Something I noticed - Leaders

[Martin]

They're all very bland, boring leaders that never did anything significant in history. I wonder if this is the political leaning into the dev team again. Should be picking the best leaders from the countries that matter, those that were significant over eras of history, not the most insignificant overall.

[Oaks]

I think it's a good mix. Folks like Napoleon, Charlemagne, Augustus, Catherine the Great, Xerxes, and Isabella definitely feel like "classic" choices and most them were in previous games.

There's also a selection of new, lesser known people who I think will be interesting to play as, so to me it feels similar to previous titles in the leader sense.

[Damedius]

Could be a political agenda but it could also be holding back the best for DLC, so that people will pay for leaders they want.

One thing I did notice is that there are 3 different China's, one for each era in the base game. This suggests to me that view China as a valuable market and are targeting it aggressively.

[Martin]

Originally posted by Oaks:

I think it's a good mix. Folks like Napoleon, Charlemagne, Augustus, Catherine the Great, Xerxes, and Isabella definitely feel like "classic" choices and most them were in previous games.

There's also a selection of new, lesser known people who I think will be interesting to play as, so to me it feels similar to previous titles in the leader sense.

Well.. there's opinions about the lives of those specifically that really aren't the people whose people they represent would wish to be remembered by. (i don't wish to insult any specific race so I won't get any deeper into it)

Suffice to say those you list are possibly the worst possible representations of their countries. But most of them are very classic choices, the most hollywood of ancient history.

Which I think is sad.

[Oaks]

Originally posted by Martin:

Originally posted by Oaks:

I think it's a good mix. Folks like Napoleon, Charlemagne, Augustus, Catherine the Great, Xerxes, and Isabella definitely feel like "classic" choices and most them were in previous games.

There's also a selection of new, lesser known people who I think will be interesting to play as, so to me it feels similar to previous titles in the leader sense.

Well.. there's opinions about the lives of those specifically that really aren't the people whose people they represent would wish to be remembered by. (i don't wish to insult any specific race so I won't get any deeper into it)

Suffice to say those you list are possibly the worst possible representations of their countries. But most of them are very classic choices, the most hollywood of ancient history.

Which I think is sad.

Ah well, to each their own.

[Many-Named]

Originally posted by Damedius:

Could be a political agenda but it could also be holding back the best for DLC, so that people will pay for leaders they want.

One thing I did notice is that there are 3 different China's, one for each era in the base game. This suggests to me that view China as a valuable market and are targeting it aggressively.

They are keeping the best for the DLC ofc, that's where the real money is after all.

[KhalunQalli]

If you'd watched ANY of the released content on leaders, you'd know that leaders are chosen in order to offer diverse gameplay opportunities and strategies, not to represent "the best" of anything. Your views on 'significance' are both irrelevant and flaccid.

[Qoojo]

Originally posted by Martin:

They're all very bland, boring leaders that never did anything significant in history.

Originally posted by Wikipedia:

Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus (...), also known as Octavian (...), was the founder of the Roman Empire

[Tasty Bunny]

Leader list has definitely been nuked by DEI. That's for sure.

But I feel something more beyond that. They all just feel very unimpressive and blank as a "Game Character(leader)".
Hard to explain. But kinda similar feeling to when I saw the missile cruise in Civ 6 first time.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by Oaks:

I think it's a good mix. Folks like Napoleon, Charlemagne, Augustus, Catherine the Great, Xerxes, and Isabella definitely feel like "classic" choices and most them were in previous games.

There's also a selection of new, lesser known people who I think will be interesting to play as, so to me it feels similar to previous titles in the leader sense.

As much as I am worried about no barbs, no workers, and switching civs, I do agree with the quote that I think they picked a decent line-up for the initial roster of leaders. They learned a bit on that from Civ 6... it's excellent to see Napoleon back, Catherine back, Isabella back, etc.

The leaders are a good mix of new (Franklin for US is 100% new IIRC, never appeared in the series) and returning classics that were missed in the last game (Isabella, Catherine, Napoleon).

[Orioats]

Than don't play the game. It is so disingenuous to even say this considering leaders who literally created empires that we still talk about today in modern time are in this game, and leaders like Harriet who literally freed enslaved people. How the heck are people like that bland? I wish you people would disappear. You make the internet bland and boring.

[sprenkledavid]

Originally posted by Damedius:

One thing I did notice is that there are 3 different China's, one for each era in the base game. This suggests to me that view China as a valuable market and are targeting it aggressively.

Or, more likely, they've noticed that China has stayed intact as an "empire" through all three Ages. That's a very rare quality, unmatched in tradition "western" civilizations, certainly. (That's probably why India also has three versions)

[Random Ghost]

You've obviously never read anything about Ben Franklin. "Did nothing significant in history." Thanks for the laugh.

[lmr]

Yeah, if there's anyone who screams "bland, boring" and historically insignificant, it's..uh..Napoleon.

[jodnus]

I don't think I agree.... I kind of like seeing lesser-known figures I can look up and see what they were all about on a wiki

Thinking it is the result of some kind of obscure political message is such an odd conclusion to jump to.

People see what they want to see these days I guess

[Damedius]

Originally posted by sprenkledavid:

(That's probably why India also has three versions)

What are the 3 India's you speak of?