France - Catherine de Medici Thread

[kaspergm]

I'm actually very impressed by the Wine Glass, that's actual water physics right there rendered. So that's pretty cool

The liquid seems a bit too viscous to me, if we go down that road. Looks like she has blood in the glass rather than wine.

Well, yeah. They've been doing this for quite some time; it's not a new phenomenon.

To be fair, if you always chose the "best" or most famous leader, none of them would be women.

I disagree with that. I think the fact that they go out of their way to find obscure female leaders just because they are female undermines the female leaders that actually can appear due to their legacy and not just due to their gender.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Louis XIV was very power hungry, ending the edic of nates because allowing non catholics to live in France questioned the kings authority. Half of his long reign was spent in war. He spent much money on project which made the ordinary people suffer due to high taxes.

While his reign may be considered a golden age, it is possible that it was a dark age for many people, war and taxes. It is probably Louis XIV who carry the most blame for the French revolution because he showed what happen then a powerful ruler don't know his limits.

Even tought he spent so many years in war, he achived very little with these war so he was not a great conqueror either. It is possible that the wars was as much about wasting the nobility and peoples money as winning glory, think 1984.

He is a symbol for absolute power then anything else.

 

[GenyaArikado]

If we have a religious district/Cathedral...do you think we'll get an achievement for bombarding it as Catherine?

 

[historix69]

I'll be honest, this is getting ridiculous. She was a product of her time and can only be judged in those terms. That's like rule number 1 of history. If you start treating this any other way she's no longer being viewed as a person and instead she's being ripped apart as a cog in someone's agenda.

Roosevelt wasn't exactly a saint himself, particularly in regards to the native american population - ‘I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth.’ Montezuma supported the institution of human sacrifice. Qin Shi Huang is even more controversial than the rest, Catherine included, put together.

She has also not murdered anyone who could still otherwise be alive today, so the controversy is somewhat burnt out i'd hope.

Maybe there should be an own thread about the Dark Sides of Civ 6 Leaders ...
Maybe todays ideas of political correctness are incompatible with the historical realities of mankind's past ...

Spoiler :

Regarding Th. Roosevelt :
The bloody put down of the rebellion on newly aquired Phillippines (fight for independance, Philippine–American War 1899-1902) with 10.000s of dead natives, counter-insurgency tactics, concentration camps, scorched earth campaigns falls into the times of McKinley and Roosevelt ...
Roosevelt on the other side later received Nobel Peace Price in 1906 for his efforts in ending the Russo-Japanese-War ...), so he seems to be morally rehabilitated by his contemporaries. (Or they didn't care either ...)

 

[migalhone]

Gender equality or as some might say: feminist political correctness, which is existent in many games.

Feminist political correctness? Sigh...

I disagree with that. I think the fact that they go out of their way to find obscure female leaders just because they are female undermines the female leaders that actually can appear due to their legacy and not just due to their gender.

That's exactly what i think. This pratice is unfair to female leaders who deserve a spot in history.

In the end this is just a videogame, so well... We'll have to deal with it. I'm not going to pass on Civ6 just because of this. It's just that it's slightly irritating.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I was hoping for a Napoleonic unit, and the imperial guard looks great, but the bonus is meh... I think instead of a continent bonus they should have like +50% to promotions to reflect Napoléon's use of meritocratic promotion.

The unit getting great general points from kills reflects the meritocratic promotion, I think. I do agree that the bonus to fighting on the home continent is very bland (seems like a ton of UUs get this), but it does have a neat symmetry with the Redcoat, which gets the opposite bonus. So whenever the Imperial Guard and the Redcoat fight, they'll be evenly matched, because either each unit will be getting its bonus or neither will.

 

[Mort_Q]

I think it's more a case of matching leaders to interesting game mechanics.

Personally, I don't care much for the historical stuff anyway. They're all just dead people.

 

[j51]

I was at first really skeptical about Cleopatra and Catherine being included, but they way they've animated them and the abilities they've tied to them have me really excited.

I'm more just disappointed by France's lackluster bonuses. They really gotta tweak the buffs provided by the Grand Tour and the Château to make them stand out more.

