What do you think of my Civ 7 Civ and Leader Picks?

[LiamX]

Choosing a handful of interesting female leaders isn't about pushing a progressive agenda (I'm almost positive I'm the most conservative person on this board, by the way ); it's about having an interesting cast.

Well to those of us who don't see leaders in genders, 'interesting' does not mean what's between their legs. It means if the leader is iconic enough, famous enough, competent enough, will bring something new to the table (in terms of actions, not what they are).
I identify as a tall guy, you don't see me complaining about the lack of tall people in civ. Truly, I don't care if my demographic is represented. I care about good leader picks.
The only variety we should look into is variety in places or races because this is civ, not gender studies.

As for Elizabeth, I'm honestly surprised people here say she's the best leader of England for both genders. Don't get me wrong, she's one of the best but I wouldn't go as far as to overrating her. I've been to several history forums and had several conversations with different historians and the opinions are mixed when it comes to talking about the best monarch in England. But yeah, I would prefer her to lay low for a while. She appeared in all 5 civ games, she's getting really boring.

And for Seondeok, I thought you said historians say she's one of the best queens? Why reference wikipedia? Everyone knows it can be edited by just about everyone.

Also Zaarin, you really lost me when you said Wu Zetian and Taizong of Tang are on equal footing on the Tang Dynasty. Tang Taizong is regarded as the best emperor in Chinese history. And unlike England's monarchs, this is pretty much a universal opinion. Wu Zetian is very rarely part of the top 8 in anyone's list including mine. Though she probably wouldn't crack my top 10 either. Care to explain why you think they are on equal footing? I'm an open-minded guy. Been a history fan since I was a teen and I would love to hear different perspectives. Please talk about achievements. I don't think being a woman is the hardest thing in history. Not even close. Liu Bang was a peasant who became the founder of a dynasty. This is a much much harder achievement than a concubine who became empress.

Lastly, quotas mean you are fulfilling a certain demographic. Wanting better female leaders (not just any female leader) still mean you want quotas to be fulfilled, just better data I guess.

 

[Zaarin]

Well to those of us who don't see leaders in genders, 'interesting' does not mean what's between their legs. It means if the leader is iconic enough, famous enough, competent enough, will bring something new to the table (in terms of actions, not what they are).
I identify as a tall guy, you don't see me complaining about the lack of tall people in civ. Truly, I don't care if my demographic is represented. I care about good leader picks.
The only variety we should look into is variety in places or races because this is civ, not gender studies.

And once again if this were a history sim, I would be okay with the fact that the cast is 99% male, because that's just the way history was. But it's not a history sim. It's not even a historical game. It's a 4X game with extremely tongue-in-cheek historical flavor. An interesting cast of characters is far more important than the actual historical impact of the leaders chosen. Civ5 was sort of had the "Great Leaders of History" thing going (with some weird outliers like Maria of Portugal), but on the whole as long as the leader was significant enough, I don't think we need George Washington for America every single time.

As for Elizabeth, I'm honestly surprised people here say she's the best leader of England for both genders. Don't get me wrong, she's one of the best but I wouldn't go as far as to overrating her. I've been to several history forums and had several conversations with different historians and the opinions are mixed when it comes to talking about the best monarch in England. But yeah, I would prefer her to lay low for a while. She appeared in all 5 civ games, she's getting really boring.

If you think Elizabeth is boring, I question how much you really know about her... (Incidentally, most of the previous depictions of her in Civilization have been disappointingly boring; I question how much the devs know about her, either.) We can quibble about whether to call Elizabeth I the greatest or one of the greatest, but you know who doesn't even make the top 10? Victoria.

And for Seondeok, I thought you said historians say she's one of the best queens? Why reference wikipedia? Everyone knows it can be edited by just about everyone.

If you can't be bothered to check whether a page cites it's sources, I can't be bothered to help you. Also, I pointed to Wikipedia as a start. I also cited other sources, including the Samguk Sagi.

Also Zaarin, you really lost me when you said Wu Zetian and Taizong of Tang are on equal footing on the Tang Dynasty. Tang Taizong is regarded as the best emperor in Chinese history. And unlike England's monarchs, this is pretty much a universal opinion. Wu Zetian is very rarely part of the top 8 in anyone's list including mine. Though she probably wouldn't crack my top 10 either. Care to explain why you think they are on equal footing? I'm an open-minded guy. Been a history fan since I was a teen and I would love to hear different perspectives. Please talk about achievements. I don't think being a woman is the hardest thing in history. Not even close. Liu Bang was a peasant who became the founder of a dynasty. This is a much much harder achievement than a concubine who became empress.

