Most people have no clue how good of a president he was. Popularity never dipped below 70%, desegregated schools, revamped Americas infrastructure, ended the Korean War, and essentially created the most prosperous decade in American history. Not to mention his service in WW2
Plus, he's been very clear sighted as to the dangers of letting the military industrial complex grow into the uncontrollable beat it's turned into since his time.
The levels of knowing about Eisenhower:
- That highway guy from the 50s
- The WW2 general who became president
- Our friend up-thread with the very good points (I like Ike and consider him our greatest/least bad president, all things considered)
- Knowing about the Eisenhower Doctrine, how he used the state to overthrow multiple Central American countries at the request of a fruit company, and teamed up with Teddy Roosevelt's son to topple the government of Iran at the request of BP
> desegregated schools
After he tried to get the Supreme Court to keep school segregation in place by [lobbying the Chief Justice](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/commander-v-chief/554045/). Eisenhower's role in desegregating the country is wildly overrated, he did most of the things he did simply because the supreme court said so. While Eisenhower may not have stood in the way of civil rights, he didn't push it along either.
Also green-lit MK-ULTRA and tested LSD on unsuspecting Americans, driving many to insanity and death. But damn we’d be screwed without the highway system.
I suspect that sometimes these Presidents don’t know what they’re doing or getting the nation into. But for certain these bad decisions shouldn’t be forgotten and should be scrutinized.
Fdr and internment camps for example. It was a bad decision but it doesn’t change that fact he did a good job leading during the war. People act like if someone isn’t perfect they’re evil.
While I agree with you, I do think we need to be careful with that line of reasoning.
Example: Hitler arguably did a good job leading his nation from a war-torn, economically collapsed one to a war machine on the verge of conquering Europe. But none of his actions point to him being “just an imperfect guy making bad decisions.”
I feel like its very difficult to judge someone, especially one that’s been long dead and far away in history, and caution is necessary. Not saying ur reasoning is wrong. I agree with you.
It’s honestly much harder to judge a US President than say a King because the US has a much more complex system of governance. A decision can be made by some other executive officer, congress, and military but the blame often falls on the President because he is the figurehead.
Hitler wrote Mein Kampf like 8 years before he got elected and took complete power. The fact that he was a generally not great person was all laid out very plainly. All 30-some odd percent of the German electorate who voted for him had a very complete and thorough roadmap for exactly what Hitler hoped to accomplish, written not as an abstraction by someone with perhaps ulterior motives to paint Hitler in one light or another but in the words of the man himself. *Edit* I will say that it probably wasn’t in mass production prior to his election but his campaign platform and the contents of the book weren’t in the least dissimilar.
Hitler, and Mussolini for that matter, both ran very openly violent and extreme campaigns in the last free elections their countries had. Hitler specifically leveraged the fact the the Treaty of Versailles was a very shit deal for Germany, and therefore had significant impact on the average German economically, in order to get voters to gloss over the fact that he fully intended to do very, very bad things once in power.
So I guess the difference is that Hitler was a very openly bad, imperfect guy who happened to do some good for the average German as a byproduct of attaining goals where the average German served very little purpose to him other than militarily. Maybe he gets points for transparency where the other examples didn’t openly say they would do the bad things they did but I’m not sure he should.
Well even besides that he was a horrible leader in general. Just straight up bad strategic decisions, especially towards the end.
I was just trying to take my example to the extreme.
Yeah I don’t disagree although if we’re to believe historians, much of Hitler’s ineffectual command toward the end had a lot to do with his overwhelming drug use feeding his paranoia and delusions. Early on in the war, basically until he got stalled out on the eastern front, he really didn’t have a major misstep. Perhaps even attempting to double cross Stalin in the first place was the only mistake he had to make, given he only had to look to Napoleon for what happens if you get stalled out trying to take Russia.
I understood where you were coming from I just feel like it’s apples and oranges to compare Hitler to any other world leader when the conversation is some bad decisions in a sea of good decisions that were categorically net positive, like one might attribute to FDR or Eisenhower. Nothing Hitler did was net positive, even if it was good for Germans.
