Lord Lakely
Idea Fountain
Civ Switching has been a controversial topic on these boards. If you've read my posts on the matter, you know where I stand: I like them, and think they're interesting.
But I also feel like the pure sandbox nature of the Switches undercut their purpose. You can build your own custom Civ, yes, that's good on you? Strategically this means you're not adapting yourself to the game, but rather mold the game to your will, and that eventually becomes stale.
For others, the Civ switching is an outright no because it's too jarring.
With that in mind, I tried to chart what Civs and what leaders should be added to the roster next, in order to rope in as many sceptical players as possible. Civ Switching and Age Transitions are here to stay, so what can we do to make the less of a cold ice bath? We frame the journey from Antiquity to Modern as much as a straight line as possible, so that the natural evolution of your Civ feels as historically accurate as possible.
There are two approaches you can take here: You can either start with the Antiquity civs and work your way forward, or you can start from the perpective of the already present Leaders. I chose the latter because I feel like it's easier to track, but also easier to solve what we need to add:
An example using Ada Lovelace:
As you can see, I've tried to figure out two Civs per era for each leader that they could theoretically lead in this game. The intent is pick Civs that are both as historically accurate and mechanically realistic as possible for that leader to be leading. If there's a clear option in Antiquity, then that leader should ALWAYS start as that Civ with no alternative.
The Suggestion: The addition of a gameplay mode that more or less sets you on a fixed and historical path.
When selecting your leader, you pick their path in advance out of the historical options available (again, currently limited to two for simplicity's sake, but some leaders are clearly going to have more than two options). The default paths (as prefered by the AI) are shown in Gold. The most historically accurate Civ available to the Leader is shown in Blue. Any Civs on the chart that are currently NOT in the game are bolded. Yes, I reserve the right to add Civs that currently don't exist as I see fit.
The idea is that duplicate Civs CAN happen but should be avoided if possible. This means that in white won't be chosen by the AI, but are available to the player upon Era Transition/at Game Creation. However, I will try to look for a unique default path for every leader if possible. (Persona's are not taken into account for this.)
I'll now go over the observations I made, in small increments:
Ada => Charlemagne:
Ada Lovelace:
As the standard British leader, I believe Ada's default path should be whatever is the most historically accurate for Britain. Rome VERY heavily influenced British history, and should be their default option in Antiquity. The only Civ that could challenge that are the somewhat dubious choice of the Iceni, and I'd rather have Gaul as the antiquity Celts. Normans, as the stand-in Frenglish Civ is the choice for Exploration. Great Britain, which is Ada's native Civ is her choice in Modern.
Britain should have a Celtic or Germanic option available in Antiquity to evolve from. I chose the Old Norse as this leads well into both the Norman Civ and historical state of the Danelaw, and I think they're worthier than the Iceni. Scotland is a Celtic option for Exploration, as the second country of the United Kingdom. I imagine Scotland as being science themed, and therefore of interest to Lovelace (in character). America is offered as an alternative to Lovelace due to Britain's ties to it and their industrious nature.
Amina:
Amina lacks a valid Antiquity option. Aksum, Carthage and Egypt are too far away from Nigeria. Instead, I've opted to suggest Ghana/Wagadu as the default starting option for Amina, with it being the ONLY option she has in Antiquity. In Exploration, the Hausa are added to give Amina her native Civ, while retaining the Songhai as an alternative. Mali or Benin could also work, the most important part is that Amina has two options that she could somewhat fit. With SOME reluctance, I'm keeping Buganda as an alternative in Modern as its abilities suit Amina and I have no idea who else could be leading them. I added a West African Civ for Modern though. I chose Dahomey because Gbetos, but Ashanti and Sokoto would also work well.
Ashoka:
Ashoka's antiquity is easy: he should only play Maurya. Chola are currently the only Indian choice in Exploration, but I feel like India needs a secondary option in every Era to really underline its ethnic diversity. Especially since that Ashoka will compete with Lakshmibai for the same Civs. For this reason, I've added the Gurjara dynasty in Exploration as an alternative option (which will be the default pick for Lakshmibai), while retaining Chola as the default Ashoka pick. In Modern, Ashoka defaults to Nepal due to a lack of better alternatives.
