Second Leaders: Which Civs Need Them?

[Patine]

Wrong Montezuma. While Monty II has been included before, Civ6's Monty is Montezuma I. As for Cleo, she was a poor choice...for many reasons. She was a brilliant woman who made the best of a doomed situation, but out of ~2,000 years of Egyptian history, there were not only better options, but better female options, to choose from. Likewise, I'd rather see Wu Zetian than Cixi, personally.

Amen to Wu Zetian.

 

[Greywulf]

Amen to Wu Zetian.

I'd also be happy with Wu Zetian, if she was chosen instead.

 

[Siptah]

And there I was thinking that the Pharaoh for whom you have to do the least between the lines reading to get to his personality is Kethy III or Nebkaure Khety. Not that they are good choices for a civ game.

If you are talking Egyptian Kings & Queens pairs, you should include the guy who started it: Amenhotep III. If you‘d ask the Egyptologist in the streets who was the greatest Pharaoh (and ask for a quick answer), you would probably get his name in response. He could bring a nice diplomatic ability to civ VI, or the obvious builder/culture/religion thingy. Only drawback for me is that he is, again, a New Kingdom Pharaoh.

 

[SMcM]

Oh wow Alfred, that Saxon guy. Why place him under William the conquer, I wonder?

As I rmb the standard English history started with William in 1066, right? Before him, England was fractions of lands called Wessex, Essex, Whateverssex

although he was a norman... well that will mix France and England...

You could add Alfred to England or a separate Anglo Saxon civ. Yes, Anglo-Saxon England was many smaller kingdoms, not one united kingdom. Alfred actually played a significant role in bringing England towards unification (taking the title 'king of the Anglo-Saxons'), with Athelstan becoming king of England just a couple of decades after his rule. England was therefore united well before the Norman conquest. It is true, usually study of English history is started at the Normans, as that is a clear cut-off point separating it from earlier Anglo-Saxon history. But English history is clearly a continuation of Anglo-Saxon history, so to say that Alfred isn't a part of English history isn't really accurate. If Alfred is not suitable as an English alt on the basis he was ruler of Wessex, then Frederick the Great and Bismarck would be unsuitable as leaders of Germany. Similarly, Seondok only ruled one of three Korean kingdoms. Neither of the Civ 6 Greece leaders were close to ruling a united Greece (with Gorgo not really a leader at all).

Having said that, having a separate Anglo-Saxon civ to represent centuries of distinct Anglo-Saxon history makes a lot of sense, and for sure the Normans had a large impact, changing England significantly. So, whilst I don't think Alfred leading England is as strange as you might think, clearly having him lead the Anglo-Saxons would make more sense.

As for William the conqueror, I would suggest William as a leader of England goes against precedent in the Civ games. As an example, even though Kublai Khan's dominions were primarily in China, and that is where he moved his capital following his conquest, he has only appeared as a leader of the Mongols in the Civ series. William was culturally French, and a ruler of Normandy before he conquered England. He is best remembered for his conquest of England, achieved of course with a Norman army. Similarly I would argue that King Cnut/Canute would be more suitable as leader of Denmark than as leader of England.

 

[nzcamel]

If you look at the case of Cleopatra and Montezuma II, probably you won't feel bad to see Cixi at all.

Ancient Egypt lost her last glory with Cleopatra while the great Aztec empire crumbled almost immediately after Montezuma, with their capital reduced to dust.

...

Qin was the opening of imperial chinese and Cixi the one closing the last chapter. I think thats kind of Romantic to have them both appear in the game.

So you approve of Cixi, inspite of her being a closing chapter...yet you disprove of Cleo for what seems like a similar reason. I'm guessing there is other differences that you haven't touched on?

 

[halfhalfharp]

So you approve of Cixi, inspite of her being a closing chapter...yet you disprove of Cleo for what seems like a similar reason. I'm guessing there is other differences that you haven't touched on?

No, I approve of Cleo. I am just using her as an example to illustrate Cixi wasn't unacceptable according to the standards of Civ serious.

 

[IgorS]

The civs I'd like to have second leaders for are:
Americans - Washington or Lincoln
Chinese - Wu Zetian, Taizong, or Kangxi
Egyptians - Ramesses (I'd say Hatshepsut, but we already have a female leader)
English - Æthelstan (first king of the English, a better choice than Alfred who was not King of England)
French - Napoleon (I'd say Louis XIV, but we already have an age of discovery/enlightenment leader in Catherine de' Medici)
Germans - Bismarck
Kongolese - either make Mvemba a Nzinga be able to found a religion or add a second leader who would be able to do this, like Garcia (also, DO NOT make Anna Nzinga leader of Kongo, as she was never leader of Kongo)
Russians - someone with a capital in Moscow, like Ivan III or Nikita Khrushchev (NOT Ivan the Terrible or Joseph Stalin)

 

[Patine]

You could add Alfred to England or a separate Anglo Saxon civ. Yes, Anglo-Saxon England was many smaller kingdoms, not one united kingdom. Alfred actuallyplayed a significant role in bringing England towards unification (taking the title 'king of the Anglo-Saxons'), with Athelstan becoming king of England just a couple of decades after his rule. England was therefore united well before the Norman conquest. It is true, usually study of English history is started at the Normans, as that is a clear cut-off point separating it from earlier Anglo-Saxon history. But English history is clearly a continuation of Anglo-Saxon history, so to say that Alfred isn't a part of English history isn't really accurate. If Alfred is not suitable as an English alt on the basis he was ruler of Wessex, then Frederick the Great and Bismarck would be unsuitable as leaders of Germany. Similarly, Seondok only ruled one of three Korean kingdoms. Neither of the Civ 6 Greece leaders were close to ruling a united Greece (with Gorgo not really a leader at all).

Having said that, having a separate Anglo-Saxon civ to represent centuries of distinct Anglo-Saxon history makes a lot of sense, and for sure the Normans had a large impact, changing England significantly. So, whilst I don't think Alfred leading England is as strange as you might think, clearly having him lead the Anglo-Saxons would make more sense.

As for William the conqueror, I would suggest William as a leader of England goes against precedent in the Civ games. As an example, even though Kublai Khan's dominions were primarily in China, and that is where he moved his capital following his conquest, he has only appeared as a leader of the Mongols in the Civ series. William was culturally French, and a ruler of Normandy before he conquered England. He is best remembered for his conquest of England, achieved of course with a Norman army. Similarly I would argue that King Cnut/Canute would be more suitable as leader of Denmark than as leader of England.

Also, Athelstan and William the Conqueror were both direct descendants, by different branches of the family, of the early royal family of Denmark.

 

[halfhalfharp]

You could add Alfred to England or a separate Anglo Saxon civ. Yes, Anglo-Saxon England was many smaller kingdoms, not one united kingdom. Alfred actuallyplayed a significant role in bringing England towards unification (taking the title 'king of the Anglo-Saxons'), with Athelstan becoming king of England just a couple of decades after his rule. England was therefore united well before the Norman conquest. It is true, usually study of English history is started at the Normans, as that is a clear cut-off point separating it from earlier Anglo-Saxon history. But English history is clearly a continuation of Anglo-Saxon history, so to say that Alfred isn't a part of English history isn't really accurate. If Alfred is not suitable as an English alt on the basis he was ruler of Wessex, then Frederick the Great and Bismarck would be unsuitable as leaders of Germany. Similarly, Seondok only ruled one of three Korean kingdoms. Neither of the Civ 6 Greece leaders were close to ruling a united Greece (with Gorgo not really a leader at all).

Having said that, having a separate Anglo-Saxon civ to represent centuries of distinct Anglo-Saxon history makes a lot of sense, and for sure the Normans had a large impact, changing England significantly. So, whilst I don't think Alfred leading England is as strange as you might think, clearly having him lead the Anglo-Saxons would make more sense.

As for William the conqueror, I would suggest William as a leader of England goes against precedent in the Civ games. As an example, even though Kublai Khan's dominions were primarily in China, and that is where he moved his capital following his conquest, he has only appeared as a leader of the Mongols in the Civ series. William was culturally French, and a ruler of Normandy before he conquered England. He is best remembered for his conquest of England, achieved of course with a Norman army. Similarly I would argue that King Cnut/Canute would be more suitable as leader of Denmark than as leader of England.

