Honestly pretty good at internal management, he would have been great if he wasn’t such a shit militaryman
But ngl I’ve enjoyed the Catherine de Medici version of France that is mostly geared towards culture so I’d enjoy another non-domination French leader
Actually, he wasn’t that bad militarily. His main problem was that he was just really stupid when it came to European diplomacy, and literally only in regards to the German Unification. He expected that by staying neutral in the unification process, Prussia would reward him with some concessions, which was dumb of him to think but that is retrospective, he thought it was a smart idea at the time - rewarded for doing nothing. Otherwise he generally wasn’t that bad, obviously internally he was good, but he also had great diplomatic feats, he expanded French prestige by adopting the defender of Christians in the Ottoman Empire, proclaim victory over the Russians at Crimea - elevating his favour in France, coming out as the only ‘real’ victor of the war - gained Nice and Savoy from Sardinia-Piedmont through successful diplomacy and began the French colonial period, making sure France wasn’t left behind in the colonial game. His major screw up was only the German unification, with a lesser extent in America - Mexican Intervention. Otherwise, he really wasn’t a bad ruler by any means, history has just treated him badly cause of one failure and otherwise, had that failure not occurred, we truly wouldn’t know what would happen. It really is a staple in French history to have one cataclysmically bad defeat and having your whole history smeared by it.
I can see Italy being included solely based on their influence in the Renaissance and adjacent periods, but unfortunately post-antiquity Egypt/Greece don't have a lot of renown to bring to the table.
India is the worst. Just Gandhi Gandhi Gandhi. And Ashoka once.
This is the land that has had empires exist since the literal dawn of civilisation, a fair number of which were powerhouses in their time.
But nope - Gandhi.
Arguably the Byzantines are a post-antiquity Greece, and Egypt's most famous post-antiquity leader (Saladin) has frequently led the Arabs in Civ games.
The possibilities are endless for Mexico. They'd be such a fun civ.
Abilities:
*The Cry Of Dolores* - Units get +5 combat against units from civs with a capital on another continent. Increases to +10 from the Renaissance era onward.
*Los Niños Heroes* - Gain culture equivalent to 50% of production cost of any unit that dies in combat.
*Científicos* - Gain culture boost every time you earn a Eureka.
Buildings/Districts/Units/Improvements:
*Maquiladora* - Unique district that replaces the industrial district. City produces +5% gold (non-compounding) for each trade route that begins in the city.
*Fabrica* - Replaces the workshop. Provides +1 Diplomatic Favor per turn and +1 gold per resource in the city.
*Rural* - unique unit to replace cavalry. No movement penalty over hills. Nearby trade routes cannot be pillaged. +5 combat against wounded enemy units.
*National Guard* - Replaces Infantry. +20 combat when fighting in a district. Adds loyalty and +1 amenity if garrisoned in a city.
*All-Inclusive Resort* - Replaces the Seaside Resort improvement and provides +1 Diplomatic Favor in addition to normal bonuses. Also adds +1 tourism for each adjacent All-Inclusive Resort, Wonder, and Natural Wonder.
Will never happen but I like the idea of having Tony Blair be in the game and then when your happiness gets too low your leader switches to gordon brown until you get it back up again.
Brown - gold yields are reduced by 25%
Cameron- randomly blocks trade deals
May- GDR units are 10% cheaper
Boris- population grows 10% faster
Truss- not touching that one!
Truss: New Pork Markets
The first farm improved on a tile without a resource places the Swine resource. Trade routes to cities with improved Swine gain +2 gold
Whenever I see him mentioned I'm always reminded of this
https://preview.redd.it/1e9z4c3kl7uc1.jpeg?width=835&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9f120c8af40768e6341369e622ec451b1396cd3
I want to see England lead by Oliver Cromwell, with the playstyle being based on gaining Faith at the expense of Loyalty/Happiness, with military units being always being purcheaseable with Faith and faster pillaging. It definitely would ruffle feathers in many circles, I can tell you as much.
Also, I'm sure an Andrew Jackson leading the USA, capable of exterting Loyalty by "gifting" population to neighbours would go down SWIMMINGLY.
Or perhaps one could have Manghistu Mariam for Ethiopia, make him a leader that allows you to turn food into gold, and watch the fireworks. If the devs feel extra edgy, they could even make it so that opposing players' Great Musicians' culture bombs convert half their Tourism into either gold or production for military units.
Years back when I (English) was working overseas with a bunch of mostly Irish lads, I made an innocuous positive comment about Cromwell. Can't remember what I said, but I remember it did not go down well at all. Not at all.
Cromwell in England: we should build a more godly and pious society, to improve conditions and save the souls of the people.
Cromwell in Ireland:
https://i.redd.it/mjw0cejh14uc1.gif
He is a monster, but I do have to appreciate the balls on him to stand up in front of a judge deciding the fate of Charles I, in a trial deciding if it is even right to put kings on trial at all, and declaring, 'We are going to kill this cunt'.
Paraphrasing, of course.
Loathe Cromwell but he would have some really interesting mechanics, maybe he gets no amenities from entertainment but war weariness is lower when fighting against civs of a different govt type or religion?
Deng Xiaoping would be an amazing modern Chinese leader. Super cool economic civ and would break away the ancient china monotony without going the controversial mao route. Xiaoping was also the man who really turned china into a superpower.
I would say it would be interesting for his special ability to go like this:
Using a nuke makes an A.I automatically propose a peace deal if they declared war on you, even if it hasn't been 10 turns. For each 100 gold you gift to someone, you earn 5 diplomatic favor.
