Potential Official Alternate Leaders

[Xandinho]

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.

I would hate to have Jeanne d'Arc as the second leader of France. Even Charles de Gaulle would be a much better option

 

[Atlas627]

They will probably not choose Napoleon. He needs a different capital for one, but he is also somewhat represented by the Garde Imperiale.

 

[Uberfrog]

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)

This is a really nice idea. While Genghis Khan is a worthy addition, and surely inevitable, he needs to be meaningfully distinguished from existing warmongers. Making him demand tribute before declaring war would help him feel different.

 

[Siptah]

This is a really nice idea. While Genghis Khan is a worthy addition, and surely inevitable, he needs to be meaningfully distinguished from existing warmongers. Making him demand tribute before declaring war would help him feel different.

I wonder why the AI isn't doing that any more. It asked for stuff regularly in civ V - especially weak civs that were friendly towards you. And since Genghis was almost always weak and was one of the most faithful friends he ended up begging for stuff all the time. Would be nice to see him asking for stuff from a strong position for once. I don't think we have many one dimensional warmongers in the game as of yet btw. Sure, Alexander is just about that. Others like Monty and Gorgo are not solely built around warmongering - they profit from doing it, but they aren't one dimensional in doing it. And Genghis should profit from warmongering as well. I'd welcome Genghis back, but I'm not too enthusiastic about him tbh. I don't see any prove of him having an idea of how to hold his 'empire' together, which in my book makes him unsuccessful besides his conquering. With Alexander, you can at least feel the intention to create an empire even if he wasn't successful in doing that. But this thread is about 2nd leaders anyway...

And filling the role of a cultural civ with a strong military is easy, even without bringing Napoleon back. Right now, Gorgo is fulfilling that role, and Victoria as well.

 

[Morningcalm]

Incidentally, for Civ V they recorded "Gloat" lines which it seems would be used when the AI beat you in combat and/or exacted tribute, but these were not used even though they were in the game files.

The AI seems too ask for tribute in my games only when the "We are winning. They fear us" modifier reaches past the -30 threshold, and by then I refuse all tribute requests because I know I can destroy any or all of them together.

Far cry from Civ IV, where more powerful AI would ask for tribute and tended to go to war (sometimes successfully) with me when I refused.

Would be nice to have a Genghis AI actually programmed to ask for tribute at key points (I.e. After moving his army near you). Of course, it would be even more ideal if the AI behavior modeled Civ IV's a bit more but I guess that ship has sailed for Civ VI.

Siptah, re: Genghis holding his empire together, Genghis was a very capable administrator and that was how he held his empire together. Because he did more than simply storm territory he is regarded as an empire ruler in a more meaningful way than say, Attila. Genghis created an empire out of numerous squabbling Mongolian tribes and an administrative system that outlasted his death, which is more than can be said for many famous leaders. He liked to have multiple advisors regardless of rank or religion, and created the rather famous Yassa code. He implemented law and order as well as record keeping (new to the largely illiterate Mongols). He saw immense value in taxes and trade (it was the execution of Genghis' trade delegation to the Khwarazim Empire that caused him to leave China to crush the Khwarazim). There's plenty more that you could read about online or in paperback (I favor Leo de Hartog's biography but there are many other good ones around).

 

[Uberfrog]

The AI seems too ask for tribute in my games only when the "We are winning. They fear us" modifier reaches past the -30 threshold, and by then I refuse all tribute requests because I know I can destroy any or all of them together.

Yeah the AI very rarely asks for tribute. In my latest game Monty was the only one to demand anything, and I had already conquered three of his cities, including Tenochtitlan. So it was a pretty odd position to ask for tribute, and my response was of course "lol no".

