Civilization VII Civs and Leaders Wishlist [Not a Prediction]

[IgorS]

Although I agree with the first part, I do still see a lot ot potential and value in alternate leaders where they are appropriate, and do not feel that every leader needs their own, separate, and distinct civ cooked up, in many cases as a conttivance.

Agreed. Kublai Khan leading both China and Mongolia is a good example of when this works. Alexander leading Persia and Egypt is definitely not the way to do it.
I also agree about the last part. One thing I absolutely hate about Civ is when they make a civ that is basically made because they wanted a certain leader in the game. Macedon was not a Macedon civ, but an Alexander the Great civ. And Gran Colombia was a Bolivar civ. And in Civ V the Huns were an Attila civ. And in civ IV Holy Rome was basically a Charlemagne civ. Yes, there are lots of interesting figures in history that could've been great leaders for Civ, but if there is no civilization they can lead, just make them great generals or something, and move on. For this reason I don't want Tamerlane as a leader. What civ will he lead? The Uzbeks? This is kind of a stretch, just like Nzinga Mbande leading Kongo. The Timurids? Who are the Timurids? Are they a nation? Is there a Timurid ethnicity? National identity? Culture? Language?

 

[moondog385]

I think Alexander should sit this one out. I'm not a fan of the splitting leaders of Greece to represent Sparta and Athens. I'd rather have Athens and Sparta as distinct civs. I also think leader abilities aren't unique enough generally to warrant making a separate leader, if the civ remains the same and it would allow for a Sparta to really represent Sparta and Athens to really represent Athens for instance. If you have Athens, Sparta, you could also add Macedon or even another Greek civ if you intend to have a 100 civilisations at the end of VI. A greek themed DLC could also work well, and probably also open the base game spot for a more surprising/interesting civ. You could also throw in a Ptolemaic Egypt civ or a Seleucid civ, and while in theory it sounds interesting, we've basically had four of these in civ 6 (since Egypt was... Ptolemaic Egypt). So i think it's more of an idea for civ 8 or at the end of the development cycle of civ 7 (and they aren't going to wait that long to add something Greek).

And given we are trending away from blobbing civs, i think Sparta, Athens, Macedon not existing and it all being Greece is also kind of blobby. But I think other areas are more in need of deblobbing giving Greece isn't too large of an area.

I didn't mean that Alexander should be the sole leader of Greece, but that he would be an alternate leader, preferably as DLC. After all, the whole point of alternate leaders should be to offer an alternative playstyle and I think most players will be expecting Alexander. If push comes to shove, I wouldn't mind Greece getting 3 leaders (since it basically did in 6), as long as China gets the same treatment, as it deserves it the most.

 

[Leucarum]

The dual leaders were a fun gimmick, but they didn't add much in the end, and I don't think the attempt to force a leader to fit 2 civs simultaneously worked that well...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Agreed. Kublai Khan leading both China and Mongolia is a good example of when this works. Alexander leading Persia and Egypt is definitely not the way to do it.
I also agree about the last part. One thing I absolutely hate about Civ is when they make a civ that is basically made because they wanted a certain leader in the game. Macedon was not a Macedon civ, but an Alexander the Great civ. And Gran Colombia was a Bolivar civ. And in Civ V the Huns were an Attila civ. And in civ IV Holy Rome was basically a Charlemagne civ. Yes, there are lots of interesting figures in history that could've been great leaders for Civ, but if there is no civilization they can lead, just make them great generals or something, and move on. For this reason I don't want Tamerlane as a leader. What civ will he lead? The Uzbeks? This is kind of a stretch, just like Nzinga Mbande leading Kongo. The Timurids? Who are the Timurids? Are they a nation? Is there a Timurid ethnicity? National identity? Culture? Language?

To be fair, Gran Colombia as a civ really couldn't exist without Simon Bolivar. And a fair amount of people wanted Gran Colombia as well. I honestly don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, because you could technically say that about any leader.
Honestly you could say the same thing about Gilgamesh because at this point Sumeria in Civ 6 really just felt like the Gilgamesh civ.

 

[moondog385]

Honestly you could say the same thing about Gilgamesh because at this point Sumeria in Civ 6 really just felt like the Gilgamesh civ.

And it was definitely worse for it imo.

 

[Patine]

Honestly you could say the same thing about Gilgamesh because at this point Sumeria in Civ 6 really just felt like the Gilgamesh civ.

But, wouldn't Sargon have been a better leader for Sumer in all meaningful ways?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But, wouldn't Sargon have been a better leader for Sumer in all meaningful ways?

I don't mean to say I hated the idea of Gilgamesh as leader. I just wish the civ ability was about Sumer, and not two leaders based off of his Epic.
Wouldn't Sargon lead his own Akkadian Empire, though?

 

[Patine]

Wouldn't Sargon lead his own Akkadian Empire, though?

