Female rulers

[GenyaArikado]

There's a lot of civ fans who feel that, no, we shouldn't have the Zulus either. Not when, there's a whole continent of rich and varied cultures that they get picked over, repeatedly.

yet that wont get the Zulus thrown off the game. If they can make an exception then they can make other lol.

 

[Captain Fargle]

Queen Zenobia
Painting by John William Waterhouse 1891

Spoiler :

Oh man. Look at that!

That's a ridiculously perfect leader screen right there. Totally going to have to draw this later.

 

[Redaxe]

Ehhh no more Theodora - she wasn't even Emperor

I'd argue for Nikephoros II Phokas or Basil 2

 

[mattspoker]

If you have random geography, the whole length of history, and randomized AI agenda traits, what is the big deal about having a few extra female leaders? Some of the leaders we have had were not founders, their influence wasn't what it is thought of in pop culture, and oftentimes their ethnicity didnt line up with that of the society they ruled. This is a fantasy game very loosely based on some historical ACCIDENTS. Plunk down Romans in the desert and you might be lucky to find a few stone spear heads today. A few more female leaders in disappeared civilizations might have kept them around longer. A little evolutionary nudge here or there and Neanderthals might be around still. We are running simulations of history, not history.

More options of skin tone and gender expand the pool of people who will play the game. Please God lets not go back to the 90s when it was overwhelmingly white, male, and losers like me playing games like CiV. There is nothing wrong with varying dress and appearance so leaders appear like media celebrities instead of toothless, pox-scarred, and splotchy reality based historical figures. OTOH, if you feel the misogynistic need to have all the women in your fantasy game to be porn-themed, I am sure a mod can be made just for you.

 

[Ryika]

Please God lets not go back to the 90s when it was overwhelmingly white, male, and losers like me playing games like CiV.

What do you mean by "go back"? I hate do burst that bubble (well... no, I don't ), but the main audience of core gaming is still men, and due to the general demographics and sexual preferences in the first world unsurprisingly straight(-leaning), white men. Having more female characters will not change much about that, some female gamers may feel more drawn to those games, but on the larger scale it's just different preferences among men and women. The fact that more men than women enjoy core-gaming won't magically change by adding characters that represent them.

OTOH, if you feel the misogynistic need to have all the women in your fantasy game to be porn-themed, I am sure a mod can be made just for you.

Not sure what you hope to achieve by throwing accusations of misogyny around, but it seems strange to me that you'd equate liking porn-themed women with a hatred of women. I certainly don't hate what I enjoy to look at, and I'd be very, very surprised if most people who like looking at women actually hate women.

Anyway, in general I agree though. I personally find that the character diversity can greatly benefit from not "forcing" oneself to be historically accurate in representation. I certainly can't remember ever playing Civ and realizing: "Hey, the game has spawned an inappropriately high amount of female leaders in this match! This totally hurts my immersion!" - the game just isn't one that tries to be historically accurate to begin with. In a more serious-themed game my opinion would be different, but in a game that already takes a lot of freedoms I'm perfectly fine with it.

 

[Hannibal XIII]

By that logic we shouldnt have Zulu

We shouldn't. Shaka was an upjumped warlord who isn't even the best warlord one could use in South Africa (Mzilikazi represent!)

 

[m15a]

What do you mean by "go back"? I hate do burst that bubble (well... no, I don't ), but the main audience of core gaming is still men, and due to the general demographics and sexual preferences in the first world unsurprisingly straight(-leaning), white men. Having more female characters will not change much about that, some female gamers may feel more drawn to those games, but on the larger scale it's just different preferences among men and women. The fact that more men than women enjoy core-gaming won't magically change by adding characters that represent them.

I'm not sure it's true that most gamers are white men. In any case, I think that would have to be backed by statistics and not just because it "sounds about right". It's maybe irrelevant to the discussion, though. This is a discussion about one particular game (or a franchise), not the statistical average game. *And* even then the statistics on how many men and women play Civ aren't the only factor because the characters people want in the game don't necessarily match up with who they are. What we do know, based on this thread and past discussions, is that a lot of people want female Civ leaders in the game.

Not sure what you hope to achieve by throwing accusations of misogyny around, but it seems strange to me that you'd equate liking porn-themed women with a hatred of women. I certainly don't hate what I enjoy to look at, and I'd be very, very surprised if most people who like looking at women actually hate women.

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not calling you a misogynist. But putting aside the fact that it is of course possible to enjoy looking at a women and hate them (I feel like that doesn't need to be explained), what you're writing kind of points towards the issue. There are women that exist that aren't the ones being looked at. There are women that play Civ. If the designers were completely disregarding their perspective, that might be misogynistic. And if the designers decide that any character that happens to be in the game world is there to be visually arousing, that might just be misogynistic.

I certainly can't remember ever playing Civ and realizing: "Hey, the game has spawned an inappropriately high amount of female leaders in this match! This totally hurts my immersion!"

And, beyond that, Civ leaders aren't just there as opponents. They're the player's characters, too. I think there are very few players that seek to play the demographically typically leader. They choose who they feel like playing just because that's what they feel like doing. Statistics don't factor into that decision at all.

