Alternate Leaders for revealed civs.

[moysturfurmer]

Now that we know in detail the bonuses of a third of the civs, what are some bonuses that alternative leaders could provide to offer a different way of playing a civ? Here's a link to Arioch's list of known bonuses, for reference.

America – George Washington: Melee & Gunpowder units gain a 50% boost to production when at war, & gunpowder units ignore rough terrain movement cost. Theater squares produce extra culture for adjacent rivers & mountains.

England – Richard the Lionheart: Bonus to combat against foreign Holy Cities. Knights generate faith per kill & can speed the production of Commercial Hub buildings if placed on top of the district.


Egypt – Hatshepsut: Can build Mortuary Temples in faith districts. +1 additional faith after entering a new era. Wonders & Mortuary Temples all confer tourism after Flight is researched.


Japan – Meiji Emperor: Foreign trade routes confer bonus production & amenities to Japanese cities. Can build Fuiji class battleships earlier than the standard battleship tech. Confers culture per turn when docked at a harbor.

China – Yongle Emperor: Counterspies increase that city's trade route max-length & generate 1 great writer point per turn if city has a university. Envoys can travel 50% farther.

Aztec – Itzcoatl: Farms adjacent to lakes confer +1 food.

France – Louis XIV: During Golden Ages, generate double Great Person points in all districts adjacent to city centers.

Germany – Otto Von Bismarck: All districts provide +1 Housing & Amenity. War weariness against the stronger-than-average civs is reduced. Foreign missionaries are less effective in cities with a German Great Work (not a Relic or Religious Art).

 

[Zaarin]

England - Alfred the Great Libraries provide an increase to science and culture starting in the Medieval Period

Egypt - Akhenaten Faith from desert tiles in the ancient and classical eras.

France - Louis XIV Culture and tourism bonuses doubled during the Renaissance; palace provides +2 culture, +1 tourism

 

[jsciv69]

Now that we know in detail the bonuses of a third of the civs, what are some bonuses that alternative leaders could provide to offer a different way of playing a civ? Here's a link to Arioch's list of known bonuses, for reference.

America – George Washington:

I think Thomas Jefferson would be the more ideal and popular choice of the "founding fathers". Declaration of Independence established the country. Negotiated with Napolean and doubled the size of the country with the purchase of much of the mid-west. Expansion bonus. Extra bonus with Democracy as a Govt. John F Kennedy. Although his time was cut short was a very inspirational leader. Nixon would qualify for the controversial choice. He is still a very polarizing figure. which would actually fit right in as a Civ leader.

 

[Morningcalm]

America – George Washington:

I think Thomas Jefferson would be the more ideal and popular choice of the "founding fathers". Declaration of Independence established the country. Negotiated with Napolean and doubled the size of the country with the purchase of much of the mid-west. Expansion bonus. Extra bonus with Democracy as a Govt. John F Kennedy. Although his time was cut short was a very inspirational leader. Nixon would qualify for the controversial choice. He is still a very polarizing figure. which would actually fit right in as a Civ leader.

Thomas Jefferson was also polarizing--he had sex with a slave (and modern DNA tests prove it); he advocated castration for homosexuals, he wanted the country to be one of farmers without the modern banking system advocated by Hamilton (the foundation for the modern USA), and he thought the French Revolution (even when bloody) was a good thing.

Frankly, I dislike him quite a bit. And many more people know of his flaws after hearing about/reading about/watching the Hamilton musical.

I think Lincoln is a better choice--both sides of the aisle like him, even now in a polarized United States of America.

 

[moysturfurmer]

I think Thomas Jefferson would be the more ideal and popular choice of the "founding fathers". Declaration of Independence established the country. Negotiated with Napolean and doubled the size of the country with the purchase of much of the mid-west. Expansion bonus. Extra bonus with Democracy as a Govt. John F Kennedy. Although his time was cut short was a very inspirational leader. Nixon would qualify for the controversial choice. He is still a very polarizing figure. which would actually fit right in as a Civ leader.