Yes, it was very easy for women in Confucian society to attain power. That would explain why a good handful of peasants became emperors but only one woman ever became emperor.

TBH I had mixed feelings on Wu in Civ5 because I was less familiar with Chinese history at the time, and I certainly wouldn't want her every time, and I'd very much like to see Taizong chosen at some point. However, "only female emperor" was hardly Wu's only accomplishment. She reformed the civil service, she reformed the military, she improved infrastructure, she expanded the empire. It's not like her only significance was being female: she was a powerful emperor in her own right.

 

[halfhalfharp]

Also Zaarin, you really lost me when you said Wu Zetian and Taizong of Tang are on equal footing on the Tang Dynasty. Tang Taizong is regarded as the best emperor in Chinese history. And unlike England's monarchs, this is pretty much a universal opinion. Wu Zetian is very rarely part of the top 8 in anyone's list including mine. Though she probably wouldn't crack my top 10 either. Care to explain why you think they are on equal footing? I'm an open-minded guy. Been a history fan since I was a teen and I would love to hear different perspectives. Please talk about achievements. I don't think being a woman is the hardest thing in history. Not even close. Liu Bang was a peasant who became the founder of a dynasty. This is a much much harder achievement than a concubine who became empress.

I would like to have some extra comment on this piece. Sorry for distracting from the main topic.

Being emperor from a royal concubine was much harder than you could ever imagine. In China, the separation of roles of male and female was a matter of morality.
Liu Bang's charisma could arouse admiration, loyalty, envy, etc, while a woman wielding a weapon only arouse the thought "How come a woman is doing such thing?".

Liu Bang fought and forged the empire with his brethrens and army. Born as a female, Wu could not enjoy this support even if she wielded all the charisma for a good leader. She was very lonely on her struggle to throne. No one ever considered her a candidate for emperor before she claimed it. Being an emperor as female was a mission impossible at that time.

And this claim faced not only oppression from her rivalries (which, she already eliminated), but also from the society itself. This was against the moral standard that everyone kept as a codex at that time. (We can imagine a similar case: one day a married Nun shows up as the new Pope. How many denounce of immorality will she face?) A few powerful females before Wu were able to claim the title of emperor, but they all stopped at "Dowager", being the regent for the next emperor. This wasn't a coincidence, but a result of the social pressure and ethical norm.

On the comparison, I can't say Wu's path was more difficult that that of Liu Bang's. There can hardly be a comparison.

Liu Bang wasn't the first peasant emperor, nor the last. He was accomplishing something few could do, but not something impossible.

Taizong was greater indeed, but he was also among "the greatest emperors", together with Qin, Youngle, and a few others. Comparison of their greatness is an ever-going issue of debate.

But there was only one Female Emperor, the first and the last, overcoming the impossibility, that was Wu.

And above or below that point of her overcoming the impossibility of being a female, Wu was more than capable and in fact a great ruler, although still shadowed by her processors and hatred from Chinese historians. Wu had reigned for actually almost 50 years (654–705) starting as the consort of the late emperor. Her most famed achievements was using a large network of spies system to eliminate potential rebels and enhanced the imperial examination system, allowing commoners to get into the royal court. On military and diplomatic affairs, Wu was also skillful in allying and extending the empire further into Central Asia. She was also a great builder, although few of her building projects survived to this day. We can still take a glimpse to her dedication in the Qianling Mausoleum and some of the cave Buddhist statues.

Ancient chinese historians had placed her and Taizong together for comparison, due to their proximity in time. (And actually Wu was one of his concubine lol)
Taizong's reign was praised as the Golden Era (Zhenguan's Reign) while Wu's reign was called the extension of that Golden Era.

 

[Zaarin]

Taizong's reign was praised as the Golden Era (Zhenguan's Reign) while Wu's reign was called the extension of that Golden Era.

Yes, this is what I was trying to say (less clearly) earlier when I commented on Taizong and Wu being the standouts of the Tang dynasty.

 

[LiamX]

And once again if this were a history sim, I would be okay with the fact that the cast is 99% male, because that's just the way history was. But it's not a history sim. It's not even a historical game. It's a 4X game with extremely tongue-in-cheek historical flavor.