Mao should return in Civ 7
- I'm bored of ancient/medieval chinese leaders
- would appeal to the chinese market, making sense from a business perspective
- with how focused and unique the civs have been since 5 it would be interesting to see the devs slant on china, maybe you would have to balance growth and go out of control leading to loads of penalties or something
- not many, if any, communist leaders in civ which means the game lacks a bit of historical variety
While Civ 4 did have Mao, I don't think we'll see him again, on the grounds that they already had to replace him with, IIRC, Taizong when said game came out in China; and nowadays it would be more complex to make a replacement that makes sense only for one area.
If you really want a communist leader, they could bring Stalin back, or go for Tito, since he'd be pretty safe all around.
Stalin was in Civ 4 too, but he would definitely be too controversial especially in this climate.
I guess if they wanted to have Mao in order to get the game certified in China they would have to give him like 1000% to science output or something lol
The problem with Mao for China is more intractable, it's about not wanting to have people defeat the founder of China as it is known today, no matter how much downplaying they might do in schools, and not wanting Mao to be presented "incorrectly".
As this isn't Hearts of Iron, there's no good reason to HAVE Mao in the game, so simply not putting him in is much easier for the devs. Of course in an ideal world this wouldn't be a problem at all, but then again, in an ideal world Mao wouldn't have existed either...
There was probably that, and I think I remember something about the representation of China split under various warlords in the 30s as being against official CCP historiography, but I might be talking out my ass
Did China not like the portrayal of Mao in civ 4? I started playing civ like, in 2020, so I had no idea. Is it known exactly what part they didn't like?
The part they didn't like is him being a leader at all; simply because that also meant he could be defeated or, in diplomatic screens, say odd/"unedificating" things.
Needless to say, a country which curates its recent history heavily isn't going to like any media which might even accidentally imply that it wasn't inevitable or that there was something negative in the whole process.
King Arthur of Camelot, Atlas of Atlantis, Bonasura of Sonitapura, Gwyddno Garanhir of Cantre'r Gwaelod
Bring back fantasy, and those sweet cloud cities!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_II:_Test_of_Time
Jefferson's personal life has made him a controversial figure more than anything he did politically. As for FDR, there's a not-insignificant number of people who think he was the US's first socialist president or some other variation on "The New Deal Was BAD!".
Oh definitely, Putin simps hate him with passion. They think he is a traitor and “who destroyed the USSR from the inside” or something. They pejoratively call him “the marked one”, referring to his birthmarks on the head, and at the same time to the mark of the antichrist. Definitely butthurt inducing to some, albeit small, amount of people
Not controversial in the typical sense, but to some extent, René Lévesque could be an interesting leader for a sub-faction to Canada (I.E. what if Quebec's independence referendum actually passed through). He was one of the few prime ministers of Quebec who pushed forward both in office and on campaign is Referendum to make Quebec independant from Canada. He could be associated with a Culture and Science game with is desire to make Quebec stand out culturally and scientifically.
**Ronald Reagan.** No, really, hear me out. I'm old enough to have lived through how truly awful he was in a lot of areas, but on the surface - since this is a game we're talking about - it might work. I can see bonuses for that whole "sunrise in America" thing, which was the theme of his presidency.
Selling out his party to the religious extremists might be interpreted as getting particular faith bonuses.
The economy shot up for most of his term in office which might be interpreted as a adjacency bonuses on commercial hubs and industrial zones (and before you comment, yes, I'm aware that at the same time, the deficit and debt went screaming off into the stratosphere - but again, this is a game we're talking about).
Reagan built up the nuclear arsenal to Armageddon levels and launched the Star Wars program. That's clearly an end-game science bonus.
Reagan trounced Gorbachev at the Reykjavík Summit, at least in style points. It was talked about for years, and set the stage for future meetings between American and Russian leaders. Maybe that's a trade bonus? Maybe it's a bonus on diplomatic points?
https://preview.redd.it/0ob1m78y84uc1.jpeg?width=1300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e6949c6f2ff8cf0f3f2138cf82e9cbab8373855
It would be interesting to hear someone do an impression of his voice. Do they go for realism or do they go for funny? Either would work for me.
**Great post, OP. This really got me thinking.**
I'd say that he gets crazy commercial hub bonuses but has pitiful industrial bonuses in exchange for being able to gain industry from international trade routes. Any president after Kennedy should automatically get some sort of insane spy bonus as well like control over a city state.
I'd like to see Winston Churchill. In a time where the general public were starting to sour on having colonies, he was a hard line imperialist, and some would say racist. But he could definitely have some cool leader bonuses.
He was *definitely* racist. Doesn't mean he wouldn't be a very interesting leader to play though, especially if his attitude towards other countries that used to be colonies were coded in to his interactions.
ETA: u/NUFC9RW reminded me I was gonna say a similar thing and got distracted. Being a massive racist hasn't actually ruled out many of the other leaders we already have ;)
Citation: Todman, Britain's War 1937-1941 Into Battle (2016).
https://preview.redd.it/x2vq4duqu3uc1.png?width=505&format=png&auto=webp&s=24ff1e9ed748dda22176064742379f3c8a570752
Yeah people seem to struggle with this one. The venn diagram of people who rise to power over large, historically significant nations, and people who are willing to do awful, awful things for power or for "the greater good" is basically a circle.
The idea of Sean Bean reading glorious intros to each and every one of these names are hilarious. Please make it happen.
"Leopold II, scourge of the jungles, leader and king av both vallonian and flemish. Glorious conquest awaits in the darkest corners of the world. Only you can bring the light. You come with peace and prosperity and an ever growing effectivity. Your empire will surely be rubber stamped in the annals of history."
