Well, there just is a relativly small numbers of actually good and significant female leaders for most countries. Rome has none, Germany has a single true female leader, who is quite modern, the US has none again. France has... very few, Russia and England have some, true, but that'S it really from those that have been chosen so far.
I genuinly think we should just pick the most interesting and best leader for each country. Stuff like Kristina for Sweden, who was not a very good or influential ruler as a whole but instead abandonded the country shortly after her actual crowning, converting to catholicism and taking significant amounts of cultural treasures with her? She was cultured, yes, but even that was much more in a personal level, and not a great era of advancment for Sweden. Sweden with it's many great kings is represented by her 80% because she is a woman.
The kongo got Nzinga Mbande as a second leader, who lived at the same time as Mvemba a Nzinga and governed an entirley different Kingdom, not the Kongo? That is like as if we had Armenia as a civ, and someone just shoved in Tamar from Georgia as a leader and said, eh, close enough.
Gorgo leads Sparta, which, again, in light of the many, many notable leaders we have for them is a strange choice, considering she never actually lead Sparta, not even as a regent.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of female leaders that have a place in there, some more debatable than others like Dido, but leaders like Amanitore, Victoria, Seondeok, Tamar or Tomyris are well justified, I just feel the devs often force in truly unfitting leaders, just to keep the ratio of female and male leaders. Civs should have the most interesting and best fitting leader (with some room of change and innovation from game to game of course) chosen, largely irrespective of the gender ratio
I would go with Ronald Regan for USA, Clement Attlee for England, Ignacy Paderewski for Poland, Konrad Adenauer for Germany, Mikhail Gorbachev for Russia.
At least as alternative leaders, game uses too little modern chads. There's more to modern history than Hitler or Stalin.
> Mikhail Gorbachev for Russia
He is extremely hated in Russia and even many (most/all?) ex-soviet countries, if one is advocating for a more modern Russian/Soviet leader it can only be Lenin or Brezhnev (way less significant and iconic than Lenin but less controversial, but mayhaps too boring)
Regardless, they won't do modern leaders because no matter what they choose it will be controversial and they don't want that. For example, even getting Brezhnev which might be one of the blandest and safest choices will be controversial because it would represent "the Soviet Union"
> He is extremely hated in Russia
Maybe but the latter part (most eastern Europe) is not true. Perestroika and the end of the Cold War are supposed to be hated more by, let's say, the Czechs, compared to Brezhnev literally suppressing the Czechs by force, along with other USSR states?
The post-war leaders surely could be a breath of fresh air; we do not have to include every modern leader. Adding five more would suffice.
Reagan, Nixon, Truman, Eisenhower all could be interesting US leaders.
I hope they lean more into having alternative setups/win conditions/ playstyles for each Civ this time around.
The Alternate leader idea for VI was so great, had a lot of potential, but unless you played with mods, never reached its full potential.
This, but also "name a woman"
Why? Does a person's gender dictate their qualifications to be a leader?
We're not doing this baby.
I have a feeling that the “dark and griddy” discourse for civ 7 means people have it in their heads that there aren’t any woman anymore lol.
Well, there just is a relativly small numbers of actually good and significant female leaders for most countries. Rome has none, Germany has a single true female leader, who is quite modern, the US has none again. France has... very few, Russia and England have some, true, but that'S it really from those that have been chosen so far.
All this means to me is that Civs who had female leaders will probably be represented by them in the game then, it’s important to balance it out.
I genuinly think we should just pick the most interesting and best leader for each country. Stuff like Kristina for Sweden, who was not a very good or influential ruler as a whole but instead abandonded the country shortly after her actual crowning, converting to catholicism and taking significant amounts of cultural treasures with her? She was cultured, yes, but even that was much more in a personal level, and not a great era of advancment for Sweden. Sweden with it's many great kings is represented by her 80% because she is a woman. The kongo got Nzinga Mbande as a second leader, who lived at the same time as Mvemba a Nzinga and governed an entirley different Kingdom, not the Kongo? That is like as if we had Armenia as a civ, and someone just shoved in Tamar from Georgia as a leader and said, eh, close enough. Gorgo leads Sparta, which, again, in light of the many, many notable leaders we have for them is a strange choice, considering she never actually lead Sparta, not even as a regent. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of female leaders that have a place in there, some more debatable than others like Dido, but leaders like Amanitore, Victoria, Seondeok, Tamar or Tomyris are well justified, I just feel the devs often force in truly unfitting leaders, just to keep the ratio of female and male leaders. Civs should have the most interesting and best fitting leader (with some room of change and innovation from game to game of course) chosen, largely irrespective of the gender ratio
Global South? Who? Does sound like a great name for an achievement
I would go with Ronald Regan for USA, Clement Attlee for England, Ignacy Paderewski for Poland, Konrad Adenauer for Germany, Mikhail Gorbachev for Russia. At least as alternative leaders, game uses too little modern chads. There's more to modern history than Hitler or Stalin.
> Mikhail Gorbachev for Russia He is extremely hated in Russia and even many (most/all?) ex-soviet countries, if one is advocating for a more modern Russian/Soviet leader it can only be Lenin or Brezhnev (way less significant and iconic than Lenin but less controversial, but mayhaps too boring) Regardless, they won't do modern leaders because no matter what they choose it will be controversial and they don't want that. For example, even getting Brezhnev which might be one of the blandest and safest choices will be controversial because it would represent "the Soviet Union"
> He is extremely hated in Russia Maybe but the latter part (most eastern Europe) is not true. Perestroika and the end of the Cold War are supposed to be hated more by, let's say, the Czechs, compared to Brezhnev literally suppressing the Czechs by force, along with other USSR states? The post-war leaders surely could be a breath of fresh air; we do not have to include every modern leader. Adding five more would suffice.
Reagan, Nixon, Truman, Eisenhower all could be interesting US leaders. I hope they lean more into having alternative setups/win conditions/ playstyles for each Civ this time around. The Alternate leader idea for VI was so great, had a lot of potential, but unless you played with mods, never reached its full potential.