[NFP] Odd/Poorly 'themed' Civ implementations

I don’t know. I mean you had to appear to be religious ( or at least be a good Ethiopian orthodox Christian.) And not be a Muslim ( like his sucessor Lij Iyasu failed at). However he did not do anything for the church. He is no more religious than his descendant haile selassie. I will say that for Menelik II religion was a tool.

Russia was and is a religious nation. Thus I think it deserves it's religious focus. Just like Ethiopia.
If they wanted to reflect Russia's religious focus, they should have picked a different leader. As for Ethiopia, Menelik II was far more involved in citing faith publicly than Peter was, and, as I mentioned myriad times before, did not suppress the Church as Peter did. Someone who works in the opposite of faith should not lead a nation based on faith bonuses, for that is called "irony".
 
If they wanted to reflect Russia's religious focus, they should have picked a different leader. As for Ethiopia, Menelik II was far more involved in citing faith publicly than Peter was, and, as I mentioned myriad times before, did not suppress the Church as Peter did. Someone who works in the opposite of faith should not lead a nation based on faith bonuses, for that is called "irony".
Like who? None of the Tsars were practically religious. Neither Peter the great nor Catherine the great were religious. And let's not talk about modern Russia.
 
Last edited:
If they wanted to reflect Russia's religious focus, they should have picked a different leader. As for Ethiopia, Menelik II was far more involved in citing faith publicly than Peter was, and, as I mentioned myriad times before, did not suppress the Church as Peter did. Someone who works in the opposite of faith should not lead a nation based on faith bonuses, for that is called "irony".

Why? I think it represents way too well the Russian. Russia might be highly religious through history, their most influencial leaders were far from being respectful to the clergy:
  • Catherine the Great didn't care about religion at all. She switch religion just to please population like no big deals. She nationalised all of the church lands to pay her wars, emptied the monasteries and forced the remaining clergymen to survive as farmers. The only time she did care about christianity it is when she could use it as a tool to fight the Ottomans, or a way to assure loyalty of the polish population she planned to annex. Basicly, she is just the continuation of Peter.
  • Peter the Great, well this is already discussed above.
  • Stalin. That guy promoted a certain kind of "secularism" (if we can call the persecution of all religion as "secularism") that it pushed the USA to fall in puritanism as "counter mesure" (like "in god we trust" was introduced in the cold war to fight "atheism").

The thing about almost all Russian rulers, they tended to neglect the population and their freedom (with notable exception like Alexander II). Sure, Putin is more friendly toward religion, mainly because he needs the support of the russians in some way, something that Catherine, Peter or Stalin didn't need.
 
Last edited:
Why? I think it represents way too well the Russian. Russia might be highly religious through history, their most influencial leaders were far from being respectful to the clergy:
  • Catherine the Great didn't care about religion at all. She switch religion just to please population like no big deals. She nationalised all of the church lands to pay her wars, emptied the monasteries and forced the remaining clergymen to survive as farmers. The only time she did care about christianity it is when she could use it as a tool to fight the Ottomans, or a way to assure loyalty of the polish population she planned to annex. Basicly, she is just the continuation of Peter.
  • Peter the Great, well this is already discussed above.
  • Stalin. That guy promoted a certain kind of "secularism" (if we can call the persecution of all religion as "secularism") that it pushed the USA to fall in puritanism as "counter mesure" (like "in god we trust" was introduced in the cold war to fight "atheism").

The thing about almost all Russian rulers, they tended to neglect the population and their freedom (with notable exception like Alexander II). Sure, Putin is more friendly toward religion, mainly because he needs the support of the russians in some way, something that Catherine, Peter or Stalin didn't need.
exactly According to Morningcalm none of leaders of Russia would be fit to rule religious Russia... even though Eastern Orthodox church did and still do play a large part in Russia as a nation.
 
