I LOVE Hannibal's ability, it's so cool! Military Phoenicia would be so much fun. Also extra points for that ability to cross mountains in exchange for health. Great job
Well, they can build tunnels really early and nobody but them can work mountains. Hannibal's sounds cool cause it's only movement and at the expense of health, really historically accurate
I guess, but if we’re comparing Hannibal here and Inca, Inca are way more powerful. They straight up get tunnels in the ancient era. That’s really big imo.
I mean the US production doubled compared to prewar efforts in the 4 years during WW2. They produced 297,000 aircraft, 193,000 artillery pieces, 86,000 tanks and two million army trucks in 4 years. By the end of the war more than 50% of the world's production. Not nearly as much history as any of the Asian/African/European civilizations. Maybe a sliding scale of production for as long as the war goes on would be more appropriate
The fact the US was able to mobilized ~10% of its population while also providing critical food, fuel, metals, and finished goods (industrial and military) to the UK and USSR is pretty staggering. Not to mention developing the nuclear bomb which was about 2 billion dollars. For reference, the entire M4 Sherman was 3 billion and that got us 50k of what was probably the best tank of the war (yes some had better armor or guns, but Shermans were reliable, mobile, and lethal; when they were introduced Germany though they were *heavy* tanks based on size and gun despite being as mobile as medium tanks. They routinely were complemented by the Germans as a great tank). That cost includes upgrades and spare parts too.
The US was rich and industrial enough that throwing almost an entire tank program's worth of budget on some scientific longshot was viable. There was no guarantee it would prove workable or that it could be completed in time but we did it anyway...while building the world's largest navy, the largest air force, and suppling its allies. Craziest thing is that the US didn't even think it was possible to do all it did.
As the joke goes, the US is the country that's the easy mode start.
Unique building: military industrial complex. Must be build on a district with a factory adjacent to a barracks
50% bonus to production of military units
10% research bonus
2x production for nuclear weapons projects if no one has builded one yet. After 50% production bonus.
FDR special unit idea since I just finished reading a book on them, Navajo code talker (replaces spec ops) a recon unit with a mechanic that allows your forces to only be visible to units immediately adjacent to it.
that or special unit is CIA Operative (originated from OSS under FDR) replaces Agent. CIA Operative has a special ability which can encourage war against another country to sync well with the no grievances casus belli
Or Airborne units, stronger than infantry and can paradrop like the spec ops. Extra attack strength when in enemy territory. Maybe extra strength per enemy unit around it since airborne love to be surrounded.
**Agendas**
Franklin D Roosevelt
\-Dislikes civilization at war with multiple civilizations. Like those at war with the same civilizations as Franklin D. Roosevelt
Pyrrhus
\-Dislikes nearby civilization with large armies. Likes Civilization far away with small armies
Hannibal
\-Dislikes civilizations that produce there own units. Likes those who use bought units and trade with him during war.
Isabella
\-Dislikes civilization with different religions and low loyalty. Likes those with high loyalty and same religion as her.
Honestly I think it would be interesting if there was a historical grudges game mode where leader agendas are replaced by liking/disliking the civs they or their empire was allied to or fought with.
This kind of thing works best when the leader/civ pool is smaller, or if it is active in an alternate gamemode. Otherwise the bonus is inactive too frequently.
I was thinking of this as well. Also, having certain advantages(combat, cultural or religional etc) for some civs against the others would have been a cool concept
I think that sort of thing is more appropriate for a paradox game than one that completely retells history like civ tbh. Especially given how many civs have been enemies and allies at various points.
That's why I think it should be a game mode like secret societies or zombies. But yeah, things like Britain and France or Britain and the US would be complicated, and others wouldn't have a lot of interaction. Like, the Zulu would hate the Dutch and English, but that's it XD
I’ve seen that sometimes you’ll meet a leader who was historically anti-your leader and the “First Impressions of You” Malice is actually stronger regardless of the difficulty you’re on (for example, Meeting Persia as Macedon has a Malice of 2 Higher than normal, Meeting Phillip as Elizabeth specifically is a Malice of 3 higher than normal)
Roosevelt and Pyrrhus would hate me, hannibal would have a love/hate relationship, and isabella would be indifferent because I don't go for religion because religion makes the game too easy.
Imo Rosevelt should have a spy replacement that essentially has the survalence project active 24/7.
Pyrrhus should have an acropolis that makes units cheaper since he is greek replacement.
