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

Lord Lakely said:
Dictatorship of the Proletariat: Your Workers are now Infantry units, with the same stats as the weakest Infantry unit you can build. Workers gain extra combat strength from adjacent workers.
Click to expand...
Capturing enemy Workers converts them into Infantry units for your side
 
There are no workers or builders in Civ 7.

I certainly wouldn't mind Karl Marx. Like him or hate him, the man is responsible for the creation a whole political ideology. I think that qualifies him on the merits of being a "thought-leader".
 
Eagle Pursuit said:
There are no workers or builders in Civ 7.

I certainly wouldn't mind Karl Marx. Like him or hate him, the man is responsible for the creation a whole political ideology. I think that qualifies him on the merits of being a "thought-leader".
Click to expand...
Proof that you, too, can accomplish great or horrible things living off of daddy's money in your best friend's basement. :mischief: Since I don't have a rich father, who wants to subsidize my thought leading? :mischief:
 
Siptah said:
Hernán Cortés
Click to expand...
I'd love it.

IMO Cortez is one of history's greatest villains. Ran a mutinous campaign overwhelmingly outnumbered in enemy territory, was on the ropes multiple times, but succeeded despite tremendous obstacles.

Had a rare combination of tactical and strategic cunning, an ability to quickly learn complex political realities an exploit them, and a generally callous personality able to actually deploy brutality, cruelty, charisma and diplomacy depending on situation. I think his Mexico campaign was devious, shifty, amoral and power hungry at its best, ruinous at its worst.

He will never make it in because he's a villain I don't think. Which seems sorta strange to me, IMO. They included Ghengis. Villainous but important historical figures are already in, but I doubt Firaxis would even consider Hernan, regardless.
 
Do we have any confirmation the leaders are as free-form as in Ara?
All of the ones we've got so far were people who actively held some government office. They no longer have to be the highest positioned ruler of a civ but Jefferson (Predsident of Pennsylvania, minister of foreign diplomacy), Confucius (governor official of the Lu state) and Himiko (queen of Yamatai, the state within Japan that got Wei's imperial seal, though not the only one and probably not the one that won out in the end, either) are all genuine, historical statesmen.

We haven't seen Leonardo Da Vinci (polymath artist), Marx (philosophy writer) or Michael Jackson (musician) yet and the personas are already a bit of a tougher sell without having to go with purely cultural icons as leaders.
In the same vein Cortez is also an edge case since while he attained a ruling position after his conquests, he is known explicitly for those conquests, not the government afterwards. And the conquests was done as an outlaw, not a statesman with actual military pedigree.
Then again, Confucius is also probably going to be focusing on delivering funny quotes rather than his job where he formulated all those opinions and apprenticed the people who'd go on touting his ideas of how things ought to be done properly.
 
notNamed said:
Do we have any confirmation the leaders are as free-form as in Ara?
All of the ones we've got so far were people who actively held some government office. They no longer have to be the highest positioned ruler of a civ but Jefferson (Predsident of Pennsylvania, minister of foreign diplomacy), Confucius (governor official of the Lu state) and Himiko (queen of Yamatai, the state within Japan that got Wei's imperial seal, though not the only one and probably not the one that won out in the end, either) are all genuine, historical statesmen.
Click to expand...
From the showcase transcript:

We are also taking the opportunity to expand who we consider to be a leader in Civ7. We will consider to have traditional heads of state, such as Hathsepsut, but we also excited to have new leaders in areas such as philosophy, religion, science and more.
Click to expand...
 
TheSpaceCowboy said:
No to Marx. Every death under Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Xi Jinping, and other commie dictators is ultimately attributable to Marx himself.

Absolutely not. His very face is the equivalent of a swastika - a hate symbol utterly outside the Overton Window and unacceptable in polite society.
He's already too fashionable among misguided youths who grow up do be domestic terrorists with Antifa.
Click to expand...
Moderator Action: *SNIP* This is flaming. Make your argument but do not insult others. -lymond Marx never killed anybody and Che Guevara never advocated the extermination of the Jewish people or any other ethnic group. The implication that either figure is on par with Hitler or Goebells is absolute horsehockey and if you don't know it, you have now been informed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brackenspore said:
Your statements are no less dictatorial than those of Marx, whom you dislike... If you are a hardened liberal, then you must respect the freedom of choice of those who freely choose Marx or Stalin as their favorites.:p
Click to expand...

Stalin was an absolute monster who murdered tens of millions of his own people. Never again to Stalin.
 
Thormodr said:
Stalin was an absolute monster who murdered tens of millions of his own people. Never again to Stalin.
Click to expand...
The only time I saw Stalin on Sid Meier's or at least close to Sid Meier's was in YouTube with that song Berceuse from civilization 5. Haven't seen him since.
 
