Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by The Kingmaker, Mar 31, 2017.
At least we are not going to count to VI in Latin.
Not sure about adding a Wessex Civ to Civ6, especially if it takes away a slot from a non-European Civ.....
Maybe Firaxis should just change the current English Civ ability to one which reflects the overall history of that country? So Alfred the Great can be an alternate leader of England?
Not liking 'Anglo-Saxons' as a name is kinda fussy as an objection imo . Also you're correct that clearly they would not do alternative leaders for an an Anglo-Saxon civ anyway, but that is ignoring that A. there will never be an Anglo-Saxon civ anyway (so this is all hypothetical), and B. that mods are a thing, and people would want a civ they could add their alternative modded leaders to. Of course mod support is not their first priority, but we're only talking about a name difference here.
Can't modders add their own civs? No reason they couldn't add Mercia, Kent, Northumbria, or whatever Anglo-Saxon kingdom suits them. As for whether there will ever be an Anglo-Saxon civ...Well, the random and arbitrary inclusion of Macedon for Alexander the Obnoxious gives me hope that anything can happen.
They should do it with many civs in the game, not just England.
England, Rome, India, and Persia have quite a few as well. France would but they tend to be up and down. Great monarch followed by a couple poor ones than a great monarch again.
I don't even know why Victoria is a LEADER. A symbol, of a nation, an empire, a whole era of world history, but not a leader. The only binding decisions she actually made were regarding the marriages of her children (in tandem with Continental monarchs) and when she was asked to make the compromise on the locations of the capital cities of two newly created Dominions where huge disagreement existed, thus choosing the locations of what became the cities of Ottawa and Canberra. Otherwise, ALL decisions of government in Victorian Britain were made by Robert Peel, Lord Palmerston, Lord Russell, William Gladstone, Benjamin Disraeli, and Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in their respective tenures. But, of course, the "Monarch-heavy leadership" focus in leader choices by Firaxis of certain long-standing, still extant civ's whose made many changes and reforms to their governments over long periods of time, mostly Britain, France, and Russia, especially, when some very good non-Monarchial options are definitely there but completely passed over, is something that perplexes and annoys me.
While these are valid points, I don't think you should be tiptoeing around the importance of symbolism part that cavalierly. Symbolism is a massive part of national identity and monarchs whose reigns have been iconic are a massive part of their legacy, regardless of whether their actual power has been curtailed by the government or not. People in their home nations identify with them.
This is why Wilhelmina and Gandhi are important (and in Wilhelmina's case, popular) choices as leaders (although the devs completely ruin Gandhi by meme'ing him into oblivion, but that's a completely different story.) They may not have held much power, but they indisputably helped set the stage of what it means to be a Dutchman/Indian in the present day through the sheer force of personality. The same, I'm sure, can be said of Victoria.
Cathérine de Medici... not so much.
You both make valid points. I have to disagree over CdM though. If a figurehead is a suitable leader, then a power behind the throne, all the more so.
But maybe find a power behind the throne who actually held power and didn't fail at all her endeavors. Just saying. I agree that I find Victoria a very disappointing choice. England had hundreds of years of powerful monarchs and they chose the figurehead. Symbols are important, sure, but Elizabeth I was both a symbol and a powerful individual--not to mention about as big a personality as you can find.
Yes, many powerful monarchs and (another issue I'm getting at here), powerful, influencial, policy-shaping, nation-molding, and iconic PRIME MINISTERS, not to mention the anomalous but defining tenure of Oliver Cromwell. The endless focus on Britain as having exclusively monarchs as leaders literally from Civ1 when Sid Meier was still an employee of the now defunct MPS making games for DOS is a mold they've never once showed a desire or willingness to even publically consider breaking, and it's a bit of an artificial limit, an annoyance, and a growingly difficult stance to keep endlessly defending.
Yeah but those were lesser accomplishments compared to the treasury fleet and construction of the forbidden city from basically nothing. They were the foundations of the whole ming dynasty.
I would like to add that his throne actually was resulted by rebellion against the previous emperor, who was his nephew. He casus belli with the title "cleanse the emperor's side from the wretched", while in fact he claimed the throne himself.
