Civilization VII Civs and Leaders Wishlist [Not a Prediction]

[Caesar of Bread]

Base Game:
America - Thomas Jefferson
China - Wu Zetian/Han Wudi
Rome - Hadrian
England - Anne
Egypt - Hatshepsut
Greece - Solon
Germany - Frederick II (HRE)
France - George Clemanceau
Arabia - Abd al-Malik
Japan - Meiji
Russia - Elizabeth
Maya - Lady Six Sky
Inca - Pachacuti
Haudenosaunee - Jinghonasee
Zimbabwe - Nyatsimba Mutota
Mayura - Ashoka
Ashanti - Yaa Asantewaa
Hittites - Suppililiuma I
Ethiopia - Ezana
Persia - Khosrow II

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Not angry or anything, just some criticisms.

British Isles

• Anglo-Saxon - Hengest, Alfred the Great, & Godiva
• England - Edward III & Henry VII
• United Kingdom - Churchill

THREE ENGLISH CIVS IN A BASE GAME??? LIKE WHAT????? (Reminds me of my ex who lives in Britain)

Colonial

• America - Thomas Jefferson, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, & Ronald Reagan

As the #1 Reagan hater what

• Soviet - Gorbachev

I'm not fond of dictators, as you'll later see

Middle-Eastern

• Arabia - Mohammed

Isn't it not allowed to have depictions of the Prophet Muhammad?

South East Asian

• India - Nuclear Gandhi

Not again!!! XD

• Germany - Wilhelm II & Rommel
• Spain - Isabella

Seriously? A king who continued pressing for WWI, a Nazi, and a genocidal tyrant of a queen?

Colonial

• México - Hernán Cortés

The guy who led all the genocides towards the Nahua and many, many others. Also an evil tyrant

Colonial

• Argentina - Eva Peron

Dictators are always a bad choice

Colonial

• Dixie - Robert E. Lee

I'd quit Civ if I ever see the CSA adapted into a civ game.



In the end I am a bit upset at these choices, and I apologize if I did anything wrong.

 

[Vahnstad]

Dictators are always a bad choice

To be fair, most civ leaders are dictators, even if context (and ageing) of time makes the perception different.

Gorbachev is fine and the least brutal or controversial USSR leader, however he has a ton of other issues. Especially given modern context which would automatically disqualify any recent Russian leader no matter what (and preferrably/i hope so Romanov-era tsarist Russia too). It's worth to note that Gorbachev isn't popular in Russia or Putinists either since he's blamed for collapse of the USSR or Russia as a supreme world leader. The sovjets as a civ tho would be problematic, also given it would be ideology-centered instead of nation-centered, but also because of obvious other controversial reasons.

But yea that list is obviously horrible because of the genocidal Mexican leader, inclusion of the CSA or the fact that there are 3 separate english civilisations (and 2 american ones, and likely a ton of post-colonial ones like Australia/Canada). It's a lot and just too much. The Anglophone already is overrepresented in Civ 6. I'd prefer if Canada, Scotland and maybe Australia all sit this one out. Also the fact that Mohammed is proposed is also just lol, unless you want Firaxis to spend more money and resources on their own security instead on the development of the game... and generally it's a good idea to be respectful and mindful of other cultures, religions and their wishes.

Also, agreed with Reagan being a horrible/controversial pick.

There are a number of options here that would result me in not buying the game or expansion.

 

[Vahnstad]

One thing we need for sure is more native representation, civ 6 was incredibly lacking in this regard.

I'll assume there are going to be 60 civs in civ 7, to have a hard cap, so i'll go for that limit and list all 60 civs i wanna see. I'm not going to do leaders because i'm not knowledgeable or inspirational enough who should represent each country. I'll group them by continent. Where I have something to say, i'll add something

North America (7):
America: Preferrably not a very recent leader
Tlingit: for PNW/Yukon/Alaska area, and sort of an alt to Inuit.
Shawnee: Tecumseh, perhaps with a "Curse of Tecumseh unique leader ability"
Apache: Geronimo
Aztec: Montezuma is fine
Mayan: Bring Back Lady Six Sky

