What leaders and/or nations do you want in Civilization VII?

[Evie]

Urgh more like Booo-is XIV. Most overrated French leader of them all and that's the civ that has freaking Napoléon.

Not that Louis was horrible, but he was very much the political leader equivalent of a trust fund baby - reaping all the fun and benefit from the hark work of his predecessors (or their ministers). He made good use of what he was given, and he appointed Colbert which was pretty smart, but it's Henri IV followed by the triple-threat of nearly sixty years non-stop of having three of the greatest statesman of Europe as First Minister one after the other (Richelieu, then Mazarrin, then Colbert) that really did all the work.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Urgh more like Booo-is XIV. Most overrated French leader of them all and that's the civ that has freaking Napoléon.

Not that Louis was horrible, but he was very much the political leader equivalent of a trust fund baby - reaping all the fun and benefit from the hark work of his predecessors (or their ministers).

Louis WAS a terrible man. He committed massive atrocities against the Huguenot peoples, shutting down their churches and schools (and burning some of them), and overturning the Edict of Nantes. What a jerk.

 

[Evie]

I meant horrible in terms of political skills (as in he wasn't a raving incompetent politically), but yes, in his treatment of religious minorities, he certainly was pretty bad.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I meant horrible in terms of political skills (as in he wasn't a raving incompetent politically), but yes, in his treatment of religious minorities, he certainly was pretty bad.

I mean he was *snip* a complete power-hungry loser *snip*

Moderator Action: Post edited to remove current politics. ~ LK

 

[Zaarin]

Urgh more like Booo-is XIV. Most overrated French leader of them all and that's the civ that has freaking Napoléon.

Not that Louis was horrible, but he was very much the political leader equivalent of a trust fund baby - reaping all the fun and benefit from the hark work of his predecessors (or their ministers).

Agreed, and I have a similar reaction when people suggest Henry VIII--another king who benefited from a more competent father whose hard work cushioned the realm from some of Henry VIII's less prudent decisions. (Which is also another reason Mary I Tudor does not get the credit she deserves. The realm she inherited was a mess after the reigns of her impulsive father and weak brother.)

Louis WAS a terrible man. He committed massive atrocities against the Huguenot peoples, shutting down their churches and schools (and burning some of them), and overturning the Edict of Nantes. What a jerk.

While I'm not dying to see Louis XIV again, being a bad person is not really a compelling reason to exclude someone from being a leader in Civ...unless you want an empty roster.

 

[Evie]

I would not agree with that, Caesar of Bread. Far from. There are many kings in France and elsewhere who are more along those veins ; and Louis (at least early on) was capable of surrounding himself with extremely capable ministers - not a skill associated with the other type of politicians you allude to.

A monster, yes (but as Zaarin pointed out, how many of our leaders weren't?). But power-hungry loser is a poor fit.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Agreed, and I have a similar reaction when people suggest Henry VIII--another king who benefited from a more competent father whose hard work cushioned the realm from some of Henry VIII's less prudent decisions. (Which is also another reason Mary I Tudor does not get the credit she deserves. The realm she inherited was a mess after the reigns of her impulsive father and weak brother.)

Henry VIII i would choose because people now care and know of his hilarious (and bloody) story, as it was recently featured in a musical (probably the British response to "Hamilton"). People would lose their heads with laughter if Henry VIII was leading England in VII.

 

[Zaarin]

Henry VIII i would choose because people now care and know of his hilarious (and bloody) story, as it was recently featured in a musical (probably the British response to "Hamilton"). People would lose their heads with laughter if Henry VIII was leading England in VII.

Henry VIII has always had a big pop culture presence. Even Shakespeare had the nerve to tackle him while his daughter was sitting on the throne. (Great play, incidentally, and perhaps one of the less appreciated historical plays.) But Elizabeth I or Mary I are both big personalities who were actually effective rulers. Henry V or Henry II are also good "big personality" choices, if you want a male leader for England. There's even Empress Maude for the "out of left field choice." IMO there's just not a compelling reason to choose a guy who's only famous for his politically motivated religious and marital decisions (and extramarital decisions). He wasn't a good king, and his reign wasn't disastrous only because he inherited a strong realm from his father and both of his daughters were extremely canny rulers. Had Henry been succeeded by a weak monarch (as Edward VI might have turned out to be--we'll never know), the consequences for England would have been dire. It's also a bit ironic to complain about Louis XIV being a bad person while recommending Henry VIII...

