Traditional/Unconventional Civ Leaders

[clapyourhands]

The idea for this thread is fairly simple. Essentially, we take the multiple-leader mechanic that they implemented for Civ VI and propose 1) a hallmark leader that embodies the traditional characteristics associated with the civ, and also 2) a leader that even if not very important, is unique in the civ's history and provides an unconventional way to play that civ. One of the problems that always comes up with civ reveals is some people taking issue with choosing esoteric leaders that don't 'feel' like the civ, while others feeling similarly when they end up retreading old ground repeatedly. So the idea here is to give every civ 2 leaders, one that satisfies the first player with a playstyle emblematic of the civ, and another that shows another facet of the civ that's completely different.

For instance, France led by Catherine would be the second type, focusing on a specific, niche facet of French history in espionage; France led by Napoleon or Louis XIV would be the first, going all-in as a supercultural civ with a military backing. Conversely, Trajan leading Rome is quite on par with what one would expect from the civ, boosting city infrastructure as it expands. There are plenty of non-conventional Roman leaders, though, that could do something with Culture, or Gold, or any number of other mechanics alongside Trajan.

So in this thread you'd propose two leaders, one of which may or may not already exist in the game, for a Civ, possibly a leader ability for each, and explain how one of them fits the traditional role that the civ occupies in the game/history, and how the other one explores something new or more esoteric to the civ's history, a la Louis's cultural France vs. Catherine's spy-based France. It would be a fun exercise in 1) defining the main traits or key figures of a civilization and 2) exploring a less-known part of its history.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

But what if I'm only satisfied if both leaders are iconic and unique?

France led by Napoleon or Charlemagne would be great, an imperialist or centralist stance to counterbalance Catherine's obsession with other people's business. Obviously Ivan IV would do the same for Russia.

Theodora would be the perfect Rome alt leader. Naval- and religion-focused leader to counter Trajan's settlement- and military-focused abilities. Another option would be Pius XI with similar-but-different abilities.

Himiko of the Wa kingdom is the best counterpoint to Hojo, and would make Japan more faith-oriented.

I guess Ramses would be a decent counterpoint to Cleopatra, making Egypt more militaristic instead of cultural. Hammurabi and Atila would at least legitimize Sumer and Scythia as blob civs instead of the ambivalent mush they are now.

Al-Walid or Al-Malik would be the best counterpoint Saladin, again more militaristic. I personally would rather have Abdulaziz as one of the more positive portrayals of Arabic leadership in recent centuries (comparatively, anyway).

Erik the Red would give Norway a starting position on Greenland and cities in Iceland. Not much different mechanically though and the stave church would actually contradict his character. Aethelstan in England and Isabella in Spain could all represent unification, but again not much different mechanically.

And I hate to say it but George Washington is the only president who was as centrist and multifaceted as Teddy Roosevelt. FDR and Lincoln are too progressive to appeal to the conservative player base. Jackson was too conservative to appeal to the progressive player base. Jefferson and Nixon are riddled with controversy. But George is uncontroversial and would probably represent an America more concerned with policy slots and government districts.

I didn't cover Aztec, Brazil, or Kongo because they seem very limited in their leader options unless you liberally expand to Mexica, Tupi, or Kongolese affiliates. I didn't cover Germany because Bismarck is demanded and he's not that different from Barbarossa. And I didn't cover China because there are just far too many options that the devs are probably considering but none of them are as clearly differentiated from Qin as Sun Yat-Sen.

 

[rattatatouille]

It seems odd that we have a Meiji Restoration CUA without Emperor Meiji himself.

In my mind, his LUA would partly involve a free Eureka and a free Inspiration upon exiting a Dark Age, and an additional one if entering a Heroic Age.

 

[earlc]

Cool thread idea, but too late for me to go down the list of civs right now.

FDR and Lincoln are too progressive to appeal to the conservative player base. Jackson was too conservative to appeal to the progressive player base. Jefferson and Nixon are riddled with controversy. But George is uncontroversial and would probably represent an America more concerned with policy slots and government districts.

