Second Leaders: Which Civs Need Them?

[MikalJ]

If we're going to have a leader representing the Republic, how about we really think outside the box and go with Marcus Tullius Cicero? He was Consul for a time and was one of Rome's premier scholars and statesmen.

I can envision him in his senatorial toga pontificating at the player about his agenda.

I second Cicero, but maybe they should hold him back until there are some more internal/international diplomatic options? An inclusion of stability mechanics akin to Civ4's Rhye's or Revolutions mods would be perfect for him to front.

Also, PLEASE no Tudors for England. They're such glorified ineptitude. Can we please have Alfred or a Plantagenet, which are terribly neglected parts of English history in the main, but also points of relative strength.

Or, Canute to be a second leader for both Norway and England. It would be really interesting to see a leader bridging two different naval playstyles.

 

[IgorS]

I also doubt we'll see Frederick the Great, since we already have a German leader named Frederick.

We had two Marias in Civ V.

As the idea of an Austria separate from Germany is a modern concept, it might be odd to have a separate civ with a leader from the same political entity (the HRE). Maria Theresa led the Germans in Civ II, maybe she could do so again?

I hope not. Austria should be a civ in its own right, not a part of Germany. They may have much in common due to both being major parts of the HRE in various periods, but as history shows us, eventually, they went their separate ways, Austria not being included in the Second Reich, and becoming an empire in its own right. So I want two different civs, and if they make Austria a part of Germany, I will do whatever I can to mod the game to make them separate civs.

I like several of your ideas, such as Ashoka, Harun and Darius/Xerxes, although I still want to see Ivan IV. He just had such a huge impact - no St Basil's without him, no "Tsar" title, etc. And the streltsy look cool. Musketeers in red, fur lined coats who rest their muskets on a bardiche (a poleaxe) to shoot.

I am strongly against Ivan the Terrible, because a leader should be someone who did more good than damage for his country. Ivan the Terrible is remembered not for St. Basil's, but for the Oprichnina and ruining Russia's economy, eventually leading to the Smuta. As for the strel'tsy, I would like to see the Gulyay-gorod as a Russian UU.

 

[dunkleosteus]

I like that with Greece, we have Athens and Sparta being the respective heads of their two competing leagues. Rather than being different historical versions of the same Civ, they're more like contemporary versions. That said, I think a Byzantine Roman leader out of Constantinople would be welcome.

I think having different capital cities is important, so that the two could exist in the same game. For that reason, two leaders of the western Roman empire wouldn't be ideal- there would have to be two Romes, or which ever went first would get Rome and the other would get some random other Roman city. That wouldn't be any fun, especially if you were playing with real people- the second player would feel like a "lesser Rome" just because of the turn ordering.

For different historical versions of the same Civ, it would be fun to see a medieval era pre-conquest England with Alfred or something. Wessex instead of London. Who knows.

Depending on how the game is coded, it would be interesting if Civ names could change with leaders. Harald leads Norway, but any other Scandinavian Civ from the same time period would certainly also be a Viking civ (although you could go with Civ 5 where Sweden is very un-viking). Anyway, if you DID go with a Viking Denmark or Sweden, an alternate leader for Harald could just rename Norway to Denmark or Sweden but keep the longships and stavechurches.

On the other hand, Civ 6 has tried to represent some under represented Civs this time, where Denmark and Sweden had their own Civs in 5, Norway gets one in 6. Making Denmark or Sweden as alternate versions of Norway would sort of steal their thunder again.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I agree with MikalJ that some upgrades to the diplomatic system may be in order prior to the implementation of several second leaders.

I also like dunkleosteus' idea about different capitals.

Examples:
England: Winchester (Alfred)
Spain: Toledo (Isabella)
Rome: Constantinople (if Byz. are not separate) otherwise, Ravenna
Russia: Moscow (Ivan)
Japan: Edo (Tokugawa)
Norway: Oslo or Akershus for a later king
Germany: Berlin (Bismarck)
Arabia: Baghdad (Harun)
Egypt: Memphis/Ineb Hedj/Men-nefer (Khufu), Thebes/Waset (Ramses) or Amarna/Akhetaten (Akhenaten)

Interesting note: the Civilopedia entry for Macedonia lists both Aigai and Pella as capitals.

