[GS] Why an unpopular Swedish leader?

[steveg700]

I'm glad that not all leader decisions are popularity contests. I'd much rather get fresh new faces with new and interesting gameplay rather than rehashing the same "iconic" leaders over and over again. Plus, seeing new leaders provides a way to learn about facets of a nation's history which may I may not have known.

It's interesting that all the largest outcries (Cleopatra, Catherine, Seondeok, Jadwiga, and now Kristina...am I missing any?) have all been over women... even though these are all women who actually ruled the nations they're representing in Civ 6.

Well, "new and interesting gameplay" is largely separate and distinct from the choice of leader to my mind. Civ VI doesn't has veered away from using civ's as a way to offer a highly asymetrical playstyle. Rather, they toss hodgepodges of production bonuses, district adjacency bonuses, yield bonuses, unit experience bonuses, temporary combat bonuses a after DOW blah blah blah.

More to the point, it's not about new faces versus old so much as it is about choosing noteworthy leaders versus unaccomplished leaders. Longtime fans of the game see Civ as a kind of all-star game where great leaders pit great empires against each other. An all-star game is, by definition, exclusive and elitist. This has been decremented over time, with civ's that don't qualify as empire-builders showing up, trickling in slowly and now flooding in as "diversity" has become the loftiest of mantras and the most (self-)back-pat-worthy goal of any earthly endeavor.

Now, as is often the case with diversity initiatives, some people will desire that meritocratic standards be maintained. If a leader for Rome isn't one of The Five Good Emperors, it ought to be a damned good candidate all the same, rather than just picking that candidate for its "otherness". Same goes for bumping a well-known empire for some obscure niche nation. Prioritizing some postage-stamp city-state or subsistence-existence tribe over, say, the Mongols, doesn't sit well. Some get their nose out of joint about that, and the reaction from others is that the preference for exclusivity is a canard borne solely of misogyny (or racism or Eurocentrism or what have you). Doesn't help that sometimes such an objection really does come across that way. Or, if we really are going to be honest, some of those founding all-stars perhaps weren't all that deserving.

 

[steveg700]

By that token, Pedro II would be an odd choice for Brazil, even though he's by far the greatest leader in Brazil's history. I've seen in a couple places that he resented ruling Brazil, which is part of the reason he willingly (relative to what one would expect) accepted his removal from the throne and exile.

To be a leader in Civ, as proven by Pedro, you don't have to enjoy your role; you just have to do a good job of it.

Y'know, I don't know even doing a good job is all that strong of a requirement.

I don't know if I'd call Shaka is in Civ for being a particularly good leader. He's there for being a lunatic warmonger, and for being popularized in cinema. Yet, he's a staple all the same. There have always been some advocates for the outright insane leaders whose reins damaged their people. Nobody argues that getting a Caligula or Nero is enticing because these guys achieved great things. But their reins were certainly notable and, golly gee, it's just fun to RP a vicious bastard.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

As far as I know, Kristina is not an unpopular ruler and also she is one of the few monarchs of Sweden that is not mainly known for their wars so she could lead a more peaceful focused Sweden.
Sweden at Kristian's time was one of poorest and least developed countries in Europe which may have been a major reason why she abdicated.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Well, "new and interesting gameplay" is largely separate and distinct from the choice of leader to my mind. Civ VI doesn't has veered away from using civ's as a way to offer a highly asymetrical playstyle. Rather, they toss hodgepodges of production bonuses, district adjacency bonuses, yield bonuses, unit experience bonuses, temporary combat bonuses a after DOW blah blah blah.

The leader's accomplishments/personality/whatever all inform the design of the LUA - as the characteristics of the civilization inform the CUA. Yes, they often result in somewhat of a hodgepodge, but that is because it is very hard to encapsulate a leader, let alone a nation, in a single ability, infrastructure, and unit.

More to the point, it's not about new faces versus old so much as it is about choosing noteworthy leaders versus unaccomplished leaders. Longtime fans of the game see Civ as a kind of all-star game where great leaders pit great empires against each other. An all-star game is, by definition, exclusive and elitist. This has been decremented over time, with civ's that don't qualify as empire-builders showing up, trickling in slowly and now flooding in as "diversity" has become the loftiest of mantras and the most (self-)back-pat-worthy goal of any earthly endeavor.

Now, as is often the case with diversity initiatives, some people will desire that meritocratic standards be maintained. If a leader for Rome isn't one of The Five Good Emperors, it ought to be a damned good candidate all the same, rather than just picking that candidate for its "otherness". Same goes for bumping a well-known empire for some obscure niche nation. Prioritizing some postage-stamp city-state or subsistence-existence tribe over, say, the Mongols, doesn't sit well. Some get their nose out of joint about that, and the reaction from others is that the preference for exclusivity is a canard borne solely of misogyny (or racism or Eurocentrism or what have you). Doesn't help that sometimes such an objection really does come across that way. Or, if we really are going to be honest, some of those founding all-stars perhaps weren't all that deserving.

