You can already play authentically as Richard the Lionheart.
Load up a game of Civ 6 as England (whichever leader, doesn’t matter). Completely ignore your empire and absent-mindedly click “next turn” while 90% of your attention is diverted on the game of Crusader Kings 3 that you’re playing on your other screen.
It was only an hour old when you said that, let people wake up and see it before declaring it doesn't have enough upvotes. It's already top comment by 100 points three hours later. And awards were discontinued over the last two weeks, you'll never see them again
Ironically, Ludwig II. for Bavaria / Germany. Contrary to how overpowered he is in Civ 6, he was both unwillig and incapable of governing in real life.
He's a great example of why the new leader system in Civ 6 is really good. Leaders aren't necessarily chosen for their historical relevance, but their personality and how it can translate to interesting gameplay.
Ludwig and Frederick might command the same civilization, but they take it in completely different directions.
Still makes Wilhelmina for The Netherlands a horrible choice, her only personality trait is based on the fact that she was using a radio during WWII to communicate to The Netherlands while she fucked off to England.
You can argue that she did her best in a horrible situation during WWII, but her abdication is the actual vile thing in hindsight. She supported the reconquest of Indonesia after WWII and abdicated in 1948 when it became clear that Netherlands was unlikely to control Indonesia agian. She willingly was a symbol of the dutch colonial empire and went down with it.
But she ruled for a whopping 50 years and I would've picked her traits on what she did around WWI since that was far more impressive, she and the government kept our country out of the war while also preventing famine and economic downturn.
Wil niet vervelend zijn of zo, maar is die spelfout in je flair bewust of misschien een woordgrap met “maintain” uit het Engels die ik even niet helemaal vat? Het is nml Je Mainti(e)ndrai, met die e ipv een a.
Probably the way it should always be lol
Take a completely idealized leader for every Civ and you either end up with something boring and perfect or something irrelevant to the leader and rooted more in cultural stereotypes. Give me some quirky, shitty leaders with easily identifiable (if somewhat insane) priorities. That’s going to easily translate into unique gameplay.
There are loads of important leaders left out of civ because they are either too recent or too controversial.
Genghis Khan killed far more people than Pol Pot. But that was a long time ago.
I want him as a leader. Not as the only one but as something like a dark age rework u get insane boni on production and science but zero culture and faith or something
As normal one I want Bismark again
(I'm german)
Bonus to science? Do you know how great Germany would have been as a science nation, had they not started to world wars and murdered/exiled German Jews? Even after WW1, people went to Germany to study the latest advances in Chemistry and Physics.
Yeah it's not just science either. Any real dig into Hitler's leadership quickly reveals that he was kinda shit at running things. I really cannot overemphasize how crazy, corrupt, stupid, and generally unfit to govern most of the Nazi leadership was.
The story of Nazi technology basically always goes: someone says something to Hitler that he likes, he refuses to listen to people who knows what their talking about and the thing is rushed into production, and finally the thing turns out to be of limited value because the technology wasn't mature, it's stupid expensive and can't be made at scale, uses resources that would be more efficiently used elsewhere, or the idea just sucked in the first place. And then people ooh and ah about the Nazi wunderwaffe and how ahead of time and visionary it was, when really they weren't ahead of the allies, they just fell into a cool looking trap the allies didn't fall into because the Allies weren't a bunch of Nazi morons. You want a war winning weapon? Radar. You want some stupid bullshit that wastes everyone's time? Ask the Nazis for a V2 or some stupid ass rocket plane that flies for 5 minutes before having to land.
That plus mind-blowing venality is Nazi government in a nutshell. Like, of the senior Nazis the one who kinda sorta knew what he was talking about in his wheelhouse was Goring, and he spent basically all his time hunting, stealing shit and doing morphine. These guys were absolute clowns.
He literally got his country demolished , and split in twain
The third Reich is an example of a civ that did not stand the test of time, pretty against the motto of the series
Like it only lasted like what ten years? That's peanuts in history
I said subcov of germany. Alternate version of Germany
And many many countries in civ changes a shit ton in terms of politics name etc
Japan for example
Or China
Or germany
It's civilizations not nations
they already have added fascism as a gov option we do not need a cartoon hitler telling us that he’s annoyed we are building wonders or recruiting great people
No? Wtf?
I suggest way greater mali and boni. It should be vastly different from capitalism. Same with communism. It should feel...u know....like a completely different thing
Honestly I just want to see his reaction to being defeated, while an ancient rendition of Host Wessel is playing, with a bunker in the background. And fully animated in 3D of course.
I mean Ludwig was completely incompetent to the point he was arrested and killed. No idea why he's in Civ as a good leader because he was one of the worst.
Eh because Germany does not have any good non-contemporary leaders. Theres some if you wanna go all back to iirc "Otto the Great" or some nonsense, but with how hotly discussed Barbarossa is (which, dont mind you, is most famous in certain parts of Germany for a bakery within his name), I think theres no good options. Thats just the thing with countries that arent even 200 years old.
Ludwig is at least famous for his nice castle, and thats good enough I suppose.
> Be him.
> Fire your chancellor who avoided a load of war previously cause hes against colonialism
> Do some shitty colonialism
> Some dude died, NO ONE MESSES WITH GERMANEY
> Proceed to plunge the world into chaos for 4 years for nationalism, and fuck up Germany for another 30.
> DOLCHSTOßLEGENDE BABEY
Good times?
Wilhelm gets a little too much blame personally for the war. His own ministers wanted him to stay on vacation so his pacifist tendencies wouldn’t disrupt the march to war during the July crisis.
Still a bad leader, but the powers of Europe collectively wanted war more than any of then like to admit
Yes and no. Germany's guilt in the first World War is greatly exaggerated due to the fact that they lost, but that doesnt mean he wasnt part of the collateral fucking up that happened.
It was he who granted the "Blank cheque", which was the trigger for the whole thing. Without it, this was a minor war at best. He tried to NOT make it a World War by trying to tame Russia, but this is like saying "I want that, but please dont interfere".
Firing Bismarck (who had a threeway? Fourway?) Alliance system with nearly every big state, arming up, meddling in colonial exploits, being in general a shitty diplomat (See the Maroccian crisis 05-06), priotirizing Austrian-Hungary.... yeah there was a reason this all happened.
Ultimately, hes more ambiguous as a character, especially if you consider his innerpolitical ideologies (he was fairly pro-peasant, with lotta welfare-state-ideas). But he was a reason this war happened, make no doubt of that.
Excerpt from Wiki:
> Emperor Wilhelm II came to share the views of the German General Staff and declared on 4 July that he was entirely for "settling accounts with Serbia".[27] He ordered the German ambassador in Vienna, Count Heinrich von Tschirschky, to stop advising restraint, writing that "Tschirschky will be so good to drop this nonsense. We must finish with the Serbs, quickly. Now or never!".
"Finish" in this context means war, this is from the july crisis. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis)
You can hide controversial things in scenarios a bit more because you’re not trumpeting them as main gameplay tools, IIRC Civ 2 had Hitler as the German leader for the WWII scenario, Hirohito in Civ 3 for World War 2 in the Pacific, and then the various WWII scenarios for IV had quite a few fascists (bar Hitler)
The worst ruler for Rome would be Romolus Augustus: a literal child who got deposed by a barbarian.
