First Look: Lakshmibai

[Krikkit1]

Once you pick a CS bonus, you just have it. It's not tied to whether the original CS still exist or not. The exception is the effects that count CSes for scale (+1 combat strength per CS etc).

That’s what they were talking about.

 

[gbw]

whina cooper is seemingly soon to be added and she died in 1994, so she’ll be the new most recent leader

If you take her, plus Tubman, I think you'll see what the trend is there as I was referencing "problematic" leaders in my original post. Whina Cooper is an extremely niche selection, and as I was saying you've got a plethora of modern leaders that aren't being implemented. A history game that ignores Vietnam and Korea (to be US centric), World War 1 and WW2 altogether, the scramble for Africa (to reference previous Civ games) just seems to be moving away from known historical leaders and conflicts in favor of a completely different direction. I think it'd be disingenuous to say this doesn't affect the playability and appeal of the game.

 

[wilcoxchar]

I'd personally rather play with "problematic" historical figures (I guess Lincoln is that?) than those I've never heard of.

A person not hearing about someone like Lakshmibai or Harriet Tubman isn't really a problem with anything except one's own biases when studying history. And hey, now that they're in Civ, you can hear about them. That's one of the great parts about historical games like Civilization, they can educate people on historical figures or civilizations they don't know about. Learning about history is fun, but learning about history through games is even more fun.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Cooper's an ok choice as a leader, if true. The leader philosophy for Civ7 generally tends to favour individuals of outstanding merit, who were also important to their people.

She fits that. As do Lakshmibai, Rizal, Franklin, Tubman, Confucius, etc, and so would leaders such as Gandhi, Jeanne d'Arc and Nelson Mandela.

The only bad choices are the ones that aren't symbolic nor iconic, and also did not lead 'people' (nations, armies, rebellions, movements) or had tangible political influence during their lifetime. The type of leader that makes you think "this should have been a Great Person". Civ7 has three: Machiavelli, Battuta and Lovelace. They can exist as free agents in their field, sure, so long as they're not the ONLY representation of their people.

 

[j51]

Cooper's an ok choice as a leader, if true. The leader philosophy for Civ7 generally tends to favour individuals of outstanding merit, who were also important to their people.

She fits that. As do Lakshmibai, Rizal, Franklin, Tubman, Confucius, etc, and so would leaders such as Gandhi, Jeanne d'Arc and Nelson Mandela.

The only bad choices are the ones that aren't symbolic nor iconic, and also did not lead 'people' (nations, armies, rebellions, movements) or had tangible political influence during their lifetime. The type of leader that makes you think "this should have been a Great Person". Civ7 has three: Machiavelli, Battuta and Lovelace. They can exist as free agents in their field, sure, so long as they're not the ONLY representation of their people.

And Machiavelli and Ibn Battuta at least wrote about politics and acted as political advisors/administrators in some capacity.

 

[Lord Lakely]

The leader choices are not why the game is losing money, as you very well know.

 

[j51]

I’m gonna just jump in here and make this another thread about civ switching: what do y’all feel about it? Is it the end of civ as we know it, or a brilliant idea whose time has come? No in between positions please.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

What is important about her?

 

[Ryansinbela]

What is important about her?

Led a rebellion against Britain and is a pretty popular figure in India

And Machiavelli and Ibn Battuta at least wrote about politics and acted as political advisors/administrators in some capacity.

I should be more mad about Ada but her greeting line is funny and so I have no grievances
What a nerd

 

[Leucarum]

She's honestly comparable to Boudicca's inclusion in previous Civ games when you stop and think about it...

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Led a rebellion against Britain and is a pretty popular figure in India

There needs to be Lord Palmerston as playable leader to meet her.

 

[gbw]

A person not hearing about someone like Lakshmibai or Harriet Tubman isn't really a problem with anything except one's own biases when studying history. And hey, now that they're in Civ, you can hear about them. That's one of the great parts about historical games like Civilization, they can educate people on historical figures or civilizations they don't know about. Learning about history is fun, but learning about history through games is even more fun.

