All leader portraits

[AriochIV]

Looks like a match.

Arioch?

Not even close.

 

[retrocity5]

Curses! Gilgamesh! But hey, Norway made it. And why Gorgo over Leonidas? Probably just because she's a woman.

 

[Bast]

Hate to go down racial route but there are 8 non-white leaders out of 22.

1 Native American
1 Black
2 Middle Easterns
1 South Asian
1 Central Asian (non white?)
2 East Asians

The rest are white from Europeans to European new world descendants like Pedro to Europeans in Africa like Cleopatra.

No matter how you spin it this looks bad especially if this is going down educational routes.

And whilst European picks (leaders and civs) have been interesting and bold like Medici to Barbarossa, the others like Gandhi are downright boring and stereotypical.

 

[Guandao]

Hate to go down racial route but there are 7 non-white leaders out of 22.

1 Native American
1 Black
1 Middle Eastern
1 South Asian
1 Central Asian (non white?)
2 East Asians

The rest are white from Europeans to European new world descendants like Pedro to Europeans in Africa like Cleopatra.

No matter how you spin it this looks bad especially if this is going down educational routes.

And whilst European picks (leaders and civs) have been interesting and bold like Medici to Barbarossa, the others like Gandhi are downright boring and stereotypical.

I think Tomyris can be considered non-white.

 

[retrocity5]

Hate to go down racial route but there are 8 non-white leaders out of 22.

1 Native American
1 Black
2 Middle Easterns
1 South Asian
1 Central Asian (non white?)
2 East Asians

The rest are white from Europeans to European new world descendants like Pedro to Europeans in Africa like Cleopatra.

No matter how you spin it this looks bad especially if this is going down educational routes.

And whilst European picks (leaders and civs) have been interesting and bold like Medici to Barbarossa, the others like Gandhi are downright boring and stereotypical.

I recommend my civ list, Europe still has a lot, but the other continents get a big boost. https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=561454580
And that's not even including unfinished/canned mods by my fav modders and the ones I've researched.

 

[SMcM]

Not even close.

Did you compare side by side, or just decide that by eye? At a glance they look fairly close. The colors look right to me. I might have to do a comparrisson my self next time I'm on a computer.

 

[Brianstorm]

Hate to go down racial route but there are 8 non-white leaders out of 22.

1 Native American
1 Black
2 Middle Easterns
1 South Asian
1 Central Asian (non white?)
2 East Asians

The rest are white from Europeans to European new world descendants like Pedro to Europeans in Africa like Cleopatra.

No matter how you spin it this looks bad especially if this is going down educational routes.

And whilst European picks (leaders and civs) have been interesting and bold like Medici to Barbarossa, the others like Gandhi are downright boring and stereotypical.

Well Middle Easterners, including Arabs, are considered Caucasian. So it depends on who you consider "white". They could add Babylon and Persia and someone could and would claim they are white people too.

 

[Thorburne]

Curses! Gilgamesh! But hey, Norway made it. And why Gorgo over Leonidas? Probably just because she's a woman.

I think the problem with Leonidas is he is most known for the stand of the 300. Basically leading his troops to their death... Albeit, a heroic one. Still, what would his ability be? Stand of the 300... Units get an extra, automatic attack against the unit that defeated them...

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[MarcoFurio]

Hate to go down racial route but there are 8 non-white leaders out of 22.

1 Native American
1 Black
2 Middle Easterns
1 South Asian
1 Central Asian (non white?)
2 East Asians

The rest are white from Europeans to European new world descendants like Pedro to Europeans in Africa like Cleopatra.

No matter how you spin it this looks bad especially if this is going down educational routes.

And whilst European picks (leaders and civs) have been interesting and bold like Medici to Barbarossa, the others like Gandhi are downright boring and stereotypical.

Cleopatra is definitely not an European in Afrika. You are basing your comments on movies and modern representations of a genuine north african women.

 

[DeutschDachs]

I think the problem with Leonidas is he is most known for the stand of the 300. Basically leading his troops to their death... Albeit, a heroic one. Still, what would his ability be? Stand of the 300... Units get an extra, automatic attack against the unit that defeated them...

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

I mean but what is Gorgo known for other than one witty retort? What would her ability be? At least Leonidas you can give generic military bonuses

 

[Thorburne]

Cleopatra is definitely not an European in Afrika. You are basing your comments on movies and modern representations of a genuine north african women.

Actually, Cleopatra was a decendant of Ptolemy, one of Alexander the Greats top generals. She is technically Greek... Or Macedonian, if you will. So, yes... She is "white".

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[Craig_Sutter]

Yes... she was Macedonian. And marriage between brother and sister ensured that lineage continued to be European.

