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

[AD1730]

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.

4x is just a subset of the strategy genre. They’re choosing the more general label, likely since you want to market to the widest possible audience.

 

[Nikolai II]

IMO we're still missing Joan of Arc, Mazarin and Cantona.

Cantona? The footballer?

 

[Xandinho]

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.

I'd still replace a few other leaders besides Napoleon. Montezuma might be the best choice to take Napoleon's spot, as he would serve as a bridge between Mesoamerica and modern Mexico. Pachacuti feels culturally distant for that purpose. And I don’t even think the French leaders will stop there—I expect Joan of Arc at some point. If France is getting so many leaders, I hope other civs and regions receive the same attention in future content. No Polynesian leader so far, which is quite disappointing.

 

[TheGrayFox]

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.

Sure Civilization is a strategy game, just like Final Fantasy is a "role playing game" but what do you do in this subgenre of strategy game? What seperates it from other strategy games? Surely its of a different type of game than Starcraft right?

Sure the devs may not call the genre 4x officially but it seems slightly disingenious to try operate as if Firaxis isn't changing a well-established genre formula and as if they're not changing a what constitutes a Civilization leader in the decades old series.

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.

It's not about strict historical simulation, it's also about roleplaying and expectations.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's not about strict historical simulation, it's also about roleplaying and expectations.

Yes. And I believe the current roster of leaders is perfect for roleplaying. People like Confucius, Harriet Tubman or Machiavelli have really strong pop-culture representation of their personality, unlike many historical persons who led their countries.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Where's the "I don't really care" option. The last option implies that I'm undecided. I am not undecided.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Yes. And I believe the current roster of leaders is perfect for roleplaying. People like Confucius, Harriet Tubman or Machiavelli have really strong pop-culture representation of their personality, unlike many historical persons who led their countries.

We'll have to agree to disagree

 

[stealth_nsk]

Where's the "I don't really care" option. The last option implies that I'm undecided. I am not undecided.

I also can't find the right variant for me, but compared to most other polls on this forum, this one is not that bad...

 

[Gedemon]

Cantona? The footballer?

A lone Frenchman that had made thousands of Englishmen sing the French anthem willingly.

Imagine telling that tale to Napoleon ?

 

[Zaarin]

A lone Frenchman that had made thousands of Englishmen sing the French anthem willingly.

Reminds me of the time poor Colm Meaney had to sing "Jerusalem" on DS9. Truly, O'Brien must suffer in and out of universe.

 

[AD1730]

Reminds me of the time poor Colm Meaney had to sing "Jerusalem" on DS9. Truly, O'Brien must suffer in and out of universe.

Speaking of Jerusalem, I’d love to see Baldwin IV in the game. If they put him in the game, I would buy it despite my well-documented reservations about it. Plus, he’s another French guy, which would be hilarious.

 

[Zaarin]

Speaking of Jerusalem, I’d love to see Baldwin IV in the game.

His grandmother Melisende of Jerusalem would be a prime candidate for taking Catherine de Medici's slot. I wrote a paper on her in college. Fascinating woman.

 

[Atlas627]

Poll is biased, as usual. There is no "it's fine", only enthusiasm, disagreement, and indecision. I need an acceptance option.

Frankly, I'm surprised how nobody is talking about one of the most critical gameplay consequences of the Leader pool: they help you pick a Civ pathway. In that sense, they need to prioritize Leaders who give you multiple options of Civ choices. This makes Ancient Leaders less likely to be useful, and means that people who were important to multiple cultures, regions, or nations (which are thus less likely to rise to *rule* one specific culture/region/nation) have higher priority than they normally would.

Ben Franklin, while born and raised in the colonies, was himself a minister to multiple European countries and born to a father who left England, which Firaxis may use to give him ties to other Civs than America.
Harriet Tubman has close ancestral ties to Africa (though unfortunately we don't know exactly where her grandmother was enslaved from, but presumably West Sub-Saharan), which enables Firaxis to give her ties to other Civs than America.
Tecumseh can be connected to multiple native tribes through his confederacy, and importantly that also gives selection options for Civs from an entirely different game Era than America.
Lafayette was a critical figure in both the American and French Revolutions, enabling him to lead into both.
Napoleon is the French leader, in this context, but he's bonus content.
Charlemagne can lead into most Western European Civs, and I think I'd only call him "French" if I were stretching the definition to be angry on purpose.

