If a game is to represent Gandhi, it cannot be as a potential player character

[Abaxial]

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2020/04/22/how-video-games-consistently-fail-gandhi/

Given that Civ VI pointedly doesn't feature Napoleol Bonaparte leading France, no doubt to get away from characters who are overdone as leaders, it's a shame they still have Ghandi as, inappropriately, the leader for India. Maybe the designers thought he is the only Indian anyone has ever heard of. Personally, I would have preferred Aurangzeb.

 

[Chefofrats]

Catherine di Medici, Jadwiga and Ghandi were not leaders but highly influential and dynamic people who changed the lands in which they lived

Jadwiga actually was formally the Polish king (indeed, just as in her in-game dialogue, she was crowned the king, not queen of Poland, after her father's death; she was in her early teens at the time), so having her be the Polish leader is technically correct. However, in her short life (she died when she was between 25 and 30 years old) she got no chance to make any real impression on Poland, and most her political endevors failed. Very little is known about her private life, including her relations with her much older husband, so we have no idea whether she was dynamic or otherwise. She was certainly very religious, and she was actually made a saint of the Catholic church, which gives her something of a cult (in the non-religious meaning, as well as religious) status in Poland, and she was one of the very few female rulers in Medieval Europe, which I guess is why the developers made her Poland's in-game leader. It can have nothing to do with her real achievements though, since those are practically non-existant.

The bottom line is that the developers pick leaders for civs who will help market the game, and thus they generally have to be recognizable. All else matters less.

PS. Caligula as a leader for Rome would be ridiculous. Modern historians recognize his rule was probably not as crazy as ancient historians made it out to be, but still, he was not a competent ruler, and he had no clear agenda that could translate into Rome's traits as a playable civ. Augustus is obviously the best choice as the founder of the empire, a real empire-builder with a clear and consistent public policy. Constantine might be a really interesting alternative, giving Rome an unusual, religious bent. Antoninus Pius would be another good choice, focusing not on conquest, but on peaceful growth and improving infrastructure.

 

[Meluhhan]

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2020/04/22/how-video-games-consistently-fail-gandhi/

Given that Civ VI pointedly doesn't feature Napoleol Bonaparte leading France, no doubt to get away from characters who are overdone as leaders, it's a shame they still have Ghandi as, inappropriately, the leader for India. Maybe the designers thought he is the only Indian anyone has ever heard of. Personally, I would have preferred Aurangzeb.

While Gandhi has certainly been overdone as a leader of India, I'm not sure whether many Indians will appreciate Aurangzeb as a potential leader for an Indian civ. Aurangzeb has a very controversial legacy in India; majority of Indians remember him as a bigot, whose policies of religious persecution and intolerance led to many rebellions against his reign and ultimately to the fall of his empire. Regardless, I would be interested in knowing why you would prefer Aurangzeb as a leader for India.

 

[Loerwyn]

Jadwiga actually was formally the Polish king (indeed, just as in her in-game dialogue, she was crowned the king, not queen of Poland, after her father's death; she was in her early teens at the time), so having her be the Polish leader is technically correct. However, in her short life (she died when she was between 25 and 30 years old) she got no chance to make any real impression on Poland, and most her political endevors failed. Very little is known about her private life, including her relations with her much older husband, so we have no idea whether she was dynamic or otherwise. She was certainly very religious, and she was actually made a saint of the Catholic church, which gives her something of a cult (in the non-religious meaning, as well as religious) status in Poland, and she was one of the very few female rulers in Medieval Europe, which I guess is why the developers made her Poland's in-game leader. It can have nothing to do with her real achievements though, since those are practically non-existant.

Yeah, why I came out with that nonsense when I know better is beyond me.

 

[Tech Osen]

The bottom line is that the developers pick leaders for civs who will help market the game, and thus they generally have to be recognizable. All else matters less.

This time it seemed more driven by a political correct attempt at diversity.

 

[Zaarin]

Heck, the amount of autonomy Cleopatra had may not have been particularly great

Cleopatra was the sovereign leader of one of the top three powers in the Mediterranean of her time. Her successful PR campaign made her accepted as a living divinity. While Cleopatra was certainly dealt a bad hand, presiding over a kingdom that was doomed before she even took the reigns, no one can say she didn't make the best of it. I don't think it's an overstatement to say that Cleopatra was the most powerful woman alive at her time, and that she was probably unmatched in that department since Hatshepsut and before Zenobia. (And all that being said, I still don't like her as Egypt's leader. If they wanted a woman, it should have been Hatshepsut, and since Hatshepsut's greatest accomplishments were in trade her abilities could have been more or less the same. But there's no denying that Cleopatra was both brilliant and powerful in her time, and that she probably delayed Egypt's inevitable conquest by a few decades. Her alliance with Marc Antony could be called a miscalculation, but she didn't have much of a choice--Octavian already hated her.)

