• We need to know your opinion about our social media accounts! Tell us here if you follow us on social media and what we could improve.

How would you design a civ in civ 7 roster?

I'm in the group of those who prefer early era leaders, as they are more interesting, at least for me. At least they could be avoided when Civ offers more interesting earlier leaders, like Netherlands. However... if the game has recent technologies, recent buildings, recent units, recent wonders, then why not recent leaders as well? Look, I don't think the game should be full of 20th century leaders, but some of them, around half a dozen, I don't think would hurt. Not even Civ6 has many of them.
Also thinking about gameplay, recent leaders can interact with late game mechanics.
I understand the anxiety about 20th Century leaders. Because that will always bring up discussions about you-know-who. But then again this franchise has used a lot of leaders that weren't exactly angels themselves. But even if the Charlie Chaplin look-alike remains off limits. There are plenty of 20th century leaders worth exploring. A charasmatic leader like Castro seems tailor-made for the Civ franchise. We gotta get the Beard in this somehow. America and Russia should have Cold War leaders. My pick would be Ike or JFK for America, Khruschev for Russia. The tension between those leaders reached epic levels. Why not bring that kind of drama to Civ.
 
I'm in the group of those who prefer early era leaders, as they are more interesting, at least for me. At least they could be avoided when Civ offers more interesting earlier leaders, like Netherlands. However... if the game has recent technologies, recent buildings, recent units, recent wonders, then why not recent leaders as well? Look, I don't think the game should be full of 20th century leaders, but some of them, around half a dozen, I don't think would hurt. Not even Civ6 has many of them.
Also thinking about gameplay, recent leaders can interact with late game mechanics.
Six still might be too much. I could live with maybe 2 or 3: Evita Peron for Argentina, Gandhi for India (as long as we have others as well), and I guess if Australia comes back, they will need one as well. Though I guess 19th century Henry Parkes could work for them.
I was trying to think of any WWII European leader, similar to how the Dutch got Wilhelmina this time, which I didn't mind her inclusion for this game, at least but couldn't think of any I really would want. I still don't see Churchill or de Gaulle as compelling as their earlier counterparts. And I'm not about to pick Germany, Russia, or Italy for that category. :shifty:
 
Mackenzie King for Canada would be a good option, if they were to make a return (they shouldn’t).

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, every 20th century politician that makes it into the game is 1 less potential ideological tenet or movement for a system I desperately want to make a return. I would like to see more ideologies than the standard liberal/communist/fascist 3-way split. Adding modern era leaders is unnecessary and sucks oxygen out of a fleshed out late game system.

So would I rather have Gandhi or a non-aligned or anti-colonial ideology with tenets like Satyagraha and Swaraj? Would I rather have FDR or Liberalism tenets like New Deal or Arsenal of Democracy? The ideology, every time. The scores and scores of historical figures from the other 3000+ years of history don’t compete with policy design space like leaders do from the past 200 years. The later eras goes through time too slowly and already suffer from too few ideas and mechanics to maintain interest without having it used to pad out civ kits instead. Maybe part of the reason late game in civ 6 is so boring is because they stripped out national parks bonuses to give to Teddy Roosevelt instead? It couldn’t have helped.
 
Last edited:
Mackenzie King for Canada would be a good option, if they were to make a return (they shouldn’t).
If Canada were to make a return, I would rather them focus more on their French side of history, to distinguish them from the multitude of post-colonial Anglo civs. Though I suppose you could have a modern Canadian leader and have basically New France civ ability centered around diplomacy and fur trade etc. I guess the question is would that technically be Canada though, or just an extension of France?
But I didn't originally mention Canada because I'd be more partial for a new civ like Haiti.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, every 20th century politician that makes it into the game is 1 less potential ideological tenet or movement for a system I desperately want to make a return. I would like to see more ideologies than the standard liberal/communist/fascist 3-way split. Adding modern era leaders is unnecessary and sucks oxygen out of a fleshed out late game system.
I don't necessarily think having a leader representing an ideological movement would exclude that ideology from appearing in the game. I would think it would make it more likely that it would be included, as in that particular leader might have a preference for it.
The same could be said for early game leaders as well, and I don't see monarchies, or classical republics, getting in the way of leaders like Elizabeth, Julius Caesar, or Pericles etc.
 
Six still might be too much. I could live with maybe 2 or 3: Evita Peron for Argentina, Gandhi for India (as long as we have others as well), and I guess if Australia comes back, they will need one as well. Though I guess 19th century Henry Parkes could work for them.
I was trying to think of any WWII European leader, similar to how the Dutch got Wilhelmina this time, which I didn't mind her inclusion for this game, at least but couldn't think of any I really would want. I still don't see Churchill or de Gaulle as compelling as their earlier counterparts. And I'm not about to pick Germany, Russia, or Italy for that category. :shifty:
Gandhi could be cut at least once :p, or at least I hope he just leads a modern India while we can have earlier Indian empires as playable civilizations. Haile Selassie is a modern leader that I can accept well, even if Ethiopia has other options from previous eras. If Brazil gets a leader other than Pedro II, it will certainly be someone from the 20th century, like Juscelino Kubitschek, although I wouldn't mind if they went with the emperor again. Besides those, there's Evita and some Australian president like you mentioned. Nor can we rule out the possibility of an American president of this century, either as a main or an alternate leader.
 
Maybe part of the reason late game in civ 6 is so boring is because they stripped out national parks bonuses to give to Teddy Roosevelt instead? It couldn’t have helped.
I can't see this being the case at all. Base game Teddy's National Park bonus is "+1 Appeal to all tiles in cities with a National Park." Making this a universal mechanic wouldn't even begin to move the needle on addressing Civ 6's late game problems.
 
Top Bottom