Your detailed thoughts on each leader

[ehecatzin]

Teddy Roosevelt : I think its a solid energetic choice, Washington was boring as hell
Saladin : While he's not Arab, he really is an iconic figure from the Crusades, but I can see why some people dislike the choice, maybe we'll get more leaders for Arabia later on.
Montezuma : I was hoping so much for a dignified Aztec emperor, but it's even worse this time around, he look like a carnival dancer, there are a whole bunch of diferent emperors to choose from I don't understand this fixation with him.
Pedro II : Solid choice for Brazil, tho I'm not going to lie, I'm still surprised they made it to vanilla over the Incas.
Qin Shi Huang : From the animations we've seen it's the leaders I like the least, he acts weird, and doesn't seem to portray the confidance he should have. hoping for more leaders for China.
Cleopatra : I rather like the choice, the Ptolemaic period is as much part of Egyptian history as the rest, and she is the better representative, we will surelly get Ramses down the road.
Victoria : I like the refreshing change, for some reason I've never liked any depiction of Elizabeth on civ.
Catherine de Medici : I don't mind her too much, her abilities are nice, and I'm sure we'll get extra leaders for France later on anyway.
Frederick I : Good choice to represent medieval Germany, Bismark also seemed very boring on civ5 so the change is welcomed
Pericles : Glad to not see Alexander leading Greece for once, solid choice, and even more if he gets his own Athens flavored uniques.
Gorgo : Same as above in being able to play a Spartan led Greece, however I would have liked it more if they went with Leonidas, but oh well, I dont think it will bother me much, I rathe rlike most of what the animation team does, and I'm looking forward to this one.
Gandhi : UGH, please go and burn in a ditch and never come back. At least multiple leaders gives some hope in better representation for Indian history than nuke hungry Gandhi.
Hojo Tokimune : I gotta say I got so tired of Tokugawa on civ5, Hojo is a nice change design wise, and his history translates very well to the bonuses in game.
Mvemba Nzinga : TBH honest I don't know much about the guy, but the little I've heard is bad, not much to comment on him.
Harald Hardrada : I rather like the viking inspired civ to be on vanilla, don't mind this one at all.
Trajan : Also good change from the usual suspects, looking forward to whatever he bring new to the table.
Peter the Great : Glad to see him back, also looking forward to seeing what he offers.
Tomirys : It's weird having her and not Persia TBH, but I guess it's part of the inevitable Persian DLC XD. Other than that, I like her inclusion, better than the Huns that's for sure.
Philip II : This one I'm really happy about, Isabella seemed like Monty in that she is eternal and always leads Spain, glad to see Phillip II on the game, maybe he'll provide a diferent take than the usual religious crazy Spain we are used to.
Gilgamesh : I was rather dissapointed on the lack of Sumeria on civ5, so I'm happy Gilgamesh is back at it.

 

[Keperry]

Roosevelt: One of America's most iconic leaders and a central figure in its ascent to become a world power. Good choice.
Saladin: Pretty good, pretty good.
Montezuma: I think Tlacaelel would have been awesome but hey, that's a little much to expect. So Monty is fine.
Pedro II: I mean, they shoulda chosen the Inca instead, but if they're going with Brazil I guess he's the best option. Juscelino Kubitschek maybe? Eh.
Qin Shi Huang: Pretty good choice, I would have preferred a Han or Tang ruler or maybe even Qing but he's a colorful enough figure to make up for it. Lots of possibilities for alternate leaders once they start rolling them out.
Cleopatra: They ought to have chosen Hatshepsut instead since she was both a much better leader and much more Egyptian, but I guess Cleopatra is fine, she is one of the most famous figures in history overall.
Victoria: Like TR for America, one of the most iconic leaders and one that led the British Empire at its height. Well, she didn't lead lead it, but still, good choice.
Catherine de Medici: Not the most conventional pick but I think she is a pretty good representation of France at its height that she set the stage for. Sure, she's not really French, but keep in mind that Catherine the Great wasn't really Russian either. I do hope we get some alternates, though.
Barbarossa: Cool beans, good to have some more medieval European leaders.
Gorgo: I mean, sure, if we're having alternate leaders, I like the shoutout to the status of Spartan women, it's just weird that Greece seems to be the only one getting them in vanilla.
Pericles: Leader of the most culturally influential polis at its most culturally influential period. Good choice.
Gandhi: Four thousand years of history and this is the best they could do? Goddamnit. If any civ is getting alternate leaders to start off with it should have been India.
Hojo: Had no idea who he was until he was announced, but seems cool!
Mvemba: I love Nzinga so much, but I guess she's not really Kongolese so I can settle for this guy as long as we're getting Kongo, which is pretty hype.
Harald: I really hope that they're going for an all-around Norse/Viking/Scandinavian civ and not just Norway. And in that case I would have preferred Canute. But sure, okay.
Jadwiga: Good choice for Poland, though I guess she's DLC? Oh well.
Trajan: I was getting sick of Caesars, and this is the best non-Caesar they could have picked.
Peter: Well, I guess if we can only have one Catherine per game, this is the best they could have done otherwise...
Tomyris: Yesssssssss. I am so very excited. The Scythians were on my wishlist for a long time but I never expected to actually get them, much less in a basegame.
Isabella: Whither?
Phillip: Solid, nothing to complain about, just not particularly exciting.
Gilgamesh: Ditto.