 

[Xandinho]

I agree with MikalJ that some upgrades to the diplomatic system may be in order prior to the implementation of several second leaders.

I also like dunkleosteus' idea about different capitals.

Examples:
England: Winchester (Alfred)
Spain: Toledo (Isabella)
Rome: Constantinople (if Byz. are not separate) otherwise, Ravenna
Russia: Moscow (Ivan)
Japan: Edo (Tokugawa)
Norway: Oslo or Akershus for a later king
Germany: Berlin (Bismarck)
Arabia: Baghdad (Harun)
Egypt: Memphis/Ineb Hedj/Men-nefer (Khufu), Thebes/Waset (Ramses) or Amarna/Akhetaten (Akhenaten)

Interesting note: the Civilopedia entry for Macedonia lists both Aigai and Pella as capitals.

I would like the capital of Arabia to return to Mecca, is there any leader to do this?

Sumer could receive a ruler of Ur or Lagash

Juscelino Kubitschek could also govern Brazil and bring Brasilia as capital.

The Aztecs can receive Acamapichitli, I know that the captial would be the same, but he was the founder of the Aztec imperial dynasty. It would be interesting to see. Although it was debatable, but the Aztecs could win a leader who would rule the empire through Teotihuacan.

Lukeni moon Nimi could be an alternative choice for the Kongo, he certainly was the founder of the Kingdom of Kongo.

 

[The Kingmaker]

The trouble with depicting one of the few Arab leaders who had Mecca as their capital is that they consist of Muhammad and his closest kin, all of which Muslims would rather not see in such depictions. Civ3 got away with including Abu Bakr, but in today's political climate I don't see them risking that again.

By the time of Ali, the 4th Caliph, they had moved the capital to Kufa, so the change seems to have occurred very quickly. The Umayyads moved it to Damascus and the Abbasids to Baghdad, so I think either of those is more likely.

 

[Txomin]

Since they've gone with Arabia as the civ rather than anything more specific there are quite a few capitals they could pull from. Damascus and Baghdad are probably the most obvious. I'd even argue that you could do Cordoba.
I'm personally against Mecca as a capital for the reasons previously mentioned in terms of leader depictions but also because the political seat of the Rashidun was in Medina not Mecca. I feel there's a pretty good chance we'll see another leader for the civ in the future.

 

[Siptah]

The trouble with depicting one of the few Arab leaders who had Mecca as their capital is that they consist of Muhammad and his closest kin, all of which Muslims would rather not see in such depictions. Civ3 got away with including Abu Bakr, but in today's political climate I don't see them risking that again.

By the time of Ali, the 4th Caliph, they had moved the capital to Kufa, so the change seems to have occurred very quickly. The Umayyads moved it to Damascus and the Abbasids to Baghdad, so I think either of those is more likely.

It's really a shame Abu Bakr is a problem with the Shia. He would be such a great alternate leader. The conquering in the name of Islam going on in the 7th century was probably the most successful conquering in the name of a religion in world history and Arabia is not that much a military civ yet (but everything else). So an Abu Bakr that gets rid of Saladin's Building LUA and instead gains an ability that gives every military unit one spread religion charge would be so much welcome. And he had a strong personality and all... But depictions are probably also a problem. Abbasid or Umayyad ruler would also be nice. But an Abbasid would probably focus on science, and Saladin/Arabia in general already does that. So I don't see a huge need for that. Of course, Umayyads or Abbasids could get some commerce or infrastructure bonuses as well... But it's not screaming at me for that.

It's different with other civs, where I think they are too one-dimensional right now looking at their history.
India could do with someone not relying on keeping peace. Asoka would be more into military, Akbar could go many ways.
Frederick Stupor Mundi could focus Germany even more on the Science Victory or diplomacy (may need an expansion for that) and Bismarck is probably the first leader that comes into mind when thinking of a leader getting a bonus to envoys or diplomacy in general.
Abbas could go more into the infrastructure and strong economy thing with Persia, or give them a bonus to religion while getting rid of the (great) surprise war bonus.
Cicero could also shift Rome away from the culture thing and more to a diplomatic victory path in an expansion.
Louis XIV could give France a commercial boost of some sort, depending if new mechanics arise in this field. He could also go culture heavy on other civ or get a flat out tourism bonus on top of the wonder bonus France already has.
Tutmose III could give Egypt a military/expansionist twist. Amenhotep III could give it a religious twist.
China could use a leader that gives them a trade bonus of some sort.

