Your detailed thoughts on each leader

[Liufeng]

I made this thread so each of you could give your impressions on the different leaders chosen for each civ. So avoid discussion about the civs themselves (if the game is too eurocentric or not, some would have picked Denmark instead of Norway, India should be split, why no x civ, ...), this about the chosen leaders.

Here I go first :

Teddy Roosevelt : A (good) change from the eternal Washington, I like how they picked a man far more in a defensive stance. The US has some nice presidents to pick from, and I must say that after Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt II, Teddy is one of the best (plus, it reminds me of Night in the museum).
Saladin : I'm very happy about this one, since it was the leader I wanted for Arabia in civ V. Everyone knows him, and he's a hero among arabs (and one the rare to be respected and feared by his christian enemies. I guess Arabia will be very militaristic this time.
Montezuma : Although I would have prefered Ahuizotl, Montezuma I remains a solid choice, despite his ... caricatural design ... Nothing much to say about this one.
Pedro II : Let's be honest : aside from Pedro II or Getulio Vargas, there are not many good contestants for Brazil. Pedro II debuted in civ V, and they decided to keep him, certainly because he is still no "civ monument" like Washington or Gandhi. His long reign and the respect the brazilian people have for him make him still a great choice, and plus, they made him younger than his civ V counterpart.
Qin Shi Huang : I'm not too fond on this choice ... Certainly, the Terracotta Armywas built for him, and he was the first emperor, but he was nonetheless a ruthless and paranoic man. Tang Taizong, Wu Zetian, Han Gaozu or Kangxi would have been much better choices in my opinion.
Cleopatra : I'm still not convinced at all by her. She was a very smart woman, a knowledgeable person, but let's be honest, her main strategy to garantee the integrity of her kingdom by opening her legs until it wouldn't work anymore (she tried to seduce Augustus ...). Hatshepsut would have been a far better choice for a female leader, or Thoutmosis III to change from the usual Ramesesses II.
Victoria : Although she did not rule her empire, Victoria remains the symbol of the british supremacy over the world. She remains a solid choice.
Catherine de Medici : At first, I was like "What ?", but later, I said to myself she's a very good pick. She's one these people whose contemporaries vehiculed a bad image of her to get rid of her. It seems Firaxis decided to go with the image that her enemies made of her : a cunning, dark, machiavellous woman.
Frederick I : It's kind of bugging me that Firaxis wants desperatly Germany to be a militaristic civ. For a HRE emperor, Frederick II Hohenstaufen would have been a far better choice to lead Germany. Barbarossa is just, well, a warrior, and that's all, unlike Frederick II who was almost seen as the antechrist for being too ahead of his time.
Pericles and Gorgo : Pericles remains a powerful character to lead Greece, in a diplomatic way (I always Alexander's UA in civ V would better suit Pericles). He's a solid choice I highly approve. Gorgo, on the other hand ... well, we know almost nothing about her. She ruled Sparta while her husband was away, that's all. I guess she'll have an ability about espionnage thanks tothe wax tablet story.
Gandhi : The joke has been fun, it's about time Firaxis that put it aside ... Most people are tired of seeing him. Ashoka or Akbar would far better choices than him.
Hojo Tokimune : I was expecting Nobunaga Oda, Ieyasu Tokugawa or Meiji, but then, I heard Hojo Tokimune, and I was like "Who the hell is Hojo Tokimune ?". I made some research, and I concluded "man, this IS a good pick". One of the best revelations I've had until now.
Mvemba Nzinga (or Afonso I) : The most known Manikongo, he's a very solid pick I'm truly happy with. I would have been frustrated if they picked the queen Nzinga because she was not a kongolese queen. Furthermore, she fought against the portuguese and Kongo. Imagine what would they say in her intro : "Oh, great queen, you drove back your portuguese and kongolese enemies ...".
Harald Hardrada : Norway is here to take Denmark's spot as Vikings, and Harald III is a very good choice in the sense as he is a good viking as pop culture imagines them : violent, conquerors and powerful warriors. Nonetheless, I still think he is a very good choice, as his story is truly an adventure worthy of a movie.
Trajan : No more Julius or Augustus, time for Trajan to shine. One of the greatest emperors of Rome, he's an excellent choice thatputs us in the heart of the roman empire period.
Peter the Great : No more Catherine II, it's time for Peter, and damn, he's a good leader. Open minded, seen as the evil by the orthodox church, ahead of his time, the guy was competent in tons of fields. I have high expectations for his abulity and agenda.
Tomirys : A legendary massagetae queen leading the scythians ... That's all I need to know to not be very optimistic on this inclusion.
Philip II : YES, that's a very good choice. We finally change a little from Isabella, who might return as a second leader for Spain. Philip II is someone I really wanted to lead Spain.
Gilgamesh : I'm disappointed for this one. I really wanted Sumeria in game, but not again this legendary character. Lugal-zagezi, Ur-Nammu, Eannatum, Shulgi ... So many good choices and they had to pick the legendary guy who is known to defeat monsters and wishing immortality ... A real let down ...

 

[Siptah]

Gilgamesh : I'm disappointed for this one. I really wanted Sumeria in game, but not again this legendary character. Lugal-zagezi, Ur-Nammu, Eannatum, Shulgi ... So many good choices and they had to pick the legendary guy who is known to defeat monsters and wishing immortality ... A real let down ...

