Which form of Greek representation/leadership do you prefer?

How do you prefer Greece to be represented in a Civ title?

  • By Alexander the Great

    Votes: 3 11.1%
  • By another city-state/region of Greece

    Votes: 18 66.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 22.2%

  • Total voters
    27
Then again, "Paris is worth a mass" is probably apocryphal anyway.
 
Because he's the only Macedonian most of the gaming public have ever heard of?

And therefore, going by some of the arcane choices in Civ VI, they almost have to find someone else for Macedon. Phillip II arguably was almost as good a general, a far better diplomat and politician, and therefore could potentially give you a Non-Alexander Alexander if you want to go that route.
True, but the entire purpose of including Macedon was to be "Alexander: The Civ." I don't think it would be much of a priority otherwise. On the other hand, they included Sumer(ia) to be "Gilgamesh: The Civ," and I'm still arguing it could have been an actual interesting civ with a historic leader...so you have a point.

"I am your king. You are Frenchmen. There is the enemy. Charge!"
His gift for understatement just begs for a grandiloquent rival...

Then again, "Paris is worth a mass" is probably apocryphal anyway.
Probably, though I think it captures the general feeling of the Huguenots when he converted. Many of the great speeches in history have been apocryphal. Martin Luther's "Here I stand, I can do no other" and Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death" speeches come to mind. I don't have a problem giving iconic-but-apocryphal lines to leaders personally.
 
I'd also argue it could possibly work for Charlemagne too for a separate Frankish/Carolingian Empire separate from Germany and France. Well as long as Germany isn't portrayed like it is in Civ 6 being mostly HRE inspired.
Mughals being separate from India is another possibility.

Without much closer to infinite resources, I cannot grant these the same exception to the rule status I have with the Hellen's :p By all means, speculate on all the Balkanisation you'd love to see in game, but from a practical perspective I think 99.99999% of the time Civ needs to stick to one representation of a Civilisation; with multiple leader choices being the best way to inject different flavour into the same Civ. I hold to this so strongly that I personally have no problem that Italy has never appeared in the series. Of course the Italians are probably further removed from the Romans than most of the examples above, but as a general principle, until we are getting twice the Civs we are now, it should stay that way imho.
 
Many of the great speeches in history have been apocryphal. Martin Luther's "Here I stand, I can do no other" and Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty or give me death" speeches come to mind.

Not to mention "E pur si muove", The "height of these pyramids" speech, "I am the State"...

But on the general topic, I'm generally in agreement with Nzcamel. The current Balkanization is already more than I'd like considering how many areas of the world barely get touched on. I'm can grit my teeth at Macedonia but wouldn't mourn them if they were cut; but I don't particularly care for more of that process, until and unless we get a game with considerably more civs than this one.
 
Without much closer to infinite resources, I cannot grant these the same exception to the rule status I have with the Hellen's :p By all means, speculate on all the Balkanisation you'd love to see in game, but from a practical perspective I think 99.99999% of the time Civ needs to stick to one representation of a Civilisation; with multiple leader choices being the best way to inject different flavour into the same Civ. I hold to this so strongly that I personally have no problem that Italy has never appeared in the series. Of course the Italians are probably further removed from the Romans than most of the examples above, but as a general principle, until we are getting twice the Civs we are now, it should stay that way imho.
In general I agree, but I feel like Francia is too different from France to lump in together--same with Anglo-Saxons and England. Of course, the simplest approach then is to regrettably not include them, interesting though they'd be, but I wouldn't be fond of Alfred the Great as an alt leader for England or Charlemagne as an alt leader for France or Germany. It's just too much of a stretch for me.
 
In general I agree, but I feel like Francia is too different from France to lump in together--same with Anglo-Saxons and England. Of course, the simplest approach then is to regrettably not include them, interesting though they'd be, but I wouldn't be fond of Alfred the Great as an alt leader for England or Charlemagne as an alt leader for France or Germany. It's just too much of a stretch for me.

And that is kind of the point. With every 2nd current Civ we can find large sub-groups/distinct versions that could qualify in their own right. And hopefully one day they will, when we are getting hundreds of official Civs. Till then I'd like most of them to be left to the modders. Alexander the Great's impact on the world combined with Greece's largely different impact does breach such a significant threshold that I am fine with them being the exception to the rule. But the rule still stands imo.

