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

How do you feel about your country's leader?

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Synth, Jul 19, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    4,079
    Location:
    Abroad
    Ah, I see. Wikipedia notes she was mostly involved in Polish cultural and political life, but she did the following as well:

     
  2. SMcM

    SMcM Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2016
    Messages:
    1,336
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London, England
    Well, the write up on Jadwiga on wikipedia is extremely positive:

    Why is this written up so positively if she in fact did very little? Is opinion divided on her, or is this Wikipedia written with a large degree of bias?

    Anyway, from Wikipedia browsing, my top choice is Stephen Bathory; if Hojo Tokimune gets included for Japan because he beat the mongols, then this guy should get props for beating Ivan the terrible. Also, he clearly ruled Poland at a time when it was a very large and powerful state.
     
  3. AntoineS

    AntoineS Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2016
    Messages:
    89
    I like most of the choices for revealed civs thus far (Teddy Roosevelt, Victoria, Qin Shi Huang, Hojo... Cleopatra more or less but as a "big personality" it´s alright) and I am excited for gameplay possibilities.

    I even changed my mind on the art style, that I found scary cartoonish at first but that I start to like now. However, as far as leader choice is concerned, there is one thing I won´t change my mind on: Catherine de Medicis would be a major disppointment, have to agree with Gokudo01... I hope at least that France won´t be as bad in 6 as it was in 5...
     
  4. eMeM

    eMeM Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2016
    Messages:
    83
    No, we respect her sacrifice for the country and she was undoubtely a remarkable person (she's a saint, literally), her young death was a nation wide tragedy.

    The problem is that this sacrifice - marriage with much older Jogalia meant that she basically gave up any real power - and it was after two years of her rule... when she was 12.
    Technically she and her husband were equal, as Poland became diarchy for a bit - but it didn't work that way, she was an advisor and a first lady for the real ruler, Władysław II Jagiełło.

    Keep in mind that in 1387 she was 13 years old.

    EDIT

    No idea. But note that the main point of this paragraph was the union of Poland and Lithuania - it was indeed a turning point in our history, but was it really her accomplishment? She was a child, it was the nobility doing all the planning, negotiations etc. According to XV century chronicler Jan Długosz, when she learned that she won't marry Wilhelm Habsburg she tried to hack trough the door with a hatchet, although that might be him colouring things up a bit.

    I think the grand duke of lithuania, Jogalia (later Władysław II Jagiełło) was much more involved in shaping this union, he was also the peron actually ruling after marrying Jadwiga, I think most of Jadwiga's achievements could be also credited to him, as they shared the throne, and he outlived her byover three decades, after her death beating the Teutonic Order in the largest battle of the medieval era and starting the Jagiellonian dynasty ruling Poland for the next 200 years, among other things.
     
  5. AntoineS

    AntoineS Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2016
    Messages:
    89
    I totally disagree with Robespierre and Clemenceau, and even stronger with Mitterand and Petain.

    I agree with everything else however, she was a women of influence and is no obscure leader by any stretch of the imagination, but her place in history stops there.

    She should not be in the game when you have at least 10 other leaders that should go before her, because they actually ruled, have accomplished much more, and have gigantic personalities as well.

    If you want a Catherine de Medicis type leader in terms of gameplay possibilities and era represented, go for Henri-IV, as that, is a great choice
     
  6. Zaarin

    Zaarin Chief Medical Officer, DS9

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    7,525
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    Agreed. I'd understand choosing her if she were a fascinating person and the alternatives all had the personality of a rock. But France has so many rulers with huge personalities that there's absolutely no justification for resorting to Catherine De Medicis, especially since there are other civs with more interesting and more significant female rulers.
     
  7. SMcM

    SMcM Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2016
    Messages:
    1,336
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London, England
    Your argument is pretty persuasive. Sounds like she is a great person, but not a sensible choice for a leader. So, who would you top choice for a Polish leader be?
     