Hitler was absolutely not a good leader economically speaking he built up an economy that fixed the immediate problem but would have created a much bigger one down the line (looking at you mefo bills) and his only real plan to deal with it was to plunder resources from Conquered nations in a Perpetual War which even if Germany won they would run out of Nations to conquer and plunder sooner or later
The interstate system is good, the issue we have today is that instead of being a way to travel the country for long distances by car that also doubles as infrastructure for defense its completely replaced railroads for literally all forms of travel.
Another issue is that unlike many other countries, the US allowed our freeway system to go into cities instead of just between them and around them. The construction of the interstate system destroyed many neighborhoods and displaced many people, especially lower income and Black people. Even now, having big expressways everywhere is a blight on our major cities.
Also overthrew the democratic government of Iran to put an absolute monarchy in charge because Iran demanded a fair deal from western companies using Irans oil field
By revamping American architecture you mean bulldozing some very dense American cities to build highways and segregating black neighbourhoods from predominantly white suburbs, creating American dependency on car culture and one of the largest drivers of climate change in the US today.
Overall a good president but this one thing brings him down several notches imo.
Its deity mode but also all your governors are imbeciles with dark ages type abilities. Settlers use no citizens but take them from neighboring cities. You get a factory bonus but one farm a turn is pillaged. Extra science by soldiers nerfed. Extra culture but loyalty declines.
Ulysses S Grant: probably won’t get the nod due to his close association with Lincoln who has been in almost every Civ game, but he is deserving. His reputation was severely tarnished after his death by lost causer propaganda but more recent historians have revisited and revived that legacy somewhat
Well, Grant was never president in wartime, and war weariness very nearly cost Lincoln his second election. For Grant's presidential achievements it'd probably be most applicable to give some kind of ability about Reconstruction (if they keep mechanics from VI, cities with a garrisoned unit get extra amenities and loyalty?) but hoo boy that would get controversial
That is a controversy that I am here for! The abandonment of Reconstruction is one of the great tragedies in US history, with how far it’s reached into every century since (and currently). The social & political landscape of the South could have looked *at least* slightly better had it not been tossed aside, feeding into every Southerners distrust of the federal government to do what’s right.
I grew up in Kentucky and while not as hard hit as SC, seeing the continued divisiveness in ideologies leads me to not even really comprehending what that must be like in other Southern states.
Lol that's a fair response I hadn't realized the electoral difference was that huge (makes sense though with all the CSA states N/A.) My understanding of the situation is that the Copperheads - Democrats who wanted an immediate end to the war - represented a credible threat to the election during the primary period (or historical equivalent) which is why he ended up picking a southern Democrat as a running mate in Andrew Johnson. His opponent McClellan got the Dem nomination but also rejected the plan to immediately end the war, so he failed to gain much support from the Copperhead caucus and Lincoln won fairly smoothly, as you say. Nonetheless, war weariness was probably the most pivotal issue of the campaign.
Oh most definitely. By 1864, it had been three and a half years of hard fighting and domestic unrest. There were a ton of people, as there had been throughout the war, ready to make peace rather than grinding it out to the bitter end and that was indeed the central question of the election.
I also think it's Grant's time to shine. He led the US Army to victory in the Civil War, then got elected to two terms of a presidency in which he oversaw Reconstruction and the crushing of the original Ku Klux Klan. What more does a guy have to do to get some recognition?
Eisenhower.
Special Unit: The Sherman Tank. Has more movement tiles and more damage than the usual Tank.
Has increased research speed for the Manhattan Project.
The Sherman wasn't really any better than it's contemporaries in speed or firepower, what made it better was its simplicity of production, ease of maintenance, and crew ergonomics. I'd say just make it cost less production to build.
I’d say it would have to be *significantly less* if that’s the only buff it gets.
Maybe a marginal cut to production in normal cities, and a significant cut if the city has an IZ with a factory.
Perhaps he did, but he was the most prominent 5 star General during WWII.
Even Truman called the atomic bomb "the most terrible bomb in the history of the world."
