Your detailed thoughts on each leader

[Matthew.]

I'm hoping for multiple leader DLC just so I can get Cathy back for Russia. It just won't be the same without her.

 

[Zaarin]

'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...

I think Hardrada is best known for not being known at all. I've heard his name before, but I can't say I really know who he is beyond "Viking king." As for Izzy, calling her a "co-ruler" is rather unfair. Sure, technically she was co-ruler with Ferdinand, but everyone knew Isabella was the real power on the throne. As I said, my point isn't that Philip II (or Peter the Great) is a bad choice, my point is that Firaxis seems to be disregarding genuinely powerful female rulers like Isabella of Castile, Elizabeth I Tudor, and Catherine the Great, and giving us failures and figureheads instead. I'm not even saying that Isabella herself should be included (though I am sorely disappointed in the lack of Elizabeth I, who is, in my opinion, one of the most fascinating people in history); I'm pointing out that Firaxis has made extremely bizarre choices of female rulers, selecting female rulers who were objectively weak even compared to other female rulers and excluding extremely powerful rulers who happened to be women (and those three--Isabella, Elizabeth, and Catherine--would all rank pretty highly on any list of the greatest rulers of their respective nations, regardless of gender).

 

[Sobornost]

Great thread idea, it's interesting to see everyone else's thoughts. Overall I think we're pretty happy it seems:

Teddy Roosevelt: I don't ever play America, but he's probably the best representative leader I can think of for America and it's general national character.
Saladin: Fine with him, no strong feelings for or against
Montezuma: I would have liked him more bloodthirsty and evil, but no doubt he'll still behave that way
Pedro II: I'm fine with Pedro and Brazil, no strong feelings either way. I personally don't feel he's a bad choice compared to the Incas.
Qin Shi Huang: I think he's a great choice for China. I don't like his portrayal though. I would have portrayed him like he was done in Jet Li's Hero, or like warlord Cao Cao from Koei's Three Kingdoms games (favorite character in that series)
Cleopatra: As a character she's fine, like others have said I would have preferred an authentic representative of the ancient Egyptian culture
Victoria: She's fine especially to show off imperialism-like dynamics
Catherine de Medici: Seems to be here to show off certain gameplay mechanics. But she really doesn't bother me.
Barbarossa: I think he's one of the best surprises, a great leader for Germany. Reminds me of the AoE 2 campaign I played as him when I was younger.
Pericles and Gorgo: Pericles is good, I'd prefer him to Alexander this time, Gorgo as a second leader is fine.
Gandhi: For a must-have Civ, this is the worst leader choice of all of them, but totally inevitable, they have no other choice thanks to the stupid memes. India better be one of the first to get more leaders that are more wholly representative of its traditions (and even Gandhi isn't really that terrible, but for the fact that in the Western civ audience view he stands only for pacifism and abundant nukes)
Hojo Tokimune: He really fits Japanese culture well, representative of one of its most iconic moments
Mvemba Nzinga (or Afonso I): Fine, it's good to have representatives of Sub-Saharan Africa and this works just as well.
Harald Hardrada: Bad choice, this should not be here, not because Norway/Vikings are themselves bad, but because they took a slot that should have gone instead to Ottomans or Persia. We already have enough Europe, and here a marginal European replaced big, well-known, and interesting non-Europeans that are obvious candidates for the game. Persia in particular practically defines the word civilization, only really matched by China (edit: and India) in persistence on the world stage - they better have a good excuse for this, like some awesome expansion mechanic custom-fit for it.
Trajan: Good solid Roman choice, again I like the trend that continues of picking new leaders from what was used previuosly
Peter the Great: One of Russia's Ivan's would have been my first pick, but he's fine. I'd prefer him over Catherine for this one. I have a random sense that Russia's going to be a very interesting civ this time, we'll see what happens.
Tomyris: I really, really like this one. The art team did a good job here too. Great choice for a new civ.
Philip II: Isabella is a pretty perfect ruler but I like switching things up, Philip is a good candidate for that.
Gilgamesh: Nothing wrong with legendary leaders, Civ is a bit larger than life anyways, Sumer is really one of the fathers of all civilization. I like this one. He's necessary IMO to try to balance out the lack of the Turks and Persians.

