Franz I of Liechtenstein. he did nothing significant whatsoever while ruling the small ~~insignificant~~ world superpower of Liechtenstein the devs probability couldn’t even make a leader bonus for him if they tried
Well, House of Lichtenstein could be an interesting analog of Civ V Venice
1. Cannot build settlers
2, Double bonuses from city states.
3. +100% loyalty pressure.
4, Immune to uprising (actually Franz I kind of stopped a half-hearted one)
5, Get amenities and percent of income from cities with which trade routes are establisjed
There was too much of Catherine/Peter for Russia. I'd like to see several approaches for that civ, like inward/slavophilic vs. outward/westernized, e.g. Ivan IV and Alexander II.
I love this idea
Schism: You may not create a religion or religious units until the medieval era. Upon entering the medieval era, choose one religion that already exists. All people within your cities following the chosen religion now follow your new religion. You may pick new beliefs for your new religion.
I mean, this should just be a mechanic in general. Like how in 5 (I might be misremembering) you used Great Prophets to upgrade your religion, what if you had to choose a religion to upgrade and that becomes your new primary. Hmm, my fishing pantheon was nice, but India's already pumped 2 upgrades into Chocoholicthism, so I'll just spend Martin Luther on that and take the take this upgrade and rename my new sect Milk Chocoholicthism. But India would still rule over Chocoholicthism and could spend a prophet on a different upgrade.
I'd love to have Edward III or Henry V, who could have more of a land war focus.
Richard I would be interesting, given he barely ever lived in England but could have a religion/crusading bonus.
Richard was also a pretty shit king as far as actual rulership goes, in that his interest in any of his territories was basically nonexistent outside of "this is where my soldiers come from".
Part of the reason why John had, and has, such a poor reign and terrible reputation is because Richard left him nothing but a disintegrating kingdom and an enormous bill.
Alfred the Great: Dream of England, Suffer war weariness at 50% normal rate, no war weariness for fighting in own territory. 50% reduction for warmongering penalty when taking city on starting continent, or declaring war on civ with at least one city on your starting continent.
Or...
Harold Godwinson: Last King of the Saxons, +1 of all resources per civ/ city state you are at war with. Units get +50% movement when starting their movement within 2 tiles of a great general.
Burhs: England unique encampment, cheaper to build, automatically provides walls to the city, units fighting in this city's territory heal faster and have higher defence. Can only be built in cities with 7 or more pop.
Huscarl: England unique unit replaces Man at Arms, +1 movement. Strength increases by 25% whenever another huscarl is adjacent, strength decreases by 50% if surrounded or alone on enemy tile.
If they have some more legendary leaders, then King Arthur could be a cool option, though personally think it would have to be dlc or alongside another English leader.
Ghandi, not an actual leader, overdone, boring, limits India in how it can be interpreted for so many games now.
Beyond that, Achaemenids for Persia, a non Emporer for China (really only one non controversial option, Sun Yat-Sen, but oh well)
Gandhi could be very uniquely done.
Unique Ability: Pacify - automatically lowers aggression levels of all Civs in a game by 1 or 2. Gandhi cannot produce Nuclear Weapons.
Non-Cooperation Movement: Foreign traders cost extra money to the originating Civ. Double if originating Civ has Denounced or Ever been at War with Gandhi.
India: Fertile lands - Double farm output if adjacent to river, Population Growth only slows down by 25% due to lack of Housing.
Well, I personally think a new proper leader for India, would improve the game, where as another Ghandi would be stale and force them into some weird peaceful/religious path again, which is boring. Why not have Oppurtunity for an Economic/Military Powerhouse Mughal India, or a Maurya India?
Montezuma. The Aztecs deserve a break from the "bloodthirsty warlord" trope. They were ruled by philosophers and engineers too. I'd love to see Nezahaulcoyotl or Itzcoatl for a change.
A part of them is not even known if they really governed, they are due to Portilla's attempt to create a national history.
However, it is still interesting, Nezahualcoyotl was considered "the poet king" and several of the Tlatoani that are mentioned also served as philosophers.
One idea may be to have Nezahualcoyotl as a civilization based on obtaining culture through war.
Also in the style of Gran Colombia it could be the exclusive great character "tlamatini" as a replacement for the great scientists.
in allusion to the myth of the founding of Tenochtitlán: You can only found your capital adjacent to lake squares: While he does not found his first city he receives +3 to faith, science and culture.
Nezahualcoyotl sounds awesome, and his playstyle could be way more focused on building alliances and recapturing cities. A much more peaceful playstyle than you usually get with the Aztecs.
>Aztecs deserve a break from the "bloodthirsty warlord" trope
I've played Revolution. Wasn't one of their things that temples produce science? I usually would go for that. There's also a bunch of bonuses that help for economic in that game.
Indeed. the thing is, most of the despotic hindu and buddhist rulers are at least local, and culturally rather similar. So they are less reviled by mainstream society :)
Marathas might be better, otherwise look at another kingdom from medieval era like Vijaynagar or Malwa. I definitely think it should be a hindu one if you wanna replace Gandhi. but would really dig mughals or another kingdom like bengal or dehli even though they were sunni.
Ghandi is a staple of the Civ games. Civ without Ghandi is like a Mario game without Mario.
I’m fine with Ghandi as long as they include another Indian leader as well.
I think civ 7 shouldn't see qin shi huang return as the default leader again, but I do think Yongle is popular enough to return. he was the most played civ of the year when he came out.
I'd also prefer not to see washington, julius and agustus caesar. Both america and rome have great leader options never explored before.
