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

[The Fanatical]

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 such as the meander pattern.

I really hoped the Gorgoneion to be on hoplitic shields, it would look amazing, in fact I had made a mod where I added it myself on Hoplites' shields in Civilization VI. Making it the civilization's icon would have been nice too. Other appropriate symbols would have been an Ionic column, a volute krater, an anthemion, a Centaur, a Greek Sphinx on a column, a whole Gorgon, Heracles' head with the Nemean lion's pelt, baby Heracles killing two snakes and the list can go on eternally. I guess the Omega was simpler and more traditional.

 

[The Fanatical]

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.

That quicker experience for Commanders seems very Alexandrish to be honest.

 

[TempusFugit]

Regarding Carthaginians, there is no doubt that they are Phoenicians in every way. But I think it also makes sense to include them as a separate civilization, since they played a very different role in their heyday, than the other Phoenicians did in theirs. It would also work well since their heartland is not located in Canaan.

Or at least it would make sense in earlier iterations of the game. For Civ 7 it may well be better to merge them together into one civilization called Phoenicia, which gets access to some of the things Carthage is famous for. Since there is so much ground that needs to be covered for other civilizations anyway.

I am of course very biased here, since Phoenicia is one of my favorite civilizations, and I wouldn’t mind having separate versions of them that can coexist on the same map, as we have had with Ancient Greece,

 

[Zaarin]

Regarding Carthaginians, there is no doubt that they are Phoenicians in every way. But I think it also makes sense to include them as a separate civilization, since they played a very different role in their heyday, than the other Phoenicians did in theirs. It would also work well since their heartland is not located in Canaan.

Or at least it would make sense in earlier iterations of the game. For Civ 7 it may well be better to merge them together into one civilization called Phoenicia, which gets access to some of the things Carthage is famous for. Since there is so much ground that needs to be covered for other civilizations anyway.

I...agree and disagree. I think broadly they're difficult to differentiate: they were both primarily interested in the trade of luxury goods, founding littoral colonies to trade with inland natives (especially for metal), and seafaring. Their gods weren't identical, but their religious practices were similar, including the occasional infant sacrifices (though the archaeological evidence doesn't support anything like the scale of sacrifice described in the Bible or by Roman polemicists). Both were generally inclusive of non-Phoenicians in their society, with status largely being based on wealth. I would say the Carthaginians were more warlike (not that the Phoenicians were pacifist; e.g., see their conquest of Cyprus). However, I do get what you're getting at: the pop culture image of Carthage is Hannibal and war elephants (kind of why I liked Civ6's take on Phoenicia so much--it felt much more authentic).

I am of course very biased here, since Phoenicia is one of my favorite civilizations, and I wouldn’t mind having separate versions of them that can coexist on the same map, as we have had with Ancient Greece,

No amount of blurring of the timeline would support it, but I wish there were some way to justify Exploration Age Carthage so we could have Phoenicia > Carthage.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Regarding Carthaginians, there is no doubt that they are Phoenicians in every way. But I think it also makes sense to include them as a separate civilization, since they played a very different role in their heyday, than the other Phoenicians did in theirs. It would also work well since their heartland is not located in Canaan.

Or at least it would make sense in earlier iterations of the game. For Civ 7 it may well be better to merge them together into one civilization called Phoenicia, which gets access to some of the things Carthage is famous for. Since there is so much ground that needs to be covered for other civilizations anyway.

I am of course very biased here, since Phoenicia is one of my favorite civilizations, and I wouldn’t mind having separate versions of them that can coexist on the same map, as we have had with Ancient Greece,

I find that interesting because I think Civ 7 is the first iteration where I could justify both as separate civilizations, thanks to the ages system. Because civs aren't tied to their historic ages I think there could be a precedent of Antiquity Phoenicia into Exploration Carthage. If the Ottomans do get in the Modern Age, they controlled that area for hundreds of years so that could be the final progression.
I'm just imagining Barbary Corsairs being produced by a Cothon harbor.

 

[The Fanatical]

Regarding Carthaginians, there is no doubt that they are Phoenicians in every way. But I think it also makes sense to include them as a separate civilization, since they played a very different role in their heyday, than the other Phoenicians did in theirs. It would also work well since their heartland is not located in Canaan.

Or at least it would make sense in earlier iterations of the game. For Civ 7 it may well be better to merge them together into one civilization called Phoenicia, which gets access to some of the things Carthage is famous for. Since there is so much ground that needs to be covered for other civilizations anyway.

