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

[Patine]

From what I saw in a page about Quintus Fabius Maximus VerrucoSUS (sorry, among us got the best of me again), guerrilla warfare or blockading supply (traders possibly) could be a good mechanic for him.

But such tactics and playstyle don't bring playing ROME to mind for the vast majority of players, is the thing.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

But such tactics and playstyle don't bring playing ROME to mind for the vast majority of players, is the thing.

That's why Hadrian (wall defensive), Cincinatus (extra policy card could be a good idea), Diocletian (two capitals, so if one is conquered another can be used), or Marcus Aurelius (I guess Great Works or units killed? Dunno) are good options.

 

[Patine]

That's why Hadrian (wall defensive), Cincinatus (extra policy card could be a good idea), Diocletian (two capitals, so if one is conquered another can be used), or Marcus Aurelius (I guess Great Works or units killed? Dunno) are good options.

I'm not a big Diocletian fan, myself. He was praised for, "resolving the Crisis of the Third Century," but his, "resolutions," and things he overlooked, viewed hostilely, refused to addressed, and the long-term damage his reforms did exacerbated the situation in the long-term, and made his reputation much more dubious than presented. He was an allegorical, "Dutch boy with his finger in the dike," basically.

 

[Loerwyn]

Here's an idea for Rome...

CALIGVLA!
Comes with a unique governor
Increased unhappiness in cities
Troops able to melee attack ocean tiles

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Here's an idea for Rome...

CALIGVLA!
Comes with a unique governor
Increased unhappiness in cities
Troops able to melee attack ocean tiles

I made a thread for just such ideas. 'Worst leaders to lead a civ' or something.

 

[Loerwyn]

I made a thread for just such ideas. 'Worst leaders to lead a civ' or something.

It was just a joke riffing on the Rome discussion, not a serious suggestion of either sort

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

It was just a joke riffing on the Rome discussion, not a serious suggestion of either sort

That entire thread was a joke as well (on my part, at least). No one actually offered any serious suggestions (at least, I hope not)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That's why Hadrian (wall defensive), Cincinatus (extra policy card could be a good idea), Diocletian (two capitals, so if one is conquered another can be used), or Marcus Aurelius (I guess Great Works or units killed? Dunno) are good options.

Hadrian with a unique wall, similar to the Great Wall, would fit in with the whole expansion/infrastructure/keep the barbarians out playstyle very well. Can you imagine a unique wall improvement, alongside Legions being able to build forts?
Extra policy cards can be a generic Roman civ ability to represent the idea of the Roman Senate, and the differing opinions of sometimes autocratic Senate members. The two capitals could also work, but there are other civs I'd rather give that to because surely Rome has to be the capital of the Romans, right?

 

[caketastydelish]

Bring back Huns, Venice, Austria from civ V

 

[AffineConstant]

Hadrian with a unique wall, similar to the Great Wall, would fit in with the whole expansion/infrastructure/keep the barbarians out playstyle very well. Can you imagine a unique wall improvement, alongside Legions being able to build forts?
Extra policy cards can be a generic Roman civ ability to represent the idea of the Roman Senate, and the differing opinions of sometimes autocratic Senate members. The two capitals could also work, but there are other civs I'd rather give that to because surely Rome has to be the capital of the Romans, right?

I mean, Hadrian's Wall was ever worse than the great wall at its job

It'd be neat to see a pre emperor Roman leader, but Scipio Africanus is the only name leaping to mind and he was a general really. Who were the notable great statesmen in the Republic days, would the Gracchi count? Cincinnatus, if he really did the things he'd supposedly done in that order, barely seems to count for "coming to power then leaving it immediately".

 

[Kimiimaro]

I mean, Hadrian's Wall was ever worse than the great wall at its job

It'd be neat to see a pre emperor Roman leader, but Scipio Africanus is the only name leaping to mind and he was a general really. Who were the notable great statesmen in the Republic days, would the Gracchi count? Cincinnatus, if he really did the things he'd supposedly done in that order, barely seems to count for "coming to power then leaving it immediately".

Gaius Marius, perhaps. He is a rather notable republican era figure.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Gaius Marius, perhaps. He is a rather notable republican era figure.

