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

I mean Puyi could be a leader for China... (I agree, we should not do the puppet state of Manchukuo)
He wasn't a very good representative of a Chinese leader, either. One step worse, and down to catastrophe, from Cixi. And a pre-pubescent child at the time of his abdication.
 
He wasn't a very good representative of a Chinese leader, either. One step worse, and down to catastrophe, from Cixi. And a pre-pubescent child at the time of his abdication.
I understand. But, his story is kinda interesting. If he joins -
Youngest civ leader.
Surprisingly gets the League of Legends players to play the game (oh god no)
 
There are not reason to diminish the potential of Jurchen/Manchu civ for a list of 50 civs in the light of the many civs already in the game:
- Historical relevance. Ignore the scale and meaning of start as an "barbarian" opressed subject to take first the half of China (imagine if Boudica had achieved something like this vs the Romans), fight over a century of constant war (the first one with massive use of Gunpowder weapons by both sides) to a state that facilitate the rise of the Mongols (I dont see people looking down in have late Sassanids when they obviously facilitated the rise of Islam because their constant war with Byzantium) with two fronts (the south still vs Song) still resisting more than the distant Central Asia. Then later, again rise to power against their mighty overlords to built an imperial dynasty as big and lasting than any Mongol or Han dynasty.
Meanwhile CIV is full of civs that in terms of historical impact are very far to achieve something remotely like that.
- Cultural identity. Being Chinese influenced do not limite have Korea, like being Mongol influenced do not disqualifies Gurkani or Tatars, neither be Persianised to Gurkani or Afghanistan, or being Arabized to Magrebies or Yemenies, of the dozens of civs that are technically Turkified, Romanized, Germanized, Indianized, etc.
The history of Jin dynasties is already an interesting story of cultural identity construction, Jurchen/Manchu leaders even using their ties to both Mongols and Chinese (also Koreans) to gain allies while at the same time organized cultural policies with forced customs that leaded to massive uprising of Han population that never stopped resenting the "foreigns/barbarians" in charge.
- Unique representation. Yes the "forbidden" word, like we have NA Native, Celtic or Polynesian slots (liked or not this is own CIV works with "artificial" representation for some slots) and keep adding more like SA Native (Mapuche) so "Siberians" is also a valid option. Tungusic peoples are one of the more significative groups from this region and the Jurchen themselves started their history as reindeer herders from the taigas in the north. Give Jurchen/Manchu this role is as valid as Maori keeping the whole polynesian origin design since the game only have a polynesian playable civ, so the Siberian/Tungus civ could also keep this origins design element.
- Gameplay design. The potential are there, in the lesser actor to massive power, in the cultural struggle, in their enviromental origins, in the gunpowder warfare incorpoaration and innovation and in the famous organization of the "Eight Banners". Anyway their design can be build in many different ways, or can people put a straight face and say that in-game Cree or Scotland designs were "needed" or inherent to them.

CIV already work with many civs that fail in one or more of these points, say that Jurchen/Manchu are not "ideal" is point less an competely subjetive when there are way worse options already in the game or constantly suggested without objection.
 
