[NFP] Should Phillip II lead Portugal too?

[Cooleatack]

So I was thinking what the patch in April could contain and considering they mentioned surprises, I figured Phillip II would get a rework as Spain is not exactly a powerhouse at the moment. With this, he could actually end up leading the land he claims to rule now that Portugal is in the game.It would be an easy way to add another alternate leader. What do you think?

I wonder how Phillip could be reworked to be viable for both civs and be better overall. Thus I wanted to see your input on this

As a side note, Portugal directly led Brazil at some point, so could João III also lead Brazil? Though they might want to keep colonial revolters separate from their colonizers.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

If you want Portuguese Civ players to rage quit Civ, be my guest. No offense meant by this, btw.

On a serious note, perhaps. I wouldn't be too angry, though it's probably because I'm not Portuguese.

 

[João III]

As a side note, Portugal directly led Brazil at some point, so could João III also lead Brazil? Though they might want to keep colonial revolters separate from their colonizers.

Or how about Victoria with Canada and Australia?

 

[Bitterman]

He may with a rework on his LUA and maybe a reskin a la Catherine/Bull Teddy. His current LUA doesn't synergize at all with Portugal.

 

[InsidiousMage]

Sure, his abilities would probably work better than Chandragupta's do with India's.

 

[Cooleatack]

He may with a rework on his LUA and maybe a reskin a la Catherine/Bull Teddy. His current LUA doesn't synergize at all with Portugal.

Yes, I was just looking at the Spanish LUA, and thought that perhaps a different persona would also be a cool option.

If you want Portuguese Civ players to rage quit Civ, be my guest. No offense meant by this, btw.

On a serious note, perhaps. I wouldn't be too angry, though it's probably because I'm not Portuguese.

You could also have him lead the Dutch, but I don’t think I’d do my countrymen a favour with that suggestion, considering we quite resoundingly revolted away from him haha

My initial idea would be to add a strong emphasis on religion spreading to different continents through trade routes and keep the inquisitor bonus and combat bonus against different religions, but maybe restrict it to different continents to keep the theme going and compensate for adding another ability

Or how about Victoria with Canada and Australia?

I would not oppose this, She lasted so long as a monarch too, she could make a prime candidate for a persona, especially her older self too, which is more memorable.

Honestly any not too controversial possibilities to use alt leaders and personas more often sound good to me. It’s such an underused feature that allows for easy ways to mix up the gameplay

 

[sonicmyst]

I suppose modders can easily do this.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I suppose modders can easily do this.

Just as they could do the same for Victoria leading Scotland, Canada, India, and Australia.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

You could also have him lead the Dutch, but I don’t think I’d do my countrymen a favour with that suggestion, considering we quite resoundingly revolted away from him haha

Frederick Barbarossa could lead the Netherlands too... Wouldn't that be even less preferred than Philip II?

 

[iammaxhailme]

Frederick Barbarossa could lead the Netherlands too... Wouldn't that be even less preferred than Philip II?

Trajan could rule half the game!

Just as they could do the same for Victoria leading Scotland, Canada, India, and Australia.

I mean, Canada already has redcoats, they're just mounted

 

[Pietato]

Well seeing as modern Portugal is a colony of Spain, I do not see why not.

 

[Ravellion]

Frederick Barbarossa could lead the Netherlands too... Wouldn't that be even less preferred than Philip II?

Well, at that time there simply wasn't enough of a Dutch identity, especially considering its civ abilities. That said, the Dutch territories splitting off from the Holy Roman empire certainly wasn't an inevitability. It's an anachronistic fit, mostly, but Frederick ruled over the territories that we now consider Dutch.

Now, in contrast Philip II might have had a claim on the Netherlands, but he certainly did not rule it. Pretty much the entire reason that the Netherlands exists as a separate entity, is Spain's anti-protestant zeal.

 

[nunor]

Well seeing as modern Portugal is a colony of Spain, I do not see why not.

 

[Menocchio]

Conditionally: first, swap Spain's civilisation ability (Treasure Fleet) with Philip's leader ability. Philip took little part in the Inquisition, but is best known (to Anglos) for sending the Spanish Armada to try to invade England. The part of the ability that has to do with loyalty from Missions, of course, could either be swapped as well or simply made a part of the Mission itself. Treasure Fleet has good potential synergy with Portugal's inherent abilities, and - assuming it sees no balance change, which is extremely unlikely - would create higher-quality, but fewer, trade routes as well as better domestic trade routes. Not to mention, of course, early fleets and armadas.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

"Could Leader X could also lead Civ Y as an alternate leader?"