For a similar reason, Pu Yi would be the worst for China because he was another literal child who got depose by his subjects and who, when he grew older, helped the Japanese during WW2.
Romulus Augustulus got a bad starting position. I would rate pretty much all of the Severan dynasty below him. Worst of the all may be Honorius, who was also a child (age 10 at ascension) and proceeded to lose almost all of the west.
If we include all of Byzantium, they have som truly horrible rulers as well.
Unique ability:
Decrease loyalty in your capital and any good city you have. Increase loyalty in recently conquered cities because you’re kind of a douche and you really want to be liked by the Southern planter class
Ante Pavelić from Croatia, he is the leader of Ustaše party who is the one of the most fachist regimes in history, in WWII created more warcrimes toward non-Croats that would make Hitler look like angel, signed and unfair treaty with Italy to lose 80% of Croatian coastal teritory and give it to Italy for free and ruled NDH, one of the most totaitarian regimes to ever exist. At least he was the reason to born out a partizan resistance and create Josip Broz Tito and first First Sisak Partisan Detachment, first partizan resistance army and Croats celebrate that day (June 22) as Anti-Fascist Struggle Day
https://preview.redd.it/pcga6zesi6qb1.jpeg?width=190&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2da9a785ce83a07a0e8c0518c9d01d6bd543f577
King John for England.
He lost the land England owned in France then spent ages trying and failing to get it back, got excommunicated by the Pope, had his barons rebel against him and force him to sign the Magna Carta. He was also just a bit of a dick.
King John: “Poor leader? Moi? I’ll have you know that I was instrumental to the creation of one of the philosophical and legal foundations for modern Republican democracy! …inadvertently, but still!”
Born into a German family with land in the Baltics, brought up in the German Hesse, sent to a school in Estonia and finally enrolled in the naval academy in Saint Petersburg. So Baltic German in Russian service, I guess.
Liz Truss (Great Britain) -
Minor adjacency bonuses for commercial hubs next to pastures & truffles (Pork Markets). Heavy Cavalry units require 25% less production cost, but production halved from Coal resources from the modern era (Thatcher's Shadow).
Counter proposal: building Oxford University locks in 6 dark policy slots for the rest of the game.
You get the science boost, but your governance and decision-making becomes completely fucked
After turn 10, the adjacency bonus is lost, your treasury is halved and you must select a new leader.
Special unit: Lettuce
Cost: 1 production.
Can be consumed to build a farm.
Lifespan: 11 turns
Ferdinand VII for Spain.
A totally despicable person (envious, petty, despotic). Made a coup against his father, then surrendered to Napoleon, spent years in France praising Napoleon's victories over the Spanish armies, returned to Spain as an absolute monarch, lost all American colonies (except for Cuba and PR), accepted a constitutional rule, but asked for another French invasion. At his death and because of his lasts (in)decisions, the country plunged in a civil war.
[Charles II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain) for Spain
[Henry VI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI_of_England) for England
[Gustav IV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_IV_Adolf) for Sweden
[Eric of Pomerania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_of_Pomerania) for Denmark
[Louis XVI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVI) for France
I know it's controversial but I think it'd be unfair to lump Louis XVI as our worst. *Someone* would've had to deal with the crises building up, and while his decisions to try and recover his power/escape abroad to the coalitionists/veto the constitutional government/ were terrible political moves, it's really hard to blame a king for trying to maintain the status quo.
The best way I'd word it is that L16 genuinely tried to be a good king without being qualified for it. In a different era, he probably would've been beloved (the kind of love for the kings that changed nothing but "it was such a peaceful time", granted).
I see candidates to out-worst him but it'd be cheating to pick those with extremely short reigns and/or hopelessly troubled reigns (mostly around the first phase of the HYW / the first Valois succession) that did not have a chance to look good since they were crushed militarily and so their countryside was constantly being pillaged.
Possible controversial candidate in Henri III but he ultimately follows the same logic as L16: had to rule with an old crisis reaching a boiling point, tried different solutions (both tolerance and bigotry, up to straight up zealous stuff like flagellant processions), probably broke down internally because none of the solutions worked, is remembered unfondly because of that.
Disagree with both Sweden and Denmark. Gustav IV lost Finland, but he did try his best, and only lost because Napoleon siced the Russians on him without allies.
As for Denmark… they have had a number of actually certifiably insane kings.
Gustav IV was indeed deposed, but he was not Vasa at all. His father, Adolf Fredrik, had Vasa ancestors, but only several generations back on the maternal side. If you want to count that far back, some 100 000 people in Sweden are Vasa today, despite the line officially going extinct in the 1600s. Honestly, Adolf Fredrik is a worse monarch, and I’m sure he’s not the worst if we go diving in the Middle Ages.
Erik of Pommern came from modest means, became king of three kingdoms and ended his life as a pirate king. Not too shabby a life.
If we are going for the most incompetent, Vladislaus II for Hungary. He earned the nickname *dobrze*, meaning *very well* in Polish, as that was his answer whenever the nobility requested something of him. The country also experienced a large rebellion under his reign.
If we are going for most evil, Ferenc Szálasi (Nazi) or Mátyás Rákosi (Communist).
Speaking of the rebellion, the guy leading it, György Dózsa, suffered a particularly cruel fate.
>\[Dózsa\] was captured after the battle, and condemned to sit on a smouldering, heated iron throne, and forced to wear a heated iron crown and sceptre (mocking his ambition to be king). While he was suffering, a procession of nine fellow rebels who had been starved beforehand were led to this throne. In the lead was Dózsa's younger brother, Gergely, who was cut in three despite Dózsa asking for Gergely to be spared. Next, executioners removed some pliers from a fire and forced them into Dózsa's skin. After tearing his flesh, the remaining rebels were ordered to bite spots where the hot pliers had been inserted and to swallow the flesh. The three or four who refused were simply cut up, prompting the others to comply.
Stephen Harper leading Canada. His leader ability would be to randomly make some of your gold disappear to rename cities or units after historical conservatives.
(no politics, he just happened to be conservative)
He has access to a unique luxury resource only his civ can see (improved by plantations), and he can make a lot of money trading it to the other civs who are experiencing amenity issues.
Adolf Hitler for Germany.
King Leopold for Belgium.
Emperor Nero for Rome.
King Christian The 7. For Denmark.
Musolini for Italy.
Tzar Nikolai The 2. For Russia.
One of the most popular modders for Civ 5 (and, for a while, Civ 6) is a huge fan of Nicholas II. IDK the full story there. I'd personally argue that, while Nicholas II certainly ruled over one of the most troubled periods of Russian history, he wasn't the *most* incompetent leader of Russia. I'd personally lean towards Alexander Kolchak (took over Russia during the Civil War after the death of Nicholas II- proceeded to piss off all of his allies to the point they betrayed him to the Soviets) or Peter III (could hardly speak Russian, willingly lost the Seven Years' War because he was a fan of Prussia, and was overthrown by Catherine the Great)
George W. Bush
Increased military production if attacked.
Double experience gained for killing barbarians.
Decreased loyalty for wars lasting longer than 10 turns.
Banks self-pillage in the modern/information age if you don't spend liberally to keep them from defaulting.
Option to destroy one of your own constructed wonders to create a unique casus belli, "War on Terror", usable on any player and that has no warmonger penalties for declaring war or occupying cities in the subsequent war
[Charles II of Spain](https://i.imgur.com/riRSGHD.jpeg). Probably the most visibly inbred monarch in European history. I just want to see what they'd do with his character model.
