[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[Thenewwwguy]

I'm not altogether sold on the idea that new civs or leaders are here just to celebrate them. To steer this back to this thread's topic, and as an example of what I mean, I'd be totally into the idea of a Nero, Caligula, Diocletian or Julian the Apostate as alt Roman leaders. Same with Vlad the Impaler, although I'm not sure Translyvania really rises to the level to get their own Civ (although if they do ever get included, you heard it from me first.)

Vlad Tepes actually led Wallachia.

I would prefer that leaders are selected for being the most benevolent or successful rather than notable. If you asked me whether I’d rather take Hadrian or Nero, I’d always say Hadrian

 

[krmarci]

Same with Vlad the Impaler, although I'm not sure Translyvania really rises to the level to get their own Civ

He was actually the prince of Wallachia, and never ruled Transylvania. His famous castle is located on the border between Wallachia and Transylvania.

 

[The Civs 6]

Vlad Tepes actually led Wallachia.

I would prefer that leaders are selected for being the most benevolent or successful rather than notable. If you asked me whether I’d rather take Hadrian or Nero, I’d always say Hadrian

I find that attitude odd in a game where genociding your neighbors is basically mandatory at higher difficulty levels. I mean that is what you are doing - what else you are you supposed to conclude when the conquered city's pop is cut in half?

 

[Aurelesk]

And yes, Churchill was a poor (dare I say evil) leader, widely disliked, was immensely racist and supported colonialism vehemently. If he got into civ, I would perhaps not buy the DLC or game that he was in.

Why? Most leaders enter history when facing briantly foreign affair. What is your opinion for Bismarck or Charles de Gaulle? If you look closely, they are not all that different. But, somehow, I don't really want to see Churchill either, even if he was perfect. First: UK is a kingdom. Even if the queen is a figurehead, she is technically the leader. That is why we have Victoria and not Lord Melbourne. Second: british prime minister do not have that much power than, let's say, french president (because UK is a better democracy). Third: longevity. This may be a personal preference but I rather want a leader that stay a long time in power than a one-time man. Sure, Churchill also lead between 51-55 but his declining health made him resign.


Out of the returning civilizations, I think the Assyrian, the Byzantine, the Moroccan and the Portuguese are the most likely.

1. The Assyrian and the Moroccan fill a gap, the latter filling the African map and as Muslim civilization. Great.
2. The Byzantine, I don't know: we already have 3 greek leaders, 1 roman and 1 ottoman leader that pretented to be the continuation of the Roman empire. I hope this do not prevent them to appear. Or at least, give us "Justinian I also leads the Roman Empire" as the Byzantine saw themselves as Roman.
3. The Portuguese, I don't know either. Philip II present himself as "King of Spain and Portugal", which kind of sending the message that Portugal isn't going to make it.
4. Special mention for the Hittites. Maybe we are going to see them! Same for the Babylonian: even if it is the same area than Sumerian, the era is different. We also saw them together in a previous game.

The rest of them are less likely:

• Austria: the civilization appeared one time under the leadership of Maria Theresa. She also appeared leading the Holy Roman Empire one time. But: isn't the Hungarian kind of took the place? The city-state leverage and the Hussar unique unit kind of make me feel the Austrian isn't going to make it.
• Celtic: the anti-blob policy prevent them to show up as "Celtic" anymore. I think Scotland replaces them, but we could have an other Celtic civilization like the Gallic, the Britons (french bias) or Ireland. But this seems very unlikely.
• Danish: they were basicly the "Viking" civilization, represented by Norway. I know so little about Danish history: maybe there is an other side of the Danish to show?
• Hunnic: they are the "horses rusher" and I am afraid the Scythian represent that side. If the Hunnic come back, they need to have a unique gameplay, like a land-Maori. For example: start the game with no Settler and are enable to produce them. Start the game with additionnal military units, and clearing a barbarian outpost give a military unit. Military units do not face Combat Strength maluses when facing a city or walls.
• Iroquois: they are the "friendly trading amerindians" civilization, something the Cree are doing. If they make a come back, they need something different.
• Polynesian: like the Celtic, the anti-blop policy prevent them to show up as "polynesian". They are represented as the "Maoris" but I guess they could add an other like Tonga or Hawai? But this seems very unlikely.
• Shoshone / Sioux: they are the "amerindian defending against invaders" civilization, something the Mapuche are doing. If they make a come back, they need something different.
• Siamese: Even if Khmer and Siamese are different civilization, they end up to cover the same area. I would love to see them, but they never saw them together before. I hope Civilization VI is going to be different!
• Songhai: Same as Siamese/Khmer but with Mali. I hope this means we are going to get Benin/Dahomey: their vaudou culture and unique female warrior can had so much flavour.
• Venetian: the eternal debate about renaissance / modern italian or italian city-state.

