What Civ would you like to see have a new leader or alternate one?

[Lord of War N02]

Civs most needing new leaders because the ones they have been getting are Getting Old, IMHO:
Greece. Civ has never had a Greek Leader from anything but Classical Greek Athens or Sparta - or Macedon. Just from Athens they could have Solon or Cleisthenes, or an earlier Polykrates of Samos, or a later Jason of Thessaly, or - and here's a Thought: go back to the Greek Bronze Age and ring in Agamemnon or Nestor - by definition Big Personalities!
Germany. Enough of Bismarck or the Prussians. (Although Bismarck virtually started the modern German system of Social Democracy, so he could have Uniques not at all related to either Diplomacy or the military). Why not a leader from the Weimar Republic? It lasted longer than Hitler's Third Reck did, or one of the other strong Early Modern German states: Augustus of Saxony or Maximilian the "Blue King" of Bavaria
Russia. Again, enough of Bolshoi Petr and Ekaterina II. How about Dmitri Donskoye, Prince of Moscow and Grand Prince of Vladimir? or Ivan III or Ivan IV of Muscovy. or Aelksandr, Napoleon's Nemesis? Almost too many choices, and by no means all militant or expansionist.
Rome. A Late Emperor would be a nice change, but what about the Republic? Lucius Junius Brutus, the legendary founder, Tiberius or Gaius Gracchus the reformers, Gaius Marius, elected consul more than any other man in Rome's history, Marcus Tullius Cicero the legalist - lots of variety of choices and potential Uniques.

For Greece, Epaminndas of Thebes is a better choice for non Athenian and non Spartan leader. The other choice for Non Athenian and non Spartan leader is Periander of Corinth or Philopoemen of Achaean League. I think Jason of Thessaly is interesting choice. For Agamemnon, he is also interesting leader but he is more mythological leader

For Germany, I agree with your idea that Germany should have leaders outside of Prussia like from Bavaria, Saxony or even Holy Roman Emperors that is not Frederick Babarossa. I don’t think Weimar leaders are not good choice because Weimar leaders were unpopular and also controversial . For modern leader, I suggest Konrad Adenauer is a better candidate for modern German leader.

For Russia, I absolutely agree With you, Russia had Peter I or Catherine II in civ 4, 5(only Catherine II) and 6 (only Peter I). In CIV 7, it should have other Russian leaders like from Novgorod or Muscovy.

For Rome, Late Emperor do you mean before West or east division or after the division? In my opinion, Marcus Aurelius is a best choice for Roman leader to be represented in civ 7 instead of Julius Caesar, Augustus and Trajan. For Republican leader that is not Julius Caesar, I think Scipio Africanus is the best choice.

I think in some ways having Indira Gandhi as a alternate leader would work well and I would like to see that. I really agree with your suggestions for Rome, Germany and China.

Indira Gandhi would be an interesting choice for modern Indian leader but I am not fan of many modern leaders to be represented in the game as many modern leaders tend to be more controversial. Sikhs wouldnt be happy If Indira Gandhi is represented as Indian leader in Civ 7.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

For Greece, Epaminndas of Thebes is a better choice for non Athenian and non Spartan leader. The other choice for Non Athenian and non Spartan leader is Periander of Corinth or Philopoemen of Achaean League. I think Jason of Thessaly is interesting choice. For Agamemnon, he is also interesting leader but he is more mythological leader

Epaminandas was probably more influential (just for his influence on Phillip of Macedon if nothing else) but he was almost completely a Military leader, and I was trying to provide more variety. And Agamemnon is 'mythological' but with a strong and concrete archeological basis in the extensive citadel at Mycenae (which I just finished reading an extensive site report on, which is what brought him up) - which, IMHO, makes him no more Mythological than Kupe or Gilgamesh.