 

[Ryika]

I'm not sure it's true that most gamers are white men. In any case, I think that would have to be backed by statistics and not just because it "sounds about right". It's maybe irrelevant to the discussion, though. This is a discussion about one particular game (or a franchise), not the statistical average game. *And* even then the statistics on how many men and women play Civ aren't the only factor because the characters people want in the game don't necessarily match up with who they are. What we do know, based on this thread and past discussions, is that a lot of people want female Civ leaders in the game.

There's tons of data backing those statistics though. While men and women are now about equal when it comes to questions like: "Have you played video games during your life?" the large majority of women are mobile "gamers" and play social, puzzle and rpg games.

But true, it's not the topic of the thread, thankfully I wasn't the one who brought it up.

If the designers were completely disregarding their perspective, that might be misogynistic.

Well yeah, or it may just be a market decision, depending on the game. If the number of females that one can reasonably expect to be playing a game is extremely low, then disregarding them as an audience may not be a bad decision. And it doesn't have to have anything to do with misogyny.

As well as this here:

And if the designers decide that any character that happens to be in the game world is there to be visually arousing, that might just be misogynistic.

A game doesn't somehow become "misogynistic", even if the only reason every single female character is there only to arouse the male players. Portraying characters like that simply doesn't magically translate into a hatred of women. The game may be considered "distasteful" by some, but then again... a game doesn't have to appeal to everyone. If objectification on fictional characters were a bad thing then I'd actually say romance novels are the worst kind of offender when it comes to that.

In general it's just a silly buzzword being thrown around for no reason. The moment somebody starts yelling "I don't want no filthy subhumans of the inferior gender in my games!" is the moment that word starts being applicable. Anything before that is just a shaming tactic.

And, beyond that, Civ leaders aren't just there as opponents. They're the player's characters, too.

This may just be a difference in how we play the game but I actually very much disagree with this. I never cared for the NPC that would usually represent the country that I'm playing, when I'm the one controlling the Civ, then the leader of that Civ is who- or whatever I want them to be. I think it was for that very reason that you couldn't see your own leader during the game in any(?) other Civ game before Beyond Earth.

(The stuff I didn't quote is stuff that I agree with and didn't really feel like I have much to add.)

 

[bison21]

I love the idea of Thatcher. Yes she's recent but I think she can be added to the game without controversy. She will be a leader with military strengths and a unique bonus for relations with US-America would be awesome. I think if you don't give her economic qualities, you remove much of what is controversial about her.

I'm just bored to death seeing Churchill, really. He too is more of a cult figure that gets references in popular culture so often (every Dr Who iteration has some ww2-churchill reference).
Same for Bismarck. Who I'd love to see is William the nutcase the II. Would probably give him a unqiue submarine unit just for the irony.

I think the devs should consider (should they stick with 1 ruler per civ) to pick new ones, more unknown ones. I think Civ has a big educational aspect to it as well and having Napoleon for France is a bit... meh.

Speaking of great women- is Marie Curie in the game as a Great Scientist? If so I must have missed it.

 

[daft]

Hopefully we won't have some of the more inexplicable tokenism from last game (Wu Zetian was meh -- using Maria I was an insult to Portugal). Also remove Theodora, worst empress!

Ottomans -- they could easily use of the great Valide Sultans (mother of the Sultans) who basically ran the empire in the 17th-18th century. I'd go with Hurrem (Roxelana), Nurbanu or Safiye Sultan.

Indonesia: They could use Tribhuwana Wijayatunggadewi, the ruler for whom Gajah Mada was a prime minister.

Vietnam (if it is added): Obvious answer is one of the Trung sisters.

Spain: Isabella, as always

England: If they don't go for Churchill, Elizabeth I.

Russia: I wish they'd go back to Stalin, but Catherine the Great would be a good choice.

Dutch: I could see a case made for Wilhelmina.

Egypt: Hatshepsut, or one of the more powerful Ptolemy wives

Celts: SHOULDN'T BE A CIV. Almost as bad as the Huns...

Are you aware of what Stalin ordered done to millions of people?!!!!
Might as well vote for Hitler, perhaps even a lesser evil than the one you got in your profile pic.

Every Civ should have at least two leader choices (well, of course unless you're The Huns ). This was to me the major flaw of Civ 5. There was the capacity to have more than one leader (remember, every civ had a trait and every leader a separate trait) but they never used it.

Absolutely. I'd suggest 3 to 5 Great Leaders, all with their own unique sets of personality traits.
Include mandatory 1 female for each Civ, even if she wasn't a real leader.
For a nation such as Great Britain there should be more than one female of course.

 

[Ryika]

I'd rather have more Civilizations than more than one leader per Civilization. It makes no sense to me to double or triple the numbers of leaders for one country when the pool of additional Civs that one could add is huge.

 

[daft]

If Thatcher turns about to be the leader of England. I will auto declare war when i see her face pop up.

was just going to re-suggest the Iron Lady again.

