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

How do you feel that some civilizations will have three leaders associated with them at launch?

  • I like it. Vive la France!

    Votes: 40 26.1%
  • I don't like it. Other leaders could have taken those spots in order to diversify the roster.

    Votes: 73 47.7%
  • I don't know, I feel ambivalent about it.

    Votes: 24 15.7%
  • I'm not enthusiastic about it, but It's fine.

    Votes: 7 4.6%
  • I don't really care.

    Votes: 9 5.9%

  • Total voters
    153
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. :D
 
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.
Yes, I forgot Pindar. :goodjob:
 
Last edited:
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.
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.
The Strategos and the Basileus personae. A Greek leader that synergizes with Greece will always need to be diplomatic with a secondary additional focus on culture or the military. So Alexander seems fitting for such a double role with his two personae. A Spartan leader (Diplomatic and Militaristic) and an Athenian one or someone with little connection to militaristic actions (Diplomatic and Cultural) could also fill those two roles if Alexander is given a different approach without a second persona (Cultural and Militaristic).

When I first saw the well-designed diplomatic focus of the Greek civilization in Civilization VII, I thought that Philip II, the father of Alexander would make for a great leader for Greece with his diplomatic approach to achieve his goals (he established the League of Corinth after all), but with the inevitable future arrival of Alexander (who I prefer over his father but still) the chances are zero.
 
Last edited:
The Strategos and the Basileus personae.
What I like about calling his alternate persona Alexander Shah is it emphasizes that while he introduced Greek culture to the Far East, he also spread Persian culture to the West, which was just as significant.
 
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.



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.
I could care less about leader unlocks. You could have Exploration unlocks in Genghis and Montezuma and it would still be more diverse than having both Napoleon and Lafayette, which is all we are saying.
 
Napoleon is a bonus leader... some players won't have him. Folks shouldn't be surprised that there's another French leader.
I think the surprise is chiefly that the other French leader is contemporary with Napoleon and is in the base game rather than added later when we have a better distribution of leaders.
 
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.
Let's hope that means we can get alternate leaders for (Gran) Colombia, more so now that non-ruler leaders are allowed.

I would suggest the following:

-Policarpa Salavarrieta (Independence era woman, fighter and spy for the revolutionary forces of Simón Bolívar. Was executed by the Spanish during the war (two years before the end of the war in her region) and became the personification of Colombia up to the present)

-Antonio Nariño (One of the first independence leaders of New Granada/Colombia, first to translate the declaration of rights of the French Revolution into Spanish and was captured by the Spanish for doing that. Vicepresident of (Gran) Colombia)

-Francisco de Miranda (Venezuelan revolutionary. Participated in the American, French and Venezuelan/Colombian revolutions)

-Manuela Sáenz (Ecuadorian partner of Simón Bolívar and de facto First Lady of Colombia. She found foreign alliances for the revolution and saved Simón Bolívar from assasination quite a few times)

-José Celestino Mutis (Spanish colonial era scientist and botanist. He was one of the main representatives of the Spanish Enlightenment and led the Royal Botanical Expedition in New Granada. He settled definitely in New Granada and helped creating a sense of early independence in Colombia. He is remembered in both Colombia and Spain (he appeared on Spanish bills before the Euro was introduced)

Not having Simón Bolívar opens up the posibility of having other Colombian/Venezuelan leaders and show other faces of the history of Colombia, which is much, much more than Simón Bolívar
 
Last edited:
I think the surprise is chiefly that the other French leader is contemporary with Napoleon and is in the base game rather than added later when we have a better distribution of leaders.
Seriously, If we had Vercingetorix, Charlemagne, and Lafayette in the base game, I would have picked the first choice in this poll, and I wouldn't even feel guilty. :lol:
 
I think the surprise is chiefly that the other French leader is contemporary with Napoleon and is in the base game rather than added later when we have a better distribution of leaders.
Yeah at least all the Greek/Hellenistic leaders in Civ 6 were spread out. :mischief:
 
The Strategos and the Basileus personae. A Greek leader that synergizes with Greece will always need to be diplomatic with a secondary additional focus on culture or the military. So Alexander seems fitting for such a double role with his two personae. A Spartan (Diplomatic and Militaristic) and an Athenian or someone with little connection to militaristic actions (Diplomatic and Cultural) could also fill those two roles if Alexander is given a different approach without a second persona (Cultural and Militaristic).
I would not link each persona to a city state since he and Philipp actually united Greece for the first (and only) time under the Hellenism banner (whether they liked it or not) before proceeding to conquer the east. The "Spartan" more than anything does not apply at all since Macedon never moved against Sparta, they just left them alone (presumably for their boasting of Spartan militarism and the fact that they wanted that a Spartan king leads the eastern expedition) and really made a point of it after all the conquering that "mighty" Sparta was not part of it all. All this of course is nitpicking but i really want history in games to be accurate (if one wants to claim to include historical figures) otherwise it gives false information to people who might assume that Firaxis actually researched everything.

When I first saw the well-designed diplomatic focus of the Greek civilization in Civilization VII, I thought that Philip II, the father of Alexander would make for a great leader for Greece with his diplomatic approach to achieve his goals (he established the League of Corinth after all), but with the inevitable future arrival of Alexander (who I prefer over his father but still) the chances are zero.
Philipp certainly achieved a great deal and laid the groundwork for the success of Alexander but his achievements will forever be overshadowed by what followed after his death. Hell i dont think there is any single man that comes even close as far as achievements are concerned. Beside military prowess, Philipp did not have the vision that Alexander had regarding the rule of the conquered. No one in Greece actually, they just called everyone else barbarian and thought they should not be integrated or have rights (not exaclty a future proof way of conquering).
 
