[NFP] Civilization VI: Possible New Civilizations Thread

[SammyKhalifa]

Yeah, I'd rather have less recent leaders. The past one or two hundred years is already really well represented in respect to a game that covers a time frame of 6000 years.

 

[6uho Koe]

I did think of this, I'm Vietnamese-Canadian, but then if leaders like Kristina whose legacy is frowned upon by almost the entire modern Sweden or previous controversial leaders who is frowned upon by pretty much the entire Western world or even every time they announce an Indigenous leader, it is almost guaranteed some backlash from the own Indigenous community about their portrayal. There are even talks about how certain leaders may upset the Communist party of China, which is an unfounded fear, and guess what, even if that is true, the leader choice still goes as planned, so I'm not sure what a handful of oversea Vietnamese can do. Sure, some are still upset about what happened over 4 decades ago, and then what, what are they gonna do about that? Literally nothing, what done is done. Maybe it will end up in a few news articles that no one reads except for when they are shared on this forum, like the time Cree got announced, and then will quickly sink into oblivion.
To be fair, if Vietnam is portrayed in its Medieval time, Tran Nhan Tong seems like a more likely pairing with Kublai than Le Loi.

I'm more inclined to think they would not use Ho Chi Minh due to recent politics and ideological concerns. If anything, they would not risk using him the same way China opposed to using Mao to lead China because the ccp did not want the idea of Mao being defeated. Civ 4 replaced him with Tang Taizong (along with remodeling Qin). I'm not sure how much the vietnamese government care about the idea of the player beating Ho Chi Minh, but Firaxis would probably not want to risk it. It would be a bit unfair if everyone gets Ho Chi Minh but only vietnam gets a medieval leader.
I would hope Ho Chi Minh does not lead Vietnam to show people who may not familiar with the country that the civilization and culture is more than just Vietnam War. Most people i know, including a couple of Vietnamese, don't know anything about Vietnam's history besides Vietnam War.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

Yeah, I'd rather have less recent leaders. The past one or two hundred years is already really well represented in respect to a game that covers a time frame of 6000 years.

I'm more inclined to think they would not use Ho Chi Minh due to recent politics and ideological concerns. If anything, they would not risk using him the same way China opposed to using Mao to lead China because the ccp did not want the idea of Mao being defeated. Civ 4 replaced him with Tang Taizong (along with remodeling Qin).

I think these two reasons are the best and most meaningful ones on why we shouldn't include him. The current Vietnamese government pretty much will not care about his inclusion. The problem I have with certain suggestions is that people always fear that certain decisions may offend certain groups XYZ without taking into consideration that 1/ it's 2020, there are people whose main jobs are to breathe and get offended, and 2/ how much economic and political power groups XYZ have in their hands that may allow them to block or change the decision. The reason to not include a certain leader cannot be "it may or may not upset a small oversea group who may or may not have a problem with him, although even if they have a problem, they can't do anything about it".

 

[clapyourhands]

I think these two reasons are the best and most meaningful ones on why we shouldn't include him. The current Vietnamese government pretty much will not care about his inclusion. The problem I have with certain suggestions is that people always fear that certain decisions may offend certain groups XYZ without taking into consideration that 1/ it's 2020, there are people whose main jobs are to breathe and get offended, and 2/ how much economic and political power groups XYZ have in their hands that may allow them to block or change the decision. The reason to not include a certain leader cannot be "it may or may not upset a small oversea group who may or may not have a problem with him, although even if they have a problem, they can't do anything about it".

I will add that civil war-era Vietnam is in my subjective opinion the least interesting part of Vietnamese history, and objectively, most certainly the most overrepresented part of Vietnamese history in western media. Even in SEA there are nations that have more compelling and less known modern histories that would better serve a contemporary leader.

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

and objectively, most certainly the most overrepresented part of Vietnamese history in western media.

That is how history and memory work. Things are more recent are better remembered. It is not the most overrepresented part, it is the ONLY represented part because again, western media focus on western culture, and the Vietnam War is the most significant part of Vietnamese history in the eye of a westerner because that is the part they are the most involved.

Even in SEA there are nations that have more compelling and less known modern histories that would serve better for a contemporary leader.

Like?

