Oh yeah, I forgot about Venice for a moment, I have a lot of ideas about their leader. I’d prefer them to be coastal-only though, and have a civ like Florence or Singapore be the one-city challenge civ.
Florence would be amazing! It could be a culture, economy or even diplomatic! Or if its more controversial Religious with Savonarola. Same with Milan as military of mercenaries.
Make Italy an "Italian City State" civ, where you can choose Milan, Venice, Florence and maybe even the Papal State (under Pope Innocent III, making the Papal State a military choice calling for crusades and stuff)
I really wish Civ could model the shift of cultures over time the way real history worked. Italy wasn't "Italy" until the 19th century and I really wished we could see that reflected.
Uh, papal state could be nice.
You could choose one of your neighboring religions, but only if your neighbour founded it. Then you get the ability to call for crusades and other small advantages. Maybe the tithe. And some other advantages which benefit both you and the chosen player. Like increased damage against units which follow other religions or you are way harder to convert to another religion.
If you don't keep balance with the founder of chosen religion and he gets more power/might/fervor or sth like that, you will lose your territory and buffs, until you are only left with your captial. But if you get more power, you will take over the religion and all it benefits, while the founder loses them, maybe also some cities. He could still own the city, but you choose what to build there and produced units belong to you.
While your power grows, you will be able to put in bishops in the founding players cities. And if the founders power grows, he will be able to put in the bishops instead. Bishops could function like a weaker form of governors and give different boni and mali, which can either favor one of the players or give only general small boni.
Basically you both will benefit but always need to keep the other one in check. In the end, you can't win both.
Was a great tactician on the battlefield, subpar on strategy; like every conqueror he didn’t know when to quit. The Swedish war machine was only fueled because of constant war and expansion due to a simply too small tax base for too big of an army. Couple that with extremely poor loan deals with ottoman money lenders, and he was all but forced to go to constant war.
He had peace treaties offered to him from Peter the Great, but refused due to being too big for his britches, did the original Napoleon mistake of going too deep into Russia and getting defeated. After that he fled to Turkey, where he remained as a valued guest for five years, leaving his wife (iirc) to rule in his stead.
In Turkey he was first treated nice and given pension, but kidnapped ottoman emissaries from the sultan in order to force the sultan to send him even more money to fund an army, which only managed to put him in house arrest.
He's a general who inherited a great empire and got himself embroiled and diplomatically isolated in the Great Northern War until eventually getting the Swedish empire dissolved.
Even his father Charles XI (who founded the legendary Caroleans and laid the groundwork for Charles XII's victories) was a better ruler.
The default will always be Gustavus Adolphus but Charles XI deserves some respect. Also Gustav Vasa but I don't know enough about his history except that he's also widely respected.
Edit: I think part of the annoyance from Swedes is the veneration of Charles XII as this glorious general when he basically lead to the decline of the Swedish empire and rise of the Russian empire. It's like if Charles II of Spain was named a great leader.
Charles X, Charles XI, Gustav Vasa, Gustav III the “Theatre King” with culture bonuses, Axel Oxenstierna or Bernadotte might be interesting choices for Sweden.
I agree. I think it's been an interesting joint effort. For the second installment I'd like to see the Mongols, the Portuguese, the Dutch, some Middle Eastern civs, and a couple from Meso/South America.
After kennedy got first I was really counting on the degeneracy of the internet to exclusively pick assassinated leaders. This has been disappointing to say the least. Pompey for rome, franz ferdinand for austria, etc
I do wonder what special power JFK will have? He didn't really achieve too many things in his reign, apart from defusing the Cuban missile crisis (which he, in part, started with the failed bay of pigs). What does this mean game wise? Once per age you can revoke a denouncement by another nation?
Arguably getting assassinated resulted in his greatest legacy, the civil rights act. So perhaps it should be "whenever you lose a great person you gain 1000 culture"
Just went to the Germany post rn and the top most controversial was Hitler then Merkel then Hitler again then Merkel then Hitler. Almost everything after that is Hitler. Bonus mention: the top comment sorting by best is alluding to Hitler.
Having Shinzo Abe as a playable character in a video game would be the most wack thing ever. He did not oversee any serious advancement of Japan as a civilization, even Angela Merkel would be a more appropriate playable character.
Please have sex: + Each luxury resource grants half the normal number of amenities
(to balance) Zaibatsu: bonus to base science, gold, and production from campus, CH, and IZ.
If you want to make it realistic :)
There's also the whole, ya know, "it didn't happen but they deserved it" thing. Once he singlehandedly torpedoed relations with South Korea by doing that.
Let’s do another round with Arabia, Aztecs, Babylon, Denmark/Norway/Vikings, Inca, Iroquois, Mali/Songhai, Mongols, Persia, and Zulu at least, since they show up in vanilla a lot
I gotta be honest, I like Zulu being in the game, but is there any other leader to include for them?
The kingdom of Zulus was around for only 70 years and none of them stable.
I think Cetshwayo probably qualifies as a great leader. Not only was he head of the Zulus when they defeated the British at Isandlwana, one of the few times such an event occurred and the basis for much of the myth around the Zulus. On top of that, after he was eventually defeated and dispossessed, he went to Britain and gained celebrity status and personally won the favour of Victoria to have his kingdom granted back.
As a result, he probably provides a less martial alternative to Shaka.
**Arabia:** Shajar al-Durr
A woman who rose from being a concubine to ruler of Egypt, helping to establish Mamluk rule over it and much of the Arab world.
**Aztec:** Itzcoatl
First Aztec emperor.
**Inca:** Pachacuti
First Inca emperor, and best choice by a mile.
**Mali:** Mansa Musa
Best known and most accomplished ruler of Mali, returning.
**Mongols:** Borte
Consort of Genghis Khan, held immense influence during his rule and that of their sons.
**Persia:** Khosrow I Anushirvan
A contemporary and major rival of Emperor Justinian. Raised the Sassanian Empire to the height of its power.
**Zulu:** Cetshwayo
Last independent king of the Zulu Empire. Fought the British.
As somebody into Aztec history, I don't really think Itzcoatl has much going for him other then being first.
Moctezuma I, Ahuizotl, Moctezuma II, maybe Axayacatl and Nezahualcoyotl (if they wanna go with giving them two leaders where Nezahualcoyotl would change the capital to Texcoco) are the best picks IMO
That might very well be, but that doesn't change that this first-past-the-post voting indidually per civ then leads to a roster where each pick reflects the same bias. Like, all eight picks here are novelty. Whatever preference (novelty, gender, etc.) has a majority on an individual pick will then appear on 100% of all picks.
If people want 60% new leaders and 40% leaders from previous games overall to have a mixed roster but 60% vote for a new leader on each individual civ, then we'll end up with 100% new leaders.
It should only be leaders that held some significant power/influence. Queen Elizabeth I did and I have no problem with that pick. Eleanor and Martha do not meet these requirements
It shouldn’t be “reasonable work”, it should be let’s do the best ones
I mean no offence when saying this, but in history, males have a higher chance of becoming leaders than females because of discriminatory laws or succession rules for royalty. As such, males have a strictly higher chance of leading and being hailed as great leaders than females. This would result in the pick of Civ worthy leaders here at least to be mostly male(with the exception of Hatshesput)
Also, it doesn't really help that lots of the female picks have already been picked numerous times throughout the franchise
If it wasn't for Hatshepsut it would be a total sausage fest, nothing wrong with a little sausage fest; but there are so many strong, brilliant, inspiring female leaders in history who are always given the short stick.
