Male leader for England

[Grinnygog]

I'm annoyed that there are no male English leaders in Civ 6. Correct me if I'm wrong if that's been rectified with updates.
It's only a game, I appreciate, but being English, it matters to me.
If ever there was a true ENGLISH leader it would be either Alfred the Great, or perhaps more historically relevant, Athelstan, who most historians recognise as the first TRUE king of England.
Queen Victoria, although a great monarch, wasn't really the monarch that ruled England, but rather, the British Empire. So I feel it is historically inaccurate to have her as leader of the English.
Now, to indulge my historical fetish, personally I would really love to see Charles I as a leader for England. He firmly believed in Divine Right, i.e. the concept that monarchs are appointed by God and are appointed to rule as they see fit by virtue of their divine calling. I think Charles I would make an excellent ruler of the English, perhaps because it might allow the English race to have +faith, especially to Protestantism (Charles I was after all the Head of the Church of England). This would be particularly relevant because he believed firmly in Divine Right.
So Devs, please consider this. Thanks.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'm annoyed that there are no male English leaders in Civ 6. Correct me if I'm wrong if that's been rectified with updates.
It's only a game, I appreciate, but being English, it matters to me.
If ever there was a true ENGLISH leader it would be either Alfred the Great, or perhaps more historically relevant, Athelstan, who most historians recognise as the first TRUE king of England.
Queen Victoria, although a great monarch, wasn't really the monarch that ruled England, but rather, the British Empire. So I feel it is historically inaccurate to have her as leader of the English.
Now, to indulge my historical fetish, personally I would really love to see Charles I as a leader for England. He firmly believed in Divine Right, i.e. the concept that monarchs are appointed by God and are appointed to rule as they see fit by virtue of their divine calling. I think Charles I would make an excellent ruler of the English, perhaps because it might allow the English race to have +faith, especially to Protestantism (Charles I was after all the Head of the Church of England). This would be particularly relevant because he believed firmly in Divine Right.
So Devs, please consider this. Thanks.

I can well understand being annoyed at how the game depicts your 'home Civ': You Are Not Alone.

However, for a male leader of England, why pick the One Ruler of all of them who was so inept he managed to get himself 'legally' executed? Not exactly a recommendation. James I was equally a Divine Right monarchist, and managed to survive as well.
Alfred is certainly relatively well-known, but the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom(s) were very different from later England: it's a bit like trying to meld the semi-tribal Frankish kingdom of Clovis with the Renaissance Absolute Monarchy French state of Louis XIV - at best, it's a stretch.

On the other hand, there are some very good and interesting English leaders from the post-Norman Conquest: Edward I, Henry V, Henry VIII are all pretty well-known and each would bring something different to the in-game Civ.
And that's without trying out the 'foreign English' Rulers like William the Bastard/Conqueror, William the Dutchman (of William and Mary), or the Complete Outlier Oliver Cromwell. I would consider any of them more in the 'mainstream of English history' than an earlier Anglo-Saxon and far more English-centric than a later British Empire ruler.

 

[Grinnygog]

However, for a male leader of England, why pick the One Ruler of all of them who was so inept he managed to get himself 'legally' executed? Not exactly a recommendation. James I was equally a Divine Right monarchist, and managed to survive as well.

James I would be a good choice I agree. However, Charles I was quite a colourful character, even though half the country (at least) hated him. He would be an interesting choice because of some of the events he instigated that lead to the civil war, which could perhaps be reflected in the racial bonuses for England. For example, he tried to raise more tax by introducing Ship Money for inland counties. Also, Charles, along with the then Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, introduced a more ritualistic liturgy to the Church of England. Also at that time there were the witch trials, so perhaps a new religious unit could be introduced, the Witchfinder, who would root out heresy in races of a different religion?
I like the suggestion of Oliver Cromwell too, but his title would be Lord Protector rather than King
That whole era was fascinating and much could be gleaned from it and incorporated into Civ 6.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

This feels like casual sexism.

I'm American. I am not an overweight redneck, yet Teddy Roosevelt represents my country in VI. And I am totally fine with that, because he is supposed to represent my people and their history, not me specifically, and there are other facets about Teddy besides his poor diet that flesh out the personality of an American civ.