Augustus:
Like Ashoka, Augustus should only lead his Native Civ in Antiquity. The natural continuation of the Roman Empire in Exploration is Byzantium, so I'm adding that Civ to the roster. Out of the other Euro options, Spain's colonialism is the best fit for Augustus, so it can remain as an Alt.
Augustus is given the choice between Great Britain and France in Modern. He favours Britain due to the larger amount of leaders associated with France.
Ben Franklin:
As an American Scientist, Ben Franklin's path should mirror that of Ada Lovelace. Like Ada, he defaults to Rome in Antiquity, and given the Old Norse as an alternative. In Exploration, I've set Scotland as the default Exploration Civ to avoid direct association with the English. In Modern, Frankin -obviously- leads America, but those interested in a what-if scenario still have the option to crown him king of Great Britain instead.
Catherine:
Greece and Persia are perfectly viable starting points for the Russian line for the moment being, so they are retained in Antiquity, with Catherine prefering Greece. In Exploration, Bulgaria is retained as an alternative option, and the Kievan Rus' are added as the default choice. Kievan Rus' aren't a necessity though, and their role can be taken by Byzantium.
In modern, Catherine leads Russia, but Prussia is offered as an alternative due to Catherine's own German heritage.
Charlemagne:
As the founder of both France and Germany, Charlemagne is given the option betwene both throughout all ages. In Antiquity, Goths and Gauls are added to provide an alternative start to those lines. Likewise, Charlemagne is given two new options in Exploration: his native Franks, and the Teutons who stand in for the HRE. The Modern Age already has Prussia and France. Since he was more of a French King than a German one, Charlemagne favours the French lines in all three ages.
Confucius => Himiko
Confucius:
Kong is another easy leader. There is zero reason for him to lead anything other than Han in Antiquity. Ming and Qing are retained as the default choices in Exploration and Modern.
He's given Joseon as an alternative in Exploration due to the strength of Confucian philosophy in Korea at the time, and it's a better fit for him than Mongolia is. (Majapahit also works). Meiji is offered as the alternative in Modern due to a lack of better options, since it at least has some Science flavour.
Friedrich:
I've added the Goths for Charlemagne, so Friedrich also gets to play them as his default option. Rome is retained as an alternative for the synergies Legions have with Friedrich. In Exploration, the Teutonic/HRE Civ I added for Charlemagne becomes Friedrich's default faction, and naturally, Prussia is the main choice in Modern.
Due to his love for Francophilia, Friedrich is given the Normans and French Empire as alternative choices.
Genghis Khan:
Genghis is listed as prefering Assyria and Persia in Antiquity and I follow that suggestion, defaulting to the more war-like Persians. In Exploration, Mongolia is the default option, and its Chinese successor Qing is the default choice in Modern.
Genghis's descendants conquered the Abbasids and ruled the Mughals, making them the Alternatives for Exploration and Modern.
Harriet Tubman:
As an American of African origins, Harriet defaults to America and West-African civs. In-game Harriet tends to lead African Civs due to her ancestry, and I find that an acceptable justification to give her alternatives in Aksum, Hausa and Buganda.
Hatshepsut:
As a pharaoh, Hatshepsut should ALWAYS start with Egypt. Abbasids are retained in Exploration as their empire included Egypt. Misr is the Modern equivalent to Egypt, and is added to the roster to suit her line.
Hatshepsut's alternative options are the north african Berbers and Moroccans, who were both added for Ibn Battuta. Their mercantile nature should be compatible with Hattie.
Himiko:
Let me be very clear here: Japan SHOULD have three incarnations per Era, just like China and India. It doesn't matter whether the Antiquity incarnation is Heian Japan or Yamatai - it should be the ONLY Civ Himiko can lead in Antiquity.
In Exploration, one of the Shogunates (ideally Edo or Kamakura) should be added to give Himiko her default option, while she obviously defaults to Meiji in Modern.
As for the alternatives: I believe Majapahit and Siam are the most complimentary options in the region (i would NEVER be daft enough to assign Himiko to Korea OR China.)
Ibn Battuta => Machiavelli
Ibn Battuta:
Battuta was a berber from present-day Morocco, so I think the best options for him are simply adding a North-African Civ to Exploration and Modern that he can lead in person. I chose the Berber Confederacy and Morocco, but there are options here. Carthage is the Civ the closest to Battuta's homelands and compliments him well, so that's the default in Antiquity.