Last edited:
There are not reason to diminish the potential of Jurchen/Manchu civ for a list of 50 civs in the light of the many civs already in the game:
- Historical relevance. Ignore the scale and meaning of start as an "barbarian" opressed subject to take first the half of China (imagine if Boudica had achieved something like this vs the Romans), fight over a century of constant war (the first one with massive use of Gunpowder weapons by both sides) to a state that facilitate the rise of the Mongols (I dont see people looking down in have late Sassanids when they obviously facilitated the rise of Islam because their constant war with Byzantium) with two fronts (the south still vs Song) still resisting more than the distant Central Asia. Then later, again rise to power against their mighty overlords to built an imperial dynasty as big and lasting than any Mongol or Han dynasty.
Meanwhile CIV is full of civs that in terms of historical impact are very far to achieve something remotely like that.
- Cultural identity. Being Chinese influenced do not limite have Korea, like being Mongol influenced do not disqualifies Gurkani or Tatars, neither be Persianised to Gurkani or Afghanistan, or being Arabized to Magrebies or Yemenies, of the dozens of civs that are technically Turkified, Romanized, Germanized, Indianized, etc.
The history of Jin dynasties is already an interesting story of cultural identity construction, Jurchen/Manchu leaders even using their ties to both Mongols and Chinese (also Koreans) to gain allies while at the same time organized cultural policies with forced customs that leaded to massive uprising of Han population that never stopped resenting the "foreigns/barbarians" in charge.
- Unique representation. Yes the "forbidden" word, like we have NA Native, Celtic or Polynesian slots (liked or not this is own CIV works with "artificial" representation for some slots) and keep adding more like SA Native (Mapuche) so "Siberians" is also a valid option. Tungusic peoples are one of the more significative groups from this region and the Jurchen themselves started their history as reindeer herders from the taigas in the north. Give Jurchen/Manchu this role is as valid as Maori keeping the whole polynesian origin design since the game only have a polynesian playable civ, so the Siberian/Tungus civ could also keep this origins design element.
- Gameplay design. The potential are there, in the lesser actor to massive power, in the cultural struggle, in their enviromental origins, in the gunpowder warfare incorpoaration and innovation and in the famous organization of the "Eight Banners". Anyway their design can be build in many different ways, or can people put a straight face and say that in-game Cree or Scotland designs were "needed" or inherent to them.

CIV already work with many civs that fail in one or more of these points, say that Jurchen/Manchu are not "ideal" is point less an competely subjetive when there are way worse options already in the game or constantly suggested without objection.
Perhaps a disagreement, by personal views, on how those slots should be filled, and my opinion versus yours, and who best utilizes and does justice to them, which is really what it comes down to. All of my, and your, reasons and justifications just back our own opinions, and the differences thereof. There is no objective right and wrong answers - and I didn't say there was, or that mine were objectively right - so, please, again, stop putting words or intents in my mouth, and please stop trying to feign this coming to any sort of objective right and wrong. I stand by my opinion, and you obviously stand by yours. Please, do not try to escalate this to a level it does not belong on. And, once again, I can't help but notice a feeling that you take my disagreement personally, and it disturbs me.
 
I guess I will add a hot take here: I unironically think that figures in history who have good stories to tell should be in the game (like Caligula, Teddy Roosevelt...)
 
I'd like to see Russian ruler who is neither Catherine, nor Peter, nor any Soviet leader. Just so we could get out of the eternal pendulum between these two, with the occasional nod to USSR. 18th century is wildly overrepresented era of Russian history anyway.

I'd love to see Russian civ built around earlier eras than westernized 18th century, with leaders such as Dmitryi Donsky, Alexander Nevski, Ivan III the Great, some good 17th century tsar, but not Ivan Grozny as he's that one old Russian ruler who is overrepresented in culture, no doubt because of him fitting the bill of the "Russian despot".

Then, you design Russian civ which does not contain any beaten to death trope such as "much land bonus" or "many soldiers bonus" or especially any nonsensical bonuses related to winter or cold climate, and now we can have something interesting. Bonus points for the unique unit not being streltsy or cossacks. Bonus points from making Russian civ explicitly less exttemely imperialist than the usual depiction.

Honestly my dream would be Russian civilization with Novogrod as a capital, Nevsky as a leader, mighty mercantile and industry bonuses, and defensive focus - it would just gloriously subvert every boring convention imaginable, while still being perfectly historically accurate and depicting legitimately great aspects of Russian history.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see Russian ruler who is neither Catherine, nor Peter, nor any Soviet leader. Just so we could get out of the eternal pendulum between these two, with the occasional nod to USSR. 18th century is wildly overrepresented era of Russian history anyway.

I'd love to see Russian civ built around earlier eras than westernized 18th century, with leaders such as Dmitryi Donsky, Alexander Nevski, Ivan III the Great, some good 17th century tsar, but not Ivan Grozny as he's that one old Russian ruler who is overrepresented in culture, no doubt because of him fitting the bill of the "Russian despot".