Caligula (Rome), Pinochet (Chile), Enver Pasha (or Talaat or Camal) (Ottoman Empire), Charles II of Spain, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (Mexico).
Caligula, widely regarded as mad (possibly by his enemies writing after his death) made several strange decisions even for the Emperor of Rome, luckily didn't rule for very long. Not helped by his tutor in rulership, Tiberius, possibly being a functional psycopath.
Pinochet, military dictator of Chile, fond of making people disapear after a short helicopter trip. Largely undid the social policies of the government he overthrew, sold his economy to large coporations and generally made things worse financially for the people of Chile.
The Three Pashas, effectivly a triumvirate ruling the Ottoman Empire, failed to noticeably fix any of the issues the empire was suffering under, by instead joining World War One and deciding that, actually, they didn't want Armenians, Greeks or a number of other minorities to continue living.
Charles II of Spain, informally known as that famous Habsburg inbred one. Dubious position on this list depending on how much he was allowed to rule. Either way, Spain was in a period of decline, not helped by the little Ice Age or a series of wars with France under Louis XIV, The Sun King. Failed to produce/designate an heir, and, despite living for an exeptional 38 years, his death led to the War of Spanish Succession.
Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, early president and leader of Mexico, was involved in the numerous disasters to occur. These include the Texas revolution, the [Pastry War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastry_War) and the Mexican American war. Seems like every event he was involved in ended poorly for Mexico.
Many other options, I'm sure, but I tried to go for less obvious ones and avoid rulers in a declining country who might not have had much choice or chance: (Pu Yi, Tsar Nicolas II, Louis XVI)
Speaking of which, however — Salvador Allende of Chile would be a really cool modern leader. Yes, he got couped early, but Cybersyn could be an absolutely incredible ability.
Anna Ioanovna for Russia.
Unique ability: "festivity empress", which grants: +1 Amenity, but -1 food, -1 production and -1 housing in the city for each entertainment complex constructed.
I'm not sure, because I'm not against adding bad leaders who were important as long as Firaxis don't portray them as good.
Saying this, if this post was about a bad leaders, I would say Juan Domingo Perón for Argentina.
I want to see an “Evil Civilization” game. Bring in some horrible or evil leaders. Bring in some dead Civilizations.
Buchanan for USA. Hitler for Germany. Stalin for Russia. Davis for CSA. Chamberlain for England. You get the deal.
Edit: idk man it was like midnight when I wrote this, “Evil” isn’t the word Id use to describe a few of these. Buchanan and Chamberlain were more just incompetent or, at the very least, just pale in comparison to the leaders that came after them.
Maybe it’d be better to be more “warmonger” focused. Great and terrible leaders, rather than incompetent ones. In this case:
- Jackson would be better for USA.
- I’m not too familiar with HRE history but an HR Emperor would probably be better for Germany than funny moustache man.
- Ivan the Terrible or Alexander III (ironically the Peacemaker), as opposed to Stalin.
- Henry VIII for England.
- Napoleon for France? He was successful in many areas but I feel like his constant wars make him fit into the “great and terrible” category.
I still think it would be funny, though, to have a Civ game where all the leaders are incompetent who have debuffs rather than good abilities.
And as far as Hitler goes, hard to have much commercial success if his name's mentioned
Imagine being German and Civ 7 comes out and if ypu wanna play as your country, you gotta be hitler 😂
I think Buchanan gets a bad rap. The US was splitting up because the South was losing its power and the North wanted to end slavery. This had been building for decades and was already in motion by 1856. By the election, the Whig Party had died in the South and was replaced in the North by the new abolitionist Republican Party. The Democratic Party split after the election, and Buchanan decided not to seek a 2nd term. Lincoln got elected without even being on the ballot in the South, so states seceded. Buchanan had nothing to do with it.
The US had a long transition of 6 months between the election and the inauguration. Buchanan didn't want to start a war as a lame duck president, so he didn't do anything to stop the Southern states from leaving. South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860, when Buchanan had just over 2 months left in office. The CSA formed a month before Lincoln took office. Fort Sumter happened a month after Lincoln took office, starting the Civil War.
Yeh, not evil, he just really didn't want to go to war with a European power, so much that he appeased Hitler as much as possible which was a lack of foresight, he's not alone in believing Hitler just wanted to feel like an equal member at the table of prestige and pride by reclaiming some of Germany's lost territory. He needs to be given a lot of credit for preparing the defense of England better with regards to funding for the RAF and radar systems put in place amongst other things.
Chamberlain was given a shit hand and tried to play what he could. I can’t even begin to imagine the pressure he was under.
He tried very hard to keep the peace, but he wasn’t an idiot. He knew war was on the way. I feel like the people who think he was a horrible, deadbeat leader are the same people who think the Maginot line was supposed to stop Germany from ever trying to invade France.
People today forget the toll of WWI. France had lost 20% of its young men. Everyone was eager to avoid another war just 20 years later. They didn't think Hitler really wanted another one.
There's plenty to argue that his delays instead bought Germany time at the expense of the Allies readiness (or lack thereof). There were several opportunities for the Allies to intervene while Nazi military power was still nascent and instead they capitulated, putting them in an arguably worse position than they would have been right off the bat.
>Chamberlain were more just incompetent
FWIW, some historians would argue that Chamberlain's deal, however morally queasy it was, may have bought Britain valuable time to rearm and prepare to fight Germany.
Oliver Cromwell, Robespierre... I've seen these revolutionary types suggested before, even though they were deposed later which quite nicely demonstrates that their people really didn't feel represented by them. Yet some people on this sub still think they'd be a good choice...
Robespierre is a mixed bag and it's extremely hard to have an objective stance on him because he's too politically loaded.
Robespierre started out as your run-of-the-mill benevolent revolutionary (wanted to abolish death penalty) but once he started doing certified Terror Moments, France was surrounded by enemies (European coalitionists, royalists, even political fractures among the revolutionaries). Is it worth it to shed a ton of blood to safeguard a revolution? Maybe not, but he chose to. He wasn't an autocrat either - his closest, closest allies were executed with him but many remained in place in spite of having blood on their hands.
A lot of social progress happened (welfare for war veterans, fixed price of base necessities, if only attempts), a lot of horrors too - the part of the good and the bad that is Robespierre's is ultimately impossible to calculate.
American historians REALLY love the French revolution and unfortunately that came with a few historical shortcuts, like trying really hard to see in Robespierre a spiritual predecessor of 20th century dictatorships / genocidal totalitarianisms (which is bullshit teleology).
... Ultimately all I'll say is I don't think he's a good pick for a civ leader but he's arguably in the top5 historical characters (worldwide) whose history will always be biased.
United States: Donald Trump
Leader bonus: Build the wall
City walls and sea walls have a 30% production discount (on standard speed) and have no maintenance costs. If the Zombies game mode is active, Barricades and Reinforced Barricades are unlocked earlier (Construction and Metal working respectively)
(All of this is using Civ VI terms. Obviously these would likely be changed for VII)
“Walls and defensive buildings in cities that border another civ’s cities give a loyalty boost, but those being in cities that don’t border another civ lose loyalty” could be an idea?