To underline Battuta's status as a wildcard leader, I've decided to RANDOMIZE his alternative Civ. Picking Battuta can result in some wild games, which I think is fun for the player (and also contained to only ONE leader).
Isabella:
Isabella's mercantile and maritime nature is best complimented by Carthage, which has many outposts on the Iberian continent. Greece, which also had a lot of outposts in Spain is the alternative in Antiquity. Isabella favours Spain, but Normans (as the stand-in for England) is offered as an alternative. In modern, I feel like French Empire is probably where Isabella wants to be the most after her colonial spree, but players can also pick Spain's former colony Mexico as an option.
José Rizal:
José Rizal is a leader who is hard to assign. Civ 7 lacks a Filippino Civ, so I would advocate for adding one to the Modern age for him to lead. There's no one in the current Leader roster suitable for Hawaii, so he can stand in as the Pacific leader for the moment being. There's also no Korean leader, and somebody has to lead Silla. I'm offering Khmer and Majapahit as alternatives.
Lafayette:
As a leader for both France and America, Lafayette's trajectory should intersect both, but favour France. As such his default choices are Gaul, Normans and French. His alternative choices are Rome, Franks and America which make the most sense as secondary Civs for him to lead imo.
Lakshmibai:
She currently hasn't been released yet, but that doesn't mean I cannot try to include her! Like I said, I think India should have two Civs per age, and I want the two Indians to follow different paths. The second Indian Civ for Antiquity should be the Gupta (who are already represented via Nalanda), and Lakshmibai should default to them in Antiquity, to contrast Ashoka's Maurya. Otherwise, Lakshmibai has the same options Ashoka has in Exploration and Modern, and defaults to the opposite Civs (my suggestion of Gurjara and already present Mughal Civ).
Machiavelli:
Machiavelli is another leader who doesn't really have a native option besides the very hotly contested Rome. Because of this, I went functional in Antiquity, which is in-line with Machiavelli's own pragmatic character - he defaults to leading Greece which better compliments his kit, but retains Rome as an option. In Exploration, well, the best option is simply adding an Italian Civ, and the same principle extends itself to Modern. I chose Venice and Sardinia-Piedmont, who'd have an Economic and Diplomatic flavour respectively, both of which suit Machiavelli's playstyle. The Teutons are the alternative in Exploration (Machiavelli is from Florence, which was part of the HRE for a few centuries), and France is the alternative in Modern.
Napoleon => Xerxes
Napoleon:
As a Corsican of French origins, I think Napoleon should follow the Franco-Italian lines. In character, it makes more sense for Napoleon to be Rome first, and then a token Italian Civ in Exploration, for then to make the switch to French in Modern. The French Civs (Gaul and Franks) are given as alternatives in Antiquity and Exploration, while the token Italian Civ for Modern (here: Sardinia-Piedmont) is his alternative option for Modern.
Pachacuti:
A great example of a leader who needs better historical options, especially in Antiquty and Modern. Thus, I've decided to add the Nazca and Brazil, but any South-African Civ can do the trick. (the exact identity of the Civs is less important than the fact they EXIST.) I suppose Meso-America is the best possible alternative historically, mechanically and geographically, so Pachacuti retains those Civs as alternative options.
Simon Bolivar
Bolivar has more or less the same problem as Pachacuti, in that South America is too empty in its current state to accomodate two leaders. Meso-America needs a default leader for its Civs, so I'm assigning those to Bolivar (Maya, Mexico and the currently missing Aztec Civ).
Bolivar is retained as the alternate leader for the Incan Civ, and the two South American Civs I've added.
Tecumseh:
Fortunately for Tecumseh, Mississipians into Shawnee is a viable and historically accurate line, which is easy to retain. Mississipians should be the only Civ Tecumseh should lead in Antiquity, at least until a second NA Civ is added (Pueblo? Would they even agree to that?). What Tecumseh lacks is an alternative option in Exploration (neither Hawaii nor Inca fit), so I would advocate towards adding the Haudenosaunnee in Exploration, as a set up for a second NA leader. Tecumseh has no good Modern options, as both America and Mexico are trite. I would again simply add two NA Civs for Modern. I chose the Cherokee and the Lakota, with the latter as the Civ Tecumseh would default to.
Trung Trac:
Trung Trac's native Civ, Dai Viet, has now been added, which is great. Khmer and Siam do not have a default leader on my spreadsheet, and Trung is the least historically offensive options available. Given Trung Trac's history of resisting Chinese rule, I figured it would be fun to have the Chinese line as her alternative.
