Elimination Game Thread - Which Civs Need a Second Leader?

Americans 20
Arabs 20
Australians 2
Aztecs 21
Brazilians 17
Chinese 23 (22+1) Here you have a civ that have existed for most of the civ timefram, that must be worthy a second leader.
Egyptians 22
English 21
French 23
Germans 21
Indians 25
Japanese 20
Kongolese 20
Norwegians 14 (17-3) This civ is so focused on one thing only, the vikings that another leader wont add anything.
Nubians 20
Persians 21
Poles 21
Romans 20
Russians 20
Scythians 11
Spanish 20
Sumerians 20
 
I'll start off with the somewhat tongue in cheek remark that the best way to give civs additional leaders would be to make existing leaders interchangeable between civs, thus giving every civ 20+ new leader options (obviously this would need to be an advanced setup option for balance reasons. That said, this doesn't seem like a priority for Firaxis (and even if it were, it shouldn't exclude adding second leaders in the conventional sense), so here are my votes for Greece-style second leaders. A lot of the arguments so far have focused on history, and while that's certainly one relevant consideration, I think its important to consider gameplay as well.

Americans 17 (20 - 3) This is a civ whose civ and leader abilities closely compliment each other (Teddy's national park bonus + America's cinemas, America's continent bonus + Teddy's Rough Riders), so it's hard to see the civ fitting together as well with a leader with a different focus. And from a historical perspective, America is a bit older than Australia or Brazil as an independent nation, but its much closer to them than it is to civs like India, China or Persia that represent millennia of historical shifts and changing dynasties.
Arabs 20
Australians 2
Aztecs 21
Brazilians 17
Chinese 23
Egyptians 22
English 21
French 23
Germans 21
Indians 25
Japanese 20
Kongolese 20
Norwegians 14
Nubians 20
Persians 22 (21 + 1) This seems like a good choice in terms of both gameplay and history. Historically, it would make sense to represent periods of Persian rule other than the few generations before and after the Greek wars that always seem to be prioritized. Gameplay-wise, Persia's civ abilities are primarily cultural, so it would be interesting to see how they play with a less warmongering focused leader ability.
Poles 21
Romans 20
Russians 20
Scythians 11
Spanish 20
Sumerians 20
 
Americans 17+1=18
Arabs 20
Australians 2
Aztecs 21
Brazilians 17
Chinese 23
Egyptians 22
English 21
French 23
Germans 21
Indians 25
Japanese 20
Kongolese 20-3=17
Norwegians 14
Nubians 20
Persians 22
Poles 21
Romans 20
Russians 20
Scythians 11
Spanish 20
Sumerians 20

While a young nation the sheer volume of extremely interesting and unique leaders America has to offer makes me hestitant to see them drop out of the race too early. While Roosevelt's ability does a good job of representing America the cultured Imperialist the country has so much history in so many different areas that it feels a shame to not explore them. New leaders could for instance represent America's industrial muscle (FDR), Military presence (Eisenhower, Washington, or arguably Grant), economic might (Coolidge or, if you want to be REALLY risqué, Andrew Jackson), etc. Just a lot of really great choices.

As for Kongo while their ability WAS toned down it would still be way too powerful if it wasn't held back by Afonso's weaknesses. I shudder to imagine a Kongo capable of building holy sites and patronizing half cost great people with faith to their heart's content.
 