Inferring that not knowing Lakshmibai or Whina Cooper is a bias of studying history versus recognizing the national or global impact of the leader seems like a disingenuous assertion. The point is that despite how you personally feel about the leader selection (maybe you have a Whina Cooper portrait at home), a very high percentage of Civ players (let's say 90%+) will have no idea who that is. It is indeed fun to learn about history, that's why many of us got hooked on Civ in the first place, we love the merging of education / gaming.

Here's my point and where I respectfully disagree with @Lord Lakely , leader choices do indeed impact the sales and playability of the game. I said this in a different thread a while back about a key element missing from Civ 7, and that's scenarios. The WW1 and WW2 scenarios from previous iterations were some of the best. Having a game about history that specifically ignores major conflicts and leaders from the last 150 years seems like an odd direction to steer the franchise. With each new leader, it seems they are intentionally not going for the recognizable / popular / classic selections. Whether you like or dislike it, that seems evident.

 

[Leucarum]

The WW1 and WW2 scenarios from previous iterations were some of the best

Civ 3 probably was the last edition with fun scenarios though... Been downhill for them since then.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

A history game that ignores Vietnam and Korea (to be US centric), World War 1 and WW2 altogether, the scramble for Africa (to reference previous Civ games) just seems to be moving away from known historical leaders and conflicts in favor of a completely different direction. I think it'd be disingenuous to say this doesn't affect the playability and appeal of the game.

While there aren't any leaders from WWII, the civ roster, their unique abilities/units, and the mechanics of the Modern Age in general heavily reference it, and the inclusion of Buganda feels pretty on par with the attention VI and V paid to the Scramble for Africa outside of scenarios, with Ethiopia and the Zulu having to wait for DLC and the former's base game Kongo being based on an earlier time period. I'd also note that both V and VI only got Korea through later DLC and only VI ever got Vietnam, and that both civs exclusively received leaders not associated with the Korean War; the only World War II leaders between both games (as far as I know) are VI's John Curtain of Australia and Wilhelmina of the Netherlands. If there are periods in which Civ VII is failing to portray famous conflicts compared to its predecessors, I don't think that they're the ones you've listed.

 

[Bug Repellent]

The leader choices are not why the game is losing money, as you very well know.

Of course it is one of the reasons and I just don't understand why so many here seem to think customer familiarity isn't something that exists. If someone opens a Bulgarian restaurant in a small rural area of say, Korea, what is the likelihood of this restaurant to do well?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Well, if that's the case, it will hopefully make the devs feel better when they collect unemployment checks. "The game is a commercial flop, we lost our jobs, shareholders lost money, but at least we educated the masses that didn't buy the game about minor outstanding individuals almost nobody heard of." Does Firaxis really think people will line up to buy $30 DLCs centered around *checks notes* Whina Cooper? I used to joke they'll launch Greta Thunberg in Civ7, but now, I think they might just be crazy enough to do it. Apparently there's a 2022 movie about Whina Cooper. It was the fifth movie at the box office in her native New Zealand the weekend it launched. But don't worry, I'm sure Firaxis will sell a million DLCs worldwide in 24 hours with her. Whoever is in charge at Firaxis making these decisions is utterly insane and I feel really, really sorry for the devs that have to worry about paying a mortgage or childcare.

every iteration of this game, civ releases leaders and civs that are not as well known/representative of civs which some people will know less about

*you* might not know much about whina cooper, but she is one of the most important maori figures, and very important in new zealand history.

A lot of civs which aren’t the biggest most famous ones will have to have leader selections that are less famous—the maori are ostensibly one of them. Even though I’d argue that just because you aren’t familiar with Whina Cooper, it doesn’t make her not a worthwhile leader pick, I’d argue argue it makes sense that the Maori leader they choose is a bit less famous. She’s a huge upgrade on Kupe, who might not have even existed.

1.5 billion people or more are taught about the Rani of Jhansi in school every year. Hell, I was taught about the Rani of Jhansi in *American High School* History Class.

