Sid Meier's Civilization

[Mayor Cody Travers]

They've been doing that since the first Civ game. They picked evil bastards like Stalin, Mao, and Gandhi because they're who what most non-history buffs know. The Zulu were chosen as the token black civilization because of a movie.

Gandhi is the only leader I'd give the okay to being replaced early on to be consistent and fair in "only actual leaders" even if it means missing out on the nuclear Gandhi memes. I could see Ashoka being used in place as the go-to leader since early Civ games really liked their ancient history focus via Greece, Iran, Egypt, etc. being based almost entirely on their ancient incarnations. Zulus did more than most sub-Saharan Africans, much less any others that much down south, I give them genuine credit for it. But if I had to pick a default/"go-to" sub-Saharan civ it would absolutely be the Mali(nese) Empire since its primary ethnic group in the Mandinka are still the absolute majority in much of where the empire's core was located, took up a good amount of space by anyone's standards pre-gunpowder days, you can simulate the succession of states and kingdoms through Barbarian attacks, and fills up a usually empty section of the world map quite nicely.

If I had to choose some other early defaults/always-ought-be-there civs across the map even normies back in Civ I and II would know...

-Incans for South America,
-Iroquois (de-facto taking Canada) for North American Amerindians,
-Korea (covering Manchuria and Russian Far East) and Vietnam (covering Indochina) in lieu of Mongolia (retcon into joining Huns as THE Barbarian horde equivalent),
-Mali as stated for sub-Saharan Africa in lieu of Zululand,
-Indonesia just to slap something down there in Oceania.

By contrast if I had to distill Europe and the Middle East in civ amount....

-England, France, Spain, Germany, Rome (covering Italy), Greece, Poland, and Russia for Europe,
-Carthage, Egypt, "Akkad" (representing Babylonia and Assyria alike as two offshoots of Akkad and were the same ethnolingustically), Iran, Arabia (representing both pre-Islamic Arab borders up to/including Jordan and Kuwait and post-Islamic Arab World), and Turkey for the Middle East.

I'd make Celtic/Balkan/Nordic nations in Europe, various Caucasian/Central Asian/Levant countries and ancient nations in the Middle East, a buncha the more famous African states, a bunch of the Amerindian and New World settler nations alike in the Americas, and various Oceanian city-states and thalassocracies as City-State/Barb tribe equivalents.

 

[Kane Lives]

I could see Ashoka being used in place as the go-to leader since early Civ games really liked their ancient history focus via Greece, Iran, Egypt, etc. being based almost entirely on their ancient incarnations.

Ashoka was an alternate Indian leader in Civ IV (best civ). So it's not without precedent, even.

All that said, you're missing the point: the devs aren't remotely concerned about representation. They just want their DEI "representation". Hence shit like Tubman and Lovelace being used as leader instead of people who are infinitely more deserving.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

Its actually baffling to see the choices nu-Firaxis made regarding the leaders in the game. If they really (and I mean really desperate) want a Pinoy leader, why Rizal? Guy only managed to make the Spanish seethe when his novels exposed the phoney Church but was not leader material. They could have chosen either Emilio Aguinaldo or Andres Bonifacio (or pick both and have a what-if scenario where Emilio's mom didn't convince him to kill his co-partner for the KKK leadership) given their importance to the nation's rebellion against the Spaniards.

I know the Pilipino KKK didn't lynch black people but every time I read anything about them I have to do a double take.

 

[Mayor Cody Travers]

Ashoka was an alternate Indian leader in Civ IV (best civ). So it's not without precedent, even.

All that said, you're missing the point: the devs aren't remotely concerned about representation. They just want their DEI "representation". Hence shit like Tubman and Lovelace being used as leader instead of people who are infinitely more deserving.

Ah, I definitely agree with you on the devs and DEI 100%. I just went off-tangent as I admit I tend to do thinking of things I like.

To try to keep it on-topic though, it's especially aggravating to see the DEI crap because Civ is absolutely one of, if not THE, game series you can give a literal worldwide focus to every culture in the world to without needing to DEI up anything. So many civilizations, peoples, countries across the world are fascinating and full of good things to give a focus to without needing to partake in today's idiotic culture war.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

View attachment 6923296
>Already advertising the content they cut to sell as dlc
>First british leader is Ada Lovelace

She's not completely insignificant, but she's a mathematician. There's literally thousands of more appropriate and famous brits to go in the game. I really dont get this obsession with going for left field picks
Fuck, if they wanted a scientist as a leader, you have Newton or even Lovelace's colleague Babbage

>UK always is led by some Femgroid
>Add a Femgroid that didn't even hold power
I'm not even gonna bother pirating it. I will stick with Civ VI and Ara.

