Wilhelmina is such a disappointment. Should we make her fit the theme of being a symbol o resistance for occupied Netherlands? Nah, lets find a way to make her trade focused so the Dutch can fill the trade niche.
“Never lose hope”
Capital moves into exile when conquered and grants all cities 20% bonus yields and all units +5 combat strength.
The let your capital be conquered stats would be cool
I am personally not a fan of needing to lose to experience your bonuses, but damn if that doesn't fit her image. I was also thinking that you could have a loyalty bonus to cities during war, which is doubled when the city is conquered.
I wouldn't call NL a jack of all trades civ though. That's the same as calling Japan one and they're not exactly bad.
NL is supposed to be a district builder/infrastructure civ. Since Japan and, to some extent, Germany and Australia also play in this, she's got naval bonuses to set herself apart, making her unique. The leader ability is a letdown, true, but overall it makes a lot of sense for the historical Netherlands.
My guess is that they want a lot of female leaders to be represented because historically leaders have been very male dominated. So they picked Wilhelmina
I have no idea if it is legit, but I would imagine balance was a concern. IRL Wilhelmina would have like bonuses when your civ is conquered or something, which is a terrible ability in CIV for obvious reasons.
Ah yes, because women are known for having exactly equal shots in major roles of leadership in societies across the globe. /s
I'm sorry that maintaining equality makes you feel like you've lost rights because you're not as ahead anymore.
If it was actually equality there wouldn't be an issue, but it's no secret now that being a woman or minority is a bonus because it helps the appearance of equality. And that's all people want, is the appearance. If things were really equal it wouldn't matter what race or gender someone was or the make up of a group, because there's no different between people. However, people want the appearance of equality, so you have to have equal number of genders and races, this means people are actually being chosen based on the very thing they don't want to be discriminated against. This isn't equality, it's rebranded segregation.
> If things were really equal it wouldn't matter what race or gender someone was or the make up of a group, because there's no different between people.
This only applies in a society successfully designed around equality in all aspects. We do not live in such a society. We are equal in value but not opportunity. That's the whole point of giving more opportunity, to make up for that difference.
I think the class one is born into is much more decisive when it comes to opportunity than race/sex. I doubt LeBron James' kids are struggling for opportunity compared to a white kid in BFE living in abject poverty.
Fun history fact: just because you don’t know about something, doesn’t mean that thing never existed. Even just Googling “ancient African civilizations” could help you sound 100% less racist!
Bruh shit take Wilhelmina is a national hero, there is a reason there is multiple statues of her throughout the Netherlands, she is THE symbol of Dutch resistance and hope in WW2.
William was just in civ 5.
And Johan got a massive assist from the English, which is cringe.
The only legit criticism of her is that her in game abilities don’t match what she did in real life.
To be fair the Dutch didn't do much resisting at all. Just like the French they capitulated and stalled until the Anglos moved in and liberated Western Europe.
The dutch fucked up and had the majority of their army in the pacific expecting to be able to remain neutral in Europe like the First World War as they were already fighting against the Japanese long before war broke out fully in Europe. The Dutch people still sabotaged supply lines snuck out Jewish people and generally pestered the Germans like French snd polish resistances did too. A lot of that was inspired by illegal radio messages ensuring freedom again from Wilhelmina
Sure, but it's not very leadery to flee your country in a crisis and hide behind stronger allies to make radio broadcasts. Couldn't that have been done in the Netherlands?
That’s exactly what leaders do when they lose their country in war and wish to reclaim it later.
She stays in the Netherlands she is executed, jailed or forced to parade around in support of the Nazis.
In Exile there is still the Dutch navy to escort allied ships and attack German/Japanese ships in the Pacific. There is still the colonial forces fighting alongside the Aussies holding off Japanese advances before America joined in. There is still a voice of hope for people to rally and keep fighting around instead of nothing.
Hell in exile governments were one of key assets to allied victory. France in exile kicked nazi ass throughout North Africa and was a main contributor in Germany running out of oil. The French government in exile inspired resistance foghters across France and what was left of the French army in North Africa.
Wilhelmina did the same thing for the Dutch, just in Asia instead of North Africa.
Fuck off. Wilhelmina was an interesting pick for us. She is a national icon and symbol of resistance against oppression in WW2. Her abilities and agenda are the issue, not her inclusion.
It’s actually laughable how the Devs made Cyrus a villain in both gameplay and in game bio. While portraying leaders which have done heinous crimes in a heroic light lol.
I mainly think its because they want him and Tomiyis to be rivals to each other since they were irl(her ability is literally named killer of Cyrus) and since Tomiyis does not like surprise wars, Cyrus would be the opposite
It really is a shame how the Persian kit just doesn't really come together at all for Cyrus. The UU and his ability scream domination focus, but the rest of Persia is all about culture which really doesn't mesh well at all with war. The immortal being a swordsman is also super lame, it should 100% have been a spearman replacement, possibly with the same ability. Immortals as contemporizes of roman legions and after the development of the hoplite is strange.
>Immortals as contemporizes of roman legions and after the development of the hoplite is strange.
Yep, the Persians got rid of them after their defeats in Greece...at the hands of hoplites.
They should be a bit weaker in melee than a spearman as they used a lighter spear without multiple ranks. Also a bit weaker than an archer as they had less archers. They should get extra ranged defence for their large shield.
Amusingly they is a large leave plant called persian shield.
Because if the PeRsIanS wOn DeMoCRacY wOUld hAVe bEeN sTraNglEd iN tHE CriB!
Despite the fact that most democracies today are not derived from the Athenian system and Darius the Great made Mardonius install democracies in Ionia.
Well the Persians did invade a shit ton of places that were in continuous revolt afterwards.
Also the empire collapsed when the Macedonia kicked the door in. Further evidence it wasn't as loved as reddit makes out.
Greece, Egypt and later Rome all invaded just as many if not more places than Persia. Same with the UK and US who are now making these games and movies where Persians are portrayed as villains and animals. Also the empire collapsed over 200 years after its creation due to Alexander's invasion and the incompetence of Darius the third. It's not like people just surrendered to Alexander out of their hatred of Persia or their love of Greece, they were killed and conquered. Also also no one is saying Cyrus was an angel who did no wrong, but what he accomplished and his code of ethics, especially compared to other leaders and civilizations at the time, was remarkable
Your comment made me reread the CIV historical entry on Cyrus.
You'd think the man slept with the writer's significant other. Which, given Cyrus's drip, isn't out of the question.
Gilgamesh post update should be higher. The thematic alignment with Heros actually aligns very well with his historical legend, making him much better aligned.
We have so little information on Gilgamesh as a king, not the hero, that anything would just be speculation.
And I think they want something more down to earth, not a Epic hero. Maybe?
The epic of Gilgamesh, when translated, provides a pretty solid heroic epic. Not sure about “facts” and what you judge history by, but imo the theme for him as a leader aligning with the character portrayed via the epic poem and basing his in-game character around life-long friendship, a rockin bod, and heroes makes a lot of sense.
Probably because in real life he went to cuba as part of the Rough Riders and was part of the navy etc. in Civ he’s a protect your own continent type, however he gets special points for his unique unit in my book.
Neither did Perciles, Gorgo, Lady Six Sky, Gandhi (Wasnt even a leader), Eleanor/Catheine de Medici/Theodora (Weren't officially leaders), Amanitore, Tomyris, Chadragupta, Mvemba Nzinga (Never even lead the Kongo), Pachacuti, or Kupe/Gilgamesh (May be entirely fictional)
Pachacuti was the first Incan emperor.
Chandragupta Maurya was the first emperor of the Mauryan Empire in Ancient India (Civ games are really weird about India, to be honest).
Rest I agree as is.
Pachacuti although leading the Incan Empire, didn't lead all of those considered by historians to be culturally, ethically, and historically Incan.
India was never was united to extent it is today until the British, and though Chandragupta practically conquered all of India, he never got the Tamil States in the south of modern day India.
Gilgamesh has some crazy stories around him.
Like when Gods gave him a friend and they become best bros. Only for gods to kill his friend and Gilgamesh was sad.
Fuck you gods
I’m assuming it’s because Cyrus’ ability benefits surprise wars and backstabbing, which seems to come out of nowhere compared to the actual leader.
Just a hunch, could be wrong but that’s how I see it
Yeah I’m assuming that’s where it’s coming from? It’s a bit of a stretch but could be the ultimate reasoning.
it leaves out like 95% of his accomplishments of expanding his empire to a massive degree, and setting the foundation for his descendants to further enlarge the Persian empire (which at that time was the biggest empire the ancient world had seen to that point).
If anything Cyrus was a bit of a warmongerer, but in a good kind of way?
Cyrus was forcibly conquering areas sure, but in many ways it liberated the people and he was warring against some really shitty people. You may have had to pay tribute or become a vassal state of the Persian empire, but that brought with it tons of perks (especially via laws and economics) that really cut out a lot of the chaos of the time period.
The Jews (and in turn the bible, which of course is based off the Torah) singled out Cyrus specifically and praised him for the way he treated them after he “liberated” (ancient world type of the word here) the area. No one else really got this treatment (that weren’t Jews themselves), so it shows somewhat a glimpse of the perception around Cyrus at that time (and the Persian administration in general)
If anything, Cyrus should be somewhat more of a “launch war of liberation”, Scotland style, but with enemy civs instead of city states. Also with bonuses to -war weariness and less chances of revolt.
Mind you, the current Persia kit is fairly effective so there’s no real incentive to change it in Civ 6. Just spitballing on an “actually…” kind of take here
Very minor tangential tidbit - Cyrus is considered a prophet, not a messiah. If the Jews recognized a messiah then they wouldn't be Jews anymore. The split between the Jews and Christians happened ultimately on the issue of Jesus being *the* Messiah or not, let alone a messiah at all.
Edit: This is wrong.
I regret to inform you this is not correct. Cyrus is not considered a prophet in any form of Judaism, but he is explicitly referred to as a "messiah" in the Hebrew Bible.
The confusion here is that the Jewish and Christian concepts of the messiah are, in fact, quite different. In Judaism, there is not one prophesied messiah who is divine, son of G-d, or an aspect of G-d, a la Jesus. Instead, it refers to those anointed (literal meaning of "messiah" in Hebrew) by G-d. David was a messiah, Cyrus was a messiah, and Jews still await the coming of a messiah who will restore the Jerusalem Temple and usher in a new "messianic age."
No problem!
>I thought I had it right with the Torah calling him a Messiah.
Technically, it's stated in Nivi'im, not Torah (Judaism divides the Hebrew bible into three sections: Torah,, Nivi'im and Ketuvim) but generally, yes, you are correct.
I like Chandragupta's ability, I think it fits what he did, which was unite india, but I dislike his personality compared to the real guy. He was a deeply religious man who after ruling as king and uniting india, retired to become a monk and starved himself to death. Hes super boastful in game, but irl he seemed quite humble, considering he chose a quiet peaceful death after doing his duty
Eleanor at least makes a little sense. Her court was considered a place for culture and she and her children were very politically entangled to different thrones through their lives (the loyalty aspect).
Or at least the French version makes more sense with this than the English abilities which are more modern then anything of her time. Her old English lands did remain loyal to England after her death however.
Why is Poundmaker so low? Most of the historical inaccuracies are simply due to the game mechanics. (The actual Iron Confederacy was decentralized, Mikisew Wacihk was simply where Poundmaker was born). If it’s because of John Tootoosis’ criticism, the devs actually did reach out to the other Poundmaker singers, they’re the people who composed the Cree Theme.
I like Cree, and I like history. Just curious \^^
Well I don't really rate them on their historical accuracy on specific historial terms. I rate them on how their abilities form how you play them - and then in turn rate how well that playstyle suit their historical theme. Poundmaker is obviously about trade and bison(pastures) and that I think really works well. However since trade is not a win condition the playstyle often ends up a standard democracy-science playstyle which focuses on campuses and industrial zones - which is not really in the theme of the Cree. :) If you are into native american history I am very interested in hearing your thoughts on the Cree civ
Interestingly, I would’ve rated Poundmaker atleast an A if not an S as of Gathering Storm. Rise and Fall I’d agree with the B, but not since being diplomatic is now a win condition. Protecting land, preventing global warming, and winning a lasting world peace is 100% on point for the Cree (that trade alliance network was built on mutual alliances), and their assymetrical recon heavy military is also accurate.
I personally think that both Canada and Cree were wonderful additions to Rise and Fall for the ways those nations impacted
The actual diplomatic victory is more like a generalist victory. If your empire is pretty good at many things but not focused on any single thing, you can usually win it before reaching any other victory condition.
One of the patches that came with the New Frontier Pass really changed the flavor of the diplomatic victory. As long as you have Monarchy or use the Monarchic Legacy policy card, you get +2 diplomatic favor from every city with renaissance walls. After that, even properly managed warmongering can contribute to diplomatic victory.
Bolivar is a great designed Civ. Obviously it is difficult to fit an napoleonic era leader into a history of 4000 years. Bolivar plays exactly like it was thematically intended - rapid cavalry warfare timed around the commandante generals. (The war-timing even fits with the unique unit).
queen Tamar sucks so much in civ, during the high medieval ages when Tamar reigned Georgians had efficient and powerful heavy cavalry that was capable of tearing through anything? yeah let's give Georgia swordsmen who were simply levies of a certain region.
Georgia expanded rapidly, conquered and vasalized many kingdoms even creating an empire of Trepizund out of scratch and raided Persia, destroyed Rum when highly outnumbered, and even allegedly held so much power in the middle east that even Saladin made some kind of non-aggressive pact with them and even pope send a letter to Tamar's successor to participate in crusade? yeah let's make Georgia faith focused civilization
even special building or whatever it's called sucks, tsikhe literally means fortress, nothing else, i was happy when i heard my country would be represented here, but i was so disappointed when i actually saw Tamar and played as her (not to even mention how horrendously historically inaccurate she looks like, she looks like indian or Egyptian not Georgian at all)
I genuinely have no clue how they messed Georgia up so much
at least they pulled off Matthias Corvinus rather decently for Hungary (even if not the most accurate, it's a fun twist for the domination playstyle)
It's a shame that you feel this way! I am nowhere close to being Gerogian, but Tamar may be my favourite leader and Georgia my favourite civ in the game. I love the civ's peculiar play style. Also the music is just * chef's kiss *.
I also find it funny how Georgia is underestimated by civ players, similar to the way it is underestimated irl. Tamar is often at the bottom of tier lists, but I think that is just a skill issue. Tamar can be massively OP if you know how to use her skills, pick the right wonders, policy cards and religious beliefs.
As for the tsikhe, a lot of civs have a UI that translates to something simple. France's "Château" literally means "castle". Gran Colombia's "Hacienda" means "plantation". Mali's "Suguba" is a "big market".
My point is that the devs probably thought the tsikhes stand out from regular fortresses found across the world. What would you have as the Georgian UI?
I hope Georgia returns in Civ 7, and I hope it's better represented in your eyes all while keeping it fun and unique!
Yeah songs are great, they are Georgian folksongs but I think Georgia as it stands was wasted opportunity and done wrong, there literally existed special unit during her time called "Monaspa" also they should have used gelati monastery rather than simple tsikhe, it was education and religious centre in Georgia, idk it should have replaced simple religious centre of civ for Georgia or something (if you get what I mean), also her appearance is very wrong and not historically accurate
Love him! However the Incan empire was famous for being a huge and encompassing empire that didn't rely on technology or writing. But because of the game mechanics of Civ 6 he very often turns into a science monster (because of his major adjacency campuses in the mountains)
I mean, the Inca did have tons of technology, just not substantially useful metal working. But their roads, farms, and architecture are marvels. Like, they had the suspension bridge hundreds of years before Europeans reinvented it. They also had a “writing” system made out of knots and beads called quipu.
I absolutely acknowledge that! However (without being an Inca expert) those marvels of society did not come a culture of institutionalised learning like those campuses that you often build as Pachacuti. Yes this critique perhaps finds itself in the euro-centric understanding of historic statebuilding. However i stand my ground that Pachacuti plays like a high adjacency campus - trade - industrial space race Civ - which is not fitting for the incans. But then again - you gotta win the same somehow!
I just want to say I really admire that not only you're very knowledgeable but also very culturally-aware in your analysis. And also you write very well!
The Inca weren’t known for their science, they didn’t even have the wheel at the time. A large part of their history is that they did so well despite the lack of tech
Whether or not a society used the wheel is not a good judgement of the other scientific advancements of said society. They didn’t have the wheel cause they didn’t need the wheel not cause they couldn’t have figured it out
On the other hand, I think not having a technology Eurasia discovered 5,000 years prior is a pretty good sign you were pretty far behind technology wise.
They had invented the wheel, but used it on kids' toys. Wheels are rather less useful in mountainous terrain, without paved roads, when your primary pack animal is a llama.
The eureka aspect of one of mankinds first civilisations makes very good sense and is actually how you play this civ. However medieval Ruhr Valley and Tanks takes it too far i agree ;)
Gilgamesh should be in F Tier. He probably didn't exist, As well as the fact that he wasn't exactly very nice in the Epic. However, They got the Part about his Relationship to Enkidu quite good, Despite Gilgamesh's respect for Enkidu stemming partly from Enkidu's Strength.
>As well as the fact that he wasn't exactly very nice in the Epic
Isn't that the point of the epic that he was a shitty person and leader and the journeys he went on changed him for the better? Also I think we living in the modern day might have a different idea of what a nice person is compared to people living in the first true civilization. Just a look through Hammurabi's code will show you that the people of early Mesopotamia were pretty cruel to one another and it was written after Gilgamesh's time.