Republican Romans:
First, NOT Romulus, a mythical character

Lucuis Junius Brutus - the first Roman Consul, 'founder' of the Republic and so the earliest officially Republican Roman BUT you could step back one further:
Lucius Tarquinius Superbus - the last 'king' of Rome, although since Brutus was also Tarquinius' nephew, modern scholars regard the entire transition as evidence of a power struggle within the 'Royal' family that got out of hand and resulted in the Senatorial class of families (the gentes) taking effective control.
Gaius Marcius Rutilus - the first Plebeian leader of Rome, as Dictator and later Censor: "Power to the People" for a UA, anyone?
Appius Claudius Caecus - appointed descendants of freedmen (ex-slaves) as Senators, which got rescinded by the next set of Consuls, but also built the first Roman acqueduct and the first Roman inter-urban road, the Via Appia - Appian Way - Cries out for a contruction/production/Wonder building UA?
Gaius Gracchus - the younger brother of Tiberius Gracchus, but the one that got more done: the Gracchi Brothers are the quintessential Republican Roman Reformers, who tackled distribution of wealth, judicial appeal process, welfare, land reform, grain subsidies, and Roman citizenship for non-Roman Italian subjects - the start of the Universal Roman Citizenship that was one of the strongest pillars of the later Empire.
Gaius Marius - reformed the Roman military into one of t he few Sanding Armies of the classical era, the classic Roman Legions of all long-service, professionally-trained swordsmen
Julius Caesar - he was only 'Tribune for life' - first 'Imperator' for 4 years, but Consul for 11, so legitimately could be the last Roman Republican Leader as well as the first Roman Imperial Leader!

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Republican Romans:
First, NOT Romulus, a mythical character

Agreed upon here!

Lucuis Junius Brutus - the first Roman Consul, 'founder' of the Republic and so the earliest officially Republican Roman BUT you could step back one further:

One of the best Romans.

Lucius Tarquinius Superbus - the last 'king' of Rome, although since Brutus was also Tarquinius' nephew, modern scholars regard the entire transition as evidence of a power struggle within the 'Royal' family that got out of hand and resulted in the Senatorial class of families (the gentes) taking effective control.

A terrible man.

Gaius Marcius Rutilus - the first Plebeian leader of Rome, as Dictator and later Censor: "Power to the People" for a UA, anyone?

Amazing!

Appius Claudius Caecus - appointed descendants of freedmen (ex-slaves) as Senators, which got rescinded by the next set of Consuls, but also built the first Roman acqueduct and the first Roman inter-urban road, the Via Appia - Appian Way - Cries out for a contruction/production/Wonder building UA?

Nice

Gaius Gracchus - the younger brother of Tiberius Gracchus, but the one that got more done: the Gracchi Brothers are the quintessential Republican Roman Reformers, who tackled distribution of wealth, judicial appeal process, welfare, land reform, grain subsidies, and Roman citizenship for non-Roman Italian subjects - the start of the Universal Roman Citizenship that was one of the strongest pillars of the later Empire.

Gracchi brothers! As a leftist I am happy for this inclusion. Spartacus would be cool too.

Gaius Marius - reformed the Roman military into one of t he few Sanding Armies of the classical era, the classic Roman Legions of all long-service, professionally-trained swordsmen

Ok

Julius Caesar - he was only 'Tribune for life' - first 'Imperator' for 4 years, but Consul for 11, so legitimately could be the last Roman Republican Leader as well as the first Roman Imperial Leader!

Caesar was a genocidal tyrant, so no.

Cincinattus would be a good figure to add here.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I mean, Hadrian's Wall was ever worse than the great wall at its job

So just make it like it currently is in civ 6, for China.
Though realistically I don't see two different iterations of the same thing, so if Hadrian were to get in maybe he'd get some sort of bonus toward building Roman forts adjacent to each other to represent "Hadrian's Wall".

Julius Caesar - he was only 'Tribune for life' - first 'Imperator' for 4 years, but Consul for 11, so legitimately could be the last Roman Republican Leader as well as the first Roman Imperial Leader!

Do people forget that Julius Caesar exists, and isn't technically considered one of the Roman emperors? Many others before him also had the title 'Imperator' as well. It wasn't until Augustus that the title referred to an actual emperor.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

So just make it like it currently is in civ 6.
Though realistically I don't see two different iterations of the same thing, so if Hadrian were to get in maybe he'd get some sort of bonus toward building Roman forts adjacent to each other to represent "Hadrian's Wall".

I agree with you on this. China could have something else maybe. But forts and walls could be interesting for both.

