Leaders: A New Approach?

[Boris Gudenuf]

What Brought This On:
Rummaging through the Threads on the Forum the other day, and noticed how many threads were on the subject of Civ Leaders: Returning Leaders, Never Seen leaders, Alternate Leaders, Female Leaders, Alternate Never Seen Almost Female Leaders...
Then, attempting to play a game of Civ V last night, I decided to try playing the USA (which I haven't done in years) and realized that among the Mods and the versions of the 'official' game, I could play as the USA with:
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Jackson
James Polk
Abraham Lincoln
Theodore Roosevelt
Woodrow Wilson
Franklin Roosevelt
Dwight Eisenhower
John Kennedy
- And I've probably left a few out, because I quit browsing at that point.
10 Different Leaders for one Civ that, in game terms, has only been in existence since the later Renaissance Era - each with a different (sometimes Very different) set of Uniques.
Now, the problem is (and the reason I still haven't started a game as the USA) that I wanted to partake of a number of those Uniques, but could only chose one set with one leader. Frustrating. And the explanation of why Alternate Leaders is the source of so many mods for both Civ V and Civ VI: Any Civilization that has lasted any length of time generates a number of interesting leaders and fascinating Attributes, but the Civ games as designed force you to strait-jacket the civ into a single tight little coat - which may be completely inappropriate for the game you are playing.

This morning the light dawned - or, in my case, the rather dim candle, but, hey, I take Illumination where I can find it...

Progressive Leaders
Not Progressive in the sense of Forward Thinking, because most of them historically Weren't, but a Progression of Leaders for each Civ.
Specifically, since a realistic progression would have leaders changing every turn in the Ancient Era and even in later Eras not lasting much longer than William Harrison did as president (Look him up - the Guinness World Record for Shortest Time in office, measured in Days, not Years).
So, we compromise: Each Civ gets a new leader whenever they enter a new Era.
AND the Leader they get may depend on what their Civilization is doing in the game.

Example
Since I started with the USA, I'll stick with it. Obviously, there are NO leaders for the USA before the Renaissance Era historically. So, for game purposes the Starting Leaders in the Ancient Era for this Civ will be its Starting Leaders from when it historically started. Leaders (usually) will not go 'obsolete' in later Eras, but no leader gets 'Reincarnated' - once used, they are Out of That Particular Game.
So, USA Leaders might be (an Entirely Random List off the top of my pointy head):
Ancient Era:
George Washington - Military
Benjamin Franklin - Scientific
John Adams - Diplomatic
Thomas Jefferson - Exploration
Alexander Hamilton - Economy
Classical Era:
Andrew Jackson - Military
James Polk - Exploration
Medieval Era:
Abraham Lincoln - Military
Grover Cleveland - Economy
Renaissance Era:
William McKinley - Economy
Theodore Roosevelt - Military
Industrial Era:
Woodrow Wilson - Diplomacy
Herbert Hoover - Economy
Modern Era:
Franklin Roosevelt - Military
Dwight Eisenhower - Economy
Atomic Era:
John Kennedy - Scientific
Richard Nixon - Diplomacy
Information Era:
Ronald Reagan - Military
William Clinton - Economy

In each case, the Primary Influence shown may have an entirely different 'Unique Unit" or Building connected - no leader is entirely one thing. But the Primary Influence indicates to some extent the chance that you will get that leader: if in the previous Eras you never fought a war, your chance of generating a 'Military' leader is not high, to say the least. On the other hand, if you start an Era facing an unexplored Pangaea continent a Leader with an influence on Exploration is a good bet - but never a Sure Thing.

Note from the list above that you could get Alexander Hamilton for an Ecomically-influential Leader in the Atomic Era, IF he has never shown up previously, but you cannot get Franklin Roosevelt in the Classical Era. As much as anything else, this keeps the game from becoming a Free For All among leaders.

