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

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ Streltsy uses poleaxes against cavalry too? in addition to support their arquebuses/muskets when firing. and were there streltsies that exclusively armed with poleaxes and used that way?
and Why did Tsar Peter I seek to systematically phased out Streltsy? was it because they hate him? unreliable? or simply because he want to make a New Russia that's on par to rivals like Sweden (he feared Sweden much. before that Ivan The Mighty (ok you interpret 'grozny' as 'mighty' rather than what English/American scholars called 'terrible') feared Polish 'Republic (?) ' alot.

And 'Musketman' as presented in Civ 5 and 6. Do you think Firaxis viewed them as shock troops? (particularly after Pike&shot was introduced in RF), were they actually 'Handgunners'?
If Recon and Light Inf. became separate class, should they be relegated to Light Inf? Since in Tercio tactics. Musketmen/Musketeers used heavier firearms (which can penetrate even the thickest or 'bullet proof' armor of that era wore by knightly troops (those came from knightly 'second estate', foot or mounted, in case of being footslogger, are these men 'Footmen'?) and thus had to forego armor.

Also back to a high middle ages, in Civ5 there were units called Longswordsman (expansion units I think, did they first appeared in GK?), and also some Civ6 mods reintroduced this unit. ones that used greatswords. (In Civ3 there were also similar unit called 'Medieval Infantry' which basically the same! and considerably nasty because they can even beat musketmen in offensive combat!!!) Should 'Footman' be a better name for them?

Color pigments were not consistent before the 19th century because the precise chemical processes taking place were not well understood. Dyeing was a Craft - personal experience and expertise was the key to getting the right results, which means that variations in the experience level of the dye master could make a difference in what you got as a color. One Colonial American dyer, for instance, estimated that it required 14 times more man-hours to produce a bright red than to produce a dull red, because of the extra care that had to be taken in all the steps and processes - one major reason why bright red cloth was far more expensive than dull red or Madder Red.
Nobody used Prussian Blue except the Prussians in the 18th century. The US Army only adopted it after the War of 1812. Before that the Colonial American forces used Indigo for blue, because the Indigo plant grew well in the Carolinas of North America - in fact, Indigo was the first cash crop there starting in the mid-18th century and continuing util it was replaced by Tobacco and Cotton after 1800. The French and British Armies also used Indigo for their blue cloth, because Indigo grew well in southern France and in British India , so was relatively easy to obtain for both of them. Napoleon's army was almost entirely clad in Indigo and chlorine-bleached white, since the chlorine-bleaching process had also been discovered early in the 18th century. One major reason why the Royal French Army as well as the Austrian Imperial Army adopted white coats by the mid-18th century was that white wool cloth was relatively cheap and you didn't need a master to obtain a consistent color: white is white.

Is this the reason why military uniforms were commonly made in either Red, Blue, White and gray (and to less extent, brown... worn by Austrian artillerymen)?

And in case of anachronism... where many civs came to be too early (Since player (me included) often begins game at Ancient Era... Four Thousands Year BCE, many civs weren't existed by then yet (like Americans, English, Spanish, and so on) ), or did survive past historical date of dissolution (Romans, Greeks, Egypts (and Egypt before Alexander conquered Ra Khedet and put his name on it), Sumerian, Nubian, Macedonian, Aztecs, Scythians ). Did Firaxis deals with hypotheic graphical repesentations well?
1. I might say that Egyptians followed 'What if' scenario pretty well, but their swordsmen.. not so much. Khopesh came alot sooner (I already made a unit with such scenario in mind, the Slashers). They might retain their Cobra headwear well. Question: Did Janissary headwear inspired by Old Egypt? Did you see any similarity between the two? (and Egypt was later joined Ottomans and thus they're likely to have Janissary too!)
2. What are factions that best represents
2.1 Medieval Greeks and Romans.
2.2 Renaissance Greeks and Romans. (Should Venice fit will with both?, or should Venice represented Renaissance Greeks and Papal States represented Renaissance Romans?)
2.3 Industrial Era Romans (Papal States, Venice, Piedmont-Sardinia (which its leader made use of Garibaldi to invade the other Italian States which eventually dragged Austria into their wars, I'm not sure what Sardinia did or which city Sardinia invaded and incurs Emergency which Austria promptly responsed to.))