Yeah I considered throwing Jefferson as a suggestion, but figured the whole slave thing could sully his chances a bit. That said, I feel like he'd be a better choice than Nixon or FDR or Lincoln. Feel like they're all a little too close, to Teddy, in terms of era.

Jefferson could maybe have a bonus to Great Writers or something? Maybe each city generates 1 Great writer point per turn during a golden age and armories provide bonus xp for GWoW in local cities? 50% off tile purchasing in cities with a GWoW?



Nice ideas Zaarin. Sounds like England would be pretty well rounded with bonuses like that.

 

[Morningcalm]

Yeah I considered throwing Jefferson as a suggestion, but figured the whole slave thing could sully his chances a bit. That said, I feel like he'd be a better choice than Nixon or FDR or Lincoln. Feel like they're all a little too close, to Teddy, in terms of era.

Jefferson could maybe have a bonus to Great Writers or something? Maybe each city generates 1 Great writer point per turn during a golden age and armories provide bonus xp for GWoW in local cities? 50% off tile purchasing in cities with a GWoW?



Nice ideas Zaarin. Sounds like England would be pretty well rounded with bonuses like that.

I don't know; Lincoln is so popular and iconic that I think if they did a second leader, it would be him. FDR could work too, but he's not particularly popular with conservatives since he greatly expanded federal government. Nixon wouldn't work; far too much controversy.

 

[Zaarin]

Thomas Jefferson was also polarizing--he had sex with a slave (and modern DNA tests prove it); he advocated castration for homosexuals, he wanted the country to be one of farmers without the modern banking system advocated by Hamilton (the foundation for the modern USA), and he thought the French Revolution (even when bloody) was a good thing.

Frankly, I dislike him quite a bit. And many more people know of his flaws after hearing about/reading about/watching the Hamilton musical.

I think Lincoln is a better choice--both sides of the aisle like him, even now in a polarized United States of America.

Agreed about Jefferson, and on top of the things listed he also thought that the French Revolution was glorious and felt that bloody revolution was healthy. Probably the best things that can be said about him was that he was a great scholar and was relatively sympathetic towards the Native Americans for his time (but still less so than Washington). No way is any president going to be as universally popular as Washington, who is probably the one president we can all more or less agree on.

I disagree about Lincoln, though; the man was a tyrant, expanded the power of the executive in a completely unprecedented manner, even beyond Andrew Jackson. The favorable public opinion that surrounds Lincoln is based on a great deal of romanticism, IMO.

Nice ideas Zaarin. Sounds like England would be pretty well rounded with bonuses like that.

My top choice for England was and is Elizabeth, but it would be pretty awesome to see Anglo-Saxon England represented for a change.

 

[moysturfurmer]

I don't know; Lincoln is so popular and iconic that I think if they did a second leader, it would be him. FDR could work too, but he's not particularly popular with conservatives since he greatly expanded federal government. Nixon wouldn't work; far too much controversy.

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. I kinda expect to see Lincoln as an alternative leader for the US, I'm just saying I'd prefer it if they went with someone from the 18th Century.

Then again, FDR would make a pretty great leader screen. It's almost exclusionary for all the leaders to be able-bodied. A guy in a wheelchair would be a refreshing change. He's probably the most deserving of all differently abled individuals for inclusion. Except then we'd have two Roosevelts, and that'd be weird.

Also I wanna see a child emperor. King Tut or someone. That kid from The Last Emperor.

 

[Zaarin]

Oh yeah, don't get me wrong. I kinda expect to see Lincoln as an alternative leader for the US, I'm just saying I'd prefer it if they went with someone from the 18th Century.

Then again, FDR would make a pretty great leader screen. It's almost exclusionary for all the leaders to be able-bodied. A guy in a wheelchair would be a refreshing change. He's probably the most deserving of all differently abled individuals for inclusion. Except then we'd have two Roosevelts, and that'd be weird.

