Yeah, that would definitely be a PR nightmare. If we're currently debating "imperialist" Russia getting in, I don't know how that would even fly. I'd personally would want Catherine back.
What Civs and Leaders do you all predict will be in VII's base game?
- Thread starter Caesar of Bread
- Start date
- Status
I think Stalin is out to never come bqck since Firaxis devs realized (with lag typical for pophistory lagging long behind historiography) that there are like 20 nationalities worldwide who don't regard Stalin as mere "morally ambiguous political tyrant deserving good melodrama" as he was often depicted in West but "seriously we were murdered under his rule in millions and we consider him barely any better than Hitler, our grandmas still carry trauma because of him" - in Eastern Europe he is not some abstract historical figure but visceral and personal nightmare.
At some point, yeah, maybe leaders like Stalin or Mao might return to civ. But like, there's even debate whenever Genghis Khan is announced as a leader. So I really don't see those leaders making a return until a LONG time from now.
GeneralZIft
Professional
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2019
- Messages
- 906
It would be far in the future if so. I was always suggesting to add back Stalin, but people's descriptions of personal pain with that figure has made me rescind my view on that.
Modern-ish + Warmonger is a combination that is missing in Civ games, but obviously it's going to be controversial no matter how you do it...
Hellenism Salesman
Emperor
Which Darius? Just curious
moondog385
Prince
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2024
- Messages
- 355
Personally, I wish they’d go for someone other than Genghis for once (but not Kublai either).
I don’t think those leaders will ever return, nor should they. There are so, so many more options for Russia and China than recent controversial figures, to put it lightly.
seasnake
Conquistador
Darius IWhich Darius? Just curious
FishFishFish
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2021
- Messages
- 295
Is Bismarck modern enough?
Aurelesk
King
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2017
- Messages
- 623
The number of vanilla civilizations varied from 14 (Civilization I) to 21 (Civilization II) at launch. It is not probable we are getting 35 civilizations in one-go (destroying their business model), so having 35 leaders can only be achievable by having 2 leaders per civilizations, with at least 18 civilizations. This can lead to some problem: some civilizations may not have good record of their leaders, making picking one a problem. We don't want Scheherazade be a leader again.
But if Personas are considered as leaders... Then I can see 100+ leaders! All depends if they are coming back.
I don't see any new leaders' abilities linked to them, though. More a cosmetic option to unlock (and to purchase I guess...). For example, 3 of them could be rewards from achievement (win a game as X, win a deity game as X, do task Y). 1 epic one could be locked behind a GotM challenge, then later purchasable (because FOMO is profitable...).
I am not even sure we are getting 18 civilizations. By logic, we should have more. But we could have less if they plan more flavorful and intricate civilizations, with more mechanics and gameplay experience. The really good impression the players had from the Gallic or the Mayan civilization may lead the designers that way. Civilization VI already put an emphasis to not follow a standard opening, as you need to adapt to your location and your civilization abilities.
Civilization VI even started with less vanilla Civilization than Civilization V. So we may start with less than 18. But really, I bet more on 20, with the 21st being a pre-order bonus. Here a quick history recap:
Civilization I: 14 or 15 civilizations
Included: American, Aztecs, Babylonians, Chinese, Egyptians, English, French, German, Greek, Indian, Mongol, Roman, Russians and either Zulu or Japanese.
Civilization II: 21 civilizations (+6)
Included: Carthaginians, Celts, Persians, Sioux, Spanish and Vikings.
Civilization III: 16 civilizations (-5)
Included: Iroquois (+1)
Removed: Carthaginians, Celts, Mongol, Sioux, Spanish and Vikings (-6)
Civilization IV: 18 civilizations (+2)
Included: Arabian, Inca, Malian, Mongols and Spanish (+5)
Removed: Babylonians, Iroquois and -Zulu (-3)
Civilization V: 18 or 20 civilizations (+2)
Included: ~Babylonians (pre-order), Iroquois, Ottoman, Siamese and Songhai (+5). Mongols being a free DLC one month after.
