[GS] Why an unpopular Swedish leader?

[Red_warning]

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.

Karl XVI Gustaf is however disqualified due to still being alive (at least I think that's a civ rule)

 

[Zaarin]

Karl XVI Gustaf is however disqualified due to still being alive (at least I think that's a civ rule)

It's a matter of legality: you can't use a living (or recently deceased) person's likeness without their consent, and royalties would also be involved (there's a reason Giselle is not an official Disney Princess). Some nations also have lèse-majesté laws regarding how heads of state can be portrayed.

 

[Beethovania]

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?

Tage Erlander or Per Albin Hansson would be cool to see in the game. Maybe even Palme.

 

[DemonMaster]

Bottom tier, ok, that was a laugh. I would rank her among one of the best candidates. They probably want Sweden to be diplomatic and among all the leaders for Sweden she is probably one of the best for that (except for Charles XIV John of course). I would rank Gustav III higher though. Other kings are rather small when it comes to achievements. Erik XIV could be a candidate if counting personality only. Perhaps Erik could be a secondary leader for Sweden. I mean, they already know what he looks like since they used his portrait when they made Gustavus Adolphus for Civ V.

edit: or of course Gustav Vasa, the "founder" of the modern nation-state of Sweden. Although, he was not known for his diplomacy, rather the opposite.

 

[Red_warning]

Bottom tier, ok, that was a laugh. I would rank her among one of the best candidates. They probably want Sweden to be diplomatic and among all the leaders for Sweden she is probably one of the best for that (except for Charles XIV John of course). I would rank Gustav III higher though. Other kings are rather small when it comes to achievements. Erik XIV could be a candidate if counting personality only. Perhaps Erik could be a secondary leader for Sweden. I mean, they already know what he looks like since they used his portrait when they made Gustavus Adolphus for Civ V.

Beside signing the peace of Westphalia (on which Oxenstierna did most of the work on Sweden's part) what precisely makes Kristina fit a diplomatic theme more than other Swedish leaders? In fact beside Karl XIV Johan and Gustav I I can't think of any Swedish monarchs of particular diplomatic talent.

Erik XIV was a lunatic and pretty much all the monarchs after him until Charles XII have a greater merit list.

 

[DemonMaster]

Beside signing the peace of Westphalia (on which Oxenstierna did most of the work on Sweden's part) what precisely makes Kristina fit a diplomatic theme more than other Swedish leaders? In fact beside Karl XIV Johan and Gustav I I can't think of any Swedish monarchs of particular diplomatic talent.

Erik XIV was a lunatic and pretty much all the monarchs after him until Charles XII have a greater merit list.

Since Axel played such an important role during her reign and he will most likely be the special governor that one of the leader has in the expansion, that and that she attracted a lot of science and cultural personalities to Sweden. She was a very smart person and shrewd politician. She had to be since she wasn't very liked, not in Sweden (not many of the noble families liked Axel and his girl) and not in some parts of Europe either (at the beginning) since Sweden won a war where Sweden hasn't exactly been very nice.

I mentioned Erik XIV a little bit as a joke just because the Civ V Swedish leader Gustavus Adolphus was made (obviously) after a portrait of Erik not Gustav.

 

[local_hero]

Unfair to place Kristina in the bottom tier. We have several monarchs that are quite anonymous, aswell as the true bottom tier, like Gustav IV. I'm not fond of the idea of a Prime minister leading Sweden either, it's just too recent.

I think it's a shame that many propose the most successful/iconic criteria for chosing civ leaders. It makes leader selection so narrow and I wouldn't have liked to alternate between designing France around Louis XIV and Napoleon for each iteration as a developer (it would probably be detrimental to the series too). It doesn't excite me to play either. I also think there's a problem that history has been written when warriors have been so appreciated. Charles XII wouldn't have been half as successful without all the reforms his father Charles XI made, but competent rulers are "forgotten" unless people are interested enough to find them.

Every man and woman can only play the hand they are dealt too, which makes me feel it is unjust to only consider a small pool of candidates. Given a blank slate, starting a empire in 4000BC, is it not possible that Catherine de Medici might have done better than Louis XIV?

 

[Patine]

Given a blank slate, starting a empire in 4000BC, is it not possible that Catherine de Medici might have done better than Louis XIV?

If one hand waves away the fact that a Tuscan woman is declared the founding leader of the French nation right from the start, maybe...

 

[AmazonQueen]

If one hand waves away the fact that a Tuscan woman is declared the founding leader of the French nation right from the start, maybe...

We've been handwaving away people who weren't native to civs leading them since Civ II with Catherine and Cleopatra.

 

[rattatatouille]

We've been handwaving away people who weren't native to civs leading them since Civ II with Catherine and Cleopatra.

Or leaders who were from different civs altogether, like Civ II's "Nazca".

 

[VermelhoRed]

It's a matter of legality: you can't use a living (or recently deceased) person's likeness without their consent, and royalties would also be involved (there's a reason Giselle is not an official Disney Princess). Some nations also have lèse-majesté laws regarding how heads of state can be portrayed.

Giselle?

Since Axel played such an important role during her reign and he will most likely be the special governor

No he's not! It's going to be Roxelana! Stop saying that!

If one hand waves away the fact that a Tuscan woman is declared the founding leader of the French nation right from the start, maybe...

We also handwave having the same leader living and leading a civilization for millenia, I don't see your problem here.

 

[pgm123]

Or leaders who were from different civs altogether, like Civ II's "Nazca".