And well, once again, all I'm saying is, this is not a gender studies game either. Civ is much closer to history than it is a gender studies class. No one with the exception of feminists cares about leader's genders. I originally didn't care about their genders until a few others brought it up in this thread.
We shouldn't even care about their gender at all. Identifying leaders with their gender and NOT merit is just wrong.

If you think Elizabeth is boring, I question how much you really know about her... (Incidentally, most of the previous depictions of her in Civilization have been disappointingly boring; I question how much the devs know about her, either.) We can quibble about whether to call Elizabeth I the greatest or one of the greatest, but you know who doesn't even make the top 10? Victoria.

Well there was one other English monarch who is dubbed as 'the Great'. It's Alfred the Great. I should have had him there. But anyway, I didn't say Elizabeth was boring. I said putting her there more than 5 games in a row is boring. She should lay low for a while. Besides, she's not as famous as the likes of Genghis Khan and Alexander who is a must to be in every civ game.

If you can't be bothered to check whether a page cites it's sources, I can't be bothered to help you. Also, I pointed to Wikipedia as a start. I also cited other sources, including the Samguk Sagi.

Point being, Wikipedia can be edited by just about anyone. I've actually read both good and bad reviews about her including her wiki page and if you call that a great leader then you're just being bias.

Yes, it was very easy for women in Confucian society to attain power. That would explain why a good handful of peasants became emperors but only one woman ever became emperor.

TBH I had mixed feelings on Wu in Civ5 because I was less familiar with Chinese history at the time, and I certainly wouldn't want her every time, and I'd very much like to see Taizong chosen at some point. However, "only female emperor" was hardly Wu's only accomplishment. She reformed the civil service, she reformed the military, she improved infrastructure, she expanded the empire. It's not like her only significance was being female: she was a powerful emperor in her own right.

I don't recall the Chinese being bias towards women in my readings. Though, you are most welcome to prove me wrong through sources. I mean, Wu is the only female Empress but saying the reason for that is discrimination without people at that time explicitly saying is just as mythical as the gender wage gap theory.
But yeah she did do something but not as impressive as many Chinese emperors. If Civ 5 wanted a female leader, it shouldn't have been China. The gap of greatness between Taizong, Wudi, Yongle and many more compared to Wu is just that big. Trung Trac would have been a good choice if they wanted an Asian female.[/QUOTE]

 

[MaryKB]

History is highly subjective. If you ask 100 people who the greatest ruler of China was, you could easily get 100 different answers, and all could be equally valid. When choosing leaders for the game, we look for figures in history who added meaningful contribution to their civilization and also have something different to add to the game. There is no way for example they would pick 20 different warlords all in the same vein as Genghis Khan, as that would be extremely boring.

There is an extreme gender bias in history. This is common knowledge. Please do research on it! Male historians create male-centric ideas of "greatness" and then exaggerate the accomplishments of men while ignoring the contributions of women. This has been going on for millennia, which is why we have such an easy time finding examples of great male rulers and contributors. The lazy scholar can just skim the surface of old history texts and then decide that the only worthy candidates for leaders are men. Make no mistake, these criteria were created by men, for men, for the purpose of excluding women from power.

This is changing however. The old way is dying, and we're coming into a new world of equality and inclusiveness. The fact is that there were many interesting women in history who have a full right to be represented in a game like Civilization. This is the epitome of "What could have been?" in history (how else do you have Teddy Rosevelt of the United States of America battling John Curtin of Australia in the Stone Age?). Well perhaps the biggest "what if?" we could have would be "What if women had an equal place right from the beginning?". Firaxis appears to be fully on board with this progresivism, and it is extremely unlikely they are going to revert to an outdated mindset.

Complaints about "but, meritocracy!" and "diversity goals/quotas are evil" are utter nonsense. These complaints come from white men who wish to perpetuate their status of power and privilege by denying others a seat at the table. They set the rules for recognizing worthiness to apply only to themselves, and will fight tooth and nail to keep it that way. At this time, creating diversity targets (or quotas if you still prefer the word) are the only way to make sure the historically underrepresented now get a fair opportunity.