Of course long before Macedon is on the chopping block... all the modern nation states that have flourished in Civ 6 while barely being regional powers in most cases, and not having had that large an impact on the world compared to the normal roster - they should be first in the chopping line to not reappear anytime soon. In their own way they are in the process of becoming subsets of their parent country that could feature one day (Australia and Canada to the UK, Brazil to Portugal etc); but really are still far less impactful than all the examples discussed above.
 
Last edited:
Part of me, at one point, wished they had picked someone other than Dido to lead Phoenicia, since we tend to associate her more with Carthage, but then I looked at Gilgamesh and Kupe (the bros) and I realized something: this entire game is historical fantasy. :crazyeye: If you'll excuse me, my Aztecs just figured out how to ride horses and work iron despite having neither.

In some cases, a semi-historical figure (like Hiawatha from Civ 5) or a character with very loose basis, if any, in the real world (like Gilgamesh and Dido) may just be more recognizable, or more "symbolic" of that amalgamated culture, their differences through time forgotten (additionally, there is historical attestation for Gorgo, the wife of Leonidas, but not much.) Likewise, even though Cleopatra wasn't genetically Egyptian, she immersed herself in the culture and language, and, to be fair, is an extremely recognizable figure associated with "Egypt", so I was fine with her inclusion. And Gandhi is the same for India, with the added benefit of being Indian.
To many, Alexander the Great is exactly that iconic figure for Greece. Is he Greek? I'm sure if you asked him, his response would be different than if you asked an Athenian who lived at the same time, or an Athenian alive today, or someone from North Macedonia. But could he effectively represent Greece in a "Best Hits of Hellas" scenario that is Civilization? I'm starting to think so, especially if Napoleon Bonaparte can represent "France's Top 40" or Cleopatra can rep for "Now That's What I Call Egypt".

But of course, that's what I think. I'm enjoying reading these comments.:p
 
And that is kind of the point. With every 2nd current Civ we can find large sub-groups/distinct versions that could qualify in their own right. And hopefully one day they will, when we are getting hundreds of official Civs. Till then I'd like most of them to be left to the modders. Alexander the Great's impact on the world combined with Greece's largely different impact does breach such a significant threshold that I am fine with them being the exception to the rule. But the rule still stands imo.

Of course long before Macedon is on the chopping block... all the modern nation states that have flourished in Civ 6 while barely being regional powers in most cases, and not having had that large an impact on the world compared to the normal roster - they should be first in the chopping line to not reappear anytime soon. In their own way they are in the process of becoming subsets of their parent country that could feature one day (Australia and Canada to the UK etc); but really are still far less impactful than all the examples discussed above.
100% agree on cutting the modern nations. Though I think Charlemagne's significance could probably be argued to be similar to Alexander's from a pop history perspective (certainly not from a more academic one--but Civ is pop history).

Part of me, at one point, wished they had picked someone other than Dido to lead Phoenicia, since we tend to associate her more with Carthage
If she existed, she was born in Tyre. I can appreciate why they chose her in Civ6 specifically. Do you know of any other Phoenician leader oozing with personality? If we get Phoenicia again in Civ7, though, I'd be good with seeing Ḥīrom I of Tyre--or even Dido's father Pūmayyātūn (whose existence is more secure than hers).

Likewise, even though Cleopatra wasn't genetically Egyptian, she immersed herself in the culture and language
To a degree and for political ends, yes. However, your overall point is true. Like I said above, Civ is pop culture, and Cleopatra is probably the second most famous pop culture Egyptian after Tutankhamun--and I'll take Cleo over Tut, thanks. :p

To many, Alexander the Great is exactly that iconic figure for Greece. Is he Greek?
To be fair, my objection to Alexander isn't that he's not Greek--that's open to debate anyway. My object is on the one hand he doesn't really represent why Greece is considered so historically significant in terms of philosophy, art, theater, etc., and on the other hand, just like Napoleon, I'm personally kind of bored of seeing his punchable face every game. :p Every game needs a villain, yes, but that's what Gandhi's for--and clearly we're never getting rid of him. Dom Satan seems to be on his way to becoming another staple. :p
 
