Civilization VII Civs and Leaders Wishlist [Not a Prediction]

[jsciv69]

True on that.
I apologize if I did anything wrong. I watched the video again and yeah you were true on that part, but we still can't forget the lives lost due to the Inquisition.
As much as I'm not a fan of Phillip II, I'm still fine with him being in VI, at least he's better than Qin Shi Huang, who shouldn't even have appeared.

________________________________

I'm not trying to prioritize anything. The Confederate States of America, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and many other abominable tyrannical states do NOT deserve to be added to the Civilization franchise. Also you can do other modern generals, like my boy William Tecumseh Sherman.

Dawg did I ever say that??? I personally am not that fond of Montezuma

I take that title as a badge of honor so thank you.

I'm sorry, what? Only my ex gets to call me "ridiculous", and some of my former friends too I guess. Kinda deserve that title, but that's off topic.

Moderator Action: edited. leif

Please stop putting words in my mouth AceBut my qu

My question is this: What makes the monsters of other parts of History more acceptable, than those of the 20th Century? Meaning why is it okay to play as Genghis Khan, and not Fidel Castro. When neither are more horrible than the other.

 

[Acepox]

Atilla the Hun, Alexander The Great, Napolean, Queen Victoria. None of these got their fame by selling flowers. And I don't see how it's fair that these are in the game and the likes of Castro( a character tailor-made for this game), and Khruschev(my choice for leader of Russia) are left out. I don't pick these leaders because they're my favorite people. I certainly have plenty of issues with both Ike and JFK. But if we can stomach the Austrian Painter in the game, then we can counter with some others. Just no Nixon please.

Then we agree.

My point is that other people are hypocritical and will have angina attacks about one leader but not another one who's just as bad. So it's just easier, PR-wise, for Firaxis to just not do 20th century.

But if they do yet avoid people like Hitler but accept Stalin, they're showing they have a preference for totalitarian communism and its 100 million deaths, which is inappropriate in my view.

 

[reddishrecue]

Stalin was an evil man but he was here since civ 1.

 

[Starina]

Moderator Action: Quote and response removed. leif

On the topic:
Of the specific leaders, I would like someone new for Russia. Ivan III or IV are an excellent option and will jinx "many modern angles".
And Tigran II for Armenia, as a new civilization.

I think that in one form or another, all civilizations from V and VI will return. And their leaders will surprise us, both pleasantly and not.
I'd really appreciate Mapuche, Siam, Georgia, Mali, Maori, Hungary, Nubia and Vietnam

As for India: I have no problem with Gandhi, but I hope Firaxis adds at least two more

Otherwise, what's really important to me is the gameplay and interesting abilities of civilizations and leaders.
In VI there were civilizations that were uninteresting to play or a one-time game. And civilizations with obvious balance issues. I wouldn't want that to happen again.

 

[Vandlys]

My question is this: What makes the monsters of other parts of History more acceptable, than those of the 20th Century? Meaning why is it okay to play as Genghis Khan, and not Fidel Castro. When neither are more horrible than the other.

Time.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Okay, here's my more in depth wishlist. It should have a more detailed reasoning for why I am picking certain leaders. I will try to provide two leader options; my top pick, and my "runner up". This list is only for the base game, but I might make another list containing the civs I want for the first DLC later. Now prepare yourself for the wall of text:

Arabia - My top choice is Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan. The second fitna revealed the unprecedented level of division within the Caliphate, divisions which only grew as the civil conflict ground on for a decade. Under Abd al-Malik's leadership, the Umayyads managed to slowly grow their power until they found themselves in a position to challenge for the umma’s leadership once again. Abd al-Malik's adept handling of the second fitna revealed him to be a shrewd mover and shaker with a disposition suitable for leadership. He did more than emulate those who came before him, he enacted changes that pushed the caliphate further into statehood and away from its roots as a tribal confederacy, cementing his family’s supremacy in the process

My runner up is al-Mu'tadid. This energetic Caliph personally led his armies and succeeded in restoring the Abbasid Caliphate to its former glory. He was even able to effectively diminish his adversaries, often without even resorting to open conflict. Generally, he is portrayed as an exemplary caliph. Although likely embellished by propaganda, it's evident that his leadership provided much-needed stability to the caliphate after the turbulent anarchy at Samarra. He also renewed caliphal sponsorship of scholars and scientists.

