- And besides, don't forget that not only is One Man's Freedom Fighter Another Man's Terrorist, but one nation's war hero may be that same nation's later war criminal.
Case in point, Curtis LeMay's B-29s firebombed virtually every Japanese city except Nagasaki and Hiroshima between March and July 1945, and may have incinerated over 500,000 civilians in those cities. Even more than the two atomic bombs, that probably shortened the war and made a costly (for both sides) invasion unnecessary. But, a fraction of the same level of civilian casualties today would have LeMay charged as a war criminal before the International Court.
Alexander the Great, for obvious reasons, is not celebrated as a magnanimous Leader by the Persians/Iranians
Timujin the Khan may have been and still is a hero to the Mongolian people, but he was an object of terror to the rest of Asia.
William Tecumseh Sherman has no statues in his honor anywhere in Georgia or the Carolinas...
All of these shared three characteristics: they were heroes to their own sides, they won their wars, and their actions would be considered criminal today.
Neither Pol Pot nor Hitler are beloved by their people. I think they would make poor Civ leaders. We need to draw a line at some point, especially with 20th century dictators. This is just my personal opinion. And Firaxis seems to agree now.
There's also the fact that there's little to gain from choosing a controversial leader. A mediocre leader might draw criticism, like Cleopatra for Egypt, but I don't think that many people were so turned off by the choice that they refused to buy the game, OR that it drew enough media attention to cast a negative light on the game as a whole. No potential buyers will think, "wow, Hitler/Pol Pot/etc doesn't lead Germany/Khmer/etc in Civ VI, that ruins the game for me and I will no longer buy it." But there are people--and markets, in China's case--that will be turned off by such leaders, to the point that they no longer wish to purchase a game that features them in a playable, leadership role. Not people that are browsing this forum, but definitely casual gamers who aren't so dedicated to Civ to buy every game that releases. The fact that someone that wants a controversial leader that badly can simply download a mod gives Firaxis even less incentive to introduce someone incendiary; why give the media fuel for a potentially negative story for no gain?
Neither Pol Pot nor Hitler are beloved by their people. I think they would make poor Civ leaders. We need to draw a line at some point, especially with 20th century dictators. This is just my personal opinion. And Firaxis seems to agree now.
Aside from the morality - and it is by no means a side issue - Truly Infamous Leaders are really lousy in game terms. To take Hitler and Pol Pot, for the examples specified, if you modeled their Unique Attributes accurately in historical terms, they would have to include almost complete unreliability in diplomatic terms and in both those cases, slaughtering large elements of their own population for random reasons. Let's see, If H or PP is the Leader, every 10 turns lose between 1 and 3 Points of Population and 10% of any Great Person Points accrued.
Still want to play as one of them?
The alternative is for the designers to model 'only' the good or strong attributes of an Infamous Leader, which is a historical Whitewash and can be considered espousing their actions and agendas - which in today's public forum could lead to a great many people roundly condemning your game as a Nazi/Communist/Genocidal propaganda piece. That rarely helps sales in any country...
The fact that someone that wants a controversial leader that badly can simply download a mod gives Firaxis even less incentive to introduce someone incendiary; why give the media fuel for a potentially negative story for no gain?
- which in today's public forum could lead to a great many people roundly condemning your game as a Nazi/Communist/Genocidal propaganda piece. That rarely helps sales in any country...
I completely understand why such leaders are not included. I know the controversy is too hot to handle for any media outlet. I just think its a shame that we whitewash history in such a way. I don't want to play as Hitler, but would love to play against him.
We can learn from the past. We shouldn't be afraid of it.
OK, I have decided to try and come up with my designs of the Rise and Fall civs. I have added my ideas on the first page.
I have also changed many of my previous suggestions for the vanilla and DLC civs.
And of course, since I do not like the addition of the Cree and Mapuche civs, I have decided to add my suggestions for the Iroquois and Inca instead.
I got rid of most Civ IV leaders because I think they are either not the best choices, or do not work with a two leaders concept.
For instance, Peter is removed, because having him and Catherine in the same game would be kind of repetitive, as they are almost from the same era and would be somewhat similar, plus, they both have Petersburg as capital. Also, we need female leaders, and we need the best ones. Not Cleopatra, not Catherine de' Medici, but Catherine the Great and Isabella. Isabella means we do not really need Philip.
Another thing I thought of was that I want to see the greatest leaders, no matter in how many Civ games they have been. I really don't like the desire of the Civ VI team to change everything except for Gandhi.
I would also like to say I do not mind seeing some leaders as third leaders: Trajan, Jadwiga, Peter would all make for a great third leader.
And again, this is not a thread for only my redesigns. Anyone can present their own ideas of how they would redesign any of the civs in the game.
OK, I have decided to try and come up with my designs of the Rise and Fall civs. I have added my ideas on the first page.
I have also changed many of my previous suggestions for the vanilla and DLC civs.
And of course, since I do not like the addition of the Cree and Mapuche civs, I have decided to add my suggestions for the Iroquois and Inca instead.
