More Alternate Leaders?

[Phrozen]

Ancient Egyptians simply have what I call the Mediterranean look. You see it in Southern Europe, Northern Africa, and the Levant today.

 

[Patine]

Ancient Egyptians simply have what I call the Mediterranean look. You see it in Southern Europe, Northern Africa, and the Levant today.

My, what a simplistic, cut-and-dry, esthetic the world must have to you. Do you only see in 16-colours, like the old late '80's, early '90's computer monitors, too?

 

[Phrozen]

My, what a simplistic, cut-and-dry, esthetic the world must have to you. Do you only see in 16-colours, like the old late '80's, early '90's computer monitors, too?

Eh my heritage is from that area of the world and well my dad has the look more than me and has been confused for everything from Mexican to Egyptian to Turkish.

 

[Zaarin]

Eh my heritage is from that area of the world and well my dad has the look more than me and has been confused for everything from Mexican to Egyptian to Turkish.

I'm chiefly of Scottish and English descent and have had a Turk ask me if I was Turkish.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'm chiefly of Scottish and English descent and have had a Turk ask me if I was Turkish.

I'm mainly of English and Scottish descent (with a little Romany according to family legend) and I've been mistaken as Egyptian by an Egyptian as well as being classed as IC 2 (White - Southern European) by officialdom in the UK on numerous occasions.

 

[Tavenier]

My list would be:
France - Louis XIV ==> longest reigning king, who aggresively expanded and destroyed the Dutch Republic. Versailles. Etc.
Germany - Adenauer ==> I like modern era leaders and he was obviously important enough, so he should get a place in Civ
China - so many, that are not well known in the west. We already have a builder, so this time perhaps a unifier?
USA - Jefferson or Adams, for reasons mentioned by other posters
Indonesia - Sukarno ==> fought and 'won' the war of independence. Ruled quite long. Modern era leader
Spain - Isabella or Ferdinand ==> conquests and diplomacy (Ferdinand)

Really all of the more influental Civs should get a new leader. Russia, Persia, Rome, Arabia, etc. But there are enough choices and justifications for smaller Civs leaders too. The Dutch, Koreans, Polish, Japanese. And new Civs could be released with 2 leaders as well. Ottomans and Portugal for example.

 

[Patine]

My list would be:
France - Louis XIV ==> longest reigning king, who aggresively expanded and destroyed the Dutch Republic. Versailles. Etc.

Ahem, Sobhuza II of Swaziland was actually the longest reigning monarch of a nation whose reign can be verified, though many people think it's Louis XIV because Sobhuza is kind of obscure (even though he died as recently as 1982 - within my lifetime).

 

[Zaarin]

Ahem, Sobhuza II of Swaziland was actually the longest reigning monarch of a nation whose reign can be verified, though many people think it's Louis XIV because Sobhuza is kind of obscure (even though he died as recently as 1982 - within my lifetime).

It's actually pretty fascinating: I was reading the list of longest reigning monarchs on Wikipedia a while ago and a lot of them really weren't that significant. Many of them didn't even have their own Wiki pages. I guess Alexander and his "short life of glory" might be on to something.

 

[Patine]

My list would be:
France - Louis XIV ==> longest reigning king, who aggresively expanded and destroyed the Dutch Republic. Versailles. Etc.
Germany - Adenauer ==> I like modern era leaders and he was obviously important enough, so he should get a place in Civ
China - so many, that are not well known in the west. We already have a builder, so this time perhaps a unifier?
USA - Jefferson or Adams, for reasons mentioned by other posters
Indonesia - Sukarno ==> fought and 'won' the war of independence. Ruled quite long. Modern era leader
Spain - Isabella or Ferdinand ==> conquests and diplomacy (Ferdinand)

Really all of the more influental Civs should get a new leader. Russia, Persia, Rome, Arabia, etc. But there are enough choices and justifications for smaller Civs leaders too. The Dutch, Koreans, Polish, Japanese. And new Civs could be released with 2 leaders as well. Ottomans and Portugal for example.

Helmut Kohl would make an equal, arguably better, modern German leader. After all, it was under his watch that Germany was re-unified after 45 years, and he did most of the legwork there. Although I don't Firaxis' policy for leaders who died as recently as the 21st Century and their inclusion in game (I think this concern and uncertainty was brought up with Margret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, and Nelson Mandela, being alternate, modern leaders somewhere around here).

