Which new leader for existing civ would u most like to see (and why)?

[fredrikslicer]

For arabia

The Ismaili represents an interesting time in middle eastern/ islamic history with a lot of interesting characters

Leader: Hassan i-Sabbah
ULA: Dar-al Hijra
May not build cities, conquered cities become puppets, missionaries and apostles increases influence points with city-states, Fedayeen replaces Mameluk

UU: Fedayeen replaces spies, can be sacrificed to kill great generals, starts with the Disguise promotion
Founder of the Hashashin or as they called themselves the Fedayeen

Leader: Arwa al-Sulayhi
ULA: Hujja
Apostles start with translator promotion
She largely lead the Mutasili branch for some time and helped establish it in India

Leader: Al-Mu'izz li-Din Allah
He conquered Egypt for the fatimid caliphate and founded Cairo

Granted the two first are not entirely necessary but I find them interesting regardless
Hassan could probably be reduced to Alamut and be made a city state


Islam should also be divided into shia and sunni

 

[Zaarin]

Islam should also be divided into shia and sunni

I don't see it as necessary. Unlike the different sects of Christianity, the theological differences between Shia and Sunni are minor, centered more around the political question of who should be the rightful heir of the Prophet than questions of theology. It would make more sense to separate Sufism than to separate Shia and Sunni. I'd place a higher priority in representing the disparate sects of Hinduism and Buddhism, whose theological differences are much more extreme than the sects of Islam and at least on par with those of Christianity if not more so. (Though, honestly, when it comes to the religious system, I won't argue with them splitting hairs as finely as they see fit, so long as they apply it consistently.)

All that being said, I highly suspect that the decision to tripartite Christianity derives from the large number of European nations more than the inherent theological differences within Christianity. After all, they did leave out the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox* churches, who are also unrepresented by any civ in the game (which wasn't true in Civ5--the Ethiopian Tewedros Orthodox Church is one of the non-Chalcedonian Oriental Orthodox churches, along with Coptic Orthodoxy, Syriac Orthodoxy, Armenian Apostolic, Georgian Orthodoxy, etc.).

*Sometime in the last century, the term "Oriental" seems to have picked up a pejorative connotation when referring to people of East Asia. Nevertheless, "Oriental Orthodoxy" is the preferred term for the non-Chalcedonian churches of the Near East and South Asia. The Oriental Orthodox churches are autocephalic. Some are in partial communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church (i.e., the patriarch of Constantinople), while the Armenian Apostolic Church is also in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. However, the Oriental Orthodox are politically and theologically distinct from either.

 

[fredrikslicer]

I don't see it as necessary. Unlike the different sects of Christianity, the theological differences between Shia and Sunni are minor, centered more around the political question of who should be the rightful heir of the Prophet than questions of theology.

Fairly sure there is quite a bit more to it than that but regardless I wrote that bit when I was going to represent the Ismaili states as a separate Civ then I realized that was a poor idea and changed it forgot to remove that part about splitting up islam

 

[Zaarin]

Fairly sure there is quite a bit more to it than that but regardless I wrote that bit when I was going to represent the Ismaili states as a separate Civ then I realized that was a poor idea and changed it forgot to remove that part about splitting up islam

Islam is much more theologically unified than other major religions, not entirely sure why. Sufism, of course, is the major outlier, but the differences between Sunni and Shia are relatively minor--especially compared to, say, Protestantism and Catholicism, or Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism.