Ultimate Wishlist for potential Civ6 leaders

[TahamiTsunami]

I'm liking the deblobbing that's been going on, hopefully any future Celtic civs can follow that trend!

 

[IgorS]

Ok, the Maori have been moved to the alternate leaders list. Congratulations Maori!

The Polynesia blob has been killed and their leaders moved to the Hawaii, Samoa, Tahiti, and Tonga leader lists under the New Civs.

Hallelujah!)))

 

[IgorS]

I'm liking the deblobbing that's been going on, hopefully any future Celtic civs can follow that trend!

Yes, this trend that had started in Civ V with the Vikings is definitely a positive one. But I hope they don't go too "deep". I mean, having Greece and Macedon in the game is too much.
I also doubt there would be a Celtic civ in Civ VI because they already gave us Scotland.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Yes, this trend that had started in Civ V with the Vikings is definitely a positive one. But I hope they don't go too "deep". I mean, having Greece and Macedon in the game is too much.
I also doubt there would be a Celtic civ in Civ VI because they already gave us Scotland.

I was quite surprised and a little confused when I first saw that Macedon was included but I've learned to accept the reasoning of the devs for the gameplay reasons and that of other people who've said that it's more accurate. If it goes further than Greece and Macedon then I'll be concerned. India on the other hand could use more love such as including the Chola, etc.

I guess its possible that Scotland could be a Celtic replacement but it's been pointed out that there isn't much Celtic influence in their design. I'll still hope that we'll see either Gaul or Ireland.

 

[Siptah]

Well, Tut would be the first inbred Civ Leader if he was added.

Huh? He is named as biological son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti on at least two occasions (which is super rare and happened only for propaganda reasons) and it is very unlikely that those two were related, illnesses of their offspring aside. While this might not be true, of course, all other things are speculations based on virtually nothing. (But then again, the whole Tut and Nefertiti stories are filled with long disproven speculations, even coming from renowned Egyptologists to create attention and sensation - and to get funding ).

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

Well, Tut would be the first inbred Civ Leader if he was added.

Cleopatra is also heavily inbred due to the habit of Ptolemaic pharaohs marrying their sisters. Philip II of Spain and Maria Theresa would also be significantly inbred due to the nasty habit of Habsburgs inbreeding in order to avoid the same shenanigans they pulled against others (grabbing thrones via royal marriages). This is why Philip II in Civ 6 has a massive protruding jaw.

OT: Some changes I'd suggest: Firstly, no Frankish kings of Cyprus. They're equivalent to the kingdom of Jerusalem in being a Crusader kingdom over foreign peoples. I'd replace him with Evagoras I of Salamis or Onesilos.

Secondly, I'd strongly advise against iconoclast Byzantine emperors. Especially Constantine Copronymus (literally, "dung-named") or Leo the Isaurian. Maybe add Constantine VII or Anastasius I instead.

 

[Guandao]

Huh? He is named as biological son of Akhenaten and Nefertiti on at least two occasions (which is super rare and happened only for propaganda reasons) and it is very unlikely that those two were related, illnesses of their offspring aside. While this might not be true, of course, all other things are speculations based on virtually nothing. (But then again, the whole Tut and Nefertiti stories are filled with long disproven speculations, even coming from renowned Egyptologists to create attention and sensation - and to get funding ).

I thought DNA testing proved his parents were closely related, like cousins? I don't think Nefertiti was his actual mother, the "younger lady" is.

 

[Guandao]

Cleopatra is also heavily inbred due to the habit of Ptolemaic pharaohs marrying their sisters. Philip II of Spain and Maria Theresa would also be significantly inbred due to the nasty habit of Habsburgs inbreeding in order to avoid the same shenanigans they pulled against others (grabbing thrones via royal marriages). This is why Philip II in Civ 6 has a massive protruding jaw.

OT: Some changes I'd suggest: Firstly, no Frankish kings of Cyprus. They're equivalent to the kingdom of Jerusalem in being a Crusader kingdom over foreign peoples. I'd replace him with Evagoras I of Salamis or Onesilos.

Secondly, I'd strongly advise against iconoclast Byzantine emperors. Especially Constantine Copronymus (literally, "dung-named") or Leo the Isaurian. Maybe add Constantine VII or Anastasius I instead.