Elephant in the Room
Obviously, some Civs is more equal than others. For some Civilizations it will be relatively easy to generate more than enough historical leaders to 'fill out' every Era: China, Britain/England, France, Russia, for obvious examples (just look at the number of Alternate Leaders each has in Civ V Mods already!) But what about 'ephemeral' Civs? Specifically, what about Civilizations that 'peaked' early and then disappeared for a few thousand years or for good?
That's where research comes in, and I don't mean a set of wikipedia searches. If Paradox can find thousands of alternate leaders and 'great people' for a few hundred years in the Renaissance to early Industrial Eras for Europa Universalis for 'civilizations' consisting of as little as one tiny European/Asian province, we can certainly find semi-historical alternatives for Civ VI (or. more likely, Civ XXXX).

For example: Egypt. Historically, there are practically no Egyptian 'Civilization Leaders' between the mid-Classical Era and the Industrial Era, and no Independent Egyptian Leaders until the Atomic Era (post-WWII).
BUT there are a host of Ancient Era Egyptian Leaders which, like the USA Example above, can be 'stretched' into the Classical/Medieval Eras. There are religious, local, cultural, and other 'semi-political' leaders in Egypt in the Renaissance, Industrial and Modern Eras that can be 'converted' into Civ-type Leaders. Each Civ needs as a desired minimum, 16 leaders to give a choice of some kind in each Era of the game, and in most games the 'Leaders' for the Information Era will never see the screen. With research (and much, much argument on the Threads!) we should be able to find that minimum in some form for the Game Civilizations.

We can even combine Civs to get both the number of Leaders and to make the point in-game that some Civs have ancestral or successor Civilizations: Gallic Leaders for France in the Ancient Era, for example, or German Tribal, and Holy Roman Leaders (As in Civ VI now!) for Germany before there were a united German State.
Scythia, for example, was succeeded by a long string of Steppe Nomad or Semi-Nomadic Civilizations: Sarmatians, Alans, Pechenegs/Patzinaks, Tatars, Cossacks - and, note that in my USA example I specifically included Leaders that were never officially Political Leaders/Presidents - we can cast our net wide, to include Mazarin or Richeleau in France (probably not required, with all the Bourbons lounging around, but potentially intriguing Alternates, no?) or Taras Bulba and Bogdan Khmelnitsky for the later 'Scythians'.

Solution looking for Problems
We have generated literally thousands of posts in the Threads, and myriads of Modded Civs in Civ V (and now, Civ VI) concerning Alternate Leaders for Civs or Alternate its for the game. I think this system, with a lot of Blood, Sweat and Sore Keyboarding Fingers, could solve both problems: incoporate some of the Alternate Civs as Leader-Generators for Progressive Civs in the game, and incorporate alternate Leaders with all the intriguing Alternative Uniques into each Civ.
Why have to make a choice when we could have it All? - Or, at least More?

Final Thought:
Alternate Leaders for Game Balance.
If you are running away with the game, or an AI is running away with the game, there could be Alternate Leaders designed to Slow Them Down - you could and up playing the Renaissance Era with Millard Fillmore as your USA leader, or George III leading your English!

 

[Guandao]

Too many leaders to conduct voice acting for...
I could see this happening in a different game, but not Civ. That game wouldn't have voiced leaders or would voice them all in American English.

 

[Phrozen]

I like this idea but would modify it a bit due to voice acting and animations. We introduce a new great person type: The Great Statesman. The great statesman can have several abilities depending on what type it is: Diplomatic, Economic, Military, or Judicial(Amenities). You get a great statesman at the beginning of every era.

This way you can include a lot of historical politicians and government functionaries without making them leaders so: Franklin, Gladstone, Imhotep, Metternich, Lord Palmerston, Seward, Dulles, Mazarin etc would be in the game.

