How I'd design the civs for the new Civ

[Tee Kay]

I'm gonna indulge my amateur game designer/historian side for a moment and list the civs I would include in the vanilla game if I was making it, limiting myself to twenty starting civs.

Also I'm gonna try to nominate leaders who haven't appeared in Civ before. And I set myself an arbitrary quota of 20% female leaders.

Also I spent like three hours of serious thought on this, so please let me have it as its own thread. This isn't a "what civ you'd like to see" thread, this is a "which civs would you choose and what sort of play style you'd design them for and why" thread.

Here goes:

American
Leader: Theodore Roosevelt, as the guy most responsible for turning the United States into a Great Power, and fits quite well with my intended theme for the civ (see below)
Gameplay: It should be a challenging civ to play in the early game, but ramps up powerfully once you get to the Industrial and Modern eras, with a strong focus on production and commerce. Any UA bonus should not kick in until the Renaissance at the earliest (for hits and giggles, let's have two UAs, one called Speak Softly, the other A Big Stick). I'd keep the Minuteman, a so-so rifleman with scouting capabilities, and have an Assembly Plant or something as UB, a factory replacement giving a large boost to unit production in war time.

Aztec
Leader: Tlacaelel Cihuacoatl, because having another Montezuma is kinda boring
Gameplay: The Aztecs should be a warlike civ and should be comfortably at war for most of the game. Their unique stuff should facilitate this. They should have something like their Civ5 ability, like gaining culture or reducing war weariness with each enemy unit killed. For a UB I'd have a Telpochcalli which gives units a promotion that gains science points for each enemy unit killed, to help the Aztecs stay in the tech race. Note that they gain these bonuses from units killed, not experience. The Aztecs need to win their battles, 'cause otherwise they can't sacrifice captives and the world will end.

Chinese
Leader: Tang Taizong. I know he appeared in CivRev2 but that doesn't really count.
Gameplay: I think China should be the most versatile of all the civs, to reflect the multifacetedness of the civilisation, as well as the long history of political unity (meaning the capital - which in gameplay terms is you the player - gets to decide on a lot of things from very early on). A Chinese player should have ample resources to pursue any play style without having an innate advantage for any particular one. The UB could be a Yamen, a courthouse replacement that lets you choose which bonus it gives you. Cho-Ko-Nu makes a nice UU, though I'd prefer if it has a defensive bonus, because as China you might choose to pursue a more dovish style.

Egyptian
Leader: Amenhotep III
Gameplay: I always thought Persia's Civ5 bonus is a lot more fitting for Egypt, because of the running theme throughout Egyptian history of the bounty and stability provided by the Nile. So that's what I would have as a UA: longer golden ages. Their UB could be Workers Housing, which provides a bonus to building/wonder construction. War Chariot makes a great UU as it is.

English
Leader: Robert Walpole. Please, please, please?
Gameplay: The uniques should facilitate naval supremacy, easy overseas expansion, and making lots of gold through overseas trade... but only after the Medieval era. Your early game experience should be similar to the Americans': getting invaded a lot and no help from your uniques. Compared to the Yanks you should have a starting bias for islands so you should have an easier time, and your bonuses should kick in earlier, but the Americans ramps up more powerfully come the Industrial era. Also while the Americans can afford to be isolationist, you can't. Your wealth and prosperity will depend on ruling the waves and protecting your trade routes, but your uniques should help a lot with that. Ship of the Line makes a nice UU, perhaps Stock Exchange for UB. Settling overseas colonies should provide some sort of bonus or lower maintanance cost or something. Extra movement for naval units is pretty swell too.

French
Leader: Cardinal de Richelieu
Gameplay: France should be the China of European civs; strong, versatile, sort of jack-of-all-trades, but master of none. Also, Richelieu could be a very interesting leader to play in light of the revamped diplomacy system in Civ6; if you want to play a really scheming or underhanded kind of game, he could be your guy.

German
Leader: Konrad Adenauer
Gameplay: Let's avert the "warmongering German" trope this time and go for the "overworking German" trope. Make Germany a strong industrious/commercial civ that gets bonuses when dealing with city-states. I'd keep Panzer as UU because it's too iconic to lose, and also to screw with the German player who's been playing a peaceful trader all game; suddenly you have an uber-powerful offensive unit, and an economy strong enough to support lots of them. Do you give in to temptation and try a Weltoberung?

Greek
Leader: Themistocles. I'm so tempted to put here a Byzantine emperor, maybe Basil II, to avert the Byzantines being its own civ in a DLC. But fine, I'll pick someone from classical Athens.
Gameplay: I imagine Greece as like another England, except strong in the early game and weak in the late game. I'll have a UA that helps with research, and two UUs, a ship and a phalanx unit that's also amphibious.

Incan
Leader: Topa Inca Yupanqui
Gameplay: I want the Incas to provide a strong contrast to the Aztecs. Just as the Aztecs are the prototypical warmonger civ, the Incas should be the prototypical builder civ. From what we know geography is going to matter quite a bit more in Civ6, so let's exploit that. Make the Incas master of environments, because historically that's what they were. The Incan realm didn't just encompassed hills and mountains but also coasts and deserts and rainforests, and they built extensively in all. Also I'd have a slinger as a UU, which get a promotion allowing them to fight more effectively depending on where they were built (eg building one in a jungle city gives them bonuses in jungles)

Indian
Leader: Asoka. I know he appeared in Civ4 but hey he's not Gandhi. Also a nice figure to represent such a diverse and ancient civ, being someone who ruled long ago but used extensively by modern India as a unifying symbol.
Gameplay: Gonna annoy people by saying that India should be a pacifist civ that doesn't expand much territorially, but I also think that the "Population Growth" thing in Civ5 is dumb. An Indian player shouldn't be punished for expanding territorially but instead should be given incentives to expand non-militarily like through religion or commerce. Let's say a UA that gives bonuses for missionaries, and an improvement that you could build in city-state or other civs territories that contribute to your science or economy. Also War Elephants are lame UUs, can we have Mysorean Rockets instead.

Indonesian
Leader: Gajah Mada
Gameplay: A maritime trading civ that thrives on diversity. The Candi thing from Civ5 is genius, but is hampered a bit by how religion is treated in that game. If religion is more like how it was in Civ4, like a feature of the game environment that you can choose to grow and/or exploit as opposed to just an extension of a particular civ, that would be so much better. The special promotion thing for the Kris Swordsman is nice too, except nerf the base unit but let the player choose the bonuses (which should be geared towards defensive and amphibious ones). I think the Spice Islanders UA is meh, I'd actually replace it with something like Portugal's Civ5 UA, with resource diversity giving you a gold bonus.

Iroquoian
Leader: Ayenwatha
Gameplay: I must confess, I don't particularly like uniques that means a civ only excels in a particular environment. That doesn't mean that I don't think interacting with terrain and using it to your advantage should be a big part of the game, but the running theme of human civilisation is us adapting to new environments and changing existing ones and repurposing them for our own use. Now a UU or UB that gives you a terrain bonus is one thing but Civ5 all of the Iroquois' uniques encourage them to preserve forests. It's even problematic historically, as American Indians/Native Americans don't aim preserve forests, they manage them; management might means preserving forests sometimes, burning them other times. Instead the Iroquois UA or UB should play with the new Civ6 districts system to reflect how their concept of land care and ownership is radically different from the European conception. I'd keep the UU though.

Japanese
Leader: Ito Hirobumi
Gameplay: I really want Japan to be a maritime civ that's not particularly maritime, if you get my drift. An England with a strong land army, having a navy not so much to rule the waves as to get the land army to where it needs to go. So maybe having a bonus for Great Admirals instead of extra movement. The Samurai is too iconic not to have as a UU, and maybe a UB that helps cut unit support cost or something.

Korean
Leader: Myeongseong, not only because she's female, but since I've chosen Hirobumi for Japan, let's also have one of his most famous and determined opponent.
Gameplay: I want the three East Asian civs to provide a contrast to each other. So if China is the balanced civ, Japan is the warmongering civ, then Korea is the peaceful sciencey civ. And just as Japan is a maritime civ that's not particularly maritime, then Korea is a land-based civ that can more than hold its own at sea, so naturally Turtle Ship as the UU.

Malinese
Leader: Sundiata Keita
Gameplay: I'd like this to be a trading Civ that gains science from trade routes, with a fast medieval age cavalry to protect the caravans. We can repurpose the Mud Pyramid Mosque from Civ5 as UB and helps you gain extra culture or science with each trade route.

Mayan
Leader: Lady Xoc, a Mesoamerican female leader is a very fresh perspective don't you think?
Gameplay: So if the Aztecs are warriors, and Incans are builders, the Mayans are the mystics. Their unique stuff shouldn't give them any edge militarily but like India their means of expansions are through trade and religion. I actually wouldn't give them any UUs, but two UBs or an extra passive bonus. The Long Count thing in Civ5 is nice, I'd keep that.

Persian
Leader: I'm actually undecided on this. Cyrus or Darius are strong and safe but somewhat boring choices, I'm tempted to do with someone from the Sassanid era, especially since Extra History gave me a thing for Khosrow I, Troll of Trolls
Gameplay: I'd give them something like a Satrapies UA or UB that helps them consolidate their rule in conquered cities, allowing the Persians to conquer big and have an easier time maintaining their conquests than other civs. An Immortal UU very early in the game helps deal with barbs but too early to really be used effectively against other civs.

Roman
Leader: Marcus Aurelius
Gameplay: Rome should be the new Germany - the highly disciplined, highly militaristic, highly aggressive civ. Have the Legionary as a strong classical age UU, and have some sort of barracks replacement that gives a useful bonus well into the late game. Make roads cost less to maintain or something as well to help tie your conquests together.