I'm not removing those rulers, but I'm adding those you suggested. Barely anything is known about those ancient Greek Cypriot Kings you mentioned. We have Cleo leading Egypt, so what's the big deal about a Frank leading Cyprus? And I'm not sure what's so controversial about these iconoclast Byzantine Emperors.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

Barely anything is known about those ancient Greek Cypriot Kings you mentioned.

There are is a hefty amount in ancient sources. Ancient Cypriot history isn't exactly a global best seller, though.

We have Cleo leading Egypt, so what's the big deal about a Frank leading Cyprus?

Several reasons for that: Firstly, Cleopatra still nominally ruled Egypt as an independent kingdom with Egyptian religious customs and social structure. The concept of the pharaoh while expanded was kept as it had been before and Egypt's culture was not suppressed. Cleopatra might not be an ideal fit, but she isn't any more remote than adding a Nubian ruler of Egypt from the period of the Kushιte dynasty instead. On the other hand, the kingdom of Cyprus is called like that because it just happened to be geographically situated on the island. It wasn't an independent Cypriot state or representing Cypriot culture or people. Natives Cypriots were relegated to second class citizen, most peasants were made into serfs for Frankish feudal lords and the culture in the high echelons of society was purely Frankish, more specifically Occitan ("Frankish" in this context meaning "western European" since that's how people in the east called them).

The second reason is because it's a Crusader kingdom, as I stated before. This is important in signifying that it is a purely political entity, (again) not representing the people over whom they ruled. It's the equivalent of making a Jewish civ and having Baldwin, king of Jerusalem as its leader.

That's not to say foreign leaders can't lead other nations, but it has to be nations they actually led, not nominally held overlordship while claiming to be something completely different. You wouldn't have Robert Guiscard (a Norman) as a leader of Italy just because he founded the kingdom of Sicily, would you?

And I'm not sure what's so controversial about these iconoclast Byzantine Emperors.

First of all, iconoclasm is the apogee and defining characteristic of the first century of what historians call the "Byzantine dark ages", a period of significantly reduced cultural and scientific output. Secondly, iconoclastic policies irreparably damaged the political ties of the western Chalcedonian church from the east, due to the fact Roman bishops (Popes) were fervent iconolaters, while the Constantinopolitan ones were iconoclast puppets installed by the various iconoclast emperors in the east. Thirdly, iconoclasm is responsible for the destruction of an enormous amount of ancient Christian art in acts of vandalism and religious fervour. And fourthly (and more of a personal input), I don't think the rule of the iconoclasts has been very successful and definitely less prominent in the context of the wider medieval Roman history. Romans of subsequent centuries would look back at them with disdain and general repulsion which reflects how even they themselves had little good to say about those emperors. Of course, they were nowhere near as bad as some others (like Phokas the tyrant or Constantine VIII), but I don't think that warrants them a shot at representing Byzantium in Civ.

EDIT: Apparently CivFanatics automatically censors any profanity regardless whether it's part of another word or not
I'm going to change it cheekily so it's still seen.

 

[Siptah]

I thought DNA testing proved his parents were closely related, like cousins? I don't think Nefertiti was his actual mother, the "younger lady" is.

I have no clue about the details why, but a large number of experts from the archeological as well as medical field had doubts that these DNA tests are reliable.

 

[Guandao]

There are is a hefty amount in ancient sources. Ancient Cypriot history isn't exactly a global best seller, though.



Several reasons for that: Firstly, Cleopatra still nominally ruled Egypt as an independent kingdom with Egyptian religious customs and social structure. The concept of the pharaoh while expanded was kept as it had been before and Egypt's culture was not suppressed. Cleopatra might not be an ideal fit, but she isn't any more remote than adding a Nubian ruler of Egypt from the period of the Kushιte dynasty instead. On the other hand, the kingdom of Cyprus is called like that because it just happened to be geographically situated on the island. It wasn't an independent Cypriot state or representing Cypriot culture or people. Natives Cypriots were relegated to second class citizen, most peasants were made into serfs for Frankish feudal lords and the culture in the high echelons of society was purely Frankish, more specifically Occitan ("Frankish" in this context meaning "western European" since that's how people in the east called them).