Assyria - My pick for the ancient Mesopotamia base game spot. My top pick is Sennacherib. He is probably most famous for the failed siege to Jerusalem and making king Hezekiah confined "like a bird in a cage." Sennacherib also waged successful campaigns against Elam and squashed many revolts. He is also responsible for rebuilding the city of Nineveh.

My runner up is Tiglath-Pileser III. Succeeded in extending Assyrian domination over vast territories. He crushed an Aramean coalition, conquered the northern half of Babylonia, including the city itself and became the first Assyrian king of Babylon.

Burma - My top choice is Alaungpaya. Alaungpaya was one the three greatest kings of Burma, and the founder of the Konbaung dynasty. The mid 1700s were a period of turmoil in Burma, Binnya Dala led a Mon revolt, and took Ava from the declining Toungoo dynasty. Alaungpaya resisted, established Moksobomyo as his capital, reclaimed Ava, and founded the Konbaung dynasty. He also forced the French and the British out, and unified the country.

My runner up is Bayinnaung. Bayinnaung was a powerful ruler of the Taungoo dynasty in Myanmar. He quelled the revolting Mons, and expanded his kingdom by conquering the Shan States and Siam, making Myanmar a dominant power in Southeast Asia. He was also a patron of Buddhism, generously supporting monasteries, and building pagodas.

China - My top choice is Taizu of Song. Honestly, I just want a Song emperor. He pulled off what is probably the most peaceful coup in history and reunited most of China after the era of warlords. He was a patron the arts, sciences and economics.

My runner up is Han Wudi. Emperor Wudi is renowned for his significant contributions to China’s expansion and cultural development. He successfully repelled threats from the north, introduced the Silk Road, and established Confucianism as the state "religion". His reign was marked by military conquests, territorial expansions, and efforts to unify the diverse cultures within the empire.

Egypt - Due to Egypt only having a limited amount of 3000 years of history, we unfortunately have to put the Greek lady back in charge. /s.

On a more serious note, my top choice is Hatshepsut. Ruling first as regent for, then as co-ruler with, her nephew Thutmose III, Hatshepsut enjoyed a relatively peaceful reign, at the beginning of the New Kingdom. She restored monuments destroyed during the disruptive Second Intermediate Period. She renewed trade with western Asia to the east, the far-off land of Punt to the south, and the Aegean Islands to the north. But honestly, I wouldn't even mind Sobekneferu or Nefertiti.

My runner up is Mentuhotep II. He is revered by as the guy who reunited Egypt after the era of disunity (the First Intermediate Period) that followed the end of the Old Kingdom. He also initiated a number of building projects, including in the areas of el-Kab, Gebelein, Tod, Deir el-Ballas, Dendera, Karnak, Abydos, Aswan and Armant. His greatest building work was his temple and tomb on the west bank at Thebes.

England - My top choice is Edward I Longshanks. He reformed the laws so every man got a fair trial, defeated De Montfort and ended the period of civil war inherited from his father, limited the powers of the feudal lords, prevented war between France and Spain, reformed parliament so they met regularly. He also conquered Wales and built some cool looking castles.

My runner up is Henry II. Fixed a lot of problems following the destructive civil war between his mother and king Stephen. He also significantly reformed the law and the financial system (father of common law).

Ethiopia - My top choice is Ezana. He was the first Ethiopian king to convert to Christianity (thanks to the monk Frumentius from Roman Syria) and was a prolific builder judging by his monumental obelisks, stelae, and thrones. Ezana also launched several military campaigns including the Kuhorsehockyes. Ezana is remembered for laying the foundation of the Ethiopian Empire and ensuring Axum remained a major power in East Africa.