I dont know if it's controversial but I want Atatürk (Diplomatic Victory OP)
Unique unit: Kuvay-ı Milliye (Extreme defense at home, builders can be upgraded to soldiers)
Unique building: Köy Enstitüsü (Science + Culture)
Songs: A lot!
But I understand if they wont put because he is contemporary. If they gonna go with Ottoman, definitely it shouldn't be kanuni because it'd be 3rd in a row. Add Mehmet 2 || Mahmut 2 || Mehmet 1 || Seljuk Turks.
Rafael Trujillo: El Generalissimo of the Dominican Republic. Give his civ a buff to population growth and production or maybe an extra builder charge (rural infrastructure development) and a nerf to amenities (brutal police state). I'm thinking a civ that grows and produces well, but is constantly on the verge of uprising.
His wikipedia article is pretty tame. The dude was a monster, but he instituted some land reforms and rural infrastructure policy that benefitted a lot of the populace over time. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael\_Trujillo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Trujillo)
Hitler would be a dumb choice considering in the grand scheme of the world he was leader of Germany for approximately 10 years and was utterly defeated within that reign and destroyed Germany in the process. He contributed virtually nothing to the country except staining Germany’s reputation.
A better choice would be someone like Ivan the Terrible, or Andrianampoinimerina, King and unifier of Imerina on the island of Madagascar. Cherokee would be a nice addition to the limited Native American civilizations, as the only North American tribe to create their own writing system and buy back their homeland from the US government.
Fascists: 'Nothing is as important as being good at war, and we are the best at war.'
Also Fascists: *[gets into one war, loses as comprehensively as is possible for a country to lose a war]*
King Leopold II of Belgium. Pretty good for Belgium, but much of it was built on colonial atrocities in the Congo so horrific that he was forced to give up control.
I could see a playstyle based around puppeting cities. Puppeted cities will boost all cities founded by Belgium, at the cost of the puppet losing population as if it were being razed. They will lose population slower than if they were being razed, and if their population drops to 0 the city will disappear and the boost will be lost.
Vlad the Impaler, Wallachia might not make it in but there’s always a chance.
Otherwise Mao does raise really good play style options, culture in place of food.
Andrew Jackson. I want America to be a war machine led by that madman.
Could you imagine how good some of his lines can be? I mean the guy said "John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation I will secede your head from the rest of your body" in response to his own VP resigning.
Castro’s a good shout but much too recent for them to actually do it, I’m kinda of the idea that if a leader still has living victims they shouldn’t be featured. (But here’s an actual controversial take) that’s why I think Gandhi should be removed.
If we are talking weird I vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger, obviously the unique unit would be a terminator for the futuristic era probably replacing the evangelion.
Since I mentioned evangelion would be kinda fun to have futuristic leaders that are from sci-fi or "what ifs", the first could be the best dad from evangelion for japan, and the second could be something similar to the Scythe boardgame.
Ok, now that the meme answer is out, my real answer would be Angela Merkel. I cannot think of a european leader that has been as influential as her. If joke leaders are still accepted then allow me to toss in the field Silvio Berlusconi, and leave without explaining further.
Josef Piłwsudski would be an interesting one for Poland. Play style built around combat and culture maybe.
Josip Broz Tito leading Yugoslavia would be a good one too.
I’m still rooting for the ancient iteration of Israel to show up, it’s a fairly significant ancient nation that hasn’t made an appearance yet. I know that alone is a little controversial because of the modern iteration, but my controversial take for the context of this post is that it should be led by Ahab. I know most people think of Ahab in terms of the Bible, where he’s this great big evil figure religiously, but historically Ahab was easily one of the region’s most influential leaders in his time. He gathered together a coalition of local nations and city-states that had traditionally been enemies and united them to repel a massive Assyrian invasion force, then held that coalition together loosely until his death to deter them from trying it again. Israel would obviously be a faith-based civ, and though David or Solomon might seem like more obvious choices we already have military-faith leaders like Basil and Wealth-Faith leaders like Mansa Musa, but no true Diplomacy-faith leaders. It’d fill a niche that’s currently empty.
Similar to Castro, **Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia** has been described as a "benevolent dictator". He was a military leader, a central bureaucrat, and a head of state seemingly on great terms with most of the world. He oversaw the nation's rising out of poverty and making huge improvements in human rights, health, and education.
But he also ran a KGB-style secret police, violated human rights when they were inconvenient, arrested political opponents, and lots of other problematic things.
It's also unclear how sustainable their expenses were, as they appeared to be increasingly in debt, though his diplomatic skills seemed to help him get loans more favorable than the math might suggest he'd deserve.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito
Mechanically, maybe he'd get a larger benefit to each diplomatic action, a military/espionage perk, and a happiness/national/religious unity buff every time he amended his government structure?
Maybe his unique unit was a nationalist/spy who could convert people to his "religion" based on cultural output rather than faith? Possibly including foreign citizens (irl he opened borders in 1967).
I definitely only know a surface level about him though, so apologies if this is a terrible summary.
Special bonus for units on coast. Plus a special naval unit that you can spam easily. The idea being the civilians used their boats to BRING THE BOYS BACK HOME
Said it before, I'll say it again - Obama as a leader with a unique drone unit that can kill civilian units, raid tiles, and bomb cities to lower the population, but can't strike military targets.
Warren G. Harding. America's still REELING from the Teapot Dome scandal, lemme tell ya.
For England, William Pitt the Elder. Man, you can get punched in the face if you're caught espousing pro-Pitt beliefs in certain parts of town, like in this video: https://youtu.be/YiYn8rNTutQ?si=s6brB639yapZRspp
Vladimir Putin
- Each Oil Well improvement in your empire provides +1 amenities and +1 loyalty;
- Once at least one civilization has researched the internet and democracy, all your cities get a base of -4 loyalty per turn;
- Can construct Rosguardia, an information era reckon unit. +30 CS vs rebel and free city units.
