Civs Made More or Less Likely by Current Civ Cities

[Guandao]

With that in mind I guess there could be a chance for Armenia after all.

Well, there's a whole big issue with Turkey & Armenia....

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Definitely. Granted its not that I don't like Victoria, she was certainly influential enough to have an era named after her (imagine having that instead of the industrial era!) and is one of the better leaders for Britain in my opinion. But, like you guys have said, Britain and England have their differences and Elizabeth actually held de facto power. I think another reason that Victoria was chosen was due to wanting to add the Redcoats as a UU. If that was a reason, then I'd gladly mention that I personally wouldn't mind an England led by Elizabeth having Redcoats as the civ UU (with Elizabeth having her own UU if necessary). If Frederick Barbarossa can have U-Boats then I don't see how Elizabeth having Redcoats would be a deal-breaker for anyone. Maybe she'll be the leader again if more media was made about her (well, as long as they're made better than this one)! Regardless, hopefully she can be the alt leader.

Definitely wanting to try some Ethiopian coffee and some of the others mentioned here now.

To be fair, the British/English army adopted the Venetian Red (by the Parliamentary Statute - the dye used for the enlisted men's coats was actually Madder) coat for the New Model Army of the Civil War, in 1645. That means, I suppose, that the Leader most associated with it should be Oliver Cromwell!

On the other hand, they officially changed from Scarlet (new-fangled artificial aniline dye) to Dust Colored ('Khaki') during Victoria's reign, so take your pick.

But on yet another hand, if Catherine de Medici can have Napoleon's Grenadiers a Pied of the Old Guard as her Unique Unit and Teddy Roosevelt can have P-51D fighters, and Qin Shi Huang can have Crouching Tiger gunpowder weapons, anything is permissible...

 

[Siptah]

Are these German leaders all from the 20th Century? I actually would like Frederick the Great of Prussia to get the voice treatment in the future.....

They were in office in the 20th century. It's time for post-imperial Germany to appear. Why should that be a bad idea?
Concerning Fritz, I'd prefer if he leads Prussia to him leading Germany. That would also open up for a military oriented civ (Prussia) and a diplomatic/cultural Germany. I generally would dislike it, if german minors would lead a German civ (even if Prussia is more of a major) in a future iteration. Also: what language would you make Fritz speak? Bismarck speaking modern high german was a disappointment in civ V.

 

[Guandao]

They were in office in the 20th century. It's time for post-imperial Germany to appear. Why should that be a bad idea?
Concerning Fritz, I'd prefer if he leads Prussia to him leading Germany. That would also open up for a military oriented civ (Prussia) and a diplomatic/cultural Germany. I generally would dislike it, if german minors would lead a German civ (even if Prussia is more of a major) in a future iteration. Also: what language would you make Fritz speak? Bismarck speaking modern high german was a disappointment in civ V.

Because I find 20th century leaders boring? And I wouldn't want Germany to be continuously represented by 20th century leaders......
A separate Prussian Civ? No thank you, I don't want multiple German Civs. What do you mean by "minors"? Is that some kind of German phrase?
What's the problem with Fritz's language? Bismarck didn't speak Modern High German?

 

[Siptah]

Because I find 20th century leaders boring? And I wouldn't want Germany to be continuously represented by 20th century leaders......

Why continuously? It never had a 20th century leader. I don't find the 20th century and its leaders boring, not at all.

 

[Guandao]

Why continuously? It never had a 20th century leader. I don't find the 20th century and its leaders boring, not at all.

20th Century Leaders all basically wear suits and ties. It's also a pretty controversial time period, with numerous horrible leaders/dictators.

Well, you said you didn't want Bismarck representing Germany until Civ10, so I guess you want these 20th Century Chancellors to represent your country from Civ7-9.......

 

[Siptah]

20th Century Leaders all basically wear suits and ties. It's also a pretty controversial time period, with numerous horrible leaders/dictators.

Well, Stresemann would wear a Stresemann, obviously

 

[Guandao]

Well, Stresemann would wear a Stresemann, obviously

I have no clue who Stresemann is....

