Create a good vanilla line-up for Civilization

[Krajzen]

Whatever, I have decided to create as unorthodox set as possible while still totally historical so it'll troll everybody.


Rome: Constantine the Great - Christian religion, culture, UU NOT being legion.
Greece: Themistocles - navy and science, UU is ship.
Iran: Shah Abbas - Islamic, culture and economy, UU is renaissance infantry or cavalry.
Egypt: Thotmes - warmongering as hell, also economy, UU is ship.
India: Shivaji Bosle - agressive and into great quality army, also science, renaissance rocket artillery UU.
China Yongle - tall cities, heavy navy and trade, UU is powerful ship.
Japan: Empress Himiko - almost the most peaceful civ in game, economy, UU is not samurai, to hell with samurai.
Russia: Elizabeth - colonization focus, UU is renaissance artillery.
Germany: Otto the Great - loves diplomacy and economy, also peace, UU is medieval.
France: Louis the Saint - loves religion, science and architecture, UU is medieval cavalry.
England: William Pitt - economy, industry, renaissance era cavalry UU.
America: Jefferson - peaceful science and multiculturalism civ, Apache helicopter UU.
Inca: Tupac Amaru - conquest and social engineering, UU is gunpowder unit.
Yoruba (Oyo Empire) - magnificent, amazing pre colonial Nigerian civilization nobody except me has ever heard of, so I have to put it here. Its focus is on renaissance heavy cavalry and dense urbanization.
Timurids: Tamerlane - conquest and tall city growth.
Ottomans: Kosem Sultan - peace, trade and culture, UU is medieval. She is woman btw
Mexico: Guadelupe Victoria - archaeology, art and architecture.
Indonesia: Iskandar Muda - oversea expansionism, Islamic religion and 17th century gun unit.

Adnotations:
Roman uniqueunit is Scholae Palatinae, elite cavalry praetorian guard created by Constantine. Legions are instead incorporated as an army organization ability.
Egyptian unique unit is ship to quickly ttansport troops across rivers, to remain as hipster as possible.
Japan is one of the most isolationist and pacifist civs in the game, to represent the fact it did jack **** outside its own corner for 95% of history. Unique unit is of course not some stupid samurai but 16th century musket infantry, because Japan loved them in Sengoku period.

*Drops the mic*

 

[AmazonQueen]

Sorry to disappoint you but I think thats a marvellous list.
Minor quibbles aside it includes most of the classics but with a twist, and a few interesting new civs. I'd be happy with that as a base game lineup.

 

[Zaarin]

America: John F. Kennedy

Ugh. America has plenty of big personality leaders who were also competent.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Ugh. America has plenty of big personality leaders who were also competent.

If they do another American leader this time, for some reason I’m expecting Jefferson.

 

[Zaarin]

If they do another American leader this time, for some reason I’m expecting Jefferson.

Conceivably. I would think they'd go with someone from the first quarter of American history, given the era Teddy comes from. Jefferson or Adams would be interesting new faces; Washington would be iconic.

 

[The Kingmaker]

Conceivably. I would think they'd go with someone from the first quarter of American history, given the era Teddy comes from. Jefferson or Adams would be interesting new faces; Washington would be iconic.

I know they haven’t been changing theme music, but “Jefferson and Liberty” gives a great colonial/frontier feel.

 

[Zaarin]

I know they haven’t been changing theme music, but “Jefferson and Liberty” gives a great colonial/frontier feel.

It is a shame alternate leaders don't get their own themes.

 

[The Kingmaker]

It is a shame alternate leaders don't get their own themes.

“Jefferson and Liberty” starts at about 2:13 minutes into this:

Could totally see this for an early nineteenth century scenario in North America for a Jefferson leader.

 

[Jkchart]

My personal feelings are that the best vanilla lineup was Civ IV. I would reuse them tbh.