Just wanted to point out: you seem to know about the Gilgamesh epic. Be aware that if you read that and about that, it is a story that evolved over thousands of years and our 'current' version is the babylonian. The Sumerian version is quite different. First of all, there are three legendary kings of Uruk: Enmerkara, Lugalbanda and Bilgames (of whom the name Gilgamesh is derived). While all three did a lot of stuff and adventures that are all separate stories, a lot of it is later exaggerated in the Gilgamesh epic and all attributed to the legendary king. The first version of the stories are quite different, no monsters, no immortality, no half-gods. Some things are mythical, like Lugalbanda inventing writing on the spot because he couldn't remember everything of a speech. However, the stories are quite harmless and seem halfway realistic. In Sumeria, Bilgames was mostly famous for being the perfect king, which led to the half-god later on, because the same word is used for god as for perfect role model in Sumerian language. Also note that the whole flood thing got added in babylonian times and does not seem to appear in Sumerian versions. That may ease you with the *legendary guy who fought monsters*. While there is no proof of Bilgames's reign, he is very like to have ruled. The very early historic kings of Uruk remember him as a normal human, but very successful leader.

On Saladin: I am happy with this inclusion. But sadly, to me, it seems like Arabia will be about Faith and Military. I would have preferred Faith and Science, like you could do with the Abbasids.

 

[Lord Lakely]

here are my thoughts, tho not as much in detail:

Roosevelt: Finally? Out of all the obvious choices for an American leader, Teddy was the only one not repped yet.

Saladin: A solid pick for a warmongering Arabian Civ (although I dislike the idea of an Arab civ; i'd prefer to have them split in different Civs with different leaders)

Montezuma: A staple for the Aztecs and honestly, who else are they going to pick?

Pedro II: My knowledge of Brazillian history is virtually non-existent so correct me of I'm wrong: but don't we have two possible kings to pick from here and isn't the second Pedro the obvious choice of the two?

Qin Shi Huang: Would be my pick for a Chinese leader, I'm VERY pleased they finally put him in as the ONLY leader. Infinitely more deserving than Mao or Wu Zetian IMO.

Cleopatra: I know she's legendary and well-known and all but... um Hatchepsut, anyone? Also, I feel like Cleo is a bit WASTED here since Julius Caesar isn't the Roman leader. WE COULD HAVE HAD THE CAESAR/CLEO POWER ALLIANCE COME TO LIFE, Y'ALL.

Victoria: Vicky is so out there, as one of Britain's greatest leaders AND is a woman, so... yes? Why not rename the Civ to Great Britain though?

Cathérine: A very creative but clever choice imo! I love the concept of Cathérine, even if it means Catherine the Great (my fave leader in the series) is forced to sit out a game "Civ7: Cathérine vs Ekatarina" plz.

Barbarossa: Another creative/clever pick and I'm glad we're not getting a Prussian Germany for once, but a Holy Roman one.

Pericles: Like Qin Shi, Pericles is my TOP choice leader for his Civ, so I'm glad he's in (I do feel like a culturally focused Greece is more representative than a warmongering one).

Gorgo: um.... yay for more female leaders? Although this is probably the one instance where they shouldn't have gone for a woman, OOPS. Other Civs have way better options than Gorgo... but hey, this opens the door for Pocahontas, Sacagwea and Sheherazade in future expansions, right? Let the meltdowns commence.

Gandhi: Fingers crossed he's not a push-over with an itchy trigger tentacle finger again, fellahs. I doubt it though.

Hojo Tokimune: I know next to nothing about Jap history, so i'm willing to lap up anything Firaxis will throw at me in terms of Japanese leaders. Surely they haven't had some fancy-schmancy empress to fill a female slot with, though?

Mvemba: first of all, lmao @ going with his native name (<3). Second of all, KONGO <3 Third of all... Well, another missed opportunity for a deserving female leader, *sigh*

Harald: I really hope "Norway" is more of a Norse/Nordic civ than a proper Norwegian one. I did NOT like that Civ 5 had Denmark AND Sweden. Great leader pick, though.

Trajan: a Good/Solid post-Caesarian pick for Rome. HADRIAN or LIVIA would have been my personal choice, but I'm all for variation!

Peter: RIP Catherine (*whisks away a single tear*). But yeah, Peter is a FANTASTIC pick for Russia. if they had shoved Cathy aside for mass-murderer Uncle Joe, I wouldn't have been this thrilled.

Tomyris: A good pick, stop freaking out about the fact she isn't actually "Scythian". What do we know about the Scythians anyway, like, this is a game which SIMILATES and doesn't replicate, history.

Philip: I would have much rather had his Dad as the Spanish monarch, but eh, he's fine! Don't expect any low-country cities in his city list tho

Gilgamesh: Yes, obviously? Sure, not 100% ~historically~ correct, but I mean, this franchise has provided us with stuff like "Universal Suffrage being a buildable wonder which ONLY ONE CIV has access to", "Judaism is the largest religion in the world" and "Your X-com Squad just killed an Assyrian Giant Death Robot", so, perspective, folks.

