How do you feel about your country's leader?

[Liufeng]

As a portuguese, I'm happy for the inclusion of Felipe II for Spain, although it scares me a lot. Felipe II reigned over Spain during its maximum extent, and in that territory, Portugal was included. I never deluded myself into thinking that Portugal would be in the main game : although Portugal was one of the central empires of the world during the XVth and XVIth centuries, today it is simply not known enough (heck, some people still think we're a spanish province !). I simply thought it would be included in DLC or an extension. But with Felipe II, I'm scared that Portugal will be "merged" with Spain, as were Norway with Denmark or Finland with Sweden in Civ V. So yeah, happy for my spanish fellow neighbours, but a bit scared that this inclusion will make Portugal absent for the game ...

 

[zwei833]

That has certainly something to do with the fact that Germany is a very un-miliaristic country since 1949 and (most) people have little sympathy for nationalism, militarism or "Prussiasm" in general. Elements that Bismarck embodies.

The militarism image of Germany mostly comes from Germany during WW1 and WW2, mostly WW2, but that is not a long period in the history of Germany. IMO, Germany isn't miliaristic in the long HRE era too.

And I agree with you, the German nation DO exist before 1871, though not as a unified political entity.

 

[ehecatzin]

Well I was hoping for a more historical Monty, but instead we got the usual fantasy designs, I guess carnival Monty will be tradition forever, like Ghandi. ¬¬

 

[Zaarin]

Well I was hoping for a more historical Monty, but instead we got the usual fantasy designs, I guess carnival Monty will be tradition forever, like Ghandi. ¬¬

Yep, I'm extremely disappointed with Monty--his face doesn't even look Aztec, more Middle Eastern.

 

[Calyxx]

For me personally there are several points:

1) In general Bismarck is the most logical choice for Germany. No doubt about that. So I am not against him in general but mainly after having him in so many Civ games.

2) Germany was indeed uninteresting to play in CiV imho.

3) Germany is very much a "poets and thinkers" nation as well. Frederik the Great would have most perfectly embodied the mixture of Prussian militarism and that cultural aspect. I hope that with Barbarossa that side will still be present.

4) What I like about Barbarossa is that as a historic figure he shows that there has been something like a German civilization despite the fact that there was no German nation until 1871. Given the fact that the building of the German nation-state resulted in strong nationalism within a few decades and to Germany's role in the First World War and the horrific first half of the 20th century in general, it is nice to have another aspect more prominent this time around. Some people try to separate Bismarck's political achievements from what came after. While he is not personally to blame for Wilhelm II, Hindenburg and Hitler, a lot of what went wrong there can be traced back to the foundations he built. So while certainly seen as a great figure he isn't uncontroversial by any means.


So all in all, Bismarck is never a bad choice... but I assume many Germans are also quite fond of seeing another part of history being represented again. That has certainly something to do with the fact that Germany is a very un-miliaristic country since 1949 and (most) people have little sympathy for nationalism, militarism or "Prussiasm" in general. Elements that Bismarck embodies.

Thanks for this well thought out post, I appreciate it.

I certainly agree with you that "German Civilization" existed before modern Germany, and it will be refreshing to have a medieval leader - especially one as interesting as Barbarossa. It is disappointing that Germany tends to always be a militaristic Civ.

 

[ehecatzin]

Thanks for this well thought out post, I appreciate it.

I certainly agree with you that "German Civilization" existed before modern Germany, and it will be refreshing to have a medieval leader - especially one as interesting as Barbarossa. It is disappointing that Germany tends to always be a militaristic Civ.

Even the Aztecs got a bunch of bonus to construction, ammenities and faith, I'm sure given the amount of unique stuff they are adding Germany, even if it has a militaristic side, will have a lot more going for it.