 

[Aukhenaten]

Teddy Roosevelt: Nail on the head. Big personality, American as they come, and one of the most popular presidents. Design is great after they've fixed it, so my only potential gripe is in regards to his Big Stick agenda; in addition to not liking wars on his own continent, I would have liked it if it also involved him keeping a larger-than-usual military even when he's not intent on war. This complaint might be trivial.
Saladin: As anyone should suspect, "Arabia" in this franchise is a stand-in for the Caliphate in general, and as such, Saladin fits well. He is my top pick but only because I am not well-versed in Arabic/Caliphate leaders from history.
Montezuma I: Monty I is always a better choice than Monty II, and is by no means a bad choice, but he's not the only option the Aztecs have. Acamapichtli and Nezahualcoyotl would also be acceptable picks for the Aztec triple-alliance, and my hopes for alternate leaders at this point.
Pedro II: I know next to nothing on Brazilian history. What I do know is that Pedro has not suffered enough for what he did to me in Civ V, and I am glad I can continue my rivalry against him.
Qin Shi Huang: Not bad, but not particularly interesting as far as personalities go. He should be fun to play with and against. I know people would probably prefer someone else, but I wouldn't mind Wu Zetian coming back as an alt leader for China.
Cleopatra: There is a lot of unjustified hatred for poor Cleo. She may have been one of the last notable leaders of Egypt who cared for keeping ancient Egyptian language and culture alive, practicing it herself, unlike other Ptolemaic leaders. The argument that she's not fit to lead due to her ancestry is not a strong one, considering how many leaders so far have violated that rule yet are still loved, and we aren't even sure that Cleo was purely Macedonian. Of course Egypt has a long roster of viable picks, and I won't argue that Cleopatra was the best, but she's a shoe-in for a leader with a big personality. If I were calling the shots on the dev team, I'd have her pop out of an unraveling rug when she introduces herself to the player.
Victoria: Good pick.
Catherine de' Medici: Never ruled properly but did have illegitimate influence through her sons, but ultimately seemed to do far more harm than good. I'm not adverse to leaders having blood on their hands, but I'd also prefer that they lead their civilization to new heights while they do it. Catherine doesn't seem to be one of those leaders. Would have rather had Louis XI or Louis XIV.
Frederick Barbarossa: Being both a medieval German leader and a Holy Roman Emperor, I'm happy with his inclusion.
Gorgo: Her inclusion over her husband Leonidas is interesting, but not unwarranted. She was supposedly quite competent in Sparta's political circle and there are indicators that she traveled with her husband when he made trips out of Sparta. I typically don't like leaders who weren't the top official of a civilization, but I'll allow Gorgo as an exception to that rule.
Pericles: We don't know how he's going to play yet, but if he's going to be the de facto civ for players wanting to manipulate city-states, he's a shoe-in.
Gandhi: Not unexpected, but I'm hoping for Ashoka or Akbar as an alternate leader sooner rather than later.
Hojo Tokimune: Distinct in that he's from an earlier time period than the Sengoku jidai, which isn't a bad thing. The only thing which sort of bugs me is that the Meiji Restoration is Japan's civilization bonus, and it just seems like that would be better fit to a Meiji alternate leader. I guess they could swap it out later for a re-vamped Bushido if they were to add him.
Mvemba Nzinga: I'm really just surprised they didn't choose Anna Nzinga instead.
Harald Hardrada: I wanted Norway, and I got Norway, with a grizzled Varangain Guard at the helm, to boot.
Trajan: I'd be happy with just about any Roman leader, so Trajan works.
Peter: Good pick, and the one I was hoping for.
Tomyris: A refreshing take on the steppe nomad civ type, but I'm not as excited for her as I thought I'd be.
Philip II: Good pick.
Gilgamesh: I'm a fan of semi-mythical leaders when done right, and Gilgamesh fits that stock. He's probably my most anticipated leader at this point.