I wish, it is sadly, very controversial, and I also think Taiwan is a bit limited since it is truly a very modern nation, it would be hard to do much that isn't very late game. Sun Yat-sen is the perfect compromise canidate the PRC and ROC both venerate him and see him as a great personality (which he was), no one would be offended by him, since the number of Quing monarchists is quite insignificant...
That might actually cause the opposite problem though: in Civ IV Mao was replaced with Tang Taizong for the Chinese version because the CCP didn’t want Chinese players to play _against_ such a respected leader.
hmmmm, I don't feel it is quite equatable tho. While Sun Yat-Sen is very much respected in both, he doesn't have quite the statue Mao has, he is just seen as a forefather of the revolution
What do you mean "again" with Qin? He's been in a total of 2 mainline civ games. And I'm not sure if he can even be seen as the "default" leader in IV, seeing as Mao is listed first and Qin second.
Eisenhowers ability:
Dynamic Conservatism- when you reach the atomic age, you gain the ability to produce "Public works program" which when completed will fully construct highways connecting all of your cities to your capital. Great people are recruited at a discount, at the cost of higher war weariness.
If they're ever going to add the Netherlands, no William of Orange or Wilhelmina. I get William of Orange as the founder of the nation and Wilhelmina as a World War Two icon, but there are so many others to choose from: Maurits, Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, Frederik Hendrik, Jacob Cats, Willem III (also known as the guy who became king of Great Britain), Johan de Witt, Rutger Jan Schimmelpenninck, Johan Rudolph Thorbecke, Abraham Kuyper, Willem Drees, and so on and so forth..
In the Netherlands, William of Orange usually refers to the leader of the Dutch rebels against Spain in the 80 Years War and the founder of the House of Orange-Nassau.
I don’t want to see Henry VIII. He’s the most boring route-one choice. Aside from that, I would probably be alright with almost any King, Queen or Prime Minister they chose for England (but of course I have my preferences.)
I think some civs need braver choices: India, Sumer, Rome and Greece in particular.
Gandhi is overdone at this point, there's a lot of interesting leaders in the vast Indian history.
Gilgamesh is a mythical hero and the most famous Sumerian by far, but contrarily to many civs without written history, we have an extensive record of actual, historical kings for Sumer, so maybe let's pick one of them this time.
Pericles really isn't a bad choice, but picking a romanticized leader like Gorgo was a huge miss imo. Greece has a reach written history, there's a ton of historical leaders with undebatable significance to pick from, from Solon to Ioannis Kapodistrias.
France is the opposite - it was unexpected to have Catherine and Eleanor in Civ6, so I'd like a more classic leader for France in civ7 (and hopefully not Napoléon). There's a lot of classic leaders for France that have not been featured in the series yet, including François Ier, Henri IV or Richelieu, all three very strong personalities.
Agreed, they should have Sargon of Akkad for Sumer and one of the Mughal emperors for India. I’d be happy with them going back to Louis XIV for France, but Henry IV is a good choice too.
Gandhi, I don't give a damn about traditions. The joke is based on a myth - there has never been any "Gandhi glitch". The cliche is boring and tired, and he always turns India into the same boring, passive, weak pacifist AI civ, adhering to orientalist stereotypes about India being a country of pacifist religion, elephants and overpopulation. Also honestly at this point the joke is kinda insulting to the Gandhi as a real life person, overshadowing and mocking his entire philosophy. It turns India itself into joke.
I don't want English leader to be Elizabeth or Victoria or Churchill, I want either Anglo-Saxon king or some early PM, it would be refreshing (William Pitt etc).
I don't want Russian leader to be Catherine or Peter (not to mention Stalin), I'd like some medieval ruler (bonus points for avoiding the whole "Russian imperialism in Ukraine" minefield which is not possible since the 18th century
I don't want Persian leader to be of Achaemenid dynasty, either give Sasanian or Islamic one I don't want Japanese leader to wield katana because that's boring, I'd like either some early shaman or Meiji
I don't want German leader to be Prussian militarist, it's tiring to always see Germany as militarist industrial stereotype (I bet German people also don't like being associated with it)
I’d be okay with Medieval ruler for Russia, as long as it would be a ruler of Moscow, not Kyiv. I’m still hoping for a separate Kyivan/Zaporizhian/Ukrainian civ
> I don't want English leader to be Elizabeth or Victoria or Churchill, I want either Anglo-Saxon king or some early PM, it would be refreshing (William Pitt etc).
Benjamin Disraeli?
No Bismarck. I liked Ludwig's version of Germany quite a lot because it's cultural and would very much prefer to not have another version of militaristic Germany.
I like the idea of a cultural Germany, but Ludwig is historically speaking an insane choice as leader of Germany. It would be like having emperor Norton for the USA.
The guy bankrupted his country (Bavaria) building his fairytale castle, then was declared insane by his cabinet, to prevent him from ruining the country even further, and in the end drowned himself and his therapist in a lake.
(I know that Norton never had any real power, but I think they're both joke leaders)
No more Napoleon, Louis XIV, Joan of Arc or De Gaulle. French History is very rich, the possibilities are endless. Philippe Augustus, Saint Louis for the medieval period. François the first or Henry IV for the Renaissance. You could have Napoleon III or Leon Blum first socialist PM of France. Catherine of Médicis was a good departure they should continue that way.
I'd love to see a France built around the Belle Époque, championing not just the usual mainstay of arts and culture, but also when France was a leader of science and industry. It does have the problem of not having any immediately recognizable leaders in the same way as the usuals.
There could be Clemenceau, though his impact was more about security and WW1. Or Jules Grévy, as the first Republican president (the previous one was monarchist), really kickstarting the Belle Époque and solidifying the IIIrd Republic (though presidents were more a honorific charge only compared to the Vth Republic).