I am of course very biased here, since Phoenicia is one of my favorite civilizations, and I wouldn’t mind having separate versions of them that can coexist on the same map, as we have had with Ancient Greece,

Getting both Carthage and Phoenicia is unlikely. Carthage was just a city that ruled an empire in the western Mediterranean Sea, on the other hand Phoenicia as a name can be applied to both Carthage and the whole culture that the city originated from. Thus, I hope and believe we will get Phoenicia with a Carthaginian leader (Hannibal). The unique unit will be a naval one, the Bireme or the Quadrireme. The possibility of a Carthaginian War elephant unit is very slim, since we already have two elephant units in Antiquity. Although, a second Unique Unit could be added via Hannibal and his ability. It would fit him too.

 

[Zaarin]

Getting both Carthage and Phoenicia is unlikely. Carthage was just a city that ruled an empire in the western Mediterranean Sea, on the other hand Phoenicia as a name can be applied to both Carthage and the whole culture that the city originated from. Thus, I hope and believe we will get Phoenicia with a Carthaginian leader (Hannibal). The unique unit will be a naval one, the Bireme or the Quadrireme. The possibility of a Carthaginian War elephant unit is very slim, since we already have two elephant units in Antiquity. Although, a second Unique Unit could be added via Hannibal and his ability. It would fit him too.

I agree with most of this, but I think leader unique units and infrastructure will be a thing of the past now that leaders last through all three ages while civs do not. That being said, while I think Phoenicia will have a unique Quadrireme, I could see Phoenicia getting a unique North African Elephant with a unique naval trade unit for their civilian unique (I think that will be their unique civilian unit either way). I suspect you're right about Hannibal returning, but Hanno the Navigator would be a fun alternative. I suspect Hannibal's ability will have to do with making hiring Independent Peoples cheaper; his army was largely made up of Iberian, Celtiberian, Gaulish, and Numidian mercenaries. (I lowkey hope he's depicted after he plucked his eye out...)

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

I think "cult of personality civ" is a matter of design rather than anything inherent.

Truth be told, I'm inclined to agree.

However, the way Firaxis has treated Civs in the past is telling of how they might treat them in the future. I concede that many of the examples I listed in the original post only tenuously fall under the category I described. Truth be told, Civ VI only had two true Cult of Personality Civs and they were Macedon and Gran Colombia. However, Firaxis was still interested in using many of those in my list as vehicles for their pop history traits. The Scythians were led by Tomyris (with her ability literally being a broad combat bonus called "Killer of Cyrus"), the Phoeneicians were led by Dido when real leaders were right there, and Sumer was reduced to the Gilgamesh Civ.

We can discuss what should or shouldn't happen and what may or may not qualify, but that doesn't change the fact that Firaxis might see things differently.

I think we have reason for hope, though: 1) thanks to considerate historians like Andrew Johnson and the evident discussions that took place in the design and implementation of these new systems, and 2) Firaxis was steadily improving. Macedon was little more than a vehicle for Alexander in Civ VI, but that didn't stop Firaxis from taking a good shot at designing them fairly and accurately. Same goes for Gran Colombia. Even Civs that lie on the fringe of this Cult category (I feel that the Zulu are very much used as a Shaka shoe-in) were still given designs as separated from their Leaders as possible.

So whether or not some of these Civs get to remain (don't worry Zaarin, I firmly believe the Phoenicians are coming and fully deserve to come ) is definitely a question that Firaxis themselves was/is asking, and I hope they are coming to many of the same well-informed opinions found here.

And just to make it clear, I wrote my original post from the perspective of what Firaxis might consider Cult of Personality Civs, or more broadly, Civs that are or are used as excuses to include a certain leader. I do realize it's impossibe to tell whether the decision to include Phoenicia (or Carthage as they were in Civ 5) came before or after the choice of featuring Dido as their leader, but the trend towards "big personality" Leaders led to a lot of choices that felt rather cheap, or more like a convenient coincidence than a good-faith "let's include this Civ this time around." If I remember correctly, Firaxis would design the Civs mechanically first and then find a historical backing, only fine-tuning it to be truly Civ-specific after the connection was made, which perfectly explains that phenomenon. Thankfully, such a method seems dead and buried with the introduction of Civ-specific Great People and Civic Trees. The process has changed dramatically.

Perhaps I'm just internally confusing my distaste for the "big personality" motive with the topic at hand. If that's the case I apologize. I hope there was some value in this fanatical ramble. Let's keep the discussion going.

 

[Zaarin]

The Scythians were led by Tomyris (with her ability literally being a broad combat bonus called "Killer of Cyrus"), the Phoeneicians were led by Dido when real leaders were right there, and Sumer was reduced to the Gilgamesh Civ.