 

[cakes]

i won't do each leader because most of what i think on the leaders has to do with their gameplay or other concerns rather than their historical rule

Teddy Roosevelt -- the film studio is a cute touch. i like the big stick policy
Saladin -- i welcome the inclusion of the middle ages
Montezuma -- good consistent civ design
Pedro II -- another consistent civ
Qin Shi Huang -- another consistent civ. good to see someone other than egypt hoards the early wonders
Cleopatra -- consistent civ, interesting choice especially for gameplay
Victoria -- consistent civ
Catherine de Medici -- interesting choice, nice time period, definitely the least consistent i've seen though
Frederick I -- as for saladin. the less 19th century the better
Hojo Tokimune -- i'm a stan for heian japan but kamakura is close enough. interesting mechanics
Trajan -- posted this before but glad it's not a caesar and one of the 'good emperors'
Tomirys -- interesting choice, nice to liberate the horses from the mongols
Philip II -- been quietly hoping for this since studying titian but know nothing of him otherwise. i always like seeing art acknowledged in media so i hope this factors into his civ design
Gilgamesh -- i'm ok with pseudo-historical rulers included since they factor quite frequently in written histories

 

[nunor]

Happy with these
- Teddy
- Victoria
- Barbarossa
- Pericles
- Hojo
- Trajan
- Philip II
- Peter - all of the above because I was sick of the same old faces, and they represent some of the best periods of their respective civilizations
- Gilgamesh - as the cradle of civilization, Sumer really ought to be a staple civ in every instalment, IMO. Gilgamesh is just the most recogniseable name, and he must have been some hell of a ruler to be deified like he was.
- Tomyris - I welcome original, brand-new civs -- plus bonus *deserving* female leader

OK with these
- Pedro II - I don't think Brazil should be in the base game, but since they are (and we are only discussing leader choices), Pedro II is the obvious and better choice by far
- Harald - Didn't really want the Vikings in the base game either, but Harald is cool.

Meh about these
- Montezuma - I'd like to see a different name for a change
- Gorgo - Forced female quota filler, but at least there's Pericles.
- (Isabella) - Tired old face, but at least there's Philip.
- Qin Shi Huang - I just don't care much about him
- (Jadwiga) - Don't care much about Poland either (it's nothing personal, dear Polish friends)

Disappointed with these
- Saladin - I was expecting a leader who better represented medieval Islamic enlightenment and scientific progress
- Catherine - Feels like token female to me. Or maybe because I was really expecting to see Louis XIV animated in Civ6 style (with multiple leaders all but confirmed, I'm still waiting for this to happen). Also, she's not French.
- Afonso I - the only subsaharan African leader, and he's a Euro asskisser. Very disappointed. They should have gone with Njinga leading Angola.

Hate these
- Cleopatra - Not Egyptian either, and she led a decadent, all-but-finished Egypt. Terrible choice.
- Gandhi

Philip II : YES, that's a very good choice. We finally change a little from Isabella, who might return as a second leader for Spain. Philip II is someone I really wanted to lead Spain.

Given that Philip II is arguably among the top 10 best kings of Portugal, isn't it ironic that Portugal has a better leader in Civ6 than in Civ5, while not being in as a civ?

Just wanted to point out: you seem to know about the Gilgamesh epic. Be aware that if you read that and about that, it is a story that evolved over thousands of years and our 'current' version is the babylonian. The Sumerian version is quite different. First of all, there are three legendary kings of Uruk: Enmerkara, Lugalbanda and Bilgames (of whom the name Gilgamesh is derived). While all three did a lot of stuff and adventures that are all separate stories, a lot of it is later exaggerated in the Gilgamesh epic and all attributed to the legendary king. The first version of the stories are quite different, no monsters, no immortality, no half-gods. Some things are mythical, like Lugalbanda inventing writing on the spot because he couldn't remember everything of a speech. However, the stories are quite harmless and seem halfway realistic. In Sumeria, Bilgames was mostly famous for being the perfect king, which led to the half-god later on, because the same word is used for god as for perfect role model in Sumerian language. Also note that the whole flood thing got added in babylonian times and does not seem to appear in Sumerian versions. That may ease you with the *legendary guy who fought monsters*. While there is no proof of Bilgames's reign, he is very like to have ruled. The very early historic kings of Uruk remember him as a normal human, but very successful leader.

Did not know this, thanks for the info

 

[LDiCesare]

Teddy Roosevelt : ok
Saladin : He's not an arab but a kurd. Why nto rename Arabia civ as Islam while they're at it? He ruled over Egypt, might have picked him for Egypt instead and chosen an actual arabian for Arabia
Montezuma : Good they picked Montezuma I.
Pedro II : Good
Qin Shi Huang : ok although they could probably have found someone else.
Cleopatra : She's well-known, but that's about all. There were better choices.
Victoria : Her name represents an era for Great Britain so ok.
Catherine de Medici : One of the things that makes me not buy the game. She left no legacy and condoned the slaughter of thousands of French protestants, all the while a weak leader. Very bad choice. Her special ability also has nothing to do with what her actual spies did.
Frederick I : ok
Pericles : They called a century by his name so ok for Athens, but I'd have Alexander ahead of him anytime.
Gorgo : The wife of one of the two co-kings of a ccity-state which was actually an oligarchy. Seriously, hat is this second rate character doing here?
Gandhi : He's well-known but there were better choices.
Hojo Tokimune : ok
Mvemba Nzinga : Good
Harald Hardrada : I'd rather have had a Dane, Denmark and Norway were always linked, and Harald is mostly a bloodthirsty warrior and nothing more. Much as I like his saga, I think there were better chocies for Norse/Denmark. The viking civ should be Denmark imo, or Norse, and if Norse, there are better Sweden leaders than this one.
Trajan : Good.
Peter the Great : Good
Tomirys : ok. Although if it means we don't have mongols, it's quite silly.
Philip II : Good
Gilgamesh : Good. I have a weak spot for him.

 

[Siptah]

On the leaders in general: A decision how much I like the leader is heavily independent on how they are in the game (both graphically and what bonus they get). Firaxis might emphasize different aspects than I would, so it is too early for me to decide who I like and who not. While for some reasons I have more sympathy for some leader and dislike the other because of the historical figure it represents, I always thought this to change while playing the game and being confronted with their representation. For example, I have very high respect for Harun al-Rashid, but didn't like him much in Civ 5, same for Harald Bluetooth. I don't sympathize too much with the historic Ahmad al-Mansur, but with the Civ 5 representation for him. There many ambivalent leaders in the list, and I will have to see how they turn out.
In general I find the picks refreshing (not that I would have made some different ones) and I am looking very much forward to 'meeting' the civ leader versions of them in the First Look videos.

 

[JimmyBanks]

Here's my sleep deprived thoughts:

Overall I am happy with the leaders that have been selected, with the exception of a couple. As far as any of the Leaders being good AI's and the like it will be hard to tall without playing the game. It will be important to see if the AI's place their districts strategically or if they just place them anywhere in the map. If they are smart and exploit adgacency bonuses they will be great. So for the most part I am going to talk about the leaders themselves and if I think they are good choices.

Teddy Roosevelt : I like his inclusion. I prefered the original Teddy look where he had biger cheeks but I think I'm in the minority on that. I think he is fairly well balanced when it comes to UU's and UA's. I like it when they bring in new leaders of Civs rather than the same old same old (See my comments on Ghandi for clarification).
Saladin : I like that Arabia are in the game. Diversity is the key to a good Civ game I think. Without knowing what bonuses he will get as leader or what the Civ has it's hard to go into to much detail.
Montezuma : The Aztecs. Montezuma. Good choices. I don't know why, and liking them probably flies in the face of what I say about other civs and is somewhat contradictory. I think they have good UU's and UA's it will be interesting to see how he plays.
Pedro II : I don't mind having Brazil in. With the Olympics and all that I think it's reasonable. That said, if it wasn't an Olympic year I'd be pushing it back to DLC status. I don't know a lot about Brazilian leaders so he seems a good a leader as any.
Qin Shi Huang : Happy with this choice of leader for China. I like his "look" even though I've read some people say that it looks like the hat he is wearing is to small for his head. I think that plays into the look they are going for with all their leaders. I like China being able to build the Great Wall, although I am interested to see if you can build improvements/districts on the tile where you build the great wall. It just seems like it would take away to many tiles if you can't. Same applies for aqueducts for all civs, I don't think they should take up an entire tile)
Cleopatra : I feel the same way as I do with Ghandi to be honest, I know we have had other Egyptian leaders but it just feels like it's always Cleo. Maybe it was time to come back to her though, clearly the devs tried to have more women leaders this time around. I think it will be a good civ to play, and off the top of my head I can't think of anything that I dislike, aside from my unjustified dislike of Cleo.
Victoria : Yeah, Seems good. England and all that. Nah I think she's a good choice. It's a new leader from a rusted on Civ.
Catherine de Medici : I don't mind the Italian. I really like her ladies in waiting. It's like having Solomon and all his Concubines in the game, except it's France not Israel. Good choice of leader and I think it shows that the Devs are trying to think outside the box.
Frederick I : Freddy. I like. I've never been one to beat up on City States but I think I might try to when I play with him. I know people are comparing him to the Mongols of CiV but I dunno. I like his look, like his Uniqueness, yeah, I like him.

Hmm... Ok, I've split Pericles and Gorgo up. The reason, I'm one of those people who really hope that Athens and Sparta are 2 seperate Civs. Not because I think that Greece deserves 2 Civs, I don't, but because I don't want 1 civ to have multiple leaders. If they are both leaders of Greece I'll be really annoyed. Why? Because it seems like the devs have gone, "who will we have lead Greece?" There has been a vote and it was a tie then Ed has had the deciding vote and gone, "You know what, lets have them both."

*** On the 1 hand I think there are to many Euro civs but on the other hand here I am argueing to split a Euro civ into 2. I understand this is contradictory but it is how I feel. Its impossible to argue that Greece shouldn't be in the game as a Civ but I do think there are to many European Civs considering there are no South East Asian or Pacific Civs.

