No doubt. Either way, intersex people existed in the past (though many but not all would have died young from associated health problems), and there's a long history of women going to war in the guise of men that dates all the way back to Antiquity by record and the existence of warfare as a male domain in all probability. Whether Pulaski was in either category isn't really important.
I'll admit the way I've grouped these is a little awkward and probably could be done better, but for a rough sense of the leader distribution that means
Amina's is the worst to me, as it basically can be summarized as "hates people who exist." Trung's makes sense to me: she hates empires who have been in lots of wars; she's supposed to be taking down the game's "bullies." I still hate the agenda system, but I can at least see what they were aiming for with Trung.
I had a feeling you might chime in on this post!
If we have to have agendas, I'd rather they be flavorful rather than mechanical. To me, "hates civs who have X terrain" like Amina and Pachacuti are the worst.
I think they grafted Napoleon the III's potential agenda of Haussmann's Renovation of Paris onto Lafyette lol.
The leader flavors in Civ V are still better than the agendas system by far. Gave them each an actual personality that didn't feel gamey.
It's one of the only things Civ5 did well, IMO.
And I am the opposite.
I wouldn't go that far as I'm a certified Civ V lover, but while I can admit other games have various advantages compared to V, the leaders (and leader screens) are still completely unmatched.
I prefer my opponents to act rationally or humanly, and the agenda system is just generally antithetical to that.
Civ5 remains my least favorite entry in the franchise. But the leader personalities were a very good feature I would have liked to have seen return.
I can smell a Civ IV enjoyer from a mile away
That's so true and it shows in Civ7. Just look at the list of Unique Unit Conquistador names for the Spanish Civilization, their are almost all linked to the Spanish exploration of modern-day USA, plus Cortés and Pizarro. I bet the Spanish conquistadors who founded Buenos Aires and Bogotá are waaay more historically important than some Spanish guys who just happened to get lost in Texas or Florida.
Civ6, actually. I don't share many Civvers nostalgia for Civ4. It was a nice game in its day (certainly better than Civ5 IMO), but it hasn't aged well.
Northern America (US, Canada, Greenland) is extremely overrepresented compared to Latin America and the Caribbean.
