William Pitt, a worthy candidate to lead England in Civ7?

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Is William Pitt a worthy candidate to be Leader of England in Civ7? And which William Pitt should lead England? Since there's William Pitt of the Seven Years War (The Elder), and William Pitt of Napoleonic Wars (The Younger) and the two are in the same family and also leads Conservative Party of England. and BOTH can lead as Prime Minister rather than Monarch of England.
or you all don't agree with this? also both Willian Pitt did lead British Empire to win their respective wars against France.
Under either of the two. the very late city will get the name either Fort Pitt or Pittsburgh (especially one that was once Steel Mill City of the PA)
Can't really think of UA of the two persons actually.

 

[Evie]

Lord Palmerston!

 

[Henri Christophe]

England should stick with women leaders as Elizabeth or Victoria.
God save the Queen.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ Didn't the two William Pitts deserve a place as English leaders in Civ7?

 

[Quintillus]

At least on Firaxis's side of the pond, neither one has much name recognition (beyond Pittsburgh). So, I'd argue no on both counts.

If you want a Prime Minister leader, the obvious choice to me seems to be Churchill, who was one of the three British leaders in Civ4. One could make a case for Gladstone or indeed Palmerston, but symbolically it would be a tough argument to choose someone other than Queen Victoria to represent Victorian England, even though Britain was by then a fully constitutional monarchy.

Now it would be rather neat to have dynamic leaders based on forms of government and perhaps technological era as well. Then you could well have Pitts and Cromwells as well as Churchills. Though you'd still have the conundrum of whether to have the PM or Queen for the Victorian age, with my vote being for Victoria.

 

[Zaarin]

If you want a Prime Minister leader, the obvious choice to me seems to be Churchill, who was one of the three British leaders in Civ4. One could make a case for Gladstone or indeed Palmerston, but symbolically it would be a tough argument to choose someone other than Queen Victoria to represent Victorian England, even though Britain was by then a fully constitutional monarchy.

I prefer pre-Act of Union monarchs for England myself, but I think the obvious choices for a prime minister leader are Gladstone and Disraeli. Pitt the Younger was an absolute political tour de force, but as a figure, as a civ leader, he's absolutely less interesting than his king, George III. Churchill and Victoria's PMs might be the rare cases that are not--but Churchill couldn't possibly be portrayed in full color without upping the ratings to T at least. (Victoria's PMs are more interesting than she is just because virtually anyone would be. )

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I prefer pre-Act of Union monarchs for England myself, but I think the obvious choices for a prime minister leader are Gladstone and Disraeli. Pitt the Younger was an absolute political tour de force, but as a figure, as a civ leader, he's absolutely less interesting than his king, George III. Churchill and Victoria's PMs might be the rare cases that are not--but Churchill couldn't possibly be portrayed in full color without upping the ratings to T at least. (Victoria's PMs are more interesting than she is just because virtually anyone would be. )

Gladstone and Disraeli are probably the best known of the 'Victorian" PMs, but let me throw another into the ring: Viscount Palmerston, Henry Temple. The man was all about foreign policy, which, let's face it, is one of the mainstays of any Civ Leader besides the military. He also managed to be Prime Minister, Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary as a Whig, a Tory, and a Liberal, which may be a record for sheer flexibility - and effrontery.

 

[Evie]

Ahem:

Lord Palmerston!

Granted, I was more going for the classic Simpsons reference of Pitt the Elder/Lord Palmerston than a serious argument. But still, his hat was actually the first Victorian hat in the ring

 

[Patine]

but as a figure, as a civ leader, he's absolutely less interesting than his king, George III. Churchill and Victoria's PMs might be the rare cases that are not

I'm afraid I must differ - in a broader sense. Just like I am moving away, rapidly, from mythologized leaders, as I've made clear to @Henri Christophe, I also am finding, "mascot," and, "figurehead," leaders more and more unappealing. I mean, they don't necessarily have to have the legal and official title of power and office (then again, the British, Canadian, and Australian PM's, the apex national executive offices of their respective countries, don't actually Constitutionally or legally, "exist," so...), they should be in a position where they make decisions that are binding to the course of the nation by some solid mechanism.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm afraid I must differ - in a broader sense. Just like I am moving away, rapidly, from mythologized leaders, as I've made clear to @Henri Christophe, I also am finding, "mascot," and, "figurehead," leaders more and more unappealing. I mean, they don't necessarily have to have the legal and official title of power and office (then again, the British, Canadian, and Australian PM's, the apex national executive offices of their respective countries, don't actually Constitutionally or legally, "exist," so...), they should be in a position where they make decisions that are binding to the course of the nation by some solid mechanism.

