Leader Appearance Chart

[Krajzen]

*cough* anyway,

My thoughts:
- Alexander and Genghis Khan are so incredible personalities they arguably deserve constant presence in the series, although it'd be nice to see Kubilai Khan
- Less Gandhi pls more Ashoka and other Indian rulers
- Elizabeth, Catherine and Isabella are eternal lady trio. Personally I am a bit tired of Elizabeth and Isabella but not of Catherine, my favourite civ5 personality. Anyway it's nice how civ6 let's them rest for a while.
- On the other hand, personally I think Boudica and Shaka (and Zulus in general) are incredibly overrated and are in the series only because of popculture and Firaxis habits, very few people still want them. Boudica especially, in my opinion she is the barbarian who was only capable of killing a bunch of Roman settlers and then the first Roman expeditionary force wiped the floor with her in devastating battle. My distaste for Shaka comes from my general distaste for primitive Zulu who take place of many actual Subsaharan civilisations.
- No more Lincoln for America for a while, please...
- Egypt could use a lot of diversity instead of constant Ramses and Cleopatra duo :/ what about Hatshepsut, for example?
- Thank God for fresh leaders of Japan and Rome this time, we'll see if Babylon again gets Hammurabi...

 

[SnowKomodo]

Ok, please educate me. ~ Indonesian history is not my strongest point. (I removed him from the list until I know for sure which one it was...I don't want to get it wrong.)

No worries. Their names are so similar it's an easy mistake to make:

Sukarno was Indonesia's first president, known for leading the country from a transition of Dutch colonial rule to independence. He is renowned for peacefully managing an archipelago of wildly different cultures under one banner during a tumultuous and fast-evolving time.

Suharto was Indonesia's second president. Under his watch, one of modern history's greatest mass murders took place. Suspected communists, ethnic Chinese and so-called leftists and associated sympathizers were massacred. He was also corrupt, embezzling billions.

 

[Morningcalm]

Next time they do Babylon, they need to portray Hammurabi as a backstabbing schemer. He is one of history's most successful backstabbers, carving out the Babylonian Empire from the lands of his betrayed allies.

I wouldn't mind Lincoln returning for the US--very tired of Washington. Last time we had Lincoln was in Civ Rev (*shudder*) and Civ IV: Beyond the Sword (still Civ's greatest expansion pack ever).

For Egypt, they will hopefully introduce new blood. We haven't had Senusret III or Thutmose III.

For France, aside from the tired old emperors and kings, why not Cardinal Richelieu? He wasn't just a figure of the Three Musketeers, though that did boost his fame somewhat.

Speaking of powerful chancellors, I fully expect Gaja Madah to make a return, and perhaps Cao Cao to make an appearance (at least in a scenario). Mao is hopefully never to return.

India from now on should always just have Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka or Akbar the Great as default leader. Ashoka can easily take Gandhi's peacemongering into a future Civ incarnation.

 

[Greywulf]

No worries. Their names are so similar it's an easy mistake to make:

Sukarno was Indonesia's first president, known for leading the country from a transition of Dutch colonial rule to independence. He is renowned for peacefully managing an archipelago of wildly different cultures under one banner during a tumultuous and fast-evolving time.

Suharto was Indonesia's second president. Under his watch, one of modern history's greatest mass murders took place. Suspected communists, ethnic Chinese and so-called leftists and associated sympathizers were massacred. He was also corrupt, embezzling billions.

Ah, my apologies, and good to know. I've edited my post to list Suharto instead. Sorry about posting the wrong name in that list, I didn't mean to do that.

 

[Guandao]

I pray that Mao never returns as the Chinese leader. Apparently some people here miss him, which bothers me so much. If they really want him in the game again, then they should download a mod.

I hope Abraham Lincoln, Julius Caesar and Frederick the Great will get the "voiced treatment" someday in a future iteration of Civ. But not Mao, who would speak in an heavily Hunanese accented Mandarin.

 

[Disgustipated]

Mao was just in the game for representation. Same with Stalin. Since we had no leaders representing communism. Doesn't it strike anyone as strange that we have communism as a type of government, but no leaders from history representing that government? Of course we don't have anyone representing Fascism either, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. It's strange these governments are even in the game if they are so unsuccessful.