Then, you design Russian civ which does not contain any beaten to death trope such as "much land bonus" or "many soldiers bonus" or especially any nonsensical bonuses related to winter or cold climate, and now we can have something interesting. Bonus points for the unique unit not being streltsy or cossacks. Bonus points from making Russian civ explicitly less exttemely imperialist than the usual depiction.

Honestly my dream would be Russian civilization with Novogrod as a capital, Nevsky as a leader, mighty mercantile and industry bonuses, and defensive focus - it would just gloriously subvert every boring convention imaginable, while still being perfectly historically accurate and depicting legitimately great aspects of Russian history.
I agree with you too.
 
I'd like to see Russian ruler who is neither Catherine, nor Peter, nor any Soviet leader. Just so we could get out of the eternal pendulum between these two, with the occasional nod to USSR. 18th century is wildly overrepresented era of Russian history anyway.

I'd love to see Russian civ built around earlier eras than westernized 18th century, with leaders such as Dmitryi Donsky, Alexander Nevski, Ivan III the Great, some good 17th century tsar, but not Ivan Grozny as he's that one old Russian ruler who is overrepresented in culture, no doubt because of him fitting the bill of the "Russian despot".

Then, you design Russian civ which does not contain any beaten to death trope such as "much land bonus" or "many soldiers bonus" or especially any nonsensical bonuses related to winter or cold climate, and now we can have something interesting. Bonus points for the unique unit not being streltsy or cossacks. Bonus points from making Russian civ explicitly less exttemely imperialist than the usual depiction.

Honestly my dream would be Russian civilization with Novogrod as a capital, Nevsky as a leader, mighty mercantile and industry bonuses, and defensive focus - it would just gloriously subvert every boring convention imaginable, while still being perfectly historically accurate and depicting legitimately great aspects of Russian history.

T-34 Tank? :mischief: :p
This does bring up an issue, and one I know divides the player base, and @Alexander's Hetaroi's comment makes it more profound. I think civ's that spread their leader, their civ-based UA, their UI, and their UU over as much of the historical range that nation had in recorded, extent history as possible is the key, rather than to chain the whole portrayal, play style, and all bonuses to the leader and their era. That is, I support Frederick II or Bismarck with panzers or U-boats, Teddy Roosevelt with F-15's, Wilhemina with poltroons, Catherine de Medici with Garde Imperiale, Nobunaga with A6M2 Zero's, Elizabeth I with Redcoats, or Alexander Nevski or Peter, Catherine, or Ivan the Terrible with T-34's as EXAMPLES.
 
This does bring up an issue, and one I know divides the player base, and @Alexander's Hetaroi's comment makes it more profound. I think civ's that spread their leader, their civ-based UA, their UI, and their UU over as much of the historical range that nation had in recorded, extent history as possible is the key, rather than to chain the whole portrayal, play style, and all bonuses to the leader and their era. That is, I support Frederick II or Bismarck with panzers or U-boats, Teddy Roosevelt with F-15's, Wilhemina with poltroons, Catherine de Medici with Garde Imperiale, Nobunaga with A6M2 Zero's, Elizabeth I with Redcoats, or Alexander Nevski or Peter, Catherine, or Ivan the Terrible with T-34's as EXAMPLES.
I agree with Mr. Patine here. These civs are supposed to be representative of their history, not just a specific moment.
 
Maybe a Gulyay-gorod? Hard to think of how that would work as a unit though.

I was trying to think of ways the Russians could gamify the Yasak as a UA, but came up short.

While I have no problem with components being dislocated from their leaders, I personally think that unique units shouldn’t be any later than WWI era. I’d like the ideology system to make a return and those could unlock late game UUs from WWII and later. So a T34, for example, would be a great UU, but I’d rather see it tied to adopting communism than tied to Russia.
 
