Choose seven alternative leaders you'd most like to see on Civ6

[Xandinho]

Hello everybody.
Let's talk about alternative leaders, a mechanism that had in Civ4 and was brought to Civ6, this time leaders can add different flavors to each civilization.
I made a selection of thirty notable leaders, some of them quite requested here, and in this poll you can choose seven of them, for we check on their popularity and which of them are the most good options to have in Civ6. Sure, there are a limited number of slots and many leaders have been left out of the selection, but you are free to tell which are the other leaders you would like to have in Civ6.

My choices were:

1. I chose Ramesses II because it is the first that comes to mind when I think of ancient Egypt. And Egypt is screaming desperately for an alternative leader. Hatshepsut would also be very interesting.
2. China is also screaming for another leader, and there are so many good options that it's hard to decide. I chose Yongle Emperor, especially since I find the Ming dynasty the most interesting period in Chinese history. I could have picked Kublai Khan, but I think it would be weird to have him and Genghis Khan in one match.
3. Although Charlemagne would be quite interesting, I chose Otto von Bismarck because it would bring a more industrial/modern feel to Germany. And he would be a diplomatic leader.
4. I love Catherine, but I think she would be a bit like Peter, so I chose Ivan the Terrible, he would bring a more distinct flavor to Russia, probably being a militaristic leader. Catharine can return to base game in Civ7.
5. Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan is interesting, being a bit militaristic and trade-focused arab leader. Although Harun al-Rashid is also a good choice.
6. Khosrow I is probably the best leader to represent Sasanian Persia.
7. While Philip II is religious, a more exploration-focused Spain would be interesting, so I chose Isabella I of Castile.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well, can't resist this, although my choices are going to reflect a Euro-centric bias simply because I've studied them more:
1. Charlemagne - the ultimate Dual Leader, IMHO: France or Germany, with possible uniques related to Domination - the Merovingian 'Miles' were armored spear-armed horsemen a couple of centuries before 'knights' developed, and the economic system that supported them was the beginnings of feudalism in Europe - Science - the rise of Scriptoria in the monasteries and cathedral complexes kept literacy going, along with importing, among others, Irish scholars to man his bureaucracy - lots of ways to go with him for either country.
2. Elizabeth I - of England, should need no explanation: theater and culture, diplomacy, Sea Dogs Unique Unit peculiar to her, religious toleration (as much as it was possible at the time)
3. Harun-al-Rashid - Arabia, could be one of the few Leaders that can combine Pro-Science and Religion, possibly even increased Science and Religion from Trade Routes, as his court invited and received scholars from practically the whole known world of the time.
4. Ivan Grozhnyi - Russia, NOT "The Terrible", the word better translates as "Terrifying" or "Mighty" - it is also the same root as the word for 'Thunder" but overall, Ivan the Mighty is probably the best translation. Military, but also possible religious influence, started the first printing shop/plant in Russia and now, it is realized, personally wrote many of the pamphlets and texts once attributed to his ministers, so a possible Science/Culture bias as well. Has both a Unique Unit - the Streltsy, a possible Pike-and-Shot or 'enhanced' Musketman Unit - and his own Wonder - St Basil's Cathedral. Also had the first Siege Train of half a dozen great Bombards seen east of France/Istanbul. Finally, started the 'conquest/exploration' of Siberia, using Cossacks on boats along the great rivers: a possible specialized Skirmisher or boost to Exploration? (NOT to settlement: neither he nor his successors had much luck getting anybody to go to Siberia Voluntarily, which is why it became the great Place of Exile)
5. Khosrow I - because Persia covers too long a time span to keep picking Leaders from just the Achamaenids. Also because the real flowering of Persian culture and visual/textile/written arts happened well after the Achamaenids and before the Arab/Moslim conquest, and this is a good place to include it. Finally, because the Sassanids had the Clibanari and Cataphracti heavy armored cavalry that predated the armored knight by 800 years and would make an excellent UU for Khosrow.
6. Louis XIV - Who probably never said "I Am The State", because he didn't have to: everybody in Europe already knew that about him. Aside from Wonders like Versailles, and L'Invalides (a Multiple Wonder: the first Veteran's Hospital/Home in Europe, the the site of Napoleon's Tomb, and now one of the great Military Museums of the World: the game could do a lot with it). If he had a single Unique, it would be picking Great People: ministers like Louvain, Engineering specialists like Vauban, Generals like Luxembourg, Turenne, or Villars - he could have a Unique relating to getting 'cheap' Great People and housing them in Chateaus for more Bonuses - neatly building on France's Unique Improvement.
7. Otto von Bismarck - because he's another potential Multi-Tasking Leader. Diplomatic heavyweight, for sure, and presided over the development of the Great General Staff (Grossergeneralstab), one of the most influential military institutions of the past 250 years, but also set up the Social Democratic political/economic safety net that still provides the basis for the German economy/domestic political system and has survived the international idiocies of both the last Hohenzollerns and the Nazis: a Social Policy tour-de-force for the Industrial/Modern to Information Era.