South America (5):
Brazil: Good for TSL and one of the post-colonial ones that makes most sense and are iconic.
Mapuche: I'd like to see their return
Muisca: This is a must, and i'll riot if they're not in the game.
Inca: Staple
Argentina: Their turn now instead of Colombia

Europe (18):

Western Europe (7):
France
England: Alfred The Great
Germany
Netherlands
Sweden
Norway: Lagertha
Ireland
Gauls:

Mediterranean (4):
Spain
Portugal
Rome
Greece

Eastern Europe (6):
Poland
Hungary
Bulgaria
Romania
Bohemia
Russia: Ivan The Terrible (or earlier Kyiv Russia based)

Caucascus (2):
Armenia
Georgia

Asia (21):

Middle East (4):
Assyria
Arabia
Babylon
Ottomans: Part Europe ofc

Central Asia (3):
Mongols
Uzbeks: We need one Turkic nomadic tribe, other options are Kazakhs, Avars, Cumans. Afghans also an option, but because of cities like Samarkand, Khiva and Bukhara i'm going with Uzbeks.
Persia: Maybe not Achaemanid for a time, but due to there being many muslim-inspired nations already, maybe Sassanid-era/Zoroastrian Persia for a change

South Asia (4):
Mughals: In part/originally Central Asia. Sort of a mixture of aspects, but describes the very essence of a civilisation
Vijayanagar: Tamil-based
Mauryans: Representation for Ancient India
Maldivians: King Koimala Unrelated to India and unique. Bengali and Sinhalese are also decent options for Bangladesh/Sri Lanka, it's complex but we need to split up India. India as a whole is as culturally rich as all of Europe basically.

East Asia (6):
Japan
Korea
China: Yongle
Ainu: Shakushain. Am also fine with Siberia/Kamchatkean representation instead. Or even Uralic.
Phillipines: No modern leader tho, pre-colonial preferrably.
Nepal:

Southeast Asia (4):
Vietnam: Love to see their return
Siam: Should be back
Indonesia:
Khmer:

Africa (10):

Maghreb/Horn of Africa (4):
Egypt: No Ptolemaic Egypt please, we already are going to have lots of Greeks (or Romans around). Ancient Egypt is unique, i want that. There are so many great leaders to pick here.
Phoenicia: Staple
Morocco: Would like to see their return, a more berber inspired Morocco would also be great.
Ethiopia: Haile Selassie or medieval, but should be a staple tbh. Unique, great history.

West/Central/East/South/Subsaharan Africa (6):
Ashanti: New civ
Benin: New civ
Mali: Iconic leader in Mansa Musa

Angola: Ana Nzinga would be a great leader. Kongo/Angola area should be a staple.
Madagascar: Merina kingdom leader
Kilwa: For a trade focused civ

Oceania (3):
Hawaii: Lili'uokalani would be an amazing leader pick.
Maori: I'd like to see them back and Oceania would be a bit unrepresented without them. They're a fun civ to have around.
Australia: Again, to fill up the gap, i'm also fine with an aborigine civilisation or perhaps an aborigine leader. I quite liked the aesthetic and for a TSL map Australia having around is helpful

Edit: ended up having 64. Hope i didn't forget something super obvious lol. But overall quite happy with this.

Not sure how to deal with Italy, but I see both Byz and Italy too much as a continuation of Rome (and for Byz also too similar as Greece). Also opted against Mexico, since there's Argentina as Spanish-based post-colonial civ and 2 native American civs in the Mexico area, and I really like to portray more natives.

Might be underrepresenting classical era civs though, but i'm also not the most familiar about them and there are only so many options..

EDIT2: Maybe Burma, i should've included too.

 

[Krajzen]

Eastern Europe (6):
Poland
Hungary
Bulgaria
Romania
Bohemia
Russia: Ivan The Terrible (or earlier Kyiv Russia based)

I would love to see Romania, Bohemia and Bulgaria but no way we get them all plus Poland and Hungary IMO. As for "Kyiv based Russia" I assume you mean Kievan Rus, and I have already written two posts why I think combined Russo-Ukrainian civ is unimaginably terrible idea for political reasons and not wholesome balanced compromise people imagine it to be (we'll just get Russia and Ukrainie separatedly)

Central Asia (3):
Uzbeks: We need one Turkic nomadic tribe, other options are Kazakhs, Avars, Cumans. Afghans also an option, but because of cities like Samarkand, Khiva and Bukhara i'm going with Uzbeks.

