Second Leaders: Which Civs Need Them?

[Manifold]

France: Napoleon
China: Yongle
Egypt: Khufu
Rome: Scipio
England: Richard the Lionheart
Greece: Agamemnon
Russia: Rjurik (Ivan the Terrible in Civ7)

 

[Guandao]

France: Napoleon
China: Yongle
Egypt: Khufu
Rome: Scipio
England: Richard the Lionheart
Greece: Agamemnon
Russia: Rjurik (Ivan the Terrible in Civ7)

But Agamemnon is a mythological character? (any evidence for him in Mycenaean texts?) I really don't think Greece needs more alternate leaders.

 

[Kimiimaro]

France: Napoleon
China: Yongle
Egypt: Khufu
Rome: Scipio
England: Richard the Lionheart
Greece: Agamemnon
Russia: Rjurik (Ivan the Terrible in Civ7)

Eh... Greece needs a fourth leader?

 

[Manifold]

Eh... Greece needs a fourth leader?

Greece4: Solon
Greece5: Ότο Ρεχάγκελ

 

[Kimiimaro]

Greece4: Solon
Greece5: Ότο Ρεχάγκελ

Nope. Greece4: Alexios I Komnenos

 

[Phrozen]

France: Napoleon
China: Yongle
Egypt: Khufu
Rome: Scipio
England: Richard the Lionheart
Greece: Agamemnon
Russia: Rjurik (Ivan the Terrible in Civ7)

Richard spent maybe six months of his life total in England and didn't care that much about it. He is mythologized because John was a weak King who pretty much made everybody angry. If you want a good leader from that time period than Henry II, William Marshal, or Edward I.

 

[Patine]

I think at this point, Henry VIII would draw a very nice contrast with Victoria.

He's iconic, infamous, and I can just see him waving around a big drumstick for emphasis, maybe taking a satisfied bite on the approval animations.

Another damned British MONARCH. Has the Harry-Meghan romance in the news dulled everyone's minds that there's more to Britain than that? While I don't disagree that Henry VIII would make a stellar leader, I just would like to see some seriously considered non-Monarchial options presented. Some of the greatest points in British history were at points when the Monarch just rubberstamped bills of Parliament and presided at ceremonies and formalities.

"This is our finest hour." Sir Winston Spencer Churchill (NOT George VI).

 

[Patine]

Richard spent maybe six months of his life total in England and didn't care that much about it. He is mythologized because John was a weak King who pretty much made everybody angry. If you want a good leader from that time period than Henry II, William Marshal, or Edward I.

And more British Monarch talk (see my post above).

 

[Zaarin]

Another damned British MONARCH. Has the Harry-Meghan romance in the news dulled everyone's minds that there's more to Britain than that? While I don't disagree that Henry VIII would make a stellar leader, I just would like to see some seriously considered non-Monarchial options presented. Some of the greatest points in British history were at points when the Monarch just rubberstamped bills of Parliament and presided at ceremonies and formalities.

"This is our finest hour." Sir Winston Spencer Churchill (NOT George VI).

Actually, English history ended when Anne changed her title to "queen of the United Kingdom" and threw the burden of governing to her ministers. And it's hard to blame people for liking monarchs better. Prime ministers are the public face of a large bureaucracy; monarchs are the public face of the civilization itself. It doesn't necessarily mean a monarch holds more power in an absolute sense; many Medieval monarchs were virtually powerless outside their own households. But it does make monarchs more attractive for a game like Civilization. I mean, which is more interesting in Civ6: a meeting with Cyrus, xšaθiya of the Persians and chosen of Ahuramazda...or Mr. John Curtin, pencil pusher in chief?

If anyone wants my opinion on a second English leader, I'll take any of Henry V, Henry II, or Elizabeth I.

 

[Phrozen]

Actually, English history ended when Anne changed her title to "queen of the United Kingdom" and threw the burden of governing to her ministers. And it's hard to blame people for liking monarchs better. Prime ministers are the public face of a large bureaucracy; monarchs are the public face of the civilization itself. It doesn't necessarily mean a monarch holds more power in an absolute sense; many Medieval monarchs were virtually powerless outside their own households. But it does make monarchs more attractive for a game like Civilization. I mean, which is more interesting in Civ6: a meeting with Cyrus, xšaθiya of the Persians and chosen of Ahuramazda...or Mr. John Curtin, pencil pusher in chief?

If anyone wants my opinion on a second English leader, I'll take any of Henry V, Henry II, or Elizabeth I.

