POLL: Non-Leader Leaders

[Krajzen]

India without spirituality bonuses is like Japan without a military bonus or France without a culture bonus.
It don't work.

I have nothing against Japan without military bonus, France without culture bonus or England without naval bonus and they are just as viable as India without religion bonus. Of course it does work, their history is long and deep enough, it's just a matter of taste and how much do you like same cliches repeated over and over.

For example Japan for 2000 years had very few attempts at external expansion (Imjin War, post-Meiji) and periods of very long relative peace and stability when compared with many other civs (such as Edo period), had powerful economy and famously was the first non-Western industrialized nation. You could justify it being economic urban powerhouse as much as stereotypical bloodthirsty shogun of civ series. Also, while we are on thet thissubject, I have nothing against Japan for once having other unique unit than samurais.

Why India without spiritual bonus doesn't work? We are talking about few thousands of history of entire subcontinent with population and diversity bigger than of Europe. You could as easily make its theme military (Marathas, Mauryas, Mughals), maritime trade (Cholas), science (Pala, Gupta), great people, architecture, manufacturing, anything.
Its unique unit could also be anything other than elephant, from cavalry to artillery, from ancient era to modern.

It's just a matter of taste, how much do you like familiar cliches vs something new.

Please notice that I am not saying any civ should be slapped with any bonus, but thst many of them had much more varied accomplishments on many fields other than stereotypical ones.

For example:
India led by Rajendra Chola, trade bonus, economic bonus, naval unique unit, and religion bonus.
France led by Napoleon, military beast with science and economic side.
Persia led by Sassanid ruler for once, with religion-cultural focus, cavalry unit and military discipline.
England led by one of its medieval great kings, with focus on archers, castles and administration.
Greece led by Themistocles, with powerful navy.
Arabia led by Abbasid caliph with focus on developing great cities.

Etc...

 

[Ziad]

Please notice that I am not saying any civ should be slapped with any bonus, but thst many of them had much more varied accomplishments on many fields other than stereotypical ones.

It's not about stereotypes. What Civilization does is honor what each civilization did best, and India being the birthplace of multiple religions will naturally lead to some element of religious gameplay. It's about what's iconic.

I find Chandragupta to be a great example of an Indian leader that maintains some religious gameplay (through stepwell) while focusing on India's very militaristic past

 

[Zaarin]

I always found it interesting how Stalin and Mao managed to get into Civilization despite their infamy and atrocities.

That's because certain elements of American society don't view them with the same loathing as other 20th century butchers.

One thing that could be fun (be it would have to slow down the details on each leader) is that each leader change it outfits each era.

Civ3 proved that Firaxis has neither the creativity nor the maturity to pull this off. Plus that's a lot of effort that could have gone into portraying other leaders well.

 

[Halcyan2]

One thing that could be fun (be it would have to slow down the details on each leader) is that each leader change it outfits each era. I know it’s something stupid and non-important, but it always bothered me that Pericles still wore his helmet in the atomic era and that John Curtin used a pocket watch in Antiquity. Having agendas evolving through eras (according to new abilities and/or new challenges of the era) could be fun too.

They did that in Civ 3 and I liked seeing the portraits evolve as technology progressed. But that was back when it was simplistic portraits.

I fear that with all the time and effort being put into the 3D models, that it would not be easy to change their clothing. And if given a choice, I'd rather the Firaxis team put their time into gameplay elements rather than outfit changes.

 

[CornPlanter]

Sure. I think Mickey Mouse should lead USA, Kobe Bryant could lead Japan, and nobody should lead UK. Because its not a history simulation and gameplay is most important right so why even bother making sense. Add Abrams tank as unique US unit to replace spearman in B.C. era while you are at it, just make the gameplay interesting and everything's gonna be fine.

But seriously, I think that one leader all game long mechanic is very dated and Firaxis should have ditched it long ago. Make mechanics where leaders age and die, or even die in battles, from accidents, sickness, assassinations, their influence depend both on the government system you have and their personal traits, you can also have something like Great Politicians similarly to other kinds of Great People, some random events, whatever. Copy EU4, change a bit, adapt to Civ, simplify a little if needed. Anything is better than this one immortal leader all game long in my opinion...