The unit getting great general points from kills reflects the meritocratic promotion, I think. I do agree that the bonus to fighting on the home continent is very bland (seems like a ton of UUs get this), but it does have a neat symmetry with the Redcoat, which gets the opposite bonus.

Good points all. I concede this too you good sir. I am super jazzed that they are in the game.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Louis XIV was very power hungry, ending the edic of nates because allowing non catholics to live in France questioned the kings authority. Half of his long reign was spent in war. He spent much money on project which made the ordinary people suffer due to high taxes.

While his reign may be considered a golden age, it is possible that it was a dark age for many people, war and taxes. It is probably Louis XIV who carry the most blame for the French revolution because he showed what happen then a powerful ruler don't know his limits.

Even tought he spent so many years in war, he achived very little with these war so he was not a great conqueror either. It is possible that the wars was as much about wasting the nobility and peoples money as winning glory, think 1984.

He is a symbol for absolute power then anything else.

Well, of course any ruler who is quoted as saying "I am the State" would by modern standards be considered a tad Power Hungry!

He did lay the groundwork for the French Revolution, but not by example: by so stretching the French economy that from his death on the French government and monarchy was always strapped for cash, and trying to exempt the church and the nobility from taxes while balancing your cash flow led inevitably to just about everybody but the nobility and clergy screaming for your head - which they got...

That said, he IS the symbol of the French monarchy, and just about the only French leader most people could name besides Napoleon I. But, as we all know (or should) by now, Firaxis does not make the obvious, or even the completely rational, choices for leaders.

 

[Metecury]

Isn't Catherine de Medici controversial due to her involvement in St. Bartholomew's Day massacre of 1572 on french Huguenots (protestants)?

Spoiler :

(On the other side they had Stalin and Mao as leaders in earlier versions of Civ ...)

Every historical leader in civ (perhaps with the exception of ghandi) has blood on his/her hands.

 

[Mort_Q]

(perhaps with the exception of ghandi)

Depends on whom you ask.

 

[boghog]

I think the fact that they go out of their way to find obscure female leaders just because they are female undermines the female leaders that actually can appear due to their legacy and not just due to their gender.

I'm not sure that is exactly how they operate. I believe the conversation goes something like this:

"We've got this rumour system in place. It would be cool if we could give one leader the ability to get more rumours earlier."
"Well, there is France, which had Cardinal Richelieu as an éminence grise, who is sort of famous for his network of spies."
"Great idea. Catherine de Medici might work as well. She also was a power behind the throne - even for longer than Richelieu. She was regent of France for a while. And she had this Flying Squadron of ladies in waiting, who would sleep with influential people and try to find out secrets."
"You know, that works even better flavour-wise. Plus, she's a female leader, which aren't too easy to find for some of the other countries."
"Let's use her. After all, we've done Napoleon, De Gaulle and Louis XIV before."
"And even Joan d'Arc."
"Please, can we not talk about her ever again."

 

[LDiCesare]

I'll be honest, this is getting ridiculous. She was a product of her time and can only be judged in those terms. That's like rule number 1 of history. If you start treating this any other way she's no longer being viewed as a person and instead she's being ripped apart as a cog in someone's agenda.

Actually, her association to the St Bartholomew is the proof she was a very weak leader.
That slaughter was orchestrated by her third son, Henri III, without her or his brother the king's consent.
It went totally against all her policies so far.
But since her favorite child decided to make a show of power, which kinda backfired, she initally condemned the slaughters, then realised it was family who did it, so coverd for family.
That's the proof that even before Henri III's reign, he was the man who had a real influence in the realm, and that his mother just did what she could to follow.

So, her association with the slaughter is meaningful, but not in the sense she should be accountable for the deaths. Modern historians no longer blame her for that.

It is meaningful in that she was a weak leader, whose policies were inconsistent, who only managed to maintain her sons in power in order to have all of them die wihtout a heir.

 

[zwei833]

This may be offtopic, but i have to get it out of my chest:

Does Firaxis happens to have a "no-matter-what-we-need-feminine-leaders" agenda? Even if said leader doesn't make sense?

With all due respect to Catherine de Medici (she sounds interesting, both IRL and ingame), do they (Firaxis) decide what Civ's are led by women with a dice roll? In France's specific case, wasn't there a more interesting leader?