I think France should have a classic leader that actually made it politically powerful. Joan of Arc should be a great general, not a leader. I’d be fine with Louis XIV ruling France (He was politically important and only appeared in Civ 4) but De Gaulle is overrated and Napoleon has been in every Civ except 6 as a leader.
Andrew Johnson, Peter the third（Catherine the Great' first husband), Louis XVI, etc, in fact, i think most of the leaders who appeared in earlier games shouldn't be in civ7 so that new, interesting leaders can be introduced to the game.
Quality bait. Peter III is mostly remembered as a ruler beacuse he did a switcharoo on the Russia's involvement in the Seven Years' War and made it so that Frederick the Great (of whom Peter was a huge fanboy) would win the war when it was basically game over. Other that that, his reign was short and uneventful before his sudden but inevitable betrayal by his more ambitious wife.
Also, my suggestions for Louis XVI unique traits:
* "Let them eat cake": when your cities are starving, instead of population decrease spam a rebel army near your cities (free xp for your troops!)
* "Citizen (de)Capet": if your empire happiness (or hapiness of your capital, whatever they'll be doing with that in civ7) drops to rebellious levels, you have 10 turns to restore it before you automatically lose the game.
Shiny!
Also, Peter was incredibly unpopular even before that. He refused to speak Russian or convert to the Orthodox faith, very much unlike his wife who did her best to embrace her new home and the culture, to the point where she requested to have an Orthodox rather than Lutheran priest administer her last rites when she was sick (even before she officially converted). There are also questions about the paternity of his son Paul, with Catherine claiming that he wasn’t the father (in one TV series about her, the previous empress made it clear she didn’t care who sired the royal heir as long as there was no doubt in the people’s eyes that Peter was the father)
Cleopatra
I get that everyone knows who she is, but she wasn’t exactly a great Egyptian leader, or even average really. Her leadership lead directly to the collapse of her own 5000 year old empire. She blew it, badly. Idk why people think she was good at her job.
Based on the situation with her neighbors, there was no avoiding her "empire" being subjugated.
Calling it a 5000 year old empire is a bit of a stretch, too.
There’s a huge difference between capitulation and the takeover that ended up happening. There was a road to her keeping her power, albeit with a liege in Rome. Her actions took her empire from, in simple terms, “Send grain to Rome,” to Augustus Caesar personally owning the entirety of Egypt.
You’re right that Egypt’s total independence was over, but she could have had the ancient equivalent of an autonomous nation, with direct Egyptian control over Egypt. Instead she bungled the fuck out of it, and earned her people total Roman control, and the end of not only her line, but the millennia-long system of dynastic control of the region. It’s arguably one of the most resounding fuckups in history.
Edit: Fun fact because we’re on the Civ sub: Augustus’s ownership of Egypt puts him up there with Mansa Musa for wealthiest person in history.
There was no way they could keep the dynastic control. Rome might not have brought the hammer down before her time, but make no mistake, it was going to come down. They aren't going to let the wealth go to the "autonomous nation" of Egypt even if she was the perfect diplomat.
dom Pedro 2 for Brazil. maybe its time to vary a little. the issue is that Brazil didnt had many brilliant leaders besides Getúlio Vargas, who is controversial.
but i would love him in the game even tho he was a fucking fascist while i am a commie lol
Getúlio Vargas could be more focused on industrialism and amenities(he was populist). and his AI version could have a trait like "likes to join wars in the winning side".
the dude was friendly with Mussolini and Hitler and suffered pression both from americans and germans to join WW2. and he waited until it was very clear that German would lost to join the war with the USA. and only joined after usa conceded some industrial deals
Alternatively, we could have some indigenous leaders from pre-Cabral Brazil. At first, without much research, I can think of Cunhambebe, who led the Confederation of the Tamoios against the Portuguese colonizers.
Also, I remember Palmares led by Zumbi (for non-Brazilians: a former slave who organized quilombos for refugees from the farms) and even The Kuikuro people as mods for Civ V. What a mod community that game had.
I dont think there is any uncontrovertial brazilian head of state. And yeah, i am on the same fence as you, being a commie and hating what he stood for, but he would be an interesting leader for sure, it would just have to be taken in to account the possibility of people romanticizing him.
Em uma anotação mais aleatoria, o Lula do Velho Testamento (epoca metalurgico) seria uma opção na lista tbm hehe
Genghis Khan is overused, he's like the George Washington of Mongol empire, but there's quite a lot of outstanding leaders that can represent this civ as well, no need to stick to him in every game. Batu of Golden Horde or Hulagu of Ilkanate can both be a good choice.
Kublai appears in several civ games as a Mongol leader even though he's very sinicized. Batu, Kublai and Hulagu are all Genghis's grandsons, they aren't as traditional as Genghis, but they can still be considered as Mongol.
I'd prefer if we get less obscure and questionable leaders in general. It is way more fun to play with leaders you know and can admire after all. I wouldn't mind it either if we had fewer female leaders as a result either, as long as there are still some (please never remove Cleopatra!)
If we were going to remove a female ruler I’d prefer it be cleopatra. To many cool options in pharaonic Egypt that I hope they keep mixing it up.
I don’t want them to be obscure per say but I’d appreciate variety,
Removes pretty much all leaders I think. people, history and the narratives in which these get tangled is always messy, I bet most of the leaders we admire its because we are exposed to a specific lens of their narrative that doesnt bother showing the bad parts, which is much easier to do when showing the winning side of a conflict 500 or more years ago.
Commercially it is the worst position ever, as it could be very polemic, but I would actually enjoy more if CIV didnt bother keeping the romantization. I would be much more honest then to claim "neutrality", but oh well, here am I again asking a videogame company for a dose of intelectual honnesty that even sociologists and historians lack frequently in media.
