Civilization Wishlist for Civ VII

[dagriggstar]

The problem I have with having a single leader is that, the leader isn't differentiated from the civilization package. Like I think of the Kongo as the no holy site faction, when in reality that is Mvembas "ability", but the fact it is Mvembas "ability" is irrelevant because Kongo can only be played by Mvemba.

I also dislike switching leaders or cultures throughout a game. I think each time you play there should be some permanent bonuses given to you from the start that you plan around how to make the most use of. The only reasonable way of doing that is by having abilities and unique stuff.
Bonuses that are related to adapting to your surroundings - that is more like religion/wonder/buildings/improvements/technology/culture territory for me, things that you should develop during the course of the game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

For its rich culture and unique position as the only Romance-speaking Orthodox culture*? I guess we memed in Tamar--might as well meme in Romania.

*Their close cousins the Aromanians are also Orthodox, of course, but the Aromanians don't really have a civ to attach them to...

Well that's why they made leader abilities and UUs right?

Give him a "vampire" unit that can build "gothic castles" and then let all the other abilities revolve around culture. Though to be fair I can see "gothic castles" producing culture as well.

 

[Zaarin]

Well that's why they made leader abilities and UUs right?

Give him a "vampire" unit that can build "gothic castles" and then let all the other abilities revolve around culture. Though to be fair I can see "gothic castles" producing culture as well.

I doubt a Romania civ would so transparently include anything that was explicitly a vampire aside from perhaps a nod to the naming of Vlad Tepes' ability. Speaking of castles, though, fortified churches are a really tempting Romanian unique infrastructure...until you realize they were built by the Germans. I'd probably go with a Moldavian Monastery myself for its distinctive fusion of Gothic and Byzantine architecture.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I doubt a Romania civ would so transparently include anything that was explicitly a vampire aside from perhaps a nod to the naming of Vlad Tepes' ability. Speaking of castles, though, fortified churches are a really tempting Romanian unique infrastructure...until you realize they were built by the Germans. I'd probably go with a Moldavian Monastery myself for its distinctive fusion of Gothic and Byzantine architecture.

I was thinking of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooden_churches_of_Maramureș

At least giving them wooden churches to distinguish themselves from fortified castles which would go to the leader.

 

[Zaarin]

I was thinking of these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wooden_churches_of_Maramureș

At least giving them wooden churches to distinguish themselves from fortified castles which would go to the leader.

Those would be nice, too, but I like the Moldavian monasteries because the fusion of Eastern and Western elements is so distinctively Romanian (and the precursor to the equally Romanian Brâncovenesc style of the Renaissance).

 

[Naokaukodem]

Or people just have different tastes from you. I wouldn't touch a Civ game with no or changing leaders. If I want to play Crusader Kings, I'll play Crusader Kings.

How on earth "people", or you, can know by advance that a Civ without leaders will have bad taste ? If it's to introduce revolutionnary gameplay and it's well done, then we NEED to get rid of leaders. Crusader Kings is much different from Civ, and not just by not having leaders.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

How on earth "people", or you, can know by advance that a Civ without leaders will have bad taste ? If it's to introduce revolutionnary gameplay and it's well done, then we NEED to get rid of leaders. Crusader Kings is much different from Civ, and not just by not having leaders.

I have argued in the past that the animated voice-acted Resource Sink Leaders were bad for the game and should be discarded.
I still believe that, but I don't argue for it any more, because I am certain I would be wasting my time. Fully animated Leaders is now one of the signature differences between the Civ games and All The Others. I do not believe that the Civ franchise will abandon them unless they have a mind-bogglingly great alternative, and given that the Leaders have worked well for them so far, it would have to be both compelling and economically attractive (like, Dirt Cheap by comparison) to even be considered.

So let's throw out some Alternatives. Here are some of mine for starters, I suspect and ho[e that other Fanatics ot there have some better ones.

1. No Leaders at all. Each Civ is identified and distinguished only by its attributes and historical title, you interact with briefly-animated or still 'diplomats' or 'traders' or generals', all aspects of the Civ are related to the Civ and not any particular ruler.
I think the chance of anything resembling this being adopted are about the same as the chances of the proverbial celluloid cat in Hades. It would, quite simply, be hugely unpopular and feel like the game has regressed to 1990s standards of presentation.

2. Live Actors. Anybody who played Civ 2 remembers, for good or bad, Elvis the Cultural Advisor. I have no idea whether live actors with suitably accurate and appropriate scripts would be cheaper or more expensive than 3D animations with voice actors, but it would require the same amount of research (at least!). On the other hand, it has the potential to be hugely entertaining if done right.