Removed: Inca, Malian and Spanish (-3)
Civilization VI: 18 to 19 (-1)
Included: Brazilian, Kongolese, Norwegian, Scythian, Spanish and Sumeria (+6). Aztecs being a pre-order later free to all 90 days after.
Removed: Babylonians, Iroquois, Mongols, Ottoman, Persians, Siamese and Songhai (-7).
Last edited:
Navelgazer
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,080
Agreed that I don't think that Stalin is ever coming back to Civ, and probably not Mao either. This brings to mind (in a roundabout way) how much I love the recent inclusion of Ludwig as a German leader without a Military focus. While I'm glad that the series has thankfully never included Hitler as a leader option, the default design for Germany has been militaristic, which I feel like is still leaning into a player-base who wants to play as if he is. And I get it: Germany started two world wars! But also lost both of them! Modern Germany has found far more success through diplomacy and statecraft than through war, and what's funny to me is that Bismarck (Leader in Civs 3, 4 and 5) was gifted at both war and diplomacy, but particularly good at diplomacy. I've heard it conclusively argued that WWI really came about because nobody but Bismarck understood the web of alliances he had created and been maintaining, and that Wilhelm screwed it up beyond repair after wresting power away from him. And in 60 years or so, once we're on Civilization 11, it wouldn't surprise me to see Angela Merkel as a German leader option for leading the E.U. (certainly in controversial ways, but time softens opinions on fiscal policy more than those about conquest and genocide.)
All this to say that, were they to go back to Bismarck as their German Leader option, I hope that his LUA would reflect diplomatic skill at least as much as military might. Ludwig offering the option for a Cultural Power Germany was such a fresh and fun way to look at the civ. I just hope that they continue thinking outside of the old box like that.
And to be clear, Germany is just the civilization that came to my mind here. There are a lot of mainstays that could use this kind of treatment. For instance, India deserves much more than the Nuclear Gandhi meme, and Inca are about more than just mountains (though mountains should probably continue to be as aspect of Inca.) Civ 6 did a lot to move past this, in part with separating CUAs and LUAs (which I love and hope continues in Civ 7), in part with those multipart, wall-of-text abilities (which I enjoyed but I know a lot of folks - devs included - disliked), and in part because of the multiple leaders and personae that a number of civs received.
All this to say that, were they to go back to Bismarck as their German Leader option, I hope that his LUA would reflect diplomatic skill at least as much as military might. Ludwig offering the option for a Cultural Power Germany was such a fresh and fun way to look at the civ. I just hope that they continue thinking outside of the old box like that.
And to be clear, Germany is just the civilization that came to my mind here. There are a lot of mainstays that could use this kind of treatment. For instance, India deserves much more than the Nuclear Gandhi meme, and Inca are about more than just mountains (though mountains should probably continue to be as aspect of Inca.) Civ 6 did a lot to move past this, in part with separating CUAs and LUAs (which I love and hope continues in Civ 7), in part with those multipart, wall-of-text abilities (which I enjoyed but I know a lot of folks - devs included - disliked), and in part because of the multiple leaders and personae that a number of civs received.
Bismarck is the most modern I'd want Germany to get.
I'm hoping for Frederick the Great to get a culture and science Germany. Though I wouldn't mind if they leaned in towards the industrial side of Germany as well, which would help out with science victories and building wonders.
Leyrann
Deity
Germany's militarism isn't just about the World Wars though. Prussia was a militaristic state even back in the 18th century already. Pretty much ever since they became dominant in central Europe, all the way until 1945, Prussia/Germany has been one of the most militaristic states in Europe. Perhaps the number one.
Not saying Germany has to be militaristic, just to be clear. Just explaining why it makes sense even if you look beyond the World Wars.
