Dream Civs/Leaders for Civ 7

[Navelgazer]

Link?

I didn't know about the Genoa thing before, but this post goes into it a bit.

 

[AffineConstant]

"Pretty face of Fascism," you mean. I really don't know why she's so popular. Do people really know anything about her beyond that Madonna movie?

Isn't she more of a generic populist than a fascist?

Regardless I'd love to see William Ewart Gladstone or Robert Walpole for Britain. Pretty much all of Britain's monarchs are vastly over celebrated historically, Henry the VII and William the Conqueror being the only outstandlingly competent leaders therein I can name in the past thousand years. A huge portion of Britain's historical success was down to having a more democratic and merit based system of government than its neighbors, the monarch often just ordered stupid horsehockye, wasted money on themselves, and cut people's heads off.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Isn't she more of a generic populist than a fascist?

Regardless I'd love to see William Ewart Gladstone or Robert Walpole for Britain. Pretty much all of Britain's monarchs are vastly over celebrated historically, Henry the VII and William the Conqueror being the only outstandlingly competent leaders therein I can name in the past thousand years. A huge portion of Britain's historical success was down to having a more democratic and merit based system of government than its neighbors, the monarch often just ordered stupid horsehockye, wasted money on themselves, and cut people's heads off.

I understand what you mean, but England's monarchs I find more interesting and colourful than their prime ministers; in particular I would like to see Henry VIII in the game

 

[Arcaian]

Genoa was found in the game files as being a playable civ in the base game. The Haida were also found in R&F files.

Not sure I understand about breaking a game stereotype?
And the Inca not being able to gain gold is strange? In fact the Inca are one of the civilizations that I associate gold with.

I imagine what they might be playing off of is the fact that Tawantinsuyu/ the Incan Empire is one of the largest states (certainly before the 20th century) to have no market economy, and intentionally avoid the use of currency - to the best of my knowledge, the only exception was in the far-north of the empire, in an area that was recently conquered at the time of the information before recorded, and the axe-head currency was primarily used for trade with people outside of the empire. I think it's a limited view of what gold represents in Civ, and being unable to rush buildings or units would be strange for the Incas, as they very famously set up extremely large and well-organised stores of spare food and goods, which seems the exact sort of thing that rushing units or buildings is meant to be representing - using those stores. Perhaps a limitation on international trade routes and trading with other civs would be a better fit?

 

[Patine]

Isn't she more of a generic populist than a fascist?

Regardless I'd love to see William Ewart Gladstone or Robert Walpole for Britain. Pretty much all of Britain's monarchs are vastly over celebrated historically, Henry the VII and William the Conqueror being the only outstandlingly competent leaders therein I can name in the past thousand years. A huge portion of Britain's historical success was down to having a more democratic and merit based system of government than its neighbors, the monarch often just ordered stupid horsehockye, wasted money on themselves, and cut people's heads off.

And, even so, the old Monarchs often relied on very talented ministers, like Thomas Becket, Thomas Cromwell, William Cecil, etc., who often, de facto, ran much of the nitty gritty, day-to-day machinery of the state even before the formal investure of Walpole as the first PM in 1722.

 

[AffineConstant]

And, even so, the old Monarchs often relied on very talented ministers, like Thomas Becket, Thomas Cromwell, William Cecil, etc., who often, de facto, ran much of the nitty gritty, day-to-day machinery of the state even before the formal investure of Walpole as the first PM in 1722.

Exactly my point! Thomas Cromwell was basically the first prototype prime minister, a rutheless conniving social climber, an (indirectly) murderous former lawyer, a perfectly interesting character in his own right that; and unlike Henry the VIIIth, actually managed to accomplish things. The Church of England was basically entirely his doing, not Henry's, who after an interesting start as a war making king became an unpredictably violent brain damaged brat due to a serious jousting incident.

