Different capital hypothesis

[VermelhoRed]

I could be wrong but I believe Civ4 does it this way. Having alternate names for a capital is a minor detail in my opinion. Just seems like a silly detail that would handcuff the developers into choosing only certain leaders.

Restrictions breed creativity! Those "certain leaders" will most likely represent diverging aspects of civilizations (Athens vs Sparta in Greece; West vs East and Principate vs Dominate in Rome), while leaders who have the same Capital would be too similar to each other! It's a much better choice than having random capitals, which, in my opinion, is just awful!

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Restrictions breed creativity! Those "certain leaders" will most likely represent diverging aspects of civilizations (Athens vs Sparta in Greece; West vs East and Principate vs Dominate in Rome), while leaders who have the same Capital would be too similar to each other! It's a much better choice than having random capitals, which, in my opinion, is just awful!

Restrictions force the developers to choose leaders of lesser importance. But this is assuming they have two leaders for every civ which they likely would not do.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Restrictions force the developers to choose leaders of lesser importance. But this is assuming they have two leaders for every civ which they likely would not do.

Precisely! This way they'll only add leaders if they offer a distinct cultural view of the civilization! Instead of choices that are too similar, like all those American leaders in Civ 4! I support this wholeheartedly!

 

[stealth_nsk]

Precisely! This way they'll only add leaders if they offer a distinct cultural view of the civilization! Instead of choices that are too similar, like all those American leaders in Civ 4! I support this wholeheartedly!

There's no clear connection between having different capital and different cultural tradition. Rome was the capital of Roman Republic, Roman Empire, Papal States and Italy. If Trajan blocks Roman Republic leaders from appearing, the design decision doesn't look good.

 

[Silent23]

Is there any actual evidence of variable capitals? I'm rather sceptical because Hojo Tokimune ruled from Kamakura, not Kyoto.

I haven't been watching all of the streams and sneak peeks because it's friggin' Civ and that's hours and hours of game footage. I just can't do it all. But for those who have been watching, have we seen Kyoto since the Egyptian change was made? Maybe they made a similar change with Japan.

Yes, I expect to see Isabella with Toledo or Seville. If she uses Madrid, I don't know what they're going to do. Sparta and Athens can both be in the game, but then what do they do for Madrid/Madrid? Not allow both Spains? Allow them and give one of them the "wrong" capital?

Greece may be the only civilization to have differing capitals, but I can't think of too many other leaders that NEED it as much as these two.

Athens and Sparta were city-states. If you didn't change the Greek capital, then a Spartan would be ruling Athens. Same the other way. It's just weird and wrong, so they introduced this mechanic. It's not as needed for the other civs. On a side note, did we see if the symbol for Greece stays the same? That's also a bit of a weird thing that comes up as you shift from leader to leader within the same civ.

On that note... alternate capitals...

America - Richmond - Jefferson Davis (I'd thought this was stupid when mentioned earlier, but then realized... hey. It's not the United States. It's "America". Anything's technically open, which makes me think it's also possible to do...
America - Powhatan - Powhatan
America - Black Hills - Sitting Bull
Arabia - Medina - Abu Bakr
Germany - Königsberg - Frederick
Norway - Bergen - Haakon IV (They really shot themselves in the foot by going with "Norway" rathern than "The Norse". Could've covered all the Scandinavian countries.)
Sumer - Akkad - Sargon I

I am saddened that if there are no doubles Peter and his Berg have kicked out my bae Catherine from the game. No... I'm not bitter I missed the "Hottest Leader" thread. Not at all.

 

[Atlas627]

On that note... alternate capitals...

America - Richmond - Jefferson Davis (I'd thought this was stupid when mentioned earlier, but then realized... hey. It's not the United States. It's "America". Anything's technically open, which makes me think it's also possible to do...
America - Powhatan - Powhatan
America - Black Hills - Sitting Bull
Arabia - Medina - Abu Bakr
Germany - Königsberg - Frederick
Norway - Bergen - Haakon IV (They really shot themselves in the foot by going with "Norway" rathern than "The Norse". Could've covered all the Scandinavian countries.)
Sumer - Akkad - Sargon I

I am saddened that if there are no doubles Peter and his Berg have kicked out my bae Catherine from the game. No... I'm not bitter I missed the "Hottest Leader" thread. Not at all.