I'm not so sure about these! If I recall correctly, ol Abe sits near the top of both ranking lists if you divide self-titled liberals and conservatives. Pretty much everyone likes the dude. The number of times I've heard a republican proudly proclaim Abe was one of their own (despite him being a progressive) is a testament to this fact. FDR is relatively popular as well, albeit less so, especially with the hardcore 'small govt' group. Nixon and Jackson aren't good choices period, regardless of their lean (I might get someone spinning me the legendarium of Jackson the Great because of this).

I'm a little rusty on my US history, but the traditional would probably be Abe Lincoln for me. An unconventional could be Dwight Eisenhower, or to go the civ 6 route, even someone like Benjamin Franklin. Teddy really was the best choice for a new American leader though, they did a good job with that. Ike might seem like a push, though he is quintessentially American. Of course, there is the issue with those coups, vietnam and such... Probably better to go with a figure from earlier in history.

 

[halfhalfharp]

It seems odd that we have a Meiji Restoration CUA without Emperor Meiji himself.

In my mind, his LUA would partly involve a free Eureka and a free Inspiration upon exiting a Dark Age, and an additional one if entering a Heroic Age.

Agree. He is a signature of near-modern Japan, contrast to the old Bushido values in Shogunates. And he is surely iconic, although the warlords in the warring period were more famous somehow.

Theodora would be the perfect Rome alt leader. Naval- and religion-focused leader to counter Trajan's settlement- and military-focused abilities. Another option would be Pius XI with similar-but-different abilities.

Wait, Byzantine and the Papal States were two different concepts from Trajan's Rome.
The Roman republic, Christian Byzantium centered at Constantinople, and the Vatican are different entities, both in terms of cultural and political meaning.
Although byzantine may resemble the Romans, it will be blasphemy to mix them into one Roman civ.

But what if I'm only satisfied if both leaders are iconic and unique?

France led by Napoleon or Charlemagne would be great, an imperialist or centralist stance to counterbalance Catherine's obsession with other people's business.

Obviously Ivan IV would do the same for Russia.

I guess Ramses would be a decent counterpoint to Cleopatra, making Egypt more militaristic instead of cultural. Hammurabi and Atila would at least legitimize Sumer and Scythia as blob civs instead of the ambivalent mush they are now.

I agree upon Ramsey and Napoleon.

But for Russia Peter I is already a great representive, if we are only discussing the iconic purpose.

And Hammurabi should better be in an entire new civ, mainly because of the Sumerian civ ability is nothing about Sumer. And moreover, Hammurabi (Babylon) was different from Sumer.

Attila's nationality is still under debate but I am quite convinced that Scythians (mainly living in Iran) are not one of the candidates. The Turks and XhoNu should be a closer one.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Cool thread idea, but too late for me to go down the list of civs right now.
I'm not so sure about these! If I recall correctly, ol Abe sits near the top of both ranking lists if you divide self-titled liberals and conservatives. Pretty much everyone likes the dude. The number of times I've heard a republican proudly proclaim Abe was one of their own (despite him being a progressive) is a testament to this fact. FDR is relatively popular as well, albeit less so, especially with the hardcore 'small govt' group. Nixon and Jackson aren't good choices period, regardless of their lean (I might get someone spinning me the legendarium of Jackson the Great because of this).

I'm a little rusty on my US history, but the traditional would probably be Abe Lincoln for me. An unconventional could be Dwight Eisenhower, or to go the civ 6 route, even someone like Benjamin Franklin. Teddy really was the best choice for a new American leader though, they did a good job with that. Ike might seem like a push, though he is quintessentially American. Of course, there is the issue with those coups, vietnam and such... Probably better to go with a figure from earlier in history.

Perhaps Abe generally and among older institution GOPers, but not in these times and the way Firaxis would necessarily portray him. White supremacy in the south is much more visible than it was five years ago. I just don't see Firaxis going anywhere near instigating that. Not when they have someone on hand who is both a general (conservative wet dream) and a sound proponent against party affiliation (progressive wet dream). The country remains divided, and merely slapping an Abe on it doesn't work like it used to.

I also don't know how conservatives can think FDR is small government given that he did more for antitrust regulation than any other president.