William Gladstone helped end European imperialism far before it was a sentiment almost anywhere else in Europe, helped revolutionize political campaigning, and is generally counted as one of the greatest politicians of the 19th century. Heck Queen Victoria, the monarch of the time, in comparison is boring. She didn't do much besides have grand children that ended up ruling half of Europe. "Having famous kids" doesn't seem nearly as interesting as a lifetime of political campaigning and relative radicalism. If you're going to pick out one leader that was truly influential on "Victorian" England, Gladstone fits the bill far better than Victoria herself.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Exactly my point! Thomas Cromwell was basically the first prototype prime minister, a rutheless conniving social climber, an (indirectly) murderous former lawyer, a perfectly interesting character in his own right that; and unlike Henry the VIIIth, actually managed to accomplish things. The Church of England was basically entirely his doing, not Henry's, who after an interesting start as a war making king became an unpredictably violent brain damaged brat due to a serious jousting incident.

William Gladstone helped end European imperialism far before it was a sentiment almost anywhere else in Europe, helped revolutionize political campaigning, and is generally counted as one of the greatest politicians of the 19th century. Heck Queen Victoria, the monarch of the time, in comparison is boring. She didn't do much besides have grand children that ended up ruling half of Europe. "Having famous kids" doesn't seem nearly as interesting as a lifetime of political campaigning and relative radicalism. If you're going to pick out one leader that was truly influential on "Victorian" England, Gladstone fits the bill far better than Victoria herself.

This is actually a set of arguments for another Great Person: The Great Minister.

When obtained and installed, he/she changes the UA of the Leader in some way, even potentially adding an entirely new UA.

This would give the effect of 'changing Leaders' without requiring a resource-intensive new animated model and voice-acted critter in the game.

It also has the potential to give a wildly increased variety of Leaders, since the number would be not Leaders + Alternates, but Leaders x Ministers.

And imagine the Potential:
Henry VIII, certainly a characterful Leader, but imahine him with a Great Minister like:

Alcuin
Tallyrand
Mazarin
Oxenstierna
Nizam-al-Mulk
Potemkin
Franklin
Clemenceau

That's 8 different Henry VIII's right there
Multiply by every Leader in the game and realizing this is just a tiny fraction of potential Great Ministers available (my current list has over 70 names!) and nobody should ever be bored by their Civ's Leader again . . .

 

[pokiehl]

When obtained and installed, he/she changes the UA of the Leader in some way, even potentially adding an entirely new UA.

How would that be any different than what already happens? Great People tend to grant permanent bonuses.

Why does “+1 Science from Campus buildings” or whatever need to be visually appended to the text of a leader UA?

 

[Caesar of Bread]

This is actually a set of arguments for another Great Person: The Great Minister.

When obtained and installed, he/she changes the UA of the Leader in some way, even potentially adding an entirely new UA.

This would give the effect of 'changing Leaders' without requiring a resource-intensive new animated model and voice-acted critter in the game.

It also has the potential to give a wildly increased variety of Leaders, since the number would be not Leaders + Alternates, but Leaders x Ministers.

And imagine the Potential:
Henry VIII, certainly a characterful Leader, but imahine him with a Great Minister like:

Alcuin
Tallyrand
Mazarin
Oxenstierna
Nizam-al-Mulk
Potemkin
Franklin
Clemenceau

That's 8 different Henry VIII's right there
Multiply by every Leader in the game and realizing this is just a tiny fraction of potential Great Ministers available (my current list has over 70 names!) and nobody should ever be bored by their Civ's Leader again . . .

I love the idea of a Great Minister myself, I’m implementing it into a civ-based campaign I’m running.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

How would that be any different than what already happens? Great People tend to grant permanent bonuses.

Why does “+1 Science from Campus buildings” or whatever need to be visually appended to the text of a leader UA?

Great People now are ephemeral. Great Generals grant bonuses to units for 1 - 2 Eras only, Great Prophets are extinguished by starting a Religion, Great Artists of all kinds produce their Great Works and vanish. Great Scientists add a Library in one Campus or some Eurekas, then disappear. Their 'permanent bonuses' aren't so much, or the permanence is from their Works, not themselves.

What I am contemplating is a new or augmented 'Minister Bonus/Unique' that, like Leader Bonuses, lasts as long as the character is in play.