 

[Red Adept]

While Gandhi has certainly been overdone as a leader of India, I'm not sure whether many Indians will appreciate Aurangzeb as a potential leader for an Indian civ. Aurangzeb has a very controversial legacy in India; majority of Indians remember him as a bigot, whose policies of religious persecution and intolerance led to many rebellions against his reign and ultimately to the fall of his empire. Regardless, I would be interested in knowing why you would prefer Aurangzeb as a leader for India.

Could be worse... Could roll all this up with Corporations and have the VoC or East India Company ruling India. Talk about persecution and intolerance!

 

[Loerwyn]

Cleopatra was the sovereign leader of one of the top three powers in the Mediterranean of her time. Her successful PR campaign made her accepted as a living divinity. While Cleopatra was certainly dealt a bad hand, presiding over a kingdom that was doomed before she even took the reigns, no one can say she didn't make the best of it. I don't think it's an overstatement to say that Cleopatra was the most powerful woman alive at her time, and that she was probably unmatched in that department since Hatshepsut and before Zenobia. (And all that being said, I still don't like her as Egypt's leader. If they wanted a woman, it should have been Hatshepsut, and since Hatshepsut's greatest accomplishments were in trade her abilities could have been more or less the same. But there's no denying that Cleopatra was both brilliant and powerful in her time, and that she probably delayed Egypt's inevitable conquest by a few decades. Her alliance with Marc Antony could be called a miscalculation, but she didn't have much of a choice--Octavian already hated her.)

For sure, I'll never deny she made the best of what she had and she was certainly powerful.

I think I posted quite a lot of nonsense there, and need a bit of a kick

 

[Mahi]

Gandhi is part of the traditional leaders, who has always been in every iteration of civ. It's just one of those thing that's interesting to keep in the game for recognizability.

 

[smvalentine]

The bug in Civ I that made Gandhi a warmonger turned it into a tradition / running joke.

 

[Imaus]

Gandhi should had always been a Great Person, not a leader, IMO. I always shove in Ashoka in my cIV games compared to Gandhi. ChandraGupta, Babur, Akbar, Shivaji, Shahu, Muhammad bin Tughluq, Kanishka, and, of course, Indira or Jawaharlal Nehru. There's also the possibility for unsung heroes of the Indian Independence Movement - Sarojini Naidu, the like.

 

[nzcamel]

I always find who people consider an acceptable leader in Civ interesting. When it comes to things like figureheads (Victoria) vs power's behind the throne (di Medici) I don't think there is a wrong or right answer per say. I wonder if this is something where in Civ 7 the governors could be increased in abilities, in part to accommodate powerful figures who never technically ruled. I love the narrative that govenors can add; but that would actually work better if they were named relevant to their Civ (or even unnamed and able to be named by the player) rather than all sharing the same name. Cat might be better as an expanded governor even though she had more real power than Victoria.

 

[Trigan Emperor]

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2020/04/22/how-video-games-consistently-fail-gandhi/

Given that Civ VI pointedly doesn't feature Napoleol Bonaparte leading France, no doubt to get away from characters who are overdone as leaders, it's a shame they still have Ghandi as, inappropriately, the leader for India. Maybe the designers thought he is the only Indian anyone has ever heard of. Personally, I would have preferred Aurangzeb.

The Rise & Fall expansion gives the Indian civilization an alternative Leader in Chandragupta.

 

[Zaarin]

The bug in Civ I that made Gandhi a warmonger turned it into a tradition / running joke.

The joke's gotten a little stale after 25 years...

 

[nzcamel]

The joke's gotten a little stale after 25 years...

More than a little...

 

[Tech Osen]

The joke's gotten a little stale after 25 years...

I played every version of Civ through the years and have yet to be nuked by Ghandi. I feel so left out.

 

[Zaarin]

I played every version of Civ through the years and have yet to be nuked by Ghandi. I feel so left out.

I've never been nuked by anyone, but I remember Gandhi being a crazy warmonger in Civ5, especially before the expansions IIRC.

 

[Mahi]

I've been nuked plenty of times in Civ 5

 

[Gwydden]

Funny thing is, the infamous nuclear Gandhi bug may very well be a myth.

So yes, please drop the joke already.

 

[Mahi]

Funny thing is, the infamous nuclear Gandhi bug may very well be a myth.

So yes, please drop the joke already.

Well even if it's not a bug it's just still a funny thought Gandhi could end up nuking another civilization. The bug discussion came later I think. Bug or not he did drop nuclear bombs. It was always more about the surreal/funny thought he could do that to you.