 

[Guandao]

Theodore Roosevelt seems like a good choice, with the approach to Civ leaders this time,
His house, Sagamore Hill, and gravesite is not far from where I live

As someone with Chinese ancestry, Qin Shi Huang is familiar to me (I wrote a paper about him in High School), and played an obscure game called Prince of Qin (a what-if story, not actual history)
I wouldn't have mind someone else as the leader (ex: Han Wudi, Taizong of Tang, one of the Song, Ming emperors) but Qin Shi Huang has captured people's imagination more (especially with the Terracotta army)

 

[Krik_IDDQD]

Not bad, thanks (if it's really Peter), that it's not Catherine or Lenin.
I would much more prefer someone new (Ivan the Formidable, Alexander II, Svyatoslav Igorevich, Saint Olga or Ivan III), but especially considering the dominance of Catherine in Civ, which was not the best ruler - thank goodness for that.

P.S.
Nevertheless Catherine II must to be in CIV6 as DLC. Necessarily!

 

[El Castellano]

As a portuguese, I'm happy for the inclusion of Felipe II for Spain, although it scares me a lot. Felipe II reigned over Spain during its maximum extent, and in that territory, Portugal was included. I never deluded myself into thinking that Portugal would be in the main game : although Portugal was one of the central empires of the world during the XVth and XVIth centuries, today it is simply not known enough (heck, some people still think we're a spanish province !). I simply thought it would be included in DLC or an extension. But with Felipe II, I'm scared that Portugal will be "merged" with Spain, as were Norway with Denmark or Finland with Sweden in Civ V. So yeah, happy for my spanish fellow neighbours, but a bit scared that this inclusion will make Portugal absent for the game ...

Well, still we do not know for sure if Felipe II will lead Spain, although that would love me .

I do not think if Felipe II would represent to Spain, Portugal could have no presence as an independent civilization. Portugal was an important commercial and colonial empire, unlike Finland and Norway, so you should not worry about that .

Although, if so and Portugal was included as part of Spain, I did not look it bad.
In my opinion the Spanish culture is a mixture of all Iberian cultures, so although Portugal is independent I consider the Portugueses part of my people as the Basques or the Catalans or the Andalusians, etc.

I also heard that in a survey conducted in Portugal, the most of the participants would like that Portugal join Spain. If this were true, Portugal could join Spain in a few decades. If you think about it, even being independent both countries depend on each other as a family .

I repeat that is just my opinion, if you do not think the same, do not give it more importance.

And as far there are people who believe that Portugal is a Spanish province, ignore them, there is also a part of American society that believes that Spain is Mexico. I see it in games and American series more often than desired...

 

[ehecatzin]

As a portuguese, I'm happy for the inclusion of Felipe II for Spain, although it scares me a lot. Felipe II reigned over Spain during its maximum extent, and in that territory, Portugal was included. I never deluded myself into thinking that Portugal would be in the main game : although Portugal was one of the central empires of the world during the XVth and XVIth centuries, today it is simply not known enough (heck, some people still think we're a spanish province !). I simply thought it would be included in DLC or an extension. But with Felipe II, I'm scared that Portugal will be "merged" with Spain, as were Norway with Denmark or Finland with Sweden in Civ V. So yeah, happy for my spanish fellow neighbours, but a bit scared that this inclusion will make Portugal absent for the game ...

Ed Beach is a fan of the age of exploration, I can't imagine him leaving out Portugal in the case Felipe II is the Spanish leader. If that where true we shouldn't have the Aztecs either.

If anything it would make it really cool to have Portugal, and Spain with Felipe II, you can roleplay a bit to unite all kingdoms under Spain, or resist Spain with your own empire.

I dont think Portugal would make it to Vanilla, but, surelly they make it in an expansion or DLC.

 

[Haig]

I'm not French but I had to read a bit about Catherine de Medici, had never even heard of her before.

Couldn't be more happier for her inclusion, she has this machiavellian vibe like Enrico Dandolo in Civ 5.

Some quotes give her credit as a diplomat, some paint her as a cruel tyrant.. interesting character anyways.

a quote from Amazon.com :
"Catherine de Medici has been called many things over the centuries: Madame La Serpente, The Black Queen, The Maggot from Italy's Tomb, "

wikipedia:
"Without Catherine, it is unlikely that her sons would have remained in power.[5] The years in which they reigned have been called "the age of Catherine de' Medici".[6] According to Mark Strage, one of her biographers, Catherine was the most powerful woman in sixteenth-century Europe."