Examples:

Alcuin
"Master of the Palace Schools" - Receive +1 Science per turn from every Holy Site and Building in a Holy Site

Nizam-al-Mulk
"Nizamiyyah" - Build Campuses and Universities for Half Cost OR
"Siyasatnama" - +1 Loyalty in every city

Permanent Bonuses, the difference being that you can decide to 'retire' a Minister and replace him with a new one. Of course, getting a Great Minister as opposed to an Ordinary Minister (which gets you Nothing) is always chancy, so there are only certain times when you can try to get a new Great Minister, and only one of them is Certain to succeed:

1. When the Civ enters a new Era/Age

2. When the Civ gets a Great General or Great Prophet, that Great Person can be exchanged for a new Great Minister (This always results in a new Great Minister, but note that exchanging Generals or Prophets for a Great Minister does not mean that you will get a Minister with either military or religious effects)

3. Whenever the Civ ends a War, either by complete conquest of the opponent or through diplomacy..

5. Whenever the Civ changes governments.

You can only have one Great Minister at a time, so when/if you successfully appoint a new Great Minister, the old one is instantly replaced. You may also, at any time, remove a Great Minister without appointing a new one.

 

[pokiehl]

Great People now are ephemeral. Great Generals grant bonuses to units for 1 - 2 Eras only, Great Prophets are extinguished by starting a Religion, Great Artists of all kinds produce their Great Works and vanish. Great Scientists add a Library in one Campus or some Eurekas, then disappear. Their 'permanent bonuses' aren't so much, or the permanence is from their Works, not themselves.

What I am contemplating is a new or augmented 'Minister Bonus/Unique' that, like Leader Bonuses, lasts as long as the character is in play.

Examples:

Alcuin
"Master of the Palace Schools" - Receive +1 Science per turn from every Holy Site and Building in a Holy Site

Nizam-al-Mulk
"Nizamiyyah" - Build Campuses and Universities for Half Cost OR
"Siyasatnama" - +1 Loyalty in every city

Permanent Bonuses, the difference being that you can decide to 'retire' a Minister and replace him with a new one. Of course, getting a Great Minister as opposed to an Ordinary Minister (which gets you Nothing) is always chancy, so there are only certain times when you can try to get a new Great Minister, and only one of them is Certain to succeed:

1. When the Civ enters a new Era/Age

2. When the Civ gets a Great General or Great Prophet, that Great Person can be exchanged for a new Great Minister (This always results in a new Great Minister, but note that exchanging Generals or Prophets for a Great Minister does not mean that you will get a Minister with either military or religious effects)

3. Whenever the Civ ends a War, either by complete conquest of the opponent or through diplomacy..

5. Whenever the Civ changes governments.

You can only have one Great Minister at a time, so when/if you successfully appoint a new Great Minister, the old one is instantly replaced. You may also, at any time, remove a Great Minister without appointing a new one.

Not really. The passive bonus of Great Generals/Admirals are era-specific, but there are plenty of permanent bonuses from Great People:

- +2 Science from Universities
- +4 Science from Research Labs
- +100% Production towards Space Race projects
- +2 Gold from foreign Trade Routes
- +2 Faith from Trade Routes
- +2 Culture from Workshops
- Build 1 more district than allowed by population
- Increased Trade Route capacity
- Increased Diplomatic Visibility with all civs

etc.

At any rate, of the dozens of permanent bonuses from Great People and other sources in the game, none of them add any text to your leader ability. Doing so with this idea would be really clumsy and inconsistent IMO.

I think this is borne out of the desire to have "evolving leader abilities" or "customized abilities" but as I always point out, we have so many different bonuses from so many different sources of player choices in the game--we already have that. The text being listed elsewhere doesn't negate that.

(To be clear, I am specifically engaging with this idea in your post: "he/she changes the UA of the Leader in some way, even potentially adding an entirely new UA.")