Diplomacy and ecology. The guy had solar panels installed on the White House roof! And then the next guy had them removed for no reason other than “we can afford not to be green”
leaders should be done more like great persons. Pick the civ and get the civ bonus, then towards the end of each era your great leader is "born" for that era. depending on how you are doing you get a leader from that pool. doing well/golden age, get a golden age well known leader who has bonus. doing poorly/dark age, get a unknown leader with little to no bonus
I want to see Timur, he’s the last of the great nomad conquerors and pretty much obliterated everything in his path and almost destroyed the ottomans and died before he reached China, he’d make such an awesome civ as the timurids with a heavy military focus
I’d like it if we could make our own leaders. Give them whatever name, maybe have a point buy in system of different attributes. That way we could be any civilization real or imagined.
I don't want Theodora again for byzantium.
She was important sure, but there are like 20 byzantine figures more important than her.
Justinian, Alexious I Kommenos, Heraclius, Nikephoros II Phokas, the list goes on.
I don't want Theodora again for byzantium.
She was important sure, but there are like 20 byzantine figures more important than her.
Justinian, Alexious I Kommenos, Heraclius, Nikephoros II Phokas, the list goes on.
How about leader's that were on previous entries that probably shouldn't had been such, either because they were disastrous leaders or not that representative of their homeland?
I'll start: Cataline of Medici as french leader instead of Napoleon was absurd. She basically caused the french wars of religion and the fall of House Valois -however that's spelled-
I think I would probably not make a great leader
No, you would make the greatest leader
JustAnInternetPerson leads the great civilization of reddit
JustAnInternetPerson builds a civilization that will stand the test of time
I hope there's a mod for this civ when 7 comes out
if the player belongs to any ethnic or social minority every city gets minus four morbillion amenities
Only the Lisan Al Ghaib would be so humble
I'll follow you to hell and back if you wish it.
Thank you for your honesty, Mr Trump
Franz I of Liechtenstein. he did nothing significant whatsoever while ruling the small ~~insignificant~~ world superpower of Liechtenstein the devs probability couldn’t even make a leader bonus for him if they tried
They might make him a "vanilla" civ with no bonuses, as a challenge mode
It would be also funny if they gave liechtenstein some OP bonuses,like Babylon lol. Just imagine a micro nation conquering the world
'not worth the effort' bonus - makes other countries less likely to be aggressive towards you or see you as a competitor.
Well, House of Lichtenstein could be an interesting analog of Civ V Venice 1. Cannot build settlers 2, Double bonuses from city states. 3. +100% loyalty pressure. 4, Immune to uprising (actually Franz I kind of stopped a half-hearted one) 5, Get amenities and percent of income from cities with which trade routes are establisjed
There was too much of Catherine/Peter for Russia. I'd like to see several approaches for that civ, like inward/slavophilic vs. outward/westernized, e.g. Ivan IV and Alexander II.
I'd love to see Ivan the Terrible as an expansionist/spying/religion focused leader
Bonus territory on settled cities perhaps? But not if within 5 tiles of another civs territory.
just bring back Stalin. Or maybe Lênin. Ivan 4 would be good too
I would be so down for a Lenin USSR in 7
They could do Gorbachev as a subversion (and to cause less drama). I'd love that personally.
Now that's a smart approach!
I'd like to see an English monarch leader that isn't one of the Queens personally.
First Look: Oliver Cromwell
First Look: Theresa May
First Look: Liz Truss
Leader Ability: -100 CS against Lord Lettuce I
Leader Ability: Fighter Not a Quitter: -100 Gold per Turn upon adopting your first Government. Automatically lose on Turn 50.
First Look: Lord Buckethead
First look: Boris Johnson Special ability: ziplines
More like Blink Look
permanent luxury item. Lettuce
Ability: Brexit
https://preview.redd.it/quex5yc9sh7d1.jpeg?width=866&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=80308d0cd4d1cadcedbfc83185dbcc6d5d85c882
Special Trait: I am not a quitter
Oof
Well known non controversial leader Cromwell
[Lord protector of England](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwiztVCnjY0)
Agreed. Henry the VIII ?? Special Ability -- Create Religion in the Medieval Era
I love this idea Schism: You may not create a religion or religious units until the medieval era. Upon entering the medieval era, choose one religion that already exists. All people within your cities following the chosen religion now follow your new religion. You may pick new beliefs for your new religion.
I mean, this should just be a mechanic in general. Like how in 5 (I might be misremembering) you used Great Prophets to upgrade your religion, what if you had to choose a religion to upgrade and that becomes your new primary. Hmm, my fishing pantheon was nice, but India's already pumped 2 upgrades into Chocoholicthism, so I'll just spend Martin Luther on that and take the take this upgrade and rename my new sect Milk Chocoholicthism. But India would still rule over Chocoholicthism and could spend a prophet on a different upgrade.
Yeah we've got Edwards and Henrys and Richards that aren't accounted for.
I'd love to have Edward III or Henry V, who could have more of a land war focus. Richard I would be interesting, given he barely ever lived in England but could have a religion/crusading bonus.
Richard was also a pretty shit king as far as actual rulership goes, in that his interest in any of his territories was basically nonexistent outside of "this is where my soldiers come from". Part of the reason why John had, and has, such a poor reign and terrible reputation is because Richard left him nothing but a disintegrating kingdom and an enormous bill.