There is no way Civilization 7 is going to be so heavily male dominated for the chosen leaders of civilizations. There are no "must haves" in the game. Genghis Khan for example is not guaranteed: Turakina could make an interesting leader for the Mongols, as an example. Right now it's close to 1/3rd of leaders are female, and this will probably get closer and closer to 50/50 as time goes on.

just as mythical as the gender wage gap theory.

Yeah ok ...

 

[Zaarin]

And well, once again, all I'm saying is, this is not a gender studies game either. Civ is much closer to history than it is a gender studies class. No one with the exception of feminists cares about leader's genders. I originally didn't care about their genders until a few others brought it up in this thread.
We shouldn't even care about their gender at all. Identifying leaders with their gender and NOT merit is just wrong.

Except that once again Civilization isn't about being the Hall of Fame for great rulers. I think there's a minimum level of notability a leader should have, sure, and that some of their choices (*cough*Catherine de Medici*cough*Gandhi) don't meet that standard. However, I don't think that limiting ourselves to George Washington and Augustus for every single game is even vaguely necessary. These are characters loosely based on historical figures. Having leaders of both genders matters because it makes the game more interesting, not simply for "representation," just like in a book or TV show or film you want a cast with a variety of characters.

Well there was one other English monarch who is dubbed as 'the Great'. It's Alfred the Great. I should have had him there. But anyway, I didn't say Elizabeth was boring. I said putting her there more than 5 games in a row is boring. She should lay low for a while. Besides, she's not as famous as the likes of Genghis Khan and Alexander who is a must to be in every civ game.

Per Alfred the Great, I'd love to see him, but I'd prefer to see him leading Wessex than England. I'd love to see a Medieval king like Henry II or Henry V, though. As for your last statement, I couldn't disagree more. I was really hoping neither Alex nor Genghis would return. I find both of them mind-bonglingly boring. I was ecstatic when Alexander wasn't leading Greece and groaned when he showed up leading Macedon (and alongside Persia, which I'm very fond of and therefore can't disable). As for Genghis, I was really, really, really hoping we'd get Kublai Khan this time, but alas we got Genghis again. Speaking of boring people who have led their civilization five games in a row...

I don't recall the Chinese being bias towards women in my readings. Though, you are most welcome to prove me wrong through sources. I mean, Wu is the only female Empress but saying the reason for that is discrimination without people at that time explicitly saying is just as mythical as the gender wage gap theory.
But yeah she did do something but not as impressive as many Chinese emperors. If Civ 5 wanted a female leader, it shouldn't have been China. The gap of greatness between Taizong, Wudi, Yongle and many more compared to Wu is just that big. Trung Trac would have been a good choice if they wanted an Asian female.

...Have you ever been to East Asia? Are you familiar with Confucian family values? Are you aware that modern China has one of the largest gender disparities in the world because of the large-scale infanticide carried out against girls due to the one-child law? All societies have traditionally been patriarchal, but some more so than others; China and East Asia are on the pretty extreme level of the scale.


Anyway, I think I'm done with this particular discussion. You asked for opinions, but really you have a very narrow idea of what and who is "worthy" of Civilization. That's fine. We all have our own preferences (for example, I'd like to see no civ or ruler more recent than the 17th century, five Native American civs, only one of Greece OR Rome, fewer warmongers, and an ancient Near East so overcrowded it makes Europe look empty). But if you're not actually interested in others' opinions, maybe don't ask for them? If your vision of Civ is "the greatest rulers and empires in history," that's fine, but that's not everyone's vision of Civ and that's clearly not the developers' vision of Civ.

 

[LiamX]

History is highly subjective. If you ask 100 people who the greatest ruler of China was, you could easily get 100 different answers, and all could be equally valid. When choosing leaders for the game, we look for figures in history who added meaningful contribution to their civilization and also have something different to add to the game. There is no way for example they would pick 20 different warlords all in the same vein as Genghis Khan, as that would be extremely boring.

I agree. 20 different warlords would not make the game interesting. That's why we get a mix of cultural leaders, scientific, warlords, etc etc. My point being though, gender is not part of the criteria because Civ is much closer to a "historical simulator" than a gender studies class.

There is an extreme gender bias in history. This is common knowledge. Please do research on it! Male historians create male-centric ideas of "greatness" and then exaggerate the accomplishments of men while ignoring the contributions of women. This has been going on for millennia, which is why we have such an easy time finding examples of great male rulers and contributors. The lazy scholar can just skim the surface of old history texts and then decide that the only worthy candidates for leaders are men. Make no mistake, these criteria were created by men, for men, for the purpose of excluding women from power.