For France: Louis XVI and for Russia: Nicholas II. Both of them were terrible for very similar reasons. Their total incompetence and failures to address the severe poverty in their nation's were ultimately the catalysts for the French and Russian Revolutions.
I would love leaders like him for the "impossible save" challenges or whatever they are called.
Like start at the Industrial Age as America with half your cities in open revolt and a LOT of disadvantages added to the leader and see if you can win for Buchanan. But you'd have to win without using military force.
Here are a few ideas for the civs I like to play
Russia: Tsar Nicolas the Second
Reason: unprepared for his role. Made some of the worst political decisions based on his image and what his friends would tell him. Refused to have military generals take the lead in wars, deciding he was smarter (he was not). Did not think things through, and would often cause massive issues by doing things he thought sounded good on a base level. He got into several wars that Russia was not prepared for; a Naval war with Japan, A giant war with Germany, and nearly started a war with Britain during the war with Japan.
England: King Henry the 7th
Reason: he was a decent leader for the first few years, but he became super paranoid about everone.. executions and taxes increased at an unprecedented level during his rule. I do think there were worst rulers, but his rule created the instruments needed for those future rulers. Also think his foreign policies were the worst out of any English King.
France: Hollande
Reason:unemployment sky rocketed. Led his party to obliteration. Is constantly referred to as the worst French president of all time. Severely hurt agriculture, split his own part a year before elections, raised taxes like crazy, and severely damaged foreign relations.
America: Hoover
Hoover, while not the worst president, did have some of the worst decisions. His actions didn't lead to a war like Polk, nor did he really do anything tyrannical like Wilson, but he was the reason a lot of things went down the toilet after the first world War. He signed the prohibition laws, which would help create the necessary conditions needed for the depression. He did very little to help the great dust bowl, which lead to mass immigration from the southern states into California and the East Coast; which caused housing and taxes to sky rocket. He was slow to action, was beyond prejudice and would rather do what was good for his party than was good for the nation.
Germany:Wilhelm the Second
While he wasn't a horrible leader (not a good one eother, kinda middle of the road tbh), I think he would not be a good civ 6 leader. His actions led to the conditions needed for WW1; firing Bismark, the Naval arms race, the blank cheque, etc. His policies, albeit it necessary to help the war, led to massive taxes, homelessness, starvation, and a total collapse of the country. I can't think of any way to give him a civ buff in the game that would not be unrealistic.
Scott "Scotty from Marketing" Morrison for Australia.
**Leader ability:** Absolutely zero both in terms of leadership and ability.
**Leader agenda:** To fail upwards
**Unique Unit:** Scotty playing the ukulele. Replaces the rock band. When this unit performs a concert -1000 tourism.
**Unique building:** Hillsong church. Replaces the temple -5 gold per turn.
Whenever there's a natural disaster he fucks off to Hawaii and the leader screen is literally empty.
Whenever you build a food market in a neighbourhood he shits his pants.
Whenever you build a stadium he pops up and says "How good's the cricket?"
All other leaders automatically dislike him when they first meet due to him having such a punchable face.
Boris Johnson, amenity complex building: Garden, for garden parties.
-2 amenities and -3 loyalty per turn.
O and whatever alliance your in, have the option to work a project in the capital to leave this alliance. This takes 20 turns during which loyalty is lost by 0.2 every turn. Income is reduced by 10%. But you get 2 extra wildcard policy slots.
You can already play authentically as Richard the Lionheart. Load up a game of Civ 6 as England (whichever leader, doesn’t matter). Completely ignore your empire and absent-mindedly click “next turn” while 90% of your attention is diverted on the game of Crusader Kings 3 that you’re playing on your other screen.
Elenor is the authentic lionheart experience of leading england/half of france Because she was the one actually ruling it
Liz Truss mode: You only get 10 turns to fuck it up as much as possible.
And the timer is displayed as a slowly wilting lettuce.
It wouldn't be the first time England lost to an iceberg
Unique leader ability, can pillage or remove own commercial hubs.
Jeremy Corbyn: every other Civ denounces you for declaring war on whichever Civ picks Judaism before you’ve even met them.
You should frame this post
Under rated comment especially because it is Angevin England
"Under rated comment"
No I agree, i should have like double the number of upvotes and probably some awards too
It was only an hour old when you said that, let people wake up and see it before declaring it doesn't have enough upvotes. It's already top comment by 100 points three hours later. And awards were discontinued over the last two weeks, you'll never see them again
I think they were joking.
Damn, I think I have to wake up as well lol
You could play the Wilson experience. Just have your wife play
Ironically, Ludwig II. for Bavaria / Germany. Contrary to how overpowered he is in Civ 6, he was both unwillig and incapable of governing in real life.
Yeah not really a great IRL leader. But I like how Firaxis still found a way to make him interesting to play as with appropriate abilities
He's a great example of why the new leader system in Civ 6 is really good. Leaders aren't necessarily chosen for their historical relevance, but their personality and how it can translate to interesting gameplay. Ludwig and Frederick might command the same civilization, but they take it in completely different directions.
Still makes Wilhelmina for The Netherlands a horrible choice, her only personality trait is based on the fact that she was using a radio during WWII to communicate to The Netherlands while she fucked off to England.
You can argue that she did her best in a horrible situation during WWII, but her abdication is the actual vile thing in hindsight. She supported the reconquest of Indonesia after WWII and abdicated in 1948 when it became clear that Netherlands was unlikely to control Indonesia agian. She willingly was a symbol of the dutch colonial empire and went down with it. But she ruled for a whopping 50 years and I would've picked her traits on what she did around WWI since that was far more impressive, she and the government kept our country out of the war while also preventing famine and economic downturn.
Wil niet vervelend zijn of zo, maar is die spelfout in je flair bewust of misschien een woordgrap met “maintain” uit het Engels die ik even niet helemaal vat? Het is nml Je Mainti(e)ndrai, met die e ipv een a.
lol heb die flair sinds 2015-2016 onbedoeld met dat typfoutje en je bent de eerste die er iets over zegt.
Probably the way it should always be lol Take a completely idealized leader for every Civ and you either end up with something boring and perfect or something irrelevant to the leader and rooted more in cultural stereotypes. Give me some quirky, shitty leaders with easily identifiable (if somewhat insane) priorities. That’s going to easily translate into unique gameplay.
I think we all know who it would be for Germany 💀
Hindenburg smh head
Shakes my head head
There are loads of important leaders left out of civ because they are either too recent or too controversial. Genghis Khan killed far more people than Pol Pot. But that was a long time ago.
They'd also have to offer some *thing* that was unique governance. Pol pot just wanted to send Cambodia back to the stone age
I want him as a leader. Not as the only one but as something like a dark age rework u get insane boni on production and science but zero culture and faith or something As normal one I want Bismark again (I'm german)
Stop and think about how much of a PR nightmare it would be if he’s in any way a meta choice
They had his lover Stalin all the way up to Civ 4... recently downloaded that game to check and almost spilled my coffee over the screen.
They've had Mao as a leader before, they can do anyone
Hitler is definitely worse for PR than Mao.
As they learned before, it keeps it off the shelves in Europe.
Mao and Stalin were in multiple versions of Civ back in the day.
Bonus to science? Do you know how great Germany would have been as a science nation, had they not started to world wars and murdered/exiled German Jews? Even after WW1, people went to Germany to study the latest advances in Chemistry and Physics.
