Petition To Have King Leonidas Added To Civ 7 As A Playable Leader.

[The Fanatical]

Why is a blind leader controversial and awkward? We had a blind leader civ V (Dandolo), and can‘t remember a controversy about his blindness.

I mean, in Civilization VII the leaders come in contact with each other, and they even make direct eye contact. When at war, a leader even gazes aggressively and intensely in the eyes of the opposite leader. How a blind person will be depicted here in the diplomatic screen? Will Homer look other leaders in the eyes behaving like every other leader, making his portrayal inaccurate and even disrespectful? Or will he gaze in an unresponsive manner the enraged hostile leader that declared war on him, thus portraying Homer as unable to retaliate the aggressive look towards the other leader? Something that is more accurate but might also be conceived as disrespectful. I believe that's where the controversity might stem from.

As to Leonidas: hell, no! We had a Spartan in civ VI just now. Greece has easily 50 A-Tier leaders to choose from. There is no need for such a repetitiveness. Same goes for statesmen from Athens by the way.

But this actually already about the third spot for Greece after the apparently inevitable Alexander and the somewhat likely Archimedes.

We got a Spartan in Civilization VII, but we need more Spartan representation. Greece can easily get three leaders eventually, if France already got three in the base game, with two of them being Militaristic. Alexander, Leonidas or another famous Spartan, and one non-militaristic leader such as Cleisthenes, Sophocles, Thucydides, Periander, Archimedes, or Herodotus. We got our first and only Spartan leader in Civilization VI, now how is this repetitive when Macedonian leaders have appeared in every big iteration of the series? Athens also never got anyone else other than Pericles.

For a non-Argead Greek warmonger, I would like to have Antigonos I. - or is he also controversial and awkward for having just one eye?

If we get an one-eyed ancient warmonger, then Hannibal or Philip II deserve the spot more than Antigonos I, since Antigonos ultimately failed to reunite Alexander's empire and died in battle. Neither Antigonos nor Philip have any chance to
appear though with the inevitable inclusion of Alexander. Also, being one-eyed isn't the same as being complete blind, where you can't see the expressions of your adversary when looking at you.

No, lots of better options to choose from. Ideally no warmonger since we already have Alex for this

Civilization VII will be supported for at least seven to eight years. More militaristic leaders will eventually come. I find this a positive thing because as a player I love building the unique units of a civilization in order to use them in battle. So, someone asking for the inclusion of the heroic king Leonidas isn't too much to ask in the end.

I'd love to see Sappho as a Greek cultural-focused leader just because of how fun she'd be as a civ leader (imagine how salty "anti woke" homophobes would be at this lesbian representation ) Bonus points for her having unique diplomatic responses flirtatious with female leaders (to be fair I think some hetero leaders could have such feature as well, especially infamous Benjamin Franklin )

Or some philosopher - Plato or Aristotle as a Greek leader would be incredible and strangely fitting, given how much both of them dealt with politics. Greece focused on culture, science and political influence and government.

Archimedes could sort of work and feel cool, seeing how he was employed by Syracuse to do military stuff? This would be Greece with less political and more scientific and maybe maritime and economic focus. Yet another option would be Themistocles, to cover two latter niches.

Ara: History Untold chose Sappho, and I have to say that I fell in love with her considering how beautiful she looks there, but Sappho is already a Logios, so we won't see her in Civilization VII. The same can be said about Plato and Aristotle. They were the perfect pick for a philosopher leader in this iteration of Sid Meier's Civilization, but they won't appear as they are Logioi too. Archimedes is a good alternative choice. He can work as a leader with a scientific focus and some bonus to siege units. Themistocles can work too, but if he is included then better luck next time Leonidas in Civilization VIII, I guess. There is also something negative about Themistocles. While he elevated Athens to a naval superpower, and won the decisive battle of Salamis that granted him great prestige, his later life followed a less glorious path. He was ostracized from Athens, left Greece forever and ended as a governor of the Persians.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm going to assume Alexander will get in again, so I don't personally care for two Greek militaristic leaders. Besides I think Alexander can pull of what Leonidas can do but better, associating with Greece, Persia, and Egypt.

 

[Siptah]

@The Fanatical I’m sorry if the portrayal of an interaction with a blind person makes you so insecure. But it‘s something that many people are used to and it doesn‘t need special care to not be disrespectful to the portrayed person nor the opponent. I‘d say if there are still people around that are uncomfortable around blind people, maybe that‘s a reason for including them and not against it?

