How do you feel about your country's leader?

[m15a]

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.

I'm not sure whether that is a good analogy but, yeah, I'd be happy with Eleanor Roosevelt. My guess is that a choice of Eleanor Roosevelt as a leader would be related to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, so I am imagining that it'd relate to a late-game diplomacy system similar to the World Congress and would reflect that aspect of the US. If that were the case, it'd be a good choice.

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.

Yup. This, agreed. With possibly the only caveat being that the opinions of the forum aren't universal - I posted that I like TR, but I strongly disagree with the false requirement that a civ leader be the "best" leader of the civilization in question. I won't say more on the topic since I've found that tends to result in mod involvement in the past.

 

[Zaarin]

/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.

Is it? I can't speak for anyone else, but the point I was making was that France is pretty low on the list of civilizations with major female leaders; it is not low on the list of civilizations with big personality leaders. Why choose one of France's very few significant leading women over many far more interesting male leaders, while ignoring Elizabeth I of England, Catherine the Great of Russia, and if the All Leaders board is correct quite possibly Isabella of Spain? No one is going to contend that Elizabeth, Catherine the Great, or Isabella were both powerful and interesting; all three are among the greatest monarchs of any sex. Meanwhile in France, the inclusion of De Medecis overlooks such big personalities as Louis XIV, Francis I, Henry IV, Louis IX (i.e., St. Louis), or even Napoleon (who I don't want to see again), simply because she's female. Tokenism doesn't do anyone any favors: that's the objection to inclusion of figures like De Medicis or Maria the Mad.

 

[Zaarin]

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.

I'd be upset, but not at the inclusion of a first lady--I strongly dislike FDR and his wife.

 

[evanaurora]

Is it? I can't speak for anyone else, but the point I was making was that France is pretty low on the list of civilizations with major female leaders; it is not low on the list of civilizations with big personality leaders. Why choose one of France's very few significant leading women over many far more interesting male leaders, while ignoring Elizabeth I of England, Catherine the Great of Russia, and if the All Leaders board is correct quite possibly Isabella of Spain? No one is going to contend that Elizabeth, Catherine the Great, or Isabella were both powerful and interesting; all three are among the greatest monarchs of any sex. Meanwhile in France, the inclusion of De Medecis overlooks such big personalities as Louis XIV, Francis I, Henry IV, Louis IX (i.e., St. Louis), or even Napoleon (who I don't want to see again), simply because she's female. Tokenism doesn't do anyone any favors: that's the objection to inclusion of figures like De Medicis or Maria the Mad.

But that's the point, isn't it? She's vastly outnumbered by the "significant" male rulers of France, sure, but that doesn't take away from her status as a significant ruler? It's not tokenism if there are valid reasons for including her. Clearly a lot of people on the forum would have chosen someone else, and that's okay. There's nothing I'm gonna say that would change that. But leader decisions are always intrinsically arbitrary, and it's GOOD that significant female leaders are being chosen, even if it's not the handful that were The Biggest. (Let's note all the non-Biggest Male Rulers of History who have been leaders in all previous installments....) It's not tokenism if she actually mattered- she did- and it's not like including Catherine meant the devs couldn't have included Isabella or Elizabeth as well.

Because there ISN'T a quota. There can and should be as many female leaders included as possible. That's making the game varied and interesting, not being "politically correct."

Also, "more interesting male leaders" is an inherently subjective statement. That's your position, but not everyone's. again, leader selection is arbitrary. everyone has their own list in their head of who they would have chosen. that doesn't make who WAS chosen somehow wrong.

 

[m15a]

Meanwhile in France, the inclusion of De Medecis overlooks such big personalities as Louis XIV, Francis I, Henry IV, Louis IX (i.e., St. Louis), or even Napoleon (who I don't want to see again), simply because she's female. Tokenism doesn't do anyone any favors: that's the objection to inclusion of figures like De Medicis or Maria the Mad.

This is conjecture. We don't know that Catherine was chosen because of "tokenism". Like you suggested, there are more obvious choices for female leaders. So, if the goal was simply to include female leaders, the developers would likely choose the obvious choices. Rather than assuming that the developers tried to fulfill a female quota and did a bad job of it, at least be open to the possibility that the developers had different goals that they achieved well.