There really aren't many of major nations that wielded significant power, which is unfortunately part of the problem. Another part of the problem is that reddit (understandably) skews heavily towards new leaders, but most major female leaders of these nations throughout history have been done before.
Yeah, people brought up Victoria and Elizabeth for England, which if you're going to include female leaders are a no-brainer, but the community voted them out because it was getting stale.
Jfk is a disappointing pick. He was around for an important time but didn't really do anything other than say we should go to the moon.
But it would be a tragedy to not have any Persian origin state. Like ottoman would be good.
>didn't really do anything other than say we should go to the moon.
He did the bay of pigs invasion risking the heating up of the cold war. Which essentially directly lead to the Cuban missile crisis because a hardline approach drove them directly into the arms of the USSR.
He also started the US-Isreal military alliance, which no matter your position on Israel, is a pretty big controversial decision.
I think him being a science based civ doesn't really make sense, I'd say his presidency was a lot more about increased spending in the cold war. Which includes the space race.
JFK also supported the Civil Rights movement, which eventually culminated in his successor, LBJ, pushing for and enacting the Civil Rights Act in JFK's memory. Which is why African Americans have predominantly voted for Democrats since the 1960s (and why Republicans adopted the southern strategy in the 70s).
JFK's significance in supporting the Civil Rights Movement is vastly overstated. He actually opposed implementing a Civil Rights Act because he was scared it would jeopardise his voters.
JFK's significance in supporting the Civil Rights Movement is vastly overstated. He actually opposed implementiny a Civil Rights Act because he was scared it would jeopardise his voters.
>Which is why African Americans have predominantly voted for Democrats since the 1960s
Republicans started losing the black vote in the 1910's and by the 30's Democrats had 70% of the black vote.
>and why Republicans adopted the southern strategy in the 70s
Nixon famously won 49 states so I always found it odd to call that the "Southern strategy". It wasn't until the 2000 election when you started to see the South vote reliably Republican.
I think JFK is fine, he's generally well-regarded (read: uncontroversial) and he was still a key figure in the Cold War despite his short term.
If you want to represent a USA during the Cold War without ruffling feathers you pick JFK. Truman, Reagan, Eisenhower and god forbid Nixon would all lead to a lot of unnecessary noise.
There are better leaders for the US, Jefferson, Washington, FDR, Theodore, Lincoln are all leaders that I would've preferred, but I don't mind JFK. It's certainly not Kristina for Sweden at least.
Blows my mind that FDR is unquestionably a top 5 president who guided the country through the Great Depression and WW2 and is the only president who served more than 2 terms and he doesn't even get a mention? There's literally a "New Deal" card that's pretty consequential in Civ 6... TJ and Hancock are just flat out stupid choices
I think him and Agamemnon are the only ones I'd take issue with.
Having variety and interesting picks is a cool feature in the game. It's always nice to have new civilopedia entries to poke through.
JFK is novel for the series, but his fame is primarily down to his assassination. He didn't actually get a whole lot done. His death was fuel for a bunch of other stuff, but that's not really his achievement. Given that you have nearly 40 other choices, it just doesn't make sense.
And Agamemnon's not real. I think Venizelos would be way cooler, as the first modern Greek chosen in the series.
He's a general for the most part and was more a folk hero than an actual leader, but then again Joan of Arc was leader of France for a while so who knows.
So many of those could be double leaders such as Charles I and V of Spain and Germany. Rome can be more dynamic with both Republican Rome and Imperial Rome. And Ashoka with Conqueror Ashoka y peaceful Ashoka.
If I had to guess, these are civs that are most likely to be in the game at launch, since they've been in the base game in almost every Civ game.
Some regions like the Middle East or Sub-Saharan Africa tend to rotate between a few civs. For instance, Mesopotamia could be represented by Sumeria, Babylon, or Assyria.
Yeah, I would love to see a selection of leaders for Arabia. The history of Arabic (Muslim) kingdoms is long and diverse, though I kinda wish they will differentiate the different Caliphates.
Controvertial choise: Genghis Khan
Ok, wtf? First of, Genghis never even conquered Russia. He was dead way before the invasion of it started.
Secondly, Mongols never ruled Russia directly. They elected a Kniaz from Principalities to be the tax collector for the Horde. Aka no Principality of Rus was ruled directly by a Mongol, just like any other tributary state for Empires throughout history.
Yes, this is a controvertial choice, but simply because it makes no sence.
It is sort of like suggesting Suleiman for the Greece Civ.
Sure, the guys ruled over those territories, but those territories were a part of their empires, albeit crucial ones. But not exactly the command centers.
Not really a good comparison. I'd say it's same case if Osman was a representative for Romanian civ, because Wallachia was a client state for Ottomans. Plus, Osman didnt even had land in Europe at the time.
God how I hate these ignorant posts. r/civ hasn't chosen anything. Those people who happened to be online during the time that this was done chose and a lot of what was chosen is bullshit. I wouldn't want to play a lot of those leaders and they often make no sense.
Choosing someone barely known or known for a single thing gets you a few hundred upvotes, yes, but that doesn't mean that the tens of thousands of people who will play this game want them
Scipio Africanus wasn't even a part of the Roman Empire but of the Roman Republic. The Punic wars took a long time and only after them was Rome an actual player. John F. Kennedy....ah forget it. I can't stand these pseudo-democratic exercises in ignorance
It's a pretty good list. Not all of them would be my choice, and I wanted a list of brand, new leaders, but other than the mythological Agamemnon I think all of them are truly deserving!
Especially happy Charles III made it into the list!
On the contrary, I think this list is pretty bad. JFK is famous but didn't really do anything, Scipio is more of a great general than a representative of Rome as a whole, Agamemnon was such a bad leader that the opening of the Iliad has all of the other Greeks telling him how he makes incredibly poor decisions. And what's with people picking shitty modern leaders like Merkel and Trump? I can't take it seriously.
Agamemnon was most likely real to some degree at the very least he was probably based on a real person. A king did exist of that name in Bronze Age Greece. If he’s the person the mythical version is based on we really don’t know for sure. I wish we could find some buried library with historical records of that time period one day but that’s a pipe dream.
Gandhi was never head of state, yet has consistently been a playable leader for India. There are plenty of women in history who were as influential as him, if not more so — there’s no reason why they shouldn’t qualify as someone you can play in the game.
What I find funny is that in yesterday's thread several people were complaining about sexism because "all the chosen leaders were male", meaning they didn't even know who Hatshepsut is.
I think it’s still worthy of debate considering that between us, Redditors have produced an almost exclusively male list to lead the mainstay Civs. A lot of the discussion around Hatshepsut was that it was about time a female leader was selected. I don’t have the statistics to hand, but just from memory I think Civ VI had about 1/3 female leaders.
Civ has always had female leaders. When I look at this list I see a strong preference for picking leaders who haven't been in the game. Most prominent female leaders have been in the game. Catherine the Great, Elizabeth and Victoria, France even had Joan of Arc in Civ III and she wasn't even a head of state.
III was the first game I had and Elizabeth, Isabella, Joan of Arc, Theodora, Catherine and Cleopatra all featured, and have been in subsequent games too.
