Potential Official Alternate Leaders

[Siptah]

I know they are not popular in this forums, but I‘d propose them nonetheless. Egypt‘s very general ability would make modern leaders possible as well. First that come to mind are Saad Zaghlul and Nasser. The latter would obviously have preferred to lead Arabia instead, but its ability dorsn‘t fit him. Both would twist Egypt in a different direction, use different colors from Cleo, a different capital (shared with Saladin however) and different icons. Nasser is of course still a bit controversial, but I can imagine a really great leader screen for this incredibly charismatic leader with a big personality. The problem with Saad is that he isn‘t that famous outside of Egypt, but he is a national hero along with the great Pharaohs there.

 

[Vahnstad]

Am I the only one who sees less of a point for extra European leaders? The countries that I feel like REALLY make sense for multiple leaders are countries like China, where they had multiple kingdoms that all represented China. Or a Confederate States of America alternate leader, Gorgo and Pericles are good examples in my opinon, but it just feels redundant and furthering of Euro-centrism when we make alternate leaders for countries that don't really represent much different from the original leader (no new capital, no real separate notable culture or land area, etc). In the examples the OP made America, China, Arabia, India, Japan, Persia, Russia, and Spain. IMO I feel like the differences between these places are pronounced enough to warrant alternate leaders, and alternate leaders for France, Germany, and England, just kind of feel like a waste (An Italian civ with multiple alternate leaders would be great though)

Also, you should tell me how the differences between separate American leaders would be pronounced enough to warrant alternate leaders, while nations with a very rich history like France and England are not. France, England and Germany have all five times more history at least than the American one. America is basically built on English heritage. But surely i'm very willing to play as one of the most controversial countries beside communist and fascist ones (the CSA) while Gran Colombia even existed for a longer time or as a medieval American king (oh, there are none). I'm fine with an extra American leader as long they're chosen carefully, but they should prioritize other civs imo (like Egypt, India, Russia, China and yes France), and after that we could have an American (but we also have Romans, the Japanese, England, Persians and ... ).

I can understand some criticism on the Eurocentrist nature of the game, but it shouldn't change into Europhobia, or unjustified hate for everything European (and at least not falsities).

I know they are not popular in this forums, but I‘d propose them nonetheless. Egypt‘s very general ability would make modern leaders possible as well. First that come to mind are Saad Zaghlul and Nasser. The latter would obviously have preferred to lead Arabia instead, but its ability dorsn‘t fit him. Both would twist Egypt in a different direction, use different colors from Cleo, a different capital (shared with Saladin however) and different icons. Nasser is of course still a bit controversial, but I can imagine a really great leader screen for this incredibly charismatic leader with a big personality. The problem with Saad is that he isn‘t that famous outside of Egypt, but he is a national hero along with the great Pharaohs there.

Would honestly be a shame when you have such a rich history and were a major power (if not the largest) for millenia in a row. Especially when we still don't have a worthful Old Egyptian ruler, and if it would mean that we won't get Ramesses II or Hatshepsut or Akhenaten or Thutmoses III instead, than i would prefer to rather not have them. That's also probably one of the reasons why they're not popular.

 

[Vahnstad]

The problem with Akbar being an alternate leader of India is that it would feel like making Abd-al Rahman I an alternate leader of Spain, because he ruled from Spain (Cordoba) as an Umayyad ruler. I think the Mughals would be better represented (and not feeling weird) when being made into a separate civ, and give India an alternate leader (Ashoka). Just like they have done with Macedon.

However, we are actually playing with an Italian lady as France and a Greek woman as Egypt.

 

[UWHabs]

Well, no alternate leader can be that distinct, since they'll always share 3/4 of their uniques for the civ, and only have 1 "trait" to play with.

America fits the list for alternate leaders for the simple fact that it's an American studio and I'm sure a large portion of the sales are in the US.

But if we're talking about what's most likely, then it's the "traditional" civs (England, France, US, Germany, Rome, Spain, Russia, Egypt, China, India, Japan) that are probably the most likely to get a new leader. Ideally, they should likely ALL get a 2nd leader, and they may before the civ 6 development cycle is done, but they won't all come by the 1st expansion pack. Which ones are most likely to get a new leader I would expect would be whichever of them fits in best to whatever "theme" they plan for the expansion, although if they do add 8-10 new civs/leaders, certainly not all of them will fit the "theme" that they choose for the expansion pack. Hopefully they choose new ones that make for interesting gameplay, and have varying strategies.

 

[Vahnstad]

Didn't they state in that interview that the alternate leader possibility is just something they did to make modding easier, and that they're only to create few alternate leaders. That sounds to me like they're putting one or two new leaders in each expansion when they feel like a new leader would actually have much added value to the gameplay and representation of a certain civ, and that would be very different than all traditional civs getting a new leader.

 

[Atlas627]

I know they are not popular in this forums, but I‘d propose them nonetheless. Egypt‘s very general ability would make modern leaders possible as well. First that come to mind are Saad Zaghlul and Nasser. The latter would obviously have preferred to lead Arabia instead, but its ability dorsn‘t fit him. Both would twist Egypt in a different direction, use different colors from Cleo, a different capital (shared with Saladin however) and different icons. Nasser is of course still a bit controversial, but I can imagine a really great leader screen for this incredibly charismatic leader with a big personality. The problem with Saad is that he isn‘t that famous outside of Egypt, but he is a national hero along with the great Pharaohs there.

I don't see them making anyone with Cairo as the capital, and I should've mentioned that in the OP. I also sincerely doubt they'd pick a modern ruler at all when all the other uniques SCREAM ancient Egypt. That would be like giving the Aztecs a modern Mexican president or giving the Romans a modern Italian leader.

The problem with Akbar being an alternate leader of India is that it would feel like making Abd-al Rahman I an alternate leader of Spain, because he ruled from Spain (Cordoba) as an Umayyad ruler. I think the Mughals would be better represented (and not feeling weird) when being made into a separate civ, and give India an alternate leader (Ashoka). Just like they have done with Macedon.

However, we are actually playing with an Italian lady as France and a Greek woman as Egypt.

I guess they could go the same route with the Mughals as they did with Macedon, but I think all the other uniques actually fit the Mughals quite well. Elephant warriors, stepwell infrastructure, religious tolerance. I find that there is a big difference between an Umayyad for Spain and Akbar for India: the Spanish and the Moors both claimed that the other was separate; neither claimed to be the same. The Mughals still claimed to be Indian, and they were tolerant of all the non-Muslim religions.

Didn't they state in that interview that the alternate leader possibility is just something they did to make modding easier, and that they're only to create few alternate leaders. That sounds to me like they're putting one or two new leaders in each expansion when they feel like a new leader would actually have much added value to the gameplay and representation of a certain civ, and that would be very different than all traditional civs getting a new leader.

That is what they originally stated, but they recently said they are looking into making more official alternate leaders. I agree that it still sounds to me like they will be picky and only choose leaders who result in new gameplay being explored. Personally, I think leaders such as Bismarck are very likely to come alongside a diplomacy-focused expansion.

 

[Siptah]

I also sincerely doubt they'd pick a modern ruler at all when all the other uniques SCREAM ancient Egypt.

A lot of uniques don‘t fit the leader though or represent different times of a civ. Some UU examples:
Gandhi - Varu
Fredrick - U-Boat
Catherine - Garde Impérial
Teddy - P-51
Saladin - Mamluk
Cleo - Maryannu
Tomyris - Saka
Monty - Eagle Warrior (it actually fits the leader, but not as an ancient UU)
Qin - Crouching Tiger
And probably some more...

How abou UI:
Fredrick - Hansa
Qin - Great Wall
Harald - Wooden Church
Gandhi - Stepwell
And probably some more...

So uniques from other eras are obviously not a problem for Firaxis. Not that I‘d prefer Saad to Djoser, Akhenaten or Seti, but I think he belongs to Egypt‘s history as much as those and shouldn‘t be forgotten when thinking about potential leaders.