These are not obscure people, you just don’t know about them

a leader or civ choice that affects the game sales would be excluding a major civ altogether. not including 1-2 you haven’t heard of.

Civ 6 has plenty of leaders who aren’t that well known or ubiquitously taught about in schools worldwide—Tamar, Seondeok, Jadwiga, Mvemba a Nzinga, Wilfred Laurier, John Curtin, Hojo Tokimune, Gitarja—and not only did it sell the best of any civ game of all time, but now no one would bat an eye at the inclusion of these leaders because now they know who they are. “this leader shouldn’t be in because i haven’t heard of them” is ultimately a skill issue.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Of course it is one of the reasons and I just don't understand why so many here seem to think customer familiarity isn't something that exists. If someone opens a Bulgarian restaurant in a small rural area of say, Korea, what is the likelihood of this restaurant to do well?

More than half of the leaders in the game are returning faces which all deserve to be there. I feel like those leaders are taken too much for granted as well - Friedrich II is one of the best German monarchs to ever live, as are Catherine the Great for Russia, Ashoka for India, Hatshepsut for Egypt, Napoleon for France. Charlemagne is an absolute bombshell of a choice. Anyone who complains about the line-up inherently also dismisses these great leaders, and they are absolutely pulling their weight.

Of course we're missing Gandhi, Montezuma, Alexander, Elizabeth, etc, right. But you also have to refresh the line-up from time to time. Old faces have to be rotated out for new ones. England for instance has never had a male monarch as a leader in Civ (I am what can be called 'fairly liberal and feminist', and I would 100% have prefered Alfred the Great or Edward II over Ada Lovelace). There's only so much mileage you can get out of a Montezuma or a Gandhi.

Line-ups have to be renewed, and where you get these new ideas? By studying the history of the Civs you're planning to include, and pick leaders important to them. We as humans have a live-long duty to study, to learn and to stay informed. Learning new things about history from a game with a strong historical flavour isn't a bad thing. All you need to do is open your mind a little, and be receptive to the idea that the world is bigger than any of us, and challenging our view of the world around us makes us grow as people.

ofc, Civ7 made the error of changing too many fundamentals, and doing it in a worse way than previous Civ games. It is regressive in that way, but I don't think the leader line-up is indicative of that. Civs of the past also had a few 'out there' choices like that: Nobunaga & Tokimune for Japan, Wu Zetian for China, Harun al-Rashid for Arabia, Dido for Carthage, Basil II for Byzantium, etc. None of these leaders were Big Names when they were first introduced into their respective line-ups but we've all grown to appreciate them in time.

As far as the restaurant is concerned - well, a Korean Restaurant would find success in Bulgaria, if placed in a major city, for the novelty factor of it alone. The other way around, well, a full restaurant may not, but a Bulgarian streetfood stand selling grilled meat, dyuner and fries topped with feta could get a decent turnover. Crazier things have happened.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

England for instance has never had a male monarch as a leader in Civ (I am what can be called 'fairly liberal and feminist', and I would 100% have prefered Alfred the Great or Edward II over Ada Lovelace).

I believe that Henry VIII was a leader in Civ 2, but that was a long time ago and they gave every civ a male and female leader. The most recent male leader for them was Winston Churchill in Civ 4.

As far as Lakshmibai goes, she's fine as a leader and would have even worked for India in previous games. Pretty sure she was a Great General in Civ 6, so surprised she's not as well known?

I'm iffy on Whina Cooper. It has nothing to do with her being not well known, but I feel like she'd be too recent. If there is a female Polynesian leader, then Liliuokalani is right there as a better choice.

 

[bengalryan9]

Honestly I've always found these "does so-and-so deserve to be in the game" discussions to be one of the worst parts of the civ community, and that goes back through several installments of the game. There's almost always this weird undertone to these arguments.

 

[AddAdamSmith]

I agree that the leaders are not historically significant enough. The roster is full of “political” leaders such as Augustus who are barely a footnote in economic history.

Meanwhile, pillars of human advancement such as Adam Smith and Sir Robert Peel are nowhere to be seen.