George III is outside the scope of leaders I want for England--like I said, I want leaders of England to have the title "Monarch of England" rather than "Monarch of the United Kingdom"--but he was active in political affairs, often to his own detriment due to his own belligerent personality and inability to play the political game. That being said, while I prefer leaders who were in a position of power or influence, I'm open to alternatives if they're interesting enough and serve the leader's function as the face or embodiment of the civilization. I'm also very unopen to leaders, however powerful, who don't serve that role. To me, this is the litmus test the Pitts fail; they're just not interesting as the face of England. However, the real failure of the Pitts and other suggestions like Gladstone, Disraeli, and Palmerston is that they're not competing against George III or Victoria--they're competing against Elizabeth I, and they fail that contest hard.

 

[Patine]

George III is outside the scope of leaders I want for England--like I said, I want leaders of England to have the title "Monarch of England" rather than "Monarch of the United Kingdom"--but he was active in political affairs, often to his own detriment due to his own belligerent personality and inability to play the political game. That being said, while I prefer leaders who were in a position of power or influence, I'm open to alternatives if they're interesting enough and serve the leader's function as the face or embodiment of the civilization. I'm also very unopen to leaders, however powerful, who don't serve that role. To me, this is the litmus test the Pitts fail; they're just not interesting as the face of England. However, the real failure of the Pitts and other suggestions like Gladstone, Disraeli, and Palmerston is that they're not competing against George III or Victoria--they're competing against Elizabeth I, and they fail that contest hard.

You've never quite elucidated (at least, not on a thread I was following) what qualities of England as a civ you feel have a cut-off point at the Act of Union.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Gladstone and Disraeli are probably the best known of the 'Victorian" PMs, but let me throw another into the ring: Viscount Palmerston, Henry Temple. The man was all about foreign policy, which, let's face it, is one of the mainstays of any Civ Leader besides the military. He also managed to be Prime Minister, Home Secretary or Foreign Secretary as a Whig, a Tory, and a Liberal, which may be a record for sheer flexibility - and effrontery.

1. Is he a person who forged an alliance with Emperor Napoleon III of France? Even to the point of joining Crimean War against Russia (The first war with Minie Rifle came to be. and perhaps the last war with Napoleonic tailcoat uniforms remain in use before being replaced with fulltunics and light caps (kepi or similiar visored headdress) which signifies 'Riflemen'.
2. Few more things named after him
- Settlements in Australia and Newzealand.
- Polygonal Fort style: What are reasons why this fort is designed? what are game changers that made ol starforts obsolete? rifled guns or percussion shells? or Henry Shrapnel's ordnances that later got his name?
And how good actually it is? why there ain't no many games featuring Palmerston Forts but there are so many games featuring Vauban Starforts even in the Industrial Era (Civ games since Civ3 represents Industrial Era Forts with Starforts and not Palmerston ones)
Did Fortresses of Liege (that needed railway Krupp guns to bring down) also Palmerston designs? and what are Palmerston Forts in the United States of America?
Back to the topic. What do you think about two William Pitts of different eras? Did any of the two deserves a place in Civ7 as Leader of England?

 

[Zaarin]

You've never quite elucidated (at least, not on a thread I was following) what qualities of England as a civ you feel have a cut-off point at the Act of Union.

I simply prefer to think of England as England, rather than the United Kingdom or Great Britain. It's simply a personal preference.