 

[How to know]

This idea certainly looks interesting, but I am also curious about what solution you have for civilisations who "lost their history"/""killed for some time" like Hebrews and Polish. Added to that, I am also not convinced that we can find that much leaders for Mayan, because we know so little about them.

 

[Manifold]

I like the idea...but I also guess it is hard to find enough leaders apart from the main Civs with long history. I would not like if Sumeria gets Saddam H as modern leader for example. IMO leaders of Civs must be great and iconic and in some way successful.

Maybe every Civ could get 3 to 6 leaders that could be enough and makeable (in Civ10 or so)

At the same time, a civil war system should also be introduced because your great leader do not want to retire of its own motion

I like this idea but would modify it a bit due to voice acting and animations. We introduce a new great person type: The Great Statesman. The great statesman can have several abilities depending on what type it is: Diplomatic, Economic, Military, or Judicial(Amenities). You get a great statesman at the beginning of every era.

This way you can include a lot of historical politicians and government functionaries without making them leaders so: Franklin, Gladstone, Imhotep, Metternich, Lord Palmerston, Seward, Dulles, Mazarin etc would be in the game.

I like this idea also and I guess it is more practicable.

Also you are giving me another idea.

You get a great statesman at the beginning of every era.

Give at every beginning era the choice to the player of one great person (maybe otherwise expired great person) not only the great statesman.
At the moment tech/culture progress is not only positive. There are few reason to stop the progress while gaming.
A great person with the new era could bring one more point of view to be considered when you choose your next tech/culture progress.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Too many leaders to conduct voice acting for...
I could see this happening in a different game, but not Civ. That game wouldn't have voiced leaders or would voice them all in American English.

I'd point out that Civ did not have Voice Acting in the original game - not until much later, in fact. Second, this is an argument to not do something that will eliminate (potentially) one of the greatest sources of debate in Civ - how to accommodate numerous different leaders and traits in a civilization, in order to keep an over-expensive source of bad research that is ignored after the first 5 - 6 games.
I challenge you - how many of you still listen to ANY of the 'voice acting' after the 5th or 6th game?
- So, why are you so interested in keeping an ephemeral and frequently poorly-done component of the game that has virtually NO impact on play, and to keep this rejecting something that is made difficult by the ephemerality but will enhance game play?

I like this idea but would modify it a bit due to voice acting and animations. We introduce a new great person type: The Great Statesman. The great statesman can have several abilities depending on what type it is: Diplomatic, Economic, Military, or Judicial(Amenities). You get a great statesman at the beginning of every era.

This way you can include a lot of historical politicians and government functionaries without making them leaders so: Franklin, Gladstone, Imhotep, Metternich, Lord Palmerston, Seward, Dulles, Mazarin etc would be in the game.

Again, don't get hung up on Voice and Animation that have no effect on the play of the game - they are distractions that can be replaced with other distractions and as is, take up far, far too much time, money and effort for their effect - except to give Forum-Crawlers something to comment on. Meh.

Another Great Person is not a bad idea, but I would make him a Great Minister, covering possible abilities and influence in the fields of Diplomacy, Internal Administration/Efficiency (including Trade or Economics), Military Administration (cost of building and maintaining units, gaining Promotions, maintaining Encampments and their buildings, etc). BUT I would make the appearance of Great Ministers more dependent on Game Events - what Civics you choose, how many times you Change Civics, waging, winning, or losing wars, having negative Gold or insufficient Amenities or No allied City States. This would make the Great Minister potentially act as a 'catch-up' factor in parts of the game where you or the AI are not doing well, and possibly as a Supplement in places where the Leader of your Civ is deficient.

This idea certainly looks interesting, but I am also curious about what solution you have for civilisations who "lost their history"/""killed for some time" like Hebrews and Polish. Added to that, I am also not convinced that we can find that much leaders for Mayan, because we know so little about them.