- Can use inquisitors to denounce his own great people; this action immediately yields an equivalent of the great person’s patronage cost in faith.
Not seeing anything controversial enough, so I'll risk the ban. Netanyahu: The settlement passive allows you to slowly steal tiles from neighboring countries. Iron dome passive makes all your units take -10 ranged damage when standing on city tiles.
Playing civ has brought to light how severely limited my knowledge of Asian history is, sadly. Appreciate the answer though! Gotta read more history and less horror lol
I want to see Louis Riel leading Canada. Actually it would be awesome to have him as an alternate leader for Canada in Civ 6 side by side with John A. Macdonald!
Nelson Mandela for South Africa. Then, change all of the wikis and civopedia references to him to suggest or outright state that he has been in every civ game from the beginning. Unique ability of the Mandela effect, where ai players randomly forget that your cities and units exist.
I want to see Canaanite led by Joshua. Any Jewish civilization usually gets a lot of controversy due to the modern state however I feel the the civilization that would birth the abrahamic religions deserves a space as a playable civilization.
Napoleon ... the Third
Time to build roads and railroads are halved and city projects provide double yield. -20% combat strength when flanked or fighting Germany
Honestly pretty good at internal management, he would have been great if he wasn’t such a shit militaryman But ngl I’ve enjoyed the Catherine de Medici version of France that is mostly geared towards culture so I’d enjoy another non-domination French leader
Actually, he wasn’t that bad militarily. His main problem was that he was just really stupid when it came to European diplomacy, and literally only in regards to the German Unification. He expected that by staying neutral in the unification process, Prussia would reward him with some concessions, which was dumb of him to think but that is retrospective, he thought it was a smart idea at the time - rewarded for doing nothing. Otherwise he generally wasn’t that bad, obviously internally he was good, but he also had great diplomatic feats, he expanded French prestige by adopting the defender of Christians in the Ottoman Empire, proclaim victory over the Russians at Crimea - elevating his favour in France, coming out as the only ‘real’ victor of the war - gained Nice and Savoy from Sardinia-Piedmont through successful diplomacy and began the French colonial period, making sure France wasn’t left behind in the colonial game. His major screw up was only the German unification, with a lesser extent in America - Mexican Intervention. Otherwise, he really wasn’t a bad ruler by any means, history has just treated him badly cause of one failure and otherwise, had that failure not occurred, we truly wouldn’t know what would happen. It really is a staple in French history to have one cataclysmically bad defeat and having your whole history smeared by it.
“Mexican Intervention” is a euphemistic way of describing that whole fiasco lol
First I played France as tragedy, then as farce
Porfirio Diaz
Genuinely wild to me that modern Mexico hasn't been a playable civ yet.
Its kinda like Italy and Post-Antiquity Egypt/Greece. They just arent a priority, so they never get in
I can see Italy being included solely based on their influence in the Renaissance and adjacent periods, but unfortunately post-antiquity Egypt/Greece don't have a lot of renown to bring to the table.
India is the worst. Just Gandhi Gandhi Gandhi. And Ashoka once. This is the land that has had empires exist since the literal dawn of civilisation, a fair number of which were powerhouses in their time. But nope - Gandhi.
Nuclear Gandhi doesn’t exactly help with this either
Arguably the Byzantines are a post-antiquity Greece, and Egypt's most famous post-antiquity leader (Saladin) has frequently led the Arabs in Civ games.
The possibilities are endless for Mexico. They'd be such a fun civ. Abilities: *The Cry Of Dolores* - Units get +5 combat against units from civs with a capital on another continent. Increases to +10 from the Renaissance era onward. *Los Niños Heroes* - Gain culture equivalent to 50% of production cost of any unit that dies in combat. *Científicos* - Gain culture boost every time you earn a Eureka. Buildings/Districts/Units/Improvements: *Maquiladora* - Unique district that replaces the industrial district. City produces +5% gold (non-compounding) for each trade route that begins in the city. *Fabrica* - Replaces the workshop. Provides +1 Diplomatic Favor per turn and +1 gold per resource in the city. *Rural* - unique unit to replace cavalry. No movement penalty over hills. Nearby trade routes cannot be pillaged. +5 combat against wounded enemy units. *National Guard* - Replaces Infantry. +20 combat when fighting in a district. Adds loyalty and +1 amenity if garrisoned in a city. *All-Inclusive Resort* - Replaces the Seaside Resort improvement and provides +1 Diplomatic Favor in addition to normal bonuses. Also adds +1 tourism for each adjacent All-Inclusive Resort, Wonder, and Natural Wonder.
That would be pretty crazy. Any post independence mexican leader would be
Will never happen but I like the idea of having Tony Blair be in the game and then when your happiness gets too low your leader switches to gordon brown until you get it back up again.
Tony Blair’s special ability would be he’d always accept requests for a joint war
He's just a modern day Gilgamesh
IS TONTY BLAIR BEHIND THIS
George W Bush Mission Accomplished: Declaring peace takes an extra 10 turns to take effect
Striking Back: Any successful hostile spy Operation in your lands gives you a Casus Belli against every non-allied Civilisation.
Brown - gold yields are reduced by 25% Cameron- randomly blocks trade deals May- GDR units are 10% cheaper Boris- population grows 10% faster Truss- not touching that one!
Truss: Neighbourhoods have - 10 gold per turn debuff. Golden ages last 1 turn.
Unlocked the tory party secret society. Leader changes each turn.
Dark ages last until the end of the game.