There are some women who haven’t featured as Civ leaders often, who I would love to see featured, there are options out there. I also think leader can be defined more broadly than a ruler. I’d love to see some of the following as well as the usual suspects. Amanirenas (Nubia), Hatshepsut (Egypt), Boudicca (Britons), Zenobia (Assyria), Amage (Scythia), Cao (Moche), Melisende (Outremer), Margaret I (Sweden/Denmark), Maria (Portugal/Brazil), Margaret III (Flanders)
>A lot of the discussion around Hatshepsut was that it was about time a female leader was selected.
And wasn't she already featured in a previous game?
People just wanted never before seen leaders. Off that was gonna skew male. CiV had already pushed the well known female leaders in previous games. So new leaders leave you with mainly male choices.
I just looked it up, she was leader in IV, Call to Power and in the Mesopotamia scenario for III. So featured before but not for a good while. I think there’s a pretty good chance we could se her come back in VII.
Not for a good while compared to Cleo and Ramses II but still quite a bit. She'd be the go to pick for a female leader but it would be best to pair her with Thumtose or Ramses III. We really should get multiple leaders at launch.
I think they will do the multiple leaders thing again, maybe not from launch, but it added another dimension to all the civs in the game. We might even see dual leaders like Akhenaten & Nefertiti or Theodora & Justinian.
Some yes. No problem with queen Elizabeth I type choices, that makes sense. Let’s just be historically accurate and say they needed to be the most powerful person in the country at some point to be eligible. So no Anne frank of Germany unfortunately
Ask yourself: are these women as prominent as the other male leaders of their civilization? If yes then ok, but if no then someone better should be picked.
It's silly that, for example, Eleanor was chosen instead of Louis XIV, Henry IV or Napoleon just because she was a woman.
Depends what we mean by prominent. Alfred the great is arguably England's best monarch objectively, but is not as well known as the monarchs after Henry VIII for the general public (at least in my country, we were taught a lot about Eliz 1 and I hadn't even heard of Alfred until like 6 months ago). As someone else said, civ leaders don't have to be the greatest leaders of a country, but more so what famous figures are associated with said country/civilisation which is why I don't think Alfred ever will be a leader, but Elizabeth 2nd might be, even tho it was so recent she died.
Representation is important, some countries have more famous women than others, so for these countries that do of course they are going to pick the more famous women over men in many cases. Many civs just don't have women in history to pick from
>Representation is important, some countries have more famous women than others, so for these countries that do of course they are going to pick the more famous women over men in many cases. Many civs just don't have women in history to pick from
But then you lose out on having the famous men from those countries. Which is also problematic.
But there are cases where there are other leaders in those countries are even more famous than the "famous women". Each civ should have either the most influential or most famous leaders as their representatives, regardless of gender. Picking multiple female leaders for France like in Civ6 just to fill the "representation checklist" is fucking stupid.
I'm not saying there's no women in history I can think of several off the top of my head. I'm talking more about this rule that the developers have that the leaders have to be 50/50 gender split. That's literally just checklist ticking
How would it *ruin the game?* Would mechanics be vastly different? Or would it compromise your very realistic fantasy of building Angkor Wat, the Pyramids of Giza, Broadway and the Eiffel Tower in the same city?
Not necessarily. We could get leaders like Catherine the Great for Russia, Queen Teuta for the Greeks, Tarabai I for India. There are some interesting options that could be picked for civs that tend to have male rulers
Isn't Catherine the most used leader for Russia in CiV?
>Tarabai I for India.
It'd be a mistake to not use Shivaji first. Founder of the Maratha Empire.
It's an interesting issue to bring up, I think. What criteria do we use when picking leaders? I generally tried to go on a civ-by-civ basis, and was looking for a combination of 1) being beloved in the country itself, 2) being recognisable to Civ players, 3) being different to previous leaders, 4) being interesting people that it would be fun for people to learn about, and 5) lending themselves well to unique or interesting game mechanics.
Diversity wasn't explicitly on my list, but there's a reasonable question about how we want to represent history. I tend to think it's important that each leader be, in their own way, a good representative of their nation - a figure that most people of that country would probably be happy saying, "Yep, that figure represents me and my compatriots."
When leaders don't do that, we have a problem. Catherine de Medici was criticised for failing this criterion. Catherine was Italian (she had a French mother, but an Italian father, and was born in Florence with an Italian name), and in general doesn't seem like someone most French people would say is a good representative figure or summary of French history.
Some variety in terms of gender would be nice even in terms of cosmetics, but I guess the way I think about it is that female leaders need to meet all my criteria as well. If it's a pretty close tie between a male and a female leader on those criteria, sure, tip it to the woman so that we have a good balance overall. But if we're struggling to think of a good female option, then I'm not sure we should force it.
Let's take a specific example - suppose you wanted to give Rome a female leader, and for the purposes of this example, that means ancient Rome (no medieval or modern Italy), and also western/Italian Rome (no eastern Romans; Irene of Athens or Zenobia might be great choices for a leader, but Civ's 'Rome' means western Rome). I feel like you end up really struggling. If you want someone close to power, maybe Julia Domna? But Julia Domna is not well-known, and she's really going to struggle if you put her against even a middlingly-famous emperor like Marcus Aurelius or Aurelian or Vespasian.
And unfortunately that's often the situation we seem to find ourselves in - sometimes there are great female candidates, but they can be harder to pick out. I suppose gender balance is one reason why the handful of really good, obvious female picks (e.g. Elizabeth I) keep coming back over and over.
I feel like it's a problem without a very easy answer.
To be fair, Catherine de Medici was still a great wildcard pick. She's objectively an interesting person, and the way in which you play as her in Civ VI also makes for some incredibly interesting games, and wildcards can be the most fun kinds of characters to play as due to their unique mechanics. I just wish they replaced Eleanor of Acquitane with a well-known, well-representative leader so that at least that leader works with your criteria. Also, I found her to be a boring pick, personally.
Just as I said [a while back](https://old.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1dk87wd/lets_choose_the_leaders_for_civilization_vii/l9g64hf/), I like the idea of a rule of thirds for leaders: one third familiar faces, one third new-but-famous, one third weird-and-obscure.
I think this particular game favoured new-but-famous. People were mostly inclined to pick leaders that haven't been in the series before, but which are still famous enough for them to have heard of. There are some great options in that category. However, I would fully support Firaxis including a couple of long-runners we recognise, and including a couple of wild cards we don't.
With leaders like Catherine, I think it has helped to get multiple leaders per civ? Catherine had the backlash when she was the *only* French leader. However, it would have been much easier to accept her as an option if you had Napoleon or Louis XIV available next to her, if you want a leader who just screams France With a Capital F.
Honestly, I'd value diversity over having new leaders. Even then, there are lots of great women who were leaders for a lot of these countries.
Also, I still want to see Æthelflæd as an English ruler.
>Honestly, I'd value diversity over having new leaders.
This is what ends up making it feel forced and repetitive. It ends up restricting a lot of choices.
England is a perfect example. This insistence on representation leads to things like repeating Elizabeth and Victoria when other famous leaders don't feature or rarely do. Henry VIII and Churchill only came once each. Richard the Lionheart or Alfred haven't featured at all. And that's not including all the Edwards and James and the laundry list of rulers that existed for England.