 

[Futumch]

Winston Churchill for England.
I'm hesitant to suggest it, but Hitler for Germany. I know people will hate that. I like the idea of soundly defeating him though.
Henry V for England would be interesting.
Claudius for Rome would be a bit strange because of his (reported) stammer.
I always thought Louis XIV for France would be a certainty after Napoleon but I haven't seen him yet.
Ferdinand / Isabella for Spain.

 

[Morningcalm]

You are missing some awesome options like Minamoto Yoritomo, Thutmose III, Senusret III, Frederick the Great, John Adams, Taharqa, Nur Jahan, Amanirenas, Gwanggaeto the Great, but I guess that with so many nations it's tricky.

I voted for Akbar, Ashoka, Hatshepsut, Ivan the Terrible, Kangxi, and Wu Zetian. While I love Sejong, I don't see what he would add gameplay-wise to the already scientific Korea in Civ VI other than specific Great Person points and some military technology developments.

 

[Xandinho]

You are missing some awesome options like Minamoto Yoritomo, Thutmose III, Senusret III, Frederick the Great, John Adams, Taharqa, Nur Jahan, Amanirenas, Gwanggaeto the Great, but I guess that with so many nations it's tricky.

Yes, these polls only allow thirty options, there are many notable leaders missing.

 

[Zaarin]

An "Other" option would have been nice.

1. Elizabeth I: One of the most iconic and brilliant women to ever lead a nation, and a big personality to boot, (in)famous for her mercurial mood and her outbursts. Could still contrast nicely with Victoria, who was iconic in her old age but was portrayed as youthful, by being portrayed as a mature woman as in the Rainbow Portrait.

2. Louis XIV: Another leader famous for his big personality.

3. Kublai Khan: I'd like to see a more cultural, civilized Mongolia.

4. Shapur II (Persia): I'd love to see a Sassanid shah of Persia, and Shapur was famous both as a builder and a warrior. He ruled the Sassanid Empire at its height.

5. Akhenaten (Egypt): Was he the greatest pharaoh? No. But he was Egyptian, he transformed however briefly a very static society, and he was an enormously charismatic individual.

6. Taizong of Tang (China): I would have no problem with the Kangxi Emperor, but Taizong would be my first choice. I wouldn't object to Wu Zetian returning in Civ7, but she's not needed at this time.

7. Maria-Theresa (Germany, Hungary): She was influential, interesting, and could lead two civs (potentially more like six civs ) Eleanor style.

Some other comments:

• I would have preferred Harun al-Rashid to Saladin, but Saladin as portrayed might as well be Harun al-Rashid.
• Sejong and Seondeok are redundant: if Korea gets an alternate leader, it shouldn't be another science leader (a stereotype I am super bored of anyway) but someone different like Taejo Wang Geon.
• As much as I am disappointed by Sumer, an alternate leader won't fix the fact that it is currently "the Epic of Gilgamesh Civilization." Personally the leader should have been Gudea in the first place.
• America does not remotely need a second leader, but I would welcome John Adams or Silent Cal in Civ7.
• Inca don't need a second leader, but I would love to see Huayna Capac return in Civ7 in place of the eternal Pachacuti.
• I would love to see Alfred the Great, but he doesn't fit England. Give him his own Anglo-Saxon civ or leave him out.
• I don't think Japan needs an alternate leader--Hojo Tokimune feels very fitting--but I'd rather see an alternate leader look further back to the Heian era rather than forward to the Edo.