Russian
Leader: Catherine
Gameplay: Russia should be big and hard to conquer. I'd introduce something like attrition into the game, and give Russia a General Winter UA making Russian territory inflict extra attrition, and reintroduce the Krepost UB or something similar so that borders expand more and faster.

Spanish
Leader: Isabella
Gameplay: Civ5 has the right idea with this civ so I'm not going to tweak much except to say that the bonus yield from natural wonders thing is weird. I'd probably replace it with better stuff from ancient ruins/goody huts except that might be a little OP.

Anyway, so that's how I'd select and design the civs. Tell us what you'd do and/or how I'm wrong and an idiot.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

You don't want Teddy's Rough Riders as a UU?

 

[Tee Kay]

You don't want Teddy's Rough Riders as a UU?

I'm afraid the public can't handle that much Teddy.

Actually, depends. If I could have a second UU then yeah, Rough Riders definitely. I like the way Rise of Nations did it which was give each civ multiple traits as well as multiple unique units and not necessarily an equal number. It ended up being really unbalanced in that game, but still a nice idea if you can balance it.

 

[Omega124]

Yes, before I begin, I am aware this is a year long necro. Tee Kay asked me to respond to this on the thread since we were discussing this very topic on Discord earlier today, and he wished that this thread got more attention

American
Leader: Theodore Roosevelt, as the guy most responsible for turning the United States into a Great Power, and fits quite well with my intended theme for the civ (see below)
Gameplay: It should be a challenging civ to play in the early game, but ramps up powerfully once you get to the Industrial and Modern eras, with a strong focus on production and commerce. Any UA bonus should not kick in until the Renaissance at the earliest (for hits and giggles, let's have two UAs, one called Speak Softly, the other A Big Stick). I'd keep the Minuteman, a so-so rifleman with scouting capabilities, and have an Assembly Plant or something as UB, a factory replacement giving a large boost to unit production in war time

I don't think anyone here disputes that America should be a late game focused civ, given that American identity in itself only dates back to the late 18th century at the absolute earliest. That being said, gameplay wise, having a civ with no UA until the mid-late game would be absolutely garbage to play. After all, many games are already decided by the Renaissance for all intents and purposes, which is still before America would exist. Nobody suggests stripping an ancient civ's UA away after the time period where they existed, because that's just not a fun mechanic and would likely make that civ terrible.

Assembly Plant is too generic for me. While America was the poster child of the late industrial revolution, an assembly plant is really just another name for a factory, and there is nothing uniquely special about American industrialization besides having a lot of resources in our large territory. I actually love the film studio that ended up happening in VI; the concept of a film studio is a very American concept (more than the Mall was in IV at the very least), and it captures the modern American dominance of mass media across the globe It's a unique and very flavorable choice.

Aztec
Leader: Tlacaelel Cihuacoatl, because having another Montezuma is kinda boring
Gameplay: The Aztecs should be a warlike civ and should be comfortably at war for most of the game. Their unique stuff should facilitate this. They should have something like their Civ5 ability, like gaining culture or reducing war weariness with each enemy unit killed. For a UB I'd have a Telpochcalli which gives units a promotion that gains science points for each enemy unit killed, to help the Aztecs stay in the tech race. Note that they gain these bonuses from units killed, not experience. The Aztecs need to win their battles, 'cause otherwise they can't sacrifice captives and the world will end.

Firstly, I agree that Montezuma I and II is overplayed, and that it'd be worth switching to someone else. Personally, I would perfer Itzcoatl, the founder of the Aztec Triple Alliance. It took both a lot of diplomatic and military cunning to make what was once the small city state of Tenochtitlan into the heart of a new empire. Plus, it would be a nice to introduce people that "the Aztec Empire" as we commonly think of it never existed in reality, and was really a confederation of three different city states, with Tenochtitlan being the first among equals.

That being said, absolutely not with bringing back the civ 5 UA. I went on length on this in a different thread that the depiction of the Mexica (which, honestly, we should probably be calling this civ Mexico instead of Aztec, because that's what the Aztecs actually called themselves, and why the modern day country is called Mexico and not New Spain) in Civ V was nothing short of unabashed racism by Firaxis. This cultural meme that Mexican society is built upon by human sacrifice was created by the Spanish as way to post-hoc justify their conquest of the region, that we kept perpetuating for hundreds of years without much self-reflection. Was there human sacrifice in Mexico? Yes, I don't think anyone can deny it. Was their entire civilization based around it? Well, was the entire German civilization based around the Holocaust? Stop making an actual, still existing people into freaking cartoon villains.