I cant see them using Confederate leaders because they don't represent the whole culture, and they will certainly leave Native American leaders for their own tribes. Also, didn't Frederick rule from Berlin? While I'd love to see him back, I think Bismark is a much better candidate for different gameplay from Barbarossa. They will surely have Sweden again, so I doubt Norway will get another leader. And I don't see Sumeria getting another leader either, considering they structured both UAs around Gilgamesh.

 

[ales_]

But for those who have been watching, have we seen Kyoto since the Egyptian change was made? Maybe they made a similar change with Japan.

It's still Kyoto.

 

[Menzies]

I haven't been watching all of the streams and sneak peeks because it's friggin' Civ and that's hours and hours of game footage. I just can't do it all. But for those who have been watching, have we seen Kyoto since the Egyptian change was made? Maybe they made a similar change with Japan.



Greece may be the only civilization to have differing capitals, but I can't think of too many other leaders that NEED it as much as these two.

Athens and Sparta were city-states. If you didn't change the Greek capital, then a Spartan would be ruling Athens. Same the other way. It's just weird and wrong, so they introduced this mechanic. It's not as needed for the other civs. On a side note, did we see if the symbol for Greece stays the same? That's also a bit of a weird thing that comes up as you shift from leader to leader within the same civ.

On that note... alternate capitals...

America - Richmond - Jefferson Davis (I'd thought this was stupid when mentioned earlier, but then realized... hey. It's not the United States. It's "America". Anything's technically open, which makes me think it's also possible to do...
America - Powhatan - Powhatan
America - Black Hills - Sitting Bull
Arabia - Medina - Abu Bakr
Germany - Königsberg - Frederick
Norway - Bergen - Haakon IV (They really shot themselves in the foot by going with "Norway" rathern than "The Norse". Could've covered all the Scandinavian countries.)
Sumer - Akkad - Sargon I

I am saddened that if there are no doubles Peter and his Berg have kicked out my bae Catherine from the game. No... I'm not bitter I missed the "Hottest Leader" thread. Not at all.

I'd again point out that traditionally people say that Kyoto was Japan's capital for "over a thousand years" as it was always the seat of the Emperor. That of course creates an odd situation when the series picks the leaders who actually had power (in this instance it was the chap who had de facto power of the Shogun who in term had de facto power of the Emperor).

If nothing else, if the rest of this hypothesis works out, it would suggest that they simply didn't care to think too much about it, or considered that Kyoto should be the "true capital", because having a second Japanese ruler wasn't on the radar at the time, and should we see a change it may suggest one suddenly is (as they'd be freeing up the opportunity). I'd turn addition, as you did, to the choice with Egypt, where it appears that a conscious choice was made to move it in line with this hypothesis.

There are vast possibilities around this though, ones that are particularly interesting:

- Arabia: We have Saladin with Cairo, but Medina and numerous other cities were the seat of many great Arab rulers.
- Germany: Much as with Greece, you could pick numerous cities and have a great list of names. Berlin and Vienna immediately come to mind, as does Königsberg as you noted.
- Egypt: Pi-Ramesses anyone? Don't forget Thebes...
- Rome: Now it's not Istanbul, not Constantinople...
- Turkey: On that note, Ankara and Istanbul, both got good options attached.
- India: Ashoka is calling.
- Spain: We've discussed this of course, but Isabella is coming.
- France: The Sun King reigned from Versailles.
- China: A great many cities for a great many dynasties. Nanjing, Luoyang, and Beijing all would want a say on that.
- Russia: Moscow eh? Soviets, Ivan the terrible, all sorts of fun here.
- Italy: Controversial to have them, but Turin and Florence could both have a say, and knowing the Civ series I wouldn't put "Roma" past them.
- England: Winchester
- America: If you're not a fan of racists, Washington did have Philadelphia as his capital for the most part. All sorts you could do with the revolutionary wars as well.

