Leaders that you would not want to have in civ 7 (until you think about it and they are strangely appealing)

[Morningcalm]

Plus)

Maybe for arts, but not for sciences. She falled into the Buddhism to forget the complicated political situation around her and her country, and it eventually lead the result of sponsorship on the Buddhism arts. But there is not a single clue about the scientific achievement in her reign in the record, unless the Civ 6 Seondeok who has science bonus.

The historical record says otherwise. She was a big patron of the sciences in terms of astronomy, and Cheomseongdae was created under her reign for example, and that was one of the oldest if not the oldest still standing observatory in east Asia. That structure is still standing and you can visit it in Korea. Moreover, she's an interesting leader choice for Korea who had a very dramatic life. I think she was an excellent pick and I hope to see her again (though I'd like Admiral Yi for Civ 7 since we are getting non-heads of state as leaders now).

 

[gdr_willter]

The historical record says otherwise. She was a big patron of the sciences in terms of astronomy, and Cheomseongdae was created under her reign for example, and that was one of the oldest if not the oldest still standing observatory in east Asia. That structure is still standing and you can visit it in Korea. Moreover, she's an interesting leader choice for Korea who had a very dramatic life. I think she was an excellent pick and I hope to see her again (though I'd like Admiral Yi for Civ 7 since we are getting non-heads of state as leaders now).

At the 2nd year of her reign. Not really her achievement, and the Korean dynasties normally built them. (Do you know there still is another Cheomseongdae in Gaeseong, North Korea?) I am Korean and I visited Gyeongju Cheomseongdae multiple times, but I don't agree it means she is a scientific leader. We already know that title is most perfectly fit to Sejong the Great.

Her life was dramatic indeed but in bad way (failing wars and diplomatic, facing rebels, ignoring these and falling into religious evasion). That's whay Korean gamers thought that she stands for the "Fall" part at the Rise and Fall expansion in Civ 6. I don't want to see her again.

You said "she served by able generals", but if one of the generals (more likely the minister tho) really did the greatest part of the job in her reign and finally became the King, why do we have to choose her instead of this great guy who lived the dramatic life?

 

[Morningcalm]

At the 2nd year of her reign. Not really her achievement, and the Korean dynasties normally built them. (Do you know there still is another Cheomseongdae in Gaeseong, North Korea?) I am Korean and I visited Gyeongju Cheomseongdae multiple times, but I don't agree it means she is a scientific leader. We already know that title is most perfectly fit to Sejong the Great.

Her life was dramatic indeed but in bad way (failing wars and diplomatic, facing rebels, ignoring these and falling into religious evasion). That's whay Korean gamers thought that she stands for the "Fall" part at the Rise and Fall expansion in Civ 6. I don't want to see her again.

You said "she served by able generals", but if one of the generals (more likely the minister tho) really did the greatest part of the job in her reign and finally became the King, why do we have to choose her instead of this great guy who lived the dramatic life?

Korean astronomy developed quite a bit during her reign too. Silla actually had quite a lot of development in that regard. Though it wasn't necessarily regarded as "science" back then, it was certainly advanced knowledge and development. In terms of Cheomseongdae, there is no other Cheomseongdae. There is only one observatory with that name. If you're saying there's a similar observatory elsewhere, that proves nothing without details on its date, construction, and purpose. Cheomseongdae was an exemplar of Silla's interest in and skill with astronomy. It is why Seondeok gets the scientific bonus, even if it would apply to Sejong as well.

You have also cherrypicked events (like Bidam's rebellion) that she overcame. The rebellion against her was specifically because she was female. The rebels failed in their goal and they were rounded up and executed. She also faced sexism from a certain emperor of China (Taizong) who she wanted to create an alliance with. She overcame that too. That was not a diplomatic failure. The fact she overcame Taizong's sexist worries about a female head of state and created a functioning alliance that paved the way for eventual Silla domination speaks well of her reign and quite a few historians think highly of her capabilities (even Gim Busik, whodisliked her because she was female, admitted she was "generous, benevolent, wise, and smart" in his History of the Three Kingdoms. The folktales around Seondeok's reign also show how venerated she was, to the point where she was presented as somewhat of an oracle who foresaw events before they happened. Seondeok's construction of Hwangnyongsa created what was not only the Korean wonder in Age of Empires II: The Conquerors but a wonder in east Asia generally, known for its construction without nails, its immense height, and its rallying point for Seondeok's push of Buddhism generally.

As for Korean gamers, the only ones I've seen complaining about Seondeok are the vocal (almost certainly male) gamers who don't see her as a good military leader (even though she put down the rebellion against her reign anyway). As for the generals, they served her loyally and thus she had some authority over them. You could pretty much ask the same question re: generals of Augustus, Justinian, and other leaders who were capably served by generals even if they weren't military experts themselves.

