Second Leaders: Which Civs Need Them?

[IgorS]

The thing about alternate leaders is that they present a different way to play a certain civ. With Greece having two leaders, and now India, we basically get two different civs in one. I love the idea of multiple leaders, but i also have to say that Civ VI does not do a good job with it.

 

[nzcamel]

I disagree. While Rome can be part of mordern Italy history, Byzantium has nothing to do with Italy, especially when they actually spoke Greek more than Latin.

Byzantium remains Byzantium, in my opinion. Although they aligned themselves as "Roman", they barely had Rome in their territory.

"Roman" emperor was something that could be claimed by any power after the fall of Rome, like a sack of potatoes. The Russians called themselves the third Rome, the Franks also called themselves "holy roman empire".

I wont view Byzantium emperors as alt roman leaders too.

Byzantium is 100% their own thing and should be treated as such.

True, and not. Granted most of Europe has sought to reestablish the Roman Empire at one point or another, and claim their legacy (The U.S. did something similar, but with the Republic...); but in Byzantium you have the direct continuation of the Roman Empire. It isn't a later attempted reboot by any means, and to make out that it is the same as said reboots is disingenuous.

I agree completely with this and don't regard the Byzantium from Rome argument as derailing my point above, anymore than the United States should be considered a direct continuation of Britain or Mexico of Spain. They aren't the same concept as the Heptarchy and Norman Invasion to England to Great Britain to the United Kingdom or Brandenburg to Prussia to Germany or Muscovy to Russia to the USSR and back to Russia.

See...the Americans had a revolution to reject being part of the British Empire. Whereas if you try to compare that to what Byzantium was to Rome; it'd be like the British Monarchy upping and moving to Philadelphia; and carrying on there even after the British Isles was lost to others.

 

[halfhalfharp]

True, and not. Granted most of Europe has sought to reestablish the Roman Empire at one point or another, and claim their legacy (The U.S. did something similar, but with the Republic...); but in Byzantium you have the direct continuation of the Roman Empire. It isn't a later attempted reboot by any means, and to make out that it is the same as said reboots is disingenuous.

True that it was a continuation of Rome and the people themselves considered them romans. But it was also so different from the Roman empire that it prolonged.

When we are referring to their art, architecture, and religion, we use the term "Byzantium" rather than "eastern roman" and "Orthodox" rather than "Christian". Although these terms are interchangeable somehow, there is an un-deniable difference that marks the Byzantium's separation from Rome.

Similar case for the Spanish American countries. They were under heavy spanish influence. Yet they retained their own form culture and even developed their own unique form of Catholic religion, although they do not recognize themselves spanish, unlike Byzantium.

It is dependent on political agenda whether they recognized themselves romans or not. But the cultural difference is remarkable. That makes me consider them a uniquie civilization, regardless of whatever lineage they claim.

Thus I agree with your point to some extend only, though there is no right or wrong answer here.

 

[Manifold]

...alt Rome leader is not needed.

I am sure you were wrong. Rome is the most popular Civ for playing. There is a statistic somewhere.

A second Roman leader for the republican era would sell well.

 

[Kimiimaro]

I am sure you were wrong. Rome is the most popular Civ for playing. There is a statistic somewhere.

A second Roman leader for the republican era would sell well.

A second Roman emperor? Fine, give me Byzantium It's good both as second Rome and fourth Greece to me

 

[Patine]

I am sure you were wrong. Rome is the most popular Civ for playing. There is a statistic somewhere.

A second Roman leader for the republican era would sell well.

But would the Roman Republic be best represented by Marcus Aurelius, Scipio, Pompeii, or Mark Antony, as immediate stand-outs?

 

[nzcamel]

But would the Roman Republic be best represented by Marcus Aurelius, Scipio, Pompeii, or Mark Antony, as immediate stand-outs?

Marcus Tullius Cicero

 

[Phrozen]

But would the Roman Republic be best represented by Marcus Aurelius, Scipio, Pompeii, or Mark Antony, as immediate stand-outs?

Lucius Junius Brutus, founder of the Republic. Brutus was actually his nickname that the King of Rome gave him because he acted like an idiot to keep from being assassinated.

 

[nzcamel]

This discussion just makes me want to leap into fevered reverential shouting of "SPQR!! SPQR!!"...

 

[Patine]

Lucius Junius Brutus, founder of the Republic. Brutus was actually his nickname that the King of Rome gave him because he acted like an idiot to keep from being assassinated.

But Scipio's victory over Carthage arguably first established Rome as a relevant power outside the Italian Peninsula. That, and he was so popular, the Roman citizens kept electing him Consul over and over when he actually just wanted to retire (because, unlike with modern electoral offices, it was forbidden, at least by powerful tradition, if not outright law, to decline the office if elected Consul in the Roman Republic).

 

[Zaarin]

But Scipio's victory over Carthage arguably first established Rome as a relevant power outside the Italian Peninsula. That, and he was so popular, the Roman citizens kept electing him Consul over and over when he actually just wanted to retire (because, unlike with modern electoral offices, it was forbidden, at least by powerful tradition, if not outright law, to decline the office if elected Consul in the Roman Republic).

