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

[Patine]

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.

Now, to turn the tactic of your recent point at me back on you, how many people know who Athelstan is? Turnaround is fair play...

 

[Zaarin]

He even named his first-born Arthur, Prince of Wales

I am endlessly disappointed at the missed opportunity for a King Arthur.

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.

Missing the point. Arthurian Romance, the Matter of Britain, created the nation of England, just like the Matter of France created the nation of France. Nations aren't born on the battlefield or in the halls of palaces; those are states. Civilization isn't a game about states. Nations are born when Bob from Dorset and Bill from Northumbria both agree they are "English" instead of Dorsetine and Northumbrian. The irony I was referencing was that Arthur, a Romanized Briton who fought against the Angles, became the crucible in which Angle-land was forged via the legends and chansons de geste that were told about him.

 

[Victoria]

the jury is still out on Arthur.

The fact he is so romanticised goes against his reality.

Queen Elizabeth I,

And here is the crux of it. The iconic nature of a leader depends on where you are in the world. Victoria is pretty iconic in many places. Even figures like Cromwell are up there with the big names... in England.

Spock isn't particularly associated with America

Well, to be fair I did change it from Shatner to spock purely because Shatner is real.

He also talked to trees so there's that

Actually his story is pretty sad, modern historians have now seen him in a different light. He did not have much choice over losing Americas and his madness has now been likely identified and is horrible. He was being remembered from the dark periods of his rule while he did have some quite positive periods and did in fact care a lot which is better than a lot of English rulers.

 

[Zaarin]

The fact he is so romanticised goes against his reality.

Not really, but the legend is definitely more historically significant than the man. Nevertheless, it's pretty probable that there was a Briton rixs whose name was something like "Arthur" who fought the invading Anglo-Saxons and whose memory would eventually be elaborated into the man we know as King Arthur of Camelot.

Well, to be fair I did change it from Shatner to spock purely because Shatner is real.

He's also Canadian.

Actually his story is pretty sad, modern historians have now seen him in a different light. He did not have much choice over losing Americas and his madness has now been likely identified and is horrible. He was being remembered from the dark periods of his rule while he did have some quite positive periods and did in fact care a lot which is better than a lot of English rulers.

I'm aware. I was simply pointing out that he's not just unpopular with Americans.

 

[Patine]

Well, to be fair I did change it from Shatner to spock purely because Shatner is real.

And Canadian. But Leonard Nimoy is the one who played Spock.

 

[berlin88]

I am endlessly disappointed at the missed opportunity for a King Arthur.


Missing the point. Arthurian Romance, the Matter of Britain, created the nation of England, just like the Matter of France created the nation of France. Nations aren't born on the battlefield or in the halls of palaces; those are states. Civilization isn't a game about states. Nations are born when Bob from Dorset and Bill from Northumbria both agree they are "English" instead of Dorsetine and Northumbrian. The irony I was referencing was that Arthur, a Romanized Briton who fought against the Angles, became the crucible in which Angle-land was forged via the legends and chansons de geste that were told about him.

If we go by this standard, than a lot of civs would be represented by very different leaders in game. Charles DeGaulle widely attributed the Franks to be the ancestors of the modern French, so perhaps we should use Charles Martel "The Hammer" to represent France, instead of Napoleon or King Louis XIV?

For the Germans, we could use Martin Luther, since prior to late 20th century revisionism, he was widely credited as standardizing the German language and laying the groundwork for the later unification of Germany by Bismarck and the Prussians.

Another example, would be Finland, where the Kalevala is widely regarded as the national epic of Finland, despite being largely limited to the Karellian isthmus prior to the late 19th century. We could make Väinämöinen the leader of Finland.

Many of my ancestors never identified based on a country, but by region or subdivision, such as Percherons, Karelian Finns, Hessians, German Silesians, Pommeranian Germans, etc. In fact, large segments of my family tree are untraceable past the mid 1800's, because folks came from regions that no longer exist as they did back then.

 

[Zaarin]

If we go by this standard, than a lot of civs would be represented by very different leaders in game. Charles DeGaulle widely attributed the Franks to be the ancestors of the modern French, so perhaps we should use Charles Martel "The Hammer" to represent France, instead of Napoleon or King Louis XIV?

For the Germans, we could use Martin Luther, since prior to late 20th century revisionism, he was widely credited as standardizing the German language and laying the groundwork for the later unification of Germany by Bismarck and the Prussians.

Another example, would be Finland, where the Kalevala is widely regarded as the national epic of Finland, despite being largely limited to the Karellian isthmus prior to the late 19th century. We could make Väinämöinen the leader of Finland.