Xerxes
Xerxes is Persian and thus should ONLY lead Persia in Antiquity. Persia fortunately has indirect continuity across all three ages in the form of Abbasids and (soon to be added) Qajars. Mughal is retained as an alternative in Modern due to their Persian roots, while Mongolia horse-powered conquest really plays into Xerxes's playstyle.
So, with all of this broken down, I've more or less established where I believe new Civs and Leaders will have to be added for optimised continuity. Breaking it down per Age in order of urgency: (Suggested Civs in brackets)
Leaders are bit more nebulous, but I've kept track of which Civs don't have a clearly associated leader yet. These are:
If you frame it like this, it becomes clearer to see which Leader profiles you're looking for. Songhai and Mississipians are near the bottom of the priority list due to Amina and Tecumseh being acceptable options the way it is (until Hausa are added to Exploration.). Conversely, the existential HORROR of Greece being best represented by a Roman, a Tuscan and a Russian puts them near the top of the priority list.
So these would be my suggestions for new leaders to plug the already existing holes:
And then further down the line I'd like to see the following:
and of course none of this covers parts of the world that currently lack both Civs and Leaders: There's currently no Scandinavia, South Africa, Central Asia, etc. This was merely a topic on plugging the gaps in the current roster as effectively as possible, while maintaining a modicum of historical accuracy. I think I did okay? Is there anything you would add? I think it's worth discussing, collectively as a group, and then coming up with a general solution/suggestion.
But I also feel like the pure sandbox nature of the Switches undercut their purpose. You can build your own custom Civ, yes, that's good on you? Strategically this means you're not adapting yourself to the game, but rather mold the game to your will, and that eventually becomes stale.
For others, the Civ switching is an outright no because it's too jarring.
With that in mind, I tried to chart what Civs and what leaders should be added to the roster next, in order to rope in as many sceptical players as possible. Civ Switching and Age Transitions are here to stay, so what can we do to make the less of a cold ice bath? We frame the journey from Antiquity to Modern as much as a straight line as possible, so that the natural evolution of your Civ feels as historically accurate as possible.
There are two approaches you can take here: You can either start with the Antiquity civs and work your way forward, or you can start from the perpective of the already present Leaders. I chose the latter because I feel like it's easier to track, but also easier to solve what we need to add:
An example using Ada Lovelace:
As you can see, I've tried to figure out two Civs per era for each leader that they could theoretically lead in this game. The intent is pick Civs that are both as historically accurate and mechanically realistic as possible for that leader to be leading. If there's a clear option in Antiquity, then that leader should ALWAYS start as that Civ with no alternative.
The Suggestion: The addition of a gameplay mode that more or less sets you on a fixed and historical path.
When selecting your leader, you pick their path in advance out of the historical options available (again, currently limited to two for simplicity's sake, but some leaders are clearly going to have more than two options). The default paths (as prefered by the AI) are shown in Gold. The most historically accurate Civ available to the Leader is shown in Blue. Any Civs on the chart that are currently NOT in the game are bolded. Yes, I reserve the right to add Civs that currently don't exist as I see fit.
The idea is that duplicate Civs CAN happen but should be avoided if possible. This means that in white won't be chosen by the AI, but are available to the player upon Era Transition/at Game Creation. However, I will try to look for a unique default path for every leader if possible. (Persona's are not taken into account for this.)
I'll now go over the observations I made, in small increments:
Ada => Charlemagne:
Ada Lovelace:
As the standard British leader, I believe Ada's default path should be whatever is the most historically accurate for Britain. Rome VERY heavily influenced British history, and should be their default option in Antiquity. The only Civ that could challenge that are the somewhat dubious choice of the Iceni, and I'd rather have Gaul as the antiquity Celts. Normans, as the stand-in Frenglish Civ is the choice for Exploration. Great Britain, which is Ada's native Civ is her choice in Modern.
Britain should have a Celtic or Germanic option available in Antiquity to evolve from. I chose the Old Norse as this leads well into both the Norman Civ and historical state of the Danelaw, and I think they're worthier than the Iceni. Scotland is a Celtic option for Exploration, as the second country of the United Kingdom. I imagine Scotland as being science themed, and therefore of interest to Lovelace (in character). America is offered as an alternative to Lovelace due to Britain's ties to it and their industrious nature.
