Civ 7 leader idea

[Arsou Beats]

Civilization : Greece

Leader : Ioannis Kapodistrias

Bio :
He was a great leader with economic mind who created schools, universities, a military academy, introduced the potato in greece and also had a strong diplomatic stance.

(Keep in mind that all the abilities the district and the unit have bonuses according to historical content.)


Civilization ability :
All trade routes provide minor gold bonuses


Leader ability :
Universities and libraries provide +1 great scientist point and commercial hub +1 great merchant point.

OR
Libraries provide +1 great general point and universities +2 great scientist points.


Unique district : Potato Factory
A replacement for commercial hub which provides +2 food


Unique unit : Evzone
Line infantry replacement which has +4 combat strength and no movement penalty in hill terrain.

 

[jsciv69]

If there is a Civ VII on the horizon, here's my list of some leaders to think about.
America-Franklin D Roosevelt
Russia-Nikita Khrushchev
Mexico-Benito Juarez
Egypt-Gamal Abdel Nasser
England-King George III
France-King Louis IV
Argentine-Eva Peron
Carthage-Hanno I The Great

 

[Zaarin]

America-Franklin D Roosevelt
Russia-Nikita Khrushchev

I don't think we'll see a return of the kind of controversial leaders like Stalin, Mao, Churchill, and FDR that we saw in Civ4; plus Khrushchev is much too recent.

Egypt-Gamal Abdel Nasser

Wrong Egypt.

England-King George III

I think that would be hilarious. England has so many good leaders to choose from, though, I'm not sure about choosing one for the memes...

Carthage-Hanno I The Great

I kind of hope they keep featuring Phoenicia (which is less tempting to turn into a militant "anti-Rome"), but if they went back to Carthage Hanno I or one of the Magonids wouldn't be a bad choice.

 

[Evie]

I could see FDR potentially making it again someday as he by now has a long history of consistently getting frequent flyer miles around the top of best US presidents lists, and the closet skeletons that have surfaced so far on him don't really seem to be sticking to date. As opposed to say, Churchill, whose star has noticeably waned thanks to more scrutiny of some of this views and policies. And even in his case I woudln't make any large bet against Winston coming back.

Stalin pretty much only if they make it a point to have a WW2 scenario and given the leeeettle problem of picking and animating a german leader from that scenario I wouldn't bet on that ever happening. Mao, not too likely either.

 

[Zaarin]

I could see FDR potentially making it again someday as he by now has a long history of consistently getting frequent flyer miles around the top of best US presidents lists, and the closet skeletons that have surfaced so far on him don't really seem to be sticking to date. As opposed to say, Churchill, whose star has noticeably waned thanks to more scrutiny of some of this views and policies. And even in his case I woudln't make any large bet against Winston coming back.

In public perception, which is certainly more salient in terms of leader selection, sure, though from a more academic perspective FDR has been found to be awfully cozy with Stalin. On a public front, the concentration camps, especially the Japanese-American concentration camps, aren't exactly doing wonders for his image, either. Any American president is going to be controversial because Americans feel, uh, s t r o n g l y about their politics, to put it mildly, but I feel like FDR has an above average amount of controversy attached to him for a pre-1950 president. (Pre-1960? I don't think Ike would be very controversial.)

 

[jsciv69]

In public perception, which is certainly more salient in terms of leader selection, sure, though from a more academic perspective FDR has been found to be awfully cozy with Stalin. On a public front, the concentration camps, especially the Japanese-American concentration camps, aren't exactly doing wonders for his image, either. Any American president is going to be controversial because Americans feel, uh, s t r o n g l y about their politics, to put it mildly, but I feel like FDR has an above average amount of controversy attached to him for a pre-1950 president. (Pre-1960? I don't think Ike would be very controversial.)

Any American President is going to come with some baggage. But I think whoever it is should have at least 2 full terms of office. Ike would certainly be an intriguing choice. US modernization really began under Eisenhower. The controversial Nuke tests came during his administration. The baggage. That would be the beginning of US direct involvement in Vietnam. An American Civ under Eisenhower could get major Industrial boosts. Special units would be the B52, The Super Carrier, The A1 Abrams Tank. I could sure see an American Civ thrive with Eisenhower as Leader.