 

[ehecatzin]

I'm going to assume Alexander will get in again, so I don't personally care for two Greek militaristic leaders. Besides I think Alexander can pull of what Leonidas can do but better, associating with Greece, Persia, and Egypt.

Oh no I can already see the double or triple persona for Alexander...Alexander the Great, Alexander the Achaemenid, Alexander Pharaoh of Egypt, Alexander the Flamethrower!

 

[Siptah]

Oh no I can already see the double or triple persona for Alexander...Alexander the Great, Alexander the Achaemenid, Alexander Pharaoh of Egypt, Alexander the Flamethrower!

Alexander the Maniac:
UA: all units get +15 CS, however, the first direction you move it decides that the unit will move into this direction until the end of the map/landmass, attacking everything it meets. After reaching an endpoint, a new direction can be given.

Alexander the Leader:
UA: if a commander dies/goes to sleep, all of its units start fighting each other until no one is left.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Oh no I can already see the double or triple persona for Alexander...Alexander the Great, Alexander the Achaemenid, Alexander Pharaoh of Egypt, Alexander the Flamethrower!

Alexander the Maniac:
UA: all units get +15 CS, however, the first direction you move it decides that the unit will move into this direction until the end of the map/landmass, attacking everything it meets. After reaching an endpoint, a new direction can be given.

Alexander the Leader:
UA: if a commander dies/goes to sleep, all of its units start fighting each other until no one is left.

I know you jest but I wouldn't mind giving Alexander a persona.
Alexander the Great (or Strategos) would be Militaristic/Scientific and Alexander the Hellenistic would be Cultural/Expansionist.

 

[ehecatzin]

I'm just not entirely sold on personas they seem very hit or miss, Alexander, yeah I joke, but I can see having a persona. There are some personas that are absolute slam dunks, like Ashoka or Frederick. But for others, at least to me, don't seem to justify a whole other persona? like Xerxes or Napoleon, they could easily be a diferent leader and they would work just the same.

Also...how come Charlemagne doesn't have a Holy Roman Emperor persona? maybe later once the HRE makes it in I suppose.

yeah, as I said, kind of not yet sold on them.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm just not entirely sold on personas they seem very hit or miss, Alexander, yeah I joke, but I can see having a persona. There are some personas that are absolute slam dunks, like Ashoka or Frederick. But for others, at least to me, don't seem to justify a whole other persona? like Xerxes or Napoleon, they could easily be a diferent leader and they would work just the same.

I agree with you on these. I'm an Alexander fan obviously, so I wouldn't mind it if he got one.
But yeah, if not, I could just combine the two and see him being Cultural/Militaristic.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm an Alexander fan obviously, so I wouldn't mind it if he got one.

I'm not particularly an Alexander fan but still think he's a prime candidate for Strategos and Shah personae.

 

[Biologist]

I mean, in Civilization VII the leaders come in contact with each other, and they even make direct eye contact. When at war, a leader even gazes aggressively and intensely in the eyes of the opposite leader. How a blind person will be depicted here in the diplomatic screen? Will Homer look other leaders in the eyes behaving like every other leader, making his portrayal inaccurate and even disrespectful? Or will he gaze in an unresponsive manner the enraged

I ask without sarcasm or malice, have you ever had a conversation with a blind person, or seen a blind person speak, or even a well-acted blind character on TV? They're more than capable of facing their counterpart and emoting in a recognizable and natural fashion. The same thing is true of someone wearing very dark sunglasses or a bandage over their eyes. Or a helmet. Eye contact is one small part of body language and lacking it is not a barrier to communication or representation in the way you seem to claim it is.

 

[The Fanatical]

IF we must have a leader from a one-note (militaristic) Greek city-state, we can do much better than a Leader best known for getting himself killed. By that criteria, the Modern Age American Leader should be George Armstrong Custer.

The decision to stay there and die immortalized Leonidas and made the battle of Thermopylae the most famous last stand in ancient history. The battle has inspired defenders during a hopeless situation since then.

Far better would be one of the more successful Lacedemonian leaders, like Brasidas

Yes, Brasidas would be a nice alternative, but he needs to wear a Corinthian helmet with a transverse crest in my opinion as those are better looking than Pilos helmets with transverse crests.