The fact is that England, compared to many other parts of the world, has had many long periods under strong female rulership, moreso than I believe any other nation. England became an industrial powerhouse under Victorian rule. It was a cultural powerhouse under Angevin rule. There is nothing historically wrong with coding it as female. Nor indeed generally wrong, since I fail to see how giving a leader a penis makes them any more compelling except to fragile male egos.

Also, Divine Right? What kind of a backwards, medieval argument for a leader's inclusion is that?

Go watch drag race. Dresses are awesome, dude.

 

[acluewithout]

For what it’s worth, I really hope England doesn’t get a male leader. I love how England currently has two female leaders. Just feels really unique and special (yeah, France has two as well, but whatever). I’d be stoked if we got Elizabeth I for England as well.

I’d also love Isabella for Spain and Wu Zetian for China too. That would be so awesome.

The only male leaders I’d like are Napoleon or the Sun King for France and William for Netherlands.

No idea what my logic here is. Just personal preference.

 

[linaker]

I think it's great that England has two female leaders and a matter of pride that we are almost unique amongst nations in having two credible candidates. I’d far rather play as Victoria than Charles I who seems a bizarre choice. Nearly all monarchs before Charles I believed in divine right but most managed to keep hold of their throne. If there is a male leader, there are so many better choices like Henrys II or VIII or maybe a non monarch like the Duke of Wellington, Winston Churchill or appropriately for a seafaring nation, Admiral Nelson.

 

[Grinnygog]

This feels like casual sexism.

I'm American. I am not an overweight redneck, yet Teddy Roosevelt represents my country in VI. And I am totally fine with that, because he is supposed to represent my people and their history, not me specifically, and there are other facets about Teddy besides his poor diet that flesh out the personality of an American civ.

The fact is that England, compared to many other parts of the world, has had many long periods under strong female rulership, moreso than I believe any other nation. England became an industrial powerhouse under Victorian rule. It was a cultural powerhouse under Angevin rule. There is nothing historically wrong with coding it as female. Nor indeed generally wrong, since I fail to see how giving a leader a penis makes them any more compelling except to fragile male egos.

Also, Divine Right? What kind of a backwards, medieval argument for a leader's inclusion is that?

Go watch drag race. Dresses are awesome, dude.

No, I'm not being "casually sexist" my friend. I'm merely referring to the words "England/English", which as I'm sure you're well aware derive from the Angle-Saxon race of people, not from any of the other races of people that originally populated the British Isles. It is in that context that I made my original statement that there are no male English leaders. I think you'll find that most, if not all historians will agree that King Alfred the Great was the one king who made great strides towards founding the nation of England as we know it today. His grandson, Athelstan became the King who finally unified geographically the kingdoms that we now call England. So who better than King Athelstan as Civ 6 leader for England, with his loyal Houscarls as perhaps a unique military unit and perhaps a unique council, the "Witan"?
Queen Victoria didn't rule over just England, but rather the British Empire, so I think (at the risk of sounding pedantic) that the English civilisation should have being called the British civilisation, because Victoria is one of the leaders in the game. However, I appreciate that that would have created huge problems for the game because so many of the civs in the game were once part of the British Empire, including the USA until it rightfully gained its independence (long live Uncle Sam, Chili Dogs, Moonshine and perhaps Donald Trump etc. etc.). Dan Quayle? Who's he? ;o)

As for your own "American" race, well Roosevelt is hardly an indigenous American surname! A quick look on Wikipedia suggests that his family originated from the British Isles and the Netherlands! So shouldn't you be standing up for an indigenous North American civilisation?

I don't know about watching Drag Race or wearing dresses, but I've been known to wear a kilt from time to time, and if I were to be "casually" sexist about Civ 6, it would only be because of my annoyance that the Devs chose to depict Cleopatra with clothes on! ;o)

With great respect friend to you on the other side of the "Pond".

 

[AmazonQueen]

I wouldn't mind a male leader for England, or maybe a 3rd woman (Matilda would be my choice), but only after Persia, Arabia, China and a few others have got a 2nd leader.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Just a reminder to all that "Leader" in the Civ games is just a symbol, and not even a symbol of the civilization depicted, just pf one popular or game designer's view of one part of the Civ. To think that a 1000 year history of a civilization like France or England, or a 4000 year history of Egypt, can be boiled down into a single leader no matter how 'Great' or even iconic in the popular mind, is delusional.

