What civs would you like to see get new leaders in civ 7?

SirMediocrity

Prince
Joined
Nov 22, 2018
Messages
301
Location
New York
What preexisting civs would you like to see get new leaders in civ 7? When I say new, I'm referring to people who have never featured in the civ games. Here are some of my picks:

Poland - John III Sobieski
Zulu - Cetshwayo
England - Richard the Lionheart (or his brother John)
America - James Madison
Rome - Marcus Aurelius
Greece - Epaminondas
Germany - Otto I the Great or Wilhelm I
Byzantium - Irene of Athens
Persia - Shapur II or Khosrow I (any Sassanid or Parthian ruler will do)
Russia - Ivan the Terrible
Portugal - Alfonso I, Manuel I, or Joao I
France - Philip II Augustus
Austria - Maximilian I
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
There's a thread with this exact topic a few threads below yours. ;)
 

SirMediocrity

Prince
Joined
Nov 22, 2018
Messages
301
Location
New York
Whoops, I thought that was referring to new leaders for Civ 6. I probably should have double-checked that :shifty:
 

jsciv69

Prince
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
305
Location
Earth
America-Dwight Eisenhower. Ike represents the beginnings of America as a super power. The 1950's was a true golden age for the US. Real prosperity. Special units should include the Super Carrier, The Abrams Tank, The B-52 Bomber.
Russia-Nikita Khrushchev. The rise of Russia as a super power It was Khrushchev who told the US, after the U2 incident, "we'll kick you so hard you won't know your own name" The Soviet T-10 (Obyekt 730) Tank, Super Submarine as special units
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
America-Dwight Eisenhower. Ike represents the beginnings of America as a super power.
While I'd much rather have Ike, I'd argue that Wilson was the beginning of America as a superpower, after our European competitors were so courteous as to bomb themselves into oblivion and go deep into debt to Usonia at the same time. Of course, it was helpful when they did it a second time, but by WW2 America was already the premier power in the world. Only the UK and the Soviet Union even came close.
 

jsciv69

Prince
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
305
Location
Earth
While I'd much rather have Ike, I'd argue that Wilson was the beginning of America as a superpower, after our European competitors were so courteous as to bomb themselves into oblivion and go deep into debt to Usonia at the same time. Of course, it was helpful when they did it a second time, but by WW2 America was already the premier power in the world. Only the UK and the Soviet Union even came close.

At the time of WWI, America was indeed a World power. But the 1950's was when that status was elevated to the heights that remain today. The post WWII America prospered to put it lightly. I choose Ike because he represents that Exceptionalist feeling. I also choose Ike because of the one rival I included. That of course would be Russia. I think a game with Eisenhower and Khrushchev would make for some very exciting late game drama. The two Super-powers in the initial phase of MAD(Mutual Assured Destruction). And those Soviet Tanks were some of the most impressive made. And the menacing Mi-24 helicopter should also be a unique Unit. With the AH-64 Apache helicopter for America to counter the Mi-24.
 

jsciv69

Prince
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
305
Location
Earth
Egypt-Gamal Abdel Nasser. As the Cold War raging. two superpowers emerge. In that midst Nasser toppled a Monarchy. And stood against the mighty powers of the era.. A fresh face indeed. active in the modern era.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
Egypt-Gamal Abdel Nasser. As the Cold War raging. two superpowers emerge. In that midst Nasser toppled a Monarchy. And stood against the mighty powers of the era.. A fresh face indeed. active in the modern era.
Do we really need an Islamic Republic of Egypt civ? It feels rather...niche to me. And slapping Abdel Nasser as an alt leader on Ancient Egypt would be like making George Washington an alternate leader for the Powhatan.
 