 

[Xandinho]

An "Other" option would have been nice.

1. Elizabeth I: One of the most iconic and brilliant women to ever lead a nation, and a big personality to boot, (in)famous for her mercurial mood and her outbursts. Could still contrast nicely with Victoria, who was iconic in her old age but was portrayed as youthful, by being portrayed as a mature woman as in the Rainbow Portrait.

2. Louis XIV: Another leader famous for his big personality.

3. Kublai Khan: I'd like to see a more cultural, civilized Mongolia.

4. Shapur II (Persia): I'd love to see a Sassanid shah of Persia, and Shapur was famous both as a builder and a warrior. He ruled the Sassanid Empire at its height.

5. Akhenaten (Egypt): Was he the greatest pharaoh? No. But he was Egyptian, he transformed however briefly a very static society, and he was an enormously charismatic individual.

6. Taizong of Tang (China): I would have no problem with the Kangxi Emperor, but Taizong would be my first choice. I wouldn't object to Wu Zetian returning in Civ7, but she's not needed at this time.

7. Maria-Theresa (Germany, Hungary): She was influential, interesting, and could lead two civs (potentially more like six civs ) Eleanor style.

Some other comments:

• I would have preferred Harun al-Rashid to Saladin, but Saladin as portrayed might as well be Harun al-Rashid.
• Sejong and Seondeok are redundant: if Korea gets an alternate leader, it shouldn't be another science leader (a stereotype I am super bored of anyway) but someone different like Taejo Wang Geon.
• As much as I am disappointed by Sumer, an alternate leader won't fix the fact that it is currently "the Epic of Gilgamesh Civilization." Personally the leader should have been Gudea in the first place.
• America does not remotely need a second leader, but I would welcome John Adams or Silent Cal in Civ7.
• Inca don't need a second leader, but I would love to see Huayna Capac return in Civ7 in place of the eternal Pachacuti.
• I would love to see Alfred the Great, but he doesn't fit England. Give him his own Anglo-Saxon civ or leave him out.
• I don't think Japan needs an alternate leader--Hojo Tokimune feels very fitting--but I'd rather see an alternate leader look further back to the Heian era rather than forward to the Edo.

Yes, I agree about Sejong, but I included him in the poll because Sejong seems to me to be very popular with the Korean public, so I thought someone might want to vote for him.

About America, I agree that this doesn't need another leader, but I know many people want, and I think very likely that America gets a second leader, since it is the largest civ player market. So I included George Washington because he's been in the last civ interactions, and he would be my choice.

I included Huayna Capac (and Acamapichtli) in the poll so that pre-Columbian America has some representation in the poll , but I agree that Inca (and Aztec) doesn't need another leader.

I didn't include the "other" option on purpose , I really wanted to fill all thirty spaces with leaders, and there were still many leaders I wanted to put but there were no spaces left: Gustavus Adolphus (Sweden), Frederick II (Germany), Hannibal (Phoenicia) and several others. Some leaders you and Morningcalm quoted were in my planning.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The ones on the poll:
1. For Egypt I chose Djoser for the sole reason he is someone we haven't seen before and he could come with Imhotep a Unique Gov that revolves around infrastructure and faith.
2. Next I chose Kublai Khan because I think he's the best option to lead 2 Civs like Eleanor for both China and Mongolia.
3. Louis XIV probably isn't going to happen but that doesn't mean I don't want to see him. He would at least make the Chateau interesting and useful.

Not on the poll:
4: I'd like to choose a different leader for Russia outside of the czar's reigns not that Catherine wouldn't be great and Ivan not be terrible (pun intended). Vladimir Lenin would be a nice change and make Russia a production powerhouse. I don't want to go any more modern than him.
5. I like Maria Theresa and considering we probably won't get Austria her leading Germany, or even Hungary too, I would be okay with her getting in this way. I also would like for her to marry off her children when forming alliances.
6. Justinian/Theodora for Rome if the Byzantines do not make it in as their own Civ. Would give Rome a more religious/government focus.
7. Phoenicia is led by Dido but maybe Hannibal could be a leader for Phoenicia with his capital starting off at Carthage. Could convert barbarians to his side and gain an African War Elephant UU.

Other thoughts on the leaders.
I agree that Korea doesn't need another leader as Sejong would be just like Seondeok and really not add much in terms of gameplay. Alternatively they could have made the Turtleship Korea's UU and then with Sejong he could have come with the Hwacha but that's the only thing that would have made him different.

The options for England are great but I don't necessarily see a need for another leader as they are already represented across their history:
Elizabeth by her Sea Dog UU
Churchill by Victoria (late British Empire)
Alfred the Great (Medieval Era leader like Eleanor)

As for Sumeria I don't think they need another leader just a new Civ ability.

I am always fine with Persia being represented by the Achaemenids but wouldn't be opposed to a leader from a different time period.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

None of these feel particularly necessary to VI.

An Old/New Kingdom leader seems likely for Egypt so I guess any of those options are fine, but I can't choose between them.

There is a bit of elegance to Napoleon but we need to go quite a bit further before we start thinking about third leaders. Same with Akbar although given how the Maori and Phoenicians were implemented I think our "Mughal" representation will be through the Timurids.

Germany will quite likely get a second leader, although it appears to be a toss-up between Bismarck and Arminius.

Combining these rationales, while Charlemagne is cool, I suspect his best chance was given to Eleanor who imo is a much more interesting addition.

The rest of the options for the major base game civs (Russia, China, Japan, Arabia, Spain) all seem too conservative to be likely. I think we are more likely to see Kievan Rus', Qing dynasty, Yamatai, Sabaea/Saud, etc. Something which represents a substantially different polity and maybe which "bookends" a civ rather than just going with an expected cult of personality.

And since I think second leaders for DLC civs are highly unlikely, the remaining options are really struggling to justify themselves if we presume slots are tight. Especially since most of the DLC civs are represented by definitive culture heroes. Khosrow is not as central to Iranian lore as Cyrus is. Etc.

Oh, also attempting to have any leader personify Sumeria on the level that Gilgamesh does is folly. And given that there's no place to go but down for Sumeria's design I think it only needs the one leader.

 

[Kimiimaro]

1, Yongle of Ming or Kangxi of Qing for China. Both rulers mark the peak of their dynasties, neither of which was represented in Civ ever before. Kangxi was the longest reigning Chinese Emperor, greatly successful in about everything he did, Yongle was a very great builder, not so great warrior, started the great project of Zheng He's voyages and ordered the creation of the Yongle Encyclopedia, the largest encyclopedia in history (only surpassed by Wikipedia).

2, Khosrow I or Khosrow II for Persia. It matters little to me which one of these two. One managed to defeat everyone's favourite Justinian twice and squeeze money out of him, the other pushed the Byzantines all the way to Constantinople, almost managing to reclaim lands of the Achaemenid Empire, and was only stopped and pushed back by the brilliance of Herakleios. They come from the period of the Sassanid Empire. Every single time since Persia's first appearance, we've only had Achaemenids, so I definitely wouldn't mind a new dynasty coming. And should the Byzantines not get the Kataphraktoi, then these Sassanid rulers could definitely get them.