I considered Ben Franklin, and although he's about split like George I think if they had the choice between the two they would still pick George.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Wait, Byzantine and the Papal States were two different concepts from Trajan's Rome.
The Roman republic, Christian Byzantium centered at Constantinople, and the Vatican are different entities, both in terms of cultural and political meaning.
Although byzantine may resemble the Romans, it will be blasphemy to mix them into one Roman civ.

Byzantines were the Romans in their early days. They used the Roman seal, flag, and colors. They called themselves Romans. Byzantium could be Rome in precisely the same way Maurya could be India. To say otherwise is splitting hairs.

And Hammurabi should better be in an entire new civ, mainly because of the Sumerian civ ability is nothing about Sumer. And moreover, Hammurabi (Babylon) was different from Sumer.

Sumer is led by a Babylonian mythical figure speaking Akkadian. As far as I'm concerned, Sumer is a blob civ and anyone from that general Mesopotamian era fits just as well with the lazy design.

Attila's nationality is still under debate but I am quite convinced that Scythians (mainly living in Iran) are not one of the candidates. The Turks and XhoNu should be a closer one.

Same thing with the Scythians. See https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...h-civs-need-them.613331/page-33#post-15015126

 

[halfhalfharp]

Sumer is led by a Babylonian mythical figure speaking Akkadian. As far as I'm concerned, Sumer is a blob civ and anyone from that general Mesopotamian era fits just as well with the lazy design.

No, there is no Sumer in game. There is only Gilgamesh of Uruk speaking Akkadian there. Its CUAs are all personal to him so I do think that any CIV can fit in that slot.

Except they have got a "Gilgamesh" in a new name sharing the same epic lol.

 

[chronoturner]

For America, I would say that certain unconventional but fun leaders to play would certainly be either John Adams or James Monroe. The two were both influential leaders, with Adams being a tad more controversial than the other. Monroe, however, could vaguely resemble Roosevelt in the Monroe Doctrine aspect. Adams, though, would have a fun and certainly expressive animations, and would be like an anti-Roosevelt, to some extent.

For Germany, I would say Frederick the Great. He would be a lot more cultural and diplomatic than Barbarossa, despite his military victories. This is due to Germany needing some kind of non-militaristic option that reflects it's position as a cultural power in Europe. I think Old Fritz would fit that role well.

Rome, of course, could have any one of the five good emperor's, but perhaps a bit off an oddball choice would be Cincinnatus. Much like Chandragupta he gave up his power, and led Rome through a difficult time. He is remembered fondly and his imagery is associated nowadays with George Washington.

These are only ones I came up at the top of my head, I'm sure more could come for each civilization if I did the necessary digging.

 

[Lord Lakely]

India: Indira Gandhi is the obvious continuation of the "Nuke-Happy Gandhi" meme in the next installment. She was also a pretty ruthless (but effective) leader who could have bonuses to production and government, which could provide a nice counterpoint to a faith-based, happyness leader (like Ashoka). Mughal emperor + Mohandas Gandhi is also a good combination in that regard. (Warmongering industrialist/scientist vs Pacificstic religious/cultural leader)

England: Henry VIII is a good choice for a religious based leader, given he pioneered the concept of Divine Right in Europe. He could use religion as a means of power, as opposed to the expansionistic/naval outlook.

Rome: Augustus Caesar or his wife Livia would be good for an ability which changes depending of whether Rome is in a war or not. (example: +1 infantry movement if at war, faster great person birth rates if at peace). Livia is one of my personal favourite historical figures, she would be a great addition if implemented as an aloof, noble, poised, unflappable diplomat, to provide a counterpoint to a more belevolent leader like Hadrian or Marcus Aurelius or a more warlike one like Julius Caesar or Scipio Africanus.

Ethiopia: Taytu Betul. Talented chess player. Reamed out Italians who dared to offer her mediocre trade agreements. HAD HER OWN MIXED-GENDER REGIMENT OF TROOPS WHICH SHE HERSELF LED IN BATTLE. Essentially a non-petulant Daenerys Targaryen. An excellent icon for Ethiopia's history of independence and colonial resistance. Mix with a religious leader (Haile Selassie, Zara Yaqob or whoever) for maximum Ethiopian representation.