I've long since realized there isn't any persuading Seondeok-haters so that's all I'm going to say here for now. If you want to find my earlier posts in the Civ VI forums about Korea and Seondeok generally, there are lots of those that you can read if you search my post history.

 

[gdr_willter]

Korean astronomy developed quite a bit during her reign too. Silla actually had quite a lot of development in that regard. Though it wasn't necessarily regarded as "science" back then, it was certainly advanced knowledge and development.

Quite a bit? Because of all 15 years only with the single Cheomseongdae which started from her father's reign? You are really doing this wrong only to defend her.

In terms of Cheomseongdae, there is no other Cheomseongdae. There is only one observatory with that name. If you're saying there's a similar observatory elsewhere, that proves nothing without details on its date, construction, and purpose. Cheomseongdae was an exemplar of Silla's interest in and skill with astronomy. It is why Seondeok gets the scientific bonus, even if it would apply to Sejong as well.

Kaesong Chomsongdae - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And let's be more accurate, we hardly know about the real purpose the Silla Cheomseongdae. However, the Goryeo Cheomseongdae was really the observatory for the astronomical and meteorological purpose.

You have also cherrypicked events (like Bidam's rebellion) that she overcame. The rebellion against her was specifically because she was female. The rebels failed in their goal and they were rounded up and executed. She also faced sexism from a certain emperor of China (Taizong) who she wanted to create an alliance with. She overcame that too. That was not a diplomatic failure. The fact she overcame Taizong's sexist worries about a female head of state and created a functioning alliance that paved the way for eventual Silla domination speaks well of her reign and quite a few historians think highly of her capabilities (even Gim Busik, whodisliked her because she was female, admitted she was "generous, benevolent, wise, and smart" in his History of the Three Kingdoms. The folktales around Seondeok's reign also show how venerated she was, to the point where she was presented as somewhat of an oracle who foresaw events before they happened.

Seondeok did not overcome it because she died during the rebellion. Kim Chunchu (again) repressed the rebels on the reign of Jindeok.

Many beutiful stories about her just created by the Budhists who protected by her. You really think Taizong recognized her because of her poem about the flowers without butterflies? Silla-Tang relationship was mainly constructed by efforts of the diplomat Kim Chunchu (again).

Seondeok's construction of Hwangnyongsa created what was not only the Korean wonder in Age of Empires II: The Conquerors but a wonder in east Asia generally, known for its construction without nails, its immense height, and its rallying point for Seondeok's push of Buddhism generally.

Building giant temple during the long-lasting war is not a conduct by the wise leader, especially when they are defeating. I prefer Hwangnyongsa itself as the Wonder in the game, not her as the leader.

As for Korean gamers, the only ones I've seen complaining about Seondeok are the vocal (almost certainly male) gamers who don't see her as a good military leader (even though she put down the rebellion against her reign anyway). As for the generals, they served her loyally and thus she had some authority over them. You could pretty much ask the same question re: generals of Augustus, Justinian, and other leaders who were capably served by generals even if they weren't military experts themselves.

You asked people's gender? Not a few Korean female gamers also don't want to see the western game studios consider they satisfied the Korean females with Seondeok. They want to be represented by more proper womens - like Yu Gwansun, Heo Nanseolheon, and so on. But the hardest point is the shortage of the female monarchs in the Korean history, it leads many media to the temptation of well-known queen Seondeok.

I told you that she failed at war (Silla lost a lot of fortresses in her reign) and she did not put down the rebellion because she died first. Of course the political leaders have to be served by the militaristic supporters, but they have to foresee the war and diplomatics widely and lead the warfare correctly. Seondeok did none of them well, so you can't compare her with the others.

I've long since realized there isn't any persuading Seondeok-haters so that's all I'm going to say here for now. If you want to find my earlier posts in the Civ VI forums about Korea and Seondeok generally, there are lots of those that you can read if you search my post history.

You're lying to yourself with the fantasy about the great-winning leader Seondeok, that's why you consider all your opposite as "hater". Okay, I also don't feel the necessity to pursuade you anymore.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

What are our thoughts on philosophers like John Locke, Immanuel Kant, or Socrates becoming leaders? I think Locke especially has earned his right as an ideological/philosophical leader of certain countries/civs (influence on England and American Revolution, by extension France).

Additionally, if Ben Franklin is allowed to be America’s associated leader, Samuel Adams is just as, if not more qualified for the role in his stirring up of the American Revolution.

Has Marx or Engles been mentioned yet? Lenin? I feel like they suit this topic.

 

[Zaarin]

Samuel Adams

Wrong Adams.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

What are our thoughts on philosophers like John Locke, Immanuel Kant, or Socrates becoming leaders? I think Locke especially has earned his right as an ideological/philosophical leader of certain countries/civs (influence on England and American Revolution, by extension France).