 

[GenyaArikado]

I am pleased with all the leaders so far.

 

[Lordkhan II.]

Sorry for the essay.

Teddy Roosevelt
I quiet like this choice. Many people describe America as boring. But I think this is always because this historical person with a high moral value. (Washington or Lincoln)
But this time. Teddy feels like a human being with flaws. Also his big stick agenda will provide a more imperialistic America. (A little bit Monroe doctrine in there) Waging a little for War for an advantage will get difficult if he watches you.
Very strong flavor.

Saladin
Ok, can we agreed on one thing? This will be the religious focused civ! He is famous for being the defender in a holy war. Not saying he could not be militaristic. But he will be the top faith producer.
Saladin himself: no problem with him

Montezuma
Don’t know how the Aztecs won their golden Ticket for every civ game. But people like them.
He is ok.

Qin Shi Huang
solid choice. I love especially how he brings the flavor to china. They look like a fantastic civ to turtle, build up and let the barbarian (rest of the world) come to you.

Cleopatra
Happy to see a new face here. As a change and to fulfill a female leader agenda. Good choice.
But like teddy, she shines in combination with the game. She will be super sneaky and you will always hesitate to beat them completely. If you do your lucrative trade option goes away.
Victoria
She is the logical choice. Also a good first play civ here.

Catherine de Medici
I wanted Ludwig XIV. But the idea of a mixture of culture, war and diplomacy sounds pretty good.
Don’t know anything about her. Pretty replaceable for me.

Frederick I
On one hand happy that he is not a modern leader. On the other hand he has a terrible UA. At this moment Germany is the latest revealed Civ and it is a mixed bag for me.

Pericles
Good Choice. (Personal note: Alexander had in civ 5 the most punch able face)

Gorgo
undefendable female agenda choice. Let her have a good UA

Gandhi
Someone said it already we had Asoka in civ 4. Meanwhile Gandhi develop his own history with the franchise. Good leader. But in my eyes not a typical political leader.

Hojo Tokimune
Don’t know much about him. Also he doesn’t bother me. The divine wind is awesome historical and the electronics fabric will make japan a fan favorite.

Mvemba Nzinga (or Afonso I)
Love it when this game teaches me something new. Unknown to me. But I am really interesting to see his UA. If it suits. I could be the eye catcher in this list.

Harald Hardrada
Sorry guys. Don’t care. Not a little bit. All Vikings are the same for me. His inclusion in the base game feels wrong. Open a thread and I will tell you that I never played a single Viking and I will not play him in civ 6. But let me be an adult loser here. Happy for the other fans.
Welcome to the franchise Norway. *clap clap*

Trajan
Here I am pretty alone. Why him? There is a very big selection for historical big personalities in roman history. Nero for example. Trajan suffers from the America syndrome. He is the model student. Almost bland.
Give me Lucius Cornelius Sulla. The first official dictator in human history. (if I remember that correctly)
It highly depends on his UA and which flavor rom gets.

Peter the Great
Very good choice. Excepting a tech focused Russia. (Unbelievable they got rid of the Catherine)

Tomirys
Don’t care
Female mongol. Male mongol
As long the mounted units are there.

Philip II
Very good choice. Thanks you for getting rid of Isabella (for a short time)
Hopefully we don’t get the religion nutcase Spain from civ 4 or the pure luck based UA from civ 5.
Not exactly sure: But he was the leader at spain’s greatest expansion. If I remember correctly he governed the whole world from his desk. He is the most powerful bureaucrat in the world

Gilgamesh
mystical king god? Not sure why this civ is in the base game. But people like him.
I don’t need the sumer.

Pedro
Solid choice.
Surprised to see this newbie civ so quick again. This UA is very flexible and strong in the beginning.

 

[jekke]

Way too many changes (as compared to previous Civs) simply for the sake of change. France had Napoleon and Jean d'Arc? Germany had Bismarck and Friedrich? America had Lincoln and Washington? let's have someone else this time. I do not get it.

Even more so, Russia had Catherine in Civ V, now it's Peter, and he was also in Civ IV. If Peter is a better leader, then why wasn't he chosen in Civ V? If he is a worse leader, why swapping Catherine from Civ V with him?

 

[Zaarin]