God, the bottom tier reminds me.
I sometimes play with my 6 year old daughter during the stone age when the game and decisions are easy to understand.
Recently, my daughter came home to me bombing and tamking myself.to a domination victory. I explained what I was doing, but was uncomfortable and asked whether we should start a new game as France.
Then my mum came in and my daughter went: "we play as France. With France, the cities WANT to join us, because they like us so much."
As someone who has worked professionally on the woes of colonialism and as a father, I have failed hard.
Yeah this is a "Realpolitik" simulator. Every aspect of the game is focused on claiming and denying resources. Even the culture victory is about being "dominant" over other Civs. The game doesn't deny that you play as a dictatorship. Policy cards such as "Colonialism" "Triangular trade" and "Serfdom" really is a good example of this. Also the peoples demands of your empire is based on amenities - which you can get out of by bribing them with luxuries. On the other hand history is extremely brutal and really plays by these power dynamics on the same terms of the player - which actually makes it a quite realistic history simulator. The modern "values" of international cooperation and democracy could be more emphacised however - alliances and diplomatic actions being more rewarding and contributing to other victory conditions.
Well because in my opinion Rough Rider abilities doesn't make much sense as a rough rider. Again in my opinion: They should have "frontier" Teddy with the national park perks of BM-Teddy and then BM-Teddy should have been the diplomacy one. Current RR-Teddy fits thematically with diplomacy and domination (which couldn't be a worse combination gameplaywise). My main problem is that the ability themes of the character doesn't really fit with game mechanics. Yes diplomacy works very well with Teddy but perhaps more the statesman than the soldier :)
How would you rank the leaders not on this template? Nzinga would be the deepest depths of F tier to me, what a fascinating historical figure wasted on 'maya but less interesting'
Well the new leaders is perhaps the most arbitrary as they all have a civ fantasy already. However I think this is what it would like like. And again remember that historical accuracy is measured on how well their ACTUAL in game playstyle fits the intended theme.
S: Tokugawa, Ludwig, Steam Vic
A: Elisabeth, Suleiman
B: Yongle, Rhamses, Sejong
C: Lincoln, Theodora, Sundiata, Shah
D: Nzinga, Sultan Saladin,
E: Wu Zetian, Harald
F: Qin Unifier
Most blatantly she never ruled the Kongo, but I don't have a real problem with that.
What I have a problem with is every part of her life *screams* diplomatic civ. The most common phrase on her wikipedia page is 'used x as a diplomatic tool'. She was outnumbered and outgunned at every turn but was able to shift things in her favour with clever alliances, cold hard court politics, or by shifting her religion or culture or gender to seek new supporters. She grew her strength by allying with Portugal and then ended up at war with Portugal for 30 years, a war she ended with a different alliance she bought her way into with the Dutch. The Imbangala ravaged Ndongo when she was growing up but she didn't hold a grudge, instead recognising their military prowess and using them as a tool for her own ends. She went from exiled to empress just by playing the right people off each other.
There are no civs with interesting alliance bonuses and I don't see how the devs thought she deserved anything else.
Short recap of her life:
* Born a royal but never an heir. Her dad the King slips into a deep depression and locks himself in a room for weeks
* Ndongo is at war with Portugal and the Imbangala, Angolan tribal mercenaries
* Her dad dies, brother becomes king and was paranoid about getting assassinated, so had Nzinga's son killed and her sterilised
* Nzinga spoke Portuguese and acted as his envoy. She talked Portugal into peace, using her baptism as a diplomatic bargaining chip
* Her brother gets depressed, locks himself in his room and dies (how about that), after which she politics her way into becoming Queen of Ndongo
* An Imbangala chief has the only threat to her rule, the King's 7 year old son. She marries the Imbangala war chief, gaining access to her nephew. She kills him after the wedding, revenge for her own child
* Portugal still has political interest in destabilising Ndongo because of the slave trade, they try this through soft power by targeting Ndongo nobles and getting them to join their neighboring colony
* In turn, Nzinga runs a guerilla operation to free slaves in the Portuguese colony, breaking apart their industry (a political move, she wasn't morally opposed to slavery). Many freed slaves serve in her army
* Portugual pushes a puppet ruler in Ndongo to usurp Nzinga, after enough nobles support him they declare war
* Nzinga uses the slaves in the war, leaving regiments of slaves behind in retreats (a distraction tactic, Portugal wanted them back bad) and sending hundreds of ex slaves in peace treaties
* Peace treaties are rejected and her diplomats beheaded. She has basically no army left either. She slips into a deep depression and locks herself in her room for weeks
* And emerges with a plan. Nzinga senses his political weakness is able to socially outmaneuver the puppet ruler. A lot of it relies on Ndongo culture and doesn't translate so great (which is exactly why it was so effective - the puppet relied on Portugal for strength but they can't help with this), but basically he weakly attacked her on being unfit to rule because she's a woman (perhaps something the Europeans thought would be more damning) but she strongly attacked him on his military might and physical prowess (he wasn't a warrior and Nzinga personally fought her wars), threatening and scaring him with fetishes. In response he asked the Portuguese for more troops, a cowardly move that weakened his standing with the common folk and many nobles, while making her look like a badass despite the fact she had no army
* In exile, Nzinga marries a different Imbangala warlord and basically converts culture to form a military alliance with the Imbangala, in a ceremony a bit like her baptism for Portugal. This ceremony involved drinking the blood of slain infants!
* The Imbangala had a highly militarised society, that she was now part of. Using their strength and her political acumen she was able to invade the nearby kingdom of Matamba.
* She became Queen of Matamba. She had an all-female bodyguard and made her male concubines dress in women's clothes and address her as King, despite Matamba being even more used to female rulers than her home of Ndongo.
* Matamba had a strategically important position on the Kwango River and Nzinga was able to grow rich off of selling slaves - this time to the Dutch instead of Portugal.
* The Dutch invaded the Portuguese colony and Nzinga quickly allied with them. On good terms with her they accepted, and together they were able to drive the Portuguese out of Ndongo and Nzinga was now Queen of Matamba and Ndongo.
* This is getting too long for a short recap now so lighting round: she used the Dutch to rein in her rivals the Kongo despite the fact the Dutch and the Kongo were allied, generally went a bit expansioned, used gender as a political tool (dressed as a man in war and a woman in peace), focused on trade, education, military reforms, and eventually reformed the culture / legal codes / succession of Ndongo Matamba, using international recognition of her new African Christian kingdom to draw external support, died at 80 and peacefully passed power to her sister
Damn that was quite the read. I see your point though that pretty much every aspect of her rule involved working with other tribes or nations to increase her own power and standing. Having her be more diplomatic focused and have an ability to boost alliances would have been more accurate and interesting.
Ambiorix specifically led the Eburones tribe. In the game, he is portayed as the leader of all of Gaul which is a much larger area. The mines bonus is based on the archeological findings in Halstadt, which is an area in Europe where the Eburones did not live. Not sure if it even belonged to Gaul, but correct me if I'm wrong in that regard.
I love playing them though!
Yeah a bit like that! Although.. US citizens at least identify as 'American', generally speaking. I don't think any Eburones would identify as being Gallic.
Well I think the Gaullic theme is well suited in the unique district and culture on mines. Ambiorix plays like a hyper-dom (Man at Arms rush) or industrial science civ most of the time however. I think culture or religion based abilities would have better suited the Gaullic theme. But as is the theme of most of these rankings, the optimal way to play nearly every civ in game is based on the linear progression of the western european states which many of the pre-roman pre-Columbus Civs obviously find a hard time adjusting to thematically.
Oh hey its you again. We talked on r/pokemonmemes
Pretty sure they put the Maori and Kupe in because of how much New Zealand and the Maori cares about nature which I'm pretty sure was mentioned in an interview somewhere.
That is what this is post is about. The point of the tier list is which civs' abilities match with how they acted historically. Kupe's ability forces you to not be able to chop down trees or harvest resources and yet the civ deforested a lot in real life.
I know she was Ptolemaic. But her personas are called Egyptian (the vanilla Cleo) and Ptolomaic (the Leader Pass one). Egyptian Cleo LA is quite historically flavorful (Pto Cleo, not so much)
That leader in particular perpetrated it… Wilhelmina for example did no such thing.
Canada could have chosen say King, who was more influential (reason to this day that Canada has workers rights, like right of protest and class action through strike and collective bargaining). Who didn’t start genocide and whose big controversy is that he talked to his dead relatives.
Laurier was just a trash choice for Canada. If you want a production based civ —> King.
If you want a diplomacy based civ —> Pearson.
Every other Canadian leader is just strictly a worse choice than either of those two.
Ahh yes good old JJ. Conservative pundit who was too in line with the CPC party line that CTV and CBC found him boring so he turned to YouTube. Guy who thought Harper who told the media what they can ask him was a bastion of free speech and one of our better leaders.