I will, of course, always go for Alcibiades just for the sheer contrariness of him as a Leader of anything more organized than a Pandemonium, but some other candidates that spring to mind:

Alcibiades changed sides repeatedly (from Athens to Sparta to Persia to Athens again) and ultimately was assassinated in Lesser Phrygia, having achieved nothing of significant note in his life while all the necessary tools to do it were provided to him. How good will he really be as a leader? Backstabbing should be his bread and butter.

Pythagoreas, either as a geometrician/mathematician or as the founder of a religion.

Pythagoras is already a Logios, so we won't see him as a leader.

Polycrates, Tyrant of Samos, a truely Naval Leader for very early classical Greece, with builder/engineering chops as well.

Polycrates would be great for a naval focused civilization, that civilization isn't this version of Greece, however. Greece has an infantry Unique Military Unit, the Hoplite. Combining a Spartan leader with Greece would be the perfect combination.

Kleopatra of Epirus, of whom I have posted before - the one legitimate female Greek classical ruler

I doubt we will see a Cleopatra in Civilization VII. In fact, we might never see another one in the series, except the most famous one. I can't imagine the confusion if two existed.

or Lycurgus the semi-legendary law-giver for a really influential Leader. And, as they say: "Now for something completely Different . . ."
Agamemnon or Nestor from the Mycenean period - semi-legendary because their portrayal will inevitably owe much to Homer, but potentially an interesting step outside of the traditional classical Greek/Athenian/Spartan/Macedonian leader pool.

I don't think mythological leaders belong in the series. I would love to see them as units in a mythological mode or as leaders in a new game focused on mythology, but not here. Likewise, I'm not supportive of semi-mythological leaders. Teaching history is one of these games' goals, right? But if Agamemnon or Homer never existed, then the whole plan falls apart.

 

[The Fanatical]

I'm going to assume Alexander will get in again, so I don't personally care for two Greek militaristic leaders. Besides I think Alexander can pull of what Leonidas can do but better, associating with Greece, Persia, and Egypt.

Whatever approach Firaxis takes with Alexander, he will be an aggressive conqueror. His playstyle will reward aggression. On the other hand, Leonidas wasn't a conqueror. He was a defender. He successfully held a defensive position before the Persians found a pass behind the Greeks. I can see Alexander as the Greek aggressive militaristic leader that also provides some cultural bonuses when conquering foreign cities, something based on his Hellenization of Asia. Leonidas will be the defensive militaristic leader that will also focus on diplomatic bonuses based on his efforts to assembly and command an army of units from different city-states. They can appear very distinct from each other.

t@The Fanatical I’m sorry if the portrayal of an interaction with a blind person makes you so insecure. But it‘s something that many people are used to and it doesn‘t need special care to not be disrespectful to the portrayed person nor the opponent. I‘d say if there are still people around that are uncomfortable around blind people, maybe that‘s a reason for including them and not against it?

No, I don't feel insecure. I'm just expressing some concerns. Will the portrayal be depicted correctly? Will blind Homer fit with the other leaders when there is such a close eye-contacting diplomatic interaction between them? Should Homer be a leader when his existence is disputed? These are questions Firaxis will need to answer if Homer is picked as a leader.

 

[The Fanatical]

I ask without sarcasm or malice, have you ever had a conversation with a blind person, or seen a blind person speak, or even a well-acted blind character on TV? They're more than capable of facing their counterpart and emoting in a recognizable and natural fashion. The same thing is true of someone wearing very dark sunglasses or a bandage over their eyes. Or a helmet. Eye contact is one small part of body language and lacking it is not a barrier to communication or representation in the way you seem to claim it is.

No, I have never had a conversation with a blind person, but I have seen real blind people and impersonated ones on TV and on the Internet. From your own experience, have you seen blind people's heads move left and right trying to look directly in the eyes of another person, as the leaders do in Civilization VII? Do you think the lack of vision will be portrayed accurately? If it is portrayed accurately, will the leader feel more unique than the other leaders in a negative way for the game's diplomatic animations? By the way, I never mentioned blind people can't face other people or portray emotion, Jesus. The leaders tilt forward and look directly in the eyes when on war. A blind person can't do that because there is a lack of vision. That's my concern.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Pythagoras is already a Logios, so we won't see him as a leader

Sorry, if they can move cities from IPs to Civs as they have forecast, moving a civ-specific Great Person to Leader is not impossible.