I don't know if Firaxis would consider them to lead Germany. American knowledge of German leaders in the 20th century (minus Hitler ) is severely lacking.

 

[Zaarin]

Bismarck didn't speak Modern High German?

No, he presumably spoke a Modern Low German dialect. High and Low German refers to elevation rather than prestige.

 

[Guandao]

No, he presumably spoke a Modern Low German dialect. High and Low German refers to elevation rather than prestige.

I already knew that High and Low referred to elevation.....
The Holy Roman Empire units in Civ4 spoke Low German.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Well, there's a whole big issue with Turkey & Armenia....

Yeah, I kinda sorta definitely forgot about that. That's disappointing.

But on yet another hand, if Catherine de Medici can have Napoleon's Grenadiers a Pied of the Old Guard as her Unique Unit and Teddy Roosevelt can have P-51D fighters, and Qin Shi Huang can have Crouching Tiger gunpowder weapons, anything is permissible...

Yeah, it's clear that the UU will just about always be one that is most famously associated with or iconic of the civ they're from. Sometimes the UU will coincide with the leader like Cyrus and the Immortals or Theodore Roosevelt and the Rough Riders but other times not so much with Germany being the most blatant example.

Edit: Speaking of Germany....

 

[Guandao]

Yeah, I kinda sorta definitely forgot about that. That's disappointing.

Yeah, it would be hard to get around that. Firaxis can use only cities located in today's Armenia, but most of the great historical Armenian leaders ruled parts of what is now Eastern Turkey. I'm not sure if a majority of Turkish people would oppose Armenia as a Civ, but at least a vocal minority would.

At least, that's why I think Firaxis has never added Armenia to the game.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Because I find 20th century leaders boring? And I wouldn't want Germany to be continuously represented by 20th century leaders......
A separate Prussian Civ? No thank you, I don't want multiple German Civs. What do you mean by "minors"? Is that some kind of German phrase?
What's the problem with Fritz's language? Bismarck didn't speak Modern High German?

We differ here in that I find no historical leaders boring from any time period. Disturbing, despicable, pitiable, derisable, disingenuous, and/or deceitful often, but never boring - just like the current weedy crop of world leaders, in fact...

And Germany is only one of many, if not most, countries in Civ games that actually represent several different countries in culture, politics, and geography depending on the period or era you are trying to represent. Especially in a game that insists on all Civilizations starting in 4000 BCE and continuing uninterruptedly until the 21st century CE, ALL the civilizations in the game are artificial constructs. Even a supposedly 'continuous' culture like China in fact covered slightly differing geographical areas with almost each separate dynasty - meaning each Alternate Leader for China represents a different area. And some of those areas include territories now associated with entirely different civilizations, like Korea, Vietnam and Tibet.
In fact, that is part of my objection to equating the Holy Roman Empire with Germany - it wasn't, entirely. The HRE included parts of what are now Bohemia, Czech and Slovak lands, and overlaps with modern Germany, Austria, and historically independent states like the 'minor' German states of Bavaria, Prussia, Hanover, Pfalz/Palatinate, and Saxony.
And if that's a lot of German States, then note that, historically, the Civ VI 'alternate leaders' of Greece, an Athenian and a Spartan/Lacadaemonian, technically led completely separate political, military, and at least in part cultural entities: there was no Greek State in the Civ sense until the Leagues began forming in the century before Alexander, and of course after the Macedonian conquest, when arguably there was no 'Greek State' at all until the 19th century. So including some 'minor; German states that share only a language (sort of) and some culture is right in keeping with Civ VI's current practice.

Except, of course, that it leaves less room for other parts of the world and history to be represented, and like it or not, those kinds of choices have to be made in a commercial game. On that we are agreed, it is much too easy, and easily defensible by marketing considerations, to wind up with far too many European Civs and leave out or massively underrepresent large parts of the world.