Amina:
Amina lacks a valid Antiquity option. Aksum, Carthage and Egypt are too far away from Nigeria. Instead, I've opted to suggest Ghana/Wagadu as the default starting option for Amina, with it being the ONLY option she has in Antiquity. In Exploration, the Hausa are added to give Amina her native Civ, while retaining the Songhai as an alternative. Mali or Benin could also work, the most important part is that Amina has two options that she could somewhat fit. With SOME reluctance, I'm keeping Buganda as an alternative in Modern as its abilities suit Amina and I have no idea who else could be leading them. I added a West African Civ for Modern though. I chose Dahomey because Gbetos, but Ashanti and Sokoto would also work well.
Ashoka:
Ashoka's antiquity is easy: he should only play Maurya. Chola are currently the only Indian choice in Exploration, but I feel like India needs a secondary option in every Era to really underline its ethnic diversity. Especially since that Ashoka will compete with Lakshmibai for the same Civs. For this reason, I've added the Gurjara dynasty in Exploration as an alternative option (which will be the default pick for Lakshmibai), while retaining Chola as the default Ashoka pick. In Modern, Ashoka defaults to Nepal due to a lack of better alternatives.
Augustus:
Like Ashoka, Augustus should only lead his Native Civ in Antiquity. The natural continuation of the Roman Empire in Exploration is Byzantium, so I'm adding that Civ to the roster. Out of the other Euro options, Spain's colonialism is the best fit for Augustus, so it can remain as an Alt.
Augustus is given the choice between Great Britain and France in Modern. He favours Britain due to the larger amount of leaders associated with France.
Ben Franklin:
As an American Scientist, Ben Franklin's path should mirror that of Ada Lovelace. Like Ada, he defaults to Rome in Antiquity, and given the Old Norse as an alternative. In Exploration, I've set Scotland as the default Exploration Civ to avoid direct association with the English. In Modern, Frankin -obviously- leads America, but those interested in a what-if scenario still have the option to crown him king of Great Britain instead.
Catherine:
Greece and Persia are perfectly viable starting points for the Russian line for the moment being, so they are retained in Antiquity, with Catherine prefering Greece. In Exploration, Bulgaria is retained as an alternative option, and the Kievan Rus' are added as the default choice. Kievan Rus' aren't a necessity though, and their role can be taken by Byzantium.
In modern, Catherine leads Russia, but Prussia is offered as an alternative due to Catherine's own German heritage.
Charlemagne:
As the founder of both France and Germany, Charlemagne is given the option betwene both throughout all ages. In Antiquity, Goths and Gauls are added to provide an alternative start to those lines. Likewise, Charlemagne is given two new options in Exploration: his native Franks, and the Teutons who stand in for the HRE. The Modern Age already has Prussia and France. Since he was more of a French King than a German one, Charlemagne favours the French lines in all three ages.
Confucius => Himiko
Confucius:
Kong is another easy leader. There is zero reason for him to lead anything other than Han in Antiquity. Ming and Qing are retained as the default choices in Exploration and Modern.
He's given Joseon as an alternative in Exploration due to the strength of Confucian philosophy in Korea at the time, and it's a better fit for him than Mongolia is. (Majapahit also works). Meiji is offered as the alternative in Modern due to a lack of better options, since it at least has some Science flavour.
Friedrich:
I've added the Goths for Charlemagne, so Friedrich also gets to play them as his default option. Rome is retained as an alternative for the synergies Legions have with Friedrich. In Exploration, the Teutonic/HRE Civ I added for Charlemagne becomes Friedrich's default faction, and naturally, Prussia is the main choice in Modern.
Due to his love for Francophilia, Friedrich is given the Normans and French Empire as alternative choices.
Genghis Khan:
Genghis is listed as prefering Assyria and Persia in Antiquity and I follow that suggestion, defaulting to the more war-like Persians. In Exploration, Mongolia is the default option, and its Chinese successor Qing is the default choice in Modern.
Genghis's descendants conquered the Abbasids and ruled the Mughals, making them the Alternatives for Exploration and Modern.
Harriet Tubman:
As an American of African origins, Harriet defaults to America and West-African civs. In-game Harriet tends to lead African Civs due to her ancestry, and I find that an acceptable justification to give her alternatives in Aksum, Hausa and Buganda.
