How do you feel about your country's leader?

[Zaarin]

I don't care to see leaders included as patriotic rallying points, either. Personally, had France's leader been Eleanor of Aquitaine, I would have been mildly disappointed (because I was personally hoping for and expecting Louis XIV), but that disappointment would have been brief because Eleanor was a critical and formative figure in not just French culture but Western culture as a whole. I absolutely agree with your point that finding significant female leaders is worth the effort; Catherine De Medici isn't one of them.

 

[Cristoval]

As a Sumerian living in Ur. I think Gilgamesh is a great choice.

 

[SMcM]

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.

I don't want Elaenor either. Maybe I did not word my response to you coherantly. Anyway, I don't really want to discuss with you further, as I am no longer feeling motivated to do so. All I will say is that if you don't think leader choices help sell these games, then why bother with them at all? Why put them at the forefront of advertisement?

I can't persuade you or anyone else here though, so if this is a debate, I would have to admit I lost it. It is evident bassically no one here agrees with me on this, so there is little point in me continuing to argue this.

edit: Also, I did not want to offend people, just discuss the topic, and am sorry that I have done so. Did not think I was 'breezing over' others arguements, just addressing them with my own opinions.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I'm American and I never play America. I prefer Napoleon for France and Lizzy I for England, but not in a way that will diminish my pleasure of a great game.

 

[SMcM]

As a Sumerian living in Ur. I think Gilgamesh is a great choice.

You guys have computers? Who knew!

 

[Xandinho]

I'm very happy with Pedro II. I don't think his inclusion necessarily means that Civ6's Brazil will be similar to Civ5's, since there's nothing in Civ5's Brazil that is exclusive or typical of Pedro II's reign.

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.

If they want to move away from a culture/tourism oriented Brazil in favor of trade/resource/territory bonuses, Pedro is just as good as any other leader.

Even the graphic representation of him don't need to be similar. Judging by the reference in the leader board, I'd say they are going for a younger version of Pedro this time around.

I agree with you, I like Pedro, in my opinion, he is the best leader to represent my country. I hope that Brazil follow a bias different civ 6, as Pracinhas were related Getútlio Vargas, it is likely we will not see them again, or maybe in the future with occasional inclusion of Getulio Vargas.
As you said, I also believe that we will see Brazil more focused on obtaining resources now, or the country may come with some unique resources to the trade bonus.

Anyway, I'm anxious to see how Firaxis will make Brazil this time.

 

[Socrates99]

I'm American and I never play America. I prefer Napoleon for France and Lizzy I for England, but not in a way that will diminish my pleasure of a great game.

I rarely played America in V but I did like FDR's traits in IV. Teddy looks like fun though.

 

[zwei833]

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.

Regarding the Polish leader, I just want all the leaders here, in an official release.

I'm not greedy, am I?

 

[SMcM]

Regarding the Polish leader, I just want all the leaders here, in an official release.

I'm not greedy, am I?

I love that mod! Last Sword's Russia, Japan and Ottoman collections are also awesome.

 

[DeutschDachs]

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.

Eleanor Roosevelt is a great American and did a lot for the country but I feel like making her the leader of America would be a bit ridiculous. It would be like making Martin Luther King Jr. or Benjamin Franklin the leader of America. They all accomplished great things and had a large influence in the America of today but it seems silly when there are actual presidents to pick from. Maybe I'm just crazy though.

 

[VermelhoRed]

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'.

How about 'The largest and most proeminent country that represents Latin American culture/civilisation'?

 

[illathid]

How about 'The largest and most proeminent country that represents Latin American culture/civilisation'?

Meh, I'd rather there weren't any colonial civs at all, America included (and I say that as an American). They'll always be turned off in my games so I'd rather the resources be put towards something that'll see use in my game.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Meh, I'd rather there weren't any colonial civs at all, America included (and I say that as an American). They'll always be turned off in my games so I'd rather the resources be put towards something that'll see use in my game.

That's fine, that's your personal preference.

 

[Acken]

I also am among those that dislike the choice of De Medici.
No epicness, bathed in controversies, no lasting accomplishments from a political standpoint (not that this is her fault considering both camps wanted each other dead) and she's not even French on top of it. She improved a few castle, birthed 3 kings and tried for some peace.
She is arguable still among the most notable queens of France but that is mostly a reflection of France system more than anything.

I just freaking don't feel excited while an excentric Louis 14 or a heroic Joan would have made me happier.

 

[Makenshi]

C'mon, she can't be worse than ultra-boring Elodie in CivBE, can she?

As for my country: hell yes, Pedro all the way; he could be the perma leader of Brasil in all civ games until the end of time. Getulio is the 2nd best and I hope to see him if more leaders are really a thing in Civ6, but no way he'd ever be my 1st pick.

