Civilization VII Civs and Leaders Wishlist [Not a Prediction]

[Leyrann]

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.

I would like to point out that Civ IV's intro contains a 2K logo animation, implying that Civ IV, too, was published post-2K acquisition. (note: I remember the 2K animation being present for the base game version I played a bunch as a kid too, not just the version found on Steam these days)

 

[jsciv69]

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.

Winston Churchill has been used more than once in this game. And the atrocities at the hands of his government in place like India, Palestine, and Ireland are also felt today. And yet a few have suggested his return to the game. Queen Victoria was used in the last game. What her government did in Africa is unforgivable. And her family gave us WWI. But it's ok to have her in the game? I have seen a few suggest Thomas Jefferson lead America. And George Washington has been used. Yet I'm sure a few African Americans take exception to having those slave-holders in the game. But they're accepted? And again, I don't suggest leaders because they're my favorite people. I'm certainly not ready to put a halo on Ike or JFK. But that they would be facsinating to have in this game. based on the state of America at the time of their presidencies. And the potential excitement of having JFK in the game. But I think it would be fitting to have JFK countered with both Khruschev and Castro(we have to get the Beard in the game somehow). You can't have "Saints" without "Diablos"

 

[jsciv69]

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.

So for you evil attrocities are acceptable because they took place more tha one hundred years ago? maybe explain that to some Native Americans who might take exception to seeing the likes of Thomas Jefferson or Ulysses S Grant suggested as leader for America.

 

[IgorS]

But I think it would be fitting to have JFK countered with both Khruschev and Castro(we have to get the Beard in the game somehow). You can't have "Saints" without "Diablos"

The problem with Fidel Castro being a leader in the game is not his personality, but his civ. Cuba is really not a high priority inclusion. If we're looking at the Caribbean, there's Haiti with its much-much earlier revolution, and there's the Taino, who are indigenous people, which is always a more interesting pick. I mean, with all respect to Cuba, they are kind of a very specific era civilization.
Another reason for Castro not being included is how recent he is. I mean, he has passed away in the 21st century, unlike JFK and Khrushchev.

 

[Vahnstad]

The problem with Fidel Castro being a leader in the game is not his personality, but his civ. Cuba is really not a high priority inclusion. If we're looking at the Caribbean, there's Haiti with its much-much earlier revolution, and there's the Taino, who are indigenous people, which is always a more interesting pick. I mean, with all respect to Cuba, they are kind of a very specific era civilization.
Another reason for Castro not being included is how recent he is. I mean, he has passed away in the 21st century, unlike JFK and Khrushchev.

Cuba seems like the least controversial pick for a "communist" civ. And Caribbean deserve some representation. Agreed with Haiti & Taino being great options too tho.

 

[jsciv69]

The problem with Fidel Castro being a leader in the game is not his personality, but his civ. Cuba is really not a high priority inclusion. If we're looking at the Caribbean, there's Haiti with its much-much earlier revolution, and there's the Taino, who are indigenous people, which is always a more interesting pick. I mean, with all respect to Cuba, they are kind of a very specific era civilization.
Another reason for Castro not being included is how recent he is. I mean, he has passed away in the 21st century, unlike JFK and Khrushchev.

We're talking a Leader who reigned a good 30-40 years. Thumbed his nose at the US for just as long. Survived assassination attempts by Kennedy himself. The name Castro carries so much love and hate. yet also so much character and charisma to warrant an exception. And also it would be fascinating theatre to recreate the Cuban Missile Crises as a Mod or Scenario. Kennedy, Khruschev, and Castro are forever linked together when the whole World held it's breath. Plus think of the market for Cuban Cigar Factories . I doubt however that Cuba will be considered for a Civ. At least not for the base Game. But in the event that it is brought in the game. Fidel Castro is the easy choice for Leader.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

We're talking a Leader who reigned a good 30-40 years. Thumbed his nose at the US for just as long. Survived assassination attempts by Kennedy himself. The name Castro carries so much love and hate. yet also so much character and charisma to warrant an exception. And also it would be fascinating theatre to recreate the Cuban Missile Crises as a Mod or Scenario. Kennedy, Khruschev, and Castro are forever linked together when the whole World held it's breath. Plus think of the market for Cuban Cigar Factories . I doubt however that Cuba will be considered for a Civ. At least not for the base Game. But in the event that it is brought in the game. Fidel Castro is the east choice for Leader.