Pericles : As a leader he is not a bad choice and it will be interesting to see what his Agenda is/what Unique units he has.
Gorgo : As a leader of Sparta I am not overly concerned by her choice. The wife of the leader of the 300. I can accept that. I only know her from the movie so it will be interesting to see if they go with History or Hollywood. I'll hold off until I see her reveal.
Gandhi : Ghandi. Does anything else need to be said. For a population of over a BILLION people they sure struggle with leadership. Or so you would think if you followed Civ games. The fact that Ghandi has been the only leader India has had in Civ is a disgrace. I've toned this response down, personally I think people need to be sacked over this decision alone.
Hojo Tokimune : I like him. I like the civ. I think the Devs have done really well with this Civ. One of my favourites.
Mvemba Nzinga (or Afonso I) : I know some people don't like him as a leader, I don't know enough about him so in my book thats a good leader choice. I'll keep on saying it, different Civs and Different leaders is a good thing for the Civ game.
Harald Hardrada : Norway, yep, I like. I think we need someone like him in the game. Look forward to seeing his reveal.
Trajan : Don't know enough about him but I like him because he's not Julius or Brutus. It gives me the impression that they've actually thought about the Roman civ rather than just create the same old civ. Will know more on reveal.
Peter the Great : Hmmm... With Devs wanting more female leaders I'm surprised they didn't go for Catherine but she has been in before so I understand why they didn't. Will know more after his reveal.
Tomirys : Well I googled the Scythians after her reveal so I can't complain. I like this about Civ. New Civs that seem like they will be powerful. I like her and am glad that the Devs have her in.
Philip II : Will watch the reveal, at this stage I'm ok with him. There are still people talking about Isabella being an alternative leader. Same response as with Greece, I don't want multiple leaders in the the vanilla edition.
Gilgamesh : Like it. Look forward to the reveal.

 

[Siptah]

Saladin : He's not an arab but a kurd. Why nto rename Arabia civ as Islam while they're at it? He ruled over Egypt, might have picked him for Egypt instead and chosen an actual arabian for Arabia

While there is something like an Arabian ethnicity, the adjective 'arabic' means a lot more than just an ethnicity. It's also about language and culture. Saladin spoke arabic and was part of the arabic culture, he actively spread it. I like how they stick to 'easy' names, like Arabia, Germany and America. I prefer it to referring to the peoples, like in 'Arabs' or Romans for example. I would't want to play against 'the Caliphate' (and they would surely not name it after a certain dynasty, because you would always more than half of the history.) Also note that the capitols of the Caliphates were only in the very beginning in proper Arabia. Later it was Damascus, Cairo, Baghdad, Isfahan etc.

 

[SMcM]

My opinions on the revealed leaders:

Spoiler :

Teddy Roosevelt : A (good) change from the eternal Washington, I like how they picked a man far more in a defensive stance. The US has some nice presidents to pick from, and I must say that after Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt II, Teddy is one of the best (plus, it reminds me of Night in the museum).

I am also happy to see a change of leader (we've had Washington in the last two games, and Lincoln in several prior to that, as well as appearing as an additional leader in Civ 4). And he's even better now that he doesn't look like a walrus!

Saladin : I'm very happy about this one, since it was the leader I wanted for Arabia in civ V. Everyone knows him, and he's a hero among arabs (and one the rare to be respected and feared by his christian enemies. I guess Arabia will be very militaristic this time.

Should lead 'the Arabs', not Arabia; though he ruled the Arab world, he did not rule nearly all of the Arabian peninsula, which is what 'Arabia' refers to; it is a geographical region, and does not refer to all of the land inhabited by Arabs. I think if they are going to call his Civ 'Arabia', he is a poor choice. My top choice for a Civ called Arabia would be Umar ibn Al-Khattab; one of the most significant caliphate leaders, and the last to have actually ruled from Arabia, as opposed to ruling from elsewhere.

Having said that, we always end up with people like Saladin and Harun Al-Rashid because they came into contact with the west. The problem with other leaders is that Islamic censorship has prevented subjects of the caliphate of making contemporary depcitions of their rulers, and so we don't really know what they looked like.

Montezuma : Although I would have prefered Ahuizotl, Montezuma I remains a solid choice, despite his ... caricatural design ... Nothing much to say about this one.

Such a downgrade on his awesome, atmospheric Civ 5 leaderscene . They should have gone with someone else for variety, who would not have been in the shadow of previous depictions of Monte (even if his Civ 5 depiction was based on pictures of Montezuma II).

Pedro II : Let's be honest : aside from Pedro II or Getulio Vargas, there are not many good contestants for Brazil. Pedro II debuted in civ V, and they decided to keep him, certainly because he is still no "civ monument" like Washington or Gandhi. His long reign and the respect the brazilian people have for him make him still a great choice, and plus, they made him younger than his civ V counterpart.

I still think Brazil and no Portugal feels weird, and I would much rather see the Incas. But, as far as leaders for Brazil go, Pedro II seems to be the most obvious choice.

Qin Shi Huang : I'm not too fond on this choice ... Certainly, the Terracotta Armywas built for him, and he was the first emperor, but he was nonetheless a ruthless and paranoic man. Tang Taizong, Wu Zetian, Han Gaozu or Kangxi would have been much better choices in my opinion.

I definitely prefer him to having Wu again; that would be unnecasserily repetitive considering she is not exactly China's only good leader or anything. Qin would not be my first choice either (would like to see Kangxi or Qianlong at some point), but I don't see him as poor choice. And even if for the wrong reasons, his personality (Greedy, paranoid, ruthless) should at least make for interesting diplomacy.

