More Alternate Leaders?

[TahamiTsunami]

Not sure how popular a Japanese leader who effectively predated the institution of samurai, in a proper sense, with be with the modern gaming fan base. The samurai are pretty iconic in a lot of people's views of Japan in these games - moreso than most other specific military traditions attached to other specific cultures. I, myself, don't necessarily think they're bad choices, but you how some fan hang-ups can be...

I don't think we'd have to worry about no samurai due to leader choice. Frederick Barbarossa and the U-Boats show that, unless the UU is part of the leader ability like Victoria's redcoats and Suleiman's janissaries, the UU doesn't have to be tied to a leader and can be from any time frame in that civ. That combined with samurai being so iconic means I doubt we will stop seeing them regardless of who leads Japan.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Not sure how popular a Japanese leader who effectively predated the institution of samurai, in a proper sense, with be with the modern gaming fan base. The samurai are pretty iconic in a lot of people's views of Japan in these games - moreso than most other specific military traditions attached to other specific cultures. I, myself, don't necessarily think they're bad choices, but you how some fan hang-ups can be...

Uh, what? Minamoto essentially kickstarted feudal Japan and established the supremacy of the samurai as Japan’s warrior elite.

He’d be perfect.

 

[Zaarin]

Would you not then run into the same issue as Meiji, in that you cannot depict the Emperor? Or was she not officially the ruler?

As I said in the parenthetical remark, the taboo only applies to the current royal family, which begins with Meiji.

Hojo Tokimune was never a Shogun. He was a Shikken.

Still the important point is that he's still Kamakura.

Not sure how popular a Japanese leader who effectively predated the institution of samurai, in a proper sense, with be with the modern gaming fan base. The samurai are pretty iconic in a lot of people's views of Japan in these games - moreso than most other specific military traditions attached to other specific cultures. I, myself, don't necessarily think they're bad choices, but you how some fan hang-ups can be...

This is a fair point, but I'd love to see a non-samurai-focused Japan once just as something different. Though I will concede Heian Japan would look an awful lot like China.

IMO the best leader for a religious/military England would be Oliver Cromwell

Ungh. If we're going to have a mustache-twirling villain lead England, let's just go with Richard II.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Ungh. If we're going to have a mustache-twirling villain lead England, let's just go with Richard II.

Judging by his portraits he didn't have a mustache
Judging him by the standards of his time I wouldn't agree he was a villain.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Just a few other villains who ruled England for better or worse:
Æthelred II
William I
William II
Henry I
Stephen
Richard I
John
Edward I
Henry VII
Henry VIII
Mary I

 

[Zaarin]

Judging by his portraits he didn't have a mustache

It's a figure of speech; Richard II was also clean shaven.

Judging him by the standards of his time I wouldn't agree he was a villain.

Surely that depends on whom you ask; I don't think the Cavaliers, Catholics, non-Puritan Protestants, or Irish would at all agree with that assessment. I think it's fair to call him as much a tyrant as Charles I.

Richard I

While he wasn't terribly effective as monarch, I'm not sure I'd characterize Richard I as a villain--especially as the Robin Hood narratives have as firmly fixed him as a folk hero as they have fixed John as a villain.

Henry VIII

Only if you're his wife.

 

[Patine]

Only if you're his wife.

Or, like was said with Cromwell, a Catholic.

 

[AmazonQueen]

It's a figure of speech; Richard II was also clean shaven.


Surely that depends on whom you ask; I don't think the Cavaliers, Catholics, non-Puritan Protestants, or Irish would at all agree with that assessment. I think it's fair to call him as much a tyrant as Charles I.

You forgot the Scots.

Still, I wouldn't agree. He was reluctant to go to war and to execute the king, only broke with Parliament when it tried to impose a Presbyterian Church of England on the country, refused the title of king, and unlike Charles I kept deals he made.

 

[Patine]

You forgot the Scots.

Still, I wouldn't agree. He was reluctant to go to war and to execute the king, only broke with Parliament when it tried to impose a Presbyterian Church of England on the country, refused the title of king, and unlike Charles I kept deals he made.