The second reason is because it's a Crusader kingdom, as I stated before. This is important in signifying that it is a purely political entity, (again) not representing the people over whom they ruled. It's the equivalent of making a Jewish civ and having Baldwin, king of Jerusalem as its leader.

That's not to say foreign leaders can't lead other nations, but it has to be nations they actually led, not nominally held overlordship while claiming to be something completely different. You wouldn't have Robert Guiscard (a Norman) as a leader of Italy just because he founded the kingdom of Sicily, would you?



First of all, iconoclasm is the apogee and defining characteristic of the first century of what historians call the "Byzantine dark ages", a period of significantly reduced cultural and scientific output. Secondly, iconoclastic policies irreparably damaged the political ties of the western Chalcedonian church from the east, due to the fact Roman bishops (Popes) were fervent iconolaters, while the Constantinopolitan ones were iconoclast puppets installed by the various iconoclast emperors in the east. Thirdly, iconoclasm is responsible for the destruction of an enormous amount of ancient Christian art in acts of vandalism and religious fervour. And fourthly (and more of a personal input), I don't think the rule of the iconoclasts has been very successful and definitely less prominent in the context of the wider medieval Roman history. Romans of subsequent centuries would look back at them with disdain and general repulsion which reflects how even they themselves had little good to say about those emperors. Of course, they were nowhere near as bad as some others (like Phokas the tyrant or Constantine VIII), but I don't think that warrants them a shot as representing Byzantium in Civ.

EDIT: Apparently CivFanatics automatically censors any profanity regardless whether it's part of another word or not
I'm going to change it cheekily so it's still seen.

Ok, fine, I'll remove those three. But Greek Cypriots haven't been rulers of their own land for the majority of their history. I doubt Cyprus will become a Civ, anyways. Too many Hellenic Civs for my liking. What do you think of the idea that the Byzantines should become one Civ with the Romans?

I have no clue about the details why, but a large number of experts from the archeological as well as medical field had doubts that these DNA tests are reliable.

Regardless of how closely related Tut's parents were, he still had numerous health problems. The most important thing is that he's a poor choice to lead Egypt.

 

[Siptah]

The most important thing is that he's a poor choice to lead Egypt.

We can agree on that. Not that everyone on the list would be a great choice

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

Ok, fine, I'll remove those three. But Greek Cypriots haven't been rulers of their own land for the majority of their history. I doubt Cyprus will become a Civ, anyways. Too many Hellenic Civs for my liking.

It depends on your definition of Greek Cypriots. Do the semi-Hellenized Cypriots of the ancient Cypriot city-states count? It's kind of hazy if we are to take modern nationalist readings of Cypriot demographics into account. But in general yes, Cypriots as a whole have not been independent for most of their history. That is not to say there was a need for that, Cypriots didn't exactly entertain the idea of not being part of the Roman empire (since they identified as Romans).

Also, I agree,. Cyprus doesn't really need to have its own civ and I'm saying that as a Cypriot myself. It'd be fun to see it, but even I recognize that it's not worth it.

What do you think of the idea that the Byzantines should become one Civ with the Romans?

Civ is not the right game franchise for that to happen. Because civs in the game are very strictly defined by a very limited set of abilities, effects, units and infrastructures, it's quite impossible to accurately represent Roman history in its entirety, accounting for both ancient and medieval in just one civ. I mean, Greek city-states and Macedon were even contemporaries and the devs still felt it'd be more fair to have an entire new civ for the latter just so the militaristic aspect is more pronounced. Imagine trying to fit 1500 years of history, it'd be a complete mess.

Another reason I don't condone the merge in Civ is because I strongly encourage the more accurate representation of what has already been put in place by previous games. There has been a positive trend of reimagining civs in ways that actually do them justice and Byzantium badly needs that. Its representation in previous Civ games has been, with all due respect, sincerely lacking and misinterpreted. Once they nail down Byzantium and get the feeling of what it was and what it fundamentally represented, then the connection with Rome is going to be a natural occurrence.

P.S.: We also need extra space to showcase more of Byzantine music in its own light as well

 

[Guandao]

There has been a positive trend of reimagining civs in ways that actually do them justice and Byzantium badly needs that. Its representation in previous Civ games has been, with all due respect, sincerely lacking and misinterpreted. Once they nail down Byzantium and get the feeling of what it was and what it fundamentally represented, then the connection with Rome is going to be a natural occurrence.

