POLL: Non-Leader Leaders

[Zaarin]

Maybe Tomyris since there is scant historical information about the Scythians.

Of all the legendary leaders we've had (not counting some of Civ2's bizarre and totally made up choices), I'd rank Tomyris as the least likely to have existed. Herodotus questions the authenticity of the story, and Herodotus includes some very questionable stories without comment.

But ideally for me, Civ would do away with leaders completely. Having one person lead you through all of history seems like one of these simplifications that have stayed throughout the civ versions and has never been really challenged so far. I think it's time. Changing leaders per era is one possibility, but you could also just interact with "the nation" or "an ambassador" & maybe use the great leaders in-game in a different fashion. So many possibilities, and so many graphic artist hours saved since apparently the creation of the leader is the bottleneck for the DLC creation... But well.

Speaking for myself, I would never buy such a Civ game. Interacting with the leaders is, IMO, the only thing Civ has over other (IMO better) 4X games. I'd like to see diplomacy and interacting with the leaders foregrounded further personally.

I generally agree with this, except I would say Wu Zetian was on Hatshepsut's level as far as being important and powerful

100% agree. Wu could fill CdM's role as "sophisticated, sinister femme fatale" beautifully.

 

[mitsho]

Speaking for myself, I would never buy such a Civ game. Interacting with the leaders is, IMO, the only thing Civ has over other (IMO better) 4X games. I'd like to see diplomacy and interacting with the leaders foregrounded further personally.

What? You interact with the leaders? Please show me how! All I do is click through the best trade options and get annoyed when they contact me with their blatantly obvious coded responses. It's repetitive. I wouldn't mind the leaders where they in a good UI, like say, all sitting around one table. If they were cleverly done and wouldn't just add busywork that could be done elsewhere by better UI.

But yes, I can see that different tastes exist. I'd put the core of civ in seeing a bustling empire emerge from small starts, you see it in the diplomacy. It's subjective after all and I mainly wanted to comment on the poll options framing. That got a little bit out of hand though...

 

[Zaarin]

What? You interact with the leaders? Please show me how! All I do is click through the best trade options and get annoyed when they contact me with their blatantly obvious coded responses. It's repetitive. I wouldn't mind the leaders where they in a good UI, like say, all sitting around one table. If they were cleverly done and wouldn't just add busywork that could be done elsewhere by better UI.

Oh, absolutely, I'd love to see the inter-leader interaction enriched, perhaps even bring in roleplaying elements. Divinity: Dragon Commander attempted to fuse RPG/strategy elements, but I don't think it succeeded to do either well, sadly.

I'd put the core of civ in seeing a bustling empire emerge from small starts

That doesn't really set it apart from any other 4X, though: that's pretty much the foundational trope of the genre. I was just saying that the leaders are what sets Civ apart from other 4X games IMO.

 

[steveg700]

As to Ben Frankling why even go there? There are more than enough big names and personalities that they really don't need to be considered.

But we have seen stuff like that, where Theodora is chosen to lead over actual emperors.

Gotta take'em case by case. Henry the Navigator for Portugal? I could live with it. He accomplished a lot for his people.

If you have a leader like Theodora, who did not look out for the people of Byzantium in any way, and was to all discernible means a self-important opportunist (no, I'm not counting being a patron of the Hagia Sophia as being a leader of the people).

 

[Halcyan2]

Of all the legendary leaders we've had (not counting some of Civ2's bizarre and totally made up choices), I'd rank Tomyris as the least likely to have existed. Herodotus questions the authenticity of the story, and Herodotus includes some very questionable stories without comment.

Speaking for myself, I would never buy such a Civ game. Interacting with the leaders is, IMO, the only thing Civ has over other (IMO better) 4X games. I'd like to see diplomacy and interacting with the leaders foregrounded further personally.

100% agree. Wu could fill CdM's role as "sophisticated, sinister femme fatale" beautifully.

I do think Wu is a legitimate choice. It's just that she isn't seen as "representative" of her civilization (particularly by the modern day people).

For example, both Kristina and Maria I were Queen Regnants, but they were controversial figures and the Swedish and Portuguese players were scratching their heads about those choices.

Let's take, for example Shajar al-Durr, Sultana of Egypt and Razia Sultana of Delhi. While they are certainly interesting historical case studies, if they were chosen as the leaders of Egypt and India, because they aren't very "conventional" choices.

But we have seen stuff like that, where Theodora is chosen to lead over actual emperors.

Gotta take'em case by case. Henry the Navigator for Portugal? I could live with it. He accomplished a lot for his people.

If you have a leader like Theodora, who did not look out for the people of Byzantium in any way, and was to all discernible means a self-important opportunist (no, I'm not counting being a patron of the Hagia Sophia as being a leader of the people).

Uh, Theodora was an actual empress (though she married into the position). In fact, some historical sources say she was made empress regnant as co-regent. (It was not uncommon during those times for two people to share rulership as co-emperors). And she's a far better choice than some of the other East Roman female choices (Irene of Athens ::cough cough:.

I mean, Catherine the Great (born Prussian) was initially Empress/Queen Consort when she married and then later ascended to Empress/Queen Regnant after the death of her husband.

 

[Coco l'asticot]

I'm fine as long as they are still iconic and consensual cultural/political figures.
But if it's a controversial character who was just a military officer, for instance, it's not ok at all. For instance, Joan of Arc leading France would get me seriously triggered. I also dislike Mao for China, Stalin for Russia or Napoléon for France (yeah I don't know why Firaxis kept picking leaders worshipped by the far right for France... at least we got De Gaulle, Louis XIV and Catherine de Médicis). Hitler for Germany would be shocking as well. Some other "monsters" are less instrumentalized, so they are more acceptable I guess (looking at you, Gengis). In other words, if everyone agree on the evil status of a "villain" leader, it's ok. But if it looks like it's supporting the views of some... questionable contemporary groups, I will avoid it.

I don't have any problem with the current or announced leaders for Civ6. I'm also ok with not picking the most iconic leaders for each country - it's also an occasion to discover new things, and if I want a history lesson it's not the right place anyway. That's why Gorgo doesn't bother me much, even if I would probably prefer one of the Lacaedemonian reformers (Lycurgus being the obvious choice). Sparta isn't just about Leonidas and the 300 at Thermopylae.
I'm even less bothered by Carthago, Hannibal is mainly famous in military history, while Dido is the most iconic cultural carthaginan character (many works were written after her). Civilization is going to have trouble picking one leader for any republic like Carthago (with two shuphets) anyway, so picking a "queen" makes sense, just like Rome never had a republican leader (even though Cicero would be great), but always emperors.

I also think that having a leader you can talk to is now a defining asset of the Civilization series. Without that, they are "just another 4X game" with little personality. When making references to Civ, you'll see it's mostly done by making fun of the rulers. It also helps keeping in mind that Civilization is absolutely NOT about actual history, and more a fun game with a historical theme (in the sense that you will never be able to emulate history in a civ game, contrarily to other games in the same genre that are more about alternate history).

 

[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.

 

[Morningcalm]

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.

Well, Cixi, Empress Matilda, and Nur Jahan certainly weren't just consorts, but actual rulers of sorts, so it makes sense you would be ok with them.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

You can definitely put me in the "the best leaders would be no leaders at all" camp. It would benefit Firaxis because they would save money on animation and voice acting, and it would benefit me because there would be fewer threads on Civ Fanatics reminding me that the civ fandom is rife with pretentious history snobs whose idea of a good time is arguing about the "worthiness" of various dead people.

The space in the trade/diplomacy screen that leaders currently occupy could be replaced with a static image of two diplomats sitting down at a table to negotiate, one being from your civ and other being from the civ to whom you are talking.

Of course, even if they did get rid of leaders, people on Civ Fanatics would probably just argue about great people instead. "Is this person really a great general? As a historian, I feel I'm qualified to say that he constitutes, at best, a pretty good general."

 

[Krajzen]

I am completely against Gandhi, but that's because
a) I am completely tired of him in civ
b) I despise this meme as much disproportionally as any loathsome meme which has been repeated milion times
c) India deserves less popcultural caricatures and stereotypes and more diversity - go away Gandhi, elephant unit, and obligatory food and spirituality bonuses.

Otherwise, I don't really care, some historical figures not-exactly-leaders are amazing enough to be acceptable to me. Many "great kings" are quite boring to be honest - codified law and tax reform don't make for a fun civ story.

Personally I'd be fine with Joan of Arc or Cardinal Richelieu for France (however they have so many amazing kings with higher priority); Themistocles for Greece; Livia fod Rome; Oxenstierna for Sweden; Kosciuszko for Poland (borderline case); Hurrem Sultan for Ottomans or other powerful women; semi-mythical Himiko for Japan; Dona Isabella for Brazil... Etc. It opens door for a lot of historical women who were very powerful but could never have 'official' ruling status because of predictable reasons.

The possibility of mythical figures also opens door for civs that could be potentially great additions but have no interesting or known leaders. Sumer and Phoenicia for example are wonderful cultures worthy of inclusion - with horribly documented leaders. Same problem is shared by many ancient Precolombian cultures or yet badly researched Subsaharan civs.

 

[Ziad]

India without spirituality bonuses is like Japan without a military bonus or France without a culture bonus.

It don't work.

 

[Zaarin]

But we have seen stuff like that, where Theodora is chosen to lead over actual emperors.

Theodora was an actual empress. Justinian named her co-regent.

It's just that she isn't seen as "representative" of her civilization (particularly by the modern day people).

Should that matter? (I mean that as a legitimate question.)

Queen Consorts are perfectly fine for me, provided they were competent, intelligent and iconic women worthy of representation.

I agree with the caveat that they were actively involved in politics and policy-making.

Sumer and Phoenicia for example are wonderful cultures worthy of inclusion - with horribly documented leaders.

...Sumer has many very well-documented leaders. The devs are just hung up on the poorly documented Gilgamesh. I'm a fan of Gudea of Lagash.

 

[PAC]

I'm not a huge fan. If Gandhi wasn't grandfathered in by being a huge meme and basically the series' mascot I wouldn't want him in. Thank god for alt-leaders because India wouldn't get anyone else without them. Civ should stick to political leaders imo. I do understand it if there aren't a lot of good options though(obviously not the case with India).

I am also mixed on mythical leaders like Kupe, Gilgamesh, and Dido.

 

[Halcyan2]

Should that matter? (I mean that as a legitimate question.)

Yes, it should matter because there is the potential to offend playerbases and show poor judgment by the part of the company if they make an offensive choice.

For example, there are plenty of U.S. presidents which would be controversial choices.

Richard Nixon and :ahem: Donald Trump may be "interesting" but given their shady dealings, I think a lot of Americans would be offended if those individuals were chosen as the leaders to represent the civilization. There are also bad presidents like Grant, and presidents who did terrible things like Andrew Jackson and the Trail of Tears.

What if instead of Augustus or Julius or Trajan as the Roman leader we ended up with Caligula, Nero, or Commodus? Or King John for England?

I do think that Wu Zetian was given a bad rap, but given how she is portrayed in Chinese culture, I can see why Chinese players might have been scratching their heads wondering why she was chosen to represent China in Civ V. (I personally like the choice because I never would have even learned about her otherwise).

I mean, even with Civ VI we had some players complain that Mvemba a Nzinga was a sellout because of his embrace of colonialist ways (particularly religion).

 

[Zaarin]

Yes, it should matter because there is the potential to offend playerbases and show poor judgment by the part of the company if they make an offensive choice.

This is true, but is there not a (rather large) gradient between "not iconic" and "offensive"? Your original statement was that natives of the civilization (which doesn't even apply to many civilizations) should regard the leader chosen as "representative"; that seems to me to be a very different statement than "the leader chosen should not be offensive." What about choices who are neither iconic nor offensive, like Barbarossa or Tokimune (both of whom I thought were excellent choices, even if they're not the first names that spring to mind with Germany and Japan)?

What if instead of Augustus or Julius or Trajan as the Roman leader we ended up with Caligula, Nero, or Commodus? Or King John for England?

Worth noting that many historians have revised their opinions of both King John and Nero, who suffered from a great deal of propaganda after their reigns. I for one think either one would make an interesting choice for England and Rome respectively; the chief argument against them not being their controversial status but that both civilizations have numerous better options. (Also Rome is an interesting choice, given the stated purpose is to avoid giving offense, and there are no Romans left to be offended, Italian nationalists notwithstanding.)