 

[Gangrin]

Teddy Roosevelt : i am not that interested in minutiae of American presidents so i don't have a strong opinion. Not a staple like Lincoln or Washington? Fine by me
Saladin : Militant, famous and religious leader of Arabia (even though he is a Kurd)? As it should be
Montezuma : Glad they picked Montezuma I.
Pedro II : Brazil should not be in a base game, end of story. Don't care who leads them
Qin Shi Huang : i always loved him. Yeah, he is mad tyrant. But DAYM he is ballsy.
Cleopatra : A let down. I would prefer good old Ramses II
Victoria : Monarch that represents pinnacle of a greatest empire ever created. Not. A. Single. Complaint.
Catherine de Medici : an intriguing choice, if nothing else. Richelieu would be better though
Frederick I : we have "big personalities" theme and not picking Frederick II of Prussia? I am appalled. Otherwise - whatever, not the greatest, not the worst HREmperor
Pericles : well, if leader of Greece is not Alexander, it HAD to be Pericles
Gorgo : I want to punch the one who brought her up during design stage. FFS it's like Theodora and Justinian once again but even worse
Gandhi : again? i am tired of him, honestly, not to the outrage and hatred extent though
Hojo Tokimune : that's ok, he is a neat choice
Mvemba Nzinga : i don't understand all the hatred here. He tried to modernize his county by selectively picking good things from technologically superior "enemy" while not outright antagonizing nor folding under him. He is great choice
Harald Hardrada : as long as vikings are represented in the game i don't care who leads them. I don't know much about him though.
Trajan : Good, though i still love Julius.
Peter the Great : Fantastic. I was afraid Catherine would be back.
Tomirys : i would still prefer mongols, but if i HAD to have Scythia, killer of Cyrus the Great is an obvious choice
Philip II : no complaints
Gilgamesh : For me, Sumer=Gilgamesh so no complaints. Sorry, i just find Babylon far more interesting

 

[evanaurora]

Sigh. Still highly irritated with this final objectively more western lineup than friggin' vanilla 5 but I'll give it a shot. (I do so want to be wholly excited for the game when it releases.......)

