Civilization VII Civs and Leaders Wishlist [Not a Prediction]

[Patine]

I would love a Jefferson for territorial expansion and exploration and/or Eisenhower for connecting cities and late-game development. If we had both, they’d be a great pair gameplay wise.

Strangely, Polk was by far the bigger expansionist one. Also, Jefferson had to contend with a general attitutde of vast, territorial expansion, like a standing army at the same time, being viewed with great wariness, unease, and suspicion, and an uncertainty of wherther the Louisiana Purchase was even Constitutional.

 

[AffineConstant]

Scipio Africanus is a strange choice for Rome imo. I think it’s best to always go for an Empire leader, as that’s the period most associate with Rome.

And I’ve never got the hype around JFK as far as having him as a leader. Seems a case of wanting an iconic face for America rather than choosing someone based on accomplishments.

The Republic, in it's various forms, lasted a longer than the empire by the most traditional accounts. And was arguably far more successful in conquering places, what Rome is most famous for. I'd love to see a leader from the Republic era. Civ has had a bad habit of choosing monarchy leaders over just as, or more, legitimately political leaders for a given civ.

EG Queen Victoria as a "leader" when Parliament had been the primary power of the UK for over a century and Victoria was notably something of a shut in that lead to much of the monarchs remaining power slowly slipping away under her.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Republic, in it's various forms, lasted a longer than the empire by the most traditional accounts. And was arguably far more successful in conquering places, what Rome is most famous for. I'd love to see a leader from the Republic era. Civ has had a bad habit of choosing monarchy leaders over just as, or more, legitimately political leaders for a given civ.

I mean technically Julius Caesar is a leader from the Republic era, considering Augustus was the first emperor.

 

[GeneralZift]

JFK because iconic

 

[Patine]

The Republic, in it's various forms, lasted a longer than the empire by the most traditional accounts. And was arguably far more successful in conquering places, what Rome is most famous for. I'd love to see a leader from the Republic era. Civ has had a bad habit of choosing monarchy leaders over just as, or more, legitimately political leaders for a given civ.

EG Queen Victoria as a "leader" when Parliament had been the primary power of the UK for over two centuries and Victoria was notably something of a shut in that lead to much of the monarchs remaining power slowly slipping away under her.

Charles de Galle is one of my favourites for a return, over a king, queen regent, or self-proclaimed emperor.

JFK because iconic

"Iconic," is only of limited value in a game like Civ. And, he probably wouldn't have been nearly as iconic if not for his tragic demise, and coining of the term, "conspiracy theorist," in it's wake.

 

[Krajzen]

How controversial would it be for Japan to get one of those semi-legendary ancient shaman queens, such as Himiko?

That's my sexond favourite idea for Japan next to emperor Meiji, because of female representation and because of strange exotic appeal of very ancient forms of Japanese culture.

We always got samurai style patriarchal militarist Japanese leaders of late eras, it would be very unusual to go instead for matriarchal Shinto shamaness.

Shot from (stylized) "Himiko" movie from 1974

 

[Patine]

How controversial would it be for Japan to get one of those semi-legendary ancient shaman queens, such as Himiko?

That's my sexond favourite idea for Japan next to emperor Meiji, because of female representation and because of strange exotic appeal of very ancient forms of Japanese culture.

We always got samurai style patriarchal militarist Japanese leaders of late eras, it would be very unusual to go instead for matriarchal Shinto shamaness.

View attachment 695161

Shot from (stylized) "Himiko" movie from 1974

Mythologized leaders should be avoided. Gilgamesh and Dido should not return.

But here's someone interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Suiko

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

How controversial would it be for Japan to get one of those semi-legendary ancient shaman queens, such as Himiko?

That's my sexond favourite idea for Japan next to emperor Meiji, because of female representation and because of strange exotic appeal of very ancient forms of Japanese culture.

We always got samurai style patriarchal militarist Japanese leaders of late eras, it would be very unusual to go instead for matriarchal Shinto shamaness.

View attachment 695161

Shot from (stylized) "Himiko" movie from 1974

I think Yamatai should be a city-state/ minor nation

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Mythologized leaders should be avoided. Gilgamesh and Dido should not return.