I disagree with you this one. You can't say male historians are bias for selecting more great male leaders than female leaders. If that's the case, the likes of Catherine, Elizabeth, Isabella, etc would have been ignored. It's just like when you toss a coin. There are instances that it can all be heads and no tails at all. It's the same thing with having historical leaders. It just so happens that there are much more male leaders than female leaders. Well technically, it's not a coincidence. Back when the human civilization was still surviving, it is IMPORTANT to have gender roles. Women didn't have it as bad you make it seem, it's just that it was needed for them to stay at home and raise kids whereas men die in wars to protect women and children and have much much heavier responsibility.
Both gender didn't have it easy but this was required for the human specie to survive.

Getting back to the women that did become leaders, some of them may have faced discrimination but some didn't either so you can't say all women's experience is the same. Try looking at them as individuals and not as genders.

Complaints about "but, meritocracy!" and "diversity goals/quotas are evil" are utter nonsense. These complaints come from white men who wish to perpetuate their status of power and privilege by denying others a seat at the table.

That's actually racist and sexist.
Well, I'm not white but I want meritocracy.

 

[LiamX]

Except that once again Civilization isn't about being the Hall of Fame for great rulers. I think there's a minimum level of notability a leader should have, sure, and that some of their choices (*cough*Catherine de Medici*cough*Gandhi) don't meet that standard. However, I don't think that limiting ourselves to George Washington and Augustus for every single game is even vaguely necessary. These are characters loosely based on historical figures. Having leaders of both genders matters because it makes the game more interesting, not simply for "representation," just like in a book or TV show or film you want a cast with a variety of characters.

I agree with de Medici and Gandhi. Though I understand why Gandhi is still there. He's been a staple of the game. Though, I would love to have a rest from Gandhi in the next Civ iteration. And yeah, we shouldn't choose George Washington and Augustus everytime. That's why in my wishlist, I chose Jefferson and Julius. They are still among the greatest/most important/most famous leaders in their respective Civs.

Having leaders of both genders matters because it makes the game more interesting, not simply for "representation," just like in a book or TV show or film you want a cast with a variety of characters.

We don't need gender diversity in tv shows either. As long as the show is good, it would sell. Lord of the Rings for instance.
But then 'interesting' is a very subjective word. I think we should just agree to disagree here.

Per Alfred the Great, I'd love to see him, but I'd prefer to see him leading Wessex than England. I'd love to see a Medieval king like Henry II or Henry V, though. As for your last statement, I couldn't disagree more. I was really hoping neither Alex nor Genghis would return. I find both of them mind-bonglingly boring. I was ecstatic when Alexander wasn't leading Greece and groaned when he showed up leading Macedon (and alongside Persia, which I'm very fond of and therefore can't disable). As for Genghis, I was really, really, really hoping we'd get Kublai Khan this time, but alas we got Genghis again. Speaking of boring people who have led their civilization five games in a row...

Hmm, I like your choices for England. Yeah, Kublai can lead Mongolia this time around. Alexander though, he's been taught in schools even in third world countries. Have you read their textbooks?

...Have you ever been to East Asia? Are you familiar with Confucian family values? Are you aware that modern China has one of the largest gender disparities in the world because of the large-scale infanticide carried out against girls due to the one-child law? All societies have traditionally been patriarchal, but some more so than others; China and East Asia are on the pretty extreme level of the scale.

My brother-in-law is Chinese whose parents practice Confucianism thank you. The reason for selecting males in the one-child law is because men were required by the government to support their parents whereas women didn't have to. They can do anything they want with their money.

Anyway, I think I'm done with this particular discussion. You asked for opinions, but really you have a very narrow idea of what and who is "worthy" of Civilization. That's fine. We all have our own preferences (for example, I'd like to see no civ or ruler more recent than the 17th century, five Native American civs, only one of Greece OR Rome, fewer warmongers, and an ancient Near East so overcrowded it makes Europe look empty). But if you're not actually interested in others' opinions, maybe don't ask for them? If your vision of Civ is "the greatest rulers and empires in history," that's fine, but that's not everyone's vision of Civ and that's clearly not the developers' vision of Civ.

I am interested in other people's opinions. There are some I disagree with and I'm voicing that out.

