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

[NickTheGreek!]

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.

Having a second "non warmonger" persona of Alexander is something i would love to see. He did start to reform what constituted an empire of many different peoples after all the conquest (with policies unheard of to the ancient world). Too bad he died so young, but this is a brilliant idea for roleplaying and "what if" scenarios.

 

[Zaarin]

But all 3 of those Civs are Ancient and thus don't need Leader unlocks.

Neither do Exploration or Modern civs, which have civ unlocks. Except Hawai'i. I'm still a little confused on how Hawai'i gets unlocked. Khmer? Maya? Napoleon because it all ends up at Napoleon?

And the Firaxis devs have even more people devoted to Ancient history than before.

I mean, so far we have one ancient civ, Egypt, arguably two depending on how you interpret Maya. The rest are all Classical.

I think another reason we see fewer Ancient Leaders is we don't have actors to speak their languages (as easily as others).

We already have a leader speaking (I presume) Middle Egyptian, which is not the easiest language to reconstruct. Akkadian is much easier. Aramaic is easy. Phoenician is a challenge, but Firaxis has demonstrated twice now they consider Hebrew "close enough." Ancient Greek is super easy, barely an inconvenience. I'm not asking for a Minoan leader, here.

Having a second "non warmonger" persona of Alexander is something i would love to see. He did start to reform what constituted an empire of many different peoples after all the conquest (with policies unheard of to the ancient world). Too bad he died so young, but this is a brilliant idea for roleplaying and "what if" scenarios.

Plus, if he's the only Greek leader we get for a while, it would be nice to see something more than just his warrior side, which is appropriate to him but a bad fit for Greece. While it's true that any leader can lead any civ, it would be nice to have a Greek leader who actually synergizes with Greece.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

You guys have two American leaders, important for US history Frenchman Lafayette, and Tecumseh, and now France is the problem? Napoleon is not even in a base game (he is a 2K promo) and he is not French but ethnic Italian
Sometimes I think there is always too much Europe in the game for some people.

 

[Atlas627]

Neither do Exploration or Modern civs, which have civ unlocks. Except Hawai'i. I'm still a little confused on how Hawai'i gets unlocked. Khmer? Maya? Napoleon because it all ends up at Napoleon?

Uh... no, I mean Ancient Civs literally do not even have unlocks, because you just start the game with them. Exploration and Modern Civs do need unlocks, and thus having a certain balance of unlocks may be a design goal, and Civ unlocks are obviously not intended to be the only such unlocks. Your response here is making me think you didn't understand my argument at all.

I mean, so far we have one ancient civ, Egypt, arguably two depending on how you interpret Maya. The rest are all Classical.

I was using Ancient the way Firaxis is, and the particular Civs I was mentioning they were interested are indeed Classical by your use of the word.

We already have a leader speaking (I presume) Middle Egyptian, which is not the easiest language to reconstruct. Akkadian is much easier. Aramaic is easy. Phoenician is a challenge, but Firaxis has demonstrated twice now they consider Hebrew "close enough." Ancient Greek is super easy, barely an inconvenience. I'm not asking for a Minoan leader, here.

And those are all harder than using more modern Leaders, which was my point. I didn't say impossible, I said it was harder to find voice actors for languages which we know less about. This wasn't meant to be a main point, but you seem to be arguing it as though it is trying to stand on its own. It is simply one of the affects that contribute to fewer Ancient Leaders.

 

[Zaarin]

Tecumseh

He's closer to a British leader than an American leader, given he died fighting for the British in the War of 1812 and considered a British officer's uniform one of his most prized possessions.

Your response here is making me think you didn't understand my argument at all.

I did understand your argument; I simply see no evidence that it's a priority for the devs when all roads lead to Normans.

It is simply one of the affects that contribute to fewer Ancient Leaders.

