What do you think of the Leaders?

[Xandinho]

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

lol
Ashoka is one of the most important (if not the most important) figures in the entire millennia-long history of the great Indian subcontinent.

 

[BlueWildRye]

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

Uhhh, Ashoka was NOT a leader in Civ III.

 

[Krikkit1]

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

Europe has 5-7 different civs India only has 3
And Ashoka is who the persona system was made for… none of the others so far seem anywhere near as justifiable.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Europe has 5-7 different civs India only has 3

No

Europe has four civs confirmed so far (Greece, Rome, Normans, Spain, & France), whereas Asia has at least eleven (Han, Khmer, Maurya, Persia, Abbasid, Chola, Indonesia, Ming, Mongolia, Meiji, and Mughal)
Even if Europe gets England and Germany (staple civs without which the base game is simply incomplete), that's barely over half the number of Asian civs

Alternatively, you can say Rome has one civ to India's three
Greece has one to India's three
France has two to India's three
Spain has one to India's three

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

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.

Merely having existed should not be the determining factor for who is chosen as a Leader.
My great-grandfather existed. He had his name in the paper once or twice; his existence is established by those historical records.
But he should not be a Leader.

King Arthur probably never existed. Almost certainly there was never a Briton king by that name.
But as a character who existed across numerous historical accounts, he's affected the world far more profoundly than my great-grandfather.
The fictitious Arthur is more important in history as its recorded and the past as it's influenced the present than my very real great-grandfather.

Manderville might have been a character, but his travel logs sparked the wanderlust of explorers like Columbus
He'd have been a worthy addition as a Leader

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Alternatively, you can say Rome has one civ to India's three
Greece has one to India's three
France has two to India's three
Spain has one to India's three

It's almost as if India is an entire subcontinent that happens to be mostly unified in the modern day, rather than a single specific country, culture, or empire.

 

[Black Gate]

Merely having existed should not be the determining factor for who is chosen as a Leader.
My great-grandfather existed. He had his name in the paper once or twice; his existence is established by those historical records.
But he should not be a Leader.

King Arthur probably never existed. Almost certainly there was never a Briton king by that name.
But as a character who existed across numerous historical accounts, he's affected the world far more profoundly than my great-grandfather.
The fictitious Arthur is more important in history as its recorded and the past as it's influenced the present than my very real great-grandfather.

Manderville might have been a character, but his travel logs sparked the wanderlust of explorers like Columbus
He'd have been a worthy addition as a Leader

Bizarre statement. If history isn't the basis for your historically flavoured game, what's even the point? There's a reason half the complaints on this forum are concerned with historical accuracy, Civ inspires people to become interested in history and has trended away from mere popular ideas present in the early games with each entry. Mandeville's far more controversial than the Rihla and far less known.

Arthur as we know him didn't exist, because he's a character in a story. Geoffrey of Monmouth and Chrétien des Troyes are responsible for the vast majority of things we attribute to modern depictions of Arthur - they're the "canon" if we will, but have little to nothing to do with the folk hero the Welsh/Britons made out of him. Even the Historia Brittonum isn't describing a real person, the facts in these stories are too different to be talking about a single person. The feats attributed to him are almost certainly a combination of real historical figures, such as Ambrosius Aurelianus, Artúr mac Aedan, or Selyf ap Cynan of Powys among many others. It's similar to the Alexander Romance which takes historical Alexander the Great and uses him as the basis for a character.

 

[fantsu]

Way too many females so far, but too early also to say anything. I'll wait for the release to pick my favorites.

 

[Jeppetto]

Way too many females so far, but too early also to say anything. I'll wait for the release to pick my favorites.

It's 4 : 9 in favour of men excluding personas (all male), and content without guide (2 more men and a persona). It's really an adequate amount IMHO.
EDIT: Sorry, forgot about Himiko. So it's more so 5 : 11, samey ratio.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Merely having existed should not be the determining factor for who is chosen as a Leader.

It should, though.
Save that for a Civ Mythology spin-off game.