I don't believe he would need to, or benefit from. Other than a different language, everything meaningful about the Akkadians was borrowed from the Sumerians - cuneiform, architecture (including ziggurats), religion, warfare, agriculture, etc., as far as can be gleaned. Insisting he have a seperate Akkadian in like the cases above where a few othrss and I criticized the need to create superfluous civ's for extra leaders.

 

[pokiehl]

But, wouldn't Sargon have been a better leader for Sumer in all meaningful ways?

Yeah, Sargon for Sumer makes no sense to me.

Akkad was a different empire entirely, and the culture was also very meaningfully different (entirely different and unrelated languages for instance).

I think there's a lot of different material to pull from to differentiate Akkad too. Sargon could have a big militaristic, conquest focus, and the civ ability could be something dealing with empire management. After all, Akkad was the first real empire in the world (in the sense of centralized control over more than one "nationality").

I'd really like to see Akkad in Civ 7, actually.

 

[Xandinho]

To be fair, Gran Colombia as a civ really couldn't exist without Simon Bolivar. And a fair amount of people wanted Gran Colombia as well. I honestly don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, because you could technically say that about any leader.
Honestly you could say the same thing about Gilgamesh because at this point Sumeria in Civ 6 really just felt like the Gilgamesh civ.

Gran Colombia was simply called Colombia, and the "Gran" is given by historians to differentiate it from the current Republic of Colombia, with current Colombia being its direct continuation. This way, Gran Colombia would not be a civilization that lasted just 10 years as many say. But I agree that (Gran) Colombia would hardly be added to Civ if it weren't for the great appeal of Simon Bolivar. By the way, it wouldn't surprise me if Gran Colombia became established in the franchise because of him.

 

[Patine]

Akkad was a different empire entirely, and the culture was also very meaningfully different (entirely different and unrelated languages for instance).

A polity, or empire, is not necessarily enough to automatically make a different civ, especially when everyone it conquered - and fell into the cultural, religious, architectural, administrative, and techological sphere of was Sumer. It's culture didn't seem THAT terribly distinct, from what records have survived the alluvial water-tables. Laguage, yes, but it didn't seem to end up a big barrier, used cuneiform script, as well, and a lot of Sumerian loan words.

This is another example of a point I've made several times, along with a couple of others, against slicing off superfluous - even, a few time, contrived in context - civ's when alternate leaders eloquoently do do the job, without descending into blobbery.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Gran Colombia was simply called Colombia, and the "Gran" is given by historians to differentiate it from the current Republic of Colombia, with current Colombia being its direct continuation. This way, Gran Colombia would not be a civilization that lasted just 10 years as many say. But I agree that (Gran) Colombia would hardly be added to Civ if it weren't for the great appeal of Simon Bolivar. By the way, it wouldn't surprise me if Gran Colombia became established in the franchise because of him.

Yeah, I mean by calling it Gran Colombia, Simon Bolivar was basically the only option for leader.

I'm still iffy on whether Gran Colombia will be a staple in every iteration from here on out though. I feel like it has competition from other possible civs such as Argentina and the Musica. Regarding South America I expect the Inca and Brazil to always appear.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Macedon was not a Macedon civ, but an Alexander the Great civ.

Macedon at least has the potential to appear under Philip II, Alex’s father, who was an impactful leader in his own right.

For the other ones- the Huns and the Timurids especially- yeah, we really only have one good option.

 

[IgorS]

I hope Gran Colombia was a one-off civ. They can make a Colombia civ, or even a Venezuela civ, but I'd prefer the Muisca. And Argentina for another "modern" civ from South America.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Macedon at least has the potential to appear under Philip II, Alex’s father, who was an impactful leader in his own right.

Can you just imagine Phillip II leads Macedon and Alexander leads Greece?

 

[IgorS]

Macedon at least has the potential to appear under Philip II, Alex’s father, who was an impactful leader in his own right.

But you do realize they would never do it, right?))) It was an Alexander civ all along.

 

[Patine]

But you do realize they would never do it, right?))) It was an Alexander civ all along.

I fully agree. It would be like the probability of Santander as an alternate Gran Colombia leader. As neat as he'd be, it wouldn't really happen, either.

 

[pokiehl]

I have a few South American friends who were really enthralled with Gran Colombia. I really liked having it too. I don’t see anything wrong with Simon Bolivar or Alexander having civs designed around them.

I like the idea of Gran Colombia more than any other modern SA nation. It’s more inclusive than picking one, and it doesn’t have to contend with the dark history of the 20th century in the region.

 

[FishFishFish]

and the Timurids especially- yeah, we really only have one good option.

Shah Rukh could actually be a pretty cool leader.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Grand Colombia is fine, and would be an okay returning Civ. The ideas behind them can be further refined in Civ7. Not my choice, though personally (I'd prefer to see Argentina or the Muisca debut)

Alexander as a DLC ONLY thing is also okay with me, because I like to have the option to skip him entirely.