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

[Trigan Emperor]

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

There's still some good stuff!

 

[bbbt]

I mean they could represent Gandhi - and other such leaders - in a "better" way. But it would require significantly more asymmetrical game design (and possibly even more problematic for multiplayer). It would also be problematic with the way they combine leaders and countries.

 

[MrRadar]

I've been with the Civilization franchise since its first installment. And after all these years I can say to Gandhi in Civ franchise only this - live long and prosper, buddy, as a/the leader of the Indians. Hope to see you in all future installments, and maybe, just maybe, one of those days, you'll send that proverbial nuke in my general direction. Civilization just will not be the same without you

 

[pokiehl]

I will be beyond happy if Gandhi does not return in Civ 7.

 

[Disgustipated]

I have no problem with Gandhi, but maybe he would work better as the 2nd leader in the future. Assuming future games have multiple leaders per civ. I do like that he fits the peaceful role better than any other leader I can think of. And it provides a balance to warmonger leaders. Laurier is also good for this purpose. I like a good mix of leaders with different attributes.

Of course, I've been attacked by Gandhi many times. But usually it's a joint war.

 

[Zaarin]

I do like that he fits the peaceful role better than any other leader I can think of.

Ashoka? (Sure, he was a crazy warmonger in his early years, but after his conversion he renounced violence.)

 

[nzcamel]

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

So yes, please drop the joke already.

Great little video lol

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

I'm of the opinion that "leader" is taken far too literally, both by the fans and - to a lesser extent - the developers. I'd love to see more civilizations represented by their most iconic figure, even if that individual never held political power historically. Gandhi is example par excellence of this done right.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm of the opinion that "leader" is taken far too literally, both by the fans and - to a lesser extent - the developers. I'd love to see more civilizations represented by their most iconic figure, even if that individual never held political power historically. Gandhi is example par excellence of this done right.

If India is going to be represented by their most iconic figure, then surely the Buddha should be the leader of India in Civ7. What about England, though? Arthur or Robin Hood?

 

[Victoria]

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

and that reinforces why the team at Firaxis call it a running joke?

What about England, though? Arthur or Robin Hood?

So you think these are England’s most Iconic figures? Spock leads America? Skippy the bush Kangaroo leads Australia? They are just as real. From someone with a historical bent your post is more than a tad flippant.
We may as well just play the whole game on Jupiter in dirigibles, that is no more derisive.

 

[Zaarin]

From someone with a historical bent your post is more than a tad flippant.

You say that as though that weren't my intention. Of course my post was flippant. I'm firmly in the camp that civ leaders should be the people who actually held power, whether in front of the throne or behind it, and not figureheads like Gandhi or Victoria. In particular, I think Gandhi is a tired joke and that India, with its thousands of years of history, deserves the same kind of serious consideration that other civs are given. Chandragupta, Ashoka, Rajaraja I of Chola--so many great options, yet we get Gandhi perpetually and at best someone else as an afterthought.

So you think these are England’s most Iconic figures? Spock leads America? Skippy the bush Kangaroo leads Australia? They are just as real.

Just to play devil's advocate, while historians are pretty much in agreement that Robin Hood was just a folk story, the jury is still out on Arthur. He certainly wasn't the powerful, semi-mythic king with a magic sword who codified chivalry that appears in Arthurian romance, but I think the odds are in his favor that there was a historical antecedent to the figure.

So you think these are England’s most Iconic figures?

I can't speak for what the English view as their most iconic figure, but in the States, yes, I can't think of anyone who evokes the sense of English-ness more than Robin Hood or King Arthur--except maaaaaaybe Queen Elizabeth I, but that assumes some knowledge of history--or maybe Patrick Stewart.

Spock leads America?

Again, playing devil's advocate, Spock isn't particularly associated with America. Wyatt Earp, maybe? Daniel Boone? Probably someone like that.

 

[Patine]

Constantine might be a really interesting alternative, giving Rome an unusual, religious bent.

It also shows how uneducated many people are today where a Roman leader having a religious bent is "unusual." The Romans coined a word - commonly used in their day, apparently - in their language (Latin) for strong religious conviction and devotion - pious, or piety - and it was coined and used often CENTURIES before the conflict between Christianity, Manichaeianism, and Mithrianism began a charismatic, proselytizing struggle to take the dominant religion away from the Jovian Pantheon. But many modern people see than as without meaningful or strong religious beliefs as the many science fiction empire based very loosely on them.