We've been over this in many threads and the answer was mostly "No". Sure, Philip ruled over Portugal, but would you put Trajan as a leader for Gauls? Victoria as a leader for Canada, Australia and India? Barbarossa as a leader for the Netherlands? João III as a leader for Brazil? Philip as a leader for Gran Columbia? Wilfrid as a leader for the Crees? All of these are tremendously problematic.

I think that in order to see if a leader could be an alternate leader for several civs, we must ask those two questions:

QUESTION 1: DOES THE LEADER HAS BEEN LEADER OF THOSE TWO CIVS AT THE SAME TIME OR DIFFERENT TIMES?

For example, Eleanor never has been Queen of France and Queen of England at the same time, she was one, then after some time, the other one. Same (in a different mesure) for Kubilai Khan: he has been a Mongo Khan then he became the Emperor of China without much control over Mongolia after that.

QUESTION 2: IF THE LEADER HAS LED BOTH CIVS AT THE SAME TIME, WERE THE CULTURE ON AN EQUALITY FOOT OR WAS THERE A CLEAR SITUATION OF HEGEMONY OF ONE ABOVE THE OTHER, AND COULD STILL BE CONSIDERED AS TWO SEPARATE NATION JUST HAPPENING TO SHARE A HEAD OF STATE?

For example, Maria-Teresa could eventually (even if I don't endorse it) lead both Hungary and Germany because those two kingdoms were kind of equals (sure, there was some sort of "superiority" from the Austrian part, but Hungary wasn't a colony).
But for other cases, it falls. Victoria could not led Canada, because Canada wasn't equal of Great Britain, it was a colony; Philip couldn't lead Portugal because there was a clear hegemony, a clear "invasion" from Spain to Portugal. After the dynastic crisis in 1580, Philip II took Portugal by force to prevent someone else to sit on the throne... Not really a voluntarily and equal union of two countries. It looks like more an annexation.
A good rule of thumb to see if an alternate leader could lead both civs X and Y is this: could you imagine the ruler leading civ X without leading civ Y? For Philip II, can we imagine him as a king of Portugal without being the King of Spain? Of course not! If Philipp is somewhere, he needs to be King of Spain.

The "alternate leader" mechanic is very interesting but also very tricky. The Netherlands were clearly under German domination, as well as Portugal was more dominated by Spain than a true equal. Because let's face it and be honest: the Iberian Union wasn't a true union, it's was a Spanish Crown with some portuguese dependencies.

That's why, no, Philip II could not lead Portugal as well. As least, in my opinion.

 

[AntSou]

Victoria leading Canada/Australia and Joao leading Brazil sounds off. Didn't Canada/Australia go from being colonies to having a decent amount of autonomy, even before independence? What was their status under Victoria? And Joao ruled a mere colony in Brazil, not a Kingdom.

Victoria leading Scotland makes more sense, plus I'd get to play Redcoats & Highlanders! And Philip leading Portugal should bea thing too. He was literally King of Portugal.

But these should be modded in. Unless they change the abilities in April, neither of the combinations above make a whole lot of sense design-wise, so I don't think it's a good idea to make a broken design "official".

However, if they changed Spain/Philip's abilities around a bit, then Philip would be an awesome leader for Portugal. It would look like this:

Philip:
- May form Fleets and Armadas with Mercantilism, instead of Nationalism and Mobilization.
- Trade Routes between cities on different continents gain +1 Food and +1 Production for domestic Trade Routes , and +6 Gold for international Trade Routes.
- +2 Loyalty per turn for cities outside of Portugal's home continent with a Trade Route to the Capital.

Portugal:
- International Trade Routes can only be sent to cities on the coast or with a Harbor, but gain a +50% increase to all yields. Traders have +50% range over water, and can embark as soon as they are unlocked.

That's more Gold than Joao per trade route, but less potential for trade routes, so it evens out. The focus switches from trade to colonization. This could be pretty fun.

Philip II took Portugal by force to prevent someone else to sit on the throne... Not really a voluntarily and equal union of two countries

This is incorrect. He had a legitimate claim to the throne and wide aristocratic support in Portugal.