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Henry VIII has always had a big pop culture presence. Even Shakespeare had the nerve to tackle him while his daughter was sitting on the throne. (Great play, incidentally, and perhaps one of the less appreciated historical plays.) But Elizabeth I or Mary I are both big personalities who were actually effective rulers. Henry V or Henry II are also good "big personality" choices, if you want a male leader for England. There's even Empress Maude for the "out of left field choice." IMO there's just not a compelling reason to choose a guy who's only famous for his politically motivated religious and marital decisions (and extramarital decisions). He wasn't a good king, and his reign wasn't disastrous only because he inherited a strong realm from his father and both of his daughters were extremely canny rulers. Had Henry been succeeded by a weak monarch (as Edward VI might have turned out to be--we'll never know), the consequences for England would have been dire. It's also a bit ironic to complain about Louis XIV being a bad person while recommending Henry VIII...

KING. What's he that wishes so?
My cousin, Westmorland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow.
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmorland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say "To-morrow is Saint Crispian."
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say "These wounds I had on Crispin's day."
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words—
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester—
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be rememberèd—
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd love Texas under Sam Houston or Mireabeau Lamar (I am Texan)

I don't think it will ever happen officially, only in mods. I did create a Texas design with both Sam Houston and Lamar as leaders. Lamar to me is more interesting because he can take Texas in a more educational direction with science and culture, and isn't the stereotypical "Remember the Alamo" like Houston is.

Henry VIII i would choose because people now care and know of his hilarious (and bloody) story, as it was recently featured in a musical (probably the British response to "Hamilton"). People would lose their heads with laughter if Henry VIII was leading England in VII.

I'm pretty sure he was the male leader of England in Civ 2, alongside Elizabeth.

Also what's with all this Louis XIV slander? I could have said Napoleon or Jeanne d'Arc, people.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I don't think it will ever happen officially, only in mods.

I'm pretty sure he was the male leader of England in Civ 2, alongside Elizabeth.

Also what's with all this Louis XIV slander? I could have said Napoleon or Jeanne d'Arc, people.

I'm Huguenot. Don't ask about my opinion on Catherine D'Medici.

----------------------
What I would like for is a magic/mythology based mode, with nations getting their unique magic systems (or regions, idk)


Germany can get alchemy because of Fullmetal Alchemist and that alchemy was important in Germany
Greece and Rome have Greco-Roman deities
Egypt has Egyptian deities
Sweden and the Norse have Norse deities
China has Journey to the West, an ability that involves pilgrims/apostles.
England has Harry Potter?

 

[Zaarin]

Also what's with all this Louis XIV slander? I could have said Napoleon or Jeanne d'Arc, people.

I'll definitely take Louis XIV over Napoleon. At this point, I'll take Louis V the Do-nothing over Napoleon. I'll take Marie Antoinette over Napoleon.

 

[Evie]

Slander schmander. Louis XIV was (still) a vastly overrated king who reaped the benefits of the work of greater statesmen.

France simply has so many better choices than him. Even Nappy is better on pure merit; while I'd take Louis over him it's purely because Nap has been badly overused,

Henri IV, Richelieu, Philippe II are all candidates who deserve to be in the game before the flaming ball of gas king.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Just a few, it's too late here in PST for a full list of 50 (some of these will doubtless sound familiar):

Russia under Dmitrii Donskoy or Ivan IV
(Republican) Rome under the Gracchi or Cincinnatus
Greece under Kleopatra of Epirus
Gaul/Keltikoi under Diviciacus
Germany under Frederick William, the Great Elector
Kusha under Kanishka
Chola under Rajaraja I
Persia under Shapur I
France under Henri IV or Louis XI or Napoleon III
England under Henry II or Anne[
Egypt under Hatshepset
Comanche under Quanah Parker
Haida Gwaii under Cummashawa
Wyandot (Wendat) under Kondiaronk

 

[Patine]

Urgh more like Booo-is XIV. Most overrated French leader of them all and that's the civ that has freaking Napoléon.

