What do you think of the Leaders?

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well, with Charles de Gaulle being too recent, I'd say Napoleon is a very good representation of modern age France, swinging between monarchy and republic through revolutions and wars.

Not that I particularly care for Charles de Gaulle, but I wouldn't categorize him as too recent when compared to Wilhelmina or Halie Selassie, who were the latest leaders in the past two games. He was also most recently leader in Civ 4.

 

[ehecatzin]

He's probably the most appallingly boring person in history, and he's a poor avatar for France.

I could have been fine with just one Napoleon, the Emperor persona does have a cool ability to take advantage of everyone HATING you, I think that's incredibly flavour accurate for Napoleon. a Rome-Norman-France domination victory does sound fun with him (and playing Rome while making sure everybody hates you also seems fun)

but...yet another Napoleon? I'd rather have another leader linked to the French revolution, and if we absolutely must have a republican Napeoleon, what about at least making him look younger?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

but...yet another Napoleon? I'd rather have another leader linked to the French revolution,

Robespierre, making your dungeons into fungeons, with increased happiness.

 

[ehecatzin]

Robespierre, making your dungeons into fungeons, with increased happiness.

Or Talleyrand as a leader that kind of just slides through crisis like It's nothing. so many cool characters, but no, another Napoleon.

 

[AriochIV]

but...yet another Napoleon? I'd rather have another leader linked to the French revolution, and if we absolutely must have a republican Napeoleon, what about at least making him look younger?

That would mean doing more work, which is against the whole point of personas.

 

[gdr_willter]

It is always the hard decision that choosing between bad representative and no representation.... The French revolutionaries represented by Napoleon can make sense if we already have his leader asset in the game.

 

[ehecatzin]

That would mean doing more work, which is against the whole point of personas.

*sigh* I know, maybe just giving him a bit more hair and making him thinner could help? hahah I know Im grasping at straws. I just would have liked him to actually look more like Republican Napoleon.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Or Talleyrand as a leader that kind of just slides through crisis like It's nothing. so many cool characters, but no, another Napoleon.

Sadly I'd never heard of him before like two weeks ago, so F tier!

(I would be down for de Talleyrand though. Fascinating man. Wish I had heard of him sooner)

It is always the hard decision that choosing between bad representative and no representation.... The French revolutionaries represented by Napoleon can make sense if we already have his leader asset in the game.

Point/Counterpoint, when the choice is "Persona or no persona" the choice is always "no persona". Anti-Dip Napoleon is fine (I'll kill him in Antiquity every time I encounter him, it's okay), we don't need two of them.

 

[gdr_willter]

Point/Counterpoint, when the choice is "Persona or no persona" the choice is always "no persona". Anti-Dip Napoleon is fine (I'll kill him in Antiquity every time I encounter him, it's okay), we don't need two of them.

For me, it's always "Give me that persona." Persona leader itself need very small amount of work to develop, so technically it is not a replacement of the new leader, rather it is a bonus content driven from the existing assets. No reason to refuse it. If you don't want, just forget that it is persona.

Entirely new leader is the best indeed, but if it's impossible, the persona of existing leader is still a nice refreshing.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Anti-Dip Napoleon... (I'll kill him in Antiquity every time I encounter him, it's okay)

Same. His ability makes him nothing more than a parasite who benefits from annoying others. If you find him in Antiquity, swat him.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Same. His ability makes him nothing more than a parasite who benefits from annoying others. If you find him in Antiquity, swat him.

or play Machiavelli and laugh in his face as you print money from the sactions he imposes on you.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Same. His ability makes him nothing more than a parasite who benefits from annoying others. If you find him in Antiquity, swat him.

Game hasn't even come out yet and he's already set up to gain extra Gold from poor reputation

 

[Lord Lakely]

Ibn Battuta - A - Even with the little that I know about him, a muslim Marco Polo is an inspired, elegant choice. Definitely in spirit with the ideals of the game, as presented by Firaxis.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Ibn Battuta - A - Even with the little that I know about him, a muslim Marco Polo is an inspired, elegant choice. Definitely in spirit with the ideals of the game, as presented by Firaxis.

Probably wouldn't have had Mali in the game several times, if it wasn't for him detailing about them on his travels.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Probably wouldn't have had Mali in the game several times, if it wasn't for him detailing about them on his travels.

We wouldn't know more than bits and pieces of a lot of medieval Non-European states and cities except for his travels. The man left us detailed and descriptive accounts of every north African state from Tunisia to Egypt, Sudan down to Kilwa, and across the Sahara to Timbuktu, Niani and Gao. Then across the middle east to Anatolia and Persia, southern Russia to Afghanistan, India, Sri Lanka, Burma, Sumatra to China. It is estimated that the man put about 5-1/2 times more kilometers behind him than Marco Polo did, and traveled more than twice the distance that Zheng He did with his ships.

 

[Disgustipated]

Battuta sounds pretty cool. Honestly I've liked the last few leader reveals. And his depiction in game looks pretty cool as well. Firaxis is making choosing a leader for my first game even more difficult. Damn you Firaxis. There are so many leaders I want to play right now. And even worse (as in better), is I may want to play the same leader with different civ combinations.

 

[Morningcalm]

I don't think Civ is going to meddle with Robespierre any time soon. There are many French kings I would like to see, and also Cardinal Richelieu. I wouldn't mind Catherine de' Medici coming back later too. I agree Napoleon is a bit boring, though I can understand why they included him.

Battuta is an amazing leader pick; probably my favorite so far. A happy surprise. Well designed too. I wish Hatshepsut's leader design and animations had matched to her historical reputation more too. Oh well.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

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

 

[Evie]

Yes, a guy who never existed and whose so-called travel book was a fantasy novel describing a world that doesn't exist would be a better fit for an exploration-team leader than Ibn Battuta, the farthest-ranging recorded traveler of the Medieval era whose records are one of our best sources on the nature of the Medieval Muslim world.

Mysterious are the priorities of some folk (not)

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

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

We've been through this before: if anyone needs alternative Personas, it's definitely Ashoka