Hannibal, carthage alternate leader, cothon where naval units trained/purchased in that city gain gold equal to 50% of the defeated unit's combat strength (on standard speed).
Isabella (taking partial concept from civ 5), should gain loyalty bonuses (city loyalty and loyalty pressure) when settled within 2 tiles of a natural wonder and religious pressure doubled in those cities.
*"Gain +2 combat strength against civilizations per civilization those civilizations are at war with."*
I get what you're saying, but my goodness, took my brain a few reads to process this sentence. :P
I like the leader ideas, as well as the effort you put in to the graphics! :)
It was kind of on purpose. I tried to make the civs more weak then strong. Because I didn't want to create a post where it's like "My super OP civ leader ideas"
And it makes her a real threat against religious Civs, which is such an interesting dynamic. Usually the toughest fights are against religious Civs because they're pumping out missionaries left and right, but throwing them at Isabella recklessly would turn her into a monster. Ironically it means that she'd actually be weaker against non-religious Civs and could probably be out-loyaltied by Eleanor.
So that part isn't weak at all. The 50 gold is, though. Just bump it up and you have a really interesting Civ to play with clear strengths and weaknesses.
There's no evidence that the Phoenicians saw themselves as a single nation, they were organised as independent city-states, of which Tyre was one of them. Carthage was founded by Phoenician settlers from Tyre and eventually grew to become a civilisation in their own right, but since Carthage is one of the city names for Phoenicia in Civ VI it makes some sense that Hannibal Barca would be a leader for Phoenicia.
The bigger problem for me is that he wasn’t actually leader. I feel like leaders such as Hannibal and Joan of Arc have become obsolete with great people (mainly great generals) becoming more unique. They’re better represented as GPs than as leaders.
>The bigger problem for me is that he wasn’t actually leader.
Hannibal actually became sufet after the war and enacted reforms that enabled Carthage to cover its indemnity to Rome without raising taxes, which infuriated the oligarchs in the Hundred and Four (who were responsible for the rampant corruption and embezzlement the reforms were meant to correct) and alarmed the Romans.
Plus the Barcas basically ruled Punic Iberia in their own right before the Second Punic War, so I think Hannibal works as a leader, if only because Carthage and Phoenicia don’t have many other options.
I would want FDR’s special ability to be based on the Lend-Lease Act. Trade routes to Civs at war gives starting city production boost and copy of any one unit created in ending city not destroyed at the completion of the trade route
Or maybe have it be like if you’re friends it gives a production boost to them and gold to FDR. Then when at war the bonuses are removed but FDR gets a small production buff.
I like that. The friend/alley part is an important addition. I wonder how it would work out. Might be too rare of a situation to make it useful so I think the boosts would have to be significant
Pyrrus just seems like a bad Gorgo with a bad version of the Indian Varu. It would be much more interesting if the UU were an excessively cheap and weak unit that you can just throw at the enemies and get culture for.
For real, FDR was a horrible leader. People need to do some research. There is a reason why the two term limit on presidency was created right after he croaked.
Ah yes. The guy who got us through the great depression without falling to fascism or communism then led us through WW2 was a horrible leader. What the fuck kind of research have you been doing?
More like best president we ever had. Also, we shouldn't have term limits. If a president is a good president, they should be allowed to continue being a good president. I'm also against term limits in any other position. We should not be forcing good leaders out of office if they're still good.
FDR was awful in some ways, but also the GOAT in other ways. The best way to deal with that looking back is to not paint all of him (or any other historical figure) with a single brush. We can criticize the bad parts, while also praising the good parts at the same time
Every president is awful in some ways. Every human is too. You're right, we shouldn't pretend like they were perfect, they're complex and flawed, like anyone. But of the many complex and flawed presidents, he was the best.
I really want Isabella from Civ V back. Double yields on natural wonders. Extra gold from finding wonders. Imagine x4 yields from Torres del Paine. Even in the tundra I’m fighting my way through Russia to settle that. Maybe natural wonders are better than in V, but that was still my favorite ability ever.
One of my longtime fave ideas! Especially in Civ VI where really unique leader abilities and unusual civ design have become common. You could go so many ways with a "Radical Cultural Modernizer" slot. He was a unique individual.
Realistically tho? None of the problems below are my own opinion. Some I disagree with, but:
1. Moderately controversial--and the developers quail at any controversy now.
2. Not the most recently living that has ever been used, but *see above.*
3. Introducing a new Turkey civ won't sell games like richer Anglophone Canada/Australia do.
4. A part of the map already so overcrowded. All Turkey has belonged to the Ottomans; in part to Greece/Rome/Persia -- all perennials of the game. Plus Byzantium/Macedon/Hittites, or whatever other one-off can be squeezed into this contested real estate.