I have campaigned for Timurids for years, but you know what, I like your alternate idea to straight up include "Uzbeks: the civ" rather than "Timurids".

Persia: Maybe not Achaemanid for a time, but due to there being many muslim-inspired nations already, maybe Sassanid-era/Zoroastrian Persia for a change

Eh, your 10% may be not awful but it's not enough IMO to cause forced stop "whoa, too much Muslim civs already". In fact I'd personally aim for like 15%.

South Asia (4):

I like it (I would love Mughals). What do you think of the alternate idea of there being "India" but having many alternate leaders (or "incarnations" as in also uniques, city lists etc)?

Ainu: Shakushain. Am also fine with Siberia/Kamchatkean representation instead. Or even Uralic.

I like the idea of Siberian natives, though I'd go with Yakuts (most succesful). And also Aborigines

Phoenicia: Staple

What about us getting Carthage back, with Hannibal finally again as a leader?

West/Central/East/South/Subsaharan Africa (6):

I like all those suggestions and especially your exclusion of Zulu - the most boring, one note civ in this series history

Not sure how to deal with Italy, but I see both Byz and Italy too much as a continuation of Rome (and for Byz also too similar as Greece).

Sigh, I stronly disagree, as always.
I wanted to point out that you have no problem having both Gauls and France in game. And Rome and Italy are no more "the same civ" than them.

I also have the simple counterpoint: if Italy is merely a "continuation" of Rome, then why you will surely disagree of hybrydising elements of both civs, and giving Rome Italian city list, or Lorenzo di Medici as leader of Roman Empire, or universities, opera singers, Ferrari factory and ww1 soldiers?

Because that's very different vibe, culture and language, and that's enough to make rhem separate civ, if we have separate Gauls/France, England/US, Portugal/Brazil etc.

People saying "Italy is a continuation of Rome" practically serves the purpose of straight completely erasing Italy from the series, because nobody also wants hybrid of Roman and Italian elements. And that's why I vehemently oppose it, because Italy is way too insanely important for it to somehow never appear in civ series. I want to have playable Renaissance Florence in Civ, if you don't wanna Italy then I want it included as part of "Rome"

Also opted against Mexico, since there's Argentina as Spanish-based post-colonial civ and 2 native American civs in the Mexico area, and I really like to portray more natives.

Counterargument: Mexico is extremely cool, distinctive and important

 

[HNation]

I'd love to stick to mostly conventional leaders/civs, especially for more obscure civs.
I would love love love to have Henry VIII lead England, voiced by Brian Blessed, who is now in his 80s, so this could be the last chance to get him in Civ.
Ireland lead by Brian Boru.
Scotland led by Mary Queen of Scots, James VII (the rightful king), Robert the Bruce or even Queen Anne would be nice.

Having one "Celtic" civilization makes as much sense as one "Romance" civilization. It works in DoC because of the dynamic naming and shifting core territories, but not in base Civ.

Let's have the leader be Francisco Franco, the capital be Bucharest, a feitoria UB and a legionary UU. Yeah, that'll do. All those Latins are pretty much interchangeable. /s

That's kind of what Civ 5's Celts were like.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Norway: Lagertha

Norway has plenty of good options without having to resort to legendary figures (besides Norway's had its turn in Civ6, they're not so important they need to be in every iteration)

Maldivians: King Koimala Unrelated to India and unique.

Why go for an obscure and unremarkable leader when Khadijah and Muhammad Thakurufaanu are right there?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Seriously? A king who continued pressing for WWI, a Nazi, and a genocidal tyrant of a queen?

Genocidal tyrant queen?
She was generally a nice and well "progressive" person towards the natives of America, in her time, unlike most people around her. Even ordered Columbus to be arrested after she heard of the capture and enslavement of some.
I'd love her back.

 

[moondog385]

One thing we need for sure is more native representation, civ 6 was incredibly lacking in this regard.