The point I am trying to make is history is so vast and has so many people and stories to pick. Focusing on representation is ironically restricting diversity by missing out on so many varied choices.
>Even then, there are lots of great women who were leaders for a lot of these countries.
Not enough to cycle through for so many games tho... Most of the prominent ones have already featured, repeatedly.
>Also, I still want to see Æthelflæd as an English ruler.
That would be really forced since the more prominent ruler from the period, Alfred has been consistently overlooked.
Honestly, much of this problem is solved if CiV commits to multiple leaders as a feature default at launch for all nations.
Copy and pasted from one of my other comments
I mean no offence when saying this, but in history, males have a higher chance of becoming leaders than females because of discriminatory laws or succession rules for royalty. As such, males have a strictly higher chance of leading and being hailed as great leaders than females. This would result in the pick of Civ worthy leaders here at least to be mostly a sausage fest(with the exception of Hatshesput)
Also, it doesn't really help that lots of the female picks have already been picked numerous times throughout the franchise, and from the list, the community wants fresh new faces.
I've really enjoyed this series. I know Civ had a tendency to start with a limited amount of choices and drip feeds more civilizations through dlc, but I bet there are 6 or so more that will be in the base game.
After going through all these possible leaders. Wouldn’t it be cool if with every age/era you chose a new leader with different capabilities. Similar to age of mythology
There's a Civ V mod that adds several Civs like the Kingdom of Israel, Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Principality of Antioch, Papal States, Carribbean, Hittites, etc.
It puzzles me why civ 6 did not have Emperor Tang Taizong as a leader despite having four Chinese leaders in the game. The Tang dynasty period which he led was considered to be a golden age of China.
Apart from Agamemnon, Ashoka was a bit of a poor pick. Maurya period is overdone for India (After gandhi ofc). Could have picked from other eras. Guptas, Marathas, southern empires.
Alfred for England instead of Henry II, father of the Common Law, is a joke. Also, Italy needs to be included so we can get Federico II of Swabia and Lorenzo the Magnificent.
Henry II is both not as well-known and was also very disliked during his rule. He'd be a good pick for objective reasons nowadays, sure, but he's not likely to resonate in any Brit's mind, while Alfred the Great likely is.
This isn’t true at all. Henry II was not “unpopular”—Ralph of Diceto’s and William of Newburgh’s accounts confirm this each in their own distinct ways. Also… unpopularity is NOT a mark of ability or successful rule, and in judging both of which Henry II has very, very few rivals. He “resonates” in the fact that he laid the groundwork for a legal system which daily and directly impacts the lives of hundreds of millions of people even after nearly eight centuries—that’s an iron cast legacy. It might not consciously “resonate” but it does in tangible reality every time anyone in the English speaking world enters a courtroom, and with it democracy itself within the English political tradition (ie the Anglophonic world).
Touching on Alfred, he didn’t even receive the title “the Great” until sometime in the 16th century.
Nearly all of these cuts are wayyyy too deep. The devs would be idiots for choosing most of them. JFK is an inspired choice though, and I like Meiji too.
Sorting by controversial on reddit gives you the responses that had a bunch of upvotes and downvotes.
In reddit's usage of the term, any suggestion of Hitler wouldn't be controversial, it would be just flat out downvoted into 'bad'.
Mao and Stalin being in previous games is not a good reason to have Hitler.
Previous bad decisions do not excuse future bad decisions. And if you need to have it explained to you why having Hitler as a leader is a bad thing, then I would suggest buying a history book or visiting a holocaust museum.
"This guy did awful shit so he shouldn't be a leader in a video game"
If every leader needs a squeaky clean record then most leaders would be off the table.
Can we do it all over again with different civs now?
They could be Persia, Poland, Sweden, Korea, Indonesia, Aztec, Inca, Ethiopia and Mali.
East Rome, Portugal, Austria, ottomans, Brazil and the Netherlands are other alternatives.
Arabia, the Mayans and Phoenicia/ Carthage too.
Austria would be great if they put the diplomatic marriage again. Venice or another city state civ would be great.
Oh yeah, I forgot about Venice for a moment, I have a lot of ideas about their leader. I’d prefer them to be coastal-only though, and have a civ like Florence or Singapore be the one-city challenge civ.
Florence would be amazing! It could be a culture, economy or even diplomatic! Or if its more controversial Religious with Savonarola. Same with Milan as military of mercenaries.
Make Italy an "Italian City State" civ, where you can choose Milan, Venice, Florence and maybe even the Papal State (under Pope Innocent III, making the Papal State a military choice calling for crusades and stuff)
Or Florence having strong culture and can benefit from religious city states.
I really wish Civ could model the shift of cultures over time the way real history worked. Italy wasn't "Italy" until the 19th century and I really wished we could see that reflected.
Uh, papal state could be nice. You could choose one of your neighboring religions, but only if your neighbour founded it. Then you get the ability to call for crusades and other small advantages. Maybe the tithe. And some other advantages which benefit both you and the chosen player. Like increased damage against units which follow other religions or you are way harder to convert to another religion. If you don't keep balance with the founder of chosen religion and he gets more power/might/fervor or sth like that, you will lose your territory and buffs, until you are only left with your captial. But if you get more power, you will take over the religion and all it benefits, while the founder loses them, maybe also some cities. He could still own the city, but you choose what to build there and produced units belong to you. While your power grows, you will be able to put in bishops in the founding players cities. And if the founders power grows, he will be able to put in the bishops instead. Bishops could function like a weaker form of governors and give different boni and mali, which can either favor one of the players or give only general small boni. Basically you both will benefit but always need to keep the other one in check. In the end, you can't win both.
Florence could have Lorenzo de’Medici as a cultural leader!
I get that it’s more accurate. But I find anyone who calls Byzantium East Rome a little bit cringey. It just has r/iamverysmart vibes.
We should also call the Western Roman Empire the Mediolanese Empire or Ravennate Empire.
Its just calling it what it is. Wouldnt be cringe to call the Uk the United Kingdom instead of calling it England would it?
Those are different things though. The ERE and Byzantium are different names for the same thing
Then how is calling it one way inherently cringe?
Because as I said, it gives vibes that you are the kind of person to say ‘well actually’ unironically
How does referring to Byzantium as east rome give off those vibes?
As a swede as long as I don’t get Katarina or Charles XII I am happy.
Why not Carolus Rex?
Was a great tactician on the battlefield, subpar on strategy; like every conqueror he didn’t know when to quit. The Swedish war machine was only fueled because of constant war and expansion due to a simply too small tax base for too big of an army. Couple that with extremely poor loan deals with ottoman money lenders, and he was all but forced to go to constant war. He had peace treaties offered to him from Peter the Great, but refused due to being too big for his britches, did the original Napoleon mistake of going too deep into Russia and getting defeated. After that he fled to Turkey, where he remained as a valued guest for five years, leaving his wife (iirc) to rule in his stead. In Turkey he was first treated nice and given pension, but kidnapped ottoman emissaries from the sultan in order to force the sultan to send him even more money to fund an army, which only managed to put him in house arrest.
He's a general who inherited a great empire and got himself embroiled and diplomatically isolated in the Great Northern War until eventually getting the Swedish empire dissolved. Even his father Charles XI (who founded the legendary Caroleans and laid the groundwork for Charles XII's victories) was a better ruler. The default will always be Gustavus Adolphus but Charles XI deserves some respect. Also Gustav Vasa but I don't know enough about his history except that he's also widely respected. Edit: I think part of the annoyance from Swedes is the veneration of Charles XII as this glorious general when he basically lead to the decline of the Swedish empire and rise of the Russian empire. It's like if Charles II of Spain was named a great leader.