 

[Thorburne]

I mean but what is Gorgo known for other than one witty retort? What would her ability be? At least Leonidas you can give generic military bonuses

To be honest, I'd have to look her up. I was really being tongue-in-cheek. Still, with all of the complaints about the list being too white, too European, etc, they needed more female leaders or they'd be getting slammed for that too.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[Brianstorm]

Cleopatra is definitely not an European in Afrika. You are basing your comments on movies and modern representations of a genuine north african women.

Not only was she of the Greek line of Ptolemy, they practiced Brother-Sister incest. Women stayed lighter than men from not being out in the beating sun as much, so she's too dark if anything.

 

[ferretbacon]

As for complaints about Eurocentricism; Firaxis must have calculated they don't have enough fans elsewhere to warrant inclusion.

I really don't think they decide who to include based on markets. Why bother with Sub-Saharan Africa at all if they did? I'd imagine that the southeast Asian market is much stronger, yet they skipped over them completely.

And while I'm on it, I also don't think that they worry about picking "popular" civs to cater to the casuals. No one interested in the game is going to be put off by the inclusion of any non-Western civ, no matter their historical illiteracy. They'll either not care or simply Google to learn about that civ.

I don't know how they settled on the list this time, but I imagine it was much more organic than overly analyzed, which would explain why certain regions didn't get represented well.

 

[Brianstorm]

I really don't think they decide who to include based on markets. Why bother with Sub-Saharan Africa at all if they did? I'd imagine that the southeast Asian market is much stronger, yet they skipped over them completely.

And while I'm on it, I also don't think that they worry about picking "popular" civs to cater to the casuals. No one interested in the game is going to be put off by the inclusion of any non-Western civ, no matter their historical illiteracy. They'll either not care or simply Google to learn about that civ.

I don't know how they settled on the list this time, but I imagine it was much more organic than overly analyzed, which would explain why certain regions didn't get represented well.

They do seem to want a decent amount of female leaders, but getting funky with it has left them leaving out some staples so far (Isabella and Catherine) and adding some weird choices in Gorgo and Catherine (who at least has gameplay that fits with her power behind the throne idea, but may have been better left to an expansion).

 

[Sobornost]

Norway over Ottomans or Persia or a SE Asian civ? What a total absolute waste, in my opinion. First time I've found something to complain about in the civs chosen.

Base game isn't lacking for naval-capable civs like England, Japan, Spain either.

I don't care too much about accusations of Eurocentrism, it's obvious and natural that the game is going to have tons of European-based civs, but this is ridiculous.

I think dropping well-liked, solid civs with huge amounts of history, with a major tradition of showing up in Civ, and non-Western to boot, to include more marginal Western civs is ridiculous.

 

[ferretbacon]

They do seem to want a decent amount of female leaders, but getting funky with it has left them leaving out some staples so far (Isabella and Catherine) and adding some weird choices in Gorgo and Catherine (who at least has gameplay that fits with her power behind the throne idea, but may have been better left to an expansion).

If Gorgo is truly an alternate leader for Greece, it seems reasonable to think that perhaps they're doing a male/female leader like in Civ II (which had some bizarre leaders), rather than the multiple leaders in Civ IV who were generally all appropriate choices. Reasonable because otherwise I have no idea why Gorgo would ever get into the game. It would also help to explain Catherine's inclusion.

What's weird about this decision, if true, is that now leaders come with agendas and leader abilities, which means that if they do a male/female representative, some of those females will have some very generic or borrowed agendas and abilities.

 

[retrocity5]

Norway over Ottomans or Persia or a SE Asian civ? What a total absolute waste, in my opinion. First time I've found something to complain about in the civs chosen.

Base game isn't lacking for naval-capable civs like England, Japan, Spain either.

I don't care too much about accusations of Eurocentrism, it's obvious and natural that the game is going to have tons of European-based civs, but this is ridiculous.

I think dropping well-liked, solid civs with huge amounts of history, with a major tradition of showing up in Civ, and non-Western to boot, to include more marginal Western civs is ridiculous.

I'd expect them to be in Vanilla, yet I still like it.
Norwegian Empire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_expansion_during_the_Middle_Ages

 

[DeutschDachs]

Norway over Ottomans or Persia or a SE Asian civ? What a total absolute waste, in my opinion. First time I've found something to complain about in the civs chosen.

Base game isn't lacking for naval-capable civs like England, Japan, Spain either.

I don't care too much about accusations of Eurocentrism, it's obvious and natural that the game is going to have tons of European-based civs, but this is ridiculous.

I think dropping well-liked, solid civs with huge amounts of history, with a major tradition of showing up in Civ, and non-Western to boot, to include more marginal Western civs is ridiculous.

They're playing the role of "the Vikings" who are no stranger to the Civ franchise