In addition to leading into multiple Civs, it is also important that Civ7 Leaders seem reasonable leading any Civ. So if they were a ruler, they will need to be one that did rule multiple cultures/regions/nations (which are rarer than one might think), or they need to be important for other things that could have happened elsewhere in alternate timelines.

Franklin was a Renaissance Man, and had he been elsewhere maybe he would've simply leaned into one of his talents more than the rest. He can lead any Civ.
Harriet Tubman fought for human rights, against oppression by a different culture. She can fit anywhere.
Tecumseh fought for independence, against oppression by a different culture. He can fit anywhere.
Lafayette was a proponent of Enlightenment ideals that could have taken hold anywhere.
Napoleon pushed those ideals onto many other cultures by taking advantage of a political situation in a powerhouse civ. He can fit anywhere.
Charlemagne established the Holy Roman Empire, which crosses the boundaries of multiple traditional Civs. He can fit anywhere.

So I'm not really viewing this as "3 American and 3 French leaders", I'm viewing this as multiple leaders who have multiple options, and that's important for the gameplay.

 

[UWHabs]

Poll is biased, as usual. There is no "it's fine", only enthusiasm, disagreement, and indecision. I need an acceptance option.

Frankly, I'm surprised how nobody is talking about one of the most critical gameplay consequences of the Leader pool: they help you pick a Civ pathway. In that sense, they need to prioritize Leaders who give you multiple options of Civ choices. This makes Ancient Leaders less likely to be useful, and means that people who were important to multiple cultures, regions, or nations (which are thus less likely to rise to *rule* one specific culture/region/nation) have higher priority than they normally would.

Ben Franklin, while born and raised in the colonies, was himself a minister to multiple European countries and born to a father who left England, which Firaxis may use to give him ties to other Civs than America.
Harriet Tubman has close ancestral ties to Africa (though unfortunately we don't know exactly where her grandmother was enslaved from, but presumably West Sub-Saharan), which enables Firaxis to give her ties to other Civs than America.
Tecumseh can be connected to multiple native tribes through his confederacy, and importantly that also gives selection options for Civs from an entirely different game Era than America.
Lafayette was a critical figure in both the American and French Revolutions, enabling him to lead into both.
Napoleon is the French leader, in this context, but he's bonus content.
Charlemagne can lead into most Western European Civs, and I think I'd only call him "French" if I were stretching the definition to be angry on purpose.

In addition to leading into multiple Civs, it is also important that Civ7 Leaders seem reasonable leading any Civ. So if they were a ruler, they will need to be one that did rule multiple cultures/regions/nations (which are rarer than one might think), or they need to be important for other things that could have happened elsewhere in alternate timelines.

Franklin was a Renaissance Man, and had he been elsewhere maybe he would've simply leaned into one of his talents more than the rest. He can lead any Civ.
Harriet Tubman fought for human rights, against oppression by a different culture. She can fit anywhere.
Tecumseh fought for independence, against oppression by a different culture. He can fit anywhere.
Lafayette was a proponent of Enlightenment ideals that could have taken hold anywhere.
Napoleon pushed those ideals onto many other cultures by taking advantage of a political situation in a powerhouse civ. He can fit anywhere.
Charlemagne established the Holy Roman Empire, which crosses the boundaries of multiple traditional Civs. He can fit anywhere.

So I'm not really viewing this as "3 American and 3 French leaders", I'm viewing this as multiple leaders who have multiple options, and that's important for the gameplay.

I think those alternate ties are only slight considerations. I think that things are more free, that probably has a bigger reason for some of the selections. They seem so far to be staying away from leaders that are too one-dimensional. We don't have nearly as many warmonger types as some iterations. Whether they stick with that, or in the end we still get our staple of Alexander, Genghis, etc... we'll wait and see.

 

[Zaarin]

We don't have nearly as many warmonger types as some iterations.

I have to strongly disagree. Civ7 is so overstocked with warmongers that I'm a little concerned as a peaceful player. Even many leaders that may not have militant abilities have hyper-aggressive agendas, like Amina and Ben Franklin.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Poll is biased, as usual. There is no "it's fine", only enthusiasm, disagreement, and indecision. I need an acceptance option.

