Which form of Greek representation/leadership do you prefer?

[TyrannusRex]

I'm just generally curious what all you out there think, and maybe what you'd like to see in future Civ games. Do you prefer to see Greece represented in-game by the all-conquering Alexander, as they have been in several past entries, or do you prefer the direction the Hellenic world took for Civ VI, with other regions/city-states getting to stand out (whether or not Macedon is represented by itself)? Why?

 

[Kwami]

Why not both?

 

[Narcisse]

Philip II leading Greece in Old Worlds is really badass. I was hoping this take for Civ VI a while back. I am hoping having something similar / equivalent for Civ 7. (so I voted other)
I like the antiquity-classical History, but the 3 shades of Greece were a bit overkill in VI imo (Athens, Gorgo, Macedon). And overshadowed some basic pick like Byzantium which happened so late

 

[iammaxhailme]

I don't really care if it's a city state or a combined nation, I just want ones that focus on science or culture over pure warmongering.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I voted other because I would definitely like to see both iterations of Greece in future games as much as possible.

 

[Biologist]

Much as Alexander is a familiar face, historically and culturally I think the current model for Greece is much more appropriate. I'm struggling to think of a good analogy; perhaps if Genghis were to represent China because he once conquered much of that geographical region? Alexander as leader of Macedon, with a rotating choice of leaders to represent different powerful states in the Hellene world for Greece, feels more accurate.

 

[Narcisse]

I don't think if it's more accurate, Gorgo or Pericles were not more leaders of Greece than Alexander in any ways (politicaly, culturaly, or even in term of "greekness", the big deal of this period).

Greece was not even a thing, I mean, Basil II culture had more thing in common with Greece culture, than any of classical leaders. I don't want to be nitpicky, but I found really inconsistant than Gorgo/Pericles are blobbed but not Alexander, something which was mainly done for ... gameplay reasons. Giving more varieties, and I don't think it was ever a question of accuracy. But again it was needed for the sake of gameplay variety because 3 hellenic leaders happened -> thing I hope will not happens again in civ 7... Atleast if it's not for offering something really singular as the Seleucids.
More accurate would be Alexander leading Macedon, Gorgo leading Sparta, Pericles leading Athens. But it will be overwhelming with the whole concept of Civilization games.

So far, Civ 6 took an interesting path for some of the civilizations with leaders offering interesting stories. And ancient-classical greece had a bunch of interesting stories to offer, so I hope they will make that, and take some risk

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Greece is an interesting problem because their most important contributions to civilization took place during a time where the idea of a single Greek civilization didn't really exist. The whole concept of a unified "Greece" only spawned relatively recently, close to the Greek War of Independence, as a motivator for rebellion and convenient claim to history and heritage.

So that means if we are to call Greece by its modern and historical label, we are now imposing upon it the unified nation-empire status which it cannot fit. There was no single leader of all of ancient Greece. The only argument you could make is for Alexander, but even then, most Greeks saw him closer to a dictator/conqueror than leader. So even if we are to elevate the leader of a select city-state to be the leader of our hypothetical ancient Greek governing body, it still doesn't work quite right, thanks to the large differences in culture, values, and specialties between the different city-states.

That's why I think Civ VI's approach of trying to represent the numerous city-states simultaneously through alternate leaders is the better one.

I don't agree with making Macedon a separate Civ (if Sparta, Athens, Corinth and others can all be considered the same Civ, why should Macedon be excluded?), but for gameplay purposes, it's a half-decent answer to the question "How do we squeeze in Alexander this time?"

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That's why I think Civ VI's approach of trying to represent the numerous city-states simultaneously through alternate leaders is the better one.

I don't agree with making Macedon a separate Civ (if Sparta, Athens, Corinth and others can all be considered the same Civ, why should Macedon be excluded?), but for gameplay purposes, it's a half-decent answer to the question "How do we squeeze in Alexander this time?"

Yes. Ideally it would be great, in my opinion, if we say get Alexander leading Greece in Civ 7 while also having a leader like Pericles as well.