But here's someone interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Suiko

My own choice is Kōken. (I don't remember why, I just have her on my list)

 

[AffineConstant]

Mythologized leaders should be avoided. Gilgamesh and Dido should not return.

But here's someone interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Suiko

Neither of these leader were "myhologized" as such. The account of the founding of Carthage seems to be written as a totally historical account as far as the author was concerned, we just don't have anything else to back it up, but we don't have anything to refute it either. Which isn't surprising given the time period and culture, almost no writing survived from back then, but it's a 100% believable story written as such.

Gilgamesh is also a perfectly historical leader, who happens to have had at least a story mythologizing himself written out, probably more, probably on his own orders. Pharaos did the same, "I totally won this battle and am a literal god!" but we know they existed. Heck the Kim family and Xi Jinping have mythologized themselves nigh as much as Gilgamesh did and we don't call them "mythological".

A lot of ancient writings are as or more questionably reliable as anything written today. Because of course they are, why would humans change that much in a few thousand years? But if we want leaders for these places at all we need to go on these old writings because that's all we have in terms of actual recorded leaders. After all, not much writing has survived.

 

[GeneralZift]

I will always be a fan of non-leaders and mythological leaders in Civilisation.
Since this is a wishlist thread I feel like I should be able to say that without controversy.

Let's face it, the vast majority of leaders will be real people, yes. And where there is a spot for a real leader, that's the leader that should take the spot.

But, I will advocate that, where there are second leaders for a nation, we should allow leaders who were never head of state (so to speak) and leaders who may not have existed.

Why not? If they tell a more compelling story with their gameplay and personality (Take Gilgamesh) than any real leader, then what difference does it make?

And for me, I am learning equally as much about Myths as I am about History. Our history is made up of stories and telling stories, as much fiction as it is non-fiction, so why completely and utterly discredit the fiction? Realism does not play into this game as much as you think it does.

 

[GeneralZift]

And, he probably wouldn't have been nearly as iconic if not for his tragic demise, and coining of the term, "conspiracy theorist," in it's wake.

Probably true, although I am not versed in JFK's policies.

How controversial would it be for Japan to get one of those semi-legendary ancient shaman queens, such as Himiko?

That's my sexond favourite idea for Japan next to emperor Meiji, because of female representation and because of strange exotic appeal of very ancient forms of Japanese culture.

We always got samurai style patriarchal militarist Japanese leaders of late eras, it would be very unusual to go instead for matriarchal Shinto shamaness.

View attachment 695161

Shot from (stylized) "Himiko" movie from 1974

Hell yeah

 

[moondog385]

How controversial would it be for Japan to get one of those semi-legendary ancient shaman queens, such as Himiko?

That's my sexond favourite idea for Japan next to emperor Meiji, because of female representation and because of strange exotic appeal of very ancient forms of Japanese culture.

We always got samurai style patriarchal militarist Japanese leaders of late eras, it would be very unusual to go instead for matriarchal Shinto shamaness.

View attachment 695161

Shot from (stylized) "Himiko" movie from 1974

I think Hojo Masako would be a great female leader for Japan. I would shy away from mythological or poorly attested leaders generally. Though in the case of Phoenicia, I don’t mind Dido if it means we get, well, Phoenicia as opposed to Carthage specifically.

The Republic, in it's various forms, lasted a longer than the empire by the most traditional accounts. And was arguably far more successful in conquering places, what Rome is most famous for. I'd love to see a leader from the Republic era. Civ has had a bad habit of choosing monarchy leaders over just as, or more, legitimately political leaders for a given civ.

EG Queen Victoria as a "leader" when Parliament had been the primary power of the UK for over a century and Victoria was notably something of a shut in that lead to much of the monarchs remaining power slowly slipping away under her.

I agree with you on Victoria (and other modern British monarchs) but I would still rather have Imperial leaders for Rome. Or at least 1 Republic leader and 1 Imperial leader.

 

[Patine]

Neither of these leader were "myhologized" as such. The account of the founding of Carthage seems to be written as a totally historical account as far as the author was concerned, we just don't have anything else to back it up, but we don't have anything to refute it either. Which isn't surprising given the time period and culture, almost no writing survived from back then, but it's a 100% believable story written as such.