Last edited:
While I have no problem with components being dislocated from their leaders, I personally think that unique units shouldn’t be any later than WWI era. I’d like the ideology system to make a return and those could unlock late game UUs from WWII and later. So a T34, for example, would be a great UU, but I’d rather see it tied to adopting communism than tied to Russia.
I think WWII and beginning of the Cold War is fine as a cut off. I guess I'm thinking no later than 1950 so Atomic Age in game.

My reasoning is aircraft really was a major factor in both theaters of WWII. If they improve air warfare I'd possibly like to see the return of the Zero for Japan, alongside the Samurai, or the P-51 Mustangs again. Would it be controversial to give America a B-29 bomber? :shifty:
 
I'd like to see Russian ruler who is neither Catherine, nor Peter, nor any Soviet leader. Just so we could get out of the eternal pendulum between these two, with the occasional nod to USSR. 18th century is wildly overrepresented era of Russian history anyway.

I'd love to see Russian civ built around earlier eras than westernized 18th century, with leaders such as Dmitryi Donsky, Alexander Nevski, Ivan III the Great, some good 17th century tsar, but not Ivan Grozny as he's that one old Russian ruler who is overrepresented in culture, no doubt because of him fitting the bill of the "Russian despot".

Then, you design Russian civ which does not contain any beaten to death trope such as "much land bonus" or "many soldiers bonus" or especially any nonsensical bonuses related to winter or cold climate, and now we can have something interesting. Bonus points for the unique unit not being streltsy or cossacks. Bonus points from making Russian civ explicitly less exttemely imperialist than the usual depiction.

Honestly my dream would be Russian civilization with Novogrod as a capital, Nevsky as a leader, mighty mercantile and industry bonuses, and defensive focus - it would just gloriously subvert every boring convention imaginable, while still being perfectly historically accurate and depicting legitimately great aspects of Russian history.
Another similar example:
- Huehue Xicohténcatl, the oustanding old Tlaxcaltec poet, warrior and senator from Tizatlán, as the diplomatic leader of the Aztec.
In the proper way the Aztecs were not just the Mexicas (defacto leaders of the "Triple Alliance") from Tenochtitlán, but also the Tepanecas, Acolhuas, Xochimilcas, Tlahuicas, Chalcas and Tlaxcaltecas since all these Nahua peoples came from Aztlán/Chicomoztoc. The Republic of Tlaxcala as antagonist to the Empire of Mexico would be a significative change to the regular representation of the Aztecs. Xicohténcatl's long service included the negotiations even with their regular foes like Huejotzingo, Cholula and Tenochtitlán (included the Flower Wars) and was the main figure for the definitive alliance with the Spaniards.
- UU Teuctli, medieval melee unit that double their stats if is next to any ally unit.
- UD Calpulli, neighborhood that spam free infantry if war is declared against you.
- UA Tequio, production bonus from your militar units stationed in your cities.
 
I think WWII and beginning of the Cold War is fine as a cut off. I guess I'm thinking no later than 1950 so Atomic Age in game.

My reasoning is aircraft really was a major factor in both theaters of WWII. If they improve air warfare I'd possibly like to see the return of the Zero for Japan, alongside the Samurai, or the P-51 Mustangs again. Would it be controversial to give America a B-29 bomber? :shifty:
Nobody has bombed more than America, the range, power and number of bombers like B-29 express more that any fighter the might of a continetal industrial power.

By the way Japan could give us the very unique I-400 class submarine aircraft carrier "Sen Toku", it would be an actually unique unit for strategical strikes.
 