I don't think we'll see a return of the kind of controversial leaders like Stalin, Mao, Churchill, and FDR that we saw in Civ4; plus Khrushchev is much too recent.


Wrong Egypt.


I think that would be hilarious. England has so many good leaders to choose from, though, I'm not sure about choosing one for the memes...


I kind of hope they keep featuring Phoenicia (which is less tempting to turn into a militant "anti-Rome"), but if they went back to Carthage Hanno I or one of the Magonids wouldn't be a bad choice.

About Nasser. I chose him for being a strong leader in the face of Imperial powers. And since there may be calls for an Israel Civ likely with David Ben-Gurion as leader. Nasser would be a great counter to that. And it would make for some dramatic scenarios involving Egypt and Israel. Controversial maybe. But no more controversial than having Queen Isabella or Victoria as a leader. And I think we need some late game excitement.. leaders like Ike, Khrushchev, and Nasser would certainly provide that.

 

[Zaarin]

Any American President is going to come with some baggage. But I think whoever it is should have at least 2 full terms of office. Ike would certainly be an intriguing choice. US modernization really began under Eisenhower. The controversial Nuke tests came during his administration. The baggage. That would be the beginning of US direct involvement in Vietnam. An American Civ under Eisenhower could get major Industrial boosts. Special units would be the B52, The Super Carrier, The A1 Abrams Tank. I could sure see an American Civ thrive with Eisenhower as Leader.

I agree; any choice will be controversial to some extent. I admit I'm biased on the subject because I loathe FDR, but I still feel he would come with an above average amount of controversy. I think Ike would be interesting, but I'd rather see an antebellum president next time around myself. I don't think a two-term president is necessary if the choice is interesting; Adams is my top choice personally.

About Nasser. I chose him for being a strong leader in the face of Imperial powers. And since there may be calls for an Israel Civ likely with David Ben-Gurion as leader. Nasser would be a great counter to that. And it would make for some dramatic scenarios involving Egypt and Israel. Controversial maybe. But no more controversial than having Queen Isabella or Victoria as a leader. And I think we need some late game excitement.. leaders like Ike, Khrushchev, and Nasser would certainly provide that.

My point wasn't against Nasser but that, nationalist propaganda aside, the Islamic Republic of Egypt isn't Ancient Egypt. To me I don't feel a strong need for an Islamic Republic of Egypt civ, even if Nasser is a charismatic leader possibility. I think an Ataturk-led Turkey would be more interesting for a modern Islamic civ (though that would make three civs with Constantinople/Istanbul as their capital...unless they chose an earlier Ottoman ruler or left out the Ottomans entirely in favor of the Seljuks--Alp Arslan would be fun). Personally, I don't like modern civs or modern rulers and would put a soft cap of 1750 or so if I were selecting the roster, but I've made peace that there will be some--as long as we can leave out Canada and Australia next time around. As for Israel, a State of Israel civ will never happen, but it's a shame we can't get a Kingdom of Judah civ led by Hezekiah or a Kingdom of Israel/Samaria civ led by someone like Jehu.

Speaking of the Middle East specifically, though, bias against modern leaders and civs aside, the entire region has been a mess since the decline and fall of the Ottoman Empire; it makes better sense to include Early Modern and earlier Middle Eastern civilizations.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But I think whoever it is should have at least 2 full terms of office.

By two full terms do you mean elected, or having to have actually served the 2 full terms? Because by that criteria they should have never gone with Abraham Lincoln, who has been the leader for America in most of the games.

About Nasser. I chose him for being a strong leader in the face of Imperial powers. And since there may be calls for an Israel Civ likely with David Ben-Gurion as leader. Nasser would be a great counter to that. And it would make for some dramatic scenarios involving Egypt and Israel. Controversial maybe. But no more controversial than having Queen Isabella or Victoria as a leader. And I think we need some late game excitement.. leaders like Ike, Khrushchev, and Nasser would certainly provide that.

