1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Georgia, one of the worst civ choices!?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by AbsintheRed, Jan 9, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 13v4n

    13v4n Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2018
    Messages:
    10
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, Armenia only had an empire during that 35 years, the rest they did not expand outside their core ethnic territory, while, of course Armenian Kingdom did last more than 35 years.

    Georgia had very active relations with Rome. In fact, while Armenia was divided between Rome and Persia, Iberia (the Eastern Georgia Kingdom) was a stable regional power in Caucasus, was recognised as an ally not a vassal by Rome and dealt with Rome on an equal footing. Iberian King Pharsman II was even granted a 'state visit' to Rome and a statue in the temple of Bellona.
     
    Aktchyually, Reavici and Thormodr like this.
  2. Duckfromstatefarm

    Duckfromstatefarm Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2017
    Messages:
    170
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh dear I think it's time to bring my popcorn out. I always want to expand my knowledge on Civilizations and Leaders which is why I always like new civs and I even like Alternative leader function as it not only keeps be guessing who the leader of that civ is it allows me to learn more about the extra leaders for each civ. I'm ok with Georgia and I would love to expand my knowledge about them and about Tamar.
     
    Zaarin and Quintus of Mund like this.
  3. Stomper66

    Stomper66 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2018
    Messages:
    201
    Gender:
    Male
    Byzantium isn't Rome, as in Rome in Civ6 focuses on the classical western Roman empire and this is shown through Tragan, Legions and Roman Baths.
    Byzantine has a completely different culture, religion and style of play. It became Europes undisputed power in the dark and early medieval ages and became the arch rival of the western Roman empire. They were a big player in Europe and the Middle East for around 1000 years. They also had Dromons, Greek fire, Cataphracts and the awesome Varangian guard. Are you saying that you'd pass up on all this for Georgia and try to represent this civilisation with an alternative Roman empire? I'd be relieved if they didn't and did this civ justice.
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  4. stealth_nsk

    stealth_nsk Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    5,511
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Novosibirsk, Russia
    I'm just don't understand things like fair representation of civ. It's just a game. I would be ok with having Byzantium in game, I would be ok to have it as a Rome alt. leader, I would also be ok to not have Byzantium in the game at all. Don't see why this causes problems for some people.

    Surely, there are controversial leaders (i.e. Stalin), but that's the only case I'd seriousely debate civ/leader inclusion.
     
    footslogger likes this.
  5. Stomper66

    Stomper66 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2018
    Messages:
    201
    Gender:
    Male
    It causes problems for some people because they are just ignoring well known in demand civilisations for obscure ones. How would you feel if America, Rome and Russia were not in the game at all at this point? The Byzantines and Ottomans were a pretty big deal and to just ignore for this long is antagonising a lot of people and theres no need. To release these civs before Georgia would antagonise no one.
     
    Olleus and AbsintheRed like this.
  6. anandus

    anandus Errorist

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Messages:
    3,856
    Location:
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
    Well, there are more 'lesser civs' included, both in the base game (Brazil) and in DLC (Australia), so this argument regarding Georgia is a bit moot.
     
  7. Mr Jon of Cheam

    Mr Jon of Cheam Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2017
    Messages:
    505
    Personally I'd feel absolutely fine and dandy if America, Russia, and Rome weren't in the game yet. I don't understand why it upsets people, but that's just me I guess. :coffee:
     
  8. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,230
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    Hey, at least we don't have Kim Kardashian as leader of Armenia.
     
  9. Stomper66

    Stomper66 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2018
    Messages:
    201
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not getting into a debate about lesser civs and more important civs. I'm all Irish heritage but I don't want to see Ireland or Celts represented in the game before the big dogs. Not that Ireland is not an important civ, but in a game where building wide is now more encouraged than building tall I would prefer to play as or against the Byzantines or the Ottomans in game rather than the Irish or Georgia. Unless Firaxis include huge bonuses for tall civs having these civs before large prominant famous civs seems silly to me.
     
  10. Inlex

    Inlex Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2017
    Messages:
    146
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dordrecht, Netherlands / Tilburg, Netherlands
    Can't speak for the French, Greeks, Polish or Egyptians, but I am pretty sure most Dutch are proud to have Wilhelmina represented as the leader. I even hoped for and predicted her being this installments Dutch leader, since she is by far the best choice for any leader post-1900 and I highly doubt that she was chosen just for being female.

    She had a great influence in World War II and has always been praised and highly regarded by the Dutch people. Not to mention that she was the longest-ruling Dutch monarch of all time.

    Willem I has been done and is too safe of a choice. Also, it would pretty much exclude the possibility of including Belgium. Willem II's leadership was relatively passive, Willem III was insane, Emma was formally only regentess, Juliana was controversial and Beatrix and Willem-Alexander are too recent.
     