Agreeable.

Should William be classified as English, Norman, Danish...
or
Should Gorgo be classified as Greek, Spartans...

These are debates for the historians. Going after these agruments will lead us no where. So I am not diving deeper.

But I would like to point out that, choosing leaders from that embarrassing time spot will bring confusions.

Something like the question "is the founder of Rome qualified as a roman" and "should the history before Rome included in roman history".

Same case to Alfred. So i will rather make him Saxon leader than English leader.

 

[Zaarin]

Em... for Nefertiti, I remember she was the co-regent with Akhenaten too? You know... egyptian political arts tend to paint more important figures as larger size, facing a certain direction or offering tributes to gods.

Nefertiti was a major player at court, but to my recollection she wasn't actually co-regent. But I'm sick right now and my memory isn't what it usually is. Also worth remembering that Amarna art didn't follow the usual Egyptian rules.

Nefertiti was certainly qualified for this, regardless her co-regency was mentioned or not.

Agreed.

For Nefertari(y), this is brand new. Can you explain a bit, aside from being formal co-regent, did she achieve anything in her reign, should she ever rule? I don't know much about her aside from her title of great royal wife and her temple in Abu Simbel. Ramsey's image was shadowing anything she did.

Like many Great Royal Wives, she was active as a priestess. More distinctively, she also worked as a diplomat (being famous for her correspondence with the Hittites, for example), which was unusual for a Great Royal Wife.

And this suddenly comes across me. For co-regents, can we make them appear together in one screen? Lol that should be amusing

It would be interesting, but I don't think it would happen in Civ6-style leader screens. Would have been cool in Civ5, though.

Something like the question "is the founder of Rome qualified as a roman" and "should the history before Rome included in roman history".

Same case to Alfred. So i will rather make him Saxon leader than English leader.

I don't think anyone would disagree that Alfred was English, Alfred least of all. But I'd prefer to see him lead Wessex simply because England's current abilities don't suit him at all.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I prefer to see a Tudor monarch as a counterpoint to Victoria actually. Elisabeth has an easy way in with a Golden Age boost (and since only Tamar has a GA boost, Elisabeth's could function differently e.g. +1 era score for Harbour buildings or naval unit constructed in a city with a Naval Dockyard. +2 era score for building Naval Dockyards) and so has Henry VIII with a religious reformation LUA (can build religious units with production/spend religious units to reform the beliefs of religions present in his empire to suit his particular needs.)

It would also be preferable if they swapped Victoria's LUA with England's CUA (Victoria retains the Redcoat, obviously). That would ensure any possible alt leaders for England (official, modded or otherwise) have a distinctly more English feel.

 

[Lord Lakely]

As for china, how about this:

Zhu Di Yongle (Ming Emperor famous for building the forbidden City and relocating the Ming Capital from Nanjing to Beijing and for also being a ruthlessly efficient monarch. 'Ruthless' being emphasized. )

Capital: Beijing

Ability: *The Eastern Factory: City States you're the Suzerain of grant you a Governor title upon becoming Suzerain for the first time and exert loyalty towards your empire as long as you remain the Suzerain. Founding a city grants +1 envoy in the nearest known City State.

Agenda: Mandate of Heaven: Dislikes empires which spread disloyalty to his cities, likes empires which do not (more if Yongle's cities are spreading disloyalty to them)

Hidden Agenda's: Money Grubber, Industrialist, Culturalist.


* thx to @halfhalfharp for suggesting the ability name.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Ahh... Yongle. I remember him from elimination threads. I still think he would be a good alternative leader of China

 

[SMcM]

I don't think anyone would disagree that Alfred was English, Alfred least of all. But I'd prefer to see him lead Wessex simply because England's current abilities don't suit him at all.