My runner up is Lalibela. Legend has it that Lalibela is said to have seen a vision in Jerusalem that instructed him to build a new Jerusalem in Ethiopia as a response to Saladin's recapture of the city in 1187. Lalibela would go on to construct 11 complex monolithic churches.

France - My top choice is Philip II. He successfully conquered the English territories in Western France and brought down the Angevin Empire. His victory at the Battle of Bouvines against the coalition of England and the Holy Roman Empire led to the dethroning of Emperor Otto IV, while King John of England was forced to negotiate with his nobles, and thus sign the Magna Carta. He also reorganized the government, bringing financial stability to the country and thus making possible a sharp increase in prosperity.

My runner up is Cardinal Richelieu. A brilliant statesman who controlled a large part of the government under Louis XIII. He broke the power of the turbulent nobles, and united the country under the monarchy, and thus prepared the way for the rule of Louis XIV.

Germany - My top choice is Otto I. Otto sought to increase the Crown’s authority by curbing the power of the aristocracy and the Church. He faced several rebellions, including those led by the Duke of Bavaria and the Duke of Franconia, but managed to to crush them. He established himself as the sole master of Germany and successfully united West Francia and East Francia through strategic marriages. Otto also ended the Slavic threat in the North and halted the Pagan Hungarian invasions of Europe. He expanded into Italy, uniting it with Germany, and was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by Pope John XII. His reign also saw the beginning of the Ottonian renaissance.

My runner up is... Bismarck.

Greece - My top choice is Peisistratos. Peisistratos was an Athenian tyrant and one of the first populists, who dominated the Athenian political stage during the 5th century. Herodotus describes how Peisistratos absurdly managed to take power 3 times through pretty ridiculous coups. Not sure how true these are, but I find them pretty funny. Anyways, one of his greatest achievement was transforming the economy by introducing loans for farmers and encouraging them to grow cash crops. He is also credited with holding the first Panathenaic Games.

My runner up is Alexander the great, because Macedon should not be a separate civ from Greece.

Indo-Aryans - I support splitting up India. Not sure what to call this Civ, but it is supposed to represent the Northern Indo-Aryan part of India.

My top choice is Samudragupta. This guy is actually the perfect Civ leader. He is depicted on coins as a muscular warrior flaunting his scars, as well as playing the Veena. He was called the "exterminator of all kings" and is credited with successfully repelling foreign invasions, including defeating the Shakas, the Murundas, and the Kalingas. According to the Allahabad Pillar inscription, he exterminated 9 monarchs and subjugated 12 kings which resulted in an empire extending from the Himalayas in the north to the Deccan in the south, and from the Brahmaputra River in the east to the Yamuna River in the west. Samudragupta was also a great patron of art, architecture and music. He has been described in inscriptions as Kaviraja, or the "King of Poets" for his many poetical compositions.

My runner up is Shivaji. Shivaji was the founder of the Maratha Empire. Shivaji carved out an enclave from the declining Adilshahi sultanate of Bijapur which eventually became the genesis of the Maratha Empire. He revived Hindu political traditions and promoted the use of Marathi and Sanskrit languages

Kannadiga - My top choice is Krishnadevaraya. He defeated the five deccan sultanates, the Reddys of Kondavidu, the Velamas of Bhuvanagiri and the Gajapati dynasty of Kalinga. He was also renowned for patronizing poets and for inscribing languages in Sanskrit, Tamil, Kannada, and Telugu. Krishna Deva Raya was a polyglot himself, fluent in Sanskrit, Tamil, Kannada, and Telugu.

My runner up is Amoghavarsha. Amoghavarsha I immediately set out to expand the Rashtrakuta kingdom. He defeated the Eastern Chalukyas and the Gangas, two powerful dynasties in South India. He also defeated the Pratiharas, a powerful dynasty in North India and gained control over parts of present-day Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. He was also a patron of Kannada literature and is credited with sponsoring many poets, scholars, and artists during his reign.

