More Alternate Leaders?

[Guandao]

Why? He did much that was admirable. Supporting White Australia back then but giving Aborigines more rights was definitely a step ahead in his time. FDR never gave the Japanese-Americans he corralled into camps more rights. And many leaders like Lincoln who are revered nevertheless held questionable views on race (in Lincoln's case, on Native Americans). We were less enlightened back then.


He certainly was a dictator in some senses, but he was a huge advocate of multilateralism and brought Ethiopia to the modern world's stage in a major way and created Ethiopia's constitution. He also saw reform as necessary but knew of its potential downsides and guarded against this. As for the loss of power, I don't see that as a strike against him, just as I don't with with Pedro II. He also spoke movingly before the League of Nations in Amharic when Ethiopia was being invaded by Benito Mussolini, and pointed out some European nations' hypocrisy in being Ethiopia's allies but trying to appease Italy (caused some scandal in the day). The speech made Haile an anti-fascist icon, which color he share somewhat with Curtin.

I must confess I don't know too much about John Curtin's and Selassie's policies. I've read a book about scientific racism in Australia once. During Curtin's time, the Aborigines were viewed as a dying "race". Giving them more rights is nice, though the government probably had this expectation of them becoming extinct. You might as well treat the last survivors fairly. Looking at the wiki page for Haile Selassie, it says some human rights group criticized his regime as autocratic and iliberal. It also mentions the ethnic cleansing of the Harari. If he had actually made Ethiopia into a democracy or a constitutional monarchy, I would have more respect for him, but it seems like he held onto power for as long as possible. Ethiopia today still isn't an actual democracy.

I'm wary of more 20th century leaders. Just because it's the most well documented period of human history doesn't mean it should be well represented in leaders in the game. We'll get demands for leaders like Mao Zedong (Civ veteran....), Stalin (another Civ veteran....), Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Hitler.

 

[Patine]

He was as were almost all white Australians in that era. He was generally progressive though. Pension rights and maternity benefits were extended to aborigines for the first time by his government.

Exactly. For his time he was quite ahead of the times.

The sad part there is that the biggest political opponents of the White Australia Movement in the first several decades of the country who had any real influence or sway were a bunch of wealthy Queensland plantation owners who felt their ability to use "blackbirding" to acquire dirt cheap labour would be threatened by the policy.

 

[Zaarin]

I also think Australia shouldn't have been in the game, but I think that's completely irrelevant to whether Curtin is one of the better modern leaders in the game in terms of character and agenda.

Teddy Roosevelt.

Were you expressing disappointment on Facebook over Australia being included, or on Curtin's appearance?

Australia's inclusion. I don't remember my exact words, but I do recall it was simply expressing a wish that they had chosen a different civilization. Their response was quite combative.

Hardly being the greatest monster in the game is hardly the best reason for him to be in.

The story of his later years reads like the story of Shaka in his later years, or Ivan the Terrible. Sure, all were effective and impactful rulers, but their legacy is forevermore tarnished by their last years. I don't think anyone would argue with the idea that Zara was one of Ethiopia's greatest leaders though. But the same is true of Afonso I of Kongo, who also has a mixed record despite some noteworthy accomplishments.

I think there's room for leaders whose records aren't perfect; if there weren't, our only choices would be leaders who had virtually no records.

No, it's not necessary. But it's not necessary to pick a leader from any other particular time in Ethiopian history either. In the case of Menelk II it would be a good pick. He defeated Italy among other things, which is the basis for Ethiopia's defense bonus in Civ V and has much significance for African decolonialists.

Perhaps, but I personally would prefer a Medieval or earlier Ethiopian monarch.

Honestly I was surprised when they were announced, but they quickly became one of my favorites to play as. Even though I wouldn't have thought to put them in the game at least they fill up a spot in the world that wasn't there before and it would have been either them or the Aboriginals, which is probably hard to do.

Maori would have been a better choice for the region IMO.

I also don't understand how he is the worst model in the game, especially over Gandhi, who is the worst looking in my opinion.