Honestly, the way the Aztecs are shown in VI is the first time the Mexica aren't portrayed as demonic savages, and I would like to keep it that way,

Chinese
Leader: Tang Taizong. I know he appeared in CivRev2 but that doesn't really count.
Gameplay: I think China should be the most versatile of all the civs, to reflect the multifacetedness of the civilisation, as well as the long history of political unity (meaning the capital - which in gameplay terms is you the player - gets to decide on a lot of things from very early on). A Chinese player should have ample resources to pursue any play style without having an innate advantage for any particular one. The UB could be a Yamen, a courthouse replacement that lets you choose which bonus it gives you. Cho-Ko-Nu makes a nice UU, though I'd prefer if it has a defensive bonus, because as China you might choose to pursue a more dovish style.

I think, besides leader choice and a slightly different UU, you got pretty much everything you asked for in Civ VI. I prefer the crouching tiger over the cho-ku-nu because, name aside (it should be called Hu dun pao), its more historically important. China was the birthplace of gunpowder, and I think its really cool they get to use a gunpowder unit before everyone else. As a woman liking to see female representation, definitely would have preferred to keep Wu Zetain or perhaps even use Cixi myself, but Taizong is definitely a good choice.

Egyptian
Leader: Amenhotep III
Gameplay: I always thought Persia's Civ5 bonus is a lot more fitting for Egypt, because of the running theme throughout Egyptian history of the bounty and stability provided by the Nile. So that's what I would have as a UA: longer golden ages. Their UB could be Workers Housing, which provides a bonus to building/wonder construction. War Chariot makes a great UU as it is.

Eh on Amenhotep. Pretty weak choice; he's only really notable because an unusually large amount of statutes and other works of art deception him survived into present day compared to the average pharaoh, which means he had a long and inoffensive reign. Plus, for saying you wanted at least 20% female, Egypt is one of the civs usually already represented by women. I agree Cleopatra is a weak choice, but Hatshepsut (who admittingly appeared in IV) is way more interesting than Amenhotep and a very capable ruler in her own right.

Working Houses is even more generic than the Assembly Plant was. Every civilization had houses for workers. Every. May I suggest the Nilometer as more Egyptiany unique? It'd be a replacement for the water mill, which gives any floodplain an additional food, along with its normal bonus. I don't like the sphinx that's currently in VI because it's pretty much supposed to be the Great Sphinx, of which there is only one extant version of. Not that Egyptians didn't build other statues of Sphixes, but nothing to the scale of the Great Sphinx besides itself.

English
Leader: Robert Walpole. Please, please, please?
Gameplay: The uniques should facilitate naval supremacy, easy overseas expansion, and making lots of gold through overseas trade... but only after the Medieval era. Your early game experience should be similar to the Americans': getting invaded a lot and no help from your uniques. Compared to the Yanks you should have a starting bias for islands so you should have an easier time, and your bonuses should kick in earlier, but the Americans ramps up more powerfully come the Industrial era. Also while the Americans can afford to be isolationist, you can't. Your wealth and prosperity will depend on ruling the waves and protecting your trade routes, but your uniques should help a lot with that. Ship of the Line makes a nice UU, perhaps Stock Exchange for UB. Settling overseas colonies should provide some sort of bonus or lower maintanance cost or something. Extra movement for naval units is pretty swell too.

Once again, taking a civ traditionally represented by a woman and replacing her with a man.

Using a PM instead of a monarch is a novel approach to the British (has only been done before with Churchill), and Walpole isn't exactly a bad choice himself. I'd perfer to use Gladstone if we went that route however; Britain was definitely at its height in the Victorian era, and Gladstone was the longest reigning PM in the time period and was one of the chief architects of the British Empire as we know it. Just absolutely not to Thatcher or May, if anyone is getting ideas

Besides leader, everything I said re: America applies here. That's just bad game design. British already have a coastal bias, and an "island" bias is not really feasible given the game's own logic (standing aside how bad and/or boring island starts can be).

French
Leader: Cardinal de Richelieu
Gameplay: France should be the China of European civs; strong, versatile, sort of jack-of-all-trades, but master of none. Also, Richelieu could be a very interesting leader to play in light of the revamped diplomacy system in Civ6; if you want to play a really scheming or underhanded kind of game, he could be your guy.

I like Cathy too much to ever give her up. She looks like me and her AI plays civ like I do. You can take her over my dead body

More serious note, I feel like the reason most civs use Napoleon as France's leader is because he is so iconic, it feels wrong not to use him. Few people have such a direct presence on the fabric of history like he does, and thus it only feels natural to use him as the leader. Hell, in the initial list I showed you of how I would have made Civ VI, I did use Napoleon for France.

Richileu is a pretty decent choice vs Napoleon, however. however. Is he technically not a real leader? Yes. But he was de facto leader of France's rise, and helped create the modern French state and begginings of her overseas empire in his attempts to consolidate power. Plus, thanks to the enduring legacy of the Three Musketeers, he is kind of iconic in his own right, although nowhere to the same degree.