I would not link each persona to a city state since he and Philipp actually united Greece for the first (and only) time under the Hellenism banner (whether they liked it or not) before proceeding to conquer the east. The "Spartan" more than anything does not apply at all since Macedon never moved against Sparta, they just left them alone (presumably for their boasting of Spartan militarism and the fact that they wanted that a Spartan king leads the eastern expedition) and really made a point of it after all the conquering that "mighty" Sparta was not part of it all. All this of course is nitpicking but i really want history in games to be accurate (if one wants to claim to include historical figures) otherwise it gives false information to people who might assume that Firaxis actually researched everything.


Philipp certainly achieved a great deal and laid the groundwork for the success of Alexander but his achievements will forever be overshadowed by what followed after his death. Hell i dont think there is any single man that comes even close as far as achievements are concerned. Beside military prowess, Philipp did not have the vision that Alexander had regarding the rule of the conquered. No one in Greece actually, they just called everyone else barbarian and thought they should not be integrated or have rights (not exaclty a future proof way of conquering).
The difference in civ is that Alexander is a surfer boy (civ VI), or at best a young megalomaniac lunatic, while Philip has potential to be a battle-seasoned one-eyed badass. As much as I admire the achievements of Alex (and dislike the person from what I know - which is true for most ancient imperialists), I think it would be fine for him take a break in favor of Antigonos or Philip for once.
 
The difference in civ is that Alexander is a surfer boy (civ VI), or at best a young megalomaniac lunatic, while Philip has potential to be a battle-seasoned one-eyed badass. As much as I admire the achievements of Alex (and dislike the person from what I know - which is true for most ancient imperialists), I think it would be fine for him take a break in favor of Antigonos or Philip for once.
Yes of course for CIV it could be Philipp II , Seleucus, Ptolemy, Antigonos and probably some others i cannot think of now. Although they are overshadowed in comparison, I never said it should strictly be Alexander for the Game :)
 
I would not link each persona to a city state since he and Philipp actually united Greece for the first (and only) time under the Hellenism banner (whether they liked it or not) before proceeding to conquer the east. The "Spartan" more than anything does not apply at all since Macedon never moved against Sparta, they just left them alone (presumably for their boasting of Spartan militarism and the fact that they wanted that a Spartan king leads the eastern expedition) and really made a point of it after all the conquering that "mighty" Sparta was not part of it all. All this of course is nitpicking but i really want history in games to be accurate (if one wants to claim to include historical figures) otherwise it gives false information to people who might assume that Firaxis actually researched everything.
Actually, forgive my writing, but I never proposed that Alexander should have two personae linked to Athens and Sparta. What I really wanted to say is that If Alexander has no diplomatic bonuses which would synergize with the Greek civilization's abilities, then we could have two additional Greek leaders with a diplomatic focus to pair them well with Greece. A Spartan (a king or a general) and someone else without a militaristic approach be it Athenian or not (a statesman, a lawmaker, a poet, a philosopher, a physician, a playwright etc.)

Philipp certainly achieved a great deal and laid the groundwork for the success of Alexander but his achievements will forever be overshadowed by what followed after his death. Hell i dont think there is any single man that comes even close as far as achievements are concerned. Beside military prowess, Philipp did not have the vision that Alexander had regarding the rule of the conquered. No one in Greece actually, they just called everyone else barbarian and thought they should not be integrated or have rights (not exaclty a future proof way of conquering).
Yes of course for CIV it could be Philipp II , Seleucus, Ptolemy, Antigonos and probably some others i cannot think of now. Although they are overshadowed in comparison, I never said it should strictly be Alexander for the Game :)
I think, with the possible exception of Seleucus (he almost reunited Alexander's empire), Philip overshadows the other Diadochi. It took him something close to a lifetime, but he revolutionized the Macedonian army, defeated the enemies that had encircled Macedonia and united the Greeks. Philip can even have two personae just like Alexander. The Basileus and the Hegemon.

Alexander was brilliant, but would he have reached the Indus If Macedonia wasn't a superpower in the Aegean at the death of Philip? Perhaps he would have done it, who can tell? Alexander has another reason to appear in the game. He is infamous among the community, and has become one of the faces of the franchise. He is like the Greek Gandhi, but without the obsession with Uranium.
 
Last edited:
Philip has potential to be a battle-seasoned one-eyed badass.
Save that for Hannibal Barca. :mischief: (I'm actually torn between wanting Hannibal and wanting Elissa Dido back. Hannibal existed; Hannibal is probably the biggest personality of Phoenician people we have records for; but he does skew towards representing the Punic Wars for obvious reasons. Elissa probably didn't exist, although her story is almost certainly Punic in origin--the version recounted by Justin and Timaeus, not Virgil--but she's an excellent embodiment of the Phoenician spirit.)
 
Am I crazy or do I distinctly recall you saying (many time) that Dido was at the very least plausible enough, @Zaarin ? (Wondering if anything new has come up that support the change, or I'm just misremembering)
 
Back
Top Bottom