 

[Zaarin]

We don't need gender diversity in tv shows either. As long as the show is good, it would sell. Lord of the Rings for instance.

Bad example. Tolkien gets a bad reputation (mostly from people who haven't read him--probably the same people who think he's all sunshine and lollipops ) for being a "boys' club," but he's got some incredible female characters. Éowyn called Aragorn out for being a sexist pig and is one of the most hardcore feminist characters in literature in the past century (and her film depiction was incredibly disappointing on that front). Galadriel rejected the grace of the gods because she'd rather rule a realm in exile than accept mercy from a higher power (though of course she changed her mind in the Third Age). Lúthien was a self-saving princess before Disney made it cool. Plus lots more like Haleth, Morwen, Aradhel, Melian, etc. (You might have cited The Hobbit, but to be fair Tolkien wrote it for his sons [Priscilla was still quite young], so...)

 

[MantaRevan]

Except that once again Civilization isn't about being the Hall of Fame for great rulers..

To step away from the gender-war invective for a bit, I'm not actually sure how sound this idea is. It's one philosophy of many about how Civ games should pick their leaders, and clearly the developers don't consistently prefer one philosophy, since in Civ 5 they pretty much were making a Hall of Fame style system. In civ 6 leaders are picked more for cultural reasons (as everyone is arguing about) and for the agendas/leader abilities they bring to the table. I can think of many Indian rulers more interesting than Chandragupta to put in the game (Harsha, Akbar, Aurangzeb, even Ashoka or Nehru) but the reason he's here is because they wanted to make an alternate India with teeth.

So while I actually prefer a Hall of Fame system with leaders like Sejong, Casimir II, Pedro, ect; the mix-and-match system fits Civ 6 better.

But that doesn't mean that Civilization isn't supposed to be for great rulers. IMO it looks bad to ignore "HOF" female leaders with merit (Catherine, Hatsheput, Elizabeth) in favor of female leaders who were (arguably) bad (de Medici, Cleopatra). But you have to remember that these leaders were more likely chosen for their agenda flavor or just for being something new. Firaxis has strongly implied that de Medici was chosen to have a spymaster personality in the game, rather than 'gender quotas'.

 

[Zaarin]

To step away from the gender-war invective for a bit, I'm not actually sure how sound this idea is. It's one philosophy of many about how Civ games should pick their leaders, and clearly the developers don't consistently prefer one philosophy, since in Civ 5 they pretty much were making a Hall of Fame style system.

Yes, as I already pointed out...

IMO it looks bad to ignore "HOF" female leaders with merit (Catherine, Hatsheput, Elizabeth) in favor of female leaders who were (arguably) bad (de Medici, Cleopatra). But you have to remember that these leaders were more likely chosen for their agenda flavor or just for being something new. Firaxis has strongly implied that de Medici was chosen to have a spymaster personality in the game, rather than 'gender quotas'.

Agreed, at least to an extent, though I think Wu Zetian would have fit the character they were trying to portray with CdM much better and, at the same time, have been more historically significant. (Though, confession time: as much as I think CdM was a horrible choice for France, I just love her in-game persona. I'm much more forgiving of CdM than I am Cleopatra, even though IMO Cleopatra is probably the more worthy of inclusion of the two--a poor choice for Egypt, being Greek and the ruler to preside over her civilization's collapse, but she was a brilliant woman who did play the cards she was dealt masterfully--the game was rigged from the start, after all.)

 

[LiamX]

Yes, as I already pointed out...


Agreed, at least to an extent, though I think Wu Zetian would have fit the character they were trying to portray with CdM much better and, at the same time, have been more historically significant. (Though, confession time: as much as I think CdM was a horrible choice for France, I just love her in-game persona. I'm much more forgiving of CdM than I am Cleopatra, even though IMO Cleopatra is probably the more worthy of inclusion of the two--a poor choice for Egypt, being Greek and the ruler to preside over her civilization's collapse, but she was a brilliant woman who did play the cards she was dealt masterfully--the game was rigged from the start, after all.)

Meh. Wu Zetian is exactly the reason why I can't consider Civ 5 a Hall of Fame game. This is just my opinion. China is a pretty important civ and she was the one leading it. We could call it Hall of Fame generally but not perfectly.
Plus wasn't it common knowledge the only reason Wu Zetian was there was because of her gender?