Why? I think it represents way too well the Russian. Russia might be highly religious through history, their most influencial leaders were far from being respectful to the clergy:
  • Catherine the Great didn't care about religion at all. She switch religion just to please population like no big deals. She nationalised all of the church lands to pay her wars, emptied the monasteries and forced the remaining clergymen to survive as farmers. The only time she did care about christianity it is when she could use it as a tool to fight the Ottomans, or a way to assure loyalty of the polish population she planned to annex. Basicly, she is just the continuation of Peter.
  • Peter the Great, well this is already discussed above.
  • Stalin. That guy promoted a certain kind of "secularism" (if we can call the persecution of all religion as "secularism") that it pushed the USA to fall in puritanism as "counter mesure" (like "in god we trust" was introduced in the cold war to fight "atheism").

The thing about almost all Russian rulers, they tended to neglect the population and their freedom (with notable exception like Alexander II). Sure, Putin is more friendly toward religion, mainly because he needs the support of the russians in some way, something that Catherine, Peter or Stalin didn't need.
When people think Russia, "religion" should not, and typically does not, come to the forefront of one's mind as one does with India for example, and this is partly due to the Russian perception in modern times and partly as a result of Russia's history with its own church. Historically in Civ this lack of religiosity has been reflected in all Russian designs from Civ I through Civ V, with focuses on variously industrial, combat, expansion, and science bonuses, with Civ VI's faithful Russia alone having faith-based bonuses. You are right that Russia doesn't have many religious leaders, including *and especially* Peter the Great. This is precisely why having Russia represented as religious under any of those leaders, including *and especially* Peter is ironic, rather than well suited. Your point that Russian rulers "tended to reflect the population and their freedom" in the religious space hurts your argument that they fit together rather than supporting it.

As I mentioned before, Peter the Great and a religious Russia *together* is ironic.

Like who? None of the Tsars were practically religious. Neither Peter the great nor Catherine the great were religious. And let's not talk about modern Russia.
That's exactly why Russia should not be represented as religious. That Russia has the Eastern Orthodox Church does not Russia a religious nation make, especially in light of its modern history with the Soviet Union, which is preeminent when one thinks of "Russia" in contemporary times. If anything, Russia makes more sense with combat, culture or even science bonuses.
 
Last edited:
That's exactly why Russia should not be represented as religious. That Russia has the Eastern Orthodox Church does not Russia a religious nation make, especially in light of its modern history with the Soviet Union, which is preeminent when one thinks of "Russia" in contemporary times. If anything, Russia makes more sense with combat, culture or even science bonuses.
But religion DOES play a large part in Russian culture and dev's wanted to reflect that. Heck Putin wants to promote Russian Orthodox church as Russia's main ideology ever since the Soviet union went "puff." I see nothing wrong with reflecting how religion plays a large part in Russian culture..., especially how lavra aids in cultural victory.
 
That's exactly why Russia should not be represented as religious. That Russia has the Eastern Orthodox Church does not Russia a religious nation make, especially in light of its modern history with the Soviet Union, which is preeminent when one thinks of "Russia" in contemporary times. If anything, Russia makes more sense with combat, culture or even science bonuses.
Its obvious the devs wanted to just represent a different side of Russia in this game and not portray them as modern Soviet science powerhouse. Considering Eastern Orthodox is the second largest Christian denomination in the world, and over half of them are Russian, I think it fits.
Besides it's not like Peter has faith or religious bonuses himself in his leader ability. The faith bonuses come from the civ's ability and district. Peter himself gets the culture and science bonuses.
Now if Arabia, India, Khmer, Georgia, Ethiopia, or Spain didn't get religious bonuses I would question why did Russia get them but not them. Luckily I don't have to answer that question because they all do.
 
Its obvious the devs wanted to just represent a different side of Russia in this game and not portray them as modern Soviet science powerhouse. Considering Eastern Orthodox is the second largest Christian denomination in the world, and over half of them are Russian, I think it fits.
Besides it's not like Peter has faith or religious bonuses himself in his leader ability. The faith bonuses come from the civ's ability and district. Peter himself gets the culture and science bonuses.
Now if Arabia, India, Khmer, Georgia, Ethiopia, or Spain didn't get religious bonuses I would question why did Russia get them but not them. Luckily I don't have to answer that question because they all do.
Besides we already had militaristic Russia in civ 5... they wanted culture/Religious Russia this time around.
 