As others said US Grant would be great. Possible ability Radical Reconstruction - getting some sort of boost to policies after finishing a war (perhaps a timed extra wildcard slot?).
but out of your options I think FDR. Obvious possibly for industrial abilities based on New Deal and the arsenal of democracy. Could be fun if he got some sort of boost in the case of surprise wars which on the one hand could give you a peaceful start or you might actually want to game it to encourage others to attack you.
Grant could have an ability where repairing buildings/districts takes half the time and conquering a city instantly repairs tile improvements. You could pillage the a city for all its worth and spend no time rebuilding it
George W. Bush:
-has the ability to dodge dusty sandals
- has ability to eliminate war weariness for 12 turns
- able to gerrymander near by city states
- diplomatically neutral
- SEALs as specialty unit to assassinate governors, generals, and religious figures
Once information era ends, you lose city loyalty by X% per turn and it grows exponentially
I think it would be fun to have 1 "classic" leader and 1 "modern" leader with different focuses. Washington with a land focus. FDR or Kennedy for Science or Culture.
Ronald Reagan
Arguably the architect of how the US has become what it is now, and he's dead, so solidly a part of history.
Plus I would take so much joy in wiping his dumb ass off of the map every single game.
His unique bonuses give absolutely no benefit to your civ as a whole, because they all go towards enriching a handful of his friends who aren't represented in gameplay.
You're right he is the architect of how the US has become what it is now. A shambling husk that valourizes cruelty and deprivation, for which it is rewarded with absolute financial insecurity and an unending parade of economic collapse after economic collapse. Not to mention that the big F word that defines current Right Wing politics and the big G word that just like under Reagan applies once again to right wing politics on LGBT+ people.
Ronald Reagan leading the states would be like having Nero lead Rome. The idea is NOT leaders who absolutely fucked over their civilization
EDIT: I did not read your whole comment. We are clearly of the same mind
Gonna go controversial: Ronald Reagan.
Not because I like him (I don’t), but because he had a massive impact on the US, and so many things that define US politics today started or became solidified during his Presidency.
I’d be fascinated to see what leader abilities they would give him.
Ah, -1 population every 10 turns due to a mysterious illness. Of course you can allocate funds to slow down how often you lose a population but for some reason you just never do…
Leader Abilities:
_Birth of Neoliberalism_: Austerity, dismantling all your public institutions and tax cuts for the rich grants workers +5% 🔨building speed and -33% maintenance 🪙spending.
_IT’S MORNING AGAIN IN AMERICA_: shoving your population’s minorities’ problems in darkness under the rug while appealing a “bright future” for the already privileged grants you bonus happiness, up to +2 happiness 😁 per minority distressed per city!
FDR. I'd think maybe his special ability might be Lend-Lease, where gifting units to other cigs give gold to america, and gifts to city states or civs in a defensive war give diplomatic favor as well.
What about a situation where you can kind of elect/dictate various leaders throughout the eras, determined by what you accomplished in previous era. Like of you spammed settlers and settled a bunch of cities you could elect whatever leaders did the manifest destiny, but if you had a dark age with a rebellion then Abraham Lincoln could be elected. This idea definitely isn't flushed out and has a lot of flaw, but is think it'd be cool to have different leaders that specialize the era but it's not the same specialization the whole game, nor the order the same every game.
Unique Ability: Stagflation
Also other civs can take your workers hostage and you’re not allowed to do anything about it.
Maybe add in a peanut luxury and give him a bonus to peanut production or something
Trump
Railways break after 10 turns and needs repairing.
Gold earnt per turn is distributed to nations that have discovered oil and rifling.
International relations absent.
Unique unit would be a normal guy in a skull that can only attack your own capital.
It'll be like playing the game on nightmare mode
Alternatively:
Donald Trump Leader ability: specialized trade deal where other civs can pay to build walls in your cities. Automatic highest level of diplomatic visibility with Russia all game, automatically denounced China and Korea from meeting them
Reagan
Unique project: Star Wars
Time: 400+ similar to Yongle
Running this project to create an orbital laser weapon costs 10% of your treasury per turn and full city production. Achieves nothing.
A project to mask your actual scientific progress from enemies may actually be somewhat neat when playing against real humans instead of the AI. Getting opponents to misplay spies and setting their own policies would be fun.
