise? Immediately recognizable, but in a way that still resembles a name? (Likewise for Count Camillo Cavour).
Alternately, use the official style: "Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington". It'd be a bit longer, but not too egregious.
Frankly, I'd be a fan of including titles/historical info as a separate thing, so that you get a list of names with the historical information attached.
Here's the default 'rank' screen:
Spoiler Your Place In History :
I'm suggesting that the bottom-left entry should read:
So you get the name, plus title, plus a very small historical blurb about why this person is significant. More examples:
etc. The list itself would have names (for consistency), but the text would have titles (for recognizability) and historical detail (for educational value).
(Related: is there any way to replace the image of the Leaderhead with an image based on the name you are ranked as? It'd be pretty cool to see Mayan art of Lady Six Sky after winning as the Mayans...)
Honestly that works. A bit long for the Marquis of Pombal but, as you say, not egregious.
That's be very cool, of couse, but I don't expect anyone to be willing to write a title and a blurb for 900+ leaders! The justifications in the spreadsheet could be used as a base, but it'd still require significant work.Frankly, I'd be a fan of including titles/historical info as a separate thing, so that you get a list of names with the historical information attached.
Here's the default 'rank' screen:
Spoiler Your Place In History :
I'm suggesting that the bottom-left entry should read:
So you get the name, plus title, plus a very small historical blurb about why this person is significant. More examples:
etc. The list itself would have names (for consistency), but the text would have titles (for recognizability) and historical detail (for educational value).
(Related: is there any way to replace the image of the Leaderhead with an image based on the name you are ranked as? It'd be pretty cool to see Mayan art of Lady Six Sky after winning as the Mayans...)
I agree that it should be a commonly known name, not the contemporaneous, native or otherwise "correct" name.
I also think that looking at what the current title of the associated wikipedia page is a good way to figure out what the commonly known name is - of course it is still subjective but at least you know that a couple dozen people fought about what the best compromise is in each individual case which is probably more care and expertise than anyone of us can muster for every single name.
I also think that looking at what the current title of the associated wikipedia page is a good way to figure out what the commonly known name is - of course it is still subjective but at least you know that a couple dozen people fought about what the best compromise is in each individual case which is probably more care and expertise than anyone of us can muster for every single name.
Similar threads