 

[The Kingmaker]

I really want to see Ivan IV with a strelets UU.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I really want to see Ivan IV with a strelets UU.

Ivan makes a nice alternative to the more 'normal' leaders for Russia like Peter, Ekaterina II, Aleksandr the Napoleon Nemesis, or the Post-Imperial Lenin or Stalin.
He was intensely religious, but it translates nicely into a 'Unique Wonder' in St Basil's Cathedral - and a Unique Wonder would in itself be something different for Civ VI.
He has a Unique Unit ready-made in the Strelets or Streltsy, and they are more appropriate than many UUs because they formed the mass of his army instead of a tiny elite (Looking at You, Berserkers or Garde Imperiale!) and they were still in use a century or more after him - Peter still had numerous 'Streltsy' units forming City Guards or militia backing up his more modern Fusilier regiments.

Finally, Ivan can be taken in an entirely different direction. He founded (or, more accurately, Encouraged) the first book printers in Moscow, wrote, it now appears, many religious essays and pamphlets himself, and so could be given a Religious/Science bonus - another combination which is, I believe, a First in Civ.

 

[The Kingmaker]

And his unique agenda should be “Ivan Grozny” ... which would just amount to a second secret agenda. Unpredictable!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Oh, and Ivan also had a "Siege Train" of 6 massive Bombards, almost the first such ever seen in eastern Europe north of Constantinople. Given the later Russian emphasis on artillery of all kinds, a case could be made for a Unique Bonus of some kind related to that . . .

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

1. Is this siege train usually organized as one single unit or distributed among other lesser units? Is there any concepts of organizing some group of cannons in one units before Gustave Adolf?
2. Is this siege train a forerunner to Tsar Cannon? If this cannon (By the time it was built, the term 'bombard' was no longer used to refer to any cannons in active service) was ever seen combat. What or who did they fight against? is it designed for point defense that shoots a grapeshot that can remove an entire tercio with ease??

 

[Kimiimaro]

Ivan makes a nice alternative to the more 'normal' leaders for Russia like Peter, Ekaterina II, Aleksandr the Napoleon Nemesis, or the Post-Imperial Lenin or Stalin.

I know the talk is currently about Ivan IV the Terrible, but the mention of Alexander I as a Russian leader interested me. I've been playing with the idea of having either an early Russian/Muscovite leader (Ivan III and Ivan IV would fit here) or a late Romanov (Alexander II is my choice here), and Alexander I would kind of fit into the latter cathegory... But I wonder if he managed to do anything important or significant other than bringing Napoleon to his knees (though I don't deny that it was a giant and difficult thing)?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

1. Is this siege train usually organized as one single unit or distributed among other lesser units? Is there any concepts of organizing some group of cannons in one units before Gustave Adolf?
2. Is this siege train a forerunner to Tsar Cannon? If this cannon (By the time it was built, the term 'bombard' was no longer used to refer to any cannons in active service) was ever seen combat. What or who did they fight against? is it designed for point defense that shoots a grapeshot that can remove an entire tercio with ease??

Ivan paid his artillerymen a regular salary, but they weren't organized or uniformed as regular troops. Like the rest of Europe, he treated them as 'Craftsmen' with peculiar skills that happened to be useful on a battlefield instead of in a workshop. The siege train was kept together - at the Siege of Kazan in fact, they built a timber-reinforced earthwork, massed 10 of the Siege guns on it and blew a hole right through the town's defenses, while a mass of lesser cannn ("field artillery") suppressed the defender's artillery. - pretty sophisticated siege tactics for the mid-16th century, actually.
Be careful. The "Tsar' Pushka" or "Czar's Cannon" is probably the most famous early artillery piece in Russia, but in fact it isn't a cannon and was never used in combat - in fact, until recent microscopic analysis, there wasn't any evidence that it had ever been fired. It was a Prestige Piece, cast in bronze (which was hideously expensive, since Russia had no copper mines at the time: bronze, copper and tin all had to be imported) with the largest bore of any metal pre-20th century artillery piece, but the walls of the barrel are too thin to withstand the discharge of a solid shot, so all it could fire were loads of smaller shot, like a 40-ton shotgun. In fact, it is also known as the "Drobovik Rossiiskii" - The "Russian Shotgun". Also, the barrel is only 6 times as long as the diameter of the bore, which technically makes it a stubby howitzer or mortar, not a cannon at all.