In terms of quality, absolutely, yes, Gandhi is the worst. But Troll Doll/Gollum hybrid Gandhi at least has a certain amount of character. Curtin is just bland.

Also the didgeridoos make the theme music better in my opinion.

Unless you have a visceral reaction to didgeridoos. In my case, the sound of the didgeridoo makes my skin crawl and sends a shiver up my spine. That combined with the fact that "Waltzing Matilda" is one of the most obnoxious melodies in the world in my opinion...Yeah, even if I thought Australia were a stellar choice I would disable them because of their music.

Picking an Axum Era leader would be nice and hasn't been done yet, if they consider Axum to be a part of continuous Ethiopia.

I'm not sure about calling the civ "Ethiopia" and picking an Axumite leader, but I'd have no problem with their choosing Axum instead.

If he had actually made Ethiopia into a democracy or a constitutional monarchy, I would have more respect for him, but it seems like he held onto power for as long as possible. Ethiopia today still isn't an actual democracy.

I'm a bad American, but I have no problems with an effective monarchy. In fact, as long as you have a good monarch (which is the key problem), I think it's more effective than democracy or republicanism. "The people" have a bad record of very poor decision making skills...(I have no opinion on Haile Selassie's effectiveness as a monarch; I agree that he was included due to Rastafarianism. And if I do have a criticism of Selassie, it is that: if his Christian faith were genuine, he should have denounced any attempt to turn him into a messianic figure, but instead he seems to have rather enjoyed the attention.)

I'm wary of more 20th century leaders. Just because it's the most well documented period of human history doesn't mean it should be well represented in leaders in the game. We'll get demands for leaders like Mao Zedong (Civ veteran....), Stalin (another Civ veteran....), Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Hitler.

Hitler will never, ever be in the game, and certainly not in the current political climate where it's the go-to label for anyone someone doesn't like politically. Likewise I'd be shocked to ever see Pol Pot or Idi Amin. Unfortunately, I could very well see Mao or Stalin being added, since Communism doesn't have the same political baggage as Nazism, despite several orders of magnitude more atrocities to its name. So I wholeheartedly agree: if there are options for leaders who aren't from the 20th century, take them; if there aren't options for leaders who aren't from the 20th century...why is this civ even being included?

 

[Patine]

Maori would have been a better choice for the region IMO.

I personally would prefer the Tongans, with Momo and the height of the Tu'i Tonga Empire in the 10th Century.

 

[Morningcalm]

Teddy Roosevelt.

I like him, but in-game, I prefer Curtin. Roosevelt's personality doesn't quite show in the game as much as I'd like, despite the fitting voice actor and decent animation.

Australia's inclusion. I don't remember my exact words, but I do recall it was simply expressing a wish that they had chosen a different civilization. Their response was quite combative.

I think you should have expected such a response. People treat attacking inclusion of a civ as attacking that civ (i.e. Australia). XD

I think there's room for leaders whose records aren't perfect; if there weren't, our only choices would be leaders who had virtually no records.

Fair enough, but I still think Menelik II was better as a leader.

Perhaps, but I personally would prefer a Medieval or earlier Ethiopian monarch.

Often, African leaders are from those time periods, so I would like a nice spread. So far Civ VI has a nice mix of ancient and modern leaders, which is fine (though obviously it could use more leaders and civs generally).

In terms of quality, absolutely, yes, Gandhi is the worst. But Troll Doll/Gollum hybrid Gandhi at least has a certain amount of character. Curtin is just bland.

I really don't consider Curtin bland. I find Gandhi more bland. Curtin has vigorous voice lines and voice acting, and isn't a representation of a tired-old meme in monstrous Gollum form. Unlike Gandhi in Civ VI.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Maori would have been a better choice for the region IMO.

I want another Oceanic Civ too and I think the Maori have a good chance, although I prefer Samoa. I was thinking in terms of a Civ starting on continental Australia, as opposed to the many islands in the Pacific, and there weren't many options, but I can see your point as well.

