First Look: Lakshmibai

[Lord Lakely]

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.

I don't really count Civ 2's inanimate portraits as leaders, but sure. Henry VIII is one of those leaders that I think would fit very well within the Civ Canon as an animated figurehead, even if he's objectively a rancid choice. If you want to pick a man that represents the best of England, Edward II, his son the Black Prince or one of the better PMs (Pitt, Gladstone, Disraeli) would suffice.

I'm also on the fence about Cooper, and specifically due to her recency. I was alive when she died. She's not whom I would have picked as a Polynesian leader, nor that of the Maori specifically, but looking at it from the perspective of the Maori themselves and her own accomplishments, she's one of the candidates that stands out the most, recency or not.

One could argue that Blackbeard also a weird choice, picked based on infamy rather than accomplishment, but I've not seen many people argue against *that* one.

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.

Yeah, but is that a surprise? We all tend to be more receptive towards what we can relate to, and if we're absolutely unfamiliar with what we're being served, we base our first judgments on the shallowest criteria. It's not something we ought to be proud of (-it's more a defence mechanism than actual wisdom-), but that's how human nature tends to out sometimes.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Whina Cooper definitely leap-frogs the recency barrier for recent civ games, but relative to (Death Date - Inclusion Date), Mao Zedong (d. 1976 - included 1991) is the closest.

 

[bengalryan9]

Yeah, but is that a surprise? We all tend to be more receptive towards what we can relate to, and if we're absolutely unfamiliar with what we're being served, we base our first judgments on the shallowest criteria. It's not something we ought to be proud of (-it's more a defence mechanism than actual wisdom-), but that's how human nature tends to out sometimes.

Surprised? Not really. That said, I think if you can essentially admit a behavior is wrong and not something to be proud of then it's not that hard to just not do that particular behavior, you know?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't really count Civ 2's inanimate portraits as leaders, but sure. Henry VIII is one of those leaders that I think would fit very well within the Civ Canon as an animated figurehead, even if he's objectively a rancid choice. If you want to pick a man that represents the best of England, Edward II, his son the Black Prince or one of the better PMs (Pitt, Gladstone, Disraeli) would suffice.

I'd love to see some Anglo-Saxon king like Alfred or Aethelstan. Whether or not they count as actual English kings is debatable, but it would be something new.

One could argue that Blackbeard also a weird choice, picked based on infamy rather than accomplishment, but I've not seen many people argue against *that* one.

Because pirate leaders are fun?
I could see people be more receptive to a pirate leader, than a whole civ based around a small window of piracy in history.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

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.

agreed.

 

[Bug Repellent]

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.

Firaxis has a game with exceptionally low engagement at the moment. This is Twitch on a Friday afternoon in the US (30% of Civ7's market according to Gamalytic) or Friday evening in Europe (another 30% of its market):

There is not a single soul watching someone else play Civ7 in the entire world on Twitch.

Civ7 needs every help it can get to turn its fortunes around. The game cannot afford to bring civs/leaders that lack recognition in its major markets and you are being facetious claiming Lakshmibai is known in the US market when you know very well she isn't the case with the average citizen, ie, the potential customer. BTW, SteamDB says the game lost another 15% of its players from the month prior.

I'm actually quite frustrated to see so many of my fellow Civs fanatics not grasping the precarious state the game is in. If I put my investor hat on, it is obvious the game and Firaxis itself are just about circling the drain at the moment (hence the unfortunate and terrible layoffs). The game needs an intervention, since obviously everything that was done via patches since its release 8 months ago is NOT working.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Firaxis has a game with exceptionally low engagement at the moment. This is Twitch on a Friday afternoon in the US (30% of Civ7's market according to Gamalytic) or Friday evening in Europe (another 30% of its market):

View attachment 743598


There is not a single soul watching someone else play Civ7 in the entire world on Twitch.

Civ7 needs every help it can get to turn its fortunes around. The game cannot afford to bring civs/leaders that lack recognition in its major markets and you are being facetious claiming Lakshmibai is known in the US market when you know very well she isn't the case with the average citizen, ie, the potential customer. BTW, SteamDB says the game lost another 15% of its players from the month prior.

