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

Zaarin said:
Fair. I think we will see a handful of "leaders without civs" in Civ7. Zenobia and Charlemagne are prime candidates.
Click to expand...
I do have to revise my prior comment a bit. In my "each (non-Europe) civ gets three civs to itself theory, I actually do think we may see a Yayoi -> Silla -> Meiji progression. I don't think it's as necessary as the others, because the Han could work totally fine, but I could see that being a means of trying to keep some equity with Japanese and Korean players. I also think that, either way, the game will absolutely be launching with Japan/Korea DLC on the horizon to quell Korean/Japanese disappointment. THAT said, if that be the case, we might not even see Sumeria at launch, either (let alone Assyria or Babylon). Which is such a weird idea not to have them at launch, but from a macro level Mesopotamia doesn't really happily slide into these three act structures well because of how localized it was. Egypt -> Abbasid -> Ottoman, Aksum -> Swahili -> Buganda, and Persia -> Timurid -> Safavid just work perfectly fine without needing Mesopotamia.

Re: Charlemagne. He's an interesting case of "leader without civ" because I absolutely think we will get Franks/HRE exploration era in a DLC pack soon (probably Right to Rule). But I agree that, in my opinion, we don't need a "Holy Roman Empire" civ when the region/eras are much better represented by what came before and after: Franks, Prussia, and Austria-Hungary. Much better to unite Rome/Gaul -> Franks -> Prussia/Austra-Hungary under the title than waste a civ slot on HRE.

Re: Zenobia. The more I think on Sumeria possibly not being base game and what connectivity function Assyria could possibly serve in Crossroads better than Phoenicia/Hittites/Georgia/Scythia/etc., I really think odds are good we will instead have a DLC pack (or expansion) completely dedicated to antiquity Mesopotamia and the Levant. Get in Assyria, Babylon, Sumeria, Sargon, and Zenobia all at once. Nabataea can come too. I think it even makes sense gameplay/thematically because none of those civs really have strong three-era legacies to really progress through (well, Nabataea does); but what they can be sold as is a unifying theme of "start the game however you want, from the cradle of civilization!"
 
RedCourtJester said:
Yayoi -> Silla -> Meiji progression
Click to expand...
The leaked wonder list pointed to Emille Bell in Antiquity.

RedCourtJester said:
Korean/Japanese disappointment
Click to expand...
Having lived in South Korea, "disappointment" is not the word I would choose. More like burning wrath. :lol: However, it does look like "Silla > Sengoku/Tokugawa/Edo Japan > Meiji Japan" looks likely on release, to the horror of the entire Korean Peninsula (and to a lesser extent Japan). Like you, I expect that to be rectified swiftly in DLC with Silla > Goryeo > Joseon and Yayoi/Jomon/Yamato/whatever > [Feudal] Japan > Meiji Japan.

RedCourtJester said:
Re: Zenobia. The more I think on Sumeria possibly not being base game and what connectivity function Assyria could possibly serve in Crossroads better than Phoenicia/Hittites/Georgia/Scythia/etc., I really think odds are good we will instead have a DLC pack (or expansion) completely dedicated to antiquity Mesopotamia and the Levant. Get in Assyria, Babylon, Sumeria, Sargon, and Zenobia all at once. Nabataea can come too. I think it even makes sense gameplay/thematically because none of those civs really have strong three-era legacies to really progress through; but what they can be sold as is a unifying theme of "start the game however you want, from the cradle of civilization!"
Click to expand...
I still expect Assyria in the base game. I'd love to see Nabataea in the future (and Zenobia could be considered as closely related to Nabataea as Amina is to Songhai--closer, in fact, given she was of mixed Aramaic and Arabic heritage as was Nabataea). Any and all Mesopotamian and Levantine civs can slide conveniently into Abbasids, and Phoenicia can slide into Spain and Portugal, too, plus whatever is going on in North Africa plus Byzantines.
 
Zaarin said:
The leaked wonder list pointed to Emille Bell in Antiquity.


Having lived in South Korea, "disappointment" is not the word I would choose. More like burning wrath. :lol: However, it does look like "Silla > Sengoku/Tokugawa/Edo Japan > Meiji Japan" looks likely on release, to the horror of the entire Korean Peninsula (and to a lesser extent Japan). Like you, I expect that to be rectified swiftly in DLC with Silla > Goryeo > Joseon and Yayoi/Jomon/Yamato/whatever > [Feudal] Japan > Meiji Japan.