So Mandate of heaven is... not a proper ability name for him. And this mandate was claimed by all chinese monarchs, sth like a civ ability. I guess sth focus on Yongle's background will be better
TBH the prime ministers aren't too interesting to me and I can't stand Oliver Cromwell, so...I'm fine with the monarch-focus. I just wish they'd remember that England existed before the Tudors.
But without the Prime Ministers it doesn't REALISITCALLY, VIABLY, and HONESTLY exist as a Civ in terms of credible leaders with true power after George II.
Totally agree. You just cant classify these public celebrities with royal titles as leaders, when they did nothing but signing their names.
And... For France, is anyone preferring Louis XIV?
I will make him a leader ability:
-When a non-capital city produces the same type of units/buildings/districts as the capital is producing, Louis will gain a 10% reduction in producing that units/buildings/districts.
-Another 10% reduction will be granted for any other city doing the same, up to 50%.
-Units are categorized into: Melee, Naval, airforce, reckon, support, workers, etc. Producing the same type grants the bonus.
-While for districts, only districts of the same type (e.g. campus) and their related buildings can be benefited.
-Wonders stand for one category alone, so building any wonders in capital + in other cities grants the bonus.
That will cover France's weakness in too much late wonder focusing and passiveness, making the victory possbilities more diverge.
(This ability is based on Louis's regularity. He fixed his schedule, created a chunks of ceremonies and demanded everyone to follow. He was the solar king, kind of because you can know exactly where he was and what he was doing, as long as you have his schedule. This is his strategy of centralization all the nobles under his watch, making all trapped in the Versailles to gain his favor )
I'm starting to wonder if Firaxis perhaps planned it this way where we'd start off with notable/popular but less powerful/successful leaders first before including alternate leaders that make more of an impact. Can you imagine an alternate universe where we have Chandragupta, Ramesses II, Louis XIV, and Elizabeth I at the start while getting Gandhi, Cleopatra, Catherine de Medici, and Victoria in upcoming DLCs and expansion packs (though I suppose on which ones you'd think would sell better after the base game)?
Aside from the ones I mentioned above, I would also like to see Persia, China, Sumeria, and the Maya get alternate leaders as well before other choices.
Two issues with Sumerian leaders. First, all but a VERY few are just names in cuneiform on clay tablets listing dynasties of kings. Even Sargon is less hard historical information to his known backstory and more information that may be fact, may be legendary, or may be mythologized distortion of fact, in some combination and proportion. Secondly, the civilization most people today casually call "Sumeria" is, in fact, an entrepot of four separate and quite different civilizations with different ideals, focuses, attitudes, and languages (from four different language families) - the Sumerians proper, the Akkadians, the Elamites, and the Gutians, (and that's even before the later Amorites, Kassites, Chaldeans, and Assyrians get mixed into it), and the records we have make it difficult to clearly draw lines between when and where in the region each of the four was dominant.
Yeah, it might be a better fit for his agenda (hates civs which cause disloyalty in his empire). How about "Perpetual Happiness" which is what "Yongle" translates to in English?
"Yongle" was the name of the year(or era) he ascended the throne.
Chinese emperors used to name the year(s) of their rule, and these names normally meant prosperity, happiness, longevity, etc. The name "Yongle" itself was used to the emperor's liking, hardly implying his agenda. I cannot imagine how people could be "perpetually happy" in the hard labor of building the enormous forbidden city.
It was kind of a nickname for him, used only after his death. The emperor's proper titles were all given after their death and they seldom reflect what that emperor did.
Just like I wont give Victoria the agenda of "Victory" (assumed that I dont know english and needa google translate), sorry to say that "Yongle" is not to my approval.
He went to extremes in suppressing traces of rebels through heavy usage of espionage and torture, much like Wuzetian. I suppose an agenda of disliking civs disrupting his loyalty like what you suggested will be relevant .
But I will suggest the "Eastern Factory" as the name for his agenda. They were a group of secret agents composed of purely eunuchs that worked as spies and interrogators and this group remained powerful throughout the Ming dynasty.
Separate names with a comma.