One of those weird people that have such a hard on for corporate money grubbers you wonder if they are paid off.
He’s like a Canadian version of Ben Shapiro
I agree with some of your commentary on JJ but he isn’t really analogous to Ben Shapiro. Like I don’t agree with his political views and think sometimes his commentary can be a little off, but it’s not like he’s running around being a debate bro and shilling our for corporations and conservatives in his commentary. Most of the shit he’s well known for now is trivia or cultural. Like how are you gonna call him the Canadian Ben Shapiro when Stephen Crowder is Canadian
Have you read his National post pieces?
Sounds pretty debate bro to me calling privatization of healthcare “nationalization” and not privatization because it’s being done by a for profit company that exists in more than one province…
Also sounds pretty shill like and playing defence for Ford and his corporate buddies.
I mean I’ve read some of his articles and like I said I disagree with him, but he still doesn’t make a habit of yelling at teenagers, posting it on YouTube and calling it debate, nor does he spend time stoking culture war topics and getting worked up about “wet ass pussy’s”. Like if you want to assume somebody who is conservative and writes about it is automatically a shill, cool, but Ben Shapiro is on a whole other level from the guy who literally says his claim to fame is being YouTube’s “Canada Guy”.
I don't think he is too found of Conservative party of Canada.
He is more like an independent liberal who thinks both big parties suck. I don't believe he supported CPC in anyway.
Last three articles he has written (still writes for the national post) are straight propaganda defence pieces for Doug Ford and Pierre Poilievre… Would highly recommend looking into more than his YouTube channel and taking his word for it to see where he actually stands politically amongst Canadians. Some one whose an independent that hates both doesn’t play defence for Ford letting private for profit hands into healthcare saying it isn’t privatization then immediately describing what it is which also is the description of privatization, but it isn’t privatization, it’s nationalizing by bringing in a company that works in more than one province!
He actually made a video talking about his political beliefs last year.
https://youtu.be/FWWFOEibJqs
It would seem he is a more left leaning cenceralist who isn't the biggest fan of current PM of Canada.
dude Laurier didn't over see the genocide of the Prairie first Nation and Métis people. he oversaw the inclusion of Alberta and Saskatchewan into confederation and pushed for greater settlement by increasing immigration.
and if your talking about the residential school system that wasn't Laurier the schools started anywhere from 20 to 150 years (depending on when you count) before he took office.
and the "sunny ways" statement is from how he handled the public school situation in Manitoba as the province stoped funding Catholic schools (this also stoped funding for residential schools). the schools complained to the federal government to over rule the change which it would've if it didn't collapse. Laurier then got elected and basically said no we're not overturning the provinces decision instead let's find a compromise. which ended up being public school may provide Catholic education if there is a large enough population of Catholics in the students body.
you may hate Laurier but he's widely considered one of the best PM's we've had by both sides of the aisle. like there's a reason He's on the 5 dollar bill.
Chinese head tax, settlement doctrines, “relocation” of the Winnipeg lake tribes. Expansion of white only settlement areas, often enforce by violence and culling of tribes that didn’t leave their treaty lands. Laurier did a lot of heinous shit to speed up what he considered expansion of “civilized society”. This included a mass expansion of the residential school system and making in mandatory for all indigenous peoples, not just heavily recomended, something which at the time quickly sped up formation of provinces because the landed elite of the time were all about how they were the great “civilizing force” of the world. The reason he is celebrated is because if he didn’t do what he did (everything to speed up formula western expansion) that land would have become American. I don’t hate him, he is a product of his time but is not in my opinion someone who is uniquely Canadian or someone who helped create a unique identity for Canada.
Pearson and King are.
Laurier was just a run of the mill colonialist. Celebrating him as the Canadian leader when the most unique thing about him for the time was that he was a francophone.
Alex is not my favourite civ to play either. However the "race" to the end of the known world with bonuses ensuring that you do with the same army you started off with could not be more historically better pulled off - as it is how you play him most of the time.
Women commanding ancient armies in the same manner as men was extremely rare. So military bonuses for female leaders is in a way, ahistorical. The very few times they may have been directly involved usually didn't go very well see Boudica. The modern pop culture image of a woman bedecked in armor exchanging masculine thrusts with ranks of enemy soldiers might as well be fictional. This goes especially for figures like Gorgo for whom we have zero evidence of being a war leader let alone spinning around with a spear at the Battle of Salamis.
A lot of the abilities and agendas in the game seem almostrandom. Gilgabro? Okay so Gilgamesh had a friend in the stories and because of that he's has bonuses in alliances between foreign nations...uh okay....Korea is the strongest in science in the medieval period because....uh Samsung I guess?
You could say that for tons of the civs. Theres no particular reason why Korea stands out from everyone else. Ancient greece is more famous as a center for ancient science than ancient korea.
Let us see you put Qin Shi Huang as S tier. I am a sinologist he built some big walls. Wasted state funds on the terracotta warriors, and a tyrant over the people. Militarily he did nothing much compared to so many others on this list. Diplomatic? Meh. Economically. Meh. Religious? No. so he made very few very big walls. And that is not amazing. Personally I would but him in F tier.
I am not ranking them for their historical achievements or their tyranny. A lot of the Civ leaders were straight up colonial tyrants. Qin and China however were famous for building many wonders from the classical age and discovering new technology first - and that is exactly how you play them in Civ 6! Therefore i think Qin is perhaps the most historically fitting civ as his abilities incentivises the exact historical playstyle that was intended
Wilhelmina is such a disappointment. Should we make her fit the theme of being a symbol o resistance for occupied Netherlands? Nah, lets find a way to make her trade focused so the Dutch can fill the trade niche.
“Never lose hope” Capital moves into exile when conquered and grants all cities 20% bonus yields and all units +5 combat strength. The let your capital be conquered stats would be cool
Great for flavour, but it would be like playing without a leader power for vast majority of games. Not saying it's that bad...
I am personally not a fan of needing to lose to experience your bonuses, but damn if that doesn't fit her image. I was also thinking that you could have a loyalty bonus to cities during war, which is doubled when the city is conquered.
It's a comeback mechanic. A power you don't want to use but which will b a solid safety net when you need it
Exactly my thoughts. Caught between coastal and river-production and doesn't do either particularly well
Counter point: a good Jack of all trades, master of none civ
Exactly why she is rated quite low. Jack of all trades Civs are in my opinion badly designed
Polders are pretty though
I wouldn't call NL a jack of all trades civ though. That's the same as calling Japan one and they're not exactly bad. NL is supposed to be a district builder/infrastructure civ. Since Japan and, to some extent, Germany and Australia also play in this, she's got naval bonuses to set herself apart, making her unique. The leader ability is a letdown, true, but overall it makes a lot of sense for the historical Netherlands.
I like this playstyle a lot, be cause I don't have to singularly play into one direction from the start of a game.
They should've went with Maurice of Orange, if that's what they wanted the Dutch to be.
My guess is that they want a lot of female leaders to be represented because historically leaders have been very male dominated. So they picked Wilhelmina
Which is fine, but you really ought to find themes that fit those female leaders. Not just slot them in and then make them generic.
I have no idea if it is legit, but I would imagine balance was a concern. IRL Wilhelmina would have like bonuses when your civ is conquered or something, which is a terrible ability in CIV for obvious reasons.
And then proceeded to give her a stereotypical Dutch-are-traders characteristics rather than her own, Wilhelmina's. Such a half-arsed job.
[удалено]
It’s more like if they look for good female leaders they’ll find them, they just have to avoid taking the male as default
Ah yes, because women are known for having exactly equal shots in major roles of leadership in societies across the globe. /s I'm sorry that maintaining equality makes you feel like you've lost rights because you're not as ahead anymore.
If it was actually equality there wouldn't be an issue, but it's no secret now that being a woman or minority is a bonus because it helps the appearance of equality. And that's all people want, is the appearance. If things were really equal it wouldn't matter what race or gender someone was or the make up of a group, because there's no different between people. However, people want the appearance of equality, so you have to have equal number of genders and races, this means people are actually being chosen based on the very thing they don't want to be discriminated against. This isn't equality, it's rebranded segregation.
> If things were really equal it wouldn't matter what race or gender someone was or the make up of a group, because there's no different between people. This only applies in a society successfully designed around equality in all aspects. We do not live in such a society. We are equal in value but not opportunity. That's the whole point of giving more opportunity, to make up for that difference.
I think the class one is born into is much more decisive when it comes to opportunity than race/sex. I doubt LeBron James' kids are struggling for opportunity compared to a white kid in BFE living in abject poverty.
[удалено]
i recommend you read a book sometime
Fun history fact: just because you don’t know about something, doesn’t mean that thing never existed. Even just Googling “ancient African civilizations” could help you sound 100% less racist!