Perhaps, but Firaxis has shown they're willing to put in the work before. If anything, I think prioritizing Antiquity leaders helps ease players into civ switching since the leader is associated with their first civ choice. However, Civ6, by mostly the same dev team, had a dearth of Ancient civs, and most of them (except Phoenicia) were poorly designed IMO. I think it's fair to say that the devs are less interested in Ancient civs than other eras (I know Ed specifically has a keen interest in Early Modern). Which is fair, just disappointing for those of us whose particular interest is the Bronze and Iron Age.

 

[Atlas627]

I did understand your argument; I simply see no evidence that it's a priority for the devs when all roads lead to Normans.

I understand your point, but I think you've grossly exaggerated it. And I think you're making my point for me, regardless. For all roads to lead to Normans, they've picked Leaders who can plausibly lead to Normans while also doing something else. Note that no leaders are "Norman" leaders!

Perhaps, but Firaxis has shown they're willing to put in the work before.

That still doesn't mean that it isn't inherently harder to do, nor that it won't result in Ancient Leaders being chosen less often than they would've otherwise.

If anything, I think prioritizing Antiquity leaders helps ease players into civ switching since the leader is associated with their first civ choice.

This is a fair point, but you only need so many of those to satisfy players. Once they're "eased in", the staying power of the game design will be from you getting to explore the depth of the switching, which will be further enabled by a good selection of Leader choices.

However, Civ6, by mostly the same dev team, had a dearth of Ancient civs, and most of them (except Phoenicia) were poorly designed IMO. I think it's fair to say that the devs are less interested in Ancient civs than other eras (I know Ed specifically has a keen interest in Early Modern). Which is fair, just disappointing for those of us whose particular interest is the Bronze and Iron Age.

I don't see what this has to do with Leader selection, though?

 

[Zaarin]

I understand your point, but I think you've grossly exaggerated it.

I did say as much...

I don't see what this has to do with Leader selection, though?

In Civ6, all civs had leaders so comparing Civ6 is relevant.

 

[Atlas627]

In Civ6, all civs had leaders so comparing Civ6 is relevant.

Wouldn't that make it completely irrelevant, because they clearly are not serving the same purpose, nor having similar criteria for selection, whatsoever?

 

[Zaarin]

Wouldn't that make it completely irrelevant, because they clearly are not serving the same purpose, nor having similar criteria for selection, whatsoever?

Relevant for discussing the devs' preferences and interests. Civ6 had three Ancient civs (Phoenicia, Babylon, Sumer[ia]), of which two were badly designed IMO. So it's not terribly surprising to me that Civ7 would launch with a single Ancient leader and two Ancient civs. The devs have previously displayed a lack of interest in the time period.

 

[Atlas627]

Relevant for discussing the devs' preferences and interests. Civ6 had three Ancient civs (Phoenicia, Babylon, Sumer[ia]), of which two were badly designed IMO. So it's not terribly surprising to me that Civ7 would launch with a single Ancient leader and two Ancient civs. The devs have previously displayed a lack of interest in the time period.

I understand what you're trying to say, and it simply has nothing to do with what I was saying. We're using Ancient so differently that we're not even talking about the same thing.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Civ6 had three Ancient civs (Phoenicia, Babylon, Sumer[ia]), of which two were badly designed IMO.

which one?

 

[Zaarin]

which one?

Phoenicia was very well-designed. Babylon and Sumer were badly designed, at least from a historical flavor perspective; YMMV in terms of how fun they were to play. (Incidentally, Port Limes Babylon Overhaul is fantastic, and I think Pokiehl did an overhaul of Sumer that's very good. So both are salvageable; I'm talking about their official designs.)

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

from a historical flavor perspective;

OK. I was curious because I liked how Babylon was designed. But yes it was probably badly written It is always fun how the way we use a word tells what we are focused on

 

[The Fanatical]

Actually, that discussion on who has the most importance, influence and impact bring to mind a thought I was having - we need to have a historian as a leader. Or a biographer. Someone whose contribution and influence on history was by shaping people's perception of it - after all, if history is written by the victors then those whose vision of history are remembered for centuries must be the greatest of all victors!