He died after Civ 6 was released. Even if he wasn't a communist dictator that's too soon, in my opinion.
I think the best option for a leader who died in the 21st Century would be Nelson Mandela, for South Africa. But probably best to even wait another 20 years for him as well.

 

[jsciv69]

He died after Civ 6 was released. Even if he wasn't a communist dictator that's too soon, in my opinion.
I think the best option for a leader who died in the 21st Century would be Nelson Mandela, for South Africa. But probably best to even wait another 20 years for him as well.

I certainly would not mind Mandela in the game.

 

[Acepox]

I certainly would not mind Mandela in the game.

As long as we also get Ian Smith.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

As long as we also get Ian Smith.

Rhodesia? No way in heckfire!

Personally I want the Mutapa under Nyatsimba Mutota

 

[jsciv69]

As long as we also get Ian Smith.

And I would match that with. Gamal Abdul Nasser to Lead Egypt. If this franchise is ok with Queen Victoria, under whom the sadistic British Empire committed so many atrocities and especially in Africa. We can have figures who began breaking that Empire.

 

[moondog385]

Rhodesia? No way in heckfire!

Personally I want the Mutapa under Nyatsimba Mutota

Same here. Pre-colonial African civs or civs that handled colonial powers (I’m thinking Angola led by Nzinga or a late 1800s Buganda) are infinitely preferable to post-colonial African civs. There’s such a wealth to choose from.

But I wouldn’t mind South Africa at some point, maybe Civ 8.

 

[Leucarum]

A precolonial civ would also be frankly more interesting than 'another' colonial civ...

While there is no hard and fast rule for what makes a civ acceptable, and there is certainly some degree of hypocrisy in which civs are deemed acceptable or not, ultimately anything which would earn bad headlines for firaxis is going to be off the table. Some of the needlessly controversial choices being thrown around are obviously under this category for anyone who knows enough to post about them.

 

[Solver]

I would like to point out that Civ IV's intro contains a 2K logo animation, implying that Civ IV, too, was published post-2K acquisition. (note: I remember the 2K animation being present for the base game version I played a bunch as a kid too, not just the version found on Steam these days)

Civ4 was published shortly before the acquisition. For Civ4 development, and the subsequent launch, 2K was just the publisher. Then 2K bought Firaxis a month after Civ4 shipped.

Really, just about everything is different now than when Civ4 in development. Not only is Firaxis a very different company, the gaming industry is also totally different. The gaming market is much bigger overall, it's much more international (20 years ago, North America and a handful of Western European countries dominated), and large, commercially successful franchises like Civ now aim at a wide diverse audience and not primarily at computer-loving nerds like it used to be.

 

[Acepox]

And I would match that with. Gamal Abdul Nasser to Lead Egypt. If this franchise is ok with Queen Victoria, under whom the sadistic British Empire committed so many atrocities and especially in Africa. We can have figures who began breaking that Empire.

Absolutely. I think any historically-significant leader should be on the table.

What I oppose is the hypocrisy of certain people who would allow one tyrant but not another, on the sole basis of their very personal and subjective biases. Or worst yet, who would disallow entire nations.

 

[notNamed]

Same here. Pre-colonial African civs or civs that handled colonial powers (I’m thinking Angola led by Nzinga or a late 1800s Buganda) are infinitely preferable to post-colonial African civs. There’s such a wealth to choose from.

