Sweden

[LDiCesare]

I don't get the point India being ok but not Scandinavia.
Hans't Scandinavia been politically united under the Kalmar Union?
How is is less a political unity than that of India, which splintered into India + Pakistan in less than one generation? And then India +Pakistan + Bangladesh? Not to talk about Sri Lanka which is not part of Bharata but culuturally and historically quite so.

 

[SMcM]

I don't get the point India being ok but not Scandinavia.
Hans't Scandinavia been politically united under the Kalmar Union?
How is is less a political unity than that of India, which splintered into India + Pakistan in less than one generation? And then India +Pakistan + Bangladesh? Not to talk about Sri Lanka which is not part of Bharata but culuturally and historically quite so.

Bangladesh and Pakistan are only more recent nations though. Not likely Civ choices (though if Gandhi can be in every game, Jinnah being in does not seem completely outlandish).

Bangladesh could however be represented by a more historical Bengal Civ though (for example Bengal sultanate under a ruler such as Ghiyasuddin Azam Shah, or Bengal following Mughal independence under leaders like Murshid Quli Khan). And Sikhs could be represented by the Sikh empire (Ranjit Singh would be pretty cool leader). Obviously Sri Lanka is possible too.

The main flaw in your argument is that no one is saying that we should no have multiple Civs from the Indian subcontinent, just not too many Civs that could just as easily be grouped under India. No Delhi sultanate, Maurya or Mughals; these should just offer alternative leaders for an India Civ.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Bangladesh and Pakistan are only more recent nations though. Not likely Civ choices (though if Gandhi can be in every game, Jinnah being in does not seem completely outlandish).

Bangladesh could however be represented by a more historical Bengal Civ though (for example Bengal sultanate under a ruler such as Ghiyasuddin Azam Shah, or Bengal following Mughal independence under leaders like Murshid Quli Khan). And Sikhs could be represented by the Sikh empire (Ranjit Singh would be pretty cool leader). Obviously Sri Lanka is possible too.

The main flaw in your argument is that no one is saying that we should no have multiple Civs from the Indian subcontinent, just not too many Civs that could just as easily be grouped under India. No Delhi sultanate, Maurya or Mughals; these should just offer alternative leaders for an India Civ.

I think that multiple leaders do make that a better alternative though.

You want diversity+representation of different parts of the world/periods of history... however you also want familiarity. (I know a "tank" should move faster and be stronger than a "spearman", without looking at the stats because I know what a tank and a spearman are in real life)

The number of civ players who have concepts that are familiar to them with "India" are more than the number that have concepts familiar to them with "Mughals"

However, if the Civ and leader uniques are chosen well, then you can show the overlap.

This is important because the more "uniques" you add, the less unique they are, so you want to avoid adding too much (although mods are fine when people want a '50 state civ' to properly model the US)

 

[SMcM]

I think that multiple leaders do make that a better alternative though.

You want diversity+representation of different parts of the world/periods of history... however you also want familiarity. (I know a "tank" should move faster and be stronger than a "spearman", without looking at the stats because I know what a tank and a spearman are in real life)

The number of civ players who have concepts that are familiar to them with "India" are more than the number that have concepts familiar to them with "Mughals"

However, if the Civ and leader uniques are chosen well, then you can show the overlap.

This is important because the more "uniques" you add, the less unique they are, so you want to avoid adding too much (although mods are fine when people want a '50 state civ' to properly model the US)

Well, I wouldn't want leaders of Pakistan or Bangladesh as additional leaders for an India Civ. That would make zero sense to me.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well, I wouldn't want leaders of Pakistan or Bangladesh as additional leaders for an India Civ. That would make zero sense to me.

So no leaders from the Indus valley for an India civ?

I would agree for modern Pakistani/Bengladeshi leaders (that would be like a George Washington being a leader of England...not only was he not cooperating with 'the rest' of England, but he only controlled a minor portion compared to what George III controlled... as opposed to say FDR as a leader of England), but for leaders of the region currently called Pakistan, when that region was dominant in what we would now call India, that would work.

However, if
Partition of a newly independent Indian subcontinent had taken place in ~1650
Pakistan had successfully invaded most of the rest of India in 1700
And Pakistan and the rest of India had been conquered by some third definitely non Indian party in ~1850

Then a leader of that historical Pakistan would be perfectly reasonable as an Indian leader (regardless of how Pakistan fit in with the current partition)

 

[SMcM]

So no leaders from the Indus valley for an India civ?