-America (keep Teddy for a game about Empire building; I like the split capital system so add Washington back in)
-Arabia (keep Saladin; add in Harun al-Rashid again)
-Aztec (Montezuma can stay as long as we use the RIGHT Montezuma )
-China (Qin Shi Huang; Sun Yat-sen to be different)
-Egypt (Hatshepsut; Ramesses II)
-England (Elizabeth I; Alfred the Great)
-France (Napoleon Bonaparte; Louis XIV)
-Germany (Otto von Bismarck; Frederick Barbarossa)
-Greece (Pericles; Pyrrhus of Epirus)
-Inca (Pachacuti)
-India (Queen Tarabai of the Marathas; Asoka)
-Japan (Minamoto Yorimoto)
-Mali (Mansa Musa)
-Mongolia (Genghis Khan)
-Persia (Cyrus; Shapur)
-Rome (Trajan; Diocletian)
-Russia (Catherine the Great; Ivan III)
-Spain (Charles V/Carlos I, Holy Roman Emperor)

 

[Morningcalm]

Ok, how about this alternate take:

Civ VII vanilla line-up (female leaders in bold, hyperlinks lead to Wikipedia and Ancient History Encyclopedia articles, with Lady Six Sky's source from Mesoweb):

1. America (Abraham Lincoln), 19th century AD
2. Arabia (Harun al-Rashid), 8th - 9th century AD
3. Ashanti (Yaa Asantewaa), 19th - 20th century AD
4. Aztecs (Montezuma II/Ahuitzotl), 15th - 16th century AD
5. Babylon (Hammurabi) / Sumeria (Gudea of Lagash), 19th - 18 century BC / 22nd century BC
6. Burma (Anawrahta), 11th century AD
7. Byzantium (Theodora), 6th century AD
8. China (Wu Zetian), 7th century AD
9. Egypt (Hatshepsut), 15th century BC
10. England (Elizabeth I), 16th century AD
11. Ethiopia (Emperor Menelik II), 19th - 20th century AD
12. France (Henri IV/Cardinal Richelieu), 16th - 17th century AD
13. Germany (Otto von Bismarck/Frederick the Great), 19th century AD / 18th century AD
14. Gran Colombia (Simon Bolivar), 18th - 19th century AD
15. India (Nur Jahan), 16th - 17th century AD
16. Iroquois (Jigonhsasee), 12th - 15th century AD, or 16th century AD
17. Japan (Minamoto Yoritomo), 12th century AD
18. Maya (Lady Six Sky), 7th - 8th century AD
19. Russia (Catherine the Great), 18th century AD

9 female leaders, 10 male leaders (one of them can be DLC in the same way the Aztecs were--maybe Gran Colombia).

Up to 11 of the 19 can be leaders new to the Civ series. Byzantium replaces Greece and Rome (they can appear as DLC later, and besides, Theodora can speak Greek and Latin).

Good mix of new leaders (many of them new female leaders like the tiger-hunting Mughal empress Nur Jahan) and old returns (Harun, Hammurabi, Elizabeth), and generally ok region spread (5 American civs, 5 European civs, 3 African civs, 2 Near Eastern civs, 4 Asian civs). I wanted to put in more African civs but the required Western/European base game nations (America, England, France, Germany, Russia) make that difficult.

As far as personalities go, you can have the aggressive Burmese ruler (the frequently campaigning Anawrahta) or Aztec ruler (Montezuma II ruled the Aztec Empire at its height, and Ahuitzotl was a famous warrior leader), the trade-focused Egyptian ruler (Hatshepsut, who launched the Voyage to Punt, which was a big deal back then), the cultured Arabian ruler (Harun al-Rashid, he of the House of Wisdom and the Thousand and One Nights) and English ruler (Elizabeth I, who liked theater and poetry), the resister of foreign influence (Emperor Menelik II, who beat the Italians at Adwa), the backstabbing lawgiver (Hammurabi, who betrayed numerous allies and took them over to create the Babylonian Empire), and the revolutionary (Simon Bolivar), the peacemaker (Jigonhsasee), and so on. Speaking of, if we wanted even more female leaders, Ethiopia could be led by Empress Mentewab (a powerful female co-ruler) or Taytu Betul (who wielded much influence over Menelik II and commanded some troops of her own at the Battle of Adwa).

Greece (Themistocles) and Persia (Cyrus/Darius/Xerxes) can be one DLC, Rome (Julius Caesar/Augustus) and the Goths (Alaric/Theodoric) or Palmyra (Zenobia) another, and of course Spain (Isabella) and the Inca (Pacachuti Inca Yupanqui/Huayna Capac/Topa Inca Yupanqui) another, and maybe Vikings/Maori/Assyria and Hittites in other DLC. Portugal can be in the first expansion pack with Kongo.

