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

[Mudkip1001]

When I saw Lafayette added, my first thought is why didn't they do Tadeusz Kosciuszko instead? If they wanted another leader who was connected to America, they could have done so while also adding someone who is a national hero in Poland and Lithuania.

I'm not opposed to Lafayette's inclusion someday. But he doesn't really fit with the roster at this point.

Wow, I didn't know he even existed but he has a monument in Layfette Park in D.C. no less (Lafayette and Pulaski are harder not to know since it seems each state has a Lafayette or Pulaski County). I think I said it elsewhere, but I doubt Firaxis wanted to make Poland a day 1 civ and that's probably why Casimir Pulaski wasn't chosen. If they really wanted a revolutionary that ticks the boxes for most countries, they should probably choose Francisco de Miranda, (Leading America, France, and Gran Columbia) ; he is the only person I know who's served in three major revolutions. (Although at this point it seems like France and America don't need any more leaders, although I personally cant complain ).

 

[AD1730]

Wow, I didn't know he even existed but he has a monument in Layfette Park in D.C. no less (Lafayette and Pulaski are harder not to know since it seems each state has a Lafayette or Pulaski County). I think I said it elsewhere, but I doubt Firaxis wanted to make Poland a day 1 civ and that's probably why Casimir Pulaski wasn't chosen. If they really wanted a revolutionary that ticks the boxes for most countries, they should probably choose Francisco de Miranda, (Leading America, France, and Gran Columbia) ; he is the only person I know who's served in three major revolutions. (Although at this point it seems like France and America don't need any more leaders, although I personally cant complain ).

Bolivar seems to fit the mechanic perfectly and is nowhere to be found yet. I'll stick to my view that Kosciusko would have been a better pick than Lafayette. Eastern Europe is completely untouched to this point.

 

[Archanist]

but tweak the name of his abilities slightly and you have Otto von Bismarck's Blood and Iron

Not gonna lie, down the line when we have more leaders I wouldn't mind if we had leaders that are mechanically very similar, but are different people/unlock different civs (so kinda like echo fighters in Smash Bros). I pretty much want to see more people from history get featured in a Civ game

 

[Mudkip1001]

Eastern Europe is completely untouched to this point.

Yea, but in civs past, it usually starts to fill in by the first expansion, Poland was the first DLC for civ 6, If the Rating leaks are to be believed Eastern Europe's only leader you're going to get is

Spoiler :

Catherine the Great for Russia (which based on the Hermitage and Russian City Buildings being spotted), which is probably disappointing cause that will be the third German Leader

It's disappointing, but I think rather par for the course given that it's even questionable that even civs like Britain are going to have a leader in the base game....

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That'll be awkward when we eventually get her mom. I know we've had grandfather/grandson specifically and some other close family relationships, but I don't think we've ever had a parent and child in the same game before.

I'd prefer her mom, so I could live without her.

I would say that technically Napoleon isn’t a base game leader, he is an account linking incentive, and as such it makes sense that they picked a well-known and staple figure (à la Caesar in Civ 6). But yeah, if it were me I’d have definitely gone with Lafayette and Charlemagne and sacked off old Bonaparte for Alexander (and I hate Alexander…)

Same. I hate that the fact that Lafayette is getting flack, but the only reason is because we already knew we were getting Napoleon as well. If we took Napoleon out of the picture and replaced him with Alexander, Genghis, Shaka or Montezuma, I doubt there would be as much of an issue.

 

[kaspergm]

A lot of these individuals were chosen specifically for their abilities, which under the old definition of "leaders" would be difficult to find equivalents for.

Is this something you know, or just an assumption you're making?

I'm just asking because from the developer interviews I've seen, my impression is directly the opposite: They chose these ... leaders, or whatever term we are using ... because they found they were interesting personalities (and/or, and this is my interpretation, represented a certain minority or group they want to give representation). That some of them ended up with abilities that may have been difficult to assign elsewhere is certainly a bonus that should not be dismissed, but as my impression is, it is a bonus that came with the choice of the leader rather than the other way around. But correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm just asking because from the developer interviews I've seen, my impression is directly the opposite: They chose these ... leaders, or whatever term we are using ... because they found they were interesting personalities (and/or, and this is my interpretation, represented a certain minority or group they want to give representation). That some of them ended up with abilities that may have been difficult to assign elsewhere is certainly a bonus that should not be dismissed, but as my impression is, it is a bonus that came with the choice of the leader rather than the other way around. But correct me if I'm wrong.

This seems to be my impression as well. At least I'm not aware of the scientific contributions of Trung Trac.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Is this something you know, or just an assumption you're making?

I'm just asking because from the developer interviews I've seen, my impression is directly the opposite: They chose these ... leaders, or whatever term we are using ... because they found they were interesting personalities (and/or, and this is my interpretation, represented a certain minority or group they want to give representation). That some of them ended up with abilities that may have been difficult to assign elsewhere is certainly a bonus that should not be dismissed, but as my impression is, it is a bonus that came with the choice of the leader rather than the other way around. But correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah I was going to say, nothing about the leader abilities revealed so far strikes me as Firaxis designing them first and foremost. Some of the abilities while well themed, could be renamed and given to another leader with vaguely similar characteristics without much being lost.

While an assumption on my part of course, it seems more that Firaxis specifically wanted to specifically make a statement against the Great man theory-esque implications what it means to be a leader in past Civilization titles and firmly adhere to a more "history from below" perspective . They chose interesting historical figures and then created abilities around the figures they chose, not the other way around.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Is this something you know, or just an assumption you're making?