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I imagine what they might be playing off of is the fact that Tawantinsuyu/ the Incan Empire is one of the largest states (certainly before the 20th century) to have no market economy, and intentionally avoid the use of currency - to the best of my knowledge, the only exception was in the far-north of the empire, in an area that was recently conquered at the time of the information before recorded, and the axe-head currency was primarily used for trade with people outside of the empire. I think it's a limited view of what gold represents in Civ, and being unable to rush buildings or units would be strange for the Incas, as they very famously set up extremely large and well-organised stores of spare food and goods, which seems the exact sort of thing that rushing units or buildings is meant to be representing - using those stores. Perhaps a limitation on international trade routes and trading with other civs would be a better fit?

Yes, well if we look at currency=gold then that makes sense. I think a better design would for them to still gain gold from tiles but have them yield tourism, instead of accumulating them for purchasing, since they used gold more for ornaments and artwork.

 

[dagriggstar]

My original point was more "design the Inca but they aren't all about mountains like they always have been" but I guess no one else feels that way (Design Korea or Maya but make them not sciencey would use the same line of logic)......The no gold thing was just extra flavour/spice.....Tourism makes sense but obviously tourism needs to be coming back which unlike food/production/gold/science/culture I don't think is a given

The minister vs monarch thing, I mean its called the Victorian era or the Qing dynasty. In civ 5 I always felt weird about the Gajah Mada choice knowing that he was dismissed since to me the leader choice should be the most powerful figure.
I already find it jarring having Isaac Newton be Chinese for instance. Ministers are a step further down that road for me, since they make solely political decisions.

Where I would like to see for example Talleyrand is as the graphical representation of the civilization. When you play against France and interact with them, the animation is of Talleyrand the background represents whichever leader is playing as France in that game. Further, when playing as France, the tutorial and anything that fills the role of the advisors, is actually Talleyrand giving you advice about the situation. Talleyrand isn't giving you an extra bonus to your gameplay, he's there for flavour.

 

[AffineConstant]

This is actually a set of arguments for another Great Person: The Great Minister.

When obtained and installed, he/she changes the UA of the Leader in some way, even potentially adding an entirely new UA.

This would give the effect of 'changing Leaders' without requiring a resource-intensive new animated model and voice-acted critter in the game.

It also has the potential to give a wildly increased variety of Leaders, since the number would be not Leaders + Alternates, but Leaders x Ministers.

And imagine the Potential:
Henry VIII, certainly a characterful Leader, but imahine him with a Great Minister like:

Alcuin
Tallyrand
Mazarin
Oxenstierna
Nizam-al-Mulk
Potemkin
Franklin
Clemenceau

That's 8 different Henry VIII's right there
Multiply by every Leader in the game and realizing this is just a tiny fraction of potential Great Ministers available (my current list has over 70 names!) and nobody should ever be bored by their Civ's Leader again . . .

But, I'm not talking about ministers. If this were almost any other Civ in the game no one would have a problem with William Gladstone or one of the Cromwells as a leader. In comparison Henry the VIIIthe didn't "lead" anything after the jousting incident. Queen Victoria never lead anything at all. They didn't do anything, at most they whined till other people did things. The idea that they were active political leaders is entirely a myth, getting married 6 times isn't leading a country, passing laws and conducting diplomacy and reforming the church and deciding when and where to go to war is leading a country. Henry the 8th left all of that to Thomas Woolsey and Thomas Cromwell, he himself spent most of his reign being as much of a glorified celebrity as the King of England is today, just with more heads getting chopped off.

And that's my complaint, British history outside Britain (and perhaps inside Britain) is far too focused on the Monarch, who often didn't do much, Parliament kept taking more and more power for a reason. Now, people not knowing about these actual leaders of British history is a problem I'll admit, Civ is a game where you want recognizable names for the leaders where possible. But perpetuating the myth that the British monarchs did much besides screw things up isn't helpful for education, and the idea that the actual leaders of British history were boring in comparison is also a myth. If Canada can have Wilfrid Laurier as a leader then Britain can have someone that isn't a monarch.