 

[brianshapiro]

Supposedly Cleopatra first met Julius Caesar while topless and only wearing her jewelry

You could have used a depiction of Caesar meeting Cleopatra,

Spoiler :

Anyway, putting aside some doubts I have that Cleopatra would go out in the public like that (nakedness was a sign of poverty in Ancient Egypt), if you wanted to go for a kind of historical naturalism and show some nudity that would be one thing. I think CivRev went a different route and was pandering, as is the demand to "make them sexy!"

 

[daft]

I'd rather have more Civilizations than more than one leader per Civilization. It makes no sense to me to double or triple the numbers of leaders for one country when the pool of additional Civs that one could add is huge.

True of course, however, if the AI leaders are not eternal, and each lasts only a specified time period, like for one era only, and then is replaced by another from leader pool of that civ?
That could really work interestingly because you might be up against a very aggressive neighbor Great Leader during Classical Era (for example) only for him be replaced with a rational-scientific-builder/developer in the Medieval one

Anyway, putting aside some doubts I have that Cleopatra would go out in the public like that (nakedness was a sign of poverty in Ancient Egypt), if you wanted to go for a kind of historical naturalism and show some nudity that would be one thing. I think CivRev went a different route and was pandering, as is the demand to "make them sexy!"[/QUOTE]

Absolutely, make the game more R rated, looking at the CVI graphics so far looks like they went back to the EDUCATIONAL genre instead.

 

[Westwall]

I agree. I don't know why they were pandering to people with all that clothing.

All those women should've been nude from head to toe.

 

[brianshapiro]

Per the OP, my view on leaders is that they should pick leaders that are iconic and represent the spirit of the Civ. Where there are women, they should include them, and we've had women leaderheads since the first Civ games. If they can find a woman leader for every Civ, that fit that criteria, that would be fine. In some cases, I'm wondering what the choice would be. I'm not sure I'd use Angela Merkel. :/

 

[Ryika]

True of course, however, if the AI leaders are not eternal, and each lasts only a specified time period, like for one era only, and then is replaced by another from leader pool of that civ?
That could really work interestingly because you might be up against a very aggressive neighbor Great Leader during Classical Era (for example) only for him be replaced with a rational-scientific-builder/developer in the Medieval one

That's an interesting concept. Not quite sure if I like it, but it would certainly have some really cool effects. Like when that peaceful leader you built a relationship with suddenly gets replaced with an ****** that starts marching their armies against you.

The main problem I see with this is that most Civilizations only exist(ed) during a relatively short period of time. It wouldn't quite make sense to replace the leader of an ancient Civilization during the medieval ages, so that mechanic would be very inconsistent among Civilizations.

 

[daft]

Dido was never actually a ruler of the Carthaginians state, so I would rule her out of being in the game. There's no way Theodora should replace rulers of Eastern Rome like Constantine and Justinian II, so I vote to omit her as well.

All those voting for Theodora as great leader of Byzantium simply haven't a clue about Byzantine history.
She's insignificant historically compared to emperor like Constantine the Great-hello? they just don't call a historical ruler The Great for fun.

 

[Westwall]

Maybe she was more fun at parties.

Did you ever consider that?

 

[daft]

That's an interesting concept. Not quite sure if I like it, but it would certainly have some really cool effects. Like when that peaceful leader you built a relationship with suddenly gets replaced with an ****** that starts marching their armies against you.

The main problem I see with this is that most Civilizations only exist(ed) during a relatively short period of time. It wouldn't quite make sense to replace the leader of an ancient Civilization during the medieval ages, so that mechanic would be very inconsistent among Civilizations.

Factual time period of their rule isn't significantly important. There's a leader pool for every nation, guess Huns would have only 1 leader, but for most it isn't difficult at all to come up with many more. The order they appear in is not important, and would be randomized.

This could really work and be a lot of fun for players.
Example: You play a game of CVI
Your empire has 4 continental neigbours: England, Egypt, Russia and Rome.

England/Britain start with Elizabeth who eventually gets replaced by Victoria followed by Henry VIII only to be replaced by Churchill in more modern eras.

Egypt at the start of the game is ruled by Nefertiti, at the start of the Classical era Ramesses II takes over(much more aggressive leader) only to hand power to Hatshepsut who in turn hands the reins to Cleopatra.

For Russia you might draw Ivan the terrible as the first leader(likely a war situation) but then slightly less aggressive Nicholas II(or rather Peter the Great) takes over in classical era, followed by Catherine in Medieval and Lenin in later stages.

Your last continental neighbour, the Romans, are ruled by Augustus, followed by Julius Caesar, later perhaps by Marcus Aurelius and Hadrian.

All of those leaders are different and with their replacement your empire could expect more cooperation, trade or even a lasting alliance, or war over territory and resource might start, espionage, perhaps a cold war.



What would be cool is having some of the rulers change their personalities upon acquiring new social policy or tech discoveries (especially militaristic and spiritual type ones).
For example:
The young Ashoka of India (more exactly Maurya), was at younger age a very militaristic and aggressive ruler.
However, he changed his personality/traits dramatically after he converted to Buddhism and became a pacifistic ruler.

So perhaps until Ashoka(Asoka) converts his empire to one of the Monotheistic religions he, and thus India, could be a very aggressive neighbor but thereafter a docile and friendly civ (especially if converting to Buddhism)