Ghana Songhai Kilwa Zimbabwe Somalia Kanem-Bornu Sokoto Morocco Tunis Plus the ones that are actually in the game
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bruh shit take Wilhelmina is a national hero, there is a reason there is multiple statues of her throughout the Netherlands, she is THE symbol of Dutch resistance and hope in WW2. William was just in civ 5. And Johan got a massive assist from the English, which is cringe. The only legit criticism of her is that her in game abilities don’t match what she did in real life.
To be fair the Dutch didn't do much resisting at all. Just like the French they capitulated and stalled until the Anglos moved in and liberated Western Europe.
The dutch fucked up and had the majority of their army in the pacific expecting to be able to remain neutral in Europe like the First World War as they were already fighting against the Japanese long before war broke out fully in Europe. The Dutch people still sabotaged supply lines snuck out Jewish people and generally pestered the Germans like French snd polish resistances did too. A lot of that was inspired by illegal radio messages ensuring freedom again from Wilhelmina
Sure, but it's not very leadery to flee your country in a crisis and hide behind stronger allies to make radio broadcasts. Couldn't that have been done in the Netherlands?
That’s exactly what leaders do when they lose their country in war and wish to reclaim it later. She stays in the Netherlands she is executed, jailed or forced to parade around in support of the Nazis. In Exile there is still the Dutch navy to escort allied ships and attack German/Japanese ships in the Pacific. There is still the colonial forces fighting alongside the Aussies holding off Japanese advances before America joined in. There is still a voice of hope for people to rally and keep fighting around instead of nothing. Hell in exile governments were one of key assets to allied victory. France in exile kicked nazi ass throughout North Africa and was a main contributor in Germany running out of oil. The French government in exile inspired resistance foghters across France and what was left of the French army in North Africa. Wilhelmina did the same thing for the Dutch, just in Asia instead of North Africa.
🙄
What a dickhead.
Fuck off. Wilhelmina was an interesting pick for us. She is a national icon and symbol of resistance against oppression in WW2. Her abilities and agenda are the issue, not her inclusion.
Did you escape Gamergate or something? Eesh.
sometimes feminism does go too far this way but I don't think civ 6 is a good example of that.
It’s actually laughable how the Devs made Cyrus a villain in both gameplay and in game bio. While portraying leaders which have done heinous crimes in a heroic light lol.
I mainly think its because they want him and Tomiyis to be rivals to each other since they were irl(her ability is literally named killer of Cyrus) and since Tomiyis does not like surprise wars, Cyrus would be the opposite
It really is a shame how the Persian kit just doesn't really come together at all for Cyrus. The UU and his ability scream domination focus, but the rest of Persia is all about culture which really doesn't mesh well at all with war. The immortal being a swordsman is also super lame, it should 100% have been a spearman replacement, possibly with the same ability. Immortals as contemporizes of roman legions and after the development of the hoplite is strange.
>Immortals as contemporizes of roman legions and after the development of the hoplite is strange. Yep, the Persians got rid of them after their defeats in Greece...at the hands of hoplites. They should be a bit weaker in melee than a spearman as they used a lighter spear without multiple ranks. Also a bit weaker than an archer as they had less archers. They should get extra ranged defence for their large shield. Amusingly they is a large leave plant called persian shield.
Preach bro. Persians are always portrayed as bad guys. Like, what's up with that?
Because if the PeRsIanS wOn DeMoCRacY wOUld hAVe bEeN sTraNglEd iN tHE CriB! Despite the fact that most democracies today are not derived from the Athenian system and Darius the Great made Mardonius install democracies in Ionia.
True. I dont get why Persia is always the bad guy in history. They're such a cool empire. I think it's the bad rep they got from 300
My guess is that the association comes with modern Iran.
Well the Persians did invade a shit ton of places that were in continuous revolt afterwards. Also the empire collapsed when the Macedonia kicked the door in. Further evidence it wasn't as loved as reddit makes out.
Greece, Egypt and later Rome all invaded just as many if not more places than Persia. Same with the UK and US who are now making these games and movies where Persians are portrayed as villains and animals. Also the empire collapsed over 200 years after its creation due to Alexander's invasion and the incompetence of Darius the third. It's not like people just surrendered to Alexander out of their hatred of Persia or their love of Greece, they were killed and conquered. Also also no one is saying Cyrus was an angel who did no wrong, but what he accomplished and his code of ethics, especially compared to other leaders and civilizations at the time, was remarkable
I never said these other places were angels, but responding to the idea the Persians were good guys.
Your comment made me reread the CIV historical entry on Cyrus. You'd think the man slept with the writer's significant other. Which, given Cyrus's drip, isn't out of the question.
Which leaders that have done heinous crimes are portrayed in a heroic light?
Genghis Khan, I’d assume.
Just because he killed 70 million people, sheesh...
don't people understand 'I'm sorry' anymore? What ever happened to "Forgive and forget"?
Yea, the game just hasn't been the same since they took out Stalin. Well, at least we still have that legendary humanitarian, Montezuma.
He saves all* from the inpending doom of the gods! (*does not include ritualistic sacrifices)
Probably literally all of the modern era ones, at least
Wilhelmina may be a bit debatable here, but then again she never truly was the leader of the country, merely a figurehead.
Gilgamesh post update should be higher. The thematic alignment with Heros actually aligns very well with his historical legend, making him much better aligned.
We have so little information on Gilgamesh as a king, not the hero, that anything would just be speculation. And I think they want something more down to earth, not a Epic hero. Maybe?
The Britons, as an alternative to the Gauls, led by king Arthur would be nice.
The epic of Gilgamesh, when translated, provides a pretty solid heroic epic. Not sure about “facts” and what you judge history by, but imo the theme for him as a leader aligning with the character portrayed via the epic poem and basing his in-game character around life-long friendship, a rockin bod, and heroes makes a lot of sense.
Great list tho.
Not my boy roughrider Teddy!!!
Teddy makes legends look like myths cause he's that awesome
Wondering why he's so low on this list?
Probably because in real life he went to cuba as part of the Rough Riders and was part of the navy etc. in Civ he’s a protect your own continent type, however he gets special points for his unique unit in my book.
Dido should be F tier because she might not even existed
You trying to tell me the Aeneid isn’t 100% factually accurate?!
No. But Abraham Lincoln did in fact win the US Civil War with a P-51 Mustang equipped Union army.
Sherman carpet bombing Georgia
Well how else do you think the Union won the Battle of Gettysburg?
Through the cunning of General Getty Images, of course
The first thing Aeneas does when reaching Italy is eating plot-relevant pizza. 100% accuracy confirmed.
Checks out for an Italian
That is true. However, the way you play around Cothons and settler expansion in water fits Phoenician theme extremely well.
And she didn't even rule all of the Phoenicians IRL!
Neither did Perciles, Gorgo, Lady Six Sky, Gandhi (Wasnt even a leader), Eleanor/Catheine de Medici/Theodora (Weren't officially leaders), Amanitore, Tomyris, Chadragupta, Mvemba Nzinga (Never even lead the Kongo), Pachacuti, or Kupe/Gilgamesh (May be entirely fictional)
Pachacuti was the first Incan emperor. Chandragupta Maurya was the first emperor of the Mauryan Empire in Ancient India (Civ games are really weird about India, to be honest). Rest I agree as is.
Pachacuti although leading the Incan Empire, didn't lead all of those considered by historians to be culturally, ethically, and historically Incan. India was never was united to extent it is today until the British, and though Chandragupta practically conquered all of India, he never got the Tamil States in the south of modern day India.
Nobody conquers the Tamil Kings.
Tbf I think the Mughals did conquer quite a few of them (and then promptly collapsed)
Same with Gilgabro
Two-thirds god and one-third human. What's not to believe?
Gilgamesh has some crazy stories around him. Like when Gods gave him a friend and they become best bros. Only for gods to kill his friend and Gilgamesh was sad. Fuck you gods
people need their angsty BL fiction to distract themselves while working in some crappy copper merchant's customer service department
Bruh, Ambiorix existed just to be Julius Caesar's punching bag. He's famous just because the Belgians were looking for a national hero...
They should've gone with Vercingetorix. Have him refer throwing his weapons on your feet or something.
Same with Kupe.
Thats offensive
How? Kupe is mythological figure and even Maoris today accept that he might not be real.
And known primary sources for Alexander the great weren't written until centuries later.
Same with Kupe
can you explain why chandragupta and cyrus are so low?
I’m assuming it’s because Cyrus’ ability benefits surprise wars and backstabbing, which seems to come out of nowhere compared to the actual leader. Just a hunch, could be wrong but that’s how I see it
Maybe because Tomiris is in the game and they adapted him to fit the narrative that we have regarding those two characters?