 

[Guandao]

Mao was just in the game for representation. Same with Stalin. Since we had no leaders representing communism. Doesn't it strike anyone as strange that we have communism as a type of government, but no leaders from history representing that government? Of course we don't have anyone representing Fascism either, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. It's strange these governments are even in the game if they are so unsuccessful.

Given that Communism is a 20th Century phenomenon and most of the famous Communist leaders have controversial legacies, it's no surprise there aren't leaders with that ideology at all in Civ6.
I guess Firaxis wanted more variety in the Modern era Governments.

 

[Duckfromstatefarm]

Nice work OP, excellent job !

 

[Gabriel Sergio]

- On the other hand, personally I think Boudica and Shaka (and Zulus in general) are incredibly overrated and are in the series only because of popculture and Firaxis habits, very few people still want them. Boudica especially, in my opinion she is the barbarian who was only capable of killing a bunch of Roman settlers and then the first Roman expeditionary force wiped the floor with her in devastating battle. My distaste for Shaka comes from my general distaste for primitive Zulu who take place of many actual Subsaharan civilisations.

Yes yes i know you hate Zulu and Celts. You've say it already many times

 

[UWHabs]

Given that Communism is a 20th Century phenomenon and most of the famous Communist leaders have controversial legacies, it's no surprise there aren't leaders with that ideology at all in Civ6.
I guess Firaxis wanted more variety in the Modern era Governments.

The one thing I'm always surprised by is that Communism is always a pretty solid government type in-game. Although I guess they need some sort of gameplay counter-balance to Democracy. Although they could do something neat by bringing back the old method that in Democracy, maybe you can't declare war except with a Cassus Belli? That would be a very interesting gameplay mechanism to force you to one of the other late-game governments...

 

[nzcamel]

Brillaint work @clapyourhands

Now I must vent something...
The amount of times Mao Zedong appears in this game series makes me feel sick, and also makes me wonder why [redacted] was never included, who didn't kill nearly as many people. They did have Josef Stalin, but only a couple of times in earlier versions of the game, certainly not as often as the man who killed more people than anybody else ever. I guess this means that the door is open for other leaders like Pol Pot (Cambodia), Ho Chi Minh (North Vietnam), Suharto (Indonesia), Hideki Tojo (Japan), Kim Il Sung (North Korea), Benito Mussolini (Italy), Josip Broz Tito (Yugoslavia), Ismail Enver Pasha (Ottoman Empire), Saddam Hussein (Iraq), Mullah Omar (Afganistan), Yahya Khan (Pakistan), Mengistu Haile Mariam (Ethiopia), Leopold II of Belgium (Colonial Congo), Yakubu Gowon (Nigeria), Jean Kambanda (Rwanda), Idi Amin (Uganda), Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire and Congo), Charles Taylor (Liberia), Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone), and many others...And why not? Mao Zedong and Josef Stalin get a place in the game series, so there's really no reason why we can't have all the rest of these mass murdering dictators. Why shouldn't we include a leader who is merely responsible for some 70 million deaths?
I've said it before...I won't buy the game if they add Mao Zedong again.

Well we know why. Schools largely employ teachers of a progressive persuasion who are blind to their own bias, so will condemn one evil leader... but not others closer to their own political values. Meaning that most are oblivious to the outrages of these other leaders.

The one thing I'm always surprised by is that Communism is always a pretty solid government type in-game. Although I guess they need some sort of gameplay counter-balance to Democracy. Although they could do something neat by bringing back the old method that in Democracy, maybe you can't declare war except with a Cassus Belli? That would be a very interesting gameplay mechanism to force you to one of the other late-game governments...

Yeah, this irks me to; but I accept that as a game it gives a real world name to civic options. For immersion sake I don't dwell on things like that at all

 

[Guandao]

Brillaint work @clapyourhands



Well we know why. Schools largely employ teachers of a progressive persuasion who are blind to their own bias, so will condemn one evil leader... but not others closer to their own political values. Meaning that most are oblivious to the outrages of these other leaders.



Yeah, this irks me to; but I accept that as a game it gives a real world name to civic options. For immersion sake I don't dwell on things like that at all

I think we would have to ask Sid Meier about this. Wasn't he the one who picked Mao as the Chinese leader and Stalin as the Russian leader back when he was making Civ1?

 

[nzcamel]

I think we would have to ask Sid Meier about this. Wasn't he the one who picked Mao as the Chinese leader and Stalin as the Russian leader back when he was making Civ1?