Also I wanna see a child emperor. King Tut or someone. That kid from The Last Emperor.

Problem is, most child-kings didn't accomplish anything. Tut is best known for not having his tomb plundered; Edward VI is best known for dying. The only one I can think might be worth including is Josiah of Israel (well, strictly speaking, of Judah), who (later) instituted some major religious reforms.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Problem is, most child-kings didn't accomplish anything. Tut is best known for not having his tomb plundered; Edward VI is best known for dying. The only one I can think might be worth including is Josiah of Israel (well, strictly speaking, of Judah), who (later) instituted some major religious reforms.

Well Tutenkhamen did undo all of his father Akhenaten's heretical reforms, at least

 

[Zaarin]

Well Tutenkhamen did undo all of his father Akhenaten's heretical reforms, at least

Well, more accurately, the priests of Amun took advantage of the fact that Tutankhamun was 9 and undid all of Akhenaten's reforms.

 

[jsciv69]

Lincoln and Washington have already been used and to say the least are a bit boring. It's true that Jefferson is polarizing and to some degree revolutionary(which is a positive thing for this series). Polarizing figures are the model for this series. Queen Victoria and Queen Isabella are proof of that. Teddy Roosevelt is perfect for this series. He took on the big monopolies while was just as expansionist and emipirical as any who held the office. And since this game is about expansion and conquest. Jefferson certainly qualifies for that. If he was unorthodoxed(as some suggest that he was an atheist or at least agnostic) thats a positive. And while Nixon is not one of my favorites. He was confrontational, started the official war on drugs, yet negotiated a missle treaty with Russia, and helped establish OSHA. Quite a character but again that's perfect for this series.

 

[jsciv69]

Thomas Jefferson was also polarizing--he had sex with a slave (and modern DNA tests prove it); he advocated castration for homosexuals, he wanted the country to be one of farmers without the modern banking system advocated by Hamilton (the foundation for the modern USA), and he thought the French Revolution (even when bloody) was a good thing.

Frankly, I dislike him quite a bit. And many more people know of his flaws after hearing about/reading about/watching the Hamilton musical.

I think Lincoln is a better choice--both sides of the aisle like him, even now in a polarized United States of America.

Lincoln was a self admitted white supremecist, who would've supported segregation, that had to be pushed by abolisionists to free slaves. And he butchered many natives tribes. And Washington had more revolts in his army than most others during the war against England. And was loved only by the very wealthy of the land. Frankly every president has so many pro's and con's. But I just think Jefferson would be a refreshing change. And revolution now and again is a healthy thing.

 

[Zaarin]

Lincoln was a self admitted white supremecist, who would've supported segregation, that had to be pushed by abolisionists to free slaves. And he butchered many natives tribes. And Washington had more revolts in his army than most others during the war against England. And was loved only by the very wealthy of the land. Frankly every president has so many pro's and con's. But I just think Jefferson would be a refreshing change. And revolution now and again is a healthy thing.

If we're going with an early president (as we should--a late 19th century president would be too similar in era to TR, and anything after TR is going to be even more controversial), I think John Adams or James Madison would be both more interesting and less controversial than Jefferson. Adams was fundamental in the founding of the US government, was an important political theorist in addition to being a politician, and was the founder of a political dynasty that would be involved in the American government for decades. He was also a political foil to Jefferson, and our only Federalist president. (Washington's ideology aligned with the Federalists, but he didn't believe in political parties.) Madison, of course, wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, was a key writer of the Federalist Papers, doubled the size of the US through the Louisiana Purchase, presided over the War of 1812, and established a number of important precedents in US foreign affairs that would ultimately result in the Monroe Doctrine under his successor, James Monroe. Oh, and he may or may not have been a Freemason. I think either one would be just as interesting as Jefferson, if not more so, with a much longer list of accomplishments. As an added bonus, neither thought that the guillotine was France's greatest contribution to civilization the way Jefferson did.