Interesting indeed, because Exactly the same type of argument has been used in all the 'Civ Elimination' threads in this forum for Civs that have few or no known leaders, uncertain languages, no city names, etc. Mayans are only one of myriad 'civs' that we don't know much about in those categories, but they have and do appear in the game - Scythia and Huns come immediately to mind.

I put it to you that since so much of the game is fantasy already (Immortal Leaders, traits that remain in the population Regardless of Events for 6000 years, etc) such civilizations will be largely fantasy, like so many that have already been in the game. As an example, pour over the 'City Name' lists for civilizations in Civ V or Civ VI: after utterly mangling the Mayan, Celtic and Iroquois' lists, they gave up and 'faked' a Hun list in Civ V, and then went and mangled the Scythian list in Civ VI just as badly.

But I would point out that Hebrew/Israeli history has numerous people throughout the Classical, Medieval, Renaissance and Industrial Eras who were local leaders or equivalent of Great People of various kinds that could be used, and the hiatus in Polish history (from the 'Partitions' to post WWI) in game terms only lasted for part of Two Eras: Very Late Renaissance and Industrial. That gives you leaders from the Medieval, early Renaissance, Modern and Atomic Eras, at least, from which enough leaders can be drawn to 'fill in' or 'stretch out' for game purposes.

You will note in my original example, I picked a Civ that has only existed for a fraction of the time the game covers, to show that leaders can be stretched to cover the game. If a civ didn't last long enough to have 16 leaders, then we can use non-Head of State Great People or even, and this also has examples in current and previous Civ games, fictional or semi-fictional Leaders (Hiawatha and Gilgamesh spring to mind)

 

[Guandao]

I'd point out that Civ did not have Voice Acting in the original game - not until much later, in fact. Second, this is an argument to not do something that will eliminate (potentially) one of the greatest sources of debate in Civ - how to accommodate numerous different leaders and traits in a civilization, in order to keep an over-expensive source of bad research that is ignored after the first 5 - 6 games.
I challenge you - how many of you still listen to ANY of the 'voice acting' after the 5th or 6th game?
- So, why are you so interested in keeping an ephemeral and frequently poorly-done component of the game that has virtually NO impact on play, and to keep this rejecting something that is made difficult by the ephemerality but will enhance game play?



Again, don't get hung up on Voice and Animation that have no effect on the play of the game - they are distractions that can be replaced with other distractions and as is, take up far, far too much time, money and effort for their effect - except to give Forum-Crawlers something to comment on. Meh.

Another Great Person is not a bad idea, but I would make him a Great Minister, covering possible abilities and influence in the fields of Diplomacy, Internal Administration/Efficiency (including Trade or Economics), Military Administration (cost of building and maintaining units, gaining Promotions, maintaining Encampments and their buildings, etc). BUT I would make the appearance of Great Ministers more dependent on Game Events - what Civics you choose, how many times you Change Civics, waging, winning, or losing wars, having negative Gold or insufficient Amenities or No allied City States. This would make the Great Minister potentially act as a 'catch-up' factor in parts of the game where you or the AI are not doing well, and possibly as a Supplement in places where the Leader of your Civ is deficient.



Interesting indeed, because Exactly the same type of argument has been used in all the 'Civ Elimination' threads in this forum for Civs that have few or no known leaders, uncertain languages, no city names, etc. Mayans are only one of myriad 'civs' that we don't know much about in those categories, but they have and do appear in the game - Scythia and Huns come immediately to mind.

I put it to you that since so much of the game is fantasy already (Immortal Leaders, traits that remain in the population Regardless of Events for 6000 years, etc) such civilizations will be largely fantasy, like so many that have already been in the game. As an example, pour over the 'City Name' lists for civilizations in Civ V or Civ VI: after utterly mangling the Mayan, Celtic and Iroquois' lists, they gave up and 'faked' a Hun list in Civ V, and then went and mangled the Scythian list in Civ VI just as badly.

