Never before in this game, I guess.

[Henri Christophe]

Hello guys,

I made my wishlist of never before in this game of civlizations and leaders.

Let's vote?
Which you also would like to see in this game?

 

[Lautaro]

Why is Benito Juarez Zapotec leader?

Also, Charlemagne was in a civ4 expansion

My vote goes either for Vlad's Romania, Mandela's South Africa or the one and only free empire of Haiti.

 

[Sirsquier]

Though he's not on the list I'd love Alfred the Great of the Anglo Saxons. Honestly one of my favorite historical figures.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Why is Benito Juarez Zapotec leader?

Americas just have 2 Native-American president. Bolivia had Evo Morales who is Aymara and Benito Juárez who is Zapotec.
Benito just learn to speak spanish when he was 12 years old
He was enslaved in Cuba for while because he is native.
He was governor of the State of Oaxaca (The Spaniards help the Zapotecs conquer the Mixtecs, that mean the Oaxaca State is the sucessor of Zapotec States nowadays)
Also, Benito Juárez is amazing because he defeated a Habsburgo Emperor and become president for life in Mexico, but a Mexican CIV don't have a great appeal. I guess a Zapotec Civ should be better.

Since Frederick Barbarrosa leads Germany even it just born hundreds of years before the death of Barbarrosa, we also can use others interpretations of history to Native Americans CIV become more appealing

Also, Charlemagne was in a civ4 expansion

Ops
Which nation leads CharleMagne in Civ 4?

My vote goes either for Vlad's Romania, Mandela's South Africa or the one and only free empire of Haiti.

Great choices!

Though he's not on the list I'd love Alfred the Great of the Anglo Saxons. Honestly one of my favorite historical figures.

I also would like to have a game with some Barbaric-Germanic destroying Rome, but I guess it can be made in Civ 7. United Kingdom is already to represente the Anglo Saxons.

Spain can be changed for West Goths (Visigodos) and Al-Andalus. It would be VERYY FUN!

​

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Ops
Which nation leads CharleMagne in Civ 4?

Charlemagne lead the Holy Roman Empire in Civ 4.

Who is the Texas leader you put on there? Are they real?

Also Cheng I Sao was a Chinese pirate so why would she lead Vietnam?

 

[fredrikslicer]

I like to avoid 20th century and later leaders as much as possible

I also think relegating Benito to Zapotec does him a disservice he lead ALL of MEXICO not merely a tribe or province

For my votes I picked:

1. Toussaint
A very inspiring figure

2. Oduduwa
I really want the Oyo in the game along with Nri, Kong, Tuareg and Mzab

3. Malik
Overlooked aspect of history and impressive ruler

4. Quetzalcoalt
Toltecs would be an interesting choice instead of Aztecs

 

[Henri Christophe]

Charlemagne lead the Holy Roman Empire in Civ 4.

Who is the Texas leader you put on there? Are they real?

I took his name from here, I don't know that much about Texas.

Also Cheng I Sao was a Chinese pirate so why would she lead Vietnam?

Is she? I though she was from Vietnan. My fault this time XD

I like to avoid 20th century and later leaders as much as possible

I also think relegating Benito to Zapotec does him a disservice he lead ALL of MEXICO not merely a tribe or province

For my votes I picked:

1. Toussaint
A very inspiring figure

2. Oduduwa
I really want the Oyo in the game along with Nri, Kong, Tuareg and Mzab

3. Malik
Overlooked aspect of history and impressive ruler

4. Quetzalcoalt
Toltecs would be an interesting choice instead of Aztecs

You know about Civilizations of Africa that I don't know, can you help us to think about leaders for theses Civilizations you said?

Quetzalcoalt also have the God-king status, that make him very appealing.

Very good choices

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I took his name from here, I don't know that much about Texas.

That's Sam Houston.
It says the mod was created by someone with the username Raw Sasquatch.

 

[679x]

I took his name from here, I don't know that much about Texas.

