Ben Franklin is no more apporpriate to represent European civ or country than Tubman, a woman born in American chattel slavery, is to respresent East Africa ... . That isn't even touching upon the implications of having a woman, previously enslaved, represent the civs/nations which quite literally enslaved her in a 4x game about expanding, exploring, exterminating, and exploiting other nations and civs.
Don’t erase the aspects of American civilization at the time devoted to the abolition of slavery, pursued because of an ideological commitment to freedom for all despite the economic benefits of slavery post-cotton gin.
Tubman didn’t escape America to find freedom; she escaped Maryland to other parts of the American civilization.
Hundreds of thousands of American citizens died in the Civil War, first and foremost to preserve the Union, but also (following the Emancipation Proclamation) to abolish slavery.
Abolition is just as representative of America’s history and heritage as slavery.
Without disagreeing any particular way, it's hilarious and yet depressing to contrast this thread with the (very, very, very, very) many threads pre-Civ VII asking for african diaspora representation...
Don’t erase the aspects of American civilization at the time devoted to the abolition of slavery, pursued because of an ideological commitment to freedom for all despite the economic benefits of slavery post-cotton gin.
Tubman didn’t escape America to find freedom; she escaped Maryland to other parts of the American civilization.
Hundreds of thousands of American citizens died in the Civil War, first and foremost to preserve the Union, but also (following the Emancipation Proclamation) to abolish slavery.
Abolition is just as representative of America’s history and heritage as slavery.
Slightly oversimplified (many Union soldiers were upset about the shift of focus to emancipation, while others were energized by it), but yes, from the time of the Revolution there was a tension in American thought on account of being a slave-owning nation devoted to the principle of freedom. Many Founding Fathers were aware of the tension, and while most of them didn't go into the Revolution an abolitionist (John Adams being a noteworthy exception), most of them came around to that position before they died (including Washington, Franklin, and nominally Jefferson). Unfortunately, most of them saw slavery as a dying institution (and it was--none of them could have foreseen the invention of the cotton gin) and opposed direct intervention, which sadly led to half a century of continued slavery.
Oh, and likewise for Franklin - after years upon years of "yeha but the colonial nations are really European representation and an extension of their motherland, and Canada/Australia/America are just England 2/3/4" posts shifting to "but Ben Franklin can never count as an European leader" is one wild swerve.
Slightly oversimplified (many Union soldiers were upset about the shift of focus to emancipation, while others were energized by it), but yes, from the time of the Revolution there was a tension in American thought on account of being a slave-owning nation devoted to the principle of freedom. Many Founding Fathers were aware of the tension, and while most of them didn't go into the Revolution an abolitionist (John Adams being a noteworthy exception), most of them came around to that position before they died (including Washington, Franklin, and nominally Jefferson). Unfortunately, most of them saw slavery as a dying institution (and it was--none of them could have foreseen the invention of the cotton gin) and opposed direct intervention, which sadly led to half a century of continued slavery.
It's been suggested that Lafayette himself was influential in convincing Washington to free (some of) his slaves upon his death (unfortunately, some just went to Martha instead), and his influence adjusted Jefferson's perspective.
Just to touch base with the original topic of the thread for a moment.
Without disagreeing any particular way, it's hilarious and yet depressing to contrast this thread with the (very, very, very, very) many threads pre-Civ VII asking for african diaspora representation...
Slightly oversimplified (many Union soldiers were upset about the shift of focus to emancipation, while others were energized by it), but yes, from the time of the Revolution there was a tension in American thought on account of being a slave-owning nation devoted to the principle of freedom. Many Founding Fathers were aware of the tension, and while most of them didn't go into the Revolution an abolitionist (John Adams being a noteworthy exception), most of them came around to that position before they died (including Washington, Franklin, and nominally Jefferson). Unfortunately, most of them saw slavery as a dying institution (and it was--none of them could have foreseen the invention of the cotton gin) and opposed direct intervention, which sadly led to half a century of continued slavery.
Oh, and likewise for Franklin - after years upon years of "yeha but the colonial nations are really European representation and an extension of their motherland, and Canada/Australia/America are just England 2/3/4" posts shifting to "but Ben Franklin can never count as an European leader" is one wild swerve.
Don’t erase the aspects of American civilization at the time devoted to the abolition of slavery, pursued because of an ideological commitment to freedom for all despite the economic benefits of slavery post-cotton gin.
Tubman didn’t escape America to find freedom; she escaped Maryland to other parts of the American civilization.
Hundreds of thousands of American citizens died in the Civil War, first and foremost to preserve the Union, but also (following the Emancipation Proclamation) to abolish slavery.
Abolition is just as representative of America’s history and heritage as slavery.
Oh the thing is I'm not trying to erase the depiction of the abolition of slavery, imply that the American cause for abolition wasn't righteous, or am I trying to imply the Tubman isn't part of American history at all. In fact my distaste for having her used as East African respresentive is because I believe adamentally that Tubman is as American as apple pie.
My problem with her as a leader choice for America, stems from my dislike of the push towards having non-heads/rulers of states as leaders and a question of the appropriateness of having a woman who was enslaved lead a depiction of the United States that extends thematically only until the 60s in a series primarily about exploring, expanding, exploiting, and exterminating other civs.
My problem with her as a leader choice for America, stems from my dislike of the push towards having non-heads/rulers of states as leaders and a question of the appropriateness of having a woman who was enslaved lead a depiction of the United States that extends thematically only until the 60s in a series primarily about exploring, expanding, exploiting, and exterminating other civs.