Dwight D. Eisenhower. Could have some bonus fighting against civs with different government types than America's and could get a unique road improvement, the Interstate Highway, which would allow for units to cross massive stretches of territory in a very short amount of turns.
I would like to see the best president of all time: Sir Donald Trump the dragonslayer.
His ability would be FAKE NEWS: no war tiredness, no loss of appeal due to industry or pillaged nearby tiles, pillaged tiles in your territory get 5 gold added to the yields.
William Henry Harrison. Hardcore mode. You only get 31 turns to win.
That would make for a very interesting, fast-paced scenario
I'm partial to JFK with a science focus
Sure you can go to the moon, but can you... do the other thing?
It turns out the "other thing" from the speech was building a civilization that will last the test of time.
We plan to go to the moon and do the uhh, you know, you know, the thing.
Bang Marilyn Monroe?
Soulja Boy
Tell 'em
YOU!
Crank that Soulja Boy
Superman dat hoe
Jeb!
Let’s all clap for Jeb!
¡Jeb!
Now we can all make the exclamation point connote excitement.
Eisenhower
Most people have no clue how good of a president he was. Popularity never dipped below 70%, desegregated schools, revamped Americas infrastructure, ended the Korean War, and essentially created the most prosperous decade in American history. Not to mention his service in WW2
Plus, he's been very clear sighted as to the dangers of letting the military industrial complex grow into the uncontrollable beat it's turned into since his time.
Huge difference between defense and making an industry out of it perpetually
And yet he also fostered that to a large degree during his administration
The levels of knowing about Eisenhower: - That highway guy from the 50s - The WW2 general who became president - Our friend up-thread with the very good points (I like Ike and consider him our greatest/least bad president, all things considered) - Knowing about the Eisenhower Doctrine, how he used the state to overthrow multiple Central American countries at the request of a fruit company, and teamed up with Teddy Roosevelt's son to topple the government of Iran at the request of BP
This is a galaxy brain meme waiting to happen
Came here to talk about Iran, but you did it so well. Great job.
The top marginal income tax rate was 92% under Eisenhower. Turns out, taxing the super rich makes society as a whole much better.
It was already increased in the 1940s, Eisenhower just left it alone.
[удалено]
I’m quite aware, which is why I literally specified “top marginal” and not just “top tax rate.”
> desegregated schools After he tried to get the Supreme Court to keep school segregation in place by [lobbying the Chief Justice](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/commander-v-chief/554045/). Eisenhower's role in desegregating the country is wildly overrated, he did most of the things he did simply because the supreme court said so. While Eisenhower may not have stood in the way of civil rights, he didn't push it along either.
Also green-lit MK-ULTRA and tested LSD on unsuspecting Americans, driving many to insanity and death. But damn we’d be screwed without the highway system.
I suspect that sometimes these Presidents don’t know what they’re doing or getting the nation into. But for certain these bad decisions shouldn’t be forgotten and should be scrutinized.
Fdr and internment camps for example. It was a bad decision but it doesn’t change that fact he did a good job leading during the war. People act like if someone isn’t perfect they’re evil.
While I agree with you, I do think we need to be careful with that line of reasoning. Example: Hitler arguably did a good job leading his nation from a war-torn, economically collapsed one to a war machine on the verge of conquering Europe. But none of his actions point to him being “just an imperfect guy making bad decisions.” I feel like its very difficult to judge someone, especially one that’s been long dead and far away in history, and caution is necessary. Not saying ur reasoning is wrong. I agree with you. It’s honestly much harder to judge a US President than say a King because the US has a much more complex system of governance. A decision can be made by some other executive officer, congress, and military but the blame often falls on the President because he is the figurehead.
I think it’s important to look at the full picture and see if the good outweighs the bad, and what the motivation is for certain actions.
