Some thoughts about leaders depiction and choices

[Chippeth]

To butt in on the above debate, I think one thing that's great about Civ is that people like it for different reasons and play it different ways.

Personally, I enjoy playing against characters, I love the leader screens and I enjoy the light roleplaying you can do (I once delayed a standard Babylon Science victory to nuke a very annoying Austria because she bought my favourite citystate, for example.)

I like the leaders because they give each civ a personality, and I think that the choices, whilst questionable at times, ensure a variety of characters to play against, whether it's the annoyingly successful UniLad Alexander, the pompous Maria Theresa or the stone cold Elizabeth.

Plus, some of the 'questionable' leaderscreens and leaders look badass. (Boudica, Pacal, Monty and so on.)

 

[Tsuchinoko]

The 3D animated, talking leaders certainly aren't a vital part of the game, but I personally think they're a nice touch, and do add to the experience. I'd have prefered it more if Firaxis had recorded a wider range of phrases so that the leaders weren't saying the same things over and over, but that's a minor issue. That said, if making the leader screens a little simpler would mean we got a greater number to choose from in Civ VI I'd be all for that.

I'm hoping we'll see a return to multiple leaders per Civ in future, not just for the visual variety, but also because then it'll be less of an issue for anyone who disagrees with Firaxis' choice of leader for any particular civ, while still allowing for a variety of characters to play against.

That said, there aren't really any leaders in Civ V that I consider terrible myself - but there are some which are perhaps not the best/most prestigious candidates for the civ they represent (Maria I for Portugal, for example), which is probably what you should be aiming for when you have a one leader per civ system.

 

[Arachnofiend]

It's really great to put a face to the power civs. A line of text saying "you have met the Greek Empire" doesn't quite have the same impact as Alexander riding up on his horse and announcing the arrival of the Greeks and explaining how thoroughly boned you now are.

 

[Mustakrakish]

You just like the guy too much

 

[Arachnofiend]

You just like the guy too much

I'm gay

 

[Mustakrakish]

It was humour

 

[LincolnofAmeric]

I agree with how leaders give the game personality. Think, which is more intimidating? Saying "you met the Mongols" or having Genghis Khan appear on your screen and warn you that he'll invade you if you get on his nerves? I only have one wish, that leader clothes change through the ages. We shouldn't have Caesar wearing robes during the Atomic Era.

 

[Mustakrakish]

I agree with how leaders give the game personality. Think, which is more intimidating? Saying "you met the Mongols" or having Genghis Khan appear on your screen and warn you that he'll invade you if you get on his nerves? I only have one wish, that leader clothes change through the ages. We shouldn't have Caesar wearing robes during the Atomic Era.

Umm... Actually a screen saying you met the horde or something is more intimidating that that funny little guy with funny voice on a horse.

Other than that I understand why people see leaders giving the game personality. It's harder to give a personality to a nation.

It doesn't play a big role for me. I'm much more likely to be intimidated, be wary etc. of civ that has showed in the past some of it's tricks, not of someone with fancy introduction. But that's just me.

 

[Kurtbob]

That's why I requested a mod that removes the leaders and any mention of them altogether. Instead a static screen (say of the maps displayed in the choose civ menu until a better idea comes up) and the civ icon. Loading screen text (leader praising) changed to simply first part ("history" section) of civilopedia's entry on that civ, narrating silenced, greeting texts changed to more appropriate, focused on the civ itself etc.

I don't want to play as those characters and against those characters. I want to play as a civilization against other civilizations.

It is amazing how much depth such a simple mod brings when you're not dealing with ever same Washington in his 18th century office, where he rolls a globus before wheel was invented, but rather with mysterious peoples who call themselves "Americans".

I agree with your post (I totally relate to your second paragraph) and would also welcome the mod you requested.

When I play civ, I don't role-play the leader of the civ I have chosen to play nor do I feel as though I am great leader meeting other great leaders while playing. I play civ to watch an alternative history unfold in front of me, a history of cultures and peoples, not great leaders. So, 3D leaderscreens have actually taken some of the immersion out of the game for me. I suppose I may be 'playing the game wrong' by not following the devs intentions (playing a leader among leaders), but I'm sure I'm not alone.

With that said, I would welcome numerous static 2d leaders per civ over one highly ornate 3d leader.

Removing leaders entirely would be a radical concept for civ, but as a mod, why not? And who knows, getting rid of leaders may open up gameplay. For example, it would be nice to see Great Statesman GPs and statesman specialists in future civ titles.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Hiawatha is more complicated choice ... is there another person which could replace him ?

The obvious choice to me is Joseph Brant.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I agree with how leaders give the game personality. Think, which is more intimidating? Saying "you met the Mongols" or having Genghis Khan appear on your screen and warn you that he'll invade you if you get on his nerves? I only have one wish, that leader clothes change through the ages. We shouldn't have Caesar wearing robes during the Atomic Era.

I liked that in Civ III, and to an extent Civ I.

 

[Novu]

Here is list of points I would like to make.

1. Theodora was the "real" power behind the throne of Justinian. Early in Justinian's rule was an uprising and coup' attempt against him. Justinian wanted to flee the city but it was Theodora who made him stand his ground. Later after Theodora died Justinian floundered for the rest of his reign. This is why many historians think it was Theodora who was making all the political decisions and Justinian was just a figure head.


