At least we are not going to count to VI in Latin.Ah, yes, I'm apt to forget the average English speaker is reduced to the maturity of a twelve-year-old boy the moment the word "sex" or anything that sounds like it is mentioned.
"Wessex" is more aesthetically pleasing than "the Anglo-Saxons."The others you mentioned all have convenient short forms; "the Anglo-Saxons" do not. Ængleland is too close to England (being, in fact, etymologically the same); Saxony is a different place entirely; Britain would be appropriate for Victoria but nonsensical for Alfred. If we're going to balkanize England for Alfred's sake, might as well give him the kingdom he led: Wessex. Not like we're likely to get a second Anglo-Saxon king anyway, as much as I'd like one.
. Also you're correct that clearly they would not do alternative leaders for an an Anglo-Saxon civ anyway, but that is ignoring that A. there will never be an Anglo-Saxon civ anyway (so this is all hypothetical), and B. that mods are a thing, and people would want a civ they could add their alternative modded leaders to. Of course mod support is not their first priority, but we're only talking about a name difference here.Can't modders add their own civs? No reason they couldn't add Mercia, Kent, Northumbria, or whatever Anglo-Saxon kingdom suits them.Not liking 'Anglo-Saxons' as a name is kinda fussy as an objection imo
As for whether there will ever be an Anglo-Saxon civ...Well, the random and arbitrary inclusion of Macedon for Alexander the Obnoxious gives me hope that anything can happen. They should do it with many civs in the game, not just England.
I don't even know why Victoria is a LEADER. A symbol, of a nation, an empire, a whole era of world history, but not a leader. The only binding decisions she actually made were regarding the marriages of her children (in tandem with Continental monarchs) and when she was asked to make the compromise on the locations of the capital cities of two newly created Dominions where huge disagreement existed, thus choosing the locations of what became the cities of Ottawa and Canberra. Otherwise, ALL decisions of government in Victorian Britain were made by Robert Peel, Lord Palmerston, Lord Russell, William Gladstone, Benjamin Disraeli, and Henry Campbell-Bannerman, in their respective tenures. But, of course, the "Monarch-heavy leadership" focus in leader choices by Firaxis of certain long-standing, still extant civ's whose made many changes and reforms to their governments over long periods of time, mostly Britain, France, and Russia, especially, when some very good non-Monarchial options are definitely there but completely passed over, is something that perplexes and annoys me.
While these are valid points, I don't think you should be tiptoeing around the importance of symbolism part that cavalierly. Symbolism is a massive part of national identity and monarchs whose reigns have been iconic are a massive part of their legacy, regardless of whether their actual power has been curtailed by the government or not. People in their home nations identify with them.
This is why Wilhelmina and Gandhi are important (and in Wilhelmina's case, popular) choices as leaders (although the devs completely ruin Gandhi by meme'ing him into oblivion, but that's a completely different story.) They may not have held much power, but they indisputably helped set the stage of what it means to be a Dutchman/Indian in the present day through the sheer force of personality. The same, I'm sure, can be said of Victoria.
Cathérine de Medici... not so much.
But maybe find a power behind the throne who actually held power and didn't fail at all her endeavors. Just saying.
I agree that I find Victoria a very disappointing choice. England had hundreds of years of powerful monarchs and they chose the figurehead. Symbols are important, sure, but Elizabeth I was both a symbol and a powerful individual--not to mention about as big a personality as you can find.
Yes, many powerful monarchs and (another issue I'm getting at here), powerful, influencial, policy-shaping, nation-molding, and iconic PRIME MINISTERS, not to mention the anomalous but defining tenure of Oliver Cromwell. The endless focus on Britain as having exclusively monarchs as leaders literally from Civ1 when Sid Meier was still an employee of the now defunct MPS making games for DOS is a mold they've never once showed a desire or willingness to even publically consider breaking, and it's a bit of an artificial limit, an annoyance, and a growingly difficult stance to keep endlessly defending.But maybe find a power behind the throne who actually held power and didn't fail at all her endeavors. Just saying.
TBH the prime ministers aren't too interesting to me and I can't stand Oliver Cromwell, so...I'm fine with the monarch-focus. I just wish they'd remember that England existed before the Tudors.
But without the Prime Ministers it doesn't REALISITCALLY, VIABLY, and HONESTLY exist as a Civ in terms of credible leaders with true power after George II.TBH the prime ministers aren't too interesting to me and I can't stand Oliver Cromwell, so...I'm fine with the monarch-focus. I just wish they'd remember that England existed before the Tudors.
is producing, Louis will gain a 10% 
reduction in producing that units/buildings/districts.reduction will be granted for any other city doing the same, up to 50%.
Two issues with Sumerian leaders. First, all but a VERY few are just names in cuneiform on clay tablets listing dynasties of kings. Even Sargon is less hard historical information to his known backstory and more information that may be fact, may be legendary, or may be mythologized distortion of fact, in some combination and proportion. Secondly, the civilization most people today casually call "Sumeria" is, in fact, an entrepot of four separate and quite different civilizations with different ideals, focuses, attitudes, and languages (from four different language families) - the Sumerians proper, the Akkadians, the Elamites, and the Gutians, (and that's even before the later Amorites, Kassites, Chaldeans, and Assyrians get mixed into it), and the records we have make it difficult to clearly draw lines between when and where in the region each of the four was dominant.