That's not even straying into the kinds of Civs that are going to be added in the future. All sorts to look forward to on that front, if this is the case.

 

[MikalJ]

I like the idea that England could be forced to have to truly 'English' rather than 'British' leaders. Would stop the game from endlessly regurgitating Tudors! As already expressed in this thread, a Norman king would allow for a different capital (in France, though, which might confuse people unfamiliar with England's past continental territory), a Plantagenet could be given York if France is considered too 'out there', and a Saxon king could reign in Winchester. Ideally, we'd finally get the one 'Great' king of England, but I can only dream...

You could even go for a more interesting choice, and have Cnut, who could be chosen as leader of either England or Norway. It's the logical next step from having multiple leaders. Not sure where you'd place his capital, though. Maybe that could change with the civ too.

 

[ButtBillionaire]

If Norway does get a second leader, it'll most likely have the Norwegian capital changing to Oslo.

 

[nzcamel]

Precisely! This way they'll only add leaders if they offer a distinct cultural view of the civilization! Instead of choices that are too similar, like all those American leaders in Civ 4! I support this wholeheartedly!

Hold on a sec....did you just say that Franklin Roosevelt and George Washington were similar!!?? I'm not sure that'll hold up to much actual inspection. And Lincoln... No. All very different people with differing influences and agendas who lead differently.

 

[Menzies]

Hold on a sec....did you just say that Franklin Roosevelt and George Washington were similar!!?? I'm not sure that'll hold up to much actual inspection. And Lincoln... No. All very different people with differing influences and agendas who lead differently.

They're talking about cultural aspects of the nation they lead, not the person.

For example, Sparta and Athens were very different. The idea is that this might be a way to use different leaders as a well to highlight some of the changes that went on throughout the history of a Civilisation. In that context, "here are some popular presidents" doesn't come across as particularly inspiring. Maybe Jefferson Davis isn't such a bad idea in that respect, it would capture the racism inherent in American culture for the vast majority of it's existence. I mean, it's a terrible choice in pretty much every other respect, and that's not really one that they would, or should, touch.

 

[nzcamel]

They're talking about cultural aspects of the nation they lead, not the person.

For example, Sparta and Athens were very different. The idea is that this might be a way to use different leaders as a well to highlight some of the changes that went on throughout the history of a Civilisation. In that context, "here are some popular presidents" doesn't come across as particularly inspiring.

That would be a given, seeing that you're talking about what we perceive as a country; but which was really made up of city states who for much of their history felt very minimal obligations to each other. There was no capital to lord it over any city that they could not cower with their might.
Whereas the US has been a nation state from 1776 forward, in a much later time where they knew plenty about different models of government, and were building a country which would balance independence with universality in a way that the Greeks never did.

So on your basis; lets select all our leaders from times and cultures which allowed for them to despotically express themselves in whatever way they felt, with little to no constraint on their power cos that is "more interesting"....?

I'm very inspired by Washington and Lincoln...little bit less so by F. Roosevelt; but he was still a hell of a leader whatever I think of his politics. Anyone who cannot recognise what these men brought to the table, especially given the times they lived in, is oblivious to much of the forces that shape us and our world.

Maybe Jefferson Davis isn't such a bad idea in that respect, it would capture the racism inherent in American culture for the vast majority of it's existence. I mean, it's a terrible choice in pretty much every other respect, and that's not really one that they would, or should, touch.

America has never been more or less racist than anywhere else in the world. It's a human condition everywhere.

 

[Homusubi]

Now I come to think of it, the Japanese seat of power changed a lot. First the tradition of moving the capital around, then Asuka, Nara, Nagaoka, Kyoto, Kamakura, back to Kyoto again (I think? Where did Emperor Go-Daigo rule from?), then Kiyosu, Azuchi, Osaka, Momoyama, and finally Edo.

 

[Siptah]

In my opinion it's more interesting if a second leader also represents a different era or focus of civ. This often comes with a different capitol anyway.
Having another leader for Spain, England, France, Germany or Egypt that covers a completely different aspect/era of those civs seems worthy for me (because I still think every one or two alternate leaders will reduce the amount of civs). For all of those, another capital seems possible and easy to find.