 

[Siptah]

Two other popular 2nd leaders that I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about because I think they failed in creating an empire that lasted:
Alfred the Great, because his 'empire' dissolved with his death.
Taizong, who is admittedly one of the greatest leaders China ever had. He was in one way a supreme empire builder and I can see why he is popular. Chinese history in a nutshell looks for me like incredible buildups followed by slow and long declines - this is of course simplified to the point of wrongness, but it is useful to differentiate it from several other long-lasting empires. Taizong actually managed to build his empire to prosperity not known before, but also saw the decline starting already in his later years and was seemingly unable to stop it. Later emperors saw him as a perfect role model, though, so it was either forgotten or ignored. And, of course, I know some here will disagree with me on that.

And while I haven't read a biography of Genghis, I have read a bit about the Mongols in general and the history of the region that put him in a broader context (and lots of stuff about the regions he conquered actually, which may influence me a lot in my opinion about him). So what @Morningcalm wrote isn't something I haven't heard before, but I have read enough (also about the extreme scarcity of reliable sources about Genghis) to not find it convincing. And I think the division of his empire in four Khanates (with the plan to split them up to smaller regions in the following generations), which may have been good for the administration, wasn't the wisest move - but it's always easy to say afterwards. Just as I think the Yassa was a step back for most of the conquered lands (but again this may come from my Iranian biased point of view). He sure was amongst the most important leaders in history though and his impact was huge. His cruelty and genocides (no, the latter were not really common at that time), however, were famous enough to have Timur and the Mughals acknowledge his ancestry while condemning him all the same. I don't want us to go at each others throats again though and admittedly, there is more to him than to Attila or Brasidas.

 

[Vahnstad]

Is it a prerequisite for a leader to create an empire that have lasted. I'm sure many, even most leaders, wouldn't even be considered if that was a requirement.

 

[Siptah]

Is it a prerequisite for a leader to create an empire that have lasted. I'm sure many, even most leaders, wouldn't even be considered if that was a requirement.

It isn‘t for Firaxis. But when you start doing something as strange as judging leaders, it seems a logical criteria for me.
Firaxis might have completely different requirements for 2nd leaders though: maybe even that they led two rivaling parts of the civ. A sample size of 1 really doesn‘t help us much. But two rivaling parts of the same civ allows both to appear in a single game without making it weird - in contrast to Philip competing with Isabella. With they choices they made for civ VI, if this would be a criteria, there wouldn't be much room for 2nd leaders.

 

[Vahnstad]

The Tsar and the Soviet Union wouldn't feel weird. Lenin fighting against Tsar Nicolas or in this case Tsar Peter, or maybe Mughals against Gandhi. The CSA against USA is also an option, but one I would dislike a lot. Bismarck against Hitler maybe also an option (but against Frederick Barbarossa not, since Hitler liked Barbarossa a lot, and even named a certain operation after him). Napoleon against CdM (or French Republic), maybe.

The hard thing actually is doing that for already existing leaders in the game. Italy is probably the most classic example, where this would apply to, or in modern games, members of the EU. (Angela Merkel and Charles De Gaulle as leaders of Europe).

 

[Siptah]

The hard thing actually is doing that for already existing leaders in the game.

Exactly. It would be easy to do with other choices, like:
Germany lead by Friedrich II. of Prussia and Ludwig I. of Bavaria.
Rome lead by Caesar and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (although this would be a bit strange as well, because it was a civil war and not two rivaling parts of a civ).
India led by Akbar and Krishna Deva Raya.

Italy seems indeed a good candidate for doing this. Ironically enough, Scythia would present an option as well: Tomyris is a Massagetean leader; she could easily be accompanied with a leader of the Sarmatians or of the Saka - but of course, we lack names ;-)

And if this plays no role at all for Firaxis, I'd like to throw Clovis I. in the ring as a 2nd leader of France. I don't think we ever had a merovingian King in any civ game. It's about time.

 

[Phrozen]

Throw Ernst Augustus in there and you can have Hanover as well for Germany.
Italy is a great candidate for the Greece treatment. Florence, Venice, Genoa, Milan, Turin.
You could have a Kiev based leader for Russia.