 

[BondoBob]

They could do custom nations without going the EU4 route too. They could make unique units/buildings unlockable by having certain resources or settling certain lands, like if you have horses you get to choose which unique unit you'd want for cavalry, or settling mountains gives terrassed fields. Players either want to dick around in a specific system or have as much choice as possible in a sandbox. Changing civs and to plan cities for the late-game right when you settle removes player choice and discourages fooling around, you have to play the specific way they intended.

I agree with a lot of your points, I remember when playing there was never really any incentive, other than a different flavor of play, for you to play anyone but the Germans because they got the best civ bonuses and had the two strongest special units (the landsknecht and the panzer) and you could easily do science or military victories. I feel like there were actually reasons play other civs, for me at least, in the other titles that I never really had in 3 and 4 (obviously in 4 you either play as the Germans or you play Stalin in Russia for the military bonus). In 6, I actually did a bunch of random rolls for other civs and they played dramatically differently, the Australians are ridiculously OP, the Phonecians have a fascinating mechanic for playing on the water and if you get way ahead in science you can do a strategy where you intentionally ruin the environment to raise sea levels and flood the world map and use your superior science to save your own cities, it actually made me enjoy the game again and I thought the sound design and music were fantastic. I feel like it would take a lot to top 6, so I think you're right. I've never tried Humankind, but I've been curious about it, it just looked like it was getting murdered in the reviews so I just wrote it off.

 

[biggie bundu]

Hahahaha just seen the Ada Lovelace announcement. So much potential for a "left-field" Britain, England, or United Kingdom leader but they just had to go for another Tubman-esque pick.

Just a few ideas for lesser-represented leaders they could have chosen:

Alfred the Great
Oliver Cromwell
Henry VIII
William the Conqueror

Some more cultural crazy "non-leader" picks if they really want to go the Tubman route:

William Shakespeare
John Milton
William Blake
John Dee

Anyone else have any good ideas??

 

[The Pierrot]

Anyone else have any good ideas??

Other than the ones you suggested, I agreed with Isaac Newton from Shining Wit's remarks about the pick.
On a personal level for the crazy side, I think that William Dampier (the privateer) could've been a funny choice that I wouldn't have minded as much as Lovelace.

Anyway, they've also announced a Twitch drop event for cosmetic profile banners in-game, with staunch Tubman defender PotatoMcWhiskey hosting, of course, so you know he definitely had no horse in the race at all.

Say hello to the five Civ community members who will be facing off during the Civ World Summit event! Get ready to root for your favorite while Sarah and Potato MC:

• The Spiffing Brit
• ZeratoR
• The Game Mechanic
• Ursa Ryan
• Maurice Weber

During the Civ World Summit, these five players will be competing in a single free-for-all match spanning the Exploration Age and the Modern Age, with the Game Speed set to Online. There's more than glory at stake, as these challengers are battling to become the first ever Civ World Champion!

Occasionally during the broadcast, players will be called to stretch their diplomatic muscles and vie for the audience's favor. This will be your opportunity for live voting across a variety of mystery categories to help decide the players' fates!

 

[Shining Wit]

Hahahaha just seen the Ada Lovelace announcement. So much potential for a "left-field" Britain, England, or United Kingdom leader but they just had to go for another Tubman-esque pick.

Just a few ideas for lesser-represented leaders they could have chosen:

Alfred the Great
Oliver Cromwell
Henry VIII
William the Conqueror

Some more cultural crazy "non-leader" picks if they really want to go the Tubman route:

William Shakespeare
John Milton
William Blake
John Dee

Anyone else have any good ideas??

In a game with a focus on city building, one of the most famous civil engineers ever, Isambard Brunel, would be a perfect fit.

Another interesting angle would be Francis Drake, well set for an age of exploration

 

[Snekposter]

Its clear to me the devs have no idea what history is other than the most superficial garbage possible.

They decided to piss off the Swedes by replacing Gustavus Adolphus with his daughter, who did fuck-all in her life except read a bunch of books, spend a ton of money, convert to Catholicism, and then abdicate the throne and head to Rome to chill with the Pope as a result of her complete unwillingness to marry or squeeze out an heir.

 

[Computer God Autism]

obviously in 4 you either play as the Germans or you play Stalin in Russia for the military bonus

This isn't even true if you're playing hyper-competitive multi. Civ isn't just a wargame, neither Stalin or Germany's leaders have Financial, the Panzers look great on paper until you actually factor in how many tank-to-tank battles you'll really have, and IV allows you to swap leaders on civs so you could do something like put Louis XIV on Greece and get a culture victory in the Renaissance.