3, Alexander II Romanov or Ivan III the Great for Russia. I'd like to avoid the Soviets here and keep the Tsardom myself. And given that Peter the Great comes in more or less middle period of Russian Empire, a late Russian Tsar or early Russian Tsar/Muscovite ruler would be a good choice historically far enough from Peter. Now, Alexander II is perhaps a bit similar to Peter the Great, but seeing a late Romanov, and, more interestingly, a competent one, would be interesting, given that most of late Romanovs were not exactly the most accomplished Tsars. Alexander II inherited a backward Empire losing the Crimean War, with its status of European great power threatened. His reforms put Russia on the way of industrialisation and modernisation, softened harsh autocracy of the Russian Tsardom and abolished the Russian serfdom. Ivan III the Great, despite ruling Muscovy and not Russia, laid solid foundation to future Russian Empire by breaking completely free of the Tatar yoke, dominated small Russian duchies, crushed Novgorod and fought great wars against Lithuania. He was also active in domestic affairs, being a builder and a lawgiver. Interestingly enough, Ivan III effectively created the Russian serfdom that Alexander II eventually abolished.

4, Thutmose III for Egypt. Militaristic Egypt, anyone? Largest territorial extent in ancient Egyptian history? Egyptian Napoleon?

5, Otto von Bismarck for Germany. The German Empire... Militaristic and industrial beast, once a great mess of tiny nations and city-states, united as a result of this man's work. The man oversaw a war against Austrian Empire and later managed to provoke Napoleon III of France to fight Prussia. He crushed both of those nations and from the fires of this war, he forged the German Empire. Complete with the possibilities of calling his agenda/ability Blood and Iron and the Iron Chancellor... Also, we have an opportunity to have a leader with a Pickelhaube. We cannot miss this amazing spiky helmet, can we?

6, Willem van Oranje for the Netherlands. I want the Golden Age of Netherlands spamming great numbers of artists. I want that great trade empire. I want VOC. I want to see William's funny underwear-looking pants again.

7, Mahmud II (not to be mistaken for Mehmed II) or Abdülmecid I for the Ottoman Empire. Ottoman Sultans who realised that the Europeans are ahead in about everything and spent effort to modernise the Ottoman Empire, too. Mahmud abolished the corrupt Janissaries and paved the way for its modernisation, Abdülmecid continued to greatly westernise the Empire by application of Tanzimat (reorganisation), forged alliances with the Europeans and with their help, he managed to win the Crimean War. He eventually reached recognition for the Ottoman Empire being an European one.

 

[cosmicmangobear]

1) George Washington Thomas Jefferson (America) The only Rushmore president not yet depicted in the game, a founding father, and author of the Declaration of Independence. He doubled the size of the United States through the Louisiana Purchase and founded one of the first political parties in the country.
2) Kangxi of Qing (China) The longest reigning emperor that ruled over a golden age and is from a period of Chinese history not yet covered by the Civ series.
3) Hatshepsut (Egypt) One of the greatest pharaohs, a prolific monument builder and a skilled diplomat, as well as being a native Egyptian and competent ruler.
4) Elizabeth I (England) The single greatest monarch in England’s history. English renaissance of arts and culture flourished undsr her reign and victory over the Spanish armada established English naval dominance for centuries to come, as well as establishing one the first colonies in the New World.
5) Akbar the Great (India) Represents a period of South Asian history (Mughal Empire) overlooked by egregious “Indian” blob civ. He established and ruled over one of the most successful and prosperous dynasties in the history of the continent through military and diplomatic brilliance.
6) Kublai Khan (Mongolia/China) Another dual civ leader(!!) who established a new dynasty in China and represents an aspect of Mongolia that isn’t just HORSES OF DEATH.
7) Ivan the Terrible (Russia) As stated by many before me, he was terrible in the sense of “inspiring awe and terror”, as he essentially established the Tsardom of Russia as it existed for the next half millennium and laid the foundation for it to become one of the most impressive empires in history.

 

[Morningcalm]

Kublai Khan was a failure of a leader--yes, he conquered China more fully, won a Mongolian civil war, and hosted the Polos, but he also failed to successfully invade Japan twice, failed in Vietnam thrice, and failed to invade Java successfully as well. If we want good Mongolian leaders, pick Genghis Khan or Mandukhai the Wise, both of whom had more cunning than Kublai (that said, I guess Kublai is better than the drunkard Ogedei).