Another similar example:
- Huehue Xicohténcatl, the oustanding old Tlaxcaltec poet, warrior and senator from Tizatlán, as the diplomatic leader of the Aztec.
In the proper way the Aztecs were not just the Mexicas (defacto leaders of the "Triple Alliance") from Tenochtitlán, but also the Tepanecas, Acolhuas, Xochimilcas, Tlahuicas, Chalcas and Tlaxcaltecas since all these Nahua peoples came from Aztlán/Chicomoztoc. The Republic of Tlaxcala as antagonist to the Empire of Mexico would be a significative change to the regular representation of the Aztecs. Xicohténcatl's long service included the negotiations even with their regular foes like Huejotzingo, Cholula and Tenochtitlán (included the Flower Wars) and was the main figure for the definitive alliance with the Spaniards.
- UU Teuctli, medieval melee unit that double their stats if is next to any ally unit.
- UD Calpulli, neighborhood that spam free infantry if war is declared against you.
- UA Tequio, production bonus from your militar units stationed in your cities.
This is kind of what I would like to avoid, as I said above - where the change in leaders chains the UU, the UD, AND the UA all to that leader and the specific tenure in power or ascendency of that, and the specific era thereof.
 
I mean in fairness with the Aztecs, the part where we know only a couple centuries of their history before the conquest pretty much does mean their entire unique selection will come from one era, no atter what we do.

It's not that I disagree with you in general, far from, I'm actually firmly on the side of civs representing multiple periods of their history, but some civs are by their nature single-era wonders.
 
Would it be controversial to give America a B-29 bomber?
They usually use the B29 model for the nuke unit, and I think that’s the most sensible call. America has other UU model options — it even has suitable unique bomber options — but there’s no good substitute for the B29 as the plane that drops the nuke.

As for the P51 and America’s choice of unique fighters, I’m partial to the P38. That’s a very effective fighter plane that looks totally unique compared to all the single-body WWII planes they are likely to pick as a default unit (it’s been a bf 109 for the past 2 games and a Hurricane for the 2 games before that). From a player’s high-up perspective, a P38’s unique silhouette would have much more impact than the P51, which almost has an identical outline to the bf 109. Likewise, the a6m zero has a very similar outline to the Hurricane.

If you make the cutoff after WWII, then fascism ceases to have good options for uniques.

In general civ UUs that unlock that late make very little impact. Many players get eliminated or functionally taken out of the game before that era, and you don't get to see their UUs in action as a result. It's more fun for everyone if the civ UUs unlock early enough that you get to fight with/against them.
 
Last edited:
They usually use the B29 model for the nuke unit, and I think that’s the most sensible call. America has other UU model options — it even has suitable unique bomber options — but there’s no good substitute for the B29 as the plane that drops the nuke.
That makes more sense.
As for the P51 and America’s choice of unique fighters, I’m partial to the P38. That’s a very effective fighter plane that looks totally unique compared to all the single-body WWII planes they are likely to pick as the base unit. From a player’s high-up perspective it has much more impact.
I'm fairly sure main reason the P-51 Mustangs were mainly used to highlight the Tuskegee Airmen, who were mainly African Americans, considering that's why they come with the red stripes.
If you make the cutoff after WWII, then fascism ceases to have good options for uniques.
I'm all for making governments more unique in Civ 7. This would be a good option to do it. When I say UUs, I don't necessarily mean it has to be for a specific civ. It could also be from a city-state, religious belief, corporation, or government ideology etc. :)
In general civ UUs that unlock that late make very little impact. Many players get eliminated or functionally taken out of the game before that era, and you don't get to see their UUs in action as a result. It's more fun for everyone if the civ UUs unlock early enough that you get to fight with/against them.
I agree. I'm way more partial to Ancient and Classical Era history myself so I agree that more uniques like infrastructure and units should definitely come earlier. But there are those rare cases where it's hard to do.
 
I’m also just kind of opposed to air units and submarine units as UUs at this point. it’s apparent that firaxis doesn’t know what to do with these unit classes to make them useful, and they are late additions that don’t get the balance and development investment needed to make them work. Any UU added to those base units could just be polishing a turd.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see Russian ruler who is neither Catherine, nor Peter, nor any Soviet leader. Just so we could get out of the eternal pendulum between these two, with the occasional nod to USSR. 18th century is wildly overrepresented era of Russian history anyway.