Special mention to Holy Roman Empire: maybe they will recast Germany into two separate entities. I don't know why, but I always found funny imagining Frederick Barbarossa riding a U-boat like it was a real history fact.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Vlad Tepes actually led Wallachia.

I would prefer that leaders are selected for being the most benevolent or successful rather than notable. If you asked me whether I’d rather take Hadrian or Nero, I’d always say Hadrian

I'm generally of that opinion as well, at least as far as VI is trying to portray the best of humanity. I'd make an exception for cartoonishly evil tyrants like Tamerlane or Vlad Tepes, since:

1) There's no pretensions as to how evil they were.
2) They are still very strong personifications of their respective culture.
3) In the case of Romania, Vlad actually has become a culture hero.
4) In the case of the Timurids, they don't have a modern successor state and everyone is pretty happy they're gone.

However, I don't think Vlad/Romania should be anything but a city-state. Romania has a very short history of being unified, it was never unified under Vlad specifically, and elsewise it was never regionally influential.

Contrast with Bulgaria, which was a regional power for centuries, held both most of south slavia and Romania for a good chunk of time, and has an equally iconic leader with Simeon.

Also contrast with the Romani, who trace self-identification to Indo-Iranian people introduced to Europe through Romania, and have expanded across the world as a landless nation. While they would be problematic to actually implement, I think they have proven to fall much more in line with VI's idea of a civ than Romania.

 

[PhilBowles]

Why? Most leaders enter history when facing briantly foreign affair. What is your opinion for Bismarck or Charles de Gaulle? If you look closely, they are not all that different. But, somehow, I don't really want to see Churchill either, even if he was perfect. First: UK is a kingdom. Even if the queen is a figurehead, she is technically the leader. That is why we have Victoria and not Lord Melbourne. Second: british prime minister do not have that much power than, let's say, french president (because UK is a better democracy). Third: longevity. This may be a personal preference but I rather want a leader that stay a long time in power than a one-time man. Sure, Churchill also lead between 51-55 but his declining health made him resign.

I think it's a good idea to avoid Churchill because he is increasingly unpopular outside the Anglosphere in general and outside Britain in particular. That that isn't entirely fair is beside the point if the goal is to sell the game while offending as few people as possible: Churchill's views were certainly outdated and reactionary by the standards of the time, as he was among the more aggressively right-wing members of the era's Conservative Party, and even if he isn't fully responsible for everything he's blamed for as Colonial Secretary, he rightly bears ultimate responsibility for it and his personal views can rightly be seen as racist (not to mention his infamous desire to use chemical weapons to suppress rebellion in Mesopotamia, something his country would claim to want to prevent as a pretext for another war 70 years later). Yes, the extent of Churchill's racism can be overstated - he didn't like Gandhi because he disliked him as a person and was so far from being a pacifist that he unsurprisingly disapproved of Gandhi's ideology, and that drove him more than any racism towards Indians - but it's perceptions that matter when marketing a game. Was he any worse than Teddy Roosevelt in his prejudices? Perhaps not, but given Churchill's impact in overseeing the era in which the British Empire was at its most discriminatory and oppressive, Churchill's attitudes had far more of an impact and are much more widely-discussed today than the fact that Teddy Roosevelt didn't like Native Americans.