I'm actually quite frustrated to see so many of my fellow Civs fanatics not grasping the precarious state the game is in. If I put my investor hat on, it is obvious the game and Firaxis itself are just about circling the drain at the moment (hence the unfortunate and terrible layoffs). The game needs an intervention, since obviously everything that was done via patches since its release 8 months ago is NOT working.

a) if the game is bad, it’s bad. it’s suffering because it’s bad. no amount of famous leaders/civs is going to make ppl interact with it

b) “we should be expecting famous leaders cuz it’ll save the game” is not a good argument. the game is bad. it deserves to fail unless the devs make substantial changes to fix it. we should be demanding better, not wanting it to be saved just because it’s a civ game

if tomorrow they introduced dlc with alexander the great, gandhi, victoria, elizabeth, shaka zulu and tokugawa, it would not meaningfully increase play rates. because the vast majority of fans care about the actual quality of the game (which sucks!) and not the leaders (which can be cool/wishlist items, but not a make or break item)

i love the chola empire. i’ve wanted them in civ for years. they got added in civ 7, but that’s not pushed me to buy the game because civs and leaders i like are bonuses for me, not the make or break reason i purchase

notice how the vast majority of fans complaining about leader choices as a core gameplay issue are a) bad faith or b) fairly rare

the vast majority of people complaining/not playing want a cohesive game vision, classic mode, good balancing, meaningful UI changes—this is what people are consistently complaining about, not leader choice

 

[gbw]

Surprised? Not really. That said, I think if you can essentially admit a behavior is wrong and not something to be proud of then it's not that hard to just not do that particular behavior, you know?

This is the weird undertone to the other side of the coin though, an accusation that someone is engaging in a "wrong" behavior for desiring classic / popular / recognizable leaders in the game. A bad faith argument is made when someone says, "oh you haven't heard of Whina Cooper or Sayyida al Hurra? You must be a troglodyte.". No, let's mutually acknowledge that to an earlier point, it is indeed great to learn about history and introduce new leaders into the game, but also that 90%+ of the player base will have never heard of these people before. I'd make the exact same point if John Brown was selected as a leader of America.

The overarching observation I originally made was that on top of name recognition, we *currently* have 25 leaders in Civ 7 and none from the last 150 years. This statistically would suggest this is a deliberate choice by Firaxis to not include modern leaders in the game (for whatever reason, that's open to discussion). It appears Whina may leap us forward, but it still seems strange that they are largely skipping post-Industrial age leaders altogether. This thematically hasn't struck you as odd at all?

 

[Siptah]

The overarching observation I originally made was that on top of name recognition, we *currently* have 25 leaders in Civ 7 and none from the last 150 years. This statistically would suggest this is a deliberate choice by Firaxis to not include modern leaders in the game (for whatever reason, that's open to discussion). It appears Whina may leap us forward, but it still seems strange that they are largely skipping post-Industrial age leaders altogether. This thematically hasn't struck you as odd at all?

I‘m much more bothered by the abundance of leaders from 1750-1850 than from the omission of more modern leaders. I‘m actually also much more bothered by the rarity of pre-classical and medieval leaders.

 

[gbw]

I‘m much more bothered by the abundance of leaders from 1750-1850 than from the omission of more modern leaders. I‘m actually also much more bothered by the rarity of pre-classical and medieval leaders.

Rarity? I'd perhaps agree with pre-classical, outside of Hatshepsut, we don't have Hammurabi or Gilgamesh, but those have always been light. It seems fairly evenly distributed (slight 18th century bias as you noted) between groupings, then a massive gap with modern. Medieval seems pretty well covered. Out of curiosity, what bothers you much more about 5-7 medieval leaders we have than having zero modern leaders? Are there specific personas you wanted to see?