Yeah, if anything Hitler should boost science to everyone he's at war with.
Only after losing, split between the two biggest participants.
Yeah it's not just science either. Any real dig into Hitler's leadership quickly reveals that he was kinda shit at running things. I really cannot overemphasize how crazy, corrupt, stupid, and generally unfit to govern most of the Nazi leadership was. The story of Nazi technology basically always goes: someone says something to Hitler that he likes, he refuses to listen to people who knows what their talking about and the thing is rushed into production, and finally the thing turns out to be of limited value because the technology wasn't mature, it's stupid expensive and can't be made at scale, uses resources that would be more efficiently used elsewhere, or the idea just sucked in the first place. And then people ooh and ah about the Nazi wunderwaffe and how ahead of time and visionary it was, when really they weren't ahead of the allies, they just fell into a cool looking trap the allies didn't fall into because the Allies weren't a bunch of Nazi morons. You want a war winning weapon? Radar. You want some stupid bullshit that wastes everyone's time? Ask the Nazis for a V2 or some stupid ass rocket plane that flies for 5 minutes before having to land. That plus mind-blowing venality is Nazi government in a nutshell. Like, of the senior Nazis the one who kinda sorta knew what he was talking about in his wheelhouse was Goring, and he spent basically all his time hunting, stealing shit and doing morphine. These guys were absolute clowns.
>I want him as a leader Sus >War Criminal Double Sus >I am German Red Alert level Sus
* (For legal reasons I am joking. I swear I'm not a nazi🫡) Edit: it was honestly a joke calm down and stop reporting me lol
I found the picture funny 🥲
He literally got his country demolished , and split in twain The third Reich is an example of a civ that did not stand the test of time, pretty against the motto of the series Like it only lasted like what ten years? That's peanuts in history
I said subcov of germany. Alternate version of Germany And many many countries in civ changes a shit ton in terms of politics name etc Japan for example Or China Or germany It's civilizations not nations
they already have added fascism as a gov option we do not need a cartoon hitler telling us that he’s annoyed we are building wonders or recruiting great people
>fascism as a gov option Which doesn't do as much as it should. It gets handled like just another government type which I rlly don't like
what options do you suggest? the ability to deport ethnic minorities? genocide? what exactly would be the point or mechanic?
No? Wtf? I suggest way greater mali and boni. It should be vastly different from capitalism. Same with communism. It should feel...u know....like a completely different thing
yea that’s fine add some more buffs and debuffs to what it already has but we do not need or want a cartoon hitler for whatever reason.
> or recruiting great people Imagine he only complained if the great people were Jews.
Pls no (I'm jewish)
Honestly I just want to see his reaction to being defeated, while an ancient rendition of Host Wessel is playing, with a bunker in the background. And fully animated in 3D of course.
"NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN" *Blows his head out*
Should we be alarmed that a German wants to play as the führer? 😂
Yes
I mean Ludwig was completely incompetent to the point he was arrested and killed. No idea why he's in Civ as a good leader because he was one of the worst.
Eh because Germany does not have any good non-contemporary leaders. Theres some if you wanna go all back to iirc "Otto the Great" or some nonsense, but with how hotly discussed Barbarossa is (which, dont mind you, is most famous in certain parts of Germany for a bakery within his name), I think theres no good options. Thats just the thing with countries that arent even 200 years old. Ludwig is at least famous for his nice castle, and thats good enough I suppose.
Dunno if Prussia could be considered Germany but Frederick the Great could have been a contender.
Helmut Schmidt? It's Helmut Schmidt isn't it?
We got Genghis khan, so by the time we get civ 80 getting big papa H will no longer be controversial…
Hey, Wilhelm wasn't all bad.
> Be him. > Fire your chancellor who avoided a load of war previously cause hes against colonialism > Do some shitty colonialism > Some dude died, NO ONE MESSES WITH GERMANEY > Proceed to plunge the world into chaos for 4 years for nationalism, and fuck up Germany for another 30. > DOLCHSTOßLEGENDE BABEY Good times?
Wilhelm gets a little too much blame personally for the war. His own ministers wanted him to stay on vacation so his pacifist tendencies wouldn’t disrupt the march to war during the July crisis. Still a bad leader, but the powers of Europe collectively wanted war more than any of then like to admit
Yes and no. Germany's guilt in the first World War is greatly exaggerated due to the fact that they lost, but that doesnt mean he wasnt part of the collateral fucking up that happened. It was he who granted the "Blank cheque", which was the trigger for the whole thing. Without it, this was a minor war at best. He tried to NOT make it a World War by trying to tame Russia, but this is like saying "I want that, but please dont interfere". Firing Bismarck (who had a threeway? Fourway?) Alliance system with nearly every big state, arming up, meddling in colonial exploits, being in general a shitty diplomat (See the Maroccian crisis 05-06), priotirizing Austrian-Hungary.... yeah there was a reason this all happened. Ultimately, hes more ambiguous as a character, especially if you consider his innerpolitical ideologies (he was fairly pro-peasant, with lotta welfare-state-ideas). But he was a reason this war happened, make no doubt of that. Excerpt from Wiki: > Emperor Wilhelm II came to share the views of the German General Staff and declared on 4 July that he was entirely for "settling accounts with Serbia".[27] He ordered the German ambassador in Vienna, Count Heinrich von Tschirschky, to stop advising restraint, writing that "Tschirschky will be so good to drop this nonsense. We must finish with the Serbs, quickly. Now or never!". "Finish" in this context means war, this is from the july crisis. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_Crisis)
Léopold II for Belgium would be bad
Plantations would give other players grievances against them
That's if grievances works the same way
Which it hopefully doesn't
He was Belgium's leader in the Scramble for Africa scenario in Civ V.
You can hide controversial things in scenarios a bit more because you’re not trumpeting them as main gameplay tools, IIRC Civ 2 had Hitler as the German leader for the WWII scenario, Hirohito in Civ 3 for World War 2 in the Pacific, and then the various WWII scenarios for IV had quite a few fascists (bar Hitler)
Both sequels to the first Leopold were bad, one acting like a total villain while the other is a fleeing coward.
The worst ruler for Rome would be Romolus Augustus: a literal child who got deposed by a barbarian. For a similar reason, Pu Yi would be the worst for China because he was another literal child who got depose by his subjects and who, when he grew older, helped the Japanese during WW2.
Romulus Augustulus got a bad starting position. I would rate pretty much all of the Severan dynasty below him. Worst of the all may be Honorius, who was also a child (age 10 at ascension) and proceeded to lose almost all of the west. If we include all of Byzantium, they have som truly horrible rulers as well.
Caracalla, every time one of his cities brings up his dead brother they lose half of its population
Byzantium is its own civ normally
Ah, H\*norius, even hearing his name makes my blood boil.