 

[Karpius]

Byzantines were the Romans in their early days. They used the Roman seal, flag, and colors. They called themselves Romans. Byzantium could be Rome in precisely the same way Maurya could be India. To say otherwise is splitting hairs.

The Eastern Roman Empire very quickly developed into quite a distinct entity from the Western Empire and survived the Western Empire by a thousand years (unless you consider the Holy Roman Empire founded by Charlemagne.) Theodora would make a good candidate for the Eastern Roman Empire, but not some Rome conglomerate-civ.

The Papal States, in my opinion, are part of the Holy Roman Empire despite their seeming political independence at various points in their history. Indeed, I could readily see Pope Innocent III as a leader for the Holy Roman Empire.

Charlemagne should be a leader only for the Holy Roman Empire (or perhaps a Frankish civ.) 'French' was not even a concept yet and the Franks were considered Germanic and practiced many Germanic traditions.

 

[halfhalfharp]

The Eastern Roman Empire very quickly developed into quite a distinct entity from the Western Empire and survived the Western Empire by a thousand years (unless you consider the Holy Roman Empire founded by Charlemagne.) Theodora would make a good candidate for the Eastern Roman Empire, but not some Rome conglomerate-civ.

The Papal States, in my opinion, are part of the Holy Roman Empire despite their seeming political independence at various points in their history. Indeed, I could readily see Pope Innocent III as a leader for the Holy Roman Empire.

Totally agree with your view on Byzantine. They are just different and can't be seen simply as "Romans".

But I will recognize the Papal States as an independent entity, although they had deep relationships with Holy Roman Empire.

Not really familiar with Charlemange so I shouldn't intervene in this matter haha.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The Eastern Roman Empire very quickly developed into quite a distinct entity from the Western Empire and survived the Western Empire by a thousand years (unless you consider the Holy Roman Empire founded by Charlemagne.) Theodora would make a good candidate for the Eastern Roman Empire, but not some Rome conglomerate-civ.

What about the current "Rome" is so mutually exclusive to Byzantium, I ask? I'm not saying historically, I'm saying from a game design standpoint.

The name: "Rome." Equally applies to the Byzantine Empire, in the same way that "India" applies to Maurya.

The unique district: "Baths." Byzantium was equally known for infrastructure, including the aqueducts of Constantinople and the baths at Thessaloniki. It would be a very appropriate unique infrastructure for the Byzantines.

The unique unit: "Legion." After the restructuring of the military in the twilight years of Rome, the comitatenses and limitanei contained legions. They existed at the very least as late as Constantine. It was only under Justinian that they were done away with altogether. So legions can still feel Byzantine. It's certainly more uniquely Byzantine than the fairly generic cataphract.

"All Roads Lead to Rome," despite the name, is also a fantastic match for a Byzantine civ, given that Constantinople was basically THE trade hub between east and west.

The monuments and settling bonuses are Trajan's bonuses, so that wouldn't affect an alternate leader.

What you have in current Rome is actually a great base civ to build a Byzantine alternative from. If you gave Theodora a unique naval unit and a religious agenda, you'd have a perfect Roman counterpart to Trajan. Trajan emphasizes Byzantium's sprawl and centralized government; Theodora emphasizes Rome's Mediterranean power and religious unification. Trajan is geographically aggressive; Theodora is ideologically aggressive. The two complement each other and give Rome two very different playstyles.

And, let's be honest, players don't honestly care much about individual civs anymore (or at least they think they do, but don't). They care about the potential to make individual civs of the same quality as official content. Having the Theodora animated screen is ultimately much more important than having a completely separate civ, because it enables modders to very easily make a separate, highly polished Byzantium civ for those who want it.

 

[earlc]

Perhaps Abe generally and among older institution GOPers, but not in these times and the way Firaxis would necessarily portray him. White supremacy in the south is much more visible than it was five years ago. I just don't see Firaxis going anywhere near instigating that. Not when they have someone on hand who is both a general (conservative wet dream) and a sound proponent against party affiliation (progressive wet dream). The country remains divided, and merely slapping an Abe on it doesn't work like it used to.