Sorry if my sarcasm didn't translate well. I was saying that if we're just going to use iconic figures, then King Arthur should lead England. I definitely prefer using actual powers, whether they were official leaders or powers behind the throne, rather than figureheads. (I'd love to see Charles Martel lead France, though, and I hope Napoleon doesn't return until at least Civ14.)

Many of my ancestors never identified based on a country, but by region or subdivision

Alas, those were better days. I'm pleased to say that, while there are many things I dislike about my fellow Millennials, one thing I love about a certain subset of my generation is a return to a sense of local identity and investment in local business, local food, local talent.

 

[berlin88]

Sorry if my sarcasm didn't translate well. I was saying that if we're just going to use iconic figures, then King Arthur should lead England. I definitely prefer using actual powers, whether they were official leaders or powers behind the throne, rather than figureheads. (I'd love to see Charles Martel lead France, though, and I hope Napoleon doesn't return until at least Civ14.)


Alas, those were better days. I'm pleased to say that, while there are many things I dislike about my fellow Millennials, one thing I love about a certain subset of my generation is a return to a sense of local identity and investment in local business, local food, local talent.

This is generally a positive aspect of the Millennial generation, in comparison to the negative aspects.

Additionally, I think a more detailed knowledge of ones origins is a very good thing, hence I like to emphasize the region of my ancestors origins, as opposed to simply stating a country. Since Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia are no longer part of Germany and devoid of Germans (thanks to the post WW2 forced expulsions), most young people have no idea what a Silesian German is or even what a Prussian is.

I can proudly trace my French ancestry back to the mid 1400's, but the German and Finnish ancestry only goes back to the early 1800's at best, since those ancestors largely came from areas that are now controlled by other countries (Poland / Russia).

 

[Patine]

Sorry if my sarcasm didn't translate well. I was saying that if we're just going to use iconic figures, then King Arthur should lead England. I definitely prefer using actual powers, whether they were official leaders or powers behind the throne, rather than figureheads. (I'd love to see Charles Martel lead France, though, and I hope Napoleon doesn't return until at least Civ14.)


Alas, those were better days. I'm pleased to say that, while there are many things I dislike about my fellow Millennials, one thing I love about a certain subset of my generation is a return to a sense of local identity and investment in local business, local food, local talent.

This is generally a positive aspect of the Millennial generation, in comparison to the negative aspects.

Additionally, I think a more detailed knowledge of ones origins is a very good thing, hence I like to emphasize the region of my ancestors origins, as opposed to simply stating a country. Since Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia are no longer part of Germany and devoid of Germans (thanks to the post WW2 forced expulsions), most young people have no idea what a Silesian German is or even what a Prussian is.

I can proudly trace my French ancestry back to the mid 1400's, but the German and Finnish ancestry only goes back to the early 1800's at best, since those ancestors largely came from areas that are now controlled by other countries (Poland / Russia).

Are you too dissing the Nationalist Revival tendencies of my Gen X age group?

 

[Zaarin]

Additionally, I think a more detailed knowledge of ones origins is a very good thing

Sadly this is something I have no knowledge of. Being adopted, I only know what my adoptive parents know, which is that my father had an English surname and that my mother was part Scottish, part Native American (but no tribal information unfortunately).

Are you too dissing the Nationalist Revival tendencies of my Gen X age group?

Your generation gave us personal computers, video games, and pen-and-paper roleplaying games. You're forgiven.

 

[Kimurae]

I never understood the dislike of Jadwiga, she might not have been a military leader, but it seems like she was a very capable diplomat when she came of age, which is viable in my mind for a Civ VI leader. (If you disagree with wikipedia, suggest edits).

(I'd have no problem with MLK, Eleanor Roosevelt, or Benjamin Franklin as Civ Leaders, I think limiting them to just autocrats would make the game poor.)

 

[Zaarin]

I never understood the dislike of Jadwiga

I like her as well.

I think limiting them to just autocrats would make the game poor.

I don't think it should be limited to autocrats, especially since some civs have never had autocrats--Carthage, for example, or the Iroquois. I do think it should be someone who wielded power, though.

Eleanor Roosevelt

Having her husband was bad enough.

 

[Kaiman]

It's probably fair to say Ghandi as leader is more of a "tradition" than a "joke" at this point.

 

[nzcamel]

Nations aren't born on the battlefield or in the halls of palaces; those are states. Civilization isn't a game about states. Nations are born when Bob from Dorset and Bill from Northumbria both agree they are "English" instead of Dorsetine and Northumbrian. The irony I was referencing was that Arthur, a Romanized Briton who fought against the Angles, became the crucible in which Angle-land was forged via the legends and chansons de geste that were told about him.

Many of my ancestors never identified based on a country, but by region or subdivision, such as Percherons, Karelian Finns, Hessians, German Silesians, Pommeranian Germans, etc. In fact, large segments of my family tree are untraceable past the mid 1800's, because folks came from regions that no longer exist as they did back then.