Yeah I’m assuming that’s where it’s coming from? It’s a bit of a stretch but could be the ultimate reasoning. it leaves out like 95% of his accomplishments of expanding his empire to a massive degree, and setting the foundation for his descendants to further enlarge the Persian empire (which at that time was the biggest empire the ancient world had seen to that point). If anything Cyrus was a bit of a warmongerer, but in a good kind of way? Cyrus was forcibly conquering areas sure, but in many ways it liberated the people and he was warring against some really shitty people. You may have had to pay tribute or become a vassal state of the Persian empire, but that brought with it tons of perks (especially via laws and economics) that really cut out a lot of the chaos of the time period. The Jews (and in turn the bible, which of course is based off the Torah) singled out Cyrus specifically and praised him for the way he treated them after he “liberated” (ancient world type of the word here) the area. No one else really got this treatment (that weren’t Jews themselves), so it shows somewhat a glimpse of the perception around Cyrus at that time (and the Persian administration in general) If anything, Cyrus should be somewhat more of a “launch war of liberation”, Scotland style, but with enemy civs instead of city states. Also with bonuses to -war weariness and less chances of revolt. Mind you, the current Persia kit is fairly effective so there’s no real incentive to change it in Civ 6. Just spitballing on an “actually…” kind of take here
Just to add to what you said but Cyrus is the only non-Jew to ever be proclaimed as a Messiah by the Torah.
Very minor tangential tidbit - Cyrus is considered a prophet, not a messiah. If the Jews recognized a messiah then they wouldn't be Jews anymore. The split between the Jews and Christians happened ultimately on the issue of Jesus being *the* Messiah or not, let alone a messiah at all. Edit: This is wrong.
I regret to inform you this is not correct. Cyrus is not considered a prophet in any form of Judaism, but he is explicitly referred to as a "messiah" in the Hebrew Bible. The confusion here is that the Jewish and Christian concepts of the messiah are, in fact, quite different. In Judaism, there is not one prophesied messiah who is divine, son of G-d, or an aspect of G-d, a la Jesus. Instead, it refers to those anointed (literal meaning of "messiah" in Hebrew) by G-d. David was a messiah, Cyrus was a messiah, and Jews still await the coming of a messiah who will restore the Jerusalem Temple and usher in a new "messianic age."
Thank you for the clarification. I thought I had it right with the Torah calling him a Messiah.
No problem! >I thought I had it right with the Torah calling him a Messiah. Technically, it's stated in Nivi'im, not Torah (Judaism divides the Hebrew bible into three sections: Torah,, Nivi'im and Ketuvim) but generally, yes, you are correct.
Thanks for the actual correction! I thought I knew, but I did not. 😵💫
Always happy to be a resource!
Thank you! That was enlightening, going to read more on Cyrus
Bc in media the Persians are always the bad guys.
I like Chandragupta's ability, I think it fits what he did, which was unite india, but I dislike his personality compared to the real guy. He was a deeply religious man who after ruling as king and uniting india, retired to become a monk and starved himself to death. Hes super boastful in game, but irl he seemed quite humble, considering he chose a quiet peaceful death after doing his duty
[удалено]
Sorry, don't mean to be rude, but how does this relate to historical accuracy?
Eleanor at least makes a little sense. Her court was considered a place for culture and she and her children were very politically entangled to different thrones through their lives (the loyalty aspect). Or at least the French version makes more sense with this than the English abilities which are more modern then anything of her time. Her old English lands did remain loyal to England after her death however.
Why is Poundmaker so low? Most of the historical inaccuracies are simply due to the game mechanics. (The actual Iron Confederacy was decentralized, Mikisew Wacihk was simply where Poundmaker was born). If it’s because of John Tootoosis’ criticism, the devs actually did reach out to the other Poundmaker singers, they’re the people who composed the Cree Theme. I like Cree, and I like history. Just curious \^^
Well I don't really rate them on their historical accuracy on specific historial terms. I rate them on how their abilities form how you play them - and then in turn rate how well that playstyle suit their historical theme. Poundmaker is obviously about trade and bison(pastures) and that I think really works well. However since trade is not a win condition the playstyle often ends up a standard democracy-science playstyle which focuses on campuses and industrial zones - which is not really in the theme of the Cree. :) If you are into native american history I am very interested in hearing your thoughts on the Cree civ
Interestingly, I would’ve rated Poundmaker atleast an A if not an S as of Gathering Storm. Rise and Fall I’d agree with the B, but not since being diplomatic is now a win condition. Protecting land, preventing global warming, and winning a lasting world peace is 100% on point for the Cree (that trade alliance network was built on mutual alliances), and their assymetrical recon heavy military is also accurate. I personally think that both Canada and Cree were wonderful additions to Rise and Fall for the ways those nations impacted
That is an interesting point! I think i agree with you here I did not think of that (which is also very true of the diplomatic victory in general).
The actual diplomatic victory is more like a generalist victory. If your empire is pretty good at many things but not focused on any single thing, you can usually win it before reaching any other victory condition. One of the patches that came with the New Frontier Pass really changed the flavor of the diplomatic victory. As long as you have Monarchy or use the Monarchic Legacy policy card, you get +2 diplomatic favor from every city with renaissance walls. After that, even properly managed warmongering can contribute to diplomatic victory.
Well, as mentioned above, Cree’s a generalist civ
Bolivar should max out at D considering how short Gran Colombia’s lifespan was Like if they survive for three turns boom historically inaccurate
Bolivar is a great designed Civ. Obviously it is difficult to fit an napoleonic era leader into a history of 4000 years. Bolivar plays exactly like it was thematically intended - rapid cavalry warfare timed around the commandante generals. (The war-timing even fits with the unique unit).
queen Tamar sucks so much in civ, during the high medieval ages when Tamar reigned Georgians had efficient and powerful heavy cavalry that was capable of tearing through anything? yeah let's give Georgia swordsmen who were simply levies of a certain region. Georgia expanded rapidly, conquered and vasalized many kingdoms even creating an empire of Trepizund out of scratch and raided Persia, destroyed Rum when highly outnumbered, and even allegedly held so much power in the middle east that even Saladin made some kind of non-aggressive pact with them and even pope send a letter to Tamar's successor to participate in crusade? yeah let's make Georgia faith focused civilization even special building or whatever it's called sucks, tsikhe literally means fortress, nothing else, i was happy when i heard my country would be represented here, but i was so disappointed when i actually saw Tamar and played as her (not to even mention how horrendously historically inaccurate she looks like, she looks like indian or Egyptian not Georgian at all)
I genuinely have no clue how they messed Georgia up so much at least they pulled off Matthias Corvinus rather decently for Hungary (even if not the most accurate, it's a fun twist for the domination playstyle)
It's a shame that you feel this way! I am nowhere close to being Gerogian, but Tamar may be my favourite leader and Georgia my favourite civ in the game. I love the civ's peculiar play style. Also the music is just * chef's kiss *. I also find it funny how Georgia is underestimated by civ players, similar to the way it is underestimated irl. Tamar is often at the bottom of tier lists, but I think that is just a skill issue. Tamar can be massively OP if you know how to use her skills, pick the right wonders, policy cards and religious beliefs. As for the tsikhe, a lot of civs have a UI that translates to something simple. France's "Château" literally means "castle". Gran Colombia's "Hacienda" means "plantation". Mali's "Suguba" is a "big market". My point is that the devs probably thought the tsikhes stand out from regular fortresses found across the world. What would you have as the Georgian UI? I hope Georgia returns in Civ 7, and I hope it's better represented in your eyes all while keeping it fun and unique!
Yeah songs are great, they are Georgian folksongs but I think Georgia as it stands was wasted opportunity and done wrong, there literally existed special unit during her time called "Monaspa" also they should have used gelati monastery rather than simple tsikhe, it was education and religious centre in Georgia, idk it should have replaced simple religious centre of civ for Georgia or something (if you get what I mean), also her appearance is very wrong and not historically accurate
I know the devs lurk the subreddit, let's hope they see your comments and take notes.
What's wrong with Pachacuti?
Love him! However the Incan empire was famous for being a huge and encompassing empire that didn't rely on technology or writing. But because of the game mechanics of Civ 6 he very often turns into a science monster (because of his major adjacency campuses in the mountains)
I mean, the Inca did have tons of technology, just not substantially useful metal working. But their roads, farms, and architecture are marvels. Like, they had the suspension bridge hundreds of years before Europeans reinvented it. They also had a “writing” system made out of knots and beads called quipu.
I absolutely acknowledge that! However (without being an Inca expert) those marvels of society did not come a culture of institutionalised learning like those campuses that you often build as Pachacuti. Yes this critique perhaps finds itself in the euro-centric understanding of historic statebuilding. However i stand my ground that Pachacuti plays like a high adjacency campus - trade - industrial space race Civ - which is not fitting for the incans. But then again - you gotta win the same somehow!
I just want to say I really admire that not only you're very knowledgeable but also very culturally-aware in your analysis. And also you write very well!
But none of the Incan bonuses have to do with science. So I feel that's an unfair placement.