I'm just asking because from the developer interviews I've seen, my impression is directly the opposite: They chose these ... leaders, or whatever term we are using ... because they found they were interesting personalities (and/or, and this is my interpretation, represented a certain minority or group they want to give representation). That some of them ended up with abilities that may have been difficult to assign elsewhere is certainly a bonus that should not be dismissed, but as my impression is, it is a bonus that came with the choice of the leader rather than the other way around. But correct me if I'm wrong.

It is more that I believe ( = assumption) that the devs had a longlist of names and specifically picked the names that had the most interesting new properties. I'm pretty sure that is how Machiavelli, Tubman, Battuta and Lafayette got added to the roster. They offer a type of playstyle that is hard to attribute to a head of state,

I think the nature of the leader bonuses were determined the second those leaders were longlisted, and played into the decision of immediately adding them to the roster.

Same. I hate that the fact that Lafayette is getting flack, but the only reason is because we already knew we were getting Napoleon as well. If we took Napoleon out of the picture and replaced him with Alexander, Genghis, Shaka or Montezuma, I doubt there would be as much of an issue.

Speaking for myself only, I would have liked Lafayette more if Napoleon had not been in the game, yeah.

 

[Aeon221]

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.

And the obviously correct choice is to pick only French and American leaders for the truly superior experience

 

[TheGrayFox]

And the obviously correct choice is to pick only French and American leaders for the truly superior experience

Oui oui

 

[Aeon221]

Man I hope they add somebody like William Bradford of Plymouth fame, ideally with "King" Philip for the iconic dust up. It'd have the triple benefit of annoying people who dislike all the American leaders, including interesting characters with potentially novel gameplay and adding a wee bit more Native American representation.

 

[AD1730]

Man I hope they add somebody like William Bradford of Plymouth fame, ideally with "King" Philip for the iconic dust up. It'd have the triple benefit of annoying people who dislike all the American leaders, including interesting characters with potentially novel gameplay and adding a wee bit more Native American representation.

Let’s do Joshua Norton while we’re at it.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Man I hope they add somebody like William Bradford of Plymouth fame, ideally with "King" Philip for the iconic dust up. It'd have the triple benefit of annoying people who dislike all the American leaders, including interesting characters with potentially novel gameplay and adding a wee bit more Native American representation.

Metacomet (King Phillip) and the Wampanoag would be a great choice

 

[Aeon221]

Metacomet (King Phillip) and the Wampanoag would be a great choice

And the truly spicy option would be having them both lead the same nation with a mix of colonial and native building styles

 

[ehecatzin]

Same. I hate that the fact that Lafayette is getting flack, but the only reason is because we already knew we were getting Napoleon as well. If we took Napoleon out of the picture and replaced him with Alexander, Genghis, Shaka or Montezuma, I doubt there would be as much of an issue.

Yeah guilty as charged, in non Napoleon proliferating circumstances Lafayette would have me thrilled. but as of now It's looking bleak leader wise for many other regions. But yeah, 2 Napoleons is the problem, not Lafayette.

Now about Montezuma, I'd rather they choose cool interesting figures that haven't made into the game before, I'm so absolutely tired of Montezuma in downtown prehispanic dancer attire, I can only hope we could see Nezahualcoyotl or Tlacaelel

 

[Zaarin]

Metacomet (King Phillip) and the Wampanoag would be a great choice

I'm torn between wanting to see some Eastern Algonquian representation (though I'm kind of partial to Wahunsenacawh and the Powhatan) and wanting to see some other linguistic groups represented (especially after having the Cree in Civ6 and the Shawnee in Civ7, both Central Algonquian).

Now about Montezuma, I'd rather they choose cool interesting figures that haven't made into the game before, I'm so absolutely tired of Montezuma in downtown prehispanic dancer attire, I can only hope we could see Nezahualcoyotl or Tlacaelel

It would be nice. Civ7 may be the iteration where some of the sacred mascots are desacralized (e.g., no sign of Gandhi) so maybe we'll get lucky. Also maybe--if we ever get a Maya leader--they won't decimate the resplendent quetzal population for the Maya leader's attire.

 

[ehecatzin]

It would be nice. Civ7 may be the iteration where some of the sacred mascots are desacralized (e.g., no sign of Gandhi) so maybe we'll get lucky. Also maybe--if we ever get a Maya leader--they won't decimate the resplendent quetzal population for the Maya leader's attire.

Or actually give them the Mayan profile with cranial deformation and not Mel Gibson's jade nose plugs.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I just don't understand why anyone would want to see historical figures like Ibn Battuta or Machiavelli as the rulers of a civ in a Civilization series. I just don't get it but apparently I'm the odd one out here in that regard. There are so many interesting rulers that could've been chosen to respresent as many different peoples and regions as possible, even avoiding the typical pool of Elizabeths, Alexanders, and Napoleons... but now instead we have explorers and formly enslaved abolitionist leading nations in a 4x series about exploring, expanding, exterminating and exploiting other civilizations/nations.

The concept of immortal leaders is already so far from any historical simulation, that I struggle to see difference between people who were actual country leaders and those who didn't. Civilization is a historically themed strategic game, so it lets you pick historical persons as your avatar. That's it, seems absolutely right to me.

 

[pokiehl]

A lot of fans have their own conceptions of what elements of a Civ game are indelible, core aspects, but they’re just that: fan ideas.

It’s also worth noting that Civ never calls itself a “4x game.” All official materials describe it as a “strategy” game.