Someone having been enslaved for part of their life doesn't necessarily preclude him from rising to power and prominence in the very society who enslaved him (or his entire race, even).
Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt but came to rule over it, second only to the Pharaoh - only for his family's descendants to suffer enslavement based on their race in subsequent centuries.
Yet it would be absolutely Based if Firaxis were to make Joseph a Leader who synergized specifically with Egypt
Someone having been enslaved for part of their life doesn't necessarily preclude him from rising to power and prominence in the very society who enslaved him (or his entire race, even).
Joseph was sold into slavery in Egypt but came to rule over it, second only to the Pharaoh - only for his family's descendants to suffer enslavement based on their race in subsequent centuries.
Yet it would be absolutely Based if Firaxis were to make Joseph a Leader who synergized specifically with Egypt
Though, the original Haitian Revolutionaries, or some leaders in the Medieval Caliphates, and especially the early Mameluke leaders, would make Non-Religious Scriptural alternatives.
Regardless of how you want to spin it, the geographic distribution of leaders in this game is actually horrendous.
Lafayette is a better choice than Napoleon to be sure, but like @Zaarin said, he’s more of an American leader to me—our THIRD of either (fourth french leader if you count both of napoleon’s godforsaken personas).
I don’t know why civ 7 chose to give us the worst leader cast in recent series history, but here we are
Actually, the underrepresented continent is easily Asia. We have: a token Chinese leader, a token Indian leader, a token Japanese leader, a token Persian leader and a token SEA leader. That's about as close to a bare minimum as it gets. We still don't have anyone representing Central Asia, the Turks or Mesopotamia. I hope the last unrevealed leader is someone that does.
America is also looking bleak with it's 4.5 leaders, 2.5 of which are America-adjacent, but the choices there are generally more inspired and interesting.
i feel more justified in asking for an indian leader for every era now. originally i was like “no way they’ll include Akbar or Rajendra Chola, they won’t do multiple leaders for one civ when so few civs even get leaders”
and here we are, 1/3 of the cast being associated with either America or France.
Yeah, what if I'm playing as city state France akin to Singapore, or communist France, or nordic style pacifist social democratic France?
I can't say I'm very excited about France getting second leader (third if you count Charlemagne) and that leader being from the exact same era as Napoleon, whereas we have so many civs with no leaders and so many underused centuries of French history. I'd be infinotely more excited by the Cardinal Richelieu (finally a game where he can appear despite not being a leader) or even Joan of Arc (same), not to mention Louis XIV or Louis XII etc.
i think they clarify because they’re trying to distance themselves from modern states as much as possible (with the exception of america as opposed to the 13 colonies, for some reason)
also French Empire would presumably play differently than the 2nd/3rd/4th/5th republic.
Very controversial incoming but the previous approach to picking leaders meant each Civ got a leader from their respective nation. Now we get 3 US-centric picks in the base game. Is it because the devs are American and now have the ability to pick more American figures that they find interesting (especially with being a head of state being deemphasized)? Regardless, Civ 7's new philosophy of picking leaders has been utterly disappointing and makes me appreciate Civ 6's selection more.
the American dev team didn’t stop them from picking a diverse and interesting cast with lots of deep cut leader choices in civ 6. i don’t think it can be blamed on that and is much more likely to be the fault of corporate meetings that demanded that the game have a cast of “recognizable” leaders (for whom) to make up for civs players may not have heard of and a controversial new mechanic
Regardless of how you want to spin it, the geographic distribution of leaders in this game is actually horrendous.
Lafayette is a better choice than Napoleon to be sure, but like @Zaarin said, he’s more of an American leader to me—our THIRD of either (fourth french leader if you count both of napoleon’s godforsaken personas).
I don’t know why civ 7 chose to give us the worst leader cast in recent series history, but here we are
Personally I think that geographic distribution (however you group things, which is clearly open for debate ) should not treat leaders and civilizations as separate buckets but as a single bucket now. Well, to a point. Not sure what that point is though.
Personally I think that geographic distribution (however you group things, which is clearly open for debate ) should not treat leaders and civilizations as separate buckets but as a single bucket now. Well, to a point. Not sure what that point is though.
maybe—i don’t think this is a great way of measuring it though because both are incomplete on their own and only come together when they are in conjunction. you don’t need to have each civ having an associated leader, sure, but the leader cast should be geographically, culturally, temporally diverse.
Personally I think that geographic distribution (however you group things, which is clearly open for debate ) should not treat leaders and civilizations as separate buckets but as a single bucket now. Well, to a point. Not sure what that point is though.
I think it's going to be a problem for people who play against random opponents. If the game selects Augustus, Ben Franklin, Lafayette, Machiavelli, and Napoleon, that "the AI favors historical paths" thing is flying straight out the window.
I think it's going to be a problem for people who play against random opponents. If the game selects Augustus, Ben Franklin, Lafayette, Machiavelli, and Napoleon, that "the AI favors historical paths" thing is flying straight out the window.
which i think you have to always assume will be the default. i occasionally like picking every detail of the game but randomness is often the default for me
which i think you have to always assume will be the default. i occasionally like picking every detail of the game but randomness is often the default for me
I like playing against random opponents until I start getting sick of seeing the same faces too frequently; in Civ6, by the time GS dropped, I always selected my opponents. I think Civ7 would benefit immensely from Civ6's leader pool. It would let you emphasize the randomizer can't select all the Norman leaders...and would easily let me exclude Amina and Ben Franklin from being the worst neighbors since Civ5 Attila.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
) should not treat leaders and civilizations as separate buckets but as a single bucket now. Well, to a point. Not sure what that point is though.