Teddy Roosevelt: I'm not particularly fond of him as a former president in and of himself, but I appreciate switching things up, and he obviously has a personality. No complaints.
Saladin: A good choice for sure- tons of personality and charisma as well as obvious gameplay ramifications
Montezuma: Hard to say considering we know so little about him, but Montezuma II was overdone. That said, it doesn't feel like they're even bothering to draw a distinction between the two. He's whitewashed (at least, that we've seen; still hoping it's a lighting thing) and stereotypical and the DLC aspect is absurd. this is all more execution than choice in and of itself, though; I feel like there are plenty of interesting angles that could have been taken and don't mind the selection.
Pedro II: Pedro was an interesting man, from what I know of him, which isn't a ton, and he definitely seems to be The Iconic Brazilian Leader.
Qin Shi Huang: I'm shamefully ill versed in Chinese history, but I do agree that his portrayal is bland and no matter what there were more interesting choices (a properly executed Wu Zetian for starters!) I'm trying not to hammer home the 'effort was only put into Europeans' thing but it seems pretty self-evident here.
Cleopatra: I like her portrayal in-game, though her leader ability seems pretty weak, but.... it seems in VERY ill taste not to choose an actual African leader here, especially when Hatshepsut's RIGHT THERE. Sigh.
Victoria: I'm biased because I've pretty much adored Elizabeth I since about forever and have focused a lot on Renaissance theater academically anyway, but I don't have a particular issue with Victoria. I mean, Elizabeth would have been objectively better ( )and no one could say she lacked a personality, but whatevs, it's hardly the most egregious choice on this list.
Catherine de Medici: I think she's amazing. The one European ruler I'm happy about. I am so thrilled they looked outside of the box here.
Barbarossa: I can't summon up more than a 'meh,' but better than Bismarck.
Pericles and Gorgo: Pericles was obviously a choice that should have been made a long time ago (Alexander had the militaries, sure, but it's the cultural stuff that made Greece really important, and Pericles represents all of that so much better.) I think Gorgo's... interesting? but I'm somewhat peeved about only random civs getting multiple leaders, especially considering all that's been left out. (no, I cannot make a post without complaining anymore. )
Gandhi: ugh, it's just ridiculous. At least give us the friggin' Mughals already to make up for it. they're overdue.
Hojo Tokimune: Chinese and Japanese histories are pretty much blank spots in my knowledge base, but it's been interesting to read about him, and certainly his actions wrt Buddhism seem hugely significant.
Mvemba Nzinga: I'm... struggling here. Look, solely choosing taking this entire continent with the entire ugly history and deciding to select only leaders that are in some ways entirely legacies of colonialism? how did no one say 'maybe this shouldn't be the case?' there are just so many better choices. there are interesting things about him but there was absolutely no need to make HIM the token "African" leader.
Harald Hardrada: ugh. don't care about him like... existing, I guess. he's pretty frigging random. especially considering the huge selection of larger than life figures in Norse history, it seems silly to include him. but, you know. Who cares. it seems silly to include him period.
Trajan: happy about this for sure. Love that even Rome is getting examined beyond the Caesars.
Peter the Great: eh. Catherine will be missed, but Peter's a sort of acceptable second.
Tomyris: all the good adjectives.
Philip II: I... guess I can't particularly complain? Better than El Hechizado (although, if uniqueness is the metric....) again, 'meh,' to say the least, and also Isabella had more personality, however questionable. Philip was a bit of a dandy, a bit of a douche, began the push into bankruptcy and led the frigging Spanish Armada but also was the leader of Spain at its zenith so it makes sense.
Gilgamesh: Zero complaints whatsoever.

 

[cools0812]

Just giving thoughts on those leaders I have questions about. The rests are just fine.

Saladin: A great person, I read so much about him. But I have to wonder if they picked him for his Kurdish nationality （and the current kurdish struggle in middle east...） or just because of his fame.

Catherine de Medici:Not comfortable with this choice. Catherine ruled France as regent, she was mother of three kings and two queens so she was indeed very influencial in French politics, yet all she brought to French history was assassination of well respected Huguenot leader Admiral Coligny, the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre and religious civil war, a war already avoided by the peace treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye two years ago, a war bringing only destruction but no progress on every political and economic aspect of French society. She is not qualified to represent France in Civ. If devs must find a female leader for france, try Anne of France, a much more accomplished female regent in French history.

Cleopatra: Would prefer Hatshepsut if the leader has to be female. If not, then Ramesses II. Cleopatra was not even a egyptian ruler by any means, but a leader of a hellenic colonial regime over Egypt.

Gorgo: Still cant believe its her after seen the screenshot. All we know about her is some text by Herodotus, and these text told us she was wife and court advisor to a highly famous Spartan leader— Leonidas I. So why it's Gorgo, not Leonidas I? Couldnt be convinced on that.

Jadwiga: same issue as above. Well as rex Poloniae she was more qualified to be a national leader than Gorgo, though as co-ruler of Władysław II Jagiello she had little real power. Besides, her husband Jagiello, victor against Teutons at Tannenberg and founder of Polish-Lithuanian union, can be a much better choice by all accounts.(yes he was Lithuanian, but Medici was Italian, Cleoptra was Macedonian, so that shouldnt be a problem.)

