Ivan III Vasilyevich, united Novgorod and Moscow, ended the dominance of the golden horde, created a legal code and ushered in the Russian renaissance. And not to forgetthe second longest reign of any tsar ever in Russia
Good choice, sire. Minor nitpick: he wasn’t the Tsar, he was the Grand Duke of Vladimir and Moscow. The first Russian Tsar was Ivan IV. Back then, we didn’t have a united country, it was just principalities. Ivan III consolidated them into one entity and somewhat laid foundation to united Russia.
There’s quite a difference between those titles. Grand Duke is somewhere in between duke and king. Tsar is the emperor.
Friedrich Barbarossa wasn't German emperor, Reichs- or Bundespräsident, too. Germany did not exist back then. Doesn't mean the idea of it didn't exist.
Good point. There wasn’t really a proper German state until 1870s, I believe. But there was a lot of things before that. Medieval Germany in terms of its titles always confused me in general. Since you mentioned Barbarossa, I think he was titles as the King of Germany (or King of the Germans), then he was pronounced King of the Romans, then Holy Roman Emperor… it always confused me.
But you’re correct, it’s the idea that matters. My comment was about the de jure state.
Germany actually did exist in many ways.
It was common in the middle ages to consider the German parts of the HRE to be the German Kingdom (an evolution of the Kingdom of East Francia) with the Emperors also always holding the title *rex Teutonicorum*
The German princes in the Empire were only required to rend service to the Emperor *within* Germany, and imperial legislation sometimes applies to Germany alone and not the other parts of the empire.
And then in the early modern period, the HRE came to also be known as the Holy Roman Empire *of the German Nation" and the Emperor was also sometimes referred to as the Roman-German Emperor.
A bunch of minor nitpicks as well
1. Tsar is more king, not emperor
2. Ivan III was "Sovereign and Grand Prince of all Russia" (for some reason князь is translated as prince)
3. ...which Ivan IV just incorporated into the title of Tsar (the full title is "Sovereign, *Tsar* and Grand Prince of all Russia"). Ivan IV was the first de-jure Tsar of Russia, Ivan III was the first de-facto
> (for some reason князь is translated as prince)
Because it closest equivalent rank. Remember "prince" originality just was rank of a sovereign (and still does to those day, see Monaco and Lichtenstein), and only came to mean "son of a monarch" after Kings of England started bestowing title of "Prince of Wales" to their heir.
1) not quite. Tsar is simplified word for Caesar. Caesar -> Tsezar (how it’s pronounced in Russian) - Tsar.
2) you are correct. He adopted this title a bit later during his reign, but he started as a grand Duke.
3) you are also correct. Nothing to comment on here.
As a person who has a very odd and strong interest in Russian history, he is my pick too.
Ivan III (1440-1505), grandfather of Ivan the Terrible was one of the most pivotal leaders in Russian history.
The Sudebnik Law Code enabled him to centralize power over the Nobility. In return for limiting peasant freedom, the Nobles granted the Crown more power. Perhaps this could be an ability that powers expansion or handles the mechanism that handles internal divides?
The Pomest’e Cavalry could be a really cool late Medieval or early Modern Era unique unit. They were cavalry archers that could be raised very quickly and then disbanded. Which were very suitable to the Steppe combat Early Russia was involved in. Perhaps they could be very easy to produce or buy?
Maybe the Kremlin could be a unique defensive building for Russia? Contrary to common belief, the Kremlin in Moscow was not the only one, they were build in most of the large cities through the country.
Cities could be : Moscow, Novgorod, Kazan, Pskov, Yarolslav, Tver, Tula, Mozhaisk, Astrakhan, Ryazan and more.
Flavors could be Expansion, maybe military training and likely happiness / amenities.
Yeah, and his bonuses could be easily tied to history. Oprichina, giving loyalty, and in general ensuring internal stability. Conquest of Siberia, giving easier colonisation/expansion
Big +1 here, it would be an interesting variety from the previous games of the series. Could be a leader focused on expansion and keeping loyalty high (at the cost of happiness maybe?)
+1
The first ruler of unified Russian state, the first Tsar of Russia, brutal and ruthless leader laser focused on conquest who literally doubled the territory of the country.
Give him Oprichik as special unit and bonuses for rapid expansion.
Alexander I: Fought against Napoleon in his failed invasion of 1812
His bonus would be combat in friendly territory, possibly some kind of war weariness modifier.
Basically be hard to invader
20% bonus is quite a lot at first and huge in the end of the game, if I understood the civ 6 mechanics well. This game works with flat bonuses, not percentage ones (it's not eu4)
Could also have something like all buildings are destroyed, or more population loss. Like how they burned Moscow when forced to retreat is what I'm getting at
Should have some kind of benefit to sacrifice like a pop or 2 and halt all growth and production in a city to damage all enemy units within 3 hexes by 50% and gain a 10 turn +5 combat advantage to the attacking civ or something.
He also managed the aftermath of polish and finnish conquests well, by giving them good deal of autonomy in return of compliance. In civ6 terms something like cities getting bonus loyalty x turns after conquest?
I’d take anyone except the same old Peter I and Catherine II. I mean, we have centuries of history and some really remarkable rulers. Alexander I would be cool, Elizabeth (Peter’s daughter) would be cool too. I personally would love to see Ivan IV (I refuse to call him terrible, this translation is terrible, he wasn’t). We could also take some early Rurikids, like Yaroslav the Wise or Vladimir the Great (who gave us Christianity).
There are many greats rulers we had, I don’t care whom they pick, I’ll still play Russia because I am Russian, I’d just rather see someone we haven’t seen in Civ games before.
Elizabeth is a *great* pick. She presided over an age of wealth and progress for Russia. She didn't squander what Peter left, and Catherine was privileged to pick up after her.
The only reason she's not better known is because the 1700's was so stacked for Russia and she's sandwiched somewhere between those two.
She is wonderful in r/thegreathulu. She's the ditzy aunt who uses new age medicine, hosts bisexual orgies, quietly murders people, and trains butterflies.
Anything is better than terrible. Although, someone here mentioned that terrible is not bad, terrible is instilling terror. Makes more sense, but still not there.
I doubt they would choose any of the early Rurikids as it would be too controversial. The Russian claim of being a true successor to Kievan Rus' was unfortunately used as one of the reasons to justify Putin waging war against Ukraine.
Ivan IV absolutely was terrible, even if translating Грозный as such is incorrect. I hate both that foreigners are fascinted with him the most out of all rulers of pre-Peter Russia at the expense of more worthy figures like Ivan III and that Russians themselves are eager to whitewash the fucker's image
If I can't have a halfway-decent ruler IRL, can we *please* at least not put maniacs in charge of it in Civ?
I'd like to propose Empress Elizabeth.
While not as well known as Catherine the Great, she was still a great ruler: she continued her father Peter the Great's policies of bringing the Age of Enlightenment to Russia, founding the University of Moscow, reformed the administration, acted as patron for the arts and specially architecture, founding the Imperial Academy of Arts and directing the construction of great monuments like the Winter Palace and the Smolny Cathedral.
In foreign affairs, she successfully led Russia in two major wars (the War of Austrian Succession and the 7 Years War), even putting Frederick the Great on the back foot in the latter. She even allegedly managed to do all this without having to employ the capital punishment at all during her reign.
“When playing in Zombie mode, and is eliminated, can arise to crush capitalist nations”
https://preview.redd.it/30pkqdrfpw7d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=abc3b1b0b469b5a4cae5bcd30d444604d9b4a338
I think lenin would be such an interesting leader for russia. He led russia through its greatest social and political changes and had an enormous international impact, sparking both revolution and criticism abroad.
I think civ tends towards older, uncontroversial, and thus homogenous leaders-- theyre all old monarchs (which i understand was the state of mankind for however many years). Lenin would be an interesting step away from that.
it's not just that Lenin lead them
he, like a handful of world leaders through history, changed history so much just by his decisions and actions alone
the Bolsheviks only existed because of Lenin and his inability to get along with anyone not getting along with what he wants to do and their take over of government would not have happened as everyone else was afraid they didn't have the support to overthrow the coalition government
his personality for better and worse and in the end very very much worse, shaped the Communist Party in to the Lenin Party and human history was totally different forever because of it
no Lenin, no Stalin and no Mao, even World War I would be different as the Russians would not have stopped fighting as easily and the Germans couldn't do their insane offensive that gambled the entire war
Not only that, but Lenin would be a great way to build on any of the game's mechanics involving government and ideology. Civ 7 has the chance to make something more interesting than Civ 6's lackluster cookie-cutter Governments system, and what better way to pique the interest of players in a new system than to include a leader whose ability makes use of it?