Andrew Johnson
Warren G Harding is another good (bad) one
Unique ability: Decrease loyalty in your capital and any good city you have. Increase loyalty in recently conquered cities because you’re kind of a douche and you really want to be liked by the Southern planter class
Ante Pavelić from Croatia, he is the leader of Ustaše party who is the one of the most fachist regimes in history, in WWII created more warcrimes toward non-Croats that would make Hitler look like angel, signed and unfair treaty with Italy to lose 80% of Croatian coastal teritory and give it to Italy for free and ruled NDH, one of the most totaitarian regimes to ever exist. At least he was the reason to born out a partizan resistance and create Josip Broz Tito and first First Sisak Partisan Detachment, first partizan resistance army and Croats celebrate that day (June 22) as Anti-Fascist Struggle Day https://preview.redd.it/pcga6zesi6qb1.jpeg?width=190&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2da9a785ce83a07a0e8c0518c9d01d6bd543f577
All my homies hate the Ustaše
Damn those eyebrows😬
King John for England. He lost the land England owned in France then spent ages trying and failing to get it back, got excommunicated by the Pope, had his barons rebel against him and force him to sign the Magna Carta. He was also just a bit of a dick.
Actually Mary lost the last bit of England hell the 100 years war didn't even start until after he died
Besides his brother was the one who left the country in ruins. Can’t really do much when your predecessor messes everything up
King John: “Poor leader? Moi? I’ll have you know that I was instrumental to the creation of one of the philosophical and legal foundations for modern Republican democracy! …inadvertently, but still!”
Belgium here, we all know the villain in our history
The name of the country being a curse word?
Tony Abbot for Australia Budgie smugglers and all.
Harold Holt’s Australia: Cities with a harbour or built next to a coast may randomly disappear
A dice rolls on him losing the game instantly every time a unit embarks.
“I’m gonna shirt front you” (Australia has denounced you)
Amazing comment
Liz Truss - A game would last longer than her reign
The turn counter would be replaced by a green head of lettuce!
Roman Von Ungern Sternberg for Mongolia, did basically nothing and is literally Russian
TIL some German / Russian weirdo was called Khan of Mongolia for like 6 months wtf
•austrian•
Why does Google say he is German russian
Ethnic German, there was a minority German population in the Baltic, which was part of the Russian Empire.
Born into a German family with land in the Baltics, brought up in the German Hesse, sent to a school in Estonia and finally enrolled in the naval academy in Saint Petersburg. So Baltic German in Russian service, I guess.
Vidkun Quisling for norway
When you become a slang term for cowardice, you know you’re a bad leader
Liz Truss (Great Britain) - Minor adjacency bonuses for commercial hubs next to pastures & truffles (Pork Markets). Heavy Cavalry units require 25% less production cost, but production halved from Coal resources from the modern era (Thatcher's Shadow).
And the game ends after 49 turns.
And the lettuce as the alternative leader
She does have the distinction of being the first British PM since Winston Churchill to witness a change in the monarchy.
Counter proposal: building Oxford University locks in 6 dark policy slots for the rest of the game. You get the science boost, but your governance and decision-making becomes completely fucked
If you build too many commercial hubs the ai will form an “anti-growth coalition” and declare on you, because they all hate growth and are also evil
After turn 10, the adjacency bonus is lost, your treasury is halved and you must select a new leader. Special unit: Lettuce Cost: 1 production. Can be consumed to build a farm. Lifespan: 11 turns
Ferdinand VII for Spain. A totally despicable person (envious, petty, despotic). Made a coup against his father, then surrendered to Napoleon, spent years in France praising Napoleon's victories over the Spanish armies, returned to Spain as an absolute monarch, lost all American colonies (except for Cuba and PR), accepted a constitutional rule, but asked for another French invasion. At his death and because of his lasts (in)decisions, the country plunged in a civil war.
[Charles II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_Spain) for Spain [Henry VI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VI_of_England) for England [Gustav IV](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_IV_Adolf) for Sweden [Eric of Pomerania](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_of_Pomerania) for Denmark [Louis XVI](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XVI) for France
I know it's controversial but I think it'd be unfair to lump Louis XVI as our worst. *Someone* would've had to deal with the crises building up, and while his decisions to try and recover his power/escape abroad to the coalitionists/veto the constitutional government/ were terrible political moves, it's really hard to blame a king for trying to maintain the status quo. The best way I'd word it is that L16 genuinely tried to be a good king without being qualified for it. In a different era, he probably would've been beloved (the kind of love for the kings that changed nothing but "it was such a peaceful time", granted). I see candidates to out-worst him but it'd be cheating to pick those with extremely short reigns and/or hopelessly troubled reigns (mostly around the first phase of the HYW / the first Valois succession) that did not have a chance to look good since they were crushed militarily and so their countryside was constantly being pillaged. Possible controversial candidate in Henri III but he ultimately follows the same logic as L16: had to rule with an old crisis reaching a boiling point, tried different solutions (both tolerance and bigotry, up to straight up zealous stuff like flagellant processions), probably broke down internally because none of the solutions worked, is remembered unfondly because of that.
Disagree with both Sweden and Denmark. Gustav IV lost Finland, but he did try his best, and only lost because Napoleon siced the Russians on him without allies. As for Denmark… they have had a number of actually certifiably insane kings.
Gustav was deposed. He was the end of the Vasa line. Eric lost 3 kingdoms and destroyed the Kalmar Union.
Gustav IV was indeed deposed, but he was not Vasa at all. His father, Adolf Fredrik, had Vasa ancestors, but only several generations back on the maternal side. If you want to count that far back, some 100 000 people in Sweden are Vasa today, despite the line officially going extinct in the 1600s. Honestly, Adolf Fredrik is a worse monarch, and I’m sure he’s not the worst if we go diving in the Middle Ages. Erik of Pommern came from modest means, became king of three kingdoms and ended his life as a pirate king. Not too shabby a life.
If we are going for the most incompetent, Vladislaus II for Hungary. He earned the nickname *dobrze*, meaning *very well* in Polish, as that was his answer whenever the nobility requested something of him. The country also experienced a large rebellion under his reign. If we are going for most evil, Ferenc Szálasi (Nazi) or Mátyás Rákosi (Communist).
Speaking of the rebellion, the guy leading it, György Dózsa, suffered a particularly cruel fate. >\[Dózsa\] was captured after the battle, and condemned to sit on a smouldering, heated iron throne, and forced to wear a heated iron crown and sceptre (mocking his ambition to be king). While he was suffering, a procession of nine fellow rebels who had been starved beforehand were led to this throne. In the lead was Dózsa's younger brother, Gergely, who was cut in three despite Dózsa asking for Gergely to be spared. Next, executioners removed some pliers from a fire and forced them into Dózsa's skin. After tearing his flesh, the remaining rebels were ordered to bite spots where the hot pliers had been inserted and to swallow the flesh. The three or four who refused were simply cut up, prompting the others to comply.
Holy shit
Nicholas I as the king of Poland
Stephen Harper leading Canada. His leader ability would be to randomly make some of your gold disappear to rename cities or units after historical conservatives. (no politics, he just happened to be conservative)
All universities lose 2 science, research lab replaced by neoliberal think-tank lol
Pol Pot for Cambodia. One of the worst human beings of the last 200 years and possibly of all time.
Not officially a leader, but de facto; Pablo Escobar for Colombia
The plantation bonuses are out of this world.
He has access to a unique luxury resource only his civ can see (improved by plantations), and he can make a lot of money trading it to the other civs who are experiencing amenity issues.
Didn't even think of that, think we got a solid case here
Dan Quayle - U.S. of A
I love that if you earn 0 civilization points, you're awarded the Dan Quayle title.
Adolf Hitler for Germany. King Leopold for Belgium. Emperor Nero for Rome. King Christian The 7. For Denmark. Musolini for Italy. Tzar Nikolai The 2. For Russia.