You don't like the Cree and Mapuche because in your eyes, they aren't real "Civilizations"? I'm all for more South Amerindian representation in Civ besides the Inca. The Inca weren't the only Pre-Columbian Civilization in South America. Don't let the Mapuche city-list fool you into thinking they were completely nomadic, because they weren't. They had settlements. The Inca are also surely eventually coming to Civ 6.
I'm not so sure about the Iroquois returning. They also weren't the only notable Civilization in North America above the Rio Grande. The American Southeast (Cherokee/Choctaw/Muscogee/Chickasaw/Seminole) deserves a Civ as well. It's just that Firaxis decided to go with a Subarctic tribe like the Cree to kind of represent Canada in the game without actually adding them.
I'm not saying this to start any arguments, just voicing my opinions.
You don't like the Cree and Mapuche because in your eyes, they aren't real "Civilizations"? I'm all for more South Amerindian representation in Civ besides the Inca. The Inca weren't the only Pre-Columbian Civilization in South America. Don't let the Mapuche city-list fool you into thinking they were completely nomadic, because they weren't. They had settlements. The Inca are also surely eventually coming to Civ 6.
I never said I did not consider the Cree and the Mapuche as civilizations. Any nation in the world is a civilization, but it does not mean any civ in the world has to be in the game of Civilization. I am against adding civs that do not fit into the concept of the game, and the Cree and Mapuche have certain issues that don't make them good choices purely game-wise. I will say it again: Civilization is not Age of Empires or Total War. It has its own concept, and not every civilization can work with it.
I never said I did not consider the Cree and the Mapuche as civilizations. Any nation in the world is a civilization, but it does not mean any civ in the world has to be in the game of Civilization. I am against adding civs that do not fit into the concept of the game, and the Cree and Mapuche have certain issues that don't make them good choices purely game-wise. I will say it again: Civilization is not Age of Empires or Total War. It has its own concept, and not every civilization can work with it.
Yes, city lists is definitely an important issue. Another issue is that I think that for a civilization to be in the game it needs to also have something to its history beyond a single event. There has to be some sort of empire-building (or state-building) present in the nation's history, which is difficult to say about the Cree and the Mapuche.
The Mapuche first encountered a state level civilization in the Inca. After blunting the Inca's southward expansion they basically set up a mutual defense pact amongst the various settlements of the culture. They elected leaders during war time and there is evidence that they culturally absorbed the natives on the east side of the Andes. They were quick to adopt Spanish weapons and tactics even defeating the Spanish in pitched battles.
Their government was very much like the commonwealth period of Iceland. Extremely decentralized but still there they just didn't have one or a select few calling the shots.
Because Civ V had a better roster. Civ VI is definitely the best game in the series, but the civs, leaders and uniques in it are poorly designed, and in some cases not researched at all (look at Kongo, for instance).
And how am I trying to turn it into Civ V? I have so far rejected only three or four of the civs in VI, and the leaders I suggest in most cases are either ones in Civ VI or completely new ones, so I am definitely not trying to turn Civ VI back into V.
Civilization ability: Mandate of Heaven – policy cards are purchased with faith and not with gold, gain a progress of 60% from eurekas and inspirations
Unique unit 1: Zhuge nu (replaces crossbowman) – -10 range strength, may attack twice per turn
Unique unit 2: Fire Lancer (replaces musketman) – available at military engineering, +5 melee strength after discovery of gunpowder
Unique infrastructure: Pagoda (replaces shrine) – 1 great writer point per turn, +1 faith if holy site is on tile with charming appeal, +2 if on tile with breathtaking appeal
Leader 1: Wu Zetian
Capital: Xian
Ability: Acts of Grace – each specialist provides +1 to their yield
Agenda: Collection of Precious Glories – tries to fill as many great work of writing slots as possible, dislikes leaders who compete for great writers with her, or steal great works of writing from her
Leader 2: Kangxi
Capital: Beijing
Ability: Qing Porcelain – a city that has both a theatre and an industrial district produces an extra amenity, each city with at least one foreign religion, that is a state religion in another empire, produces +5% science
Agenda: Sacred Edict – Aims to spread his religion to every city he owns, likes leaders who spread their religion to his cities, but dislikes leaders who convert his cities
I do like ideas of recreating current civs and leaders, and would like to comment a bit on your Chinese.
The CUA Mandate of Heaven is a nice one, combining it with the original CUA and is historically relevant.
The UI Pagoda is a bit strange, as it is a Buddhist building, while China is influenced by Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, all 3 of them from time to time.
And Chinese are not that religious anyway (I will say they are spiritual and superstitious somehow).
I will suggest something that is more generally special to Chinese, like Chinese Gardens, ancestry temple/shrines (all Chinese worship ancestors regardless they are Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian), etc.
Or just make the leaders have their unique infrastructure as infrastructures vary greatly in the long history, I shall combine them in my comment of the leaders below.
Wu and Kangxi are decent picks of Chinese leaders, but seems that you need more background research of their history.
Leader-wise charateristics:
Wu Zetian was famed for: Allowing commoners to enter imperial examinations, vast and merciless interrogation to any suspects of causing unrest.
