[LP] Louis II of Bavaria. A good or bad leader choice?

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I don't understand why F'xis chose Louis II of Bavaria as an alternate leader of Germany in Leader's Pass? He ain't no good leader either because he failed to maintain Bavaria an independent nation, even his 'Confederation of Germany' (Pro-Austrian federations of southern Germanic Kingdoms) failed to stop Prussia's ambition.
And his fairytale giant castle is actually built because of heartbreak.
After the Unification, his kingdom is firmly under Bismarc's rule.
Or did he do something good enough to impress Bismarc?
Did 'Germany' has 'better' builder leader?

 

[Prester John 2]

As a German I don't like this leader choice. I would have preferred Frederick II. the Great, or Prince Eugene of Savoy, or Rudolf II.

 

[AntSou]

He ain't no good leader either because he failed to maintain Bavaria an independent nation, even his 'Confederation of Germany'

He's a good leader because it allows for a justification to give Germany a Culture/Wonder focus.

"Failing to maintain Bavaria's independence" might be relevant if he were being evaluated on those grounds. But even then I don't think it's an important point. Otherwise you'd also need to exclude a bunch of others like Ambiorix, Shaka, Ba Trieu, maybe even Alexander?

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I don't understand why F'xis chose Louis II of Bavaria as an alternate leader of Germany in Leader's Pass? He ain't no good leader either because he failed to maintain Bavaria an independent nation, even his 'Confederation of Germany' (Pro-Austrian federations of southern Germanic Kingdoms) failed to stop Prussia's ambition.
And his fairytale giant castle is actually built because of heartbreak.
After the Unification, his kingdom is firmly under Bismarc's rule.
Or did he do something good enough to impress Bismarc?
Did 'Germany' has 'better' builder leader?

At least he's not Kristina. :V

Jokes aside, though Bavaria wasn't able to maintain independence, they were able to maintain a greater amount of autonomy than other states in the German Confederation, so that has to count for something. There's also the fact that Civ VI has had a tendency of having Leaders being picked not for their historical relevancy and accomplishments but because of their larger-than-life personalities, which, if you judged potential Leaders through this category alone, Ludwig II would be up in at least top ten.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Civ VI leaders are primarily chosen based on whether they are interesting. Their actual abilities to promulgate empires are purely secondary. It's not a game where you pit history's greatest conquerors against each other. Hell, some of the leaders were merely regents, and one was only the leader of a political movement.

In that light, Ludwig II is an acceptable choice. His zeal for building fantastical palaces is justification enough for me.

 

[pokiehl]

If leaders were chosen solely by how “great” they were, or based on who people from that particular nationality think would be the best reflection of them as a group, then we’d see the same people over and over again.

 

[Zaarin]

Prince Eugene of Savoy

I look forward to the fallout when the leader of Germany speaks French.

Rudolf II

Yes, please--for Civ7.

If leaders were chosen solely by how “great” they were, or based on who people from that particular nationality think would be the best reflection of them as a group, then we’d see the same people over and over again.

This. I'd rather have interesting leaders than the same stale leader list every iteration.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Yes, please--for Civ7.

If Austria appears again in Civ 7, then I'd definitely root for Rudolf. Not for Germany, though.

 

[Zaarin]

If Austria appears again in Civ 7, then I'd definitely root for Rudolf. Not for Germany, though.

I only want Austria for Maria Theresa, and honestly I'd be perfectly fine with Maria Theresa leading Germany. Leave non-German Central Europe open for Bohemia, Hungary, and/or Poland. Actually, that's my only problem with Rudolf II: his capital would be Prague. At any rate, Rudolf II was not an effective ruler, but he was eccentric and interesting and would be a delight on screen. Especially if portrayed as Vertumnus. Plus no one expects cultural/scientific Germany.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

At any rate, Rudolf II was not an effective ruler, but he was eccentric and interesting and would be a delight on screen. Especially if portrayed as Vertumnus. Plus no one expects cultural/scientific Germany.

In his defense, he wasn't a bad ruler either, and it's arguable that he helped kickstart the Age of Enlightenment through his patronage of the sciences.

 

[Zaarin]

In his defense, he wasn't a bad ruler either, and it's arguable that he helped kickstart the Age of Enlightenment through his patronage of the sciences.

