How would you design a civ in civ 7 roster?

[jsciv69]

Khrushchev would be a great counter to Eisenhower as leader for America. the mid-late 50's had the World holding it's breath. Even a war-monger like Churchill was alarmed. As both the US and USSR were jockeying for supremacy. Why not have some Cold War drama. Nikita was a bit more charasmatic than Ike. It's a great contrast of personalities. Other Civs are used to having leaders at some height of that Civ's status. So why not do the same for both America and Russia?

 

[pineappledan]

I think it's a bit weird having any 20th century leaders. Even 19th century leaders are a stretch. A robust ideology system should come into play in those game eras, and the cultures should be defined by things that happen before the industrialization and global trade starts to form larger political and economic blocs.

 

[jsciv69]

I think it's a bit weird having any 20th century leaders. Even 19th century leaders are a stretch. A robust ideology system should come into play in those game eras, and the cultures should be defined by things that happen before the industrialization and global trade starts to form larger political and economic blocs.

Some of the Civs did not even exist before the 19th Century. Besides if Gandhi, Churchill, and FDR(20th Century) can be featured. Why not other leaders of the same century. And what brought more World wide drama than the Cold War. Especially in the days of Ike and Khrushchev. We could even bring in Nasser and Castro to fit that era. Also America has already had Washington, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts. So why not someone from an Era we know more of. Especially one that gave us Elvis and the H-Bomb at the same time.

 

[pineappledan]

Yeah I'm saying FDR, Gandhi et al. are just bad picks for leaders.

19th and 20th century should be adequately covered by the tech tree slowing down and a larger ideology system like what they had in civ 5, or even expanded. The civs should be well-defined before that time, and if they aren't then they shouldn't be picked as civs.

 

[jsciv69]

Yeah I'm saying FDR, Gandhi et al. are just bad picks for leaders.

19th and 20th century should be adequately covered by the tech tree slowing down and a larger ideology system like what they had in civ 5, or even expanded. The civs should be well-defined before that time, and if they aren't then they shouldn't be picked as civs.

I understand the over-romanticizing of the "Founding Fathers". The only one I might like is John Adams who is one of the few that didn't own slaves. But the other Ancient Civs like Rome and Egypt have had leaders when that Civ was at the height of power. I have no particular love or Ike or even JFK. But at least they represent a much more powerful America than any before. The same with a Khrushchev for Russia.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I understand the over-romanticizing of the "Founding Fathers". The only one I might like is John Adams who is one of the few that didn't own slaves. But the other Ancient Civs like Rome and Egypt have had leaders when that Civ was at the height of power. I have no particular love or Ike or even JFK. But at least they represent a much more powerful America than any before. The same with a Khrushchev for Russia.

As far as Russia goes, they reached great power status under Peter the Great. It continued under the reign of Catherine the Great as well.

 

[pineappledan]

Also America has already had Washington, Lincoln, and both Roosevelts. So why not someone from an Era we know more of. Especially one that gave us Elvis and the H-Bomb at the same time.

Not sure what you mean by this. We know in incredible detail the lives and times of basically any American president. If anything the earlier you go the better understood their legacy and personalities become. The more recent you push the more classified and up-for-interpretation the legacies of those leaders become.

My personal pick for a civ 7 America leader would be Ulysses Grant. 19th century leader that hasn’t been in a game. A general and leader of unimpeachable moral rectitude.

 

[jsciv69]

As far as Russia goes, they reached great power status under Peter the Great. It continued under the reign of Catherine the Great as well.

That's true. But neither saw Sputnik. Plus those two were used before. Stalin was used in Civ IV. So maybe Russia can have multiple choices. . One Classical choice like Ivan "The Terrible", one Modern like Khrushchev. I could mention Gorby. but that might be too recent. And Khruschev would fit the franchise, being as combative and a bit insane as he was. perfect for Civilization.

 

[jsciv69]

Not sure what you mean by this. We know in incredible detail the lives and times of basically any American president. If anything the earlier you go the better understood their legacy and personalities become. The more recent you push the more classified and up-for-interpretation the legacies of those leaders become.

My personal pick for a civ 7 America leader would be Ulysses Grant. 19th century leader that hasn’t been in a game. A general and leader of unimpeachable moral rectitude.