Do people forget that Julius Caesar exists, and isn't technically considered one of the Roman emperors? Many others before him also had the title 'Imperator' as well. It wasn't until Augustus that the title referred to an actual emperor.

Yeah. I don't like Caesar Julius though, he committed genocide against the Gallic tribes and transformed Rome from a classical republic with the occasional dictator to a tyrrany.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Couple of comments on the comments on the "Republican Roman" Potential Leader list:

Tarquinius: Everything we "know" about him comes from subsequent Roman Republican writers, so Of Course he comes across as a 'terrible man/ruler'. Talk about Hostile Witnesses!

Brutus: Maybe one of the best Romans. He was lauded by later Republican writers, just as Tarquinius became their Villain of the same story. But as stated, Brutus was a member of Tarquinius' family, and the whole Founding of the Republic actually amounted to putting the real power in the state into the hands of an oligarchic group of less than 50 families with Brutus getting one of the first two Consulships: can you spell Political Deal in Latin?

Julius Caesar: Of Course he committed Genocide: that's what Roman generals did when they conquered, and it's not specific to them. Look up what the 'Democracy' of Athens did to the Melians and Mytilenians. Damn few military leaders from antiquity through Early Modern would be acceptable under international law today - but that International Law is strictly a modern phenomena.

Cincinnatus is in the same boat with Romulus, I think: he may have existed, but he appears too much like the personification of Roman Civic Virtue to be a realistic historical personage/Leader. Of course, if we are approaching Leaders as Personifications of the Civ rather than anything Real, he's Perfect!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah. I don't like Caesar Julius though, he committed genocide against the Gallic tribes and transformed Rome from a classical republic with the occasional dictator to a tyrrany.

As said above we'd have to probably exclude most leaders and civs from the early game such as Babylon/Assyria, Mongolia etc., if that's the criteria.

Cincinnatus is in the same boat with Romulus, I think: he may have existed, but he appears too much like the personification of Roman Civic Virtue to be a realistic historical personage/Leader. Of course, if we are approaching Leaders as Personifications of the Civ rather than anything Real, he's Perfect!

Definitely seems more similar to Ancient Greece/Athens playstyle than Rome. At least when I think of Rome I tend to go for expansion and infrastructure first, which definitely fits someone like Hadrian.

 

[pineappledan]

Still thinking about Quintus Fabius Maximus being a pretty good choice. Another possibility would Manius Dentatus. Both reflect Rome’s tenacity and doggedness in war. The Pyrrhic and Punic Wars were both won because Rome could absorb devastating losses that would have broken the resolve of other nations. Their ULA could be something like ignoring war weariness from unit deaths and dead units refund part of the cost towards that same unit in their origin city.

"If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined."
- Pyrrhus of Epirus

 

[Kimiimaro]

Julius Caesar - he was only 'Tribune for life' - first 'Imperator' for 4 years, but Consul for 11, so legitimately could be the last Roman Republican Leader as well as the first Roman Imperial Leader!

Didn't the title of Imperator simply mean military commander in the times of the Republic, rather than an emperor? As far as I'm concerned, the first true imperial leader should be Octavianus - or Augustus, if you will.

Unless that "imperial leader" is meant as a wordplay - then I apologise for being overly serious .

Yeah. I don't like Caesar Julius though, he committed genocide against the Gallic tribes and transformed Rome from a classical republic with the occasional dictator to a tyrrany.

Ehm... That is a rather simplified view of the Roman political scene. The decline of the Roman Republic really did not happen with a snap of Gaius Julius Caesar's fingers. By the time Caesar started the career in high Roman politics to begin with, it's been in a deep downward spiral. Corruption, violence and murders were not unknown in the political arena of the Republic by then. You know the Gracchi brothers, so you surely must be aware how their lives ended. And ever heard of certain Lucius Cornelius Sulla? That man took over militarily years before Caesar and used the dictatorial position and proscriptions to violently remove his rivals and opposition. While it is true that he stepped down and retired eventually, you could blame him just as much for paving the way for the eventual fall of the Republic. In fact, you could say it was him who provided the triumvirs with a guide on how to establish an autocracy.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

As said above we'd have to probably exclude most leaders and civs from the early game such as Babylon/Assyria, Mongolia etc., if that's the criteria.

At least Genghis Khan spared some people and gave them a chance. Caesar just ran them over like they were a varmint on Katy Freeway (Houston joke)