If I could suggest someone else entirely though, why not use some Frankish Merovingian or Carolingian king? The early mideval period tends to get ignored almost entirely by civ leader choices for Europe; Charlemange and Ragnar are pretty much the only European leaders from that time period ever implemented, and Ragnar is semi-mythical. If we went that route, Clovis is the immediate, obvious choice if we wanted a fresh face.

As per gameplay, while I don't necessarily disagree with anything you said, I do find how France was implemented as the cultural/espionage civ definitely has a lot more character and just is more fun than being a jack of all trades, imo.

German
Leader: Konrad Adenauer
Gameplay: Let's avert the "warmongering German" trope this time and go for the "overworking German" trope. Make Germany a strong industrious/commercial civ that gets bonuses when dealing with city-states. I'd keep Panzer as UU because it's too iconic to lose, and also to screw with the German player who's been playing a peaceful trader all game; suddenly you have an uber-powerful offensive unit, and an economy strong enough to support lots of them. Do you give in to temptation and try a Weltoberung?

Firstly, I see you already answered my question in re the Aztecs above in this paragraph.

I am not opposed to modern leaders on principle. I think civ would benefit by having one or two real modern leaders, just to represent that history is as much in the now as it is in the past. Konrad's not doing it for me, though. While his long career as Chancellor is commendable in terms of accomplishments (even if I personally prefer SPD's platform over the CDU), the big elephant in the room is that his immediate predecessor's notoriety completely overshadows him. There's no beating around this bush: using Konrad brings attention to the crowd that wants Hitler as leader for Germany. I don't think Firaxis wants to touch that with a 39 and a 1/2 foot pole. Plus, if we keep WW2 UUs for Germany (which I don't see why we shouldn't), having Konrad run around with Panzers or even U-boats (which, btw, is a terrible pick for a UU and I have several issues with it) raises really unfortunate implications in itself.

In the list I gave you, I had Maria Theresa as my tentative German leader (like in 2), with the implication that we wouldn't have a separate Austrian civ because at that rate we should have a separate Prussian civ as well and when does that stop? I still stand by that as my choice, but if we wanted someone new entirely, I think Charles V would be acceptable as well.

Otherwise, Germany ended up pretty much how you wanted it to. Except it has a U-Boat, which is stupid, since the German Navy was actually terrible, and they devised the U-boats as a way to get around the fact their navy sucked, and that submarines at the time were only useful for convoy raiding and in fact were sitting ducks to Entente/Allied warships once the initial shock factor wore off, yet they give it a bonus against warships, thus making Germany a naval powerhouse in the late game which is completely ahistorical and fssssss

Greek
Leader: Themistocles. I'm so tempted to put here a Byzantine emperor, maybe Basil II, to avert the Byzantines being its own civ in a DLC. But fine, I'll pick someone from classical Athens.
Gameplay: I imagine Greece as like another England, except strong in the early game and weak in the late game. I'll have a UA that helps with research, and two UUs, a ship and a phalanx unit that's also amphibious.

TBH, I'd be wary on making Greece have a strong naval focus. That's indicative of Athens, but not of Sparta, Macedon, Eripus, Thebes, etc. Having a ship UU is fine, having an amphibious UU is... less fine but I can deal with it, but having both? With an Athenian leader on top? Mind as well just call that civ Athens at that rate.

The way I would design the Greek civ, is to combine as many features from various different city-states as possible. Alexander would stay the leader of Greece, noting that he is estensially the Napoleon of Greece in terms of just being so iconic to Greek history and culture (and yes, Ancient Macedon was Greek, and splitting Macedon into its own civ, which Firxasis seems to be doing, makes me want to cry). I would use the Sacred Band of Thebes as a UU, because I'd love to see LGBT history get some love, and those guys were so ferocious the Spartans were terrified of them. I would use a UB for Greece, and I think the current Acropolis works great as-is for it.

Incan
Leader: Topa Inca Yupanqui
Gameplay: I want the Incas to provide a strong contrast to the Aztecs. Just as the Aztecs are the prototypical warmonger civ, the Incas should be the prototypical builder civ. From what we know geography is going to matter quite a bit more in Civ6, so let's exploit that. Make the Incas master of environments, because historically that's what they were. The Incan realm didn't just encompassed hills and mountains but also coasts and deserts and rainforests, and they built extensively in all. Also I'd have a slinger as a UU, which get a promotion allowing them to fight more effectively depending on where they were built (eg building one in a jungle city gives them bonuses in jungles)

I'm going to ignore everything you said about the Mexica, and just focus on the Inca.

Topa Inca is a very un-notable sapa inca, all things considered. Like, I'm curious what even possessed you to pick him, given that Manco Capac exists. Sure, he is semi-mythical founder of the Incas (not writing anything down causes that to happen), but he is so much more of an interesting character all around. Such a clear, obvious choice for an unrepresented leader, and you go with Topa?