It just feels kind of weird weird for the Lavra to be a unique district (which is one of the first religious structures you make) when Russian christianity is super late in the overall history of Christianity. I think a unique temple or something would make more sense.
 
It just feels kind of weird weird for the Lavra to be a unique district (which is one of the first religious structures you make) when Russian christianity is super late in the overall history of Christianity. I think a unique temple or something would make more sense.
Meh Korean's own seowon didn't come into being in real life until early Joseon dynasty ( around 1300) and yet it is one of first thing to be built in ancient era.
It is just game mechanic.
 
Meh Korean's own seowon didn't come into being in real life until early Joseon dynasty ( around 1300) and yet it is one of first thing to be built in ancient era.
It is just game mechanic.

For me that's kind of part of the flavor, and if they wanted to do it just mechanically, every Civ would get an early cheap unique district because those are by far the best type of unique characteristics.
 
Am I the only one who dislikes how the game depicts powerful female rulers and gives them mannerisms of high school cartoon teens? Pharaoh Cleopatra being flirting teenager, Queen Victoria behaving like a 15 year old in general, Eleanor looking like Disney princess instead of serious and powerful medieval ruler (not helped by her absurd magical ability), Saint King Jadwiga behaving like modern "shy and into you" college student instead of a pious ruler, Kristina being nerd college girl instead of a traitor - I mean Swedish queen...

Cartoonish art style is one thing (though I have never fully accepted it), but you can have colourful personalities without turning inspiring historical emperors and especially empresses into Pixar kids. I do not get at all the vibe that Jadwiga is an immortalized Polish Leader taken from medieval era to guide her people. Furthermore, it seems to me while many leaders suffer on 'cartoonization', female leaders got it in the worst way. So many of them seem to be weirdly focused on being adorable young girls instead of majestic rulers.

On the other hand we have the elder case of Wilhelmina, who is serious and respected figure IRL and wacky caricature in game. I'd feel a discomfort if I were Dutch. Due to being Polish, I just don't feel like "my leader" depicts anything from my country's culture at all (unlike quite decent Casimir from civ5). It's just a character designed around being "adorable" to male eye with no other character at all and given the name of a certain Polish person.

The general idea of this game that you take some people from history and then don't care about their personality at all, just give them whatever character you want, is not appealing to me. I don't have the feeling of encountering historical people with those entities, just caricatures - but caricatures without any point, infantile for sake of being infantile. In civ5 every character had a vibe of a powerful historical emperor, here everybody has a vibe of high school kid.
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one who dislikes how the game depicts powerful female rulers and gives them mannerisms of high school cartoon teens? Pharaoh Cleopatra being flirting teenager, Queen Victoria behaving like a 15 year old in general, Eleanor looking like Disney princess instead of serious and powerful medieval ruler (not helped by her absurd magical ability), Saint King Jadwiga behaving like modern "shy and into you" college student instead of a pious ruler, Kristina being nerd college girl instead of a traitor - I mean Swedish queen...

Cartoonish art style is one thing (though I have never fully accepted it), but you can have colourful personalities without turning inspiring historical emperors and especially empresses into Pixar kids. I do not get at all the vibe that Jadwiga is an immortalized Polish Leader taken from medieval era to guide her people. Furthermore, it seems to me while many leaders suffer on 'cartoonization', female leaders got it in the worst way. So many of them seem to be weirdly focused on being adorable young girls instead of majestic rulers.

On the other hand we have the elder case of Wilhelmina, who is serious and respected figure IRL and wacky caricature in game. I'd feel a discomfort if I were Dutch. Due to being Polish, I just don't feel like "my leader" depicts anything from my country's culture at all (unlike quite decent Casimir from civ5). It's just a character designed around being "adorable" to male eye with no other character at all and given the name of a certain Polish person.

The general idea of this game that you take some people from history and then don't care about their personality at all, just give them whatever character you want, is not appealing to me. I don't have the feeling of encountering historical people with those entities, just caricatures - but caricatures without any point, infantile for sake of being infantile. In civ5 every character had a vibe of a powerful historical emperor, here everybody has a vibe of high school kid.
it's more of am issue of how agenda works in civ 6... and I agree agenda wasn't handled very well. Sometimes it is somewhat historically accurate- like with Cleopatra and how she wanted to ally with military strongest leader and Teddy and how he doesn't want anyone fighting in his own Continent ... others it is just wacky and weird ( like how menelik ii is a hill lover and hates anyone settling on hills.)
 