2. If they wanted an extra female leader Hatshepsut, or Cleopatra could have worked. It was the Ptolemies who built the Great Lighthouse and the Great Library as well as the Rosetta stone. Without that stone we would know very little about how to read Hieroglyphs.


3. Dido probably didn't exist. Most of what is known of Dido comes from Virgil who was paid by Augustus Caesar to write a more glorious founding story for Rome. The old folk story of Rome being founded by two orphans raised by wolves wasn't going to cut it for the greatest empire the world had ever seen. Augustus wanted an ancient Royal bloodline of kings. So he commissioned Virgil the poet to write an Epic that links his bloodline to a lost bloodline of King Priam of Troy. The epic Virgil wrote was called the Aeneid and for the most part it was a work of fiction and propaganda that mirrors the Greek epic Iliad and Odyssey. Dido is merely a character in the story who plays a tragic love interest for Aeneas and then commits suicide when Aeneas rejects her. This whole part of the story was done to slander Carthage whom the Romans had conquered and whose citizens were under Roman subjection at the time. A better leader for Carthage would have been King Hamilcar or Hannibal.


4. The leader who is probably the least acceptable is Gandhi. He never held any political office nor did he ever actually organize a resistance movement. Having Gandhi as the leader of India is like having MLK as leader of the United States. Yes, Gandhi and MLK were important figures but they were never rulers and it would be silly to think of them as such. India has such a rich history of glorious kings and righteous emperors that it is a shame they didn't go with something more historically accurate. Ashoka the the Great who unified India in the 3rd Century BC would be a top contender.

 

[Learner]

What if they added more leaders for existing civilizations like in civ IV? Leaders could share unique buildings and units, but each could have his or her own UA. Just like in Civ IV where leaders shared their uniques, but had their own traits and personality for the AI. I doubt this will ever happen for civ V (well, at least not without mods) but i would like to have little more variety in civ VI.

 

[mclericp]

I'd have prefered it more if Firaxis had recorded a wider range of phrases so that the leaders weren't saying the same things over and over, but that's a minor issue.

Would you be interested in a trade agreement with England?
Would you be interested in a trade agreement with England?
Would you be interested in a trade agreement with England?
Would you be interested in a trade agreement with England?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I DONT WANT TO GIVE YOU 90% OF MY GPT!!!!!!!!

 

[Teproc]

Here is list of points I would like to make.

1. Theodora was the "real" power behind the throne of Justinian. Early in Justinian's rule was an uprising and coup' attempt against him. Justinian wanted to flee the city but it was Theodora who made him stand his ground. Later after Theodora died Justinian floundered for the rest of his reign. This is why many historians think it was Theodora who was making all the political decisions and Justinian was just a figure head.

I'd like to see you back that up (the "many historians" thing). I'm not saying Theodora was not an important part of Justinian's rule, she was. But I've never heard/read implied that Justinian was a figurehead.

 

[Teproc]

Oh, and Dido is not only mentioned by Virgil. There are some accounts of her from previous Roman historians, and I believe Thucydides mentions her as well (might be wrong on that, going off memory).

 

[Krajzen]

I am strong opponent of Gandhi in Civ5

I would sooo much prefer Ahsoka the Great, with ancient Indian language and climatic music... This guy not only united India and created giant empire, but he also made great contributions to making buddhist one of the greatest religions in the history - he started supporting its expansion into other Asian countries. And buddhism (and India as whole) had giant impact on India, China, Japan, Korea, Tibet, South - East Asia and even more.

As someone brilliantly said before, Gandhi as a ruler of India is like Martin Luther King being a leader of USA. Or John Paul II as a leader of Poland (oh my... God, nomen omen). Or Mandela as a leader of Zulu Or Confucius as a leader of China, Joanna d'Arc as a leader of France (Civ III ), oh God NO! RULERS, not spiritual leaders, not scientists and artists/peacemakers! Historical great rulers, representing the Golden Age of certain civilization!

By the way, let's not forget that Gandhi fought for peace and love for his entire life, only to be... killed by fanatic hinduist And we still have conflicts between hinduism/islam.

Yes, I know, I am not the biggest fan of spirituality and social movements, I prefer cold and certain economic/scientific/social solutions



By they way, I am the only one who would absolutely love Theodor Roosevelt as American leader in Civ6? I would set America as all my AI opponents just to look at this badass and his leaderscreen

 

[Mustakrakish]

I hate Gandhi. He just annoys me beyond reasonable. It came to the fact that I consentrate on "removing" him from the world no matter the consequences everytime I bump into him, only so that I won't have to hear / see him again.

 

[Arachnofiend]

By they way, I am the only one who would absolutely love Theodor Roosevelt as American leader in Civ6? I would set America as all my AI opponents just to look at this badass and his leaderscreen

I honestly think the two best picks for America's leader are the Roosevelts, yeah. Teddy dragged the American upper class through a series of crucial reforms. They would've been passed eventually but the progressives of the time didn't have the same clout among the good ol' boys that Teddy had. Also he's just a really cool guy in general.

FDR led the United States admirably through two of the greatest crises America has seen (the Great Depression and the first attack on American soil by a foreign power since... what, the War of 1812?). He'd have Pedro's charm, a very diplomatic fellow sitting in his wheelchair as he discusses politics.

 

[LoneRebel]

FDR would be a good choice for an American leader.

Wasn't Mandela president of South Africa? So he actually was a ruler, by Krajzen's definition. Of course, being president of South Africa doesn't necessarily mean he should be the leader of the Zulu civ specifically.