Kanuri - My pick for the Sub-Saharan civ base game slot. My top pick for them is Idris Alooma. Idris was an outstanding statesman, and under his rule, the Kanem-Bornu touched the zenith of its power. He is remembered for his military skills, administrative reforms and Islamic piety. He also introduced a number of legal and administrative reforms based on his religious beliefs and Islamic law. He sponsored the construction of numerous mosques and made a pilgrimage to Mecca, where he arranged for the establishment of a hostel to be used by pilgrims from his empire. He also established diplomatic relations with the Ottomans to secure muskets and training to fight his enemies at home

My runner up is Dunama Dabbalemi. His reign is considered the pinnacle of the Sayfawa Kanem dynasty. Mai Dabbalemi expanded his army to approximately 40,000 horsemen, which he used to declare a Jihad against the southern tribes. He also assumed nominal control over the Fezzan region and greatly profited from the Saharan trade, using the proceeds to establish Madrassahs in Cairo for pilgrims en route to Mecca.

Japan - Japanese history ain't my forte. But Hōjō Masako seems like a very interesting person so she is my top choice.

My runner up is Hōjō Tokimune.

Maya - My top choice is Yuknoom Chʼeen II. Yuknoom Ch’een II was the ruler that brought Calakmul to its height. His reign was a period of intense conflict between Calakmul's arch rival Tikal, but Calakmul was able to get the upperhand and reinstated Balaj Chan Kʼawiil upon the throne of Dos Pilas as his vassal. Many major building programs also happened in Calakmul during Yuknoom's reign.

My runner up is to just bring back Pacal. He is the quintessential Maya leader.

Rome - My top choice is Vespasian. He maneuvered three imperial claimants and crushed two major revolts in Judea and Gaul during his first years. He also reformed Roman taxation, currency, military postings, and oversaw the expansion in Britain. Additionally, he undertook the rebuilding of Rome following Nero's Great Fire and initiated the construction of the Colosseum. Also I like his personality and his sense of humor.

My runner up is Aurelian. AVE TO THE RESTITVTOR ORBIS!

Russia - My top choice is Ivan III. Ivan III was the first Russian ruler to gain full independence from the Golden Horde. He tripled the territory of his state. And he also renovated the Moscow Kremlin and introduced a new legal codex and laid the foundations of the Russian state

My runner up is Ivan IV. The first tsar of all of Russia. Well he might be mad man, but he also transformed Russia into a powerful and centralized state, so definitely an interesting personality.

Turkish - My top choice is Murad II. Despite facing significant opposition from rival throne contenders, rebellious factions, and foreign adversaries, Murad successfully led wars that expanded Ottoman territory and secured key strategic positions, notably capturing Thessaloniki in 1430 and winning the Battle of Varna in 1444, thereby strengthening Ottoman control in the Balkans.

My second choice is actually Selim I. He conquered the Mamluks, thus bringing Syria, Egypt, Hejaz, and Palestine under Ottoman rule. This also brought the esteemed title of Caliph under Ottoman authority. He was also known for his harsh manner and firm leadership, Selim I laid the groundwork for administrative changes to manage the empire’s expanding territories.

But honestly tho, they should just bring back Mehmed II. He has only been in one iteration of civ.

Gutted I can't Like this more than once

 

[jsciv69]

Time.

How is that an answer?

 

[notNamed]

How is that an answer?

You make a rally about being like Hitler and you're well on your way to getting a seat in European Parliment.
But if you make a rally about being like Caesar or Genghis today, you'll be met with some ridicule, occasional cosplayers and memes.

Civ draws the line sooner than others (think Hearts of Iron or Victoria) possibly because the game's nature is so extremely positive. If you make it, the game will glorify you. There are no villain roles to take on among the Civ leaders.
Hearts of Iron has implicit villains, most RTS games with baddie factions doing heinous things in campaign have explicit villains. But modern civ has no villains.

 

[pokiehl]

How is that an answer?

The line in the sand is being within living memory. There are still victims and direct relatives of victims of the 20th century despots alive today. Their crimes still affect living people, and their horrors were clearly documented by modern media.

 

[Krajzen]

My question is this: What makes the monsters of other parts of History more acceptable, than those of the 20th Century? Meaning why is it okay to play as Genghis Khan, and not Fidel Castro. When neither are more horrible than the other.