The problem with Fritz's language is that he spoke by preference French as did his entire court. Famously, he remarked that he spoke German only to his horse, but that's not true: on the few times he directly addressed common soldiers in his army, he doubtless spoke German and, to the Brandenburg regiments that were the core of his army, he spoke what is now considered to be a really bad version of German: 'Pruessishche Deutsch', which, when I first heard it in West Berlin, sounded like someone trying to speak Low German through loose false teeth while drunk. Sounded like nothing I had learned in school, or heard again anywhere else in what was then West Germany.

 

[Guandao]

We differ here in that I find no historical leaders boring from any time period. Disturbing, despicable, pitiable, derisable, disingenuous, and/or deceitful often, but never boring - just like the current weedy crop of world leaders, in fact...

Well, I draw historical leaders (only headshots) sometimes, and I usually find the 20th century leaders uninteresting to sketch. I'm mainly talking about visuals than whatever deeds they may have done. Gandhi and Curtin are enough 20th century representation for me.

And I think it's best to avoid certain 20th century leaders for Civ. Non-controversial ones are ok, I guess....

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well, I draw historical leaders (only headshots) sometimes, and I usually find the 20th century leaders uninteresting to sketch. I'm mainly talking about visuals than whatever deeds they may have done. Gandhi and Curtin are enough 20th century representation for me.

And I think it's best to avoid certain 20th century leaders for Civ. Non-controversial ones are ok, I guess....

Ah, now we are in agreement: Visually 20th century leaders certainly do display a remarkable bland sameness: clean-shaven middle-aged males in suits, with only the occasional Mao or Gandhi wearing something different and almost as rare a female leader like Eva of Argentina or Golda of Israel.

As to controversial, IMHO that label can be applied to just about any leader, anytime by Someone. Recent ones simply stir up more recent wounds, but I have heard contemporary Iranians say some very bad things about Alexander of Macedon, and read of modern Arabs that still carry a grudge concerning a certain Richard the Lion-Hearted...
.

 

[Guandao]

Ah, now we are in agreement: Visually 20th century leaders certainly do display a remarkable bland sameness: clean-shaven middle-aged males in suits, with only the occasional Mao or Gandhi wearing something different and almost as rare a female leader like Eva of Argentina or Golda of Israel.

As to controversial, IMHO that label can be applied to just about any leader, anytime by Someone. Recent ones simply stir up more recent wounds, but I have heard contemporary Iranians say some very bad things about Alexander of Macedon, and read of modern Arabs that still carry a grudge concerning a certain Richard the Lion-Hearted...
.

Well, I don't really want Mao Zedong to return to Civ. I really hate him. It's bad enough one of my grandmas was brainwashed from youth to admire him. Plus they would have to give him a thick Hunanese accent in Mandarin.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well, I don't really want Mao Zedong to return to Civ. I really hate him. It's bad enough one of my grandmas was brainwashed from youth to admire him. Plus they would have to give him a thick Hunanese accent in Mandarin.

Lucky for you, and me, they won't unless they decide not to sell the games in China anymore.

 

[Zaarin]

Yeah, it would be hard to get around that. Firaxis can use only cities located in today's Armenia, but most of the great historical Armenian leaders ruled parts of what is now Eastern Turkey. I'm not sure if a majority of Turkish people would oppose Armenia as a Civ, but at least a vocal minority would.

At least, that's why I think Firaxis has never added Armenia to the game.

I'm skeptical that the Turkish market is that important. Georgia is the first civ we've ever had from the Caucasus, and I suspect the "Tamar of Georgia" meme played a role in that. (I was a fan of including her; shame they did such a poor job depicting her. ) I'm hopeful Tigranes the Great or Tiridates III will grace us in Civ7.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm skeptical that the Turkish market is that important. Georgia is the first civ we've ever had from the Caucasus, and I suspect the "Tamar of Georgia" meme played a role in that. (I was a fan of including her; shame they did such a poor job depicting her. ) I'm hopeful Tigranes the Great or Tiridates III will grace us in Civ7.

Reddit might disagree with you.
I'm sure if Armenia came with an Ottoman DLC they wouldn't complain as much.

 

[Zaarin]

Reddit might disagree with you.