Tomirys: Finally a proper female ruler appeared. But she's not exactly Scythian. Tomirys was the Queen of Massagetae, a tribal conferation in central asia. Herodutus described Massagetae as "resembling the Scythians", but made clear distinction between the two nations. We know Scythia as a nomad kingdom in nowadays Ukraine which even founded city in Crimea(indication of how much social-economic progress the Scythian Kingdom made before Goths wiped them out).This is the central body of Scythian Civilization (if there ever was one) and its culture, not Massagetae. We know some great leaders among them from the greeks who traded with them, for example, Ateas, the first king uniting all tribes in the Scythian Kingdom. Ateas, in my belief, was far more suitable to represent an united Scythian empire in this game.

 

[LDiCesare]

But the way they implemented France makes Catherine a very natural fit. (...) One more case where leader choice and game mechanics go hand in hand.

Errr... You realise that her in-game spying ability has absolutely no ground in history?
Her "spies" network only worked in internal matters, she had zero impact outside the French borders at all. The ability is interesting, and it would have been fitting for, say, Richelieu or Louis XI, but it's definitely not a fit between the game mechanics and the leader chocie. They just have a very twisted view of that incompetent queen, and gave her spies abilities because there doesn't seem to be any kind of internal unrest system in the game, which is what her courtisans were intended to fight.

 

[SMcM]

I think Hardrada is best known for not being known at all. I've heard his name before, but I can't say I really know who he is beyond "Viking king." As for Izzy, calling her a "co-ruler" is rather unfair. Sure, technically she was co-ruler with Ferdinand, but everyone knew Isabella was the real power on the throne. As I said, my point isn't that Philip II (or Peter the Great) is a bad choice, my point is that Firaxis seems to be disregarding genuinely powerful female rulers like Isabella of Castile, Elizabeth I Tudor, and Catherine the Great, and giving us failures and figureheads instead. I'm not even saying that Isabella herself should be included (though I am sorely disappointed in the lack of Elizabeth I, who is, in my opinion, one of the most fascinating people in history); I'm pointing out that Firaxis has made extremely bizarre choices of female rulers, selecting female rulers who were objectively weak even compared to other female rulers and excluding extremely powerful rulers who happened to be women (and those three--Isabella, Elizabeth, and Catherine--would all rank pretty highly on any list of the greatest rulers of their respective nations, regardless of gender).

Hardrada is well know, due to his crucial role in the conflict in 1066. If you have good general knowledge of English or Scandinavian history, you should know of him. He is likely known in France too as they will likely be well educated on 1066 considering its relevance to them. Had the English not been distracted fighting him, it is possible William the Conquereor would not have won.

No, Co-ruler is fair; Ferdiand was more powerful than you seem to be giving credit for; he was the architect behind the Spanish Inquisition, and it was under him Spain would go to war with France. He would later rule Spain again as regent after Isabella's death, conquering Navarre in this time.

I do agree with you to some extent. The more sensible female leader choices we have, the less poor ones we need. Personally I am not too bothered by Victoria's inclusion, though I do not much like her depiction in this game, but Gorgo, Jadwiga and Catherine de Medici are not choices I like. However, I do not share your desire to see Isabella or Elizabeth again, and am glad to be rid of them.

Catherine II of Russia I would not mind seeing again- she could appear as she did in Civ IV again, wearing military uniform, so as not to seem repetitive and boring. However, Elizabeth I feel it is time to lose; she has been in enough games also, and so I would rather we had someone else. Most people don't mind having a figurehead as a leader, but if Firaxis had wanted, there are many other leaders they could have chosen which would offer a change from Elizabeth I, such as a British prime-ministers like Disraeli.

Also, why does everyone think Saladin makes sense for Arabia? Arabia is a geographic region, of which he did not rule half of, and which he did not rule from, or come from. I still think the only way that could make sense would be him leading 'the Arabs' or 'the Caliphate'.

 

[jekke]

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.

