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

[Sirsquier]

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.)

I agree with you on the point of selecting leaders based off popularity. It's not exactly the best way to do it. I also prefer most of the older civs/leaders. With exceptions for the U.S., Gran Columbia, and Churchill (if he were to be in a game). Personally, I just feel most of the modern civs/leaders don't live up to the older counterparts.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree with you on the point of selecting leaders based off popularity. It's not exactly the best way to do it. I also prefer most of the older civs/leaders. With exceptions for the U.S., Gran Columbia, and Churchill (if he were to be in a game). Personally, I just feel most of the modern civs/leaders don't live up to the older counterparts.

As what was said I don't personally hate the idea of Churchill, but I don't expect him to appear for the reasons already stated.
Still to me he would rank behind Elizabeth, Victoria, Alfred the Great and Henry V in terms of leaders I would want. Churchill at least appeared in Civ 4 and Alfred and Henry V haven't even appeared. England has a lot of good options and to me Victoria is the most modern I'd want to go.

 

[Zaarin]

I agree with you on the point of selecting leaders based off popularity. It's not exactly the best way to do it. I also prefer most of the older civs/leaders. With exceptions for the U.S., Gran Columbia, and Churchill (if he were to be in a game). Personally, I just feel most of the modern civs/leaders don't live up to the older counterparts.

Assuming we get multiple leaders, I think Elizabeth I should always be England's first leader. If we got a second leader for England, though, I can think of a litany of Medieval kings who should take precedence, starting with Henry V.

 

[Phrozen]

Assuming we get multiple leaders, I think Elizabeth I should always be England's first leader. If we got a second leader for England, though, I can think of a litany of Medieval kings who should take precedence, starting with Henry V.

Even though he spoke French, understood English though, a lot of English government and governance starts with Henry II. Basically saying that in England his court is the supreme one and any English citizen has the right to petition his court basically laid the groundwork for the neutral and independent court system which is a hallmark of Anglosphere governmental cultural and culture to an extent.

 

[Zaarin]

Even though he spoke French, understood English though, a lot of English government and governance starts with Henry II. Basically saying that in England his court is the supreme one and any English citizen has the right to petition his court basically laid the groundwork for the neutral and independent court system which is a hallmark of Anglosphere governmental cultural and culture to an extent.

Henry II would be another interesting one, yeah.

 

[Sirsquier]

I'd love Alfred The Great TBH

 

[Zaarin]

Yes, but not for England. The Anglo-Saxons are just too far removed culturally for me to buy it. And yet when designing an Anglo-Saxon civ, his daughter Æþelflæd is awfully tempting.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes, but not for England. The Anglo-Saxons are just too far removed culturally for me to buy it.

Well if he comes in a DLC you don't have to.

 

[Zaarin]

Well if he comes in a DLC you don't have to.

I mean, I wouldn't be too upset about Alfred leading England, but I have a hard time imagining a coherent Alfred-led England that wouldn't end up being an Anglo-Saxon civ called England. I wouldn't be a fan of Alfred the Great leading England with a Textile Factory UI and a Sea Dog UU...

Though I do hope they're more thoughtful about what DLC they include with the special edition next time around. I was rather annoyed by the Viking pack and Australia.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Though I do hope they're more thoughtful about what DLC they include with the special edition next time around. I was rather annoyed by the Viking pack and Australia.

I do find it strange that they did make a whole Viking themed DLC while Harald and Norway were already introduced in the base game. Part of me feels like that's where they initially were going to be but they obviously felt that would be too many Eurocentric DLC packs.
That being said we could have got Alfred the Great leading the Anglo-Saxons in that one.

 

[Zaarin]

I do find it strange that they did make a whole Viking themed DLC while Harald and Norway were already introduced in the base game. Part of me feels like that's where they initially were going to be but they obviously felt that would be too many Eurocentric DLC packs.

I suspect we'd have seen more low-content DLC like the Viking pack with just scenarios, city-states, or whatever had they not received such a strong backlash on it.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Of the civs already in VI, there's quite a few that I'd love to see have new leaders! It was hard to choose just one for many of them so I included the ones I'd like to see the most. I was tempted to include the reasons why I'd like the mentioned leaders, but that would make this message incredibly long and people can certainly look up any of these leaders anyway so I'll exclude them unless someone wants to know my justifications.

I wouldn't mind at to see Cetshwayo leading the Zulu, Mandukhai leading Mongolia, or John Adams leading America, but I'd still slighty prefer having Shaka, Genghis, and Theodore Roosevelt be returning with the likes of Elizabeth.

I think it's also worth saying that I'd only want Montezuma and Cyrus to return if they made Montezuma look like an actual Aztec ruler and made Cyrus the charismatic and fair ruler he was instead of a villain. Same thing with Gustavus Adolphus actually looking like his portrait. Otherwise, I want new faces for their civs.

Rome - Constantine I, Aurelian
Persia - Shapur I, Shapur II, Khosrow I
China - Han Wudi, Yongle Emperor
Ethiopia - Ezana, Iyasu, Amda Seyon I
Germany - Otto I, Wilhelm I
Arabia - Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, Hussein bin Ali
India - Chandragupta I, Samudragupta, Chandragupta II
Egypt - Senusret III
Aztec - Itzcoatl
Inca - Tupac Inca Yupanqui
France - Henry IV, Philip II, Francis I
Kongo - Garcia II
Sweden - Karl XII
Russia - Ivan III, Alexander Nevsky, Ivan IV
Sumeria - Sargon of Akkad, Gudea, Kubaba
Norway - Harald Fairhair

 

[Zaarin]

Hussein bin Ali

Assuming we're talking about the caliph and not the Hashemite sharif of Mecca, isn't he close enough to the Prophet for his portrayal to be considered haram?

Mandukhai leading Mongolia

I'm still championing Sorghaghtani Beki myself.

 

[sailormouth1]

I feel like England needs to be clarified -most of the English civ's through Civ's history have really been quite British. In Civ 6, for example, the English are almost entirely British aside from the seadog.

This is not my pitch for a British isles scenario/expansion that would include new Irish, Scottish, Welsh and English civs and leaders fighting to control the Atlantic Archipelago, because that wouldn't be amazing at all.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I feel like England needs to be clarified -most of the English civ's through Civ's history have really been quite British. In Civ 6, for example, the English are almost entirely British aside from the seadog.

This is not my pitch for a British isles scenario/expansion that would include new Irish, Scottish, Welsh and English civs and leaders fighting to control the Atlantic Archipelago, because that wouldn't be amazing at all.

I don't mind England having some British in their design for instance if Victoria is their leader as part of her ability.

That being said I would at least like a return to Civ 5 version of England at least with Elizabeth leading. Though since this thread is about new leaders I also wouldn't mind Henry V or Alfred the Great.

 

[Zaarin]

I feel like England needs to be clarified -most of the English civ's through Civ's history have really been quite British. In Civ 6, for example, the English are almost entirely British aside from the seadog.

This is not my pitch for a British isles scenario/expansion that would include new Irish, Scottish, Welsh and English civs and leaders fighting to control the Atlantic Archipelago, because that wouldn't be amazing at all.

While I think having England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales all as separate civs would be absurdly Euro- and especially Anglo-centric, I'm all for a less British England. (I'd also like to see Medieval Ireland, which technically covers Scotland and Mann, too; one could also say England covers Wales after the 13th century--as long as you don't say it within earshot of the Welsh...)

 

[Sirsquier]

While I think having England, Scotland, Ireland, and Wales all as separate civs would be absurdly Euro- and especially Anglo-centric, I'm all for a less British England. (I'd also like to see Medieval Ireland, which technically covers Scotland and Mann, too; one could also say England covers Wales after the 13th century--as long as you don't say it within earshot of the Welsh...)

Honestly it wouldn't Euro if we just completely overalled all of the world. A game with over 120 civs with all the expansions would not be the worst idea..... (IDK maybe I'm greedy)

 

[Zaarin]

A game with over 120 civs with all the expansions would not be the worst idea...

The Civ6 devs ran out of ideas after 42 civs then added 8 more with insipid results. I'd rather have 40 interesting civs than 120 generic civs personally.

 

[Sirsquier]

The Civ6 devs ran out of ideas after 42 civs then added 8 more with insipid results. I'd rather have 40 interesting civs than 120 generic civs personally.

I'd say, given time, and some community help, the devs could whip up atleast 80 good to medicore civs.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Assuming we're talking about the caliph and not the Hashemite sharif of Mecca, isn't he close enough to the Prophet for his portrayal to be considered haram?

I actually was talking about the Hashemite Sharif of Mecca but I can certainly understand the confusion! I know he is a much more recent leader and I don't think I'd pick him over Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan even if it's a close one for me, but I do think he is a strong option that we haven't seen before due to some fun gameplay opportunities that he could have around rebellions, religion, and potentially ethnicity if that ever becomes a thing in these games.

As for Husayn ibn Ali, he is an interesting figure but I hadn't considered him before now. I've heard that it is considered haram to depict Muhammad, the other prophets, his immediate family, his Companions, and possibly the four Rashidun Caliphs but I'm wondering what has changed since Civ 3 when Abu Bakr was the leader of Arabia? I know other things have changed with society's standards, such as having Mao and Stalin as leaders, but I wouldn't have thought that what was considered haram would have changed much in that time though I admit I haven't looked into it much.

I'm still championing Sorghaghtani Beki myself.

Definitely another great choice and one I wouldn't be opposed to at all, she and Mandukhai are probably the ones I'd want to see most after Genghis!

Honestly it wouldn't Euro if we just completely overalled all of the world. A game with over 120 civs with all the expansions would not be the worst idea..... (IDK maybe I'm greedy)

Pretty much my thoughts too since I'm quite greedy myself! I also don't think many people would complain at all about there being English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh civs all in the same game if that game also had a great number of civs from everywhere else like the native Americas, Africa, etc. I don't think we'll be getting over 120 official civs any time soon but I do hope that each game includes more and more civs so that we'll be starting to get into the 60-80 range like you suggested in your other post.


While I'm here, I can't believe I forgot the Ottomans and Maori last time!

Ottoman - Selim I, Bayezid II
Maori - Hongi Hika