He was a mixed bag. His patronage of arts and sciences and his promotion of tolerance were good, but his belief in reuniting Christendom long after it was obvious that was impossible, his instigation of war with the Ottoman Empire was ill-advised, and his sometimes negligence of his realm due to his obsession with art, science, and the occult detracted from his reign. Still, the general point is that he was interesting and good enough; he'd be a fun ruler for Germany. Just ad hoc his capital over to Vienna so Prague is free for Bohemia.

 

[conorbebe]

He wouldn't have been my choice.

 

[Patine]

At least he's not Kristina. :V

Jokes aside, though Bavaria wasn't able to maintain independence, they were able to maintain a greater amount of autonomy than other states in the German Confederation, so that has to count for something. There's also the fact that Civ VI has had a tendency of having Leaders being picked not for their historical relevancy and accomplishments but because of their larger-than-life personalities, which, if you judged potential Leaders through this category alone, Ludwig II would be up in at least top ten.

Almost seems like having Herod in Judea. He was a puppet of the Romans, and he knew it and signed the deal that put him in his seat of power which he otherwise would have no chance of having as having been a very minor bureaucrat in the Pharisee priesthood with a Jewish mother, yes, and very importantly, but a Nabataean merchant father. But, he too liked to build big monuments, often on Caesar's dime, and he enjoyed playing social potentate and living the good life.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I hope he appears in front of Nauschwanstein and not on the edge of a lake.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

I hope he appears in front of Nauschwanstein and not on the edge of a lake.

Given the amount of death jokes the writers have put in for the Leader Pass, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they did.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not my first choice, but an inspired choice for a more culture/wonder builder-oriented Germany.

 

[bbbt]

Well I think he's more successful by Civ victory standards than IRL standards - Neuschwanstein is a huge tourist destination and basically the model for Disney castle/logo, the prototypical fairy tale castle.

Plus Civ has generally had Germany as militaristic and industrious for most of the games, and this is an opportunity to present a different version.

It is a little odd tho to have a leader of Germany who was opposed to the concept of Germany.

 

[Zaarin]

It is a little odd tho to have a leader of Germany who was opposed to the concept of Germany.

If I'm not mistaken, didn't he support an Austrian-led Germany rather than Prussia-led Germany? Because by the mid-19th century, it was pretty clear one or the other was going to unite the German principalities.

 

[Miserable Old Git]

If you really want a transformative German leader, you can't look beyond a certain Austrian from Braunau am Inn.

For political reasons - and quite rightly - it ain't ever gonna happen. But look at the Germany of Kaiser Wilhelm in 1900 and the (West) Germany of Konrad Adanauer in 1950 and it's easier to spot the differences than the similarities.

 

[Zaarin]

If you really want a transformative German leader, you can't look beyond a certain Austrian from Braunau am Inn.

I'm going to quote T.H. White on this one...

Kay looked up, with his tongue between his teeth, and remarked:

'By the way. You remember that argument we were having about aggression? Well, I have thought of a good reason for starting a war.'

Merlyn froze.

'I would like to hear it.'

'A good reason for starting a war is simply to have a good reason! For instance, there might be a king who had discovered a new way of life for human beings -- you know, something which would be good for them. It might even be the only way of saving them from destruction. Well, if the human beings were too wicked or too stupid to accept his way, he might have to force it on them, in their own interests, by the sword.'

The magician clenched his firsts, twisted his gown into screws, and began to shake all over.

'Very interesting,' he said in a trembling voice. 'Very interesting. There was just such a man when I was young -- an Austrian who invented a new way of life and convinced himself that he was the chap to make it work. He tried to impose his reformation by the sword, and plunged the civilized world into misery and chaos. But the thing which this fellow had over-looked, my friend, was that he had a predecessor in the reformation business, called Jesus Christ. Perhaps we may assume Jesus knew as much as the Austrian did about saving people. But the odd thing is that Jesus did not turn the disciples into storm troopers, burn down the Temple of Jerusalem, and fix the blame on Pontius Pilate. On the contrary, he made it clear that the business of the philosophers was to make ideas available, and not to impose them on people.'

At any rate, I don't think said Austrian would be very transformative insofar as he'd just be more "war-and-industry" Germany...