Should Elizabeth II lead England in Civ 7?

Should Elizabeth II lead England in Civ 7?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 22.9%
  • No

    Votes: 27 77.1%

  • Total voters
    35

Vahnstad

King
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
917
Location
Low countries
I was thinking about this. Normally between recent leaders there should be a gap, and arguably one can say that her job was more symbolic & ceremonial, especially later on. But she is a pretty well known and uncontroversial figure that also was the figurehead of the Commonwealth for a long time, and she is also one of the most known female leaders a major country has ever had. I was thinking about what other people thought about this.
 

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
10,032
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
England/Britain has such a wide selection of iconic rulers, including women rulers, already available that merely being uncontroversial (which is debatable) would 't be enough to justify using such a recent leader.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,393
Location
Texas
I'd prefer the original Elizabeth to return, personally. From a gameplay perspective how do you see her being portrayed, and do you think she could do it better than other English rulers? I'm not so sure.
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
7,828
Location
Alberta, Canada
She would be a decent pick if there was a dedicated decolonization mechanic that she could augment. On the other hand, the body isn’t even cold yet, dude.
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2018
Messages
1,907
Location
Rio de Janeiro, K11 (Kwanza)
Elizabeth II can be a choice of future civs, I think Civ 7 still to recent to her.
And England have a bunch of good options to be leader.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,851
I was thinking about this. Normally between recent leaders there should be a gap, and arguably one can say that her job was more symbolic & ceremonial, especially later on. But she is a pretty well known and uncontroversial figure that also was the figurehead of the Commonwealth for a long time, and she is also one of the most known female leaders a major country has ever had. I was thinking about what other people thought about this.
She reigned, but never ruled or governed. I would prefer leaders across the board who actually made decisions, governed, and led on a national and political level. And, yes, this would mean that Victoria, Mohandas Gandhi, Wilhelmina, and others of that sort should also not see a future in Civ games.
 

Marla_Singer

United in diversity
Joined
Oct 24, 2001
Messages
13,133
Location
Paris, west side (92).
Britain was already losing its Empire when she was being crowned. And as much as we can argue British decolonization was a success and a good thing for the world, it significantly reduced British influence nonetheless. In a game like Civilization, we rather expect characters who've either been decisive in growing their Empire or were ruling at its climax as the leaderhead.

Moctezuma II was indeed the last Aztec Emperor, but he was also ruling at the peak of Aztec influence, so it still makes sense to have him. On the other hand, Gandhi may have never ruled India, but he lead his country to independence, making of him the founding father of the modern Republic of India.

Personally I never really liked Louis XIV as being the ruler of France, because I believe his reign lead the country to a certain decline. Yet arguably it's under his reign that France has been the most influential, so it still makes sense to have him. Even though Henri IV would be a more popular figure in France, as he pacified relationship between catholics and protestants, leading the country to a long period of prosperity.
 

Evie

Pronounced like Eevee
Joined
Jan 5, 2002
Messages
10,032
Location
Ottawa, Ontario
Also Moctezuma II last appeared in a main series game sixteen years ago (IV).

It's been Moctezuma I in all main series games since.
 

Ordnael

Warlord
Joined
Dec 9, 2021
Messages
127
I think Elizabeth II in military uniform from her pre monarch days would look bad ass!
 

Vahnstad

King
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
917
Location
Low countries
Obviously i agree that England has a wide pool of possible exciting leaders.
 

Rurudyne

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 4, 2022
Messages
13
She would be a decent pick if there was a dedicated decolonization mechanic that she could augment. On the other hand, the body isn’t even cold yet, dude.
I thought about this today and while what I'm about to suggest might not be historically accurate to "decolonization" it could provide an interesting game effect.

A "commonwealth" ability where Elizabeth 2 can, on any new era change after having taken a foreign capitol, elect to free the foreign capitol(s) in England's possession (some, none or all) as new city states that she is suzerain of as if freeing a conquered city state. Giving England initially 3 envoys. The sort of city state so made depends on the original leader -- India's original capitol would yield religious city states, Germany's militaristic, Egypt's commercial, Russia's cultural and so forth. These have a commonality of special attributes, I would suggest a Raj-like reward or reduced costs to levy troops or maybe even both.

Additionally when England first frees such cities, or liberates them should another player have conquered one, they would 1) receive a diplomatic favor reward based on the number of eras having changed and 2) negate any outstanding grievances associated with their initial capture, including among 3rd parties if it was a defeated civ's final city.

this could potentially have interesting effects if the former owner of the capitol retakes it and then Elizabeth 2 "liberates" the "city state".

The further special rules would be that England cannot declare war on a "commonwealth" city state, even if someone else is currently its suzerain, or at least not without a significant diplomatic penalty even then and that if England is retaking the city from another player (captured, not suzerain) it will automatically resume its commonwealth status. If a commonwealth city state is liberated then its envoy status resets to Elizabeth 2 having 3 and everyone else having none, This ability does not work on former city states liberated.
 
Last edited:

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,851
I thought about this today and while what I'm about to suggest might not be historically accurate to "decolonization" it could provide an interesting game effect.