Cleopatra : I'm still not convinced at all by her. She was a very smart woman, a knowledgeable person, but let's be honest, her main strategy to garantee the integrity of her kingdom by opening her legs until it wouldn't work anymore (she tried to seduce Augustus ...). Hatshepsut would have been a far better choice for a female leader, or Thoutmosis III to change from the usual Ramesesses II.

I don't much like Cleopatra being in either. I would agree Hatsheput would make a lot more sense. Hatsheput represents Egypt at a time when it wasn't something of a dot next to a far greater Rome. Hatsheput is also among the earliest of know great woman leaders in history.

Victoria : Although she did not rule her empire, Victoria remains the symbol of the british supremacy over the world. She remains a solid choice.

She makes sense for that very reason. But still, her declaring war might be cringe-worthy to say the least.

Catherine de Medici : At first, I was like "What ?", but later, I said to myself she's a very good pick. She's one these people whose contemporaries vehiculed a bad image of her to get rid of her. It seems Firaxis decided to go with the image that her enemies made of her : a cunning, dark, machiavellous woman.

I really don't agree. Still don't like this choice, but this argument has been had countless times already, so I'll just leave it at the fact I'm not a fan.

Frederick I : It's kind of bugging me that Firaxis wants desperatly Germany to be a militaristic civ. For a HRE emperor, Frederick II Hohenstaufen would have been a far better choice to lead Germany. Barbarossa is just, well, a warrior, and that's all, unlike Frederick II who was almost seen as the antechrist for being too ahead of his time.

I have absolutely no idea who does or does not make sense as HRE leader, as I know barely anything about it. Frederick II would be a more controversial choice though. And besides, he doesn't have that big ginger-beard, which I think is suppoed to augment his 'big personality'.

Pericles and Gorgo : Pericles remains a powerful character to lead Greece, in a diplomatic way (I always Alexander's UA in civ V would better suit Pericles). He's a solid choice I highly approve. Gorgo, on the other hand ... well, we know almost nothing about her. She ruled Sparta while her husband was away, that's all. I guess she'll have an ability about espionnage thanks tothe wax tablet story.

All those people who were hoping to lose Alexander should have been more careful what they wished for; she is pretty much a nobody, such that we wouldn't even know if she had a big personality. Maybe the Civ VI research team are massive '300' fans .

Gandhi : The joke has been fun, it's about time Firaxis that put it aside ... Most people are tired of seeing him. Ashoka or Akbar would far better choices than him.

Yeah, this is definitely fair.

Hojo Tokimune : I was expecting Nobunaga Oda, Ieyasu Tokugawa or Meiji, but then, I heard Hojo Tokimune, and I was like "Who the hell is Hojo Tokimune ?". I made some research, and I concluded "man, this IS a good pick". One of the best revelations I've had until now.

I still haven't researched him much, but he at least seems a decent choice.

Mvemba Nzinga (or Afonso I) : The most known Manikongo, he's a very solid pick I'm truly happy with. I would have been frustrated if they picked the queen Nzinga because she was not a kongolese queen. Furthermore, she fought against the portuguese and Kongo. Imagine what would they say in her intro : "Oh, great queen, you drove back your portuguese and kongolese enemies ...".

I know nearly nothing of him, but he sounds like a less than stellar choice from what I have heard; I've seen it argued that essentially all he did was bend to the will of the Portuguese.

Harald Hardrada : Norway is here to take Denmark's spot as Vikings, and Harald III is a very good choice in the sense as he is a good viking as pop culture imagines them : violent, conquerors and powerful warriors. Nonetheless, I still think he is a very good choice, as his story is truly an adventure worthy of a movie.

Indeed he fits the 'Viking leader' role superbly for the reasons you outline. But, I still want to see Cnut in a Civ game (still, Norway being in does not prevent him leading Denmark in a later expansion), as he is clearly the most successful of the Scandinavian rulers of the period, and among the most powerful European leaders of his time.

Trajan : No more Julius or Augustus, time for Trajan to shine. One of the greatest emperors of Rome, he's an excellent choice that puts us in the heart of the roman empire period.

This seems a solid choice to me as well, though it is hardly consistent with the 'big personality' thing.

Peter the Great : No more Catherine II, it's time for Peter, and damn, he's a good leader. Open minded, seen as the evil by the orthodox church, ahead of his time, the guy was competent in tons of fields. I have high expectations for his abulity and agenda.

My only problem with them not including Catherine is that if they had included her, we likely wouldn't need to have Gorgo in the game to help minimise the gender imbalance, even if not having her is a nice change. But otherwise, Peter (returning from Civ IV) is a very good choice, a very capable leader by all accounts. And the fact he was practically a giant (supposedly about 6 feet and 8 inches in a time when most will have been at least a foot shorter) should lend to him having an interesting leader scene!

Tomirys : A legendary massagetae queen leading the scythians ... That's all I need to know to not be very optimistic on this inclusion.

I actually think she is quite cool, but to me, the inclusion of Cyrus leading Persia would be better than the inclusion of the woman solely remembered for supposedly having killed him.