3. 'Generic' animations. As I have argued ad nauseum elsewhere, an audience room/antechamber where you interact with suitably-costumed animated Minister or Diplomat, with still (sculpture, painting) representations of the Great Leader present in background. This would reduce all Civs to a single animation requirement with elaborate still backgrounds and so potentially much cheaper and easier to do than the current form, and allow, potentially, a change of Great Leaders throughout the game.
Much as I still like the potential for this system, I also admit that many gamers would recognize it as a 'cheap' way of getting the animated Leader. On the other hand, the essential distinction between Civ and all other strategy games (so far), the fully-animated Interface Person, would still be present.

4. Still Art. Anything from historical portraits/paintings/sculpture, etc. to made-for-the-game representations of individual Leaders and other 'personages'. The problem with tis, no matter how well done, is that compared to an animated human face, nothing else has the same degree of Communication to us humans. The first thing a baby can focus o is a human face, even a stylized one. We are programmed for it from birth, basically, and a still portrait just doesn't have the same immediacy and relevance to us that a mobile face and body language have. Another one of Bierce's brick airplanes, ("All the details are correct, the only remaining problems are Basic and Fundamental") it just wont fly compared to some kind of animation.

5. Gamer As Leader - the 'Avatars' of Humankind. An interesting idea, but to copy another game's system so blatantly is also a Non-Starter.

 

[Zaarin]

How on earth "people", or you, can know by advance that a Civ without leaders will have bad taste ? If it's to introduce revolutionnary gameplay and it's well done, then we NEED to get rid of leaders.

Because leaders are part of what I like about Civ. A 4X game without animated, voice-acted leaders might be a perfectly good game (indeed, there are many 4X games better than Civ without the focus on leaders), but it wouldn't be a Civ game. If they ditch the leaders they had better ditch the name Civilization with it.

ETA: The point of my post was that your suggestion that no one really cares about leaders is dead wrong. You might not care about leaders and you might not be alone, but many Civ players, including myself, do care about the leaders. Also, purely from a marketing perspective, the leaders make very charismatic brand ambassadors--i.e., putting up screenshots and videos of the leaders is a great way to draw in potential players. Firaxis obviously knows this because that's precisely how they've been marketing the franchise for a long time now. The leaders also draw in a wider audience than just strategy gamers; i.e., RPG players might be drawn in by the roleplay aspects of interacting with the leaders. tl;dr: There are a lot of good reasons to keep the leaders, and I have yet to hear a good reason to remove them other than that the hardcore strategy players think the art team is responsible for programming the AI.

1. No Leaders at all. Each Civ is identified and distinguished only by its attributes and historical title, you interact with briefly-animated or still 'diplomats' or 'traders' or generals', all aspects of the Civ are related to the Civ and not any particular ruler.
I think the chance of anything resembling this being adopted are about the same as the chances of the proverbial celluloid cat in Hades. It would, quite simply, be hugely unpopular and feel like the game has regressed to 1990s standards of presentation.

2. Live Actors. Anybody who played Civ 2 remembers, for good or bad, Elvis the Cultural Advisor. I have no idea whether live actors with suitably accurate and appropriate scripts would be cheaper or more expensive than 3D animations with voice actors, but it would require the same amount of research (at least!). On the other hand, it has the potential to be hugely entertaining if done right.

3. 'Generic' animations. As I have argued ad nauseum elsewhere, an audience room/antechamber where you interact with suitably-costumed animated Minister or Diplomat, with still (sculpture, painting) representations of the Great Leader present in background. This would reduce all Civs to a single animation requirement with elaborate still backgrounds and so potentially much cheaper and easier to do than the current form, and allow, potentially, a change of Great Leaders throughout the game.
Much as I still like the potential for this system, I also admit that many gamers would recognize it as a 'cheap' way of getting the animated Leader. On the other hand, the essential distinction between Civ and all other strategy games (so far), the fully-animated Interface Person, would still be present.

4. Still Art. Anything from historical portraits/paintings/sculpture, etc. to made-for-the-game representations of individual Leaders and other 'personages'. The problem with tis, no matter how well done, is that compared to an animated human face, nothing else has the same degree of Communication to us humans. The first thing a baby can focus o is a human face, even a stylized one. We are programmed for it from birth, basically, and a still portrait just doesn't have the same immediacy and relevance to us that a mobile face and body language have. Another one of Bierce's brick airplanes, ("All the details are correct, the only remaining problems are Basic and Fundamental") it just wont fly compared to some kind of animation.