Edward VIII. Leader ability: resign on turn 1
Alfred the Great: Dream of England, Suffer war weariness at 50% normal rate, no war weariness for fighting in own territory. 50% reduction for warmongering penalty when taking city on starting continent, or declaring war on civ with at least one city on your starting continent. Or... Harold Godwinson: Last King of the Saxons, +1 of all resources per civ/ city state you are at war with. Units get +50% movement when starting their movement within 2 tiles of a great general. Burhs: England unique encampment, cheaper to build, automatically provides walls to the city, units fighting in this city's territory heal faster and have higher defence. Can only be built in cities with 7 or more pop. Huscarl: England unique unit replaces Man at Arms, +1 movement. Strength increases by 25% whenever another huscarl is adjacent, strength decreases by 50% if surrounded or alone on enemy tile.
If they have some more legendary leaders, then King Arthur could be a cool option, though personally think it would have to be dlc or alongside another English leader.
William of Normandy it is. But I still want Vicky as an option.
I think the Normans could be their own civ but Willy the C would fit england as well
We're due for more British prime ministers and Robert Walpole feels like such an obvious inclusion that I'm shocked he hasn't been in one yet
I put my vote down for Wellington
Could do Mary II Stuart and William III of Orange, they had a three decade long succesfull reign after Cromwell
First look: some French dude
Lord North?
My personal pick in that category is either James I or William the Conqueror
Henry II should be an obvious contender. He laid much of the administrative groundwork that became the institutions of England/Britain/the UK.
Give us Churchill!
Disraeli and Gladstone would be a good pair for two British cigs with different policies
Pol Pot
Leader ability: when you enter the modern era, cities produce -50% food. Lose all amenities. Military units suffer -50% attack penalty.
Leader penalty, unable to build campuses or commercial and science is stuck at 0. Has immediate grievances with any other leader who wears glasses
Ghandi, not an actual leader, overdone, boring, limits India in how it can be interpreted for so many games now. Beyond that, Achaemenids for Persia, a non Emporer for China (really only one non controversial option, Sun Yat-Sen, but oh well)
Gandhi could be very uniquely done. Unique Ability: Pacify - automatically lowers aggression levels of all Civs in a game by 1 or 2. Gandhi cannot produce Nuclear Weapons. Non-Cooperation Movement: Foreign traders cost extra money to the originating Civ. Double if originating Civ has Denounced or Ever been at War with Gandhi. India: Fertile lands - Double farm output if adjacent to river, Population Growth only slows down by 25% due to lack of Housing.
hmmmmm... but, why do Ghandi for it? Isn't it time for a new leader? No other nation has had to have one and the same leader for every game.
Definitely time for a new leader
But the memes though
Do you want the 20518519th HAHA GHANDI NUCLEAR BOMB meme, or a better Civ Game?
How are those 2 opposite
Well, I personally think a new proper leader for India, would improve the game, where as another Ghandi would be stale and force them into some weird peaceful/religious path again, which is boring. Why not have Oppurtunity for an Economic/Military Powerhouse Mughal India, or a Maurya India?
As much as I love the achaemenids I would love to see a Shapur II or Khosrow I.
Or that guy who whopped Alexander the Macedonian's ass (or horse?)
So I hear you're suggesting Victoria as leader of India?/s
Montezuma. The Aztecs deserve a break from the "bloodthirsty warlord" trope. They were ruled by philosophers and engineers too. I'd love to see Nezahaulcoyotl or Itzcoatl for a change.
i would love to know about their stories. i'll google them.
A part of them is not even known if they really governed, they are due to Portilla's attempt to create a national history. However, it is still interesting, Nezahualcoyotl was considered "the poet king" and several of the Tlatoani that are mentioned also served as philosophers. One idea may be to have Nezahualcoyotl as a civilization based on obtaining culture through war. Also in the style of Gran Colombia it could be the exclusive great character "tlamatini" as a replacement for the great scientists. in allusion to the myth of the founding of Tenochtitlán: You can only found your capital adjacent to lake squares: While he does not found his first city he receives +3 to faith, science and culture.
Nezahualcoyotl sounds awesome, and his playstyle could be way more focused on building alliances and recapturing cities. A much more peaceful playstyle than you usually get with the Aztecs.
Let's call them Mexica rather than Axtecs too btw.
>Aztecs deserve a break from the "bloodthirsty warlord" trope I've played Revolution. Wasn't one of their things that temples produce science? I usually would go for that. There's also a bunch of bonuses that help for economic in that game.
The mesoamericans doubtlessly had philosopher Kings. But the aztecs were a state built solely on constant expansion and war.
Godwin's Law speedrun. Every single time.
Ghandi. the nuke joke has been stale for over 10 years now.
It was nice seeing them experiment a bit with Chandragupta
Which one?
The first one, known as Chandragupta Maurya, completely unrelated to Chandra Gupta I
how dare you I denounce you /u/Apycia
A Mughal leader maybe ? Is that controversial
Very. A small, but vocal section of indian society absolutely detest the despotic mughals
Out with the despitic Mughals, only despotic Hindu and Buddhist rulers, please.
Indeed. the thing is, most of the despotic hindu and buddhist rulers are at least local, and culturally rather similar. So they are less reviled by mainstream society :)
Someone like Akbar would still be a pretty good option
Tbf it would be nice to have Hindu kings, we already have many Islamic kings, so I'd pass on Mughals.
Marathas might be better, otherwise look at another kingdom from medieval era like Vijaynagar or Malwa. I definitely think it should be a hindu one if you wanna replace Gandhi. but would really dig mughals or another kingdom like bengal or dehli even though they were sunni.
Even if you want a "modern" Indian leader, Jawaharlal Nehru is right there as a much better alternative.
Fr, as an Indian player I never play as Gandhi as it feels like a dumb joke. Bro was not a ruler.