Without much closer to infinite resources, I cannot grant these the same exception to the rule status I have with the Hellen's :p By all means, speculate on all the Balkanisation you'd love to see in game, but from a practical perspective I think 99.99999% of the time Civ needs to stick to one representation of a Civilisation; with multiple leader choices being the best way to inject different flavour into the same Civ. I hold to this so strongly that I personally have no problem that Italy has never appeared in the series. Of course the Italians are probably further removed from the Romans than most of the examples above, but as a general principle, until we are getting twice the Civs we are now, it should stay that way imho.
I consider these a possible rule to the exception as well, including Italy co-existing alongside Rome. I just think that a Mughal leader for India or Charlemagne leading France or Germany is a little bit too far removed and can see them showing up in future games like Macedon did. Arguably Charlemagne already did in Civ 4 separate from France and Germany, but it wasn't the best implementation.
However I also agree with you that for most of the time multiple leader choices are the better option, such as the different Chinese dynasties and even Alfred the Great as working for England. :mischief:

To be fair, my objection to Alexander isn't that he's not Greek--that's open to debate anyway. My object is on the one hand he doesn't really represent why Greece is considered so historically significant in terms of philosophy, art, theater, etc., and on the other hand, just like Napoleon, I'm personally kind of bored of seeing his punchable face every game. :p Every game needs a villain, yes, but that's what Gandhi's for--and clearly we're never getting rid of him. Dom Satan seems to be on his way to becoming another staple. :p
Funny that Genghis and Shaka show up every game but real civ players consider Gandhi a villain. :lol:
 
Funny that Genghis and Shaka show up every game but real civ players consider Gandhi a villain. :lol:
Let's be honest: he's here for the stale Nuclear Gandhi memes. :p The only neighbor worse than Genghis or Shaka in Civ5 was Attila, but in Civ6 Genghis is very easy to keep happy: I wasn't planning on building any cavalry anyway so we're good. :p
 
Let's be honest: he's here for the stale Nuclear Gandhi memes. :p The only neighbor worse than Genghis or Shaka in Civ5 was Attila, but in Civ6 Genghis is very easy to keep happy: I wasn't planning on building any cavalry anyway so we're good. :p
He was also pretty easy to ally with in real life. All you had to do was keep his envoys alive and NOT kill them, and you would be best buds with Khan. :lol: That, and some other factors.

Sadly, few people got the memo of not killing Mongol Envoys.

But back on topic, I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject of ancient Greece, but I do wish for either Epaminondas to represent a Theban Greece in Civ 6.
 
He was also pretty easy to ally with in real life. All you had to do was keep his envoys alive and NOT kill them, and you would be best buds with Khan. :lol: That, and some other factors.

Sadly, few people got the memo of not killing Mongol Envoys.
He wouldn't have gotten along with the Czechs, then. They made a habit of throwing envoys out of castle windows. Or maybe they just reserved that treatment for the pope's envoys. :mischief:
 
He wouldn't have gotten along with the Czechs, then. They made a habit of throwing envoys out of castle windows. Or maybe they just reserved that treatment for the pope's envoys. :mischief:

No, it's that Defenestrations are like Czech Beer: you can't have just one . . .
 
Thinking about Alex some more, I'm torn. Yes, he is easily the most recognizable "Greek" symbol in pop-culture history, and reasonably accomplished in his own right. His actions did result in lasting changes too (such as mass Hellenization and the creation of soon-to-be significant cities like Alexandria in Egypt). But, as @Zaarin has mentioned, he doesn't represent any of Greece's cultural, scientific, mathematical, or artistic influences, which are arguably even more important than Alex's one-and-done empire. He's a great pop-culture choice (and oozing with character, making him an entertaining recurring leader), but misses out on what makes a lot of ancient Greece so significant. It's hard for me to say he's the perfect choice.

Dom Satan seems to be on his way to becoming another staple. :p

Brejeiro fades in from the horizon as the cruel Dom Satan observes his prey, ready to pounce on anyone who dares recruit a great person.
 
