If this is for the AI opponents, I think there's just some leaders that are normally disruptive, and some that are easy to get along with. If I was trying to set up a SimCity type-game where they don't antagonise me, or spread all over the map, I'd go for:
- Catherine. She likes to sit off in the corner, on the tundra bit of the map. Counter-synergy pick: Khmer
- Tecumseh. Unless you clear out independant powers, he's very easy to get along with, and reasonable with his settling. I think giving him Maurya should reduce his chance at getting the rivers.
- Ibn Battuta. He might be a bit antagonistic early, but if you have some scouts out, he'll be your best friend before long. Leading Greece, maybe, since he will waste that extra influence on sharing maps?
- Himiko (Queen of Wa). She supports the projects for free, so you will get some extra yields out of her easily. No obvious synergies from leading Mississippians.
- Trung Trac seems to be minding her own business for the most part as well. If you play relaxed game, your commanders will be low XP, so she will like you. I think leading Aksum or Rome should pull her out of the tropics?
Avoid Xerxes (he wants you to fight wars, and spreads like wildfire), Ben Franklin (loves to settle all over the shop for some reason, and will compete for Independent Powers early), Harriet Tubman (she will spy on you, she will forward settle, and declaring on her is painful), Pachacuti (you will want some mountains for culture buildings, which means he's always angry) or Machiavelli (he wants you to fight wars, and will get gold from diplomatic exchanges with you).
