CIV6 Civs and Leaders

[Civciv5]

Its entire ancient and medieval period has been ignored

Qin Shi Huang lived during the Ancient Era and Wu Zetian lived during the Middle Ages. Cho-ko nus and paper makers are also ancient and medieval.

 

[Krajzen]

On another note, why were the devs reading up on Teddy Roosevelt. Could we be seeing a new American leader. I hope so he is by far my favorite person in American history

I'd LOVE to see him. He is also my favourite US president (and person ) and I am seriously surprised he was never in civ series, he is not only constantly rated as one of the best US presidents, but probably the most badass and interesting personality among them.

I mean, Teddy is the guy who was shot during his speech, then proclaimed he's fine and 'it was not enough to kill me', calmly continued his hour long speech with a hole in a chest, then was operated and survived.
I think there are more badass anecdotes about him than about half of other presidents combined.

If not Teddy, then I'd love to see Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Not only rated very highly and with strong personality too, he'd be very unique in civ leaders crowd with his iconic wheelchair.

Not just imperialist expansion, but contribution in any way to the story of the human race. Did the Shoshone invent anything? Did they write any great songs/poems/epics? Hell, did they even have a written language at all? Who were their great artists/poets/writers... anything? Did they build anything that is still standing? Did they paint anything? .

I really like American Indians, but I still think Shoshone were the most 'undeserving' civilisation to appear in Civ5 with the exception of Zulu.
I mean, they didn't have written language or urban centres, they had no civilisation in any meaning of this word. I am all for exotic additions but series should stick to "civilisations", not "cool tribes", there should be some rules.

Iroquis, Polynesia and Huns were barely fitting 'civilisation' requirement, but they at least had cool accomplishments (great military conquest of Huns, incredible exploration/navigation accomplishments of Pacific peoples, and Iroquis being small tribe capable of defeating invaders for centuries + having very unique and fascinating social system + being very recognizable culturally). Shoshone instead were one of small Amerindian tribes that were relatively very ephemerical (quickly destroyed by Americans) and very obscure.

On the other hand, I recall interview with BNW devs which basically said they originally wanted to include Pueblo instead (now that's impressive and cool civilisation deserving this word) but while trying to get native speaker of Pueblo language they didn't get the "permit" of modern Pueblo to depict them in the video game (lol). So I guess Shoshone were plan B.

In addition, it's pretty confirmed that Gandhi has his nuke thing as his agenda (or a bonus agenda)

I still strongly dislike half-cartoonish half-stereotype way India has been depicted in civ series (and always overshadowed by personal quirks of Gandhi on top of that)

 

[IgorS]

Why not put for example all the germanic nations/empires which were present in Civ V all together then and call them Germanics or Germans?:

• Germany

• England

• Netherlands

• Sweden

• Austria

• Denmark

The same could be done for other groups too. I don't think this is the right approach to make civilizations for the game. To understand why not to combine all to one group is that there are still large difference between them based on culture, religion and language.

The same applies to Turks too. I think you should take a good look to all the Turkic empires/states/dynasties of present day and in history. There are very large differences from 1 Turkic empire to another.

When I said I wanted a Turkish civ, I mean just that - Turks, as in the people who come from Turkey. I did not say anything about combining them with other Turkic empires. The Turkish civ I was talking about was the Ottomans+modern Turkey.

 

[Navelgazer]

I'm going to play a game here of guess which civs I think will be in the Vanilla launch (and DLCs) along with who I want to be their leaders. I think most of the "starting set" can be pretty well assumed, so...