Taken from Guandao's Ultimate Civ 6 Leader wishlist, with some others added:

Agesilaus II
Alcibiades
Alexander the Great
Antigonus I
Antigonus II
Aratus of Sicyon
Cimon
Cleisthenes
Demetrius I
Demosthenes
Eleftherios Venizelos
Epaminondas
George I
Ioannis Kapodistrias
Ioannis Metaxas
Leonidas
Lycurgus
Periander
Philip II
Philopoemen
Polycrates
Pyrrhus
Solon
Themistocles
Thrasybulus

So... Yeah, we have a lot of potential leaders to work with. :P
 
Personally, the Alex/Greece philosophical and scientifical achievements tension is best adressed by moving away from the notion of the in-game civ as necessarily being a snapshot of the civ at the specific point in history the leader is associated with, and rather making the civ more a representation of various high points of that civ history. I'd love Iroquois whose abilities touch on Modern era Mohawk skyscrapers builders as much as Hiawatha and the great law of peace, because it's just as much - and just as interesting - a part of their history. An Itay that blends Italian Renaissance and The Unification is a more rounded civ than one that focuses on one aspect alone.

To me, a greek civ with both unique civ abilities that represent the golden age of greek philosophy and Alex as leader with an ability and UU that embrace the Macedonian conquests and a greek UU that represents the greco-persian wars (but alex could have his own leader unique unit from his own era) and so on is better than a greece that tries to represent a single period of greek history.

It also makes it easier to avoid one-trick-pony civs that are really really good at exactly one thing (and tend to break the game as a result), and alt leaders who really don't fit the civ *cough*Eleanor*cough* because it was designed from the start to have all its abilities be about one specific leader.

I'm not saying Alex HAS to be leader (or sole leader), I'm saying Alex being leader shouldn't impact the civ's ability to represent other parts of Greece history - and no civ shoud stop at representing a single reign of their history unless they really were one trick ponies.
 
Last edited:
Taken from Guandao's Ultimate Civ 6 Leader wishlist, with some others added:

Agesilaus II
Alcibiades
Alexander the Great
Antigonus I
Antigonus II
Aratus of Sicyon
Cimon
Cleisthenes
Demetrius I
Demosthenes
Eleftherios Venizelos
Epaminondas
George I
Ioannis Kapodistrias
Ioannis Metaxas
Leonidas
Lycurgus
Periander
Philip II
Philopoemen
Polycrates
Pyrrhus
Solon
Themistocles
Thrasybulus

So... Yeah, we have a lot of potential leaders to work with. :p

- And this list leaves out Dionysius of Syracuse, ruler of the largest Greek city in the world, or Jason of Thessaly, at the time considered a worthy successor to Alexander . . .
 
and reasonably accomplished in his own right.

Understatement of the year? :eek::eek::eek: Absolutely a contender!!

Personally, the Alex/Greece philosophical and scientifical achievements tension is best adressed by moving away from the notion of the in-game civ as necessarily being a snapshot of the civ at the specific point in history the leader is associated with, and rather making the civ more a representation of various high points of that civ history. I'd love Iroquois whose abilities touch on Modern era Mohawk skyscrapers builders as much as Hiawatha and the great law of peace, because it's just as much - and just as interesting - a part of their history. An Itay that blends Italian Renaissance and The Unification is a more rounded civ than one that focuses on one aspect alone.
...

It also makes it easier to avoid one-trick-pony civs that are really really good at exactly one thing (and tend to break the game as a result), and alt leaders who really don't fit the civ *cough*Eleanor*cough* because it was designed from the start to have all its abilities be about one specific leader.

I'm not saying Alex HAS to be leader (or sole leader), I'm saying Alex being leader shouldn't impact the civ's ability to represent other parts of Greece history - and no civ shoud stop at representing a single reign of their history unless they really were one trick ponies.

I agree with all of this, though I do like the small touch of making the era of the leader more significant even just by making the capital the one they had at their time.
 
To me, a greek civ with both unique civ abilities that represent the golden age of greek philosophy and Alex as leader with an ability and UU that embrace the Macedonian conquests and a greek UU that represents the greco-persian wars (but alex could have his own leader unique unit from his own era) and so on is better than a greece that tries to represent a single period of greek history.
I mean it does help that he was able to spread Greek science and culture to all the places he conquered, so yes those abilities are still fitting.
Of course ideally it would be nice if we had a diplomatic leader, like Pericles alongside the more militant Alexander, to have different playstyles like we have currently with Pericles and Gorgo.

I agree with all of this, though I do like the small touch of making the era of the leader more significant even just by making the capital the one they had at their time.
Well unless you do modern Greece the bonuses would still peak in the Classical Era, whether you have Alexander or a leader from one of the city-states.
 
Back
Top Bottom