Its obvious the devs wanted to just represent a different side of Russia in this game and not portray them as modern Soviet science powerhouse. Considering Eastern Orthodox is the second largest Christian denomination in the world, and over half of them are Russian, I think it fits.
Besides it's not like Peter has faith or religious bonuses himself in his leader ability. The faith bonuses come from the civ's ability and district. Peter himself gets the culture and science bonuses.
Now if Arabia, India, Khmer, Georgia, Ethiopia, or Spain didn't get religious bonuses I would question why did Russia get them but not them. Luckily I don't have to answer that question because they all do.
Numbers of religious devotees are actually less important than you might think in portraying faith. For the modern Russia, for example, church attendance has been declining greatly. See https://www.pewforum.org/2014/02/10/russians-return-to-religion-but-not-to-church/ for a study on that very phenomenon.

I would add that the Eastern Orthodox Church having had influence in Russia is more something that befits a medieval Russia led by someone else, not a modernizing, Westernizing, militaristic Russia led by Peter the Great. Civs can and should be portrayed differently, where there is good reason to do so. But Russia has almost never been connected with religion in the popular imagination or, frankly, in much of the historical scholarship of Peter the Great or almost any early modern, modern, or contemporary Russian ruler. Putin doesn’t count since he will never lead Russia in a Civ game (for obvious reasons).

As for Peter the Great, I think his leader ability is fine. But as there is no alternate Russian leader to better befit the religious Russian bonuses, the Russian civ in Civ VI as a whole is not a cohesive or coherent design, but one riddled with historical irony. It would be like having the religiously affiliated Akhenaten lead a militaristic Egypt instead of Thutmose III or Senusret III, for example.
 
Am I the only one who dislikes how the game depicts powerful female rulers and gives them mannerisms of high school cartoon teens? Pharaoh Cleopatra being flirting teenager, Queen Victoria behaving like a 15 year old in general, Eleanor looking like Disney princess instead of serious and powerful medieval ruler (not helped by her absurd magical ability), Saint King Jadwiga behaving like modern "shy and into you" college student instead of a pious ruler, Kristina being nerd college girl instead of a traitor - I mean Swedish queen...

Cartoonish art style is one thing (though I have never fully accepted it), but you can have colourful personalities without turning inspiring historical emperors and especially empresses into Pixar kids. I do not get at all the vibe that Jadwiga is an immortalized Polish Leader taken from medieval era to guide her people. Furthermore, it seems to me while many leaders suffer on 'cartoonization', female leaders got it in the worst way. So many of them seem to be weirdly focused on being adorable young girls instead of majestic rulers.

On the other hand we have the elder case of Wilhelmina, who is serious and respected figure IRL and wacky caricature in game. I'd feel a discomfort if I were Dutch. Due to being Polish, I just don't feel like "my leader" depicts anything from my country's culture at all (unlike quite decent Casimir from civ5). It's just a character designed around being "adorable" to male eye with no other character at all and given the name of a certain Polish person.

The general idea of this game that you take some people from history and then don't care about their personality at all, just give them whatever character you want, is not appealing to me. I don't have the feeling of encountering historical people with those entities, just caricatures - but caricatures without any point, infantile for sake of being infantile. In civ5 every character had a vibe of a powerful historical emperor, here everybody has a vibe of high school kid.

I don't think it's a gender thing. The leader art in Civ 6 is just abysmal. I don't know who thought "gee let's make all these important and revered leaders through history look like action figures" or who approved that idea, but those people should stick to making educational games for 5 year olds IMO. I mean "rough rider" Teddy Roosevelt looks like a kid dressed up for Halloween, while Jayarvaman looks like the eunuch from Game of Thrones...
 