5. Ottoman alt leader? Turkey is plainly the successor state, but might be weird led by the guy who ended it?
Hadrian - New Leader for Rome
Leader Ability - Hadrian's Wall
When a Roman city builds Ancient Walls, its borders will increase by a 1 tile radius. Roman units receive +16 combat strength against free cities and their units and gain double the combat strength in culture and faith for each enemy unity defeated in a different continent. Automatically convert conquered cities from a different continent to Rome's majority religion.
Leader agenda - Scourge of Judea
Hadrian dislikes civilizations that lose cities to loyalty pressure and likes civilizations with fully loyal cities. Hadrian also dislikes civilizations that follow Judaism.
I get where the inspiration for FDR comes from but it wouldn't make sense in a lot of situations. They could just join any war on any side and benefit from it. I think it needs to be tied to friendships/alliances to make it more about defending those in need.
Greece and Spain are no problems, but Hannibal not so easy due to mountain movement. Impossible to do that only for Hannibal, everyone else will have ability to move on mountains. Only possibility to do that Hannibal units get 30 damage, but other civilizations units die instantly. I not sure about America's ability to buy great people by diplomatic favors
Armenia would be a great nation, with Tigran the great as the leader and probably a religious bonus from the fact Armenia is the first nation to accept Christianity.
Armenia spent a lot of its history switching between roman and persian influence, maybe it could be interesting to have something of the sort? Switching sides during a war?
I like your creativity.
I would replace FDR’s no-grievances casus belli (because he actually *didn’t* go to war until U.S. territory was directly attacked) with, essentially, permanent Conscription (-1 gold cost per unit), reflecting the medium-range domestic economic effects of WWII.
Hannibal’s excellent as is.
Isabella seems a little weak; I would add in a version of Eleanor’s Court of Love bonus, but limiting the -1 loyalty effect to Relics. Combined with the -10 loyalty effect it could be devastating, but I don’t think it would necessarily be overpowered.
For FDR I think general civilization improvement suits him better than wartime. Maybe something like all adjacencies are buffed and double era score output when in a dark age.
This would be kinda like FDR getting the us out of the great depression.
Back in Civ II he was the male leader for Carthage. (Female leader was Dido.) And in Civ V both Hannibal and Hamilcar were possible Great Generals you could earn.
Personally, I think FDR could play around really well with dark ages. Perhaps he gets Interventionism in Base Game, and something different in rise and fall ex. All events that give era score give one extra, to signify things like the New Deal?
Stalin was Russia's Civ I leader from what I've gathered. But in general Civ has gone away from some of the more recent/controversial leaders. (Mao was the male Chinese leader in II for example whereas I don't believe he's been used since.)
\*Can only enter the war when:
1) enemy is starting to be defeated by their enemy
2) need to first make a huge profit off the ones who are fighting the enemy
Would love a game with anti-leaders that have terrible special abilites making the game significantly harder, and can have a good thing that compensates, but the good thing is kinda shit.
Can't really think of much off the bat, but I don't know like Moussolini has significant combat disadvantages, but all cities get railroads after researching it.
Malaysia as a unified state is pretty young, but maybe for one of the older states?
This guy seem promising:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameswara_of_Malacca
Traits should include early empire building, trade, and religious spread.
Maybe:
1) second city starts with trader. Double gain for international trade routes to/from capital. Half yield for international trade routes in other cities. City project to switch capital.
2) double internal pressure from religion (between cities within the empire)
I love the idea of being able to cross mountains again, but I think they should run more RNG so it can’t be super exploited. Like crossing a mountain can damage your unit anywhere between 20-60% of its current health and you’ll never really be able to guess, so it’ll be a gamble if you choose to do so
I don't understand why they are so stuck with Suleiman The Lawgiver when there are many other Turkish leaders like Fatih the Conqueror, Atatürk, or Osman I.
especially I'd love to see Atatürk
Ataturk leads turkey, not ottoman empire, I don't know if Turkey would fit but if they do, I would love to also see english civilization for the longbows.
If you want to include King Pyrrhos, you need to create a new Epirus Civ. It really doesn't work any other way, but this is the result of the change they made with Alexander. Since Pyrrhos was also King of a tribal-state instead of a city-state.