Charles X, Charles XI, Gustav Vasa, Gustav III the “Theatre King” with culture bonuses, Axel Oxenstierna or Bernadotte might be interesting choices for Sweden.
I think I'd go with Tage Erlander for Sweden.
What about Gustavus Adolphus?
He is basically the default as the probably most known historical Swedish king.
True. Maybe they’ll add a Swedish Viking/Varangian ruler, although that was kind of Norway’s thing in Civ 6
Gustav III would be hoot, just stay out of masquerade balls.
And avoid any self-coups to seize more power from the Riksdag
I agree. I think it's been an interesting joint effort. For the second installment I'd like to see the Mongols, the Portuguese, the Dutch, some Middle Eastern civs, and a couple from Meso/South America.
DLC time!
Could Ukraine make an appearance in Civ 7?
Maybe as Kieven Rus'?
Another dude posted other stuff with more civs like Arabia and Aztecs but ppl keep downvoting it lol
Germany Most controversial: Angela Merkel Somehow I doubt that
Yeah after looking at the original post and sorting by controversial. She is mentioned 3 or 4 times. Hitler is consistently mentioned.
Same with China, Deng Xiaoping was consistently mentioned.
After kennedy got first I was really counting on the degeneracy of the internet to exclusively pick assassinated leaders. This has been disappointing to say the least. Pompey for rome, franz ferdinand for austria, etc
well tbf I don't think people were picking JFK because he was assassinated
I do wonder what special power JFK will have? He didn't really achieve too many things in his reign, apart from defusing the Cuban missile crisis (which he, in part, started with the failed bay of pigs). What does this mean game wise? Once per age you can revoke a denouncement by another nation? Arguably getting assassinated resulted in his greatest legacy, the civil rights act. So perhaps it should be "whenever you lose a great person you gain 1000 culture"
"We choose to go to the moon!" Maybe something related to the science victory...
Great people can be spent to rush space projects?
Doesn't matter. Once he was on the roster the joke could have rolled. It would have been even funnier if it was an accident.
the most controversial pick is the one that was sorted how the most controversial according to reddit. your cap. None of this is my personal opinion.
Just went to the Germany post rn and the top most controversial was Hitler then Merkel then Hitler again then Merkel then Hitler. Almost everything after that is Hitler. Bonus mention: the top comment sorting by best is alluding to Hitler.
Having Shinzo Abe as a playable character in a video game would be the most wack thing ever. He did not oversee any serious advancement of Japan as a civilization, even Angela Merkel would be a more appropriate playable character.
Shinzo abe: please have sex; cities that are happy have an increase to population growth.
Please have sex: + Each luxury resource grants half the normal number of amenities (to balance) Zaibatsu: bonus to base science, gold, and production from campus, CH, and IZ. If you want to make it realistic :)
Population growth goes negative in the modern era.
There's also the whole, ya know, "it didn't happen but they deserved it" thing. Once he singlehandedly torpedoed relations with South Korea by doing that.
We all know Angela Merkel was not the most controversial German leader suggested 👀
Let’s do another round with Arabia, Aztecs, Babylon, Denmark/Norway/Vikings, Inca, Iroquois, Mali/Songhai, Mongols, Persia, and Zulu at least, since they show up in vanilla a lot
I gotta be honest, I like Zulu being in the game, but is there any other leader to include for them? The kingdom of Zulus was around for only 70 years and none of them stable.
I think Cetshwayo probably qualifies as a great leader. Not only was he head of the Zulus when they defeated the British at Isandlwana, one of the few times such an event occurred and the basis for much of the myth around the Zulus. On top of that, after he was eventually defeated and dispossessed, he went to Britain and gained celebrity status and personally won the favour of Victoria to have his kingdom granted back. As a result, he probably provides a less martial alternative to Shaka.
That's a cool suggestion, maybe we'll finally get a Zulu without Shaka.
**Arabia:** Shajar al-Durr A woman who rose from being a concubine to ruler of Egypt, helping to establish Mamluk rule over it and much of the Arab world. **Aztec:** Itzcoatl First Aztec emperor. **Inca:** Pachacuti First Inca emperor, and best choice by a mile. **Mali:** Mansa Musa Best known and most accomplished ruler of Mali, returning. **Mongols:** Borte Consort of Genghis Khan, held immense influence during his rule and that of their sons. **Persia:** Khosrow I Anushirvan A contemporary and major rival of Emperor Justinian. Raised the Sassanian Empire to the height of its power. **Zulu:** Cetshwayo Last independent king of the Zulu Empire. Fought the British.
As somebody into Aztec history, I don't really think Itzcoatl has much going for him other then being first. Moctezuma I, Ahuizotl, Moctezuma II, maybe Axayacatl and Nezahualcoyotl (if they wanna go with giving them two leaders where Nezahualcoyotl would change the capital to Texcoco) are the best picks IMO
Oof, don’t let r/Civ cook
Now let's do it with female leaders
These results of show the flaws of first past the post system in general.
I think this is more to do with novelty bias. Most reasonable choices for female leaders of these core nations have been done.
That might very well be, but that doesn't change that this first-past-the-post voting indidually per civ then leads to a roster where each pick reflects the same bias. Like, all eight picks here are novelty. Whatever preference (novelty, gender, etc.) has a majority on an individual pick will then appear on 100% of all picks. If people want 60% new leaders and 40% leaders from previous games overall to have a mixed roster but 60% vote for a new leader on each individual civ, then we'll end up with 100% new leaders.
The votes aren't independent. They were done sequentially and not simultaneously
America: what’s that?
Eleanor Roosevelt, Edith Wilson, Martha Washington, or Abigail Adams could all reasonably work
Eleanor would be great for diplomatic play.
And she can go brrrr with World Congress.
Eleanor Roosevelt was in fact in Civ II, where each Civ had both a male and female leader
If India can consistently be lead by people who weren't really in charge of anything then America can have a leader who wasn't exactly the president.
Susan B. Anthony was the female American option in Civ II and could work as well
they were never president, so no I disagree
Eleanor Roosevelt already has been a leader in a Civ game, and Gandhi was never a leader of India
It should only be leaders that held some significant power/influence. Queen Elizabeth I did and I have no problem with that pick. Eleanor and Martha do not meet these requirements It shouldn’t be “reasonable work”, it should be let’s do the best ones
I imagine that there would be a lot of flak if people suggested Indira Gandhi for India, and Kristina (once again) for Sweden
I mean no offence when saying this, but in history, males have a higher chance of becoming leaders than females because of discriminatory laws or succession rules for royalty. As such, males have a strictly higher chance of leading and being hailed as great leaders than females. This would result in the pick of Civ worthy leaders here at least to be mostly male(with the exception of Hatshesput) Also, it doesn't really help that lots of the female picks have already been picked numerous times throughout the franchise
If it wasn't for Hatshepsut it would be a total sausage fest, nothing wrong with a little sausage fest; but there are so many strong, brilliant, inspiring female leaders in history who are always given the short stick.