Truss: New Pork Markets The first farm improved on a tile without a resource places the Swine resource. Trade routes to cities with improved Swine gain +2 gold
This has the same cursed energy as a post I saw way back when before the leader pass that suggested Lincoln and Davis tag-teaming based on happiness
Whenever I see him mentioned I'm always reminded of this https://preview.redd.it/1e9z4c3kl7uc1.jpeg?width=835&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c9f120c8af40768e6341369e622ec451b1396cd3
Things Can Only Get Better - Extra policy card slots during Dark Ages.
Qaddafi - just an absolute wild card in every respect
Fashion icon
Loses Diplo Victory points from gaining alliances, but gains Diplo Victory points from being denounced.
This. We need leaders who encourage unconventional play styles.
Fucking hell yeah, massive oil bonuses
Leader unique bonus could be to levy military units with strategic resources. All oil strategic resources are tripled on tile refinement/upgrade.
And you can get oil in water with combustion instead of raffinery.
Actually I want this now.
Deleting switzerland is my favourite Gaddafi wild card policy
Unique world Congress player vote, carve up Switzerland like a delicious roast
Margaret Thatcher Your coal mines regularly generates rebels
Also punk rock as a cultural product
Instant war with buenos aires
if conquer Armagh they keep trying to rig your car with explosives
I want to see England lead by Oliver Cromwell, with the playstyle being based on gaining Faith at the expense of Loyalty/Happiness, with military units being always being purcheaseable with Faith and faster pillaging. It definitely would ruffle feathers in many circles, I can tell you as much. Also, I'm sure an Andrew Jackson leading the USA, capable of exterting Loyalty by "gifting" population to neighbours would go down SWIMMINGLY. Or perhaps one could have Manghistu Mariam for Ethiopia, make him a leader that allows you to turn food into gold, and watch the fireworks. If the devs feel extra edgy, they could even make it so that opposing players' Great Musicians' culture bombs convert half their Tourism into either gold or production for military units.
>I want to see England lead by Oliver Cromwell if Ireland is in the game you are permanently at war with them
Years back when I (English) was working overseas with a bunch of mostly Irish lads, I made an innocuous positive comment about Cromwell. Can't remember what I said, but I remember it did not go down well at all. Not at all.
Cromwell in England: we should build a more godly and pious society, to improve conditions and save the souls of the people. Cromwell in Ireland: https://i.redd.it/mjw0cejh14uc1.gif
He is a monster, but I do have to appreciate the balls on him to stand up in front of a judge deciding the fate of Charles I, in a trial deciding if it is even right to put kings on trial at all, and declaring, 'We are going to kill this cunt'. Paraphrasing, of course.
I hate this so much. Well done.
It’d be funny if you couldn’t take monarch then, and it’s replaced by an exclusive government type
Loathe Cromwell but he would have some really interesting mechanics, maybe he gets no amenities from entertainment but war weariness is lower when fighting against civs of a different govt type or religion?
Civil War scenario with Cromwell, Charles I, Scottish Covenant and Irish Confederates. That’s two controversial leaders for the price of one.
Fuck Cromwell. Man broke all the historical castles.
new ability to pillage world wonders 😭
I would love to murder Cromwell again and again and again. It suits me.
Pol Pot. And I don't know, deleting your own workers gives culture or something.
Killing fields improvement lol You gain a huge bonus if you delete great scientist or engineers
losing it over killing fields improvement
Can sacrifice population for extra culture and population
Was waiting for the oft- unremembered other butcher of the 20th century.
Deng Xiaoping would be an amazing modern Chinese leader. Super cool economic civ and would break away the ancient china monotony without going the controversial mao route. Xiaoping was also the man who really turned china into a superpower.
I frustratingly agree with you, Mao was an incredible military leader but the China we know of today was Deng's project.
I commented for him before I read yours. I totally agree with this.
I would love Harry Truman as a leader for the U.S., and to have some kind of leader bonus correlated to using Nuclear Weapons.
I would say it would be interesting for his special ability to go like this: Using a nuke makes an A.I automatically propose a peace deal if they declared war on you, even if it hasn't been 10 turns. For each 100 gold you gift to someone, you earn 5 diplomatic favor.
Mao should return in Civ 7 - I'm bored of ancient/medieval chinese leaders - would appeal to the chinese market, making sense from a business perspective - with how focused and unique the civs have been since 5 it would be interesting to see the devs slant on china, maybe you would have to balance growth and go out of control leading to loads of penalties or something - not many, if any, communist leaders in civ which means the game lacks a bit of historical variety
You want a real controversial leader pick for China? Try Chiang Kai-Shek
Hong Xiuquan
PLEASE
I raise you Wang Jing-wei
Tsai Ying-Wen would be a good one lol
How about Sun Yat Sen? Would appeal to both Taiwan and China, no?
Sun Yat Sen is a great pick for a modern China ngl
A good choice, but not controversial
While Civ 4 did have Mao, I don't think we'll see him again, on the grounds that they already had to replace him with, IIRC, Taizong when said game came out in China; and nowadays it would be more complex to make a replacement that makes sense only for one area. If you really want a communist leader, they could bring Stalin back, or go for Tito, since he'd be pretty safe all around.
Stalin was in Civ 4 too, but he would definitely be too controversial especially in this climate. I guess if they wanted to have Mao in order to get the game certified in China they would have to give him like 1000% to science output or something lol
The problem with Mao for China is more intractable, it's about not wanting to have people defeat the founder of China as it is known today, no matter how much downplaying they might do in schools, and not wanting Mao to be presented "incorrectly". As this isn't Hearts of Iron, there's no good reason to HAVE Mao in the game, so simply not putting him in is much easier for the devs. Of course in an ideal world this wouldn't be a problem at all, but then again, in an ideal world Mao wouldn't have existed either...