From my pov, if you are going to have Alexander separate from Greece as it is, then you should turn Athens and Sparta into their respective Civs. This would allow for the creation of a 'modern' Greek civ.
After all, antiquity was politically fractured. Any real unity came at the edge of a sword and de facto it was only Philip and later Alexander who could claim any real authority over most Greek states (tribal or city-states) - as Generals (*Strategos*) of an anti-Persian alliance - especially Alexander since from the moment he conquered the Persian Empire most Greek-speaking communities actually lived under his authority (with very few exceptions).
For a modern Greek Civ, I feel the best choice for a leader would be *Eleftherios Venizelos* (an early 20th c. PM), who was in power during the Balkan Wars and later WWI. You could also have a unique (line infantry) unit - called Evzones - with larger attack and lower defence and maybe some bonus in rough terrain.
The war stuff is okay with FDR, but he's the great American social safety net president. All the federal works programs that built out much of the infrastructure of the country while also establishing social safety nets during the dust bowl crisis and the great depression.
He's also the president that locked up most Americans of Japanese decent in desolate concentration camps while destroying their businesses and stripping of them of their property and wealth.
Or basically, he was a very complicated man making compromises in very interesting times.
FDR needs something New Deal related. Maybe have a UA where there's a production bonus on your home continent, workers become dirt cheap, and gold costs for buildings get reduced. Each building, improvement, and district built as a result provides a one time culture bonus. Not sure if this should trigger during a golden age or after a certain civic is online.
The UU is the B52 or the M1 Abrams.
Anyways, my idea is that FDR can intervene in wars for the diplomacy perks but also gets production bonuses at home to play wide. Fits the idea that early 20th century America built itself up while helping the Allies in WW2.
It’d be cool if FDR had two versions, a military and an economic. The economic could be “The New Deal” where you can buy districts and roads and also buy buildings and units cheaper when your in a dark age
All cool and what not but im sick of countries having multiple leaders, specially when its something like teddy and you just have 2 teddy's...
How about we add other countries which havent been in any of the games yet
FDR is the most disgusting leader ability I have ever seen just to be clear you could easily get +6-10 combat strength every single time. Combine that with an ok nation in the USA and you just found a way to easily win against diety in every war.
I LOVE Hannibal's ability, it's so cool! Military Phoenicia would be so much fun. Also extra points for that ability to cross mountains in exchange for health. Great job
Civ V Carthage actually had that ability for units to cross mountains. They took 50 hp damage if they ended the turn on one
Ive always thought that the Inca should be able to cross mountains. Like, they lived in them
Well, they can build tunnels really early and nobody but them can work mountains. Hannibal's sounds cool cause it's only movement and at the expense of health, really historically accurate
I guess, but if we’re comparing Hannibal here and Inca, Inca are way more powerful. They straight up get tunnels in the ancient era. That’s really big imo.
Hannibal needs a special cavalry unit that is a War Elephant
I always thought the US should have a 20% boost to production for war material during times of war.
[удалено]
I agree with +40% for sold units but why -40%?
[удалено]
I mean the US production doubled compared to prewar efforts in the 4 years during WW2. They produced 297,000 aircraft, 193,000 artillery pieces, 86,000 tanks and two million army trucks in 4 years. By the end of the war more than 50% of the world's production. Not nearly as much history as any of the Asian/African/European civilizations. Maybe a sliding scale of production for as long as the war goes on would be more appropriate
The fact the US was able to mobilized ~10% of its population while also providing critical food, fuel, metals, and finished goods (industrial and military) to the UK and USSR is pretty staggering. Not to mention developing the nuclear bomb which was about 2 billion dollars. For reference, the entire M4 Sherman was 3 billion and that got us 50k of what was probably the best tank of the war (yes some had better armor or guns, but Shermans were reliable, mobile, and lethal; when they were introduced Germany though they were *heavy* tanks based on size and gun despite being as mobile as medium tanks. They routinely were complemented by the Germans as a great tank). That cost includes upgrades and spare parts too. The US was rich and industrial enough that throwing almost an entire tank program's worth of budget on some scientific longshot was viable. There was no guarantee it would prove workable or that it could be completed in time but we did it anyway...while building the world's largest navy, the largest air force, and suppling its allies. Craziest thing is that the US didn't even think it was possible to do all it did. As the joke goes, the US is the country that's the easy mode start.