 

[Patine]

But, I'm not talking about ministers. If this were almost any other Civ in the game no one would have a problem with William Gladstone or one of the Cromwells as a leader. In comparison Henry the VIIIthe didn't "lead" anything after the jousting incident. Queen Victoria never lead anything at all. They didn't do anything, at most they whined till other people did things. The idea that they were active political leaders is entirely a myth, getting married 6 times isn't leading a country, passing laws and conducting diplomacy and reforming the church and deciding when and where to go to war is leading a country. Henry the 8th left all of that to Thomas Woolsey and Thomas Cromwell, he himself spent most of his reign being as much of a glorified celebrity as the King of England is today, just with more heads getting chopped off.

And that's my complaint, British history outside Britain (and perhaps inside Britain) is far too focused on the Monarch, who often didn't do much, Parliament kept taking more and more power for a reason. Now, people not knowing about these actual leaders of British history is a problem I'll admit, Civ is a game where you want recognizable names for the leaders where possible. But perpetuating the myth that the British monarchs did much besides screw things up isn't helpful for education, and the idea that the actual leaders of British history were boring in comparison is also a myth. If Canada can have Wilfrid Laurier as a leader then Britain can have someone that isn't a monarch.

This is quite true, actually. Once the War of the Roses was wrapped up, inspired leadership from Monarchs was refused to a premium. Mary I, Charles I, and James II/VII tried to buck the trend, and it ended up with first's heir being poisoned and all she had wrought dismantled, and the other came off worse. The best piece of advice Albert, Prince of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, gave to the young Victoria shortly after their wedding, was, "keep the Crown Neutral, Apolitical, and Dignified," a policy that became a motto since, and the main reason for the pressured abdication of Edward VII. Canada does, indeed, have a PM as leader (though not the one I, as a Canadian, would choose), as does Australia - there is no reason Britain could not also have such - and benefit from it.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Parliamentary government as it has developed since the middle of the 17th century has been all about reducing the power of the Monarch and placing all or most power in the hands of Parliament and its leader, by definition.

But, at least to me, this brings up the larger question of exactly what a 'Leader' in Civ is supposed to be. Given the examples of Kupe, Gandhi and such former choices as Jeanne d'Arc and Gajah Mada, none of which were 'official' Leaders of their respective Civs, I suggest that the working definition is much wider than any titular Head of State. This seems to be also the definition that the new 4X game ARA is working with, given their choices of Leaders revealed so far.

Given that wider definition, Prime Ministers, Powers Behind the Throne, or even just Popular Characters in a Civ have as much reason to be included as 'Leaders' as any anointed monarch or elected president. In fact, given the mediocrity of many anointed monarchs (and presidents!) almost any other contemporary character might frequently present a better choice: Louis XIII of France wasn't particularly bad as Kings go, but was almost completely overshadowed by the talents of Cardinal Richelieu: needing a Leader for France, from that pair who would you choose?

 

[Evie]

This is also the definition I work with and support.

Civ leaders have never been limited to heads of states, and the fandom's repeated insistence that they should be makes very little sense to me.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

This is also the definition I work with and support.

Civ leaders have never been limited to heads of states, and the fandom's repeated insistence that they should be makes very little sense to me.

I suspect a ot of the confusion is in nomenclature: "Leader" implies some kind of authority over the Civ, which in turn limits to anointed monarchs, Big Men, Chancellors, Prime Ministers, Vozhd, etc.

But what the game actually uses is anyone popularly associated with the Civ or exerting Real Authority over some of the things the Civ does, with very little real attention being given to official titular authority. So, the appointed Richelieu instead of the anointed Louis XIII, and the 'elected' Chancellor Bismarck instead of any Imperial Kaiser, any British Prime Minister of the 18th or 19th or 20th centuries as well as any British monarch simply because most of the names are familiar to most English-speaking gamers. It has the advantage of giving a much wider 'pool' to choose from, rthe disadvantage that the term 'Leader' invites a more narrow definition.