I know I have no right to talk other nations [thus, sorry by the following], but it is rather interesting how, unlike Americans, we brasilians usually see FDR as a badass US president [our view usually is that he beat the 29 crisis, lead the US in WW2, had great synergy with Churchill, etc], while Teddy is not so appreciated [seems just another imperialist; smarter and subtler than the european bullies of the time, yes, but still not a likeable person]. I don't mean to offend or stir discussion, our view is probably biased by FDR's ties with Getulio [plus the rather international focus he got due to the events faced in his admin] and lack of more info on Teddy beyond his big stick policy [his admin seemed more US focused]. It is just interesting how our view is so opposed to yours [which obviously holds more weight, they're US presidents after all].

 

[Hannibal XIII]

I'd prefer Lincoln, or Washington, to that bloviating imperialist TR.

Ultimately, my dream leader would be Dick Nixon

 

[Makenshi]

Ultimately, my dream leader would be Dick Nixon

You should play Fallout 2, there is a Mr. Nixon doll!

In-game item description: "You see a small doll with a big red nose. For some reason, you don't trust this seemingly-innocent child's toy"

 

[Red Menace]

I'd prefer Lincoln, or Washington, to that bloviating imperialist TR.

Ultimately, my dream leader would be Dick Nixon

I am not a crook, ARRROOOOOOOGH.

Spoiler :

https://youtu.be/_t8hpEKb4gk

that's a lot of Teddy hate from the commie Stalin avatar.

I would much prefer Teddy as he's an awesome leader and person, and we've already had Washington who is great, and Lincoln well nothing wrong with him but I think Teddy is better for this iteration.

I am also American so i very much like Teddy, just not how fat they made him.

 

[DeutschDachs]

C'mon, she can't be worse than ultra-boring Elodie in CivBE, can she?

As for my country: hell yes, Pedro all the way; he could be the perma leader of Brasil in all civ games until the end of time. Getulio is the 2nd best and I hope to see him if more leaders are really a thing in Civ6, but no way he'd ever be my 1st pick.

I know I have no right to talk other nations [thus, sorry by the following], but it is rather interesting how, unlike Americans, we brasilians usually see FDR as a badass US president [our view usually is that he beat the 29 crisis, lead the US in WW2, had great synergy with Churchill, etc], while Teddy is not so appreciated [seems just another imperialist; smarter and subtler than the european bullies of the time, yes, but still not a likeable person]. I don't mean to offend or stir discussion, our view is probably biased by FDR's ties with Getulio [plus the rather international focus he got due to the events faced in his admin] and lack of more info on Teddy beyond his big stick policy [his admin seemed more US focused]. It is just interesting how our view is so opposed to yours [which obviously holds more weight, they're US presidents after all].

Well I'd say Democrats in the US think FDR is a badass but conservative Republicans hate his social policies and increase of federal government involvement. I think you may be right that for America, Teddy was a great president in terms of increasing US influence and breaking the trusts which had begun to hold so much power in the country. Internationally perhaps he wasn't quite as influential but I do remember that he was the one to broker the peace between the Russians and Japanese in their war so he didn't ignore the world outside of the US

 

[Calyxx]

C'mon, she can't be worse than ultra-boring Elodie in CivBE, can she?

As for my country: hell yes, Pedro all the way; he could be the perma leader of Brasil in all civ games until the end of time. Getulio is the 2nd best and I hope to see him if more leaders are really a thing in Civ6, but no way he'd ever be my 1st pick.

I know I have no right to talk other nations [thus, sorry by the following], but it is rather interesting how, unlike Americans, we brasilians usually see FDR as a badass US president [our view usually is that he beat the 29 crisis, lead the US in WW2, had great synergy with Churchill, etc], while Teddy is not so appreciated [seems just another imperialist; smarter and subtler than the european bullies of the time, yes, but still not a likeable person]. I don't mean to offend or stir discussion, our view is probably biased by FDR's ties with Getulio [plus the rather international focus he got due to the events faced in his admin] and lack of more info on Teddy beyond his big stick policy [his admin seemed more US focused]. It is just interesting how our view is so opposed to yours [which obviously holds more weight, they're US presidents after all].

I think most Americans (myself certainly included) rank FDR among our best presidents ever. Winning WWII was kind of a big deal, and there is no debate he was an amazingly effective politician.

His legacy is somewhat mixed because he expanded the role of the federal government so much, but overall I think very positive. Most Americans would say that he was a better president than Teddy, but while FDR could be considered a badass president, to use your formulation, Teddy would be considered a badass as a person.