Additionally, if Ben Franklin is allowed to be America’s associated leader, Samuel Adams is just as, if not more qualified for the role in his stirring up of the American Revolution.

Has Marx or Engles been mentioned yet? Lenin? I feel like they suit this topic.

Philosophers are tricky. Many of them had ideas that were subversive or attractive or very influential, but the men (or women) themselves frequently not so much. And looking for Big Personalities among intellectuals is another needle in a haystack kind of search.

On the other hand,
Socrates was a Big Personality: a sculptor who became a gadfly to everybody, a philosopher who questioned everything, and influential on people as different at Plato and Xenophon. You could build an entire Leader and all their Bonuses just from two of his attributed quotes:

"To see the right thing is to do it."
"An unexamined life is not worth living."

And rather than Kant or Locke, may I suggest:

Voltaire - who never saw anyone in charge that he didn't want to deflate, and combined the talents of a philosopher, playwright, novelist, satirist, political commentator, and military historian all in the same pen.

As an alternative to Franklin with influence in both America and Great Britain (and Revolutionary France):

Thomas Paine - whose words appealed to American Patriots, French Revolutionaries and British Conservatives, three groups you could scarcely get to agree on anything other than Paine.

Sam Adams for the beer, but (quoting @Zaarin, here)
Abigail or John Adams for a Leader: either one will do . . .

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Philosophers are tricky. Many of them had ideas that were subversive or attractive or very influential, but the men (or women) themselves frequently not so much. And looking for Big Personalities among intellectuals is another needle in a haystack kind of search.

On the other hand,
Socrates was a Big Personality: a sculptor who became a gadfly to everybody, a philosopher who questioned everything, and influential on people as different at Plato and Xenophon. You could build an entire Leader and all their Bonuses just from two of his attributed quotes:

"To see the right thing is to do it."
"An unexamined life is not worth living."

And rather than Kant or Locke, may I suggest:

Voltaire - who never saw anyone in charge that he didn't want to deflate, and combined the talents of a philosopher, playwright, novelist, satirist, political commentator, and military historian all in the same pen.

As an alternative to Franklin with influence in both America and Great Britain (and Revolutionary France):

Thomas Paine - whose words appealed to American Patriots, French Revolutionaries and British Conservatives, three groups you could scarcely get to agree on anything other than Paine.

Sam Adams for the beer, but (quoting @Zaarin, here)
Abigail or John Adams for a Leader: either one will do . . .

All good choices! I really considered adding Voltaire to the list but didn’t realize his portfolio was so varied. Obviously a great choice for personality!

I feel a little foolish for forgetting Thomas Paine in my Ben Franklin comparison. He’s more deserving of the spot than Sam Adams, I’ll admit it. (And for Zaarin, I will agree that John Adams trumps Sammy when you consider all of his efforts prior to his disappointing presidency. Sammy would definitely be a personality, though).

Speaking of writers named Thomas, Thomas Hobbes would not be a good choice for a leader. But it would be very funny to see him living out his philosophy about authoritarianism.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Speaking of writers named Thomas, Thomas Hobbes would not be a good choice for a leader. But it would be very funny to see him living out his philosophy about authoritarianism.

Somehow, I suspect that "Nasty, brutish and short" would not be his choice of 'living out' . . .

 

[Voidwalkin]

What are our thoughts on philosophers like John Locke, Immanuel Kant, or Socrates becoming leaders? I think Locke especially has earned his right as an ideological/philosophical leader of certain countries/civs (influence on England and American Revolution, by extension France).

Additionally, if Ben Franklin is allowed to be America’s associated leader, Samuel Adams is just as, if not more qualified for the role in his stirring up of the American Revolution.

Has Marx or Engles been mentioned yet? Lenin? I feel like they suit this topic.

It makes a bunch of sense to me, particularly after the divorce of leaders from civs, to have philosophers as leaders. Especially those that had thoughts relevant to governing philosophy like the aforementioned Locke.

If the idea is that leaders personify your vision of the spirit of your civ, a leader with a philosophy the player is sympathetic to is one of the least ambiguous ways to do that.

Marx would draw a ton of controversy, though less than Lenin. FXS seems to have minimal controversy tolerance to me presently, so I doubt many if any Marxist leaders will be in, because of passions stirred up, though I'd like their inclusion, myself. The door is opened with Confucius and Franklin, so maybe.

 

[Leyrann]

I greatly dislike Marx's views, but I think he's an amazing fit for a leader in Civ VII.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Ayn Rand leading a state would delight me, and I tend to find her views pretty incoherent or distasteful.

Let players make their own choices.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I greatly dislike Marx's views, but I think he's an amazing fit for a leader in Civ VII.