But I would point out that Hebrew/Israeli history has numerous people throughout the Classical, Medieval, Renaissance and Industrial Eras who were local leaders or equivalent of Great People of various kinds that could be used, and the hiatus in Polish history (from the 'Partitions' to post WWI) in game terms only lasted for part of Two Eras: Very Late Renaissance and Industrial. That gives you leaders from the Medieval, early Renaissance, Modern and Atomic Eras, at least, from which enough leaders can be drawn to 'fill in' or 'stretch out' for game purposes.

You will note in my original example, I picked a Civ that has only existed for a fraction of the time the game covers, to show that leaders can be stretched to cover the game. If a civ didn't last long enough to have 16 leaders, then we can use non-Head of State Great People or even, and this also has examples in current and previous Civ games, fictional or semi-fictional Leaders (Hiawatha and Gilgamesh spring to mind)

Your words sound very harsh and dismissive of the presence of non-English languages in a game. I feel offended. I'm a language enthusiast. And I prefer listening to the leader talk than being silent all the time. I guess the leaders aren't an integral part of the game for most players. Might as well get rid of them entirely and go with Civ2's approach.
The research into the dialogue has gotten way better since Civ5, with Gilgamesh not speaking Sumerian as the main exception. Even the BNW and G&K voice acting was an improvement. It's not impossible with all the academia in the States and connection to the internet, as well as globalization. Why play a game with the leader always changing by era? Civ games have never implemented that.

Look, Civ is one of the reasons I've developed an interest in languages. We don't even know how much money Firaxis spends on the voice acting as compared to programming. Academic scholars would get excited to see languages spoken in a video game, especially if its ancient and extinct. Some would be willing to write the dialogue for humble sums of money. Members of ethnic groups with stigmatized languages would feel the same. Civ is pretty much the only game franchise with this many languages, both ancient and extinct, spoken. Two or three alternate leaders for the more prominent Civs are fine with me, but to have them tied to eras doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Your words sound very harsh and dismissive of the presence of non-English languages in a game. I feel offended. I'm a language enthusiast. And I prefer listening to the leader talk than being silent all the time. I guess the leaders aren't an integral part of the game for most players. Might as well get rid of them entirely and go with Civ2's approach.

I am 'harsh and dismissive" not of Non-English languages, but of the argument that something should not be done, or added to the game because "we don't know enough about the language they spoke" - as I stated, an argument that runs through every Civ Elimination Thread on these Forums.
I'm a History Enthusiast, and I grit my teeth at a Lot of the misrepresentation of history in the Civ games (and others!) but I don't expect it to get any better unless I - and others - say something about it.

The research into the dialogue has gotten way better since Civ5, with Gilgamesh not speaking Sumerian as the main exception. Even the BNW and G&K voice acting was an improvement. It's not impossible with all the academia in the States and connection to the internet, as well as globalization. Why play a game with the leader always changing by era? Civ games have never implemented that.

Why continue to have a single Leader for all Eras, frequently speaking a language that didn't even exist in the Leader's spoken form in that Era?

Civ didn't have Religion in the games until late in the Franchise either, but the game changes, evolves, and hopefully gets better. That it hasn't been done before is not a valid argument. That perhaps it Shouldn't be done because it will wreck the enjoyment of the game by the gamer - that IS a valid argument, and I respect that you feel that way about multiple Leaders.
BUT the number of Mods offering Alternate Leaders and the number of Threads discussing Alternate Leaders does not lead to an assumption that that is a majority opinion.

- And since they are improving, then they can keep improving until they can implement reasonably accurate spoken languages for different Eras and different Leaders. To paraphrase an argument in another Thread about the language of English/British Leaders, to be strictly accurate the Leader of Civ's England should change languages At Least 5 times between the Ancient Era and the Industrial Era - and among leaders, they would not be the exception.