I don't personally see anybody calling for any form of modern Israel getting in the game. If Israel would be in the game it would be it's Ancient Kingdom. Same definitely goes for Egypt.

 

[jsciv69]

By two full terms do you mean elected, or having to have actually served the 2 full terms? Because by that criteria they should have never gone with Abraham Lincoln, who has been the leader for America in most of the games.


I don't personally see anybody calling for any form of modern Israel getting in the game. If Israel would be in the game it would be it's Ancient Kingdom. Same definitely goes for Egypt.

Lincoln always seems to be a safe choice. But an American Civ should be one that flexes it's modern industrial might. And a Leader who represents that. Eisenhower is not exactly my favorite person in history. But he would represent the era when that US might really took off. Maybe a Cold War Scenario or Mod that includes Khrushchev.

As for Israel. There is some debate as to whether the "Kingdom" really existed or was of any real historic significance. That can go one way or another. But imagine the drama with a modern state of Israel. Then we can have holy wars, jihads etc. Of course I understand why it has been avoided. But perhaps a Mod or Scenario with that in mind.

Historical Accuracy is important. That's why I would hope to have a starting age reflect the real start of Civilization. Most of the planet/continents had been reached by 10,000BCE. A starting age with that in mind would be more appropriate.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

If there is a Civ VII on the horizon, here's my list of some leaders to think about.
America-Franklin D Roosevelt
Russia-Nikita Khrushchev
Egypt-Gamal Abdel Nasser
England-King George III
France-King Louis IV

1. Another Roosevelt. yes I like it.
2. More diplomatic and less warlike Russia.
3. There should be Pharaoh to be a choice. Nasserite Egypt can have 'Free Officers' UU but deprive of what Pharaoh Egypt can have. Nasser is muslim for all I know.
4. Why not Henry VIII or Cromwell?
5. His UU (exclusive to him) "Royal Musketeers". light cavalry that's invulnerable to Anticav.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Lincoln always seems to be a safe choice. But an American Civ should be one that flexes it's modern industrial might. And a Leader who represents that. Eisenhower is not exactly my favorite person in history. But he would represent the era when that US might really took off. Maybe a Cold War Scenario or Mod that includes Khrushchev.

I do think that a more modern industrialist leader such as Eisenhower or, JFK, focusing on the space race era would be interesting.

As for Israel. There is some debate as to whether the "Kingdom" really existed or was of any real historic significance. That can go one way or another. But imagine the drama with a modern state of Israel. Then we can have holy wars, jihads etc. Of course I understand why it has been avoided. But perhaps a Mod or Scenario with that in mind.

Well whether it's called Israel, Judah, or the Hebrews, I think founding one of the worlds major religions is significant enough that they could make it in.

 

[Zaarin]

As for Israel. There is some debate as to whether the "Kingdom" really existed or was of any real historic significance.

That's completely untrue unless you use the narrow definition of the United Kingdom of Israel. The Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah certainly existed, and the Kingdom of Israel was certainly a major economic power at the crossroads of several trade routes. The Kingdom of Judah was less powerful, being mostly transhumance pastoralists, but given the wide-ranging influence of Judaism it's hard to say it didn't win the long game.

 

[Evie]

Personally, I don't like modern civs or modern rulers and would put a soft cap of 1750 or so if I were selecting the roster, but I've made peace that there will be some--as long as we can leave out Canada and Australia next time around.

Or we coudl have Canada with Champlain as the leader *runs*

 

[Zaarin]

Or we coudl have Canada with Champlain as the leader *runs*

I would actually be very interested in such a depiction, and when we got the first rumblings about Canada it's what I'd hoped we'd see.

 

[Evie]

Even when I try to poke fun at you we end up agreeing.

But yes, Samuel de Champlain leads Canada I would *love* to see. And probably *still* the least horrible non-living leader you can get on Indigenous matters in Canada. Which says much about Canada.

 

[Zaarin]

Last summer I did a paper for my Atlantic World class on sixteenth century Franco-Huron relations in which Champlain figured quite prominently since most of the available information either comes from him or from the Franciscan and Jesuit missionaries.