I'm still mildly seething from the fact that my country (Portugal) was chosen to be led, in Civ 5, by Queen Maria I, who was clearly chosen because she was a woman. I don't usually care about whether a leader is this or that, but i'm starting to get worried about Firaxis vision for this game...

Whenever you meet a female leader and you don't like her, then you can say Firaxis chose her only because she's a women.
This arguement is just meaningless.

 

[BttLsht]

Finally my wait is over!

 

[Zaarin]

Whenever you meet a female leader and don't you like her, then you can say Firaxis chose her only because she's a women.
This arguement is just meaningless.

I think that's an extreme oversimplification. Also, not all of us who take issue with Catherine take issue of her gender; she's just all around a poor choice, IMO.

 

[Atlas627]

The unit getting great general points from kills reflects the meritocratic promotion, I think. I do agree that the bonus to fighting on the home continent is very bland (seems like a ton of UUs get this), but it does have a neat symmetry with the Redcoat, which gets the opposite bonus. So whenever the Imperial Guard and the Redcoat fight, they'll be evenly matched, because either each unit will be getting its bonus or neither will.

Unless England and France start on the same continent, in which case France will have a boost when fighting on their home continent and England will have a boost when fighting over colonial possessions.

Which is still appropriate!

 

[SMcM]

Actually, her association to the St Bartholomew is the proof she was a very weak leader.
That slaughter was orchestrated by her third son, Henri III, without her or his brother the king's consent.
It went totally against all her policies so far.
But since her favorite child decided to make a show of power, which kinda backfired, she initally condemned the slaughters, then realised it was family who did it, so coverd for family.
That's the proof that even before Henri III's reign, he was the man who had a real influence in the realm, and that his mother just did what she could to follow.

So, her association with the slaughter is meaningful, but not in the sense she should be accountable for the deaths. Modern historians no longer blame her for that.

It is meaningful in that she was a weak leader, whose policies were inconsistent, who only managed to maintain her sons in power in order to have all of them die wihtout a heir.

On thing that strikes me is the inconsistency of criteria leader choice; Victoria chosen due to her been a figurehead, in spite of never have exerted any real power, and De Medicis for having had de facto power behind the scenes in spite of having no official power (with the exception of briefly being regent). This inconsistency seems to evidence a deliberate attempt on the part of Firaxis to make sure to not have too few female leaders.

I think that's an extreme oversimplification. Also, not all of us who take issue with Catherine take issue of her gender; she's just all around a poor choice, IMO.

I don't think anyone is objecting to her because she is a woman.

 

[Sansa_Stark]

Reading discussion in this thread (and many others), I would really love Firaxis to include a male leader with agenda "Hates female leaders" or vice versa. It would be very fitting.

It seems that I am one of very few guys here who absolutely don't care who the leaders are (except for total monsters). Zinedine Zidane could lead France for all I care. And no matter what they do and who they choose, they will be criticized.

Game play is what matters, and I couldn't be hyped more.

 

[seasnake]

Well, it's a better UA then City of Lights, I don't think anyone's denying that (that was worth like 20 extra Tourism, in the very late game).

Thoughts overall:

Imperial Guard will help France fight on their own continent in the industrial era, so that's pretty fair to history given their dominance under Napoleon.

Their Grand Tour UA seems pretty good and very historical, given that it was a long tradition of the upper classes of Europe to go on that tour. Extra Tourism and easier time making wonders in the mid-game could really give them a boost, in Civ V some of the medieval/renaissance wonders were must-haves for certain preferred strategies.

Chateau we don't know enough about yet. What bonuses does it get next to Wonders? The bonuses have to be fairly good given the terrain restrictions, but not ridiculous.

Flying Squadron is a huge question mark as well because we don't know well how the intrigue, diplomacy and espionage systems interact and what can be gained from them. If spies can steal technologies, flip cities and manipulate city states then another spy means a lot. If they just sit there and fail to do anything, who cares if the Aztecs have built a granary? The gossip examples they showed in the video seem fairly useless, but discovering hidden agendas and enemy intelligence in context may be quite useful.

Overall I like it, but we still have a lot of question marks to judge its strength.