I call bullhockey. I (and I'll wager many other long-time fans) couldn't care less about it being an all-star game. All this complaining about "diversity" is a way for people to dismiss civilizations and/or leaders as being "unworthy", somehow, of being in a video game. If you want to get really serious about it, then the challenge posed by the original game is "build an empire to stand the test of time". By that metric almost no one qualifies. Maybe China? Or on the other hand, everyone qualifies, because every tribe/culture/civilization was trying to build something to last - so it's a challenge that everyone is equally qualified to try and meet.

You can throw out all sorts of criteria for what civs or leaders "deserve" to be in the game, but at the end of the day it's all objectively wrong. Who is, and isn't, in the game is arbitrarily based on who the devs find interesting, who they think people will recognize from our painfully shallow history educations, and/or who they think will bring in new players to the game. It's fun to talk about who we think should be in it, don't get me wrong, but getting upset that x or y is in the game but z is not misses the point entirely.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Well, "new and interesting gameplay" is largely separate and distinct from the choice of leader to my mind. Civ VI doesn't has veered away from using civ's as a way to offer a highly asymetrical playstyle. Rather, they toss hodgepodges of production bonuses, district adjacency bonuses, yield bonuses, unit experience bonuses, temporary combat bonuses a after DOW blah blah blah.

More to the point, it's not about new faces versus old so much as it is about choosing noteworthy leaders versus unaccomplished leaders. Longtime fans of the game see Civ as a kind of all-star game where great leaders pit great empires against each other. An all-star game is, by definition, exclusive and elitist. This has been decremented over time, with civ's that don't qualify as empire-builders showing up, trickling in slowly and now flooding in as "diversity" has become the loftiest of mantras and the most (self-)back-pat-worthy goal of any earthly endeavor.

Now, as is often the case with diversity initiatives, some people will desire that meritocratic standards be maintained. If a leader for Rome isn't one of The Five Good Emperors, it ought to be a damned good candidate all the same, rather than just picking that candidate for its "otherness". Same goes for bumping a well-known empire for some obscure niche nation. Prioritizing some postage-stamp city-state or subsistence-existence tribe over, say, the Mongols, doesn't sit well. Some get their nose out of joint about that, and the reaction from others is that the preference for exclusivity is a canard borne solely of misogyny (or racism or Eurocentrism or what have you). Doesn't help that sometimes such an objection really does come across that way. Or, if we really are going to be honest, some of those founding all-stars perhaps weren't all that deserving.

I'm a long time player of the series (since Civ I) and I certainly value diverse choices, both of leaders and civs.
I have my favourites ofc and I'm disappointed when they don't make it and my pet hates (too Eurocentric and too modern in their choices for my tastes) but I accept that I'm not going to get everyone I want, other people have their own preferences, and I like a few surprises in the mix too.

 

[Haig]

Fun fact: Kristina, who was very interested in astrology and sciences, read lots of Kepler's and Copernicus' studies and was wondering whether there's life in other planets as well... that sounds pretty interesting observation when thinking the times she lived.

 

[pgm123]

American here. I grew up in Pennsylvania and went to high school/college in Delaware. Before Civilization V, Queen Kristina was the only Swedish monarch I knew. Wilmington, Delaware was formally Fort Christina (named for her). The main mall is Christiana Mall, named after the community of Christiana (named after the river Christina). New Sweden (Delaware and Pennsylvania) is strongly associated with Kristina. I know now that she wasn't all that important a Swedish monarch, but don't dismiss her too quickly.

Is it because she's a female? (Read: it is because she's female.) Cherry picking the only female leader they could find and just went with her even though she is not even close to being a symbol of her people seems non-Civ. I'm not surprised after the French leader. I mean... why not Napoleon? Any of the Louis XIV? Charles de Gaulle? Dont even get me started on Seondeok.

There's nothing wrong with picking Seondeok, once you're able to weed through the Confucian misogyny. I ended up in some deep JSTOR binges reading up on her after she was picked and I think she's a good choice. Plus picking her encouraged me to dig deep. I saw one Korean nationalist who was upset and railing how she lost something like 37 castles, but as far as I could find there was almost no evidence of that (she had some military setbacks, but also re-took most of the territory). And we shouldn't pick leaders solely on battlefield success.

We've had Napoleon, Louis XIV, and DeGaulle before. Of those, Louis would have been the best choice. L'état, C'est Moi fits the "big personalities" angle. I would stay away from DeGaulle and modern leaders if possible, particularly for France that has a long history. He's also been done. Napoleon would be fine, but as long as you're picking Italians who ruled France, I liked the choice of Catherine. It makes Ed happy that he gets to bring in another character from his board games and they get to do something related to the spy mechanic (even if tying international spies to Catherine is a bit of a stretch).