Of course not, I never said that. Just a side effect of having a thought-out plan rather than plain hand-waving.

I agree with your point on being "enjoyable" , but then what, 6 years ago Catherine was more enjoyable, and now things have suddenly changed? People do not enjoy her enough any more? I just can't see any reason for this change other than lust for a change.

 

[LDiCesare]

Hardrada is rather unknown in France. Noone talks about Stamford Bridge in school. I read his saga, but that's just because I'm interested in such things. Then again, there are no norse leaders who are well-known in France. Maybe Knut or or Gustav II Adolf of Sweden.
Also, I share your points regarding Saladin. But since he seems to be the only muslim leader of the whole lot we've been presented with, I think Firaxis went with Arabia = Islam and decided to put the best-known defender of muslim faith out there. That feels very uneducated, though.

 

[Zaarin]

Cleopatra: ...we aren't even sure that Cleo was purely Macedonian.

Actually, we know for a fact that she was 100% pure inbred Ptolemy.

Hardrada is well know, due to his crucial role in the conflict in 1066. If you have good general knowledge of English or Scandinavian history, you should know of him. He is likely known in France too as they will likely be well educated on 1066 considering its relevance to them. Had the English not been distracted fighting him, it is possible William the Conquereor would not have won.

No, Co-ruler is fair; Ferdiand was more powerful than you seem to be giving credit for; he was the architect behind the Spanish Inquisition, and it was under him Spain would go to war with France. He would later rule Spain again as regent after Isabella's death, conquering Navarre in this time.

I do agree with you to some extent. The more sensible female leader choices we have, the less poor ones we need. Personally I am not too bothered by Victoria's inclusion, though I do not much like her depiction in this game, but Gorgo, Jadwiga and Catherine de Medici are not choices I like. However, I do not share your desire to see Isabella or Elizabeth again, and am glad to be rid of them.

Catherine II of Russia I would not mind seeing again- she could appear as she did in Civ IV again, wearing military uniform, so as not to seem repetitive and boring. However, Elizabeth I feel it is time to lose; she has been in enough games also, and so I would rather we had someone else. Most people don't mind having a figurehead as a leader, but if Firaxis had wanted, there are many other leaders they could have chosen which would offer a change from Elizabeth I, such as a British prime-ministers like Disraeli.

Also, why does everyone think Saladin makes sense for Arabia? Arabia is a geographic region, of which he did not rule half of, and which he did not rule from, or come from. I still think the only way that could make sense would be him leading 'the Arabs' or 'the Caliphate'.

Fair enough, it's a matter of personal preference. I adore Queen Elizabeth I and I feel like all of her civ appearances have been disappointing, and above all her bland Modern English-speaking Civ5 portrayal. So I would love to see her return just so I can see her portrayed properly; I'm much less partial to Izzy and Catherine the Great specifically.

Also, I agree on Saladin. I find him an...acceptable choice solely because the man himself was fascinating and a powerful ruler, but I would have preferred to have seen an actual Arab caliph like Harun al-Rashid or Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz.

 

[PhilBowles]

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 ...

Nice analysis. The only one I feel they really dropped the ball with is Cleopatra, and she's also the only one transparently chosen as a sop to gender parity (something Civ V stretched plausibility with in some of its leader choices). [EDIT: Didn't really register Gorgo, as I was thinking of Pericles as the Greek leader).

Though yes, Gilgamesh is a terrible choice - Ur-Nammu would have been my pick. On the other hand he has precedent in Civ from the last time Sumer was in the game.

 

[Morningcalm]

Nice analysis. The only one I feel they really dropped the ball with is Cleopatra, and she's also the only one transparently chosen as a sop to gender parity (something Civ V stretched plausibility with in some of its leader choices).

Though yes, Gilgamesh is a terrible choice - Ur-Nammu would have been my pick. On the other hand he has precedent in Civ from the last time Sumer was in the game.

