I'm still holding out hope for Good King Henry (Henri IV) to lead France in Civ7.
Civ VI Leader Pass 2
- Thread starter TheSpaceCowboy
- Start date
queenpea
Prince
Yes, let's get some good old religious civil war gameplay in there, too (in which case, I will miss my dear CdM).
Alexander's Hetaroi
Deity
Did I ever say Austria was a stretch as a civ? I only considered Maria Theresa as a German/Hungarian leader because we aren't likely to get Austria in Civ 6. I'd love for her and Austria to eventually return.
Ok. I personally like the way she plays, even if it's not amazing, considering that's how I envisioned France from the beginning. At least she gives Chateaus something more.
Call the LUA "Versailles" and it would work for me.
queenpea
Prince
In my mind, Louis XIV would be a builder, with production and cultural bonuses during his golden age à la "Sun King" -- Versailles would be like a land-based Statue of Liberty with loyalty boosts for nearby cities, culture/tourism, and slots for great works or artifacts.
Versailles certainly seemed to improve loyalty during the French Revolution...
Though now I'm thinking of Eleanor Morton's "Marie Antoinette Reads Her Hate Mail" sketch. "Every year, they do a poll, 'Should we get rid of the monarchy?' They'll never do it. We're too good for tourism. No one is going to visit Versailles if no one lives there!"
queenpea
Prince
Versailles certainly seemed to improve loyalty during the French Revolution...
Right, well, if you want to know the details of my fantasy, it would increase loyalty of nearby cities while decreasing loyalty of further away cities. Benefit tighter, taller France civ. I know this isn't entirely historically accurate, but within the Civ mechanics, that's how I would do it.
I like that. Kind of the wonder-equivalent of Lady Six Sky.
To play as, yes. I hate espionage in both Civ5 and Civ6 so extra and early spies does nothing for me. Even if I find her festival project too expensive to be worth bothering with, her extra Culture from luxuries is far more bonus to me than her spy mechanics. To play against, I much prefer the Black Queen. (Though I do love the gold-and-white color scheme they gave Magnificence Catherine, even if it's apropos of nothing.) In Civ7, though, if they want a black queen figure, I'd highly recommend Wu Zetian fill the role (even if she's returning last-minute for Civ6).
queenpea
Prince
I agree that playing against the Dark Queen is more fun (I really love her portrayal as a drunken mad queen who doesn't trust her own shadow and may be plotting against me by bribing my servants to poison my wine).
Alexander's Hetaroi
Deity
If France's own civ ability wasn't faster production toward mid game wonders, I would have given it to him too.
Louis XVI would be the Abe Lincoln of France.Versailles certainly seemed to improve loyalty during the French Revolution...
Affair of the Diamond Necklace: Every luxury resource and Chateau in grants -2 loyalty per turn in the city they are built.
They should have given her the ability to spy on allies.
She must have really low alcohol tolerance to get drunk on that water she's swilling.
Can we have a T rating so she can have the red wine she had in her original First Look back? 
Release CdM; Pre-Release CdM
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
I assume that quote was meant for me since I said that Austria was a stretch.
In the way that Austria and Prussia are both German-speaking feudal realms that were part of the German crown (Holy Roman Empire) for most of their history, and for the last few hundred years of the empire the two chief contenders for actually unifying Germany as a true state. For nearly all their history both are not just incidentally part of Germany but the single most important parts of the German whole (and, let's face it, Austria was that much longer than Prussia, even though Prussia won in the end).
The idea of Austria as something that is NOT German is something that only emerges in the late nineteenth century after Prussia decisively won the race for forming a unified Germany, and is largely rooted in a perception of Germany that's limited to the post-1870 Germany, as if Germany had no existence before then.
So to me, unless you go for a post-1870, maybe post-Napoleonic, Austro-Hungarian Emperor (or modern Austrian political leader, but that's a whole other can of worm), any "Austrian" leader you might put in the game before then is simply more appropriate as a leader of the German civilization. And since nearly every single time an Austrian civ comes up it involves pre-Napoleonic Holy Roman Emperor Austrian leaders (okay, nealry every single time an Austrian civ comes up it's Maria Theresa).
I'm not going to mind much if it happens, but I do think it's unnecessary and part of the general Western bias of the game where every European state get carved out as a separate civilization, not always with good reasons.
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
I'm also in the team who wants Louis XIV as leader of France, Napoleon is also a good choice but he is already leader in civ5, so we can change a little. But Catherine de Médice isn't a good leader at all, I never heard about her before the release of Civ7 and I think her story is very unknown.
Good point, I think they try to represent french emperial time with an unique unit instead a great leader.
I think in the reverse order, if Maria Theresa should be add in civ7, she should lead it's own civ, Austria, instead of Germany.
I know both Austria and Prussia want to build a german nation and just the Prussia suced. But Austria was a thing long before Germany and can be a separate civ.
That you are right, european history is overrepresented. So, that means we can go civ7 without Austria at all. But, if we want to have Maria Theresa in this game, she can't lead Germany.