 

[DemonMaster]

Is she unpopular, where? (and no, I am Swedish and I have studied history I have never heard of her being seen as a traitor).

Sweden became a Great Power during her reign and she also brought culture and science to Sweden. Although she was expensive but at least she accomplished something (unlike all the warrior kings that costed and usually didn't accomplished that much).

 

[Jkchart]

The leader's accomplishments/personality/whatever all inform the design of the LUA - as the characteristics of the civilization inform the CUA. Yes, they often result in somewhat of a hodgepodge, but that is because it is very hard to encapsulate a leader, let alone a nation, in a single ability, infrastructure, and unit.



I call bullhockey. I (and I'll wager many other long-time fans) couldn't care less about it being an all-star game. All this complaining about "diversity" is a way for people to dismiss civilizations and/or leaders as being "unworthy", somehow, of being in a video game. If you want to get really serious about it, then the challenge posed by the original game is "build an empire to stand the test of time". By that metric almost no one qualifies. Maybe China? Or on the other hand, everyone qualifies, because every tribe/culture/civilization was trying to build something to last - so it's a challenge that everyone is equally qualified to try and meet.

You can throw out all sorts of criteria for what civs or leaders "deserve" to be in the game, but at the end of the day it's all objectively wrong. Who is, and isn't, in the game is arbitrarily based on who the devs find interesting, who they think people will recognize from our painfully shallow history educations, and/or who they think will bring in new players to the game. It's fun to talk about who we think should be in it, don't get me wrong, but getting upset that x or y is in the game but z is not misses the point entirely.

And even then, Civ has NEVER (with the possible exception of I) picked the biggest all-stars of every nation it represents all the time. Case in point:
II: Lots of made-up leaders or wives of leaders
III: France - Jeanne d'Arc; Aztecs - Montezuma II; Byzantines - Theodora (arguable); Arabia - Abu Bakr (important, but only 2 year rule); Mayans - Smoke Jaguar (we know little about the guy except his reign was largely inactive until the end of a cycle of Mayan time and many monuments were built); Portugal - Henry the Navigator (important instrument in Portuguese exploration, but not a leader); Egypt - Cleopatra (popular culture choice/arguable); Rome - Julius Caesar (popular culture choice/arguable; I certainly don't count him as one of the Greatest Roman Leaders, he's just very well known); India - Gandhi; Ottomans - Osman (important because he was founder, but not one of "the greats"), also the fictional/semi fictional Gilgamesh, Ragnar, and Brennus
IV: Celts - Boudica (popular rebel leader, but really not the best choice to represent an entire conglomerate of people); Brennus (legendary, possibly real); Gandhi (India); Sumeria (Gilgamesh, legendary, possibly fictional); Rome - Julius Caesar (arguable); Vikings (Ragnar, legendary)
V: Byzantium - Theodora (arguable); Carthage - Dido (legendary); Celts - Boudica (arguable) ; India - Gandhi; Portugal - Maria I (arguable)

So leaving out this current iteration and the first (which really did use most if not all "all stars"), there have always been left-field, crazy and non-"ideal" choices in the series, and many of those cases are arguable, or did do great things (esp III where that roster is crazy). Leaders aren't the end-all-be-all, they are "players", characters you play against, and they don't always have to be the best of the best or the most interesting, etc.

 

[Guynemer]

Can we please put to rest this notion that Catherine is unworthy of inclusion? She was almost certainly the most powerful woman in Europe during the 1500s, more so than Elizabeth. She absolutely did rule as Queen Regent for several years, and was the guiding power behind the throne for many other years besides. I don't know enough about Kristina to offer judgment there, but the continued misapprehensions people have about Catherine make me very suspicious of the motives of those people.

 

[steveg700]

I call bullhockey. I (and I'll wager many other long-time fans) couldn't care less about it being an all-star game.

Well, bear in mind that while you and no doubt others don't hold a belief doesn't mean that it is not extant or even prevalent and possibly even not bullhockey.

All this complaining about "diversity" is a way for people to dismiss civilizations and/or leaders as being "unworthy", somehow, of being in a video game. If you want to get really serious about it, then the challenge posed by the original game is "build an empire to stand the test of time". By that metric almost no one qualifies. Maybe China? Or on the other hand, everyone qualifies, because every tribe/culture/civilization was trying to build something to last - so it's a challenge that everyone is equally qualified to try and meet.[/quote[

You can throw out all sorts of criteria for what civs or leaders "deserve" to be in the game, but at the end of the day it's all objectively wrong. Who is, and isn't, in the game is arbitrarily based on who the devs find interesting, who they think people will recognize from our painfully shallow history educations, and/or who they think will bring in new players to the game. It's fun to talk about who we think should be in it, don't get me wrong, but getting upset that x or y is in the game but z is not misses the point entirely.