Otherwise, beyond the fact I think your Slinger proposal would be more obnoxious than cool, I agree with everything you siad.

 

[Omega124]

Indian
Leader: Asoka. I know he appeared in Civ4 but hey he's not Gandhi. Also a nice figure to represent such a diverse and ancient civ, being someone who ruled long ago but used extensively by modern India as a unifying symbol.
Gameplay: Gonna annoy people by saying that India should be a pacifist civ that doesn't expand much territorially, but I also think that the "Population Growth" thing in Civ5 is dumb. An Indian player shouldn't be punished for expanding territorially but instead should be given incentives to expand non-militarily like through religion or commerce. Let's say a UA that gives bonuses for missionaries, and an improvement that you could build in city-state or other civs territories that contribute to your science or economy. Also War Elephants are lame UUs, can we have Mysorean Rockets instead.

Oh you and your Mysore rockets

I'm really conflicted with Gandhi. One one hand, I do think nuclear-armed, psychotic Gandhi is the de facto "face" of Civilization, and Civilization just wouldn't be the same without him imo. On the other hand, I can see why said portrayal could be considered a bit crass, and also how some Indians get annoyed simply because he never was an official leader of India (although, let's be real, he would have been if he wasn't assassinated). Overall, it's probably for the best if we retired Gandhi for those issues, but it's still something I am loathe to do.

In my list, I had Akbar as the leader of India. Now, it is my personal opinion India, as a civ, should probably be split into three civs (India, a Tamil/Chola civ, and Mughals), and clearly Akbar would be a Mughal if went that route. Meanwhile if we did a single Indian civ, Akbar is still extremely important to Indian history. Actually, it's kind of interesting how many historical parallels there are between Asoka and Akbar...

Also, this might be stepping into a different pile of controversy, so maybe we shouldn't do this, but the meme version of Gandhi could actually be retooled to Indira Gandhi. India's nuclear program was actually developed under her, and she was a pretty aggressive leader all things considered. Plus, it would be a nice way to sneak in some female representation. That being said, her reputation is mixed to say the least; I could see why people would be opposed to her.

I'm going to let the changes made to India in VI stand on their own, but, jokes aside, I like the war elephant over the mysore rockets. Elephants are extremely iconic to India, and the various Indian empires were some of the most extensive users of the animals dating thousands of years. Those rockets, on the other hand, were used by a father and son pair for twenty years, before they were defeated, to never be used again. It just seems so shortsighted to demand to remove the elephants for that.

If we made a Tamil civ though, give the rockets to them for sure.

Indonesian
Leader: Gajah Mada
Gameplay: A maritime trading civ that thrives on diversity. The Candi thing from Civ5 is genius, but is hampered a bit by how religion is treated in that game. If religion is more like how it was in Civ4, like a feature of the game environment that you can choose to grow and/or exploit as opposed to just an extension of a particular civ, that would be so much better. The special promotion thing for the Kris Swordsman is nice too, except nerf the base unit but let the player choose the bonuses (which should be geared towards defensive and amphibious ones). I think the Spice Islanders UA is meh, I'd actually replace it with something like Portugal's Civ5 UA, with resource diversity giving you a gold bonus.

India kind is already doing what you want Indonesia to do in VI, minus the naval part. I would revise the Kris Swordsman altogether; it was a nice idea, but its implementation, imo, was just obnoxious from a gameplay perspective. Instead, I would have Kris Swordsmen act like Celtic Swordsmen from V: Get faith on kills.

Iroquoian
Leader: Ayenwatha
Gameplay: I must confess, I don't particularly like uniques that means a civ only excels in a particular environment. That doesn't mean that I don't think interacting with terrain and using it to your advantage should be a big part of the game, but the running theme of human civilisation is us adapting to new environments and changing existing ones and repurposing them for our own use. Now a UU or UB that gives you a terrain bonus is one thing but Civ5 all of the Iroquois' uniques encourage them to preserve forests. It's even problematic historically, as American Indians/Native Americans don't aim preserve forests, they manage them; management might means preserving forests sometimes, burning them other times. Instead the Iroquois UA or UB should play with the new Civ6 districts system to reflect how their concept of land care and ownership is radically different from the European conception. I'd keep the UU though.

There's noting I find controversial here.

Japanese
Leader: Ito Hirobumi
Gameplay: I really want Japan to be a maritime civ that's not particularly maritime, if you get my drift. An England with a strong land army, having a navy not so much to rule the waves as to get the land army to where it needs to go. So maybe having a bonus for Great Admirals instead of extra movement. The Samurai is too iconic not to have as a UU, and maybe a UB that helps cut unit support cost or something.

Ito Hirobumi is certainly an interesting pick for a Japanese, something I would have never considered until now, but I can see it working. Myself, I kind of would like to an Emperor for once; I personally would want to see Himiko above anyone else, but that's just my bias for female leaders.