 

[BD123]

I think these two reasons are the best and most meaningful ones on why we shouldn't include him. The current Vietnamese government pretty much will not care about his inclusion. The problem I have with certain suggestions is that people always fear that certain decisions may offend certain groups XYZ without taking into consideration that 1/ it's 2020, there are people whose main jobs are to breathe and get offended, and 2/ how much economic and political power groups XYZ have in their hands that may allow them to block or change the decision. The reason to not include a certain leader cannot be "it may or may not upset a small oversea group who may or may not have a problem with him, although even if they have a problem, they can't do anything about it".

I agree with you it's a bit excessive and ridiculous for people to make a ruckus about a 2020 video game picking Ho Chi Minh to represent Vietnam, but it's also just a hassle I think Firaxis doesn't want nor need to deal with when Vietnam has other leaders in its history that, generally speaking, fill the same niche as Ho Chi Minh. He fought against French colonial rule and then American intervention (and was also a communist while doing so). Trung Trac and Le Loi both fought against Chinese colonial domination, but they don't bring the extra luggage of whatever complaints and offense certain groups of the Vietnamese diaspora are going to say that might translate to bad pr even if it is minor like the Poundmaker debacle.

I don't think that's the only or main reason they won't pick Ho Chi Minh, and they're likely going to go for a medieval or ancient leader because 1. people have noted that some of the leaders are a little too recent (I think Wilhelmina being a good example because there are Dutch leaders both more historical and more accomplished than her) and 2. Vietnam's introduction to the Civ series shouldn't be reduced to "Cold War Proxy Conflict" as most history seems fixated on doing as they over-emphasize this period in Vietnam's history due to its relation to Western experience. To me there's just so many more interesting options than a run-of-the-mill ""Ho Chi Minh leads Vietnam with a Viet Cong unique unit"

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I did think of this, I'm Vietnamese-Canadian, but then if leaders like Kristina whose legacy is frowned upon by almost the entire modern Sweden or previous controversial leaders who is frowned upon by pretty much the entire Western world or even every time they announce an Indigenous leader, it is almost guaranteed some backlash from the own Indigenous community about their portrayal. There are even talks about how certain leaders may upset the Communist party of China, which is an unfounded fear, and guess what, even if that is true, the leader choice still goes as planned, so I'm not sure what a handful of oversea Vietnamese can do. Sure, some are still upset about what happened over 4 decades ago, and then what, what are they gonna do about that? Literally nothing, what done is done. Maybe it will end up in a few news articles that no one reads except for when they are shared on this forum, like the time Cree got announced, and then will quickly sink into oblivion.
To be fair, if Vietnam is portrayed in its Medieval time, Tran Nhan Tong seems like a more likely pairing with Kublai than Le Loi.

I think the difference between Kristina and Ho Chi Minh is the time period. There's no Swedish people alive today that were offended by her actions when she lived.

I will add that civil war-era Vietnam is in my subjective opinion the least interesting part of Vietnamese history, and objectively, most certainly the most overrepresented part of Vietnamese history in western media. Even in SEA there are nations that have more compelling and less known modern histories that would better serve a contemporary leader.

That's also how I would feel if they included the Vietcong as a UU personally. I guess if Ho Chi Minh would become leader it could be his personal UU but I would rather them have something else.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I think the difference between Kristina and Ho Chi Minh is the time period. There's no Swedish people alive today that were offended by her actions when she lived.


That's also how I would feel if they included the Vietcong as a UU personally. I guess if Ho Chi Minh would become leader it could be his personal UU but I would rather them have something else.

Maybe Vietcong could be hidden unless adjacent to an Enemy Unit, or gain extra Combat Strength when fighting in Woods, Rainforests, Floodplains, Marshes, etc.

 

[clapyourhands]

That is how history and memory work. Things are more recent are better remembered. It is not the most overrepresented part, it is the ONLY represented part because again, western media focus on western culture, and the Vietnam War is the most significant part of Vietnamese history in the eye of a westerner because that is the part they are the most involved.

Like?

Chulalongkorn (Siam) and José Rizal (Philippines) are two standouts in the region and the only two post-1800s leaders I would consider good choices as the only leaders for their civs (and even then, Chulalongkorn does have competition). The most recent I would go is Aung San for Burma, who in my opinion faces the same problem as Ho Chi Minh for Vietnam. There's no arguing their historical importance, but both nations have interesting and well-documented histories that start before the colonial wars and have the problem of their modern periods frequently being the only parts talked about in western media.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Chulalongkorn (Siam) and José Rizal (Philippines) are two standouts in the region and the only two post-1800s leaders I would consider good choices as the only leaders for their civs (and even then, Chulalongkorn does have competition). The most recent I would go is Aung San for Burma, who in my opinion faces the same problem as Ho Chi Minh for Vietnam. There's no arguing their historical importance, but both nations have interesting and well-documented histories that start before the colonial wars and have the problem of their modern periods frequently being the only parts talked about in western media.