I also don't know how conservatives can think FDR is small government given that he did more for antitrust regulation than any other president.

I considered Ben Franklin, and although he's about split like George I think if they had the choice between the two they would still pick George.

I mean, what percentage of the history-based strategy game market are American white supremacists? And out of them, how many would specifically not buy the game just because America was led by Abe? Definitely negligible, but regardless, I kind of take issue with portraying putting Abe in the game as 'instigating' anything. There is no instigating white supremacists on the subject of race. TBH this isn't really a subject here. And he's already been in like, 8 of the games. However, I am actually changing my answer to George for reasons listed below.

My comment regarding FDR meant that the self-titled 'small govt' conservatives dislike him because the increased size of the govt under his presidency. But personally, like Ike, he's a little too recent of a leader, which makes all the bad stuff that went on during his presidency more pronounced. He signed some pretty terrible stuff that crossed his desk.

Ben Franklin would be the unconventional leader, so he wouldn't be counter to George Washington, a conventional leader (he's as mainstream as they come, and has already been in the past two games).

Back to the subject of the thread: as for how Benjamin Franklin would play differently, there are ton of things to pull from - you could go in any direction, really. I could see a combat bonus based upon his prewar writing, an ally bonus, trade bonuses, and certainly some kind of golden age bonus based upon the upcoming reintroduction of golden ages. But probably the best fit for him would be a series of yield bonuses aimed at a more generalized-peaceful, civ-building game: maybe food, science and culture. And maybe some thing cute, like a custom library.

George Washington would be the ideal conventional counterpart to Ben, playing more like Teddy or like Washington from the previous games.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I mean, what percentage of the history-based strategy game market are American white supremacists? And out of them, how many would specifically not buy the game just because America was led by Abe? Definitely negligible, but regardless, I kind of take issue with portraying putting Abe in the game as 'instigating' anything. There is no instigating white supremacists on the subject of race. TBH this isn't really a subject here. And he's already been in like, 8 of the games. However, I am actually changing my answer to George for reasons listed below.

Idk, I've noticed a lot of bigotry coming out of the reddit woodwork in the past year. I think there are a lot more insecure, myopic *******s in this country than anyone realized, and they've become emboldened by the utter lack of propriety displayed by American institutions over the past couple years. All I know is many things that weren't highly politicized for quite some time are now touchy subjects on both sides, and what used to be harmless nationalistic pride can now land as inflammatory depending on how charged it is with rhetoric of the day. Jackson is genocidal. Abe is authoritarian. Jefferson is a slave-owner. Like I said, I think Firaxis would just rather not risk taking a potentially political stance if they can avoid it. Which here they clearly can.

Ben Franklin would be the unconventional leader, so he wouldn't be counter to George Washington, a conventional leader (he's as mainstream as they come, and has already been in the past two games).

Back to the subject of the thread: as for how Benjamin Franklin would play differently, there are ton of things to pull from - you could go in any direction, really. I could see a combat bonus based upon his prewar writing, an ally bonus, trade bonuses, and certainly some kind of golden age bonus based upon the upcoming reintroduction of golden ages. But probably the best fit for him would be a series of yield bonuses aimed at a more generalized-peaceful, civ-building game: maybe food, science and culture. And maybe some thing cute, like a custom library.

George Washington would be the ideal conventional counterpart to Ben, playing more like Teddy or like Washington from the previous games.

I think Ben would be a politique leader, no doubt. He was a shrewd and populist intellectual who appeals to the liberal crowd. And he was a chauvinist and influential aristocrat, which appeals to the conservative crowd. And like Teddy, he's fat, which resonates with at least 1/3 of the American playerbase. I think he would be fairly well received actually, apart from all the pedants screaming that he never actually ruled America.

Although, the way you describe him as a civ-builder feels much more like Jefferson, particularly the food bit, and the fact that Jefferson gains a lot more credit for influencing the "building" of the American government (him and Adams, really). Franklin would be specifically science, culture, and trade-based I think.

 

[fredrikslicer]

Marius would be an interesting choice for Rome