That's by Raw Sasquatch, as in the mod was created by a user named RawSasquatch! That poster image doesn't show the name of the leader of their Texas civ.

I wouldn't have been opposed to African civs that may represent modern nations like Rwanda, Uganda, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Botswana, etc. though I highly doubt they will ever be added into Civ over pre-colonial African nations. If they do, though, I would absolutely prefer them - and definitely expect them - to NOT be led by modern leaders. This is because of the potentially controversial nature of many of them, like Idi Amin or Mugabe. Pre-modern era leaders that have been represented in Civ have definitely committed some atrocities as well but seeing characters that may hit 'too close to home' for many is just not a good thing for the game. Other African leaders, which I would imagine might seem less controversial, may still be omitted because they simply lived (or still live) too close to our time, like Paul Kagame or Nelson Mandela. I don't think the devs would add a leader that was in power so recently.

That being said, I really would've liked if they'd add another more modern African civ to go alongside the newly-released Menelik II.

 

[Sirsquier]

Americas just have 2 Native-American president. Bolivia had Evo Morales who is Aymara and Benito Juárez who is Zapotec.
Benito just learn to speak spanish when he was 12 years old
He was enslaved in Cuba for while because he is native.
He was governor of the State of Oaxaca (The Spaniards help the Zapotecs conquer the Mixtecs, that mean the Oaxaca State is the sucessor of Zapotec States nowadays)
Also, Benito Juárez is amazing because he defeated a Habsburgo Emperor and become president for life in Mexico, but a Mexican CIV don't have a great appeal. I guess a Zapotec Civ should be better.

Since Frederick Barbarrosa leads Germany even it just born hundreds of years before the death of Barbarrosa, we also can use others interpretations of history to Native Americans CIV become more appealing


Ops
Which nation leads CharleMagne in Civ 4?


Great choices!


I also would like to have a game with some Barbaric-Germanic destroying Rome, but I guess it can be made in Civ 7. United Kingdom is already to represente the Anglo Saxons.

Spain can be changed for West Goths (Visigodos) and Al-Andalus. It would be VERYY FUN!

​

Alfred the Great was no barbarian. He united England and made huge cultural and militaristic advancements.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Alfred the Great was no barbarian. He united England and made huge cultural and militaristic advancements.

According to the Greeks he was.
I'd think he'd be cool as a medieval leader of England though.

 

[fredrikslicer]

You know about Civilizations of Africa that I don't know, can you help us to think about leaders for theses Civilizations you said?

Leader names are slightly hard to come by but from what I´ve been able to find

Mzab:

Slightly hard to tell since after the fall of their first state (Rustamids) they did not elect a new imam instead they created a series of institution instead thereby having no centralized leadership. I would go with Abd Rustam founded the imamate in the first place and married a berber tying himself to the tribes

Tuareg:

Tin Hinan is the legendary founder of the Tuareg or Yunus who founded the sultanate of Agadez/Air: https://archive.aramcoworld.com/issue/200301/agadez-sultanate.of.the.sahara.htm

Both of these are Berber so one could simply have a general civ with one of each group be alt leaders

Nri:

Again slightly unclear about their histories and mainly about institutions but Eze Nri Buife seems to have been something of a unifier

Kong:

Much easier: Seku

 

[Zaarin]

I voted for:

The Powhatan: Wahunsenacawh is one of my favorite personalities in history: cunning, august, and charismatic. I'd love to see him in Civ.

Chola: I'd prefer Rajaraja Chola, but Rajarenda is fine, too.

Not on the list, but I'd also like to see Dumnorix of Gaul, Æþelflæd of Mercia, Hezekiah of Judah (or Salome Alexandra of Judea), Zenobia of Palmyra, Tiridates III of Armenia, Oxyartes of Sogdia, Dihya of the Berbers, Eight Deer Jaguar Claw of the Mixtec, Shakes I of the Tlingit, and Pushmataha of the Choctaw. And one who will probably never be added but I would dearly love to see: Shutruk-Nakhunte I of Elam.