 

[seancolorado]

Indonesia

• I don't really see any other options except for a modern ruler, and I don't think that will happen

There are other viable options with different capitals beyond the Majapahit and Sukarno as modern Indonesia. Ignoring the Muslim sultanates of which I don't know enough about, those options are:

The Srivijaya and the Singhasari, but as the Singhasari would from a video game perspective live in the shadows of the Majapahit, that makes the Srivijaya the only option.

If there is an expansion that develops on diplomacy and trade, they could get real creative with Srivijaya the way they did with Gitarja's kampung as a coast improvement

However, as a Western-based game company, I highly doubt they would add more leaders to Southeast Asia so this is likely just water cooler talk.

 

[Vahnstad]

I would actually prefer other civs in SE-Asia instead of new leaders, since it's likely they won't add much more leaders, and i rather had a full new civ instead of a new leader. We still have Siam, Burma, Malaya and Vietnam left as possible new civs. There is no way that they all will make it into the game, but please put your resources into making a new SEA-civ instead of a new SEA-leader (if you were Firaxis).

 

[Uberfrog]

I would actually prefer other civs in SE-Asia instead of new leaders, since it's likely they won't add much more leaders, and i rather had a full new civ instead of a new leader. We still have Siam, Burma, Malaya and Vietnam left as possible new civs. There is no way that they all will make it into the game, but please put your resources into making a new SEA-civ instead of a new SEA-leader (if you were Firaxis).

I think I hold this view in any region. New leaders are great, but don't scrap a whole new civ to make them!

 

[seancolorado]

I would actually prefer other civs in SE-Asia instead of new leaders, since it's likely they won't add much more leaders, and i rather had a full new civ instead of a new leader. We still have Siam, Burma, Malaya and Vietnam left as possible new civs. There is no way that they all will make it into the game, but please put your resources into making a new SEA-civ instead of a new SEA-leader (if you were Firaxis).

Srivijaya would cover Malaya (although from an exploration perspective they went as far as Madagascar) but I agree in general I like new civs more than new leaders in Asia because that provides more opportunity for uniques

 

[Atlas627]

A lot of uniques don‘t fit the leader though or represent different times of a civ. Some UU examples:
Gandhi - Varu
Fredrick - U-Boat
Catherine - Garde Impérial
Teddy - P-51
Saladin - Mamluk
Cleo - Maryannu
Tomyris - Saka
Monty - Eagle Warrior (it actually fits the leader, but not as an ancient UU)
Qin - Crouching Tiger
And probably some more...

How abou UI:
Fredrick - Hansa
Qin - Great Wall
Harald - Wooden Church
Gandhi - Stepwell
And probably some more...

So uniques from other eras are obviously not a problem for Firaxis. Not that I‘d prefer Saad to Djoser, Akhenaten or Seti, but I think he belongs to Egypt‘s history as much as those and shouldn‘t be forgotten when thinking about potential leaders.

There is a difference between having the uniques of the civ covering the span of that civ's history, and having the uniques ALL be clumped together. The leader is not supposed to be attached to the civ's uniques, but it is supposed to be attached to the civ at all. For literally all your examples bar Egypt, the uniques cover a large span of history that the leader happens to fall between. A modern Egyptian leader would not fit with having *all three* other uniques representing ancient Egypt.

 

[Siptah]

I still think that the hints of the last months (sound recordings with plate mail and swords and drawing sketches of a female holding a large sword) point towards Jeanne d'Arc as the next official 2nd leader. She may have Bourges as her capital since the king of France ruled from there during her time. Maybe she gets a bonus fighting in own territory or reconquering/liberating cities? Or a medieval UU? And who would replace her as a medieval Great General creating a relic when dying, which great leader died a martyr? Marcellus probably isn't a good choice for a Great General.

 

[Phrozen]

I would be disappointed with Jeanne d'Arc as a 2nd leader for France. If you want medieval and military Philip Augustus is a much much better choice.