 

[Lord Lakely]

What would Maggie Thatch's UA even be? -1 production from every mine?

 

[Guandao]

To be honest I don't care much for the 20th-21st centuries leaders being in the Civ games, they are just people dressed in Western style suits to me. Kinda bland in my opinion.

 

[Morningcalm]

To be honest I don't care much for the 20th-21st centuries leaders being in the Civ games, they are just people dressed in Western style suits to me. Kinda bland in my opinion.

I would tend to agree, though John Curtin and Haile Selassie are interesting in my opinion.

 

[Patine]

To be honest I don't care much for the 20th-21st centuries leaders being in the Civ games, they are just people dressed in Western style suits to me. Kinda bland in my opinion.

Personally, I don't care for artificial "cutoff" years for content in broad, sweeping scope games like the Civ franchise...

 

[Guandao]

I would tend to agree, though John Curtin and Haile Selassie are interesting in my opinion.

I'm not too fond of John Curtin in real life. Or Haile Selassie.

 

[Zaarin]

To be honest I don't care much for the 20th-21st centuries leaders being in the Civ games, they are just people dressed in Western style suits to me. Kinda bland in my opinion.

Same.

I would tend to agree, though John Curtin and Haile Selassie are interesting in my opinion.

Curtain triggers the uncanny valley for me, plus his hat-throwing tantrums make me roll my eyes. Completely aside from my disdain for including Australia, I personally think Curtin's visual design is horrible. As for Selassie, he was okay, but I'd prefer an older emperor. Zar'a Ya'qob would be my choice.

Personally, I don't care for artificial "cutoff" years for content in broad, sweeping scope games like the Civ franchise...

It's not arbitrary. It's an objective fact that history stopped being interesting the moment Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door. I jest, of course. It actually stopped being interesting when Elizabeth I died.

Personally I think the logical cutoff is the rise of nationalism in the second half of the eighteenth century, wherein civilizations become difficult--and touchy--to disentangle from nation-states. Also, for a non-artificial cutoff date, the living and recently deceased have legal rights to their likeness in the US, meaning Firaxis would be obligated to pay them (or their estates) royalties, which isn't going to happen when the likenesses of older leaders are public domain.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

To be honest I don't care much for the 20th-21st centuries leaders being in the Civ games, they are just people dressed in Western style suits to me. Kinda bland in my opinion.

What about Gandhi?
And Wilhelmina is great.

 

[Zaarin]

What about Gandhi?
And Wilhelmina is great.

Gandhi wore normal clothes before he became the Mahatma. He was originally a South African lawyer, you know. I make an exception for Wilhelmina because she's adorable.

 

[Patine]

Gandhi wore normal clothes before he became the Mahatma. He was originally a South African lawyer, you know. I make an exception for Wilhelmina because she's adorable.

Yes, and unlike most of the other leaders who are favourites across various Civ iterations (except Joan of Arc), Gandhi was never head-of-state or head-of-government of India. In fact, he never did hold any OFFICIAL POLITICAL position of actual power or authority at all...

 

[Stomper66]

Yes, and unlike most of the other leaders who are favourites across various Civ iterations (except Joan of Arc), Gandhi was never head-of-state or head-of-government of India. In fact, he never did hold any OFFICIAL POLITICAL position of actual power or authority at all...

In that case is having Gandhi lead India a bit like having Martin Luther King lead America? They were right to give India an alternate leader because Chandragupta is so much better in my opinion.

I'm also not really a fan of modern leaders but I don't mind them for civs like America, Australia and maybe Russia. I would love to see a cold war scenario with Stalin, Lenin or Khrushchev go head to head with FDR, Truman or Kennedy. They also need to expand on the modern era ideologies in the next expansion. In Civ5 choosing Fascism, Capitalism or Communism was probably the most important choice that you made in the game but in Civ6 it just gives you a different selection of policy cards to use. I think that Firaxis took a few steps backward with this as the ideologies in Brave New World made the end game really exciting.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Gandhi always struck me as a better choice for a Great Person than an actual leader (sadly, this game has no Great Statespeople, for which he would be a slam-dunk choice, alongside Churchill, Bismarck, Ben Franklin, and several others who held large political influence without being an official head of state, like Plato and Taytu Betul.)

Besides, it's about time Firaxis realize where the bread is actually buttered as far as nuke-happy Gandhis go

Spoiler :