I'd argue Philip is one the most clear cut options as dual leader in the game.
-----
-----

Edit: On the other hand, Philip leading Netherlands makes no sense. He unwittingly contributed towards the formation of a Dutch national identity. The crisis that occurred in the Netherlands vs the Habsburg ruler would only occur in Portugal under Philip IV, some decades later.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

This is incorrect. He had a legitimate claim to the throne and wide aristocratic support in Portugal.

Well the French Wikipedia said that Philip sent a duke to take the palace by force to prevent another pretendent (deemed illegitimate) to take it.

Victoria leading Scotland makes more sense, plus I'd get to play Redcoats & Highlanders! And Philip leading Portugal should bea thing too. He was literally King of Portugal.

I see it as Victoria leading India. She was Empress of India after all.
It doesn't change the fact that the "primary" title of Philip II was still King of Spain, and it would be weird for Philip to lead Portugal without leading Spain at the same time. Philip never managed nor governed Portugal without managing and governing Spain at the same time. That's the difference with Eleanor: her two queedom were consecutive, not simultaneous. Kubilai fit somewhat in it too: when he was Mongol Khan, he wasn't (yet) Emperor of China, and when he truly starting to act as Emperor of China, his power as Mongol Khan was unconsequential.
Philip II never was, at any moment in time, consider solely as King of Portugal without being at the same time King of Spain.
At this count, he has been titled King of England too (with his marriage to Mary I). Would that mean that Philip II should be able to lead England as well? He was literally King of England, after all.
That's why, for me, Philip II shouldn't (officially) lead Portugal. Because it would imply that Trajan can lead Gauls, Byzantium, Greece, Egypt and Phoenicia; Victoria could lead Scotland and India; ... And why asking if Philip II should lead Portugal, but not the Netherlands? He was literally the Prince Sovereign of the Seventeen Provinces of the Netherlands, after all.
European geopolitics are so clutter than starting to open this pandora box on such light arguments will just bring so many alt leaders that it will just become uncomprehensible.

 

[Ticio]

"Could Leader X could also lead Civ Y as an alternate leader?"

We've been over this in many threads and the answer was mostly "No". Sure, Philip ruled over Portugal, but would you put Trajan as a leader for Gauls? Victoria as a leader for Canada, Australia and India? Barbarossa as a leader for the Netherlands? João III as a leader for Brazil? Philip as a leader for Gran Columbia? Wilfrid as a leader for the Crees? All of these are tremendously problematic.

I think that in order to see if a leader could be an alternate leader for several civs, we must ask those two questions:

QUESTION 1: DOES THE LEADER HAS BEEN LEADER OF THOSE TWO CIVS AT THE SAME TIME OR DIFFERENT TIMES?

For example, Eleanor never has been Queen of France and Queen of England at the same time, she was one, then after some time, the other one. Same (in a different mesure) for Kubilai Khan: he has been a Mongo Khan then he became the Emperor of China without much control over Mongolia after that.

QUESTION 2: IF THE LEADER HAS LED BOTH CIVS AT THE SAME TIME, WERE THE CULTURE ON AN EQUALITY FOOT OR WAS THERE A CLEAR SITUATION OF HEGEMONY OF ONE ABOVE THE OTHER, AND COULD STILL BE CONSIDERED AS TWO SEPARATE NATION JUST HAPPENING TO SHARE A HEAD OF STATE?

For example, Maria-Teresa could eventually (even if I don't endorse it) lead both Hungary and Germany because those two kingdoms were kind of equals (sure, there was some sort of "superiority" from the Austrian part, but Hungary wasn't a colony).
But for other cases, it falls. Victoria could not led Canada, because Canada wasn't equal of Great Britain, it was a colony; Philip couldn't lead Portugal because there was a clear hegemony, a clear "invasion" from Spain to Portugal. After the dynastic crisis in 1580, Philip II took Portugal by force to prevent someone else to sit on the throne... Not really a voluntarily and equal union of two countries. It looks like more an annexation.
A good rule of thumb to see if an alternate leader could lead both civs X and Y is this: could you imagine the ruler leading civ X without leading civ Y? For Philip II, can we imagine him as a king of Portugal without being the King of Spain? Of course not! If Philipp is somewhere, he needs to be King of Spain.

