What will happen to Cult of Personality Civs now that the Leaders can be included separately?

[Hellenism Salesman]

In past games, we’ve gotten Macedon under Alexander and the Huns under Attila. The Scythians were mostly an excuse to include Tomyris, and infamously Civ VI’s Sumer (“Sumeria” in-game) was little more than a Gilgamesh Civ. These Civs are their Leaders, with few other candidates who could possibly lead them.

So what happens when we strip their Leader away?

I think certain Cult of Personality Civs could survive this. The Zulu and Carthage come to mind (the latter of which was frequently used to feature Dido, though is absolutely a deserving Civ on their own). Some will actually benefit from this- I could see Sumer finally getting an accurate design without Gilgamesh looming over it.

But others will crumble. I can’t really see the Huns without Attila. Same goes for Macedon, even considering Philip’s hegemony and their evolution of the phalanx.

But there’s a chance they could survive.

Some could be reduced to new Independent Peoples if they can’t quite make it as a Civ in their own right. Others might make the cut regardless, seeing as the new system has lowered the barrier of entry for Civs (no resource-intensive animated leader substantially reduces the cost of including a Civ). I still can’t see Macedon coming before other Civs, but I could see them coming eventually.

What do you all think?

 

[Leucarum]

I think I kind of prefer Alexander without Macedon. There was a lot of greek representation in Civ6 and Macedon felt superfluous when other regions were under-served...

Yes I know I'm saying that to the wrong person...

 

[chaosprophet]

While there may be some who chances decreases of being included either because others will be prioritized or because they don't fit very well anywhere with how it works now, the new system with civs tied to ages is likely to give us not only a broader representation of long lasting nations, but much more civs than ever before.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Since leaders and civs are divorced, we can now have those significant leaders without the awkwardly short-lived civs that previously couched them.

Alexander without the Macedons. Charlemagne without the Franks. Attila without the Huns. Zenobia without Palmyra.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Yes I know I'm saying that to the wrong person...

Despite my persona I actually agree

 

[Kyriakos]

Tbf Persian wars-conquest of Macedon by Rome is longer than the timeline of the USA (1776-now), so I wouldn't call Macedon a "short-lived" civ.
Now I wouldn't call it a distinct civ either, given it was Greek, but that's neither here nor there ^^
I am fine with Alexander being the leader of the Greek civ. He was that already in the first Civ game anyway.

 

[The Fanatical]

These civilizations were real, and I don't think they were an excuse for the inclusion of their leader, except Macedon of course. Seeing the Scythians getting revealed sent me in excitement, and I didn't even care about Tomyris. Civilizations were tied closely to their leader in Civilization VI by design, but there isn't such a restriction now, which I think is a good thing gameplaywise. We can have the specific leader or the specific civilization, and they can work well together despite having no connection whatsoever in real life. I can still see the Huns arriving in Civilization VII, after all, we need a Nomadic Horse culture to exist in Antiquity in order to work as precursors to the Mongols.

As for Macedon, I would approve their inclusion as a separate civilization from Greece only if there is no other way to include the Hetairoi unit in the game. I can see the unit being tied to Alexander's ability for instance since it was under Alexander that the unit became famous, but it is unknown as of yet if leader abilities will include units.

The description of Greece in the official site is ambiguous and suspicious. On the one hand there in no mention of Macedon, on the other it mentions that the Greek city-states were united only once before the Roman conquest, something that happened only under Philip II and Alexander. Could this even indicate that one of the two is the Greek leader?

I'm suspecting that we will know for certain when the list of Greek cities is fully revealed. If there is no Pella, Aegae and Alexandria, then Macedon will arrive as a separate civilization, which I wouldn't want to see happen again since the Greek city-states in Civilization VII are clumped together as (not even Classical) Greece in the Antiquity Age. We didn't get Athens, Sparta, Thebes, Corinth, Syracuse, Thessaly, Epirus as separate civilizations (which would undoubtedly be way too much), then why do we even need to have Macedon, especially now that civilizations aren't tied to leaders?

 

[Kyriakos]

The god-awful omega banner needs to go regardless ^^ There was a pleiad of beautiful generic-but-classical-Greek icons they could have used, like emblems on hoplite shields such as the head of Medusa. Or (non-city-state/other specific) other panhellenic emblems like the meander pattern.

 

[Krajzen]

Huns without Attila are indeed very little, though that's honestly not a big loss since they have been one of the most questionable civ choices ever (obscure, no language, no city list, very short history etc)

Scythians however would feel quite okay with many steppe rulers or really even non steppe kings of adjacent areas, due to their great and multicultural scope

Franks and HRE had many other viable rulers of their own history, not to mention taking legit sounding kings of other realms (you gonna tell me Napoleon doesn't feel kinda okay for them both?)