So it's just easier, PR-wise, for Firaxis to just not do 20th century.

1) Modern mass killers have direct and indirect impact on people living today; the trauma of Hitler and Stalin is very much present in the modern Polish society. It is impossible to escape, there are preserved places of slaughter in every city and every rural county and there are generational family traumas. My own grandma told me stories of ww2 killings and rapes.
2) Even besides the time argument, I would seriously argue that yes, there is an ethical difference between Genghis Khan and Stalin. The ethical difference being that Genghis ethics were typical for his era - he was a man of his time. Killing political opponents, "savages", prisoners of war, civilians, war pillage, war rape - all that was highly accepted everywhere in his time. All kingdoms he destroyed did the same things all the time.

20th century mass killers don't have this excuse at all - they consciously and deliberately rejected modern moral notions which have emerged in the meantime and which they were aware of, in favour of their exceptional ideologies of mass extermination. They lived in the era of Geneva conventions, Red Cross, human rights (fully codified after ww2 but present before), theory of just war, peaceful internstional community, Enlightenment-derived ideas of humanity etc etc etc and chose to break them.

So I judge them by their conscious and enthusiastic refusal to partake in the alternative, which ancient rulers never even had in their minds, in their culture and in their era. Montezuma had no choice and concept of not being brutal in his time and culture, Hitler had.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

I for one find it deeply concerning that many of our forum users have so eagerly jumped to defend people who were noted as being evil and cruel in their time.

This feels like an attempt to backslide standards.

People in history were not generally monsters, either- in any era there are individuals and groups resisting and criticizing the atrocities/actions of those in power. Some easy examples can be found in the Age of Imperialism or the downfall of slavery (political cartoonists, John Brown, the entire founding of Haiti despite the efforts of “great men” like Napoleon). Around that time, the Luddites and other workers striking at the horrid state of their jobs. During the Enlightenment, Voltaire was a very prominent and radically progressive social critic. Look earlier for the Diggers.

Everyone- including modern-day leaders- is subject to backlash. That’s sort of how change happens. So don’t be hostile to the resisters of today

Recency is difficult in Civ to begin with, where the vast majority of the game (in years) comes well before even the irl time of the Industrial Era. I’m personally not opposed to certain exceptional leaders coming from the past century, but with over 6000 years of history to choose from we shouldn’t go too heavy on a single span of decades.

I’d prefer if we didn’t use FDR due to internment. Eisenhower or JFK would be fine by me.

 

[Acepox]

I for one find it deeply concerning that many of our forum users have so eagerly jumped to defend people who were noted as being evil and cruel in their time.

This feels like an attempt to backslide standards.

People in history were not generally monsters, either- in any era there are individuals and groups resisting and criticizing the atrocities/actions of those in power. Some easy examples can be found in the Age of Imperialism or the downfall of slavery (political cartoonists, John Brown, the entire founding of Haiti despite the efforts of “great men” like Napoleon). Around that time, the Luddites and other workers striking at the horrid state of their jobs. During the Enlightenment, Voltaire was a very prominent and radically progressive social critic. Look earlier for the Diggers.

Everyone- including modern-day leaders- is subject to backlash. That’s sort of how change happens. So don’t be hostile to the resisters of today

Recency is difficult in Civ to begin with, where the vast majority of the game (in years) comes well before even the irl time of the Industrial Era. I’m personally not opposed to certain exceptional leaders coming from the past century, but with over 6000 years of history to choose from we shouldn’t go too heavy on a single span of decades.

I’d prefer if we didn’t use FDR due to internment. Eisenhower or JFK would be fine by me.

Ahhh, damn, your comment was good til the very last line, which sours it.

If FDR is bad because internment, then you need to scrap basically 90% of the Civ series.

Krajzen brings an interesting argument, but it is kind of moot because as someone else said, Stalin has already been in the game.

Thus my suggestion that moving forward, Firaxis should not touch anything past WW1, but if it does, then nothing should be taboo. Otherwise it implies preferences for people as repugnant as Stalin.