 

[Zaarin]

I personally would prefer the Tongans, with Momo and the height of the Tu'i Tonga Empire in the 10th Century.

I didn't mean general Oceania but specifically in the vicinity of Australia.

I think you should have expected such a response. People treat attacking inclusion of a civ as attacking that civ (i.e. Australia). XD

I did expect it; I didn't expect it from Firaxis.

Often, African leaders are from those time periods

Are they? None we currently have (south of the Sahara) fit that definition. Mvemba a Nzinga is from the Renaissance; Shaka is from the 19th century. Ethiopia is really one of the few opportunities we actually have for Medieval Sub-Saharan African leaders. (I do realize we have a lot of leaders from the High and Late Middle Ages from Europe and Asia, plus one from the New World, but that's fine by me since I like that period. )

I want another Oceanic Civ too and I think the Maori have a good chance, although I prefer Samoa. I was thinking in terms of a Civ starting on continental Australia, as opposed to the many islands in the Pacific, and there weren't many options, but I can see your point as well.

Like I said to Patine, I also meant in the general vicinity of Australia rather than Oceania more broadly. I don't think either the Aboriginal Australians nor modern Australia are particularly desirable as civs, making the Maori in New Zealand the best option for the general area in my opinion. In a TSL game the Maori would pretty quickly move into Australia proper (I've played a few TSL games on YnAMP lately, and Indonesia, Zulu, Khmer, Mapuche, Japan, and other civs that are generally speaking in convenient colonization distance of Australia don't seem to expand there. I considered it in my current Korea game, but I opted for Hawai'i instead.).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Are they? None we currently have (south of the Sahara) fit that definition. Mvemba a Nzinga is from the Renaissance; Shaka is from the 19th century. Ethiopia is really one of the few opportunities we actually have for Medieval Sub-Saharan African leaders. (I do realize we have a lot of leaders from the High and Late Middle Ages from Europe and Asia, plus one from the New World, but that's fine by me since I like that period. )

I'll throw in that Mali is the best option for a Medieval Sub-Saharan Africa leader, since I made my position clear on Ethiopia. And I'd rather not have an Africa leader more recent than Shaka.

 

[Guandao]

Teddy Roosevelt.


Australia's inclusion. I don't remember my exact words, but I do recall it was simply expressing a wish that they had chosen a different civilization. Their response was quite combative.


I think there's room for leaders whose records aren't perfect; if there weren't, our only choices would be leaders who had virtually no records.


Perhaps, but I personally would prefer a Medieval or earlier Ethiopian monarch.


Maori would have been a better choice for the region IMO.


In terms of quality, absolutely, yes, Gandhi is the worst. But Troll Doll/Gollum hybrid Gandhi at least has a certain amount of character. Curtin is just bland.


Unless you have a visceral reaction to didgeridoos. In my case, the sound of the didgeridoo makes my skin crawl and sends a shiver up my spine. That combined with the fact that "Waltzing Matilda" is one of the most obnoxious melodies in the world in my opinion...Yeah, even if I thought Australia were a stellar choice I would disable them because of their music.


I'm not sure about calling the civ "Ethiopia" and picking an Axumite leader, but I'd have no problem with their choosing Axum instead.


I'm a bad American, but I have no problems with an effective monarchy. In fact, as long as you have a good monarch (which is the key problem), I think it's more effective than democracy or republicanism. "The people" have a bad record of very poor decision making skills...(I have no opinion on Haile Selassie's effectiveness as a monarch; I agree that he was included due to Rastafarianism. And if I do have a criticism of Selassie, it is that: if his Christian faith were genuine, he should have denounced any attempt to turn him into a messianic figure, but instead he seems to have rather enjoyed the attention.)


Hitler will never, ever be in the game, and certainly not in the current political climate where it's the go-to label for anyone someone doesn't like politically. Likewise I'd be shocked to ever see Pol Pot or Idi Amin. Unfortunately, I could very well see Mao or Stalin being added, since Communism doesn't have the same political baggage as Nazism, despite several orders of magnitude more atrocities to its name. So I wholeheartedly agree: if there are options for leaders who aren't from the 20th century, take them; if there aren't options for leaders who aren't from the 20th century...why is this civ even being included?