 

[Patine]

Again, playing devil's advocate, Spock isn't particularly associated with America. Wyatt Earp, maybe? Daniel Boone? Probably someone like that.

She might have meant Dr. Benjamin Spock.

 

[Zaarin]

It also shows how uneducated many people are today where a Roman leader having a religious bent is "unusual." The Romans coined a word - commonly used in their day, apparently - in their language (Latin) for strong religious conviction and devotion - pious, or piety - and it was coined and used often CENTURIES before the conflict between Christianity, Manichaeianism, and Mithrianism began a charismatic, proselytizing struggle to take the dominant religion away from the Jovian Pantheon. But many modern people see than as without meaningful or strong religious beliefs as the many science fiction empire based very loosely on them.

I think it's fairer to say the Romans were generally religious pragmatists. By the mid-Imperial period, religious sentiment in Rome was not strong, and from the earliest period they were generally tolerant of local religious beliefs so long as they weren't monotheists (they weren't fond of Jews or Zoroastrians) and eager to adopt new gods into their pantheon. In general, though, I think modern people don't really appreciate how pervasive religion was in all civilizations until at least the mid 19th century; that's why, when in doubt, you can't really go wrong giving a civilization religious bonuses. Rome still wouldn't be my first choice for religious bonuses, though; there are more obvious candidates for strong religious bonuses on the one hand and more obvious bonuses for Rome on the other.

She might have meant Dr. Benjamin Spock.

Ah, yes, that idiot. I know who he is, but I seriously question how many people in the general public in 2020 would know who he is.

 

[berlin88]

You say that as though that weren't my intention. Of course my post was flippant. I'm firmly in the camp that civ leaders should be the people who actually held power, whether in front of the throne or behind it, and not figureheads like Gandhi or Victoria. In particular, I think Gandhi is a tired joke and that India, with its thousands of years of history, deserves the same kind of serious consideration that other civs are given. Chandragupta, Ashoka, Rajaraja I of Chola--so many great options, yet we get Gandhi perpetually and at best someone else as an afterthought.


Just to play devil's advocate, while historians are pretty much in agreement that Robin Hood was just a folk story, the jury is still out on Arthur. He certainly wasn't the powerful, semi-mythic king with a magic sword who codified chivalry that appears in Arthurian romance, but I think the odds are in his favor that there was a historical antecedent to the figure.


I can't speak for what the English view as their most iconic figure, but in the States, yes, I can't think of anyone who evokes the sense of English-ness more than Robin Hood or King Arthur--except maaaaaaybe Queen Elizabeth I, but that assumes some knowledge of history--or maybe Patrick Stewart.


Again, playing devil's advocate, Spock isn't particularly associated with America. Wyatt Earp, maybe? Daniel Boone? Probably someone like that.

For most Americans, one of the first English rulers they think of, is the infamous King George III. Arthur lived prior to the establishment of modern England, so I don't really consider him a potential leader of England candidate. Modern England was established after the Germanic tribes invaded, and Arthur was an enemy of the invading Germanic tribes.

Firaxis is also very reluctant to offend anyone, so they rarely include controversial leadership figures in the Civ games. That is why we generally get the same token leaders over and over again. Otherwise, we might see leadership figures such as Charles Martel or Martin Luther in the game.

 

[Patine]

For most Americans, one of the first English rulers they think of, is the infamous King George III.

The Declaration of Independence was a fine work of incendiary, vitriolic propaganda - because it put the blame entirely on the shoulders of George III, who only had a bit more real political power than Victoria and onwards in the British Royal lineage. Lord North, the Tory Party Prime Minister of Great Britain from the 1760's to 1780 produced all the "Intolerable Acts," and orders of suppressing rebellions, and George III signed them as dutifully as any British monarch signs any Act passed by Parliament after the Scottish Militia Act of 1708, vetoed by Anne - the LAST veto by a British Monarch (312 years ago!). And, the negotiations for the Peace of Paris were not because George III was "humbled by Patriot Spirit, and forced to recognize the Freedom, Liberty, and Independence earned by the Colonists," - in truth, there was vote of no confidence in the House of Commons in 1780, and a snap election, and the Whig Party leader, the Marquess of Rockingham, who had been sympathetic to the grievances of the Colonists from the start, and wanted an amicable solution for both sides before North's heavy-handed actions started, and had been in correspondence with Benjamin Franklin, became Prime Minister, and began the process of negotiating an end to the war and crisis, that led to the Peace of Paris in 1783, and all of his acts were also dutifully signed by George III. Effectively, George III's personal "infamy," is high undeserved.