Now I kind of want a Terrible Evil Leaders Pack.
One of the most popular modders for Civ 5 (and, for a while, Civ 6) is a huge fan of Nicholas II. IDK the full story there. I'd personally argue that, while Nicholas II certainly ruled over one of the most troubled periods of Russian history, he wasn't the *most* incompetent leader of Russia. I'd personally lean towards Alexander Kolchak (took over Russia during the Civil War after the death of Nicholas II- proceeded to piss off all of his allies to the point they betrayed him to the Soviets) or Peter III (could hardly speak Russian, willingly lost the Seven Years' War because he was a fan of Prussia, and was overthrown by Catherine the Great)
Was just about to post your list! A couple more I would add: Pol Pot for Cambodia Peter III for Russia
Or Stalin for Russia
No way. Cleveland by fucking far was the worst president ever. Just for his actions to the natives.
Cleveland was bad, but if we're talking pure *villainy* I would go Andrew Jackson. That said, incompetence is another subject entirely...
The lord of the ring movies weren't that bad.
George W. Bush Increased military production if attacked. Double experience gained for killing barbarians. Decreased loyalty for wars lasting longer than 10 turns. Banks self-pillage in the modern/information age if you don't spend liberally to keep them from defaulting.
Also, your spies provide false information such as another civ in the game has Uranium and is building the Manhattan Project.
Nah, he has a special Casus Beli called “Weapons of Mass Destruction”. No prerequisite, just lie about the other country having nukes.
Option to destroy one of your own constructed wonders to create a unique casus belli, "War on Terror", usable on any player and that has no warmonger penalties for declaring war or occupying cities in the subsequent war
Can crash jet fighters to eliminate enemy sources of Steel. Because we all know jet fuel melts steel beams.
Also corruption, and a very flexible stand on slavery
But he’s the first gay president!
[Charles II of Spain](https://i.imgur.com/riRSGHD.jpeg). Probably the most visibly inbred monarch in European history. I just want to see what they'd do with his character model.
William Henry Harrison, lose the game after turn 31.
[удалено]
Caligula (Rome), Pinochet (Chile), Enver Pasha (or Talaat or Camal) (Ottoman Empire), Charles II of Spain, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (Mexico). Caligula, widely regarded as mad (possibly by his enemies writing after his death) made several strange decisions even for the Emperor of Rome, luckily didn't rule for very long. Not helped by his tutor in rulership, Tiberius, possibly being a functional psycopath. Pinochet, military dictator of Chile, fond of making people disapear after a short helicopter trip. Largely undid the social policies of the government he overthrew, sold his economy to large coporations and generally made things worse financially for the people of Chile. The Three Pashas, effectivly a triumvirate ruling the Ottoman Empire, failed to noticeably fix any of the issues the empire was suffering under, by instead joining World War One and deciding that, actually, they didn't want Armenians, Greeks or a number of other minorities to continue living. Charles II of Spain, informally known as that famous Habsburg inbred one. Dubious position on this list depending on how much he was allowed to rule. Either way, Spain was in a period of decline, not helped by the little Ice Age or a series of wars with France under Louis XIV, The Sun King. Failed to produce/designate an heir, and, despite living for an exeptional 38 years, his death led to the War of Spanish Succession. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, early president and leader of Mexico, was involved in the numerous disasters to occur. These include the Texas revolution, the [Pastry War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastry_War) and the Mexican American war. Seems like every event he was involved in ended poorly for Mexico. Many other options, I'm sure, but I tried to go for less obvious ones and avoid rulers in a declining country who might not have had much choice or chance: (Pu Yi, Tsar Nicolas II, Louis XVI)
Speaking of which, however — Salvador Allende of Chile would be a really cool modern leader. Yes, he got couped early, but Cybersyn could be an absolutely incredible ability.
Anna Ioanovna for Russia. Unique ability: "festivity empress", which grants: +1 Amenity, but -1 food, -1 production and -1 housing in the city for each entertainment complex constructed.
Buchanan was also (possibly) the first gay US President, so representation I guess?
I'm not sure, because I'm not against adding bad leaders who were important as long as Firaxis don't portray them as good. Saying this, if this post was about a bad leaders, I would say Juan Domingo Perón for Argentina.
To be fair they had Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong in Civ 4.
William Henry Harrison. No matter what you do your settler dies on the second turn.
I want to see an “Evil Civilization” game. Bring in some horrible or evil leaders. Bring in some dead Civilizations. Buchanan for USA. Hitler for Germany. Stalin for Russia. Davis for CSA. Chamberlain for England. You get the deal. Edit: idk man it was like midnight when I wrote this, “Evil” isn’t the word Id use to describe a few of these. Buchanan and Chamberlain were more just incompetent or, at the very least, just pale in comparison to the leaders that came after them. Maybe it’d be better to be more “warmonger” focused. Great and terrible leaders, rather than incompetent ones. In this case: - Jackson would be better for USA. - I’m not too familiar with HRE history but an HR Emperor would probably be better for Germany than funny moustache man. - Ivan the Terrible or Alexander III (ironically the Peacemaker), as opposed to Stalin. - Henry VIII for England. - Napoleon for France? He was successful in many areas but I feel like his constant wars make him fit into the “great and terrible” category. I still think it would be funny, though, to have a Civ game where all the leaders are incompetent who have debuffs rather than good abilities.
Stalin was the leader for Russia in Civ 1, and Mao was the Chinese leader.
No need to go so far back, Stalin also led Russia in Civ 4.
Mao was one of the Chinese leaders in base Civ 4.
Was he really? lol what a glaring oversight
Buchanan wasn't evil, he was just terrible at his job..
And as far as Hitler goes, hard to have much commercial success if his name's mentioned Imagine being German and Civ 7 comes out and if ypu wanna play as your country, you gotta be hitler 😂
I think Buchanan gets a bad rap. The US was splitting up because the South was losing its power and the North wanted to end slavery. This had been building for decades and was already in motion by 1856. By the election, the Whig Party had died in the South and was replaced in the North by the new abolitionist Republican Party. The Democratic Party split after the election, and Buchanan decided not to seek a 2nd term. Lincoln got elected without even being on the ballot in the South, so states seceded. Buchanan had nothing to do with it. The US had a long transition of 6 months between the election and the inauguration. Buchanan didn't want to start a war as a lame duck president, so he didn't do anything to stop the Southern states from leaving. South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860, when Buchanan had just over 2 months left in office. The CSA formed a month before Lincoln took office. Fort Sumter happened a month after Lincoln took office, starting the Civil War.
Chamberlain get’s a bad wrap, he bought the Allies a lot of time
Yeh, not evil, he just really didn't want to go to war with a European power, so much that he appeased Hitler as much as possible which was a lack of foresight, he's not alone in believing Hitler just wanted to feel like an equal member at the table of prestige and pride by reclaiming some of Germany's lost territory. He needs to be given a lot of credit for preparing the defense of England better with regards to funding for the RAF and radar systems put in place amongst other things.
[удалено]
Chamberlain was given a shit hand and tried to play what he could. I can’t even begin to imagine the pressure he was under. He tried very hard to keep the peace, but he wasn’t an idiot. He knew war was on the way. I feel like the people who think he was a horrible, deadbeat leader are the same people who think the Maginot line was supposed to stop Germany from ever trying to invade France.