I would agree for modern Pakistani/Bengladeshi leaders (that would be like a George Washington being a leader of England...not only was he not cooperating with 'the rest' of England, but he only controlled a minor portion compared to what George III controlled... as opposed to say FDR as a leader of England), but for leaders of the region currently called Pakistan, when that region was dominant in what we would now call India, that would work.

However, if
Partition of a newly independent Indian subcontinent had taken place in ~1650
Pakistan had successfully invaded most of the rest of India in 1700
And Pakistan and the rest of India had been conquered by some third definitely non Indian party in ~1850

Then a leader of that historical Pakistan would be perfectly reasonable as an Indian leader (regardless of how Pakistan fit in with the current partition)

George III was more powerful than later monarchs, but he did not exert much power, and thus was also largely a figurehead. Stories of him being an unelected tyrant were invented by Americans as propaganda.

The rest of what you wrote did not make that much sense to me. But this thread is meant to be about Sweden anyway.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

George III was more powerful than later monarchs, but he did not exert much power, and thus was also largely a figurehead. Stories of him being an unelected tyrant were invented by Americans as propaganda.

The rest of what you wrote did not make that much sense to me. But this thread is meant to be about Sweden anyway.

He definitely had more power than George Washington did (ie he controlled England itself rather than merely the broken off colonies)... so Washington would not be a good representative of 'Anglosphere' civ.

But Regarding Sweden....
Gustav would be a good representation for periods when Sweden was the dominant power of the region, a leader of Denmark would not be a good representation at that time.

 

[SMcM]

He definitely had more power than George Washington did (ie he controlled England itself rather than merely the broken off colonies)... so Washington would not be a good representative of 'Anglosphere' civ.

No, George III did not control England. Washington likely was more powerful, as he actually ruled the Americans. Do you not understand what I mean by figurehead? Britain's primary leader was its prime-minister, not George III. As I already pointed out, the tyraniccal and controlling George III thing is just American propaganda; the monarch became a personification of what America disliked about Britain.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

No, George III did not control England. Washington likely was more powerful, as he actually ruled the Americans. Do you not understand what I mean by figurehead? Britain's primary leader was its prime-minister, not George III. As I already pointed out, the tyraniccal and controlling George III thing is just American propaganda; the monarch became a personification of what America disliked about Britain.

III was a representative of England, a major world power at the time
Washington was a representative of America, a regional power at the time

(not talking about how much power they had within their governments, or how much power their governments had within their "jurisdictions", but how much power their "jurisdictions" had)....

If you were to choose a leader for the "Anglosphere" Washington would be a worse choice than George the III, for that reason. (both would be a poor choice for the other reasons you mentioned...I'd personally go for Elizabeth and FDR to reflect periods of one sides dominance of the relationship..or times when the other didn't exist)

(Why Gandhi is a better choice for a leader of an India civ than a modern leader of Pakistan..Gandhi in non governmental ways affected all of India..And has more name recognition)

 

[NecromancerKing]

I love how you've climbed down from your original statement; you were complaining about how people only accepted the inclusion of 'straight white males', and now it's just 'white males'.

And besides, that's a load of nonsense. As I already pointed out in my last response, the reason less people are not objecting to leader choices like Phillip II is because he was actually an important and successful leader. The reason people think he is a good leader choice is nothing to do with him being a 'straight white male'. Similarly, Cleopatra being woman is not a factor in people's complaints about her.

If someone says that the inclusion of Cleopatra is bad, and that it is pandering to women, that does not mean that they think her inclusion is bad because she is a woman. That is not the same, and that seems to be where you are going wrong.



Right, but you did not quote the OP, so I had no idea why you were brining all of this up all of a sudden.



Firstly, so what if they don't claim that? I don't care whether they claim their choices to be the best leaders of their civilizations, I don't have to want the same things from leader choices that they do. But also, they actually do seem to be claiming Catherine de Medici to be one of France's greatest leaders; she 'paved the way for France becoming a strong centralised state'.

Anyway, leaders like Trajan, Qin Shi Huang and Peter the great were clearly chosen in part due to them having been very important figures in the histories of their Civilizations, all being arguably among the best leaders of their nations. In terms of personality, Trajan is definately not the first Roman emperor that comes to mind. So, when leaders like these are chosen based on merit, why do they then choose leaders like Catherine de Medici? You might think her to be one of France's greatest leaders, but I'm fairly sure that would you in a minority.

Right, I need to justify my usage of the words with you for some reasons. I'm speaking in general in gaming in general that minority often need to justify their presence but feel free to interpret what I said because I really care what you think.