I think the electronics focus that Japan got in VI works better than your proposed UB, since I personally think Japan should be a mix of culture and military themed (and not even nessecairly naval themed. Japan was only a naval power for a brief period of time. Just because a nation is on an island doesn't mean it has to be naval focused), and the electronics factory really encapsulates modern Japan in one nice UB. If any civ should have Great Admiral buffs, it should be England imo.

Korean
Leader: Myeongseong, not only because she's female, but since I've chosen Hirobumi for Japan, let's also have one of his most famous and determined opponent.
Gameplay: I want the three East Asian civs to provide a contrast to each other. So if China is the balanced civ, Japan is the warmongering civ, then Korea is the peaceful sciencey civ. And just as Japan is a maritime civ that's not particularly maritime, then Korea is a land-based civ that can more than hold its own at sea, so naturally Turtle Ship as the UU.

While I think your reasoning is weak (You shouldn't be picking leaders for civs based off of who you pick for other civs), I do like the choice of leader very much here

There's nothing immediately obvious I take exception to otherwise.

Malinese
Leader: Sundiata Keita
Gameplay: I'd like this to be a trading Civ that gains science from trade routes, with a fast medieval age cavalry to protect the caravans. We can repurpose the Mud Pyramid Mosque from Civ5 as UB and helps you gain extra culture or science with each trade route.

Firstly, civs already get science from trade routes, and did in V. Unless, of course, you mean that they get more science from trade routes than the average civ, which I guess would be accurate enough.

However, moreso than being an early center of learning, Mali was known for being filthy stinking rich. They sat upon a large pile of gold and salt, and Mansa Musa was arguably the richest man to ever live. In Civ IV, they got a mint as a UB, which turned an otherwise production building into one that also produced a lot of gold as well. I would have a "Imperial Treasury" UB, replacing banks, which produce extra gold for every luxury resource next to it, to represent the fact that there was so much gold in Mali, that the government literally had to confiscate it from people and replace it with gold dust to prevent inflation.

Mayan
Leader: Lady Xoc, a Mesoamerican female leader is a very fresh perspective don't you think?
Gameplay: So if the Aztecs are warriors, and Incans are builders, the Mayans are the mystics. Their unique stuff shouldn't give them any edge militarily but like India their means of expansions are through trade and religion. I actually wouldn't give them any UUs, but two UBs or an extra passive bonus. The Long Count thing in Civ5 is nice, I'd keep that.

Love the leader choice. I disagree that Mayans should have two UBs though.

Persian
Leader: I'm actually undecided on this. Cyrus or Darius are strong and safe but somewhat boring choices, I'm tempted to do with someone from the Sassanid era, especially since Extra History gave me a thing for Khosrow I, Troll of Trolls
Gameplay: I'd give them something like a Satrapies UA or UB that helps them consolidate their rule in conquered cities, allowing the Persians to conquer big and have an easier time maintaining their conquests than other civs. An Immortal UU very early in the game helps deal with barbs but too early to really be used effectively against other civs.

This may sound a bit off the wall, but I am a huge proponent of making Mossadegh the leader of Persia (which I would rename to be Iran anyways). Once again, I like having some modern leaders in the game, and given that he is both beloved in Iran and increasingly in the west (where the coup is being rightfully seen as a terrible mistake), he wouldn't be a controversial pick. Plus his anti-imperialist politics would make for a good, unique leader agenda in my opinion.

Roman
Leader: Marcus Aurelius
Gameplay: Rome should be the new Germany - the highly disciplined, highly militaristic, highly aggressive civ. Have the Legionary as a strong classical age UU, and have some sort of barracks replacement that gives a useful bonus well into the late game. Make roads cost less to maintain or something as well to help tie your conquests together.

But why?

Rome was certainly imperialistic throughout its history, but it didn't really have a militaristic cult surrounding its apparatus, like Prussia or Sparta. It's deceptions in V and VI, as a nation that is designed to play wide, up to and including having the tools to take land if it can't expand peacefully, is far more accurate than the proposed above.

The Emperor I really want to see is Elagabalus, if only because I'm trans and Elagbalus is the most notable trans leader I can think of throughout history. A bit of identity politics, and I know it'll never happen, but I can dream!

Russian
Leader: Catherine
Gameplay: Russia should be big and hard to conquer. I'd introduce something like attrition into the game, and give Russia a General Winter UA making Russian territory inflict extra attrition, and reintroduce the Krepost UB or something similar so that borders expand more and faster.

Eh, it's better than how Russia is implemented currently, which seems to only represent Peterist Russia to the exclusion of literally the rest of its entire history.

Spanish
Leader: Isabella
Gameplay: Civ5 has the right idea with this civ so I'm not going to tweak much except to say that the bonus yield from natural wonders thing is weird. I'd probably replace it with better stuff from ancient ruins/goody huts except that might be a little OP.