Look, Civ is one of the reasons I've developed an interest in languages. We don't even know how much money Firaxis spends on the voice acting as compared to programming. Academic scholars would get excited to see languages spoken in a video game, especially if its ancient and extinct. Some would be willing to write the dialogue for humble sums of money. Members of ethnic groups with stigmatized languages would feel the same. Civ is pretty much the only game franchise with this many languages, both ancient and extinct, spoken. Two or three alternate leaders for the more prominent Civs are fine with me, but to have them tied to eras doesn't sit well with me.

I understand your position, just don't share it. Having a single Leader and set of Unique Attributes that tries to stuff a Civ spanning centuries into a single period of its History and a single Leader disturbs and frustrates me - hence the Thread.

Congratulations on your language interest. One of the greatest Failings of American Education is the failure to teach languages besides English in the primary and secondary schools. Knowing only one language leads to insularity of thinking. By my sheer good luck, my secondary school (many, many years ago) offered Latin, French, Spanish, and German, and taking at least one of them was Mandatory. Then, I got badgered into taking a Linguistics course as an undergraduate, and it was one of the smartest things I ever did.

 

[Guandao]

I am 'harsh and dismissive" not of Non-English languages, but of the argument that something should not be done, or added to the game because "we don't know enough about the language they spoke" - as I stated, an argument that runs through every Civ Elimination Thread on these Forums.
I'm a History Enthusiast, and I grit my teeth at a Lot of the misrepresentation of history in the Civ games (and others!) but I don't expect it to get any better unless I - and others - say something about it.



Why continue to have a single Leader for all Eras, frequently speaking a language that didn't even exist in the Leader's spoken form in that Era?

Civ didn't have Religion in the games until late in the Franchise either, but the game changes, evolves, and hopefully gets better. That it hasn't been done before is not a valid argument. That perhaps it Shouldn't be done because it will wreck the enjoyment of the game by the gamer - that IS a valid argument, and I respect that you feel that way about multiple Leaders.
BUT the number of Mods offering Alternate Leaders and the number of Threads discussing Alternate Leaders does not lead to an assumption that that is a majority opinion.

- And since they are improving, then they can keep improving until they can implement reasonably accurate spoken languages for different Eras and different Leaders. To paraphrase an argument in another Thread about the language of English/British Leaders, to be strictly accurate the Leader of Civ's England should change languages At Least 5 times between the Ancient Era and the Industrial Era - and among leaders, they would not be the exception.



I understand your position, just don't share it. Having a single Leader and set of Unique Attributes that tries to stuff a Civ spanning centuries into a single period of its History and a single Leader disturbs and frustrates me - hence the Thread.

Congratulations on your language interest. One of the greatest Failings of American Education is the failure to teach languages besides English in the primary and secondary schools. Knowing only one language leads to insularity of thinking. By my sheer good luck, my secondary school (many, many years ago) offered Latin, French, Spanish, and German, and taking at least one of them was Mandatory. Then, I got badgered into taking a Linguistics course as an undergraduate, and it was one of the smartest things I ever did.

Sorry if I sounded rude, I had a bad day yesterday. I was raised by immigrant parents (who were multilingual), so started learning a non-English language before schooling. My second language from Middle to High School was French, which I struggled with due to pronunciation and unfamiliar grammar rules. I took language courses in my first university, three courses of Mandarin, two of Latin, one of Japanese, and one of Spanish in addition to at least three classes in Linguistics. At my next university, I only took two Linguistic courses. That university's diversity in second language courses was impressive compared to the first, it included Zulu, Yoruba, Quechua, Akkadian, and ancient Egyptian. Too bad I didn't took advantage of it. But now I can read language books in the Uni's library.