 

[j51]

If anything it would make it really cool to have Portugal, and Spain with Felipe II, you can roleplay a bit to unite all kingdoms under Spain, or resist Spain with your own empire.

OMG! That would rule! Also being able unite Germany under Prussia, or Austria; Greece under Athens, Sparta, or Macedon; etc!

 

[Socrates99]

The militarism image of Germany mostly comes from Germany during WW1 and WW2, mostly WW2, but that is not a long period in the history of Germany. IMO, Germany isn't miliaristic in the long HRE era too.

And I agree with you, the German nation DO exist before 1871, though not as a unified political entity.

And Prussia in general...

Still hoping Germany gets an economic or scientific lean though.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Catherine de Medici was an interesting choice as I have not heard of her before but I can very well see why the pick her. Women could not be ruler of France so being de facto ruler for maybe as much as 30 years is very impressive by itself.

Im not exactly sure what Louis XIV achived, he is more a symbol of absolute monarchy. He did rule for a long time but Im not sure if he helped or damaged France during his time as ruler. As a person I think Catherine de Medici is overall more interesting.

Napoleon was in Civilization V so he can wait before he get to rule France again.

Victoria, more a symbol then UK was at its peek then a ruler.

Peter the Great, could maybe be said to be the founder of Russian empire. Both successful on the battlefield and as a ruler.

 

[jsciv69]

Theodore Roosevelt was a war hawk who was awarded the noble peace prize. He stood up to the big monopolies and banks yet was every bit an expansionist and imperialist as any of his predessesors or successors. He came to power by an assasin's bullet. He was actually the most successful independant candidate for President. Plenty of character and charisma for the Civ series. And much more ideal than the safe picks of Washington or Lincoln. The look and animation of the rough rider unit is impressive. I'm already plotting the right spot to settle the capital city Washington. ready to take on barbarians, city-states, and fellow civs alike. One more turn.

 

[SMcM]

The militarism image of Germany mostly comes from Germany during WW1 and WW2, mostly WW2, but that is not a long period in the history of Germany. IMO, Germany isn't miliaristic in the long HRE era too.

And I agree with you, the German nation DO exist before 1871, though not as a unified political entity.

The idea of the enthusiasm of German Civ players for playing as Bismark and conquering the world when they supposedly spend the whole time apologising for the world wars has always seemed strange to me. I suppose Bismark's removal could therefore argued to be appropriate. However, HR emperors weren't exactly peace loving either, where they?

 

[LDiCesare]

Catherine de Medici was an interesting choice as I have not heard of her before but I can very well see why the pick her. Women could not be ruler of France so being de facto ruler for maybe as much as 30 years is very impressive by itself.

Im not exactly sure what Louis XIV achived, he is more a symbol of absolute monarchy. He did rule for a long time but Im not sure if he helped or damaged France during his time as ruler. As a person I think Catherine de Medici is overall more interesting.

Errr...
Catherine becomes regent in 1559, for Francois II. She more or les gives the power to the duke de Guise, and starts reigning only in 1560 after these become less popular.
She keeps being the major power in French politics until her son Henri III is crowned, in 1574.
So overall she exercised power during 15 years, not 30. She was not the only woman to exercise power as a regent (Marie de Medicis after her, for instance, and she's probably more interesting a character although even less fit for ruler of a civ - at least she tried to seize power against her son). During Catherine's time, France lost all its italian territories. The country had to face violent religious wars, but since she had put the Guise party in power and let them fuel the hatred for one year, and later let her youngest son (probably) cause the slaughter of thousands of protestants, I would say that the net result of her being in power is quite negative. It also ends with the end of her husband's dynasty.
As for Louis XIV , he invented absolute monarchy. This kind of monarchy didn't exist before him in France. He curbed the feudal lords, who were never again a threat to the king's authority after him. The very strong centralisation he promoted is still felt in France today. He expanded the French borders (Alsace, Artois...). He also managed to put his grandson on the throne of Spain, and is an ancestor of the current king of Spain. He also sponsored the arts, built the palace of Versailles with its gardens and fountains...
Finding Catherine more interesting than Louis is a bit baffling imo. She's interesting obly because she's not well-known, she's not well-known because she wasn'tthat interesting to begin with in comparison with many French rulers.