Russia had been casting its own artillery since at least the 1480s (there is ferocious debate among Russian and other historians on the 'first date' for Russian artillery, but 'by 1480' is pretty solid: it's how much earlier that generates argument). Ivan IV's Siege Train was almost all wrought iron pieces, since massive iron castings were still new to Europe and bronze (see above) was too expensive for Russia/Muscovy. He had pieces in about 18 different sizes, including several long-barreled 'cannon' or bombards firing shot of up to 120 kg, as well as shorter-barreled mortars that could lob incendiary shells or solid shot. A Livonian letter mentions the fact that the 'Muscovites' couldn't take any towns because of their lack of artillery before Ivan IV's time, but Ivan blew through town walls from Pskov to Novgorod to Kazan because, by the end of his reign, he disposed of several hundred cannon of all sizes (not, by any means, all Siege pieces or 'bombards')

I know the talk is currently about Ivan IV the Terrible, but the mention of Alexander I as a Russian leader interested me. I've been playing with the idea of having either an early Russian/Muscovite leader (Ivan III and Ivan IV would fit here) or a late Romanov (Alexander II is my choice here), and Alexander I would kind of fit into the latter cathegory... But I wonder if he managed to do anything important or significant other than bringing Napoleon to his knees (though I don't deny that it was a giant and difficult thing)?

Alexander I is a ruler that you can almost make anything you want out of: the most consistent thing about him was his inconsistency:
He reformed the Russian government administration, proposed a State Council as a prototype Senate, but ruled as an absolute autocrat.
He applauded a very liberal Polish constitution, but never proposed or endorsed anything like it for Russia.
He debated freeing the serfs, but only allowed State serfs to own land, which affected maybe 2% of all the serfs, and still left them in absolute servitude.
His army, despite or maybe because of the victory over France, remained the most archaic of all the European military establishments.

The only certain things about him are:
He received fanatic devotion from his people during the war against Napoleon in 1812, so much so that 1812 is still known as the "Otechestvennoi Voiny" - the "Patriotic War" in Russian military history.
He had definite 'reform' and even 'liberal' tendencies, but they were overwhelmed by his determination to rule Russia without interference from any other institution - including the church, which he was willing to use to reinforce Romanov Autocracy even though he was, himself, probably one of the least religious of all the Czars.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Assuming that we only get one “second” leader with XP3 and that it will most likely come from the “major” nations first, and that we aren’t getting a third leader for any Civ just yet, I would expect the next leader to come from this list:

America, China, Egypt, Germany, Japan, Rome, Russia, Spain.

For some reason, I’m really excited at the prospect of getting Kublai Khan for both Mongolia and China, Eleanor-style.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

America, China, Egypt, Germany, Japan, Rome, Russia, Spain.

For some reason, I’m really excited at the prospect of getting Kublai Khan for both Mongolia and China, Eleanor-style.

I don't see America, Japan, or Spain likely to get one.
Teddy I think fits the America that they wanted, though I personally wouldn't mind another leader.
Hojo Tokimune fits the whole Bushido/Samurai themed Japan very well and I'm not sure what other leader we would need.
Spain possibly could get Isabella, but she might be too similar to Phillip with religious bonuses. Any other leader maybe focusing on exploration would suit well by just giving it to a new Civ in Portugal.

Although I doubt Kublai will make it as so far they only want to give alt leaders to Civs in the base game, I would like him to be another double leader.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I don't see America, Japan, or Spain likely to get one.
Teddy I think fits the America that they wanted, though I personally wouldn't mind another leader.
Hojo Tokimune fits the whole Bushido/Samurai themed Japan very well and I'm not sure what other leader we would need.
.

Just look at my Alternate Japanese Leader thread and i've added THREE MORE leaders with more diverse gameplay ability. Himiko for Cultured and Religious (came with Haniwa), Oda Nobunaga came with Gun Samurai (the name suggests itself that this unit is a successor to samurai, uses tanegashima arquebus along with swords or even pistol versions and swords), and Itou Hirobumi (This one fits Meiji Restoration very well)

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/alternate-japanese-leader-choices.650454/

 

[The Kingmaker]

I don't see America, Japan, or Spain likely to get one.
Teddy I think fits the America that they wanted, though I personally wouldn't mind another leader.
Hojo Tokimune fits the whole Bushido/Samurai themed Japan very well and I'm not sure what other leader we would need.
Spain possibly could get Isabella, but she might be too similar to Phillip with religious bonuses. Any other leader maybe focusing on exploration would suit well by just giving it to a new Civ in Portugal.

Although I doubt Kublai will make it as so far they only want to give alt leaders to Civs in the base game, I would like him to be another double leader.

Personally, I think China, Egypt and Russia are the ones who need second leaders the most.

They seemed excited to try more double-up leaders like Eleanor, but the choices are mainly limited to European nations, Kublai being a notable exception.

If they are wholly exclusive to vanilla civs, then that limits them even more.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If they are wholly exclusive to vanilla civs, then that limits them even more.

It might not be the case, but so far every alt leader has gone to a Vanilla civ.
If they do bring Kublai Khan in I'm not sure how it would work if you didn't get R&F with Mongolia which is why they have limited it to one from vanilla. .

 

[The Kingmaker]

You’d have access to Mongolia as Kublai but not as Genghis.

 

[Kimiimaro]

It might not be the case, but so far every alt leader has gone to a Vanilla civ.
If they do bring Kublai Khan in I'm not sure how it would work if you didn't get R&F with Mongolia which is why they have limited it to one from vanilla. .

Well, from what I've read, Civ V had Ethiopia included both in G&K and in BNW, so I guess it wouldn't be that much of a problem to have Mongolia included again, would it?

 

[The Kingmaker]

And with regard to some of the other nations, just because they don’t need another leader is no reason for them not to get one.

For example, America had three leaders in Civ4, along with England, France, and Russia.

I wouldn’t be surprised to see another American leader just because.

 

[Xandinho]

I know this is a matter of personal taste, but I think even though America had 3 leaders in Civ4 (the game was pretty Eurocentric at that time, tons of European leaders and few African and Native American leaders), I don't think modern nations should have more leaders, this includes America, given that alternative leaders are targeted at a very small number of civs and all modern nations have quite short history compared to civs like China, Egypt, France, England, Russia... America has some presidents that might be interesting, but that's the problem: presidents. I don't think presidents are more interesting than historical kings or emperors. America may gain another leader just for marketing reasons, but I don't particularly think it's a priority at the moment.

That said, I would be pretty disappointed if we don't have another Egyptian leader, I think this is the highest priority right now. Egypt simply does not feel like Egypt without a pharaoh in the lead, it can be Ramesses II, Hatshepsut or others. I don't mind if in a third expansion comes a Chinese or Russian or German leader... As long as an Egyptian leader is released at some point, I'll be fine.

 

[The Kingmaker]

I agree that modern leaders are generally less interesting. Just another face in a business suit. 99% of the time, I would vote against having a post-WWI leader in the game.

Re: Egypt, while I do agree we need another leader, Cleopatra was technically the Pharaoh, so it’s not as though we don’t have any Pharaohs in the game: just an ethnically Macedonian one.

Although Russia isn’t my favorite civ, I really think they need another leader. Peter feels way too progressive, when so much of Russia’s history was repressive. Ivan the Terrible would be perfect.

I’ve previously voiced my hopes for Kublai Khan for China and Mongolia.