    Pythakoreas likes this.
  11. Stomper66

    Stomper66 Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2018
    Messages:
    201
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't like Wilhelmina as a choice but not because she was was a woman. Like a lot of other people I like having a lot of female leaders in the game as they bring a lot of variety. I don't know enough about Dutch history to suggest a better leader but didn't the Dutch have a successful longstanding republic?

    Maybe a leader to represent this style of government would have been more appropriate for Holland I think too many leaders are associated with absolute monarchies. That's fine for England and France but a grand king or queen is not for everyone. Even for France i would love to see Joan of arc or Cardinal Richelieu.
     
    Pythakoreas likes this.
  12. Paideia

    Paideia Warlord

    Joined:
    May 24, 2007
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    Copenhagen, Denmark
    I agree. Johan Rudolph Thorbecke or his successor Willem Drees would have been good choices.
     
  13. Inlex

    Inlex Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2017
    Messages:
    146
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Dordrecht, Netherlands / Tilburg, Netherlands
    Netherlands was a republic in name from the 1500s up until 1813. However,, the title of Stadtholder had always been 'relatively hereditary' and was effectively a Monarchy for the greater part of the 1500-2000 period. Before the official monarchy in 1813, there were multiple long gaps in which there was no single ruler, or when the area was ruled by the French or Spanish. Even a period when England and Netherlands shared a monarch.

    That only leaves a handful of realistic choices for a Dutch civ Leader before that period.:
    - William of Orange (1579-1584)
    - Maurits van Oranje/Nassau (his rule ended ugly,publicly decapitating a former ally and left the country in a bad state overall. Possibly good Rise and Fall flavour though)
    - Frederick Hendrick.

    The rest were meh, inconsequential or overall controversial choices. Especially in the Civilization environment.

    If you're interested, a short version of the Dutch rulers' history can be found here:
    https://www.thoughtco.com/rulers-of-the-netherlands-holland-1221671

    Edit
    Yes, true. They could have gone for Prime Ministers. In that case there are many more options, but I feel representing the Dutch with a monarch is better fitting, as the monarchs have always acted as ambassadors and heads of state. Even to this day, the PM still officially answers to the King. Though in practice, if the king refuses to ratify a bill voted on by parliament, the monarchy will fall very quickly, as is written in the constitution.
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2018
    Stomper66 likes this.
  14. Olleus

    Olleus Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    England
    To get back on topic:

    I agree that georgia is a very "meh" civilization. It remains to be seen what other civs are in R&F, but I can think of many "more worthy" alternatives. The fact that the civ bonuses are generally rather dull exacerbates this. It might be the worse civ choice in Civ6, although Australia is also right up there. At least they picked a good leader.

    But I would rather they picked the civ first, and then found the best leader for it, rather than just go hunting for good leaders. Maybe it's just me, but I always mentally glaze over the leaders and focus on the civs when I play.
     
    AbsintheRed likes this.
  15. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,570
    I think that if you have a problem with the civ/leader choice, in this one case you can only partially blame the developers. They were listening to their fans who seemed to say they really wanted them in for some reason. Of course they do that and another part of the fanbase is outraged.

    (As I've already said for myself, I could take or leave it. Not the biggest fan but not going to lose any sleep over it.)
     
    Last edited: Jan 10, 2018
    Quintus of Mund likes this.
  16. Quintus of Mund

    Quintus of Mund Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    18
    I have to say, more than anything, I am always struck by silly Early Modern Civilisations that don't belong in the Ancient World! American Slingers are a weird sight, Brazil is the same. But that's personal vibe I guess.
     
    AbsintheRed and blackcatatonic like this.
  17. Olleus

    Olleus Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    England
    I 100% can blame the developers for pandering to a fan sentiment and what started off as a joke. They should know better.
     
    AbsintheRed likes this.
  18. SammyKhalifa

    SammyKhalifa Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2003
    Messages:
    5,570
    No, if that's what you think you should also remove England, France, Russia, etc., etc., every civ that isn't ancient.

    So should the only civs be ancient ones?
    Fair enough. :dunno:
     
    Quintus of Mund and Uberfrog like this.
  19. AbsintheRed

    AbsintheRed Deity

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2009
    Messages:
    8,278
    Location:
    Szeged, Hungary
    Absolutely. They are adding a civ with a leader, not a leader with a civ. They should always keep that in mind.
    The leader is just of the many attributes to the given civ, like UU, UI, UP, and all other civ-specific stuff.
    Definitely. It was always clear to me that this is only a fan sentiment, mostly fueled by a couple of the "louder" forumers.
    It started as a joke, never should have become more than that.
     
  20. Karpius

    Karpius King

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2003
    Messages:
    623
    Thats because they are working on the Oprah leader as we speak!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page