And if the 'famous' Cleopatra is not to be included, as you say (a prediction I would NOT be willing to make, by the way) that leaves room for the less-famous but far more accurate as a Greek Mainland Female Leader Kleopatra of Epirus.

And yes, Alcibiades managed to accomplish virtually nothing but ruin whatever chance Athens had with the Syracuse Expedition, but so what? The point is to give the gamer someone Completely Different to interact with, and he is about the most contrary individual in history (although, grant you, the twentieth century and Current Events are producing some serious competition for that title)

 

[Acepox]

+300 votes! I believe it's time for Leonidas to appear in Sid Meier's Civilization as a leader. He deserves it more than ever this time. In the past not only he was just a Great General, but Xerxes is already a leader in Civilization VII, which will make for an interesting historical interaction, although the two probably never had a conversation with each other in real life. If a Persian Wars scenario ever gets made, then I can see Leonidas being perfect for it.

It is true that his wife Gorgo has appeared in Civilization VI, but her whole design screamed "I'm Leonidas in female form". She carried a hoplite spear, and her ability was named Thermopylae, but I doubt if the real Spartan queen had ever brandished a hoplite's spear in her hand and she definitely didn't participate in the battle of Thermopylae. I get it, Firaxis wanted a woman as the second Greek leader, and who's the most famous Spartan woman in history? Gorgo. I still believe the choice was flawed. The saying that only Spartan women give birth to men, which was supposedly said by Gorgo during her interaction with one Athenian woman, wasn't even one of her dialogue lines.

Whatever the case, we need a militaristic Spartan as a leader to be added in the future for a very important reason. The current capital of Greece is Athenai, but Athens wasn't always the strongest city. Cities such as Sparta, Corinth, Syracuse, Thebes, were just as strong or surpassed Athens in strength at some point in history. If a Spartan leader is added to the game, then we can get Sparta as a different capital for Greece, which would be neat. An existing feature in Civilization VI that I liked a lot. I would also like to have the ability to change freely the capital of my civilization inside each Age as well, by the way, but a mod might get released that will let us do exactly that. And I will add another important reason. In the past the only Greek leaders we got were Alexander, Pericles, Cleopatra and Byzantine emperors and empresses (I won't add Hippolyta because she simply never existed in real life). A half Macedonian and half Epirote, an Athenian, another Macedonian and Byzantines. We got a Spartan leader for the first time in Civilization VI, and the leader wasn't even a Spartan king with some strong political and military influence. I think we definitely need to get more Spartan leaders from now on.

If Firaxis doesn't want to make Leonidas a leader, who they should since he is a famous heroic figure in Greece and a popular cultural icon worldwide, then there are some other interesting Spartan options:

Cleomenes I, the brother of Leonidas I and the most influential man in Archaic Greece that was responsible for the expansion of the Peloponnesian League, the turning of the once powerful Argos into a weak city-state and the creation of Athenian democracy. He never lost a battle. His only flaw is that he was besieged by the Athenian citizens in the citadel when trying to secure a tyrant's position in the city, and he had to surrender along with his small force. Although that doesn't count as an infantry battle, it was still humiliating for the king. His ending was cruel and mimicked the fate of the heroes of the tragic plays. He was proclaimed mad, got imprisoned and died by suicide (or got murdered, probably by the Ephors).

Agesilaus II, the Spartan king at the height of Sparta's dominance. He invaded Anatolia and had dreams of reaching the capital Susa in the heart of the Persian Empire, unfortunately the Persians instigated a war back in Greece, and he had to be recalled. At the end of his life, Sparta was at its weakest, while it was at its height when Agesilaus came to power. Nonetheless, he never lost a battle, and he was the epitome of a true Spartan. Proud, brave, disciplined, modest and lacked the desire to gain riches for himself. He died on his way home from a trip to Egypt, where he had provided his service as a mercenary general in order to obtain wealth for Sparta.

Brasidas. Not a king, but he was an ephor for some time and later an extremely successful general. He managed to win the favour of Amphipolis with just words, the greatest Athenian colony in Thrace, and routed an Athenian army killing six hundred soldiers including its general Cleon outside the city with only seven loses! Unfortunately, Brasidas was among the seven. The citizens of Amphipolis heroized him, buried him inside the city (a great honor), and made annual celebrations in his name, while a cenotaph was created besides the tombs of Leonidas and Pausanias in Sparta. His golden wreath and silver ossuary were found in Amphipolis and you can view them nowadays.