FishFishFish
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2021
- Messages
- 295
Well, I actually wouldn't mind Gustav Stresemann as leader.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Emphasis on the army since the Great Elector and the 1680s, to be exact, but that is not the only characteristic of Prussia or Germany that can be modeled in the game.
The less-obvious but interesting Prussian Unique, in fact, was how they managed to maintain a much larger army than their population and resources would normally allow by a combination of recruiting 1/3 or more of their troops from foreign states (mostly in Germany) and billeting the troops in the towns and villages and only drilling them for half a day so they had the other half to work at civilian jobs - making a large workforce available in every garrison town that greatly increased the economic productivity of Prussia. Prussian Units that increase the Production of every city they garrison would be a very different 'military' Unique.
And more importantly, Prussia, although it ended up being the 'basis' for the 19th - 20th century German Empire, does not have to fill that function in the game. There's been a lot of debate vis-a-vis Austria versus Prussia as the basis for the German Civ, but Bavaria and Saxony are also viable contenders:
Saxony was a very prosperous state as a result of early exploitation of the Porcelain technology and a cultural powerhouse in the late 17th - early 18th centuries. Augustus II ("the Strong") would be a classic Big Personality as a Leader, who was Elector of Saxony and King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania (if they want to bring back Multiple Leaders, here's a real one!) he started the famous Meissen porcelain factory, rebuilt Dresden as an architectural Showpiece, and his eldest (illegitimate) son, Maurice, became one of France's best Marshals and commanders. Since he also provided a grand-daughter who was mother to three French kings, he could have some serious dynastic/diplomatic Unique as well.
A Saxon-based Germany could be a cultural, diplomatic and/or financial power for something different.
Bavaria has already been sort of shown off in Ludwig, but going back a bit, Maximilian II Emanuel, "The Blue King" would be a potential militant Leader every bit as Prussian as any Prussian. He is considered to have founded the standing Bavarian Army (and put them in blue uniforms, hence is nickname), then led troops from 1683 to 1711 against the Turks, French, English, Dutch and Austrians. He also was a palace builder every bit as ambitious as Ludwig, except that his were all finished before he died.
A Bavarian-based Germany could show off military uniques (again) but also diplomatic and dynastic (at one time the Bavarian Wittelsbach family controlled no less than 4 Electoral votes for Holy Roman Emperor) and cultural, not to mention having a Unique Project: the Oktoberfest to enhance Tourism and Happiness!
Connor_CivFan
Warlord
I think Willy Brandt would be the most modern I think Germany should go, for now.
Some Post WW2 leaders would be interesting
Lord Lakely
Idea Fountain
I'm down for Konrad Adenauer
Remember the fake leak before Gathering Storm that claimed that Noongar would be added? I would love the Inuit, Native Australians, or something like that as a wild card. I also agree that post WW2 leaders would be interesting - the German chancellors you've mentioned sound awesome.
The most mysterious matter perhaps is who is going to represent Eastern Europe. I'm of course biased in this debate as I'm Polish, but Poland, particularly led by a leader from the Jagiellonian dynasty to give as much credit to Lithuania as possible does seem like a pretty fair solution - Lithuania is undeniably important in history of Belarussian and Ukrainian lands. Civ VII will be available in Polish at launch, making it the smallest language speaker group represented, but it's an important enough market too as it seems. The other candidates, for an Eastern European civ are: Russia, which poses obvious problems; Kievan Rus, which could be cool with maybe st. Olga, a tryzub for an emblem and yellow-blue color scheme, but the state is used in some Russian propaganda rhetoric as Krajzen has mentioned; Rus, like in AoE IV, but it may send a message that Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are one people at heart, and the latter two will HATE that. My wildcard proposition is a South Slavic state, maybe not Bulgaria, which is solid, but I don't think fit for base game, but maybe Yugoslavia, as it was an incredibly interesting...... ah, wait, it was an incredibly interesting mess and it will cause controversies of its own. It could be good for representing communist countries if ideologies are back though...?