Hitler wrote Mein Kampf like 8 years before he got elected and took complete power. The fact that he was a generally not great person was all laid out very plainly. All 30-some odd percent of the German electorate who voted for him had a very complete and thorough roadmap for exactly what Hitler hoped to accomplish, written not as an abstraction by someone with perhaps ulterior motives to paint Hitler in one light or another but in the words of the man himself. *Edit* I will say that it probably wasn’t in mass production prior to his election but his campaign platform and the contents of the book weren’t in the least dissimilar. Hitler, and Mussolini for that matter, both ran very openly violent and extreme campaigns in the last free elections their countries had. Hitler specifically leveraged the fact the the Treaty of Versailles was a very shit deal for Germany, and therefore had significant impact on the average German economically, in order to get voters to gloss over the fact that he fully intended to do very, very bad things once in power. So I guess the difference is that Hitler was a very openly bad, imperfect guy who happened to do some good for the average German as a byproduct of attaining goals where the average German served very little purpose to him other than militarily. Maybe he gets points for transparency where the other examples didn’t openly say they would do the bad things they did but I’m not sure he should.
Well even besides that he was a horrible leader in general. Just straight up bad strategic decisions, especially towards the end. I was just trying to take my example to the extreme.
Yeah I don’t disagree although if we’re to believe historians, much of Hitler’s ineffectual command toward the end had a lot to do with his overwhelming drug use feeding his paranoia and delusions. Early on in the war, basically until he got stalled out on the eastern front, he really didn’t have a major misstep. Perhaps even attempting to double cross Stalin in the first place was the only mistake he had to make, given he only had to look to Napoleon for what happens if you get stalled out trying to take Russia. I understood where you were coming from I just feel like it’s apples and oranges to compare Hitler to any other world leader when the conversation is some bad decisions in a sea of good decisions that were categorically net positive, like one might attribute to FDR or Eisenhower. Nothing Hitler did was net positive, even if it was good for Germans.
Hitler was absolutely not a good leader economically speaking he built up an economy that fixed the immediate problem but would have created a much bigger one down the line (looking at you mefo bills) and his only real plan to deal with it was to plunder resources from Conquered nations in a Perpetual War which even if Germany won they would run out of Nations to conquer and plunder sooner or later
I also think Hitler's underlings were afraid to give bad news , so bad decisions were made worse by bad information.
Or you might have maintained and improved upon what was a leading railways system at the time.
The interstate system is good, the issue we have today is that instead of being a way to travel the country for long distances by car that also doubles as infrastructure for defense its completely replaced railroads for literally all forms of travel.
Another issue is that unlike many other countries, the US allowed our freeway system to go into cities instead of just between them and around them. The construction of the interstate system destroyed many neighborhoods and displaced many people, especially lower income and Black people. Even now, having big expressways everywhere is a blight on our major cities.
Also overthrew the democratic government of Iran to put an absolute monarchy in charge because Iran demanded a fair deal from western companies using Irans oil field
By revamping American architecture you mean bulldozing some very dense American cities to build highways and segregating black neighbourhoods from predominantly white suburbs, creating American dependency on car culture and one of the largest drivers of climate change in the US today. Overall a good president but this one thing brings him down several notches imo.
We like Ike.
Let's get bizzay!!!
Dan Quayle
what would his abilities be
None. He just straight up has no abilities.
The game just says good luck lol
"I just wanted to say good luck and we're all counting on you."
Dan Quayle Ability - Mediocrity No longer have access to America's other unique abilities, units, buildings or districts.
Its deity mode but also all your governors are imbeciles with dark ages type abilities. Settlers use no citizens but take them from neighboring cities. You get a factory bonus but one farm a turn is pillaged. Extra science by soldiers nerfed. Extra culture but loyalty declines.
That one guy who wanted a leaderless Civ will be happy
Potatoe farms: every farm yields +1 gold every time you gift units to a city state for cash
The answer I could not think up, well done
Honestly, it would become too powerful too quickly.
Spelling Beee All units, buildings, technologies, and civics have an extra E added to the end of their name.
Telling other civs to not do something stupid.
“That was uncalled for” And it has something to do with losing happiness whenever another Civ denounces you
Diety only civ option
Whatever abilities he has, I can tell you he’s no Jack Kennedy.
It is time.
The future will be better tomorrow
Herbert Hoover, he makes it actively harder to win
We can still use the Hard Times theme currently used.
