I think the game should get back to some realistic history

[GeneralZift]

I‘m sure some people count Ibn Battuta as black. He is African, and ethnically Berber (despite being Arabic cultured).

I don't think so, he doesn't come across as Black at all. I mean just because he's African?
I think we could definitely do a lot better in terms of Black rep.
I'm not black myself but I feel the game is definitely lacking without a Mansa Musa, or a Shaka, or Haile Selassie, or something close. I'm sure there's even more non-leaders of which I'm not aware about.

 

[socratic]

Real leaders again would be so nice.
Shame that Firaxis went for Ada Lovelace and other made up leaders just to add more females in the roster.
But I think consumers can vote with their wallets, like I did, and correct history and erase the lies.

With the exception of Tubman and Ada all the other female leaders were major political/military figures for their civs? I also doubt they expanded the leader selection solely for diversity when there is still plenty of ‘real’ female leaders to choose from

 

[luca 83]

What room is there for simulating historical and political cycles when leaders have always been immortal beings that ruled over a civ from like three thousand BC. Civ just isn't and has never been the accurate historical simulation franchise you seem to want it to be.

I have already explained this concept for an industrial revolution you need 1 Technology, blast furnaces, mechanical looms 2 raw materials, then certain events will happen or there could be, colonialism, modern, urban proletariat, Marxism, revolutions and revolts an event has causes. For leaders I have always supported the abolition and focus on ideologies. Moderator Action: *snip* no political talk, please. - Nikolai II

 

[luca 83]

As I explained years ago, we do not need leaders who attribute events but events of the Atlantic triangle: slaves, molasses, gold, economic events that trigger events, which lead to other events.View attachment 727629

Without the explorations of the 1400s and 1500s and. Imports and exports one cannot understand modern trade, the rise of England, modern capitalism with the East India Company, the first multinational, and the rise of Europe and the decline of the Mediterranean is more useful and interesting than the ethnicity and sex of the leaders.

 

[luca 83]

it is not a matter of simulating specific historical events but historical processes that may or may not happen based on technology, events ,wars choices

 

[j51]

Dude you’re talking to yourself now.

 

[luca 83]

Without the explorations of the 1400s and 1500s and. Imports and exports one cannot understand modern trade, the rise of England, modern capitalism with the East India Company, the first multinational, and the rise of Europe and the decline of the Mediterranean is more useful and interesting than the ethnicity and sex of the leaders.

The twentieth century is all about ideology - communism, fascism, democracy, capitalism. Read a history book and the game must develop on the ideology, not on the attributes of the leaders and on the leaders themselves, who can be different depending on the events or have different roles depending on the events.

 

[luca 83]

The game places a greater emphasis on the economy, political systems, and the simulation of diplomatic relations between states, making it possible to create dynastic, political, ideological, and religious alliances that change over time.

 

[luca 83]

I realized today playing civilization IV the wars last too long in the rrealta the states would collapse first the 100 year war and a also the 30 year war was in phases this in a new civilization should be changed

 

[luca 83]

Leaders are not reliable 1 because , they can either die or be overthrown are tied to a historical era , the only possibility and develop ideology , and economics and politics ,