And, to be frank, he was not a terribly good leader in any capacity - he's remembered for rousing speeches, because he was a good propagandist and self-promoter, but he's not portrayed very flatteringly in the memoirs of most of the people who worked with him, and his intransigence and tendency to insult his ministers almost led to the resignation of his Foreign Secretary Lord Hamilton in the most dangerous phase - for Britain - of the Second World War. He's generally held to be primarily responsible for the Gallipoli campaign and its outcome, and he favoured a D-Day invasion plan which would have sent Allied troops into Germany from North Africa via Italy - for which the world should be eternally grateful to the Americans because Roosevelt actually had a sensible idea. The only major military operation for which Churchill can claim direct credit was the sinking of the Graf Spee. Without Churchill's stint as Colonial Secretary and the active alienation of colonial populations during that period, it's entirely possible that there would have been less of a widespread desire for decolonisation after the war. Possibly it's a stretch, but it can certainly be argued that Churchill may have cost Britain much of its empire for all the credit he's (somewhat vicariously) given for saving the island itself.

Ultimately, England has no shortage of charismatic and effective leaders, so ones who even risk being contentious among a global audience shouldn't really be considered.

 

[PhilBowles]

I see zero good reasons why the alt leader should also lead a base game civ - they are trying new things here. Also, I don't see why they would say you need R&F to play the leader if you can play it with a base game (or any non-R&F) civ..

One obvious reason springs to mind: it's a leader for a base game civ, but the leader's ability or uniques relies on systems in R&F that aren't in Gathering Storm (if there are any).

EDIT: Seems that this was raised and that all the R&F mechanics are in Gathering Storm alone.

 

[Karmah]

No leaders, no language, no city names beyond Knossos.


So what's the connection to that statement and Napoleon III, who was a good leader? It's true that Napoleon III's foreign policy for the most part failed, but he modernized the backwards, dirty, Medieval cities of France and instituted broad legal and administrative reforms. Napoleon III was a brilliant administrator. I've always thought he and Bismarck could have made a good team had they not hated each other.

I agree with you on this. But Napoléon the first as a leader reforming a system is not to be overlooked. The 'code civil Napoléonnien' alone is a tentament of this. He started a movement that will create a legal culture overgrew " contract law as a basis of everything" inherited from the merchant republics . Although the realization will come later with the two you just mentioned as guests star, he started in many countries in Europe. I seem to remember that for a long while the Dutch constitution was still written in French. He also created some strong foundation for the first schools for adults that allowed for some people of relatively modest conditions to get new skills usually in 'technical fields' inspired by the military system of training engineering corps. I know he keeps getting painted as Dom oriented leader but I 'm not sure that fits at all.

 

[Aurelesk]

One obvious reason springs to mind: it's a leader for a base game civ, but the leader's ability or uniques relies on systems in R&F that aren't in Gathering Storm (if there are any).

I just found out that I can play with Grand Colombia and the Mayan with the classic ruleset (does that mean I could grab all the Comandante Generale fast?!). In this ruleset, England has the British Museum in this version, and the American has the double legacy.

In this link, the new leader needs the Rise and Fall extension. It either means it needs the civilization in R&F (Korea, Cree, Scotland, Georgia, Netherlands, Mapuche, Mongolia or Zulu) or use mechanics introduced in it (ages, loyalty, governors, alliance, new units (Pike and Shot, Spec Ops...), new districts (GovPlaz, Water Park)...).

 

[PhilBowles]

I think it is more important for the leaders in VI to be figureheads than to be competent leaders, since part of VI's attempts to distinguish itself from V is to give the civ a personality to play off of. Victoria is an excellent choice for representing the idea of England, regardless of her actual influence

Which was greater than people tend to realise. Victoria is the reason Britain's constitutional monarchy has the structure and limitations it has today - and quite possibly the reason we still have a monarchy at all, both because of her acquiescence to constitutional reform and from simply hugely bolstering the popularity of the institution after a series of rather forgettable monarchs during a period when most of Europe was deposing them. It wasn't her instinct to be a constitutional monarch, and she would have had the ability to keep more direct powers than she actually did in practice, but she was persuaded by Albert that this was the best course to allow the monarchy to survive. She rarely directly intervened in policy but she did so on a number of occasions, including insisting that legislation affecting the rights of her Indian subjects protected their freedom of religion.