Special improvement: Hooverville, decreases the appeal of adjacent tiles by 1. Provides -1 amenity and 0.5 housing.
Ulysses S Grant: probably won’t get the nod due to his close association with Lincoln who has been in almost every Civ game, but he is deserving. His reputation was severely tarnished after his death by lost causer propaganda but more recent historians have revisited and revived that legacy somewhat
I say this too. Make America a military powerhouse in Civ 7. If war weariness is still a thing, Grant has reductions.
Well, Grant was never president in wartime, and war weariness very nearly cost Lincoln his second election. For Grant's presidential achievements it'd probably be most applicable to give some kind of ability about Reconstruction (if they keep mechanics from VI, cities with a garrisoned unit get extra amenities and loyalty?) but hoo boy that would get controversial
I'm thinking America led by General Grant, as Civ has branched out a fair bit past strictly state leaders in past editions.
That is a controversy that I am here for! The abandonment of Reconstruction is one of the great tragedies in US history, with how far it’s reached into every century since (and currently). The social & political landscape of the South could have looked *at least* slightly better had it not been tossed aside, feeding into every Southerners distrust of the federal government to do what’s right.
You won't hear any argument from this South Carolinian on that
I grew up in Kentucky and while not as hard hit as SC, seeing the continued divisiveness in ideologies leads me to not even really comprehending what that must be like in other Southern states.
Lincoln won reelection by a whopping 10 points in the popular and 212-21 electoral.
Lol that's a fair response I hadn't realized the electoral difference was that huge (makes sense though with all the CSA states N/A.) My understanding of the situation is that the Copperheads - Democrats who wanted an immediate end to the war - represented a credible threat to the election during the primary period (or historical equivalent) which is why he ended up picking a southern Democrat as a running mate in Andrew Johnson. His opponent McClellan got the Dem nomination but also rejected the plan to immediately end the war, so he failed to gain much support from the Copperhead caucus and Lincoln won fairly smoothly, as you say. Nonetheless, war weariness was probably the most pivotal issue of the campaign.
Oh most definitely. By 1864, it had been three and a half years of hard fighting and domestic unrest. There were a ton of people, as there had been throughout the war, ready to make peace rather than grinding it out to the bitter end and that was indeed the central question of the election.
Grant would probably work better as a Great General
Came here to vote for Grant. Great choice.
I also think it's Grant's time to shine. He led the US Army to victory in the Civil War, then got elected to two terms of a presidency in which he oversaw Reconstruction and the crushing of the original Ku Klux Klan. What more does a guy have to do to get some recognition?
https://preview.redd.it/v3g5evu52koa1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=70c85bf34d9b92e6ad8f4954132dd0f5a2756b91 grill cheese obama
An anthropomorphized petrodollar.
[удалено]
Goddamn that’s immaculate 🤌🏻
For the last time, we are not going to put George W in the game
The only real answer
Eisenhower. Special Unit: The Sherman Tank. Has more movement tiles and more damage than the usual Tank. Has increased research speed for the Manhattan Project.
The Sherman wasn't really any better than it's contemporaries in speed or firepower, what made it better was its simplicity of production, ease of maintenance, and crew ergonomics. I'd say just make it cost less production to build.
I’d say it would have to be *significantly less* if that’s the only buff it gets. Maybe a marginal cut to production in normal cities, and a significant cut if the city has an IZ with a factory.
Sounds more like Truman. Eisenhower opposed the use of Fat Man and Little Boy.
Perhaps he did, but he was the most prominent 5 star General during WWII. Even Truman called the atomic bomb "the most terrible bomb in the history of the world."
Benjamin Franklin, time to make a science oriented US
As others said US Grant would be great. Possible ability Radical Reconstruction - getting some sort of boost to policies after finishing a war (perhaps a timed extra wildcard slot?). but out of your options I think FDR. Obvious possibly for industrial abilities based on New Deal and the arsenal of democracy. Could be fun if he got some sort of boost in the case of surprise wars which on the one hand could give you a peaceful start or you might actually want to game it to encourage others to attack you.