You're absolutely right that from a gameplay point of view him leading England is not ideal. However, I think a combined Anglo-Saxon civ makes more sense than a Wessex civ based on series precedent- considering that the ancient Greek city states are combined as the 'Greek Civilization', the German states are combined as the 'German Civilization', and Tomyris leads 'Scythia' as opposed to the specific group she actually ruled. Mayan states are also always combined as one civ. Besides series precedent, Anglo-Saxon civ also allows for the possibility of alternative leaders of other kingdoms- as an example, in Merrick's Civ 6 Anglo-Saxon mod, Offa is an alternative leader.

Agreeable.
Should William be classified as English, Norman, Danish...
or
Should Gorgo be classified as Greek, Spartans...

For sure William leading the Danes would make no sense- yes the Norman rulers descended from Rollo, but having him lead Denmark on grounds of ethnicity would be like having Catherine de' Medici lead Italy or Catherine the Great lead Germany. William the conqueror had very little to do with Denmark, and by this point the Normans were almost entirely integrated into French culture as far as I know- even if they remained somewhat distinct from other French people due to their heritage, they were no longer Vikings. I was not debating about whether Gorgo should lead Greece or Sparta btw, I just don't think she is a good leader choice for any civ.

 

[IgorS]

I think China has the most worthy leader options than any other civ.

 

[Kimiimaro]

I think China has the most worthy leader options than any other civ.

Yeah. That happens when you are one of the oldest countries in the world

 

[Zaarin]

You're absolutely right that from a gameplay point of view him leading England is not ideal. However, I think a combined Anglo-Saxon civ makes more sense than a Wessex civ based on series precedent- considering that the ancient Greek city states are combined as the 'Greek Civilization', the German states are combined as the 'German Civilization', and Tomyris leads 'Scythia' as opposed to the specific group she actually ruled. Mayan states are also always combined as one civ. Besides series precedent, Anglo-Saxon civ also allows for the possibility of alternative leaders of other kingdoms- as an example, in Merrick's Civ 6 Anglo-Saxon mod, Offa is an alternative leader.

"Wessex" is more aesthetically pleasing than "the Anglo-Saxons." The others you mentioned all have convenient short forms; "the Anglo-Saxons" do not. Ængleland is too close to England (being, in fact, etymologically the same); Saxony is a different place entirely; Britain would be appropriate for Victoria but nonsensical for Alfred. If we're going to balkanize England for Alfred's sake, might as well give him the kingdom he led: Wessex. Not like we're likely to get a second Anglo-Saxon king anyway, as much as I'd like one.

 

[Guandao]

Ahh... Yongle. I remember him from elimination threads. I still think he would be a good alternative leader of China

Ahh, yes, the overrated Ming Dynasty emperor with the treasure fleet which his descendants destroyed.....

"Wessex" is more aesthetically pleasing than "the Anglo-Saxons." The others you mentioned all have convenient short forms; "the Anglo-Saxons" do not. Ængleland is too close to England (being, in fact, etymologically the same); Saxony is a different place entirely; Britain would be appropriate for Victoria but nonsensical for Alfred. If we're going to balkanize England for Alfred's sake, might as well give him the kingdom he led: Wessex. Not like we're likely to get a second Anglo-Saxon king anyway, as much as I'd like one.

But the name "Wessex" has "sex" in the name?

 

[God of Kings]

As for china, how about this:

Zhu Di Yongle (Ming Emperor famous for building the forbidden City and relocating the Ming Capital from Nanjing to Beijing and for also being a ruthlessly efficient monarch. 'Ruthless' being emphasized. )

Capital: Beijing

Ability: Mandate of Heaven: City States you're the Suzerain of grant you a Governor title upon becoming Suzerain for the first time and exert loyalty towards your empire as long as you remain the Suzerain. Founding a city grants +1 envoy in the nearest known City State.

Yongle is also known for commissioning the Yongle Encyclopedia, which was the largest encyclopedia before Wikipedia, returning a tribute of castrated boys back to the Ryukyus, and for funding Zheng He's treasure fleet.

 

[Zaarin]

But the name "Wessex" has "sex" in the name?

Ah, yes, I'm apt to forget the average English speaker is reduced to the maturity of a twelve-year-old boy the moment the word "sex" or anything that sounds like it is mentioned.