 

[Computer God Autism]

Hahahaha just seen the Ada Lovelace announcement. So much potential for a "left-field" Britain, England, or United Kingdom leader but they just had to go for another Tubman-esque pick.

Just a few ideas for lesser-represented leaders they could have chosen:

Alfred the Great
Oliver Cromwell
Henry VIII
William the Conqueror

Some more cultural crazy "non-leader" picks if they really want to go the Tubman route:

William Shakespeare
John Milton
William Blake
John Dee

Anyone else have any good ideas??

(Apologies for the doublepost)

Aethelstan
Canute the Dane
Henry Curtmantle
Edward Longshanks
Charles II

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

Anyone else have any good ideas??

Sir Arthur Wellesley
Lord Herbert Kitchener
Cecil Rhodes
Sir John Hawkwood
BlackBeard
Admiral Horatio Nelson
William Wilberforce
James Brooke
John Smith
Roger Mortimer
Sir Francis Drake
And William Wallace

 

[thejackal2]

I don't give a shit about the leaders just make a game that reminds me more of 2-4 than 5-6. They dumbed a lot of stuff down that used to be fun to experiment with. The road map is stupid. I see they are already trying to claim content that should be in at launch will be "free". Come on now. I guess I shouldn't be surprised the pre-sale button on the launcher for 6 takes up about 1/3 the screen and requires some patience not to accidentally click.

 

[Fig Kommandant]

The road map is stupid

I'm starting to get frustrated with roadmaps in general. Now they're just taunting us, telling us the dates when they want to reach into our wallets. They're never informative enough as to the content of the DLC, it's just saying they want money by that quarter.

 

[The Pierrot]

I'm starting to get frustrated with roadmaps in general. Now they're just taunting us, telling us the dates when they want to reach into our wallets. They're never informative enough as to the content of the DLC, it's just saying they want money by that quarter.

For me, it doesn't help that roadmaps have also been normalizing this bullshit of announcing paid DLC before the actual game is even out yet too. In this case they're not even trying to hide the whole "Deliver an unfinished game to sell missing content as DLC" idea since the base game is missing the British of all things.

 

[Fig Kommandant]

paid DLC

I remember an argument that DLC is fundamentally different from expansions and it goes with what you're saying. Back in the day, devs would make the tools and game at the same time. After the game is out, bugs have been fixed and they've gotten feedback, then they used to make an expansion now that they master their tools and know what fans want. DLC is planned in advanced, before any audience feedback and it's usually moreso of an addition to the game than an expansion of mechanics. "Downloadable content" has been a thing way before "DLC" practices became common, and I don't like the muddying of acronyms and terms. One is post-launch, one is pre-launch.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

Other than the ones you suggested, I agreed with Isaac Newton from Shining Wit's remarks about the pick.
On a personal level for the crazy side, I think that William Dampier (the privateer) could've been a funny choice that I wouldn't have minded as much as Lovelace.

Anyway, they've also announced a Twitch drop event for cosmetic profile banners in-game, with staunch Tubman defender PotatoMcWhiskey hosting, of course, so you know he definitely had no horse in the race at all.

• The Spiffing Brit
• ZeratoR
• The Game Mechanic
• Ursa Ryan
• Maurice Weber

Not even Drew Durnil? I get he doesn't do gaming much anymore but he used to be one of the big Civ youtubers. Such of a miss opportunity on firaxis.

 

[Fallow Tallow]

(Apologies for the doublepost)

Aethelstan
Canute the Dane
Henry Curtmantle
Edward Longshanks
Charles II

Strong choices, shame that in Henry's case they decided that his wife was more important to add to the series.

Hahahaha just seen the Ada Lovelace announcement. So much potential for a "left-field" Britain, England, or United Kingdom leader but they just had to go for another Tubman-esque pick.

Just a few ideas for lesser-represented leaders they could have chosen:

Alfred the Great
Oliver Cromwell
Henry VIII
William the Conqueror

Some more cultural crazy "non-leader" picks if they really want to go the Tubman route:

William Shakespeare
John Milton
William Blake
John Dee

Anyone else have any good ideas??

For fun, a few non-leader types....

Sir Oswald Mosley
Wat Tyler
Hereward the Wake
Simon de Montfort
Lady Godiva
Daniel Lambert

 

[Anonitolia]

Not even Drew Durnil? I get he doesn't do gaming much anymore but he used to be one of the big Civ youtubers. Such of a miss opportunity on firaxis.

Hasn't he not done civ for years? Last I heard he was dubbing reddit comics or doing reaction videos to whatever tickled his fancy that day.