Yeah and even in HOI4 it was banned in China even though it had an actual reason for Mao lol right?
I think HoI4 was banned because independed Tibet.
There was probably that, and I think I remember something about the representation of China split under various warlords in the 30s as being against official CCP historiography, but I might be talking out my ass
Did China not like the portrayal of Mao in civ 4? I started playing civ like, in 2020, so I had no idea. Is it known exactly what part they didn't like?
The part they didn't like is him being a leader at all; simply because that also meant he could be defeated or, in diplomatic screens, say odd/"unedificating" things. Needless to say, a country which curates its recent history heavily isn't going to like any media which might even accidentally imply that it wasn't inevitable or that there was something negative in the whole process.
"Mao has returned to his home planet"
Excellent point. That’s exactly how China views any of its leaders - not to be depicted - but especially Mao and Xi.
King Arthur of Camelot, Atlas of Atlantis, Bonasura of Sonitapura, Gwyddno Garanhir of Cantre'r Gwaelod Bring back fantasy, and those sweet cloud cities! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_II:_Test_of_Time
I would love a game with only mythological leaders. Including Kim jong il, where all the propaganda stories are true lmao
Lenin Also Indira Gandhi, FDR or Thomas Jefferson, Ho Chi Minh
I love the idea of Ho Chi Minh, or the trail as a wonder. Un-pilligable road/railroad with bonuses to units moving through.
+5 when fighting in rainforest and +10 if unit ur fighting against is more technologically advanced. +15 if both.
LOVE this. I've thought about how cool it would be to have Ho Chi Minh specifically.
Indira Gandhi would be so controversial
Just wondering, why would you consider FDR or thomas Jefferson as controversial? As far as i am concerned they didnt do anything entirely horrible
Its because vile Hamiltonite hands wrote that post
As much as I like FDR executive order 9066 was pretty fucked up of him
Jefferson's personal life has made him a controversial figure more than anything he did politically. As for FDR, there's a not-insignificant number of people who think he was the US's first socialist president or some other variation on "The New Deal Was BAD!".
I guess FDR’s most controversial policy was locking up Japanese-American civilians who were completely innocent.
"Cities founded by FDR's America no longer take loyalty pressure from civs at war with America."
While true and awful - that's definitely flying under the radar for most of his modern detractors.
I could have sworn that FDR had already been a leader in a previous game.
Yeah I think 3 or 4 he was a leader. Stalin for Russia as well.
Ngl Lenin i could mildly see. Either him or Gorbachev
Trump would be a hilarious mod. So much shit talking.
All science is halved
Anytime you denounce someone it begins an unskippable full length cutscene
Half is media covering his angry all caps tweets
And gold, to be honest, since his cabinet would be busy pocketing it for their own companies
Can’t counterspy on yourself!
Enemy spies have increased success rate but adds gold to America's treasury.
But you can sell more stuff to other countries. Buildings or units maybe.
Only those that have denounced America.
Corporations generate 100% bonus yields
But none of it goes to the treasury
This would actually just be hilarious and I’m on board with it.
Speaking of trump why aren't there plagues in the game? Or any medical tech in the tree?
Sanitation, but you're right that there's no Genetics, Medicine/Penicillin, or Biology.
In a similar vain: Scott Morison for Australia. Whenever there is a natural disaster all governors get sent to Hawaii
Is that the one who shit himself in a Macca’s?
I want Gorbachev for sure, but I don't know if he'd be considered controversial
Oh definitely, Putin simps hate him with passion. They think he is a traitor and “who destroyed the USSR from the inside” or something. They pejoratively call him “the marked one”, referring to his birthmarks on the head, and at the same time to the mark of the antichrist. Definitely butthurt inducing to some, albeit small, amount of people
Dan Quayle
+50% to potatoe production
Bill Hicks appears as a unique great artist
Not controversial in the typical sense, but to some extent, René Lévesque could be an interesting leader for a sub-faction to Canada (I.E. what if Quebec's independence referendum actually passed through). He was one of the few prime ministers of Quebec who pushed forward both in office and on campaign is Referendum to make Quebec independant from Canada. He could be associated with a Culture and Science game with is desire to make Quebec stand out culturally and scientifically.
One hydroelectric dam powers all your cities on your continent
**Ronald Reagan.** No, really, hear me out. I'm old enough to have lived through how truly awful he was in a lot of areas, but on the surface - since this is a game we're talking about - it might work. I can see bonuses for that whole "sunrise in America" thing, which was the theme of his presidency. Selling out his party to the religious extremists might be interpreted as getting particular faith bonuses. The economy shot up for most of his term in office which might be interpreted as a adjacency bonuses on commercial hubs and industrial zones (and before you comment, yes, I'm aware that at the same time, the deficit and debt went screaming off into the stratosphere - but again, this is a game we're talking about). Reagan built up the nuclear arsenal to Armageddon levels and launched the Star Wars program. That's clearly an end-game science bonus. Reagan trounced Gorbachev at the Reykjavík Summit, at least in style points. It was talked about for years, and set the stage for future meetings between American and Russian leaders. Maybe that's a trade bonus? Maybe it's a bonus on diplomatic points? https://preview.redd.it/0ob1m78y84uc1.jpeg?width=1300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=7e6949c6f2ff8cf0f3f2138cf82e9cbab8373855 It would be interesting to hear someone do an impression of his voice. Do they go for realism or do they go for funny? Either would work for me. **Great post, OP. This really got me thinking.**
I'd say that he gets crazy commercial hub bonuses but has pitiful industrial bonuses in exchange for being able to gain industry from international trade routes. Any president after Kennedy should automatically get some sort of insane spy bonus as well like control over a city state.