I mean we're at a point where we get US, Canada, Australia and Scotland. Surely you could drop an absolute historically non-existent place like Australia and throw in a modern African state instead. Certainly more interesting than perpetuating certain myth of King Moses' uberwealth for the Xth time in a row or Zulu because they appeared in that one famous movie you have to be 40+ to have actually seen. Even if the Zulu theme in Civ6 rocks.

While there is no hard and fast rule for what makes a civ acceptable, and there is certainly some degree of hypocrisy in which civs are deemed acceptable or not, ultimately anything which would earn bad headlines for firaxis is going to be off the table. Some of the needlessly controversial choices being thrown around are obviously under this category for anyone who knows enough to post about them.

Yeah, but it's good to keep a level head about these things. People here sometimes have extremely warped perceptions of what's acceptable.
Complaining about Cuba? Be it Tropico (arguably the 'playing villain' camp I mentioned previously), Cuba Libre, Humankind,... no one's ever gotten in trouble for having them.

 

[Leucarum]

Complaining about Cuba? Be it Tropico (arguably the 'playing villain' camp I mentioned previously), Cuba Libre, Humankind,... no one's ever gotten in trouble for having them.

Yeah, I suspect the issue comes in harder for civ since it has named leaders as well as countries, and they often come with more clear-cut baggage. And Civ has more exposure than other similar games, as well as being marketed towards a broad audience. The risks are heightened.

That said, I don't think Cuba specifically is the hardest inclusion to justify. It's probably less controversial than, say, Israel would be! I think it's more an issue that using extremely modern leaders is something firaxis tends to avoid.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Cuba specifically is the hardest inclusion to justify. It's probably less controversial than, say, Israel would be

With Israel, you could make the leader an ancient historical figure to reduce controversy. Who'd complain about Judah Maccabee, the Seleucids?

You wouldn't even have to mention the state of modern Israel at all. Those interested in playing Israel wouldn't mind and those who'd complain probably shouldn't, frankly.

Edit: the REAL nonstarter civ is Taiwan, followed by Tibet.

 

[Leucarum]

With Israel, you could make the leader an ancient historical figure to reduce controversy. Who'd complain about Judah Maccabee, the Seleucids?

You wouldn't even have to mention the state of modern Israel at all. Those interested in playing Israel wouldn't mind and those who'd complain probably shouldn't, frankly.

Edit: the REAL nonstarter civ is Taiwan, followed by Tibet.

Pretty sure all three are nonstarters to be honest, regardless of who leads them.

 

[notNamed]

Yeah, I suspect the issue comes in harder for civ since it has named leaders as well as countries, and they often come with more clear-cut baggage. And Civ has more exposure than other similar games, as well as being marketed towards a broad audience. The risks are heightened.

Still, going from the examples I listed:
Tropico is a large successful franchise.
Humankind was also marketed broadly and is not somehow sanitized. Your special units are communist guerrilas, your leader wears Castro's clothes down to the Cigar and the Civilopedia equivalent directly talks about the revolution, Castro, Che Guevara, etc.
Cuba Libre has you lead the revolutionaries... thing was nominated for various board game awards, is in its 4th edition and you don't really see any controversies around it.

Compare that with the last Civ's selection of leaders which did end up causing outcries:
Outcry about choosing Seondeok and her appearance, the appearance had to be changed and Korea received Sejong down the line,
Outcry about Roosevelt's appearance that also had to be modified,
Outcry about Kristina for her anti-Protestant actions.
etc.

An El Presidente civ is an established trope in comparison. There's no real way it would cause a controversy any larger than any of the ones mentioned above (which weren't massive by any means, but had the devs spend additional resources to rectify them). Other than anon on ***** complaining the game is clearly pushing a leftist conspiracy to promote matriarchy, communism and so on.

There's a non-trivial amount of people in Central and Eastern Europe suggesting that communist symbolism should be outright banned in the same way fascist symbolism is.
And none of them make mods to remove them or leave angry steam reviews about CIv5/6 keeping those totalitarian symbols in.