I'll assume there are going to be 60 civs in civ 7, to have a hard cap, so i'll go for that limit and list all 60 civs i wanna see. I'm not going to do leaders because i'm not knowledgeable or inspirational enough who should represent each country. I'll group them by continent. Where I have something to say, i'll add something

North America (7):
America: Preferrably not a very recent leader
Tlingit: for PNW/Yukon/Alaska area, and sort of an alt to Inuit.
Shawnee: Tecumseh, perhaps with a "Curse of Tecumseh unique leader ability"
Apache: Geronimo
Aztec: Montezuma is fine
Mayan: Bring Back Lady Six Sky

South America (5):
Brazil: Good for TSL and one of the post-colonial ones that makes most sense and are iconic.
Mapuche: I'd like to see their return
Muisca: This is a must, and i'll riot if they're not in the game.
Inca: Staple
Argentina: Their turn now instead of Colombia

Europe (18):

Western Europe (7):
France
England: Alfred The Great
Germany
Netherlands
Sweden
Norway: Lagertha
Ireland
Gauls:

Mediterranean (4):
Spain
Portugal
Rome
Greece

Eastern Europe (6):
Poland
Hungary
Bulgaria
Romania
Bohemia
Russia: Ivan The Terrible (or earlier Kyiv Russia based)

Caucascus (2):
Armenia
Georgia

Asia (21):

Middle East (4):
Assyria
Arabia
Babylon
Ottomans: Part Europe ofc

Central Asia (3):
Mongols
Uzbeks: We need one Turkic nomadic tribe, other options are Kazakhs, Avars, Cumans. Afghans also an option, but because of cities like Samarkand, Khiva and Bukhara i'm going with Uzbeks.
Persia: Maybe not Achaemanid for a time, but due to there being many muslim-inspired nations already, maybe Sassanid-era/Zoroastrian Persia for a change

South Asia (4):
Mughals: In part/originally Central Asia. Sort of a mixture of aspects, but describes the very essence of a civilisation
Vijayanagar: Tamil-based
Mauryans: Representation for Ancient India
Maldivians: King Koimala Unrelated to India and unique. Bengali and Sinhalese are also decent options for Bangladesh/Sri Lanka, it's complex but we need to split up India. India as a whole is as culturally rich as all of Europe basically.

East Asia (6):
Japan
Korea
China: Yongle
Ainu: Shakushain. Am also fine with Siberia/Kamchatkean representation instead. Or even Uralic.
Phillipines: No modern leader tho, pre-colonial preferrably.
Nepal:

Southeast Asia (4):
Vietnam: Love to see their return
Siam: Should be back
Indonesia:
Khmer:

Africa (10):

Maghreb/Horn of Africa (4):
Egypt: No Ptolemaic Egypt please, we already are going to have lots of Greeks (or Romans around). Ancient Egypt is unique, i want that. There are so many great leaders to pick here.
Phoenicia: Staple
Morocco: Would like to see their return, a more berber inspired Morocco would also be great.
Ethiopia: Haile Selassie or medieval, but should be a staple tbh. Unique, great history.

West/Central/East/South/Subsaharan Africa (6):
Ashanti: New civ
Benin: New civ
Mali: Iconic leader in Mansa Musa

Angola: Ana Nzinga would be a great leader. Kongo/Angola area should be a staple.
Madagascar: Merina kingdom leader
Kilwa: For a trade focused civ

Oceania (3):
Hawaii: Lili'uokalani would be an amazing leader pick.
Maori: I'd like to see them back and Oceania would be a bit unrepresented without them. They're a fun civ to have around.
Australia: Again, to fill up the gap, i'm also fine with an aborigine civilisation or perhaps an aborigine leader. I quite liked the aesthetic and for a TSL map Australia having around is helpful

Edit: ended up having 64. Hope i didn't forget something super obvious lol. But overall quite happy with this.

Not sure how to deal with Italy, but I see both Byz and Italy too much as a continuation of Rome (and for Byz also too similar as Greece). Also opted against Mexico, since there's Argentina as Spanish-based post-colonial civ and 2 native American civs in the Mexico area, and I really like to portray more natives.

Might be underrepresenting classical era civs though, but i'm also not the most familiar about them and there are only so many options..