Because this game is for historic nerds! Was already an unaceptable mistake doing Ana Nzinga queen of Kongo, I think we should'nt commited this kind of error in civ7.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
*sighs*
Maria Theresa was Holy Roman Empress, Henri. Which means she was, in fact, the leader of Germany. Because, after the loss of Italy, that's what the Holy Roman Empire was, Henri: Germany,
Which, as we have repeatedly shown to you, existed as a concept long before 1870.
Maria Theresa *was* a German leader. She has every business leading the German civilization.
Maria Theresa was Holy Roman Empress, Henri. Which means she was, in fact, the leader of Germany. Because, after the loss of Italy, that's what the Holy Roman Empire was, Henri: Germany,
Which, as we have repeatedly shown to you, existed as a concept long before 1870.
Maria Theresa *was* a German leader. She has every business leading the German civilization.
Henri Christophe
L'empereur
If she was the empress of the Holy Roman Empire, she can lead a civ with this name, HRE.
As we can see in the map below, the "Germany" take a part of Austria , but not all of that, and more, Austria was a independent kingdom who is just partially in Germany and the other half control other european nations as Hungary.
Also, there was wars between Prussia and Austria. If Germany be a thing before 1870, as you said, theses wars should be civil wars, but it isn't, it was formal war between nations.
So, I think put Maria Theresa as leader of Germany is extrapol too much the concept of Germany... Why we don't extrapol the nation of concept of other nations? As using Guarani leaders as Sepé Tiaraju as leader of Paraguay? Or Brazil have it's unique unit before the independence as using Bandeirantes....
As I said in other thread, we can even use Teodoric, king of Visigoths, to be leader of German if we extrapol too much the concept of Germany.
But, as a historian nerd, I think we should pick Bismarck ever as leader of Germany, because he is the only one who isn't controrversial.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
First off, Henri, all of Austria is within the German boundaries of that map. Or near enough to all of it as for the remaining bits and pieces to be irrelevant. Hungary isn't, but Hungary was a separate kingdom also ruled by the Habsburg. It was not Austria (and the Hungarian would probably get very angry if you called them Austrians).
Second off, as we've already shown to you, the Kingdom of Germany has existed since at least the Xth century, and it was the central kingdom of the Empire.
Third off, from the sixteenth century onward, after the Holy Roman Empire lost its Italian territory, it began to be refered also to as Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (German Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, Latin Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicæ). And indeed the same phrasing is found in the name of the Holy Roman Empire in other European language: Saint-Empire Romain Germanique (Holy Roman German Empire, French), Német-romai birodalom (Roman-German Empire, Hungarian). Far from a fringe idea, the notion that the Holy Roman Empire was a german nation in nature was well understood throughout Europe for large parts of its history.
Fourth off, a civilization is not the same thing as a country. That means two parts of the same civilization can, yes, be at war with each other without it being a civil war. I mean, for crying out loud, we have both Athenians and Spartan leaders for Greece in this game, and they certainly spent a lot of time fighting each others and it wasn't a Civil War.
And really, just because I feel it need to be remphasized because that seems to be where your obsession lies, a civilization is not the same thing as a country or a state. Many historical civilizations were never countries or states, or only very briefly. And many countries and states were part of broader civilizations. Trying to pigeonhole civilization as equivalent to country or state is very much trying to fit square pegs into round hole: you're using one idea in a way it was never meant to be.
(And the reason Brazil shouldn't have Bandeirantes as it's unique unit isn't because it's from before independance, it's because the bandeirantes were freaking slavers, Henri. Brazil having a pre-independance UU is fine ; Brazil having a UU that's associated with plantation slavery is not)
Second off, as we've already shown to you, the Kingdom of Germany has existed since at least the Xth century, and it was the central kingdom of the Empire.
Third off, from the sixteenth century onward, after the Holy Roman Empire lost its Italian territory, it began to be refered also to as Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (German Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, Latin Sacrum Imperium Romanum Nationis Germanicæ). And indeed the same phrasing is found in the name of the Holy Roman Empire in other European language: Saint-Empire Romain Germanique (Holy Roman German Empire, French), Német-romai birodalom (Roman-German Empire, Hungarian). Far from a fringe idea, the notion that the Holy Roman Empire was a german nation in nature was well understood throughout Europe for large parts of its history.
Fourth off, a civilization is not the same thing as a country. That means two parts of the same civilization can, yes, be at war with each other without it being a civil war. I mean, for crying out loud, we have both Athenians and Spartan leaders for Greece in this game, and they certainly spent a lot of time fighting each others and it wasn't a Civil War.
And really, just because I feel it need to be remphasized because that seems to be where your obsession lies, a civilization is not the same thing as a country or a state. Many historical civilizations were never countries or states, or only very briefly. And many countries and states were part of broader civilizations. Trying to pigeonhole civilization as equivalent to country or state is very much trying to fit square pegs into round hole: you're using one idea in a way it was never meant to be.
(And the reason Brazil shouldn't have Bandeirantes as it's unique unit isn't because it's from before independance, it's because the bandeirantes were freaking slavers, Henri. Brazil having a pre-independance UU is fine ; Brazil having a UU that's associated with plantation slavery is not)
Last edited:
queenpea
Prince
If Maria Theresa was included as the German leader, wouldn't that bring some annoyance to Austrian players?
I honestly loved her ability in Civ V and would love a straight up migration. I loved picking off all those lame city states with my endless supply of children.