1. Egypt - I understand Cleopatra's probably a no-go, what with the Ptolemies being Macedonian-Greek and all (and to jump way upthread: "Republic of Macedonia" is a separate political entity from Greece. "Macedonia" is a nonpolitical region, a great deal of which is in Northern Greece. So no, Macedonia isn't Greece, except for all the parts of it that are.) Still, I think she could be an interesting choice, and she was famously the first Ptolemy to really become at all involved with actual Egyptian life and culture. If not her, I understand, and would say pass the turn back to Hatshepsut for this one.
2. Japan - I really, really like Meiji for this.
3. England - Victoria. Or Henry V. That could be an interesting way to go with it.
4. Russia - Lenin. I doubt it (I think it'll be Catherine or Peter I) But it could be fun.
5. China - Deng Xiaoping. Like many (most?) 20th Century demagogues, Mao was good at propoganda while driving his country into the dirt. Deng took that situation, turned it right around, left Cincinnatian precedent in handing over power, and is likely more responsible than any other one person in where China is now. Died in 1989, but hey, Haile Selassie died in 1975 and still felt right for Ethiopia.
6. America - Alexander Hamilton. Okay, that's unrealistic, so yeah. Teddy Roosevelt.
7. India - Gandhi is more or less confirmed, but Ashoka would have been interesting. Perhaps tricky for religious reasons (Buddhist in a civ very tied to Hinduism and Islam) but that's not a good enough reason to say no there, I don't think.
8. Aztec - Montezuma.
9. Germany - Wilhelm I is a good choice. Wilhelm II is a terrible choice (his defining character trait is incompetence and his legacy is an easily avoidable apocalyptic event!) Perhaps we'll see Merkel when Civ X comes around.
10. France - Louis XIV. I get why they chose Napoleon for his iconic image but if you're making France a culture-focused Civ, Louis is basically like Elizabeth I. Who, come to think of it, was kind of hilariously paired up with purely military aspects in CiV despite her reputation of bringing gold and arts to England.
11. Rome - Too long with the Caesars! Let's spend one game with... I dunno.. How about Pompey?
12. Arabia - I really liked Harun Al-Rashid for this. Any Abbasid!
13. Persia - Cyrus
14. Mali - Musa I

 

[orasis]

4. Russia - Lenin. I doubt it (I think it'll be Catherine or Peter I) But it could be fun.

Really? REALLY? Maybe putting Adolf Hitler in the game would be fun as well.

I was disgusted when Stalin was put in CIV IV. Stalin murdered millions of people based on nothing more than ideology and Lenin was the instigator of it all.

I will never buy another CIV game if Lenin is included in it. Stalin, that mass murdering psychopathic bastard was enough.

 

[TranquilSilence]

Wait what?

Why would Lenin be more of an issue than Stalin - who has actually appeared in past civ games? Granted I don't think Lenin should be the default leader of Russia either but I don't really understand your reasoning.

Whatever your politics, I don't think you can argue that Lenin was on the same level as Hitler - that seems a stretch to me.

 

[Tee Kay]

I mean, they didn't have written language or urban centres, they had no civilisation in any meaning of this word. I am all for exotic additions but series should stick to "civilisations", not "cool tribes", there should be some rules.

Iroquis, Polynesia and Huns were barely fitting 'civilisation' requirement, but they at least had cool accomplishments

For someone who's against Eurocentrism you seem to have a pretty narrow view of what counts as civilisation, just saying.

I will never buy another CIV game if Lenin is included in it. Stalin, that mass murdering psychopathic bastard was enough.

Here's the thing, almost every leader featured in Civ had the blood of thousands if not millions of innocent people on their hands. The only real reason Hitler's not included is because it would be a PR nightmare, and so similarly Lenin probably won't be in because presumably Firaxis wants the game to sell well in Eastern Europe

 

[Brackenspore]

Really? REALLY? Maybe putting Adolf Hitler in the game would be fun as well.

I was disgusted when Stalin was put in CIV IV. Stalin murdered millions of people based on nothing more than ideology and Lenin was the instigator of it all.

I will never buy another CIV game if Lenin is included in it. Stalin, that mass murdering psychopathic bastard was enough.

Do you buy CIV game if Hitler is included in it?

 

[Brackenspore]

Here's the thing, almost every leader featured in Civ had the blood of thousands if not millions of innocent people on their hands.

I totally agree.

 

[Blitzscream]

This is just a thought, but is playing as a historical leader of a civilization really necessary? This most likely will never happen in civ 6 but my thinking was players would have a greater immersion being the leader of the civilization just playing as the civilization itself. This can solve issues such as is this leader really worthy to represent this civilization in terms of historical accomplishments and avoiding potentially offensive and controversial leaders, and even the awkwardness of dealing with immortal leaders in the diplomacy screen.

 

[Matthew.]

Russia, France, and Germany are pretty much givens. I'd be highly surprised if the base game launched without those 3.

I'm betting Firaxis will want to try and up the number of female leaders as much as possible. So going with someone other than Catherine for Russia just seems so unlikely to me. She has been in previous versions and is the easy, obvious choice.