EDIT2: Maybe Burma, i should've included too.

For my money, the Iroquois should definitely be a staple, and I definitely agree 6 was severely lacking in Native representation. Tlingit and Muisca are great choices. I would probably opt for the Navajo over the Apache.

Going back to the previous discussion on Austria, I don’t doubt there’s enough material for it to be a separate civ but for a Holy Roman emperor like Maximilian or Charles V, I think it makes sense for them to lead Germany, rather than make a whole new civ. If this makes no historical sense, please let me know because I’m here to get educated lol.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Genocidal tyrant queen?
She was generally a nice and well "progressive" person towards the natives of America, in her time, unlike most people around her. Even ordered Columbus to be arrested after she heard of the capture and enslavement of some.
I'd love her back.

Alhambra Decree?
Spanish Inquisition?

I might have exaggerated her actions in Iberia by saying genocide. Also I didn't know that factoid about her trying to arrest that jerk Columbus.

 

[Leucarum]

My gut instinct is that it'll be a launch with relatively few surprises - mostly civs which are long-term staples, and then maybe 2-3 unexpected wildcards... Maya has been teased, Ukraine/Kievan Rus seems plausible to replace Russia...

But, given that 6 had a longer lifespan than expected, and the season pass model appears to have been something Firaxis liked, I wouldn't be surprised if 7 has a longer development cycle planned than we're used to. If so the eventual roster of 7 could be pretty broad in the end - which in turn makes me think they'll focus on a solid foundation to start.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Alhambra Decree?
Spanish Inquisition?

I might have exaggerated her actions in Iberia by saying genocide. Also I didn't know that factoid about her trying to arrest that jerk Columbus.

Ah I see. When I see "genocidal" my mind automatically went to the treatment of Native Americans.
I admit that her treatment of Jews was bad, but not considered genocidal considering they allowed them to also convert or leave.

 

[Krajzen]

To be fair, we would have to throw out most of European history if we wanted to include only leaders who were nice to Jews (and Muslims, and indigenous peoples, and homosexuals, and...)

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Ah I see. When I see "genocidal" my mind automatically went to the treatment of Native Americans.
I admit that her treatment of Jews was bad, but not considered genocidal considering they allowed them to also convert or leave.

Yeah. As I said I'm not a fan of Isabella, but I won't be that mad if she would appear in Civilization

To be fair, we would have to throw out most of European history if we wanted to include only leaders who were nice to Jews (and Muslims, and indigenous peoples, and homosexuals, and...)

Yeah, you are kinda right on that

 

[Leyrann]

Really? and I read it a lot of times and I don't remember... that's why there's church. I guess.

You might know him by a different name, he's the king who allowed the Jews to go back to Israel. In the Dutch translation he's called Kores.

a Nazi,

Rommel's #1 claim to fame is that he was behind one of the closest-to-successful attempts on Hitler's life. He also, by most accounts, did not share the Nazi ideology or show cruelty or the like, although afaik there's some debate on whether Allied propaganda might have white-washed him to create a narrative.

Dictators are always a bad choice

Eva Peron wasn't even a leader. She was the wife of one.

Spanish Inquisition?

Literally an improvement over the common legal practices at the time. See also:

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Rommel's #1 claim to fame is that he was behind one of the closest-to-successful attempts on Hitler's life. He also, by most accounts, did not share the Nazi ideology or show cruelty or the like, although afaik there's some debate on whether Allied propaganda might have white-washed him to create a narrative.

Still unlikely to be a leader, given all of the circumstances.

Eva Peron wasn't even a leader. She was the wife of one.

Hasn't stopped Gandhi for six iterations.
She might have never officially led but she was known as the "Spiritual Leader of the Nation"

 

[Vahnstad]

I would love to see Romania, Bohemia and Bulgaria but no way we get them all plus Poland and Hungary IMO. As for "Kyiv based Russia" I assume you mean Kievan Rus, and I have already written two posts why I think combined Russo-Ukrainian civ is unimaginably terrible idea for political reasons and not wholesome balanced compromise people imagine it to be (we'll just get Russia and Ukrainie separatedly)

I have campaigned for Timurids for years, but you know what, I like your alternate idea to straight up include "Uzbeks: the civ" rather than "Timurids".