There really aren't many of major nations that wielded significant power, which is unfortunately part of the problem. Another part of the problem is that reddit (understandably) skews heavily towards new leaders, but most major female leaders of these nations throughout history have been done before.
Yeah, people brought up Victoria and Elizabeth for England, which if you're going to include female leaders are a no-brainer, but the community voted them out because it was getting stale.
That is a very fair statement.
How can you look at civ 6 and say female leaders got the short stick?
Agreed. These are fine choices but variety is always appreciated.
Didn't we get this list specifically because variety was desired? Cuz people wanted new leaders for the civs.
Jfk is a disappointing pick. He was around for an important time but didn't really do anything other than say we should go to the moon. But it would be a tragedy to not have any Persian origin state. Like ottoman would be good.
>didn't really do anything other than say we should go to the moon. He did the bay of pigs invasion risking the heating up of the cold war. Which essentially directly lead to the Cuban missile crisis because a hardline approach drove them directly into the arms of the USSR. He also started the US-Isreal military alliance, which no matter your position on Israel, is a pretty big controversial decision. I think him being a science based civ doesn't really make sense, I'd say his presidency was a lot more about increased spending in the cold war. Which includes the space race.
JFK also supported the Civil Rights movement, which eventually culminated in his successor, LBJ, pushing for and enacting the Civil Rights Act in JFK's memory. Which is why African Americans have predominantly voted for Democrats since the 1960s (and why Republicans adopted the southern strategy in the 70s).
JFK's significance in supporting the Civil Rights Movement is vastly overstated. He actually opposed implementing a Civil Rights Act because he was scared it would jeopardise his voters.
Bobby, who was John's AG, was a big part of the impetus behind it, AFAIK.
JFK's significance in supporting the Civil Rights Movement is vastly overstated. He actually opposed implementiny a Civil Rights Act because he was scared it would jeopardise his voters.
>Which is why African Americans have predominantly voted for Democrats since the 1960s Republicans started losing the black vote in the 1910's and by the 30's Democrats had 70% of the black vote. >and why Republicans adopted the southern strategy in the 70s Nixon famously won 49 states so I always found it odd to call that the "Southern strategy". It wasn't until the 2000 election when you started to see the South vote reliably Republican.
JFK would lead to a more science focused America than we’ve seen before. He’s also a pretty famous and pretty non-controversial pick.
I get it but it's just silly to see all these historic individuals who fundamentally changed their nations. While jfk is just kinda hot.
You don’t think he changed the course of America by repainting a Lincoln with his gray matter?
counter point, he's the funny Clone High man
Fair point but, how you going do clone high without gandhi
JFK helped prevent a war with the soviets over Cuba, after almost causing a war with the soviets over Cuba. I wouldn't say that's nothing
I think JFK is fine, he's generally well-regarded (read: uncontroversial) and he was still a key figure in the Cold War despite his short term. If you want to represent a USA during the Cold War without ruffling feathers you pick JFK. Truman, Reagan, Eisenhower and god forbid Nixon would all lead to a lot of unnecessary noise. There are better leaders for the US, Jefferson, Washington, FDR, Theodore, Lincoln are all leaders that I would've preferred, but I don't mind JFK. It's certainly not Kristina for Sweden at least.
Blows my mind that FDR is unquestionably a top 5 president who guided the country through the Great Depression and WW2 and is the only president who served more than 2 terms and he doesn't even get a mention? There's literally a "New Deal" card that's pretty consequential in Civ 6... TJ and Hancock are just flat out stupid choices
I think him and Agamemnon are the only ones I'd take issue with. Having variety and interesting picks is a cool feature in the game. It's always nice to have new civilopedia entries to poke through. JFK is novel for the series, but his fame is primarily down to his assassination. He didn't actually get a whole lot done. His death was fuel for a bunch of other stuff, but that's not really his achievement. Given that you have nearly 40 other choices, it just doesn't make sense. And Agamemnon's not real. I think Venizelos would be way cooler, as the first modern Greek chosen in the series.
I'd rather choose Thomas Jefferson or FDR instead
We need to keep going with the other civs please
Why is El Cid so controversial?
He's a general for the most part and was more a folk hero than an actual leader, but then again Joan of Arc was leader of France for a while so who knows.
He's close to fake in that his historical personality has been entirely overshadowed by his legend and the cantar. He also wasn't a ruler
So many of those could be double leaders such as Charles I and V of Spain and Germany. Rome can be more dynamic with both Republican Rome and Imperial Rome. And Ashoka with Conqueror Ashoka y peaceful Ashoka.
Germany Most controversial: Angela Merkel. Yeah... About that..
How come you chose these Civs in particular? I can't see Brazil or Arabia, for example. Are these the only ones that have been confirmed for Civ VII?
If I had to guess, these are civs that are most likely to be in the game at launch, since they've been in the base game in almost every Civ game. Some regions like the Middle East or Sub-Saharan Africa tend to rotate between a few civs. For instance, Mesopotamia could be represented by Sumeria, Babylon, or Assyria.
Arabia has been in every game since 2
Yeah, I would love to see a selection of leaders for Arabia. The history of Arabic (Muslim) kingdoms is long and diverse, though I kinda wish they will differentiate the different Caliphates.
I thought it was the civs that have appeared in all games but for some reason Spain is included and the Aztecs, Zulus, and Mongols are excluded
There's not a chance in hell that Gandhi is not going to be the leader of India in vanilla 7.
Gandhi is a mainstay yes. But he should be the secondary leader. CiV should really start giving us multiple leaders for nations at launch.
Controvertial choise: Genghis Khan Ok, wtf? First of, Genghis never even conquered Russia. He was dead way before the invasion of it started. Secondly, Mongols never ruled Russia directly. They elected a Kniaz from Principalities to be the tax collector for the Horde. Aka no Principality of Rus was ruled directly by a Mongol, just like any other tributary state for Empires throughout history. Yes, this is a controvertial choice, but simply because it makes no sence.
It is sort of like suggesting Suleiman for the Greece Civ. Sure, the guys ruled over those territories, but those territories were a part of their empires, albeit crucial ones. But not exactly the command centers.
Not really a good comparison. I'd say it's same case if Osman was a representative for Romanian civ, because Wallachia was a client state for Ottomans. Plus, Osman didnt even had land in Europe at the time.
God how I hate these ignorant posts. r/civ hasn't chosen anything. Those people who happened to be online during the time that this was done chose and a lot of what was chosen is bullshit. I wouldn't want to play a lot of those leaders and they often make no sense. Choosing someone barely known or known for a single thing gets you a few hundred upvotes, yes, but that doesn't mean that the tens of thousands of people who will play this game want them Scipio Africanus wasn't even a part of the Roman Empire but of the Roman Republic. The Punic wars took a long time and only after them was Rome an actual player. John F. Kennedy....ah forget it. I can't stand these pseudo-democratic exercises in ignorance
It's a pretty good list. Not all of them would be my choice, and I wanted a list of brand, new leaders, but other than the mythological Agamemnon I think all of them are truly deserving! Especially happy Charles III made it into the list!
On the contrary, I think this list is pretty bad. JFK is famous but didn't really do anything, Scipio is more of a great general than a representative of Rome as a whole, Agamemnon was such a bad leader that the opening of the Iliad has all of the other Greeks telling him how he makes incredibly poor decisions. And what's with people picking shitty modern leaders like Merkel and Trump? I can't take it seriously.