I voted Akbar, Ashoka, Hatshepsut, Ivan the Terrible (look, he had a good first half of a reign at least), Kangxi (ten times the man Yongle was, and ten times a better ruler as well, and in more challenging times to boot), and Wu Zetian (ruthless and powerful, and undeniably successful in foreign policy and in domestic policy, even if her corruption got the better of her at the end).

 

[Zaarin]

Kublai Khan was a failure of a leader--yes, he conquered China more fully, won a Mongolian civil war, and hosted the Polos, but he also failed to successfully invade Japan twice, failed in Vietnam thrice, and failed to invade Java successfully as well.

Failing as a conqueror hardly makes him a failure as a ruler. He promoted religious and ethnic tolerance in China (so long as you weren't a Muslim or Jew, of course), presided over a technological and cultural renaissance (and was himself a prolific poet), and became a byword for luxury. Perhaps he can't be ranked a great Mongolian leader, but I think it's perfectly fair to call him a good Chinese leader.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Kublai Khan was a failure of a leader--yes, he conquered China more fully, won a Mongolian civil war, and hosted the Polos, but he also failed to successfully invade Japan twice, failed in Vietnam thrice, and failed to invade Java successfully as well.

Yes Kublai should have stuck to regular horses like Genghis did instead of relying on wooden "seahorses."
It would be interesting in game if he had a negative penalty towards sea combat, the opposite of what Tokimune has, in addition to his actual accomplishments.

 

[Morningcalm]

Failing as a conqueror hardly makes him a failure as a ruler. He promoted religious and ethnic tolerance in China (so long as you weren't a Muslim or Jew, of course), presided over a technological and cultural renaissance (and was himself a prolific poet), and became a byword for luxury. Perhaps he can't be ranked a great Mongolian leader, but I think it's perfectly fair to call him a good Chinese leader.

I would definitely agree his failed invasions made him a failure for a Mongolian leader, which is how he is primarily known, despite leading the Chinese Yuan dynasty (China, like Egypt, likes to cover up its foreign conquerors by blandly classifying them as Egyptian or Chinese dynasties, when Nubians, Mongolians, and Manchus were anything but, at least ethnically, and in many cases culturally too). Let's be clear--Kublai viewed himself as a conqueror, and his military ambition is manifestly clear from the historical record, as well as his inability to live up to that ambition by following it up with success. Furthermore, among Chinese leaders Kublai's military success rate is also rather low. Wu Zetian was more successful militarily than Kublai, for example, let alone Kangxi and other greats.

I don't know about a technological and cultural renaissance in his time. There certainly was technological and cultural development (thanks to the Chinese), but arguably there was more of that in Genghis' time, in part because the need for improved military technology was one of Genghis' chief concerns, as was preserving the Silk Road (and making it more secure for his trade caravans). It's probably true that culture was more refined by Kublai's time, but the foreign policy failures loom larger for Kublai than for say Elizabeth I even (she at least beat the Spanish Armada, Kublai had no similarly major success in terms of beating the odds). Religious tolerance is not unique to Kublai either.

Many Mongolian leaders were religiously and ethnically tolerant, following Genghis' example. (As an aside, Kublai was relatively nice to Muslims in terms of elevating them to officialdom IIRC, even if certain religious practices were banned.) Also, Kublai was not great at managing the economy, something he shared in common with Elizabeth I. Kublai was arguably worse economically as his invasions (which he alone insisted on in some cases) were incredibly expensive, and defied common sense, and the fact that he had some corrupt officials whom he trusted didn't help economically either.

Yes Kublai should have stuck to regular horses like Genghis did instead of relying on wooden "seahorses."
It would be interesting in game if he had a negative penalty towards sea combat, the opposite of what Tokimune has, in addition to his actual accomplishments.

Kublai lacked Genghis' creativity in military affairs, which is why he didn't seem to notice or care enough about the Mongolian lack of expertise in jungle terrain (not good for cavalry) and on the sea (Mongolians were hardly great sailors).