Back in Civ I, it didn't really matter at all. It was a project that they never knew would take off quite as it did

Edit: Even Civ II wasn't expected to be much of a success. It's from III on that I think they should have been a bit more responsible or rather balanced in their choices.

 

[Sagax]

I think we would have to ask Sid Meier about this. Wasn't he the one who picked Mao as the Chinese leader and Stalin as the Russian leader back when he was making Civ1?

Obviously not Sid, but I think it boiled down to this:

1. Civ 1 probably had a stronger theme of ideological battle and “good guys vs bad guys” going on. And boy was this theme overused back then - keep in mind that Cold War just ended in 1991 with the fall of USSR, so such stereotyping was still strong.

2. IMO more important factor: globalization and increased cultural awareness. I don’t think the devs or the customers really cared as much about accurate portrayal and representation back in the 90s - the game played into the existing stereotypes and people were willing to swallow it. Not so much nowadays, where more and more people are actually curious about the outside world and want to see fair representation of our diverse world.

 

[Disgustipated]

ethod that in Democracy, maybe you can't declare war except with a Cassus Belli?

Even though it annoyed me, I kind of miss the days when the Senate could overrule you when declaring war when in Democracy (and I think to a lesser extent Republic?) I don't remember exactly how it works, I just remember switching to Fundamentalism when I needed to.

 

[Greywulf]

Well we know why. Schools largely employ teachers of a progressive persuasion who are blind to their own bias, so will condemn one evil leader... but not others closer to their own political values. Meaning that most are oblivious to the outrages of these other leaders.

It's considerably worse than that. Some of these leaders are deeply revered, and in the case of Mao Zedong, quite literally worshiped as a god (no joke)...

Their government even built a gigantic golden statue of him...

 

[Guandao]

It's considerably worse than that. Some of these leaders are deeply revered, and in the case of Mao Zedong, quite literally worshiped as a god (no joke)...

Their government even built a gigantic golden statue of him...

This bothers me a lot to no end....
I mean one of my grandmas worships him too....
I'm just glad most of my ancestors left before he came into charge.

 

[pgm123]

Mao was just in the game for representation. Same with Stalin. Since we had no leaders representing communism. Doesn't it strike anyone as strange that we have communism as a type of government, but no leaders from history representing that government? Of course we don't have anyone representing Fascism either, but we aren't allowed to talk about that. It's strange these governments are even in the game if they are so unsuccessful.

I feel fairly confident we got Mao and Stalin because they were allies in WWII. I don't think there was anything more to it. I don't think they were really worthy of inclusion, but I think a case can be made.

 

[nzcamel]

It's considerably worse than that. Some of these leaders are deeply revered, and in the case of Mao Zedong, quite literally worshiped as a god (no joke)...

Oh no doubt. I was more looking at it from why Stalin & co. are acceptable in the West (which was pretty much the only relevant market for Civ in its early days) in ways that a certain other leader is not. Till today, that hasn't changed. If anything the ignorance is worse than 25 years ago.

 

[Greywulf]

I feel fairly confident we got Mao and Stalin because they were allies in WWII. I don't think there was anything more to it. I don't think they were really worthy of inclusion, but I think a case can be made.

Actually there is more to it than that. The main reason is definitely political...You see, the Chinese want Mao to be respected in the West as well, and it is illegal to talk negatively about Mao in China. For 2K and Firaxis, adding Mao means more money and support from China. They probably don't mind other Chinese leaders as well, but they would especially want Mao. Also, if the Devs do not include Mao in the game anymore, it is possible that China may take it that he is deliberately not being included, and that could mean a drop in sales of the game in that part of the world (I've heard of something similar actually happening for something else)...That is just a risk though, and may be overly pessimistic. Also, the fact that Mao has already appeared a lot in the game series makes it a lot less risky to exclude him now, as they can reason that he has been in the game multiple times before, and that the game company cannot have anything against Mao. Anyway, it would be safer for achieving the highest possible game sales in China to include Mao, and the West generally doesn't care, or don't know about how Mao killed millions of Chinese people (How ironic that it is his inclusion that the Chinese want, when anyone who loves Chinese people would not like seeing someone in the game who is responsible for the deaths of many millions of Chinese). What would be more than just a risk is if they did include him in a strictly negative way. That would ensure that the game is banned in China, and probably even everything from 2K and Firaxis.