[GS] Why an unpopular Swedish leader?

[Morningcalm]

Keep in mind that I am a biased Dane when reading this. I will be serious, but this is why I care about it and say some of the stuff I am about to:

So now that the leak is basically confirmed, I find the Swedish leader as odd as the French one.

I am mostly citing the opinions of angry swedes here: Why go for a leader branded a traitor by the Swedish people. Hated back then and still looked down upon? She undid or at least tried to undo the work of her father during the 30 years war, which was a personal, DEFINITELY not a national interest.

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.

As an added bonus which i find INCREDIBLY ironic is that Kristina wrote a book called: "It is my opinion that no women should rule a nation".

Female leaders like Victoria obviously makes a ton of sense, so does Cleopatra, Tamar, Wilhemina etc... because they, like the male leaders present in the game, actually is a symbol of their nations.

If they wanted a strong, female, Nordic leader which is actually seen as a national symbol of her origin country, and is a leader of both Denmark AND Sweden in a non viking age, why not go for Margrethe I? She was the leader of ALL 3 Nordic countries - Greenland, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway!! She would fit perfectly into the Diplomacy system. You would not be leaving out one of the 3 Scandinavian countries like you did in Civ V(!!!). You'd have an actual strong female leader instead of this actual disaster.

Margrethe I of the Kalmar Union - a much stronger leader and a much stronger nation at a much better time for all 3.

As I have discussed elsewhere in these forums, Seondeok and Catherine de Medici are not bad leader choices at all. Seondeok was praised (in part) for her generosity and wit by even a conservative male scholar who thought the idea of females leading nations would lead to ruin, and ushered in the beginnings of a Golden Age for her Korean kingdom even as it was the weakest of the Korean kingdoms--her efforts eventually led to the unification of Korea under her kingdom in later generations.

Catherine tried hard to keep two factions from murdering each other even as they were set against it, and rallied both to defeat Elizabeth I's English invaders at Le Havre, issuing edicts of tolerance as well as holding "magnificences" and other cultural events to encourage cooperation.

In both cases the controversy was in large part also due to other factors which took unfairly large attention--in Seondeok's case, controversy over her physical appearance in Civ VI (the character model was criticized as looking like it was showing a Southeast Asian leader rather than a Korean), and in Catherine's case, controversy over her being Italian (which was also a controversy in her time, even though she was acknowledged as the power behind the throne by both Protestant and Catholic factions in France).

If anything, Cleopatra, the Macedonian pharaoh of Egypt who had a penchant for murdering her family members, who you also mention, is at least as controversial as these two leader choices, and unlike Seondeok and Catherine, she saw her nation taken from her by the very foreign power she tried to ally with for so long. And even then, no one denies Cleopatra's intelligence or worthiness (except when compared with Hatshepsut, perhaps).

 

[Beethovania]

Swede here.

What would make Kristina a traitor in (some) swedes eyes would probably not be the abdication, but rather the conversion from Protestantism to Catholicism, a branch her father died fighting against (At least that's how some choose to see it). It was probably a more sensitive subject back in the days when we still were faithful Protestants that hated Catholics, nowadays most people aren't that religious, most people don't care that much.

That said, I think she will be an interesting leader mostly since she was a very interesting character that led an interesting life. If I could pick freely I would probably pick Gustaf III, AKA The Theater King, he could turn Sweden into a cultural powerhouse. But I'm happy with Kristina as well, and also happy that Sweden will appear for a second time.

I'm more worried about the music, as I'm hoping they will pick something other than the national anthem, perhaps something by Bellman. Don't get me wrong, the version of our anthem in Civ 5 was really beautiful, but I want something new.

Also her special ability could be to invite other civs great people and kill them. René Descartes worked as a teacher for Kristina, but couldn't handle the cold climate, he died of pneumonia while in Sweden.

 

[Hammurabbit]

Swede here.
Also her special ability could be to invite other civs great people and kill them. René Descartes worked as a teacher for Kristina, but couldn't handle the cold climate, he died of pneumonia while in Sweden.

That's a great idea!

 

[Prima Italia]

Civ 6's Maria I. Laughably bad that it is so transparent.

 

[Aristos]

Paraphrasing a known "genius":

"Because it's 2018."

 

[Icicle]

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

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.

 

[Aristos]

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.

Great post... but... I just don't know how to fit into it, say, Canadian culture from hockey rinks and Scottish culture and Science from Golf courses...

I agree with you about the past attraction from the civ series... but let's be honest, history has been made by the most prominent leaders of each civilization. It does not matter if the leader was a she or a he, only that they made history. In some cases, you have more than one to select from for a given civ, which speaks volumes about that civilization's history. Being open to new things is not the same as being open to anything.

 

[VermelhoRed]

As a Swede I don't have a problem with Kristina being the first Swedish leader in Civ 6. I definitely agree that she is far from the most successful Swedish king/queen, but I like that she now get more international exposure, given her interesting life story.

Is it because she is a woman? Yes probably, and that's great, I would hate if it was mostly male leaders, so I'm glad that Firaxis keeps an eye on the balance.

This.

 

[Patine]

Keep in mind that I am a biased Dane when reading this. I will be serious, but this is why I care about it and say some of the stuff I am about to:

So now that the leak is basically confirmed, I find the Swedish leader as odd as the French one.

I am mostly citing the opinions of angry swedes here: Why go for a leader branded a traitor by the Swedish people. Hated back then and still looked down upon? She undid or at least tried to undo the work of her father during the 30 years war, which was a personal, DEFINITELY not a national interest.

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.

As an added bonus which i find INCREDIBLY ironic is that Kristina wrote a book called: "It is my opinion that no women should rule a nation".