I don't think it's a gender thing. The leader art in Civ 6 is just abysmal. I don't know who thought "gee let's make all these important and revered leaders through history look like action figures" or who approved that idea, but those people should stick to making educational games for 5 year olds IMO.
Agreed. I like the selection of several of the female leaders in Civ VI but agree their portrayal is overall too “cutesy”. And as nice as *some* of the leader animations are, many are not portrayed in a manner reflecting their historical personality all that well.

As to the historical elements, consider how the Christian Harald Hardrada constantly cites Norse gods—what would make him any different from any stereotypical Viking leader? There’s no reference to his time as a Varangian Guard or other unique leader-specific flavor.

The physical portrayal of leaders in Civ VI is overall quite ahistorical (and notably varied—Pedro II and Alexander stand out as being some of the most cartoonish leaders, whereas other leaders look at least like there was an attempt at realism, as in the case of Eleanor). Trajan looks like an exaggerated Julius Caesar, or, if we want to be kind, a rendering of his laurel-wearing bust made shortly before his death. Pericles looks 80 and more like Solon or any other philosopher than a strategos who led attacks personally shortly before his death. And so on and so on.

As much as the Civ terrain and unit graphics have been criticized by some for being “childish” or the like, my overall biggest beef is that the dignity and gravity of history is voided by the cartoonishness of the characters. The stylized cartoonish leaders of Civ IV at least had more diplomatic depth, and didn’t just act like inane robots (“You aren’t at war all the time! I hate you!” “You didn’t build walls! I hate you!” “You settled one city on a hill! I hate you!”) And Civ V leaders had much drama and gravity to them, lent to them by an overall more serious animation style, and dramatic music shifts, etc.
 
Agreed. As nice as *some* of the leader animations are, many are not portrayed in a manner reflecting their historical personality all that well. Consider how the Christian Harald Hardrada constantly cites Norse gods—what would make him any different from any stereotypical Viking leader? There’s no reference to his time as a Varangian Guard or other unique leader-specific flavor.

Similarly, Trajan looks like an exaggerated Julius Caesar, or, if we want to be kind, a rendering of his death portrait. Pericles looks 80 and more like Solon or any other philosopher than a strategos who led attacks personally shortly before his death. And so on and so on.

As much as the Civ terrain and unit graphics have been criticized by some for being “childish” or the like, my overall biggest beef is that the dignity and gravity of history is voided by the cartoonishness of the characters. The stylized cartoonish leaders of Civ IV at least had more diplomatic depth, and didn’t just act like inane robots (“You aren’t at war all the time! I hate you!” “You didn’t build walls! I hate you!” “You settled one city on a hill! I hate you!”) And Civ V leaders had much drama and gravity to them, lent to them by an overall more serious animation style, and dramatic music shifts, etc.

Yeah I don't feel so strongly about the unit and terrain stuff. But the decision to make the leaders more cartoonish, you know, the people we are essentially roleplaying, absolutely baffles me. I can't play Civ 6 in front of people because the leaders are such a joke. I have a hard time anyone could look at that, compare it to Civ 5 leader graphics, and say "yup that's an improvement."

Oh Roosevelt is offering me apple pie? Because he's American, right? And Wilfred Laurier - maple syrup and a tocque. Ha ha, they are Canadian, they are just over there guzzling maple syrup. And the sad thing is that the AI is constantly annoying you with nonsense, exhibit 1 being the stupid agendas that you referred to. So this horrible graphic design is constantly shoved in my face.

Anyway, end of rant.
 
I could spend hours criticizing how cartoonish the entire design of civ6 is, and invent insane philosopical arguments how it is connected to half of the problems of the game. Graphical design, depictions of leaders, mechanics disconnected from any history and realism, a dazzling spectacle of bonuses with no difficult choices behind them, bizarre focus on sci fi or fantasy modes and elements... Seriously, it's as if lead designers were consulting every choice with a 12 year old. There is nobody in this team to say sat 'wait that's stupid, that's not how reality works, and that matters a lot'.

But let's return to the topić. Previously I have criticized depictions of female leaders (and leaders in general). Now I'm going to criticise this game's mixed results regarding "fresh" depictions of cultures themselves. Sometimes it goes up to the level of stereotypes.

