What do you think of the Leaders?

[Morningcalm]

I like pretty much all of the leader choices thus far. I particularly like Ashoka (finally a proper Gandhi replacement, though ironically the "non-heads-of-state can be leaders now" Civ game that is Civ VII would have allowed Gandhi to fit better), Hatshepsut, Confucius, Machiavelli, and Tecumseh. Hatshepsut was a great pharaoh, independent of her gender, and she capable managed the economy of her state while getting the cooperation of Thutmoses III, one of Egypt's greatest military leaders (likely better than Rameses II in that regard, frankly). Confucius and Machiavelli both held office so they actually are nicely between non-heads of state and heads of state (in addition to having enormous influence throughout the ages). Tecumseh had a fascinating life and interesting diplomatic connections and I'm glad he's in the game too.

I would have preferred someone other than Augustus this time for Rome in terms of variety (same with Napoleon), but they are definitely worthy leaders historically speaking.

Himiko is.... eh. I would have preferred the historical nun shogun Hojo Masako, who had immense influence and may have been the real power behind the first shogun (Minamoto Yoritomo).

 

[Lord Lakely]

Isabella - B - but it's more of a B+ compared to the other B-ratings. Isabella is my main choice for a leader, if I want a leader for Spain. With unclipped leaders she's actually a less exciting choice. El Cid, Pelagius, Torquemada, Urraca the Reckless, Ferdinand of Aragon, Hernan Cortez and Charles Quint are all Spaniards that may have fit the mould for Civ 7 a bit better than her. But we sure love the return of her meme-y highroll abilities (which have zero ties to the actual Isabella of Castile), I guess.

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

Took from todays video, that those type words like Expansionist, Scientific etc for leaders and civs will play out in the leaders attribute point tree.

 

[Disgustipated]

From that first look of Isabella, she appears to have no hair under that whatever that thing she wears on her head is called. Maybe she has it up in a bun or something. I honestly don't see myself playing as her too much. One time for the achievement I suppose.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

From that first look of Isabella, she appears to have no hair under that whatever that thing she wears on her head is called.

I believe it's called a wimple?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

For myself, I would preferred an actual Borgia instead of Machiavelli.

Disappointed they went for Augustus and Isabella again. It's not like there's a dearth of Roman and Spanish figures.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Pachacuti - B - Objectively the best choice for an Incan leader, but this is his third game in a row, so do better, Firaxis.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Pachacuti - B - Objectively the best choice for an Incan leader, but this is his third game in a row, so do better, Firaxis.

I didn't really think they'd do an Incan leader because none of them have carried the sort of cultural cachet as the likes of Montezuma, but if they did, I was expecting more of a non-head-of-state, like Tupac Amaru II.

 

[Stoic]

In your opinion, is there a possibility of having Marcus Aurelius as a leader in a future DLC? He could also lead Greece

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

In your opinion, is there a possibility of having Marcus Aurelius as a leader in a future DLC? He could also lead Greece

Technically he could lead anyone

Edit: also username checks out

 

[Lord Lakely]

I didn't really think they'd do an Incan leader because none of them have carried the sort of cultural cachet as the likes of Montezuma, but if they did, I was expecting more of a non-head-of-state, like Tupac Amaru II.

I don't mind that the Incan leader is a Sapa-Inca, or even this Sapa-Inca specifically. But it is three games in a row with the same leader, and six games in a row with the same Incan dynasty.

Actually the one thing that irks me about Civ7's Pachacuti is the colourization: like WHAT is this:

Like sure, pretty, complimentary colours. Now point me to a bird that has feathers of that EXACT hue of bright orange (and a purple shaft?) and that exact size. I doubt that species would be alive right now as it can't camouflage to save its life.

Also, PURPLE clothes? How did the Incans dye that? It took chemists centuries to create synthetic purple dyes. Tyrian purple (which is more of a violet than anything) is painstaking to produce. How did the Incans extract purple pigments for their Sapa-Inca rulers, the same Sapa-Inca rulers who were noted to wear RED clothes, hmm?

 

[pokiehl]

View attachment 709453

Like sure, pretty, complimentary colours. Now point me to a bird that has feathers of that EXACT hue of bright orange (and a purple shaft?) and that exact size. I doubt that species would be alive right now as it can't camouflage to save its life.

I think you're being a little too incredulous. There are portraits of Inca leaders with colors like this, including orange feathers. There are plenty of bright orange birds in South America, like the national bird of Peru (Andean cock-of-the-rock).

Also, PURPLE clothes? How did the Incans dye that? It took chemists centuries to create synthetic purple dyes. How did the Incans extract purple pigments for their Sapa-Inca rulers, the same Sapa-Inca rulers who were noted to wear RED clothes, hmm?

By crushing cochineal insects. Both the Maya and Inca were able to create dyes of many colors.

 

[GeneralZIft]

I didn't really think they'd do an Incan leader because none of them have carried the sort of cultural cachet as the likes of Montezuma, but if they did, I was expecting more of a non-head-of-state, like Tupac Amaru II.

Now that you mention it, Why no Montezuma or Shaka? And unless I'm mistaken no Genghis either. Seems like DLC fodder to me. They throw in historical choices for the diehards and keep the iconic picks for later

I'd like to see a weird pick like Churchill

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I don't mind that the Incan leader is a Sapa-Inca, or even this Sapa-Inca specifically. But it is three games in a row with the same leader, and six games in a row with the same Incan dynasty.