Gilgamesh is also a perfectly historical leader, who happens to have had at least a story mythologizing himself written out, probably more, probably on his own orders. Pharaos did the same, "I totally won this battle and am a literal god!" but we know they existed. Heck the Kim family and Xi Jinping have mythologized themselves nigh as much as Gilgamesh did and we don't call them "mythological".

A lot of ancient writings are as or more questionably reliable as anything written today. Because of course they are, why would humans change that much in a few thousand years? But if we want leaders for these places at all we need to go on these old writings because that's all we have in terms of actual recorded leaders. After all, not much writing has survived.

I call them myhologicalized (as opposed to outright myhtological) because while they did exist, we know very little about them as people, and only a few noteworthy deeds, and the rest is filled in by myhologization. So, yes, my term is correct.

Probably true, although I am not versed in JFK's policies.

Well, then, maybe you, too, shouldn't be rooting for him, but support someone you know more about.

 

[Patine]

Though in the case of Phoenicia, I don’t mind Dido if it means we get, well, Phoenicia as opposed to Carthage specifically.

Hiram is better attested.

 

[leif erikson]

Well, then, maybe you, too, shouldn't be rooting for him, but support someone you know more about.

Moderator Action: Maybe you should focus on your choices and be less critical of others as this is getting personal and very close to trolling. Please be more considerate of the opinions of other forum members.

 

[Krajzen]

What do you guys think of the inclusion of "archeological" civilizations, I mean, civilizations where we don't have written sources to rely on, and no clear leader figure. E.g. most of Andean civs beyond Incas, Missisipi civ, ancient African civs etc. Is there a way to include them?

 

[Kimiimaro]

I would have Hus, the more well-known and comprehensive leader, but combine elements of Zizka, like the war wagons, as a UU, in.

I can't say I'm supportive of the idea of Jan Hus as a leader myself. He was no doubt an influential figure in Czech history with a great number of followers, yes, but he only campaigned for reform of the Catholic church, not for some sort of political goal (like Gandhi did when leading the Indians toward independence).

If we do need a Hussite figure leading Bohemia, I would propose George of Poděbrady, a king who followed the Hussite faith. He would not be a Hussite leader for Hussite leader's sake, either - he was a capable administrator who managed to restore the kingdom from the utter devastation it suffered during the Hussite Wars, he was a remarkable diplomat and he ruled Bohemia with at the time unusual religious tolerance, seeking peaceful relations between Hussites and Catholics in the kingdom.

As for Žižka, I would nominate him for Great General spot.

 

[GeneralZift]

What do you guys think of the inclusion of "archeological" civilizations, I mean, civilizations where we don't have written sources to rely on, and no clear leader figure. E.g. most of Andean civs beyond Incas, Missisipi civ, ancient African civs etc. Is there a way to include them?

If they have absolutely no potential leader then it's basically impossible. But if they have even an unconfirmed or mythological leader, then I wouldn't put it past the team to wave that by.
But if the Civ has no unique attributes or knowledge of how they behaved or who they are besides their name, then there's basically no way to include them

Besides of course, City states, Barbarian names and Tribal villages (whatever the system will be in 7)

 

[Leyrann]

The account of the founding of Carthage seems to be written as a totally historical account as far as the author was concerned, we just don't have anything else to back it up, but we don't have anything to refute it either.

The Aeneid is a great classical work, but it's ridiculous to claim it's supposed to be a historical account.

Consider:
-Aeneas comes from Troy. This not only neatly ties it into the two most revered writings that existed at the time (Iliad and Odyssey) but also just happens to provide a justification for Rome to conquer Greece, when Roman culture tended to look up to Greek culture in many ways.
-Aeneas just happens to come across the woman who ends up founding Carthage. Not only that, but they fall in love, get along great for a while, but then things go wrong and they separate on bad terms. Which justifies why Rome and Carthage were, of course, mortal enemies, and one of them would have to destroy the other.
-Oh yeah, and it renames Aeneas' son to Iulus, thereby providing additional legitimacy to the claim that the Julius genus (which provided the first emperors, during whose reign it was written) descended straight from Aeneas and thus had a sort of ancestral right to rule.

This is obviously and unambiguously written with political goals, and thus not a reliable, unbiased historical account.

I'm all for Dido's inclusion in future games, but her historicity is questionable at best (unless there's also other sources attesting to her existence).