Why isn't Napoleon Bonaparte in the leader pass ?

[koba134]

He has been a obligatory staple of each civ staple, and both France leader in civ 6 are literally whos, it was the perfect occasion to put him in i'm fumin

[Evrach]

He's already in the game as a Great General. It fits him pretty well imho.
I admit french leaders are very bad atm. Nor Catherine nor Eleanore really rule France, but if we get a new one in a later pass, I'd prefer a Louis XIV than a Napoleon.

[colostmy4]

Originally posted by primeinsurrection:

This is true. But doesnt have any effect on my actual message unless just looking for points to argue about. But it does kinda surprise me he is in the game. He wasnt considered a dictator tho, hes considered a warlord.

Warlords can be dictators, and he was a dictator. And it does change your argument because by having Khan they are not being sensitive to the youth as you are explaining it.

[primeinsurrection]

Originally posted by colostmy4:

Originally posted by primeinsurrection:

It seems like for some reason they took out all the violent dictators. We have to protect the kids sensitive emotions now a days and shelter them from reality.

Genghis Khan is in the game, so I think this is not an accurate statement that you have made.

This is true. I did think of that too. But I didnt think it changes the actual message unless just looking for arguing points. It does seem like they do not add those considered to be dictators in the other choices. And it is surprising hes in the game. He was considered more of a warlord than a dictator, but not considered a sweet heart for sure.

[tulle040657]

Other than Civ 5 which Civ games had Napoleon Bonaparte as a leader?

[primeinsurrection]

Originally posted by tulle040657:

Other than Civ 5 which Civ games had Napoleon Bonaparte as a leader?

Didnt the original?

[Evrach]

Napoleon was French leader in Civ 1
Louis XIV and Joan of Arc in Civ 2
Joan of Arc in Civ 3
Louix XIV, Napoleon and De Gaulle were in Civ 4
Napoleon in Civ 5
Catherine and Eleanore in Civ 6

[plaguepenguin]

The civ games are of course games first of all, designed for game play within their own little universe that runs by its own rules. But they are also simulations of real historical development of actual civilizations. Because of the scope -- from 4000 BCE to 2050 CE, and every aspect of civilization from warfare to culture -- of course the simulation cannot follow reality very closely. It's complicated enough even allowing very stylized and simplified simulations of all sorts of things. Asking for realism more tightly bound to actual dynamics of societies (not that we could agree on what those might be!) would make it way too complicated.

To help reconcile the conflict between realistic simulation and playability as a game, they give the player features in the simulation that are intuitive based on knowledge of the real world that the player brings to the game, rather than having to study the civilopedia for a grasp of what to expect. The set of civs and civ leaders the devs put out there is an important feature that helps that intuitive grasp.

If you play as Mongolia, for example, or you start next to Mongolia, you have a general idea of what to expect -- attempts at conquest -- and generally when to expect it -- Medieval to Renaissance. Of course the careful game player should consult the civilopedia to learn exactly how that stereotype is going to work out within the game mechanics, but the stereotype gives you an immediate intuitive understanding on what to expect if Mongolia is your neighbor, and what to plan to exploit if you are yourself playing as Mongolia.

The leaders allow some fine tuning of the intuitive expectations a player has of different civs. If France is led by Napoleon you know to expect a focus on conquest, but if it's Louis XIV, then you expect more of a balance among war, culture, science, and trade.

The early versions of the game pretty closely followed this principle of choosing civs and leaders well known to Anglophone or perhaps more widely European players. But as we get to later versions other principles start to push in.

Part of the increasingly diverse sets of civs and leaders is simply driven by the need for more variety purely in game play terms. Very few of us had heard of the Mapuche and Lautaro before 6 introduced them, but for game play purposes there is a potential niche for a civ and leader who punishes rivals who are doing too well, who are in a golden age, so, sure, bring in Lautaro. There's no automatic intuitive grasp for many of us from knowledge of history, but the role of that civ and leader is a readily understandable stereotype of the leveler, the nemesis of civs that are doing too well. They need to work on making especially the AI version of the Mapuche better at that job, but it does make for a different sort of game play.

Lautaro and the Mapuche is just an extreme example. Having Teddy as the leader of the old familiar US creates a whole new game play approach. The player perhaps has to put in a bit more effort understanding how his set of uniques works, but both from history and from a basic look at his uniques, you get some intuitive grasp of what to expect or exploit. The Khmer in 6, to choose another example, also have uniques that give them a bundle of advantages that create game play opportunities we haven't really seen before.

Of course as the player base expanded beyond the US and Europe, there was an impetus to represent in civs and leaders the expanded fan base, in order to expand sales. You hear Anglo and Europeans, and males, express discomfort with too many women as leaders, and too many non-European civs, despite male leaders and European civs still being massively over-represented (Just try playing an all-civs included TSL map as a civ that true starts in Europe). Obviously non-male non-Europeans are going to have similar discomfort, only more justified by reality. The folks who develop and publish this series of games have to make enough money to put out the next version, and if increasing sales to that majority of us who are not male or European helps their bottom line, even those of us who are European and male should be happy. There are plenty of things they could do to try to increase their bottom line that don't help civ players (like vain attempts to compete with the XCOM series, or games with zombies!), but wider representation of civs and leaders is both good for diversity of game play, and good in reality.

Of course, familiarity and intuitive grasp work both ways, towards easier understanding and towards easier misunderstanding. The uniques any civ or leader are given can only represent a very limited stereotype, one that was probably never really dominant in that civ, and certainly not even very important except perhaps in one era. If they put out civs with recent leaders the folks who run this game are sure to entangle it in all sorts of crosscurrents of ugly stereotypes. Napoleon died two centuries ago, but even his candidacy to be a leader still provokes the repetition of British propaganda of that era. Give it another two centuries before you put in Hitler as a leader of Germany, or a Jewish or Hebrew state, and maybe including them will not lead to much worse and much uglier stereotypical associations for this game than controversy over Napoleon's political legitimacy as leader of France.

[MFX_Media]

Stop crying and create a leader mod.

[Evrach]

There's already a good Napoleon mod.

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1481522625&searchtext=napoleon

[olElLI]

Gedemo? What a nerd

[MFX_Media]

Originally posted by olElLI:

Gedemo? What a nerd :D:

What a DADDY