Teddy Roosevelt: No strong opinion, neither pleased nor displeased.
Saladin: I have no problem with Saldin, but I would have preferred a caliph, and in fact I wouldn't have minded the return of Harun al-Rashid. That being said, Saladin is a fine choice and I can't complain about him.
Montezuma: Don't like his design, but I'm fine with his inclusion.
Pedro II: Brazil shouldn't be in the base game in the first game, I don't care who leads them.
Qin Shi Huang: A safe choice rather than an interesting one. I can't complain about him, but they could have done better.
Cleopatra: While I find Cleopatra a historically fascinating individual, I don't like her as ruler of Egypt. That being said, her in-game character seems quite entertaining. Would have preferred to see Akhenaten, Hatshepsut, or even Ramesses again.
Victoria: After Catherine de Medici, this is my second least favorite choice of leader in the game. She's boring, and she wasn't the ruler of England she was the ruler of the United Kingdom. It should have been Elizabeth I.
Catherine de Medici: Worst choice in the game. Of all of France's fantastic and interesting leaders, they chose someone who never ruled France, whose lack of influence resulted in a massacre, and who ultimately destroyed her own dynasty. Bravo, Firaxis, what an inspired choice. While I'm extremely glad to not see Napoleon again, I can't think of a worse choice to replace him. Marie Antoinette would not have been a worse choice.
Barbarossa: From the beginning I hoped to see Barbarossa lead Germany, so I am enormously pleased. I like seeing Medieval Germany represented for a change, and Barbarossa was not only a great leader but an interesting one as well.
Pericles and Gorgo: Pericles is fine. I don't have strong opinions about who leads Greece, but I'm just grateful that it's not Alexander again. As for Gorgo, she's flirting with Catherine de Medici territory, but she's also a second leader so I'm less bothered.
Gandhi: This joke is almost as old as I am. Let it die already!
Hojo Tokimune: Brilliant choice, up there with Barbarossa and Tomyris as my favorite addition to Civ6. I've always found it odd that Japan--chiefly a defensive and isolationist civ for much of its history--has always been portrayed as a warmonger under Tokugawa and Nobunaga, so I'm very pleased by the change.
Mvemba Nzinga (or Afonso I): Sub-Saharan African history is not my forte. I personally would have preferred Ethiopia, but I'm not particularly bothered by it.
Harald Hardrada: Would have preferred to the see Scandinavia show up in a DLC or expansion than the base game, but Hardrada is a good choice at any rate.
Trajan: No strong opinion, but a nice change.
Peter the Great: So let me get this straight: we nix Catherine the Great, Isabella of Castile, and Elizabeth I...so that we can have Catherine de Medici, Cleopatra, and Victoria? Nothing against Peter the Great, but Catherine the Great, Isabella, and Elizabeth are such incredibly powerful rulers--even disregarding gender--that to see them ousted in favor of two women who basically succeeded only at destroying their respective civilizations and a figurehead is disappointing to say the least.
Tomirys: Quite possibly my favorite new addition. The Scythians are such an unexpected choice, and I'm very pleased to see them included. As for Tomyris herself, "epic" is probably the most suitable word to describe her.
Philip II: See my commentary on Peter the Great. Not that Philip II isn't deserving (though, perhaps unfairly, he's chiefly remembered for losing the Armada ), but when you have a powerhouse like Isabella...
Gilgamesh: Super happy to see Sumer included. For the people complaining about Gilgamesh as a "legendary figure": his exploits may have been exaggerated, but the man existed and was certainly instrumental in engineering Ur's rise to prominence among the Sumerian city-states (previously dominated by Kish). Sure, there were other choices they could have made, but there's nothing wrong with choosing Gilgamesh. He's far and away a better choice than Dido, Boudicca, Cleopatra, or Catherine de Medici.

 

[DeutschDachs]

Teddy Roosevelt :Despite being very important to American history, I always found the portrayals of Washington and Lincoln to be very sterile and dull. Teddy oozed personality and I'm hoping this carries over to their interpretation of him. I am very happy Firaxis took public comments and made him less chubby. You can actually recognize him now!
Saladin : I like it. It's not exactly groundbreaking, but Saladin was a great sultan and is famous the Muslim world over.
Montezuma : Not many options here. I like the idea of Montezuma and the Aztecs. They seem really fun and I can't wait to play them. I'm not a very big fan of how they've portrayed Montezuma here. I don't need 100% historical accuracy but he hardly seems like a leader. His depiction in Civ V was great imo though I know many disagree.
Pedro II : Dunno about Brazil being in Vanilla over the Inca, but if it's going to be Brazil it has to be one of the Pedros imo. So no complaints.
Qin Shi Huang : Good choice of leader, lousy animated model. Great Wall mechanic is very interesting
Cleopatra : Meh, as others have said, there are a number of actual EGYPTIAN rulers I would have preferred. For gameplay's sake, however, her agenda is great and Egypt will be a fun Civ whether you're with them or against them.
Victoria : I know many Brits don't like it as she technically didn't rule, but the whole "Victorian Age" was really the height of British/English power and influence so I like the pick.
Catherine de Medici : She seems like an interesting person. I do not believe she should be in over several more important and influential kings, but what can you do. I really like the model, I think they made her seem much more French than she actually was in reality
Frederick I : Was very excited to hear he was going to be the leader! Fantastic change of pace from Prussian Germany. Though I'm kind of disappointed Germany is mostly militaristic again and Barbarossa's model kind of bores me for someone named after his glorious facial hair
Pericles : Pericles is cool. I'm hoping he can represent the more learned and philosophical side of Greece. I'd be very happy to play that.
Gorgo : ... why? We know very little of her and King Leonidas is what you'd think of when you think "Sparta." If Sparta is a Civ it's a poor Civ choice. If Gorgo is a Greek leader, it's a wasted space that could have gone to Alexander. If ever there was evidence of shoehorning in female leaders just because they're female, this is it.
Gandhi : I actually don't mind Gandhi as a leader per se. I like that there is one nuke happy nation. However... I do hope there are multiple leaders so you can have the "historic" India and the "Civilization" India both present.
Hojo Tokimune : I don't really know too much about him but I have never been too moved by any of Japan's leaders so I'm all for trying a change of pace.
Mvemba Nzinga : If the word "****old" wasn't so bloody overused by the internet it's how I would describe Afonso. Basically just wanted to be African Portugal. Not very inspiring. All we know about him comes from his conversations with the Portugese. Hopefully the rest of the Civ is more interesting.
Harald Hardrada : It's kind of nice that Norway gets a leader after Denmark and Sweden both had one in Civ V. I always enjoy a Viking Civ and Harald is a quintessential Viking no doubt (thank god they didn't find a Gorgo of the Vikings ). Hoping they can explore the ocean earlier than other Civs.
Trajan : New Roman emperor who was greatly successful. I look forward to his reveal!
Peter the Great : Peter is great! Can't argue with the inclusion and will no doubt like playing as him. Kind of disappointed Ivan the Terrible didn't make it but I suppose with multiple leaders there is hope (although Catherine or Lenin/Khruschev are fine by me too)
Tomirys : Sure, she seems like a badass and kicked some butt. No reason to really dispute the inclusion even though she wasn't technically Scythian. Wish she had the Persians to battle or the Mongols to horse battle, but she stands on her own and I'm happy with the inclusion
Philip II : Sure, why not? He was a decent leader and it makes for a nice change of pace so I'm all for it.
Gilgamesh : Happy to see at least one ancient Meso. Civ make it in. Gilgamesh is a fine pick by me, I enjoyed him in Civ IV