Can you elaborate on how the previous Civ games have misinterpreted the Byzantine Empire? I'm curious, since I don't really know too much about them except for the basics.

 

[Basileus Rhomaion]

Can you elaborate on how the previous Civ games have misinterpreted the Byzantine Empire? I'm curious, since I don't really know too much about them except for the basics.

The most prominent part of the civ in all 3 Civ games that included them thus far has been religion. Civ V even goes ahead and make the Patriarchal cross the civ's symbol as if it has any political or cultural meaning to the civ itself. The role of religion in the empire was important insofar the era demanded it to be and religious fundamentalism was significantly less extreme with considerably less secular power than in the west. The Byzantines never saw the Crusades as a religious war, they signed treaties with "heathens" and barbarians all the time and had a higher tolerance for Jews than western Europeans did (not by a large margin, admittedly). The idea that Byzantium is inherently tied with religion is rather the opposite effect, in that the Church is last bastion of "Roman-hood" politically via Ottoman providence (Mehmed made the patriarch of Constantinople the spiritual leader of the "Rum millet" - "Roman nation").

The empire itself should be more accurately represented in its military integrity and organization, its culture, blossoming scientific and philosophical endeavours and above all its impeccable diplomacy and administration. Byzantine administration is the cornerstone of the empire's success and longevity while its bureaucracy was founded upon an unprecedented level of complexity and distribution of powers. It was the primary force behind the empire's efficient central administration in an era where feudalism often made it impossible for kings to get anything done if the feudal lords didn't consent. Ottoman administration drew heavily from the Byzantine one, particularly in the court offices department.

If one is to examine Byzantine history and palace intrigue closely, you'd come across something that would be accurately described as "Game of Thrones on steroids". Byzantine political history truly is massive and extremely complicated, and it is in no one's interest to sideline it and pretend the Byzantines spend 1000 years just praying and converting Slavs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Is there any reason that Maria Theresa possibly could be considered as an alt leader for Hungary, since she was crowned queen of Hungary, if Austria doesn't make it in? And I have come to accept that this might be the case even with a third expansion.
I'd just really like her to be in the game and it would be a shame if she didn't.
Either that or be like Eleanor but instead lead Austria/Hungary or Germany/Hungary. Of course then there is the whole Vienna would have to be her capital.
Maybe I'm just too desperate.

 

[Siptah]

Is there any reason that Maria Theresa possibly could be considered as an alt leader for Hungary, since she was crowned queen of Hungary, if Austria doesn't make it in? And I have come to accept that this might be the case even with a third expansion.
I'd just really like her to be in the game and it would be a shame if she didn't.
Either that or be like Eleanor but instead lead Austria/Hungary or Germany/Hungary. Of course then there is the whole Vienna would have to be her capital.
Maybe I'm just too desperate.

You can technically do it, but it's like George II leading America as a civ.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You can technically do it, but it's like George II leading America as a civ.

Trust me it never crossed my mind until Eleanor showed up as possibly leading both France and England. If she could do that so could Maria Theresa in my opinion.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Trust me it never crossed my mind until Eleanor showed up as possibly leading both France and England. If she could do that so could Maria Theresa in my opinion.

If it happens I'm going to blame you for encouraging Firaxis in their worst ideas

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Thank you, Basileus, for being another voice of reason among the civ fans. Byzantium is mechanically and historically better represented as an extension and continuation of Rome, not it's own thing. Much of its identity and ideals are basically the Roman uniques, just with a slight religious bent. There's no reason to reinvent the wheel when I think merging the two civs would strengthen both of them.

As for Maria Teresa...I think Austria is a boring civ that predominantly only exists for her sake (and Mozart, I guess, but I don't like any classical music made before 1850). I agree with everyone that Maria leading Hungary or Germany is weird and certainly doesn't work under the VI design paradigm.

Which is why I propose Maria Teresa should be able to lead both Germany and Hungary. And France. And Italy, if we get it. And Spain. And England. And Kongo. And Indonesia. And Mapuche. Let her lead everything, I say.