I think your idea is doable, now that I've taken a second look. For Civs like Scythia and Sumer, it might be hard to find era-appropriate leaders though. It would be much easier if the leaders are only depicted in a portrait.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Sorry if I sounded rude, I had a bad day yesterday. I was raised by immigrant parents (who were multilingual), so started learning a non-English language before schooling. My second language from Middle to High School was French, which I struggled with due to pronunciation and unfamiliar grammar rules. I took language courses in my first university, three courses of Mandarin, two of Latin, one of Japanese, and one of Spanish in addition to at least three classes in Linguistics. At my next university, I only took two Linguistic courses. That university's diversity in second language courses was impressive compared to the first, it included Zulu, Yoruba, Quechua, Akkadian, and ancient Egyptian. Too bad I didn't took advantage of it. But now I can read language books in the Uni's library.

I had a rude decade between 1970 and 1980, but I'm Much Better Now - no problem.

I envy you. My own language skills, unfortunately, are almost entirely European: Latin, Greek, German, Russian, French and a smattering of Ukrainian, Polish, Spanish and Welsh. My sister is the real linguist of the family, having taken an advanced degree in Indo-European Studies that included, for comparison, learning Mandarin and Choctaw in addition to German, French, Russian, Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek. She learned Russian in a language school in Germany, learning one foreign language in another foreign language, which makes my head hurt just thinking about it.

I think your idea is doable, now that I've taken a second look. For Civs like Scythia and Sumer, it might be hard to find era-appropriate leaders though. It would be much easier if the leaders are only depicted in a portrait.

I never thought, and I hope I didn't imply, that it would be Easy to implement: I just think it's worth a try.

You gave a hint as to how to make it doable, I think, when you mentioned the number of students and speakers of 'obscure' languages that would be willing to help just to get the language some exposure. Enthusiastic Volunteers might be the way to go, or at least get it started. Based on the input on these Forums, there are people in the Civ Community itself with some/enough expertise to at least point the way to which languages are required and where they might be acquired. Also, linguists (at least last time I talked to my sister about it some years ago) are quite capable of 'backdating' or 'projecting' languages as to how they change - pronunciations, word-borrowing, etc. This leads to the possibility, especially for the relatively short speeches required by the game, of using a 'projected' language reconstruction for Eras in which the original language did not exist: 'updating' Sumerian or Babylonian for an Industrial Era speaker, for example. For a total language 'snippet' of no more than a couple hundred words, many of them repeated in the game speeches, that should be possible.

Heck, give it to a linguistics/Anthroplogy/Cutural Studies grad student as a potential thesis project and it might not cost Firaxis much at all!

For Era-appropriate leaders in 'short term' or 'one Era' Civs like Scythia and Sumer, a combination of 'stretching' and 'appropriating' would probably have to be used. Keep the 'historical' leaders as Options for all Eras - even for Scythia, we have at least two in Tomyris and Ateas - and then use Great People or Leaders from their cultural antecedents/successors. In the case of Scythia, that could include a number of the steppe nomad cultures from their same geographical region: Alans, Pechenegs, Sarmatians, etc. In the case of Sumer it's trickier, because their 'descendants' in the same geographical area are frequently deserving of Civ representation in their own right: Babylon, for instance. In the wealth of clay documentation on Sumer and the city states and empires that came after, though, there should be a number of names of politicians, engineers, diplomats, administrators/bureaucrats, generals, that would allow us to 'cobble together' 16 names to cover all the Eras.
It 'helps' that Civ VI has started with a semi-legendary Leader for Sumer in Gilgamesh: it implies that using names from fiction or legend is not out of the question, and enlarges our 'search area' for Leaders.

I personally would not mind at all seeing Chingachcook as a Native American leader...

 

[Guandao]

I had a rude decade between 1970 and 1980, but I'm Much Better Now - no problem.

I envy you. My own language skills, unfortunately, are almost entirely European: Latin, Greek, German, Russian, French and a smattering of Ukrainian, Polish, Spanish and Welsh. My sister is the real linguist of the family, having taken an advanced degree in Indo-European Studies that included, for comparison, learning Mandarin and Choctaw in addition to German, French, Russian, Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek. She learned Russian in a language school in Germany, learning one foreign language in another foreign language, which makes my head hurt just thinking about it.