 

[pokiehl]

Krajzen brings an interesting argument, but it is kind of moot because as someone else said, Stalin has already been in the game.

It’s not moot at all. Firaxis is a very different company post-2k acquisition. And just because it already happened doesn’t mean it was right then.

Thus my suggestion that moving forward, Firaxis should not touch anything past WW1, but if it does, then nothing should be taboo.

This is just too puerile and simplistic a view. Is the portrayal or Gandhi or Wilhelmina really equal to Hitler to you?

 

[IgorS]

To add to Krajzen's two points, which are correct, there is also a third point you seem to be missing, and that is: a leader should be someone the people are proud of. You could see in earlier posts how a Belgian said that putting Leopold II in the game would be an offense to the Belgian people. And this pretty much sums it all up.
Are the Mongols proud of Genghis Khan? Yes, he is considered a national hero. But are the Germans proud of Hitler? No. And are the Russians proud of Stalin? No. (well, only the brainwashed ones are proud of him, but those who actually love their country know that Stalin was a murderous dictator who has done more damage than good)
And as for Stalin and Mao being in earlier games, well, these were earlier games. Up to Civ IV the series didn't really care that much about representing civilizations right. I mean, in Civ IV there was a civ called "Native Americans", because, you know, they are all the same, right?

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I’d prefer if we didn’t use FDR due to internment. Eisenhower or JFK would be fine by me.

I agree with this statement and the best thing Civilization VII could do for American leaders is choose one from either the early (before the evil and despicable Andrew Jackson) or post-Civil War 19th century (and it's probably the choice I'm betting on rn). Last game we had a 20th century American president (Theodore Roosevelt) and the game before we had an 18th century American president (George Washington)

Krajzen brings an interesting argument, but it is kind of moot because as someone else said, Stalin has already been in the game.

And Civ has moved on from using such monsters (Thank god we don't have to deal with Stalin or Mao in our Civ games anymore and we get better ,leaders for Russia and China), just like it has moved on from using blobs (never again)

Thus my suggestion that moving forward, Firaxis should not touch anything past WW1,

When you mean this do you mean everything or just leaders?

but if it does, then nothing should be taboo. Otherwise it implies preferences for people as repugnant as Stalin.

First off, how would it imply preferences? There are good leaders during and after World War I that Civilization VII could use. Personally I'd be happy to see Nelson Mandela if they do a South African civ. Personally I think they should have 2-3 leaders throughout the game be from the 20th Century, one in the base game and the others in DLCs or expansions.
Second off, the only reason I'd support this is we wouldn't have Nuclear Gandhi

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I can't help but feel amused at the implicit insistence that only atrocitiless leaders should be in the game. I just captured and razed a bunch of cities in Civ5, enslaving and wiping out entire populations. I don't feel like I'm in a position to judge Mao or Stalin

 

[pokiehl]

I can't help but feel amused at the implicit insistence that only atrocitiless leaders should be in the game. I just captured and razed a bunch of cities in Civ5, enslaving and wiping out entire populations. I don't feel like I'm in a position to judge Mao or Stalin

Literally no one said or implied that. I think Krazjen explained it very well.

I also notice you were very careful to not add Hitler to your list above, which implicitly acknowledges the veracity of this position.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I wasn't referring to Krajzen.

I did not add Hitler to the list for the very important distinction that neither Mao nor Stalin, atrocious murderous though they were, never instituted an industrialised slaughter of an entire race on the claim of their being evil. This is something (very rightly) not modelled in the Civ games, but Stalin's and Mao's atrocities (as well as those of many others), to an appreciable degree, are

 

[Brackenspore]

This topic is sliding towards rabid Eurocentrism. I hope that the developers will not follow the lead of such an audience and will remain true to the principle of historicism, which lies beyond any moral-subjective and, especially, propaganda assessments.

 

[Acepox]

This topic is sliding towards rabid Eurocentrism. I hope that the developers will not follow the lead of such an audience and will remain true to the principle of historicism, which lies beyond any moral-subjective and, especially, propaganda assessments.

How so? Care to elaborate?