Ideal List of Civilizations and Leaders in Civilization VI (or other iterations)

St. Just

St. Just

http://bradmatthewswritings.wordpress.com/2014/08/31/brads-ideal-list-of-civilization-civsleaders/

Like many of you, I'm sure, I got my love of history from playing Sid Meier's Civilization games as a kid. Although I've since largely graduated to Paradox Interactive, I still really, really like the game, and so I finally set out and thought of which civilizations and leaders I think should be in the game.

Beware: very, very long. A lot longer than I thought it was going to be, to be frank.
 
Major Crimson

Major Crimson

I've always prefer Great Britain over England, because I think of England as a successor state to GB. Its like having Germany instead of Prussia.
 
Callan

Callan

I really like the Nixon idea, although more modern leaders would be too controversial, making them unlikely. I've always liked the idea of having to deal with an insanely belligerent Thatcher or a sinister and calculating Churchill. Good post.
 
St. Just

St. Just

Ah thanks! I just wish they'd bring back multiple leaders. I'd love to defeat Stalin or Churchill or Nixon.
 

Kingfish

I'd like to have a generic "Italian" civ instead of Rome. I know, it is extremely radical. I also support the larger Scandinavian civ. Another idea would be having a leader for each Era, but it could be troublesome to manage the load of characters and poses the problem of which leaders should civilizations like the Atzec have in the late game.

And yes, England should be Britain.
 
Last edited:
St. Just

St. Just

Kingfish said:
I'd like to have a generic "Italian" civ instead of Rome. I know, it is extremely radical.

And yes, England should be Britain.
Click to expand...

No Rome? No way! I like the way Italy is implemented as is.

Klisz said:
Interesting that he didn't even mention Victoria.
Click to expand...

Victoria wasn't really the head of government; if I had to have a Victorian, I'd go for one of her prime ministers. Its not like Lizzy who was involved in actual governance.
 

Makemakean

Lord Salisbury for Great Britain. Magnificent bastard.

Éamon de Valera for the Republic of Ireland.

I'd also love for there to be an "Empire of these United States" led by Emperor Norton.
 
St. Just

St. Just

TPL99 said:
Why not too Disraeli and Attlee?
Click to expand...

Attlee was mainly post-war, and Dizzy is Disraeli.

And no Republic of Ireland. Not enough of a big mover, IMO, to be in-game. Ireland should be city-states or maybe my petty kingdoms/tribes/other sub-civ units idea.
 

Badshah

So no one Indian state, but Indonesia gets one? And theres a pan-German state? Its a weird list.

I think Civ should rely on pan-nations as their civs. It isn't a Paradox game and if you want massive historical accuracy and tension, that's where your fix is.
 
St. Just

St. Just

Badshah said:
So no one Indian state, but Indonesia gets one? And theres a pan-German state? Its a weird list.

I think Civ should rely on pan-nations as their civs. It isn't a Paradox game and if you want massive historical accuracy and tension, that's where your fix is.
Click to expand...

Eh, I don't like pan-nations except in Europe- I split India into two/three because I wanted more civs in Asia (and Mughals and Chola are both better IMO than yet another Nuclear Gandhi blandness).

And yeah, I primarily play Paradox these days, but I thought this would be a nice way for me to branch out and talk about something different on my blog
 
Baconheimer

Baconheimer

In my opinion, having one leader ancient and modern is the best option.

England- Richard the Lionhearted/Winston Churchill

Celts- Robert the Bruce/Michael Collins

France- Vercingrtorix/Napoleon

Spaim-

Germany- Frederick Barbarossa/Otto Von Bismarck

Scandinavia- Cnut the Great/Gustavus Adolphus

Magyars-

Rome- Julio Ceaser/Guiseppe Garibaldi

Greece- Alexamder the Great/

Russia-

Israel-

Arabia-

Babylon-

Assyria-

Persia-

Turks-

India-

Pashtuns-

Egypt-

Numidia-

Ethiopia-

Mali-

Zulus-

China-

Mongola-

Japanese-

Khmers-

Indonesians-

Australians-

United States- Andrew Jackson/Jimmy Carter

Cherokee-

Iroqouis-

Aztecs- Moctezuma/Benito Juarez
 
Last edited:

TPL99

My ideal list:
England: Oliver Cromwell, Queen Victoria, Winston Churchill
Celts: Boadicea, ?
France: Napoleon, Charles de Gaulle, Joan of Arc
Spain: Phillip II, Francisco Franco
Germany: Otto von Bismarck, Konrad Adenauer
Scandinavia: ?, Olof Palme
Rome: Julius Caesar, Caesar Augustus, Nero
Greece: Alexander the Great, King Leonidas I, ?
Russia: Ivan the Terrible, Vladimir Lenin, Mikhail Gorbachev
Israel: King David, King Solomon, David ben-Gurion
Arabia: Muhammad, ?
Babylon: Hammurabi, Nebuchadnezzar II
Persia: Cyrus the Great, ?
Turks: Suleiman the Magnificent, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
India: Chandragupta Maurya, Mahatma Gandhi, Indira Gandhi
Egypt: Ramesses II, Cleopatra, Gamal Abdel Nasser
Ethiopia: ?, Haile Selassie I
Zulus: Shaka
China: Qin Shi Huang, Puyi, Chiang kai-Shek, Mao Zedong
Mongols: Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan
Japan: Emperor Meiji, Emperor Showa, ?
Australia: ?, Robert Menzies
USA: George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan
Aztecs: Ahuitzotl, Montezuma II
Brazil: Getúlio Vargas, Juscelino Kubitschek, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
Argentina: Jose de San Martín, Juan Perón
 

January First-of-May

Here's one opinion that would probably be highly controversial: get rid of that system of civ-based bonuses. It's sad when any half-decent player, when choosing what civ they want to play as, has to look at the bonuses involved first and anything else second.
Instead, have the civilizations themselves all the same in that regard (maybe with the occasional different unit, and that mainly for flavor), and dump all the research/military/whatever bonuses on individual leaders; and then give every remotely major country a choice of a couple dozen (US, say, can have most or even all of the presidents, a couple non-president guys like Hamilton and Debs, and a few important females if anyone can think of any).

As far as the civilization list itself goes... on first glance, I'd say "as many as possible", but then there are some that have known leaders but no or few known cities, some that have enough known cities but no or very few known leaders (or personalities that might serve as leaders), and a lot of regular minors like Brandenburg or Vijayanagar that might well have enough of both cities and leaders but next to nobody will play as them anyway (either because they're too similar to the rest of the bunch nearby, or, in some Asian and African cases, because they're just that obscure).
 
Zachanassian

Zachanassian

Gone Fishin'
What I'd love (but would never get implemented) is a choice of three leaders for each Civ. You could choose between a military, diplomacy, or economy-focused leader. A military leader would give you military bonii, and so on.

For example, Germany's three leaders would be Friedrich Barbarossa (military), Bismark (diplomacy), and Konrad Adenauer (economy).
 

Badshah

Tsar Gringo said:
Eh, I don't like pan-nations except in Europe- I split India into two/three because I wanted more civs in Asia (and Mughals and Chola are both better IMO than yet another Nuclear Gandhi blandness).

And yeah, I primarily play Paradox these days, but I thought this would be a nice way for me to branch out and talk about something different on my blog
Click to expand...

To be honest, multiple leaders should be what you want to look at.

You can already spread out the amount of civs in Asia without cutting down on existing ones.

Adding a Steppe Civ; the Uzbegs, Tatars, Burmese, Khmer, Koreans, etc. Civ IV was pretty good in that regard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top