What do you think of the Leaders?

[Bösewicht]

Well done to Firaxis for introducing the animosity of Friedrich den Großen towards Catherine the Great to the game.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Ada Lovelace - C - Iconic scientist in her own right but brought down by two things (1) she never held polticial influence in her own right or led people in person, which makes her underwhelming (same problem that Machiavelli also has) (2) Britain, which is defined by its monarchy, really should have had a King or a Queen as their first leader. I can calmly accept Lovelace's inclusion into the Civilization family, but I'd lie if I said I said she was the best option available.

 

[untitledjuan]

Curiously, the two new DLC leaders are still Western/European or had European ancestors (in Bolívar's case). Considering the disproportionate representation of Western/European leaders in the base game, it's curious to see that the first two DLC leaders are also Western and that they didn't took the opportunity to have more African, Asian or Native American leaders.

 

[Siptah]

Curiously, the two new DLC leaders are still Western/European or had European ancestors (in Bolívar's case). Considering the disproportionate representation of Western/European leaders in the base game, it's curious to see that the first two DLC leaders are also Western and that they didn't took the opportunity to have more African, Asian or Native American leaders.

At least the two Right to Rule leaders are Asian.

 

[Vahnstad]

Updated ratings with recently revealed leaders included (ordered alphabetically):

1. Ashoka (D): He's already been in Civ III & IV, has lower name recognition than Gandhi, and really doesn't need an alternate Persona, considering the plethora of Indian content already in the base game, with three separate civs
2. Augustus (C): He's already been a Leader in Civ IV & V, was a glorified Italian mafioso who helped destroy the Roman Republic, and there's many, many more great options for Roman Leaders, such as Cincinnatus, Brutus, or Scipio
3. Benjamin Franklin (A): Notable, new, and lots of diverse accomplishments to turn into game mechanics, though other Founders such as Jefferson or Madison might have served as well or better
4. Charlemagne (A-): He's only once been a Leader, all the way back in Civ IV. He's connected (in one way or another) to too many civs (France, Franks, Germany, HRE) to have been neglected for so long.
5. Confucius (A+): He's the most iconic individual in Chinese history and new to the series. If only his inclusion somehow could troll the CCP, he'd potentially be S-tier
6. Hatshepsut (B-): She's notable and new to the series, but better choices that meet those criteria exists for Egypt, such as Akhenaten or Nefertiti
7. Himiko (C+): She's new with minor name recognition, about on par with Ashoka. I have no problem with her being semi-legendary (we need more such Gilga-bros), but Japan wasn't short on better choices
8. Ibn Buttuta (C): He's mechanically very interesting, but those mechanics would have been better paired with John Manderville or Marco Polo
9. Isabella (B): She's notable but not new, though that's forgivable as Spain doesn't have a deep roster, and she's extremely iconic
10. Machiavelli (S): He's notable, new, a big personality, a perfectly suited to the fact that Leaders have been de-coupled from civs. A perfect choice; no notes.
11. Pachacuti (C-): He's not new, but the bench for South American Amerindian leaders is thin. I'm not sure we needed an Incan Leader, but if he's the only way to make Age transitions work, so be it.
12. Tecumseh (B): Moderate name-recognition and new to the series, though a more archetypal Amerindian chief might have been preferable; I want to play as a character with the full feather headdress
13. Trung Trac (F): "New game, who dis?"
14. Xerxes (B): He's not new, but hasn't been a Leader since Civ II, though I'd have preferred his Personas to pull from Scripture and 300, respectively

Late reply but I disagree with almost every single one of those ratings.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Updated ratings with recently revealed leaders included (ordered alphabetically):

1. Hatshepsut (B-): She's notable and new to the series, but better choices that meet those criteria exists for Egypt, such as Akhenaten or Nefertiti

New to the series? What heresy is this!!

 

[evonannoredars]

Curiously, the two new DLC leaders are still Western/European or had European ancestors (in Bolívar's case). Considering the disproportionate representation of Western/European leaders in the base game, it's curious to see that the first two DLC leaders are also Western and that they didn't took the opportunity to have more African, Asian or Native American leaders.

Also continuing the disproportionate amount of leaders from the 1700s-1800s!

 

[Siptah]

Also continuing the disproportionate amount of leaders from the 1700s-1800s!

This is really my main gripe with the leader selection. Too many people from 1750 to 1850, while hardly anyone from 800-1400 (2?), and no one (?) from the 1600s.

 

[Uberfrog]

We literally have 4 white male revolutionaries from the 1750s-1850s. And no black men.

 

[evonannoredars]

This is really my main gripe with the leader selection. Too many people from 1750 to 1850, while hardly anyone from 800-1400 (2?), and no one (?) from the 1600s.

Not just 800-1400, there's only two people between 300-1400 (Charlemagne and Ibn Battuta)! Amina died in 1610, but otherwise that century is completely empty.

There's such an overabundance of european, modern and/or militaristic leaders, I'm desperate for a leader that isn't any of these three to make the leader selection screen more interesting.

 

[Leucarum]

The time distribution makes sense given the ages system. Firaxis wanting leaders to match the ages. Hopefully they move away from that as we go forward.

In a way I don't want to take away from how much better the representation is in Civ7 compared to before, but as Harriet Tubman says "Not too bad. Always could be better." The leaders are too eurocentric. And it doesn't look set to improve dramatically from what they've announced so far...

And for civs Africa and (especially Indigenous) Americas feel way sparser and have far more disconnected civ transitions than other regions, especially in comparison to Asia having three very tightly connected and obvious paths... Though I suppose its a step in the right direction that I'm not saying that about Europe which feels at about the right level of civ representation this time around.

 

[Lord Lakely]

We literally have 4 white male revolutionaries from the 1750s-1850s. And no black men.

It's not like Shaka is difficult to design either. It took me less than five minutes to come up with a haka design in five minutes in the Ideas & Suggestions thread:

+ Free Upgrades on all Infantry as soon as the upgrade is unlocked & bonus combat strength on all Infantry vs Leaders with more techs
- 10% Science per Era in cities

There! EZ.

 

[evonannoredars]

The time distribution makes sense given the ages system. Firaxis wanting leaders to match the ages. Hopefully they move away from that as we go forward.

I don't fully agree, as leaders don't need to match with an age. It makes sense for unlocking civs, but neither Himiko nor Rizal match the time periods of the civs they unlock. Since the leaders aren't physically seperated into ages which disguise the exponentially more modern distribution of civs it's a lot more obvious when a third of them are all from a very narrow time period and I think they absolutely could've achieved a more linear distribution.

 

[Leucarum]

I don't fully agree, as leaders don't need to match with an age. It makes sense for unlocking civs, but neither Himiko nor Rizal match the time periods of the civs they unlock. Since the leaders aren't physically seperated into ages which disguise the exponentially more modern distribution of civs it's a lot more obvious when a third of them are all from a very narrow time period and I think they absolutely could've achieved a more linear distribution.

I can get behind that viewpoint. I don't think they needed to make so many leaders match specific time periods but I understand why they did if they wanted congruence between the ages, their mechanics and the available leaders.

I think for sure they have enough of that done for now though so I don't think it's something they need to hold to from hereon in...