Hopefully Poland and Jadwiga are on their way soon A couple of other Poles may have made for better selections but I really do not have any sort of grudge against her. Happy to play the religion game!

 

[Guandao]

Teddy Roosevelt : as a New Yorker, I'm partial to Teddy Roosevelt, was totally expecting Lincoln in the game instead
Saladin : he's ok, mainly famous for his interactions with the Crusaders, known about him since playing Age of Empires 2
Montezuma : would prefer a more accurate look for the Aztec ruler, I wouldn't even care if they ditched both of the Montezumas for a ruler with a different name (ex: Ahuitzotl)
Pedro II : weird to see him again after BNW, but he is a decent choice for Brazil
Qin Shi Huang : would rather have an emperor who hasn't appeared before (examples: Han Wudi, Taizong of Tang, Taizu of Song, Yongle Emperor, Kangxi Emperor) known for his burying of scholars and search for immortality
Cleopatra : would rather have Hatshepsut in the game instead, yes Cleo ruled Egypt, but she lost it to the Romans, would have prolly happened anyways
Victoria : represents the British Empire at its height, I am ok with this choice
Catherine de Medici : I know her for association with Huguenot persecution, really strange pick for France
Frederick I : first heard of this guy in Age of Empires 2, is he the best medieval choice for Germany? prolly not, and his anachronistic plate armor
Pericles : a great choice for Greek leader
Gorgo : only know her from 300, what kind of personality will they give this obscure queen?
Gandhi : sick of Gandhi, after reading about his views on how to run India, he seems like a terrible choice for Indian leader, so many other better choices
Hojo Tokimune : Seems like an interesting pick for Japanese leader, the guy who fought the Yuan Dynasty Mongols
Mvemba Nzinga : seems very assimilated to Portuguese culture, if what the others say are true, wouldn't have mind seeing Nzinga of Ndongo instead
Harald Hardrada : represents Viking Scandinavia, I only know him for dying at Stamford Bridge, was he even a successful ruler of Norway?
Trajan : Good pick for representing the era of the Five Good Emperors in Roman history, I'm tired of Augustus and Julius
Peter the Great : Not too familiar with his legacy, but seems like a great choice for Russian leader, he cut the boyars' beards!
Tomyris : seems like a strong warrior queen, visually looks interesting, kinda sore over the Mongols not being in before Scythia though
Philip II : Good choice for Spanish leader instead of Isabella, he was the one who sent the Spanish Armada after England, was he?
Gilgamesh : was expecting Babylon over them, but Sumer is a fine pick for a civilization, mainly know him for his legendary exploits, hope his beard is big

 

[Ricard.Bossle]

Pedro II : Let's be honest : aside from Pedro II or Getulio Vargas, there are not many good contestants for Brazil.

This one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juscelino_Kubitschek

 

[King Jason]

Even more so, Russia had Catherine in Civ V, now it's Peter, and he was also in Civ IV. If Peter is a better leader, then why wasn't he chosen in Civ V? If he is a worse leader, why swapping Catherine from Civ V with him?

Because... They were both great leaders.

 

[Civciv5]

You know Ashoka was in Civ IV?

Were he was only co-leader with Gandhi. In all other civilization incarnations where India had one leader; Gandhi was the leader of India.