And, frankly, whether a leader is Male, Female, or Take Your Pick is immaterial except as a marketing decision or to generate silly on-line debates about 'appearance'.

What is legitimate, within the context of the Civ definition of Leader, is what particular and even peculiar traits the leader brings to the depiction of the Civ, with the knowledge that a well-chosen alternate leader can change the depiction of the civ dramatically. And that it is economically impossible, within the context of the way the game depicts them, to have enough alternate leaders to depict all aspects of the Civ - even one that has as short a history as the United States.

 

[Zaarin]

I wouldn't mind seeing a male leader of England, but...Charles I? Really? The guy who was so hated by pretty much everyone that he got his head detached from his shoulders as much for his incompetence as for his radicalism? I think the only Stuart you can really make much of a case for would be James I--Charles I was horrible in every sense, Charles II was too busy indulging his appetite to rule, James II only avoided his father's fate because he had the good sense to abdicate, and Anne was impotent.

That being said, England has plenty of fine male leaders to choose from. Henry V would be my choice. A case could be made for James I. Edward I Longshanks would be decent. Not taking sex into account, if I had my choice, Victoria shouldn't have been chosen in the first place and it should have been Elizabeth I, and I'd still welcome either her or Empress Matilda as a second leader for England.

I think it's great that England has two female leaders and a matter of pride that we are almost unique amongst nations in having two credible candidates.

I'd say England has three: Elizabeth I, Mary I (despite her damaged reputation she was a competent ruler), and Empress Matilda. If you want to count the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms (which I'd rather see as their own civ) one could add Æthelflæd of Mercia, who is currently on the Great General list I believe. This is unusual but not unique: I could name at least four decent choices for Egypt (as long as we count influential queens-consort), three for the Maya, two for Israel (three if it's okay that one of them was a butcher and a tyrant ), two for Byzantium...But yes, England is certainly unusual in that regard.

 

[Phrozen]

Mary II ruled while William was on campaign and there is a reason why their reign is usually referred to as William and Mary.

Japan actually has a few good choices for female leaders from the Nara period which had a fairly strange period where retired Empresses had most of the political power.

 

[Morningcalm]

If we must have a male leader for England, let it be Henry V or Winston Churchill. Both would fit naval bonuses actually (many don’t know about Henry V’s fleet because so much ink is spilled on Agincourt).

But frankly Elizabeth I is just fine (despite weak economics and disastrous foreign wars), and I don’t mind Victoria either. She had more power than many assume, though she was more restricted than Elizabeth I for sure.

 

[Alqamar Alaswad]

What about Henry VIII? Maybe he's too archetypical, but I think it would be interesting...

 

[Zaarin]

What about Henry VIII? Maybe he's too archetypical, but I think it would be interesting...

He'd be...entertaining, that's for sure. Unfortunately he's probably more famous for his infamous love life and for breaking with the Catholic Church for political rather than theological reasons than for anything he actually accomplished. (His father was more competent but also one of the most boring kings in English history. )

 

[Imaus]

ALFRED THE GREAT OR BUST!

 

[Ferocitus]

The fact is that England, compared to many other parts of the world, has had many long periods under strong female rulership, moreso than I believe any other nation. England became an industrial powerhouse under Victorian rule.

Yeah, but Victoria didn't do much herself. Anyone who did more than vectoring haemophilia would be better.
Bill Le Conqueror gets my vote.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

ALFRED THE GREAT OR BUST!

You gotta give a vote or three for anyone who (alone among dozens) got the title "the Great". On the other hand, Alfred's Saxon kingdom was only a small part of what later became England, let alone Britain, and was so very different in culture and politics from the later 'English' kingdom/consititutional monarchy that it's almost like having Vercingetorix as a new Leader for France. . .

Yeah, but Victoria didn't do much herself. Anyone who did more than vectoring haemophilia would be better.
Bill Le Conqueror gets my vote.

If degenerative genetics is a 'negative modifier', that lets out Cleopatra, all the Hapsburgs, most of the Romanovs after Catherine (although, to hear her tell it, after she finished there wasn't much Romanov blood left in the dynasty), the Hohenzollerns, the entire Hawaiian and Incan royal families . . .