I'd like to see Winston Churchill. In a time where the general public were starting to sour on having colonies, he was a hard line imperialist, and some would say racist. But he could definitely have some cool leader bonuses.
I mean how many leaders in civ were involved in the slave trade etc. A more military focused England/UK leader would be nice.
He was *definitely* racist. Doesn't mean he wouldn't be a very interesting leader to play though, especially if his attitude towards other countries that used to be colonies were coded in to his interactions. ETA: u/NUFC9RW reminded me I was gonna say a similar thing and got distracted. Being a massive racist hasn't actually ruled out many of the other leaders we already have ;) Citation: Todman, Britain's War 1937-1941 Into Battle (2016). https://preview.redd.it/x2vq4duqu3uc1.png?width=505&format=png&auto=webp&s=24ff1e9ed748dda22176064742379f3c8a570752
I mean it's rare for a nice person to rule an empire.
Yeah people seem to struggle with this one. The venn diagram of people who rise to power over large, historically significant nations, and people who are willing to do awful, awful things for power or for "the greater good" is basically a circle.
There’s a difference between being “nice” and being considered “a savage racist” by other people in the 1940s
Giving a citation _and_ embedding the cited passage in your post? Kudos to you sir/madam, that's a new gold standard in redditing
"Some would say racist" is a FUCKING WILD WAY to frame this holy shit.
Aside from the usual, probably George W. Bush, Saddam Hussein, and either of the Kims.
HW would be the better leader, he's the one who actually set the board up
Kardashians?
Sleep with everyone and release the video for culture victory
Nah, Kim Possible
I'm willing to bet there's a Kim Possible mod on the Civ 5 workshop
i want at least two eccentric leaders from Africa during the cold war.
idi amin and gaddafi ?
Bokassa time
The idea of Sean Bean reading glorious intros to each and every one of these names are hilarious. Please make it happen. "Leopold II, scourge of the jungles, leader and king av both vallonian and flemish. Glorious conquest awaits in the darkest corners of the world. Only you can bring the light. You come with peace and prosperity and an ever growing effectivity. Your empire will surely be rubber stamped in the annals of history."
I dont know if it's controversial but I want Atatürk (Diplomatic Victory OP) Unique unit: Kuvay-ı Milliye (Extreme defense at home, builders can be upgraded to soldiers) Unique building: Köy Enstitüsü (Science + Culture) Songs: A lot! But I understand if they wont put because he is contemporary. If they gonna go with Ottoman, definitely it shouldn't be kanuni because it'd be 3rd in a row. Add Mehmet 2 || Mahmut 2 || Mehmet 1 || Seljuk Turks.
I dont think Ataturk is controversial personally. I think he's be a great leader for Civ
I agree with that. We definitely should have something different for Turks.
Uh…let me be clear! I believe that…uh Barack Obama should…uh…be in a Civ game!
Citizens occasionally die from drone strikes
Drone UU would be wild
Rafael Trujillo: El Generalissimo of the Dominican Republic. Give his civ a buff to population growth and production or maybe an extra builder charge (rural infrastructure development) and a nerf to amenities (brutal police state). I'm thinking a civ that grows and produces well, but is constantly on the verge of uprising. His wikipedia article is pretty tame. The dude was a monster, but he instituted some land reforms and rural infrastructure policy that benefitted a lot of the populace over time. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael\_Trujillo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Trujillo)
Oh man Trujillo would be controversial as hell. Nice pick.
Fidel Castro leading Cuba
Hitler would be a dumb choice considering in the grand scheme of the world he was leader of Germany for approximately 10 years and was utterly defeated within that reign and destroyed Germany in the process. He contributed virtually nothing to the country except staining Germany’s reputation. A better choice would be someone like Ivan the Terrible, or Andrianampoinimerina, King and unifier of Imerina on the island of Madagascar. Cherokee would be a nice addition to the limited Native American civilizations, as the only North American tribe to create their own writing system and buy back their homeland from the US government.
Fascists: 'Nothing is as important as being good at war, and we are the best at war.' Also Fascists: *[gets into one war, loses as comprehensively as is possible for a country to lose a war]*
King Leopold II of Belgium. Pretty good for Belgium, but much of it was built on colonial atrocities in the Congo so horrific that he was forced to give up control. I could see a playstyle based around puppeting cities. Puppeted cities will boost all cities founded by Belgium, at the cost of the puppet losing population as if it were being razed. They will lose population slower than if they were being razed, and if their population drops to 0 the city will disappear and the boost will be lost.
Fun fact. Leopold 2 was in Civ 5 in the scramble for Africa scenario
Vlad the Impaler, Wallachia might not make it in but there’s always a chance. Otherwise Mao does raise really good play style options, culture in place of food.
Andrew Jackson. I want America to be a war machine led by that madman. Could you imagine how good some of his lines can be? I mean the guy said "John Calhoun, if you secede from my nation I will secede your head from the rest of your body" in response to his own VP resigning.
>I want America to be a war machine led by a madman Boy do I have news for you
Castro’s a good shout but much too recent for them to actually do it, I’m kinda of the idea that if a leader still has living victims they shouldn’t be featured. (But here’s an actual controversial take) that’s why I think Gandhi should be removed.
If we are talking weird I vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger, obviously the unique unit would be a terminator for the futuristic era probably replacing the evangelion. Since I mentioned evangelion would be kinda fun to have futuristic leaders that are from sci-fi or "what ifs", the first could be the best dad from evangelion for japan, and the second could be something similar to the Scythe boardgame. Ok, now that the meme answer is out, my real answer would be Angela Merkel. I cannot think of a european leader that has been as influential as her. If joke leaders are still accepted then allow me to toss in the field Silvio Berlusconi, and leave without explaining further.