 

[Arcaian]

My original point was more "design the Inca but they aren't all about mountains like they always have been" but I guess no one else feels that way (Design Korea or Maya but make them not sciencey would use the same line of logic)......The no gold thing was just extra flavour/spice.....Tourism makes sense but obviously tourism needs to be coming back which unlike food/production/gold/science/culture I don't think is a given

I definitely think there's space for an interpretation of the Incas that isn't entirely focused around the mountains, and I there is an issue with some civs being pigeon-holed into one sort of gameplay. In terms of non-Andes related things about Tawantinsuyu that could be interesting for civ design, I think there's quite a list:

• I agree with you that the non-market economy in an empire of 10+ million people is fascinating and has space for a lot of very interesting design - the tourism idea is an interesting one. It could be combined with an amenities boost as well, giving it a more general use? Alternatively, you could represent this with something like a replacement Commercial district that boosts domestic trade routes (using civ 6 terminology) to demonstrate the role of state control and movement of goods around the empire.
• The Incan road system is just absurdly impressive, and is already represented in civ 6 but doesn't have to be as focused on mountains as it is. At its core, it's impressive because of the difficult terrain it was navigating, and the speed with which messages could be passed without using horses for aid in transportation (due to the relay-style system of runners and regular waystations/tambos along the way). One could represent is a unique road improvement, which feels pretty unique, that gains additional benefits along difficult terrain, but that does feel fairly niche. Alternatively, especially if going for a more militaristic version of the Incas (which definitely fits) you could have it so that units traveling along the roads can heal even if they move, due to resting at the tambos and using the supplies held in the storehouses/qullqas along the roads.
  • Edit: I was struggling to think of a way to apply the runners to a mechanical representation - we already tend to play with perfect knowledge of what is happening in our empire. It could be a fun one to give your roads vision! It'd have to be pretty big to be helpful, but something like a 3-tile vision around your roads as a relatively minor bonus would be an interesting mechanic, I think
• The qullqas are also storage for a huge amount of goods given the time period, an also played an interesting role in aiding the downfall of the empire in resupplying their enemies. They could be an interesting unique to play with - a district that helps mitigate climate disasters and perhaps aid in domestic trade? An improvement that provides useful adjacency bonuses to surrounding food/production gathering? Maybe it could even be the opposite, where it gives benefits that are increased by adjacency to resource gathering? Both could then give a more significant advantage than normal when raided to represent their use by enemy forces.
• They also infamously would resettle conquered groups in pretty significant quantities into their core territory (and move the displaced people into the newly conquered territory) to try and prevent unrest. That could be an interesting UA to play with - maybe something like giving yourself a loyalty boost in conquered city in exchange for penalties in your core cities? Maybe an amenity penalty, but perhaps something more substantial?
  • This could also tie into another important part of the fall of the empire - the amount of indigenous allies to the Spanish conquest, where it's estimated there were about ~50x as many indigenous troops in the Spanish forces as there were Spanish soldiers. This system for resettling and their rapid conquest worked well initially, but when presented with a force pushing to take control of the empire that had some plausible chances, it fell apart and unrest spread quickly. I'm not entirely sure how to represent it mechanically - perhaps if the city you gave yourself a loyalty boost in is conquered/put under siege/some other way of representing being threatened, you get more significant penalties? Might be an interesting way to do a high-risk, high-reward sort of gameplay.

 

[Phrozen]

I suspect a ot of the confusion is in nomenclature: "Leader" implies some kind of authority over the Civ, which in turn limits to anointed monarchs, Big Men, Chancellors, Prime Ministers, Vozhd, etc.

But what the game actually uses is anyone popularly associated with the Civ or exerting Real Authority over some of the things the Civ does, with very little real attention being given to official titular authority. So, the appointed Richelieu instead of the anointed Louis XIII, and the 'elected' Chancellor Bismarck instead of any Imperial Kaiser, any British Prime Minister of the 18th or 19th or 20th centuries as well as any British monarch simply because most of the names are familiar to most English-speaking gamers. It has the advantage of giving a much wider 'pool' to choose from, rthe disadvantage that the term 'Leader' invites a more narrow definition.

Or William Marshal basically keeping the sons and grandsons of Henry II on the throne despite their insistence of doing foolish things. Also, putting them in their place when Henry II was still alive.