I still expect Assyria in the base game. I'd love to see Nabataea in the future (and Zenobia could be considered as closely related to Nabataea as Amina is to Songhai--closer, in fact, given she was of mixed Aramaic and Arabic heritage as was Nabataea). Any and all Mesopotamian and Levantine civs can slide conveniently into Abbasids, and Phoenicia can slide into Spain and Portugal, too, plus whatever is going on in North Africa plus Byzantines.
Click to expand...
I guess my theory of no Sumeria/Assyria stands, whether we get Tonga/Sasania/Yayoi or Tonga/Sasania/Silla. And I do agree, that my DLC speculation that "one path splits to two" will hold for that as well, so we will likely see both Silla and Yayoi/Yamatai and a full three era path for each civ. Actually, I think I am fine with this now, I must have just been confusing my Korean periods, Silla -> Goryeo -> Joseon actually does track. You have convinced me, we are getting Silla base game.

The only way I think Assyria (or Babylon, or Sumeria) is getting in base game is if they make very late additions to the planned roster. It and the Achaemenids simply weren't in that list, and watch as we continue moving down the alphabetical list with reveals. Not saying it can't happen (and if it does, I thoroughly expect Latin America to give us more than Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia), but that does not seem to be what the plan is as of our most recent information.
 
RedCourtJester said:
Avestans were an Iranian people though, no, and one that semi-predates the Achaemenid and subsequent Persian empires? Wouldn't that make Zarathustra a really good "start" to the Iranian legacy in the same way we probably aren't getting a Zhou civ for Confucius and a Yamatai civ for Himiko?
Click to expand...
This was my exact logic when I first suggested them. :)
 
Leyrann said:
Here's one: Louis Napoleon.

He was King of Holland as an effective vassal of the French Empire led by his brother (the Napoleon), and reigned for only four years. In those four years, he did his best to learn Dutch, immerse himself in Dutch culture, prioritize the lives of his subjects, and he even sought to protect the interests of the Netherlands over the wishes of his brother - which is also what cost him the job eventually. He was so popular, in fact, that when he returned to the Netherlands thirty years (!) later under a false name, people figured out who he was and formed a crowd to cheer for him outside the window of his hotel room.

He's absolutely perfect for a game that decouples leaders and civilizations.

Probably the main issue with his inclusion is that he's the brother of the most famous Napoleon and the father of Napoleon III.
Click to expand...

There is a whole room in the Rijksmuseum basically dedicated to him.
 
agonistes said:
Machiavelli is a great one.
Click to expand...
Oh no, would they?

I was predicting Lorenzo de Medici for the "Italy" path, seeing as that is where we can see the origins of the "Italic League," but Machiavelli would make so much sense alongside Confucius and those kind of "zeitgeist" cultural leaders.

But do we want villain Italy? That's a great answer for this thread, good suggestion!
 
RedCourtJester said:
Oh no, would they?

I was predicting Lorenzo de Medici for the "Italy" path, seeing as that is where we can see the origins of the "Italic League," but Machiavelli would make so much sense alongside Confucius and those kind of "zeitgeist" cultural leaders.

But do we want villain Italy? That's a great answer for this thread, good suggestion!
Click to expand...

I didn't suggest it! I was quoting person who did. Jic you are giving me credit.
 
RedCourtJester said:
Oh no, would they?

I was predicting Lorenzo de Medici for the "Italy" path, seeing as that is where we can see the origins of the "Italic League," but Machiavelli would make so much sense alongside Confucius and those kind of "zeitgeist" cultural leaders.

But do we want villain Italy? That's a great answer for this thread, good suggestion!
Click to expand...
It‘s not villain Italy. It‘s villain Machiavelli. He might as well lead the Mississippians. I‘m all for it.
 
Siptah said:
It‘s not villain Italy. It‘s villain Machiavelli. He might as well lead the Mississippians. I‘m all for it.
Click to expand...
For now, until/unless we start seeing leader pathways as being more defining/unifying of civs than the civs themselves...
 
Queen Seondeok.

Literally have no meaning in the history, unless she was a queen.
 
Siptah said:
It‘s not villain Italy. It‘s villain Machiavelli. He might as well lead the Mississippians. I‘m all for it.
Click to expand...

Villain Machiavelli would annoy me so much. He is really one of the more misunderstood persons. His „Prince“ was a satire that wasn‘t taken up as such. I think it‘s clear that all his advices aren‘t meant to add to a model of how a ruler righteous should really be.

I do agree though that he makes a great leader for civ 7. They just need to playtest so that his character doesn‘t become too predictable.
 
mitsho said:
Villain Machiavelli would annoy me so much. He is really one of the more misunderstood persons. His „Prince“ was a satire that wasn‘t taken up as such. I think it‘s clear that all his advices aren‘t meant to add to a model of how a ruler righteous should really be.

I do agree though that he makes a great leader for civ 7. They just need to playtest so that his character doesn‘t become too predictable.
Click to expand...
The villainous Italian leader should be the subject of Machiavelli's treatise, not Machiavelli himself. (ie: Cesare Borgia).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom