Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Eagle Pursuit, May 11, 2020.
I wouldn't touch a Civ game with this many modern leaders; Civ6 already has way, way too many.
i disagree. The only time that modern leaders should be used is if they were highly highly influential, now dead, uncontroversial on the international level and the civ they’re leading has either been around for a extremely long time or is a world power deserving of being considered a civilization.
For example, take our modern leaders in Civ 6
You’ve got Menelik II, Gandhi, Theodore Roosevelt, John Curtin, Wilfred Laurier, Wilhelmina, Queen Victoria.
Out of these, only Wilhelmina and to a lesser extent, Laurier and Gandhi, don’t have general negative perceptions among considerable parts of their nations’ populations:
Menelik — consideres a tyrant and perpetrator of genocide by the Oromo People
Curtin — Said Australia should be a state for white people, disliked the Aboriginal population
Gandhi — disliked by Indian Muslims because of his opinions
Victoria — Figurehead of colonialism. Very much disliked in much of the world
Roosevelt — said that most ‘indians are only good indians when they’re dead ones’ in response to the ‘only good indian is a dead one’ racism that existed in America at the time.
Laurier: disliked for treatment of natives
Wilhelmina: disliked for colonialism in Indonesia, among other places.
As you can see, all of these leaders, including the more uncontroversial ones, have a lot of vitriol associated with them. Whether that’s justified or not is a political discussion that doesn’t belong here, but the fact of the matter is that is a discussion that firaxis actively attempts to avoid, and should avoid. Choices liek Mao and Stalin were acceptable in 2006 because the internet was in a fledging state which didn’t have the capability for mass organized outrage or anger that it does now.
So with the exception of a Mandela South Africa as a potential Zulu replacement every now and then in future games, I don’t think any of your suggestions are appropriate for civ, especially in the cases of civs like Poland where there are just better options.
Can you imagine the outrage in places affected by American interventionism if a modern American president was selected? or the outrage in Eastern Europe, where any support of the USSR, real or imaginary, is illegal in certain countries? it’s an impracticality that’ll lead to politics becoming involved in a game which doesn’t need to be at the center of political argument. You mentioned Thatcher, and she was so unpopular in the UK itself that when she died, the witch is dead went to number one on the charts. I doubt british people want to be seen depicted as a function of one of their most reviled leaders.
Leaders will eventually get more uncontroversial over time. No one uses Alexander’s war crimes to preclude him from civ. But to actively invite controversy into the game seems like a poor idea.
fair, but mexican cultural practices have been highly influenced by the Maya, and that’s day to day
while Islamic architecture was very much influenced by that of the Byzantines, the culture itself wasn’t radically changed by the Byzantines’ own culture.
Mao was in Civ 1, along with the original Gandhi. That's only 15 years after his death.
And that's why many would prefer call the civ series as "historical-themed virtual boardgame".
keep in mind in civ 1, leaders didn’t really do anything though. by the time civ 1 came out as well, the internet hadn’t progressed enough to develop organized anger at certain things either, something that held true in civs 2-4 too, when leaders like Stalin and Mao showed up.
Even if the USSR became a civ (which, you know, you can make a good argument for, given it was competing for the world’s most powerful country for almost 100 years), Lenin or Kruschev would be less controversial leader choices
Theoretically yes, but practically no. A german Hitler civ, an Apartheid civ, an american Trump or Kardashian civ wouldn't make it past the phase of "drunk shop talk at Christmas Party" at Firaxis.
Just a quick comment on the speculation that Mali replaced Morocco: I think it is far more likely that Mali replaced the Songhai, who replaced Mali in V. Much akin to Hungary over Austria, Khmer over Siam, Norway over Denmark, and (as stated) Maori over Polynesia (albeit that last one is I suspect is less of a back and forth possibility, and more of a move toward specificity).
i think functionally it replaced morocco, but culturally and geographically it replaces songhai
I don't want this discussion to get too political but the reason why Mao I believe isn't allowed to show up at least isn't because of anything negative.
He was in the first edition of the 2010 Civilization: The Board Game as leader of China. They had to reprint a second version because I believe they couldn't sell it in China because apparently it is illegal to have him in a game where he has the chance of possibility losing a game.
I didn't know about any of this beforehand and luckily I ended up with a copy of the second edition with Empress Wu Zetian instead.
yes, this is true, but his relative recentness makes him a poor choice for civ anyway bcs he’d stir up controversy
(also, i feel the same way about mao that i do about gandhi. Both are modern leaders for civs which are over 5000 years old. Why ruin any decent shot at full representation of that history with a modern leader who barely begins to grasp said history)
That statement about USSR is, as far as I know, false. And I didn't propose a modern american president, since I think none after FDR would fit. I proposed Switzerland (neutral, been around for ages, certainly longer than Holland, Canada or Australia), and I proposed Israel (although a lot of people don't like it, the country exists... deal with it)
Fair enough. I tend to think of the civs from the perspective of culture and geography first and foremost, but I would agree that the design does fit Morocco better.
which statement? support for it being illegal? Like I said, politics doesn’t belong in this chat, but there are quite literally laws against support of the USSR in certain eastern european countries (support for communism and communist symbolage is illegal in Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Ukraine, Georgia and Indonesia) so it would be quite problematic for Firaxis’s sales for the USSR to be included, since it would probably hurt their chances in countries in Poland more than it would help them elsewhere. Look it up if you’d like, but this isn’t a forum for the legal codes of any countries.
Was there leaked info saying that Vietnam and Kublai Khan would be added for the September pack? I read that there was, but that doesn't fit because the content roadmap clearly says the September pack will add two new civs, and Kublai could only be an alternate leader for Mongolia and China, so no new civ there.
But if Morocco's out how am I going to rock the Casbah?
not the september pack, but just a pack, and because the jan pack is the only one with a planned alt leader, it’s fairly clear it’ll be the jan pack
PLOT TWIST: We've been playing as the villains this whole time.
It's kind of both? Mali has the Mandekalu cavalry which was the Songhai UU in V. But Morocco also had the Kasbah UI which had desert bonuses like Songs of the Jeli. I would tend to believe that Mali is more of a direct swap with Songhai (since that's what happened in V), but naturally needed the desert bias because...well, it's Mali. I'm just holding onto hope that Mali and the Ottomans didn't eat up Berber design completely.
Also, while I've been pushing for Morocco to return in some form for a few years, Morocco generally polled poorly in fan requests/speculation. So if we don't get something from the Maghreb in VI it's kind of the community's fault for obsessing over the Ashanti and caring more about Portugal and Byzantium and Babylon.
Yes he would still be controversial for multiple reasons.
I don't mind Gandhi as much since we at least got Chandragupta.
The leak didn't specify which pack but it clearly would have to be the one in January with the one new civ and one new leader.
You can always declare war on Fez in the Atomic era and drop the bombs between the minarets, down the Casbah way.
Ahh, that would explain it. Thank you! I just saw the leaked information and immediately assumed that it would be referring to the next pack.
On a side note, I'd also like to see the Chola in Civ as a representative of the Dravidian peoples of South India. Rajendra Chola is a Great Admiral if I'm not mistaken, so that's a step in the right direction.
To my knowledge, the 2010 Civilization Board Game never officially released in mainland China. The only official Chinese version of that boardgame released in Taiwan.
Even if FXS did try to sell it in PRC, that would be a censorship problem rather than a legal one.
Separate names with a comma.