 

[AmazonQueen]

That's because certain elements of American society don't view them with the same loathing as other 20th century butchers.

Not sure why 20th century butchers are so much worse than other butchers.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Queen Consorts are perfectly fine for me, provided they were competent, intelligent and iconic women worthy of representation. I have zero qualms about having Livia, Taytu Betul, Hojo Masoko, Nur Jahan, Cixi, Empress Matilda, etc.

Addendum to this, I also have zero qualms with Prime Ministers, Viziers and other powerful political figures that weren't the head of state under the same condition as stated above: Gajah Mada, Anna Dasselene, Churchill, Hannibal, Alcibiades, Lysander, Richelieu, Walpole, Oxenstierna, Bismarck, Michiel de Ruyter, Indira Gandhi, Lautaro and Nelson Mandela are all great choices I can accept and live with. And yes, Gandhi as well, though I want him to sit out Civ7, obviously (For meme purposes, Indira can take his role as the Nuke-Happy Gandhi, a role which is actually has a historical base in this situation.)

Not sure why 20th century butchers are so much worse than other butchers.

Because Society is ever evolving. The standards by which humanity lived in the 1930s were different than those in the 1230s. The horrors committed by the 20th Century butchers weren't necessarily worse, but they brought with them irreversible shifts in mentality. None of the parties involved in WW2 wanted anything of that magnitude to occur again, which is why the names of those involved in the slaughter are (rightfully) sullied forever.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Addendum to this, I also have zero qualms with Prime Ministers, Viziers and other powerful political figures that weren't the head of state under the same condition as stated above: Gajah Mada, Anna Dasselene, Churchill, Hannibal, Alcibiades, Lysander, Richelieu, Walpole, Oxenstierna, Bismarck, Michiel de Ruyter, Indira Gandhi, Lautaro and Nelson Mandela are all great choices I can accept and live with. And yes, Gandhi as well, though I want him to sit out Civ7, obviously (For meme purposes, Indira can take his role as the Nuke-Happy Gandhi, a role which is actually has a historical base in this situation.)



Because Society is ever evolving. The standards by which humanity lived in the 1930s were different than those in the 1230s. The horrors committed by the 20th Century butchers weren't necessarily worse, but they brought with them irreversible shifts in mentality. None of the parties involved in WW2 wanted anything of that magnitude to occur again, which is why the names of those involved in the slaughter are (rightfully) sullied forever.

I can't see it. If we're not prepared to recognise the crimes of Julius Caesar or Alexander but continue to hero-worship them I don't think we've learnt anything, just a matter of recent memory makes things worse when it doesn't really.

 

[Zaarin]

I can't see it. If we're not prepared to recognise the crimes of Julius Caesar or Alexander but continue to hero-worship them I don't think we've learnt anything, just a matter of recent memory makes things worse when it doesn't really.

You can't expect people to be better than the age in which they lived. Take a literary example. John Milton was one of the most brilliant men in England in his time (the most brilliant, if you ask him). He is also frequently lambasted by modern scholars for being a misogynist for various reasons. He wrote a pamphlet in which he propounded that intellectual inequality should be grounds for divorce--i.e., a man who thought very few men were his intellectual equals thought a woman could be his intellectual equal. He might not be up to modern standards of equality, but for the age in which he lived I'd say he was rather enlightened. It works the same way when judging leaders. It doesn't mean you give your approbation to what they did; it simply means you hold those who should have known better to a higher standard.

(And as an aside, regarding 20th century butchers specifically, they had the means to cause death on a scale that was unprecedented in history. Mao and Stalin each killed more than 50 million people. That's not to say more ancient rulers wouldn't have blithely done the same had they had the means, but I think we can hold those who actually did it accountable for their crimes.)

 

[AmazonQueen]

You can't expect people to be better than the age in which they lived. Take a literary example. John Milton was one of the most brilliant men in England in his time (the most brilliant, if you ask him). He is also frequently lambasted by modern scholars for being a misogynist for various reasons. He wrote a pamphlet in which he propounded that intellectual inequality should be grounds for divorce--i.e., a man who thought very few men were his intellectual equals thought a woman could be his intellectual equal. He might not be up to modern standards of equality, but for the age in which he lived I'd say he was rather enlightened. It works the same way when judging leaders. It doesn't mean you give your approbation to what they did; it simply means you hold those who should have known better to a higher standard.