He did refuse the title of king, yes - but he seriously considered first, unlike his cinematic portrayal in that biopic movie where Alec Guinness plays Charles I. Also, he did break with Parliament two or three other times - he did do in those cases by "escorting" the honourable members out of the House with soldiers of the New Model Army and ruling by fiat for a while until a monetary or legitimacy issue came up. Besides, his reign was more directly authoritarian, centralized, oppressive, and ignoring of any rights than any Stuart monarch - the Major-Generals who replaced the Sheriffs, Magistrates, and Mayors in local governance were well and truly hated, the old, old storyline for children's Christmas stories as a source of conflict - from a "Christmas Carol," to "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer," to even more modern movies, books, and television shows where the threat of "Christmas being cancelled" looms large originated in Cromwell cancelling Christmas celebrations while he was in power. And, despite refusing the title of king, he willed the title of Lord Protector to go to his ineffectual and unconfident son, Richard, despite knowing full well Richard lacked the qualities needed for that position.

 

[The Kingmaker]

While he wasn't terribly effective as monarch, I'm not sure I'd characterize Richard I as a villain--especially as the Robin Hood narratives have as firmly fixed him as a folk hero as they have fixed John as a villain.

Tell that to the people of Acre. There are different kinds of villains. While the scheming John seems an obvious candidate, Richard was nothing but a bloody warlord.

Only if you're his wife.

Or Thomas More. Or Thomas Cromwell. Or Robert Aske. Or Margaret Pole. Or any of 10,000 others.

 

[AmazonQueen]

He did refuse the title of king, yes - but he seriously considered first, unlike his cinematic portrayal in that biopic movie where Alec Guinness plays Charles I. Also, he did break with Parliament two or three other times - he did do in those cases by "escorting" the honourable members out of the House with soldiers of the New Model Army and ruling by fiat for a while until a monetary or legitimacy issue came up. Besides, his reign was more directly authoritarian, centralized, oppressive, and ignoring of any rights than any Stuart monarch - the Major-Generals who replaced the Sheriffs, Magistrates, and Mayors in local governance were well and truly hated, the old, old storyline for children's Christmas stories as a source of conflict - from a "Christmas Carol," to "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer," to even more modern movies, books, and television shows where the threat of "Christmas being cancelled" looms large originated in Cromwell cancelling Christmas celebrations while he was in power. And, despite refusing the title of king, he willed the title of Lord Protector to go to his ineffectual and unconfident son, Richard, despite knowing full well Richard lacked the qualities needed for that position.

The rule of the Major Generals lasted less than 2 years. Cromwell was trying to find an effective way to govern the country. He was a man of his times which was a period of religious intolerance. The 30 Years War ended just after the 1st Civil War.
Cromwell was more tolerant than most. Under his reign everyone from low church Anglicans through Presbyterians to Independents was free to worship as they wished. That was more freedom than most of his opponents would've granted. Oddly enough Charles I was more tolerant than most as well but the groups he could tolerate were Catholics and high church Anglicans. He was no visionary like John Lilburne but nor were his actions motivated solely by personal ambition like Napoleon.

 

[Zaarin]

unlike Charles I

"Better than Charles I" is not exactly ringing praise.

Tell that to the people of Acre. There are different kinds of villains. While the scheming John seems an obvious candidate, Richard was nothing but a bloody warlord.

Bad things happen in war. People are complicated, and if we're talking about the real life individuals I don't think either Richard I nor John were villains--both had flaws and both had more positive qualities. (Not to say true villains don't exist in real life, of course, but both villains and saints are the exception to the rule.) What's more important in the context of Civ, however, is public image--which is why people like CdM and John would get cast as villains while Richard I would not be.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I’m not saying Richard didn’t have any redeeming qualities. He wrote some pretty nice Occitan poetry for example—clearly a son of Eleanor of Aquitaine.

And now that the threshold has been crossed and we have an Occitan-speaking leader for England, I think he could be implemented. Maybe have him make a brief comment in Middle English about how he dislikes his people’s language.

But if they’re going to portray him, it shouldn’t be as the Robin Hood hero, but a more nuanced portrayal.

Chivalrous but bloodthirsty.
Accommodating but arbitrary.
Relentless but rather fickle.
Cultured but highly exploitative.
Competent but neglectful.
Willing to negotiate with his worst enemies but utterly unforgiving of betrayal by his friends.

 

[Patine]

I’m not saying Richard didn’t have any redeeming qualities. He wrote some pretty nice Occitan poetry for example—clearly a son of Eleanor of Aquitaine.

And now that the threshold has been crossed and we have an Occitan-speaking leader for England, I think he could be implemented. Maybe have him make a brief comment in Middle English about how he dislikes his people’s language.

But if they’re going to portray him, it shouldn’t be as the Robin Hood hero, but a more nuanced portrayal.