I think you can blame the Civ5 modder Tpangolin's Colonialist Legacies Australia mod for giving Firaxis the idea to put Australia in the game. He also made several First Nations Civs (including the Cree), and some Australian Aboriginal Civs. Those mods were very popular back in Civ5's heyday. I appreciate his efforts to draw attention to these cultures (sans modern Australia ). I think Australia was one of the most challenging continents to build a Civilization (there's a big desert in the middle, no animals to domesticate, no crops like maize, rice, or wheat), hence why the Aboriginals mainly resorting to hunter-gathering/fishing. Even the European colonists had trouble adapting to the continent until advances in technology. I'm not strictly against hunter-gatherers being depicted as official Civs, but the Aboriginals would be a tough one due to a likely Poundmaker-type backlash from them (I know the elders would object to depiction of deceased ancestors or the use of their endangered/or extinct languages).
.
One downside to a monarchy is having it be hereditary, passing from father to son (or in rare cases, daughters). The "Five Good Emperors" of Rome had the right idea of picking a worthy successor (choosing a non-related, but capable heir), but it all went downhill when Marcus Aurelius picked his son Commodus as heir and we know how well that turned out. Another is the inbreeding.....I'm not sure how absolute monarchies will work in 21st century Europe or Americas. Sure, we have some in Asia (Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Brunei), and one in Africa (Swaziland), but I think no political system is perfect. All have their flaws. And there's room for corruption in all of them.

Due to their absence in Civ5, I'm fairly certain Mao or Stalin won't return in Civ6. Having Mao as a leader will result in the loss of the Chinese market (CP doesn't want Mao to be defeated in a video game ).

 

[Zaarin]

I think Australia was one of the most challenging continents to build a Civilization (there's a big desert in the middle, no animals to domesticate, no crops like maize, rice, or wheat), hence why the Aboriginals mainly resorting to hunter-gathering/fishing. Even the European colonists had trouble adapting to the continent until advances in technology.

As Jared Diamond, for instance, delineates in Germs, Guns, and Steel.

I'm not strictly against hunter-gatherers being depicted as official Civs

I am, however. I'd love to see a game that would properly represent hunter-gatherers and transhumance pastoralists, but Civ as it exists now is not that game.

One downside to a monarchy is having it be hereditary, passing from father to son

Not always. There's elective monarchy and tanistry as alternatives. But yes, generally speaking, that is indeed the downside.

I think no political system is perfect. All have their flaws.

I once read a semi-serious proposal that selecting leaders through random selection would be no worse than the system we have no. I can't say I entirely disagree.

Due to their absence in Civ5, I'm fairly certain Mao or Stalin won't return in Civ6. Having Mao as a leader will result in the loss of the Chinese market (CP doesn't want Mao to be defeated in a video game ).

Who ever thought the government of the People's Republic of China and I would agree on anything (albeit for different reasons)? I don't think their absence in Civ5 means anything, though. Mao has the PRC against him, but Stalin has quite a few fans among ignorant young Americans who need a history lesson.

 

[Patine]

The "Five Good Emperors" of Rome had the right idea of picking a worthy successor (choosing a non-related, but capable heir), but it all went downhill when Marcus Aurelius picked his son Commodus as heir and we know how well that turned out.

Another similar situation to the "Five Good Emperors," and then a mandated hereditary line was the Rashidun Caliphate, of which all four were selected by their predecessor (in Abu Bakr, the first of them's, case, by Mohammed himself) based on the merit the predecessor saw in them as a successor. Then the Umayyad Caliphate took over, and they, along with the Abbasid and Fatimid Caliphates, were effectively three dynasties of hereditary monarch, and thus quality of ruler became a craps shoot like any monarchial progression.

