Alternate Leaders for revealed civs.

[Morningcalm]

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.

I think we tend to forgive more ancient rulers since ancient times were full of warfare and bloodshed. Enlightened figures in the French Revolution era are presumed to have known better. They didn't.

Sex with a slave was uncommon at that time for high officials. John Adams was very much against slavery, Washington wasn't--but no other founding father I know had sex with a slave. Hamilton was embroiled in a sex scandal, but not with a slave (and to his credit he admitted it publicly in the Reynolds pamphlets).

I think advocating castration for homosexuals even in that time is rather....harsh. There were known homosexuals at the time, and even if approval of them was likely low, no high official but Jefferson (if I recall) was advocating their castration.

Of course, all the founding fathers were flawed. John Adams, while morally superior in many ways to the other founding fathers, also succumbed to bitter factionalism within his own party (his clashes with Hamilton were legendary, and tore apart their party). Washington was known as the Town Destroyer by Native Americans due to his having torched many of their villages.

I think Lincoln is the least flawed of the early presidents. While not perfect, I note for example that his execution of Native Americans was also tempered by the fact he spared the majority of the Native Americans that went around murdering people. See http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/lincoln-and-the-sioux/?_r=0 for the context. Like many presidents before him, Lincoln continued to see Native Americans as wards of the U.S. government, but didn't do much for them in the way of rights. Having said that, he was still a leap forward from other presidents of his era.

 

[jsciv69]

A leader doesn't have to have been a saint; he just needs to have been an icon and not TOO controversional/recent

I for one think there should be more Industrial/modern age Civs, Mexico, Canada, Colombia, Australia all come to mind. All these have just as much tradition, culture, as any civ past or present. Maybe it's time to include these and other cultures that have been long overlooked. This is a game predacated on progressing through the ages and into modern times. So let's bring some of these more recent civs to represent these modern times. And more modern age type leaders like Khrushchev, Nixon, even Castro while polarizing and controversial, are perfect types for Civ Leaders.

 

[Morningcalm]

A leader doesn't have to have been a saint; he just needs to have been an icon and not TOO controversional/recent

I for one think there should be more Industrial/modern age Civs, Mexico, Canada, Colombia, Australia all come to mind. All these have just as much tradition, culture, as any civ past or present. Maybe it's time to include these and other cultures that have been long overlooked. This is a game predacated on progressing through the ages and into modern times. So let's bring some of these more recent civs to represent these modern times. And more modern age type leaders like Khrushchev, Nixon, even Castro while polarizing and controversial, are perfect types for Civ Leaders.

They don't need to be a saint, but ideally they wouldn't be a villain either. Nixon is too controversial imo. Castro would lead what civ? And Khrushchev, while interesting, is not well known enough to warrant inclusion I would say.

I note that they had Stalin/Mao/etc in Civ IV, but at least in their case their native countries don't see them with (quite as critical) an eye as the rest of the world. So they at least would be ok with their inclusion.

Nixon in the US on the other hand--no.

I like the idea of John Adams as president though. He certainly had a big personality (stubborn, fiery, honest).

 

[Leyrann]

I think we tend to forgive more ancient rulers since ancient times were full of warfare and bloodshed. Enlightened figures in the French Revolution era are presumed to have known better. They didn't.

Sex with a slave was uncommon at that time for high officials. John Adams was very much against slavery, Washington wasn't--but no other founding father I know had sex with a slave. Hamilton was embroiled in a sex scandal, but not with a slave (and to his credit he admitted it publicly in the Reynolds pamphlets).

I think advocating castration for homosexuals even in that time is rather....harsh. There were known homosexuals at the time, and even if approval of them was likely low, no high official but Jefferson (if I recall) was advocating their castration.

Of course, all the founding fathers were flawed. John Adams, while morally superior in many ways to the other founding fathers, also succumbed to bitter factionalism within his own party (his clashes with Hamilton were legendary, and tore apart their party). Washington was known as the Town Destroyer by Native Americans due to his having torched many of their villages.

I think Lincoln is the least flawed of the early presidents. While not perfect, I note for example that his execution of Native Americans was also tempered by the fact he spared the majority of the Native Americans that went around murdering people. See http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/lincoln-and-the-sioux/?_r=0 for the context. Like many presidents before him, Lincoln continued to see Native Americans as wards of the U.S. government, but didn't do much for them in the way of rights. Having said that, he was still a leap forward from other presidents of his era.

So, with those enlightened rulers... What about Napoleon then? He was part of the revolution, yet he did send half a million soldiers to death in the war with Russia, not to mention all the people that died in other wars. Yet he's the leader of France in Civ 5.

And I wasn't actually aware of it because I barely played Civ 4, but if Stalin (the man who was responsible for most deaths of any living person in history EVER, surpassing even Hitler) and Mao are rulers there, then what's the problem with someone like Thomas Jefferson who had some (possibly very) controversional ideas about slaves and homosexuals? I mean, the whole world was divided on slavery back then, and it was half a century more before most countries actually did ban it, and homosexuality only got accepted nearly TWO CENTURIES after Thomas Jefferson.

I'm not sure wheter what I want to say is coming through right, with my arguments maybe drowning my point of view, but what I mean, is that Civilization has had leaders that have done things far worse than him, and that in his own time, his ideas were actually not that weird, though views were indeed starting to change. And no matter what way you turn it, Thomas Jefferson did leave a lasting impact on the United States and even the whole world, even if it were only his name.

 

[jsciv69]

They don't need to be a saint, but ideally they wouldn't be a villain either. Nixon is too controversial imo. Castro would lead what civ? And Khrushchev, while interesting, is not well known enough to warrant inclusion I would say.

When Khrushchev came to power he denounced Stalin who was a hero in many eyes. Khrushchev was in power at the time of Sputnik. When the USSR shot down a U2 spy plane Khrushchev said "if you do it again we'll kick you so hard you'll forget your own name". Now that alone is Civ material. Khrushchev was not afraid to confront Kennedy about missiles in Turkey. It was Khrushchev who took the high road in the Cuban Missile crises which averted a thermo-nuclear war. The more learned about him the more appealing he would be for this game.

Niixon was President at the time of the Moon Landing. Withdrew from Vietnam. Established OSHA enforcing workplace safety. Negotiated with the Soviets on a missile reduction treaty. Of course there's negatives. his bombing campaigns were considered over the top and ruthless. began the official war on drugs which so far is a complete disaster. And he got off free while many of his underlings went to prison over Watergate. But again a leader with such a balance of negatives and positives is Civ worthy.

Castro led the overthrow of a brutal dictator. Then became one. He's still renowned for very popular health care and education programs. Yet was quite the tyrant. But there is something to say about someone who withstood attempts on his life(from Kennedy and others) and stayed inpower for 50+ years. Again such a negative/ positive balance and plenty of charisma to be a Civ leader. He should at least get a bonus for his beard. But Cuba itself may be too small to be a Civ.

 

[Morningcalm]

No one denies Nixon did decent things in the first half of his presidency. But his entire legacy has been marred by the tapes and the paranoia and disregard for his citizenry's rights exhibited in Watergate.

Khrushchev was in my opinion largely forgettable. He is most known for his ranting at the UN banging his shoe.

I think we have a higher chance of destroying the moon than of seeing Nixon as the official representative of the U.S.A. in a Civ game. Personally I would never purchase a Civ game with Nixon in it; that's how strongly I feel about how he messed up.

Castro is a charismatic leader who survived in part due to disastrous American miscalculations. Cuba isn't anywhere near Korea in terms of its ancient roots or overall impact on either the ancient or modern world, so no, they are not of the same weight inclusivity wise.

It might be fun to have a Cold War scenario in Civ though.

 

[jsciv69]

No one denies Nixon did decent things in the first half of his presidency. But his entire legacy has been marred by the tapes and the paranoia and disregard for his citizenry's rights exhibited in Watergate.

Khrushchev was in my opinion largely forgettable. He is most known for his ranting at the UN banging his shoe.

I think we have a higher chance of destroying the moon than of seeing Nixon as the official representative of the U.S.A. in a Civ game. Personally I would never purchase a Civ game with Nixon in it; that's how strongly I feel about how he messed up.

Castro is a charismatic leader who survived in part due to disastrous American miscalculations. Cuba isn't anywhere near Korea in terms of its ancient roots or overall impact on either the ancient or modern world, so no, they are not of the same weight inclusivity wise.

It might be fun to have a Cold War scenario in Civ though.

Nixon is not my favorite kind of person either. Watergate is the least of the things he and Kissinger should've be in jail for. And I understand how compromising it would be to play as America with him as leader. It would even be compromising to play the game as Washington, Jefferson, Jackson or even Lincoln. Even the upcoming TR has his negatives along with his positives. But since this is a game that features the likes of Isabella(as brutal and ruthless as they come), Alexander the Great, and Atilla the Hun. Each committed or ordered attrocities comparable to that of Nixon.
And I agree that Cuba maybe too small and too recent for civhood. Even though there have been inhabitants of this hemisphere for over 10,000 years. But Castro is such an over the top kind of character, maybe indeed a Cold War/Cuban Missile Crises scenerio with Kennedy, Khrushchev, and Castro all involved would be quite a lot of fun.

 

[Zaarin]

the foundation for modern day democracy (liberté, egalité, fraternité) etc).

As an American I just have to point out that we established a democratic republic first, and ours didn't involve a bloodbath of our own citizens...

I think Lincoln is the least flawed of the early presidents.

Two points: 1) Lincoln was not an early president; in fact he was our 16th president. 2) Lincoln was very flawed; he's simply been heavily propagandized for reasons that elude me (perhaps for no better reason than that he was a "martyr"--see also, JFK). I think he gets more credit than he's due simply for the Emancipation Proclamation--a political maneuver that accomplished nothing beyond keeping England out of the war--and preserving the Union at very high cost. At any rate, I'd argue his popularity is based much more on the laurels heaped upon him by historians than on his actual accomplishments or strength of character.

 

[Janskey]

China: Hu-Wen administration
UA: Finish it anyway. Can finish a wonder even if someone else finishes it first. Get x% of the bonus.