 

[zwei833]

The idea of the enthusiasm of German Civ players for playing as Bismark and conquering the world when they supposedly spend the whole time apologising for the world wars has always seemed strange to me. I suppose Bismark's removal could therefore argued to be appropriate. However, HR emperors weren't exactly peace loving either, where they?

Not peace lover but also not miliaristic specially, just like other feudal monarchs.

 

[SMcM]

Errr...
Catherine becomes regent in 1559, for Francois II. She more or les gives the power to the duke de Guise, and starts reigning only in 1560 after these become less popular.
She keeps being the major power in French politics until her son Henri III is crowned, in 1574.
So overall she exercised power during 15 years, not 30. She was not the only woman to exercise power as a regent (Marie de Medicis after her, for instance, and she's probably more interesting a character although even less fit for ruler of a civ - at least she tried to seize power against her son). During Catherine's time, France lost all its italian territories. The country had to face violent religious wars, but since she had put the Guise party in power and let them fuel the hatred for one year, and later let her youngest son (probably) cause the slaughter of thousands of protestants, I would say that the net result of her being in power is quite negative. It also ends with the end of her husband's dynasty.
As for Louis XIV , he invented absolute monarchy. This kind of monarchy didn't exist before him in France. He curbed the feudal lords, who were never again a threat to the king's authority after him. The very strong centralisation he promoted is still felt in France today. He expanded the French borders (Alsace, Artois...). He also managed to put his grandson on the throne of Spain, and is an ancestor of the current king of Spain. He also sponsored the arts, built the palace of Versailles with its gardens and fountains...
Finding Catherine more interesting than Louis is a bit baffling imo. She's interesting obly because she's not well-known, she's not well-known because she wasn'tthat interesting to begin with in comparison with many French rulers.

Wait, France actually lost territory during Catherine's time?

 

[Zaarin]

The idea of the enthusiasm of German Civ players for playing as Bismark and conquering the world when they supposedly spend the whole time apologising for the world wars has always seemed strange to me. I suppose Bismark's removal could therefore argued to be appropriate. However, HR emperors weren't exactly peace loving either, where they?

I'd just like to point out that WW1 happened (to oversimplify things) because Kaiser Wilhelm was an idiot and failed to maintain Bismarck's policies.

Errr...
Catherine becomes regent in 1559, for Francois II. She more or les gives the power to the duke de Guise, and starts reigning only in 1560 after these become less popular.
She keeps being the major power in French politics until her son Henri III is crowned, in 1574.
So overall she exercised power during 15 years, not 30. She was not the only woman to exercise power as a regent (Marie de Medicis after her, for instance, and she's probably more interesting a character although even less fit for ruler of a civ - at least she tried to seize power against her son). During Catherine's time, France lost all its italian territories. The country had to face violent religious wars, but since she had put the Guise party in power and let them fuel the hatred for one year, and later let her youngest son (probably) cause the slaughter of thousands of protestants, I would say that the net result of her being in power is quite negative. It also ends with the end of her husband's dynasty.
As for Louis XIV , he invented absolute monarchy. This kind of monarchy didn't exist before him in France. He curbed the feudal lords, who were never again a threat to the king's authority after him. The very strong centralisation he promoted is still felt in France today. He expanded the French borders (Alsace, Artois...). He also managed to put his grandson on the throne of Spain, and is an ancestor of the current king of Spain. He also sponsored the arts, built the palace of Versailles with its gardens and fountains...
Finding Catherine more interesting than Louis is a bit baffling imo. She's interesting obly because she's not well-known, she's not well-known because she wasn'tthat interesting to begin with in comparison with many French rulers.

Minor amendment: while Louis XIV is absolutely my top choice for France, in terms of inventing absolute monarchy he really only completed the work that was begun by Cardinal Richelieu.