Timurids have never been literal single leader civ, since Shah Rukh would be a fantastic leader in his own, so they are precisely two leader civ And if we were to be strict about "hurr dynastic civ cannot be ruled by non dynastic member" then we ought to remove most Islamic civs (Ottomans, Abbasids...)

I was a fan of Macedon back when it had been the only hope of non Alexander-centric warmongering Greece, but now it's indeed unnecessary with the new system

Gran Colombia without Bolivar would be strangely okay for me but I can't explain why, I mean this civ's main problem is it lasting like 20 years at best - if we bypass that issue cuz we want some general spiritual representation for Colombia, Venezuela and Ecuador, then wrong leader is also secondary problem

Zulu without Shaka could be still ruled by Cetshwayo, so Timurids are not alone in being two leader civ, alas they would still have exactly the same one dimensional design they have always had bc they frankly lack any alternatives, so I would still be fine without them

 

[Leucarum]

Gran Colombia is a much better fit for 7 than 6 in general. It felt weird having an empire that was a bit of an historical blip be represented as eternal especially when the region had plenty more interesting indigenous nations that got passed over for them. In a system with separate ages they feel like they have a place.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I can see most of the civs might be gone but I can see a lot of the "cult" leaders staying.

Alexander can fit in with the Agoge civics of the Greeks, or the militaristic aspects of Rome as examples.

 

[JNR13]

I think such civs are still a strong case for DLC due to the marketing power of combining leader and civ. I agree that GC has a place in its new system and might just be the right civ for such a DLC combo with a strong leader personality. Macedonia I don't see returning. Scythia maybe, although there's a good chance it's a flex slot that rotates to yet another ancient steppe civ this time. Franks are too good in the new system as a single powerful pathway enabler to leave them out. Sumer also has merit as its own civ for sure but without Gilgamesh the chance for Akkad being represented by Babylon increases, imho.

I wonder if we will just get a "legends leader pack" at some point with semi-mythological figures, like Gilgamesh, Dido, Yu, and Kupe or so.

 

[Zaarin]

I think "cult of personality civ" is a matter of design rather than anything inherent. There was no reason Civ6 Sumer needed to be "Gilgamesh: The Civ," for example. That being said, I don't ever expect (or want) to see Macedon again. Civ6 Macedon was just a vehicle for Alexander, and that's not needed in Civ7's model. I certainly wouldn't call Carthage/Phoenicia a "cult of personality" civ, given its enormous power, wealth, and influence in the first millennium.

 

[Kyriakos]

Carthage isn't the same civ as Phoenicia, and it had no "enormous" power for any period longer than Macedon did - and the latter had far more power for a time than Carthage ever did.
As good a short proof as any for the above is to remind that at the height of its power, Carthage was begging splinter states of Alexander's empire (Ptolemaic and Seleukid empires) for help against Rome (not that in the end they were right to not help it, but there was considerable wariness due to the not that distant in time endless Carthage-Corinth, Carthage/Pyrros, Carthage/local Greek city states conflicts in Sicily).

 

[Zaarin]

Carthage isn't the same civ as Phoenicia

Yes, it is. The Carthaginians considered themselves Canaanites and Tyrians as late as Augustine. They spoke a dialect of Phoenician. They worshipped Phoenician gods*. They were founded to supply Phoenicia with iron, just like the other Western colonies. If Carthage isn't Phoenician, Magna Graecia and Ionia aren't Greek.
*Baal Hammon has limited attestation in Canaan; it's less clear where Tannit came from. But Carthaginian theophoric names continued to invoke El, Eshmun, Ashtarte, Baal (Hadad), etc.

it had no "enormous" power for any period longer than Macedon did - and the latter had far more power for a time than Carthage ever did.

The Phoenicians were the major power in the Mediterranean when the Greeks were still shuffling off the steppe into the Balkans, and the Macedonians were Greek or close enough anyway. I really don't think you know what you're talking about regarding the Phoenicians, or at least your opinion is clouded by typical Western Hellenophilia. Also a reminder that the Greeks were both literate and capable of crossing the ocean thanks to the Phoenicians.

 

[Xandinho]

Macedon in Civ6 doesn’t bother me much, as I understood its inclusion as a way to give Alexander his proper historical civilization (Nzinga Mbande, however, didn’t receive the same treatment, since she never led Kongo, but anyway...). That said, I agree with those who say that Macedon isn’t necessary in Civ7, as we can have Alexander without needing it, and I think that’s the direction they will take.

Gran Colombia is another unnecessary civ in Civ7, as it was included mainly because of Simon Bolivar, and now we can have him without his civ. The post-GC Colombia without militaristic elements makes much more sense for Civ7's approach.

