I just wish they'd given us Edward I as an English leader to troll Robert the Bruce... In all seriousness, Edward I would be an excellent leader choice for England (unless his legacy really is seen so negatively 700 years on in Scotland and Wales that he'd be contentious - someone earlier on the thread said he has a poor reputation in Hungary because for whatever reason the Hungarians have a song about his treatment of Welsh poets, which is a pretty random piece of infamy for someone who may be the most neglected in English popular consciousness of all the major English monarchs). He was regarded by his contemporaries - even the ones who hated and feared him - as the embodiment of medieval English kingship and was extremely successful both militarily and in terms of domestic legal reforms and maintaining civil order within England. His reign saw the ascendancy of the quintessential longbow, and the large trebuchet he ordered constructed, Warwolf, is immortalised in the Age of Empires II civ roughly based on his period. There's no alternation as such, because we've only had Assyria once, but Civ's ancient Near/Middle East has always been 'Babylon plus Other(s)' be they Sumeria, Hittites or Assyria. I see Sumer taking Assyria's place in Civ VI because its playstyle is basically that of Civ V Assyria (and much more appropriate for Assyria - it's a testament to how well implemented that civ was in Civ V, or alternatively how relatively forgettable Babylon's treatment was, that a sometime-requested civ here is now preferred over a series stalwart by some) - and because Babylon has been in every Civ game and I'm a believer in keeping the original 12 (and if I dropped any, the Zulu and the Aztecs would go before Babylon).