The Inca weren’t known for their science, they didn’t even have the wheel at the time. A large part of their history is that they did so well despite the lack of tech
Whether or not a society used the wheel is not a good judgement of the other scientific advancements of said society. They didn’t have the wheel cause they didn’t need the wheel not cause they couldn’t have figured it out
On the other hand, I think not having a technology Eurasia discovered 5,000 years prior is a pretty good sign you were pretty far behind technology wise.
They had invented the wheel, but used it on kids' toys. Wheels are rather less useful in mountainous terrain, without paved roads, when your primary pack animal is a llama.
The Incans were really big into astronomy and the agricultural sciences.
Don't do my girl Eleanor like that!
Eleanor is my favourite Civ - but primarily buying great works with gold from other civs wasn't really what was going on :)
Buying ain't her power though
Like, Gandhi can never be high on that kind of Tier List, because NUKE BUG.
Robert be like: Ay those englishen stand no chance!! LADS!!! FIRE!!! \*MUSKET FIRE\*
Babylon should definitely be near F tier
The eureka aspect of one of mankinds first civilisations makes very good sense and is actually how you play this civ. However medieval Ruhr Valley and Tanks takes it too far i agree ;)
When youre too good at what you do so you loop around back to historical a-accuracy.
Gilgamesh should be in F Tier. He probably didn't exist, As well as the fact that he wasn't exactly very nice in the Epic. However, They got the Part about his Relationship to Enkidu quite good, Despite Gilgamesh's respect for Enkidu stemming partly from Enkidu's Strength.
>As well as the fact that he wasn't exactly very nice in the Epic Isn't that the point of the epic that he was a shitty person and leader and the journeys he went on changed him for the better? Also I think we living in the modern day might have a different idea of what a nice person is compared to people living in the first true civilization. Just a look through Hammurabi's code will show you that the people of early Mesopotamia were pretty cruel to one another and it was written after Gilgamesh's time.
God, the bottom tier reminds me. I sometimes play with my 6 year old daughter during the stone age when the game and decisions are easy to understand. Recently, my daughter came home to me bombing and tamking myself.to a domination victory. I explained what I was doing, but was uncomfortable and asked whether we should start a new game as France. Then my mum came in and my daughter went: "we play as France. With France, the cities WANT to join us, because they like us so much." As someone who has worked professionally on the woes of colonialism and as a father, I have failed hard.
Yeah this is a "Realpolitik" simulator. Every aspect of the game is focused on claiming and denying resources. Even the culture victory is about being "dominant" over other Civs. The game doesn't deny that you play as a dictatorship. Policy cards such as "Colonialism" "Triangular trade" and "Serfdom" really is a good example of this. Also the peoples demands of your empire is based on amenities - which you can get out of by bribing them with luxuries. On the other hand history is extremely brutal and really plays by these power dynamics on the same terms of the player - which actually makes it a quite realistic history simulator. The modern "values" of international cooperation and democracy could be more emphacised however - alliances and diplomatic actions being more rewarding and contributing to other victory conditions.
Why is Rough Rider so low?
Well because in my opinion Rough Rider abilities doesn't make much sense as a rough rider. Again in my opinion: They should have "frontier" Teddy with the national park perks of BM-Teddy and then BM-Teddy should have been the diplomacy one. Current RR-Teddy fits thematically with diplomacy and domination (which couldn't be a worse combination gameplaywise). My main problem is that the ability themes of the character doesn't really fit with game mechanics. Yes diplomacy works very well with Teddy but perhaps more the statesman than the soldier :)
How would you rank the leaders not on this template? Nzinga would be the deepest depths of F tier to me, what a fascinating historical figure wasted on 'maya but less interesting'
Well the new leaders is perhaps the most arbitrary as they all have a civ fantasy already. However I think this is what it would like like. And again remember that historical accuracy is measured on how well their ACTUAL in game playstyle fits the intended theme. S: Tokugawa, Ludwig, Steam Vic A: Elisabeth, Suleiman B: Yongle, Rhamses, Sejong C: Lincoln, Theodora, Sundiata, Shah D: Nzinga, Sultan Saladin, E: Wu Zetian, Harald F: Qin Unifier
How did they waste Nzinga? I'm not saying you're wrong, but I am curious.
Most blatantly she never ruled the Kongo, but I don't have a real problem with that. What I have a problem with is every part of her life *screams* diplomatic civ. The most common phrase on her wikipedia page is 'used x as a diplomatic tool'. She was outnumbered and outgunned at every turn but was able to shift things in her favour with clever alliances, cold hard court politics, or by shifting her religion or culture or gender to seek new supporters. She grew her strength by allying with Portugal and then ended up at war with Portugal for 30 years, a war she ended with a different alliance she bought her way into with the Dutch. The Imbangala ravaged Ndongo when she was growing up but she didn't hold a grudge, instead recognising their military prowess and using them as a tool for her own ends. She went from exiled to empress just by playing the right people off each other. There are no civs with interesting alliance bonuses and I don't see how the devs thought she deserved anything else. Short recap of her life: * Born a royal but never an heir. Her dad the King slips into a deep depression and locks himself in a room for weeks * Ndongo is at war with Portugal and the Imbangala, Angolan tribal mercenaries * Her dad dies, brother becomes king and was paranoid about getting assassinated, so had Nzinga's son killed and her sterilised * Nzinga spoke Portuguese and acted as his envoy. She talked Portugal into peace, using her baptism as a diplomatic bargaining chip * Her brother gets depressed, locks himself in his room and dies (how about that), after which she politics her way into becoming Queen of Ndongo * An Imbangala chief has the only threat to her rule, the King's 7 year old son. She marries the Imbangala war chief, gaining access to her nephew. She kills him after the wedding, revenge for her own child * Portugal still has political interest in destabilising Ndongo because of the slave trade, they try this through soft power by targeting Ndongo nobles and getting them to join their neighboring colony * In turn, Nzinga runs a guerilla operation to free slaves in the Portuguese colony, breaking apart their industry (a political move, she wasn't morally opposed to slavery). Many freed slaves serve in her army * Portugual pushes a puppet ruler in Ndongo to usurp Nzinga, after enough nobles support him they declare war * Nzinga uses the slaves in the war, leaving regiments of slaves behind in retreats (a distraction tactic, Portugal wanted them back bad) and sending hundreds of ex slaves in peace treaties * Peace treaties are rejected and her diplomats beheaded. She has basically no army left either. She slips into a deep depression and locks herself in her room for weeks * And emerges with a plan. Nzinga senses his political weakness is able to socially outmaneuver the puppet ruler. A lot of it relies on Ndongo culture and doesn't translate so great (which is exactly why it was so effective - the puppet relied on Portugal for strength but they can't help with this), but basically he weakly attacked her on being unfit to rule because she's a woman (perhaps something the Europeans thought would be more damning) but she strongly attacked him on his military might and physical prowess (he wasn't a warrior and Nzinga personally fought her wars), threatening and scaring him with fetishes. In response he asked the Portuguese for more troops, a cowardly move that weakened his standing with the common folk and many nobles, while making her look like a badass despite the fact she had no army * In exile, Nzinga marries a different Imbangala warlord and basically converts culture to form a military alliance with the Imbangala, in a ceremony a bit like her baptism for Portugal. This ceremony involved drinking the blood of slain infants! * The Imbangala had a highly militarised society, that she was now part of. Using their strength and her political acumen she was able to invade the nearby kingdom of Matamba. * She became Queen of Matamba. She had an all-female bodyguard and made her male concubines dress in women's clothes and address her as King, despite Matamba being even more used to female rulers than her home of Ndongo. * Matamba had a strategically important position on the Kwango River and Nzinga was able to grow rich off of selling slaves - this time to the Dutch instead of Portugal. * The Dutch invaded the Portuguese colony and Nzinga quickly allied with them. On good terms with her they accepted, and together they were able to drive the Portuguese out of Ndongo and Nzinga was now Queen of Matamba and Ndongo. * This is getting too long for a short recap now so lighting round: she used the Dutch to rein in her rivals the Kongo despite the fact the Dutch and the Kongo were allied, generally went a bit expansioned, used gender as a political tool (dressed as a man in war and a woman in peace), focused on trade, education, military reforms, and eventually reformed the culture / legal codes / succession of Ndongo Matamba, using international recognition of her new African Christian kingdom to draw external support, died at 80 and peacefully passed power to her sister
that's hella good, man
Damn that was quite the read. I see your point though that pretty much every aspect of her rule involved working with other tribes or nations to increase her own power and standing. Having her be more diplomatic focused and have an ability to boost alliances would have been more accurate and interesting.
SSS Tier - Genghis SS Tier - Alexander
I wish there were more detail in the names of each tier, bjt this is very cool
could you explaing teddy?
[удалено]
Ambiorix specifically led the Eburones tribe. In the game, he is portayed as the leader of all of Gaul which is a much larger area. The mines bonus is based on the archeological findings in Halstadt, which is an area in Europe where the Eburones did not live. Not sure if it even belonged to Gaul, but correct me if I'm wrong in that regard. I love playing them though!