I have some problems with another roman emperor or american president, I don't want to talk them down, but to me this wouldn't be as thrilling or new. A leader from roman republican times seems interesting though (Cicero? Cato?). Washington can be interesting if he emphasizes the revolution aspect, I admit that.
Having Lincoln or Jefferson to me (as a German) feels like adding Frederick Stupor Mundi for Germany: an incredible leader, very different from Barbarossa, but still too similar as in 'another medieval one that lead more or less the same thing'. If they would add Bismarck, Prussian Frederick or even a non-leader like Wallenstein the alternate leader would feel much more like a good investment to me.

 

[Menzies]

That would be a given, seeing that you're talking about what we perceive as a country; but which was really made up of city states who for much of their history felt very minimal obligations to each other. There was no capital to lord it over any city that they could not cower with their might.
Whereas the US has been a nation state from 1776 forward, in a much later time where they knew plenty about different models of government, and were building a country which would balance independence with universality in a way that the Greeks never did.

So on your basis; lets select all our leaders from times and cultures which allowed for them to despotically express themselves in whatever way they felt, with little to no constraint on their power cos that is "more interesting"....?

I'm very inspired by Washington and Lincoln...little bit less so by F. Roosevelt; but he was still a hell of a leader whatever I think of his politics. Anyone who cannot recognise what these men brought to the table, especially given the times they lived in, is oblivious to much of the forces that shape us and our world.

Again, this isn't about something I want, I'm just chewing through an idea that seems plausible given the information we have. It's also worth noting that under it, Washington with the capital of Philadelphia is a perfectly reasonable option. This all said, to be completely honest, I don't see why America of all civilisations needs more than one leader. It is a young nation with a fairly homogeneous history.

I'd equally also suggest that it's a bit far to suggest that all other possible leaders are merely despots who had "little to no constraint on their power". Even from those selected so far this is far from the case, and for a game like Civilization, the diversity of styles and types is part of the experience. As discussed earlier, the complexities of Feudal Japan were a particularly interesting case, where the Emperor wielded no actual power, and even the Shogun, who was de facto wielding the power, was at times merely a puppet to another for generations.

America has never been more or less racist than anywhere else in the world. It's a human condition everywhere.

Yet it was America that tore itself in two to defend the slave trade, something peacefully outlawed in much of the World earlier. Whilst most cultures have had their problems with racist, there are few more spectacular than the Americans, though those ones were a whole orders of magnitude more barbaric.

 

[nzcamel]

Again, this isn't about something I want, I'm just chewing through an idea that seems plausible given the information we have. It's also worth noting that under it, Washington with the capital of Philadelphia is a perfectly reasonable option. This all said, to be completely honest, I don't see why America of all civilisations needs more than one leader. It is a young nation with a fairly homogeneous history.

It's impact on the world has been massive for one so young. If I look at what lead to the creation of the modern day West, America's Revolution and re-implementation of the Roman Republic rank very high. Said homogeneous history was a serious front runner to lifting millions of people out of poverty world wide. All three of the American leaders portrayed in CIV were involved in that process in very different ways.

I'd equally also suggest that it's a bit far to suggest that all other possible leaders are merely despots who had "little to no constraint on their power". Even from those selected so far this is far from the case, and for a game like Civilization, the diversity of styles and types is part of the experience. As discussed earlier, the complexities of Feudal Japan were a particularly interesting case, where the Emperor wielded no actual power, and even the Shogun, who was de facto wielding the power, was at times merely a puppet to another for generations.

Who said that? You asked for the comparison when you compared the continuation in limits upon the President of the United States, to the wildly different ways that Greek City States were run!
When you're free to do whatever you please (or close to it) then any diversity achieved has come cheap. What's really impressive is those like the Consuls of Rome (which Spitah lists above) who had to work very hard for their achievements given their power was constrained. Likewise the achievements of Lincoln and Roosevelt done (not entirely - if Lincoln's killers are to be believed, lol) inside the constraints of the Republic are amazing in their diversity under immense pressure.
I'd like to see multiple Japanese leaders; and I'd like to see multiple American leaders. Both merit their place.