Bad example. Tolkien gets a bad reputation (mostly from people who haven't read him--probably the same people who think he's all sunshine and lollipops ) for being a "boys' club,"

I wouldn't call that incident bad reputation. The complaints came from a vocal minority who preach equality and demonize the boy's club all while praising girl's club shows like Powerpuff girls, Sailormoon and Charlie's Angels at the same time. Nothing wrong with girl's club shows but point is the double standard. Ask any person who is not part of that vocal minority and that boy's club would either be not mentioned or a good thing.

 

[MantaRevan]

Meh. Wu Zetian is exactly the reason why I can't consider Civ 5 a Hall of Fame game. This is just my opinion. China is a pretty important civ and she was the one leading it. We could call it Hall of Fame generally but not perfectly.
Plus wasn't it common knowledge the only reason Wu Zetian was there was because of her gender?

Eh I mean that's part of it but being the only female leader of a 5000 year old civilization is an achievement of its own. Plus she had legitimate accomplishments. If you want someone to shake your fist at I would instead recommend looking at Maria of Portugal, who has few defenders.

 

[Zaarin]

I wouldn't call that incident bad reputation. The complaints came from a vocal minority who preach equality and demonize the boy's club all while praising girl's club shows like Powerpuff girls, Sailormoon and Charlie's Angels at the same time. Nothing wrong with girl's club shows but point is the double standard. Ask any person who is not part of that vocal minority and that boy's club would either be not mentioned or a good thing.

I agree with you to an extent, at least insofar as I think authors should be judged by the standards of their time--Milton, for example, is often called a misogynist, but the man wrote a pamphlet proposing intellectual inequality should be grounds for divorce--with the implication that one of the most brilliant men in England believed that a woman could be his intellectual equal. So sure, there's nothing wrong with Jack London, Rudyard Kipling, Robert Louis Stevenson, etc., even if it's not what I like, but you kind of missed my point, which is that Tolkien doesn't even belong in that group--he had a slew of powerful female characters.

Eh I mean that's part of it but being the only female leader of a 5000 year old civilization is an achievement of its own. Plus she had legitimate accomplishments. If you want someone to shake your fist at I would instead recommend looking at Maria of Portugal, who has few defenders.

That's the thing. Firaxis has made dubious female choices--CdM, Cleopatra, Maria of Portugal, Victoria. They've made dubious male choices, too, like Gandhi, Hiawatha, Ramkhamhaeng, Shaka, Curtin (okay, so the last two are just bad civ choices, but...). But Wu Zetian was the only female ruler of China and an accomplished emperor in her own right. Like I said before, I wouldn't want to see her lead China every time, but she wasn't a bad choice. Honestly, she was a better choice than Qin, who is by far the safest choice in all of Civ6's leaders.

 

[Guandao]

I agree with you to an extent, at least insofar as I think authors should be judged by the standards of their time--Milton, for example, is often called a misogynist, but the man wrote a pamphlet proposing intellectual inequality should be grounds for divorce--with the implication that one of the most brilliant men in England believed that a woman could be his intellectual equal. So sure, there's nothing wrong with Jack London, Rudyard Kipling, Robert Louis Stevenson, etc., even if it's not what I like, but you kind of missed my point, which is that Tolkien doesn't even belong in that group--he had a slew of powerful female characters.


That's the thing. Firaxis has made dubious female choices--CdM, Cleopatra, Maria of Portugal, Victoria. They've made dubious male choices, too, like Gandhi, Hiawatha, Ramkhamhaeng, Shaka, Curtin (okay, so the last two are just bad civ choices, but...). But Wu Zetian was the only female ruler of China and an accomplished emperor in her own right. Like I said before, I wouldn't want to see her lead China every time, but she wasn't a bad choice. Honestly, she was a better choice than Qin, who is by far the safest choice in all of Civ6's leaders.

Why is Ramkhamhaeng a "dubious male choice"? It is because of the Ramkhamhaeng stele being an apparent forgery?
We needs Shaka/the Zulus to represent southern Africa..... Shaka is pretty much the Zulu's greatest leader.

 

[Zaarin]

Why is Ramkhamhaeng a "dubious male choice"? It is because of the Ramkhamhaeng stele being an apparent forgery?
We needs Shaka/the Zulus to represent southern Africa..... Shaka is pretty much the Zulu's greatest leader.