 

[Morningcalm]

Are they? None we currently have (south of the Sahara) fit that definition. Mvemba a Nzinga is from the Renaissance; Shaka is from the 19th century. Ethiopia is really one of the few opportunities we actually have for Medieval Sub-Saharan African leaders. (I do realize we have a lot of leaders from the High and Late Middle Ages from Europe and Asia, plus one from the New World, but that's fine by me since I like that period. )

Yes, for example--Egypt, Mali/Western Africa are typically ancient/medieval leaders. We now have both Egypt and Nubia from ancient times, and arguably Carthaginian leaders fit as "African" if we squeezed a focus on geography rather than ethnicity as such. Zara in Civ IV is also an example of a medieval African leader. And frankly Mvemba being from the Renaissance fits into my general description of "medieval" even if not exactly the same. For that reason I consider Ahmad Al-Mansur basically pre-modern as well, even though he came from the 17th century. My point is that as far as "modern" or "industrial era" African leaders, Civ has very, very few, and almost always that list includes Shaka, or at best one other person only (Civ V's Haile Selassie).

 

[Patine]

Are they? None we currently have (south of the Sahara) fit that definition. Mvemba a Nzinga is from the Renaissance; Shaka is from the 19th century. Ethiopia is really one of the few opportunities we actually have for Medieval Sub-Saharan African leaders. (I do realize we have a lot of leaders from the High and Late Middle Ages from Europe and Asia, plus one from the New World, but that's fine by me since I like that period. )

I'll throw in that Mali is the best option for a Medieval Sub-Saharan Africa leader, since I made my position clear on Ethiopia. And I'd rather not have an Africa leader more recent than Shaka.

Yes, for example--Egypt, Mali/Western Africa are typically ancient/medieval leaders. We now have both Egypt and Nubia from ancient times, and arguably Carthaginian leaders fit as "African" if we squeezed a focus on geography rather than ethnicity as such. Zara in Civ IV is also an example of a medieval African leader. And frankly Mvemba being from the Renaissance fits into my general description of "medieval" even if not exactly the same. For that reason I consider Ahmad Al-Mansur basically pre-modern as well, even though he came from the 17th century. My point is that as far as "modern" or "industrial era" African leaders, Civ has very, very few, and almost always that list includes Shaka, or at best one other person only (Civ V's Haile Selassie).

Ndahura, King of Bunyoro-Kitara/Bakitara/the Chwezi Empire (all three nation names to be used, if not fully interchangeably, almost overlappingly, at least) might also be a good new African leader.

 

[Imaus]

Ndahura, King of Bunyoro-Kitara/Bakitara/the Chwezi Empire (all three nation names to be used, if not fully interchangeably, almost overlappingly, at least) might also be a good new African leader.

I've vouched for the Ashanti under Osei Kofi or, for a more modern leader, Ghana under Kwame before, I think. It would add another West African civ beyond Mali. Dahomey might also work for a militaristic alternative....

 

[TahamiTsunami]

I ever so slightly prefer Menelik II but, considering that this is an alternate leaders thread afterall, perhaps he or Zara be the alternate leader of the other (depending on what the official Ethiopia design is of course). I certainly wouldn't complain.

As for Australia, I personally welcome and enjoy their addition to the series. They take up a nice spot on the map that might not have been filled up by anyone else (though I do hope to have the Maori soon too so they can fight for it) and are certainly one of the strongest choices for a modern civ after America and Brazil. I will admit though that I probably would've added them later after some of the more noticeable absences from the returning civs were filled. He may not be quite at the same level as Teddy, Cyrus, Hojo, or Poundmaker, but I'd say that Curtin has one of the better looking models too.

I'll throw in that Mali is the best option for a Medieval Sub-Saharan Africa leader, since I made my position clear on Ethiopia. And I'd rather not have an Africa leader more recent than Shaka.

Definitely agreed about Mali, we'll definitely be seeing some more Medieval African leaders! I personally wouldn't mind a couple of African leaders more recent than Shaka. King Ghezo is more recent than Shaka and probably the strongest choice to lead Dahomey, one of my top hopefuls. There's also Njoya if Cameroon ever gets added and, probably the most recent choice that I'd go for, Seretse Khama of Botswana.