I'm genuinely interested what will they do. The safest choice i guess would be Poland with Władysław Jagiełło, to represent the union that made up the PLC, or Sigismund II Augustus, just because he was cool like that. But then again, there was this tweet by Ed Beach...
The most mysterious matter perhaps is who is going to represent Eastern Europe. I'm of course biased in this debate as I'm Polish, but Poland, particularly led by a leader from the Jagiellonian dynasty to give as much credit to Lithuania as possible does seem like a pretty fair solution - Lithuania is undeniably important in history of Belarussian and Ukrainian lands. Civ VII will be available in Polish at launch, making it the smallest language speaker group represented, but it's an important enough market too as it seems. The other candidates, for an Eastern European civ are: Russia, which poses obvious problems; Kievan Rus, which could be cool with maybe st. Olga, a tryzub for an emblem and yellow-blue color scheme, but the state is used in some Russian propaganda rhetoric as Krajzen has mentioned; Rus, like in AoE IV, but it may send a message that Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are one people at heart, and the latter two will HATE that. My wildcard proposition is a South Slavic state, maybe not Bulgaria, which is solid, but I don't think fit for base game, but maybe Yugoslavia, as it was an incredibly interesting...... ah, wait, it was an incredibly interesting mess and it will cause controversies of its own. It could be good for representing communist countries if ideologies are back though...?
I'm genuinely interested what will they do. The safest choice i guess would be Poland with Władysław Jagiełło, to represent the union that made up the PLC, or Sigismund II Augustus, just because he was cool like that. But then again, there was this tweet by Ed Beach...
Spoiler :
AvianBritish
King
Here's my picks, and I will assume there's 20, whether one will be earmarked as an timed-exclusive pre-order bonus like the Aztecs were, or not. I'm not that good with leaders so I will just say the Civs I think:
- America
- Arabia
- Assyria - We didn't have them in Civ6 and could serve as our Mesopotamium civ.
- China
- Egypt
- England
- France
- Germany
- Gran Colombia - represents much of modern South America. I can see Simon take the place in the base game in place of Pedro this time around.
- Greece - I did like that they did split of Macedon in Civ6 to allow Alex to be more bispoke, but I am somewhat doubtful we'll see that again. I imagine Alex will return this time as a militery focused alternative leader for Greece.
- Iceland - I saw Eagle post this for our Viking representation, and the more I think about it the more I'm convinced that it will be true. We've had Danish, Norwegian and Swedish* representation for Vikings. This will also be a good oppotunity to add a Civ with bonsues to ice/snow/tundra and volcanos/geothermal.
- India - India can go many ways; faith, food, science and commerce. Although I'm sure some people will complain at me for this but I think if the Indian Civ is done right, we could also have a Chola leader along side Gandhi (who I can't imagine we can shake) for a more mercantile and maritime direction.
- Japan
- Malacca/Malaya/Malaysia - I've heard people talk about Siam, Khmer, Vietnam and Indonesia returning, but I don't think anyone has suggested Malacca/Malaya and could be a very good candidate for maritime trade.
- Maya - Aztecs were in the base game [effectively] last time, so I think the Maya will take thhat spot this time.
- Mongolia - Our horse focus focused Civ
- Nigeria/Benin/Edo - our 'other African' representation.
- Poland - Very popular civ, and I do believe they will be in the game as our most eastern European Civ as Russia won't make the base game (not counting them out as a later inclusion)
- Rome
- Ukraine - I'm am pretty confident we will get a Ukraine Civ leaning into the Kyivan Rus period of history, but will explicitly be called Ukraine. But whether this will be in the base game or early DLC, I do not know.
Last edited:
Connor_CivFan
Warlord
Is there any evidence from the devs to suggest that Russia wont be in the base game?
Trav'ling Canuck
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2018
- Messages
- 3,413
To date, there's no evidence from the devs about anything, other than that Civ 7 will be coming in 2025.
- Status