They don't often give leaders in Civ VI penalties, but a leader with a strong bonus and a strong penalty might be interesting. And yes, Tokimune defiantly kicked Kublai's butt. Twice. Albeit with the aid of typhoons or strong winds, but the Japanese had good archery and strong defense on their side as well.

As a (somewhat) smug aside, I will note that only the sturdy Korean ships that Kublai sent survived Kublai's assaults on Japan--the other flimsier ships he used were all destroyed or severely damaged. See this video for more:

 

[mitsho]

I want Scipio Africanus for Rome to show a different Republican Side of that civ.

There‘s essentially three different routes to go about chosing: Nostalgia (i.e. Napoleon, Lincoln, Isabella), Historical Representation („The Sasanids should be represented“) and Interesting Gameplay Idea. (The fourth route obviously being „I as a developer want X in because I do“). I‘m guessing they will go for a mix of Gameplay and Nostalgia, so I‘m contradicting my first sentence of this post kinda...

But that is why I like the idea of Kublai Khan as a leader with strong negatives and strong positives. That could be very interesting. And that‘s why I see the Soviet Union as a civ of their own, Lenin or Stalin just wouldn‘t fit with such a religious Russia, no?

 

[Zaarin]

Lenin or Stalin just wouldn‘t fit with such a religious Russia, no?

And for that matter, neither does Peter, who was notorious for his rivalry with the Russian Orthodox Church and his antireligious sentiments. (But at least one can say that the Church was still strong in his time, regardless of his personal feelings about it.)

 

[Kimiimaro]

And for that matter, neither does Peter, who was notorious for his rivalry with the Russian Orthodox Church and his antireligious sentiments. (But at least one can say that the Church was still strong in his time, regardless of his personal feelings about it.)

As far as I'm concerned, at least he didn't actively try to exterminate the Russian Orthodox church, torture and execute Russian monks, and didn't demolish the nations churches for governmental projects that were never built in the end.

That being said, Peter the Great's rivarly with the church and communist radical fight against church remind me of one of the biggest reforms Joseph II of Austria (whom I consider as good choice for the many alternate leader places as already suggested Maria Theresa). The reform was about banning of monastic orders (including the Jesuits) and dissolution of Habsburg Empire's monasteries. Not all though, but monasteries that didn't provide either education nor medical help to people were dissoluted, their buildings converted to barracks and their property sold. This meant countless religious artifacts, relics and manuscripts were lost. But hey, at least the treasury filled nicely and them soldiers now had more places to live in.

Interestingly enough, despite him being not being a great friend to religion and church, he was tolerant, as opposed to strongly Catholic Maria Theresa, as he was the one who issued the patent of toleration, making some other churches viable options to the people of the Monarchy. He also abolished the serfdom.

Funny thing is also period when Maria Theresa and Joseph II ruled together as co-rulers. Both were great reformers, but Joseph II was the one who fully embraced the ideas of Enlightenment, while Maria Theresa was more conservative. I think I've heard that Joseph II kept issuing new reforms and Maria Theresa kept abolishing them.

What is also interesting is that despite historically taking place of the most accomplished Habsburg Emperor (along with Maria Theresa), epitaph on his tomb reads: "Here lies Joseph II, who failed in all he undertook." He himself wished this to be written.

 

[Xandinho]

And that‘s why I see the Soviet Union as a civ of their own, Lenin or Stalin just wouldn‘t fit with such a religious Russia, no?

To be honest, I think it would be a horrible decision to include the Soviet Union as its own civilization, really. The Soviet Union is a period of Russian history, and I don't see this being represented in the game as Firaxis wants to evade modern dictators and ideological sensibilities. This may be a work for modders, however.

 

[mitsho]

Sure, I don‘t think it likely for the same reason: Firaxis seems to avoid modern authoritarians in this itineration. But I was speaking in gameplay terms. They would certainly be more distinct than another king or queen. With 50+ civs now, it gets harder and harder to be unique after all. And that was my point above, look for special designs, not „historical realism“, whatever that may be.