Philip II : YES, that's a very good choice. We finally change a little from Isabella, who might return as a second leader for Spain. Philip II is someone I really wanted to lead Spain.

Yes, I feel the same. He was the ruler of the Spanish at the zenith of their power, as well as being a very ambitious man with an interesting personality. Isabella is not a bad leader, but not the best either, and we have had here in every game spain has been in so far.

Gilgamesh : I'm disappointed for this one. I really wanted Sumeria in game, but not again this legendary character. Lugal-zagezi, Ur-Nammu, Eannatum, Shulgi ... So many good choices and they had to pick the legendary guy who is known to defeat monsters and wishing immortality ... A real let down ...

Gilgamesh probably was a real ruler of Ur wasn't he? It is just that most of what we know if him is legend. Anyway, I for one like Gilgamesh, but I don't like him leading Sumeria; why can he not lead Ur instead? These blob civs annoy me.

 

[Metecury]

Gandhi : The joke has been fun, it's about time Firaxis that put it aside ... Most people are tired of seeing him.

Needs citation, I am not tired of the joke at all and many are of the same opinion. I want Gandhi the nuking madman to be a thing as long as there is a civilization franchise.

 

[GauntZero]

Teddy Roosevelt : I like both him and his Agenda. Like the strict but friendly policeman for his continent
Saladin : great choice ! Always liked him a lot and am very glad the have chosen him
Montezuma : a classic, and someone I wouldnt want to miss
Pedro II : I like the leader, but not so much his avatar in the game...
Qin Shi Huang : similar to Pedro. I like him as leader very much, but his look doesnt convince me...
Cleopatra: her historical importance aside, I love her being included as opportunistic snake
Victoria : also a good choice
Catherine de Medici : at first I was very sceptical...but when I saw her in the game, I fell in love with the Black Queen
Frederick I : a solid good choice and very glad that Bismarck didnt show up again; brings Germany and HRE together nicely
Pericles : I am so glad they chose him over Alexander. Couldnt stand him in CIV5 and am very glad about Pericles here
Gorgo : As I read, I might be the only one who actually loves her inclusion. I think as a character she can be very interesting, and I just have a weakness for Sparta. So if its not Leonidas, I am glad that at least Gorgo was chosen as a Spartian representative
Gandhi : *sighs* I think all has been said here. If India gets a second leader his inclusion as a "running gag" is okay (and if he is in for the fun reason, he HAS to be a nuking lunatic in the endgame again), if not....I feel pity for india
Hojo Tokimune: also a great choice. No one wears the Zelda Tri-force with more pride
Mvemba Nzinga : I have not much knowledge about him, but about what I read he could be interesting
Harald Hardrada: Vikings are never ever a wrong choice (in every game !) I just hope he leads the Norse (and there will be no additional Sweden or Denmark)
Trajan : great leader of romes peak
Peter the Great : I will miss Catherine somehow (and hope she returns as secondary leader), but never the less, Peter is a very good addition
Tomirys : I like her look, but not so much the design of her Civ
Philip II : A big Yes from my side
Gilgamesh : Oh yes ! A king who is about to aspire to his own legends !

 

[Ulthwithian]

Frankly, the one I'm most disappointed in is Tokimune. To be clear, I have a bachelor's degree in Japanese language and culture, and I'd never heard of him before the first look.

Clearly, I'd heard of the Hojo family and the way they usurped the shogunate away from Minamoto no Yoritomo (and BTW, shouldn't it be Hojo no Tokimune? Oh well...). I also knew that the Hojo ruled the shogunate during the 'time of the Mongol invasion' (whatever) and a time that the more popular forms of Buddhism entered the country, but yeah, never heard of him.

To me, having Hojo Tokimune lead Japan in CiVI would be like having Millard Fillmore lead the US in CiV (given that the name of the UA was Manifest Destiny).

As far as the rest, for those who are okay with CdM showing up in her popular portrayal (i.e., her opponents' portrayal), would you be okay with England being led by Richard III as portrayed in Shakespeare's play, or (even worse) native American Civs as portrayed in most Westerns?

(To be clear, I am fine with CdM being in in her own right.)

 

[Liufeng]

Just wanted to point out: you seem to know about the Gilgamesh epic. Be aware that if you read that and about that, it is a story that evolved over thousands of years and our 'current' version is the babylonian. The Sumerian version is quite different. First of all, there are three legendary kings of Uruk: Enmerkara, Lugalbanda and Bilgames (of whom the name Gilgamesh is derived). While all three did a lot of stuff and adventures that are all separate stories, a lot of it is later exaggerated in the Gilgamesh epic and all attributed to the legendary king. The first version of the stories are quite different, no monsters, no immortality, no half-gods. Some things are mythical, like Lugalbanda inventing writing on the spot because he couldn't remember everything of a speech. However, the stories are quite harmless and seem halfway realistic. In Sumeria, Bilgames was mostly famous for being the perfect king, which led to the half-god later on, because the same word is used for god as for perfect role model in Sumerian language. Also note that the whole flood thing got added in babylonian times and does not seem to appear in Sumerian versions. That may ease you with the *legendary guy who fought monsters*. While there is no proof of Bilgames's reign, he is very like to have ruled. The very early historic kings of Uruk remember him as a normal human, but very successful leader.