This is that kind of ostensible open-mindedness that is belied by flippant dismissiveness.

When people opine about what makes a civ or a leader an appropriate choice, I think it's pretty implicit that they are proposing there *should* be a standard. That you point out that the current paradigm at Firaxis is that their standards are arbitrary and lax doesn't make anyone wrong. It doesn't mean that they missed "the" point. It means there are multiple points of view, not just the (subjective) one you think should prevail the others.

 

[Gorbles]

I think it's very interesting that people assume Firaxis should go for the most qualified historical leader by merits of, some kind of popular discussion. I don't think it matters if someone is more qualified, so long as there's an intent behind what Firaxis are doing. Some choices are made to tie into the faction design. Some choices are made for overall look and feel. And some are made on historical merit. A bunch straddle these various factors.

Sticking to pure historical relevance in a written record mostly written by and for men, and in the OP's case trying to make the stretch that "it is because she's a woman", is really just restricting yourself at this point. Pre-emptive note to not be taken as a recommendation for, say, "aliens built the pyramids", but perhaps keep a more open mind, which is probably the kind of baseline point Firaxis are trying to make with their more unorthodox choices?

 

[Jewelrunna]

Agree with a lot of the more pro-Kristina sentiments in the thread, but also would like to add her rule probably lines up more with how they want to design Sweden in the game, that being a Civ oriented towards science & culture. Sweden in Civ V was an awkward mix between peaceful play for culture & science and warmongering, thanks to Gustavus Adolphus’ leadership. In terms of historical merit, he’s the best choice, but Kristina is not a bad choice. Admittedly I’m just theorizing on how Sweden will play, but given her history that seems like the logical assumption.

She’s a better choice than CdM (who I don’t have a problem with) and a much better choice than Eleanor (who I do have a problem with) IMO.

 

[Jkchart]

Agree with a lot of the more pro-Kristina sentiments in the thread, but also would like to add her rule probably lines up more with how they want to design Sweden in the game, that being a Civ oriented towards science & culture. Sweden in Civ V was an awkward mix between peaceful play for culture & science and warmongering, thanks to Gustavus Adolphus’ leadership. In terms of historical merit, he’s the best choice, but Kristina is not a bad choice. Admittedly I’m just theorizing on how Sweden will play, but given her history that seems like the logical assumption.

She’s a better choice than CdM (who I don’t have a problem with) and a much better choice than Eleanor (who I do have a problem with) IMO.

Here here.

Though you can see my defense of Eleanor in the "Eleanor of Aquitane: France or England" thread and on why she really is a leader of England.

 

[Jewelrunna]

Here here.

Though you can see my defense of Eleanor in the "Eleanor of Aquitane: France or England" thread and on why she really is a leader of England.

It’s less that I think that Eleanor isn’t a noteworthy historical figure, rather that there’s much more worthy or interesting choices for both France & England. Hopefully she’ll at least play interestingly.

 

[pokiehl]

Because Firaxis makes the game and they decide who they want. Can't please everybody, nor should they try.

 

[steveg700]

So leaving out this current iteration and the first (which really did use most if not all "all stars"), there have always been left-field, crazy and non-"ideal" choices in the series, and many of those cases are arguable

Well, surely there have always been nits to pick. But it can also be argued that just because some of the all-stars are arguable that the entire ideal of a standard of merit should not be abandoned altogether.

What I think really muddies the issue is that so many figures in history aren't held in esteem for what they were able to accomplish rather than that for what they were able to inflict on others with impunity.

Rome is held up as the very epitome of what the franchise is about, and yet that is mostly on the back of them being able to roll their neighbors with their war engine. Meanwhile, the working man stands in the welfare lines thanks to nobles using cheap slaves provided by said war machine.

 

[Jkchart]

Because Firaxis makes the game and they decide who they want. Can't please everybody, nor should they try.

They could but that would require us to pay even more for DLC

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Agree with a lot of the more pro-Kristina sentiments in the thread, but also would like to add her rule probably lines up more with how they want to design Sweden in the game, that being a Civ oriented towards science & culture. Sweden in Civ V was an awkward mix between peaceful play for culture & science and warmongering, thanks to Gustavus Adolphus’ leadership.

Here's hoping that the only thing militaristic about Sweden this time is their UU that at least will represent the great military power that they were.

 

[King William I]

Sorry, long time player (started with II, though I was only 6 at the time) and I just have to say I don't care about the greatest rulers. As long as their story is interesting, I'll consider them a good pick. Not necessarily the most interesting, but it does have to make me want to learn more.

I can't do that with Napoleon, or Caesar, or Bismarck or any of the other all stars