Disraeli had quite the wit and a sharp tongue. He could be interesting with competent writers.

 

[Patine]

Actually, English history ended when Anne changed her title to "queen of the United Kingdom" and threw the burden of governing to her ministers.

That's like saying that Prussian history ended in 1871, when any historian worth their salt knows it wasn't nearly that simple, and nor is it for the Heptarchy and Normandy to England to Great Britain to United Kingdom historical continuum. In fact, one could also say by your flawed logic with your statement (and just as erroneously) that Russian history ends in 1922 but somehow starts up again in 1991.

 

[Naktis]

If we get Byzantium they kinda counts like second Rome , and if we get rennaisance Italy , alt Rome leader is not needed.

 

[halfhalfharp]

If we get Byzantium they kinda counts like second Rome , and if we get rennaisance Italy , alt Rome leader is not needed.

I disagree. While Rome can be part of mordern Italy history, Byzantium has nothing to do with Italy, especially when they actually spoke Greek more than Latin.

Byzantium remains Byzantium, in my opinion. Although they aligned themselves as "Roman", they barely had Rome in their territory.

"Roman" emperor was something that could be claimed by any power after the fall of Rome, like a sack of potatoes. The Russians called themselves the third Rome, the Franks also called themselves "holy roman empire".

I wont view Byzantium emperors as alt roman leaders too.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Byzantium is 100% their own thing and should be treated as such.

 

[Patine]

I disagree. While Rome can be part of mordern Italy history, Byzantium has nothing to do with Italy, especially when they actually spoke Greek more than Latin.

Byzantium remains Byzantium, in my opinion. Although they aligned themselves as "Roman", they barely had Rome in their territory.

"Roman" emperor was something that could be claimed by any power after the fall of Rome, like a sack of potatoes. The Russians called themselves the third Rome, the Franks also called themselves "holy roman empire".

I wont view Byzantium emperors as alt roman leaders too.

Byzantium is 100% their own thing and should be treated as such.

I agree completely with this and don't regard the Byzantium from Rome argument as derailing my point above, anymore than the United States should be considered a direct continuation of Britain or Mexico of Spain. They aren't the same concept as the Heptarchy and Norman Invasion to England to Great Britain to the United Kingdom or Brandenburg to Prussia to Germany or Muscovy to Russia to the USSR and back to Russia.

 

[Lord Lakely]

From a historical perspective, I don't think any civ should have alt leaders. Pericles and Gorgo should lead Athens/Delian League and Sparta/Peloponnesian League, while Gandhi and Chandragupta should lead the republic of India and Maurya respectively. Pick one leader from an empire, have them represent that particular empire and done. Is a Civ not fully represented? Add more playable empires from that Civilization (Mughals, Safavids, Qing, Carolingians).

It also has the added benefit of avoiding discussions such as "Is Byzantium Rome?" or "Do we represent the Celts by blobbing the Welsh, Cornish, Scots, Irish and Gauls together or doing just one of them?"

I personally maintain the following rule: If the Civ developed linearly, such as Japan, it's the same empire. Picking a leader from a moment of transition (e.g.: Meiji, if we stick with Japan for a sec) can bridge any changes in style more easily. If the Civ's historic development isn't linear but divergent and/or amorphous, like Western Rome and Eastern Rome, it should be a different empire altogether.

But that's something for Civ7's developers to consider.

From a game perspective the only Civs which could use (note that I avoid the word "need") alternate leaders are

1) Civs with leaders who achieve specific goals through specific means. Pericles and Gorgo both gain culture, but one through peaceful diplomacy, the other throug war.
2) Civs whose history is only partially represented: Gandhi has, memes aside, always been a huge proponent of PEACE. Adding Chandragupta, who hates his neighbours, provides a nice counterpoint. Gandhi is built around deterring invasions. Chandragupta is built around starting them.

As for in-game Civs which could get an alt leader in the future, France is an obvious standout, with CdM being specialised in subterfuge while a leader like Napoleon or Louis XIV could have a more high profile playstyle, likely focused on expansion. For Korea, Seondeok gains additional science and culture from governors (n.b. am I the only one thinking it should be +5% for every Governor Level?), an alt leader like Sejong could gain the same yields by assigning specialist citizens (like in civ5). For Spain, Philip excels at waging war against Heretics and spreading his religion domestically.. Isabella could have a combat bonus aganst pagans/barbs and spreading her religion abroad.

In the case of a weak or situational innate ability (such as Peter's or Cleopatra's) adding a second leader would be a dreadful choice from a game perspective; where is the incentive towards choosing Peter if the alt leader has an ability stronger than the 'Grand Embassy'? The real thing Cleo and Peter could use, is a buff. Only then can their civs be given an alternative leader. (which in their cases should probably be Olga of Kiev/Yaroslav the Great (bonus to faith/lavra's) and Hatchepsut (different trade route bonus than Cleo's, amenities maybe?)

 

[Patine]

From a historical perspective, I don't think any civ should have alt leaders. Pericles and Gorgo should lead Athens/Delian League and Sparta/Peloponnesian League, while Gandhi and Chandragupta should lead the republic of India and Maurya respectively. Pick one leader from an empire, have them represent that particular empire and done. Is a Civ not fully represented? Add more playable empires from that Civilization (Mughals, Safavids, Qing, Carolingians).

It also has the added benefit of avoiding discussions such as "Is Byzantium Rome?" or "Do we represent the Celts by blobbing the Welsh, Cornish, Scots, Irish and Gauls together or doing just one of them?"

I personally maintain the following rule: If the Civ developed linearly, such as Japan, it's the same empire. Picking a leader from a moment of transition (e.g.: Meiji, if we stick with Japan for a sec) can bridge any changes in style more easily. If the Civ's historic development isn't linear but divergent and/or amorphous, like Western Rome and Eastern Rome, it should be a different empire altogether.

But that's something for Civ7's developers to consider.

From a game perspective the only Civs which could use (note that I avoid the word "need") alternate leaders are

1) Civs with leaders who achieve specific goals through specific means. Pericles and Gorgo both gain culture, but one through peaceful diplomacy, the other throug war.
2) Civs whose history is only partially represented: Gandhi has, memes aside, always been a huge proponent of PEACE. Adding Chandragupta, who hates his neighbours, provides a nice counterpoint. Gandhi is built around deterring invasions. Chandragupta is built around starting them.

As for in-game Civs which could get an alt leader in the future, France is an obvious standout, with CdM being specialised in subterfuge while a leader like Napoleon or Louis XIV could have a more high profile playstyle, likely focused on expansion. For Korea, Seondeok gains additional science and culture from governors (n.b. am I the only one thinking it should be +5% for every Governor Level?), an alt leader like Sejong could gain the same yields by assigning specialist citizens (like in civ5). For Spain, Philip excels at waging war against Heretics and spreading his religion domestically.. Isabella could have a combat bonus aganst pagans/barbs and spreading her religion abroad.

In the case of a weak or situational innate ability (such as Peter's or Cleopatra's) adding a second leader would be a dreadful choice from a game perspective; where is the incentive towards choosing Peter if the alt leader has an ability stronger than the 'Grand Embassy'? The real thing Cleo and Peter could use, is a buff. Only then can their civs be given an alternative leader. (which in their cases should probably be Olga of Kiev/Yaroslav the Great (bonus to faith/lavra's) and Hatchepsut (different trade route bonus than Cleo's, amenities maybe?)

I disagree. Some civilizations have lasted a lot longer than others, and have traversed a number of very different and distinct ages and phases in their histories, which just one arbitrarily selected "stand-out" leader can't embody all of.

 

[Naktis]

Actually for Peters sake adding second leader works quite well , if that leader is someone like Lenin , which created whole different type of "country" Soviet Union from Russia , tho didnt lasted that long , but nevertheless were one of the strongest countries in the world.

 

[Phrozen]

A new Russian leaders ability won't be strong since Russia's UA, UD, and UU are very strong. Russia can go for religious or cultural victory quite easily without a LUA.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I disagree. Some civilizations have lasted a lot longer than others, and have traversed a number of very different and distinct ages and phases in their histories, which just one arbitrarily selected "stand-out" leader can't embody all of.

That's what Mods are for.

I'm pretty sure Firaxis actively avoid alternative leaders if they can. There's a reason why we've only had two alts so far (Gorgo and Chandragupta) Not because of historical accuracy but because making leaders is an expensive enterprise (research, design, animation, voice acting) and alt leaders must add something more to the game than just an extra face, otherwise it's preferable to spend the same time into creating more Civs altogether (see: Macedon ). Alt leaders shouldn't be added for the sake of adding them, that's a waste of resources.

Cleverly picking your leaders is a crucial step in decreasing the need for an Alt leader, for which, unfortunately, Firaxis has a mixed track record at best.