jsciv69

Prince
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
305
Location
Earth
Do we really need an Islamic Republic of Egypt civ? It feels rather...niche to me. And slapping Abdel Nasser as an alt leader on Ancient Egypt would be like making George Washington an alternate leader for the Powhatan.
Nasser was a very iconic figure. He helped overthrow the puppet Monarchy. And helped kick the British Empire out of Egypt. When in power he called for reforms to modernize Egypt. And since we have the option of choosing religion, Islam does not have to be the automatic choice. Of course the West tried to slander him. Even calling him Communist. The reality is Nasser was a Nationalist. Anti-imperialism was his calling. A controversial figure. But intriguing nonetheless. And a fresh approach to the Classic Ancient leaders. But maybe like in Civ IV each civ could have alternate choices for leaders. For Egypt Nasser would be my choice.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
Nasser was a very iconic figure. He helped overthrow the puppet Monarchy. And helped kick the British Empire out of Egypt. When in power he called for reforms to modernize Egypt. And since we have the option of choosing religion, Islam does not have to be the automatic choice. Of course the West tried to slander him. Even calling him Communist. The reality is Nasser was a Nationalist. Anti-imperialism was his calling. A controversial figure. But intriguing nonetheless. And a fresh approach to the Classic Ancient leaders. But maybe like in Civ IV each civ could have alternate choices for leaders. For Egypt Nasser would be my choice.
My point is that the Islamic Republic of Egypt is not remotely the same civilization as that led by the pharaohs. Putting Nasser and Ramesses as leaders of the same civ is the same level of absurdity as making George Washington and Hiawatha alternate leaders of the same civ; occupying the same geography does not equate to the same civilization. (And yes, I'm aware that Nasser pulled the same nationalist stunts that Saddam Hussein did, trying to claim that he was successor to the pharaohs. Historically, that's a load of tripe.)

I'll be honest that I'm biased in my argument against an Islamic Republic of Egypt civ: I loathe including modern nation-states, most of which aren't really civilizations but sub-civilizations (e.g., what is Australia doing here when it's already part of the English civilization?), and I dislike modern leaders for older civilizations. But the Islamic Republic of Egypt really doesn't bring anything interesting to the table except a charismatic leader, at which point why not go for Attatürk or Shah Reza Pahlavi? (Not that I'd be thrilled with them, either. Between Byzantium and the Ottomans, and in an ideal world the Hittites, Anatolia is well-covered, and for a post-Achaemenid Iran I'd much rather have the Sassanids.)
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,587
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
America-Dwight Eisenhower. Ike represents the beginnings of America as a super power. The 1950's was a true golden age for the US. Real prosperity. Special units should include the Super Carrier, The Abrams Tank, The B-52 Bomber.
Russia-Nikita Khrushchev. The rise of Russia as a super power It was Khrushchev who told the US, after the U2 incident, "we'll kick you so hard you won't know your own name" The Soviet T-10 (Obyekt 730) Tank, Super Submarine as special units

Not going to argue Date of US Super Power Status, except to point out that by most standard measurements, the USA was already the premier industrial power in the world before WWI and the world's economic arbiter by 1918, and that the foundations for 1950s 'Superpower' status were put in place under FDR: a navy and air force larger than all the rest of the world combined, a massive strategic bomber force, nuclear weapons development, and an industrial base of mind-boggling productivity compared to any other combination of powers on earth.

But, specifically, some of the units are not appropriate.

The M1 Abrams tank was not fielded until 1979 - long after Eisenhower's administration, and even the elements of the tank were not under development until the ill-fated MBT program of the mid-1960s - also after Eisenhower. The 'tank' UU under Eisenhower would be the M60 and M60A1, the first Main Battle Tanks fielded by anyone in 1960 - 64, which took over the capabilities and tasks of all of the previous heavy and medium tanks.