Who ever thought the government of the People's Republic of China and I would agree on anything (albeit for different reasons)? I don't think their absence in Civ5 means anything, though. Mao has the PRC against him, but Stalin has quite a few fans among ignorant young Americans who need a history lesson.

I gotta agree with that as well. The more history lessons the better.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Definitely agreed about Mali, we'll definitely be seeing some more Medieval African leaders! I personally wouldn't mind a couple of African leaders more recent than Shaka. King Ghezo is more recent than Shaka and probably the strongest choice to lead Dahomey, one of my top hopefuls. There's also Njoya if Cameroon ever gets added and, probably the most recent choice that I'd go for, Seretse Khama of Botswana.

Ghezo is close enough as at least the years that they reigned overlap and Dahomey would be a good choice, at least to get the Dahomey Amazons as a UU. I'm just not too keen on eventually having late 19th and 20th Century leaders from Africa.

 

[Zaarin]

Yes, for example--Egypt, Mali/Western Africa are typically ancient/medieval leaders. We now have both Egypt and Nubia from ancient times, and arguably Carthaginian leaders fit as "African" if we squeezed a focus on geography rather than ethnicity as such.

I did clarify Sub-Saharan. Egypt, Nubia, and geographically Carthage (and Morocco, to throw in BNW's other North African civ) are all Saharan. North of the Sahara, any African civ is going to have stronger cultural and ethnic links with the Near East and Southern Europe than Sub-Saharan Africa.

My point is that as far as "modern" or "industrial era" African leaders, Civ has very, very few, and almost always that list includes Shaka, or at best one other person only (Civ V's Haile Selassie).

If there were no leaders who counted as "modern" or "industrial," I certainly wouldn't weep.

 

[Morningcalm]

I did clarify Sub-Saharan. Egypt, Nubia, and geographically Carthage (and Morocco, to throw in BNW's other North African civ) are all Saharan. North of the Sahara, any African civ is going to have stronger cultural and ethnic links with the Near East and Southern Europe than Sub-Saharan Africa.

If there were no leaders who counted as "modern" or "industrial," I certainly wouldn't weep.

Africa should be treated as a continent as a whole I think, even with such different cultures in the north and south. You may have said sub-Saharan, but Firaxis (by distribution) seems to treat Africa as one whole when looking at civ numbers.

I think modern and industrial leaders are necessary for a game that uses ancient and modern history as a backdrop--even if I also want ancient/medieval/pre-industrial leaders to outnumber the modern and industrial ones.

 

[Patine]

Africa should be treated as a continent as a whole I think, even with such different cultures in the north and south. You may have said sub-Saharan, but Firaxis (by distribution) seems to treat Africa as one whole when looking at civ numbers.

I think modern and industrial leaders are necessary for a game that uses ancient and modern history as a backdrop--even if I also want ancient/medieval/pre-industrial leaders to outnumber the modern and industrial ones.

In cultural spheres of development and archaeology, North Africa is, and always has been, in the same metacultural sphere as the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa has always, more or less, been separate from it, and, in fact has three to five (depending on whom you ask) metacultural spheres of it's own.

 

[Morningcalm]

In cultural spheres of development and archaeology, North Africa is, and always has been, in the same metacultural sphere as the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa has always, more or less, been separate from it, and, in fact has three to five (depending on whom you ask) metacultural spheres of it's own.

Sure, but again, that's not my point. My point is that in Civ, African civs from north and south are almost always treated as part of the same group in terms of distribution throughout ages (ancient vis-a-vis modern) and in terms of numbers (vis-a-vis, say, Asia).

To quote, this is what I said before:

Often, African leaders are from those time periods.

Zaarin then said:

Are they? None we currently have (south of the Sahara) fit that definition.

He added the clarifying term "(south of the Sahara)". But my original point wasn't about African leaders south of the Sahara. My point was about "African leaders". As Egypt, etc. are geographically in Africa, Egyptian, Moroccan, etc leaders still fit within "African leaders" as per my original post.