Hatshepsut:
As a pharaoh, Hatshepsut should ALWAYS start with Egypt. Abbasids are retained in Exploration as their empire included Egypt. Misr is the Modern equivalent to Egypt, and is added to the roster to suit her line.
Hatshepsut's alternative options are the north african Berbers and Moroccans, who were both added for Ibn Battuta. Their mercantile nature should be compatible with Hattie.
Himiko:
Let me be very clear here: Japan SHOULD have three incarnations per Era, just like China and India. It doesn't matter whether the Antiquity incarnation is Heian Japan or Yamatai - it should be the ONLY Civ Himiko can lead in Antiquity.
In Exploration, one of the Shogunates (ideally Edo or Kamakura) should be added to give Himiko her default option, while she obviously defaults to Meiji in Modern.
As for the alternatives: I believe Majapahit and Siam are the most complimentary options in the region (i would NEVER be daft enough to assign Himiko to Korea OR China.)
Ibn Battuta => Machiavelli
Ibn Battuta:
Battuta was a berber from present-day Morocco, so I think the best options for him are simply adding a North-African Civ to Exploration and Modern that he can lead in person. I chose the Berber Confederacy and Morocco, but there are options here. Carthage is the Civ the closest to Battuta's homelands and compliments him well, so that's the default in Antiquity.
To underline Battuta's status as a wildcard leader, I've decided to RANDOMIZE his alternative Civ. Picking Battuta can result in some wild games, which I think is fun for the player (and also contained to only ONE leader).
Isabella:
Isabella's mercantile and maritime nature is best complimented by Carthage, which has many outposts on the Iberian continent. Greece, which also had a lot of outposts in Spain is the alternative in Antiquity. Isabella favours Spain, but Normans (as the stand-in for England) is offered as an alternative. In modern, I feel like French Empire is probably where Isabella wants to be the most after her colonial spree, but players can also pick Spain's former colony Mexico as an option.
José Rizal:
José Rizal is a leader who is hard to assign. Civ 7 lacks a Filippino Civ, so I would advocate for adding one to the Modern age for him to lead. There's no one in the current Leader roster suitable for Hawaii, so he can stand in as the Pacific leader for the moment being. There's also no Korean leader, and somebody has to lead Silla. I'm offering Khmer and Majapahit as alternatives.
Lafayette:
As a leader for both France and America, Lafayette's trajectory should intersect both, but favour France. As such his default choices are Gaul, Normans and French. His alternative choices are Rome, Franks and America which make the most sense as secondary Civs for him to lead imo.
Lakshmibai:
She currently hasn't been released yet, but that doesn't mean I cannot try to include her! Like I said, I think India should have two Civs per age, and I want the two Indians to follow different paths. The second Indian Civ for Antiquity should be the Gupta (who are already represented via Nalanda), and Lakshmibai should default to them in Antiquity, to contrast Ashoka's Maurya. Otherwise, Lakshmibai has the same options Ashoka has in Exploration and Modern, and defaults to the opposite Civs (my suggestion of Gurjara and already present Mughal Civ).
Machiavelli:
Machiavelli is another leader who doesn't really have a native option besides the very hotly contested Rome. Because of this, I went functional in Antiquity, which is in-line with Machiavelli's own pragmatic character - he defaults to leading Greece which better compliments his kit, but retains Rome as an option. In Exploration, well, the best option is simply adding an Italian Civ, and the same principle extends itself to Modern. I chose Venice and Sardinia-Piedmont, who'd have an Economic and Diplomatic flavour respectively, both of which suit Machiavelli's playstyle. The Teutons are the alternative in Exploration (Machiavelli is from Florence, which was part of the HRE for a few centuries), and France is the alternative in Modern.
Napoleon => Xerxes
Napoleon:
As a Corsican of French origins, I think Napoleon should follow the Franco-Italian lines. In character, it makes more sense for Napoleon to be Rome first, and then a token Italian Civ in Exploration, for then to make the switch to French in Modern. The French Civs (Gaul and Franks) are given as alternatives in Antiquity and Exploration, while the token Italian Civ for Modern (here: Sardinia-Piedmont) is his alternative option for Modern.
Pachacuti:
A great example of a leader who needs better historical options, especially in Antiquty and Modern. Thus, I've decided to add the Nazca and Brazil, but any South-African Civ can do the trick. (the exact identity of the Civs is less important than the fact they EXIST.) I suppose Meso-America is the best possible alternative historically, mechanically and geographically, so Pachacuti retains those Civs as alternative options.