(And as an aside, regarding 20th century butchers specifically, they had the means to cause death on a scale that was unprecedented in history. Mao and Stalin each killed more than 50 million people. That's not to say more ancient rulers wouldn't have blithely done the same had they had the means, but I think we can hold those who actually did it accountable for their crimes.)

But frequently they were worse than the age they lived in. I don't think theres any consistency in the way we judge people.
Take the de Montforts. Simon de Montfort daddy led the Albigensian Crusade. Bad person.
Simon de Montfort son led the Barons Revolt. Forerunner of Parliamentary Democracy. Nice guy.
In actuality both were charismatic leaders, highly devout, anti-Semetic, and always had a view to their own self-interest.
Our modern judgement of them is largely based on how we view the causes they fought for.
The more we learn of history the more we realise ethnic cleansing and genocide weren't 20th century inventions. we're just more efficient at it.

 

[Zaarin]

The more we learn of history the more we realise ethnic cleansing and genocide weren't 20th century inventions.

I don't think anyone thinks that. The Assyrians were very efficient at ethnic cleansing thousands of years before the Nazis.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I don't think anyone thinks that. The Assyrians were very efficient at ethnic cleansing thousands of years before the Nazis.

How much do most people know about the Assyrians? Before I became interested in history and started learning for myself they were just a mention in Sunday School.

 

[Zaarin]

How much do most people know about the Assyrians?

Probably very little. I was well educated, and I was nevertheless an adult before I learned they still existed.

Before I became interested in history and started learning for myself they were just a mention in Sunday School.

I was fortunate to be raised with a thorough if somewhat biased history program, so I'd say I was familiar with the Assyrian Empire at least by middle school.

My point wasn't that the mass population knows that the Assyrians indulged in genocide, though; I have rather low expectations about the mass populace's education on most subjects. My point was that I think most people are aware that the concepts of genocide and mass murder are older than the Third Reich.

 

[MooFreaky]

And taking people out of their time and judging them by modern standards is fraught with issues.
For example take Julius Caesar, he was a brutal commander who used brutal methods against his enemies. He supposedly destroyed countless villages and murdered countless women and children (all of which he just don't know how significant it was, but we presume significant). However, he was also a champion of the poor and downtrodden. He fought for the rights of his men and those who were being oppressed. He was known for his mercy, both to Romans and Gauls (who surrendered and stayed surrendered, at least). He wanted the provinces integrated with Rome and people who were considered foreigners (conquered and subjugated peoples!) to be recognised and given more rights within the Empire. Sure much of that is presumed to be for his own political gain, but he still did it.
So on one hand is was a violent, brutal warlord (but significantly less so than many of his contemporaries), while on the other he was downright liberal for the time in many other respects.

We don't know how the world will be in the future. Our views may be considered incredibly backward by those who come in the future, but to us we are living in some of the most liberal times in the world's history. You have to be judged by your the standards of your time.

But you are right, that doesn't mean that we should be trying to emulate Alexander or Caesar. We need to recognise their faults and their brilliance, but also that their times were different and that we do not want their kind today. That the world has moved on from them and that much of their vision has been left behind.

 

[AmazonQueen]

And taking people out of their time and judging them by modern standards is fraught with issues.
For example take Julius Caesar, he was a brutal commander who used brutal methods against his enemies. He supposedly destroyed countless villages and murdered countless women and children (all of which he just don't know how significant it was, but we presume significant). However, he was also a champion of the poor and downtrodden. He fought for the rights of his men and those who were being oppressed. He was known for his mercy, both to Romans and Gauls (who surrendered and stayed surrendered, at least). He wanted the provinces integrated with Rome and people who were considered foreigners (conquered and subjugated peoples!) to be recognised and given more rights within the Empire. Sure much of that is presumed to be for his own political gain, but he still did it.
So on one hand is was a violent, brutal warlord (but significantly less so than many of his contemporaries), while on the other he was downright liberal for the time in many other respects.

We don't know how the world will be in the future. Our views may be considered incredibly backward by those who come in the future, but to us we are living in some of the most liberal times in the world's history. You have to be judged by your the standards of your time.

