1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

More Alternate Leaders?

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by HoorayForSiam, Aug 8, 2018.

  1. TahamiTsunami

    TahamiTsunami Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    403
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  2. The Kingmaker

    The Kingmaker Alexander

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,644
    Uh, what? Minamoto essentially kickstarted feudal Japan and established the supremacy of the samurai as Japan’s warrior elite.

    He’d be perfect.
     
    Jkchart, TahamiTsunami and Zaarin like this.
  3. Zaarin

    Zaarin My Dearest Doctor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,704
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    As I said in the parenthetical remark, the taboo only applies to the current royal family, which begins with Meiji.

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

    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.

    Ungh. If we're going to have a mustache-twirling villain lead England, let's just go with Richard II. :p
     
    TahamiTsunami likes this.
  4. AmazonQueen

    AmazonQueen Virago

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,832
    Location:
    Gingerbread Cottage
    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.
     
  5. The Kingmaker

    The Kingmaker Alexander

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,644
    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
     
  6. Zaarin

    Zaarin My Dearest Doctor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,704
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    It's a figure of speech; Richard II was also clean shaven. :p

    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. :p I think it's fair to call him as much a tyrant as Charles 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.

    Only if you're his wife. :mischief:
     
  7. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,291
    Or, like was said with Cromwell, a Catholic.
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  8. AmazonQueen

    AmazonQueen Virago

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,832
    Location:
    Gingerbread Cottage
    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.
     
  9. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,291
    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.
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  10. The Kingmaker

    The Kingmaker Alexander

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,644
    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.

    Or Thomas More. Or Thomas Cromwell. Or Robert Aske. Or Margaret Pole. Or any of 10,000 others.
     
    Zaarin likes this.
  11. AmazonQueen

    AmazonQueen Virago

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,832
    Location:
    Gingerbread Cottage
    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.
     
  12. Zaarin

    Zaarin My Dearest Doctor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,704
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    "Better than Charles I" is not exactly ringing praise. :p

    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.
     
    TahamiTsunami and The Kingmaker like this.
  13. The Kingmaker

    The Kingmaker Alexander

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,644
    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.
     
    TahamiTsunami and Zaarin like this.
  14. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,291
    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?
     
  15. AmazonQueen

    AmazonQueen Virago

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,832
    Location:
    Gingerbread Cottage
    Then again calling him a villain is unjustified. That from someone who says people are complicated.
     
  16. The Kingmaker

    The Kingmaker Alexander

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,644
    Not sure how I’d portray that in Civ. Also, I think you mean Philippe II.
     
  17. Zaarin

    Zaarin My Dearest Doctor

    Joined:
    May 14, 2016
    Messages:
    5,704
    Location:
    Terok Nor
    I also said real villains exist. I reserve the right to believe Cromwell was one of them.
     
    The Kingmaker likes this.
  18. Phrozen

    Phrozen King

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    863
    For the period directly after Henry II, William the Marshal is probably the best option available.
     
  19. Jkchart

    Jkchart King

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2016
    Messages:
    707
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    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)
     
    TahamiTsunami and The Kingmaker like this.
  20. Patine

    Patine Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    4,291
    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.

    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.
     
    Jkchart and Zaarin like this.

Share This Page