Should Prime Ministers lead the 'English Empire'?

[McGreggD]

I think they should expand on the leaders and give them more depth. Make them actual characters that live and die during the course of the game. Each civ should have many, many leaders with their own unique strengths and weakness, like crusader kings 2.

If they are they not willing to do that just remove leaders completely. It makes no sense to have the same leader for thousands of years. Same with the named governers, the whole thing is cheesy and immersion breaking.

 

[Stomper66]

I don't think they could, or would animate numerous leaders for each civ. One idea I suggested a few months ago was to keep the leaders and animations the same but maybe change the outfits and backdrop image for each era. I actually play now with the animations turned off as it increases performance massively. Changing the outfits and backdrop for the still leader image could be done easily.

 

[Zaarin]

Each civ should have many, many leaders with their own unique strengths and weakness, like crusader kings 2.

Announcing Sid Meier's Civilization VII, the first game to actually commit to the singular noun in the title! Play as one and only one civilization! Each expansion will add one new civ! You realize, of course, that leader animations are rather expensive.

If they are they not willing to do that just remove leaders completely. It makes no sense to have the same leader for thousands of years.

The leader is a face and personality for the civilization. Because Civilization is primarily a single-player game, having leaderless civs would essentially be playing against faceless monoliths; giving the civs consistent, lasting faces gives you someone to feel rivalry or friendship with. It's not about accurately representing history--Civ is a 4X game, not grand strategy; Paradox has you covered if you want a grand strategy game--it's about making the player feel a connection to the game. I cringe every time I see Pedro II, or Dom Satan as I've not so affectionately nicknamed him, and smile every time I see Jadwiga; it's not because they represent Brazil or Poland but because giving Brazil and Poland a face and personality creates a human connection.

One idea I suggested a few months ago was to keep the leaders and animations the same but maybe change the outfits and backdrop image for each era.

They did that for Civ3; it looked monumentally stupid. I really, really hope Firaxis never tries that experiment again. Some Civ5 and Civ6 leader attire leaves something to be desired in terms of historical accuracy (Montezuma and Barbarossa quickly spring to mind), but the attention to detail is nonetheless stunning (just look at the detail in Teddy's coat, for instance). It would be a lot more work to do that eight times over. I'd rather have more civs/leaders. Especially since the last time Firaxis tried that we got Skinhead Joan of Arc.

 

[tarronzeng]

If they added Churchill to the game, there will be a lot of controversy.

 

[AmazonQueen]

If they added Churchill to the game, there will be a lot of controversy.

Civ IV had him as one of the leaders for England and I don't remember any controversy. It also had Mao and Stalin so it was definitely the Civ game with the most modern and controversial figures.

 

[tarronzeng]

Civ IV had him as one of the leaders for England and I don't remember any controversy. It also had Mao and Stalin so it was definitely the Civ game with the most modern and controversial figures.

Well I think I will get into trouble with the moderator for speaking politically on a game forum the controversy is mostly on the conservative side. I have heard a lot of conservatives saying that Churchill was an idiot, drunkard and cooperated with Stalin to win the war. Since most people are becoming more conservative I would say it will start an backlash.

 

[Uberfrog]

Well I think I will get into trouble with the moderator for speaking politically on a game forum the controversy is mostly on the conservative side. I have heard a lot of conservatives saying that Churchill was an idiot, drunkard and cooperated with Stalin to win the war. Since most people are becoming more conservative I would say it will start an backlash.

I think you’re taking an extremely niche view and generalising it. It also makes little sense: how is Churchill to be vilified for cooperating with Stalin, who was literally an Ally in the war against Nazi Germany? Isn’t that the whole point of an alliance? As far as I can tell there was little love lost between Churchill and the Soviets after the war.

Churchill is overwhelmingly seen as a national hero here in Britain, and conservatives would be the first to extol his virtues. I would be surprised if the same wasn’t also true in the United States.

In reality, most of the backlash against Churchill comes from the left, and his terrible colonial record. His wilful failure to do anything to help the Bengal Famine caused the deaths of millions of Indians, who were at the time subjects of the British Empire. His record after the war, sending British troops to deal with the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya and the Malayan Emergency also tarnish his reputation.

I’m not sure there would be a very big backlash if he were added, he’s not Stalin or Mao. I’d say he was more comparable with Teddy Roosevelt, whose similar imperialist excesses and racism are either widely unrecognised or tolerated in favour of his iconic status. I don’t remember a backlash when he was announced.