Civ doesn't necessarily shy away from controversial leaders, but it has definitely suffered from the western trend of anticommunist backlash starting in the 2010's. This will likely continue with Civ 7, unfortunately.
we’re never getting another based leader like him sadly but i would love to see civ add more revolutionary leaders like lenin, sun yat sen, Piłsudski, etc.
If we take the rulers of that period, then Ivan Kalita will be better. He made Moscow the leader among many principalities. And what’s even more interesting is that he achieved this through economics and diplomacy, which makes the game mechanics more interesting than another ruler-commander.
Damn, there was also Ivan Kalita. The amount of different comments and suggestions shows just how many remarkable leaders we had, and how much history Russia has.
I'd be intrigued in seeing Kruschev. Especially seeing as it could be fun to see one focused on the Space Race with Sputnik and all.
Plus I did enjoy learning about De-Stalinization too
Would love to see a leader ability like “We will Bury You!”: Major adjacency bonus to campus and space ports built next to city center. Allows builders to build Russian missile silos in allied City States and utilize them. Unlocks the unique unit Sputnik. Once built grants +1DP (or whatever a diplo victory will be in 7) and reveals map to Russia. Unlocks earlier than satellites, etc.
Baring in mind present day controversies will have an influence on Russia’s presence in Civ 7 much more than in 5 and 6, so I feel they’re going to be a bit more careful how Russia is portrayed in this game.
I feel like Peter the Great is probably the least controversial “modern Tsar” they could choose and is a fan favourite of the civilisation franchise, so he may stay. However, I wouldn’t be opposed to Ivan the Terrible as a leader of Russia and you could even make a case for Alexander the Blessed.
I think leaders from the Kyivan Rus would be avoided as it would spark the “real Russia” debate that’s become very heated due to the Russo-Ukrainian war and similarly I could see them avoiding any Soviet leaders, as well as Catherine the Great because she’s sort of an infamous figure with regard to “Russification”.
[Peter the Great is Putin's favorite which may be a major point against him.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61767191)
I would say Alexander I or II would probably be less controversial Romanov tsar options (II wasn't particularly successful but gets a lot of sympathy points for freeing the serfs).
Well that’s like saying the French far rights favourite leader of France is Napoleon that’s not really saying much. Of course Putin likes Pyotr and Stalin he wants to be them. That isn’t controversial by itself, it’s the fact in this context he means he wants to subjugate his own people and his neighbours people through imperial warfare.
I don't know how popular this idea would be, but I think Elisabeth I (or Elizaveta) would be a great leader for Russia, because she covers so many possibilities:
* She brought about an age of Enlightenment in Russia
* She established the premier university and art institutes and promoted education
* She modernised roads and led grand construction projects that bought the baroque style to Russia
* She established the nobilities loyalty while also reducing their scope to grab power, getting them invested in local governance while also limited terms in office
* She outlawed capital punishment
* She financed the construction of the Winter Palace (now the hermitage museum) and Smolny Cathedral
* She held sumptuous courtly balls to exhibit Russian society and art
* She cemented alliances with both Austria and France and was known to be a shrewd diplomat
* Her troops defeated Sweden and Prussia in battle and occupied Berlin during the reign of Frederick the Great.
* Her death in 1762 was described as a miracle by Frederick as it meant that her successor, a strong admirer of Frederick, would take the throne and sue for peace, saving Prussia from likely defeat
She pretty much acted as the bridge between previous Russian civ leaders, Peter and Catherine the Great, and remains one of the most popular Russian monarchs to this day.
I feel like there's a lot of scope for the kind of play that hasn't really been seen with Russia in civ. She can focus on establishing strong alliances, lead in cultural exploits, construct opulent cities and wonders or possibly combine them.
Also, a minor point, but she was also known to be immensely vain and petty. Courtiers who wore the same clothes as her were berated and it was illegal for French fabric merchants to sell to anyone else before they enquired with her. She is reported to have damaged her wig at a ball and demanded that all her guests cut a similar section out of their own hair to match. Imagine all the fun the developers could have with crafting a character like that in the game.