5. Gamer As Leader - the 'Avatars' of Humankind. An interesting idea, but to copy another game's system so blatantly is also a Non-Starter.

1, 4, and 5 would be complete deal breakers for me. I don't think 2 would save money because actors, props, sets (even limited sets against a green screen), costumes, directors, etc. cost enormous sums of money; plus FMV is only charming if it leans into its own campiness. That might be appealing to older gamers, but most younger gamers who didn't grow up with FMV games like Myst and Command & Conquer would be put off by it. 3 only works with a much larger library of animations than Civ6 was working with--the reused animations in NFP were jarring and unpleasant.

 

[BuchiTaton]

5. Gamer As Leader - the 'Avatars' of Humankind. An interesting idea, but to copy another game's system so blatantly is also a Non-Starter.

The problem with Humankind is that their avatars are cultural unrelated customizable for a infinite amount of same looking and unremarkable random people.

Some countries have "avatars" as national personifications like Uncle Sam and Britannia, they would have all the identity of the civ without the limitations of a historical figure.

 

[Zaarin]

The problem with Humankind is that their avatars are cultural unrelated customizable for a infinite amount of same looking and unremarkable random people.

Some countries have "avatars" as national personifications like Uncle Sam and Britannia, they would have all the identity of the civ without the limitations of a historical figure.

I think mythical and fictional leaders should only be resorted to when there is no historical option, and I think there's always a better option than Uncle Sam or Britannia--admittedly because such national personifications imply a written history. Firaxis has shown itself quite capable of working with leaders who have slim histories, like Amanitore, Lady Six Sky, and Bà Triệu.

 

[Kimiimaro]

I guess we memed in Tamar--might as well meme in Romania.

Next meme-in is Armenia for more duduk. Get in line

 

[Naokaukodem]

Because leaders are part of what I like about Civ. A 4X game without animated, voice-acted leaders might be a perfectly good game (indeed, there are many 4X games better than Civ without the focus on leaders), but it wouldn't be a Civ game. If they ditch the leaders they had better ditch the name Civilization with it.

Well, Civilization is about civilizations, and/or civilization, not leaders. It's said in the name, so I don't believe that a Civ game without animated and voice acted leaderheads wouldn't be Civilization anymore.

ETA: The point of my post was that your suggestion that no one really cares about leaders is dead wrong.

No no, I wasn't saying that at all ! On contrary, I was saying that a lot of players (at least Civfanatics in the General Discussion forum) seem attached to leaderheads, and I was just trying to find an explanation, as this seems so opposite to my view. Trying to find an explanation is not saying no one really cares about leaders. I evocated the jokes and irony they can make about them in forums or with buddies, at least that's what they seem to enjoy the most ! Irony, that's one of the most constant characteristic of leaderheads throughout Civ series. Funny irony. I remember when I first met Gandhi in Civ1, I was surprised to see him in person in the middle of nowhere, and I was saying myself : "Haa, at least I met Gandhi lol". I do think Sid Meier put this little mark of humour purposely, and it met great success, so they stick to it. But I think that with time, we had enough of it. Ok, there is still the newcomers, that each iteration tries to capt, but... well, I have nothing to say against. After all, that's Sid's view.

But now that computer have reach a new level, and that we have the mean to make things a little more serious, historically-wise at least, I think that it may be a good moment to allocate productivity to more serious gameplay. In Civ6, they put all the challenge in diplomacy to be hated by everyone when we go to war. (which is more or less unavoidable if you want to win in highest difficulty levels) That's sewing with an axe. They should put more work into, say, diplomacy than with leaderheads. Again, irony was fine when the computers had low processing, so the inconsistencies would be more accepted. Now that we have powerful machines, I would like Firaxis to focus more on AI, diplomacy and realistic behavior. But maybe that's too much to ask. I for one would never buy a game with simplistic gameplay with leaderheads anymore. To be honest, I already didn't bought Civ6, I had it free on EGS. I bought Civ5 for multiplayer, but was massively disappointed by it. (dull, luck-based gameplay, when you succeeded to enter a game !) Civ6 multiplayer is also full of dellusion. You have to experience every defeat to play correctly, especially on small continents map. (Brazil UU nonsense, caravels rush through walls, etc.) But that's not the topic.