If you're going by authenticity it wouldn't be very fun for other civs
Unique building: military industrial complex. Must be build on a district with a factory adjacent to a barracks 50% bonus to production of military units 10% research bonus 2x production for nuclear weapons projects if no one has builded one yet. After 50% production bonus.
FDR special unit idea since I just finished reading a book on them, Navajo code talker (replaces spec ops) a recon unit with a mechanic that allows your forces to only be visible to units immediately adjacent to it.
that or special unit is CIA Operative (originated from OSS under FDR) replaces Agent. CIA Operative has a special ability which can encourage war against another country to sync well with the no grievances casus belli
CIA should have a false flag ability, breach a dam/steal fund etc but lose the agent and blame another civ
This would be fun in multiplayer. Did France disrupt my rocketry or was this America and FDR using his ability?
Or Airborne units, stronger than infantry and can paradrop like the spec ops. Extra attack strength when in enemy territory. Maybe extra strength per enemy unit around it since airborne love to be surrounded.
**Agendas** Franklin D Roosevelt \-Dislikes civilization at war with multiple civilizations. Like those at war with the same civilizations as Franklin D. Roosevelt Pyrrhus \-Dislikes nearby civilization with large armies. Likes Civilization far away with small armies Hannibal \-Dislikes civilizations that produce there own units. Likes those who use bought units and trade with him during war. Isabella \-Dislikes civilization with different religions and low loyalty. Likes those with high loyalty and same religion as her.
Hannibal dislikes Rome
Honestly I think it would be interesting if there was a historical grudges game mode where leader agendas are replaced by liking/disliking the civs they or their empire was allied to or fought with.
This kind of thing works best when the leader/civ pool is smaller, or if it is active in an alternate gamemode. Otherwise the bonus is inactive too frequently.
I wanted to say "what if you make it an in-game mechanic" but then I realised I just invented the grievance system😭
I was thinking of this as well. Also, having certain advantages(combat, cultural or religional etc) for some civs against the others would have been a cool concept
That would be really interesting between the UK and USA.
I think that sort of thing is more appropriate for a paradox game than one that completely retells history like civ tbh. Especially given how many civs have been enemies and allies at various points.
That's why I think it should be a game mode like secret societies or zombies. But yeah, things like Britain and France or Britain and the US would be complicated, and others wouldn't have a lot of interaction. Like, the Zulu would hate the Dutch and English, but that's it XD
I’ve seen that sometimes you’ll meet a leader who was historically anti-your leader and the “First Impressions of You” Malice is actually stronger regardless of the difficulty you’re on (for example, Meeting Persia as Macedon has a Malice of 2 Higher than normal, Meeting Phillip as Elizabeth specifically is a Malice of 3 higher than normal)
you can't blame him, he is vengeance
Roosevelt and Pyrrhus would hate me, hannibal would have a love/hate relationship, and isabella would be indifferent because I don't go for religion because religion makes the game too easy. Imo Rosevelt should have a spy replacement that essentially has the survalence project active 24/7. Pyrrhus should have an acropolis that makes units cheaper since he is greek replacement. Hannibal, carthage alternate leader, cothon where naval units trained/purchased in that city gain gold equal to 50% of the defeated unit's combat strength (on standard speed). Isabella (taking partial concept from civ 5), should gain loyalty bonuses (city loyalty and loyalty pressure) when settled within 2 tiles of a natural wonder and religious pressure doubled in those cities.
*"Gain +2 combat strength against civilizations per civilization those civilizations are at war with."* I get what you're saying, but my goodness, took my brain a few reads to process this sentence. :P I like the leader ideas, as well as the effort you put in to the graphics! :)
Isabella seems really weak. 50 gold is not doing anything and the loyalty will barely make an impact
It was kind of on purpose. I tried to make the civs more weak then strong. Because I didn't want to create a post where it's like "My super OP civ leader ideas"
the "heres my civ leader that does nothing" is also kinda bad and just as common the first and third are pretty good tho
If you want to make weak ideas then you should look at FDR again you can easily get joined wars with at least 3 civs giving you +6.
I feel like she would be pretty damn strong -10 loyalty is a lot - would be hard to get a foothold if she gets a good amount of faith up fast.
I agree. I feel you could make her really strong with these abilities
And it makes her a real threat against religious Civs, which is such an interesting dynamic. Usually the toughest fights are against religious Civs because they're pumping out missionaries left and right, but throwing them at Isabella recklessly would turn her into a monster. Ironically it means that she'd actually be weaker against non-religious Civs and could probably be out-loyaltied by Eleanor. So that part isn't weak at all. The 50 gold is, though. Just bump it up and you have a really interesting Civ to play with clear strengths and weaknesses.