Grant is actually one of my alternate choices. And an America led by Grant and/or Eisenhower would'nt have to change many dynamics. Since both were successful war Generals. Both represent an American Era of progress and expansion. One saw the establishment of the Justice Department the other saw the formation of the CIA. A common theme would be an America on the move.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Grant is actually one of my alternate choices. And an America led by Grant and/or Eisenhower would'nt have to change many dynamics. Since both were successful war Generals. Both represent an American Era of progress and expansion. One saw the establishment of the Justice Department the other saw the formation of the CIA. A common theme would be an America on the move.

What about an America in peace and progress? Jefferson (who created the Declaration of Independence and was instrumental in American expansion), FDR (who made America a global power)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

What about an America in peace and progress? Jefferson (who created the Declaration of Independence and was instrumental in American expansion), FDR (who made America a global power)

Since FDR was already used, I wouldn't mind Eisenhower as a more modern alternative to Jefferson, as long as he is also in.
I wouldn't focus too much on war with him, but his domestic endeavors in creating the interstate system, and the formation of NASA.

 

[jsciv69]

What about an America in peace and progress? Jefferson (who created the Declaration of Independence and was instrumental in American expansion), FDR (who made America a global power)

Lot's of polarizing opinions about Jefferson. Perhaps too many. Then again all have some dark clouds over their heads. FDR is a consideration. But he was already used(Civ IV). But this is also why America should have alternate leaders. one among the "Founders" Era, or post-Civil War. and one from the 20th Century preferably a Cold War Era President. Then again anything after JFK might be too recent. Even though I might be intrigued with using Reagan.

 

[pineappledan]

This was specifically in the context of avoiding 20th century leaders.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

i would design civs in three categories

1. super niche civs. these are very good at one thing...not so much the others.
2. well rounded civs biased towards a certain niche
3. joke civs that would be extremely hard for a new player to play but offer sometimes broken strategies

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This was specifically in the context of avoiding 20th century leaders.

I don't know if we should exclude all 20th century leaders from the game, personally. Wouldn't that exclude some like Menelik II from ever appearing again?
That being said, I would still prefer to have way more leaders from the Ancient, Classical, and Medieval periods.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I don't know if we should exclude all 20th century leaders from the game, personally. Wouldn't that exclude some like Menelik II from ever appearing again?
That being said, I would still prefer to have way more leaders from the Ancient, Classical, and Medieval periods.

I agree with you

 

[pineappledan]

I don't know if we should exclude all 20th century leaders from the game, personally. Wouldn't that exclude some like Menelik II from ever appearing again?
That being said, I would still prefer to have way more leaders from the Ancient, Classical, and Medieval periods.

Menelik took the throne in 1889 until his death in 1913, so it depends how you count. He straddles the line. Considering he has been picked and Haile Selassie has also been picked as a leader in a game, there is no particularly good reason to neglect the other 2000+ years of Ethiopian history by picking the same 20th century leaders.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Menelik took the throne in 1889 until his death in 1913, so it depends how you count. He straddles the line. Considering he has been picked and Haile Selassie has also been picked as a leader in a game, there is no particularly good reason to neglect the other 2000+ years of Ethiopian history by picking the same 20th century leaders.

I'm not going to disagree with you there. My preferred choice would be Ezana for an Axum Empire Ethiopia. But I wouldn't necessarily want Civ 6 to be his only appearance. I could live without seeing Halie Selassie again.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

How? Use a bunch of civilizations throughout human history and base them on merit and historical importance. Leaders? Find someone who exemplified that civilization during a notable period. Also add in a Unique Unit and a Unique Infrastructure/Building/ or Wonder.

 

[Xandinho]

I'm in the group of those who prefer early era leaders, as they are more interesting, at least for me. At least they could be avoided when Civ offers more interesting earlier leaders, like Netherlands. However... if the game has recent technologies, recent buildings, recent units, recent wonders, then why not recent leaders as well? Look, I don't think the game should be full of 20th century leaders, but some of them, around half a dozen, I don't think would hurt. Not even Civ6 has many of them.
Also thinking about gameplay, recent leaders can interact with late game mechanics.