Simon Bolivar
Bolivar has more or less the same problem as Pachacuti, in that South America is too empty in its current state to accomodate two leaders. Meso-America needs a default leader for its Civs, so I'm assigning those to Bolivar (Maya, Mexico and the currently missing Aztec Civ).
Bolivar is retained as the alternate leader for the Incan Civ, and the two South American Civs I've added.
Tecumseh:
Fortunately for Tecumseh, Mississipians into Shawnee is a viable and historically accurate line, which is easy to retain. Mississipians should be the only Civ Tecumseh should lead in Antiquity, at least until a second NA Civ is added (Pueblo? Would they even agree to that?). What Tecumseh lacks is an alternative option in Exploration (neither Hawaii nor Inca fit), so I would advocate towards adding the Haudenosaunnee in Exploration, as a set up for a second NA leader. Tecumseh has no good Modern options, as both America and Mexico are trite. I would again simply add two NA Civs for Modern. I chose the Cherokee and the Lakota, with the latter as the Civ Tecumseh would default to.
Trung Trac:
Trung Trac's native Civ, Dai Viet, has now been added, which is great. Khmer and Siam do not have a default leader on my spreadsheet, and Trung is the least historically offensive options available. Given Trung Trac's history of resisting Chinese rule, I figured it would be fun to have the Chinese line as her alternative.
Xerxes
Xerxes is Persian and thus should ONLY lead Persia in Antiquity. Persia fortunately has indirect continuity across all three ages in the form of Abbasids and (soon to be added) Qajars. Mughal is retained as an alternative in Modern due to their Persian roots, while Mongolia horse-powered conquest really plays into Xerxes's playstyle.
So, with all of this broken down, I've more or less established where I believe new Civs and Leaders will have to be added for optimised continuity. Breaking it down per Age in order of urgency: (Suggested Civs in brackets)
- ANTIQUITY
- Germanics/Celts (Goths, Gaul, Old Norse): There's a glaring lack of Euro Options in Antiquity, with most Euro leaders defaulting to Rome.
- Polynesia (Tonga): Hawaii needs a starting point, and there are currently no Polynesian Civs besides Hawaii.
- Japan (Yamatai, Heian Japan): Japan should be a three-stage line.
- West Africa (Ghana or Numidia): Amina & Songhai need a starting point.
- South America (Nazca) Inca & Pachacuti need a starting point.
- Second Indian Civ (Gupta): Allows Ashoka and Lakshmibai to coexist more effectively.
- Scythia: This Civ can be used as a starting point for the Slavic Civs over Persia.
- EXPLORATION:
- Byzantium: Provides a secondary option for Augustus & Catherine. This Civ should be in the game regardless.
- Aztecs: We need an Exploration Civ between Maya and Mexico
- Germany & France (Franks, Teutons): provides secondary options to the myriad of Franco-Germanic leaders in the game
- East African Civ (Ethiopia, Makuria, Somalia): bridges the gap between Aksum and Buganda.
- Italy: (Venice, Tuscany, ...): Gives a native option to Machiavelli and a logical continuation for Rome/Greece.
- North-Africa (Berbers, Andalus): Gives a native option to Ibn Battuta and a logical continuation for Carthage.
- Shogunate Japan (Kamakura, Edo): Japan should be a three-stage line.
- Hausa: Gives a native option to Amina (lower priority because Songhai is at least in the correct part of the world)
- Second Indian Civ (Gurjara): Allows Ashoka and Lakshmibai to coexist more effectively
- Kievan Rus: Creates an intermediate stage between the Germanics and Russia
- Medieval Turks (Ottomans, Seljuk): The most historically impactful Civ that is currently fully absent from the game. Also provides a valid continuation for Assyria.
- Medieval Celts (Scotland, Ireland): bridges the gap between Gaul and Great Britain
- MODERN:
- North America: (Lakota, Cherokee): gives a logical conclusion to the Mississipians => Shawnee line.
- South America (Brazil, Gran Colombia): gives a valid Modern Age continuation to the Inca.
- West Africa: (Dahomey, Ashanti, Sokoto) Gives a valid Modern Age continuation of the Songhai, and potentially Hausa.