Not that Louis was horrible, but he was very much the political leader equivalent of a trust fund baby - reaping all the fun and benefit from the hark work of his predecessors (or their ministers). He made good use of what he was given, and he appointed Colbert which was pretty smart, but it's Henri IV followed by the triple-threat of nearly sixty years non-stop of having three of the greatest statesman of Europe as First Minister one after the other (Richelieu, then Mazarrin, then Colbert) that really did all the work.

I'd like to see Charles de Galle, as I've said, but not many seem to agree with me. Also, despite being nowhere near the military or diplomatic genius of his uncle, Napoleon III is very underrated for developing France's then-lagging infrastructure and economic framework - and restoring Jewish citizenship for the first time since Louis IX's judgement after the translation of the Talmud.

Henry VIII has always had a big pop culture presence. Even Shakespeare had the nerve to tackle him while his daughter was sitting on the throne. (Great play, incidentally, and perhaps one of the less appreciated historical plays.) But Elizabeth I or Mary I are both big personalities who were actually effective rulers. Henry V or Henry II are also good "big personality" choices, if you want a male leader for England. There's even Empress Maude for the "out of left field choice." IMO there's just not a compelling reason to choose a guy who's only famous for his politically motivated religious and marital decisions (and extramarital decisions). He wasn't a good king, and his reign wasn't disastrous only because he inherited a strong realm from his father and both of his daughters were extremely canny rulers. Had Henry been succeeded by a weak monarch (as Edward VI might have turned out to be--we'll never know), the consequences for England would have been dire. It's also a bit ironic to complain about Louis XIV being a bad person while recommending Henry VIII...

I think Oliver Cromwell is also a big personality I'm partial to, and, though not so much for personality, I still have a leaning to Anne or David Lloyd George.

 

[Zaarin]

I think Oliver Cromwell is also a big personality I'm partial to

TBH if we want to turn England into the villain civ I think we should just jump straight to George III. Complete with a tree wearing Prussian robes. (Yes, this violates my "no one who bore the title Monarch of the United Kingdom" principle.) On a more serious note, if we want someone pompous and out of touch, James I and VI is easily my first choice. The man actually had much grander delusions than his son--Charles I was just stupid enough to try to act on them.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

TBH if we want to turn England into the villain civ I think we should just jump straight to George III. Complete with a tree wearing Prussian robes. (Yes, this violates my "no one who bore the title Monarch of the United Kingdom" principle.) On a more serious note, if we want someone pompous and out of touch, James I and VI is easily my first choice. The man actually had much grander delusions than his son--Charles I was just stupid enough to try to act on them.

 

[Zaarin]

Hot take: the only semidecent song from an absurdly overrated musical. It's better after it's been Google Translated a few times.

 

[Patine]

TBH if we want to turn England into the villain civ I think we should just jump straight to George III. Complete with a tree wearing Prussian robes. (Yes, this violates my "no one who bore the title Monarch of the United Kingdom" principle.) On a more serious note, if we want someone pompous and out of touch, James I and VI is easily my first choice. The man actually had much grander delusions than his son--Charles I was just stupid enough to try to act on them.

But, unlike Charles, James, and George, Cromwell was ruthlessly effective - almost Prussian-like efficiency before that quality was ever attributed to Prussia. He only had one significant military defeat - and he cancelled Christmas over it!

 

[Zaarin]

But, unlike Charles, James, and George, Cromwell was ruthlessly effective - almost Prussian-like efficiency before that quality was ever attributed to Prussia. He only had one significant military defeat - and he cancelled Christmas over it!

He canceled Christmas over being a Puritan because Christmas is devilish popery and because Heaven forbid someone not be miserable. That's also a little unfair to George and a lotta unfair to James.