Last edited:
Americans 18
Arabs 20
Australians 2
Aztecs 21
Brazilians 17
Chinese 23
Egyptians 22
English 21
French 23 + 1 = 24 France needs a second leader, preferably Napoleon.
Germans 21
Indians 25
Japanese 20
Kongolese 17
Norwegians 14
Nubians 20
Persians 22
Poles 21
Romans 20
Russians 20
Scythians 11 - 3 = 8 It seems to me to be a civ centered on a leader. For me, Scythians would be on a very low priority to be included in the game, I'm not interested in a second leader.
Spanish 20
Sumerians 20
 
Americans 18
Arabs 20
Australians 2-3=-1 ELIMINATED I was going to go after the Scythians but I just wanted to make the kill for this one. Australia is not a priority, I would be okay to see Henry Parkes but I would rather have additional leaders for other civs. I also do not believe we will have secondary leaders for the dlc civs because that would just cheapen there value.
Aztecs 21
Brazilians 17
Chinese 23
Egyptians 22
English 21
French 24
Germans 21
Indians 25
Japanese 20
Kongolese 17
Norwegians 14
Nubians 20
Persians 22
Poles 21
Romans 20+1=21 I would love to see additional leaders for other aspects of Rome. Like Marcus Aurelius, Constantine I, Gauis Gracchus, or even Nero.
Russians 20
Scythians 8
Spanish 20
Sumerians 20
 
So many good choices to attack...

Americans 18
Arabs 20
Aztecs 21
Brazilians 17
Chinese 23
Egyptians 22
English 21
French 24
Germans 21
Indians 25
Japanese 20
Kongolese 17
Norwegians 14
Nubians 20-3=17 - They were just added.
Persians 22
Poles 21
Romans 21
Russians 20
Scythians 8
Spanish 20
Sumerians 20+1=21 - I'm quite tired of Gilgamesh. We don't even know whether he existed. I'd like to see someone who we know he was real, like Ur-Nammu or Puabi.
 
Americans 18
Arabs 20
Aztecs 21
Brazilians 17
Chinese 23
Egyptians 22
English 21
French 24 + 1 = 25 - It is their turn to get upvoted
Germans 21
Indians 25
Japanese 20
Kongolese 17
Norwegians 14
Nubians 17
Persians 22
Poles 21
Romans 21
Russians 20
Scythians 8 - 3 = 5 - Nothing could make this civ interesting and worthy, and I wish Firaxis would stop giving us those horse-riding nomads as civs (with the Mongols, as usual, being the exception)
Spanish 20
Sumerians 21
 
Americans 18
Arabs 20
Aztecs 21
Brazilians 17
Chinese 23
Egyptians 22
English 21
French 25
Germans 21
Indians (25+1)=26 We need someone who is not Gandhi
Japanese 20
Kongolese 17
Norwegians 14
Nubians 17
Persians 22
Poles 21
Romans 21
Russians 20
Scythians (5-3)=2 It's time for them to die
Spanish 20
Sumerians 21
 
Americans 18
Arabs 20
Aztecs 21
Brazilians 17
Chinese 23
Egyptians 22
English 21
French (25+1) =26, We could use a more relevant leader, like Napoleon or Louis XIV, and make it one with an actual LUA while your at it! Catherinés Flying Squad is a joke and less than useless, since it makes the most annoying part of the interface (the "some idiot on the other side of the planet built a granary" pop-up messages) an even more frequent annoyance!:mad:
Germans 21
Indians 26
Japanese 20
Kongolese 17
Norwegians 14
Nubians 17
Persians 22
Poles 21
Romans 21
Russians 20
Scythians=(2-3)=-1 ELIMINATED, sorry Skythia, but you weren't a civilization to begin with
Spanish 20
Sumerians 21
 
Americans 18 - 3 = 15 If i read the proposals, i must say i have to temper your enthusiasm. There is no-one who can add something to the current civilization. In what way would Washington or Lincoln be different then Theodore. Besides they were not relevant for a long time on the world stage. Recent leaders are way too controversial, and including them would mean you have to include Hitler or Stalin as well. Eisenhower, JFK, FDR, Truman, Reagan, Bush and Nixon all have blood on their hands. Other suggestions like Jackson (the pre-world war Trump), Coolidge (what did he meant? not charismatic and led his country in the great depression because Hoover was only 1 year president and was a continuation of his policies) or Monroe. Therefore i just downvote it. We don't need more Americans. And if they really want one, well then add Obama and Trump for free. They were able to change America more than any other president in a time span of 100 years, are different from both each other and Theodore, feed both political sides and would both fit in the civ vi personality cultus.
Arabs 20
Aztecs 21
Brazilians 17
Chinese 23
Egyptians 22
English 21
French 26+1 = 27 I agree with France. Catherine De Medici is meeeeh
Germans 21
Indians 26
Japanese 20
Kongolese 17
Norwegians 14
Nubians 17
Persians 22
Poles 21
Romans 21
Russians 20
Spanish 20
Sumerians 21
 
