What do you think of the Leaders?

[Gorbles]

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.

The macaw would like to have a word with you, r.e. the bold.

r.e. the headdress . . . who knows, I'm not an ornithologist. Are you?

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?

Google says with mollusks (for the Mayans, too).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

About Montezuma, it seems very strange in my opinion to see him with 'Mexico' or Shaka with 'Buganda'. Seems unrelated

Well leaders are unrelated to civs, so I don't see why it would be strange?
Obviously, they could always be released with an Aztec or Zulu civ later on, but since those aren't going to be in the base game those are the closest civs they could be associated with.
In fact, I'm sure once we get the Aztecs, the preferred path would be Maya>Aztec>Mexico in game.

 

[Lord Lakely]

r.e. the headdress . . . who knows, I'm not an ornithologist. Are you?

Biology teacher. Close enough?

I know a little bit about the fauna of the Andes, and typically the feathers of parrots would be used: quetzals, macaws and the like.

Now, if you look at the headress itself, the colouration suggests flamingo (which is viable as the Andes has an endemic species of flamingo), but the broadness of the feathers themselves match with the condor. Condors feathers are dark in colour with white stems. It's unlikely that a Sapa-Inca, whose associated colour is RED, would have worn a headress of Condor feathers, let alone in those colours. More likely, they would have worn a headress with feathers of a red macaw, a lot of smaller wing and tail feathers nearly tied together.

The other option is that the feathers are man-made, but then again, they would not have been orange and purple.

And like @pokiehl correctly pointed out, cocineal dye would have been used for the garments themselves to dye them carmine red. The lice responsible are endemic to South-America. There are techniques to dye wool purple; but those clothes would not have been worn by the Sapa-Inca and it would have been a dull hue of violet, not the rich dark lavender as shown.

Like I said, pretty colours. But not very accurate.

 

[Hilton1]

How many leaders are we still expecting to be announced for the base game?

 

[gdr_willter]

How many leaders are we still expecting to be announced for the base game?

At least 15 base leader as I know. (except Persona and DLC leaders)

 

[Teproc]

While I find the discussion interesting, expecting Civ, which is not exactly a game franchise noted for its historical accuracy, to have that level of attention to detail feels very strange to me. Civ is historical fantasy.

 

[notNamed]

While I find the discussion interesting, expecting Civ, which is not exactly a game franchise noted for its historical accuracy, to have that level of attention to detail feels very strange to me. Civ is historical fantasy.

It's kind of a biproduct of the last decade or so? Civ 6 put more attention to detail than Civ 5, hired Mr. Johnson for consultancy during its later lifecycle and was moving towards more attention to detail.
Then you had Humankind in the background, a game CIv 7 takes a lot of inspiration from, which made historical accuracy one of its pillars and put unprecedented effort into stuff to set a new high bar in this category.
Similarly you had titles like Old World trying to put attention to detail to its own version of historical 4X.

So Civ 7 making a heel-turn and going back into Civ 5 era of attention to detail (with the more involved stuff being hidden, like the discussions behind quotes from Mr. Johnson: why keep Chiefdom, imagined ideals of Cartography) was a bit unexpected.
Though at the end of the day, it's an understandable choice... at least most of the time.

 

[Bast]

While I find the discussion interesting, expecting Civ, which is not exactly a game franchise noted for its historical accuracy, to have that level of attention to detail feels very strange to me. Civ is historical fantasy.

I can't at names like Shakala from Civ II, that's like burned into my memory lol

I don't mind this. If I wanted historical accuracy, I would just play stuff like Europa Universalis or Victoria. But I play that and Civ for different reasons. Which is why I'm also opening my mind to playing 3 civs for 3 different eras.

 

[Gorbles]

Now, if you look at the headress itself, the colouration suggests flamingo (which is viable as the Andes has an endemic species of flamingo), but the broadness of the feathers themselves match with the condor. Condors feathers are dark in colour with white stems. It's unlikely that a Sapa-Inca, whose associated colour is RED, would have worn a headress of Condor feathers, let alone in those colours. More likely, they would have worn a headress with feathers of a red macaw, a lot of smaller wing and tail feathers nearly tied together.

I really appreciate the detail here, but I just want to note that it's apparently possible for a Sapa Inca to wear dark feathers.

But I agree orange and purple are very likely nothing more than artistic license. But in-keeping with the aesthetic idea that the Sapa Inca gets the brightest and most colourful clothes and decorations.

 

[Willie5000]

What's next? They'll make Gandhi a leader for India?

It’s a silly post-mortem justification for the fact that Gandhi lead India for the past six games.

They could just chose actual leaders for the civilizations (Wu Zetian for the Chinese civs and Jefferson for the U.S.) and pick Ashoka for Maurya. Plus if they put Gandhi they know us Civ fans will understand because nuclear Gandhi is funny and basically one of the things Civ is known for.