She was also, of course, much longer-lasting than any of her Prime Ministers and oversaw what's now looked back on as Britain's golden age, so there isn't a better choice. The main issue I have with Victoria is that the civ is specifically England rather than Britain, and the monarch best-remembered for overseeing the British Empire isn't a good fit - especially in a game that treats Scotland as a separate civ.

I know they want to represent the British Empire (and Civ V had an anachronistic 'Sun Never Sets' UA for Elizabeth) since, for all England's longevity and regional significance in Europe, England alone never attained the global significance of the British Empire, and that England and Britain have always been treated as effectively synonymous in Civ games (plus, many languages don't make the distinction and use the words English and British interchangeably or don't necessarily have separate words - even non-English Brits sometimes did themselves during the colonial period). But that makes much less sense in a game that has a separate Scot civ, not to mention city states representing Irish and Welsh cities.

that's also why I am okay with Teddy Roosevelt over better presidents like Lincoln, FDR, or Washington, because Roosevelt really captures something about American civilization that the others didn't really.

Teddy Roosevelt routinely tops American polls for the country's best president. A game made in America is incentivised to use him - the people in his country don't see Washington, FDR or Lincoln as better presidents.

that's also why I would like to see William the Conqueror and Charlemagne at some point. They represent England and France's civilizations at key moments that are in the popular conscious, but have never really been fleshed out in a Civ game before.

William is an interesting idea but I'm not sure how you'd portray him in a way that isn't anachronistic - the main developments associated with the Anglo-Normans (as represented, e.g., by the Britons in Age of Empires II) date to a couple of centuries after his death: Edward I is probably the most suitable leader for that era, and certainly counts as strong and successful, just as long as Firaxis steers clear of the sneering evil panto villain of Braveheart fame.

Charlemagne is claimed by both France and Germany, I believe, so would probably have to be a joint leader for both as a distinct Frankish civ is unlikely. The only real reason to give France precedence over Germany is his choice of capital, and the fact that the French still use the name 'Franks'.

 

[The Civs 6]

Which was greater than people tend to realise. Victoria is the reason Britain's constitutional monarchy has the structure and limitations it has today - and quite possibly the reason we still have a monarchy at all, both because of her acquiescence to constitutional reform and from simply hugely bolstering the popularity of the institution after a series of rather forgettable monarchs during a period when most of Europe was deposing them. It wasn't her instinct to be a constitutional monarch, and she would have had the ability to keep more direct powers than she actually did in practice, but she was persuaded by Albert that this was the best course to allow the monarchy to survive. She rarely directly intervened in policy but she did so on a number of occasions, including insisting that legislation affecting the rights of her Indian subjects protected their freedom of religion.

She was also, of course, much longer-lasting than any of her Prime Ministers and oversaw what's now looked back on as Britain's golden age, so there isn't a better choice. The main issue I have with Victoria is that the civ is specifically England rather than Britain, and the monarch best-remembered for overseeing the British Empire isn't a good fit - especially in a game that treats Scotland as a separate civ.

I know they want to represent the British Empire (and Civ V had an anachronistic 'Sun Never Sets' UA for Elizabeth) since, for all England's longevity and regional significance in Europe, England alone never attained the global significance of the British Empire, and that England and Britain have always been treated as effectively synonymous in Civ games (plus, many languages don't make the distinction and use the words English and British interchangeably or don't necessarily have separate words - even non-English Brits sometimes did themselves during the colonial period). But that makes much less sense in a game that has a separate Scot civ, not to mention city states representing Irish and Welsh cities.