I don't mind Gilgamesh, who was a real king known for fortifying walls and rebuilding the goddess Ninlil's sanctuary, but I do think Ur-Nammu is a better pick. He could be an infrastructure/military focused leader, like the organized and aggressive leader Julius Caesar from Civ IV. His legal code could show in decreased unhappiness and maintenance costs.

The way I see it, Gilgamesh was such a *good* king that legends sprung up around him. He was probably skilled in commanding a military and rebuilding things, but he could also get a culture bonus given that he was immortalized in an epic.

 

[PhilBowles]

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.

Bismarck might have been better this time than he was in past iterations as the system seems to have more flexibility than to portray him as just a warmonger. He obviously was a warmonger, but he was also anti-imperialist (he'd be something of the reverse of Roosevelt - being less happy with wars on other continents than on his own) and politically savvy.

 

[PhilBowles]

Hardrada is rather unknown in France. Noone talks about Stamford Bridge in school. I read his saga, but that's just because I'm interested in such things. Then again, there are no norse leaders who are well-known in France. Maybe Knut or or Gustav II Adolf of Sweden.

Hardrada is probably coloured too much by Stamford Bridge at least to English audiences. He's actually a better choice from the point of view of Norway itself, as he ultimately did succeed in restoring Norwegian rule and territorial integrity, and the country was stronger than Denmark during his heyday even though he never successfully conquered it. Though he came right at the end of the Viking period and I'm not sure how representative he really is of a 'Viking' Norway civ.

Ultimately the wisdom of a lot of these leader choices will depend heavily on how they represent their civs' approach to the game. Harald Bluetooth rapidly became one of my favourite Civ V leaders - his usually hopeless but optimistically bellicose personality made him rather endearing, his voice acting was superb and fit that cheerful warmonger persona perfectly, and Denmark mechanically (while often roundly slammed for being weak) was a very well-realised theme civ, with a UA and units that perfectly characterised a raiding, 'viking' playstyle.

In Civ VI, for instance, Victoria is a good general choice for 'England' (a name that suggests we'll once more get the horrible anachronistic mashup that is a Britain-centric 'Celt' civ), but an absolutely fantastic one for a civ designed entirely around playing a British Empire game (itself a refreshing change to the medieval to Renaissance England that's characterised most of the series, for all that that's more appropriate for the civ name).

 

[Sagax]

A friendly reminder that one should distinguish between "A good leader choice" from "A good civ choice" in this thread.

The leaders I have no opinion on are omitted.