I'm no expert on Southeast Asian history, but a lot of people who know more than I do about the region didn't seem to like the choice, plus as I understand we know virtually nothing about him. It seems like Siam/Sukhothai must have had better (or at least better-known) options.

As for the Zulu, retire them and replace them with Madagascar. Done. Sure, the Malagasy are Austronesian not African, but I won't complain about having someone new from the region, just like I wouldn't complain about seeing the Aztec sit out one Civ iteration on behalf of the Mixtec or Zapotec (they Maya, on the other hand, are essential). Ideally the Mixtec, because they have the awesomely-named Eight Deer Jaguar Claw for leader.

 

[LiamX]

That's the thing. Firaxis has made dubious female choices--CdM, Cleopatra, Maria of Portugal, Victoria. They've made dubious male choices, too, like Gandhi, Hiawatha, Ramkhamhaeng, Shaka, Curtin (okay, so the last two are just bad civ choices, but...). But Wu Zetian was the only female ruler of China and an accomplished emperor in her own right. Like I said before, I wouldn't want to see her lead China every time, but she wasn't a bad choice. Honestly, she was a better choice than Qin, who is by far the safest choice in all of Civ6's leaders.

These makes me question your knowledge about Asian history.
The only really bad male leader pick civ has chosen so far (among the civs I have enough knowledge about) is Hojo Tokimune. Gandhi is justified in many ways. Though I agree there could be someone much better, he's still better than the likes of Maria, de Medici, Gorgo and Wu Zetian out of sheer fame and being the hero of India. Yes, exactly why I wouldn't disregard Cleopatra and Victoria as well. Competence is another story though. And lol, Qin is legendary, I honestly can't think of any reason how Wu is a better pick than him. Probably that "only female ruler in China" thing which is held in high regard for some people but I don't care about gender so...

 

[halfhalfharp]

And lol, Qin is legendary, I honestly can't think of any reason how Wu is a better pick than him. Probably that "only female ruler in China" thing which is held in high regard for some people but I don't care about gender so...

Just as you are asking why Trajan is chosen over Julius Caesar, who is legendary, and iconic to a level of boredom. (cough* Alexander* cough)
I guess Zaarin meant this in regarding the choice of Wu.

Fresh, dramatic and distinctive elements, and yet legitimacy in her right to be an important ruler, are essential measurements in leader picks.
Sheer greatness/historical importance comes next, in my opinion, especially when a "great" leader already shows his/her appearance in previous games.
(cough* Alexander* cough* appearance in 7 games *cough cough)

And one reason why I like the choice of gender balance is that there will be various fancy clothes to set eyes upon. For the case of China, most male Chinese emperors wore similar dress code and headdress. (Just like you won't be able to tell Ramesse II from Seti I nor from Thutmose III if you aren't told who they are). Yet, female fashion was an ever changing tide.

Of course, if you still turn a blind eye to Wu's achievements apart from being a female emperor, after so many facts have been thrown upon this thread,
then its your knowledge about Asian history that is to be questioned....

 

[chronoturner]

These makes me question your knowledge about Asian history.
The only really bad male leader pick civ has chosen so far (among the civs I have enough knowledge about) is Hojo Tokimune. Gandhi is justified in many ways. Though I agree there could be someone much better, he's still better than the likes of Maria, de Medici, Gorgo and Wu Zetian out of sheer fame and being the hero of India. Yes, exactly why I wouldn't disregard Cleopatra and Victoria as well. Competence is another story though. And lol, Qin is legendary, I honestly can't think of any reason how Wu is a better pick than him. Probably that "only female ruler in China" thing which is held in high regard for some people but I don't care about gender so...

Now, what's wrong with Hojo Tokimune? He might be a bit obscure, sure, but he's also not a bad leader at all historically, from what I can tell, anyways. Plus, he has a drama about him, so that must mean that he can't be that hated in Japan that he is considered a 'bad' leader. He defeated the Mongols (although that might've been more luck that they were caught in two typhoons ), helped instill Zen Buddhism into the warrior class, and in general acted very competently during his rule and never backed down. Over all, not a bad choice, if, again, a bit obscure.

Gandhi, meanwhile, is an iffy subject due to his mixed reputation as both the 'hero' of India, with his more controversial aspects such as his racism, sexism, and general creepy and downright disturbing behaviours often overlooked. Plus, he didn't even actually lead India, he was simply a figurehead member in the Free India Movement, if I recall correctly.