 

[Kyriakos]

Yes, it is. The Carthaginians considered themselves Canaanites and Tyrians as late as Augustine. They spoke a dialect of Phoenician. They worshipped Phoenician gods*. They were founded to supply Phoenicia with iron, just like the other Western colonies. If Carthage isn't Phoenician, Magna Graecia and Ionia aren't Greek.
*Baal Hammon has limited attestation in Canaan; it's less clear where Tannit came from. But Carthaginian theophoric names continued to invoke El, Eshmun, Ashtarte, Baal (Hadad), etc.


The Phoenicians were the major power in the Mediterranean when the Greeks were still shuffling off the steppe into the Balkans, and the Macedonians were Greek or close enough anyway. I really don't think you know what you're talking about regarding the Phoenicians, or at least your opinion is clouded by typical Western Hellenophilia. Also a reminder that the Greeks were both literate and capable of crossing the ocean thanks to the Phoenicians.

I am sorry, for a moment I thought you were talking about that slave race to the persians. Must be some other phoenicians, of major advancements and global importance

Joking, I really don't like your tone, but also admitting that my post didn't help at all, I don't wish to continue.

 

[Zaarin]

Joking, I really don't like your tone, but also admitting that my post didn't help at all, I don't wish to continue.

You're right. I was snappish, and I apologize. You stumbled dismissively into one of my special interests, and I responded more aggressively than I should have.

 

[Kyriakos]

I can sympathize, at times I get carried away too.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There are 'Civs' that didn't apparently survive their most Iconic Leader's Death, but that does not mean the Civ Design has to be tied completely to the Leader. Even the most apparently Leader Dependent of previous Civ choices: Huns, Zulus and Macedon, have something in them besides The Leader:

1. The Huns appeared on the Volga 75 years before Attila became sole ruler of them. During that time, they chased the Goths west to the edge of Roman territory and established themselves in a huge area on the Roman Danubian frontier - Attila is completely immaterial to portraying the Huns as an aggressive Assault Force (Although, to be sure, I suspect they will personify part of the Crisis Period at the end of the Antiquity Age in Civ VII: if there's a set of Poster Boys for External Invasion, these are them)

2. What established the Zulus as separate and distinct from the rest of the cattle-herding peoples of south central Africa was their unique army of spearmen. That was (probably) invented by Shaka, but it survived him by 50 years, so, again, the aggressive militancy of the Zulus doesn't require a single Leader to model it.

Both of these Civs, because of outside influences (massive defeat by, respectively, the Roman Empire and the British Empire) were extremely short-lived: less than a century each. Macedon is a different picture completely. There is firm historical record of the kingdom from the time of king Amyntas I (547 BCE) to its conquest by Rome (168 BCE), or almost 400 years, even if we ignore the proto-historic Macedonian past, the 'archaic' period before Amyntas.

Macedonian 'Greekiness' became Official only after 504 BCE, when Alexander I of Macedon got himself officially declared 'Greek' so Macedon could compete in the Olympic Games. BUT Macedon in basic social organization and culture was much, much closer to the Mycenean warlords than to any Greek city-state - in fact, this would be one good reason for including Macedon - that it represents the Bronze Age Greek culture rather than the Classical.

Phillip II created the Macedonian Army, including all the 'Unique' units like the Hetairoi, Pezhetairoi, Hypaspists, Prodromoi and Agrianian mercenaries. I could argue that he would make a good alternative to Alexander II in any case, since he was both a good general and also a much better diplomat/politician than his son*: he was, after all, the first man to ever bring the majority of Greek states in mainland Greece under political/military Control, something that had eluded both Athens at the height of its power and Sparta, Corinth, and Thebes, the only other city states strong enough to even consider attempting it.

Macedon, by the way, could be considered a good example of the Greek State In Another Climate. Macedon is NOT a Mediterranean biome: the olive tree does not grow there and the population has a much higher proportion of blond hair, light-colored eyes and light skin than Mediterranean groups. So Alexander's light hair and eyes were remarked on by almost every classical author, and the country's major agricultural export (mostly to Greece proper) was red wine - for which it is still well known - and good ship-building timber, which was by the classical era getting pretty hard to find in the eastern Mediterranean coastal areas.

* and for something Unique, he is the first military leader known to have used catapults throwing both bolts and stones in Siege warfare, and also the first known to have used some of the 'iconic' siege engines like the catapult-holding Siege Tower and the Sambucha. IF Demetrius the Besieger (Demetrius Poliorcetes - let that roll off your tongue) isn't in the game (and let's face it, he is definitely a One Note Leader) then Phillip could be the Taker of Cities Leader.