 

[tarronzeng]

Well I think I'm just dumb for hanging out with alt-righters in YouTube

 

[Phrozen]

I think you’re taking an extremely niche view and generalising it. It also makes little sense: how is Churchill to be vilified for cooperating with Stalin, who was literally an Ally in the war against Nazi Germany? Isn’t that the whole point of an alliance? As far as I can tell there was little love lost between Churchill and the Soviets after the war.

Churchill is overwhelmingly seen as a national hero here in Britain, and conservatives would be the first to extol his virtues. I would be surprised if the same wasn’t also true in the United States.

In reality, most of the backlash against Churchill comes from the left, and his terrible colonial record. His wilful failure to do anything to help the Bengal Famine caused the deaths of millions of Indians, who were at the time subjects of the British Empire. His record after the war, sending British troops to deal with the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya and the Malayan Emergency also tarnish his reputation.

I’m not sure there would be a very big backlash if he were added, he’s not Stalin or Mao. I’d say he was more comparable with Teddy Roosevelt, whose similar imperialist excesses and racism are either widely unrecognised or tolerated in favour of his iconic status. I don’t remember a backlash when he was announced.

Roosevelt wasn't that much of a racist and even was better than the normal person of his time when it came to race relations. Now, Woodrow Wilson was indeed a racist.

 

[Stomper66]

I think you'll deprive the game of a lot of interesting leaders if you start excluding historical figures because they don't fit in with modern day values.
The world was different back then and racism, sexism and imperialism were often the norm unfortunately, even as recent as 60-70 years ago. If you start judging historical figures based on these factors you would end up with a very small pool of leaders to choose from.

To be honest I wouldn't want Churchill not because he is controversial but because he is not as interesting as other potential English leaders and I'm also not a fan of having a modern leader for England either.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I think you'll deprive the game of a lot of interesting leaders if you start excluding historical figures because they don't fit in with modern day values.
The world was different back then and racism, sexism and imperialism were the norm, even as recent as 60-70 years ago. If you start judging historical figures based on these factors you would end up with a very small pool of leaders to choose from.

To be honest I wouldn't want Churchill not because he is controversial but because he is not as interesting as other potential English leaders and I'm also not a fan of having a modern leader for England either.

A lot of the most interesting figures in history were flawed. Important to the history of their country, admirable in many ways, reprehensible (at least to modern standards) in others. A few examples - Simon de Montfort (father and son), Edward I, Oliver Cromwell, Kemal Ataturk. I agree. If we excluded leaders because they did something that is reprehensible nowadays we wouldn't have many if any choices left. There are perhaps a few like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot whose actions were widely considered reprehensible when they occurred as well as now. I'd exclude them.

 

[Stomper66]

Sure I agree. And maybe don't have the more controversial leaders reciting some of their worst quotes in history and display the more positive things about them. This seems to be a contentious issue at the moment. It definitely is in the UK where there has recently been more criticism over Churchill and a call from some protesters to remove statues of people who were pro slavery or imperialist from city squares and universities.

I think this was the reason why Mongolia and Ghengis Kahn were not included at game launch. They were apprehensive to include the Mongols because they killed so many people but for a civilisation that has been so impactful on human history and so culturally rich and distinguishable I am glad that they included Mongolia in the game. It's interesting that Mongolia have been in so many Civ games previously and retrospectively judging Civs like Mongolia has only become a thing now. Are they going to debate whether or not to include Rome in the next game because of all the terrible things the Roman Empire did?

 

[AmazonQueen]

Sure I agree. And maybe don't have the more controversial leaders reciting some of their worst quotes in history and display the more positive things about them. This seems to be a contentious issue at the moment. It definitely is in the UK where there has recently been more criticism over Churchill and a call from some protesters to remove statues of people who were pro slavery or imperialist from city squares and universities.

I think this was the reason why Mongolia and Ghengis Kahn were not included at game launch. They were apprehensive to include the Mongols because they killed so many people but for a civilisation that has been so impactful on human history and so culturally rich and distinguishable I am glad that they included Mongolia in the game. It's interesting that Mongolia have been in so many Civ games previously and retrospectively judging Civs like Mongolia has only become a thing now. Are they going to debate whether or not to include Rome in the next game because of all the terrible things the Roman Empire did?