I never thought, and I hope I didn't imply, that it would be Easy to implement: I just think it's worth a try.

You gave a hint as to how to make it doable, I think, when you mentioned the number of students and speakers of 'obscure' languages that would be willing to help just to get the language some exposure. Enthusiastic Volunteers might be the way to go, or at least get it started. Based on the input on these Forums, there are people in the Civ Community itself with some/enough expertise to at least point the way to which languages are required and where they might be acquired. Also, linguists (at least last time I talked to my sister about it some years ago) are quite capable of 'backdating' or 'projecting' languages as to how they change - pronunciations, word-borrowing, etc. This leads to the possibility, especially for the relatively short speeches required by the game, of using a 'projected' language reconstruction for Eras in which the original language did not exist: 'updating' Sumerian or Babylonian for an Industrial Era speaker, for example. For a total language 'snippet' of no more than a couple hundred words, many of them repeated in the game speeches, that should be possible.

Heck, give it to a linguistics/Anthroplogy/Cutural Studies grad student as a potential thesis project and it might not cost Firaxis much at all!

For Era-appropriate leaders in 'short term' or 'one Era' Civs like Scythia and Sumer, a combination of 'stretching' and 'appropriating' would probably have to be used. Keep the 'historical' leaders as Options for all Eras - even for Scythia, we have at least two in Tomyris and Ateas - and then use Great People or Leaders from their cultural antecedents/successors. In the case of Scythia, that could include a number of the steppe nomad cultures from their same geographical region: Alans, Pechenegs, Sarmatians, etc. In the case of Sumer it's trickier, because their 'descendants' in the same geographical area are frequently deserving of Civ representation in their own right: Babylon, for instance. In the wealth of clay documentation on Sumer and the city states and empires that came after, though, there should be a number of names of politicians, engineers, diplomats, administrators/bureaucrats, generals, that would allow us to 'cobble together' 16 names to cover all the Eras.
It 'helps' that Civ VI has started with a semi-legendary Leader for Sumer in Gilgamesh: it implies that using names from fiction or legend is not out of the question, and enlarges our 'search area' for Leaders.

I personally would not mind at all seeing Chingachcook as a Native American leader...

Chingachcook was real?????? Was he Mohegan or Mahican?
How about a pan-(Eastern) Algonquian Civ with leaders like Massasoit, Metacomet, Uncas, and Wahunsecawh/Powhatan? It makes sense from a linguistic viewpoint. Though the Shawnee are not classified as speaking an Eastern Algonquian language.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Chingachcook was real?????? Was he Mohegan or Mahican?
How about a pan-(Eastern) Algonquian Civ with leaders like Massasoit, Metacomet, Uncas, and Wahunsecawh/Powhatan? It makes sense from a linguistic viewpoint. Though the Shawnee are not classified as speaking an Eastern Algonquian language.

'Real' is how you define it, in this case. Specifically, he was a fictional character is Cooper's "Leatherstocking Tales", who May have been based on a Mohican basket-maker that Cooper had heard about or met. The name 'Chingachcook' is based on a Lenape pair of words meaning "Great Snake" which Cooper got from a book on 'Indian' customs and stories written by John Heckeweider in 1818, a name in which Heckeweider seems to have considerably Germanicized the spelling.
Especially since the Iroquois/Haudenosinee have been done to a turn in Civ, the Algonquian are Overdue, and based on the similarities among all the tribes of the Northeast culturally and linguistically, this is one place where 'amalgamating' the various tribes from New England down the coast is, I think, excusable.

This is, if you'll excuse my expansion of your comment, a good example of what I'm talking about in the Thread. An Algonquian Civilization could have leaders from a half-dozen tribes, each with a slightly different Emphasis/Influence and therefore some variation in Uniques while keeping a cultural and linguistic 'continuity; for the Civ.