  8. m15a

    m15a Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,471
    I'm very happy with Theodore Roosevelt as the American leader. I think he was actually a good representation of US history (as much as one person could represent everything that makes up a civilization's history) and is a good representation of some American ideals, but I don't think those factors are required to make the leader a good choice - no one person can completely reflect the "essence" of a civilization and the definition of what that essence is (or whether it's even valid to say a civilization has an essence) is a matter of perspective. But what makes TR a good leader is that he had a strong political agenda (small "a"), which affected domestic and international policy. Making internal decisions (government, research, etc.) and external decisions (diplomacy, war) is what a player deals with, so I think a civ leader should also reflect some agenda/personality that will influence what the AI does.
     
  9. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,120
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    Awesome! I'm American though so it's pretty easy to be happy with Teddy.

    Wish I could weigh in on my European ancestral homeland but I'm a mutt. My great grandpa said my family came from Tennessee...
     
  10. AntoineS

    AntoineS Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2016
    Messages:
    89
    To broaden the Catherine de Medicis theme, I´d like to point out that from the posts I´ve read recently, and correct me if I´m wrong, it appears that disappointments from the community revolve mostly (not only, but for the most part), around female leader choices that are judged to be controversial at best, as other leaders would have been better suited to lead the corresponding civilization (female alternatives or not).

    I am thinking Cleopatra, Wu Zetian (Civ 5), Isabella of Portugal, Catherine de Medicis, Jadwiga etc...

    I am sure that if for some politically correct reason, which is what it appears to be, Firaxis wants to absolutely establish a female leader quota, they could easily find 6 to 9 female leaders that deserve to be in the game at launch. There are enough great Queens in World History to not have to come up with these odd, controversial, pop culture related, or inapropriate choices. I have a lot of respect for the work Ed Beach has done since taking over as Lead Designer, and as he says he spends a lot of time on forums, I hope he, or someone from his team, will get to read this post
     
  11. j51

    j51 Blue Star Cadet

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,185
    Location:
    Ping Island
    As a Yank I'm pumped for Teddy. Totally fascinating figure.

    As person of French descent, I'm disappointed they didn't go with Louis XIV (or Henri IV: a personal preference). Louis is just such a huge personality. That said, I can see why (if they actually have) chosen Catherine. She is really scheming! As a person of German descent, I'm happy they went with a Medieval emperor.

    PS: I do hope we get alternative leaders though too. For variety's sake.
     
  12. True_Candyman

    True_Candyman Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,713
    Location:
    Leicester
    If i'm honest i think Catherine de Medici is actually a really good choice. Given that we will likely get multiple leaders for many civs i don't see the problem here. First expansion i bet a Louis will be added, and i can see Napoleon popping up in DLC, so there's a good chance most of you can just ignore her sooner or later.

    But i'm confident you'll learn to love her before you can discard her. She's a pretty cool character to have in game, and regardless of what you may think, she WAS a leader of France in a very important part of its history, and really shaped its future.
     
  13. Opera

    Opera Deity

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,643
    Gender:
    Female
    Is there really any basis on linking leaders to sales? I'm skeptical about de Medicis decreasing the sales of Civ6 in France.
     
  14. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,120
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    Trying to get a perspective on people's feelings about Catherine and Jadwiga by imagining the closest situation they could pick for the U.S. Would it be Eleanor Roosevelt? It was rumored she made a lot of political decisions during FDR's final term while he was ill. People have joked that Hillary wouldn't be the first female president because Eleanor beat her to the punch.

    Honestly I wouldn't be upset if they chose her but I'm curious what other Americans think. Would there be a lot of people upset about Eleanor Roosevelt being chosen to help keep the leader pool from being too much of a sausage-fest? Might help illustrate Polish and French displeasure.
     