Marx's analysis of the problems deriving from Industrialization and its social/political consequences was masterly, but his conclusions and predictions were completely off, since he failed to foresee the rise of Social Democracy and other Short Of Pure Communism systems that could be adopted. Later leaders like Lenin and Hitler saw it more clearly: Hitler regarded the German Social Democrats as his greatest immediate enemy in the early 1930s.

Unfortunately, that means Marx as a Leader would either have to be 'tweaked' to make his views more realistic, or he'd have to be given attributes based on his later influence, not his actual conclusions. This ties in with the basic problem with Communism that Civ has always ignored: as an economic system, it just flat Does Not Work as well as capitalism. As a social system, maybe, but as a system to produce goods and wealth it falls far short, which is why 'fantasy' Communism is what is always modeled in Civ games.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Are there any prominent anarchist thinkers who I would find deserving of the Leader slot? No, and this is coming from someone who subscribes to some of their principles. Do I think it would be some lovely irony? Yes

 

[stealth_nsk]

Wrong Adams.

You prefer Gomez?

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

While it might clash with the developer philosophy of everything being balanced equal for individual age play, I thought it might be interesting to have a figure of great cultural influence who has bonuses towards Traditions. For instance, if we didn't have Augustus, Tarquinius Priscus. According to writings he was the first Roman general to lead a Triumph (traditional victory parade,) began the Roman sewer system, established the Roman Games and Circus Maximus, and was the first Roman leader to be assassinated for political reasons. Quite the trendsetter! Thus, his ability would be something like:

Begin the game with no Policy Slots. Traditions have no Policy Slot requirement.

Then depending on whether that's great or garbage balance wise, he could have bonuses towards starting celebrations (give you Policy Slots, I'm pretty sure?) related to Commanders, again in reference to him being the first Roman to have a Triumph victory parade. It could be more involved, like bringing your commander to your capital after it successfully conquers a city, or simpler and less intrusive, like triggering a celebration in the capital for every number of promotions. Both have good flavor, though I admit I do like the idea of having to pause your assault to reap the reward, despite how irritating it would likely be.

Of course, there's no way we're getting Tarquinius Priscus, I just used him as an example because I'm familiar with him (I've been translating part of Breviarium recently,) but I think a leader with a similar mechanic might make for a fun, different playstyle that changes how you approach civ switching (do you go for the best abilities or go for a civ with good Traditions that you'll get to use for free?) I also think figures who are associated with longstanding traditions are just good fits for civ in general, especially with VII officially opening the roster to influential figures who weren't heads of state.

 

[Guandao]

Yu Gwan-sun and Heo Nanseolhan are poor leader choices in my opinion. A 17 year old Korean independence activist girl who was murdered by the Japanese and some Joseon poet/painter?

I oppose Yu Gwan-Sun for the same reason as Jeanne d'Arc. They aren't adults. I know we had some pretty young leaders in Civ before. But those make sense. These two make more sense as Great People.

 

[gdr_willter]

Yu Gwan-sun and Heo Nanseolhan are poor leader choices in my opinion. A 17 year old Korean girl who was murdered by Japanese and some Joseon poet?

I agree that they are not the best options for the leaders in the game, but at least they are better than Seondeok. I prefer to see the leader who did their own historical movement than who just ruled by their bloodline but achieved not so much.

And that is not even the point of my post. I talked about that it is unfair to regard all who disagree to Seondeok as the hating males, and those two may be better than Seondeok when FXS really want to pick the Korean female leader - while IDK why we have to do it. Korean people deserve to represented by their greatest time and the leaders who conducted it, rather than "oh there is a mysterious queen who has some stories".

 

[Guandao]

But how are those two better than Seondeok?

I guess Korea will always be represented by Joseon and Sejong every game then, if you guys want to see your "greatest time period" for each Civ game.

 

[gdr_willter]

But how are those two better than Seondeok?

I want to ask it first that how are those three better than any other candidates beside they are women, all of them are not my favorite options.

After that, I said I prefer who did their own somethings than who did not.

I guess Korea will always be represented by Joseon and Sejong every game then, if you guys want to see your "greatest time period" for each Civ game.

We Korean have standed here always and experienced rises and falls - quite a lot.

Gwanggaeto the Great built the powerful Goguryeo empire which was remembered as who defeated Chinese armies include Sui by all the Chinese dynasies after it.

King Jinheung, King Muyeol, King Munmu and General Kim Yusin are the famous Silla leaders who constructed the strong dynasty which finally unified the Three Kingdoms of Korea and standed a thousand years.

And you already met Taejo Wang Geon of Goryeo at Civ 3/4. The name of Korea itself was come from Goryeo, which was the remarkable global player not only in the East Asia during the divided period of China but also in the world with their well-known ginseng and pottery.

I think that there's no need to explain about Joseon with Sejong the Great and Admiral Yi Sunsin, isn't it?

I strongly think nobody can say to others that "I don't know the most part of your history, so it's meaningless."