Manderville might have been a character, but his travel logs sparked the wanderlust of explorers like Columbus
He'd have been a worthy addition as a Leader

But we got the same attributes in Ibn Battuta, who was real.
Honestly, I've never heard of Mandeville before you brought him up, so in my personal opinion I would have thought Ibn Battuta was the premier choice.

 

[Leucarum]

It should, though.
Save that for a Civ Mythology spin-off game.

But we got the same attributes in Ibn Battuta, who was real.
Honestly, I've never heard of Mandeville before you brought him up, so in my personal opinion I would have thought Ibn Battuta was the premier choice.

I definitely also had more knowledge of Ibn Battuta than Manderville. The real question is whether Marco Polo would have been a better fit IMO. and since we already have Machiavelli for Italy, another inspired choice, and Ibn Battuta is awesome - I think we can skip Marco Polo.

 

[Archanist]

What if they had Marco Polo saved as a civilian unit, like what Venice had in Civ 5?

 

[Leucarum]

What if they had Marco Polo saved as a civilian unit, like what Venice had in Civ 5?

if Venice shows up he's a shoe in for a great person.

I hadn't actually thought about how with the wider scope for leaders that creates a bit of push and pull between who gets to be a leader vs a great person...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I definitely also had more knowledge of Ibn Battuta than Manderville. The real question is whether Marco Polo would have been a better fit IMO. and since we already have Machiavelli for Italy, another inspired choice, and Ibn Battuta is awesome - I think we can skip Marco Polo.

I don't think Marco Polo would be exactly the same. He was a travelling merchant, so I'm sure he wouldn't be a Wildcard, but Economic.
But since we also have Machiavelli from Italy, I agree he wasn't needed.

 

[Evie]

Marco Polo also traveled a fraction of the distance Ibn Battuta did in his journeys. He's better known in the western world because he published his books in Europe where Ibn Battuta's work wa snot nearly so circulated , but yeha, there's no question to me who the foremost far traveler of that era was.

 

[Lord Lakely]

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.

"Ibn Battuta doesn't count because he's not white."

That's the subtext. Anyone who doesn't see it now deliberately chooses to be blind.

 

[Evie]

"Ibn Battuta doesn't count because he's not white."

That's the subtext. Anyone who doesn't see it now deliberately chooses to be blind.

As I said:

Mysterious are the priorities of some folk (not)

 

[Taizong4Civ7]

Subtext aside, I was under the impression that Ibn Battuta was actually relatively famous in the West among people interested in history.

On the other hand, I had to search up who John Mandeville is, and from what I can tell this guy has zero pop history presence. Perhaps this “author” is more obscure than people think?

 

[moondog385]

Subtext aside, I was under the impression that Ibn Battuta was actually relatively famous in the West among people interested in history.

On the other hand, I had to search up who John Mandeville is, and from what I can tell this guy has zero pop history presence. Perhaps this “author” is more obscure than people think?

I was surprised how many people here hadn’t heard of Ibn Battuta. I don’t mean that as some sort of intellectual flex — I had learned about him in my high school world history class in Texas of all places.

Regarding the thread topic, I like the leaders — Hatshepsut, Augustus, and Ashoka were actually my preferred leaders for their respective civs back before the game was revealed — but overall, I would like them to dig a bit deeper. The only one I’ve been genuinely disappointed with is Himiko and that’s because I prefer people of less dubious historicity.

 

[gdr_willter]

I was surprised how many people here hadn’t heard of Ibn Battuta. I don’t mean that as some sort of intellectual flex — I had learned about him in my high school world history class in Texas of all places.

Regarding the thread topic, I like the leaders — Hatshepsut, Augustus, and Ashoka were actually my preferred leaders for their respective civs back before the game was revealed — but overall, I would like them to dig a bit deeper. The only one I’ve been genuinely disappointed with is Himiko and that’s because I prefer people of less dubious historicity.

Himiko is cross checked by Chinese and Korean records (#), so it's more reasonable to recognize her existence. Only Japanese records claim that there was empress Jingu instead of her, so histrians are guessing Jingu is the embellish version of Himiko. I can say Himiko has actually clear historicity, and she is one of the early Japanese leader who built the national identity of the people of those islands.