 

[Patine]

Charlemagne lead the Holy Roman Empire in Civ 4.

They're both wrong. Charlemagne ruled over 300 years AFTER the fall of the West Roman Empire and over 150 years before the first Holy Roman Emperor was coronated. He was the King of the Franks, and, while Leo III crowned him as "Emperor of the Romans," in gratitude for securing control of the Papal States, it seems that this title was more regarded as a "tack-on trophy title," if you will, and didn't REALLY change the nature of his ruled polity or mandate of power in his contemporary time meaningfully.

Hello guys,

I made my wishlist of never before in this game of civlizations and leaders.

Let's vote?
Which you also would like to see in this game?

First, Idi Amin Dada and Robert Mugabe represent Uganda and Zimbabwe at their WORST! I mean, really! I would highly suggest Kabaka Mwanga II and Changamire Dombo, respectively. The North-West Territory was never a "nation," or "civilization," and Tecumseh never ruled it - it was a political construct to facilitate United States settlement into the area and was governed by American military governors. And, why is Guiseppe Garibaldi, a pivotal figure in the Reunification if Italy in the 1850's and 1860's, leading a short-lived attempt at a breakaway Mexican state, if I may ask? I think the utter inappropriate tenor of Benito Juarez as a Zapotec leader has been pointed to someone on these forums before, if not to you - it makes absolutely no sense. Quetzocoatl would another Gilgamesh or Dido - a leader who may not have even existed and is only known from mythologization, that REALLY should be avoided.

 

[Patine]

Also, Benito Juárez is amazing because he defeated a Habsburgo Emperor and become president for life in Mexico, but a Mexican CIV don't have a great appeal. I guess a Zapotec Civ should be better.

So basically, "he was a great Mexican leader and iconic to the country and it's history, but I personally don't like Mexico so I'm going to shoehorn him into a civilization that ceased to exist as such centuries before he was born and which he didn't even remotely represent the traditions, views, culture, or ideals of," is basically what you're saying, it seems. How is it that you cannot understand why people often take issue with a lot of your posts?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

They're both wrong. Charlemagne ruled over 300 years AFTER the fall of the West Roman Empire and over 150 years before the first Holy Roman Emperor was coronated. He was the King of the Franks, and, while Leo III crowned him as "Emperor of the Romans," in gratitude for securing control of the Papal States, it seems that this title was more regarded as a "tack-on trophy title," if you will, and didn't REALLY change the nature of his ruled polity or mandate of power in his contemporary time meaningfully.

I'm not saying that it was right. I'm just answering the question that was asked which was he did lead a Holy Roman Empire civilization in Civ 4.

 

[679x]

How is it that you cannot understand why people often take issue with a lot of your posts?

You can disagree with him and maybe he does/does not understand your point, but at least he wasn't being combative about it. He was just explaining his thought process on why he thought Juarez could be a Zapotec leader.

Of course, chances are Mexico will not be in Civ 6 now that we have Gran Colombia. And that's fair enough - I think it's better they have another North American Native civ in its place now that we have Gran Colombia and even Canada. I absolutely expect to see a Native civ in the Frontier pass.

 

[Henri Christophe]

They're both wrong. Charlemagne ruled over 300 years AFTER the fall of the West Roman Empire and over 150 years before the first Holy Roman Emperor was coronated. He was the King of the Franks, and, while Leo III crowned him as "Emperor of the Romans," in gratitude for securing control of the Papal States, it seems that this title was more regarded as a "tack-on trophy title," if you will, and didn't REALLY change the nature of his ruled polity or mandate of power in his contemporary time meaningfully.

I'm cool with the name Holly Roman Empire... but it was also the West Roman Empire.

First, Idi Amin Dada and Robert Mugabe represent Uganda and Zimbabwe at their WORST! I mean, really! I would highly suggest Kabaka Mwanga II and Changamire Dombo, respectively.