Her personality, as described by many historians, was wise in recruiting talented people (not great works), super calculating and suspicious. And she would not hesitate to kill anyone in her way, including her sons, relatives and advisors.
Kangxi was famed for: his military triumph for 10 times in his life, overseeing the creation of another encyclopedia, privately touring other provinces, and the encounter of western ambassadors (or was it Qianlong than Kangxi?) He was very proud of his own achievements and usually only listened to no one but himself.
Dynasty-wise charateristics:
Tang dynasty (Wu Zetian's era): great expansions and making other surrounding kingdoms bow to them, also terrible problem in holding the territories and spreading of Buddhism. Du Hufu (protectorate) was a signature unique military+administrative infrastructure back at that time. Pagoda is also a match to this period, but Chinese going religious is not so culturally relevant.
I will suggest the leader ability and UI to be related to loyalty, when it is Wu.
Qing dynasty (Kangxi's era): Put down invasions and rebellions in the borders, cutting off foreigners from entering China.
Gardens becomes the most lavish in this period. I will suggest a military based LUA and cultural UI for this era, particularly for Kangxi.
Although your suggestions are not that historically relevant, I appreciate that you have designed the LUAs to be self-sustaining and aiming at a certain niche. However, I would like to point out that Chinese leaders are very rarely religious (they will never start sth like a holy war because of difference in faith) so specializing them in religious victory sounds strange.
Btw, "Sacred Edict" means "Royal decree" in Chinese. I suppose its not a proper form of an agenda...
I supposed the dynasty founder of Ming was also a reasonably good one... Chinese dynasty founders and their recent successors normally had some achievements and important foundations, and then the dynasties started to decline at some point. But Youngle will shadow the Ming emperors all anyway.
I do like ideas of recreating current civs and leaders, and would like to comment a bit on your Chinese.
The CUA Mandate of Heaven is a nice one, combining it with the original CUA and is historically relevant.
The UI Pagoda is a bit strange, as it is a Buddhist building, while China is influenced by Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, all 3 of them from time to time.
And Chinese are not that religious anyway (I will say they are spiritual and superstitious somehow).
I will suggest something that is more generally special to Chinese, like Chinese Gardens, ancestry temple/shrines (all Chinese worship ancestors regardless they are Buddhist/Taoist/Confucian), etc.
Or just make the leaders have their unique infrastructure as infrastructures vary greatly in the long history, I shall combine them in my comment of the leaders below.
Wu and Kangxi are decent picks of Chinese leaders, but seems that you need more background research of their history.
Leader-wise charateristics:
Wu Zetian was famed for: Allowing commoners to enter imperial examinations, vast and merciless interrogation to any suspects of causing unrest.
Her personality, as described by many historians, was wise in recruiting talented people (not great works), super calculating and suspicious. And she would not hesitate to kill anyone in her way, including her sons, relatives and advisors.
Kangxi was famed for: his military triumph for 10 times in his life, overseeing the creation of another encyclopedia, privately touring other provinces, and the encounter of western ambassadors (or was it Qianlong than Kangxi?) He was very proud of his own achievements and usually only listened to no one but himself.
Dynasty-wise charateristics:
Tang dynasty (Wu Zetian's era): great expansions and making other surrounding kingdoms bow to them, also terrible problem in holding the territories and spreading of Buddhism. Du Hufu (protectorate) was a signature unique military+administrative infrastructure back at that time. Pagoda is also a match to this period, but Chinese going religious is not so culturally relevant.
I will suggest the leader ability and UI to be related to loyalty, when it is Wu.
Qing dynasty (Kangxi's era): Put down invasions and rebellions in the borders, cutting off foreigners from entering China.
Gardens becomes the most lavish in this period. I will suggest a military based LUA and cultural UI for this era, particularly for Kangxi.
Although your suggestions are not that historically relevant, I appreciate that you have designed the LUAs to be self-sustaining and aiming at a certain niche. However, I would like to point out that Chinese leaders are very rarely religious (they will never start sth like a holy war because of difference in faith) so specializing them in religious victory sounds strange.
Btw, "Sacred Edict" means "Royal decree" in Chinese. I suppose its not a proper form of an agenda...
Thanks for suggesting a better UI for China. I was not pleased with the pagoda myself. As for the rest, I think I really should look again at Wu and Kangxi and redesign them with the R&F stuff. Still, it is not always easy to turn actual historic events and characteristics into gameplay elements.
Thanks for suggesting a better UI for China. I was not pleased with the pagoda myself. As for the rest, I think I really should look again at Wu and Kangxi and redesign them with the R&F stuff. Still, it is not always easy to turn actual historic events and characteristics into gameplay elements.
I have some designs ideas in mind, but I don't like to throw my entire design on others' post, as it seems to be a kind of rudeness.
Therefore, I just hinted them out in my above post.
It is not easy to create a well designed kit along with historical relevance. Your hard work will be respected.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
I'm all for more South Amerindian representation in Civ besides the Inca. The Inca weren't the only Pre-Columbian Civilization in South America. Don't let the Mapuche city-list fool you into thinking they were completely nomadic, because they weren't. They had settlements. The Inca are also surely eventually coming to Civ 6. 