Agreed with everything here; I thought the shift towards religion in VI was better than the proposed idea here. Still would perfer Isabella over Phillip tbh, though.

So, this was the list I made in the conversation. Reasons for each one is lost in the backlog in the conversations (and I am too burnt out writing the rest of this to retype them), but I am willing to defend why I selected each one if anyone is interested. I also have slightly different civs picked in my "base18" than Tee Kay (who actually has 20; I would have added Zulu and one of Ethiopia/Sioux/Korea/Vietnam if I could have twenty), so that's why some civs are different.

America: Jefferson
England: Victoria
France: Napoleon
Spain: Isabella
Germany: Maria Theresa
Rome: Elagabalus
Greece: Alexander
Russia: Lenin
Persia: Mossadegh.
Ottomans: Murad II
Mongolia: Genghis Khan
China: Cixi
India: Akbar
Japan: Empress Himiko
Egypt: Hatsheput
Arabia: TBH I am fine with Saladin as leader of Arabia, even if he is a Kurd, since the Fatamids were definitely Arabic. If not acceptable, just reuse Rashid again.
Aztec: Itzcoatl
Inca: Manco Capac.

 

[Tee Kay]

I'll just respond to Megs really quickly here

American - all fair criticism, except my preference for leader would be Washington, Lincoln, and either Roosevelt before Jefferson.
Aztec - I felt the caricature of the Aztecs as bloodthirsty warmongers was somewhat justified as the Triple Alliance did in fact wage aggressive wars pretty much constantly, but point taken. I'm not entirely happy with how they are depicted in VI either, as I feel like their building bonus would be better suited for, say, the Maya; Tenochtitlan aside the other Aztec urban centres were pretty unremarkable. And it bugs me that they still have an ancient era unit when they entered history in the 1300s.
Chinese - the Great Wall UB makes me cringe to be honest; in fact I find the idea that China should be a fortress of a civ weird in general, considering historically China has been invaded and even conquered repeatedly. Wu Zetain is a fine leader choice, but not Cixi, sorry. It'd be like having Abdulhamid II as leader of the Ottomans.
Egyptian - I wanted to pick a leader who's never been in Civ before, hence Amenhotep. Otherwise I'd be fine with Hatshepsut. I agree the Sphinx is ridiculous, but I defend Worker Housing on grounds that the level of organisation of the Egyptian state was very remarkable for its time, plus maybe it'll help with the weirdly persistent myth that the pyramids etc were built by brutalised slaves. It might sound generic, but so's the Electronics Factory, which you seem pretty happy with (and which I agree is a great UB for Japan, as well).
English - I make up for replacing a female English leader with Walpole by replacing a male Mayan leader with Lady Xoc
French - I agree France as a cultural/espionage civ works better than a jack-of-all-trades civ, which incidentally fits my choice of Richelieu pretty well.
German - I take your point about Konrad Adenauer's Panzers potentially raising unfortunately implications. I agree we should not have separate German and Austrian civs, but I don't know if I can really warm to Maria Theresa though, or Charles V for that matter. I didn't like the choice of Barbarossa when it was first announced, but if we're to have a German leader that's inclusive of all the German peoples, then perhaps he's the best choice.
Greek - point taken about it being too Atheny
Incan - I think Topa is a great choice; a top choice if you will. He was responsible for a lot of the conquests made under Pachacuti's reign, then he had a successful reign in his own right. He was probably the most well-travelled of all the Incas, including possibly leading a naval expedition, which fits with my idea of having them as a master-of-environments civ.
Indian - Anything but War Elephants. Mysorean Rockets are undoubtedly the coolest but can we have Rajputs, Gurkhas, even Zamburaks instead of War Elephants. Aside from being so overdone, pachyderms in battle are associated with lots of other civs from Siam to Carthage; I say they should be available if you have access to elephants as a resource, not tied to any specific civ. Other than that, I do think the Indian UA and UB in VI are pretty cool.
Indonesian - I'd repurpose this civ then to be a trading-focused one. Point taken on the Kris Swordsmen.
Iroquoian - you want more female leaders you say, may I suggest Jigonhsasee, Mother of Nations?
Japanese - no disagreements from me
Korean - we're on the same page pretty much
Malinese - points taken, I'm just split on whether to challenge the "Africa is poor" stereotype or "Africa is stupid" stereotype ¿Porque no los dos?
Mayan - what would the UU be? I can't think of one that's not generic asf
Persian - I don't know about Mossadegh, ultimately he didn't achieve very much, and we already have an anti-imperialist leader in Gandhi. Personally I feel the focus should be on the Achaemenid, Sassanid, and Safavid eras, in that order.
Roman - I do feel that Rome certainly had a militaristic streak that should be emphasised more in Civ, but point taken.
Russian - no arguments here
Spanish - I think Philip II is a solid choice but Isabella is also very acceptable.