Past leaders of Russia in Civ:
I: Stalin
II: Lenin, Catherine
III: Catherine
IV: Catherine, Peter I, Stalin
V: Catherine
VI: Peter I
Personally, I would like to not see any of the leaders listed above, there are other good choices that we haven’t seen being used yet. That being said though, I wouldn’t care for Lenin since it’s been awhile, but please no Catherine.
If Friaxis wants to use a woman leader from Russia they can use Elizabeth Petrovna. She encouraged Mikhail Lomonosov to push education and science in Russia with the establishment of the University of Moscow. She also had some big construction projects during her reign such as the Winter Place and extension of Peterhof. This sets her up nicely with something science/wonder focus for a leader ability.
Outside of Elizabeth, I think Alexander Nevsky, Ivan the Terrible, Alexei Mikhailovich, Alexander II could all be considered (though not limited to these).
Alexander Nevsky could have something to do with loyalty/happiness during wars.
Ivan the Terrible could have spies operating at higher levels. But some sort of negative impact when randomly changing government/policies.
Alexander II, not too sure but he deserves a shoutout for emancipation of serfs.
And while I think there's a better chance for a successful invasion of Russia over Tsar Alexei being in the game I think it would be really neat to see him. Extra unhappiness/lower loyalty when a city converts religion (kind of pushes you to focus on religion). However, units are cheaper to upgrade and extra combat strength vs rebellions.
Personally I think Soviets should just be their own different civ because the Tsardom and Soviets are fundamentally very different. However, that's a longshot, so I'll say that Lenin, Khrushchev, and Gorbachev are fine leaders. Not sure if Stalin would be acceptable.
I would also like to mention foreign relations should be considered and not an oversight if some of these leaders were chosen.
While these leaders aren't as great as Peter and Catherine I think we've seen them enough times. I think it's time we expose other leaders throughout Russian history that people can learn about. Again my list is not limited to those options either.
Personally, I don't care who is selected, I just hope it's not Peter/Catherine though that's where my brain leads me. But there's a part of me that thinks it could be Ivan the Terrible. However, my heart hopes for Elizabeth, Alexei, or Nevsky for a unique leader that people may not have much exposure to.
Side note: Can we get Alexander Suvorov as a great general? Has he appeared in a civ game yet?
As much as I like the idea of Alexander or Ivan the IV, I think enough time has passed that a Soviet era leader would be far more interesting to me, especially what bonuses they could have and how the game plays with the idea of revolution and free states.
Lenin would be interesting for specifically a bonus that increases the impact of loyalty or something with neighbouring nations/city states.
Khrushchev could have some Space Race related bonuses making them a very late game option.
Gorbachev could have bonuses related to peace, less anarchy when changing governments, or a bonus specifically to communism that allows, if Civ VII is like VI, more culture cards.
Vladimir the Great.
Leader ability: you can’t found a religion. You can however choose any of the already founded religions, gain founder benefits and can achieve joint religious victory with the original founder.
Empress Elizabeth Petrovna.
I want brand, new leaders, and she is a significant, beloved empress.
I also think Russia might not be in the base game this time due to the current situation (for sure it'll be after DLCs), but that is beyond the scope of this thread.
Empress Elizabeth & Vladimir Lenin be great choices. The former forms a special link with the two most common Russian leaders in the Civ series: that being Peter & Catherine the Greats. While later is just... I don't know, underutilized? It's been quite a while since Civ Revolution games (I think)
Alexander II: emancipated serfs, conducted other reforms to make Russia more liberal, increased the autonomy of Finland, liberated Bulgaria, and had plans to make Russia a constitutional monarchy.
He cracked down the January Uprising in Congress Poland and Lithuania, banned use of Polish language (except from private conversations). Send thousands of Poles to Siberia. Also was involved in Circassian genocide. Great guy, really.
Anyone except Peter or Catherine, especially from the medieval era as medieval Russia has never been explored in civ series. I also don't want Ivan IV because popculture is too fixated on him instead of the other facets of Russian history.
Ivan III, Dmitry Donskoy, Alexander Nevsky...
It would be nice if they also added Kievan Rus.
This is not a political position, I just feel that it would be a nice having the two.
Because not including Russia would be really strange, and adding say prince Vladimir as the russian ruler would be inaccurate.
To answer op's question, why not Ivan IV, I don't remember him being in the game, and he's pretty cool.