@Boris Gudenuf I would pick the first option. I already spoke for it, no leaders would mean thousands civs playable with city names, including the totallity of present States. Why ? For roleplaying. I had fun in Civ2 to play France and beat the sh*t out of England. But that was with culturally-linked starting locations too. That's why I would want them back, at least as an option. Granted, you can still pick up the civs you want, but giving the crappy France (IMO), I don't even want to play as France. At least without uniques (other than names and city names) you could get over your favorite civ to play for its characteristics. (mine is Rome in Civ6, no more roleplaying) So, basically : no leaders + culturally linked starting locations (option, because if you always pick up the same country, you end up fighting the same enemies, for lack of culture in city names) + no uniques. Rather say dry bread.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

@Naokaukodem - all good points, and I thoroughly agree that Civilization per se does not mean or even imply Leaders - witness the discussion we already had elsewhere on these forums about the 'Consensus' leadership in many Indo-European societies (and most North American Native societies) in which there never was a single 'leader' for everything the society did.

But, now, in dealing with the Civ Franchise of games, we are trapped by Inertia and Expectations. The mass of gamers Expect that they will see animated Leaderboards in Civ. Period. I strongly suspect that Firaxis/2K see no commercially-successful alternative to providing the gamers with what they expect. Therefore I think the only way to avoid Animated Leaderboards in Civ would be to provide an equally-engaging, equally fascinating alternative, and I'm damned if I can see what that would be, much as I would love to see such an alternative.

1, 4, and 5 would be complete deal breakers for me. I don't think 2 would save money because actors, props, sets (even limited sets against a green screen), costumes, directors, etc. cost enormous sums of money; plus FMV is only charming if it leans into its own campiness. That might be appealing to older gamers, but most younger gamers who didn't grow up with FMV games like Myst and Command & Conquer would be put off by it. 3 only works with a much larger library of animations than Civ6 was working with--the reused animations in NFP were jarring and unpleasant.

Agree with you regarding 1, 4, 5, but I felt they had to be listed as possible, if not optimal, alternatives. As I think I mentioned, 2 for me harks back to Civ 2, and Camp barely begins to describe it, but I also agree that it might be a hard sell to younger gamers. - Except that so much of the game is fantasy already that it might work if angled in that direction.
Disagree on 3. The way the Leaders in Civ are designed now, each Civ gets a minimum of one fully-animated voice-acted Leader - how well all that is accomplished is another matter, and certainly they cut corners egregiously in NFP. What I described and have described in the past would require one animation per Civ, no alternatives unless you want to ring in Historical Great Ministers - portraits of Tallyrand or Ben Franklin or 'Lord' Shang to spice up things. Given that a great many of them could be partly generic except for costume (and even there, 19th - early 20 century European diplomats wore as close to a Uniform as any group of civilians ever did, so there's some potential 'skin' savings inherent in the system) I don't think it requires anything like the resources that the current crop of animated Leaders (should) require.

 

[Zaarin]

Next meme-in is Armenia for more duduk. Get in line

Armenia has to wait in line behind Bohemia. To be honest, Romania is probably fairly low on my overall wishlist--I'm just disappointed that if it ever makes it it will be because of vampires.

Well, Civilization is about civilizations, and/or civilization, not leaders. It's said in the name, so I don't believe that a Civ game without animated and voice acted leaderheads wouldn't be Civilization anymore.

Maybe, but a civilization without a face might as well be a spreadsheet. As I've said before, Civ is not the best 4X game on the market; what it has going for it is flavor and atmosphere. It needs more of that, not less, if it wants to stay competitive. When a studio does something well, they should probably keep doing that--no one asked BioWare for a multiplayer shooter or Bethesda for an MMO, and after receiving one certainly no one asked for a sequel.

No no, I wasn't saying that at all ! On contrary, I was saying that a lot of players (at least Civfanatics in the General Discussion forum) seem attached to leaderheads, and I was just trying to find an explanation, as this seems so opposite to my view. Trying to find an explanation is not saying no one really cares about leaders. I evocated the jokes and irony they can make about them in forums or with buddies, at least that's what they seem to enjoy the most ! Irony, that's one of the most constant characteristic of leaderheads throughout Civ series. Funny irony. I remember when I first met Gandhi in Civ1, I was surprised to see him in person in the middle of nowhere, and I was saying myself : "Haa, at least I met Gandhi lol". I do think Sid Meier put this little mark of humour purposely, and it met great success, so they stick to it. But I think that with time, we had enough of it. Ok, there is still the newcomers, that each iteration tries to capt, but... well, I have nothing to say against. After all, that's Sid's view.