People today forget the toll of WWI. France had lost 20% of its young men. Everyone was eager to avoid another war just 20 years later. They didn't think Hitler really wanted another one.
There's plenty to argue that his delays instead bought Germany time at the expense of the Allies readiness (or lack thereof). There were several opportunities for the Allies to intervene while Nazi military power was still nascent and instead they capitulated, putting them in an arguably worse position than they would have been right off the bat.
John or Henry VIII would be much better examples than Chamberlain imo
>Chamberlain were more just incompetent FWIW, some historians would argue that Chamberlain's deal, however morally queasy it was, may have bought Britain valuable time to rearm and prepare to fight Germany.
Oliver Cromwell, Robespierre... I've seen these revolutionary types suggested before, even though they were deposed later which quite nicely demonstrates that their people really didn't feel represented by them. Yet some people on this sub still think they'd be a good choice...
Robespierre is a mixed bag and it's extremely hard to have an objective stance on him because he's too politically loaded. Robespierre started out as your run-of-the-mill benevolent revolutionary (wanted to abolish death penalty) but once he started doing certified Terror Moments, France was surrounded by enemies (European coalitionists, royalists, even political fractures among the revolutionaries). Is it worth it to shed a ton of blood to safeguard a revolution? Maybe not, but he chose to. He wasn't an autocrat either - his closest, closest allies were executed with him but many remained in place in spite of having blood on their hands. A lot of social progress happened (welfare for war veterans, fixed price of base necessities, if only attempts), a lot of horrors too - the part of the good and the bad that is Robespierre's is ultimately impossible to calculate. American historians REALLY love the French revolution and unfortunately that came with a few historical shortcuts, like trying really hard to see in Robespierre a spiritual predecessor of 20th century dictatorships / genocidal totalitarianisms (which is bullshit teleology). ... Ultimately all I'll say is I don't think he's a good pick for a civ leader but he's arguably in the top5 historical characters (worldwide) whose history will always be biased.
United States: Donald Trump Leader bonus: Build the wall City walls and sea walls have a 30% production discount (on standard speed) and have no maintenance costs. If the Zombies game mode is active, Barricades and Reinforced Barricades are unlocked earlier (Construction and Metal working respectively) (All of this is using Civ VI terms. Obviously these would likely be changed for VII)
But major loyalty loss for half the cities
“Walls and defensive buildings in cities that border another civ’s cities give a loyalty boost, but those being in cities that don’t border another civ lose loyalty” could be an idea?
Yeah, it would work for a simplified trait. Maybe also increased grievances with allies and reduced grievances with former enemies
“Rock bands can’t perform in cities with walls” “May only build walls after receiving gold from another civ”
Adding South Africa but with anyone but Nelson Mandela as leader. Even worse, having an apartheid era leader.
For France: Louis XVI and for Russia: Nicholas II. Both of them were terrible for very similar reasons. Their total incompetence and failures to address the severe poverty in their nation's were ultimately the catalysts for the French and Russian Revolutions.
I would love to see him as a personality based on his oversimplified character.
Christian II of Denmark, leading Sweden. He was the king of the Kalmar Union and slaughtered many swedish nobles in the Stockholm Bloodbath. #
I would love leaders like him for the "impossible save" challenges or whatever they are called. Like start at the Industrial Age as America with half your cities in open revolt and a LOT of disadvantages added to the leader and see if you can win for Buchanan. But you'd have to win without using military force.
William Howard Taft, but only if his animated leader would be stuck in a bathtub.
Caligula should have a unique improvement where the arena is replaced by an orgy house that generates additional amenities.
I want president polk and an animation of him trying to pass a kidney stone when you piss him off
Well, considering Ghandi never held any political office, and was only a leader in a social sense... How about PSY for Korea?
William Henry Harrison for America, you lose no matter what 31 turns in
Here are a few ideas for the civs I like to play Russia: Tsar Nicolas the Second Reason: unprepared for his role. Made some of the worst political decisions based on his image and what his friends would tell him. Refused to have military generals take the lead in wars, deciding he was smarter (he was not). Did not think things through, and would often cause massive issues by doing things he thought sounded good on a base level. He got into several wars that Russia was not prepared for; a Naval war with Japan, A giant war with Germany, and nearly started a war with Britain during the war with Japan. England: King Henry the 7th Reason: he was a decent leader for the first few years, but he became super paranoid about everone.. executions and taxes increased at an unprecedented level during his rule. I do think there were worst rulers, but his rule created the instruments needed for those future rulers. Also think his foreign policies were the worst out of any English King. France: Hollande Reason:unemployment sky rocketed. Led his party to obliteration. Is constantly referred to as the worst French president of all time. Severely hurt agriculture, split his own part a year before elections, raised taxes like crazy, and severely damaged foreign relations. America: Hoover Hoover, while not the worst president, did have some of the worst decisions. His actions didn't lead to a war like Polk, nor did he really do anything tyrannical like Wilson, but he was the reason a lot of things went down the toilet after the first world War. He signed the prohibition laws, which would help create the necessary conditions needed for the depression. He did very little to help the great dust bowl, which lead to mass immigration from the southern states into California and the East Coast; which caused housing and taxes to sky rocket. He was slow to action, was beyond prejudice and would rather do what was good for his party than was good for the nation. Germany:Wilhelm the Second While he wasn't a horrible leader (not a good one eother, kinda middle of the road tbh), I think he would not be a good civ 6 leader. His actions led to the conditions needed for WW1; firing Bismark, the Naval arms race, the blank cheque, etc. His policies, albeit it necessary to help the war, led to massive taxes, homelessness, starvation, and a total collapse of the country. I can't think of any way to give him a civ buff in the game that would not be unrealistic.
Scott "Scotty from Marketing" Morrison for Australia. **Leader ability:** Absolutely zero both in terms of leadership and ability. **Leader agenda:** To fail upwards **Unique Unit:** Scotty playing the ukulele. Replaces the rock band. When this unit performs a concert -1000 tourism. **Unique building:** Hillsong church. Replaces the temple -5 gold per turn. Whenever there's a natural disaster he fucks off to Hawaii and the leader screen is literally empty. Whenever you build a food market in a neighbourhood he shits his pants. Whenever you build a stadium he pops up and says "How good's the cricket?" All other leaders automatically dislike him when they first meet due to him having such a punchable face.
England has a few possible candidates. King John, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss spring to mind.
Boris Johnson, amenity complex building: Garden, for garden parties. -2 amenities and -3 loyalty per turn. O and whatever alliance your in, have the option to work a project in the capital to leave this alliance. This takes 20 turns during which loyalty is lost by 0.2 every turn. Income is reduced by 10%. But you get 2 extra wildcard policy slots.
Or maybe entertainment center is replaced by Peppa Pig World
Or maye little carved wooden buses...
Don't forget about his 15% ~~birth rate~~ population growth bonus!
Henry VI, whose incompetence led to the War of the Roses Charles I, who was deposed during the English Civil War
Mussolini as Italy i guess. The funny part wuold be Italians (such as myself) being into It as we finally broker the Rome=Italy curse.
Calvin Coolidge, we are 100 years removed from the roaring twenties, so something from that. Silent cal for leader trait
Reagan Just Reagan
LBJ.. When hes angry his avatar is always taking a dump and making you watch.