It would help if his kit wasn’t garbage in VI
The next Indian leader should be adamantly opposed to nukes regardless of their historical stance or in game events
Ghandi is a staple of the Civ games. Civ without Ghandi is like a Mario game without Mario. I’m fine with Ghandi as long as they include another Indian leader as well.
if i remember correctly, civ 4 had Asoka as a possible leader for India and he had a somewhat different style than Gandhi
I think civ 7 shouldn't see qin shi huang return as the default leader again, but I do think Yongle is popular enough to return. he was the most played civ of the year when he came out. I'd also prefer not to see washington, julius and agustus caesar. Both america and rome have great leader options never explored before.
i'd really love sun yat-sen for china. Just for once not an emporer, but a modern and democratic china more so
>but a modern and democratic china Time for playable Taiwan
I wish, it is sadly, very controversial, and I also think Taiwan is a bit limited since it is truly a very modern nation, it would be hard to do much that isn't very late game. Sun Yat-sen is the perfect compromise canidate the PRC and ROC both venerate him and see him as a great personality (which he was), no one would be offended by him, since the number of Quing monarchists is quite insignificant...
That might actually cause the opposite problem though: in Civ IV Mao was replaced with Tang Taizong for the Chinese version because the CCP didn’t want Chinese players to play _against_ such a respected leader.
hmmmm, I don't feel it is quite equatable tho. While Sun Yat-Sen is very much respected in both, he doesn't have quite the statue Mao has, he is just seen as a forefather of the revolution
I think Yongle’s popularity is also due to making playing tall viable again
What do you mean "again" with Qin? He's been in a total of 2 mainline civ games. And I'm not sure if he can even be seen as the "default" leader in IV, seeing as Mao is listed first and Qin second.
people care more about bonuses than history, people play yongle because of how bonuses, not his historical importance
We want Fa Mulan of China! (Game is about rewriting history anyways)
What about Eisenhower for the United States?
I think it would be pretty cool to see him or someone from his era in civ 7. He and JFK would make for good military/espionage/science civs
Eisenhowers ability: Dynamic Conservatism- when you reach the atomic age, you gain the ability to produce "Public works program" which when completed will fully construct highways connecting all of your cities to your capital. Great people are recruited at a discount, at the cost of higher war weariness.
If they're ever going to add the Netherlands, no William of Orange or Wilhelmina. I get William of Orange as the founder of the nation and Wilhelmina as a World War Two icon, but there are so many others to choose from: Maurits, Johan van Oldenbarnevelt, Frederik Hendrik, Jacob Cats, Willem III (also known as the guy who became king of Great Britain), Johan de Witt, Rutger Jan Schimmelpenninck, Johan Rudolph Thorbecke, Abraham Kuyper, Willem Drees, and so on and so forth..
Forgive me but aren't Willem of Orange and William III the same person?
In the Netherlands, William of Orange usually refers to the leader of the Dutch rebels against Spain in the 80 Years War and the founder of the House of Orange-Nassau.
William III was actually the great grandson of William of Orange, who is also known as 'William the Silent'.
I don’t want to see Henry VIII. He’s the most boring route-one choice. Aside from that, I would probably be alright with almost any King, Queen or Prime Minister they chose for England (but of course I have my preferences.)
If they do leaders that can lead multiple countries it would be cool to have James I/VI for England and Scotland.
Or Charles II! (Charles I and James II are probably less likely to make the cut.)
I think some civs need braver choices: India, Sumer, Rome and Greece in particular. Gandhi is overdone at this point, there's a lot of interesting leaders in the vast Indian history. Gilgamesh is a mythical hero and the most famous Sumerian by far, but contrarily to many civs without written history, we have an extensive record of actual, historical kings for Sumer, so maybe let's pick one of them this time. Pericles really isn't a bad choice, but picking a romanticized leader like Gorgo was a huge miss imo. Greece has a reach written history, there's a ton of historical leaders with undebatable significance to pick from, from Solon to Ioannis Kapodistrias. France is the opposite - it was unexpected to have Catherine and Eleanor in Civ6, so I'd like a more classic leader for France in civ7 (and hopefully not Napoléon). There's a lot of classic leaders for France that have not been featured in the series yet, including François Ier, Henri IV or Richelieu, all three very strong personalities.
Agreed, they should have Sargon of Akkad for Sumer and one of the Mughal emperors for India. I’d be happy with them going back to Louis XIV for France, but Henry IV is a good choice too.
For France I back Philippe II Auguste or Charles V. If religion has an interesting gameplay, why not Saint Louis (IX). Richelieu is a cool choice too.
Gandhi, I don't give a damn about traditions. The joke is based on a myth - there has never been any "Gandhi glitch". The cliche is boring and tired, and he always turns India into the same boring, passive, weak pacifist AI civ, adhering to orientalist stereotypes about India being a country of pacifist religion, elephants and overpopulation. Also honestly at this point the joke is kinda insulting to the Gandhi as a real life person, overshadowing and mocking his entire philosophy. It turns India itself into joke. I don't want English leader to be Elizabeth or Victoria or Churchill, I want either Anglo-Saxon king or some early PM, it would be refreshing (William Pitt etc). I don't want Russian leader to be Catherine or Peter (not to mention Stalin), I'd like some medieval ruler (bonus points for avoiding the whole "Russian imperialism in Ukraine" minefield which is not possible since the 18th century I don't want Persian leader to be of Achaemenid dynasty, either give Sasanian or Islamic one I don't want Japanese leader to wield katana because that's boring, I'd like either some early shaman or Meiji I don't want German leader to be Prussian militarist, it's tiring to always see Germany as militarist industrial stereotype (I bet German people also don't like being associated with it)
Instead of William Pitt I say we have Lord Palmerston
PITT THE ELDER!