From what we know from past comments from Ed Beach, the decision process on Civ V expansions and Civ VI were not based on some idea of "best" leaders or leadership ranking - for BNW, developers just propose a bunch of ideas and they debate them and cut down the list until they have a list they are happy with. If this system was used in Civ VI, it is possible that Catherine was chosen because one of the developers (I'm guessing Ed but could be anyone) proposed the idea and made a good argument for it.

 

[SMcM]

I'd be upset, but not at the inclusion of a first lady--I strongly dislike FDR and his wife.

Why?

 

[Kurtbob]

Loving Roosevelt. As others have stated, he just personifies America.

I'd like to think Catherine de' Medici's inclusion has something to do with Ed Beach's interest in the 16th century, specifically the wars of religion. The two board games he designed (Here I Stand and Virgin Queen) focus on this period. In the Virgin Queen, Charles IX and Catherine are the leaders of France (see pics).

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

Coincidence?

 

[thecrazyscot]

I usually hate playing America because their abilities/uniques only came in late in the game, which is my least favorite period to play.

I love the idea of TR, though, he's such a character. I might give him a go if the late game holds up.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

 

[Guama]

As a Spaniard, I'm understand the Felipe II/religious/conquistador thing, nevertheless all Habsburgs kings are kind of boring, and I would love to see a science/culture-oriented Spain under Alfonso X the Wise

 

[Socrates99]

Why?

FDR really expanded some of the social programs in America so even though they helped pull us out of a depression there are still a lot of conservatives that really dislike him.

 

[SMcM]

But that's the point, isn't it? She's vastly outnumbered by the "significant" male rulers of France, sure, but that doesn't take away from her status as a significant ruler? It's not tokenism if there are valid reasons for including her. Clearly a lot of people on the forum would have chosen someone else, and that's okay. There's nothing I'm gonna say that would change that. But leader decisions are always intrinsically arbitrary, and it's GOOD that significant female leaders are being chosen, even if it's not the handful that were The Biggest. (Let's note all the non-Biggest Male Rulers of History who have been leaders in all previous installments....) It's not tokenism if she actually mattered- she did- and it's not like including Catherine meant the devs couldn't have included Isabella or Elizabeth as well.

Because there ISN'T a quota. There can and should be as many female leaders included as possible. That's making the game varied and interesting, not being "politically correct."

Also, "more interesting male leaders" is an inherently subjective statement. That's your position, but not everyone's. again, leader selection is arbitrary. everyone has their own list in their head of who they would have chosen. that doesn't make who WAS chosen somehow wrong.

Now, if that's not politically correct, then I don't know what is!

What is your ideal leader list? Eleanor Roosevelt for USA, Shakala for the Zulu, Germania for Germany, Aggripina for Rome, Ishtar for Babylon, Hippolyta for Greece, Lagertha for Denmark and Dido for Carthage? There should not be as many women in Civ games as possible. There should be as many as makes sense.

France has very few female rulers, with Eleanor of Aquitaine and Joan of Arc being the only famous ones. Joan, though also insignificant, is at least very famous, and a figure the French can rally behind, so would be much better for sales than Catherine De Medicis. But, anyway, point is, a female leader for France makes no sense. Sorry, but it's true.

 

[Opera]

You sure do like your sales theory. Any convincing argument behind that?

 

[SMcM]

Is there really any basis on linking leaders to sales? I'm skeptical about de Medicis decreasing the sales of Civ6 in France.

Don't need figures. You need to think. Did you see how big a part leaders played in the marketing for Civ Rev? The big pictures of Napoleon pointing towards you determinedly? You think Napoelon is on that poster for no reason? Off course not! The whole idea of the advertising of that game was that it made clear that you could be Naopelon, or Bismark, or Genghis Khan! You could play as a major historical figure and dominate the world! Leader choices are meant to be exciting.

 

[Opera]

Everyone needs more figures and less conjecture in their lives. It could also very well be that people care more about the civilization than the leader (since, at least in civ5, they were one & the same).

 

[darko82]

There are at least a few leaders that contrubuted to my country's existence up to the 21 century, so it is a hard choice. If one of these is Jadwiga, without whom Poland would not have existed, then I am perfectly OK. She was the one who seemed to save Poland in that period, but as I said, she did not save Poland to exist later in other centuries. Actually, many people and leaders had to meet their own test of time. I am fine because she is also known for other unique virtues and values. And she seems to fun to play to me, which is the most important thing.