Civ 7 Leaders by Historical Period​

Ancient (before ~800 BCE)​

• Hatshepsut (c. 1507–1458 BCE)

Classical (c. 800 BCE –500 CE)​

• Confucius (551–479 BCE)
• Xerxes I (c. 519–465 BCE)
• Ashoka (c. 304–232 BCE)
• Himiko (fl. 170s–248 CE)
• Trưng Trắc (c. 12–43 CE)
• Augustus (63 BCE–14 CE)

Medieval (c. 500–1500 CE)​

• Charlemagne (742–814)
• Genghis Khan (c. 1162–1227)
• Ibn Battuta (1304–1368/69)
• Pachacuti (c. 1400–1471)
• Isabella I of Castile (1451–1504)
• Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527)
• Amina (c. 1533–1610)

Early Modern (c. 1500–1850 CE)​

• Catherine the Great (1729–1796)
• Frederick the Great (1712–1786)
• Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)
• Lafayette (1757–1834)
• Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821)
• Tecumseh (1768–1813)
• Ada Lovelace (1815–1852)
• Harriet Tubman (1822–1913)
• José Rizal (1861–1896)
• Lakshmibai (1828–1858)
• Simón Bolívar (1783–1830)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Medieval (c. 500–1500 CE)​

• Charlemagne (742–814)
• Genghis Khan (c. 1162–1227)
• Ibn Battuta (1304–1368/69)
• Pachacuti (c. 1400–1471)
• Isabella I of Castile (1451–1504)
• Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527)
• Amina (c. 1533–1610)

I wouldn't count the last 3 as Medieval. I'd put the Early Modern period starting around 1450 whenever Constantinople fell and the Renaissance developed in Italy.

 

[Bug Repellent]

This is the weird undertone to the other side of the coin though, an accusation that someone is engaging in a "wrong" behavior for desiring classic / popular / recognizable leaders in the game. A bad faith argument is made when someone says, "oh you haven't heard of Whina Cooper or Sayyida al Hurra? You must be a troglodyte.". No, let's mutually acknowledge that to an earlier point, it is indeed great to learn about history and introduce new leaders into the game, but also that 90%+ of the player base will have never heard of these people before. I'd make the exact same point if John Brown was selected as a leader of America.

Most cultures, if not all, have culturally significant heroines that at some point or another in their history picked up arms for their country. But they are not known in other countries. For example, how many people know about Romania's Ecaterina Teodoroiu? She was an amazing woman that died on the battlefield at 23 taking a machine gun round to the chest fighting the invading German army in WW1. Her last words were "Forward, men, don't give up, I'm still with you!". She's beloved in Romania and her face is on one of the country's bank notes. But ask yourself: "Do German pupils, let alone French or Chinese pupils these days learn about her in history class"? I don't think we need to conduct a survey to find out. Now, does she deserve to be a leader in a civ game? Yes, of course. But should she be introduced now in Civ7, giving the state of the game? I say no. To help Civ7's sales numbers, if Firaxis wants to bring a leader from that part of the world, it should bring Vlad the Impaler instead, an actual king that a lot of would be customers in Germany, France or China might have heard of. Lean into his Dracula myth giving him units that heal after they eliminate enemy units, for example. Would it fix the game's sales numbers? No, but it would definitely sell better than the virtually unknown Ecaterina Teodoroiu.

Ecaterina Teodoroiu - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Moderator Action: Edited problematic portion. Let's not derail the thread-AH

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Most cultures, if not all, have culturally significant heroines that at some point or another in their history picked up arms for their country. But they are not known in other countries. For example, how many people know about Romania's Ecaterina Teodoroiu? She was an amazing woman that died on the battlefield at 23 taking a machine gun round to the chest fighting the invading German army in WW1. Her last words were "Forward, men, don't give up, I'm still with you!". She's beloved in Romania and her face is on one of the country's bank notes. But ask yourself: "Do German pupils, let alone French or Chinese pupils these days learn about her in history class"? I don't think we need to conduct a survey to find out. Now, does she deserve to be a leader in a civ game? Yes, of course. But should she be introduced now in Civ7, giving the state of the game? I say no. To help Civ7's sales numbers, if Firaxis wants to bring a leader from that part of the world, it should bring Vlad the Impaler instead, an actual king that a lot of would be customers in Germany, France or China might have heard of. Lean into his Dracula myth giving him units that heal after they eliminate enemy units, for example. Would it fix the game's sales numbers? No, but it would definitely sell better than the virtually unknown Ecaterina Teodoroiu.