 

[jekke]

Because... They were both great leaders.

sorry, but if this is really their argumentation, it just demonstrates the lack of coherent algorithm for choosing a leader. How are they doing this, anyway, is it a bunch of boneheads sitting in an office and looking at the powerpoint slides, like, oh, Peter, this and that, and everyone is like, yes, great leader, and then the next slides, oh Catherine, this and that, and everyone is again excited, and in the end someone says, we had Catherine before, let's have Peter now?

I mean, it is totally possible to come up with a mathematical algorithm to determine the most appropriate leader for each civilisation. In fact, there are plenty of such algorithms, and the one we consider here does not have to be the best one. It just have to exist, and then the advantage is that you can fend off all the complaints with "we have an algorithm, folks. End of story." The procedure does not necessarily have to deal with number of years the guy ruled the country and such, it can be more sophisticated like counting the number of mentioning in google, in respectable history books, in popular culture like movies and songs, in folklore, jokes and such. Importantly, in the end you get a number for each candidate, and then it is an infinitely rare case if two of them have the same score.

 

[m15a]

sorry, but if this is really their argumentation, it just demonstrates the lack of coherent algorithm for choosing a leader.
...
the advantage is that you can fend off all the complaints with "we have an algorithm, folks. End of story."

Do you think that the primary design objective should be to fend off complaints of "unfairness"? Personally, I think that should be pretty low on their list of goals (if present at all). The goal should be what is enjoyable to the players.

 

[DeutschDachs]

sorry, but if this is really their argumentation, it just demonstrates the lack of coherent algorithm for choosing a leader. How are they doing this, anyway, is it a bunch of boneheads sitting in an office and looking at the powerpoint slides, like, oh, Peter, this and that, and everyone is like, yes, great leader, and then the next slides, oh Catherine, this and that, and everyone is again excited, and in the end someone says, we had Catherine before, let's have Peter now?

I mean, it is totally possible to come up with a mathematical algorithm to determine the most appropriate leader for each civilisation. In fact, there are plenty of such algorithms, and the one we consider here does not have to be the best one. It just have to exist, and then the advantage is that you can fend off all the complaints with "we have an algorithm, folks. End of story." The procedure does not necessarily have to deal with number of years the guy ruled the country and such, it can be more sophisticated like counting the number of mentioning in google, in respectable history books, in popular culture like movies and songs, in folklore, jokes and such. Importantly, in the end you get a number for each candidate, and then it is an infinitely rare case if two of them have the same score.

All possible calculations, weighted values, and chosen categories are biased and would also not take into account the unique scenarios facing each leader. Your whole argument is silly.

 

[SMcM]

Teddy Roosevelt: No strong opinion, neither pleased nor displeased.
Saladin: I have no problem with Saldin, but I would have preferred a caliph, and in fact I wouldn't have minded the return of Harun al-Rashid. That being said, Saladin is a fine choice and I can't complain about him.
Montezuma: Don't like his design, but I'm fine with his inclusion.
Pedro II: Brazil shouldn't be in the base game in the first game, I don't care who leads them.
Qin Shi Huang: A safe choice rather than an interesting one. I can't complain about him, but they could have done better.
Cleopatra: While I find Cleopatra a historically fascinating individual, I don't like her as ruler of Egypt. That being said, her in-game character seems quite entertaining. Would have preferred to see Akhenaten, Hatshepsut, or even Ramesses again.
Victoria: After Catherine de Medici, this is my second least favorite choice of leader in the game. She's boring, and she wasn't the ruler of England she was the ruler of the United Kingdom. It should have been Elizabeth I.
Catherine de Medici: Worst choice in the game. Of all of France's fantastic and interesting leaders, they chose someone who never ruled France, whose lack of influence resulted in a massacre, and who ultimately destroyed her own dynasty. Bravo, Firaxis, what an inspired choice. While I'm extremely glad to not see Napoleon again, I can't think of a worse choice to replace him. Marie Antoinette would not have been a worse choice.
Barbarossa: From the beginning I hoped to see Barbarossa lead Germany, so I am enormously pleased. I like seeing Medieval Germany represented for a change, and Barbarossa was not only a great leader but an interesting one as well.
Pericles and Gorgo: Pericles is fine. I don't have strong opinions about who leads Greece, but I'm just grateful that it's not Alexander again. As for Gorgo, she's flirting with Catherine de Medici territory, but she's also a second leader so I'm less bothered.
Gandhi: This joke is almost as old as I am. Let it die already!
Hojo Tokimune: Brilliant choice, up there with Barbarossa and Tomyris as my favorite addition to Civ6. I've always found it odd that Japan--chiefly a defensive and isolationist civ for much of its history--has always been portrayed as a warmonger under Tokugawa and Nobunaga, so I'm very pleased by the change.
Mvemba Nzinga (or Afonso I): Sub-Saharan African history is not my forte. I personally would have preferred Ethiopia, but I'm not particularly bothered by it.
Harald Hardrada: Would have preferred to the see Scandinavia show up in a DLC or expansion than the base game, but Hardrada is a good choice at any rate.
Trajan: No strong opinion, but a nice change.
Peter the Great: So let me get this straight: we nix Catherine the Great, Isabella of Castile, and Elizabeth I...so that we can have Catherine de Medici, Cleopatra, and Victoria? Nothing against Peter the Great, but Catherine the Great, Isabella, and Elizabeth are such incredibly powerful rulers--even disregarding gender--that to see them ousted in favor of two women who basically succeeded only at destroying their respective civilizations and a figurehead is disappointing to say the least.
Tomirys: Quite possibly my favorite new addition. The Scythians are such an unexpected choice, and I'm very pleased to see them included. As for Tomyris herself, "epic" is probably the most suitable word to describe her.
Philip II: See my commentary on Peter the Great. Not that Philip II isn't deserving (though, perhaps unfairly, he's chiefly remembered for losing the Armada ), but when you have a powerhouse like Isabella...
Gilgamesh: Super happy to see Sumer included. For the people complaining about Gilgamesh as a "legendary figure": his exploits may have been exaggerated, but the man existed and was certainly instrumental in engineering Ur's rise to prominence among the Sumerian city-states (previously dominated by Kish). Sure, there were other choices they could have made, but there's nothing wrong with choosing Gilgamesh. He's far and away a better choice than Dido, Boudicca, Cleopatra, or Catherine de Medici.