Scipio's victory over Carthage also makes him one of my most hated figures in history. (Seriously, was being that thoroughly destructive really necessary?)

 

[The Kingmaker]

Marcus Tullius Cicero

^ This. Seconded.

 

[Patine]

Scipio's victory over Carthage also makes him one of my most hated figures in history. (Seriously, was being that thoroughly destructive really necessary?)

So, more hated than Genghis Khan, Kublai Khaqan, Boniface I (the leader of the Fourth Crusade and first "Latin Emperor of Constantinople"), Don Carlos I (Spanish king at the time Hernan Cortes and Fransisco Pizzaro were tromping around), Timurlane, and I could go on, but those are good, pre-modern examples right there.

 

[Krajzen]

France. France by far and away deserves alternate leader the most, imo. Come on. Generally I think Firaxis did a good job with representing civs and leaders in this game - with di Medici being notable exception.
And not only she is historically controversial choice, not only she is fairly unlikeable, she also has - at best - mediocre leader ability. Adding alternative would buff France.
I'd pay to replace her with Louis XIV, or Henry IV, or Philip II... Or Cardinal Richelieu. He technically wasn't the ruler of France but I'd overlook it just to see him, it'd be incredibly badass.

Also:
- king Alfred the Great for England
- Frederick the Great for Germany, I really want to see this fascinating character
- alternate Chinese emperor who looks like a warrior badass, not fat cartoon
- alternate Arabian sultan who looks like a warrior badass, not thin cartoon (okay, I'll be honest, I mostly want Saladin to look differently, I don't even need alternate leader )
- I'd support Scipio Africanus to represent republican Rome
- FDR for America, if only to have two Roosevelts ruling USA, for joke/meme purposes. Also, leader in a wheelchair would be cool. Also he was good president etc
- some ancient, stoic pharaoh for Egypt, to contrast with expressive, feminine Cleopatra

 

[Kimiimaro]

France. France by far and away deserves alternate leader the most, imo. Come on. Generally I think Firaxis did a good job with representing civs and leaders in this game - with di Medici being notable exception.

Not by far. They and Egypt are on the same rank, since Egypt is led by a woman who lost her entire empire. Not really a good leader choice

 

[Patine]

France. France by far and away deserves alternate leader the most, imo. Come on. Generally I think Firaxis did a good job with representing civs and leaders in this game - with di Medici being notable exception.
And not only she is historically controversial choice, not only she is fairly unlikeable, she also has - at best - mediocre leader ability. Adding alternative would buff France.
I'd pay to replace her with Louis XIV, or Henry IV, or Philip II... Or Cardinal Richelieu. He technically wasn't the ruler of France but I'd overlook it just to see him, it'd be incredibly badass.

Also:
- king Alfred the Great for England
- Frederick the Great for Germany, I really want to see this fascinating character
- alternate Chinese emperor who looks like a warrior badass, not fat cartoon
- alternate Arabian sultan who looks like a warrior badass, not thin cartoon (okay, I'll be honest, I mostly want Saladin to look differently, I don't even need alternate leader )
- I'd support Scipio Africanus to represent republican Rome
- FDR for America, if only to have two Roosevelts ruling USA, for joke/meme purposes. Also, leader in a wheelchair would be cool. Also he was good president etc
- some ancient, stoic pharaoh for Egypt, to contrast with expressive, feminine Cleopatra

I still say Charles de Gaulle for France and at least one non-Monarchial British leader, and I stand firm and stand my ground on that. Scipio, as I've said above, would also be stellar for Republican Rome.

 

[Nalain]

France. France by far and away deserves alternate leader the most, imo. Come on. Generally I think Firaxis did a good job with representing civs and leaders in this game - with di Medici being notable exception.
And not only she is historically controversial choice, not only she is fairly unlikeable, she also has - at best - mediocre leader ability. Adding alternative would buff France.
I'd pay to replace her with Louis XIV, or Henry IV, or Philip II... Or Cardinal Richelieu. He technically wasn't the ruler of France but I'd overlook it just to see him, it'd be incredibly badass.

The most surprising thing is if she certainly had influence at her time, she was so few time regent she can't be considered as great french leader, even without St Barthelemy massacre.

I can do with that, but i agree, the worst is her ability. Her spy ability is fun, but not strong enough to compensate the totaly useless other bonuses. Some craft or military district (sorry don't have english names) bonuses would not have been undeserved.

 

[halfhalfharp]

The most surprising thing is if she certainly had influence at her time, she was so few time regent she can't be considered as great french leader, even without St Barthelemy massacre.

Actually, her regency lasted from 1560 to 1574 (or 1589), in either way more than 14 years. I suppose it is long enough.
She wasn't great, this is true. But she was capable as a ruler.

 

[Nalain]

Actually, her regency lasted from 1560 to 1574 (or 1589), in either way more than 14 years. I suppose it is long enough.
She wasn't great, this is true. But she was capable as a ruler.

You're right, she kept her regency and after 1563, even if officialy the king (and then leader) is her son.

It's not question of capability. I didn't say great in the sence capable, but in sence "mark the history" (if we don't speak about Saint Barthelemy), maybe it's not good word ?

 

[nzcamel]

I still say Charles de Gaulle for France...

*Shudders*