Teddy Roosevelt routinely tops American polls for the country's best president. A game made in America is incentivised to use him - the people in his country don't see Washington, FDR or Lincoln as better presidents.



William is an interesting idea but I'm not sure how you'd portray him in a way that isn't anachronistic - the main developments associated with the Anglo-Normans (as represented, e.g., by the Britons in Age of Empires II) date to a couple of centuries after his death: Edward I is probably the most suitable leader for that era, and certainly counts as strong and successful, just as long as Firaxis steers clear of the sneering evil panto villain of Braveheart fame.

Charlemagne is claimed by both France and Germany, I believe, so would probably have to be a joint leader for both as a distinct Frankish civ is unlikely. The only real reason to give France precedence over Germany is his choice of capital, and the fact that the French still use the name 'Franks'.

Frankly those are all nitpicky quibbles that you could easily apply to three quarters of the Civs that are in there. Plus I'm very skeptical about your claim about Teddy Roosevelt. Just check out this Wikipedia article that looks at a number of rankings of presidents over time.

I also want to add, after reading your analysis of Churchill as a leader, that is one of the most myopic portraits of a leader I have ever read. You might as well say that Abraham Lincoln was responsible for Cold Harbor and Fredericksburg!

 

[krmarci]

Edward I is probably the most suitable leader for that era, and certainly counts as strong and successful, just as long as Firaxis steers clear of the sneering evil panto villain of Braveheart fame.

In Hungary, he is infamous for a poem written about him by János Arany, which portrays him executing Welsh poets who raised their word against him after the English invasion of Wales, allegorically to Franz Joseph's visit to Hungary after the lost revolution of 1848-1849.
http://www.mek.iif.hu/porta/szint/human/szepirod/magyar/arany/bardeng.hun

By the way, János Arany would be quite a good choice for a Great Writer.

 

[PhilBowles]

Frankly those are all nitpicky quibbles that you could easily apply to three quarters of the Civs that are in there.

I'm not sure "This is the leader of a different civ" is a quibble that applies to very many of them, in fairness...

Plus I'm very skeptical about your claim about Teddy Roosevelt. Just check out this Wikipedia article that looks at a number of rankings of presidents over time.

Right at the start I notice the phrase "Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George Washington are most often listed as the three highest-rated presidents among historians."

I was referring to general polling, which is more relevant when talking about representation in a mass market computer game which - despite the pretensions and perhaps preferences of Civ game aficionados like those of us here who mostly have some background or interest in history - is not aiming to be intellectually rigorous and is happy to deal in caricatures and the pop culture of the day (witness the choice to present Victoria in a way in which she happens to have been portrayed in a recent TV series at the time the game was released, and the choices of other leaders like Korea's who were at the time in their own period dramas).

It's certainly possible I'm misremembering, but the only general polls reported here are either fairly old or deal only with more recent presidents (and a search finds a 2020 poll with somewhat ... different results).

Let's just agree that Ronald Reagan should not be in the running for the American leader in future civ games - not only is his legacy far too divisive among Americans today, there are no clear objective grounds for ranking him that highly among US leaders. As for Donald Trump...

 

[The Civs 6]

Right at the start I notice the phrase "Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and George Washington are most often listed as the three highest-rated presidents among historians."

I was referring to general polling, which is more relevant when talking about representation in a mass market computer game which - despite the pretensions and perhaps preferences of Civ game aficionados like those of us here who mostly have some background or interest in history - is not aiming to be intellectually rigorous and is happy to deal in caricatures and the pop culture of the day (witness the choice to present Victoria in a way in which she happens to have been portrayed in a recent TV series at the time the game was released, and the choices of other leaders like Korea's who were at the time in their own period dramas).

It's certainly possible I'm misremembering, but the only general polls reported here are either fairly old or deal only with more recent presidents (and a search finds a 2020 poll with somewhat ... different results).

Let's just agree that Ronald Reagan should not be in the running for the American leader in future civ games - not only is his legacy far too divisive among Americans today, there are no clear objective grounds for ranking him that highly among US leaders. As for Donald Trump...