If I don't quote anyone then I'm responding to the OP. That's just how it's usually work. If I don't talk to you then I wouldn't have quoted you.

I didn't mention anything about Catherine de Medici. The game has never included the greatest leaders, that's what people assume anyway. They also included a myth leader like Gilgamesh. The game developers did say they want interesting leaders with a set agenda. They also included lesser known leaders which allow people to learn more about them. There are some of the leaders I have never heard of before that I learned through this game.

 

[fnordsensei]

Speaking as a Swede, I'm perfectly happy with Sweden sitting this one out if that's what they're going for. Having said that, I thought Sweden was a pretty interesting civ to play in Civ V, in that it took some thought on how to balance diplomacy and aggression to play to the civ's strengths, and how to use great people efficiently. In my book, it wasn't the easiest civ to play.

I think it's more important that the civs present make for an interesting blend, than there is for civs to be present merely as some requirement of equality or politics. In fact, it'd be interesting to bring more obscure civs out of the woodworks, such as ancient Tibet (for their weird blend of early aggression and late pacifism, and religiously, tantrism/bön combined with buddhism). If geographical areas are allowed to overlap somewhat provided the civs are from different eras, the Hittites, ancient Swahili culture, Olmec, and Harappa might be interesting too.

If they were to bring Sweden in as a civ, Christina might make an interesting science focused leader, as an alternative to the more obvious ones.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Here is a suggestion for Sweden's: abilities

Sweden
UA (Noble Prize) Yes I know that this was its civ V ability but it was one of the cooler abilities and it would work well in the civ VI environment with the new great person system althougth this is not the same as the civ V version.

Sweden recive 10% of the cost of great people purchased/patronaged by other civs. Sweden gain double yield from great projects and all districts give +1 great person points.

Leader: Gustav II Adolph
Again I reuse civ V stuff but I found it would be rather easy to give him a fitting ability.

LUA (King of the mobile warfare): All great generals give +2 move to nearby units, their effect have a 3 tile area and great generals have twice the amount of movement points.

The hardest point of sweden is to find a good UD/UB/UI but I think this one is a good choice.
UI (Soldattorp): Each swedish military unit can build one "Soldattorp". The Soldattorp give the same amount of gold as the unit cost in maintenance while also being a normal farm. If a unit is upgraded it wont get a new charge.

As unique unit I think one of the swedish military aircrafts are a good pick. There are very few unique unit in the late game and sweden is one of the smallest countries with its own military aircraft industry. It also had one of the most powerful airforce during parts of the cold war.
UU (Draken): Replace the Jet fighter. Same stats as the Jet fighter but much better against bombers.

Strategy: A very militaristic civilization. Each unit basically give a free worker charge for a better version of the farm, the soldattorp which also make it easy to field a large army as sweden should have plenty of gold thanks to soldattorp. The leader UA will make your army very deadly due to the extra mobility from great generals. If the game gets into the very late game you will have a very useful UU which destroy bombers in like 1 or 2 hits and over the whole course of the game you will get benefit from your UA which can help you towards any type of victory.

 

[Zyntax]

If they were to bring Sweden in as a civ, Christina might make an interesting science focused leader, as an alternative to the more obvious ones.

Eh the queen who did nothing for Sweden, and caused alot of trouble at home when she decided to choose to follow catholicism and shorty after abdikate sence after only 4 years on the throne?? Hmm no sir, i think not.


As for rulers, i would go with either Gustav Vasa ( The king who formed the "mordern" Sweden , King Gustavus Adolphus, military genius who turned Sweden into a great power. or perhaps King Karl X Gustaf who managed to achieve great success on the battlefield.
For units i would choose either Carolean or a Hakkapalitta
Buildings: Hmm, depends really. I would go for something industrial or military / trade. Sweden has always been a mineral rich country and exporting minerals like copper and iron / steel but also been a major power when it comes to manufacturing arms. Maybe Masugn for the industrial which gives some + production or armory / cannon foundry that might give some slight bonuses to military production or trade.
Leader Bonus: I'll leave this one open. Bonuses with citystates perhaps?
Leader agendas: Depends on what leader really. When it comes to Gus. Ad. he might aid civilizations that share the same religion and who are under attack from civs with different religion.


When it comes to uniting Sweden under a nation called Scandinavia is quite absurd. In that case you might as well remove all Civilizations and just have 5 civs named after the continents.

 

[Manifold]

I would give Sweden the UA to move Units next to rivers faster. The name of that UA could be "From the Varangians to the Greeks".