The "alternate leader" mechanic is very interesting but also very tricky. The Netherlands were clearly under German domination, as well as Portugal was more dominated by Spain than a true equal. Because let's face it and be honest: the Iberian Union wasn't a true union, it's was a Spanish Crown with some portuguese dependencies.

That's why, no, Philip II could not lead Portugal as well. As least, in my opinion.

I must disagree, Philip was the legitimate heir to the Portuguese Crown. For him, it was a duty to make prevail the claim inherited from his mother.
The other candidate was eligible too (was a bastard), but if the Portuguese nobility voted Philip was because they saw him as the best candidate.

I think Philip II match both of your points (in my opinion, of course);
1) He has been leader of both civs at the same time and in the same period of time (Both Spain and Portugal in Civ VI are from the same period).


2) Portugal retained much of his independence during the Iberian union (at least with Philip II).
During the Union, Portugal was just another realm of the bunch that formed "Spain" (Castile+Portugal+Aragon+Navarre) nor more, nor less. And for me, Yes... I can imagine Philip II as a leader for Portugal as it was king of Portugal by inheritance.

I think your phrasing is incorrect in the sense that you oppose king of "Spain" vs "Portugal", but Spain did not exist during this period.
I could imagine a Philip II king of "Portugal", or king of "Aragon", "castile" "Napoli" and other Civs like that.

Extra: I think that it could be a very synergetic leader to Portugal civ as I explained in other thread. We only have to make the armada bonus the main one of philip (I reallity he was famous for the armada and the galleon system... so it would make even more sense).

Victoria leading Canada/Australia and Joao leading Brazil sounds off. Didn't Canada/Australia go from being colonies to having a decent amount of autonomy, even before independence? What was their status under Victoria? And Joao ruled a mere colony in Brazil, not a Kingdom.

Victoria leading Scotland makes more sense, plus I'd get to play Redcoats & Highlanders! And Philip leading Portugal should bea thing too. He was literally King of Portugal.

But these should be modded in. Unless they change the abilities in April, neither of the combinations above make a whole lot of sense design-wise, so I don't think it's a good idea to make a broken design "official".

However, if they changed Spain/Philip's abilities around a bit, then Philip would be an awesome leader for Portugal. It would look like this:

Philip:
- May form Fleets and Armadas with Mercantilism, instead of Nationalism and Mobilization.
- Trade Routes between cities on different continents gain +1 Food and +1 Production for domestic Trade Routes , and +6 Gold for international Trade Routes.
- +2 Loyalty per turn for cities outside of Portugal's home continent with a Trade Route to the Capital.

Portugal:
- International Trade Routes can only be sent to cities on the coast or with a Harbor, but gain a +50% increase to all yields. Traders have +50% range over water, and can embark as soon as they are unlocked.

That's more Gold than Joao per trade route, but less potential for trade routes, so it evens out. The focus switches from trade to colonization. This could be pretty fun.



This is incorrect. He had a legitimate claim to the throne and wide aristocratic support in Portugal.

I'd argue Philip is one the most clear cut options as dual leader in the game.
-----
-----

Edit: On the other hand, Philip leading Netherlands makes no sense. He unwittingly contributed towards the formation of a Dutch national identity. The crisis that occurred in the Netherlands vs the Habsburg ruler would only occur in Portugal under Philip IV, some decades later.

Sorry, I made an answer that had some similitudes with yours (I did not see it). I think your point is very interesting! if they made this a thing, and maybe give international trade the +1 food/production it could be bonkers for Portugal and the 50% bonus per trade yields.me similitudes with yours

 

[AntSou]

I see it as Victoria leading India. She was Empress of India after all.
It doesn't change the fact that the "primary" title of Philip II was still King of Spain, and it would be weird for Philip to lead Portugal without leading Spain at the same time. Philip never managed nor governed Portugal without managing and governing Spain at the same time. That's the difference with Eleanor: her two queedom were consecutive, not simultaneous. Kubilai fit somewhat in it too: when he was Mongol Khan, he wasn't (yet) Emperor of China, and when he truly starting to act as Emperor of China, his power as Mongol Khan was unconsequential.
Philip II never was, at any moment in time, consider solely as King of Portugal without being at the same time King of Spain.
At this count, he has been titled King of England too (with his marriage to Mary I). Would that mean that Philip II should be able to lead England as well? He was literally King of England, after all.
That's why, for me, Philip II shouldn't (officially) lead Portugal. Because it would imply that Trajan can lead Gauls, Byzantium, Greece, Egypt and Phoenicia; Victoria could lead Scotland and India; ... And why asking if Philip II should lead Portugal, but not the Netherlands? He was literally the Prince Sovereign of the Seventeen Provinces of the Netherlands, after all.
European geopolitics are so clutter than starting to open this pandora box on such light arguments will just bring so many alt leaders that it will just become uncomprehensible.