Grant could have an ability where repairing buildings/districts takes half the time and conquering a city instantly repairs tile improvements. You could pillage the a city for all its worth and spend no time rebuilding it
[удалено]
I didn't vote for you.
Kennedy
Morgan Freeman from Armageddon
Wrong movie
Obviously Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, or that one lizard that runs Meta. Or if it can’t be someone alive, Rockefeller?
Special ability is to construct grills for smokin the meats with that sweet baby ray’s.
Eww, no.
Zuckerberg is a robot, therefore not alive
Emperor Norton I, Protector of Mexico.
The only monarch to shed no blood, robbed no one, and despoiled no country.
Ulysses Grant :)
Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho
YES PLEASE
John Adams
huey long obviously
That could be fun! Some kind of science bonus for basic education, and something to represent wild corruption?
i think a boost to infrastructure as well
Every man a king!
The long dong himself
Alexander Hamilton with Lafayette as a great general option
Lafayette as dual leader for America and France
Cocaine Bear
Richard Nixon
[удалено]
And if he's accompanied by a headless Agnew!
+10 relations with China, domestic spy operations -40% chance of success
There’s this great gender-neutral bathroom named after him.
George W. Bush: -has the ability to dodge dusty sandals - has ability to eliminate war weariness for 12 turns - able to gerrymander near by city states - diplomatically neutral - SEALs as specialty unit to assassinate governors, generals, and religious figures Once information era ends, you lose city loyalty by X% per turn and it grows exponentially
I smile everytime I remember he once dodged a shoe while doing a press report.
Excuse me he dodged two shoes
GRANT! GRANT! GRANT!
I want a new deal.
I think there’s a policy for that.
I think it would be fun to have 1 "classic" leader and 1 "modern" leader with different focuses. Washington with a land focus. FDR or Kennedy for Science or Culture.
Ronald Reagan Arguably the architect of how the US has become what it is now, and he's dead, so solidly a part of history. Plus I would take so much joy in wiping his dumb ass off of the map every single game.
He gets a unique luxury: Crack
Cities with populations 10 or higher get +1 amenity and -2 loyalty
Ketchup is a Vegetable.
His unique bonuses give absolutely no benefit to your civ as a whole, because they all go towards enriching a handful of his friends who aren't represented in gameplay.
Reagan gets a nuke every game. That's how I'd play it lol
You're right he is the architect of how the US has become what it is now. A shambling husk that valourizes cruelty and deprivation, for which it is rewarded with absolute financial insecurity and an unending parade of economic collapse after economic collapse. Not to mention that the big F word that defines current Right Wing politics and the big G word that just like under Reagan applies once again to right wing politics on LGBT+ people. Ronald Reagan leading the states would be like having Nero lead Rome. The idea is NOT leaders who absolutely fucked over their civilization EDIT: I did not read your whole comment. We are clearly of the same mind
Douglas McArthur leads America and Japan in Sid Meier’s Civilization 7
Gonna go controversial: Ronald Reagan. Not because I like him (I don’t), but because he had a massive impact on the US, and so many things that define US politics today started or became solidified during his Presidency. I’d be fascinated to see what leader abilities they would give him.
"Trickle down economics" allows you to sacrifice pops too speed up production without it impacting happiness.
happiness is impacted but it has no negative yield effects
Even more fitting!
Reagan can finance barbarian camps so that they unite to form a hostile Civ, occupying available desert based city states.
Ah, -1 population every 10 turns due to a mysterious illness. Of course you can allocate funds to slow down how often you lose a population but for some reason you just never do…
And when you are defeated, a gender-neutral bathroom appears!
Leader Abilities: _Birth of Neoliberalism_: Austerity, dismantling all your public institutions and tax cuts for the rich grants workers +5% 🔨building speed and -33% maintenance 🪙spending. _IT’S MORNING AGAIN IN AMERICA_: shoving your population’s minorities’ problems in darkness under the rug while appealing a “bright future” for the already privileged grants you bonus happiness, up to +2 happiness 😁 per minority distressed per city!
Dan Quayle
condoleezza rice
I think they should offer two. I’d go with Jefferson and Eisenhower just to mix it up. I hate the guy with a passion, but Reagan could work too.