Teddy Roosevelt : Given the "big personalities" criteria this time around, he is really a solid choice and a refreshing alternative to Lincoln and Washington. No complaints.
Montezuma : I wonder if the "Infinite Montezuma Cycle" is as much of a staple now as Gandhi. Sometimes I feel Firaxis doesn't even bother with distinguishing which Montezuma they are using outside of the Civilopedia entry.
Qin Shi Huang : One of the safest leader choices in the entire game. Here's the thing: the Chinese audience for the Civ franchise is really small, but ask any other franchise with big Chinese following and they will tell you: the Chinese players care A LOT about how the country is represented in the game. In a MOBA game called Smite, the devs had to completely redesign some Chinese gods because he Chinese players found them ill-represented. Speaking of Civ 6, you can't go wrong with he first unifier of China that also has a really good voice-over this time around. Taizong may be a better choice, but there is nothing inherently wrong with choosing Qin - well-recognized in China for his power and ambitions, and is in no way a hot controversial topic like Mao.
Cleopatra : "Big personalities" favors this choice a lot. In the situation where Firaxis wanted to meet the female leader quota (let's admit it, it's pretty much a thing now) and also to have an interesting character, Cleo wins over Hatshepsut - by a small margin, but still. And I kinda agree that the criticism about her rule is a bit exaggerated here. She wasn't the "Cixi of China/Marie Antoinette" level of bad.
Victoria : You can always rely on England for the supply of strong female rulers that most players will accept. An iconic leader loved by those in the UK and recognized by people outside of it - simply solid. A male ruler for England would be a refreshing change in the future though.
Catherine de Medici : This choice has "Ed Beach" written all over it. I have a rhyming nickname for her, but if I type it here I'll probably be banned on Civfanatics forever While the leader ability kinda justifies her choice, I would still argue that they have walked over too many better leader choices to pick her. And as mentioned in one of the older threads, you can literally replace her with Richelieu while keeping all the Uniques intact, and it will still work perfectly.
Frederick I : There was some debate about whether Germany can be represented by anyone other than Bismarck - and here we have it. A nice choice that gives in-game Germany an identity that goes beyond World Wars. Bismarck is probably still a stronger pick, but I'm fine with giving the Chancellor a break this time around.
Pericles and Gorgo : Alex is gone! And as long as I can freely choose between Pericles and Gorgo, the inclusion of the latter doesn't matter that much to me.
Gandhi : Ugh.......This has been discussed so much that I don't think I should write more. I will only say that Civ is a franchise that will grow and attract new players, who most likely won't be blinded by nostalgia and references to the past. For these players this old running meme holds little to no value and will only make them scratch their heads. It's about time one of the oldest civilizations in the world got a fair representation in the face of another leader. If veteran players love Gandhi so much, make him return as a leader at some point in a future iteration - just not in every single one. [CYNICAL COMMENT ALERT] The veteran players will buy the game anyway, with Gandhi or not.
Hojo Tokimune : An alternative leader done right. A great choice that breaks out of the Oda-Toyotomi-Tokugawa cycle, and gives Japan due credit outside of the Sengoku era.
Trajan : Same as above.
Peter the Great : It was the choice between him, Catherine, and, most likely, Ivan the Terrible. Very fitting for the "big personality" criteria, although many would miss Cathy. You can always nitpick about him forcefully changing Russia's cultural identity, but he still remains a strong leader that is viewed positively for the most part.

 

[MadDjinn]

I have to laugh at the dismissing comments about Gorgo giving the complaints about previous 'not a leader' choices.

Gorgo was the Queen of Sparta because her father was the previous King. Leonidus was a husband and great general, but not the real ruler of Sparta.

She was the leader of Sparta when Sparta rallied the Greeks to fight Persia. So yes, she actually fits the 'did rule' tick box, along with.. Sparta!

 

[Civciv5]

Gorgo was the Queen of Sparta because her father was the previous King. Leonidus was a husband and great general, but not the real ruler of Sparta.

She was the leader of Sparta when Sparta rallied the Greeks to fight Persia. So yes, she actually fits the 'did rule' tick box, along with.. Sparta!

Spartan monarchical succession was agnatic, women could not become queen regnants. Thus, her husband Leonidas I, also the King's half-brother, became King of Sparta.

 

[LDiCesare]

I have to laugh at the dismissing comments about Gorgo giving the complaints about previous 'not a leader' choices.

Gorgo was the Queen of Sparta because her father was the previous King. Leonidus was a husband and great general, but not the real ruler of Sparta.

She was the leader of Sparta when Sparta rallied the Greeks to fight Persia. So yes, she actually fits the 'did rule' tick box, along with.. Sparta!

Do you know anything about Spartan government?
In addition to what has just been said:
Sparta had 2 kings at the same time, so the power of one of them was limited to begin with.
Their role was mostly religious and military, not political.
The decisions were taken by oligarchs.
Leonidas went to his death with a handful of soldiers because Sparta considered that it wasnot worth sending an actual army to this fight. Even he didn't have that much power.
So we're talking about the wife of one of the two military and religious leaders of a civ actually managed by oligarchs.
I'd rather have Lycurgus as a leader fo Sparta than anybody else, even though his historicity is doubtful, but he had a legacy whereas other rulers only led their nation for a small time and didn't achieve much individually.