A "commonwealth" ability where Elizabeth 2 can, on any new era change after having taken a foreign capitol, elect to free the foreign capitol(s) in England's possession (some, none or all) as new city states that she is suzerain of as if freeing a conquered city state. Giving England initially 3 envoys. The sort of city state so made depends on the original leader -- India's original capitol would yield religious city states, Germany's militaristic, Egypt's commercial, Russia's cultural and so forth. These have a commonality of special attributes, I would suggest a Raj-like reward or reduced costs to levy troops or maybe even both.

Additionally when England first frees such cities, or liberates them should another player have conquered one, they would 1) receive a diplomatic favor reward based on the number of eras having changed and 2) negate any outstanding grievances associated with their initial capture, including among 3rd parties if it was a defeated civ's final city.

this could potentially have interesting effects if the former owner of the capitol retakes it and then Elizabeth 2 "liberates" the "city state".

The further special rules would be that England cannot declare war on a "commonwealth" city state, even if someone else is currently its suzerain, or at least not without a significant diplomatic penalty even then and that if England is retaking the city from another player (captured, not suzerain) it will automatically resume its commonwealth status. If a commonwealth city state is liberated then its envoy status resets to Elizabeth 2 having 3 and everyone else having none, This ability does not work on former city states liberated.
Even if you're going for a, "Commonwealth," Clement Attlee, Anthony Eden, or Harold Macmillan would be better, as I think leaders who were symbols and/or never GOVERNED and/or RULED whether legally or strictly de facto, should disappear in Civ7 and beyond - like Victoria, Joan of Arc, Mohandas Gandhi, Wilhelmina, and a couple of others.
 

Rurudyne

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 4, 2022
Messages
13
Even if you're going for a, "Commonwealth," Clement Attlee, Anthony Eden, or Harold Macmillan would be better, as I think leaders who were symbols and/or never GOVERNED and/or RULED whether legally or strictly de facto, should disappear in Civ7 and beyond - like Victoria, Joan of Arc, Mohandas Gandhi, Wilhelmina, and a couple of others.
I was just going with the thread, not anything more.

Personally, I think considering how good leaders were the exception in history maybe Civ should offer the more realistic choice of leaders where the player chooses between different defects in leadership?
 

pineappledan

Deity
Joined
Aug 9, 2017
Messages
7,828
Location
Alberta, Canada
QEII is a pretty unique historical figure from that perspective, and if you were going to have a decolonization mechanic of some sort, and you wanted to have a leader augment it as a sort of mechanics highlight, I can’t think of a better leader with which to do so.

QEII is still the head of state of 13 nations, and the commonwealth is a vibrant international community of peer nations. I think you could do something like to play off that.

For instance, you could have a decolonization or liberation mechanic in the end game, but if QEII’s former vassals/conquered lands get decolonized, she retains some bonus from them, and they still count as hers if going towards a Domination victory.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,851
I was just going with the thread, not anything more.

Personally, I think considering how good leaders were the exception in history maybe Civ should offer the more realistic choice of leaders where the player chooses between different defects in leadership?
My intention was not to inspire a cynical counterpoint, there, which may be a bit exaggerated. I was just saying that symbolic leaders, in my opinion, grow a bit thin.
 

Rurudyne

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 4, 2022
Messages
13
QEII is a pretty unique historical figure from that perspective, and if you were going to have a decolonization mechanic of some sort, and you wanted to have a leader augment it as a sort of mechanics highlight, I can’t think of a better leader with which to do so.

QEII is still the head of state of 13 nations, and the commonwealth is a vibrant international community of peer nations. I think you could do something like to play off that.

For instance, you could have a decolonization or liberation mechanic in the end game, but if QEII’s former vassals/conquered lands get decolonized, she retains some bonus from them, and they still count as hers if going towards a Domination victory.
I was thinking that if a leader effect were severely limited to the late game, even if it made the effect "realistic", that it would greatly weaken the leader.

For example, there was a Gorgo game I played where there were three other civs (Egypt, Congo and India ... in the order they fell, all in the ancient era) connected by land but only two city states. As Gorgo that wasn't a problem on account of how her special ability lets her easily slog through early civics. But for other civilizations ... more of an issue. What I propose would let Elizabeth, in a similar situation, cut loose one -- say Congo -- to get the civics boost and more faith (I figure Congo would yield a faith city state because it is wierdly focused on religion) while growing the others as possessions, or maybe to be freed eras later for big boosts to diplomatic favor when that's a thing in the game.

But pushing the ability off till late would make her like TR with the Founding Fathers benefit nixed.
 

Rurudyne

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 4, 2022
Messages
13
My intention was not to inspire a cynical counterpoint, there, which may be a bit exaggerated. I was just saying that symbolic leaders, in my opinion, grow a bit thin.
I was not being cynical. I actually think that would be a cool option for a game like Civ6. Imagine playing as Murad 4 of the Ottoman Turk with the special "ability" of -1 loyalty per turn for every six or so away from the capitol (huge map)? That could be a challenging game. Of course your nearest neighbor might be Commodus of Rome who has that persistent finance problem ... it just disappears and no one is brave enough to say where ... which would help balance things out.
 