 

[Atlas627]

I agree wholeheartedly that John Adams would be a good pick. Completely different era from Teddy, and a completely different character. Agenda and bonuses could have to do with avoiding conflict and establishing diplomatic overtures. Also never been in Civ before (he was in Colonization though, so we know he's on their radar as being a good representative).

 

[Leyrann]

As an American I just have to point out that we established a democratic republic first, and ours didn't involve a bloodbath of our own citizens...

While that is true, the French Revolution was much more important for Europe, and therefore for most of the world (as something like three quarters of all the land of the world was held by a European country at some point between then and now, thinking all of America except the USA, nearly all of Africa (I believe only Ethiopia has been independant at all times), South and South-East Asia and Australia).

 

[fredrikslicer]

England Henry VII

 

[moysturfurmer]

France - Louis XIV: During Golden Ages, generate double Great Person points in all districts adjacent to city centers.
France - Napoleon: Sacrifice 1 population to instantly build any military unit.

 

[Ikael]

Out of the ones that we've seen so far:


Aztecs - Nezahualcóyotl

Unique district: Floating gardens

Replaces growth district. Can be placed inside lakes. Recieves food bonuses for being next to rivers and lakes. Extra housing provided if it is built over a lake.

A much missed unique building, will synergize well with the Aztec's ability to capture and spend workers in districts.

Unique ability: Nahuatl poetry

Your districts recieve a culture & food bonus if a great person is settled in the city.

A different way of building up "tall culture" without needing to restort to wonders and making the best of Nezahualcóyotl's other uniques.


Japan - Emperor Meiji

Unique ability: Industrial mass scale planning

From the industrial era foward, Japan might build districts over swallow water tiles. Districts next to sea resources or atolls will recieve production bonuses

A unique focused in the late game, that greatly synergizes with Japan's main ability (district adjacent bonuses) while also providing some utility on the early game (production bonuses for adjacent sea sea resources).

Unique Unit: Mikasa Battleship

A unique, "hero like" type of naval unit, it doesn't replace any naval unit per se. While significantly more powerful than every regular naval unit of its time, you cannot possess more than one at the time.

 

[HanNorwood]

I'd really like Ahuizotl as an Aztec leader, and William Henry Harrison as America's leader. (Relax, I'm kidding about W.H.H.)

Here's my list:

Aztecs - Ahuizotl
France - Louis XIV
America - I'd say Calvin Coolidge (underrated, IMO), except he's too close in time to Roosevelt. I'll go with John Adams.
England - Edward III. Less of a Naval focus for England would be a nice change, I think.

 

[Zaarin]

William Henry Harrison as America's leader.

Unique Ability: The game ends after the first turn.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Snip

Great ideas. Bummed the Aztecs don't have Floating Gardens this time. Would have been great with expanded cities.

 

[Ikael]

Ok, let's keep them coming!

Egypt - Hatshepsut

Unique improvement - Ceremonial complex

Will yield extra production if adjacent to wonders, will yield extra culture if adjacent to sphinxes and religious districts. Will give extra gold to enemy armies if pillaged

A unique improvement to turn egypt into a turbobuilder civ, while it doesn't have any effect per se, it could be a tremendous "cherry on the top" type of building if combined with Egypt's other traits.

Unique ability - Punt's expedition

Start the game with an additional trade unit. Trade routes with friendly CS will yield a unique luxury resource for your civ (sandalwood).

Kinda the opposite of Cleopatra's UA, Egypt's UA will turn Egypt into a fierce commercial competitor, for it would have the monopoly on a single resource while it will also be competing for the favour of neighbouring city states.

Great ideas. Bummed the Aztecs don't have Floating Gardens this time. Would have been great with expanded cities.

Thanks! that was the first thing that I thought once I saw the Aztec's video, too!

 

[skyclad]

Perhaps this is going outside of the topic for this thread but wouldn't it be cool if your leader changed with the eras? Right now every leader will have either a UU, UI, or UA that affects the era they were active, aside from the standard UU UI and UA from the civ itself.

If we had a second leader we could chose another era to get something special in. That would be pretty fun. But what if we could have both?

USA
Washington - Renaissance, minutemen or some UA.
Teddy - Industrial, rough riders UU

England
Richard Lionheart - Medieval, UA attack bonus vs cities of foreign religion
Victoria - Industrial, Red Coat UU

France
Catherine - Renaissance, extra spy and gossip UA
Napoleon - Industrial, reduced troop maintenance and bonus production of units UA

etc

This could also lead to some interesting options, for example:

Aztec/Mexico
Montezuma - We dont know era yet, Gifts for Tlatoani UA
Santa Anna - Rennaisance/Industrial, Can change civics more often UA (just placeholder idea)

Carthage/Morroco
Vikings/Sweden
HRE/Germany
Rome/Byzantium OR Rome/Italy and Greece/Byzanitum
India/Mughal? Or Tamils/India? Or maybe just India/India

For me this would be very exciting but what do you think? You could include more diverse leaders and countries with not that much extra work.

 

[Zaarin]

Carthage/Morroco

...Carthage was in Tunis.