I didn't mind having Macedon as a separate civ because they already had Gorgo and Sparta first, but I wouldn't mind if Alexander become the warmongering Greek leader while having Pericles as the diplo leader for contrast.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Greece confounds the Civ Model because it was a distinct, recognizable, influential and self-identified Culture without in any way being a political entity for most of its history. So, any single 'Greek' leader is historical Fantasy at any time before the Industrial Era, when the concept of Nation-State became predominant and the Greeks adopted it in their fight for political independence from the Ottomans. Before that, it would be more accurate to say that having the same culture as the other Greek polis (city states) simply meant you knew them well enough to dislike them even more. No outside opponent of any Greek polity ever had any problem finding other Greek cities to ally with.

So, unless Civ VII comes up with a way to model City States as Civs, there is no way to depict a Greek Civilization except by Fantasy - as we have in Civ VI, with one Leader (Pericles) who only controlled one city and one Leader (Gorgo) who never controlled anything. The first Leader of a 'Greek Civ' in game terms would be - Alexander or Phillip of Macedon, who conquered the original geographical Greece (but not - always left out of Civ games - Magna Graeca, the numerous Greek cities in southern Italy and the largest 'Greek' city-state of them all, Syracuse in Sicily).

Unfortunately, the way Civ games have always progressed in the past, having a Greek City State Civ that might be immensely influential Culturally or even Scientifically but could not direct any of its component cities or project military power outside of Greece for any length of time would be simply crippling to play. I'm afraid not only the basic model of a Civ would have to be modified, but also Victory Conditions and, probably, the methods by which Civs could claim any sort of victory. And a single titular Greek Leader simply did not exist before the Industrial Era except for 'outside' Conquerors, leaving the Greek Leader to be, like now, a single city leader with expanded and imaginary powers, or a complete Fantasy. The closest to a classical 'Greek Leader' would be one of the leaders of the Leagues of cities, and even those never controlled all of Greece no matter how narrowly you identify it.

 

[TyrannusRex]

Greece is an interesting problem because their most important contributions to civilization took place during a time where the idea of a single Greek civilization didn't really exist. The whole concept of a unified "Greece" only spawned relatively recently, close to the Greek War of Independence, as a motivator for rebellion and convenient claim to history and heritage.

So that means if we are to call Greece by its modern and historical label, we are now imposing upon it the unified nation-empire status which it cannot fit. There was no single leader of all of ancient Greece. The only argument you could make is for Alexander, but even then, most Greeks saw him closer to a dictator/conqueror than leader. So even if we are to elevate the leader of a select city-state to be the leader of our hypothetical ancient Greek governing body, it still doesn't work quite right, thanks to the large differences in culture, values, and specialties between the different city-states.

That's why I think Civ VI's approach of trying to represent the numerous city-states simultaneously through alternate leaders is the better one.

I don't agree with making Macedon a separate Civ (if Sparta, Athens, Corinth and others can all be considered the same Civ, why should Macedon be excluded?), but for gameplay purposes, it's a half-decent answer to the question "How do we squeeze in Alexander this time?"

Greece confounds the Civ Model because it was a distinct, recognizable, influential and self-identified Culture without in any way being a political entity for most of its history. So, any single 'Greek' leader is historical Fantasy at any time before the Industrial Era, when the concept of Nation-State became predominant and the Greeks adopted it in their fight for political independence from the Ottomans. Before that, it would be more accurate to say that having the same culture as the other Greek polis (city states) simply meant you knew them well enough to dislike them even more. No outside opponent of any Greek polity ever had any problem finding other Greek cities to ally with.

So, unless Civ VII comes up with a way to model City States as Civs, there is no way to depict a Greek Civilization except by Fantasy - as we have in Civ VI, with one Leader (Pericles) who only controlled one city and one Leader (Gorgo) who never controlled anything. The first Leader of a 'Greek Civ' in game terms would be - Alexander or Phillip of Macedon, who conquered the original geographical Greece (but not - always left out of Civ games - Magna Graeca, the numerous Greek cities in southern Italy and the largest 'Greek' city-state of them all, Syracuse in Sicily).