I dunno I don't hear people on the streets talking about how great Teddy Roosevelt is, it just doesn't feel super relevant. Choosing any president who isn't Lincoln, Washington or FDR is just being a bit cute/cheeky. But instead of getting one of them we are gonna get some rando leader for some rando country I bet...

 

[PhilBowles]

I dunno I don't hear people on the streets talking about how great Teddy Roosevelt is, it just doesn't feel super relevant. Choosing any president who isn't Lincoln, Washington or FDR is just being a bit cute/cheeky. But instead of getting one of them we are gonna get some rando leader for some rando country I bet...

Hence the 2020 poll I mentioned. Depending on the partisan leanings of the people being asked, apparently the best US president in history is either Trump or Obama.

That says a lot more about Americans' general level of interest in history beyond their lifetimes (or indeed the immediate decade) than about the significance of any given leader. No one can realistically deny Roosevelt's significance wherever exactly he falls in the rankings - he got a place on the mountain for a reason, and was then the most recent president to do so. He's associated with the era when the US started to become assertive as a major international power. I don't hear many people talking about Jefferson, Lincoln or Washington beyond referring to their memorials, and quite seriously the fact that they have memorials in the capital that keep them in public memory likely has as much to do with the persistence of their reputation as their actual achievements - I suspect many Americans would be hard-pressed to identify exactly what Washington did while in office, as he didn't have a high-profile war (once he became president) to keep his memory fresh as Lincoln or FDR did.

 

[The Civs 6]

Hence the 2020 poll I mentioned. Depending on the partisan leanings of the people being asked, apparently the best US president in history is either Trump or Obama.

That says a lot more about Americans' general level of interest in history beyond their lifetimes (or indeed the immediate decade) than about the significance of any given leader. No one can realistically deny Roosevelt's significance wherever exactly he falls in the rankings - he got a place on the mountain for a reason, and was then the most recent president to do so. He's associated with the era when the US started to become assertive as a major international power. I don't hear many people talking about Jefferson, Lincoln or Washington beyond referring to their memorials, and quite seriously the fact that they have memorials in the capital that keep them in public memory likely has as much to do with the persistence of their reputation as their actual achievements - I suspect many Americans would be hard-pressed to identify exactly what Washington did while in office, as he didn't have a high-profile war (once he became president) to keep his memory fresh as Lincoln or FDR did.

The idea that there isn't public consciousness about Abraham Lincoln is downright absurd. I'm sorry I have to ask this - are you an American yourself? You can't throw a stone without hitting something or someone called "Lincoln".

 

[Thenewwwguy]

As much as his foreign policy is (rightfully) disliked, TR saved the US from poor corporate standards and implemented the basis of government oversight of the private sector. He was definitely one of the most successful presidents (next to FDR and Lincoln), not to mention that most historians consistently rank him one of the best presidents in history, while he also remains one of the most popular after accounting for partisan lean. He is absolutely justified as a leader for the country, although I personally would say FDR is more deserving, although his controversy with Japanese Interment is apparently why he won’t show up after Civ 4

 

[PhilBowles]

The idea that there isn't public consciousness about Abraham Lincoln is downright absurd.

Yes, people are aware of his existence. I understand the American Civil War is one of the periods of US history that's especially popular in American schools. But, in your words, you don't hear people in the streets talking about how great Abraham Lincoln was, which was my point. How much do you imagine the general public knows about him, beyond the fact that he precipitated a war and got assassinated after winning it and instituting emancipation? In a country where more supporters of Lincoln's party rank Donald Trump a better president than Abraham Lincoln (and those on the other side rank him below Barack Obama), I think it's fair to say there's a pretty severe lack of awareness of Lincoln's historical significance.

I'm sorry I have to ask this - are you an American yourself?

No, but I've lived in the US for a decade and it's remarkable how rarely Lincoln has come up in conversation or is mentioned in popular media I've been exposed to, even in and around politically-focused DC. Likely about as often as Teddy Roosevelt (and for obvious reasons considerably less often than Alexander Hamilton).