Ornen said:
This is a ridiculous point of view. I don't know if you're some sort of latent fascist or what, but Marx never killed anybody and Che Guevara never advocated the extermination of the Jewish people or any other ethnic group. The implication that either figure is on par with Hitler or Goebells is absolute horsehockey and if you don't know it, you have now been informed.
Click to expand...
Or, you know, maybe both communism and fascism are violent blood cults and responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions. The funny thing about dichotomies that seems far too nuanced for modern people to grasp is that one being bad doesn't make the other good.
 
Zaarin said:
Or, you know, maybe both communism and fascism are violent blood cults and responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions. The funny thing about dichotomies that seems far too nuanced for modern people to grasp is that one being bad doesn't make the other good.
Click to expand...
but how many people have been killed in the name of Christianity, Islam, etc. how many people were killed in the name of capitalism and the stealing of lands and resources? It seems a bit hypocritical to level these kinds of broad accusations at XYZ political ideology when there is nothing inherently violent about the ideology.

who’s actively responsible for more death, Ghengis Khan or Karl Marx? The Maos and Stalins of the world would have wielded even Quakerism as a cudgel.
 
moysturfurmer said:
but how many people have been killed in the name of Christianity, Islam, etc. how many people were killed in the name of capitalism and the stealing of lands and resources? It seems a bit hypocritical to level these kinds of broad accusations at XYZ political ideology when there is nothing inherently violent about the ideology.
Click to expand...
Both fascism and communism are inherently violent, though. Deflecting to "well, other religions have been distorted to be violent in the past" is a frankly ignorant point when fascism and communism were devised to be violent as a feature, not a distortion of the original message. Also, no traditional religion has been used to exercise violence on a scale comparable with fascism or communism. And whereas traditional religion has also brought a great deal of good and beauty to the world, the same can't be said of modern ideological religions.
 
Moderator Action: Please return to the thread topic about who you do not want to see in Civ7.
 
I think it’d be neat to see Berossus, the Babylonian priest, historian, and astronomer who wrote in Greek.
 
TheSpaceCowboy said:
No to Marx. Every death under Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, Xi Jinping, and other commie dictators is ultimately attributable to Marx himself.
Click to expand...
That's like blaming nazi crimes on Fichte and Herder.

Karl Marx is at his strongest in his creative reading of the society of his time, and at his weakest in the predictions and solutions he offers, and in this pattern he is accompanied by many other intellectuals. I never understood the obsession people have with him.

It's not as if "intelectual overly infatuated with his own ideas" is a rare phenomenon.

Edit: I propose Fichte as leader.
 
Since the original post of “leaders you don’t want but do want” is a little too up to interpretation, the below list is merely non-ruling Leaders for Civ VII

Including generals, philosophers, theologians, writers, and even legendary figures

(and a few rulers who were better known for these things than actually ruling)

*I’ve omitted civs with associated leaders already revealed (except for ‘Merica!)
**I’ve omitted civs best led by a political leader
***I have tried to keep the original spirit of historical figures one wouldn’t immediately think of or which would surprise fans

America - William F. Buckley Jr.
Arabia - Aisha (with Lyanna Mormont energy)
Argentina - Eva Perón
Australia - Steve Irwin
Babylon - Daniel
Bohemia - Jan Hus
Denmark - Hrothgar
England - J.R.R. Tolkien
Finland - Elias Lönnrot
Germany - Martin Luther, Jacob Grimm
Greece - Socrates
Israel - Samson, Judas Maccabaeus
Italy - Dante Alighieri, Machiavelli
Mexico - Hernán Cortés, Santa Anna
Normandy - William Marshal
Norway - Leif Erikson
Persia - Esther, Avicenna
Powhatan - Pocahontas
Russia - Andrei Tarkovsky
Shoshone - Sacagawea
Spain - Cervantes, El Cid
Sweden - Ragnarr Loðbrók
Switzerland - Huldrych Zwingli
Wales - Madoc (perfect for Exploration Age)
 
TheSpaceCowboy said:
England - J.R.R. Tolkien
Click to expand...
Aside from being relatively recently dead, Tolkien was a very private man. I don't think he'd appreciate being made a civ leader. Lewis, on the other hand...(For a writer leader of England, Dickens is the obvious choice, but I think Jane Austen would be fun, especially if she made sarcastic comments about all the other leaders.)

TheSpaceCowboy said:
Switzerland - Huldrych Zwingli
Click to expand...
I'd love to have Zwingli, whether we get Switzerland or not. Unlike Luther, I feel more pity than schadenfreude for the pacifist who died at war.

TheSpaceCowboy said:
Persia - Esther
Click to expand...
I'd rather see Ferdowsi than a fictional foreign queen.

TheSpaceCowboy said:
Powhatan - Pocahontas
Click to expand...
If we ever get the Powhatan and we get Powhatan's exploited daughter instead of the charismatic, cunning, and powerful paramount chief, it will be a sorely missed opportunity. (I realize this thread is more about non-leaders, but Pocahontas would be a really uncomfortable choice for so many reasons.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom