Would you like to see more 20th century leaders and civs in Civ7?

[Dale]

Would you like to see more 20th century leaders and civs in Civ7?

No.

 

[BK_PEARL]

The key point here and in all such discussions is:

"at our current tech level . . ."

That is a very moving situation constraint, and one which, as has been proven time and again in the past 100 years, we cannot predict with anything like accuracy. My favorite examples:

The original Star Trek showed them using, essentially, Flip Phones, which is already considered a niche, quaint technology. 23rd century became very early 21st century.

Out of all the hundreds of stories about men going to the moon, not one ever assumed or forecast that the moon landing would be Televised.

As John Campbell pointed out decades ago, if a fairly simple reconnaissance drone from the Vietnam war was dropped onto a USAF base thirty-five years earlier, in 1936 - 39, it would be largely incomprehensible to them. It used a ram jet, which doesn't work unless the craft is already going over 500 miles per hour, which No Craft in 1938 can do. It used solid-state electronics, which are, to 1938 analysis, simply blocks of silicon with impurities, The airframe is built of titanium, an unknown material in 1938. The insignia looks a little like the then-current USAF roundel and star, and it has wings that imply that it flies - somehow, but nothing in 1938 can get it to fly.

Now fast forward to 2060 or so, 35 years from now. None of us can predict accurately, based on all our previous attempts and their lack of success, what "our current tech level" will be then. For all we know, Mars might be a weekend jaunt or we might be struggling to make it across the Atlantic Ocean in the face of storms that dwarf anything we've seen in the past 10,000 years. We simply do not know, and have a very bad record of predicting.

yes, and the biggest kicker is AI booming into god knows what, It may be the biggest jump in tech ever in our history.

 

[Disgustipated]

I generally don't think it's a great idea. Teddy Roosevelt is probably the latest I would go. He worked out great. Most people don't have any major issues with Teddy. But of course it would be too soon to bring him back.

The problem with more modern leaders is the "biggest" ones tend to be ideological in one way or another. Even FDR isn't that great a choice. I'm one of the few who believe he is overrated as a President. And of course someone like Churchill can be controversial as well. I don't think we'll ever get Stalin or Mao back in the game ever again.

Now that said, you could go with a non- head of state. This would be the only workable solution to this problem. But even that could be controversial if that person has certain political views.

 

[untitledjuan]

I generally don't think it's a great idea. Teddy Roosevelt is probably the latest I would go. He worked out great. Most people don't have any major issues with Teddy. But of course it would be too soon to bring him back.

The problem with more modern leaders is the "biggest" ones tend to be ideological in one way or another. Even FDR isn't that great a choice. I'm one of the few who believe he is overrated as a President. And of course someone like Churchill can be controversial as well. I don't think we'll ever get Stalin or Mao back in the game ever again.

Now that said, you could go with a non- head of state. This would be the only workable solution to this problem. But even that could be controversial if that person has certain political views.

Even Theodore Roosevelt is a bit controversial in some places, he kind of represents American "soft" neo-colonialism in Latin America for a lot of people there, specially in Colombia, as he orchestrated the separation of Panama from Colombia and basically held it as a pseudo-colony/territory for almost a century.

I, as a Colombian, wouldn't personally argue against including Theodore Roosevelt in the game, after all, all leaders had to conquer/attack/interfere in other countries' territories (that's history) and I believe he was a very good choice to represent a more "modern" part of the history of the USA.

However, I bet some people in Latin America don't have a very positive opinion regarding Theodore Roosevelt.

(Fun fact: many people in Latin America actually do love FDR and JFK (mainly because they helped various Latin American countries with their infrastructure, to counter Soviet influence), there are even neighbourhoods in various cities that have their names, especially in Colombia, that were inaugurated by them when they visited the country, which is something weird to think about)

 

[gdr_willter]

Even Theodore Roosevelt is a bit controversial in some places, he kind of represents American "soft" neo-colonialism in Latin America for a lot of people there, specially in Colombia, as he orchestrated the separation of Panama from Colombia and basically held it as a pseudo-colony/territory for almost a century.

I, as a Colombian, wouldn't personally argue against including Theodore Roosevelt in the game, after all, all leaders had to conquer/attack/interfere in other countries' territories (that's history) and I believe he was a very good choice to represent a more "modern" part of the history of the USA.

However, I bet some people in Latin America don't have a very positive opinion regarding Theodore Roosevelt.

(Fun fact: many people in Latin America actually do love FDR and JFK (mainly because they helped various Latin American countries with their infrastructure, to counter Soviet influence), there are even neighbourhoods in various cities that have their names, especially in Colombia, that were inaugurated by them when they visited the country, which is something weird to think about)

That's very similar in Korea. Theodore Roosevelt is the one who admit Imperial Japan to take Korea as their colony by concluding the Taft–Katsura agreement, while FDR (and Truman) fight against Japan and eventually freed Korea. Of course it may be very simplified way to see history in character-based perspective, but at least I can say Teddy Roosevelt was clearly a colonist who didn't criticized the imperialism rather follow it aggressively.

 

[GeoGeo]

In the original Civilization, over a fifth of the roster came from the 20th century. Stalin and Mao are no longer politically tenable, and Gandhi became a meme later on, but you can't say it's unprecedented territory for the series. We're now almost 35 years past Civilization 1, and I think that's worth acknowledging too. With that in mind, I've been specifically hoping for Nelson Mandela. The latter half of the 20th century is admittedly even harder to work with.

 

[Disgustipated]

As for Teddy above, yes he was a colonizer, as most leaders of that time periods are. At least the ones from the "big" nations. The Spanish American war certainly changed American attitudes towards this. Had the war been a failure, I'd imagine attitudes would be different.

We are better off going for people who weren't PM's or Presidents. I was thinking of business tycoons, but even Henry Ford has some "issues". He would be an ideal leader choice if it wasn't for his personal beliefs.

 

[Zaarin]

In the original Civilization, over a fifth of the roster came from the 20th century.

I think that comes down to the original Civilization being based on Sid's personal recollections of history class and pop history without even the benefit of Wikipedia to look things up. "I need an African civ. I don't know much about Africa. Wasn't there that movie about the Zulu? Let's include them! Now, who to lead China? I remember Mao Zedong in history class. That'll do!"

 

[Xandinho]

Personally, I’m not a fan of presidents, especially those from after 1900.

If a civilization has at least one monarch option, as long as they’re not a controversial choice, they should always be included instead of any president. That’s why I don’t mind Pedro II always returning as the leader of Brazil - he’s definitely a much better option than any Brazilian president. If they want to mix things up a bit, let it be Pedro I, but not a president.

I think presidents feel even more out of place with Civ7’s proposal.

 

[notNamed]

I think that comes down to the original Civilization being based on Sid's personal recollections of history class and pop history without even the benefit of Wikipedia to look things up.

And yet the Moctezuma in Civ 1 is more historically accurate to a tlatoani than any of his successors in Civ 4, 5, 6 and the Maya in 7 (guys taking the bullet until Aztecs inevitably do come and look even more ridiculous).
The guy dons the signature turquoise crown, a cloak and the yellow ochre bodypaint (not necessarily a tlatoani thing but present in the culture).


On the topic of the thread, I think 20th century leaders do have a place but they're obviously finnicky. Repeating my pet-peeve with the way Vietnamese are handled at the moment... if you take random historical figures only to make them into an expy for Ho Chi Minh, then despite the obvious problem of having to get an okay from the Vietnamese censors on his depiction (and randomly getting banned in Vietnam), it would be much preferrable to just put him in the game instead of pretending this or that completely unrelated personality was actually Ho Chi Minh in one of his past lives. Always an anti-colonialist, guerrila leading, commoner-focused, progressive idealist ideal of a communist revolutionary be they Trung Trac, Bau Trieu, Le Loi and so on.

Similarly South Korea would be greatly served by a leader that presents the reason why we think of them as a technological powerhouse (contrary to how other Sinitic cultures and Europeans alike saw them more as a backwater living in hostile terrain and conforming to ideals beyond the originator's imagining), though that's almost unworkable here as the post-WW2 dictators probably aren't getting any spotlight, modern politicians fail the whole "historical" nature of the game and using someone like the founder or most prominent Samsung CEO would be a parody at best. Though maybe, just maybe, people who are learned in South Korean history could specify some non-statesman from the 20th century who would both serve as a good persona candidate to show the technological focus of the country, while not being absurdly recent, a complete "Who?", nor ridiculously on the nose about it like Samsung leadership.


Similarly you can easily serve civs which won't ever get in but one might find interesting. Bohemia got lots and lots of hits prior to Civ 7's unveiling and you could certainly throw in some of the "founding fathers" of the modern state as a fairly easy option towards that, kind of like a reverse Himiko. Masaryk (your typical founding father persona) or Bata (tycoon/magnate idealist of the early 20th cent) and the like. You get to show a bit of some more obscure history without just parroting popular internet memes (Hussite everything) while still getting the desired effect of being recognised as representing the locals, leaving the door open for a civ with all the additional assets, etc.

 

[Quintillus]

Having come of age playing Civ III, where the eras were, roughly:

Ancient: 4000 BC -> 600 AD
Medieval: 600 AD -> 1700 AD
Industrial: 1700 AD -> 1945 AD
Modern: 1945 AD -> 2050 AD

The lack of 20th century leaders certainly seems odd to me. Granted, VII is taking a wider view of "Modern". But I also grew up playing as Gandhi in Civ III and against Stalin in Civ IV - there's nothing odd to me in seeing 20th century leaders in a Civ game.

But aside from historical precedence in the series, I suppose my thoughts could be summed up as, "if the game is going to depict events till the present day, it should have some leaders/civs that are from some time relatively close to the present day." Napoleon is not really that close to the present day anymore, and while Meiji Japan is a really interesting place to start examining what led to modern Japan, and arguably a good choice by itself, I'd still say it's a little bit far in the past if it's the most recent civ. Although, if you took the III/IV approach and just went with "Japan", that perception could be side-stepped. In a way, the choice of naming has resulted in the perception of there not being modern civs.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the reason for the lack of clearly "1900s-modern" civs/leaders is that the first expansion is going to focus on that era. And that may be a smart decision, because it reduces the scope of what needs to be working really well at release, improving the odds of a home run, and it gives a clear direction with that expansion. I also love me an industrial-era focused game, so if that is what winds up happening, I might be pretty happy with Civilization VII Gold Edition in a year and a half.

 

[Zaarin]

popular internet memes (Hussite everything)

...the Hussite Wars were kind of a big deal, a major shake-up in both the political and religious landscape of Central Europe (and resulting in the only diocese in the Catholic Church permitted to take Communion in both kinds until Vatican II) and an important expression of the religious tumult in the Late Middle Ages prior to the Reformation*. Actually, in Civ7's model, I think Jan Hus himself would be an ideal representation for Bohemia (or Jan Žižka for a more violent alternative).

*I think characterizing the Hussites as forerunners to the Reformation is reductive. They were a local expression of the democratization of religion and intellectualism that was going on all across Europe at the time, sometimes within or mostly within the bounds of orthodoxy, such as the Beguines/Beghards and the Devotio Moderna, and sometimes manifesting as "heresies" like the Hussites, Waldensians, Lollards, Berengarians, Friends of God, and so forth. In a manner of speaking these groups did lead to the Reformation, but they were also an expression of the religious anxieties and intellectual currents of their own time. And it's interesting to note that for all Luther gushed over the Hussites, the Hussites ultimately reunified with the Church of Rome in the 17th century, except for the Unitas Fratrum or Moravian Brethren, which remains a distinct church to this day.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

...the Hussite Wars were kind of a big deal, a major shake-up in both the political and religious landscape of Central Europe (and resulting in the only diocese in the Catholic Church permitted to take Communion in both kinds until Vatican II) and an important expression of the religious tumult in the Late Middle Ages prior to the Reformation*. Actually, in Civ7's model, I think Jan Hus himself would be an ideal representation for Bohemia (or Jan Žižka for a more violent alternative).

*I think characterizing the Hussites as forerunners to the Reformation is reductive. They were a local expression of the democratization of religion and intellectualism that was going on all across Europe at the time, sometimes within or mostly within the bounds of orthodoxy, such as the Beguines/Beghards and the Devotio Moderna, and sometimes manifesting as "heresies" like the Hussites, Waldensians, Lollards, Berengarians, Friends of God, and so forth. In a manner of speaking these groups did lead to the Reformation, but they were also an expression of the religious anxieties and intellectual currents of their own time. And it's interesting to note that for all Luther gushed over the Hussites, the Hussites ultimately reunified with the Church of Rome in the 17th century, except for the Unitas Fratrum or Moravian Brethren, which remains a distinct church to this day.

On a completely different front the Hussite Wars were a very big deal because they demonstrated the first use of gunpowder firearms in an offensive capacity in Europe, by combining the primitive 'wall guns' that had been strictly defensive, largely siege weapons up to that time with wagons that allowed them to move forward and attack. The results were devastating, and really the first time any European army had used ranged firepower on the battlefield successfully as their main weapon. That makes the Hussite attacks with 'wagon forts' at Kutna Hora in 1421 the direct ancestor of the first Colunelas combining firearms and pikes in a formation that could either attack or defend 50+ years later - and after that, every pike and shot and later musket/rifle-armed European infantry for the next 400 years . . .

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I generally don't think it's a great idea. Teddy Roosevelt is probably the latest I would go. He worked out great. Most people don't have any major issues with Teddy. But of course it would be too soon to bring him back.

The problem with more modern leaders is the "biggest" ones tend to be ideological in one way or another. Even FDR isn't that great a choice. I'm one of the few who believe he is overrated as a President.

I wouldn't mind Eisenhower either. A lot of people want JFK because of the whole "Space Race" theme as well, but it was under Ike that NASA was established. Combine that with a super road "Interstate" ability and that would be great to me.

As far as the question goes, I don't mind 20th century leaders, as long as they don't beat out the Ancient, Classical, and Medieval ones. I loved John Curtin and Wilhelmina, well at least her character, in Civ 6.
In that regards I'd take 20th century leaders over 20th century civs, for the most part.

 

[notNamed]

...the Hussite Wars were kind of a big deal, a major shake-up in both the political and religious landscape of Central Europe (and resulting in the only diocese in the Catholic Church permitted to take Communion in both kinds until Vatican II) and an important expression of the religious tumult in the Late Middle Ages prior to the Reformation*. Actually, in Civ7's model, I think Jan Hus himself would be an ideal representation for Bohemia (or Jan Žižka for a more violent alternative).

The thing is, they really aren't at all important to Central Europe. They came and went, it was an event that had much less of an impact than the actual reformation and the subsequently successful counter-reformation.
It is a random event that gets reinterpreted to hell and back for unrelated reasons. The national revival saw them dubbed as the first Czech nationalists fighting the German oppression. The first republic saw them as the first fighters for democracy and emancipation of the masses. The socialist regime saw them as proto-communists who simply lacked the methodical framework developed by Marx to talk about their ideals.

At the end of the day it's just a random blank slate that is anything you want it to be. The only effect Hus had was ironically his grumpiness towards sound changes haunting all the students of Czech and Slovak to this day as they struggle to remember whether to use <y> or <i> within the word and get harshly graded for it. Not faiths, the reformation, anything of the sort. Only making a reasonable orthography partially infused with his linguistic pet peeves.

 

[Zaarin]

The national revival saw them dubbed as the first Czech nationalists fighting the German oppression. The first republic saw them as the first fighters for democracy and emancipation of the masses. The socialist regime saw them as proto-communists who simply lacked the methodical framework developed by Marx to talk about their ideals.

I hate to endorse modern revisionist history, but all of these things are sort of true, if exaggerated. Among Hus's controversies was pushing for the use of Czech in the Mass, and burgeoning Czech identity was a major part of the Hussite movement, especially the more populist wings of it. And the more radical branches of Hussitism did saber rattle for emancipation of the peasantry, social egalitarianism, anti-monarchism, and among the most extremist even for communalism. I'm not saying these radicals were the most important part of the movement, but these claims are considerably less ridiculous than comparable ideologically motivated claims like "Hungarians are Sumerian" or "Jesus was a communist." There's at least some historical basis to argue for these claims, even if they're ideologically slanted.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Voted less interested.

I'm sorry to my European friends, who will disproportionately suffer here. I want Germany and Russia and Greece and the lot on principle, so that players in major markets will have their civ, but I don't ever really expect to frequently use more than 4 Euro civs in the modern era, and these will be the big boys of WW2.

It's an odd thing. I think they should be amongst the first available released civs, but I don't expect to personally make these purchases.

I'd like at least one barbarian Euro civ in antiquity. Make Rome fall before marching longhairs.

 

[notNamed]

I hate to endorse modern revisionist history, but all of these things are sort of true, if exaggerated. Among Hus's controversies was pushing for the use of Czech in the Mass, and burgeoning Czech identity was a major part of the Hussite movement, especially the more populist wings of it. And the more radical branches of Hussitism did saber rattle for emancipation of the peasantry, social egalitarianism, anti-monarchism, and among the most extremist even for communalism. I'm not saying these radicals were the most important part of the movement, but these claims are considerably less ridiculous than comparable ideologically motivated claims like "Hungarians are Sumerian" or "Jesus was a communist." There's at least some historical basis to argue for these claims, even if they're ideologically slanted.