A great general that leaves relic replacement though? Guan Yu perhaps?

 

[Guandao]

I still think that the hints of the last months (sound recordings with plate mail and swords and drawing sketches of a female holding a large sword) point towards Jeanne d'Arc as the next official 2nd leader. She may have Bourges as her capital since the king of France ruled from there during her time. Maybe she gets a bonus fighting in own territory or reconquering/liberating cities? Or a medieval UU? And who would replace her as a medieval Great General creating a relic when dying, which great leader died a martyr? Marcellus probably isn't a good choice for a Great General.

Please no. France doesn't need a second female leader.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I still think that the hints of the last months (sound recordings with plate mail and swords and drawing sketches of a female holding a large sword) point towards Jeanne d'Arc as the next official 2nd leader. She may have Bourges as her capital since the king of France ruled from there during her time. Maybe she gets a bonus fighting in own territory or reconquering/liberating cities? Or a medieval UU? And who would replace her as a medieval Great General creating a relic when dying, which great leader died a martyr? Marcellus probably isn't a good choice for a Great General.

Where was this? I would rather Napoleon, honestly. She was less of a leader than Gandhi. And I would rather a lot more leaders than Napoleon.

 

[Vahnstad]

Don't forget we already have a lot of military leaders ("warmongers"), and I definitely want Genghis Khan. I don't know how many warmongers you all want in the game, and the game will have a lot of religious / warmongering leaders, especially if we will have Akhenaten or Ramesses II (hopefully, or Hatshepsut), the latter two ones also could be defined as "wonder"-leaders.

I prefer Louis XIV or Napoleon as French leader, and I would be okay with Joan of Arc.

 

[Morningcalm]

Please no Joan of Arc. Except as a unique leader in a scenario perhaps (that would be great).

Louis XIV could be ok (though I personally detest him). He should like those who war lots and have lots of culture, and maybe like those with small treasuries and waste them on unsuccessful wars. (In all seriousness, I guess he's more unique and original than Napoleon at least, especially given how poor the AI is at combat. A Napoleon AI sucking at combat would be sad--heck, he's far more a threat and personality filled at that--in Age of Empires III, rather than any Civ game).

Agreed with Vahnstad about needing Genghis. His agendas are actually plentiful in historical possibilities too--he was known for a vast spy network, for favoring trade (some Muslim merchants helped him root out Kushlug, an early threat to Genghis, and also he was known for securing the Silk Road, ironically making it safer through his bloodshed). He could also threaten the player for tribute more often than other AI (an interaction based agenda as Gorgo's is) and go to war with those who refuse (but honorably not waging war on those who did pay tribute). Of course, he could also frequently attack those with more land than him (early on, China, Russia and the Khwarazim fit this mold, and all were targeted).

There is a difference between having the uniques of the civ covering the span of that civ's history, and having the uniques ALL be clumped together. The leader is not supposed to be attached to the civ's uniques, but it is supposed to be attached to the civ at all. For literally all your examples bar Egypt, the uniques cover a large span of history that the leader happens to fall between. A modern Egyptian leader would not fit with having *all three* other uniques representing ancient Egypt.

Agreed. So it appears given the gender parity preference we may see a male pharaoh from an earlier period in Egypt's history rather than a more recent leader. For better or worse, ancient Egypt is cemented in the popular imagination in a more positive way than the more recent Egypt of modern history. Sooo...Senusret III? Thutmose III? Rameses II?

Hatshepsut must return for Civ VII of course. I miss her.

 

[Siptah]

They seem to avoid leaders that were in civ V, except for Gandhi of course and Pedro for some reason. So I guess when they see a good alternative, they go for it. This makes Ramesses II and Napoléon unlikely in my opinion. For Genghis, most alternatives seem worse ideas - except Kubilai of course.

 

[clapyourhands]

Napoleon's a strong leader choice IMO because, apart from being inarguably one of the most important leaders of France's history, the "supercultural civ with a respectable military disposition" isn't exactly an easily-fillable slot. Gameplay niche fulfillment's important too.