- Philippines (Sulu): Gives a native Civ to José Rizal
- Polynesia (Maori?): Concludes the Tonga => Hawaii line.
- Modern Egypt (Misr): the logical continuation of Egypt => Abbasids and the best option for Hatshepsut.
- Modern Turks (Ottomans, Turkey): the most historically impactful Civ that is currently fully abvsent from the game.
- Modern Italy (Two Sicilies, Sardinia-Piedmont): gives a follow-up to the Medieval Italian Civ.
- North Africa (Morocco): Can be a valid option for Ibn Battuta and Amina that is geograpgically closer to their homelands than their current default options (Buganda and Mughal).
Leaders are bit more nebulous, but I've kept track of which Civs don't have a clearly associated leader yet. These are:
- Abbasids (closest approximation is Xerxes)
- Aksum (closest approximation is Hatshepsut)
- Assyria (closest approximation is Xerxes)
- Bulgaria (closest approximation is Catherine the Great)
- Buganda (closest approximation is Hatshepsut)
- Carthage (closest approximation is Ibn Battuta)
- Greece (closest approximations are Augustus, Catherine and Machiavelli)
- Hawaii (closest approximation is José Rizal)
- Khmer (closest approximation is Trung Trac)
- Majapahit (Closest approximation is José Rizal)
- Maya (closest approximations are Tecumseh and Bolivar)
- Mexico (closest approximation is Simon Bolivar)
- Missisipians (closest approximation is Tecumseh)
- Nepal (closest approximation is Ashoka)
- Siam (closest approximation is Trung Trac)
- Songhai (closest approximation is Amina)
If you frame it like this, it becomes clearer to see which Leader profiles you're looking for. Songhai and Mississipians are near the bottom of the priority list due to Amina and Tecumseh being acceptable options the way it is (until Hausa are added to Exploration.). Conversely, the existential HORROR of Greece being best represented by a Roman, a Tuscan and a Russian puts them near the top of the priority list.
So these would be my suggestions for new leaders to plug the already existing holes:
- Alexander the Great: quintessential Greek leader, plugs a lot of holes in Antiquity and can stand in for Bulgaria until their leader is added to the game
- Muhammad Ali Pasha: was born in Greece, ruled Egypt and is of Albanian origin. This combination is the wide coverage we currently need for the leader roster: he can lead Greece, Egypt, Bulgaria and Abbasids no problem, and sets up a later Ottoman addition.
- Alternative: Tamerlane
- Zenobia: The game lacks a leader that would prioritize leading Assyria and the Abbasids, and Zenobia could cover both without needing to add her Civ. She was Aramaic, which is close enough association with Assyria to make her viable by proxy.
- Alternative: Sargon
- Whina Cooper: not my first choice for a Polynesian leader, but she has been datamined alongside Tonga and Maori, which would complete the Polynesian line. She's an acceptable choice (my personal gripe with her as a choice is that she's a bit too recent) so I'd like to see her added soon if she's still in development.
- Hannibal: Huge, recognisable name, gives a clear leader for the Middle East and North Africa, and an associated leader to Carthage.
- Taytu Betul: One of my favourite historical figures, and a great queen-consort for Ethiopia. She's a very in character choice for both Askum and Buganda.
- Alternative: Zara Yaqob
- Spearthrower Owl: Fits both Maya AND a potential Aztec civ, and the direct continuity into Mexico isn't too jarring.
And then further down the line I'd like to see the following:
- Bulgarian leader: Simeon the Great, Paisus of Hilendar, Tonka Obretenova, etc
- Alternative: Balkanic leader (Skanderbeg, Vlad Tepes)
- Arabian leader: Harun al-Rashid or Arwa al Sulayhi.
- Second SEA leader: Taksin the Great or Gaja Mada.
- Second NA leader: Who it is is less important, but it should be someone who contrasts Tecumseh both in personality and appearance. Jigonsahse? Sitting Bull?
- Phoenician or North African leader: Hannibal Barka or Sayyida al-Hurra
and of course none of this covers parts of the world that currently lack both Civs and Leaders: There's currently no Scandinavia, South Africa, Central Asia, etc. This was merely a topic on plugging the gaps in the current roster as effectively as possible, while maintaining a modicum of historical accuracy. I think I did okay? Is there anything you would add? I think it's worth discussing, collectively as a group, and then coming up with a general solution/suggestion.
)