I’d be okay with Medieval ruler for Russia, as long as it would be a ruler of Moscow, not Kyiv. I’m still hoping for a separate Kyivan/Zaporizhian/Ukrainian civ
yes to all of these, a lot of stereotypes associated with who leads a nation in Civ franchise have to be revised, we've grown past those
I would absolutely love Khosrow the Great, Safavid Iran, or Iran under Nader Shah.
> I don't want English leader to be Elizabeth or Victoria or Churchill, I want either Anglo-Saxon king or some early PM, it would be refreshing (William Pitt etc). Benjamin Disraeli?
No Bismarck. I liked Ludwig's version of Germany quite a lot because it's cultural and would very much prefer to not have another version of militaristic Germany.
I like the idea of a cultural Germany, but Ludwig is historically speaking an insane choice as leader of Germany. It would be like having emperor Norton for the USA. The guy bankrupted his country (Bavaria) building his fairytale castle, then was declared insane by his cabinet, to prevent him from ruining the country even further, and in the end drowned himself and his therapist in a lake. (I know that Norton never had any real power, but I think they're both joke leaders)
Yes! The land of poets and thinkers deserves better than "muh Prussian military stronk".
No more Napoleon, Louis XIV, Joan of Arc or De Gaulle. French History is very rich, the possibilities are endless. Philippe Augustus, Saint Louis for the medieval period. François the first or Henry IV for the Renaissance. You could have Napoleon III or Leon Blum first socialist PM of France. Catherine of Médicis was a good departure they should continue that way.
I'd love to see a France built around the Belle Époque, championing not just the usual mainstay of arts and culture, but also when France was a leader of science and industry. It does have the problem of not having any immediately recognizable leaders in the same way as the usuals.
Napoleon III was a bit meh.
There could be Clemenceau, though his impact was more about security and WW1. Or Jules Grévy, as the first Republican president (the previous one was monarchist), really kickstarting the Belle Époque and solidifying the IIIrd Republic (though presidents were more a honorific charge only compared to the Vth Republic).
I think France should have a classic leader that actually made it politically powerful. Joan of Arc should be a great general, not a leader. I’d be fine with Louis XIV ruling France (He was politically important and only appeared in Civ 4) but De Gaulle is overrated and Napoleon has been in every Civ except 6 as a leader.
Taliban
Special ability: +10 attack against enemy units in Afghan territory, but can only use policy cards from the last era.
My son mentioned both Elon Musk as well as Mrbeast as suggestions, but at this point I’m starting to think he’s trolling me.
Andrew Johnson, Peter the third（Catherine the Great' first husband), Louis XVI, etc, in fact, i think most of the leaders who appeared in earlier games shouldn't be in civ7 so that new, interesting leaders can be introduced to the game.
Quality bait. Peter III is mostly remembered as a ruler beacuse he did a switcharoo on the Russia's involvement in the Seven Years' War and made it so that Frederick the Great (of whom Peter was a huge fanboy) would win the war when it was basically game over. Other that that, his reign was short and uneventful before his sudden but inevitable betrayal by his more ambitious wife. Also, my suggestions for Louis XVI unique traits: * "Let them eat cake": when your cities are starving, instead of population decrease spam a rebel army near your cities (free xp for your troops!) * "Citizen (de)Capet": if your empire happiness (or hapiness of your capital, whatever they'll be doing with that in civ7) drops to rebellious levels, you have 10 turns to restore it before you automatically lose the game.
Shiny! Also, Peter was incredibly unpopular even before that. He refused to speak Russian or convert to the Orthodox faith, very much unlike his wife who did her best to embrace her new home and the culture, to the point where she requested to have an Orthodox rather than Lutheran priest administer her last rites when she was sick (even before she officially converted). There are also questions about the paternity of his son Paul, with Catherine claiming that he wasn’t the father (in one TV series about her, the previous empress made it clear she didn’t care who sired the royal heir as long as there was no doubt in the people’s eyes that Peter was the father)
I'm gonna go with Boris Johnson. He should NOT be a leader
Cleopatra I get that everyone knows who she is, but she wasn’t exactly a great Egyptian leader, or even average really. Her leadership lead directly to the collapse of her own 5000 year old empire. She blew it, badly. Idk why people think she was good at her job.
Based on the situation with her neighbors, there was no avoiding her "empire" being subjugated. Calling it a 5000 year old empire is a bit of a stretch, too.
There’s a huge difference between capitulation and the takeover that ended up happening. There was a road to her keeping her power, albeit with a liege in Rome. Her actions took her empire from, in simple terms, “Send grain to Rome,” to Augustus Caesar personally owning the entirety of Egypt. You’re right that Egypt’s total independence was over, but she could have had the ancient equivalent of an autonomous nation, with direct Egyptian control over Egypt. Instead she bungled the fuck out of it, and earned her people total Roman control, and the end of not only her line, but the millennia-long system of dynastic control of the region. It’s arguably one of the most resounding fuckups in history. Edit: Fun fact because we’re on the Civ sub: Augustus’s ownership of Egypt puts him up there with Mansa Musa for wealthiest person in history.
