Bonyduck Campersang
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2022
- Messages
- 2,738
I've been meaning to make this thread for a long time, and logging on to CivFanatics just now I see that the Caesar of Bread has made a very similar one. I am still going to go ahead and post this one, because I believe its purpose is sufficiently focused to merit a separate thread.
Every iteration of Civilization features a fixed staple of civilizations (giving or taking a few). That is unavoidable from a realistic point of view, as you just can't make a game loosely based on historical empires and then give the Romans, Persians and Spanish the miss-in baulk. But what you can do is have a fresh face for the civilizations each time, and you should, not only to break the monotony, but also because there are several great candidates for the staple civilisations who deserve to be known more about.
So what makes a good candidate for a leader for a civilization? There was some interesting discussion about this in the Female Leaders thread, and I am mainly sticking to my guns, though I have broadened my views thanks to the users in that thread.
I will begin by trying to define (loosely) who is a candidate for a Leader, regardless of whether he/she is a good or bad candidate, simply as to what criteria he/she should meet to be considered in the first place.
Firstly, the candidate must have exercised a significant degree of political power. This will include Heads of State, viziers, regents etc. However, I maintain that there should be notable exceptions to this rule. An example is Gandhi. There are some who feel that Gandhi should not be considered a Leader because he held no political office. I would argue that, on the contrary, of all the other leaders feautured in Civilization's ensembles, Gandhi is the most deserving of the 'leader' label. There is nothing really remarkable about ruling people due to divine right or military power, or even through being elected (I am a great cynic when it comes to democracy), but there is something very remarkable about holding sway over millions of people despite your orders not being politically binding or using the threat of force (implicit or explicit, for even the most beloved Head of State's orders carry an implicit threat of violence in case of disobedience). However, Gandhi is an anomaly, and I used him only as an example of an exception.
Another example of a candidate exercising a degree of political power is a grey eminence, or a power behind the throne. Examples include Roxalena, Richelieu, Nogai and the Sayyid brothers.
Now to define what a 'good' candidate is. I believe he should satisfy at least one of three criteria (and preferably all):
1) He must have been CAPABLE: He must have been good at what he did: ruling, conquering, building, leading, building, grey-eminencing etc.
2) He must have been IMPORTANT: His actions, or simply the mythos surrounding him, must have inspired events or legends, even very long after his rule.
3) He must be INTERESTING: He may not have been a very effective leader, but there must have been something unique about his rule, or even his person. For example, a female leader is always more INTERESTING than a male one, simply because there were relatively fewer of them, and because there is something remarkable about a woman holding authority, regardless of whether she was good at exercising it or not. Another example of an interesting but not necessarily good leader is Grigory Rasputin (who satisfies both criteria 2 and 3) who is certainly a very remarkable historical figure, and who can offer some very interesting unique leader abilities.
That concludes the opening post. I will (try to) shortly post my personal choices for leaders for Civilization VII.
Every iteration of Civilization features a fixed staple of civilizations (giving or taking a few). That is unavoidable from a realistic point of view, as you just can't make a game loosely based on historical empires and then give the Romans, Persians and Spanish the miss-in baulk. But what you can do is have a fresh face for the civilizations each time, and you should, not only to break the monotony, but also because there are several great candidates for the staple civilisations who deserve to be known more about.
So what makes a good candidate for a leader for a civilization? There was some interesting discussion about this in the Female Leaders thread, and I am mainly sticking to my guns, though I have broadened my views thanks to the users in that thread.
I will begin by trying to define (loosely) who is a candidate for a Leader, regardless of whether he/she is a good or bad candidate, simply as to what criteria he/she should meet to be considered in the first place.
Firstly, the candidate must have exercised a significant degree of political power. This will include Heads of State, viziers, regents etc. However, I maintain that there should be notable exceptions to this rule. An example is Gandhi. There are some who feel that Gandhi should not be considered a Leader because he held no political office. I would argue that, on the contrary, of all the other leaders feautured in Civilization's ensembles, Gandhi is the most deserving of the 'leader' label. There is nothing really remarkable about ruling people due to divine right or military power, or even through being elected (I am a great cynic when it comes to democracy), but there is something very remarkable about holding sway over millions of people despite your orders not being politically binding or using the threat of force (implicit or explicit, for even the most beloved Head of State's orders carry an implicit threat of violence in case of disobedience). However, Gandhi is an anomaly, and I used him only as an example of an exception.
Another example of a candidate exercising a degree of political power is a grey eminence, or a power behind the throne. Examples include Roxalena, Richelieu, Nogai and the Sayyid brothers.
Now to define what a 'good' candidate is. I believe he should satisfy at least one of three criteria (and preferably all):
1) He must have been CAPABLE: He must have been good at what he did: ruling, conquering, building, leading, building, grey-eminencing etc.
2) He must have been IMPORTANT: His actions, or simply the mythos surrounding him, must have inspired events or legends, even very long after his rule.
3) He must be INTERESTING: He may not have been a very effective leader, but there must have been something unique about his rule, or even his person. For example, a female leader is always more INTERESTING than a male one, simply because there were relatively fewer of them, and because there is something remarkable about a woman holding authority, regardless of whether she was good at exercising it or not. Another example of an interesting but not necessarily good leader is Grigory Rasputin (who satisfies both criteria 2 and 3) who is certainly a very remarkable historical figure, and who can offer some very interesting unique leader abilities.
That concludes the opening post. I will (try to) shortly post my personal choices for leaders for Civilization VII.
Shahpur II is my personal choice for Sassanid Persia. He ruled the empire at its greatest extent, was a massive builder, and just all around a fun pick. Shahpur I and both Khosrow I and Khosrow II are good choices, though.