But you are right, that doesn't mean that we should be trying to emulate Alexander or Caesar. We need to recognise their faults and their brilliance, but also that their times were different and that we do not want their kind today. That the world has moved on from them and that much of their vision has been left behind.

I don't think you can judge people just by the standards of their time. After all some people we now admire were once seen as crazy or extremist. I would accept you have to take the standards of their time into consideration.
But we aren't just studying them, we are also playing as them. Perhaps its because I'm a roleplayer as well as a strategy gamer that this bothers me. I'd be the first to admit that my attitudes to this are probably as much emotional as rational.

 

[Ziad]

I don't think you can judge people just by the standards of their time. After all some people we now admire were once seen as crazy or extremist.

Who we admire is biased in itself, so I think you can judge people in any biased way you want as well as long as you're cognizant of what standards you are setting.

I personally don't admire Rome at all yet apparently Western media wants me to. (Some Roman figures are worth it though).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Who we admire is biased in itself, so I think you can judge people in any biased way you want as well as long as you're cognizant of what standards you are setting.

I personally don't admire Rome at all yet apparently Western media wants me to. (Some Roman figures are worth it though).

There are 'trends' in education and understanding, not just 'progress': when I was at university, virtually the entire history department was western and modern European and United States history, with one lone professor teaching Ancient (Greek) history. While I was there they added one more professor whose expertise was Byzantine/early Middle East (he was fluent in Turkish and Arabic as well as Greek and Latin) and another (ex Diplomatic Service) who taught Southeast Asia - appropriately, since the Vietnam War was focusing peoples' attention on that area at the time.
Africa, later Middle East, South America, most of Asia, any part of the Ancient/Classical World other than the Mediterranean, was Blank - they might as well have put "Here Be Dragons and Wierd Beasties" in the Course Catalog.

Some of that has changed. For one thing, my own experience is that playing games that feature other histories and civilizations and cultures stimulates interest in them: for almost 10 years I lectured at the Gaming Artists and Manufacturers Association (GAMA) convention on Actual Military History, because so many gamers (and game designers, for that matter) wanted to know more. The internet has, at the least, given people access to Basic Information from which they can take off into more study, if they desire. You don't need a campus and classroom to be introduced to the Assyrians, which is a huge advantage now compared to 50 or 20 years ago.

And the best thing about the Roman Empire, IMHO, was that it was the first Inclusive Empire in history. Anybody could become a Roman Citizen, and having gotten Roman Citizenship, they were protected (imperfectly, to be sure) by Roman Law and had all the benefits of Roman Citizenship. This included producing African and Spanish and Thracian Emperors whose ancestry was utterly non-Roman. Unfortunately, while they tried to emulate Roman political and military advantages, the post-Roman Europeans utterly forgot the Roman Inclusiveness in favor of narrow feudal 'rights' and obligations and later, racial/political nationalism.

 

[Ziad]

Roman inclusiveness didn't extend to anyone who wasn't drinking from their lap though.

 

[Civrinn]

I voted for "It’s fine. As long as gameplay is interesting." I think for me the leader itself has always been an abstraction. I value more the historical empires we are representing or are being represented. That being said in some ways it would be nice to see specific leaders abandoned from the get go and have leaders be things you "level up" overtime, have children, and those children become the new leaders per era. That being said that is a lot to ask from Civ and im fairly sure other games have done that concept better in some way.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Roman inclusiveness didn't extend to anyone who wasn't drinking from their lap though.

Of course: 'Roman Advantages' were only for members of the Empire, and usually you became that way by being conquered. BUT, unlike other Empires, once conquered Roman Citizenship was generally extended to you pretty quickly, and after that you could share fully in the benefits, unlike earlier (and many later) Empires that were always primarily for the benefit of the Conqueror: no non-Persian ever became a Satrap in the Persian Empire, let alone had any chance whatsoever of becoming King of Kings.

Now the question for the Civ Gamers, is how do you represent that Inclusiveness and its advantages in the game, without making it something that every Civ will try for?
Answer is, it is one of the 'uniques' that really is pretty much Unique to only one Pre-Modern Empire, and so if it is going to be included, it will have to be a Roman Unique Attribute of some kind.