wait so im still kinda new on civ

[Ghost]

why is america leaders ben and harriet? i thought we get get leaders who actually lead the country? have they done this before? cause ben and harriet never led the country?

[Lëgënd]

Guessing maybe a troll, but I'll bite.
Have you not played previous Civ games? Not all "leaders" in game were technically presidents/kings/queens/nation leaders. Think of them more as important people from that Civ, hence we get Ben and Harriet, as well as similar examples from other Civ's or important leaders.

[Ghost]

Originally posted by Lëgënd:

Guessing maybe a troll, but I'll bite.
Have you not played previous Civ games? Not all "leaders" in game were technically presidents/kings/queens/nation leaders. Think of them more as important people from that Civ, hence we get Ben and Harriet, as well as similar examples from other Civ's or important leaders.

not a troll. i never played past civ i was genuine asking if this happen before and thought civ had historical leaders who lead the country.

[Literally Me]

Originally posted by cakes=not playing:

Originally posted by Lëgënd:

Guessing maybe a troll, but I'll bite.
Have you not played previous Civ games? Not all "leaders" in game were technically presidents/kings/queens/nation leaders. Think of them more as important people from that Civ, hence we get Ben and Harriet, as well as similar examples from other Civ's or important leaders.

not a troll. i never played past civ i was genuine asking if this happen before and thought civ had historical leaders who lead the country.

No it really hasn't happened before. In Civ VII they're trying a whole lot of new features and changes, some of the leaders not being 'leaders' in the traditional sense is one of those changes.

[johnarhoades]

Originally posted by Literally Me:

No it really hasn't happened before. In Civ VII they're trying a whole lot of new features and changes, some of the leaders not being 'leaders' in the traditional sense is one of those changes.

I agree that they are loading up on non-leaders this time, but Gandhi never led India. I have said before and I say again, that it really doesn't matter what the name of the leader is, you are buying the perks of that program for its helps to your efforts.

I mean, if the names weren't Ben and Harriet but Curly and Moe Howard, I wouldn't care

[colostmy4]

Originally posted by Literally Me:

Originally posted by cakes=not playing:

not a troll. i never played past civ i was genuine asking if this happen before and thought civ had historical leaders who lead the country.

No it really hasn't happened before. In Civ VII they're trying a whole lot of new features and changes, some of the leaders not being 'leaders' in the traditional sense is one of those changes.

Actually, I don't recall where Mahatma Gandhi was first brought into the game. I think he may have been a leader in Civ 2, at the very least by Civ 4, but Gandhi was never actually the leader of India. Nehru was it's first leader after the British relinquished control. So this didn't start with Civ 7.

[Literally Me]

Originally posted by johnarhoades:

Originally posted by Literally Me:

No it really hasn't happened before. In Civ VII they're trying a whole lot of new features and changes, some of the leaders not being 'leaders' in the traditional sense is one of those changes.

I agree that they are loading up on non-leaders this time, but Gandhi never led India. I have said before and I say again, that it really doesn't matter what the name of the leader is, you are buying the perks of that program for its helps to your efforts.

I mean, if the names weren't Ben and Harriet but Curly and Moe Howard, I wouldn't care

Gandhi was still a leader in the traditional sense. Would you disagree that he is the most recognized name nationally and globally regarding the foundation of the modern state of India? Tubman and Franklin in particular both are not leaders in the traditional sense. They could both be easily be Great People, unsure why Firaxis decided to go this route.

[Holografix]

Originally posted by Literally Me:

Tubman and Franklin in particular both are not leaders in the traditional sense. They could both be easily be Great People, unsure why Firaxis decided to go this route.

"not leaders in the traditional sense?" history would disagree.

[colostmy4]

Originally posted by Literally Me:

Originally posted by johnarhoades:

I agree that they are loading up on non-leaders this time, but Gandhi never led India. I have said before and I say again, that it really doesn't matter what the name of the leader is, you are buying the perks of that program for its helps to your efforts.

I mean, if the names weren't Ben and Harriet but Curly and Moe Howard, I wouldn't care

Gandhi was still a leader in the traditional sense. Would you disagree that he is the most recognized name nationally and globally regarding the foundation of the modern state of India? Tubman and Franklin in particular both are not leaders in the traditional sense. They could both be easily be Great People, unsure why Firaxis decided to go this route.

Franklin was significant in the foundation of the U.S.A. just as you say Gandhi was for the foundation for India. Neither held the official title of President or Prime Minister but both were key to their respective nations. Without Franklin's diplomatic acumen in dealing with the French and getting their support, the U.S.A. would have likely never existed.

[Oaks]

As you said, the past Civ games have generally stuck to leaders in the traditional sense, that is to say they led their respective country at some point.

I've played Civ since Civ 2 and I can say I welcome the change to moving away from the traditional "leaders" as seen in every previous iteration. USA is one of the nations I enjoy playing and it will be a nice change for me to play as someone other than Abe Lincoln or Washington.

[Literally Me]

Originally posted by Oaks:

As you said, the past Civ games have generally stuck to leaders in the traditional sense, that is to say they led their respective country at some point.

I've played Civ since Civ 2 and I can say I welcome the change to moving away from the traditional "leaders" as seen in every previous iteration. USA is one of the nations I enjoy playing and it will be a nice change for me to play as someone other than Abe Lincoln or Washington.

So wouldn't you rather have other heads of state in the US be represented? Instead of Franklin and Tubman who both fit into the category of Great People? It's just strange

[johnarhoades]

Originally posted by Literally Me:

Gandhi was still a leader in the traditional sense. Would you disagree that he is the most recognized name nationally and globally regarding the foundation of the modern state of India? Tubman and Franklin in particular both are not leaders in the traditional sense. They could both be easily be Great People, unsure why Firaxis decided to go this route.

Ben Franklin wrote in support of leaving the British Empire before the Revolution and was a signer of The Declaration of Independence and Constitution. From 1785 to 1788, he served as President of Pennsylvania (under the Articles of Confederation before the Constitution). He later served as Ambassador for the USA in France. Oh, he was a leader. And along the way, he went from temporarily owning slaves to arguing for the ending of slavery. Harriet Tubman, for her part, got her freedom and went back for others, setting the proof of the societal invalidity of slavery.
Yeah, they were leaders

[johnarhoades]

Originally posted by colostmy4:

Actually, I don't recall where Mahatma Gandhi was first brought into the game. I think he may have been a leader in Civ 2, at the very least by Civ 4, but Gandhi was never actually the leader of India. Nehru was it's first leader after the British relinquished control. So this didn't start with Civ 7.

This video on Youtube points to early...like Civ 1! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOg-V4OBZc0

[Chariots of the Gods]

Go get CiV V. Ignore VI and VII.

[Pietrek]

CiV V still the best in the series

[MarVerine]

Originally posted by colostmy4:

Originally posted by Literally Me:

No it really hasn't happened before. In Civ VII they're trying a whole lot of new features and changes, some of the leaders not being 'leaders' in the traditional sense is one of those changes.

Actually, I don't recall where Mahatma Gandhi was first brought into the game. I think he may have been a leader in Civ 2, at the very least by Civ 4, but Gandhi was never actually the leader of India. Nehru was it's first leader after the British relinquished control. So this didn't start with Civ 7.

Well he lead the Indian people to freedom from the biggest empire in the world. Why dont we compare historical significance and name another leader in CIV series on the same level as Tubman.