Patine

Deity
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Messages
8,851
I was not being cynical. I actually think that would be a cool option for a game like Civ6. Imagine playing as Murad 4 of the Ottoman Turk with the special "ability" of -1 loyalty per turn for every six or so away from the capitol (huge map)? That could be a challenging game. Of course your nearest neighbor might be Commodus of Rome who has that persistent finance problem ... it just disappears and no one is brave enough to say where ... which would help balance things out.
We must, then, agree to disagree on what would an enjoyable feature in the context of Civ6 or Civ7.
 

Rurudyne

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 4, 2022
Messages
13
We must, then, agree to disagree on what would an enjoyable feature in the context of Civ6 or Civ7.
That's certainly fine, even I wouldn't want to usially play with leaders that are a net minus. Just every now and then. As I hope I indicated earlier, these should be alternate leaders as a set.
 

Uncle Paul

Bittereinder
Joined
Aug 6, 2022
Messages
491
Location
Die Ou Transvaal
England/Britain has such a wide selection of iconic rulers, including women rulers, already available that merely being uncontroversial (which is debatable) would 't be enough to justify using such a recent leader.
The Queen was a great leader and a great person who had a great sense of humor. My people fought several wars against the UK, but I have nothing but respect for Her Majesty and her legacy.
I'd prefer the original Elizabeth to return, personally. From a gameplay perspective how do you see her being portrayed, and do you think she could do it better than other English rulers? I'm not so sure.
The original Elizabeth is far less iconic than the Queen (RIP) was.
She reigned, but never ruled or governed. I would prefer leaders across the board who actually made decisions, governed, and led on a national and political level. And, yes, this would mean that Victoria, Mohandas Gandhi, Wilhelmina, and others of that sort should also not see a future in Civ games.
But Gandhi is the only Indian leader who is well known in the West, and he's a Civ staple. What would the real benefit be of replacing a well-known figurehead who was an iconic representative of their nation with a virtually unknown figure simply because they actually governed? FDR didn't do much actual ruling, either (ill, incapacitated, US Presidents don't have that much power anyway, most power is with the Supreme Court or the Congress/Senate).
You could replace Wilhelmina with William of Orange (also somewhat of a Civ staple, and he had a cool beard), and Victoria/Elizabeth with Churchill (All the other British leaders with actual power are too recent [i.e. Boris], too obscure [i.e. Wilson], too controversial [i.e Thatcher], too infamous [i.e. Chamberlain], too foreign [i.e. William the Bastard], or too mythological [i.e. Arthur]).
So you would have essentially replaced two female leaders with male leaders, at a time when it seems Civ wants more female leaders, which would inevitably lead to relatively obscure female leaders being chosen (like the Portuguese Queen in Civ V)
So I don't really want to replace beloved, iconic female monarchs with lesser known males who had actual power if it means that other civs have a more iconic/important male leader replaced with a lesser known female leader for gender equality.
TLDR: please keep Elizabeth/Victoria as the British leader
Britain was already losing its Empire when she was being crowned. And as much as we can argue British decolonization was a success and a good thing for the world, it significantly reduced British influence nonetheless. In a game like Civilization, we rather expect characters who've either been decisive in growing their Empire or were ruling at its climax as the leaderhead.

Moctezuma II was indeed the last Aztec Emperor, but he was also ruling at the peak of Aztec influence, so it still makes sense to have him. On the other hand, Gandhi may have never ruled India, but he lead his country to independence, making of him the founding father of the modern Republic of India.

Personally I never really liked Louis XIV as being the ruler of France, because I believe his reign lead the country to a certain decline. Yet arguably it's under his reign that France has been the most influential, so it still makes sense to have him. Even though Henri IV would be a more popular figure in France, as he pacified relationship between catholics and protestants, leading the country to a long period of prosperity.
British decolonization was also trauma conga line from the perspective of Britons, a massive loss of power and prestige for an empire that once ruled the waves. And I say this as someone whose country fought against the British Empire several times. Ideally the British would have gotten to keep most of their Victorian-era empire, only losing some small areas like South Africa and Ireland (both of which became Commonwealth realms with the British monarchy intact instead of becoming completely independent). Essentially the Empire should have stayed the way it was in ca 1930.
Also Moctezuma II last appeared in a main series game sixteen years ago (IV).

It's been Moctezuma I in all main series games since.
It's Montezuma in Civ, not "Moctezuma", which is just the Spanish rendering of his name. He called himself Motēuczōmah, and in English he's called Montezuma, just like how Paul Kruger is called "KROO-ger" in English, even though he pronounced his name "KRÜ-yer" in Afrikaans.
Even if you're going for a, "Commonwealth," Clement Attlee, Anthony Eden, or Harold Macmillan would be better, as I think leaders who were symbols and/or never GOVERNED and/or RULED whether legally or strictly de facto, should disappear in Civ7 and beyond - like Victoria, Joan of Arc, Mohandas Gandhi, Wilhelmina, and a couple of others.
Attlee, Eden, and Macmillan are not nearly famous enough.
 
Top Bottom