NO! NO LEADER MORE RECENT THAN REAGAN. That is my rule of thumb for Leaders, they have to exist before Reagan. No Aung San Suu Kyi!

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

The most recent I would go is Aung San

She is still alive and kicking, so she won't make it. And to be honest, choosing HCM to lead Vietnam may offend a few oversea Vietnamese but choosing her to lead Burma will trigger the entire Western hemisphere. This is the woman who won the Nobel Peace Prize and then went on to commit genocide, and you somehow have more problems with HCM than this? And if a living leader is the "most recent you would go", who wouldn't you go for, someone in the future?

Chulalongkorn (Siam) and José Rizal (Philippines) are two standouts in the region and the only two post-1800s leaders I would consider good choices as the only leaders for their civs (and even then, Chulalongkorn does have competition)

Do you have any particular reason why they would make good leaders? I mean it is ok to have personal opinions, but considering the entire SEA was colonized except for Thailand, claiming they were the only 2 post-1800 leaders you would consider is a different thing.

 

[clapyourhands]

NO! NO LEADER MORE RECENT THAN REAGAN. That is my rule of thumb for Leaders, they have to exist before Reagan. No Aung San Suu Kyi!

Aung San, not Aung San Suu Kyii. Her father, considered the Father of the Nation. But I agree it would still be controversial by virtue of his daughter.

Do you have any particular reason why they would make good leaders? I mean it is ok to have personal opinions, but considering the entire SEA was colonized except for Thailand, claiming they were the only 2 post-1800 leaders you would consider is a different thing.

To be perfectly frank, most SEA leaders post-colonialism and pre-current, sometimes barring the ones that directly led to independence were poor leaders; corruption, mismanagement, and brutality were all quite rampant. Chulalongkorn and Rizal have the benefit of time and national reverence on their side, and are the only two I can think of that possess both.

 

[BD123]

She is still alive and kicking, so she won't make it. And to be honest, choosing HCM to lead Vietnam may offend a few oversea Vietnamese but choosing her to lead Burma will trigger the entire Western hemisphere.

Do you have any particular reason why they would make good leaders? I mean it is ok to have personal opinions, but considering the entire SEA was colonized except for Thailand, claiming they were the only 2 post-1800 leaders you would consider is a different thing.

I though they were referring to Aung San Suu Kyi's father? Also curious as to why specifically only Chulalongkorn and Jose Rizal out of the other 1800s+ SEA leaders

 

[DogeEnricoDandolo]

Aung San, not Aung San Suu Kyii. Her father, considered the Father of the Nation. But I agree it would still be controversial by virtue of his daughter.

Ooohh my bad. But let's be fair, Burma was the largest empire the SEA region has ever seen (although the "empire" only lasted 20 years), no need to go that recent for them. Just a quick google and see that Aung San was born more than 20 years after HCM, so not exactly the most qualified as an evidence why we shouldn't go past a certain time period.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

She is still alive and kicking, so she won't make it. And to be honest, choosing HCM to lead Vietnam may offend a few oversea Vietnamese but choosing her to lead Burma will trigger the entire Western hemisphere. This is the woman who won the Nobel Peace Prize and then went on to commit genocide, and you somehow have more problems with HCM than this?

Ditto.

Do you have any particular reason why they would make good leaders? I mean it is ok to have personal opinions, but considering the entire SEA was colonized except for Thailand, claiming they were the only 2 post-1800 leaders you would consider is a different thing.

Well, since you stated that Thailand was the only country that wasn't colonized, that's a good reason why Chulalongkorn should be in the game. He was the reason Siam(Thailand at the time) remained independent from colonization. So he's a good choice in my opinion.

Aung San, not Aung San Suu Kyii. Her father, considered the Father of the Nation. But I agree it would still be controversial by virtue of his daughter.

Oh... Still, as @DogeEnricoDandolo said, Burma has a very rich history and culture, so we don't need someone that recent. Seretse Khama, meanwhile... It would be great to see him in Civ 6.