 

[jsciv69]

If we're going with an early president (as we should--a late 19th century president would be too similar in era to TR, and anything after TR is going to be even more controversial), I think John Adams or James Madison would be both more interesting and less controversial than Jefferson. Adams was fundamental in the founding of the US government, was an important political theorist in addition to being a politician, and was the founder of a political dynasty that would be involved in the American government for decades. He was also a political foil to Jefferson, and our only Federalist president. (Washington's ideology aligned with the Federalists, but he didn't believe in political parties.) Madison, of course, wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights, was a key writer of the Federalist Papers, doubled the size of the US through the Louisiana Purchase, presided over the War of 1812, and established a number of important precedents in US foreign affairs that would ultimately result in the Monroe Doctrine under his successor, James Monroe. Oh, and he may or may not have been a Freemason. I think either one would be just as interesting as Jefferson, if not more so, with a much longer list of accomplishments. As an added bonus, neither thought that the guillotine was France's greatest contribution to civilization the way Jefferson did.

Madison would certainly be Ideal and at least different than Lincoln or Washington. James K Polk presided over the war against Mexico and took most of the western states by conquest to complete the continent. But this is the year 2016. An influx of newer Civs with more modern leaders may had some controversy but also some dramatics and extra flavor to the game. That's what Civ IV Beyond The Sword was about. so Civ VI and it's expansions should do likewise.

 

[Zaarin]

Madison would certainly be Ideal and at least different than Lincoln or Washington. James K Polk presided over the war against Mexico and took most of the western states by conquest to complete the continent. But this is the year 2016. An influx of newer Civs with more modern leaders may had some controversy but also some dramatics and extra flavor to the game. That's what Civ IV Beyond The Sword was about. so Civ VI and it's expansions should do likewise.

I hope not--too many modern/industrial civs are in the game as it is. Ed Beach is a huge fan of the Renaissance, so if anything I hope to see more Medieval and Renaissance civs and leaders.

 

[Civciv5]

India - NOT GANDHI

 

[jsciv69]

Times change and eras pass on. The concept of this game is to progress throught time to the present and beyond. To forge ahead(not stay behind) and progress as best we can. Every era is important. And every civ past and present is just as important and instrumental in bringing about the world we live in today. And all deserve recognition.

 

[jsciv69]

India - NOT GANDHI

Of course Persia needs to be on here, It would'nt be civilization without Mesopotamia or ancient Persia. And about Gandhi. What's interesting is this series has chosen Gandhi and Joan of Arc as Civ leaders. Neither were actual heads of state. Kind of like having Martin Luther lead Germany

 

[Leyrann]

Thomas Jefferson was also polarizing--he had sex with a slave (and modern DNA tests prove it); he advocated castration for homosexuals, he wanted the country to be one of farmers without the modern banking system advocated by Hamilton (the foundation for the modern USA), and he thought the French Revolution (even when bloody) was a good thing.

Frankly, I dislike him quite a bit. And many more people know of his flaws after hearing about/reading about/watching the Hamilton musical.

I think Lincoln is a better choice--both sides of the aisle like him, even now in a polarized United States of America.

I wasn't aware having sex with a slave was uncommon in that time... Or such ideas about homosexuality, also in that time. And I thought that the French Revolution, while being incredibly bloody, DID bring us a lot of good things (like the metric system, the foundation for modern day democracy (liberté, egalité, fraternité) etc).

I mean, of course they're not GOOD things, but that doesn't mean that he was a horrible man. I mean, Civ V had Augustus Caesar as a leader. He sent his own daugher (and only child, even) into exile for adultry. Bismark, who manipulated people into waging war so he could unite Germany. Napoleon, who waged war with all of Europe. And that's just the leaders I can think of of the top of my head that I KNOW did such things. There's many more out there that probably did horrible things that I don't know of.

A leader doesn't have to have been a saint; he just needs to have been an icon and not TOO controversional/recent (think Hitler). And Thomas Jefferson IS an icon.