You can't throw a stone without hitting something or someone called "Lincoln".

The existence of a Ford subsidiary called Lincoln is a strange metric to judge his legacy by.

I also want to add, after reading your analysis of Churchill as a leader, that is one of the most myopic portraits of a leader I have ever read. You might as well say that Abraham Lincoln was responsible for Cold Harbor and Fredericksburg!

I think this may have been added after I responded, as I missed it. I was focusing on negative elements of Churchill's leadership because the positive ones were already covered. There's a pretty clear difference between assigning responsibility for individual battle results within a war to a president (who wasn't a direct military commander), and assigning responsibility for a military campaign that was directly championed and overseen by the First Lord of the Admiralty, a military leadership position, and that he executed even with the knowledge that the War Office had refused to allow him as many troops as were considered necessary for success and pushed military commanders to continue in the face of early defeats. Gallipoli is held to have been Churchill's responsibility by historians (and quite likely by Australians and New Zealanders at that), and was held to be his responsibility at the time (albeit for reasons that had as much to do with political face-saving as the failure of his campaign) - he lost his position over it. I don't know that anyone has ever attributed responsibility to Lincoln for a couple of defeats.

I'm afraid you seem to be being contrary for the sake of it - a cursory internet search would reveal that Churchill is considered responsible for Galipoli, which I pointed out was something that was 'generally attributed' to him - so trying to pick me up on it seems pointless. You do seem to be being argumentative with me for no very clear reason I can discern.

Moreso than the failure of one high-profile campaign, as I said it's more of an issue that Churchill simply didn't have many direct military successes to his credit despite having twice had positions of military leadership. People forgive generals plenty of defeats if they win the war, but high profile successes in WWII had little to do with Churchill or were the result of actions taken against his recommendations (such as a D-Day plan based on invading France), while in his military Cabinet posts - as I've said - only the Norwegian campaign could be counted an unqualified success. And, once again, those who worked with him - most famously Alan Brooke - did not have a high opinion of either his ability to grasp the relevant details of situations or to make good decisions.

This summarises a lot of his faults as a military leader - the title is very poorly chosen as the main point it makes is not that Churchill was a good strategist, but that he was right to question those who were - ultimately - better strategists than he was to challenge their assumptions. That is, in fairness, a good trait for a leader to have - prompting his subordinates to do better - but it does make the point that Churchill's own strategic thinking and instincts were misguided or outdated (Hitler had the same flaws, but was more prone to micromanaging and interfering to ensure his pet vanity projects got preference. That probably had more to do with what he could get away with doing in a system where he was a dictator who couldn't be challenged than with Churchill being any wiser or more restrained strategically).

https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/3...r-better-strategist-than-his-generals-were-2/

None of that changes the fact that Churchill was an excellent force for boosting morale, and that this was an important accomplishment specifically during the first two years of WWII when Britain faced likely defeat. He strongly resisted efforts in Cabinet to report results he feared people would find demoralising, particularly the low projected numbers that could be rescued from Dunkirk, since the core of his political strategy for winning the war was "hold out long enough to persuade the Americans to join".

He was great at witty one-liners, but on that basis Oscar Wilde would qualify for leading England.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Okay I'm gonna try to redirect this a bit.

Hypothetical:

DLC pack 5 was just revealed.

We don't get Kublai Khan, but instead James leading Scotland and England. We now have three English leaders and three-ish French leaders.

What emotions are you feeling?

 

[PhilBowles]

Okay I'm gonna try to redirect this a bit.

Hypothetical:

DLC pack was just revealed.

We don't get Kublai Khan, but instead James leading Scotland and England. We now have three English leaders and three-ish French leaders.

What emotions are you feeling?

Seems reasonable in the first incarnation that includes Scotland and England, but unexpected in a game that's already added Eleanor of Aquitaine as a dual leader.

Eagerly awaiting New Frontier II, in which the secret dual leader will turn out to be Catherine of Aragon leading England and Spain.