Female leaders like Victoria obviously makes a ton of sense, so does Cleopatra, Tamar, Wilhemina etc... because they, like the male leaders present in the game, actually is a symbol of their nations.

If they wanted a strong, female, Nordic leader which is actually seen as a national symbol of her origin country, and is a leader of both Denmark AND Sweden in a non viking age, why not go for Margrethe I? She was the leader of ALL 3 Nordic countries - Greenland, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway!! She would fit perfectly into the Diplomacy system. You would not be leaving out one of the 3 Scandinavian countries like you did in Civ V(!!!). You'd have an actual strong female leader instead of this actual disaster.

Margrethe I of the Kalmar Union - a much stronger leader and a much stronger nation at a much better time for all 3.

I am a big student of world history as my own initiative, and cast wide nets for my study and research. However, I have to admit that Swedish monarchs are a gap and a weak point in that knowledge. Given that several Swedish regnal names have very high numbers, and the Swedish monarchy is traceable to the 11th Century (with an interruption during the Kalmar Union, when Danish monarchs ruled all the Scandinavian Kingdoms in personal union), I would ASSUME there would be a LOT of choice to pick from, and that many of them would be far superior than your description of Kristina.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm not thrilled about Kristina--she was an interesting person but a less than stellar leader (largely because she didn't want to be a leader)--but in an expansion pack that also includes Eleanor of Aquitaine (chiefly famous for the probably fictitious "court of love" and for subverting her husbands) and the probably mythical Dido, I'm less concerned about Kristina. I will say, though, that if the devs wanted to include Sweden it should have been as the 16th/17th century Protestant superpower, and if they wanted a big personalty Central European female leader they should have gone with Maria Theresa of Austria.

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.

Humans have been speculating about life on other worlds since the Ancient Greeks, who were already aware that the little specs of light in the sky were other worlds (though they took that more literally than we understand it, not making a physical distinction between the "fixed" stars and the "wandering" stars). The Graeco-Syrian poet Lucian wrote a satirical story about the concept in the second century AD, and some similar works crop up in the Enlightenment.

 

[Beethovania]

If I remember correctly, she was Queen of Sweden for some 20+ years, that's not a short reign. She's absolutely a better pick as a queen than Ulrika Elonora.

It will be interesting to hear her voice. I wasn't too thrilled with Gustavus in Civ V, he sounded too much like someone acting on a theater scene.

 

[Xur]

who cares about leaders?... you never see the one you are playing as.... and those you are playing against are just the same poor AI handicapped by their agendas.

For all the work that goes into the design and voices, we get very little gameplay. Give me 2D CK2 style (random) leaders and kill off this stupid discussion every time there’s a DLC or civ7 for that matter.

 

[Beethovania]

who cares about leaders?... you never see the one you are playing as.... and those you are playing against are just the same poor AI handicapped by their agendas.

For all the work that goes into the design and voices, we get very little gameplay. Give me 2D CK2 style (random) leaders and kill off this stupid discussion every time there’s a DLC or civ7 for that matter.

Actually for me the leader design, music and voice acting is a big part of what I like with the Civ games, I'm one of those suckers who buy all the DLC leaders just to get new leaders, I never play the scenarios. If they were to remove the leader I would probably play Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis instead.

 

[Equilin]

who cares about leaders?... you never see the one you are playing as.... and those you are playing against are just the same poor AI handicapped by their agendas.

For all the work that goes into the design and voices, we get very little gameplay. Give me 2D CK2 style (random) leaders and kill off this stupid discussion every time there’s a DLC or civ7 for that matter.

Then go play CK2 i guess? What you are asking for is not what Civ does.

 

[DemonMaster]

I think that she is probably one of the best choices for Sweden. Sweden became great power under her rule after all. Most Swedish kings (including her father Gustavus Adolphus) where just warrior kings (not always that successful). Other leaders that would have been great for Sweden is Gustav III who is mostly known for his love of art, literature and opera (and yes for being murdered on a Masquerade ball) or perhaps even Charles XIV John who became king after the Napoleonic wars.

 

[Beethovania]

Axel Oxenstierna would also be a cool choice as a leader. The high chancellor was the Ying to Gustavus Adolphus Yang (Gustavus was very easy to anger, Axel was very calm). Those two were part of the reason Sweden could become such a great power.

 

[DemonMaster]

Axel Oxenstierna would also be a cool choice as a leader. The high chancellor was the Ying to Gustavus Adolphus Yang (Gustavus was very easy to anger, Axel was very calm). Those two were part of the reason Sweden could become such a great power.

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

 

[Patine]

Then go play CK2 i guess? What you are asking for is not what Civ does.

To be fair, Civ2 effectively does what he wants. The leaders there are nothing but cardboard cutouts with no true distinguishing features built in. I still play that one as well, but for a VERY different reason - because mods, scenarios, and extensive reworks of it to create whole new setups of strategy gameplay can be done without have a computer programming degree - it's mostly done with a map editor, text files, and bitmap files, and some more recent, but to easy to use (relatively speaking) fan-made tools. But everyone's got to choose what they want in a game.

 

[Equilin]

To be fair, Civ2 effectively does what he wants. The leaders there are nothing but cardboard cutouts with no true distinguishing features built in. I still play that one as well, but for a VERY different reason - because mods, scenarios, and extensive reworks of it to create whole new setups of strategy gameplay can be done without have a computer programming degree - it's mostly done with a map editor, text files, and bitmap files, and some more recent, but to easy to use (relatively speaking) fan-made tools. But everyone's got to choose what they want in a game.

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.

 

[gunnergoz]

Girl, girl, girl. Was she not a woman? A full grown, adult woman? Who around here calls Napoleon Bonaparte a "boy?"