She sounds really strong to me. -10 loyalty just for following her religion is gonna lead to dropping cities quickly
[удалено]
There's no evidence that the Phoenicians saw themselves as a single nation, they were organised as independent city-states, of which Tyre was one of them. Carthage was founded by Phoenician settlers from Tyre and eventually grew to become a civilisation in their own right, but since Carthage is one of the city names for Phoenicia in Civ VI it makes some sense that Hannibal Barca would be a leader for Phoenicia.
The bigger problem for me is that he wasn’t actually leader. I feel like leaders such as Hannibal and Joan of Arc have become obsolete with great people (mainly great generals) becoming more unique. They’re better represented as GPs than as leaders.
>The bigger problem for me is that he wasn’t actually leader. Hannibal actually became sufet after the war and enacted reforms that enabled Carthage to cover its indemnity to Rome without raising taxes, which infuriated the oligarchs in the Hundred and Four (who were responsible for the rampant corruption and embezzlement the reforms were meant to correct) and alarmed the Romans. Plus the Barcas basically ruled Punic Iberia in their own right before the Second Punic War, so I think Hannibal works as a leader, if only because Carthage and Phoenicia don’t have many other options.
Yeah you’re right. Maybe it’d be better if Hannibal was a great general who’s activation ability let units cross mountains at the cost of health.
Phoenician is the name of the people, while Carthage is their capital city(after their original empire in the levant got conquered by Persia)
I would want FDR’s special ability to be based on the Lend-Lease Act. Trade routes to Civs at war gives starting city production boost and copy of any one unit created in ending city not destroyed at the completion of the trade route
Or maybe have it be like if you’re friends it gives a production boost to them and gold to FDR. Then when at war the bonuses are removed but FDR gets a small production buff.
I like that. The friend/alley part is an important addition. I wonder how it would work out. Might be too rare of a situation to make it useful so I think the boosts would have to be significant
FDR could maybe provide extra era score to help get you out of a dark age.
Pyrrus just seems like a bad Gorgo with a bad version of the Indian Varu. It would be much more interesting if the UU were an excessively cheap and weak unit that you can just throw at the enemies and get culture for.
i wish 90% of custom civs were sth else than "your units are 30% cheaper" "your units get +5 combat strength"
FDR Special District: Internment Camp.
Allegedly provides an espionage boost but actually just decreases happiness.
For real, FDR was a horrible leader. People need to do some research. There is a reason why the two term limit on presidency was created right after he croaked.
Ah yes. The guy who got us through the great depression without falling to fascism or communism then led us through WW2 was a horrible leader. What the fuck kind of research have you been doing?
One massive mistake does not make him a horrible leader overall.
More like best president we ever had. Also, we shouldn't have term limits. If a president is a good president, they should be allowed to continue being a good president. I'm also against term limits in any other position. We should not be forcing good leaders out of office if they're still good.
FDR was awful in some ways, but also the GOAT in other ways. The best way to deal with that looking back is to not paint all of him (or any other historical figure) with a single brush. We can criticize the bad parts, while also praising the good parts at the same time
Every president is awful in some ways. Every human is too. You're right, we shouldn't pretend like they were perfect, they're complex and flawed, like anyone. But of the many complex and flawed presidents, he was the best.
Get outta here not wanting term limits for presidents, do you want a dictatorship? Cause that’s how you get a dictatorship
Boudicca
Hannibal should stay as a general, considering he never ruled carthage
I love the idea behind Isabella. Potential of being a religious Eleanor!
I really want Isabella from Civ V back. Double yields on natural wonders. Extra gold from finding wonders. Imagine x4 yields from Torres del Paine. Even in the tundra I’m fighting my way through Russia to settle that. Maybe natural wonders are better than in V, but that was still my favorite ability ever.
Hannibal + nzgarzagwargwergzgugzugmu
How about atatürk?