You make some good points, other I think not so good. I agree with this bit:
"It doesn't change the fact that the "primary" title of Philip II was still King of Spain, and it would be weird for Philip to lead Portugal without leading Spain at the same time. Philip never managed nor governed Portugal without managing and governing Spain at the same time. That's the difference with Eleanor: her two queedom were consecutive, not simultaneous."

But I think it still works despite that.
----

At this count, he has been titled King of England too (with his marriage to Mary I). Would that mean that Philip II should be able to lead England as well? He was literally King of England, after all.
That's why, for me, Philip II shouldn't (officially) lead Portugal. Because it would imply that Trajan can lead Gauls, Byzantium, Greece, Egypt and Phoenicia; Victoria could lead Scotland and India; ... And why asking if Philip II should lead Portugal, but not the Netherlands? He was literally the Prince Sovereign of the Seventeen Provinces of the Netherlands, after all.

- Philip had both legitimacy and support in Portugal.
- Philip was despised in the Netherlands and it contributed towards the formation of a Dutch/Protestant identity by virtue of opposition to the "Spanish/Catholic" oppressor. It's therefore an antagonistic pairing.
- Philip became King of Portugal BECAUSE OF support within Portugal, not in spite of it. (although it's possible he might have succeeded even without support, due to the losses at Alcácer Quibir)

Or to put it differently, the Dutch strongly opposed Philip II at the time of his ruling. The opposition against Philip II in Portugal occurs well after his death, by consequence of being bundled together with Philip III and Philip IV.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I think Philip II match both of your points (in my opinion, of course);
1) He has been leader of both civs at the same time and in the same period of time (Both Spain and Portugal in Civ VI are from the same period).

Actaully, it doesn't match my point (but I think I wasn't clear enough on this one). For me, a good Cuv dual leader should have been the leader of the historical civ at different times, to justify the fact that they can lead one or the other, but not both at the same time. That's for me the biggest counter-argument against Philip II as a leader for Portugal.

During the Union, Portugal was just another realm of the bunch that formed "Spain" (Castile+Portugal+Aragon+Navarre) nor more, nor less. And for me, Yes... I can imagine Philip II as a leader for Portugal as it was king of Portugal by inheritance.

For me, then, by this vision, Philip II is even less justified to lead Portugal. As you said, Portugal was part of Spain, not adjacent to Spain. Compare with Eleanor, the Ur-alternate leader: when she was queen of France, England wasn't part of France, it was a different country.

- Philip became King of Portugal BECAUSE OF support within Portugal

From what I read, Philip II sent his troops before the artistocracy elected him, and he was elected when he militarily won the war... The crisis succession of Portugal at this time is notoriously controversial (was it an invasion or not? Historians seems to still debate on it), so I'd prefer to be on the safe side and say that, in the case it was truly an invasion, Philip II as a dual leader is controversial.

What I feel the design of Firaxis was (explaining why they went with the quite obscure exemple of Eleanor first and not, say, William III of Oranje-Nassau for Netherlands and England, or Charles Quint for Germany and Spain) is that the two leaders have to not be the leader of both civs at the same time. Both civs need to have been different countries when those leaders were in charge. And I'm sorry if I'm a little old school, but for me two countries that share the same Head of State cannot be consider truly separated from one another.

Once again: Philip II was mostly King of Spain. From his 28 years old until his death, he has been nothing but King of Spain(s). Having him represented without his main posession would be like if Victoria led Canada or India: sure they were their lands, as Queen of the Commonwealth and Empress of India, but nobody would ever doubt that Victoria without England (or at least Great Britain) is simply not Victoria.
The very identity of Philip II is Spain, starting when he was 16 as a regent for Spain (not Portugal). Portugal seems so anedcotical in his vast spanish Empire that making him lead Portugal while wompletely erasing all of what made him him, seems counter-intuitive.