You guessed right. I actually read the Nineveh version translated by Jean Bottéro, a prestigious french assyriologist (a babylonian version written in akkadian).
Even though the sumerian version présents a more human king, I still feel a bit unpleased. I know he most certainly ruled Uruk at a time, and his reign was certainly a great one seeing all the myths that would go down in generation to come. But we don't know what made his rule so great, unlike those I have presented before (and I must say, I'd love to have Ur-Nammu).

Given that Philip II is arguably among the top 10 best kings of Portugal, isn't it ironic that Portugal has a better leader in Civ6 than in Civ5, while not being in as a civ?

Jesus, dude, that's savage (yet a bit true), even more for me who am portuguese

 

[Civciv5]

Teddy Roosevelt: Good
Montezuma: Meh
Pedro II: Indifferent
Nzonga: Ok
Cleopatra:Atrocious
Saladin: Disappointing (why isn't he leading Egypt?)
Pericles:Excellent
Gorgo:Ok (would have preferred King Leonidas himself)
Trajan:Excellent
Philip II:Excellent
Catherine de Medici:Ok
Barbarossa: Ok
Victoria: Ok
Tomyris:Good
Peter: Excellent
Qin Shi Huang: Good
Hojo Tokimune:Excellent
Gandhi: Atrocious, terrible, horrifying
Gilgamesh: Good

 

[LDiCesare]

The fact that Ghandi has been the only leader India has had in Civ is a disgrace

You know Ashoka was in Civ IV?

While there is something like an Arabian ethnicity, the adjective 'arabic' means a lot more than just an ethnicity. It's also about language and culture. Saladin spoke arabic and was part of the arabic culture, he actively spread it. I like how they stick to 'easy' names, like Arabia, Germany and America. I prefer it to referring to the peoples, like in 'Arabs' or Romans for example. I would't want to play against 'the Caliphate' (and they would surely not name it after a certain dynasty, because you would always more than half of the history.) Also note that the capitols of the Caliphates were only in the very beginning in proper Arabia. Later it was Damascus, Cairo, Baghdad, Isfahan etc.

Sure, but then you could have somebody be the leader of Europe in much the same way you have one leader of the Arabs. It's kind of reducing.
Arabic is spoken from Morocco to Iraq but it would make sense to have separate civs between Maghred, Arabia, Egypt at the very least. I'm not asking for Al-Andalus or the Seljukkids, but Saladin was not even sultan.

 

[Siptah]

Sure, but then you could have somebody be the leader of Europe in much the same way you have one leader of the Arabs. It's kind of reducing.
Arabic is spoken from Morocco to Iraq but it would make sense to have separate civs between Maghred, Arabia, Egypt at the very least. I'm not asking for Al-Andalus or the Seljukkids, but Saladin was not even sultan.

Still hoping for a return of Morocco in an expansion. Or a hafsid ruler to appear.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Teddy Roosevelt: 4
Montezuma: 4
Pedro II: 3
Nzinga: 2
Cleopatra: 1
Saladin: 4
Pericles: 5
Gorgo: 5 (what are you gonna do, have a Persian Wars Scenario where Leonidas isn't a Great General at the pass of Thermopylae?)
Trajan: 5
Philip II: 4
Catherine de Medici: 4
Barbarossa: 4
Victoria: 3
Tomyris: 4
Peter: 4
Qin Shi Huang: 3
Hojo Tokimune: 4
Gandhi: 1
Gilgamesh: 4

 

[LDiCesare]

Teddy Roosevelt: 4

Is 1 good or bad on your scale?

 

[SMcM]

Teddy Roosevelt: 4
Montezuma: 4
Pedro II: 3
Nzinga: 2
Cleopatra: 1
Saladin: 4
Pericles: 5
Gorgo: 5 (what are you gonna do, have a Persian Wars Scenario where Leonidas isn't a Great General at the pass of Thermopylae?)
Trajan: 5
Philip II: 4
Catherine de Medici: 4
Barbarossa: 4
Victoria: 3
Tomyris: 4
Peter: 4
Qin Shi Huang: 3
Hojo Tokimune: 4
Gandhi: 1
Gilgamesh: 4

If we're doing ratings, here is mine. This is ordered by how good a choice I think each of these initial 18 are for their retrospective Civs, and how excited I am for them, and does not reflect what I think the inclusion of their civilisations:

Teddy: 4
Pedro II: 4
Nzinga: 2
Cleopatra: 2
Saladin: 3 (Prefer not to lead Arabia, but instead 'the Arabs' or 'the Caliphate')
Gorgo: 1 (Even if she is for Sparta, not Greece, her husband makes far more sense)
Trajan: 4
Phillip II: 5
Catherine de Medici: 1
Barbarossa: 4
Victoria: 3 (An older Victoria could have been more interesting)
Tomyris: 4 (Would prefer to lead Massagetae, not Scythia)
Peter: 5
Qin: 4
Hardrada: 5 (I was initially unsure, but must admit he could be very cool)
Hojo: 3
Gandhi: 1
Gilgamesh: 4 (Would prefer to lead Ur, not Sumer)

Other:

Jadwiga: 2
Isabella: 2
Pericles: 4
Montezuma I: 3