 

[Morningcalm]

And while I haven't read a biography of Genghis, I have read a bit about the Mongols in general and the history of the region that put him in a broader context (and lots of stuff about the regions he conquered actually, which may influence me a lot in my opinion about him). So what @Morningcalm wrote isn't something I haven't heard before, but I have read enough (also about the extreme scarcity of reliable sources about Genghis) to not find it convincing. And I think the division of his empire in four Khanates (with the plan to split them up to smaller regions in the following generations), which may have been good for the administration, wasn't the wisest move - but it's always easy to say afterwards. Just as I think the Yassa was a step back for most of the conquered lands (but again this may come from my Iranian biased point of view). He sure was amongst the most important leaders in history though and his impact was huge. His cruelty and genocides (no, the latter were not really common at that time), however, were famous enough to have Timur and the Mughals acknowledge his ancestry while condemning him all the same. I don't want us to go at each others throats again though and admittedly, there is more to him than to Attila or Brasidas.

You admit to not reading a biography about Genghis so I hardly think you can judge whether he as an individual had any attempt to hold the empire in his lifetime (spoiler alert: he did, and that's how future descendant khans had an empire to split in the first place). The "extreme scarcity of reliable sources" you speak of I have never heard before. The Secret History of the Mongols is considered somewhat more reliable than expected (though it does have inaccuracies) because it acknowledges some of Genghis' weird foibles, among them his fear of dogs. We also have other sources, including from two Persians. Marco Polo's accounts also allude to Genghis. So our sources are as reliable as can be expected. There's little that is exaggerated in terms of his military success judging by the longevity of the Mongolian Empire, and as that also attests to some degree of administrative skill. So I don't think your general doubt about reliability has any real effect here--you could say that about a great many ancient rulers. At least there is a sufficient critical mass of sources to conclude as to his abilities.

I would say research more before making a judgment about Genghis' administrative ability. I would particularly advise looking to his tax and trade as previously mentioned. Look also to his political administration and unification of a safer Silk Road. I note your lack of anything concrete as far as attacking Genghis' desire to hold an empire. So I don't find your dubiousness about Genghis' desire to hold an empire to be particularly compelling.

Alexander is not your best counterexample (he too was violent). A drunken glory-seeking soldier who killed one of his best friends and commanders in a moment of drunken rage, failed to merge Greek and Persian customs, and faced mutiny by his armies hardly strikes me as the model example of an empire administrator. He began his conquests to target Persia in revenge, as I recall. Seems like an impulsive brat to me. Maybe the Civ representations of Alexander got something right. But I don't mind his presence in Civ as such (though I would favor new faces like Themistocles or a non-imposter Pericles without Solon's beard next time).

I do not recall any incidents of Timur or the Mughals criticizing Genghis Khan, nor if such even existed would it matter. Nor do I see evidence Genghis attempted genocide as such (he did wipe out numerous cities, but he spared quite a few as well, when they surrendered). If anything he was quite practical in terms of determining who to kill, and foreigners swelled his military (including Han Chinese infantry) and administrative ranks, and served as major advisors to him. Genghis' empire was known for its tolerance as well as its killings (and not just via the Yassa Code but also by concrete promotion of foreigners, etc--a legacy Kublai was carrying forth when he entrusted and hosted the Polos). The Iranians are biased against Genghis because he wiped out the Khwarazim and the Yassa did not allow them the fully halal slaughter of animals. [For whatever worth, Basil II is reviled by Bulgaria, and Charlemagne looked upon dubiously for his slaughter of the Saxons. Many "revered" leaders are unpopular somewhere. Or even entire civs. Several of my Mexican friends resent the Aztecs by virtue of their Mayan ancestry.] These issues you allude to are ultimately distractions though.

Our (as in between Siptah and myself) central point re: Genghis (which you raised) seems to be a question of whether Genghis had any indication of wanting to hold an empire. There is a plethora of detail showing the plans he executed to do just that.