'A powerhouse like Isabella'? What? You mean the co-ruler of a not yet dominant Spain? I prefer Phillip II, the sole sovereign of a dominant Spain. And personality wise, what makes Isabella more interesting? In terms of being a devout religious leader, Phillip II works equally well.

And let's pretend for a second that you are right, and that Isabella is in every respect a slightly better leader, I feel even then it would be time for a change from her; I've only played Civ IV and V (barely played Civ III and don't really remember it) and I'm already tired of her; what could Civ VI do to make her seem novel again? It would be like Montezuma, where the new Civ VI version actually looked less good than the old Civ V one, and everyone would be disappointed. This can be avoided by a new leader choice.

Also, seems an odd inconsistency how you claim Phillip II is best know for losing to England, but ignore that Hardrada is certainly in that situation, except the English actually killed him. Shame about those pesky Normans though...

 

[moysturfurmer]

sorry, but if this is really their argumentation, it just demonstrates the lack of coherent algorithm for choosing a leader. How are they doing this, anyway, is it a bunch of boneheads sitting in an office and looking at the powerpoint slides, like, oh, Peter, this and that, and everyone is like, yes, great leader, and then the next slides, oh Catherine, this and that, and everyone is again excited, and in the end someone says, we had Catherine before, let's have Peter now?

I mean, it is totally possible to come up with a mathematical algorithm to determine the most appropriate leader for each civilisation. In fact, there are plenty of such algorithms, and the one we consider here does not have to be the best one. It just have to exist, and then the advantage is that you can fend off all the complaints with "we have an algorithm, folks. End of story." The procedure does not necessarily have to deal with number of years the guy ruled the country and such, it can be more sophisticated like counting the number of mentioning in google, in respectable history books, in popular culture like movies and songs, in folklore, jokes and such. Importantly, in the end you get a number for each candidate, and then it is an infinitely rare case if two of them have the same score.

Those jokers at Firaxi$ should just use Bismarck at the leader for every civ for every iteration of Civ. So many resources get wasted on them giving us new leaders every time, and none of them are as Good at Bismarck.

 

[Xandinho]

Teddy Roosevelt: I prefer George Washington or Abraham Lincoln. But he is ok for me.
Saladin: Ok, nothing to complain about.
Montezuma: I do not know much about Aztec leaders, then ok.
Pedro II: Without doubt he is the best choice of leader for Brazil.
Qin Shi Huang: Great choice, for me it is the best choice for China initially.
Cleopatra: I do not understand why many people complain about it, but Cleopatra is very acceptable to me and I liked her addition.
Victoria: Great choice, I have nothing to complain about.
Catherine de Medici: I prefer Napoleon, but I'm ok with her.
Frederick I: Ok, nothing to complain about
Pericles: Ok, nothing to complain about
Gorgo: Ok, nothing to complain about;
Gandhi: I like him and I do not think he is a bad choice, but wanted to see another leader. So a little disappointed.
Hojo Tokimune: Ok, nothing to complain about.
Mvemba Nzinga: I do not know much about Congolese leaders, then ok.
Harald Hardrada: I do not know much about Norwegian leaders, then ok.
Trajan: Ok, nothing to complain about. But I still prefer Julius Caesar.
Peter the Great: I prefer Catherine or Ivan the Terrible. But I'm ok with him.
Tomirys: Ok, nothing to complain about.
Philip II: Ok, nothing to complain about. But I like Isabella
Gilgamesh: Great choice.

Overall, I am ok with the choices of leaders, I do not have much to complain about. Only change the leader of India.

 

[isau]

Teddy Roosevelt : Not particularly excited, but I do love what they've done with the character. At the same time, wouldn't have minded having America cut entirely this go-round if we would have gotten the Maya, Inca, or a Native American civ in their place.

Saladin : Missed him from the last game. Glad to have him back. Look forward to his reveal.

Montezuma : Who else? Glad, at least Aztecs made the cut, when so few native american civs did this time. Seemingly excellent design of the civ's abilities.

Pedro II : Hmm. Well I thought Brazil was terrible in Civ V so I'm glad they get a do-over here. Infinitely better in any case than Maria of Portugal.