Yet it was America that tore itself in two to defend the slave trade, something peacefully outlawed in much of the World earlier. Whilst most cultures have had their problems with racist, there are few more spectacular than the Americans, though those ones were a whole orders of magnitude more barbaric.

A few countries outlawed slavery earlier, mostly ones who hadn't dabbled in it quite as recently. It's easy to take a stand on an issue that you have no current stake in. That the US successfully outlawed slavery, with a huge stake in it, is very commendable. By and large the serious efforts to put a full end to slavery had happened in the decades leading up to America's civil war. Your "something peacefully outlawed in much of the World earlier" is close to a fabrication.
I am surprised that an Australian would stick their neck out so far on accusing another country of barbaric racism... Lol
Pot meet kettle.

 

[Menzies]

It's impact on the world has been massive for one so young. If I look at what lead to the creation of the modern day West, America's Revolution and re-implementation of the Roman Republic rank very high. Said homogeneous history was a serious front runner to lifting millions of people out of poverty world wide. All three of the American leaders portrayed in CIV were involved in that process in very different ways.

It's not always about outright impact, but about interest and difference. "Here are three white men, who lead the USA in the lead up to, or during wars, and could fit in the period of 100 years". Awesome! Imagine if they went with Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar and Trajan. Imagine how interesting that would be.

I think it would be a bit disingenuous to say that America was lifting millions out of poverty when it has one of the higher fractions of its own people below the poverty line in the developed world, and was arguably responsible for plunging many nations into instability, and hence their people into poverty, through it's political actions in the last century, notably within Central and South America. The World as a whole is improving in that respect, but to pin that solely on the United States is strange at best.

Who said that? You asked for the comparison when you compared the continuation in limits upon the President of the United States, to the wildly different ways that Greek City States were run!
When you're free to do whatever you please (or close to it) then any diversity achieved has come cheap. What's really impressive is those like the Consuls of Rome (which Spitah lists above) who had to work very hard for their achievements given their power was constrained. Likewise the achievements of Lincoln and Roosevelt done (not entirely - if Lincoln's killers are to be believed, lol) inside the constraints of the Republic are amazing in their diversity under immense pressure.
I'd like to see multiple Japanese leaders; and I'd like to see multiple American leaders. Both merit their place.

You did, you said that. Here in fact:

So on your basis; lets select all our leaders from times and cultures which allowed for them to despotically express themselves in whatever way they felt, with little to no constraint on their power cos that is "more interesting"....?

Surely you didn't mean the Greek city states, as certain ones, notably Athens, were actually early examples of a democracy. It is also very rare, in real terms, for any leader to have unlimited power (hence noting the example of feudal Japan), leaders who ever try to wield such generally get sidelined or removed.

It's not really about merit, and I think that in the context of the hypothesis you're focusing too much on the leader's reign, and too little on time and culture they represent. To much of the World one American President is pretty much like the others, much in the same way you likely couldn't tell much about Prime Ministers of New Zealand, or council members of the city of Charles Sturt. Even ignoring the hypothesis as presented, I honestly would prefer that we not see any other American leaders, as they've all been done to death in the series in the past, and America is ultimately a young nation, with a short, fairly homogeneous history. You yourself are only picking out two wartime Presidents, sticking to the stereotypes about how people pick great leaders.

A few countries outlawed slavery earlier, mostly ones who hadn't dabbled in it quite as recently. It's easy to take a stand on an issue that you have no current stake in. That the US successfully outlawed slavery, with a huge stake in it, is very commendable. By and large the serious efforts to put a full end to slavery had happened in the decades leading up to America's civil war. Your "something peacefully outlawed in much of the World earlier" is close to a fabrication.
I am surprised that an Australian would stick their neck out so far on accusing another country of barbaric racism... Lol
Pot meet kettle.

...yes, a few countries, like most of Western Europe, including your former colonial overlords. It was fairly peaceful those countries though, there were debates, but there wasn't a country literally splitting in two over it.