 

[Evie]

I'm afraid I must differ - in a broader sense. Just like I am moving away, rapidly, from mythologized leaders, as I've made clear to @Henri Christophe, I also am finding, "mascot," and, "figurehead," leaders more and more unappealing. I mean, they don't necessarily have to have the legal and official title of power and office (then again, the British, Canadian, and Australian PM's, the apex national executive offices of their respective countries, don't actually Constitutionally or legally, "exist," so...), they should be in a position where they make decisions that are binding to the course of the nation by some solid mechanism.

I profoundly disagree. The entire game concept is of leaders, not rulers, and leadership has throughout history taken many forms. Reducing the concept to rulers limit options for no particularly good reason, much like reducing "civilizations" to "political states" for equally bad reason, is imposing adherence to history on a game that is at its very core a historical (sorry, still no mythology) "what if" kind of game - a game where vikings fight samurai, where France was founded in 4000 BC and where Gandhi can actually lead India.

That said, I agree with Zaarin - leaders should not just be anyone who had a vague claim of being a national leader; it should be someone who embodies the civilization, or in some specific cases a particular aspect of that civilization.

 

[Patine]

I profoundly disagree. The entire game concept is of leaders, not rulers, and leadership has throughout history taken many forms. Reducing the concept to rulers limit options for no particularly good reason, much like reducing "civilizations" to "political states" for equally bad reason, is imposing adherence to history on a game that is at its very core a historical (sorry, still no mythology) "what if" kind of game - a game where vikings fight samurai, where France was founded in 4000 BC and where Gandhi can actually lead India.

I think you extrapolated my point to several ideals I wasn't actually advocating, somehow. "Nation-states," and, "vikings fighting samurai," (???), or even, "official titles of rulership," (I specifically such official titles weren't what I necessarily meant), were not stated, or implied, as necessarily what I was talking about. I think I words are being put in my point, and connecting dots that aren't there, is being done, here.

 

[Evie]

...way to miss the point.

The point is that in a game of historical "what ifs" whose essence include things like vikings fighting samurai, France existing in 4000 and where America allies with Babylon, (you did not talk about those things, *I* am using them to describe what Civilization, as a game, is), it makes no sense whatsoever to worry whether the leaders actually had the power to make political decision *in reality* because the game steps into hypotheticals and "what ifs" the moment it began.

And "what if Gandhi was a political leader?" Is just as good a historical "what if" as any other.

 

[Patine]

...way to miss the point.

The point is that in a game of historical "what ifs" whose essence include things like vikings fighting samurai, France existing in 4000 and where America allies with Babylon, (you did not talk about those things, *I* am using them to describe what Civilization, as a game, is), it makes no sense whatsoever to worry whether the leaders actually had the power to make political decision *in reality* because the game steps into hypotheticals and "what ifs" the moment it began.

And "what if Gandhi was a political leader?" Is just as good a historical "what if" as any other.

Well, in Gandhi's case, there's also the issue, specifically, of him getting long in the tooth, and having bad memes built around him, including an infamous one much more appropriate to a female PM with the same last name, but no relation through blood or marriage. I believe @Zaarin and a few others have also shown, "Gandhi fatigue," if you will.

 

[Evie]

In Gandhi's case, yes, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he had the power to make political decisions.

Gandhi was a perfectly reasonable choice for a leader for a single-civ India. It just would be nice at this point to see some of the other perfectly reasonable choices...or to Balkanize India.

The same goes for any iconic national leader (or any leader representing an important aspect of a nation), political decision-making powers or no. The game is historical "what if", "what if they had politicsl power" is part of that.

 

[Patine]

In Gandhi's case, yes, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he had the power to make political decisions.

Gandhi was a perfectly reasonable choice for a leader for a single-civ India. It just would be nice at this point to see some of the other perfectly reasonable choices...or to Balkanize India.

The same goes for any iconic national leader (or any leader representing an important aspect of a nation), political decision-making powers or no. The game is historical "what if", "what if they had politicsl power" is part of that.

Well, I retain my personal preferences on the issue, like @Zaarin doesn't want to see England after the Act of Union. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Evie]

And I retain my stace that your preference goes against the very identity of Civilization.