That's why I said German oppression, not Catholic oppression.
Hus wasn't pushing against German colonists forcing him to abandon his language and learn German as portrayed through Hussites in these narratives. He was pushing for the use of the common language during mass. Czech national revival is a nationalist movement which identifies Bohemian with Czech, Moravian and Slovak. The line is drawn at speaking an understandable language so if you're a Bohemian from a German family, you ought to stand up and screw off back to Germany.

Similarly the lines are very clearly painted as Hussite Czechs and Catholic Germans. Not Hussite Bohemians, Catholic Bohemians and the rest of Europe. You can't really equate these two.

Likewise you have mythos surrounding Zizka and wagonforts, which are once again a 20th century association. Being kind of a Zhuge Nu/Chu-ko-nu situation where the narratives born during early Czechoslovakian nation-building associate a famous general with a famous weapon with all the rigor of a time famous for fire-breathing dinosaurs or discoveries of Aryan progeniture of all human culture. Again running into the same problem of a blank slate. Though in Zizka's case it's strongly helped by the fact that we just know so little about anything he actually did so as long as you don't go all "Magyar Jesus" (to be fair, at least we got a Tibetan dictionary out of it), you can easily pass scrutiny for people who never ask for sources of your claims. The scarce few concrete details they came across during research are likely not going to contradict one's narratives.

 

[gdr_willter]

Similarly South Korea would be greatly served by a leader that presents the reason why we think of them as a technological powerhouse (contrary to how other Sinitic cultures and Europeans alike saw them more as a backwater living in hostile terrain and conforming to ideals beyond the originator's imagining), though that's almost unworkable here as the post-WW2 dictators probably aren't getting any spotlight, modern politicians fail the whole "historical" nature of the game and using someone like the founder or most prominent Samsung CEO would be a parody at best. Though maybe, just maybe, people who are learned in South Korean history could specify some non-statesman from the 20th century who would both serve as a good persona candidate to show the technological focus of the country, while not being absurdly recent, a complete "Who?", nor ridiculously on the nose about it like Samsung leadership.

As long as I know, only K-pop Stars can do this without any political argument. 100 years of modern Korean history is still very hot issue in current politics, and they argue about even Kim Gu and Hong Beomdo (who died in 1940s) are good or bad. A lot of idiots in here Korea definitely will not want modern Korean leader, regardless that they are politicians or not.

 

[Black Gate]

I'd say any depiction of Achaemenid Persia contains elements of Media and that the Median elements are virtually impossible to separate. We know from various ancient sources that the Achaemenids thought of their empire as being made up of Medes and Persians, we know there was a brief Median Empire that preceded the Achaemenids, and we know linguistically that some Old Persian words are loans from Median on phonological grounds (e.g., the Old Persian word for horse should be asa, but Median aspa is what is attested). But I don't think we know enough about the Medes to distinguish them from the Achaemenids in any meaningful way mechanically or even in flavor beyond the inherent influence they left on the Achaemenids.

We don't, actually. The existence of the Median empire (or even a unified state at all) is pretty heavily disputed nowadays, with some outright calling it a fiction invented by Herodotus to create a continuous series of oriental empires. As a cultural group they definitely contributed to the collapse of the Neo-Assyrian Empire and were an important part of the Achaemenid state that would follow but the archaeology on them is very sparse. For what it's worth I believe that they were probably at minimum a confederation of tribal groups, possibly even a kingdom that Cyrus conquered in the 6th century BC, but a proper empire seems beyond what the evidence suggests.

But aside from historical precedence in the series, I suppose my thoughts could be summed up as, "if the game is going to depict events till the present day, it should have some leaders/civs that are from some time relatively close to the present day." Napoleon is not really that close to the present day anymore, and while Meiji Japan is a really interesting place to start examining what led to modern Japan, and arguably a good choice by itself, I'd still say it's a little bit far in the past if it's the most recent civ. Although, if you took the III/IV approach and just went with "Japan", that perception could be side-stepped. In a way, the choice of naming has resulted in the perception of there not being modern civs.

I very much doubt that Meiji Japan will be specifically referring to the Japan of 1868-1912, it's probably a shorthand for "modern Japan before 1945" and will include Zeros as UU, for instance. The Meiji period was a very volatile period of Japanese history but the stabler latter half served as a formative period for what most in the west imagine as the militaristic nation serving as the Pacific "villain" of WW2.

As for the overall topic, the problem with the 20th century is that unless you're a certain nation that loves bald eagles and waving flags, it probably wasn't your obviously most interesting and powerful period. There are few groups that aren't post-colonial nations but also are relatively short lived enough that their most interesting period is in the 20th century. It's what, Australia and... Argentina?