Australia has quite the history of racism, however much like swimming at the Olympics, America is always a few steps ahead.

In any case, I'm not sure that this is exactly a fruitful line of discussion for the topic. I think we'd both agree that Jefferson David isn't a great option.

 

[nzcamel]

It's not always about outright impact, but about interest and difference. "Here are three white men, who lead the USA in the lead up to, or during wars, and could fit in the period of 100 years". Awesome! Imagine if they went with Julius Caesar, Augustus Caesar and Trajan. Imagine how interesting that would be.

I disagree. I like my "what if" games to feature the best regardless of if they lived within a hundred years of one another or not. Julias and Augustas easily being a case in point. Cicero was a contemporary of Julias. He was an incredibly different man, and his proximity to Ceaser means naught to me in terms of a reason not to include him! And actually adds to reasons to include him!

I think it would be a bit disingenuous to say that America was lifting millions out of poverty when it has one of the higher fractions of its own people below the poverty line in the developed world, and was arguably responsible for plunging many nations into instability, and hence their people into poverty, through it's political actions in the last century, notably within Central and South America. The World as a whole is improving in that respect, but to pin that solely on the United States is strange at best.

We're well off topic here; but I said 'the West' has lifted millions out of poverty, and one of the great foundation stones of the West is the U.S.

Let's argue this one somewhere more appropriate, but your dislike of America taints your view on their relevance in Civ. Hell, many of the other Civs present were very barbaric; but I take no issue with their presence in the game, because that is not how the criteria for entry is decided. "Solely on the U.S."... again you put words in my mouth.

You did, you said that. Here in fact:

Surely you didn't mean the Greek city states, as certain ones, notably Athens, were actually early examples of a democracy. It is also very rare, in real terms, for any leader to have unlimited power (hence noting the example of feudal Japan), leaders who ever try to wield such generally get sidelined or removed.

My point is that in all reality Sparta and Athens could qualify for different Civs with how radically different their values were. Maybe the American North and South from the Antebellum period qualify for the same; but they didn't see their differences as optional and went and had a huge war over it. Bygones - of course leaders of independent (democratic or otherwise) city states will stand out as being much more different to each other, than the leaders of one country bound heavily by law (see Republic).

It's not really about merit, and I think that in the context of the hypothesis you're focusing too much on the leader's reign, and too little on time and culture they represent. To much of the World one American President is pretty much like the others, much in the same way you likely couldn't tell much about Prime Ministers of New Zealand, or council members of the city of Charles Sturt. Even ignoring the hypothesis as presented, I honestly would prefer that we not see any other American leaders, as they've all been done to death in the series in the past, and America is ultimately a young nation, with a short, fairly homogeneous history. You yourself are only picking out two wartime Presidents, sticking to the stereotypes about how people pick great leaders.

I haven't picked a particular president in this thread for VI - I've defended the ones who were represented in CIV that others felt free to dismiss. There's a few I'd like to see get a run in this game; and glad to see Teddy (a non-war or minor war POTUS I think...?) have his time in the sun. But whether we get Eisehower, JFK, Adams, or one that we've had before, I think they're mostly great candidates for bringing their larger than life personalities to the stage

As advancements speed up in the modern world, the pace of life changes. Civ has always reflected this nicely be slowing down the years as the game progresses. If the modern era forward is (say) a third of the game; then it makes sense to me that we will see a notable chunk of leaders from that time period. I think those of us who love history (and that includes anyone who cares enough to argue about this or change their purchasing habits as a result) do know the differences between Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt; along with other leaders in periods of time that take their fancy. I don't expect NZ politicians to be high on that list!

...yes, a few countries, like most of Western Europe, including your former colonial overlords. It was fairly peaceful those countries though, there were debates, but there wasn't a country literally splitting in two over it.

Of course it was fairly peaceful. They had much less to lose by banning slavery, as their hey days as slaving powers were a bit further back in their past... though many of them still dabbled where it suited them.

Australia has quite the history of racism, however much like swimming at the Olympics, America is always a few steps ahead.
In any case, I'm not sure that this is exactly a fruitful line of discussion for the topic. I think we'd both agree that Jefferson David isn't a great option.

As does everyone lol. We're all partial to the familiar; and many sadly get unhinged over it regardless of the melanin -or lack thereof- present in their own skin.
I'm happy to leave it here.

 

[Menzies]

I disagree. I like my "what if" games to feature the best regardless of if they lived within a hundred years of one another or not. Julias and Augustas easily being a case in point. Cicero was a contemporary of Julias. He was an incredibly different man, and his proximity to Ceaser means naught to me in terms of a reason not to include him! And actually adds to reasons to include him!

Best is a very subjective in this case. If I were listing great leaders, the United States wouldn't have a great deal of them.

We're well off topic here; but I said 'the West' has lifted millions out of poverty, and one of the great foundation stones of the West is the U.S.

The West is an even worse way of putting it. The United States is no foundation stone of the West either, it is a product of it. It became a superpower in the 20th century, but to suggest that it is what created "the West" is also an overstatement.

Let's argue this one somewhere more appropriate, but your dislike of America taints your view on their relevance in Civ. Hell, many of the other Civs present were very barbaric; but I take no issue with their presence in the game, because that is not how the criteria for entry is decided. "Solely on the U.S."... again you put words in my mouth.

I don't dislike America, I just don't think that rabid groveling about it is exactly a useful direction of discussion. Yes, it is a modern superpower, but it's just one culture in a sea of many. Civilization is not "American President Simulator 2017", nor should it be "American Superiority Simulator".

I never suggested a barbaric history should preclude cultures from the game, if I did I'd be suggesting that America shouldn't even be in.

My point is that in all reality Sparta and Athens could qualify for different Civs with how radically different their values were. Maybe the American North and South from the Antebellum period qualify for the same; but they didn't see their differences as optional and went and had a huge war over it. Bygones - of course leaders of independent (democratic or otherwise) city states will stand out as being much more different to each other, than the leaders of one country bound heavily by law (see Republic).

Which again seems to be a case of missing what appears to be the point of having multiple leaders. Civilizations within the series are not meant to represent nation states, they are representing cultures as they change over vast time periods. Sparta and Athens were not part of the same nation state, but they were both Greek. Having them both as the same Civ, but representing their differences as different leaders is a great way of doing it, and doing so for other Civs would be an interesting take on it.

I haven't picked a particular president in this thread for VI - I've defended the ones who were represented in CIV that others felt free to dismiss. There's a few I'd like to see get a run in this game; and glad to see Teddy (a non-war or minor POTUS I think...?) have his time in the sun. But whether we get Eisehower, JFK, Adams, or one that we've had before, I think they're mostly great candidates for bringing their larger than life personalities to the stage

Another options would be just leaving America as it is and pursuing more interesting Civilisations, which is how I hope they go.

As advancements speed up in the modern world, the pace of life changes. Civ has always reflected this nicely be slowing down the years as the game progresses. If the modern era forward is (say) a third of the game; then it makes sense to me that we will see a notable chunk of leaders from that time period. I think those of us who love history (and that includes anyone who cares enough to argue about this or change their purchasing habits as a result) do know the differences between Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt; along with other leaders in periods of time that take their fancy. I don't expect NZ politicians to be high on that list!

There are differences, but the underlying culture of the country was still largely the same. It doesn't represent a particularly large change in the country, even with the upheaval seen in Lincolns time. The great irony is that the very issues that underpinned the troubles of Lincolns time, were troubles that festered until after FDRs.

I guess one of the issues here is that America as a civ is representing too close to a single nation state, and that limits any interesting choices about how it can be represented or lead. This is essentially why I hope that they don't do additional leaders for them, though I'd almost guarantee at least one.

Of course it was fairly peaceful. They had much less to loose by banning slavery, as their hey days as slaving powers were a bit further back in their past... though many of them still dabbled where it suited them.

You are not wrong about the second part.

As does everyone lol. We're all partial to the familiar; and many sadly get unhinged over it regardless of the melanin -or lack thereof- present in their own skin.
I'm happy to leave it here.

Rightyo.