I don't care if it's Herodotus or Livy or Geoffrey of Monmouth or Sima Qian, but *one* of them at least has to make it in.

If it's only one, then...I propose a petition to make Mr Andrew Alan Johnson a leader in Civilization VII. His ability will give bonuses when you interact or make alliances with South East Asian civilizations. But if a Greek historian is chosen, then I would like to see Thucydides instead of Herodotus. The father of scientific history and an Athenian.

We also need a poet, a physician and a playwright. Figures such as Homer, Hesiod, Hippocrates, Galen, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides or Aristophanes would make for an interesting albeit unusual leader. None of the above would have dare to appear as a leader before Civilization VII.

 

[Zaarin]

OK. I was curious because I liked how Babylon was designed. But yes it was probably badly written It is always fun how the way we use a word tells what we are focused on

Babylon's ability was very clever; it just didn't feel very Babylonian to me.

We also need a poet

Ferdowsi would make a good fit for that IMO, and so would Enheduanna (who I'm already expecting as a distinct possibility for the Ancient Mesopotamian leader, as her hymns brought the entire region together). (Though technically we've had several poets before, e.g., Elizabeth I was an accomplished poet.)

 

[Kulko]

I can hardly overstate how much I disagree with that decision. I think having 3 leaders from 1 civilization, before you have at least 1 in every other civilization is completely indefensible from my point of view.
And yes that include for me at least 1 leader from each indian/chinese incarnation. And as somebody else pointing out already in this incarnation there is a whole world of other leaders out there to implement before you need to replicate in the same civ.

 

[The Fanatical]

I disagree with the post itself. Since in Civ7 there's no gameplay association between civ and leaders, we should be talking about historical connection, not gameplay. And thus, 2 personas should count as one. So, France has 2 leaders, one of which is a bonus, not coming in vanilla game without additional effort.

Similarly, America really has 2 vanilla leaders, but this makes sense, since it's the biggest market. Associating Lafayette with America is just wrong - even though he's known in America for his actions in American Revolution, he was French and did a lot of other things.

The post was meant to target the amount of leaders that are historically connected to a civilization, be it America or France, at the expense of a less varied roster at release. Gameplay connection shouldn't be taken into account anyway, since any leader can be paired with any civilization to make some interesting plays. Lafayette is associated with both America and France just as Cleopatra was associated with both Greece and Egypt in Civilization VI (she even had two personae there) or just as Lord Byron is associated with both Britain and Greece. The pivotal and famous actions of an individual can associate him/her with a civilization, even if they originated from elsewhere.

 

[mitsho]

Chill out, the most important factor for inclusion if whether it will be fun. This game isn't a simulation or a history book. There's no need to try to depict history in the right way. The Great Men of History era is over, the woke turn of History has firmly taken hold.

Which is why I love the idea above of having a Alexander, Lover of Hephaiston persona in the game.

Why do they have these diverse leaders? Because all the tales of the various Kings and Queens eventually are very similar. Non noble people have good stories too, and it's great to tell these stories!

On that note, the other thought i had while reading this thread is that just structurally, as easy as it is to adda fourth era, it's equally easy to add a "ancient" era in front. We need Hittites, Babylon and the Etruscans, and they would feel strange as contemporaries to Rome. But there's a reason why they chose only three eras. It's a game after all, not a simulation.

 

[Gori the Grey]

We also need a poet, a physician and a playwright. Figures such as Homer, Hesiod, Hippocrates, Galen, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides or Aristophanes would make for an interesting albeit unusual leader.

Pindar would be a possibility, for a poet. He's quasi-political in that while his odes take their occasion from an Olympic (or Pythian, etc) victory, they then go on mostly to celebrate the city/region from which the victor hails.

Elizabeth I was an accomplished poet.

Meh. MMV

 

[The Fanatical]

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

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

I added one apathetic answer, and one that implies just acceptance without any enthusiasm. At your service.

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...

Thanks, someone liked my poll for once.