[GS] Why an unpopular Swedish leader?

[VermelhoRed]

Maybe Axel will be a "special governor". There are rumours about that one of the new leaders will have a special governor. What would be more suitable than him

Roxelana

 

[Patine]

I've kinda heard of that, but the point is, it is ridiculous to ask for something presented two decades ago (that was already gone) in the present and future version where it is no longer a thing.

I've never agreed with the "old iterations of games and old games are automatically bad and to be discarded in favour if the newer ones" attitude, to be honest. Steam, and even better GOG, have done great services by reissuing old games and making them work on new OS's.

 

[Ziad]

I think this is a point that deserves to be emphasized.

What I really loved about the Civ series as a kid was how much I learned from them. It used to be that was the type of person who was interested in computers and, by extension, computer games. Back then it was "i've never heard of this person/nation/wonder, wow I just learned, cool!" And then you'd take that and go read up about them. When I was in sixth grade, that was 90% of everything in Civ because well, I went to public school and if it didn't happen in the last hundred years or the Roman or British empires I didn't know it existed.

Now it seems like most people who are "gamers" are more into saying "I've never heard about this person, therefore they must be irrelevant." Rather than educating themselves or being open to new things. And what's worse they try to convince themselves and others to enforce this ignorance. It's happened every time Civ VI picks someone new.

One of my favorite things about Civ VI taking the 'other guy' instead of the 'traditional' leader in many instances is that for the first time since I was a kid the Civ series is actually introducing me to new things. I honestly wish they had done it more. The pushback against knowledge and anything that defies a very closed idea of what history is seems symptomatic of a larger cultural ignorance that has become prevalent lately, and it used to be the sort of thing that people into computers and games were better than.

This is exactly why I'm psyched that Firaxis is finally attributing Carthage to Phoenicia.

I didnt particularly care that the focus was Carthage but it's nice to see the Canaanites represented as that one massive Thalassocratic culture that it was.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

For me, the *primary* appeal of Civilization - even more than the gameplay itself - is the game’s ability to capture the suchness of each culture. I want the English civilization to feel quintessentially British. I want the French to convey the essential quality of Frenchness. And so on and etc.

It’s for that reason that I prefer leaders who are iconic over any other metric for inclusion, whether that be historicity, actual accomplishments, moral uprightness, or diversity.

 

[Ziad]

Ever stop to think that what you perceive as iconic is limited to what you have been exposed to, particularly in the media which typically decides what one should pay attention to?

Julius Caesar is probably the best example of this.

 

[Equilin]

I've never agreed with the "old iterations of games and old games are automatically bad and to be discarded in favour if the newer ones" attitude, to be honest. Steam, and even better GOG, have done great services by reissuing old games and making them work on new OS's.

I'm not saying the old is bad, i'm saying reusing old system that has been abandoned already in the new is bad. It's fine if one wants to continue playing Civ2, but don't put it in Civ6 or Civ7. If it's a system that is unique and favorable (e.g. Civ4 corporations/vassal) then reimplementation is ok, but in this case sending every civ and leader to blandness definitely isn't.

 

[Patine]

I'm not saying the old is bad, i'm saying reusing old system that has been abandoned already in the new is bad. It's fine if one wants to continue playing Civ2, but don't put it in Civ6 or Civ7. If it's a system that is unique and favorable (e.g. Civ4 corporations/vassal) then reimplementation is ok, but in this case sending every civ and leader to blandness definitely isn't.

But I also mentioned the amazing ease of making full, robust, and comprehensive mods and scenarios with Civ2 without needing to be competent a programmer as something where it's head and shoulders above ALL other Civ iterations. But that must be a non-feature to you, and obviously objectively bad and not worth a mention at all, because you missed it.

 

[Equilin]

But I also mentioned the amazing ease of making full, robust, and comprehensive mods and scenarios with Civ2 without needing to be competent a programmer as something where it's head and shoulders above ALL other Civ iterations. But that must be a non-feature to you, and obviously objectively bad and not worth a mention at all, because you missed it.

I assumed that 1. it's about modding, so not really a feature, and 2. it's easy to mod because of the lack in content/mechanic, not because it's intentionally made to be easy, so not worth a mention.

 

[Patine]

I assumed that 1. it's about modding, so not really a feature, and 2. it's easy to mod because of the lack in content/mechanic, not because it's intentionally made to be easy, so not worth a mention.

So, you're displaying your personal priorities and views of what EVERYONE plays Civ games for as objective qualifiers? I don't want to assume, but that's what it's sounding like.

 

[Equilin]

So, you're displaying your personal priorities and views of what EVERYONE plays Civ games for as objective qualifiers? I don't want to assume, but that's what it's sounding like.