In the early years at least Christians thought Mongols were wonderful, if only because their victims were mainly Muslim. I think another problem is trying to judge leaders as if they weren't part of the civilisations they led. If another leader as capable as Ghenghis or Kublai had led the Mongols I doubt the results would have been much different. Personally I think Julius Caesar has to go down as one of the most selfish people in history. He conquered Gaul (killing, maiming and enslaving much of its population) and overthrew the republic for the sake of his career. I've never seen any objections to Shaka as a Zulu leader although by all the accounts I've read he was a psychopath once killing one of his followers just to demonstrate to a British diplomat his power.

edit: Although to be fair to JC Crassus and Pompey did some things just to further their career that were either reprehensible or of doubtful benefit to Rome

 

[AmazonQueen]

Sure I agree. And maybe don't have the more controversial leaders reciting some of their worst quotes in history and display the more positive things about them. This seems to be a contentious issue at the moment. It definitely is in the UK where there has recently been more criticism over Churchill and a call from some protesters to remove statues of people who were pro slavery or imperialist from city squares and universities.

I think this was the reason why Mongolia and Ghengis Kahn were not included at game launch. They were apprehensive to include the Mongols because they killed so many people but for a civilisation that has been so impactful on human history and so culturally rich and distinguishable I am glad that they included Mongolia in the game. It's interesting that Mongolia have been in so many Civ games previously and retrospectively judging Civs like Mongolia has only become a thing now. Are they going to debate whether or not to include Rome in the next game because of all the terrible things the Roman Empire did?

I guess this raises the question should people like Rudyard Kipling be included as great writers or Cecil Rhodes as Great Merchants.
I think they should be, not because I think they were wonderful people, but because in the era they were important they were regarded as important.

 

[Stomper66]

Very interesting. I wasn't pointing out Rome in particular though I was just trying to say that every civ/ leader in the game did horrible things at certain times in history as well as some great things. With some exceptions like Hitlers Germany or Stalins USSR, I don't like the idea of excluding well known civs or leaders from the game just because some the things that they did are now perceived as 'bad'. And yes once you go down that route its hard to stop passing judgement on everything by 21st century standards. Leaders, Civs and Great People would all be called in to question and half or more would probably be excluded.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sure I agree. And maybe don't have the more controversial leaders reciting some of their worst quotes in history and display the more positive things about them. This seems to be a contentious issue at the moment. It definitely is in the UK where there has recently been more criticism over Churchill and a call from some protesters to remove statues of people who were pro slavery or imperialist from city squares and universities.

I think this was the reason why Mongolia and Ghengis Kahn were not included at game launch. They were apprehensive to include the Mongols because they killed so many people but for a civilisation that has been so impactful on human history and so culturally rich and distinguishable I am glad that they included Mongolia in the game. It's interesting that Mongolia have been in so many Civ games previously and retrospectively judging Civs like Mongolia has only become a thing now. Are they going to debate whether or not to include Rome in the next game because of all the terrible things the Roman Empire did?

The reason why Hitler isn't allowed is because the game would be banned at least in Germany and Austria. They couldn't sell the game in China either if Mao was depicted as a leader, though for the opposite reason of Hitler as Mao cannot be seen as able to lose at anything. These are the reasons why they at least are controversial. I can't be sure of Stalin or Pol Pot, but it might be similar. I don't see any comparison to leaders such as Churchill or even Genghis Khan as being controversial, at least by these standards. The only reason I could see Mongolia not being in the base game has nothing to do with that but they wanted to try something new and give us another nomadic people in Scythia first, because we all knew Mongolia was going to eventually come.

 

[Stomper66]

That's why I can see the exception for Hitler and Stalin being banned like i said before. If people really want to play these leaders or civs focused on this point in time there are 2 perfectly good mods for this.

My bad if that wasn't the reason Mongolia wasn't included in the game until later. I think I read this forum and assumed that this was the reason they did not feature at game launch.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/916373-pc/74216508

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That's why I can see the exception for Hitler and Stalin being banned like i said before. If people really want to play these leaders or civs focused on this point in time there are 2 perfectly good mods for this.

My bad if that wasn't the reason Mongolia wasn't included in the game until later. I think I read this forum and assumed that this was the reason they did not feature at game launch.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/916373-pc/74216508

I had no actual idea, that was just a guess. I've honestly never seen that quote before, but judging by the laugh it might have been kind of a joke, but realistically they decided on an alternative earlier. But a civilization game without Mongolia, who singlehandedly created the largest continuous land empire, because of the things that they have done would be wrong.

 

[Haig]

FirstLook: Margaret Thatcher leads the English in Sid Meier's Civilization VI

 

[Stomper66]

FirstLook: Margaret Thatcher leads the English in Sid Meier's Civilization VI

Boy who cried wolf