Okay, I misunderstood you. I understood your post as saying that people aren't actually interested in the leaders except as jokes, and for me that's very much not the case. Since you were wondering why people are attached to leaders, let me explain why I am. For me the leaders turn the AI civilizations into "characters"; without them, the AI civilizations are just data. I am not a hardcore strategy game; for the most part I play narrative-focused games like RPGs, point-and-click adventures, and walking sims. I do play some strategy games (mostly for the building elements TBH), but what draws me to Civ in particular is the element of emergent narratives: the leaders give the civilizations personality and a face. It gives something--or rather someone--for the player to connect with. For me, that's very important for what I want from Civ. If it lost the flavor the historic leaders bring to the table, I'd probably move on to other 4X games.

But now that computer have reach a new level, and that we have the mean to make things a little more serious, historically-wise at least, I think that it may be a good moment to allocate productivity to more serious gameplay. In Civ6, they put all the challenge in diplomacy to be hated by everyone when we go to war. (which is more or less unavoidable if you want to win in highest difficulty levels) That's sewing with an axe. They should put more work into, say, diplomacy than with leaderheads. Again, irony was fine when the computers had low processing, so the inconsistencies would be more accepted. Now that we have powerful machines, I would like Firaxis to focus more on AI, diplomacy and realistic behavior. But maybe that's too much to ask. I for one would never buy a game with simplistic gameplay with leaderheads anymore.

I don't disagree that the game needs better AI that behaves more rationally and more in-depth diplomacy; I just don't see that as mutually exclusive with leaderheads. The art department isn't programming the AI.

Agree with you regarding 1, 4, 5, but I felt they had to be listed as possible, if not optimal, alternatives. As I think I mentioned, 2 for me harks back to Civ 2, and Camp barely begins to describe it, but I also agree that it might be a hard sell to younger gamers. - Except that so much of the game is fantasy already that it might work if angled in that direction.

Like I said, I love old FMV cutscenes like those in Jedi Knight or Myst; to pull it off in a modern game, though, it would have to be other conscious homage to 80s and 90s video games or would require Hollywood-level budgets.

Disagree on 3. The way the Leaders in Civ are designed now, each Civ gets a minimum of one fully-animated voice-acted Leader - how well all that is accomplished is another matter, and certainly they cut corners egregiously in NFP. What I described and have described in the past would require one animation per Civ, no alternatives unless you want to ring in Historical Great Ministers - portraits of Tallyrand or Ben Franklin or 'Lord' Shang to spice up things. Given that a great many of them could be partly generic except for costume (and even there, 19th - early 20 century European diplomats wore as close to a Uniform as any group of civilians ever did, so there's some potential 'skin' savings inherent in the system) I don't think it requires anything like the resources that the current crop of animated Leaders (should) require.

As I've said before, animated ministers don't do anything more for me than Humankind's bland avatars; it's keeping leaders in name only while still cutting the actual flavor and face of the leader. Also, as you said above, Firaxis has set expectations and raised the bar every time. Civ6's vivaciously animated leaders were extremely endearing (even if many of the leader designs themselves were incoherent in terms of style--Civ7 really needs to pick a style and stick with it); even going back to Civ5's manikin-like leaders would feel like a downgrade at this point, something Firaxis can't really afford from a marketing standpoint. I realize that a lot of hardcore gamer's don't care as much about graphics and art style, but they're necessary to sell the game to the wider public. (And I'll be honest: I'm an aesthete. The art style and presentation of the game matter to me. Good art can't save a bad game, but good art can enhance a good game--e.g., Supergiant's games are all phenomenal, but the stellar art is an important part of the experience. And, again, the marketing department needs shiny screenshots and trailers to sell the game.)

 

[BuchiTaton]

Armenia has to wait in line behind Bohemia. To be honest, Romania is probably fairly low on my overall wishlist--I'm just disappointed that if it ever makes it it will be because of vampires.

Armenia could be instead of Georgia for the "Caucasus slot" while Bohemia would be instead of Hungary/Austria for the "CE European Slot" (and Lithuania instead of Poland). I see Romania more againts Byzantium but I am more for Bulgaria (I still think Byzantium is OK as an alternative Roman leader ).

 

[dagriggstar]

I’ve not played humankind, the constant switching culture thing just puts me off. But like, what do their avatars actually do ? Change outfits every era ? (Which probably doesn’t help build up a character you are playing against)…and that’s it ?