In this case, a leader who was just the name of another cultural group.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

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?

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

But as a monarch with power, Kristina would still be more relevant than any of the swedish prime ministers. Sweden was not known for its diplomacy before like 1940s and its most famous science accomplishment was done in the 1700s and 1800s. Early 1900s Sweden was considered as a poor and underdeveloped country, from early 1800s into early 1900s, one million Swedes immigrated to the Americas which probably tell just how poor Sweden was during that time. Sweden was a poor country and only got rich in the aftermath of ww2 so Sweden during Kristina would be about the same as Sweden during the early prime ministers as far as I know.

 

[Red_warning]

Since Axel played such an important role during her reign and he will most likely be the special governor that one of the leader has in the expansion, that and that she attracted a lot of science and cultural personalities to Sweden. She was a very smart person and shrewd politician. She had to be since she wasn't very liked, not in Sweden (not many of the noble families liked Axel and his girl) and not in some parts of Europe either (at the beginning) since Sweden won a war where Sweden hasn't exactly been very nice.

I mentioned Erik XIV a little bit as a joke just because the Civ V Swedish leader Gustavus Adolphus was made (obviously) after a portrait of Erik not Gustav.

I think we have to separate commendable personal traits with being a successful leader. Kristina had high aspirations but they lead to nothing, her legacy is a nation in debt and a Frenchman with pneumonia. But if Oxenstierna indeed becomes a special governor for Sweden then it could be a good compromise, we get both a colourful leader and somebody that represents competent governing.

Unfair to place Kristina in the bottom tier. We have several monarchs that are quite anonymous, aswell as the true bottom tier, like Gustav IV. I'm not fond of the idea of a Prime minister leading Sweden either, it's just too recent.

I think it's a shame that many propose the most successful/iconic criteria for chosing civ leaders. It makes leader selection so narrow and I wouldn't have liked to alternate between designing France around Louis XIV and Napoleon for each iteration as a developer (it would probably be detrimental to the series too). It doesn't excite me to play either. I also think there's a problem that history has been written when warriors have been so appreciated. Charles XII wouldn't have been half as successful without all the reforms his father Charles XI made, but competent rulers are "forgotten" unless people are interested enough to find them.

Every man and woman can only play the hand they are dealt too, which makes me feel it is unjust to only consider a small pool of candidates. Given a blank slate, starting a empire in 4000BC, is it not possible that Catherine de Medici might have done better than Louis XIV?

Personally I don't need the most successful leader guide a nation every single iteration of civ, but they need to, at the very least, have done more good than harm to their country. And I'm not sure if Kristina fits that criteria. About Prime ministers being too recent, I guess that's a matter of taste, there are and have been civ leaders from very recent times. Roosvelt in civ 5, Curtin in civ 6, Laurier in this coming expansion.

 

[Red_warning]

But as a monarch with power, Kristina would still be more relevant than any of the swedish prime ministers. Sweden was not known for its diplomacy before like 1940s and its most famous science accomplishment was done in the 1700s and 1800s. Early 1900s Sweden was considered as a poor and underdeveloped country, from early 1800s into early 1900s, one million Swedes immigrated to the Americas which probably tell just how poor Sweden was during that time. Sweden was a poor country and only got rich in the aftermath of ww2 so Sweden during Kristina would be about the same as Sweden during the early prime ministers as far as I know.

Actually if you read estimations from economic historians such as Bairoch and Maddison they tend to place Sweden fairly highly, on the same level as Germany and only slightly poorer than France during the Renaissance and enlightenment. Still not as rich as the Netherlands, England or Portugal but definitely not poor and underdeveloped. Sweden did fall behind early during the industrial period but caught up in the later half of the 1800s.

AFAIK Kristina was highly dependant on her advisers and the parliament, so her power was actually comparatively weak. It's hard to compare the old kingship with modern democracy but I would not say that she have had more of a influence on Sweden than a prime minister like Per Albin Hansson or Hjalmar Branting.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Honestly reading through here it's hard for me to judge how much people value her is actually based on centuries of propaganda one way or the other.

Also if you had to devalue a ruler based on actual power we'd probably have to remove Vicky too.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Also if you had to devalue a ruler based on actual power we'd probably have to remove Vicky too.

Yes that is a good argument, she is a more a symbol for an era than a monarch with actual influence on the era she symbolise.

Sweden is not a country with a history of powerful monarchs anyway. The lower class in Sweden was rather free compared to much of europe at the time and Sweden had stuff such as the riksdag of the estates and after Karl XII the monarch power was greatly reduced in the age of liberty. So saying that Kristina did not have particular much power is a product of her era as the other Swedish monarchs played with the same rules as she did. Her father also used people such as Axel Oxenstierna to do much of the ruling of Sweden.

 

[Sirimiri]

I don't think it is fair to say that Kristina has little influence on the era she symbolises. She is referenced by people like Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz as one example of a highly educated woman, and this fits in well with the desire to have female leaders as well (and some LGBT+ representation doesn't go amiss). Let's not cast judgement before we see the whole conception of the Swedish civilization.

 

[luigilime]

i'm getting the feeling they're taking the leader that ruled during the apex of each civilization... but i don't understand a few other choices...

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

her legacy is a nation in debt and a Frenchman with pneumonia.

As a French person, every man or woman that manage to kill Descartes is worth of inclusion in every civ game (ugh, go away with your "Je pense donc je suis", you filthy egotistic sophist)