  15. evanaurora

    evanaurora Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2016
    Messages:
    164
    /headdesk

    ok. this is ridiculous.

    diverse representation is important, but if you are in 2016 talking about Politically Correct Quotas i'm not going to convince you in a forum comment. i just have no idea why this is coalescing around Catherine???!?!?!? France had tons of personable leaders, sure, but Catherine was no slouch. She led France during a time of political and religious turmoil, had a huge impact on the Protestant/Catholic conflict which was shaping and would continue to shape Europe, had a distinct and interesting personality and agenda. All of these would seem to point to her being an interesting and appropriate leader, but?????? apparently not????

    this isn't directed by any means solely at the person i'm quoting, but it seems tremendously hypocritical for the forum to in one breath be cheering for Teddy (what about Lincoln?!?!? He was SO MUCH MORE IMPORTANT, Teddy's a RIDICULOUS CHOICE, what are the devs DOING! men with mustache quotas!!!!) and then turn around and be angry about Catherine.

    i'm sorry, this is probably more sarcastic than is called for, but I'm really quite baffled.
     
  16. evanaurora

    evanaurora Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2016
    Messages:
    164
    I wouldn't care at all- Eleanor was friggin' amazing!- but I'm not particularly patriotic, either. :p

    EDIT: also, it's not really that analogous, because in pre-democratic eras, who held power non-theoretically was important, if that makes sense? Whereas Eleanor had a lot of impact, but she didn't come CLOSE to Catherine's impact.
     
  17. TheSpaceCowboy

    TheSpaceCowboy The Gangster of Love

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2013
    Messages:
    261
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not a huge fan of Teddy as a president (though he's the far superior of the two Roosevelts), but as a leader for America in Civilization he's serviceable. I'd still have preferred Jefferson, however.
     
  18. True_Candyman

    True_Candyman Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,713
    Location:
    Leicester
    I think the biggest element in the way of Catherine acceptance is the fact that she was really only a regent. I say only a regent, but that does mean she made all the decisions and actually ran the country. She wasn't however the figurehead. Victoria was on the other hand, a figurehead who had no ruling power but she's thoroughly accepted.

    That's also to do with the period and power of their respective countries when they were ruling. Catherine managed France pretty well in a period of decline. Vicky sat on a throne in a zenith of British influence.

    Then of course there's the fact that she's Italian. But then Vicky is the product of a German dynasty and was raised primarily by a German-born mother, it's just how monarchy worked in Europe.

    Basically, Catherine hasn't got the same flashy prestige as some more prominent and already featured female leaders. But that doesn't make her a bad choice. The fact that France has a rich history of big successful leaders also doesn't discredit Catherine but credits French history.

    I'm more upset that Brazil is coming back tbh, i think it's a pretty uninspired choice with largely disappointing justification for inclusion that mostly involves phrases like 'increasing market share', 'targeting global audiences' and 'profit margins'.
     
  19. eMeM

    eMeM Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2016
    Messages:
    83
    I'm torn.

    Casimir III is out, for the sake of diversity.

    The obvious choice would be Jan III Sobieski, he is basically a symbol of POLAND STRONK ;)

    Władysław II Jagiełło is a solid choice as well for the reasons I outlined before.

    And there is Bolesław I Chrobry, the first crowned king of Poland, unlike the more warmongering kings abowe, he was more defensively focused and a very skilled diplomat.

    But who I think I would choose Stefan Batory. He is just too badass - not only for deafeating Ivan the Terrible, but also how he handled the Danzig rebellion - the city of Danzig didn't want to accept him as a king, he decided to show it its place. This city was always a very delicate matter, wealthy, important for Poland and with with a net of connections with the most powerful European players, so the nobility wanted to settle things peacefully, and because of all the privileges they had they could just refuse to support war effort. Batory got pissed, took his 2000 loyal men, massacred five times more numerous forces of Danzig in the battle of Lubiszewo and besieged the city, until they reached an agreement.
    He also modernized the army, founded the Vilnius University, created the jurisdictional system separate from the king, continiued the uniuque policy of tolerance for all religions and he was the king of Poland during its true golden age, while in the times of Jagiełło it wasn't there yet and when Sobieski got the crown the country was already going downhill.
     
  20. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,120
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    Yeah, close as I could get though.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page