Wait, is it all French? Always has been. (POLL)

[The Fanatical]

How do you feel that the base game will launch with three American leaders, three French leaders, and two Italian leaders, while for instance there are zero Mesopotamian or Greek or Maya or Mongolian or Hawaiian leaders etc. Don't get me wrong, all well-documented civilizations will get at least one leader in the game eventually, but do you think three leaders that are connected with one civilization is a bad approach when the game hasn't even released yet?

 

[NickTheGreek!]

For every CIV in the game there should be at least one leader. I know they are coming later but still....i am not playing greece with Lafayette.

 

[Gori the Grey]

It seems an odd choice to me, I will say that.

Particularly when you've doubly freed yourself up to choose anyone from anywhere and any time.

 

[uppi]

the base game will launch with three American leaders, three French leaders, and two Italian leaders,

That we know of so far! There are still leaders to be revealed. Still some opportunity for more Frenchmen.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I feel like there were better famous faces for the account-linking bonus than one associated with a civ that there's already a clear leader for... if you really really needed a famous warmonger, how about Genghis Khan or Alexander? Their home civs don't have a leader. Montezuma would be a fine fit with Mexico, representing the "South America" path in a different way than the base game. In contrast, Napoleon's inclusion doesn't add anything that the base game wouldn't already have in terms of representing areas.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

It also has the benefit of keeping the English out which makes it a double win. That's a joke, maybe.

Seriously, would any of the leader abilities fit other leaders? Chinggis for Charlemagne, Pericles for Ben Franklin, maybe.

 

[Bast]

Benjamin Franklin, Tecumseh, Harriet Tubman and Lafayette are all linked to America in some form or another. You also have Napoleon and Charlemagne who are linked to France. So basically it's like 6 leaders linked to 2 countries. It's too much imo when you don't even have iconic leaders like Genghis Khan. And where are all the British monarchs? Elizabeth? Victoria?

 

[Xandinho]

three French leaders

Four, if you count Napoleon’s two personas. Honestly, having so many French leaders at launch is a massive exaggeration. It’s more than entire continents get. I think Charlemagne and Lafayette would have been enough for the base game, and a third French leader could have waited a few years. The same applies to America.

 

[Zaarin]

And where are all the British monarchs? Elizabeth? Victoria?

I expect Elizabeth I to accompany Britain, whenever they arrive. Or maybe they'll surprise us, but Liz feels like a pretty good heavy hitter for DLC bait.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Wait for the inevitable three "German" leaders: Charlemagne, Frederick, and Catherine.
(Yes, I know Catherine never lead any German kingdom, but she was born there.)

I expect Elizabeth I to accompany Britain, whenever they arrive. Or maybe they'll surprise us, but Liz feels like a pretty good heavy hitter for DLC bait.

Surprise us with Victoria again, who could lead so much of the world.

 

[Zaarin]

Surprise us with Victoria again, who could lead so much of the world.

She'd certainly be right at home with many of Civ7's dull leader choices.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

It looks to me that they decided having a preponderance of European leaders and civs distributed elsewhere was better than previous iterations of the game where half the civs were from Europe.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It looks to me that they decided having a preponderance of European leaders and civs distributed elsewhere was better than previous iterations of the game where half the civs were from Europe.

It does make me wonder about AI preferences if so many default to European civs, and those spots are limited, where would Machiavelli go if both Lafayette and Charlemagne are also in the game?

 

[Luxerne]

It does annoy me that, in an iteration where there will always be more leaders than civilizations available, they still opt to give certain civilizations (and these all being Western) two/three associated leaders. And this is even in an iteration where we have Charlemagne, basically the most versatile post-antiquity European leader we could have... what is the point of Napoleon and Lafayette alongside him?

I'm lamenting the likely possibility that, even after all the DLCs are out, there might never be a Maya or Mexican leader, and we'd be stuck with Isabella, Pachacuti, and (presumably) Montezuma to lead those civs.

 

[Bast]

She'd certainly be right at home with many of Civ7's dull leader choices.

Lead India as Victoria. Empress of India.

 

[Kankan]

It’s similar to the issue Civ 6 had where it had way too many Hellenic leaders (Cleopatra, Basil, Theodora, Gorgo, Pericles and Alexander) however it’s a bit more of an issue here as some civs won’t even have any leaders (Ironic as we went from 6 Hellenic leaders to 0).

I am hoping we do get more non-Western leaders however it’s still very possible that some civs such as Aksum may never receive an appropriate leader as Amina would’ve been about 4.5km away from Aksum!

 

[Willie5000]

Lafayette is... fine but this really should have been Genghis Khan, Shaka, Elizabeth I, Alexander the Bruh, or even Gandhi.

No I am not being sarcastic.

 

[Zaarin]

Lafayette is... fine but this really should have been Genghis Khan, Shaka, Elizabeth I, Alexander the Bruh, or even Gandhi.

I'd keep Lafayette and replace Napoleon with one of those.

 

[Willie5000]

I'd keep Lafayette and replace Napoleon with one of those.

No, ditch Lafayette, put Genghis Khan in the game.

While we're at it...

Ibn Battuta should have been Saladin.

Confucius should have been Qin Shi Huangdi

Machiavelli should have been Gandhi or Alexander the Great.

Harriet Tubman I can forgive but could have been Lincoln or Frederick Douglass.

There's my take.

 

[Zaarin]

No, ditch Lafayette, put Genghis Khan in the game.

While we're at it...

Ibn Battuta should have been Saladin.

Confucius should have been Qin Shi Huangdi

Machiavelli should have been Gandhi or Alexander the Great.

Harriet Tubman I can forgive but could have been Lincoln or Frederick Douglass.

There's my take.

The leader choices have been stale enough without getting rid of the few interesting choices they've made to replace with more stale choices.