 

[berlin88]

The Declaration of Independence was a fine work of incendiary, vitriolic propaganda - because it put the blame entirely on the shoulders of George III, who only had a bit more real political power than Victoria and onwards in the British Royal lineage. Lord North, the Tory Party Prime Minister of Great Britain from the 1760's to 1780 produced all the "Intolerable Acts," and orders of suppressing rebellions, and George III signed them as dutifully as any British monarch signs any Act passed by Parliament after the Scottish Militia Act of 1708, vetoed by Anne - the LAST veto by a British Monarch (312 years ago!). And, the negotiations for the Peace of Paris were not because George III was "humbled by Patriot Spirit, and forced to recognize the Freedom, Liberty, and Independence earned by the Colonists," - in truth, there was vote of no confidence in the House of Commons in 1780, and a snap election, and the Whig Party leader, the Marquess of Rockingham, who had been sympathetic to the grievances of the Colonists from the start, and wanted an amicable solution for both sides before North's heavy-handed actions started, and had been in correspondence with Benjamin Franklin, became Prime Minister, and began the process of negotiating an end to the war and crisis, that led to the Peace of Paris in 1783, and all of his acts were also dutifully signed by George III. Effectively, George III's personal "infamy," is high undeserved.

What you wrote may be historically accurate, but how many Americans know who Lord North is? Everyone knows King George III, but Lord North not so much.

 

[Zaarin]

Arthur lived prior to the establishment of modern England

Arthur created the establishment of modern England. See: The Matter of Britain. Poor guy gave his life trying to stop the inevitable Anglo-Saxon invasion and ended up as a rallying cry for them instead. Arthur was probably a very unimportant person in life, but his legend made him one of the most important people to ever live.

Effectively, George III's personal "infamy," is high undeserved.

He had aspirations for absolute monarchy in an age when absolute monarchy was unpopular. He wouldn't have been a popular king even without the black mark of the American Revolution. (He also talked to trees so there's that. )

 

[Patine]

Arthur created the establishment of modern England. See: The Matter of Britain. Poor guy gave his life trying to stop the inevitable Anglo-Saxon invasion and ended up as a rallying cry for them instead. Arthur was probably a very unimportant person in life, but his legend made him one of the most important people to ever live.

Though Henry Tudor, who after winning the last stages of the War of the Roses, became Henry VII, the first ethnically-Welsh King of England, ruthlessly used the Arthurian legends as a major platform of legitimacy for his rule, and to encourage unity in England long years of Lancastrian-Yorkist warring. He even named his first-born Arthur, Prince of Wales - but the young prince died at age 14 of the "sleeping disease," epidemic in Europe at the time, and his younger brother became Henry VIII. Now, an interesting question is, if young Arthur Tudor had been crowned, would be have been Arthur I based on official royal and genealogical king records, or took a leap of pretense and took the regnal name Arthur II?

 

[berlin88]

Arthur created the establishment of modern England. See: The Matter of Britain. Poor guy gave his life trying to stop the inevitable Anglo-Saxon invasion and ended up as a rallying cry for them instead. Arthur was probably a very unimportant person in life, but his legend made him one of the most important people to ever live.


He had aspirations for absolute monarchy in an age when absolute monarchy was unpopular. He wouldn't have been a popular king even without the black mark of the American Revolution. (He also talked to trees so there's that. )

I disagree with Arthur creating modern England, as it was Athelstan who united the Saxon Kingdoms in 927 to create the Kingdom of England. You could also argue, that England was not England until after the Norman conquest.

Arthur is widely depicted as having fought at Badon in 500 AD, well before unification in 927, though the exact dates of when he lived are open to questioning.