 

[King Jason]

Don't need figures. You need to think. Did you see how big a part leaders played in the marketing for Civ Rev? The big pictures of Napoleon pointing towards you determinedly? You think Napoelon is on that poster for no reason? Off course not! The whole idea of the advertising of that game was that it made clear that you could be Naopelon, or Bismark, or Genghis Khan! You could play as a major historical figure and dominate the world! Leader choices are meant to be exciting.

You're citing the only iteration of the entire Civilization franchise that has ever put any of the leaders on the box art or promotional materials.

 

[Zaarin]

FDR really expanded some of the social programs in America so even though they helped pull us out of a depression there are still a lot of conservatives that really dislike him.

Arguably pulled us out of a depression--but also arguably prolonged said depression. He also stacked the courts, overrode Congress, and in general ran roughshod over everyone to get his way. But rather than drag this thread into politics, I'll just say that there are a variety of reasons I don't like him, and his misguided social programs are only a part of those reasons.

 

[SMcM]

Everyone needs more figures and less conjecture in their lives. It could also very well be that people care more about the civilization than the leader (since, at least in civ5, they were one & the same).

Figures are good, but so are facts without specific figures. And I can tell you for a fact that the marketing campaign for Civ Rev wasn't cost free; everything they did was deliberate.

Leaders are meant to appeal to less hardcore fans; not people who love Civ series, but people who like the idea of playing as Napoleon and conquering Europe, or as Victoria no ruling the seas. The leaders hold the same allure as strong man politicians, who people vote in not for policies but for personalities; people who brought Civ Rev were likely in many cases drawn to leaders, not to game mechanics. That is why Civ games have leaders in the first place; it makes diplomacy more exciting, easier to engage with. This is why leaders were so important for Civ Rev; it was not for die-hard fans, but unconverted console gamers. That game would not have sold any where near as well if it's front cover was a bunch of unknown people.

Now, leaders are not as important to marketing PC Civ games, but Firaxis wants to bring some of its large new Civ Rev fan base its it for Civ 6; why wouldn't it? It's transition to a more cartoonish art style certainly seems to back this up. I know several people who played Civ Rev and no other Civ game, and enjoyed it. These people probably have computers that could handle Civ 6 easily enough, so if the marketing is done right, then they could be persuaded to pause console gaming have a go at Civ 6. But Catherine De Medicis will definitely not be a draw for many; at least in the UK, and for certain the USA as well, virtually no one has heard of De Medicis. And if she is unpopular in France, she won't be much of a draw there.

 

[HipNozY]

If we think this through, the Pracinhas are related to Getúlio's government, so Pedro may actually bring some new unique units, like the Voluntários da Pátria (after all, he declared himself the "first volunteer") or the Pará-class Monitors.

I always thought that the Bandeirantes could be a an option as a kind of scout maybe.

 

[evanaurora]

Now, if that's not politically correct, then I don't know what is!

What is your ideal leader list? Eleanor Roosevelt for USA, Shakala for the Zulu, Germania for Germany, Aggripina for Rome, Ishtar for Babylon, Hippolyta for Greece, Lagertha for Denmark and Dido for Carthage? There should not be as many women in Civ games as possible. There should be as many as makes sense.

France has very few female rulers, with Eleanor of Aquitaine and Joan of Arc being the only famous ones. Joan, though also insignificant, is at least very famous, and a figure the French can rally behind, so would be much better for sales than Catherine De Medicis. But, anyway, point is, a female leader for France makes no sense. Sorry, but it's true.

well if you say so, it MUST be!

i'm sorry, I'm having a hard time taking you seriously. yes, many of the Great Civs that are likely to be included were patriarchal. that doesn't mean we exist in a vacuum? finding interesting female leaders throughout history and including them is absolutely worth the effort, whether or not there are Male Leaders that better fit some arbitrarily imposed measure of Importance.

that said, i'm clearly not going to convince you, and your condescending tone makes it clear we're verging past discussion into argument territory. many people on here have given great reasons why Catherine is an interesting leader for France, yet you breeze by them and say Eleanor of Aquitaine (and to a lesser extent Joan of Arc---- who I have seen so many complain about today from her being featured in a fifteen year old iteration of the game!!!) is the ONLY one. i'm guessing even if Eleanor were picked instead, people would still be complaining, but obvs i can't Prove that, so.

also i just don't buy the idea of video game leaders of civilizations being patriotic rallying points, but maybe that's just me.