I'd love to see Russian civ built around earlier eras than westernized 18th century, with leaders such as Dmitryi Donsky, Alexander Nevski, Ivan III the Great, some good 17th century tsar, but not Ivan Grozny as he's that one old Russian ruler who is overrepresented in culture, no doubt because of him fitting the bill of the "Russian despot".

Then, you design Russian civ which does not contain any beaten to death trope such as "much land bonus" or "many soldiers bonus" or especially any nonsensical bonuses related to winter or cold climate, and now we can have something interesting. Bonus points for the unique unit not being streltsy or cossacks. Bonus points from making Russian civ explicitly less exttemely imperialist than the usual depiction.

Honestly my dream would be Russian civilization with Novogrod as a capital, Nevsky as a leader, mighty mercantile and industry bonuses, and defensive focus - it would just gloriously subvert every boring convention imaginable, while still being perfectly historically accurate and depicting legitimately great aspects of Russian history.
Just to point out, while Ivan IV has been the subject of considerable popular media attention (by my count, at least 3 movies and a television series in Russia alone), he is a good candidate for a Counter-Popular Image Leader for Russia. In addition to his far too well known despotic tendencies - which, frankly, were the Norm rather than the Exception in 15th - 16th century Europe - he also built the first printing plant in Moscow, penned dozens of essays and printed material himself, and had the "Saint Basil's" architecturally unique cathedral/Sobor built. You could easily and just as accurately make him more of a religious/scientific than a despotic militaristic Leader.

Now as to Unique Units.
As a military historian, I've run across numerous 'unique' attributes and units for military establishments, most of which have either been grossly misrepresented in Civ or ignored completely. Russia is no exception.

The Cossacks were enemies of Russia until they were brought under control, so if they have to be in the game (and they don't!) they should be a Unique Unit that Russia can get from 'Barbarians' nearby or from a City State (Zaporozhye or Krasnodar would be good candidates). The distinctive Cossack Unit was not a 19th century Cavalry equivalent, but light cavalry lancers of the 17th - 18th century at a time when the lance had completely fallen out of favor almost everywhere else.

Among the distinctive Russian 'methods and instruments of war' that could be really new Uniques:
1. Peter the Great's Corps Volante - mounted infantry and dragoons that could out maneuver the enemy on horseback, then dismounted to fight with muskets.
2. mid-18th century Licornes or Unicornes - howitzers that could also fire directly with solid or explosive shot, a unique Field Cannon against either troops or buildings.
3. Kolkhoz Infantry. In the 1930s, the Soviet Army had several rifle divisions in the Far East that were 'cadre' (active duty) units labeled 'Kolkhoz' (abbreviation for 'Collective Farm'). Basically, they worked the farms while also training as soldiers, and they had enough farmworkers to create 3 rifle divisions out of them instantly if needed. A modern Infantry unit that also provides 'extra' Food and/or Production points.
4. M1902 Cannon 76.2mm. The French '75' of 1897 was the first and most famous early modern gun with a recoil mechanism, but the Russian M1902 came right after, was lighter, as accurate, and was improved and 'upgraded', unlike the French gun, right up to the end of WWII: the ZIS-3 76.2mm of 1942 was a direct descendant, and used as light artillery, antitank artillery, and divisional artillery until the end of the war.
5. Shturmovik: The IL-2 attack aircraft, the first 'flying tank'. IF Civ VII gets air power right, or at least 1/3 right, this would be a better 'modern' Russian/Soviet UU than any ground unit: more
IL-2s were built than any other Soviet aircraft and they were used against every imaginable ground target within range, hitting enemy armor, headquarters, trucks, infantry positions, and many targets usually considered too dangerous to attack.

And by the way, although the image is indelibly attached to the Soviets, there was nothing particularly Soviet or Communist about the T-34: the engine was a copy of a French aircraft (diesel) engine, the chassis and suspension system from the American tank designer Christie, the main gun a development of the Imperial Russian M1902 76.2mm field cannon, and the sloped armor copied from a Dutch design of the 1930s.
 
Top Bottom