Additionally, I think a more detailed knowledge of ones origins is a very good thing, hence I like to emphasize the region of my ancestors origins, as opposed to simply stating a country. Since Silesia, Pomerania and East Prussia are no longer part of Germany and devoid of Germans (thanks to the post WW2 forced expulsions), most young people have no idea what a Silesian German is or even what a Prussian is.

I can proudly trace my French ancestry back to the mid 1400's, but the German and Finnish ancestry only goes back to the early 1800's at best, since those ancestors largely came from areas that are now controlled by other countries (Poland / Russia).

The change of what makes up a state that happens throughout history has never been represented especially well by Civ, as much of that would not be much fun. The closest Civ comes to that kind of nuance is the trading of cities after a war really. I was quite surprised when I first read Frederick's opening line in VI to see him claiming all these different places in Europe no longer controlled by Germany/HRE (including some represented in game by other Civs); not because that wasn't the case in his time; but because Civ like so many games has deliberately avoided that level of detail when it could confuse someone needlessly. I mean it's just an opening statement you only see once, so still nothing to get too carried away about. But I do wonder if George RR Martin's use of similar names in A Song of Ice and Fire has finally broken the unwritten rule that pop culture needs to be kept dumbed down. I suppose Civ IV's take on culture where, as any conquered population merged with your own stability would increase, and some cities would have 3 or 4 races in them simultaneously; was more deep too. I always liked that.

That in Civ you are a nation that is spread by building or conquoring cities lends itself to history in a way that will be more simplified than much of what Paradox does. While on one hand I'd like the Civ series to not change that basic formula; I wouldn't mind seeing a version a bit more like Railroads; where the cities are there separate to the player. You can enlargen them of shrink them (as can others) with how you interact with them, but they aren't yours per say. I mean you'd still be able to conquor them in a Civ version of this; but you'd rarely found one (or raze one for nuanced reasons). They'd grow aside from what they player did, and population would migrate out of the players control.

 

[The googles do nothing]

America has one King and he wants you to increase the luxury rate.

I'm sure I bought Civ 6 partially because of nostalgia for playing earlier versions. But while I remember Nuke Happy Gandhi I don't need him anymore, doubly so because Chandragupta is such a good replacement IMHO. There's something out of place for me that Gandhi a leader at a time when war elephants are still being used.

The fact he is so romanticised goes against his reality.

It's too bad Civ doesn't make the distinction between romanticism and history. As a leader you don't have to create a monument, wonder, or library to be remembered thousands of years later.

 

[Victoria]

As a leader you don't have to create a monument, wonder, or library to be remembered thousands of years later.

You just have to recommend disinfectant

 

[Zaarin]

I was quite surprised when I first read Frederick's opening line in VI to see him claiming all these different places in Europe no longer controlled by Germany/HRE (including some represented in game by other Civs); not because that wasn't the case in his time; but because Civ like so many games has deliberately avoided that level of detail when it could confuse someone needlessly.

I mean, it was historically very normal throughout both time and place for rulers to claim a lot more land than what they actually owned. The English monarchs were claiming France up through George III, long after they lost the Hundred Years' War.

That in Civ you are a nation that is spread by building or conquoring cities lends itself to history in a way that will be more simplified than much of what Paradox does. While on one hand I'd like the Civ series to not change that basic formula; I wouldn't mind seeing a version a bit more like Railroads; where the cities are there separate to the player. You can enlargen them of shrink them (as can others) with how you interact with them, but they aren't yours per say. I mean you'd still be able to conquor them in a Civ version of this; but you'd rarely found one (or raze one for nuanced reasons). They'd grow aside from what they player did, and population would migrate out of the players control.

I've thought about this as well. The entire world was well-populated by the game's start date; it feels weird that everything is empty.

 

[Patine]

I mean, it was historically very normal throughout both time and place for rulers to claim a lot more land than what they actually owned. The English monarchs were claiming France up through George III, long after they lost the Hundred Years' War.

Didn't both Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan each claim to have some religious-based vision or omen that said the whole world was rightfully there's - they just had to go out and conquer it!

 

[Zaarin]

Didn't both Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan each claim to have some religious-based vision or omen that said the whole world was rightfully there's - they just had to go out and conquer it!

Don't know about Khan, but yeah, Alexander claimed there was some prophecy from the Oracle at Delphi that he was supposed to rule the world.

 

[Patine]

Don't know about Khan, but yeah, Alexander claimed there was some prophecy from the Oracle at Delphi that he was supposed to rule the world.

I remember hearing something about Temujin (who would declare himself Genghis Khan not long after) having a Tengrist shamanic vision, or a Tengrist shaman having one and speaking the message to him, or some such, on a similar idea to Alexander's "prophecy."