My distaste for how Civ6 handled Sumer is well known so I'll leave it. I agree; Sumer was reduced to Gilgamesh: The Civ. That's partially why I don't think we'll see Sumer back in Civ7 (even though there are many interesting directions you could take a Sumerian civ). As for the other two, I suspect that the Scythians were chosen in part as a way to include Tomyris, but I don't think the civ was designed around her in the same way Sumer and Macedon were designed around Gilgabro and Alexander respectively. Also, the Scythians are a prime choice for an early horse raider civ, and I would not at all be surprised to see them back as a predecessor to your choice of Mongolia or Rus' or what have you (though perhaps not in the base game). I think Dido was a vehicle for the Phoenicians more than the other way around--that is, she was a nod to Carthage while shifting focus back to Canaan proper.

If I remember correctly, Firaxis would design the Civs mechanically first and then find a historical backing, only fine-tuning it to be truly Civ-specific after the connection was made. That method seems dead and buried with the introduction of Civ-specific Great People and Civic Trees, thankfully.

In the last live stream they said it's a mix of both civ-first-then-mechanics and mechanics-first-then-civ when deciding what civs to include.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And just to make it clear, I wrote my original post from the perspective of what Firaxis might consider Cult of Personality Civs, or more broadly, Civs that are or are used as excuses to include a certain leader. I do realize it's impossibe to tell whether the decision to include Phoenicia (or Carthage as they were in Civ 5) came before or after the choice of featuring Dido as their leader, but the trend towards "big personality" Leaders led to a lot of choices that felt rather cheap, or more like a convenient coincidence than a good-faith "let's include this Civ this time around." If I remember correctly, Firaxis would design the Civs mechanically first and then find a historical backing, only fine-tuning it to be truly Civ-specific after the connection was made, which perfectly explains that phenomenon. Thankfully, such a method seems dead and buried with the introduction of Civ-specific Great People and Civic Trees. The process has changed dramatically.

I feel like you could make the same argument that the only reason that Carthage kept on appearing in earlier games is because of Hannibal. At least with Dido we've gotten some variety.

And as far as Phoenicia proper goes, there's not many leaders that we have enough knowledge on besides maybe Hiram II. And all that we know of him is that he presented gifts and tributes to others, so that's not that much to go on.

 

[Zaarin]

And as far as Phoenicia proper goes, there's not many leaders that we have enough knowledge on besides maybe Hiram II. And all that we know of him is that he presented gifts and tributes to others, so that's not that much to go on.

He also lost a war against Assyria, costing him control of Sidon, not that that's very inspiring.

 

[dagriggstar]

I think part of what made certain factions feel like “Alexander the civ” was that in a game meant to last 6000 years, most/all unique attributes revolved around a specific point in history. This contrasted with others designed with multiple points in history in mind.

With the new age system all factions are designed around a particular age, so I expect none will feel like “leader the civilisation” as a result.

 

[RedCourtJester]

My predictions for cult of personality leaders:

* Simon Bolivar, Charlemagne, Eleanor of Aquitaine, normal leaders. They each get a three-civ path they prefer. (Maya -> Inca -> Gran Colombia; Gaul -> Carolingians -> Germany; Gaul -> Normans -> Britain).

* A very small number of civs will have a "Mega version" tied to a specific leader. We will have normal France, but Napoleon will get "French Empire" which can progress from multiple civs. We will get that for most other "cult of personality" leaders: Alexander gets "Mega-Greece," Genghis Khan gets "Mega-Mongolia," Isabella gets "Mega-Spain," Victoria gets "Mega-Britain," Al-Walid gets "Mega-Arabia (Umayyad)," and maybe Stalin "Mega-Russia." These civs will be basically alt personalities for civs already in the game, but with much fewer restrictions on who they can/prefer to progress to and/or from.

* Given that I am expecting there to be a Turkic expansion to give us a better route for an Ottoman leader to be in the game, I could see the Xiongnu/Huns being treated this way as well for Atilla. But the civ itself would still be part of a natural 3-era pathway for Suleiman/whoever through the Gokturks (and then just barely jumping the path to Ottomans with an Orghuz Oman I leader). So maybe a "Mega-Xiongnu" for Atilla.

* I think the Mesopotamian DLC pack will have two cults of personality acting kind of pluripotential starts for the game, because Mesopotamian civs all lead to Persia and were likely left out of the base game because that creates boring, duplicative pathways. The cults of personality I peg as probably Zenobia and Sargon. Neither will have a preferential direction for exploration or modern age (maybe several options for the player), and as AI will either pick randomly from a set (maybe all of the civs), or otherwise maybe have standards for outright competing with the player. Zenobia will start with Assyria (Palmyra being Syrian and an extension of that heritage), while Sargon will start with Sumeria/Babylon.