Keep in mind that I am a biased Dane when reading this. I will be serious, but this is why I care about it and say some of the stuff I am about to: So now that the leak is basically confirmed, I find the Swedish leader as odd as the French one. I am mostly citing the opinions of angry swedes here: Why go for a leader branded a traitor by the Swedish people. Hated back then and still looked down upon? She undid or at least tried to undo the work of her father during the 30 years war, which was a personal, DEFINITELY not a national interest. Is it because she's a female? (Read: it is because she's female.) Cherry picking the only female leader they could find and just went with her even though she is not even close to being a symbol of her people seems non-Civ. I'm not surprised after the French leader. I mean... why not Napoleon? Any of the Louis XIV? Charles de Gaulle? Dont even get me started on Seondeok. As an added bonus which i find INCREDIBLY ironic is that Kristina wrote a book called: "It is my opinion that no women should rule a nation". Female leaders like Victoria obviously makes a ton of sense, so does Cleopatra, Tamar, Wilhemina etc... because they, like the male leaders present in the game, actually is a symbol of their nations. If they wanted a strong, female, Nordic leader which is actually seen as a national symbol of her origin country, and is a leader of both Denmark AND Sweden in a non viking age, why not go for Margrethe I? She was the leader of ALL 3 Nordic countries - Greenland, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway!! She would fit perfectly into the Diplomacy system. You would not be leaving out one of the 3 Scandinavian countries like you did in Civ V(!!!). You'd have an actual strong female leader instead of this actual disaster. Margrethe I of the Kalmar Union - a much stronger leader and a much stronger nation at a much better time for all 3.