[NFP] Civ 6 Leaders Chronology - updated August 2020

[Deadly Dog]

I wanted a guide so I could select AI opponents from similar times in history, and had to look quite a few of the leaders up. I made this chart in Excel then printed to pdf, here it is attached. Sorry I couldn't find a way on my PC to make this a jpeg to show in-post.

Dates are all from wikipedia, some not without controversy I'm sure. Blue bars on the right show groups of overlapping leaders who reigned at the same time in history.

EDIT: Fixed dates for Matthias, replaced Montezuma II with Monty I (oops ), shaded the 18th century to match Peter's end reign date shading. So if you see white that means there is no leader for that century, and shading indicates at least 1 leader even if they started in the previous century. It's all consistent, at least.

EDIT August 2020: Now included the new leaders from NFP (3 so far), tidied up the presentation.

 

[Bangau]

That's cool. Thanks for that!

 

[Kwami]

Neat! Also, here's a graphic of the leaders in chronological order.

https://i.redd.it/20fnk59d85s21.png

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It really astonishes me that for all the Renaissance and Industrial leaders, there are none from the 1700s.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Apart from using the dates for Montezuma II instead of Montezuma I it looks great to me, good job.

 

[Buthera]

Good work! Only thing I noticed that's without contention is Matthias' reign began about ten years earlier.

It seems bizarre that there's noone between Peter and Shaka, that's a huge, important, visually distinctive time with countless memorable leaders.

 

[Krajzen]

It really astonishes me that for all the Renaissance and Industrial leaders, there are none from the 1700s.

There is. Peter the Great of Russia ruled 1682-1725. That's my minor grip with the table, it only colors century when ruler begins his rule. I mea, that's for sake of clarity I guess, but it still looks strange to have empty 18th century with Peter the Great in game.
The alternate solution I'd suggest would be to write durstion of the rule instead of betinning, so 1682-1725 instead of just 1682.

Other than that, great job! I am somewhat annoyed at semi-mythical figures with their 90% sure nonsense dating (yeah Kupe totally 10th century when we know Maoris colonized NZ in like 14th) but that's not OP's fault

The period between Traian and Harald Hardrada needs more real rulers that just Seondeok, it's 800 years...
Ancient era could use somebody else too, but the only popular candidates are from Assyria and Babylon (and even then not necessarily) and Egypt took Cleopatra instead of all possible ancient pharaoss

 

[brasswire]

Wow, I'm surprised, never realised Dido was the second oldest in the game. Guess I forgot that Hammurabi and Ramses weren't around this incarnation. Feels like there should be more pre-Greek representation.

 

[Deadly Dog]

Thanks for the feedback. I will check Montezuma and Matthias and I should adjust the shading to show Peter was in 1700's. Once I have an updated copy maybe I'll just upload the xls file, that way anyone can add in their own info for mods or alts or whatever. Probably later tonight. Cheers.

 

[WillowBrook]

Nice info!

I wonder if they're looking at filling in some of these gaps. A leader pack could give us, say, Washington, an ancient Egyptian pharaoh, who else?

 

[The Kingmaker]

Let’s hope for an ancient pharaoh, say Khufu or somebody else from the Old Kingdom.

Ramses is overdone at this point.

Babylon is a must. Assyria and Hatti (the Hittites) would be nice too.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

By my definition of eras, the Medieval has the most leaders at 14, Ancient has the least at 1. Classical and Renaissance both have 11 each. Industrial has an underwhelming 4. Modern and Atomic both have 2 each, which feels about right.

So I would want a minimum of 2 more Ancient leaders. And 1-2 Industrial era leaders. No more than 1 Medieval leader and the balance in the Classical and Renaissance.

 

[Morningcalm]

By my definition of eras, the Medieval has the most leaders at 14, Ancient has the least at 1. Classical and Renaissance both have 11 each. Industrial has an underwhelming 4. Modern and Atomic both have 2 each, which feels about right.

So I would want a minimum of 2 more Ancient leaders. And 1-2 Industrial era leaders. No more than 1 Medieval leader and the balance in the Classical and Renaissance.

Senusret III would be a great secondary Ancient Egyptian leader. He ruled in the 19th century BC.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

By my definition of eras, the Medieval has the most leaders at 14, Ancient has the least at 1. Classical and Renaissance both have 11 each. Industrial has an underwhelming 4. Modern and Atomic both have 2 each, which feels about right.

So I would want a minimum of 2 more Ancient leaders. And 1-2 Industrial era leaders. No more than 1 Medieval leader and the balance in the Classical and Renaissance.

IF we include Alternative Leaders, there are actually quite a few potential candidates in the Ancient Era. Aside from a multitude of Egyptian Pharaohs, male and female, and Hittite, Babylonian, Assyrian and Sumerian Leaders, since we already have 'semi-mythical' Leaders like Gilgamesh and Kupe, they could throw in a real curve and add Agememnon of Mycenean Greece or Theseus of (Bronze Age) Athens.

The biggest gaps I see are the Late Classical - Early Medieval (200 to 1000 CE) and Early Industrial (1600 - 1800 CE). The first of those includes a number of Leaders that have been mentioned in other Threads, like Charlemagne (Alternate for France and Germany) The 'Saxon Kings' like Offa and Alfred of England, many Byzantine candidates (which could also be Very Alternate Leaders for Rome), Tang Dynasty China . . .
The second period includes Gustaphus Adolphus and Charles XII of Sweden, Louis XIV of France, a slightly earlier contemporary of Peter, Friedrich II of Prussia as an Alternate for Germany, Washington of the USA, Catherine II of Russia - and that's without even going into the Asiatic, African, and the few known North American Native Leaders of that period!

 

[Deadly Dog]

I've replaced the original PDF with an updated one on the original post. Thanks for feedback. Of course I was hoping this would become a discussion of where new civs and leaders could fit in. You can always count on civfanatics!

Hmm. Just noticed some century labels got moved/lost. Will fix again soon. Off to work.

 

[The Kingmaker]

That ancient gap is really egregious.

It doesn’t look as bad as it is on the chart because he used increments of 500 years for the ancient era and 100 years for everything else.

There’s a 2000-year period with only one leader!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That ancient gap is really egregious.

It doesn’t look as bad as it is on the chart because he used increments of 500 years for the ancient era and 100 years for everything else.

There’s a 2000-year period with only one leader!

And it's especially egregious for me because I rarely play any game past the Modern Era: either quit from boredom or win with Domination, Culture, or Religion by the Modern Era. That means the Ancient and Classical Eras probably account for 60 - 75% of my playing time! Playing in a Leader Desert . . .

 

[cain3456]

The period between Traian and Harald Hardrada needs more real rulers that just Seondeok, it's 800 years...

Paging the Byzantines...

 

[Uberfrog]

Paging the Byzantines...

Byzantines, Sassanids, Axum, Classical Maya, Tang Dynasty, Carolingian Dynasty... so many good candidates.

 

[Deadly Dog]

Now that I've included Lady Six Sky, Simon Bolivar, and Menelik II this may be useful again for setting up "historical feel" in our games. Menelik rounds out the late industrial cohort by giving us 6 leaders all active at the same time, and Simon Bolivar also bulks up the late renaissance cohort.