Unfortunately, the way Civ games have always progressed in the past, having a Greek City State Civ that might be immensely influential Culturally or even Scientifically but could not direct any of its component cities or project military power outside of Greece for any length of time would be simply crippling to play. I'm afraid not only the basic model of a Civ would have to be modified, but also Victory Conditions and, probably, the methods by which Civs could claim any sort of victory. And a single titular Greek Leader simply did not exist before the Industrial Era except for 'outside' Conquerors, leaving the Greek Leader to be, like now, a single city leader with expanded and imaginary powers, or a complete Fantasy. The closest to a classical 'Greek Leader' would be one of the leaders of the Leagues of cities, and even those never controlled all of Greece no matter how narrowly you identify it.

I think one thing people tend to forget is that Civs have always (or at least, for most of the series) been representative of an amalgamated, perhaps even idealized version of the culture, not one specific period in its history. Hence, why a Macedonian Greek was given the leadership role over all of Hellas for so much of the series, or why a unified India can be led by a Gujarati man who never held political office while still launching hordes of mahout war elephants in your direction.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think one thing people tend to forget is that Civs have always (or at least, for most of the series) been representative of an amalgamated, perhaps even idealized version of the culture, not one specific period in its history. Hence, why a Macedonian Greek was given the leadership role over all of Hellas for so much of the series, or why a unified India can be led by a Gujarati man who never held political office while still launching hordes of mahout war elephants in your direction.

The Good and the Bad of Civ Leaders is the same thing: they are entirely Symbolic and therefore don't have to be in any way strictly Historical, but they are also Symbolic of only one aspect of the Civilization in question, and especially in the case of the completely unhistoric Leaders chosen (Gilgamesh, Gorgo) may be symbolic of an aspect of the civilization that is itself fantasy.

My biggest beef with all this is that too often they select a fantasy symbolic leader when there are far better Leaders available that are at least semi-historical. I won't go into details, because you can look up the discussions in numerous threads about the 'real' (or at least realer) alternatives to Gilgamesh, or Gandhi, or too many others to count - The Fanatics crowd seems to revel in Alternate Leaders at least as much as any other single aspect of the game.

Of course, we have to also admit that there are Other Considerations when picking Civ leaders for publication these days: balance of geography and era, balance of genders and ethnicities, and the fact that after 6 versions of the game there are some Leaders that we've seen Too D**n Many TImes and so are, at least temporarily, Off The List. Those considerations have obviously 'warped' some of the selections in Civ VI, but have also resulted in some interesting Alternatives being presented, as well as some alternatives that have to be described as generating WTF?! moments . . .

 

[nzcamel]

While I'm wary of multiple versions of Civs entering the game at the expense of other deserving Civs, I can't help but admit that I love having both Greece and Macedon. If 7 wraps them back onto one Civ, then I'll live with that. But if there is an exception to be made to the rule, then for much of what is said above I'll say it is Greece and Macedon.

 

[Zaarin]

A part of me approves of the Greece/Macedon split in Civ6 simply because, while the Hellenes were certainly a martial culture, they were not rabid expansionists and making them a warmongering Alexander civ feels wrong. At the same time, as someone who is not particularly a Hellenophile, Civ6 is so drenched in Hellenes that I wouldn't mind having fewer Hellenes. My (unpopular) solution would be: let a pre-Macedonian Greek lead Greece, let an Egyptian lead Egypt, and leave Alexander as a great general.

Though given infinite development resources, I actually take the opposite stance of nzcamel: Balkanize all the civs. Give me Burgundy and Normandy and Brittany alongside France! Give me Bohemia, Austria, Prussia, and Bavaria! Give me Mercia, Norman England, Tudor England, and Great Britain! Give me Assyria, Babylon, Elam, Urartu, Hurria, Hittites, Phoenicia, Israel, Judah, Damascus, Palmyra, and the Philistines! But in the real world where developer resources are limited I'd rather not Balkanize all the civs, least of all the Balkans...We can still Balkanize the ancient Near East, though.

 

[nzcamel]

A part of me approves of the Greece/Macedon split in Civ6 simply because, while the Hellenes were certainly a martial culture, they were not rabid expansionists and making them a warmongering Alexander civ feels wrong. At the same time, as someone who is not particularly a Hellenophile, Civ6 is so drenched in Hellenes that I wouldn't mind having fewer Hellenes. My (unpopular) solution would be: let a pre-Macedonian Greek lead Greece, let an Egyptian lead Egypt, and leave Alexander as a great general.