Qin Shi Huang : No real thoughts.

Cleopatra : I was a bit skeptical about this one. But her animation is fabulous. You couldn't make Hattie this sensual. Cleo makes the cut just for being a character--I approve.

Victoria : Fine choice. Love her artwork here. It's perfectly snobby and I will enjoy raining on her empire.

Catherine de Medici : An interesting choice. This could have gone good or bad, but the way they did her artwork is incredible. A real villainess. Wish we could get more shady characters like this and stop with the whole "glorious, divine, exalted leader" crap, which gets so dull.

Frederick I : I was worried when I saw the image they had up on the board, but really like how they did him. First time in any Civ game I've considered playing as Germany.

Pericles and Gorgo : I think Alexander is a better choice than either. Seriously going to miss him.

Gandhi : Well, I'm not surprised. No real thoughts here.

Hojo Tokimune : Japan has never really held my interest in this series. This guy is a little better. Really wish one day we'd get Ninjas instead of Samurai though, even if Ninjas are quite different in Japanese culture than we imagine. Why has Japan never been a major spying civ? Seems like a lost opportunity.

Mvemba Nzinga (or Afonso I) : At first I was excited, because I thought this was Ana Nzinga. Then i found out its just Afonso. At least we get one African civ.

Harald Hardrada : Taking a wait and see attitude. Feels like expansion material honestly.

Trajan : Meh. I guess he's interesting. Would rather a despot. Say, Diocletian. People might complain about Diocletian's massacres, but no one ever complained about Isabella.

Peter the Great : I'd rather have Ivan the Terrible. Peter is okay. I really liked how they did Catherine in Civ V, and will miss her.

Tomirys : I had no idea who this person was until a few weeks ago. She seems okay.

Philip II : Honestly just wondering if his leader model will be as hot as his paintings. New pretty boy for Civ VI?

Gilgamesh : Have no thoughts on this. His Civ IV avatar was very looking though, due to how they colored/shaded it. Like he was made of brass. Hope we get a bronze skinned man this time who doesn't look like he's wrapped in gold foil.

 

[shyPiano]