Frankly, I'm surprised how nobody is talking about one of the most critical gameplay consequences of the Leader pool: they help you pick a Civ pathway. In that sense, they need to prioritize Leaders who give you multiple options of Civ choices. This makes Ancient Leaders less likely to be useful, and means that people who were important to multiple cultures, regions, or nations (which are thus less likely to rise to *rule* one specific culture/region/nation) have higher priority than they normally would.

Ben Franklin, while born and raised in the colonies, was himself a minister to multiple European countries and born to a father who left England, which Firaxis may use to give him ties to other Civs than America.
Harriet Tubman has close ancestral ties to Africa (though unfortunately we don't know exactly where her grandmother was enslaved from, but presumably West Sub-Saharan), which enables Firaxis to give her ties to other Civs than America.
Tecumseh can be connected to multiple native tribes through his confederacy, and importantly that also gives selection options for Civs from an entirely different game Era than America.
Lafayette was a critical figure in both the American and French Revolutions, enabling him to lead into both.
Napoleon is the French leader, in this context, but he's bonus content.
Charlemagne can lead into most Western European Civs, and I think I'd only call him "French" if I were stretching the definition to be angry on purpose.

In addition to leading into multiple Civs, it is also important that Civ7 Leaders seem reasonable leading any Civ. So if they were a ruler, they will need to be one that did rule multiple cultures/regions/nations (which are rarer than one might think), or they need to be important for other things that could have happened elsewhere in alternate timelines.

Franklin was a Renaissance Man, and had he been elsewhere maybe he would've simply leaned into one of his talents more than the rest. He can lead any Civ.
Harriet Tubman fought for human rights, against oppression by a different culture. She can fit anywhere.
Tecumseh fought for independence, against oppression by a different culture. He can fit anywhere.
Lafayette was a proponent of Enlightenment ideals that could have taken hold anywhere.
Napoleon pushed those ideals onto many other cultures by taking advantage of a political situation in a powerhouse civ. He can fit anywhere.
Charlemagne established the Holy Roman Empire, which crosses the boundaries of multiple traditional Civs. He can fit anywhere.

So I'm not really viewing this as "3 American and 3 French leaders", I'm viewing this as multiple leaders who have multiple options, and that's important for the gameplay.

I don't disagree with anything you said. But when you have two of them from France, and both lived during the same time period, it does make them feel kind of redundant. You could easily have Alexander pushing Hellenistic ideals on the Ancient World and that would fit the idea of Napoleon.

 

[Xandinho]

Poll is biased, as usual. There is no "it's fine", only enthusiasm, disagreement, and indecision. I need an acceptance option.

Frankly, I'm surprised how nobody is talking about one of the most critical gameplay consequences of the Leader pool: they help you pick a Civ pathway. In that sense, they need to prioritize Leaders who give you multiple options of Civ choices. This makes Ancient Leaders less likely to be useful, and means that people who were important to multiple cultures, regions, or nations (which are thus less likely to rise to *rule* one specific culture/region/nation) have higher priority than they normally would.

Ben Franklin, while born and raised in the colonies, was himself a minister to multiple European countries and born to a father who left England, which Firaxis may use to give him ties to other Civs than America.
Harriet Tubman has close ancestral ties to Africa (though unfortunately we don't know exactly where her grandmother was enslaved from, but presumably West Sub-Saharan), which enables Firaxis to give her ties to other Civs than America.
Tecumseh can be connected to multiple native tribes through his confederacy, and importantly that also gives selection options for Civs from an entirely different game Era than America.
Lafayette was a critical figure in both the American and French Revolutions, enabling him to lead into both.
Napoleon is the French leader, in this context, but he's bonus content.
Charlemagne can lead into most Western European Civs, and I think I'd only call him "French" if I were stretching the definition to be angry on purpose.

In addition to leading into multiple Civs, it is also important that Civ7 Leaders seem reasonable leading any Civ. So if they were a ruler, they will need to be one that did rule multiple cultures/regions/nations (which are rarer than one might think), or they need to be important for other things that could have happened elsewhere in alternate timelines.

Franklin was a Renaissance Man, and had he been elsewhere maybe he would've simply leaned into one of his talents more than the rest. He can lead any Civ.
Harriet Tubman fought for human rights, against oppression by a different culture. She can fit anywhere.
Tecumseh fought for independence, against oppression by a different culture. He can fit anywhere.
Lafayette was a proponent of Enlightenment ideals that could have taken hold anywhere.
Napoleon pushed those ideals onto many other cultures by taking advantage of a political situation in a powerhouse civ. He can fit anywhere.
Charlemagne established the Holy Roman Empire, which crosses the boundaries of multiple traditional Civs. He can fit anywhere.

So I'm not really viewing this as "3 American and 3 French leaders", I'm viewing this as multiple leaders who have multiple options, and that's important for the gameplay.

Even following this logic of leaders being chosen for offering multiple connections, most of them are still primarily tied to France and America. Why not Genghis Khan, who would create multiple connections across Asia? Or even Kublai Khan, for a dual connection between China and Mongolia? How about Montezuma, as a bridge between Mesoamerica and modern Mexico? Even Alexander the Great could create as many connections as Napoleon. There were definitely many other choices they could have made, not overly Eurocentric, if their goal was to include leaders with multiple connections.

 

[Atlas627]

I don't disagree with anything you said. But when you have two of them from France, and both lived during the same time period, it does make them feel kind of redundant. You could easily have Alexander pushing Hellenistic ideals on the Ancient World and that would fit the idea of Napoleon.

I expect them to include Alexander later, when there are more Civs he could link to. But as I mentioned, Ancient Leaders are less important for this effect. Most of the Civs that Alexander would lead into are Ancient Civs, or led into by the same Civs he himself would historically pair with.

Even following this logic of leaders being chosen for offering multiple connections, most of them are still primarily tied to France and America. Why not Genghis Khan, who would create multiple connections across Asia? Or even Kublai Khan, for a dual connection between China and Mongolia? How about Montezuma, as a bridge between Mesoamerica and modern Mexico? Even Alexander the Great could create as many connections as Napoleon. There were definitely many other choices they could have made, not overly Eurocentric, if their goal was to include leaders with multiple connections.

Probably because Mongolia has a gameplay link already that would likely be Genghis' schtick, and thus Genghis doesn't help here. In fact, I would argue that Genghis not being in points to Russia not being in yet.

I'm not sure I follow what you mean about Montezuma. How does he create anything to modern Mexico? He has the same Ancient Leader issue I mentioned about Alexander.

 

[ehecatzin]

How about Montezuma, as a bridge between Mesoamerica and modern Mexico?

I'm not sure I follow what you mean about Montezuma. How does he create anything to modern Mexico? He has the same Ancient Leader issue I mentioned about Alexander.

Montezuma would be exploration.

I would argue we don't need Montezuma to unlock Mexico, we need Montezuma to unlock the Aztecs, and then the Aztecs can have a regional path to Mexico. (just like Spain and Incas most likely re going to be in vanilla.). What we need is a latin american leader to unlock Mexico so that we could do interesting unlock paths

 

[Zaarin]

I expect them to include Alexander later, when there are more Civs he could link to. But as I mentioned, Ancient Leaders are less important for this effect. Most of the Civs that Alexander would lead into are Ancient Civs, or led into by the same Civs he himself would historically pair with.

Given half our leaders unlock the Normans (hyperbole, but not by much), I really don't think Firaxis has overly troubled themselves with unlocks. The lack of Ancient leaders is probably the result of the same problem Civ6 seemed to have: a lack of interest in the period among Firaxis devs. The lack of Alexander the Great specifically is presumably because he's very marketable. Also, there are three obvious civs to connect him to, and they're all in the game: Greece, Egypt, Persia. TBH I fully expect Alexander to have two personae: Alexander the Great who is all war, all the time and Alexander Shahanshah or Pharaoh Alexander or Alexander Hellenizer or some similar persona centered around culture and science.

In fact, I would argue that Genghis not being in points to Russia not being in yet.

We know Catherine the Great is in from the ESRB, and we've seen Russian architecture. Russia is not 100% confirmed, but of our three suspects--Britain, Germany, Russia--I'd consider Russia the closest to being confirmed.