When I say I am pro diplomats, I expect a similar level of detail to current leaders, just that instead of playing against say Gorgo it feels like you are playing against Greece as a whole. Stuff like the French diplomat might kiss your cheeks to greet you, the Japanese diplomat will never look at your eyes, the Mongols might send you the head of your own diplomat as a war declaration, you can’t do stuff like that with leaders.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

4. Still Art. Anything from historical portraits/paintings/sculpture, etc. to made-for-the-game representations of individual Leaders and other 'personages'. The problem with tis, no matter how well done, is that compared to an animated human face, nothing else has the same degree of Communication to us humans. The first thing a baby can focus o is a human face, even a stylized one. We are programmed for it from birth, basically, and a still portrait just doesn't have the same immediacy and relevance to us that a mobile face and body language have. Another one of Bierce's brick airplanes, ("All the details are correct, the only remaining problems are Basic and Fundamental") it just wont fly compared to some kind of animation.

I've mentioned it before, but I'd love for them to do this for city-states/minor nations.

How on earth "people", or you, can know by advance that a Civ without leaders will have bad taste ? If it's to introduce revolutionnary gameplay and it's well done, then we NEED to get rid of leaders. Crusader Kings is much different from Civ, and not just by not having leaders.

In my opinion, the one way that Civ stands out from other 4X historical games is having historical leaders as leading their civilizations. If they were to take that away it would lose it charm, at least to me..

Armenia could be instead of Georgia for the "Caucasus slot" while Bohemia would be instead of Hungary/Austria for the "CE European Slot" (and Lithuania instead of Poland).

I don't think Poland is leaving anytime soon.

 

[Zaarin]

Armenia could be instead of Georgia for the "Caucasus slot" while Bohemia would be instead of Hungary/Austria for the "CE European Slot" (and Lithuania instead of Poland). I see Romania more againts Byzantium but I am more for Bulgaria (I still think Byzantium is OK as an alternative Roman leader ).

Honestly I don't think Romania or Bulgaria offer any real competition to Byzantium. I'd see Romania as competing with Hungary, Austria, and Bohemia and Bulgaria with Poland. I agree with @Alexander's Hetaroi that Poland is here to stay, which means the final Central-ish European slot is a competition among Romania, Hungary, Austria, and Bohemia. I agree that Armenia isn't really in this competition; in fact, I think they already have a very strong chance of replacing Georgia in Civ7. I just want Bohemia more is all.

I’ve not played humankind, the constant switching culture thing just puts me off. But like, what do their avatars actually do ? Change outfits every era ? (Which probably doesn’t help build up a character you are playing against)…and that’s it ?

Yes, avatars change outfits to the culture you're currently playing as.

When I say I am pro diplomats, I expect a similar level of detail to current leaders, just that instead of playing against say Gorgo it feels like you are playing against Greece as a whole. Stuff like the French diplomat might kiss your cheeks to greet you, the Japanese diplomat will never look at your eyes, the Mongols might send you the head of your own diplomat as a war declaration, you can’t do stuff like that with leaders.

I don't see the appeal of inventing new characters when there are four thousand years of real people to draw from instead. What's the appeal of interacting with Minister Joe Nobody over Elizabeth I, for example? I don't see how any of the examples you offered couldn't be done with real leaders (except the Mongol one, which would never happen because Firaxis wants to keep their E10+ rating--why do you think CdM drinks water and Poundmaker waves around an unlit pipe? ).

 

[Evie]

I still stick by the idea I mentioned before of separating the civilization figurehead (an important and recognizable but not necessarily chief of state figure of that civilization history, serving as the detailed 3d representation in diplomacy ) and the leaders (actual historical political leaders who determine what leader bonuses you have, likely represented by a static portrait texture in the background of the figurehead/ambassador on the dip screen.

Then you shove all the Gandhi of this world in the new figurehead role.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Honestly I don't think Romania or Bulgaria offer any real competition to Byzantium. I'd see Romania as competing with Hungary, Austria, and Bohemia and Bulgaria with Poland. I agree with @Alexander's Hetaroi that Poland is here to stay, which means the final Central-ish European slot is a competition among Romania, Hungary, Austria, and Bohemia.

I didn't catch that there was talk of Romania or Bulgaria replacing Byzantium. I don't see that happening either as Byzantium has been appearing in the games longer than Poland. If they were going to merge Byzantium with Rome, I think they would have done this already after games with multiple leaders for civilizations.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Sanguine Pact was a test run for a possible Romanian civ in the future.