For Germany, I agree with your idea that Germany should have leaders outside of Prussia like from Bavaria, Saxony or even Holy Roman Emperors that is not Frederick Babarossa. I don’t think Weimar leaders are not good choice because Weimar leaders were unpopular and also controversial . For modern leader, I suggest Konrad Adenauer is a better candidate for modern German leader.

Konrad is also controversial, in that his Nazi-Era activities came to light after he was out of office and somewhat color his historical reputation. Also, and I admit this is purely a personal opinion, I don't think any leader from the last 50 years or so is a good idea: too much personal experience still exists of the leader and their effects for them not to be somewhat 'controversial', and that leaves, in Germany's case, the Weimar Republic as about the last useful source for Modern leaders.

For Rome, Late Emperor do you mean before West or east division or after the division? In my opinion, Marcus Aurelius is a best choice for Roman leader to be represented in civ 7 instead of Julius Caesar, Augustus and Trajan. For Republican leader that is not Julius Caesar, I think Scipio Africanus is the best choice.

I mean the late Empire, including the post Julians like Marcus Aurelius, Hadrian, Diocletian. Constantine the Great would also be an interesting choice, potentially as a 'dual Leader' for either Rome or a 'Proto-Byzantium'. Rulers after the east-west 'split' though, are not a good idea in my opinion, because at the moment there is no good way to incorporate such a splitting of Civs in the game, yet such events in both Roman and Chinese history are among the most interesting periods in their respective Civs.

As with Epaminandas, Scipio is an almost completely military choice, and I was looking to show more variety that is available. The majority of potential Roman political leaders were also military leaders, so there is a superabundance of possibilities there, while Leaders with potential 'Uniques' in other areas are harder to come by legitimately. That's not to say Scipio or Epaminandas are bad choices, but any Spartan leader, or Jason, or Polykratos (for naval) are also available as Greek military choices, and Marius is arguably a better Roman Republican military choice, since he virtually remade the Roman Legionary armies into the form they kept for the rest of their existance.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

Ottomans: This is one where you have a plethora of actually good and not just mediocre Leaders to pick from. Maybe it's because of all the sibling killings... Anyway, I would say Bayezid the Thunderbolt or Selim I, Suleiman the Magnificent's father, would make good choices, there's also the more obvious choice of Mehmed the Conqueror.

Also, I'm back. What's happened?

 

[jsciv69]

Of Civs already in VI, if they return in VII which ones would you like to see have a new leader or alternate leader added? And of them, which leader?

America-Dwight Eisenhower
Russia-Nikita Khrushchev
Egypt-Abdel Gamal Nasser
England-David Lloyd George
Colombia-Rafael Núñez
China-Youchao
France-Raymond Poincaré
India-Jawaharlal Nehru

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

South Africa-Nelson Mandela

I didn't realize we had South Africa in the game, unless you count the Zulu?

Also Colombia is debatable too considering well we have Gran Colombia, which to me isn't quite the same.

 

[Zaarin]

I didn't realize we had South Africa in the game, unless you count the Zulu?

Also Colombia is debatable too considering well we have Gran Colombia, which to me isn't quite the same.

Gran Colombia could count as both Colombia and Venezuela if you squint. I doubt we'll see it return, though, and we definitely won't see its successor states. We definitely don't have South Africa or the Islamic Republic of Egypt, though, last I checked...Counting the Zulu as South Africa carries pretty much the same unfortunate implications as counting the Iroquois as the United States...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Gran Colombia could count as both Colombia and Venezuela if you squint.

Somewhere Panama and Ecuador are crying because you left them out.
At least Argentina isn't crying.

We definitely don't have South Africa or the Islamic Republic of Egypt, though, last I checked...Counting the Zulu as South Africa carries pretty much the same unfortunate implications as counting the Iroquois as the United States...

Yeah they definitely are different considering Johannesburg is a city-state in the game as well. So is Ancient Egypt and Islamic Republic of Egypt even though I didn't specifically mentioned that because just Egypt is stated.

 

[Zaarin]

Somewhere Panama and Ecuador are crying because you left them out.

All right, I'll rephrase: "A big lump of non-Brazilian northern South America could count if you squint." (Uh, and Central America. Sorry, Panama. )

At least Argentina isn't crying.

Aw, don't cry for me, Argentina.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

America-Dwight Eisenhower
Russia-Nikita Khrushchev
Egypt-Abdel Gamal Nasser
England-David Lloyd George
Colombia-Rafael Núñez
China-Youchao
France-Raymond Poincaré
India-Jawaharlal Nehru

Most of this list is too... modern for my taste. Also, Youchao is a mythical person, China can do better than that.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

I was considering some American leader choices when my mind wandered from good, realistic leader choices to the bad and controversial ones.

And one thing led to the next until, creating this kind of downward spiral of intentionally bad ideas until, well...

"Andrew Jackson leads the Americans in Civilization VII!"

Leader Ability- Indian Removal Act
+10 Combat strength versus Barbarians.

On a more pertinent note, I know that previous civ games featured FDR as one of America's leaders, and I was curious to hear if you all thought he'd be a good choice for VII or a bad one.

 

[Zaarin]

Also, Youchao is a mythical person, China can do better than that.

Over 2,000 years of emperors to choose from; chooses a mythical sovereign.

"Andrew Jackson leads the Americans in Civilization VII!"

Leader Ability- Indian Removal Act
+10 Combat strength versus Barbarians.

Oof.

On a more pertinent note, I know that previous civ games featured FDR as one of America's leaders, and I was curious to hear if you all thought he'd be a good choice for VII or a bad one.

I don't think you could choose a more controversial president pre-1950 without choosing someone universally despised like Harding, Johnson, or Jackson. Nearly a century later, and FDR still generates strong feelings. Civ4 made a number of highly controversial choices--Mao, Stalin, Churchill, FDR--that are highly unlikely to be repeated. It's true that FDR is the least controversial person on that list--but when you're on a list with two mass murdering dictators and a raging imperialist, that's not saying much...I feel like they already chose the less controversial Roosevelt in Civ6 (though, to be fair, he has his share of controversies--statements like "splendid little war" and "I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth" have a way of not aging well; despite that, he's probably one of the few American presidents who is admired for at least some of his policies by people all across the political spectrum).

 

[jsciv69]

Most of this list is too... modern for my taste. Also, Youchao is a mythical person, China can do better than that.[/Q
I chose Ike as he represents a time of great prosperity for America. The 1950's saw the US rise from World Power to the Super Power it is today. The TV studio could be a unique building. Special units can include the B-52 Bomber, The Super Carrier.
of course it was also a time of great international tension. That's why I included Khrushchev for Russia. The same era saw Russia rise as a Superpower itself. And a great opportunity to use the T-34 Tank, The Soviet Tanks were some of the most impressive made at the time.
The Cold War Era began in 1945. it became center-stage during the 50's. I think having having Ike and Khrushchev woud bring some real intense late game drama.

 

[Krajzen]

You know what would be really insane though?

If Zulu come back (which they shouldn't, groan)
But with Cetshwayo as a leader.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

You know what would be really insane though?

If Zulu come back (which they shouldn't, groan)
But with Cetshwayo as a leader.

I wouldn't mind, since Cetshwayo was a capable Leader in his own right. It also gives the Zulu a Leader that isn't Shaka, which is a breath of fresh air.

 

[jsciv69]

Over 2,000 years of emperors to choose from; chooses a mythical sovereign.


Oof.


I don't think you could choose a more controversial president pre-1950 without choosing someone universally despised like Harding, Johnson, or Jackson. Nearly a century later, and FDR still generates strong feelings. Civ4 made a number of highly controversial choices--Mao, Stalin, Churchill, FDR--that are highly unlikely to be repeated. It's true that FDR is the least controversial person on that list--but when you're on a list with two mass murdering dictators and a raging imperialist, that's not saying much...I feel like they already chose the less controversial Roosevelt in Civ6 (though, to be fair, he has his share of controversies--statements like "splendid little war" and "I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth" have a way of not aging well; despite that, he's probably one of the few American presidents who is admired for at least some of his policies by people all across the political spectrum).

There are not too many leaders that don't come with some baggage. FDR has his. The Civilization series has had a few of these. Queen Isabella, Napoleon, Queen Victoria, etc. Even the one I chose for America for the next installment. Eisenhower has plenty of skeletons. Including starting US direct involvement in Vietnam. The coup in Iran. Sending U2 spy planes to Russia. For which my chosen Russia Leader, Khrushchev said "if you do it again, we'll kick you so hard you'll forget you name". The Cold War era is something that should be explored for Civilization. A time when the whole World held it's breath.

 

[Zaarin]

There are not too many leaders that don't come with some baggage.

Controversy decreases over time. No one alive had their city sacked by Genghis Khan; there are people still alive who were put in internment camps by FDR. FDR is also the foundation of modern partisan politics (I emphasize modern because American politics have always been partisan--but the nature of modern partisanship has its roots in FDR's policies), which makes him inherently divisive even today. I'm not advocating avoiding controversy; I'm simply pointing out that FDR is probably the most controversial president prior to 1950 in terms of popular image. Because modern partisanship is rooted in FDR, choosing FDR carries the same kind of political controversy you'd find in choosing Ronald Reagan or Barack Obama, albeit without the recentness. By contrast, Eisenhower has a popular public image among people of both parties, whatever criticisms historians may have of his failure to support civil rights, his failure to restrain McCarthy even though he hated McCarthyism, and so forth.

America has enough interesting leaders that aren't hated by half the population that there's no need to stoop to FDR IMO. While I dislike post-Enlightenment history in general and 20th century history in particular, I don't think Eisenhower is a terrible choice, though I wouldn't choose him. Personally, after Civ6 gave us a Gilded Age president, though (which I loved, by the way; the 1900s is the exception to what I just said), I'm hoping Civ7 gives us an Antebellum president (with John Adams being my personal choice).

 

[Sirsquier]

For Me I care more about the euro-american leaders (bc medieval+ European history and American history are my strong areas)

So for me:

Churchill is a must (even not as a the first english leaders)- Churchill is one of the three "greats" of england, the other's being Alfred and Victoria.

Coolidge would be nice for America.- other choices I'd like are, Adams, Jackson, Lincoln/Washington/Teddy, and (surprise here) Jefferson.

Otto the Great or Heinrich IV two german pics- What do I have to say here

Gustavus Adolphus or Carolus Rex for Sweden- Both men were massively influence in European history

 

[Zaarin]

Churchill is a must (even not as a the first english leaders)- Churchill is one of the three "greats" of england, the other's being Alfred and Victoria.

Given how violently he's disliked in Great Britain these days, I doubt we'll see him included again any time soon; same for Jackson.

 

[Sirsquier]

Given how violently he's disliked in Great Britain these days, I doubt we'll see him included again any time soon; same for Jackson.

Wait why is he disliked?

 

[Zaarin]

Wait why is he disliked?

He espoused expanding the Empire a couple decades after everyone else realized the Empire was a bad idea (though given his opponents' reasons were as much financial and pragmatic as moral, they only get half credit...), and he opposed the formation of the Commonwealth. He also held racial views that were sketchy even by 1940s standards. Also, while I personally don't think it's terribly relevant, he wasn't the nicest person and had a drinking problem. I see him as a great deal like Lincoln: he provided strong leadership when his country needed it, but he was personally ambitious, ruthless, and unprincipled. At any rate, virtually anyone I've known from Great Britain loathes Churchill, and a lot of Britons would be very upset if he were chosen. (While I have no interest in seeing Churchill chosen given my dislike of modern rulers and civs, I personally don't think that a leader's popularity in their home country should be a factor in selecting the leader...but I don't work for marketing.)