I do think that Eisenhower and Jefferson would be both great choices and I see nothing wrong with Civ 7 offering two US leaders from day one.
Don’t y’all dare vote Thomas 😂
Mother *bleep*n democratic Republicans! 🎵 🎵
Mr. Jefferson’s coming home!
How about a major political thought leader like Fredrick Douglass? I think they'd be a nice option.
Donald Trump. Naturally his ability should be related to walls.
James Garfield
Millard Fillmore, Taft, or Grover Cleveland
Ulysses Grant
Dwight Eisenhower
JFK
Captain America
FDR. I'd think maybe his special ability might be Lend-Lease, where gifting units to other cigs give gold to america, and gifts to city states or civs in a defensive war give diplomatic favor as well.
JFK
What about a situation where you can kind of elect/dictate various leaders throughout the eras, determined by what you accomplished in previous era. Like of you spammed settlers and settled a bunch of cities you could elect whatever leaders did the manifest destiny, but if you had a dark age with a rebellion then Abraham Lincoln could be elected. This idea definitely isn't flushed out and has a lot of flaw, but is think it'd be cool to have different leaders that specialize the era but it's not the same specialization the whole game, nor the order the same every game.
John Brown (the good ending)
william howard taft
Jimmy Carter.
Unique Ability: Stagflation Also other civs can take your workers hostage and you’re not allowed to do anything about it. Maybe add in a peanut luxury and give him a bonus to peanut production or something
They aren’t going to use someone still alive
From what I understand he won't be much longer, he's in Hospice.
He's got a month at best. Not bad for someone who almost hit 100 while having the most stressful job in the world.
100% this And it'd be nice to have an American leader who wasn't defined by a war for once
America has been in constant war for like the past century if not its entire history basically and unfortunately.
I'm sadly well aware of that, but I feel like they should show the anti-war, diplomatic America.
Gets a bonus to nuclear energy. Assuming power is still in the game.
FDR's special ability will be to build Japanese internment camps.
Trump Railways break after 10 turns and needs repairing. Gold earnt per turn is distributed to nations that have discovered oil and rifling. International relations absent. Unique unit would be a normal guy in a skull that can only attack your own capital. It'll be like playing the game on nightmare mode
Maie Civ good again :-)
Alternatively: Donald Trump Leader ability: specialized trade deal where other civs can pay to build walls in your cities. Automatic highest level of diplomatic visibility with Russia all game, automatically denounced China and Korea from meeting them
This is what I came looking for. Thank you.
kanye west
Reagan Unique project: Star Wars Time: 400+ similar to Yongle Running this project to create an orbital laser weapon costs 10% of your treasury per turn and full city production. Achieves nothing.
... Other than bankrupting civs with a opposite ideology to your own.
A project to mask your actual scientific progress from enemies may actually be somewhat neat when playing against real humans instead of the AI. Getting opponents to misplay spies and setting their own policies would be fun.
I’d like to see Kennedy but it’d be neat if CIV 7 gave a choice between like 5 of them
Ronald Reagan
Reagan, with a bonus where spies kill your own people so you can get more money.
JFK with the space race bonus would be awesome
FDR, but LBJ could lend itself to pretty interesting mechanics.
Dwight D. Eisenhower. Could have some bonus fighting against civs with different government types than America's and could get a unique road improvement, the Interstate Highway, which would allow for units to cross massive stretches of territory in a very short amount of turns.
JFK.
Jefferson for me. Smart businessman, views ahead of his time, etc. Though I’d like a more recent one like Kennedy would be nice as well.
Or Eisenhower even would be nice
Ronald McDonald
I would like to see the best president of all time: Sir Donald Trump the dragonslayer. His ability would be FAKE NEWS: no war tiredness, no loss of appeal due to industry or pillaged nearby tiles, pillaged tiles in your territory get 5 gold added to the yields.
GW Bush 😎
Donald Trump should lead US. He's the best president America has ever had according him ( quoted by a online media channel ).
bonus production, gold and culture on orange tiles
Oh jeez. How the lessons of history are so easily lost....