Except for Cicero and Louis, they all would have other capitals than we use now.

 

[The Kingmaker]

If they did Diocletian for Rome, his capital could be at Salona (in Dalmatia) although his palace was actually a few miles outside the city.

 

[Zaarin]

On the subject of capitals, I hope Firaxis abandons that nonsense. I like that the capital is based on who the ruler is, but I don't think that should be a qualifications for selection.

Also, PLEASE no Tudors for England. They're such glorified ineptitude. Can we please have Alfred or a Plantagenet, which are terribly neglected parts of English history in the main, but also points of relative strength.

Sure, Henry VIII was a selfish egotist more remembered for his marriages than his policies (perhaps somewhat unfairly: I'm not arguing he was a great king, but I do think he was more than his scandals) and Edward VI was a sickly child, but Henry VII was competent if not overly memorable, and both Elizabeth I and Mary I were exceptional rulers--it's rather unfortunate that the latter's memory has been tainted by her vicious persecution of Protestants (not the Elizabeth didn't participate in her share, though on the whole she was more of a religious moderate).

I want to see Alfred, but as the King of Wessex not England. Yes, he was the first to call himself the King of the Anglo-Saxons, but just like Alex I don't think England's bonuses suit him. I'd welcome a Plantagenet: bring on Henry V!

 

[The Kingmaker]

Henry V would be acceptable, as he actually spoke English.

The Monarchs from William I to John all spoke various dialects of French. Henry III was the first since the conquest to even be fluent in English. From Henry III to Richard II, the kings spoke English only as a second language, if at all. Henry V's dad, Henry IV was supposedly the first native English-speaking king since Harold Godwinson.

Attn: Firaxis: No French-speaking English leaders, please.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

Some people mentioned the Byzantines being represented being an Alternate Leader for Rome, but I think that culturally and historically they're more than different enough to be their own civilization.

Henry V would be acceptable, as he actually spoke English.

The Monarchs from William I to John all spoke various dialects of French. Henry III was the first since the conquest to even be fluent in English. From Henry III to Richard II, the kings spoke English only as a second language, if at all. Henry V's dad, Henry IV was supposedly the first native English-speaking king since Harold Godwinson.

Attn: Firaxis: No French-speaking English leaders, please.

But we have a French leader who speaks Italian. And was born in Italy. I don't know enough about Catherine de Medici to say what her first language was, but I'd bet it wasn't French.

I don't actually have a strong opinion on what language the leaders speak, I usually play with the still images.

 

[Zaarin]

Attn: Firaxis: No French-speaking English leaders, please.

If they actually used Norman French, I'd be okay with it. They won't sound anything like any potential French ruler, and it wasn't at all unusual for Medieval court languages to not be the vernacular: French in England, langue d'oïl in France (where langues d'oc were more heavily spoken until the Late MIddle Ages), Castilian in Spain (where Catalan was predominant), etc.

Some people mentioned the Byzantines being represented being an Alternate Leader for Rome, but I think that culturally and historically they're more than different enough to be their own civilization.

But we have a French leader who speaks Italian. And was born in Italy. I don't know enough about Catherine de Medici to say what her first language was, but I'd bet it wasn't French.

Agreed on the Byzantines. Catherine de Medici's first language would have been Tuscan Italian. However, her father was a Francophile, so I'd be surprised if she didn't learn French at an early age; I doubt her French would be as heavily accented as depicted in-game.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Also agreed on the Byzantines.

@AnonymousSpeed: Catherine speaks mostly French with some Italian interludes when she gets grouchy. By contrast, if Willie the Conk was included, he'd be speaking entirely in Norman French. If Richard I was included, he'd probably speak a mixture of French and Occitan.

Although most of us here are big enough history buffs to understand why an English king is speaking French, I wouldn't bet on a lot of the game's Anglophone audience appreciating why they can't understand a supposedly English leader.