Back to the relevant topic (before Siptah drew forth this Mongolian-descended poster's long counterposting), I don't think a ruler's success in creating an empire to outlast him or herself really matters. Civ has long favored well recognized rulers (we are seeing some interesting lesser known leaders too though). Civ as a whole is full of leaders who didn't have empires long outlasting their lifetimes. What Siptah at least acknowledges is that Genghis is better than Attila and Brasidas as a ruler and had clear importance historically. Genghis is well known, his absence has been well noted, he led an influential and vast empire, and his importance to history is such that his absence from Civ raises a giant question mark. Also, he's easy to make agendas for (plenty of options) so he fits Civ VI. I expect we will see him eventually, hopefully with a more fearsome voice actor this time around (I still remember adorable teddy bear Civ V Genghis).

Akbar would be a great option for India. I prefer him to Ashoka for VI since Ashoka's ability is basically India's already, and his peaceful agenda wouldn't largely replicate Gandhi's. Akbar hopefully would come with unique music as well (India's current theme is very tied to Gandhi as he was his favorite hymn).

Wouldn't mind Frederick II either (LGBT representation helps), though I prefer other leaders from civs like Egypt, India or China first.

 

[Siptah]

Throw Ernst Augustus in there and you can have Hanover as well for Germany.
Italy is a great candidate for the Greece treatment. Florence, Venice, Genoa, Milan, Turin.
You could have a Kiev based leader for Russia.

Hanover is already in the game leading England though. I feel like having two of them might be too much.

 

[Ferocitus]

Australia outside of Canberra?

Dead easy, mate.

King Leonard.

capital: hutt river

He just died recently, so he's a big chance.

Also, (Rugby League) King Wally Lewis (aka The Emperor of Lang Park) after he
dies. That could be quite a while though because he's not going to just lie down.
He famously played for 20 minutes after breaking his arm and managed several
one-arm tackles before being taken off the field.

 

[unpossible251]

haha, King Wal. what a laugh.

imagine the leader screen:

ooosty boost, mm king wal eh. mmm heaps good gonna - Arg! Poofter! *thwock* herp herp

 

[clapyourhands]

They way Civ VI handled 1) Macedon and 2) Greece gives them two interesting ways to handle civs that straddle the line between distinct and conglomerate civs.

1) Splitting Macedon from Greece gives precedence to splitting civs that may be chronically and/or geographically continuous with one another but culturally and/or politically distinct, as an alternative to an alternate leader. In order of likelihood, this gives precedence for the likes of:

- Mughals in addition to India
- Italy in addition to Rome (see #2)
- Soviet Union in addition to Russia (probably unlikely)
- HRE in addition to Germany. (very, very unlikely considering that Barbarossa leads Germany)

2) Having the two Greek leaders represent two Greek city states and leagues (Athens/Delian League and Sparta/Peloponnesian League) gives precedence to introducing "blob" civs that keep a recognizable name for a popular civ but implements it as two distinct groups in all but name for history buffs

- Celts with an Icenid leader and a Gaulic leader (called the "Celts" but representing the Iceni and the Gauls)
- Polynesia with a Hawaiian and another (Maori?) leader
- Italy with two leaders representing two city states (Venice, Genoa, Florence, etc.)

Such two-leader civs could spawn in the same game with no issue; they're essentially two civs, anyways, but they share a name to maintain recognizability and share a civ ability because they have shared cultural similarities

IMO alt leaders will likely be of the second type if introduced for a new civ (ie: not being a leader introduced for a pre-existing civ like Isabella or Napoleon); with Macedon's existence civs that existed at a different time with a distinct culture would likely be entirely different civs altogether.

 

[Morningcalm]

It would be nice not to have so many split-pea civs. Greece and Macedon were bad enough. As much as I love Polynesians and the Maori, I would be annoyed if both entered the main game, as that means one of them took a slot from an African/Asian/Mesoamerican/North American civ that would have added extra diversity. Given how Eurocentric Civ VI has been thus far though, we may see Italy as well as Rome in the very least. Maybe we'll even see Mexico and the Aztecs/Mayans.