Future leaders can include Senusret III or Thutmose III as an alternate (much more military) Egyptian leader, the one-eyed Roman-beating Amanirenas for Nubia, Idia for Benin, Genghis Khan and Mandukhai the Wise for Mongolia, Puduhepa for the Hittites, Nzinga Mbande for Angola, Hongi Hika for the Maori, and so on.

 

[Zaarin]

Byzantium (Theodora)

I was going to object to having Theodora again, but then I noted you had the audacity to leave out Greece and Rome, which wins my instant approval and even makes me willing to overlook Gran Colombia, Lincoln, and Jigonhsasee.

 

[Morningcalm]

I was going to object to having Theodora again, but then I noted you had the audacity to leave out Greece and Rome, which wins my instant approval and even makes me willing to overlook Gran Colombia, Lincoln, and Jigonhsasee.

Byzantium is meant to stand in for both Greece and Rome until later DLC, which means more diversity in the original line up!

 

[Zaarin]

Byzantium is meant to stand in for both Greece and Rome until later DLC, which means more diversity in the original line up!

Can we get a Medieval Byzantine second leader later, though? Alexios I Komnenos would be perfect. Ioannes II Komnenos would also be acceptable. I'm so bored with Classical Era Theodora and Justinian I.

 

[Morningcalm]

Can we get a Medieval Byzantine second leader later, though? Alexios I Komnenos would be perfect. Ioannes II Komnenos would also be acceptable. I'm so bored with Classical Era Theodora and Justinian I.

I put in Theodora because she bridges the Greek and Latin gap better (and also she was a fascinating co-ruler)--the other medieval Byzantine leaders are all Greek, but who knows--maybe they will get a second one in Civ VII to make up for their absence in Civ VI. I think it more likely that Greece or Rome would get a second leader though.

 

[Zaarin]

I put in Theodora because she bridges the Greek and Latin gap better (and also she was a fascinating co-ruler)--the other medieval Byzantine leaders are all Greek, but who knows--maybe they will get a second one in Civ VII to make up for their absence in Civ VI. I think it more likely that Greece or Rome would get a second leader though.

Yeah, I understood that. We could resort to one of the non-Greek Byzantine emperors for a second leader, albeit most of them weren't that good.

 

[Morningcalm]

Yeah, I understood that. We could resort to one of the non-Greek Byzantine emperors for a second leader, albeit most of them weren't that good.

There weren't many non-Greek Byzantine emperors, to be fair.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There weren't many non-Greek Byzantine emperors, to be fair.

Depending on how you want to characterize them, there was an entire 'Macedonian Dynasty" of rulers, which was considered 'non Greek' enough to be singled out as 'Macekonai'. They were Medieval (9th and 10th centuries CE) and included a couple of potential candidates:
Leo "The Wise", known for his erudition, a potential 'Science' ruler
Basil II "The Bulgar-Slayer", either a purely military leader or, because of his marriage alliance with Kiev, could have a UA of obtaining Diplomatic Favor/Pacts through some sort of in-game marriage mechanism (like, he can get a Sovereignty over a City State or 'up' the positive relationship with another Civ instantly, but can only maintain one at a time, because Polygamy is Frowned Upon by the church)

 

[Morningcalm]

Depending on how you want to characterize them, there was an entire 'Macedonian Dynasty" of rulers, which was considered 'non Greek' enough to be singled out as 'Macekonai'. They were Medieval (9th and 10th centuries CE) and included a couple of potential candidates:
Leo "The Wise", known for his erudition, a potential 'Science' ruler
Basil II "The Bulgar-Slayer", either a purely military leader or, because of his marriage alliance with Kiev, could have a UA of obtaining Diplomatic Favor/Pacts through some sort of in-game marriage mechanism (like, he can get a Sovereignty over a City State or 'up' the positive relationship with another Civ instantly, but can only maintain one at a time, because Polygamy is Frowned Upon by the church)

I view them as Greek leaders, in much the same way that Alexander was essentially Greek too (though also from Macedon, or, separately or together, Macedonian).

Sure, there were Byzantine rulers in the Macedonian dynasty, but there were plenty of Byzantine dynasties, including the Valentinian dynasty, the Justinian dynasty, and no "Greek dynasty" so I would consider the Macedonian dynasty quite Greek. The Macedonian dynasty rulers spoke Greek, unlike the Latin-speaking leaders (all the ones from Constantine through Justinian basically. That's what I mean by them being Greek.

 

[Zaarin]

I'd call Alexander Hellenistic rather than a proper Hellene, and contemporary chroniclers seem to agree (though one should approach Greek scholars with skepticism, especially on questions of ethnic identity). In the case of Basil the Macedonian, however, it looks like we're talking about a Slavic Macedonian, not the ancient quasi-Greek kingdom of Alexander. Aside from Basil, there are a handful of Armenians, Leo IV the Khazar (through his mother), and Leo III the Syrian--though as far as I can tell Leo III was called "the Syrian" based on where he was born, not based on ethnicity.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I view them as Greek leaders, in much the same way that Alexander was essentially Greek too (though also from Macedon, or, separately or together, Macedonian).

Sure, there were Byzantine rulers in the Macedonian dynasty, but there were plenty of Byzantine dynasties, including the Valentinian dynasty, the Justinian dynasty, and no "Greek dynasty" so I would consider the Macedonian dynasty quite Greek. The Macedonian dynasty rulers spoke Greek, unlike the Latin-speaking leaders (all the ones from Constantine through Justinian basically. That's what I mean by them being Greek.

Unfortunately, using 'official language' as the criteria results in a skewed selection. For one thing, it means that all rulers after Greek became the official language in the early 7th century CE are "Greek" even though ethnically they ranged from Greek to Slavic to Isaurian , Paphlagonian and others. It also means you are selecting all your leaders from the late Classical Era. This is fine if you are going to define Byzantium entirely as an extension of Rome (which, to be sure, the 'Byzantines' did themselves), but it makes it difficult to really show Byzantium as a separate and unique Civilization, which it was.

I'd call Alexander Hellenistic rather than a proper Hellene, and contemporary chroniclers seem to agree (though one should approach Greek scholars with skepticism, especially on questions of ethnic identity). In the case of Basil the Macedonian, however, it looks like we're talking about a Slavic Macedonian, not the ancient quasi-Greek kingdom of Alexander. Aside from Basil, there are a handful of Armenians, Leo IV the Khazar (through his mother), and Leo III the Syrian--though as far as I can tell Leo III was called "the Syrian" based on where he was born, not based on ethnicity.

Alexander was a pivotal figure for Macedon in a number of ways, and while everybody tends to focus on his conquests and extension of the "Greek World" to the borders of India, he also reflected and expanded on a change in native Macedonian culture and identity as well.
The Macedonians before Alexander and his father, Phillip (II), despite a fictional 'origin myth', were not Greek in culture, politics, or geography. They did not use the 'classic' Greek phalanx or their infantry, they did not grow olives (the terrain and climate are not conducive), their political structure was Greek only if you include the Mycenean Bronze Age Greeks and nothing later, and they spoke Greek with such pronounced accents that it was a standard source of "dialect jokes" in Greek theatre. Phillip borrowed or modified Greek military techniques and very firmly pointed his diplomatic and political ambitions at Greece. His son Alexander identified strongly with Greece culturally and intellectually - but part of his on-going conflict with the older generation of Macedonian officers and 'generals' lay in the fact that they most definitely did not so identify, and resented his attempts to "Greekify" them. When he also went Oriental on them, the resentment included assassination plots.
Alexander was not just Hellenistic - he was the progenitor and prototype of Hellenistic. The Hellenistic period is defined by the extension of Greek culture and intellectual philosophies into the middle east - non-Greek territories and populations - and that is what Alexander and his father had started in individuals (and Alexander himself) back in Macedon. Then Alexander 'jump started' the Hellenistic/Hellenizing process by settling Greek veterans in new cities all across his path to India and Egypt.

Unfortunately, Civ and almost all other modern studies of Alexander focus on his military exploits - which, to be sure, are incredible and formed a model for myriad later conquerors and would-be conquerors - but they largely ignore his transformative effect on the spread of Greek philosophical thought and culture: the expansion of the Greek World, as it were, all the way into Asia.

Sorry for the digression - I did my thesis on Alexander and still have a shelf of references that I've carried around for 50+ years, including Arrian, Diodorus Sicilus, Polybius and Curtius in the original Greek and Latin!