Chivalrous but bloodthirsty.
Accommodating but arbitrary.
Relentless but rather fickle.
Cultured but highly exploitative.
Competent but neglectful.
Willing to negotiate with his worst enemies but utterly unforgiving of betrayal by his friends.

What about his highly suspiciously close relationship to Philippe IV, but his disdain to touch his wife (to the point of being scolded by the Pope for his marital coldness), and the fact that he died with no legitimate children, and only one young man who CLAIMED to be his bastard son, but whom John and the Barons of England easily ignored?

 

[AmazonQueen]

"Better than Charles I" is not exactly ringing praise.


Bad things happen in war. People are complicated, and if we're talking about the real life individuals I don't think either Richard I nor John were villains--both had flaws and both had more positive qualities. (Not to say true villains don't exist in real life, of course, but both villains and saints are the exception to the rule.) What's more important in the context of Civ, however, is public image--which is why people like CdM and John would get cast as villains while Richard I would not be.

Then again calling him a villain is unjustified. That from someone who says people are complicated.

 

[The Kingmaker]

What about his highly suspiciously close relationship to Philippe IV, but his disdain to touch his wife (to the point of being scolded by the Pope for his marital coldness), and the fact that he died with no legitimate children, and only one young man who CLAIMED to be his bastard son, but whom John and the Barons of England easily ignored?

Not sure how I’d portray that in Civ. Also, I think you mean Philippe II.

 

[Zaarin]

Then again calling him a villain is unjustified. That from someone who says people are complicated.

I also said real villains exist. I reserve the right to believe Cromwell was one of them.

 

[Phrozen]

For the period directly after Henry II, William the Marshal is probably the best option available.

 

[Jkchart]

As for me, both of my degrees are in history. I deliberately keep my style casual here though. I’m here for fun. Writing dissertations is not fun. Wouldn’t dream of dragging all my academic baggage here with me.

I like playing strategy games and world history and especially enjoy when the two overlap.

Now, more to the point of this thread, I expect all alternate leaders will do at least one of a couple of things, if not all.

A. Represent a different aspect of the civ, either a different dynasty or time period.
B. Provide a different play-style or differently-behaved leader.
C. Provide a fun new idea for the devs to experiment with.

Who do you think needs a new leader the most right now? I’m eyeing Egypt, China and Russia.

Also have a degree in history, and I fully agree, Kingmaker. I'm here for fun. If I wanted to nitpick EVERY aspect of the civilization series about it's inconsistencies and how it doesn't make sense, I wouldn't bother playing.

Egypt, China, and Russia are my three most anticipated as well.

For Egypt, either Hatshepsut or Ramesses II.
For China, I want to go with Sun Yat-sen to be totally different. He is considered the founder of the modern Chinese state by both the nationalists and the communists, and is widely respected in China/ROC.
For Russia, either go for Rurik, Roman the Great of Novgorod (a Mercantile Russia based on the Novgorod republic would be cool), or if we HAD to have a modern Communist, Lenin. Probably won't get Catherine the Great again this go around :/

Germany could also get Bismarck; If we had to go alternate American i suggest Washington (partially so he could have his capital at Philadelphia); Arabia should also get one that actually has their capital in the levant/the Arab Peninsula (Harun al-Rashid, Uthman, Muawiyah I are all recent suggestions of mine, or to go totally out there, Mavia of the Tanukhids)

 

[Patine]

For the period directly after Henry II, William the Marshal is probably the best option available.

Although, I think ruling out Henry II JUST because of Eleanor, as @PhoenicianGold said should be done just automatically and offhand, is still a bit hasty and not taking Henry II's own qualities as a leader and historical into account, which are definitely distinct ones that a Civ leader with unique qualities and playing could be built from.

For China, I want to go with Sun Yat-sen to be totally different. He is considered the founder of the modern Chinese state by both the nationalists and the communists, and is widely respected in China/ROC.
For Russia, either go for Rurik, Roman the Great of Novgorod (a Mercantile Russia based on the Novgorod republic would be cool), or if we HAD to have a modern Communist, Lenin. Probably won't get Catherine the Great again this go around :/

There are a lot of very interesting Chinese Emperors and contenders for that position throughout Chinese history who just never get brought up. It's quite unfortunate. He basically have Qin Shi Huangdi, Wu Zhetian, sticking in Kublai Khaqan, and inexplicably the trainwreck that was Cixi, and then we jump to Sun Yat-sen and occasionally a desire for Mao if it would only sell in China. That's a very limited list that leaves out a LOT of good candidates.

I would prefer Brezhnev to Lenin as a Soviet leader, myself.