William the Conqueror/Bastard is certainly a Big Personality, but what's his Unique? Can conquer his own kingdom? Kinda hard to work that into something useful in the game. I'd suggest Henry II, who was closer to the 'cross-over' point between Anglo-Norman and true 'English', and gives more scope for military/political/religious effects in the Leader.
Right now, there is a modded Norman Civ with William and Rollo as alternate leaders that I think is closer to how the Normans could be included in the game - although I haven't checked to see if the Mod is still compatible since GS.

 

[Ferocitus]

If degenerative genetics is a 'negative modifier', that lets out Cleopatra, all the Hapsburgs, most of the Romanovs after Catherine (although, to hear her tell it, after she finished there wasn't much Romanov blood left in the dynasty), the Hohenzollerns, the entire Hawaiian and Incan royal families . . .

William the Conqueror/Bastard is certainly a Big Personality, but what's his Unique? Can conquer his own kingdom? Kinda hard to work that into something useful in the game. I'd suggest Henry II, who was closer to the 'cross-over' point between Anglo-Norman and true 'English', and gives more scope for military/political/religious effects in the Leader.
Right now, there is a modded Norman Civ with William and Rollo as alternate leaders that I think is closer to how the Normans could be included in the game - although I haven't checked to see if the Mod is still compatible since GS.

If passing on weird genetic traits are the only thing they did, then they are eliminated from consideration.
If they did something of merit and note then they're a contender.

Bill's uniques and agendas?
Fun-loving (until someone loses an eye).
Reckoning everyone and everything.
Conkers. (Sorry).
Tapestry.

 

[Zaarin]

You gotta give a vote or three for anyone who (alone among dozens) got the title "the Great". On the other hand, Alfred's Saxon kingdom was only a small part of what later became England, let alone Britain, and was so very different in culture and politics from the later 'English' kingdom/consititutional monarchy that it's almost like having Vercingetorix as a new Leader for France. . .

Agreed, I'd love to see the Anglo-Saxons in the game, but not as the same civ as England.

William the Conqueror/Bastard is certainly a Big Personality, but what's his Unique? Can conquer his own kingdom? Kinda hard to work that into something useful in the game.

Domesday Book: Every population produces +0.25 and +0.25 . Medieval Walls provide +1 Amenity. Gain +0.1 and +0.1 per population in cities with a Holy District. Gain +0.1 per population in cities with a Campus. Gain +0.1 per population in a city with a Commercial Hub. Gain +0.1 per population in a city with an Industrial Zone.

Just the thought of a moment, but I think William the Conqueror could be made to work.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Agreed, I'd love to see the Anglo-Saxons in the game, but not as the same civ as England.

There is, in fact, a Modded Civ for the Anglo-Saxons, with Alfred as leader. It's not bad but, again, I haven't checked to see if it is still compatible with GS and its Fixes.

Domesday Book: Every population produces +0.25 and +0.25 . Medieval Walls provide +1 Amenity. Gain +0.1 and +0.1 per population in cities with a Holy District. Gain +0.1 per population in cities with a Campus. Gain +0.1 per population in a city with a Commercial Hub. Gain +0.1 per population in a city with an Industrial Zone.

Just the thought of a moment, but I think William the Conqueror could be made to work.

Yep, right after I posted that I realized that there were several ways to go with William Whose Parents Were More Enthusiastic Than Selective:

Domesday Book. With emphasis on getting more Gold/Food and maybe Culture out of the population
Motte and Bailey. Workers AND Great Generals can build Forts in the countryside (and, yes, a specific Motte and Bailey graphic would be very much appreciated). Such forts can 'Bomb' neighboring tiles, and produce +1 Gold from the tile they occupy.
Normanesque Church. Special Norman 'Temple' that produces extra Religious Pressure and possibly Loyalty from the Holy Site it is in.
Bayeux Tapestry. Winning a Battle with a Great General produces X Points towards a Great Artist (amount should probably scale up as the game progresses)

The good thing is that William doesn't have to be entirely about Conquest, but about 'leveraging' Conquest into other routes to victory, like Gold, Culture or Religion.