Though given infinite development resources, I actually take the opposite stance of nzcamel: Balkanize all the civs. Give me Burgundy and Normandy and Brittany alongside France! Give me Bohemia, Austria, Prussia, and Bavaria! Give me Mercia, Norman England, Tudor England, and Great Britain! Give me Assyria, Babylon, Elam, Urartu, Hurria, Hittites, Phoenicia, Israel, Judah, Damascus, Palmyra, and the Philistines! But in the real world where developer resources are limited I'd rather not Balkanize all the civs, least of all the Balkans...We can still Balkanize the ancient Near East, though.

"Though given infinite development resources, I actually take the opposite stance of nzcamel: Balkanize all the civs."

Were there infinite resources I'd be right there with you

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

My (unpopular) solution would be: let a pre-Macedonian Greek lead Greece, let an Egyptian lead Egypt, and leave Alexander as a great general.

That would open up another Phillip II getting in the game as a leader, while Isabella could return to Spain.

While I'm wary of multiple versions of Civs entering the game at the expense of other deserving Civs, I can't help but admit that I love having both Greece and Macedon. If 7 wraps them back onto one Civ, then I'll live with that. But if there is an exception to be made to the rule, then for much of what is said above I'll say it is Greece and Macedon.

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.

 

[Zaarin]

That would open up another Phillip II getting in the game as a leader, while Isabella could return to Spain.

The implication was that a Greek should lead Greece.

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.

I think the Franks, a HRE-Germany, and France are all distinct enough to coexist. Maybe Francia/France can be Civ7's Macedon/Greece. As for the Mughals being separate from India, I heartily agree, though if they wanted to heighten the distinction they could shift west to the Timurids before they became the Mughals and give Central Asia some love.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The implication was that a Greek should lead Greece.

I was implying that Phillip II could lead Macedon, letting a Greek lead Greece as well.

I think the Franks, a HRE-Germany, and France are all distinct enough to coexist. Maybe Francia/France can be Civ7's Macedon/Greece.

I'd rather Maria Theresa (HRE) Austria, Louis XIV France, Charlemagne Franks, and Bismarck Germany personally, or is that too much?

 

[Zaarin]

I was implying that Phillip II could lead Macedon, letting a Greek lead Greece as well.

Ah. I mean, why have Macedon without Alexander?

I'd rather Maria Theresa (HRE) Austria, Louis XIV France, Charlemagne Franks, and Bismarck Germany personally, or is that too much?

It's a bit much. And it leaves no room in Central Europe for Bohemia. Also over time I've become less enthusiastic about Louis XIV for France. I think I'd rather see Philippe Auguste or Henry IV. If they choose the latter and leave out the line, "Paris is worth a mass," I'll be very disappointed. Still, I'll take anyone over Napoleon. I'll take Louis XVI over Napoleon. I'll take Francis II over Napoleon.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Ah. I mean, why have Macedon without Alexander?

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.

It's a bit much. And it leaves no room in Central Europe for Bohemia. Also over time I've become less enthusiastic about Louis XIV for France. I think I'd rather see Philippe Auguste or Henry IV. If they choose the latter and leave out the line, "Paris is worth a mass," I'll be very disappointed. Still, I'll take anyone over Napoleon. I'll take Louis XVI over Napoleon. I'll take Francis II over Napoleon.

Continuing the above Macedonian argument, having had Napoleon and Louis XIV before, Civ VII should look for other possibilities - of which France has more than its share. Napoleon III has already been discussed - an interesting choice as long as you don't plan to actually conquer anybody, anywhere, at any time. Louis XIII would be an 'off the wall' choice, but given the Ministers he had working for him (led by Richelieu) he could get a Great Governors or Great People Unique that would definitely be Different. I'd also put in a vote for Henri IV, but his best line, though not as well known, was not "Paris is worth a Mass", which is a simple statement of Pragmatic Politics, it was the entirety of his pre-battle oration at Ivry on 14 March 1560 (which I've posted here before, but it's worth repeating):

"I am your king. You are Frenchmen. There is the enemy. Charge!"

(Let's not dwell on the fact that the enemy in this case were other Frenchmen!)