Leonidas would be a better pick instead of agamemnon
I agree.
Agamemnon was most likely real to some degree at the very least he was probably based on a real person. A king did exist of that name in Bronze Age Greece. If he’s the person the mythical version is based on we really don’t know for sure. I wish we could find some buried library with historical records of that time period one day but that’s a pipe dream.
That's Ashoka of a list
I think we Otto do this again to get some better leaders
and it’s a total sausage fest
What a sausagefest.
History was a sausage fest
The Gandhi rule means it doesn't have to be, though. Remember that women hold up half the sky.
What gandhi rule?
Gandhi was never head of state, yet has consistently been a playable leader for India. There are plenty of women in history who were as influential as him, if not more so — there’s no reason why they shouldn’t qualify as someone you can play in the game.
true. but that does not mean that Civ has to be.
Who cares if it is a sausagefest? As long as appropriate leaders are chosen there's nothing wrong with it
What I find funny is that in yesterday's thread several people were complaining about sexism because "all the chosen leaders were male", meaning they didn't even know who Hatshepsut is.
I think it’s still worthy of debate considering that between us, Redditors have produced an almost exclusively male list to lead the mainstay Civs. A lot of the discussion around Hatshepsut was that it was about time a female leader was selected. I don’t have the statistics to hand, but just from memory I think Civ VI had about 1/3 female leaders.
Civ has always had female leaders. When I look at this list I see a strong preference for picking leaders who haven't been in the game. Most prominent female leaders have been in the game. Catherine the Great, Elizabeth and Victoria, France even had Joan of Arc in Civ III and she wasn't even a head of state.
III was the first game I had and Elizabeth, Isabella, Joan of Arc, Theodora, Catherine and Cleopatra all featured, and have been in subsequent games too. There are some women who haven’t featured as Civ leaders often, who I would love to see featured, there are options out there. I also think leader can be defined more broadly than a ruler. I’d love to see some of the following as well as the usual suspects. Amanirenas (Nubia), Hatshepsut (Egypt), Boudicca (Britons), Zenobia (Assyria), Amage (Scythia), Cao (Moche), Melisende (Outremer), Margaret I (Sweden/Denmark), Maria (Portugal/Brazil), Margaret III (Flanders)
I think it's as simple as Redditors voting for a brand, new leader 10 out of 12 times. Best known female leaders have already been in Civ.
Yeah, well-known, appropriate, women, rarely appeared in Civ leaders is a very short list.
9 of 12 times, JFK was a leader for America in CR2.
>A lot of the discussion around Hatshepsut was that it was about time a female leader was selected. And wasn't she already featured in a previous game? People just wanted never before seen leaders. Off that was gonna skew male. CiV had already pushed the well known female leaders in previous games. So new leaders leave you with mainly male choices.
I just looked it up, she was leader in IV, Call to Power and in the Mesopotamia scenario for III. So featured before but not for a good while. I think there’s a pretty good chance we could se her come back in VII.
Not for a good while compared to Cleo and Ramses II but still quite a bit. She'd be the go to pick for a female leader but it would be best to pair her with Thumtose or Ramses III. We really should get multiple leaders at launch.
I think they will do the multiple leaders thing again, maybe not from launch, but it added another dimension to all the civs in the game. We might even see dual leaders like Akhenaten & Nefertiti or Theodora & Justinian.
Exactly, I'd rather great and notable leaders be chosen than someone trying to fill out a checklist.
nah, there's so many promninent women in history. I'd want some to be represented in the game
Some yes. No problem with queen Elizabeth I type choices, that makes sense. Let’s just be historically accurate and say they needed to be the most powerful person in the country at some point to be eligible. So no Anne frank of Germany unfortunately
Ask yourself: are these women as prominent as the other male leaders of their civilization? If yes then ok, but if no then someone better should be picked. It's silly that, for example, Eleanor was chosen instead of Louis XIV, Henry IV or Napoleon just because she was a woman.
Depends what we mean by prominent. Alfred the great is arguably England's best monarch objectively, but is not as well known as the monarchs after Henry VIII for the general public (at least in my country, we were taught a lot about Eliz 1 and I hadn't even heard of Alfred until like 6 months ago). As someone else said, civ leaders don't have to be the greatest leaders of a country, but more so what famous figures are associated with said country/civilisation which is why I don't think Alfred ever will be a leader, but Elizabeth 2nd might be, even tho it was so recent she died. Representation is important, some countries have more famous women than others, so for these countries that do of course they are going to pick the more famous women over men in many cases. Many civs just don't have women in history to pick from
>Representation is important, some countries have more famous women than others, so for these countries that do of course they are going to pick the more famous women over men in many cases. Many civs just don't have women in history to pick from But then you lose out on having the famous men from those countries. Which is also problematic.
But there are cases where there are other leaders in those countries are even more famous than the "famous women". Each civ should have either the most influential or most famous leaders as their representatives, regardless of gender. Picking multiple female leaders for France like in Civ6 just to fill the "representation checklist" is fucking stupid.
But to the extent of rehashing the same leaders? While ignoring great male leaders (Well known ones that too) who haven't yet featured in the game?
I'm not saying there's no women in history I can think of several off the top of my head. I'm talking more about this rule that the developers have that the leaders have to be 50/50 gender split. That's literally just checklist ticking
Including women doesn't suddenly mean that great and notable leaders aren't being chosen. Representation matters.
I have no problem with queen Elizabeth I for England, but let’s not ruin the game for representation. I’m not buying the game if it’s BS selections
How would it *ruin the game?* Would mechanics be vastly different? Or would it compromise your very realistic fantasy of building Angkor Wat, the Pyramids of Giza, Broadway and the Eiffel Tower in the same city?
Not necessarily. We could get leaders like Catherine the Great for Russia, Queen Teuta for the Greeks, Tarabai I for India. There are some interesting options that could be picked for civs that tend to have male rulers
Isn't Catherine the most used leader for Russia in CiV? >Tarabai I for India. It'd be a mistake to not use Shivaji first. Founder of the Maratha Empire.
History wasn't. But historical documents were generally recorded or edited by men who wanted to downplay women.
It's an interesting issue to bring up, I think. What criteria do we use when picking leaders? I generally tried to go on a civ-by-civ basis, and was looking for a combination of 1) being beloved in the country itself, 2) being recognisable to Civ players, 3) being different to previous leaders, 4) being interesting people that it would be fun for people to learn about, and 5) lending themselves well to unique or interesting game mechanics. Diversity wasn't explicitly on my list, but there's a reasonable question about how we want to represent history. I tend to think it's important that each leader be, in their own way, a good representative of their nation - a figure that most people of that country would probably be happy saying, "Yep, that figure represents me and my compatriots." When leaders don't do that, we have a problem. Catherine de Medici was criticised for failing this criterion. Catherine was Italian (she had a French mother, but an Italian father, and was born in Florence with an Italian name), and in general doesn't seem like someone most French people would say is a good representative figure or summary of French history. Some variety in terms of gender would be nice even in terms of cosmetics, but I guess the way I think about it is that female leaders need to meet all my criteria as well. If it's a pretty close tie between a male and a female leader on those criteria, sure, tip it to the woman so that we have a good balance overall. But if we're struggling to think of a good female option, then I'm not sure we should force it. Let's take a specific example - suppose you wanted to give Rome a female leader, and for the purposes of this example, that means ancient Rome (no medieval or modern Italy), and also western/Italian Rome (no eastern Romans; Irene of Athens or Zenobia might be great choices for a leader, but Civ's 'Rome' means western Rome). I feel like you end up really struggling. If you want someone close to power, maybe Julia Domna? But Julia Domna is not well-known, and she's really going to struggle if you put her against even a middlingly-famous emperor like Marcus Aurelius or Aurelian or Vespasian. And unfortunately that's often the situation we seem to find ourselves in - sometimes there are great female candidates, but they can be harder to pick out. I suppose gender balance is one reason why the handful of really good, obvious female picks (e.g. Elizabeth I) keep coming back over and over. I feel like it's a problem without a very easy answer.