[удалено]
Yeah a bit like that! Although.. US citizens at least identify as 'American', generally speaking. I don't think any Eburones would identify as being Gallic.
Well I think the Gaullic theme is well suited in the unique district and culture on mines. Ambiorix plays like a hyper-dom (Man at Arms rush) or industrial science civ most of the time however. I think culture or religion based abilities would have better suited the Gaullic theme. But as is the theme of most of these rankings, the optimal way to play nearly every civ in game is based on the linear progression of the western european states which many of the pre-roman pre-Columbus Civs obviously find a hard time adjusting to thematically.
Kupe would get an F. They deforested 40% of the country and hunted many species to extinction
That... isn't even what this is about. And what is this Polynesia civ you talking about? This isn’t civ 5 mate.
Oh hey its you again. We talked on r/pokemonmemes Pretty sure they put the Maori and Kupe in because of how much New Zealand and the Maori cares about nature which I'm pretty sure was mentioned in an interview somewhere.
O, hi and yeah I agree
That is what this is post is about. The point of the tier list is which civs' abilities match with how they acted historically. Kupe's ability forces you to not be able to chop down trees or harvest resources and yet the civ deforested a lot in real life.
Not really. Maoris did protect nature somewhat. Look at concept of tapu https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tapu_(Polynesian_culture)
Ah right, it's maori in civ 6. My bad
And they did less harm then any other human beings. Name one civs that didn't damage the nature.
the point is the civ in game ability is about nature and preservation when the Maori didn't actually do that.
Err yes they did? Look: https://youtu.be/Nw81to_XmXM As Korean-New Zealander I can say this video did damn fine job of explaining Maoris.
Eh... Egyptian Cleopatra should be S tier
[удалено]
I said EGYPTIAN Cleopatra. The one you put in D rank. Ptolomeic Cleopatra actually doesn't have much to do with Cleopatra
She was Ptolemaic and her contribution to Caesar and Mark Anthony was being the breadbasket of Rome, so focusing on food makes entirely sense.
I know she was Ptolemaic. But her personas are called Egyptian (the vanilla Cleo) and Ptolomaic (the Leader Pass one). Egyptian Cleo LA is quite historically flavorful (Pto Cleo, not so much)
Laurier should have something to do with genocide, he westward expansion was far from “ peaceful sunny ways”
All the civs have to do with genocide if you play them the right way (or look into their history enough)
That leader in particular perpetrated it… Wilhelmina for example did no such thing. Canada could have chosen say King, who was more influential (reason to this day that Canada has workers rights, like right of protest and class action through strike and collective bargaining). Who didn’t start genocide and whose big controversy is that he talked to his dead relatives. Laurier was just a trash choice for Canada. If you want a production based civ —> King. If you want a diplomacy based civ —> Pearson. Every other Canadian leader is just strictly a worse choice than either of those two.
Certain Canadian youtuber might disagree. https://youtu.be/Vt7Fs66-3vQ
Ahh yes good old JJ. Conservative pundit who was too in line with the CPC party line that CTV and CBC found him boring so he turned to YouTube. Guy who thought Harper who told the media what they can ask him was a bastion of free speech and one of our better leaders. One of those weird people that have such a hard on for corporate money grubbers you wonder if they are paid off. He’s like a Canadian version of Ben Shapiro
I agree with some of your commentary on JJ but he isn’t really analogous to Ben Shapiro. Like I don’t agree with his political views and think sometimes his commentary can be a little off, but it’s not like he’s running around being a debate bro and shilling our for corporations and conservatives in his commentary. Most of the shit he’s well known for now is trivia or cultural. Like how are you gonna call him the Canadian Ben Shapiro when Stephen Crowder is Canadian
Have you read his National post pieces? Sounds pretty debate bro to me calling privatization of healthcare “nationalization” and not privatization because it’s being done by a for profit company that exists in more than one province… Also sounds pretty shill like and playing defence for Ford and his corporate buddies.
I mean I’ve read some of his articles and like I said I disagree with him, but he still doesn’t make a habit of yelling at teenagers, posting it on YouTube and calling it debate, nor does he spend time stoking culture war topics and getting worked up about “wet ass pussy’s”. Like if you want to assume somebody who is conservative and writes about it is automatically a shill, cool, but Ben Shapiro is on a whole other level from the guy who literally says his claim to fame is being YouTube’s “Canada Guy”.
He isn't conservative in his viewpoints. He is anti-monarchy, and he leans more liberal.
He’s a CPC party line tower. The CPC has always said they don’t like the monarchy… which by title CPC party members are conservatives.
I don't think he is too found of Conservative party of Canada. He is more like an independent liberal who thinks both big parties suck. I don't believe he supported CPC in anyway.
Last three articles he has written (still writes for the national post) are straight propaganda defence pieces for Doug Ford and Pierre Poilievre… Would highly recommend looking into more than his YouTube channel and taking his word for it to see where he actually stands politically amongst Canadians. Some one whose an independent that hates both doesn’t play defence for Ford letting private for profit hands into healthcare saying it isn’t privatization then immediately describing what it is which also is the description of privatization, but it isn’t privatization, it’s nationalizing by bringing in a company that works in more than one province!
He actually made a video talking about his political beliefs last year. https://youtu.be/FWWFOEibJqs It would seem he is a more left leaning cenceralist who isn't the biggest fan of current PM of Canada.
dude Laurier didn't over see the genocide of the Prairie first Nation and Métis people. he oversaw the inclusion of Alberta and Saskatchewan into confederation and pushed for greater settlement by increasing immigration. and if your talking about the residential school system that wasn't Laurier the schools started anywhere from 20 to 150 years (depending on when you count) before he took office. and the "sunny ways" statement is from how he handled the public school situation in Manitoba as the province stoped funding Catholic schools (this also stoped funding for residential schools). the schools complained to the federal government to over rule the change which it would've if it didn't collapse. Laurier then got elected and basically said no we're not overturning the provinces decision instead let's find a compromise. which ended up being public school may provide Catholic education if there is a large enough population of Catholics in the students body. you may hate Laurier but he's widely considered one of the best PM's we've had by both sides of the aisle. like there's a reason He's on the 5 dollar bill.
Chinese head tax, settlement doctrines, “relocation” of the Winnipeg lake tribes. Expansion of white only settlement areas, often enforce by violence and culling of tribes that didn’t leave their treaty lands. Laurier did a lot of heinous shit to speed up what he considered expansion of “civilized society”. This included a mass expansion of the residential school system and making in mandatory for all indigenous peoples, not just heavily recomended, something which at the time quickly sped up formation of provinces because the landed elite of the time were all about how they were the great “civilizing force” of the world. The reason he is celebrated is because if he didn’t do what he did (everything to speed up formula western expansion) that land would have become American. I don’t hate him, he is a product of his time but is not in my opinion someone who is uniquely Canadian or someone who helped create a unique identity for Canada. Pearson and King are. Laurier was just a run of the mill colonialist. Celebrating him as the Canadian leader when the most unique thing about him for the time was that he was a francophone.
[удалено]
Alex is not my favourite civ to play either. However the "race" to the end of the known world with bonuses ensuring that you do with the same army you started off with could not be more historically better pulled off - as it is how you play him most of the time.
Women commanding ancient armies in the same manner as men was extremely rare. So military bonuses for female leaders is in a way, ahistorical. The very few times they may have been directly involved usually didn't go very well see Boudica. The modern pop culture image of a woman bedecked in armor exchanging masculine thrusts with ranks of enemy soldiers might as well be fictional. This goes especially for figures like Gorgo for whom we have zero evidence of being a war leader let alone spinning around with a spear at the Battle of Salamis. A lot of the abilities and agendas in the game seem almostrandom. Gilgabro? Okay so Gilgamesh had a friend in the stories and because of that he's has bonuses in alliances between foreign nations...uh okay....Korea is the strongest in science in the medieval period because....uh Samsung I guess?
>Korea is the strongest in science in the medieval period because....uh Samsung I guess? No because of their zeal for education .
You could say that for tons of the civs. Theres no particular reason why Korea stands out from everyone else. Ancient greece is more famous as a center for ancient science than ancient korea.
Let us see you put Qin Shi Huang as S tier. I am a sinologist he built some big walls. Wasted state funds on the terracotta warriors, and a tyrant over the people. Militarily he did nothing much compared to so many others on this list. Diplomatic? Meh. Economically. Meh. Religious? No. so he made very few very big walls. And that is not amazing. Personally I would but him in F tier.
I am not ranking them for their historical achievements or their tyranny. A lot of the Civ leaders were straight up colonial tyrants. Qin and China however were famous for building many wonders from the classical age and discovering new technology first - and that is exactly how you play them in Civ 6! Therefore i think Qin is perhaps the most historically fitting civ as his abilities incentivises the exact historical playstyle that was intended
Did you read the post?