Ecaterina Teodoroiu - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

it’s telling that you keep pushing this point that leaders sell games when everyone is noting they don’t. Ecaterina Teodoroiu *would* make a good leader, esp in civ 7’s leader selection philosophy, that’s not the gotcha that you think it is.

civ 7 isn’t selling or being played because it’s a bad game, not because it has leaders ppl have never heard of

 

[Siptah]

Rarity? I'd perhaps agree with pre-classical, outside of Hatshepsut, we don't have Hammurabi or Gilgamesh, but those have always been light. It seems fairly evenly distributed (slight 18th century bias as you noted) between groupings, then a massive gap with modern. Medieval seems pretty well covered. Out of curiosity, what bothers you much more about 5-7 medieval leaders we have than having zero modern leaders? Are there specific personas you wanted to see?

Civ 7 Leaders by Historical Period​

Ancient (before ~800 BCE)​

• Hatshepsut (c. 1507–1458 BCE)

Classical (c. 800 BCE –500 CE)​

• Confucius (551–479 BCE)
• Xerxes I (c. 519–465 BCE)
• Ashoka (c. 304–232 BCE)
• Himiko (fl. 170s–248 CE)
• Trưng Trắc (c. 12–43 CE)
• Augustus (63 BCE–14 CE)

Medieval (c. 500–1500 CE)​

• Charlemagne (742–814)
• Genghis Khan (c. 1162–1227)
• Ibn Battuta (1304–1368/69)
• Pachacuti (c. 1400–1471)
• Isabella I of Castile (1451–1504)
• Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527)
• Amina (c. 1533–1610)

Early Modern (c. 1500–1850 CE)​

• Catherine the Great (1729–1796)
• Frederick the Great (1712–1786)
• Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)
• Lafayette (1757–1834)
• Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821)
• Tecumseh (1768–1813)
• Ada Lovelace (1815–1852)
• Harriet Tubman (1822–1913)
• José Rizal (1861–1896)
• Lakshmibai (1828–1858)
• Simón Bolívar (1783–1830)

As @Alexander's Hetaroi said, I don‘t agree with that we have 7 medieval leaders. I see 3, and one of them (Genghis) was DLC content. Funnily enough, early modern leaders are also rare in that there are only a few very early ones (that you count as medieval), while we don‘t have any of the grand figures from 1550-1750.

Personally, I have few interest in 20th century leaders, but I feel medieval and antiquity leaders are severely lacking - as I would like to have much more of these and these times better represented in general.

 

[Evolena]

I've found this timeline showing for the medieval leader situation: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/civilisation-leader-timeline.694508/ (not up to date with Right and Rule colleciton additions)

 

[Bug Repellent]

it’s telling that you keep pushing this point that leaders sell games when everyone is noting they don’t. Ecaterina Teodoroiu *would* make a good leader, esp in civ 7’s leader selection philosophy, that’s not the gotcha that you think it is.

civ 7 isn’t selling or being played because it’s a bad game, not because it has leaders ppl have never heard of

It's telling what? That I have a different opinion about how to market the game? That I think brand recognition works in selling entertainment products? That famous actors/actresses are paid more because they sell movies better? I certainly do. Mentioning Ecaterina Teodoroiu was not a *gotcha*. It was an example.

I agree that Civ7's faults do not start or end with its civ/leader roster. But said roster does hurt sales. To which degree, that we can debate.

BTW, go read the comments on Lakshmibai's announcement on Youtube. You'll find lots of these:

 

[Evolena]

And those who don't care don't post.

 

[socratic]

Rarity? I'd perhaps agree with pre-classical, outside of Hatshepsut, we don't have Hammurabi or Gilgamesh, but those have always been light. It seems fairly evenly distributed (slight 18th century bias as you noted) between groupings, then a massive gap with modern. Medieval seems pretty well covered. Out of curiosity, what bothers you much more about 5-7 medieval leaders we have than having zero modern leaders? Are there specific personas you wanted to see?

