Leaders that SHOULD be in Civ7

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Who should be a leader choice in addition to what Firaxis announced to date.?
Mine choice
1. Alexander III of Macedonia
- He has his own UU: Hetairoi. Being heavy cavalry of sorts since the beginning to end. replaces Cavalry, limited numbers (any cavalry trained after will be 'generic' or respective civ replacements)
2. Charlemagne
- He is the only leader that comes with his UC: Paladin (there were always Twelve, replaces Army Commander except that the 13th Army is founded and since then regular Army Commander is trained instead).
3. Eleanore d'Acquitaine
4. Guilliame de Normandie.
5. Louis IX
6. Richard I
7. Felipe II (He's also King of Portugal.)
8. Oliver Cromwell
9. Cardinal Richielieu: UU 'Mousquetaire Gris' (elite cavalry UU not affected by Anticavalry ability)
10. Chuang Bunnag (Regent to King Chulalongkorn, also War Hero).
11. William Pitt The Elder
12. Mustafa Kemal.
These are what I can think of... for now.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

SHOULD - based on what?

Anyhow Attila and Timur are musts

 

[RedCourtJester]

I think good opportunities for what VII is going for are Cnut and/or Margaret for Scandinavia. I think Fumo Liyongo would be a pretty neat way to tie together Aksum, Swahili, and Buganda.

I also think Henry the Lion would be a nice leader for Hanseatic Germany. I think the Purepecha and Hapunda would add some nice symmetry to Mesomerica and Latin America. Pokare/Yagan seems like a good starting place to build out some Australian representation.

But my dark horse leader that I think would help break up a pretty sparsely represented Russian landscape is Tygyn Darkhan.

Wouldn't say any of these are shoulds, but I think they would synergize with what it seems the game is shaping up to be.

 

[Leyrann]

Don't we already have a leader wishlist thread somewhere? (as well as a leader prediction thread)

 

[Naokaukodem]

Yeah there's enough Leaders/civs threads as is, it's so spread out that I hardly can think how the OP missed them... By the way, I noticed that the threads are waaaay more frequented than the ones discussing the release of Civ6 (I noticed some threads going to 10 pages max in the Civ6 General Discussion first threads pages) and that the only early concern was about art style mainly, whereas there is lot more for Civ7. (and as Civ5 was a pretty solid game, everyone assumed that Civ6 would be an evolution of it, so there was not too much discussion about new mechanics except districts, which was pretty blurry as first)
So what can we conclude of this very forum to be way more frequented and that there is more early concerns about features too ? I have no clue to be honest.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Yeah there's enough Leaders/civs threads as is, it's so spread out that I hardly can think how the OP missed them... By the way, I noticed that the threads are waaaay more frequented than the ones discussing the release of Civ6 (I noticed some threads going to 10 pages max in the Civ6 General Discussion first threads pages) and that the only early concern was about art style mainly, whereas there is lot more for Civ7. (and as Civ5 was a pretty solid game, everyone assumed that Civ6 would be an evolution of it, so there was not too much discussion about new mechanics except districts, which was pretty blurry as first)
So what can we conclude of this very forum to be way more frequented and that there is more early concerns about features too ? I have no clue to be honest.

Mostly because the game either seems to be lacking a solid historical/marketing thesis, or is otherwise obscuring it to the point that fans are worried if it will make any sense.

 

[MasterPaw]

I'd like to have Phillip of Macedon once instead of always Alexander

 

[RedCourtJester]

I'd like to have Phillip of Macedon once instead of always Alexander

Ah poor Phillip. Possibly the least likely of any leader in history to appear in a civ game, maybe tied with Edward/Mary Tudor.

 

[moysturfurmer]

I don’t think we’re gonna see UUs assigned to individual leaders anymore. Each leader ability is general enough to work in any age.

Instead of Alexander getting a Horseman UU with +combat strength, I feel like it’d more likely be an ability like “All cavalry units (horsemen/knights/dragoons/helicopters) get +3 combat strength”

 

[Naokaukodem]

Mostly because the game either seems to be lacking a solid historical/marketing thesis

I noticed this sentence that comes with every trailer/official video : "make a world you believe in", or something like that. At first I didn't see what they meant, it even could have been seen as not true (civs switching), but in the end (after writing yet another complaint about Civ6, which have no conclusion so wasn't posted yet) I realized that by that they could mean a game that opposes resistance to the few disillusioned Civ6 Deity players that find the game "too easy", by reshuffling the cards with each era. I realized that if it's too easy, we don't feel immersed, not more if it's too hard. I feel they kind of focused on the difficulty, the resistance from the AI/the system you may encounter, by making a less/more streamlined game that could content more people.

or is otherwise obscuring it to the point that fans are worried if it will make any sense.

I think they are obscuring the exact gameplay because it's more fun to discover it by our self, I think they want to kinda avoid the you know, "youtube players"... I have nothing against youtube, but I feel it's better that way because I don't want to be spoiled too much until I beat Deity this time around. I also want to learn by myself, if the game is playable that is... (unlike Civ6 IMO) Remember that Civ4 maps were designed to welcome regularly spaced out cities that shouted to be placed here or there. It's far to be the case in Civ6. Randomization may be good, but too much of it is definitely a killer for me.

 

[MasterPaw]

Ah poor Phillip. Possibly the least likely of any leader in history to appear in a civ game, maybe tied with Edward/Mary Tudor.

He was in Old World, replaced by Alexander after doing
That's the advantage of leader that can die I guess