Let's see:
- France is cultured and mischevious (wine included)
- Spain is fixated with fanatic conversion and sea (imquisition meme included)
- England is fixated with expansion and sea
- Dutch merchant polder sea river
- Vikings are angry pillagers (not sailors, explorers, merchants or cool culture)
- Greeks_culture.exe
- Russians are different species of human who thrive in ice (I actually consider this one borderline racist)
- Germany: industry and war
- Sumer: Gilgamesh action figure cartoon. Wait what? Ah yes, this one actually fails in the opposite way.
- Ottomans: expansion and siege
- Persia: 100% Achaemenid, expansionist
- Ethiopia: mountains, religion and defence, gee how exciting
- Mali: desert merchants
- Zulu I won't even comment
- India: religion, population density, elephants
- Mongols: brutal horse destroyers (not merchants, empire builders, religiously tolerant etc)
- Japan hurr kamikaze durr industry
- Canada is just awful in this regard
- Brazil is somehow Amazon lovers, despite exploiting it and entire population living as far from rainforests as possible, also carnival
- Aztecs: 100% brutal warfare
- Maori: ridiculous noble savage "ecological lovers" stereotype.
- Inca mountain lovers, teleports included (wait what)

You want something fresh and new look all while representing real powerful traits? Here, let me do that. France being militarist and science, Germany being about culture and science, England focused on Anglo Saxons and medieval in general, Spain building universities and mixing cultures. Greece being about trade, fleet and science, Norse being great northern explorers, merchants and colonizers. Russia with focus on Kievan Rus trade bonus, exploration and science. Persia being Islamic and scientific. India being economically powerful, imperial, agressive faction. Japan being peaceful, isolationist and cultural powerhouse. Aztec being partly about agriculture and urbanisation. Canada focusing on northern exploration, its industry and world war expeditionary forces. Ethiopia - trade, agriculture and agressive warfare. Inca focusing on their expansionism and centrally planned, unique economic model.


Here you have completely historically appropriate set which is simultaneously very fresh and new. They could do that, just look at how cool they did Arabia, just chose not to.
 
It just feels kind of weird weird for the Lavra to be a unique district (which is one of the first religious structures you make) when Russian christianity is super late in the overall history of Christianity. I think a unique temple or something would make more sense.
Considering the Lavra is a large monastery it wouldn't necessarily make sense to me as a single building. Besides the temple only comes an era later which would most likely come around the start of Christianity.

As for Peter the Great, I think his leader ability is fine. But as there is no alternate Russian leader to better befit the religious Russian bonuses, the Russian civ in Civ VI as a whole is not a cohesive or coherent design, but one riddled with historical irony. It would be like having the religiously affiliated Akhenaten lead a militaristic Egypt instead of Thutmose III or Senusret III, for example.
I mean they specifically wanted to sometimes separate leader ability from Civ ability and go different routes with them, so I think it's understandable. As for a specific religious ruler for Russia I'm not sure who they would go with. Ivan the Terrible was deeply religious but I don't know if he would make a good leader with religious bonuses.
The only possible one I could see would be Olga of Kiev, that is if you consider her to be a possible Russian leader, and don't view Kievan Rus as a separate civ.

I do agree that Russia should probably not inherit faith from tundra tiles though (the bonuses from tundra are a whole other issue). The Lavra I still don't have any issue with considering it's just as culture based as religious in nature.
 
, Germany being about culture and science
. Japan being peaceful, isolationist and cultural powerhouse.
Canada focusing on northern exploration,
Ethiopia - trade,
These are all kinda there in the Game? I mean Germany is known for being good at science victory as well as cultural victory thanks to powerful industrial unique district that can get all the project going.
... I don't get where you get the idea that Japan was ever peaceful. Only peaceful time was Edo periode and before and after that it was filled with conflict. Internal conflict before Edo period and the international conflict soon after Edo period. Also cheap theatre square and the fact that electric factories produce culture also shows Japan's powerful "soft culture"
Canda do have focus on northern exploration. The last Best West focuses on exploring on Tundra tiles
Ethiopia do have a focus on trade on its civ ability- it encourages you to trade externally to get extra faith.
 
Top Bottom