1. not everyone, but the majority of the players and 2. i collected these over reading comments and opinions on various SNSs and came to this conclusion that this is the majority opinion.

 

[Patine]

1. not everyone, but the majority of the players and 2. i collected these over reading comments and opinions on various SNSs and came to this conclusion that this is the majority opinion.

Well, I guess you've got quite the polling engine going there. I still dissent, and I will not be silenced whenever my dissenting point-of-view is relevant.

 

[cosmicmangobear]

She might not have been the greatest ruler, but her life story is fascinating. There’s more than enough material from her biography to craft an interesting agenda and LUA and perfectly fits the “big personalities” theme. It’s true her sex may have given her an advantage when the devs were looking for leaders, but I really don’t have a problem with a bit more balanced representation, especially considering lack of LGBT leaders.

Although, I do wish they had done a unified Scandinavia under Margaret I and included Finland as well instead of 2 Nordic civs. Similar to my disappointment in the inclusion of a Victorian England AND Scotland at the expense of Ireland.

 

[Patine]

especially considering lack of LGBT leaders.

Let's rephrase that. The "lack of known, verified, and openly LGBT leaders." There's a LOT of famous leaders (Richard I (the Lionhearted), Philippe IV, Elizabeth I, Catherine the Great, William I (Rufus), George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, James Buchanan, William Lyon Mackenzie King, R.B. Bennet, and a LARGE number of others) about whom realistic and possible grounds for evidence about being of LGBT inclination in a day and age when living openly out of the closet, even (or, in some cases, especially) as a national leader was ABSOLUTELY UNTHINKABLE.

 

[Ziad]

especially considering lack of LGBT leaders.

Alexander and Trajan though

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Ever stop to think that what you perceive as iconic is limited to what you have been exposed to, particularly in the media which typically decides what one should pay attention to?

Julius Caesar is probably the best example of this.

Let’s not pretend that the historical narratives which have gotten the most attention received such on entirely arbitrary grounds. It’s not merely a matter of media bias that explains why Washington receives more recognition and exposure than William Henry Harrison. Some figures really were more consequential than others.

Julius Caesar’s consulship marked the end of of seven hundred years of republican rule in Rome. His name deserves to be known (and vilified) for such. He’s rightfully iconic. Which is not to say there aren’t other well-known Roman rulers who could prove excellent choices for Firaxis. I’d love to see Julian the Apostate lead either Rome or Byzantium. But even the biggest personalities or most interesting biographies might belong to such obscure figures that their inclusion would necessarily lack the suchness which makes Civilization about the actual civilizations and not arbitrary skins over disassociated gameplay mechanics.

 

[Patine]

It’s not merely a matter of media bias that explains why Washington receives more recognition and exposure than William Henry Harrison.

Well, to be fair, almost all world leaders throughout history who die a month or so after coming to power in conditions where suspicion and conspiracy theory over their death doesn't pre-dominate (like John Paul I) tend to only be famous for the brevity of their tenure and sometimes the lost potential, if that...

 

[Ziad]

Let’s not pretend that the historical narratives which have gotten the most attention received such on entirely arbitrary grounds.

I didn't say such leaders don't deserve acclaim, but that they aren't the only ones worth mentioning just because the media has done them to death.

 

[leif erikson]

Merry Christmas!!

Moderator Action: But you still need to please stay on topic.

 

[Red_warning]

Kristina is pretty much bottom tier when it comes to relevance amongst Swedish monarchs, but I will concede that she at least is an interesting person. But being an interesting person isn't really that great of a criteria when it comes to choosing someone to represent an entire nation. Far more interesting and influential leaders can be selected, even for a science and diplomacy focus. If you want to highlight Sweden's modern scientific and diplomatic image then why not have one of our first prime ministers, who founded our modern state, represent us? And it's not like our kings of old only understood war, Gustavus Adolphus and many of the kings that would follow him understood the importance of education and invested heavily in it, founding a number of new universities and academies during the 17th century. Gustav III I'd say is one of our most interesting kings, nicknamed "the theatre king" for his love of culture, and the only king who seemed to have paid more attention to the navy than the army (he personally partook in the battle of Svensksund, the greatest naval battle in the history of the Baltic sea).

With that said, I did not expect Sweden to return in this iteration of Civ so I'm still far from displeased.

 

[Patine]

Kristina is pretty much bottom tier when it comes to relevance amongst Swedish monarchs.

To be fair, Karl XVI Gustaf, the current reigning monarch, is bottom tier, because, within a year after his ascension to the throne, he signed the 1974 Basic Law, and formally, officially, and de jure accepted that the Swedish Monarchy was just like all other remaining European Monarchies (and the post-WW2 Japanese Monarchy), and only a symbol in national government with no real or actual power at all. Just to be pedantic here.