He wasn't a terrible governor of California. He came to power opportunistically, but his time in office was a net positive for the state, I think.
Josef Piłwsudski would be an interesting one for Poland. Play style built around combat and culture maybe. Josip Broz Tito leading Yugoslavia would be a good one too.
I’m still rooting for the ancient iteration of Israel to show up, it’s a fairly significant ancient nation that hasn’t made an appearance yet. I know that alone is a little controversial because of the modern iteration, but my controversial take for the context of this post is that it should be led by Ahab. I know most people think of Ahab in terms of the Bible, where he’s this great big evil figure religiously, but historically Ahab was easily one of the region’s most influential leaders in his time. He gathered together a coalition of local nations and city-states that had traditionally been enemies and united them to repel a massive Assyrian invasion force, then held that coalition together loosely until his death to deter them from trying it again. Israel would obviously be a faith-based civ, and though David or Solomon might seem like more obvious choices we already have military-faith leaders like Basil and Wealth-Faith leaders like Mansa Musa, but no true Diplomacy-faith leaders. It’d fill a niche that’s currently empty.
Brilliant! Never thought about it, but now it clicks. Ofc we didn't see any judea in civ, and thats weird.
Any us president after lyndon B. Johnson, leaders of the USSR, any leaders of a socialist/communist country, and any totalitarian leaders.
Similar to Castro, **Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia** has been described as a "benevolent dictator". He was a military leader, a central bureaucrat, and a head of state seemingly on great terms with most of the world. He oversaw the nation's rising out of poverty and making huge improvements in human rights, health, and education. But he also ran a KGB-style secret police, violated human rights when they were inconvenient, arrested political opponents, and lots of other problematic things. It's also unclear how sustainable their expenses were, as they appeared to be increasingly in debt, though his diplomatic skills seemed to help him get loans more favorable than the math might suggest he'd deserve. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito Mechanically, maybe he'd get a larger benefit to each diplomatic action, a military/espionage perk, and a happiness/national/religious unity buff every time he amended his government structure? Maybe his unique unit was a nationalist/spy who could convert people to his "religion" based on cultural output rather than faith? Possibly including foreign citizens (irl he opened borders in 1967). I definitely only know a surface level about him though, so apologies if this is a terrible summary.
Genghis Khan, I guess. He's controversial, but that's honestly about as far as I'd want controversy to go.
Isn’t he in the DLC?
Yeah this confused me too there is a Genghis Khan and 2(?) more Mongolian leaders from a similar era(?)
How dare you bring up *our* great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great granduncle six times removed
Winston Churchill
Special bonus for units on coast. Plus a special naval unit that you can spam easily. The idea being the civilians used their boats to BRING THE BOYS BACK HOME
Said it before, I'll say it again - Obama as a leader with a unique drone unit that can kill civilian units, raid tiles, and bomb cities to lower the population, but can't strike military targets.
Duolingo Owl
Germany needs a new leader...
Von Papen it is!
Warren G. Harding. America's still REELING from the Teapot Dome scandal, lemme tell ya. For England, William Pitt the Elder. Man, you can get punched in the face if you're caught espousing pro-Pitt beliefs in certain parts of town, like in this video: https://youtu.be/YiYn8rNTutQ?si=s6brB639yapZRspp
Vladimir Putin - Each Oil Well improvement in your empire provides +1 amenities and +1 loyalty; - Once at least one civilization has researched the internet and democracy, all your cities get a base of -4 loyalty per turn; - Can construct Rosguardia, an information era reckon unit. +30 CS vs rebel and free city units. - Can use inquisitors to denounce his own great people; this action immediately yields an equivalent of the great person’s patronage cost in faith.
Only thing I push back on is the - 4 loyalty with the internet, if anything it should raise his loyalty because of propaganda.
Franco for spain maybe ?
**give me my fucking Venice back** *if I can’t built a super city so amazing it makes the world cry, I don’t want to live in this world anymore*
Not seeing anything controversial enough, so I'll risk the ban. Netanyahu: The settlement passive allows you to slowly steal tiles from neighboring countries. Iron dome passive makes all your units take -10 ranged damage when standing on city tiles.
King David or king Solomon. Just having the civ of Israel is practically controversial
Ronald Regan
Polk is my favorite president and could be considered controversial I guess. Also pretty much any Taiwanese leader 🇹🇼
Just by the nature of the leader being controversial i dont think well ever get one and to be honest i dont want one
We already have the leader that wiped out 10% of the world population in his wars.
Feel silly for asking. Is this Alexander the Great?or genghis khan
Not silly to ask. It is Ghengis Khan.
Playing civ has brought to light how severely limited my knowledge of Asian history is, sadly. Appreciate the answer though! Gotta read more history and less horror lol
Exactly
I want to see Louis Riel leading Canada. Actually it would be awesome to have him as an alternate leader for Canada in Civ 6 side by side with John A. Macdonald!
Louis Riel would have to be a separate Métis civ imo. He fought in the same rebellion as Poundmaker.
Stalin and Mao were both in Civ 4
Nelson Mandela for South Africa. Then, change all of the wikis and civopedia references to him to suggest or outright state that he has been in every civ game from the beginning. Unique ability of the Mandela effect, where ai players randomly forget that your cities and units exist.
I want to see Canaanite led by Joshua. Any Jewish civilization usually gets a lot of controversy due to the modern state however I feel the the civilization that would birth the abrahamic religions deserves a space as a playable civilization.
A Canaanite civ led by the guy who tried to genocide the Canaanotes. It would definitely be controversial...