Although I do like playing Germany, I’m not itching for another leader for them. Barbarossa is actually the German leader I’ve been waiting for... for the past five games!

As for America, I just hope we don’t get Kennedy or some other modern leader. In fact, I’d prefer to keep it limited to the Rushmore faces. We’ve got Teddy; that leaves Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, not that we need them. Plus I’m kind of burned out on Washington.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I agree that modern leaders are generally less interesting. Just another face in a business suit. 99% of the time, I would vote against having a post-WWI leader in the game.

What? And forego having Queen Marie of Romania or King Faisal of Egypt?

IRe: Egypt, while I do agree we need another leader, Cleopatra was technically the Pharaoh, so it’s not as though we don’t have any Pharaohs in the game: just an ethnically Macedonian one.

- And therein lies the problem, I think: Kleopatra was from a foreign culture and ancestry when there are a host of good native Egyptian Pharaohs to choose from. There's also the point that the On-The-Map architecture and Improvements associated with Egypt are Pyramids and Sphinxes, and Egypt had stopped constructing both of those over 1000 wars before Kleopatra or her founding ancestor Ptolemy Soter came along.

IAlthough Russia isn’t my favorite civ, I really think they need another leader. Peter feels way too progressive, when so much of Russia’s history was repressive. Ivan the Terrible would be perfect.

Agree completely. Ivan the Mighty - or Ivan the Tolerable for those intimidated by History . . ..

II’ve previously voiced my hopes for Kublai Khan for China and Mongolia.

If the graphic design assets were available - which they really aren't - I would love to see a mechanism where every time, say, China conquers another capital or loses it's own capital its Leader "Loses the Mandate of Heaven" and is replaced by a new Leader from a different Dynasty, thus reflecting the turbulent nature of China's historical Leadership. That would allow us to have a half-dozen or more 'Alternate' Leaders for China.

IAlthough I do like playing Germany, I’m not itching for another leader for them. Barbarossa is actually the German leader I’ve been waiting for... for the past five games!

IF we widen the definition of the "German State", which Barbarossa the Holy Roman Emperor does to my thinking, then we have quite a number of potential Germanic Leaders, some of which we've already discussed:
Charlemagne as a France - Germany Alternate Leader
Maria Theresa as an 'Austrian' German Leader
Maximilian or 'Mad' Ludvig as 'Bavarian' German Leaders
The Great Elector or Friederich II as 'Prussian' German Leaders
Augustus "the Strong" as a 'Saxon' German Leader
Otto von Bismarck as a Non-Royal German Leader
- and these without even reaching WWI yet!

IAs for America, I just hope we don’t get Kennedy or some other modern leader. In fact, I’d prefer to keep it limited to the Rushmore faces. We’ve got Teddy; that leaves Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, not that we need them. Plus I’m kind of burned out on Washington.

While, by definition, the Rushmore Faces are iconic - even Monumental - I think any Alternate American Leader should try for Something New. @Zaarin has argued for one of the Adams, which would be a refreshing change from Washington or Jefferson. Jackson was in a Civ V Mod but otherwise, to my knowledge, has never appeared in a Civ game - and he could be a rare combined Military and Political leader among American Presidents (Washington, T. Roosevelt, Grant, Harrison, and Eisenhower are really the only other military leaders, and Eisenhower is Too Late and Harrison died after a month in office!). Polk would be another Something Different: a rabid expansionist, which is another rarity among potential American Leaders.
I confess I've always had a soft spot for Millard Fillmore, just because his name sounds like a historical Practical Joke and he managed to live down to it . . .

 

[The Kingmaker]

Can’t have a refreshing change from Jefferson since we’ve never actually had him yet. In fact, John Adams made it into Civ4: Colonization while Jefferson didn’t.

While I’m mindful of modern political correctness, I do think Jefferson is more tolerable than Jackson. “Trail of Tears” doesn’t make for a very enjoyable leader ability.

Not that I’m necessarily arguing for a second American leader at all.

My votes are China, Russia and Egypt.