 

[clapyourhands]

Ooohh my bad. But let's be fair, Burma was the largest empire the SEA region has ever seen (although the "empire" only lasted 20 years), no need to go that recent for them. Just a quick google and see that Aung San was born more than 20 years after HCM, so not exactly the most qualified as an evidence why we shouldn't go past a certain time period.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, which is why I would not want Aung San to lead Burma, as least not as its only leader. It's the same with Ho Chi Minh for me; I wouldn't want a modern leader to represent the civ exclusively because there's so much other history to choose from. I gave Aung San as an example because in my mind he was an "earlier" leader than Ho since I remember his political activity was a few decades before the Vietnam War--I actually didn't realize he was born later!

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I do believe the Philippines "deserve" a spot, but I'm too ignorant of the precolonial history to give a good option, and a quick wiki search didn't really help me much.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Maybe Vietcong could be hidden unless adjacent to an Enemy Unit, or gain extra Combat Strength when fighting in Woods, Rainforests, Floodplains, Marshes, etc.

It would still be a late game either infrantry or recon unit that wouldn't change much of gameplay and have limited window of use, just like in real life.
I'd personally prefer something earlier like a medieval naval UU which we don't have a lot of.

Chulalongkorn (Siam) and José Rizal (Philippines) are two standouts in the region and the only two post-1800s leaders I would consider good choices as the only leaders for their civs (and even then, Chulalongkorn does have competition). The most recent I would go is Aung San for Burma, who in my opinion faces the same problem as Ho Chi Minh for Vietnam. There's no arguing their historical importance, but both nations have interesting and well-documented histories that start before the colonial wars and have the problem of their modern periods frequently being the only parts talked about in western media.

If I had to go with a post 1800 leader for SE Asia I would go with Rama II for Siam but his father, Rama I, would be good too in addition to Chulalongkom (Rama V).

Burma would best be served with Bayinnaung being more early modern or the medieval Pagan Empire rather than anything Industrial or Modern.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Commenting here in my capacity as historian of SE Asia, not as writer for Firaxis.

I do believe the Philippines "deserve" a spot, but I'm too ignorant of the precolonial history to give a good option, and a quick wiki search didn't really help me much.

There's a problem there. The Philippines as such are an artifact of Spanish colonialism; something like Cebu, Sulu, or Maguindanao might be the relevant pre-Spanish (1521) polities. Rizal is an interesting choice, though - a writer and profoundly influential in nationalist thought, but not a political leader.

If I had to go with a post 1800 leader for SE Asia I would go with Rama II for Siam but his father, Rama I, would be good too in addition to Chulalongkom (Rama V).

I'll bite. Why Rama II? R. V (Chulalongkorn) or R. IV (Mongkut) are to my mind far more influential. The former built the institutions of an absolute European-style monarchy and remains popular as "the great moderniser," the latter instituted official study of Siamese history and reformed the sangha (Buddhist monkhood). Even R. III, who began the adoption of Western colonial forms (Siam avoided colonization by behaving very like colonial powers themselves, also by signing unequal trade treaties and serving as a buffer between Britain and France - the former didn't want the political tension of a border if it could get the economic benefit of unequal treaties; the latter made efforts at a takeover but late to the colonization game). R. I as the founder of the Chakri dynasty and formed the capital at Rattanakosin (Bangkok). But R. II? Honest question.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'll bite. Why Rama II? R. V (Chulalongkorn) or R. IV (Mongkut) are to my mind far more influential. The former built the institutions of an absolute European-style monarchy and remains popular as "the great moderniser," the latter instituted official study of Siamese history and reformed the sangha (Buddhist monkhood). Even R. III, who began the adoption of Western colonial forms (Siam avoided colonization by behaving very like colonial powers themselves, also by signing unequal trade treaties and serving as a buffer between Britain and France - the former didn't want the political tension of a border if it could get the economic benefit of unequal treaties; the latter made efforts at a takeover but late to the colonization game). R. I as the founder of the Chakri dynasty and formed the capital at Rattanakosin (Bangkok). But R. II? Honest question.

In my mind Siam would be both industrial and cultural. As far as I know Rama II at least presided over a brief period of a "Golden Age of Rattanakosin Literature" and would fit more of a cultural leader.
Plus I wasn't sure if Rama I would count as the question was about a leader post 1800 and well I guess Rama IV would work too. I wouldn't be too picky on which one.

Speaking as a player and not necessarily a historian of SE Asia, which I'm not.