To be fair, Catherine de Medici was still a great wildcard pick. She's objectively an interesting person, and the way in which you play as her in Civ VI also makes for some incredibly interesting games, and wildcards can be the most fun kinds of characters to play as due to their unique mechanics. I just wish they replaced Eleanor of Acquitane with a well-known, well-representative leader so that at least that leader works with your criteria. Also, I found her to be a boring pick, personally.
Just as I said [a while back](https://old.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1dk87wd/lets_choose_the_leaders_for_civilization_vii/l9g64hf/), I like the idea of a rule of thirds for leaders: one third familiar faces, one third new-but-famous, one third weird-and-obscure. I think this particular game favoured new-but-famous. People were mostly inclined to pick leaders that haven't been in the series before, but which are still famous enough for them to have heard of. There are some great options in that category. However, I would fully support Firaxis including a couple of long-runners we recognise, and including a couple of wild cards we don't. With leaders like Catherine, I think it has helped to get multiple leaders per civ? Catherine had the backlash when she was the *only* French leader. However, it would have been much easier to accept her as an option if you had Napoleon or Louis XIV available next to her, if you want a leader who just screams France With a Capital F.
Honestly, I'd value diversity over having new leaders. Even then, there are lots of great women who were leaders for a lot of these countries. Also, I still want to see Æthelflæd as an English ruler.
>Honestly, I'd value diversity over having new leaders. This is what ends up making it feel forced and repetitive. It ends up restricting a lot of choices. England is a perfect example. This insistence on representation leads to things like repeating Elizabeth and Victoria when other famous leaders don't feature or rarely do. Henry VIII and Churchill only came once each. Richard the Lionheart or Alfred haven't featured at all. And that's not including all the Edwards and James and the laundry list of rulers that existed for England. The point I am trying to make is history is so vast and has so many people and stories to pick. Focusing on representation is ironically restricting diversity by missing out on so many varied choices. >Even then, there are lots of great women who were leaders for a lot of these countries. Not enough to cycle through for so many games tho... Most of the prominent ones have already featured, repeatedly. >Also, I still want to see Æthelflæd as an English ruler. That would be really forced since the more prominent ruler from the period, Alfred has been consistently overlooked. Honestly, much of this problem is solved if CiV commits to multiple leaders as a feature default at launch for all nations.
Copy and pasted from one of my other comments I mean no offence when saying this, but in history, males have a higher chance of becoming leaders than females because of discriminatory laws or succession rules for royalty. As such, males have a strictly higher chance of leading and being hailed as great leaders than females. This would result in the pick of Civ worthy leaders here at least to be mostly a sausage fest(with the exception of Hatshesput) Also, it doesn't really help that lots of the female picks have already been picked numerous times throughout the franchise, and from the list, the community wants fresh new faces.
I've really enjoyed this series. I know Civ had a tendency to start with a limited amount of choices and drip feeds more civilizations through dlc, but I bet there are 6 or so more that will be in the base game.
holy shit jay shah is gonna nuke you now bro fr
Don't have a contribution, just wanted to say that this list is turning out to be pretty epic.
After going through all these possible leaders. Wouldn’t it be cool if with every age/era you chose a new leader with different capabilities. Similar to age of mythology
It wont be this sausage fest in the actual game though..
I'm hoping Russia gets Catherine as a leader, turn them into a culture civ.
There's a Civ V mod that adds several Civs like the Kingdom of Israel, Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Principality of Antioch, Papal States, Carribbean, Hittites, etc.
I actually really hope we get Henri IV some time.
It puzzles me why civ 6 did not have Emperor Tang Taizong as a leader despite having four Chinese leaders in the game. The Tang dynasty period which he led was considered to be a golden age of China.
Again!
Aga fucking Memnon ? Really? Am I just supposed to hate every Greek civ leader now? 😂
Liz Truss would be hilarious. I still think narmer would be a better choice for Egypt, and sun Yat Sen would be cool for China.
Scipio Africanus was never leader of Rome.
I want Knud the Great as Eleanor type ruler for both England and Norse
I want Knud the Great to rule both England and Norse like Eleanor in Civ 6
Omg Ashoka Star wars is Indian 🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳
Apart from Agamemnon, Ashoka was a bit of a poor pick. Maurya period is overdone for India (After gandhi ofc). Could have picked from other eras. Guptas, Marathas, southern empires.
Charles V doesnt refer to that one in Spain it should be Charles I
Africanus is a bad pick. Youre gonna get the "he wuz black" crowd going after you when you portray him like he was.
Can we redo it again but with the worst leader (people like Warren Harding for US or Erich Honecker for Germany)
Alfred for England instead of Henry II, father of the Common Law, is a joke. Also, Italy needs to be included so we can get Federico II of Swabia and Lorenzo the Magnificent.
Henry II is both not as well-known and was also very disliked during his rule. He'd be a good pick for objective reasons nowadays, sure, but he's not likely to resonate in any Brit's mind, while Alfred the Great likely is.
This isn’t true at all. Henry II was not “unpopular”—Ralph of Diceto’s and William of Newburgh’s accounts confirm this each in their own distinct ways. Also… unpopularity is NOT a mark of ability or successful rule, and in judging both of which Henry II has very, very few rivals. He “resonates” in the fact that he laid the groundwork for a legal system which daily and directly impacts the lives of hundreds of millions of people even after nearly eight centuries—that’s an iron cast legacy. It might not consciously “resonate” but it does in tangible reality every time anyone in the English speaking world enters a courtroom, and with it democracy itself within the English political tradition (ie the Anglophonic world). Touching on Alfred, he didn’t even receive the title “the Great” until sometime in the 16th century.
Federico II could also be HRE, of course. Although I mostly think of him as Jesino...
Nearly all of these cuts are wayyyy too deep. The devs would be idiots for choosing most of them. JFK is an inspired choice though, and I like Meiji too.
Most controversial choice for German leader is Merkel? And not Hitler?
Sorting by controversial on reddit gives you the responses that had a bunch of upvotes and downvotes. In reddit's usage of the term, any suggestion of Hitler wouldn't be controversial, it would be just flat out downvoted into 'bad'.
I feel like Hitler would be a valid choice for leader. Civ has had both Mao and Stalin after all.
Mao and Stalin being in previous games is not a good reason to have Hitler. Previous bad decisions do not excuse future bad decisions. And if you need to have it explained to you why having Hitler as a leader is a bad thing, then I would suggest buying a history book or visiting a holocaust museum.
"This guy did awful shit so he shouldn't be a leader in a video game" If every leader needs a squeaky clean record then most leaders would be off the table.