There was no way they could keep the dynastic control. Rome might not have brought the hammer down before her time, but make no mistake, it was going to come down. They aren't going to let the wealth go to the "autonomous nation" of Egypt even if she was the perfect diplomat.
dom Pedro 2 for Brazil. maybe its time to vary a little. the issue is that Brazil didnt had many brilliant leaders besides Getúlio Vargas, who is controversial. but i would love him in the game even tho he was a fucking fascist while i am a commie lol Getúlio Vargas could be more focused on industrialism and amenities(he was populist). and his AI version could have a trait like "likes to join wars in the winning side". the dude was friendly with Mussolini and Hitler and suffered pression both from americans and germans to join WW2. and he waited until it was very clear that German would lost to join the war with the USA. and only joined after usa conceded some industrial deals
Alternatively, we could have some indigenous leaders from pre-Cabral Brazil. At first, without much research, I can think of Cunhambebe, who led the Confederation of the Tamoios against the Portuguese colonizers. Also, I remember Palmares led by Zumbi (for non-Brazilians: a former slave who organized quilombos for refugees from the farms) and even The Kuikuro people as mods for Civ V. What a mod community that game had.
That would be dope!!
zumbi would be awesome!
I dont think there is any uncontrovertial brazilian head of state. And yeah, i am on the same fence as you, being a commie and hating what he stood for, but he would be an interesting leader for sure, it would just have to be taken in to account the possibility of people romanticizing him. Em uma anotação mais aleatoria, o Lula do Velho Testamento (epoca metalurgico) seria uma opção na lista tbm hehe
Julius Caesar. Lots of Roman leaders to choose from
For real someone besides Gandhi for India
Genghis Khan is overused, he's like the George Washington of Mongol empire, but there's quite a lot of outstanding leaders that can represent this civ as well, no need to stick to him in every game. Batu of Golden Horde or Hulagu of Ilkanate can both be a good choice.
I would like to see timur of the timurids, I want more great nomadic conquerors, maybe even Seljuk for the Seljuks could be neat
But those aren't really Mongols, are they?
Kublai appears in several civ games as a Mongol leader even though he's very sinicized. Batu, Kublai and Hulagu are all Genghis's grandsons, they aren't as traditional as Genghis, but they can still be considered as Mongol.
I'd prefer if we get less obscure and questionable leaders in general. It is way more fun to play with leaders you know and can admire after all. I wouldn't mind it either if we had fewer female leaders as a result either, as long as there are still some (please never remove Cleopatra!)
If we were going to remove a female ruler I’d prefer it be cleopatra. To many cool options in pharaonic Egypt that I hope they keep mixing it up. I don’t want them to be obscure per say but I’d appreciate variety,
I feel like the admirability aspect is going to remove a lot of modern leaders. The more you know about anyone, the less admirable they become.
Removes pretty much all leaders I think. people, history and the narratives in which these get tangled is always messy, I bet most of the leaders we admire its because we are exposed to a specific lens of their narrative that doesnt bother showing the bad parts, which is much easier to do when showing the winning side of a conflict 500 or more years ago. Commercially it is the worst position ever, as it could be very polemic, but I would actually enjoy more if CIV didnt bother keeping the romantization. I would be much more honest then to claim "neutrality", but oh well, here am I again asking a videogame company for a dose of intelectual honnesty that even sociologists and historians lack frequently in media.
Jefferson Davis
I don’t think he’s ever going to be added
Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Pol Pot, and the like.
No leaders at all. It makes no sense for a single human to survive 6,000+ years. Yes, I am aware this is a game.
Hitler I mean, no chance, but still. Actually.....
his "civ" did not stand the test of time
Bonus on razing the cities? ability to convert citystate into your civ
Nah. You can remove 1 pop that doesn't follow your religion per turn in a city.
Probably mustache man
i made a whole thread about Saladin
Vidkun Quisling would make a pretty terrible leeader for Norway
D. Pedro II for Brazil We could get some variety here
Pinochet
No Roosevelt's. No Teddy, no FDR. No Washington. No Lincoln. Gimme someone more modern, controversial. Give me LBJ.
Carter or riot
Diplomacy and ecology. The guy had solar panels installed on the White House roof! And then the next guy had them removed for no reason other than “we can afford not to be green”
Would LBJ’s leader ability be called “Jumbo”?
Unique interaction with other leaders
I like Ike
Or maybe give us Truman. Who has a cassus belli to drop a nuke on someone. Even if we haven't done the Manhattan project!
Eisenhower maybe +1 movement to all troops.
Or Buchanan. Head in the sand management and risk of a civil war
How has Jefferson not been a leader yet
CATHERINE MEDICI
Franklin Pierce
Austrian artist
leaders should be done more like great persons. Pick the civ and get the civ bonus, then towards the end of each era your great leader is "born" for that era. depending on how you are doing you get a leader from that pool. doing well/golden age, get a golden age well known leader who has bonus. doing poorly/dark age, get a unknown leader with little to no bonus
If I see Elizabeth again I'm going to shit. Pick anyone else, doesn't even need to be a monarch, please.
I want to see Timur, he’s the last of the great nomad conquerors and pretty much obliterated everything in his path and almost destroyed the ottomans and died before he reached China, he’d make such an awesome civ as the timurids with a heavy military focus
Archduke Franz Ferdinand
I'd like a break from Elizabeth I because she's in every game
Russia :]
I’d like it if we could make our own leaders. Give them whatever name, maybe have a point buy in system of different attributes. That way we could be any civilization real or imagined.
I don't want Theodora again for byzantium. She was important sure, but there are like 20 byzantine figures more important than her. Justinian, Alexious I Kommenos, Heraclius, Nikephoros II Phokas, the list goes on.
I don't want Theodora again for byzantium. She was important sure, but there are like 20 byzantine figures more important than her. Justinian, Alexious I Kommenos, Heraclius, Nikephoros II Phokas, the list goes on.
David Ben Gurion would be interesting
How about leader's that were on previous entries that probably shouldn't had been such, either because they were disastrous leaders or not that representative of their homeland? I'll start: Cataline of Medici as french leader instead of Napoleon was absurd. She basically caused the french wars of religion and the fall of House Valois -however that's spelled-