Civ 7 Leaders by Historical Period​

Ancient (before ~800 BCE)​

• Hatshepsut (c. 1507–1458 BCE)

Classical (c. 800 BCE –500 CE)​

• Confucius (551–479 BCE)
• Xerxes I (c. 519–465 BCE)
• Ashoka (c. 304–232 BCE)
• Himiko (fl. 170s–248 CE)
• Trưng Trắc (c. 12–43 CE)
• Augustus (63 BCE–14 CE)

Medieval (c. 500–1500 CE)​

• Charlemagne (742–814)
• Genghis Khan (c. 1162–1227)
• Ibn Battuta (1304–1368/69)
• Pachacuti (c. 1400–1471)
• Isabella I of Castile (1451–1504)
• Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527)
• Amina (c. 1533–1610)

Early Modern (c. 1500–1850 CE)​

• Catherine the Great (1729–1796)
• Frederick the Great (1712–1786)
• Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)
• Lafayette (1757–1834)
• Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821)
• Tecumseh (1768–1813)
• Ada Lovelace (1815–1852)
• Harriet Tubman (1822–1913)
• José Rizal (1861–1896)
• Lakshmibai (1828–1858)
• Simón Bolívar (1783–1830)

The Early Modern Period lasting into the 1850s is odd. The general consensus (at least from what I’ve been taught) is that it ends around the beginning of the Industrial Revolution/Napoleonic Wars.

Firaxis has a game with exceptionally low engagement at the moment. This is Twitch on a Friday afternoon in the US (30% of Civ7's market according to Gamalytic) or Friday evening in Europe (another 30% of its market):

View attachment 743598


There is not a single soul watching someone else play Civ7 in the entire world on Twitch.

Civ7 needs every help it can get to turn its fortunes around. The game cannot afford to bring civs/leaders that lack recognition in its major markets and you are being facetious claiming Lakshmibai is known in the US market when you know very well she isn't the case with the average citizen, ie, the potential customer. BTW, SteamDB says the game lost another 15% of its players from the month prior.

I'm actually quite frustrated to see so many of my fellow Civs fanatics not grasping the precarious state the game is in. If I put my investor hat on, it is obvious the game and Firaxis itself are just about circling the drain at the moment (hence the unfortunate and terrible layoffs). The game needs an intervention, since obviously everything that was done via patches since its release 8 months ago is NOT working.

The leader roster while poorly selected, mainly is just compounding on other issues people have with civ switching. It’s not a root cause. If there is no fix to the more immediate gameplay issues, no amount of Alexanders and Ghandis is going to meaningfully improve the game. And this is coming from someone who LOATHES some of the choices. I have disabled the AI from using Lafayette and Ben Franklin because of how immersion breaking they are in Antiquity (Franklin is almost always paired with the Han for some god forsaken reason)

 

[gbw]

it’s telling that you keep pushing this point that leaders sell games when everyone is noting they don’t. Ecaterina Teodoroiu *would* make a good leader, esp in civ 7’s leader selection philosophy, that’s not the gotcha that you think it is.

civ 7 isn’t selling or being played because it’s a bad game, not because it has leaders ppl have never heard of

Multiple people claim leaders don't sell games, but that's literally what the majority of the DLC packs are. It's not the base game, but if personas weren't actually making impactful sales, then 2K / Firaxis wouldn't be slow rolling all the DLC. As @Bug Repellent said, to what degree for Civ 7 is going to be business confidential, but there absolutely IS an impact.

 

[Lord Lakely]

And those who don't care don't post.

Also, just as important to see what people say, is to see what they don't say.

They're complaining about a female leader, while citing other female leaders as 'bad examples'. Male choices that are on the same level as Tubman (Mach, Battuta, Rizal, Confucius) aren't mentioned at all.

Those that do this don't communicate that they have a problem with outlandish leader picks, only with the female ones. This is sexism, and that is not FXS's problem.

Not every screenshot posted contains such nonsense, and those absolutely can be seen as genuine criticism.