Americans 16 (15+1) a cold War expansion is announced and we need Ike and Nikita. As third leader America will get Washington or Lincoln back.
Arabs 20
Aztecs 21
Brazilians 17
Chinese 23
Egyptians 22
English 21
French 27
Germans 21
Indians 26
Japanese 20
Kongolese 17
Norwegians 11 (14-3) interesting is just the vicing age
Nubians 17
Persians 22
Poles 21
Romans 21
Russians 20
Spanish 20
Sumerians 21
 
Americans 16
Arabs 20
Aztecs 21
Brazilians 17
Chinese 23
Egyptians 22
English 21
French 27
Germans 21
Indians 26
Japanese 20
Kongolese 17
Norwegians 11 - 3 = 8 (No need for a second leader. They barely even used anything unique from Hardrada's life; they portrayed him as a pagan Viking raider and any number of other leaders could have fit that bill.)
Nubians 17
Persians 22
Poles 21
Romans 21
Russians 20
Spanish 20
Sumerians 21 + 1 = 22 (More worthy than Persia to get a different leader--what if the lawmaker warrior king who became legend, Ur-Nammu? Or the priest shepherd king, Gudea of Lagash, who modestly never deified himself as other rulers had?)
 
Americans 16+1=17
Arabs 20
Aztecs 21
Brazilians 17-3=14
Chinese 23
Egyptians 22
English 21
French 27
Germans 21
Indians 26
Japanese 20
Kongolese 17
Norwegians 8
Nubians 17
Persians 22
Poles 21
Romans 21
Russians 20
Spanish 20
Sumerians 22

While I know it's unprofessional, my reasons for upvoting America again is just going to be a counterarguement for someone else downvoting them.
Vahnstad said:
There is no-one who can add something to the current civilization. In what way would Washington or Lincoln be different then Theodore.
Click to expand...
Lincoln and Washington were both very different leaders than Roosevelt and are known for much different accomplishments. Washington didn' have anything to do with national parks, Lincoln didn't beat the CSA just because they were on American soil, neither of them were really into cavalry or cowboys, they were all very different presidents with their own strengths and failings, and more importantly their own leadership styles.

Vahnstad said:
Besides they were not relevant for a long time on the world stage.
Click to expand...
America has arguably won the culture victory already, is the closest to winning the science victory, is in a very strong position to attempt a military victory, and is still a solid player in the religious game (those Mormons are a resilient bunch!). That stuff didn't happen over the course of an afternoon. The USA has been a dominating force in global politics for at least the last 100 years and a major participant for the last 175. In game terms that's about half the game (since later eras pass slower). That's about as long as many of the sides in game have remained relevant rather than rising the slipping into obscurity.

Vahnstad said:
Recent leaders are way too controversial, and including them would mean you have to include Hitler or Stalin as well.
Click to expand...
... Why? We have Gandhi who is from the same time period as Hitler or Stalin and yet both of them are still not here. Speaking of Gandhi you'll note that America isn't led by MArtin Luther King Jr. or Carry A. Nation just because Firaxis can't let go of the tired old nuke jokes. Nothing about having a certain leader forces them to do anything.

Vahnstad said:
Eisenhower, JFK, FDR, Truman, Reagan, Bush and Nixon all have blood on their hands.
Click to expand...
Apart from Gandhi, I would like you to pick one leader on the entire list without blood on their hands. And even Gandhi did a lot of shady stuff (slept naked beside his nieces to test his strength of will, for instance).