Actually the one thing that irks me about Civ7's Pachacuti is the colourization: like WHAT is this:


View attachment 709453

Like sure, pretty, complimentary colours. Now point me to a bird that has feathers of that EXACT hue of bright orange (and a purple shaft?) and that exact size. I doubt that species would be alive right now as it can't camouflage to save its life.

Also, PURPLE clothes? How did the Incans dye that? It took chemists centuries to create synthetic purple dyes. Tyrian purple (which is more of a violet than anything) is painstaking to produce. How did the Incans extract purple pigments for their Sapa-Inca rulers, the same Sapa-Inca rulers who were noted to wear RED clothes, hmm?

I think you're being a little too incredulous. There are portraits of Inca leaders with colors like this, including orange feathers. There are plenty of bright orange birds in South America, like the national bird of Peru (Andean cock-of-the-rock).

By crushing cochineal insects. Both the Maya and Inca were able to create dyes of many colors.

I'll just wait for MajoraZ to weigh in...

(I'm sure I saw one of his posts in these forums, but I can find neither the post nor the poster)

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Now that you mention it, Why no Montezuma or Shaka? And unless I'm mistaken no Genghis either. Seems like DLC fodder to me. They throw in historical choices for the diehards and keep the iconic picks for later

I'd like to see a weird pick like Churchill

Yeah, I imagine a lot of the popular warmongers from past games will be introduced as DLCs.

sidenote: Churchill isn't a weird pick. He was in Civ 4. I doubt they will return to him though.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I'd like to see a weird pick like Churchill

Churchill is still too mundane. Henry VIII would be a better option

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I'll just wait for MajoraZ to weigh in...

(I'm sure I saw one of his posts in these forums, but I can find neither the post nor the poster)

Never mind, Incan history is not his forte.

Carry on then

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think you're being a little too incredulous. There are portraits of Inca leaders with colors like this, including orange feathers. There are plenty of bright orange birds in South America, like the national bird of Peru (Andean cock-of-the-rock).

By crushing cochineal insects. Both the Maya and Inca were able to create dyes of many colors.

Whenever you start talking about pre-artificial dyes and colorings, you are talking about approximations and some guesswork. As stated, the infamous 'Tyrian Purple' was actually a dark violet. The only bright blue available before Indigo arrived from India in the 16th century was a Paint for building interiors. 'Red' could be anything from dark red-brown to bright orange, and any depiction of colors in tombs, paintings, walls, statues, buildings, etc is subject to fading and chemical changes to the original colors with age and weathering. -- And that doesn't even take very long: there are uniforms in museums in Europe that supposedly started as the same color, but exhibit wild variations because they were worn through one or more campaigns, and even a single season of weather and sunlight radically changed the color of the dye.

Bluntly, ALL colors are historically too bright unless they were brand new, expensive, and only worn inside. The Inca leader's hues are bright, but we're supposedly showing the top of the line colors worn by the top ruler of the largest empire in the Americas. He may be the one person on the continent for whom those colors are appropriate - as long as he doesn't step outside.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Now that you mention it, Why no Montezuma or Shaka?

They can reveal Montezuma alongside Mexico, or even Shaka with Buganda, if they are in.

And unless I'm mistaken no Genghis either.

Considering they've mentioned that it was a mistake that he and Mongolia weren't in the base game, I'm sure he'll be in.
I could see them waiting until they start revealing Modern Age civs and pair him up with Qing and the Mughals release, since Mongolia has passed.

Alexander to me seems like the only one who will be DLC right now. At least he fits the theme of "Crossroads of the World". If she's not in the base game, I could see Elizabeth in "Right to Rule."
Apart from Gandhi, that would take care of all the regulars.

 

[GeneralZIft]

They can reveal Montezuma alongside Mexico, or even Shaka with Buganda, if they are in.

Considering they've mentioned that it was a mistake that he and Mongolia weren't in the base game, I'm sure he'll be in.
I could see them waiting until they start revealing Modern Age civs and pair him up with Qing and the Mughals release, since Mongolia has passed.

Alexander to me seems like the only one who will be DLC right now. At least he fits the theme of "Crossroads of the World". If she's not in the base game, I could see Elizabeth in "Right to Rule."
Apart from Gandhi, that would take care of all the regulars.

Ah so they put in Mongolia and not Genghis then later said... damn why did we do that?
About Montezuma, it seems very strange in my opinion to see him with 'Mexico' or Shaka with 'Buganda'. Seems unrelated

As for Alexander and Elizabeth, I'm very surprised to see neither but I'm assuming they will be DLC like you say.
Already commented about the lack of Gandhi... personally disappointed because I love variety although I know some people are through the roof

Yeah, I imagine a lot of the popular warmongers from past games will be introduced as DLCs.

sidenote: Churchill isn't a weird pick. He was in Civ 4. I doubt they will return to him though.

Agreed. About Churchill, he's not a totally weird pick but he's been away a while and I think he's such a 'character' which is what really attracts me to leaders in Civilisation.
I like the characters with 'oomph' and with style, exaggerated features, quirky personality - it makes for more interesting games
Although someone said Churchill is mundane