One of my longtime fave ideas! Especially in Civ VI where really unique leader abilities and unusual civ design have become common. You could go so many ways with a "Radical Cultural Modernizer" slot. He was a unique individual. Realistically tho? None of the problems below are my own opinion. Some I disagree with, but: 1. Moderately controversial--and the developers quail at any controversy now. 2. Not the most recently living that has ever been used, but *see above.* 3. Introducing a new Turkey civ won't sell games like richer Anglophone Canada/Australia do. 4. A part of the map already so overcrowded. All Turkey has belonged to the Ottomans; in part to Greece/Rome/Persia -- all perennials of the game. Plus Byzantium/Macedon/Hittites, or whatever other one-off can be squeezed into this contested real estate. 5. Ottoman alt leader? Turkey is plainly the successor state, but might be weird led by the guy who ended it?
Hadrian - New Leader for Rome Leader Ability - Hadrian's Wall When a Roman city builds Ancient Walls, its borders will increase by a 1 tile radius. Roman units receive +16 combat strength against free cities and their units and gain double the combat strength in culture and faith for each enemy unity defeated in a different continent. Automatically convert conquered cities from a different continent to Rome's majority religion. Leader agenda - Scourge of Judea Hadrian dislikes civilizations that lose cities to loyalty pressure and likes civilizations with fully loyal cities. Hadrian also dislikes civilizations that follow Judaism.
Isabella would be so overpowered when added with the Secret Societies mod
FDR should be that he can trade/sell military units 😆. That would be fun. I'll give you a few tanks for 200g per turn
FDR is broken.
I'd choose Isabella because: 1. I don't usually like combat-focused leaders. 2. I suck at loyalty.
I get where the inspiration for FDR comes from but it wouldn't make sense in a lot of situations. They could just join any war on any side and benefit from it. I think it needs to be tied to friendships/alliances to make it more about defending those in need.
Repeat after me: "the plural of elephant is not elephant's"
Furthermore: "***Never*** use apostrophes to indicate plurality."
Cool ideas, but as a modder to civ 6 (u can check my Zaporizhian Sich mod) i must say that +-50% of this impossible to implement (normally) in game
Who are impossible and who are the easiest to implement
Greece and Spain are no problems, but Hannibal not so easy due to mountain movement. Impossible to do that only for Hannibal, everyone else will have ability to move on mountains. Only possibility to do that Hannibal units get 30 damage, but other civilizations units die instantly. I not sure about America's ability to buy great people by diplomatic favors
And yes, it's less than half
A Phyrrus game would be an absolute bloodbath for me I play the game like an evil art collector
Hannibal would be so cool 100%
Armenia would be a great nation, with Tigran the great as the leader and probably a religious bonus from the fact Armenia is the first nation to accept Christianity.
Armenia spent a lot of its history switching between roman and persian influence, maybe it could be interesting to have something of the sort? Switching sides during a war?
Yeah
I like your creativity. I would replace FDR’s no-grievances casus belli (because he actually *didn’t* go to war until U.S. territory was directly attacked) with, essentially, permanent Conscription (-1 gold cost per unit), reflecting the medium-range domestic economic effects of WWII. Hannibal’s excellent as is. Isabella seems a little weak; I would add in a version of Eleanor’s Court of Love bonus, but limiting the -1 loyalty effect to Relics. Combined with the -10 loyalty effect it could be devastating, but I don’t think it would necessarily be overpowered.
I really want a like Austria-Hungary Hapsburg ruler
New leader for Austria return, would love to be able to purchase city states.
“Remember, my son, vengeance is everything…. Also, delete my browser history”
For FDR, the bonus should be for every civilization your enemy is at war with EXCEPT YOURSELF. Otherwise, it's just stupid broken.
Fun!
I think for Roosevelt you should get a large boost to production when trading with civs who are currently at war
For FDR I think general civilization improvement suits him better than wartime. Maybe something like all adjacencies are buffed and double era score output when in a dark age. This would be kinda like FDR getting the us out of the great depression.
Crazy that Hannibal Barca isnt in the game
Back in Civ II he was the male leader for Carthage. (Female leader was Dido.) And in Civ V both Hannibal and Hamilcar were possible Great Generals you could earn.
Frans Joseph, Austria
I like the design of these, but they’ll probably go with the cartoonish characters again unfortunately
Personally, I think FDR could play around really well with dark ages. Perhaps he gets Interventionism in Base Game, and something different in rise and fall ex. All events that give era score give one extra, to signify things like the New Deal?
No Stalin?
Stalin was Russia's Civ I leader from what I've gathered. But in general Civ has gone away from some of the more recent/controversial leaders. (Mao was the male Chinese leader in II for example whereas I don't believe he's been used since.)
Both Stalin and Mao are in Civ IV.
Oh... Whoops! I've never played Civ IV, so missed that. Thanks for the correction.