 

[Black Gate]

How many leaders are we still expecting to be announced for the base game?

Hard to say. Firaxis have said this will be the game with the most leaders (including personas) but some people think they forgot that Civ4 launched with 26. So five personas (from the higher priced editions + one of the Napoleons), ten leaders with a first look, Amina, Himiko, Ben Franklin, and Napoleon means we're already at 19. The ESRB revealed that Frederick and Catherine the Greats may be in the game, and people expect a Hawaiian or Indonesian leader to round out the exploration reveals. Are there another five leaders on top of that? Firaxis' lips are sealed but I suspect maybe not.

On top of that, they've been revealing one leader per week and there's only 11 more Thursdays left until the early release, with one of those being Boxing Day, so there simply may not be enough time to reveal 12 more leaders, unless they just break the scheduling of course.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

For me, two of the most important criteria for Leaders are name recognition and novelty.

With respect to name-recognition, I don't have to have a deep historical understanding of the leader's life and accomplishments, but I do hope to have heard of him before his inclusion in the game.
As someone with an amateur enthusiasm for history, with a wide-but-shallow general knowledge with a few specific deeper areas of interest, I find name-recognition to be a good indicator of importance and prominence.

As far as novelty, if a civilization has potential Leaders with notability and name-recognition who haven't been depicted in a previous iteration of the franchise, their inclusion is preferable over repeats.
England and Rome both have way too many unused leaders for Elizabeth or Augustus to be included again for the next several iterations.

Alternatively, Ashoka seems extremely popular with the specific audience who frequents these boards, but most of the history-enthusiasts I find in the wild - the kind who think about the Roman empire every day - probably couldn't name an Indian historical figure apart from Gandhi. Ashoka has far less name recognition for Westerners than the Star Wars character of the same name.

Ratings:

• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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.
• 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
• Trung Trac (F): "New game, who dis?"
• 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

 

[Lord Lakely]

Alternatively, Ashoka seems extremely popular with the specific audience who frequents these boards, but most of the history-enthusiasts I find in the wild - the kind who think about the Roman empire every day - probably couldn't name an Indian historical figure apart from Gandhi. Ashoka has far less name recognition for Westerners than the Star Wars character of the same name.

Imagine the horror of learning about history by playing a history-based game.

 

[Kjimmet]

Trung Trac (F): "New game, who dis?"

The most requested Vietnamese leader after Ho Chi Minh to my knowledge. Not sure how you haven't heard of her before as her name, alongside of her sister's, is almost always mentioned when discussing Vietnam and potential Vietnamese leaders for Civ.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Lê Loi was also fairly highly requested here. (Arguably the most objective choice for Nam Viet). But I hadn't heard of him before I joined CivFanatics, I suppose he's an F-tier choice then!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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

If anyone needs a persona, it would be him.

 

[thecrazyscot]

With respect to name-recognition, I don't have to have a deep historical understanding of the leader's life and accomplishments, but I do hope to have heard of him before his inclusion in the game.
As someone with an amateur enthusiasm for history, with a wide-but-shallow general knowledge with a few specific deeper areas of interest, I find name-recognition to be a good indicator of importance and prominence.

With all due respect, an amateur's generalist knowledge of history is a terrible indicator of someone's importance and prominence. You know a little bit about some things and almost nothing about most things.

 

[luca 83]

There are two parts to the leader’s speech: gold bonuses, trade , diplomacy, and a speech of rising circumstances, leaders who are not immortal , and who do not represent nations, but politics and choices ,events that happen in the game

 

[Evie]

It’s a silly post-mortem justification for the fact that Gandhi lead India for the past six games.

They could just chose actual leaders for the civilizations (Wu Zetian for the Chinese civs and Jefferson for the U.S.) and pick Ashoka for Maurya. Plus if they put Gandhi they know us Civ fans will understand because nuclear Gandhi is funny and basically one of the things Civ is known for.

It's been seven Civ games where "must be a ruler or political leader" was never actually a dev-enforced hard rule for leaders, only something a loud vocal faction of the fanbase with a very narrow (and antiquated) view of history where it's all about kings and presidents desperately clung to.

You'd think the message would get through at some point, but nope.

 

[luca 83]

It's been seven Civ games where "must be a ruler or political leader" was never actually a dev-enforced hard rule for leaders, only something a loud vocal faction of the fanbase with a very narrow (and antiquated) view of history where it's all about kings and presidents desperately clung to.

You'd think the message would get through at some point, but nope.

On The leaders are a non-historical representation of nations and it all does not revolve around you and presidents but individual even insignificant historical events , but a fictitious narratation of historical events and necessary ends to now. It is only satisfied the fan base , I have not yet read of internal dynamics and politics and factions , social organization