I do think that Wu Zetian was given a bad rap, but given how she is portrayed in Chinese culture, I can see why Chinese players might have been scratching their heads wondering why she was chosen to represent China in Civ V. (I personally like the choice because I never would have even learned about her otherwise).

I also liked her. I wouldn't want her to be chosen every time, but I'd welcome her return in Civ7. (Honestly, she was a better choice than Qin IMO, who is one of the safest leader choices in vanilla Civ6.)

 

[MonkeyPaw]

With the new diplomatic options, I think Eleanor Roosevelt would have been a good addition for GS

 

[Halcyan2]

This is true, but is there not a (rather large) gradient between "not iconic" and "offensive"? Your original statement was that natives of the civilization (which doesn't even apply to many civilizations) should regard the leader chosen as "representative"; that seems to me to be a very different statement than "the leader chosen should not be offensive." What about choices who are neither iconic nor offensive, like Barbarossa or Tokimune (both of whom I thought were excellent choices, even if they're not the first names that spring to mind with Germany and Japan)?

Well, this touches upon the issue of "stereotypes." The leaders, abilities, and uniques of a civilization represent that civilization and are a reflection of how the designers view that civilization.

For example, there was discussion of whether the hockey rink and Mounties (for Canada) and the golf course (for Scotland) were a little too stereotypical and simplistic.

If the developers choose a particular leader (or a controversial one in this case) or an atypical unique, then people are going to think "uh so that's what you think of our civilization" or "ugh now everyone else is going to think our civilization is all about XXX!"

Worth noting that many historians have revised their opinions of both King John and Nero, who suffered from a great deal of propaganda after their reigns. I for one think either one would make an interesting choice for England and Rome respectively; the chief argument against them not being their controversial status but that both civilizations have numerous better options. (Also Rome is an interesting choice, given the stated purpose is to avoid giving offense, and there are no Romans left to be offended, Italian nationalists notwithstanding.)

Eh. Rome lived on with East Rome. One could argue that the "last Romans" were the inhabitants of Lemnos in the early 20th century. Who knows if their descendants have assimilated into Greek culture or if they still maintain vestiges of their Roman culture....

I also liked her. I wouldn't want her to be chosen every time, but I'd welcome her return in Civ7. (Honestly, she was a better choice than Qin IMO, who is one of the safest leader choices in vanilla Civ6.)

Yes, Qin and Mao were brutal as well but they end up being revered in Chinese histories (as opposed to Wu).

I always found it interesting how Stalin and Mao managed to get into Civilization despite their infamy and atrocities. I doubt Hirohito (Japanese Emperor during World War 2) or U.S. choices like Andrew Jackson (there are periodic efforts to remove him from the $20 bill) would ever make it into the game.

 

[mitsho]

Of course, even if they did get rid of leaders, people on Civ Fanatics would probably just argue about great people instead. "Is this person really a great general? As a historian, I feel I'm qualified to say that he constitutes, at best, a pretty good general."

It‘s funny because the next few posts do exactly that

(And I don‘t want to get rid of the people, I just want these personalities in the game in a different way.)

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

In the Ottoman discussion thread, someone proposed something interesting. Suleiman does not have any real ability by itself: he only has a unique Governor, which promotions give unique abilities to Suleiman (only in one city, but still). It could be a nice improvement to the way leaders are used: instead of giving them one unique, strong and complex ability, why not give them 4 or 6 different abilities? You have only the first one at the beginning of the game, and as you came into the tech/civic trees, you unlock new abilities, changing slightly the way the AI behaves and giving more and more depth to your empire as you grow? Plus, it would near-perfectly simulate the development of each nation. Sumer wasn’t the civilization we knew right at the beginning: they first developed irrigation, then writing, then ziggurat, and on and on (I don’t know my chronology so maybe these events are in the wrong order but that’s not the point).


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.


In a nutshell: I would want to see my civilization, and especially its abilities, evolved through time. Plus it would close the debate “each civilization is late-game or early-game”, because each civilization would have some abilities unlocked at the beginning and other unlocked, said, at the Industrial Era.

 

[Hans Castorp]

I've made my peace with the anything goes position. The 'historical' element of the game is so nebulous (putting on my professional hat) that worrying about the specifics seems like rather a waste of time.