 

[Zaarin]

@The Kingmaker Personally, I rather wish the game would cater a little less to casual fans and more to us history buffs. Besides, I don't know how much of the casual crowd actually reads the Civilopedia, but they could always explain it there...

 

[DWilson]

Also agreed on the Byzantines.

@AnonymousSpeed: Catherine speaks mostly French with some Italian interludes when she gets grouchy. By contrast, if Willie the Conk was included, he'd be speaking entirely in Norman French. If Richard I was included, he'd probably speak a mixture of French and Occitan.

Although most of us here are big enough history buffs to understand why an English king is speaking French, I wouldn't bet on a lot of the game's Anglophone audience appreciating why they can't understand a supposedly English leader.

This would be a great educational opportunities.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

Agreed on the Byzantines. Catherine de Medici's first language would have been Tuscan Italian. However, her father was a Francophile, so I'd be surprised if she didn't learn French at an early age; I doubt her French would be as heavily accented as depicted in-game.

Not that I would notice if it wasn't.

@AnonymousSpeed: Catherine speaks mostly French with some Italian interludes when she gets grouchy. By contrast, if Willie the Conk was included, he'd be speaking entirely in Norman French. If Richard I was included, he'd probably speak a mixture of French and Occitan.

Although most of us here are big enough history buffs to understand why an English king is speaking French, I wouldn't bet on a lot of the game's Anglophone audience appreciating why they can't understand a supposedly English leader.

I think if they actually lead the geographical region in a government continuous with the current state then they're fine, even if they speak a different language. They fit the bill of being the leader of the country, which I think is enough.

Also, I didn't know English kings spoke French until, uh...today. I'm not a massive European history buff.

@The Kingmaker Personally, I rather wish the game would cater a little less to casual fans and more to us history buffs. Besides, I don't know how much of the casual crowd actually reads the Civilopedia, but they could always explain it there...

I used to read the Civlopedia a lot back in Civ4 when I was much younger. I quite like the Civlopedia in that game as well, despite the lack of a search button and some questionable historical accuracy, because it was presented very well and just had a good feel to it, I suppose.

 

[The Kingmaker]

@Zaarin: My real concern is that they'll pick a Francophone leader but have him just ahistorically speak English.

Like Richard I did in that 2010 Ridley Scott Robin Hood movie.

"Let's put these French to bed!" said no Plantagenet ever.

I wish more people did browse the Civilopedia. It ought to be linked from the main menu again too.

 

[AnonymousSpeed]

You know what feature was missing from every game? The ability to open the Civlopedia from the Civ selection screen. In Civ6 that's not much of an issue since you see what every ability and unique is, but in 4 and 5 you had no idea what the unique units and buildings did based on the leader select screen.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

If they actually used Norman French, I'd be okay with it. They won't sound anything like any potential French ruler, and it wasn't at all unusual for Medieval court languages to not be the vernacular: French in England, langue d'oïl in France (where langues d'oc were more heavily spoken until the Late MIddle Ages), Castilian in Spain (where Catalan was predominant), etc.

Agreed on the Byzantines. Catherine de Medici's first language would have been Tuscan Italian. However, her father was a Francophile, so I'd be surprised if she didn't learn French at an early age; I doubt her French would be as heavily accented as depicted in-game.

Given that French was the Court and Diplomatic language of Europe throughout most of what the game considers the Renaissance Era, Every European ruler of the period could be depicted speaking accented French! Even Friedrich II (the Great) of Prussia, who was a native Prussian/German, spoke French by preference to everyone but his dogs...

Also agreed on the Byzantines.

@AnonymousSpeed: Catherine speaks mostly French with some Italian interludes when she gets grouchy. By contrast, if Willie the Conk was included, he'd be speaking entirely in Norman French. If Richard I was included, he'd probably speak a mixture of French and Occitan.

Although most of us here are big enough history buffs to understand why an English king is speaking French, I wouldn't bet on a lot of the game's Anglophone audience appreciating why they can't understand a supposedly English leader.

Any 'English' monarch before Chaucer would not be speaking anything that sounded like modern English in any case ...