 

[JeszKar]

This is just a thought, but is playing as a historical leader of a civilization really necessary? This most likely will never happen in civ 6 but my thinking was players would have a greater immersion being the leader of the civilization just playing as the civilization itself. This can solve issues such as is this leader really worthy to represent this civilization in terms of historical accomplishments and avoiding potentially offensive and controversial leaders, and even the awkwardness of dealing with immortal leaders in the diplomacy screen.

I said I was OK with leaders go away but it won't happen in this series any time soon.

 

[Blitzscream]

I said I was OK with leaders go away but it won't happen in this series any time soon.

I wonder how I missed your post.

And just rolling with what I already said if Firaxis would choose to abandon the traditional leader system I think it be interesting to introduce a "King unit" like from Civ 3, but has special abilities. We could then have regicide and assassinations.

 

[Art Grin]

Theodore Roosevelt as the US leader would be really cool, especially if they have him wear his Rough Riders uniform.
Honestly, I hope we might get some variety when it comes to leaders for different civs. Bismarck, Elizabeth and Catherine are all fine but something new could be nice like maybe Otto I, Alfred the Great and Ivan the Terrible.

 

[noto2]

Wait what?

Why would Lenin be more of an issue than Stalin - who has actually appeared in past civ games? Granted I don't think Lenin should be the default leader of Russia either but I don't really understand your reasoning.

Whatever your politics, I don't think you can argue that Lenin was on the same level as Hitler - that seems a stretch to me.

Julius Ceasar basically committed genocide against the Gauls. The Romans committed genocide against Carthage. The Mongols exterminated and murdered millions. The Spanish committed genocide (somewhat unintentional - the germ part at least) against South Americans. Mao deliberately caused the biggest famine the world has ever seen and killed something like 90 million Chinese in the Great Leap Forward, and then had another 3 million people killed during the Cultural Revolution because they didn't agree with his politics. The Ottomans loved slavery and ran a huge slave trade, invading coastal cities and attacking ships to take people as slaves. The Ottomans also completely exterminated everyone in Constantinople when they conquered it, you could call it 'Genocide Light'. The Japanese exterminated hundreds of thousands of Chinese civilians upon the capture of major Chinese cities, and ignored all Geneva conventions and did things like run suicide bombing grenade or razor-blade-in-the-mouth attacks on American doctors. America vapourized two Japanese cities and killed hundreds of thousands of women, children, and elderly people, while basically missing all military targets.

I could go on. Really, history is full of horrible atrocities. If you can't play a game because Stalin is in it, well, that's your problem. As someone stated earlier the only exception the developers make is Hitler. Personally I see no need for this exception. I play games like Axis and Allies, for example. We can already raze cities (genocide), so just because you're not playing as Hitler doesn't mean you aren't simulating being a genocidal maniac.

 

[nunor]

Oh boy, it's that sweet speculation season again! I love this.

As someone stated earlier the only exception the developers make is Hitler. Personally I see no need for this exception. I play games like Axis and Allies, for example. We can already raze cities (genocide), so just because you're not playing as Hitler doesn't mean you aren't simulating being a genocidal maniac.

The game would be banned in Germany if it had Hitler as a playable leader. That's probably one of their main reasons.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I would avoid XX-XXI century leaders altogether. Too much blood still boiling.

 

[Art Grin]

Apart form PR there's also another good reason for not including Hitler: He wasn't that great a leader actually.
Hitler essentially completely ruined his country, left it divided, occupied and resulted in Germans being driven from lands which they had been living in for the past centuries. Sure he created a short period of economic revitalisation (which was not sustainable though) and conquered a large area which he held for about three years. But in the end he completely ruined the country he took over.
There are simply dozens of better leader choices for the German civilization.

 

[nunor]

I'm betting Firaxis will want to try and up the number of female leaders as much as possible.

I hope they'll be more judicious this time, though. Some of their recent leader choices were obvious female-quota-filling inclusions (I'm looking at you, Maria).

 

[Synth]

My ideal list:

Brasil: Pedro II again. With mandatory re-use of last game's war-music.

If we have Brazil again, I hope we stay away from the royal family. In fact, I'd love to see something more recent, like Getúlio Vargas.