Lysander, the figure that epicly won the Peloponnesian War for Sparta, but his haste to start a siege in Boeotia cost him his life in a less epic way. I would advise against choosing Lysander simply because he was unbeatable in sea battles, but achieved nothing significant in infantry battles and the Spartan leader should have some bonus towards infantry anyway.

The fascinating thing about all these figures is that all of them tried to gain the support of city-states other than Sparta. Lysander gained the support of the Aegean cities in favour of Sparta, Brasidas gained the support of the Athenian colonies up north close to Macedonia, Cleomenes I tried to use the power of a coalition that included the strong Peloponnesian League and a few other city-states as a mean to install a tyrant in Athens and later tried to create a league of Arcadian cities to oppose Sparta, and Agesilaus II gained the support of the Greek cities in Minor Asia during his expedition. In the case of Leonidas I, he gathered units of soldiers from different Greek allied cities when marching north to Thermopylae in order to create a sizeable army, which is something that can be used as an ability for him in-game. For instance, he can provide more combat strength to infantry units for each city-state you are the suzerain of and the levying of City-State units can be free for him, or he could even give more defensive bonuses to fortified infantry units. So, a Diplomatic and Militaristic Spartan leader will fit rather well with Greece, in my opinion.

As for Leonidas's appearance, he doesn't have to follow pop culture. He can be depicted older (or even younger) with long braided hair, a bell or muscle cuirass, a doru, a hoplon with a gorgoneion emblem or the Spartan sun symbol of kings while he could wear a Corinthian helmet with a transverse crest that has engraved lions or rams on the bronze cheek plates. Leonidas is also a great candidate for a persona. The Agiad (Diplomatic and Militaristic) and the Geron (Diplomatic and Cultural). The first will depict him with the bronze cuirass and the helmet on. The second will lack the helmet and a crimson chlamys will be draped over him.
View attachment 716897View attachment 716899View attachment 716900View attachment 716901View attachment 716902View attachment 716904View attachment 716906View attachment 716907View attachment 716908

Great effortpost

I'm now hyped for mah boi Leo.

THIS - IS - SPARTAAAA!


Edit: why are people assuming we'll have Alex? We just had him in Civ 6. A little change is in order.

I vote Leo and Aristotle.

 

[The Fanatical]

Great effortpost

I'm now hyped for mah boi Leo.

THIS - IS - SPARTAAAA!


Edit: why are people assuming we'll have Alex? We just had him in Civ 6. A little change is in order.

I vote Leo and Aristotle.

Thanks, I'm glad you like it. Alexander is in every game since Civilization I, it is Firaxian tradition at this point.

 

[Biologist]

If it is portrayed accurately, will the leader feel more unique than the other leaders in a negative way for the game's diplomatic animations?

Only if the observer is made uncomfortable by realistic depictions of blind people? Depicting blind characters in animation isn't new. Avatar The Last Airbender is nearly 20 years old now. If having a blind person react realistically makes diplomacy look weird to someone, that's their problem, not the devs'.

 

[moondog385]

Alexander and then someone with a cultural tilt would be my preference for Greek representation. I expect it to be a philosopher.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Alexander and then someone with a cultural tilt would be my preference for Greek representation. I expect it to be a philosopher.

Wouldn't he be both, though?

 

[Archanist]

No, I have never had a conversation with a blind person, but I have seen real blind people and impersonated ones on TV and on the Internet. From your own experience, have you seen blind people's heads move left and right trying to look directly in the eyes of another person, as the leaders do in Civilization VII? Do you think the lack of vision will be portrayed accurately? If it is portrayed accurately, will the leader feel more unique than the other leaders in a negative way for the game's diplomatic animations? By the way, I never mentioned blind people can't face other people or portray emotion, Jesus. The leaders tilt forward and look directly in the eyes when on war. A blind person can't do that because there is a lack of vision. That's my concern.

I believe Firaxis would be able to capture a blind leader in the diplomacy screen. If they put the same effort they showed collaborating with the Shawnee tribe to create Tecumseh with a lot of back and forth between them, then they'll be able to figure out how to animate the mannerisms a blind person would have.