Vahnstad said:
And if they really want one, well then add Obama and Trump for free. They were able to change America more than any other president in a time span of 100 years
Click to expand...
No. No they haven't.

As for a modern civ that really wouldn't benefit from multiple leaders, we have Brazil.
 
Last edited:
Americans 14 (17 - 3) America hasn't been around long enough to be in desperate need of a second leader. They're also bound to get one anyway.
Arabs 20
Aztecs 21
Brazilians 14
Chinese 23
Egyptians 22
English 21
French 27
Germans 21
Indians 27 (26 + 1) The obvious choice.
Japanese 20
Kongolese 17
Norwegians 8
Nubians 17
Persians 22
Poles 21
Romans 21
Russians 20
Spanish 20
Sumerians 22
 
Americans 14
Arabs 20
Aztecs 22 (21 + 1) The Aztecs' civ abilities position them well to be a rare warmongering civ that focuses not on conquest but on gaining tribute, glory and captives. Montezuma's ability undermines this somewhat by focusing on supporting large numbers of cities and rewarding owning luxury tiles, so I'm interested to see how a different leader could support this more nuanced focus.
Brazilians 14
Chinese 23
Egyptians 22
English 21
French 27
Germans 21
Indians 27
Japanese 20
Kongolese 17
Norwegians 8
Nubians 14 (17 - 3) The fact that a lot of the Nubian Pyramids' power comes from Amanitore's ability rather than their inherent traits would make designing and balancing an alternate leader somewhat more challenging.
Persians 22
Poles 21
Romans 21
Russians 20
Spanish 20
Sumerians 22
 
Americans 14
Arabs 20+1=21 so many wonderful choices and variations of capital
Aztecs 22
Brazilians 14
Chinese 23
Egyptians 22
English 21
French 27 can you imagine having just Napoleon and Catherine as leaders of France? That means we're going to have two Italians leading the french ( Corsican is more related to the Tuscan dialect in Italy and to Sardinian than to french):lol::lol:
Germans 21
Indians 27
Japanese 20
Kongolese 17
Norwegians 8
Nubians 14
Persians 22
Poles 21-3=18 I don't think another leader for Poland is that necessary at the moment
Romans 21
Russians 20
Spanish 20
Sumerians 22
 
Americans 14
Arabs 21
Aztecs 22
Brazilians 14
Chinese 24 (23+1) (Could still need a few more points so it can end with a good position.)
Egyptians 22
English 21
French 27
Germans 21
Indians 27
Japanese 20
Kongolese 17
Norwegians 5 (8-3) (Could as well be called the Vikings or Denmark as it is basically the same as these was in the older games and a leader change wont change that.)
Nubians 14
Persians 22
Poles 18
Romans 21
Russians 20
Spanish 20
Sumerians 22
 
Americans 14
Arabs 21
Aztecs 22
Brazilians 14
Chinese 24
Egyptians 22
English 21
French 27
Germans 21
Indians 27 + 1 = 28 An Indian leader can not wait
Japanese 20
Kongolese 17
Norwegians 5 - 3 = 2 A Norwegian leader can wait
Nubians 14
Persians 22
Poles 18
Romans 21
Russians 20
Spanish 20
Sumerians 22
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
New/Alternate Leaders from In-Game Civs
Replies
5
Views
858
socratic
S
Krajzen
Mods which you'd like to see in the future
Replies
14
Views
864
infiniterocks
I
RedCourtJester
Antiquity Civs as Regional "Wellfonts"
2 3 4
Replies
74
Views
4K
Alexander's Hetaroi
Alexander's Hetaroi
G
Civ and Leader Idea: Joseon + Sejong the Great + Admiral Yi Sunsin
Replies
2
Views
731
Zaarin
Zaarin
G
Civ and Leader Idea: Goryeo + Wang Geon
Replies
1
Views
573
gdr_willter
G
Back
Top Bottom