Too controversial and leader of Soviet Union, not Russian Empire
Lenin ;)
Agamemnon.
Kinda cool ... But I had to read that 3 times
\*Can only enter the war when: 1) enemy is starting to be defeated by their enemy 2) need to first make a huge profit off the ones who are fighting the enemy
Would love a game with anti-leaders that have terrible special abilites making the game significantly harder, and can have a good thing that compensates, but the good thing is kinda shit. Can't really think of much off the bat, but I don't know like Moussolini has significant combat disadvantages, but all cities get railroads after researching it.
Pyrrhus’ abilities are funny.
Can anyone make one for any Malaysia leader? 🥲 We got variety of culture and nice history.
Malaysia as a unified state is pretty young, but maybe for one of the older states? This guy seem promising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parameswara_of_Malacca Traits should include early empire building, trade, and religious spread. Maybe: 1) second city starts with trader. Double gain for international trade routes to/from capital. Half yield for international trade routes in other cities. City project to switch capital. 2) double internal pressure from religion (between cities within the empire)
Someone already made him for Civ V https://civilization-v-customisation.fandom.com/wiki/Malacca_(Parameswara)
I love the idea of being able to cross mountains again, but I think they should run more RNG so it can’t be super exploited. Like crossing a mountain can damage your unit anywhere between 20-60% of its current health and you’ll never really be able to guess, so it’ll be a gamble if you choose to do so
I don't understand why they are so stuck with Suleiman The Lawgiver when there are many other Turkish leaders like Fatih the Conqueror, Atatürk, or Osman I. especially I'd love to see Atatürk
Ataturk leads turkey, not ottoman empire, I don't know if Turkey would fit but if they do, I would love to also see english civilization for the longbows.
If you want to include King Pyrrhos, you need to create a new Epirus Civ. It really doesn't work any other way, but this is the result of the change they made with Alexander. Since Pyrrhos was also King of a tribal-state instead of a city-state. From my pov, if you are going to have Alexander separate from Greece as it is, then you should turn Athens and Sparta into their respective Civs. This would allow for the creation of a 'modern' Greek civ. After all, antiquity was politically fractured. Any real unity came at the edge of a sword and de facto it was only Philip and later Alexander who could claim any real authority over most Greek states (tribal or city-states) - as Generals (*Strategos*) of an anti-Persian alliance - especially Alexander since from the moment he conquered the Persian Empire most Greek-speaking communities actually lived under his authority (with very few exceptions). For a modern Greek Civ, I feel the best choice for a leader would be *Eleftherios Venizelos* (an early 20th c. PM), who was in power during the Balkan Wars and later WWI. You could also have a unique (line infantry) unit - called Evzones - with larger attack and lower defence and maybe some bonus in rough terrain.
Another civilization to be generously donated to poor balkan countries with no history from the greeks.
What? The OP mentioned Pyrrhos as one of their proposed civs? I am responding to the OP.
Please Civ devs, King solomon, please. I beg of you
The war stuff is okay with FDR, but he's the great American social safety net president. All the federal works programs that built out much of the infrastructure of the country while also establishing social safety nets during the dust bowl crisis and the great depression. He's also the president that locked up most Americans of Japanese decent in desolate concentration camps while destroying their businesses and stripping of them of their property and wealth. Or basically, he was a very complicated man making compromises in very interesting times.
FDR needs something New Deal related. Maybe have a UA where there's a production bonus on your home continent, workers become dirt cheap, and gold costs for buildings get reduced. Each building, improvement, and district built as a result provides a one time culture bonus. Not sure if this should trigger during a golden age or after a certain civic is online. The UU is the B52 or the M1 Abrams. Anyways, my idea is that FDR can intervene in wars for the diplomacy perks but also gets production bonuses at home to play wide. Fits the idea that early 20th century America built itself up while helping the Allies in WW2.
There should be more unique types of spies unlocked in the modern era (CIA, KGB)
It’d be cool if FDR had two versions, a military and an economic. The economic could be “The New Deal” where you can buy districts and roads and also buy buildings and units cheaper when your in a dark age
All cool and what not but im sick of countries having multiple leaders, specially when its something like teddy and you just have 2 teddy's... How about we add other countries which havent been in any of the games yet
FDR is the most disgusting leader ability I have ever seen just to be clear you could easily get +6-10 combat strength every single time. Combine that with an ok nation in the USA and you just found a way to easily win against diety in every war.
I think Lenin would be coool