Teddy Roosevelt: Teddy Roosevelt is just awesome! The way he is portrayed give him a lot of energy and he seems like a really likable character to have around the game! I'm really happy they ditched Washington and (to a lesser extent) Lincoln for him. 5 / 5
Saladin: Hmm... On one hand, Saladin ruling over Arabia isn't really correct per se, the exact same problem he had in Civilization IV. On the other hand, I am really happy to see him back! Saladin is, without a doubt, one of the most important figures of his era, and it is really nice to see him represented in the game again. Harun al-Rashid was a great choice for Civilization V - in some ways better than Saladin - but I'm not unhappy to see Saladin back at all. 4 / 5
Montezuma: Good ol' Montezuma, what is there to say about him? He is the choice for the Aztecs, and despite being in nearly every game so far, I can't say I am tired of seeing him. What I am tired of seeing, though, is how badly they represent him. What's with all the leafs? Why does he have leafs on his back? What is going on here? They even had a drawing of an Aztec emperor in their office, they know they don't look like that, where did this come from?
Well, it's really sad when the first Civ game represented him better than this game, but at least they didn't pull a Civ IV and have Montezuma II instead. 3 / 5
Pedro II: ... sigh Let's get this out of the way first: Pedro II is the best choice for Brazil, and I think he looks great. Representing him when he was younger was a good choice to add some variety after seeing him in Civ V, and while some people don't like the way he is represented, I really do enjoy it. Maybe change his hair color to be more accurate, but for me that's all I would change in him.
My problem, though, is the fact that Brazil is in the base game at all... This is a very weird choice, and not one that I enjoy. Brazil works great as a DLC or expansion civ, but as someone for the base game I think it's taking away space for civilizations that could bring much more variety. 4 / 5
Qin Shi Huang: It's Qin. Not a very out-of-the-box choice, but works perfectly well as the leader for China. Would have liked to see someone different - the series loves using Qin and Mao, only Civ V did something different. Overall a nice choice, but a very safe one. 4 / 5
Cleopatra: At first, I was really disappointed with Cleopatra as the leader of Egypt. There are so many pharaohs that could better represent Ancient Egypt in its heyday - including Hatshepsut for a female one - that choosing one for when the civilization was in decay feels off. It doesn't help that most representations of Cleopatra up the sex appeal in ways that are both blatant and unhistorical.
What saved her, though, is that Firaxis not only managed to design her in such a way that she is not a blatant attempt at attracting the straight man, but made her agenda fit her real life personality so well that she, alone, made the agenda system feel perfect. So kudos to you! 4 / 5
Victoria: Young Victoria, even! Quite the interesting choice, representing her in her younger days. Victoria is, without a doubt, the leader to choose after Elizabeth I. And the way she is designed and animated makes for a very fun character to have in the game. Again, her agenda is also really fitting, and will make her an interesting opponent. The only thing I'm not too happy with is her voice acting, but even that I don't think it's too bad, just a bit bland. It helps that recently I was able to hear it in sync with her actual movement, which helps a ton with making the voice fit the character. 5 / 5
Catherine de Medici: At first I was disappointed that we wouldn't get Louis XIV. Now that is a grand personality! But the way they implemented France makes Catherine a very natural fit. Her menacing tone when talking, and the fact that you just know her espionage system is stealing all your info for her in the shadows while she enjoys her glass of red wine, makes for a very intimidating opponent (in an unconventional way). One more case where leader choice and game mechanics go hand in hand. 5 / 5
Frederick I: Great choice, I was worried we'd get Bismark or Frederick again, getting a Holy Roman Emperor is great. Everything else about him, though, I find lackluster. His design is rather bland, his animations seem unnatural, his civilization seem boring to play as, and his agenda will probably make him a huge pain in the neck to deal with. I feel much better could have been achieved. 3 / 5
Gorgo: First thought was "Why not Leonidas himself?". Until now, I am not sure why they went with his wife instead - if they wanted a leader of Greece to represent Sparta, then Leonidas is the man for you. Quite frankly, I'm not even sure what Gorgo did, and why she was chosen. Maybe it'll make sense as information about her is revealed, but until then, I am not very excited for her. 3 / 5
Pericles: Perfect leader to represent a Greece as a center of philosophy and culture, and its unique political workings. I am incredibly happy to see him return from Civ IV, and have a Greece focused on these areas instead of war. 5 / 5
Gandhi: ... Gandhi's words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS yadda yadda yadda - really a shame that we have Gandhi again instead of... anyone else, really. Hopefully they will drop the nuke joke and have India be a faith-focused civ instead of one based on... overpopulation. 2 / 5
Hojo Tokimune: Amazing choice, love his design, love his civilization bonuses and his agenda, love that he is from a completely different period than Tokugawa and Oda Nobunaga. I really don't have much to point out about this guy, just that I really like him! 5 / 5
Mvemba Nzinga: Yes! Kongo is in the game! At first I wanted Nzinga Mbande to lead the Kongo, but after learning more about her, I now know she was actually queen of Ndongo and Matamba. So having an actual king of Kongo lead the Kongo does make me happy. Maybe they'll add Ndongo or Angola as a civ as well, and we'll have her in the game as well.
But enough about her. About Mvemba, while he seems to have a bad rap for kissing the floor the Portuguese walked, I think this is the best choice for Kongo. And I love that they went with his birth name instead of Afonso I. Maybe the best choice of all would have been to have Ndongo or Angola, but I'm happy with the Kongo. I just hope they still add Mali and other sub-saharan civs to the game, instead of doing a random one plus the Zulu as they are used to do. 4 / 5
Harald Hardrada: I'm not really happy that Norway/the Norse got into the base game, and this guy doesn't really strike me fancy. I know him as being the guy who died first trying to conquer England in 1066. There's more to him, I'm sure, but overall I wish he wasn't here in the first place - he should have waited until DLC. 2 / 5
Jadwiga: Poland... Does Poland really need to come so early? At least she's DLC, so I'm not so disappointed. And from what I've read, she appears to be a very solid choice for Poland. I'm all for gender diversity in Civ games where is makes sense, and this one appears to be the case. 4 / 5
Trajan: Officially declared by the Senate optimus princeps ("the best ruler"). Nothing else to add. 5 / 5
Peter the Great: Science Russia? Yes please! Peter the Great makes for a great choice for Russia, and I'm happy to see him back for Civ VI. Catherine the Great has the bonus of being a woman, and I would be just as happy if she returned, but Peter the Great is also good to have back. 5 / 5
Tomirys: I have never heard of Scythia before, and now I'm really happy they're in! Tomirys looks like one badass leader, and I can't wait to play with her as my honorable opponent. 5 / 5
Isabella: Great choice for Spain, as usual. I really like Isabella, so I can't complain. Assuming, of course, they didn't go for Isabella of Portugal, because that would be very weird. Though I would wish Spain to wait some more time to leave space for more diverse civs. 4 / 5
Philip II: Eeeehhhh... I don't like this choice for Spain. In part because he was also King of Portugal and I kinda fear they'll try to stretch a Spanish civ into an Iberian one. Hopefully this won't be the case, and we'll see Portugal later down the line, but until I see more of the Spanish civ, I'm a bit nervous about this one. 3 / 5
Gilgamesh: YESSS! My most anticipated one for the entire game! Sumer was the first civilization, and one that I feel should be in every game. The Epic of Gilgamesh makes this guy seem mythological, but from what I've read, he was an actual ruler of Uruk that the people made an epic about, so I don't agree with the people that say he shouldn't be in the game because he is mythological. Glad to have you back, Gilgamesh. Now please don't hold my face so close to yours. 5 / 5

Oof, this took way too long to write. Some of these ratings will have to be updated as the civilizations are announced.

 

[Tomorrow's Dawn]

Qin Shi Huang: It's Qin. Not a very out-of-the-box choice, but works perfectly well as the leader for China. Would have liked to see someone different - the series loves using Qin and Mao, only Civ V did something different. Overall a nice choice, but a very safe one. 4 / 5

Actually, Wu Zetian was in Civ 2, and Taizong was in Civ 4 (an addition for the Chinese localization of Civ 4) as well as Civ Rev 2.