Eh, your 10% may be not awful but it's not enough IMO to cause forced stop "whoa, too much Muslim civs already". In fact I'd personally aim for like 15%.

I like it (I would love Mughals). What do you think of the alternate idea of there being "India" but having many alternate leaders (or "incarnations" as in also uniques, city lists etc)?

I like the idea of Siberian natives, though I'd go with Yakuts (most succesful). And also Aborigines

What about us getting Carthage back, with Hannibal finally again as a leader?

I like all those suggestions and especially your exclusion of Zulu - the most boring, one note civ in this series history

Sigh, I stronly disagree, as always.
I wanted to point out that you have no problem having both Gauls and France in game. And Rome and Italy are no more "the same civ" than them.

I also have the simple counterpoint: if Italy is merely a "continuation" of Rome, then why you will surely disagree of hybrydising elements of both civs, and giving Rome Italian city list, or Lorenzo di Medici as leader of Roman Empire, or universities, opera singers, Ferrari factory and ww1 soldiers?

Because that's very different vibe, culture and language, and that's enough to make rhem separate civ, if we have separate Gauls/France, England/US, Portugal/Brazil etc.

People saying "Italy is a continuation of Rome" practically serves the purpose of straight completely erasing Italy from the series, because nobody also wants hybrid of Roman and Italian elements. And that's why I vehemently oppose it, because Italy is way too insanely important for it to somehow never appear in civ series. I want to have playable Renaissance Florence in Civ, if you don't wanna Italy then I want it included as part of "Rome"

Counterargument: Mexico is extremely cool, distinctive and important

Actually a lot of good arguments.

I think Firaxis knows how to deal with Russia-Ukraine best probably, better than me at least. My point is just no tsarist or later Russian leader. With Kyiv based, i meant a Kyivan Rus leader for Russia.

I'm not sure about India, however many alternate leaders is still better than just Gandhi.

Yakuts would also be a great pick, just like Aborigines.

I'm fine with Carthage, but undecided on whether it should be Phoenicia or Carthage.

Zulu should sit this one out to give other civs in Africa their moment to shine.

And for Italy & Mexico, i just wasn't really sure, you're right. It's also whether i'm not sure whether to include it as Italy or also as several leaders of Italy, each representing a different civ, like Venice, Genoa, Florence and Papal States. Just like Mexico, but if i include them i would get to like 70 civs.

Norway has plenty of good options without having to resort to legendary figures (besides Norway's had its turn in Civ6, they're not so important they need to be in every iteration)


Why go for an obscure and unremarkable leader when Khadijah and Muhammad Thakurufaanu are right there?

Because I should have gone for one of these leaders and was unaware of those.

And fair point about Norway.

 

[BuchiTaton]

The guy who led all the genocides towards the Nahua and many, many others. Also an evil tyrant

Agree that Hernán Cortés is an horrible suggestion for a Mexican leader, and is true that he was an ambitious rutheless leader whose actions directly lead to the death of hundreds of thousands people.
Still, I am not sure about call that a "genocide towards the Nahua" first because despite the terrible human tragedy their orders were not really about exterminate them and mostly because his main allies the Tlaxcaltecas were the ones enthusiastically taking revenge in other Nahuas like Cholultecas and Mexicas, part of the "Nahua-on-Nahua" violence cycle.
I mean would a genocide marry their military commanders into the "genocided" people?

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Rommel's #1 claim to fame is that he was behind one of the closest-to-successful attempts on Hitler's life. He also, by most accounts, did not share the Nazi ideology or show cruelty or the like, although afaik there's some debate on whether Allied propaganda might have white-washed him to create a narrative.

And? Still a Nazi

Eva Peron wasn't even a leader. She was the wife of one.

Gandhi...

Literally an improvement over the common legal practices at the time. See also: [MEDIAs=youtube]TrjbtvKfPFk[/MEDIA]

The Spanish Inquisition attacked my ancestors so I have personal beef with it, except for the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition.'

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Hasn't stopped Gandhi for six iterations.

I say this all the time, but Gandhi was most definitely a leader in every sense of the word, a national leader at that too, not just a regional one. He just wasn't a ruler