As said 697x, we have too many warmonger leaders in this game, I like evil leaders to fight against, but your suggestion of more ancient leaders is cool too. Zimbabwe can have leaders from all eras.

The North-West Territory was never a "nation," or "civilization," and Tecumseh never ruled it - it was a political construct to facilitate United States settlement into the area and was governed by American military governors.

That is really controversial, sorry, I'm a bit controversial, but this historical interpretation can be understood if we remember Tecumseh lead a group of more than 10 tribe-nations at a war called North-West territory war.

(Since Germany-Barbarrosa interpretation is a thing, I want to give others possible weird interpretations of history)

And, why is Guiseppe Garibaldi, a pivotal figure in the Reunification if Italy in the 1850's and 1860's, leading a short-lived attempt at a breakaway Mexican state, if I may ask?

NOT MEXICO! South Brazil, he start his Libertador life in South Brazil when D.Pedro was just a child and his republic survive ~10 years. Even today the State of Rio Grande do Sul use the revolutionary flag and everyone who born in that State called himself Gaucho, don't matter their ethinic background. I think it is very cool.

Rio Grande do Sul is Brazilian's Texas (but better)​

I think the utter inappropriate tenor of Benito Juarez as a Zapotec leader has been pointed to someone on these forums before, if not to you - it makes absolutely no sense. Quetzocoatl would another Gilgamesh or Dido - a leader who may not have even existed and is only known from mythologization, that REALLY should be avoided.

I really like semi mitycal kings, for me Civ 7 should be a kind of Mythological game with even more semi-mythical kings.

C'mon, just think how amazing it will be play with Toltec's Quetzalcoalt and use dragons to solve your boarders issues. What can be more fun?

So basically, "he was a great Mexican leader and iconic to the country and it's history, but I personally don't like Mexico so I'm going to shoehorn him into a civilization that ceased to exist as such centuries before he was born and which he didn't even remotely represent the traditions, views, culture, or ideals of," is basically what you're saying, it seems. How is it that you cannot understand why people often take issue with a lot of your posts?

Zapotecs lost their freadom to the Spanish-Nahualt empire but still surviving.
Benito Juarez just speak Zapotec language since his 12 years old, he is a Zapotec and Mexican hero.
But okay, I agree even mexican would don't like this idea. But it is an amazing idea!


Here I don't want to be more the controversial guy, here I just make a pool to everyone vote in all my crazy ideas to see if some idea can fit in this game

 

[Zaarin]

I'm cool with the name Holly Roman Empire... but it was also the West Roman Empire.

Um, no, it wasn't. The Western Roman Empire was the western half of the Roman Empire that was administrated separately from the third century until it collapsed in the fifth century--three hundred years before Charlemagne was even born.

(Since Germany-Barbarrosa interpretation is a thing, I want to give others possible weird interpretations of history)

Germany as a civilization is much older than Germany as a nation, and before Germany was a nation it was the Holy Roman Empire. "The Northwest Territory" was not a civilization; it was an alliance. Tecumseh only led the Shawnee.

I really like semi mitycal kings, for me Civ 7 should be a kind of Mythological game with even more semi-mythical kings.

As a spinoff, sure, but the main game is supposed to have some semblance of historicity.

 

[Xandinho]

I really like semi mitycal kings, for me Civ 7 should be a kind of Mythological game with even more semi-mythical kings.

Oh please no, I don't want Civilization to become an Age of Mythology (I love AOM, but I don't want to mix fantasy with history). A spinoff with each civilization having its magical creatures, I would undoubtedly buy and play, but I prefer that the main franchise remains as close as possible to historical realism.

I voted for Guarani, Ashanti, Chola, Tupi, Romania and Vietnam. Not very interested in most other options. I'd definitely like the Olmecs, but they are almost impossible, unless Firaxis abandons the idea of a leader and does what Humankind is doing, which I see as very unlikely.