The T-10 was the last Soviet heavy tank in production, going into service in 1953 and starting development in 1946 as Obyekt 705A, getting redesigned as Obyekt 730 or IS-5, IS-8, IS-9, and IS-10 before being finalized. As a late heavy tank, it was obsolete within 7 years like its contemporaries, the US M-103 and British Conqueror. A better Khruschevian Soviet tank would be the T-64 or T-64A, first developed as a prototype in 1958 as the Obyekt 430 and entering service in 1966 - slightly after Khruschev's removal as Premier, but the development work was all under his premiership, and the T-64 was the first Main Battle Tank in Soviet service, making all of their previous medium and heavy tanks effectively obsolete.

Another potential Khruschev-era Soviet UU would be the MiG-21 jet fighter, developed between 1954 (the initial Ye-4 design) and 1959, so entirely under Khruschev. It remains the most-produced aircraft in the world since 1953, and has been used by more air forces around the world than any other aircraft. It would tie in nicely with a Soviet Union mass production characteristic, which Civ seems to love to give Civs based on the Soviet Union and/or modern Russia even though the Soviet Union's industrialization in the 1930s was based almost entirely on American aid and production techniques.

But that's another Thread's worth of posts . . .
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,012
Location
Texas
Nasser was a very iconic figure. He helped overthrow the puppet Monarchy. And helped kick the British Empire out of Egypt. When in power he called for reforms to modernize Egypt. And since we have the option of choosing religion, Islam does not have to be the automatic choice. Of course the West tried to slander him. Even calling him Communist. The reality is Nasser was a Nationalist. Anti-imperialism was his calling. A controversial figure. But intriguing nonetheless. And a fresh approach to the Classic Ancient leaders. But maybe like in Civ IV each civ could have alternate choices for leaders. For Egypt Nasser would be my choice.
Though he wouldn't be my first choice why not make Nasser an alt leader of Arabia? He championed pan-Arabism and was seen as a main leader of the movement?

At least in my mind the Arabian civilization has always encompassed the history of the Arab/Islamic world, as opposed to Egypt representing Pharaonic Egypt.

I mean Saladin leads Arabia in Civ 6 from Cairo. :mischief:
 
Last edited:

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,012
Location
Texas
I'm still baffled they didn't make his capital Damascus...
Well he started the dynasty in Egypt so it's not really surprising. At least on TSL it would make the Nile Valley less crowded, though crowding the Middle East isn't much better. :lol:

At least making Cairo his capital is less surprising than making Shaka's capital Ulundi, when it should have been Bulawayo.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
Well he started the dynasty in Egypt so it's not really surprising. At least on TSL it would make the Nile Valley less crowded, though crowding the Middle East isn't much better. :lol:
I know, but since he used both Cairo and Damascus as capitals at various points in his career, at least putting him in Damascus--while uncomfortably close to Gilgamesh, Hammurabi, and Dido (and, to a lesser extent, Cyrus, Tamar, and the Dardanelles crowd)--would have allowed him not to start literally right on top of Cleopatra in TSL. :crazyeye:
 

Sirsquier

Warlord
Joined
Jun 8, 2019
Messages
261
Location
U.S.A. land of the free and home of the brave
I honestly think, that these leaders in this order would be good for america (if not gonna use an already used leader)

1. Calvin Coolidge He lead the nation into/through the roaring 20s and was an economic giant
2. Adams Doesn't get enough love considering how well he ran the new nation
3. Jackson a fun personality
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,012
Location
Texas
Might as well throw out Thomas Jefferson as a contender for America if Andrew Jackson can be one. :)
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
10,410
Location
Babylon 5
1. Calvin Coolidge He lead the nation into/through the roaring 20s and was an economic giant
2. Adams Doesn't get enough love considering how well he ran the new nation
I agree on these. Coolidge would also have a fun personality with his proverbial terseness. I don't really want him in Civ7 after already having a Gilded Age president in Civ6; maybe in Civ8. Adams may be the only president I actual like, and he's my top choice for Civ7.

Might as well throw out Thomas Jefferson as a contender for America if Andrew Jackson can be one. :)
Jefferson's controversial for his personal life but not his presidential actions; I think Jefferson has a much better chance of inclusion than Jackson.
 
Top Bottom