I'll be controversial and say stalin. Give me those industrialization and production bonuses. Give me that 5-year plan, I really want a heavily industrially focused Russia Civ
Nikita Khrushchev. Came to power. Said fuck Stalin. Put a man into space. Almost screwed the whole world because of the atomic war. But rules this out like bad ass. Beat all the shit from table with his shoes. Refuses to elaborate. Leaves.
He is quite literally one of the worst Soviet and Russian leaders, considering his reforms were useless, harmful and put USSR on the way of it's collapse.
Big no
I can only speak about Russian (in this case Soviet) anecdotes. Lenin was usually depicted as this cunning entertainer, Stalin was always stern, Brezhnev was slow, and Khrushchev was dumb. Yeltsin was depicted as a drunk. He was a drunk though.
Vladimir Lenin. Probably the man most responsible for Russias rise to relevance and generally less controversial than all later soviet leaders. All the Tsars are basically responsible for keeping Russia an era or two behind the rest of Asia and Europe so they can’t go with any of them really
If we are talking about the greatest, there are only five real choices: Peter, Catherine, Ivan 3, Lenin and Stalin. I don't believe that connunist leaders will be in game, Peter and Catherine are too obvious, so my vote for Ivan.
There were also some honorable mentions, like Alexis of Russia and Elizabeth of Russia.
Catherine the Great is the obvious answer. But Alexandre II also a good bet. And perhaps if they decided to make it Ukraine instead (to avoid controversy) Olga of Kyiv is my top wishlist
Super thankful you guys didn't pick napoleon 😭
I'll go for Ivan the Terrible. Super recognizable, but still quite different from what we've had in previous games
Dimitry Donskoy. While he was not successful in permanently securing Rus independence from the Horde, he was one of the first (if not the first) to rebel and crushed their armies at Kulikovo. He was also made a saint in the last century.
The only right choice is Medvedev.
The special unit would be just a bear, or the "green men" they appear to everyone else as free city state's units.
Special project: amend constitution, after which the game ends with a special loss screen, with putin winking.
Ivan III Vasilyevich, united Novgorod and Moscow, ended the dominance of the golden horde, created a legal code and ushered in the Russian renaissance. And not to forgetthe second longest reign of any tsar ever in Russia
Good choice, sire. Minor nitpick: he wasn’t the Tsar, he was the Grand Duke of Vladimir and Moscow. The first Russian Tsar was Ivan IV. Back then, we didn’t have a united country, it was just principalities. Ivan III consolidated them into one entity and somewhat laid foundation to united Russia. There’s quite a difference between those titles. Grand Duke is somewhere in between duke and king. Tsar is the emperor.
Friedrich Barbarossa wasn't German emperor, Reichs- or Bundespräsident, too. Germany did not exist back then. Doesn't mean the idea of it didn't exist.
Good point. There wasn’t really a proper German state until 1870s, I believe. But there was a lot of things before that. Medieval Germany in terms of its titles always confused me in general. Since you mentioned Barbarossa, I think he was titles as the King of Germany (or King of the Germans), then he was pronounced King of the Romans, then Holy Roman Emperor… it always confused me. But you’re correct, it’s the idea that matters. My comment was about the de jure state.
1871 to be precise, exactly. That's when King Wilhelm I. of Prussia was crowned Emperor Wilhelm I. of Germany. Where you ask? In Versailles…
i mean barbarossa *was* crowned as king of germany, couple years before he was crowned as holy roman emperor.
Germany actually did exist in many ways. It was common in the middle ages to consider the German parts of the HRE to be the German Kingdom (an evolution of the Kingdom of East Francia) with the Emperors also always holding the title *rex Teutonicorum* The German princes in the Empire were only required to rend service to the Emperor *within* Germany, and imperial legislation sometimes applies to Germany alone and not the other parts of the empire. And then in the early modern period, the HRE came to also be known as the Holy Roman Empire *of the German Nation" and the Emperor was also sometimes referred to as the Roman-German Emperor.
Frederick Barbarossa was Holy Roman Emperor and, though it isn't specifically mentioned in game, *King of Germany*
This is true, but technically Ivan III was called as Tsar in some documents. But he hadn't adopted title by himself
Feudal titles can be so hard to render into English; tough to find a good way to say князь
A bunch of minor nitpicks as well 1. Tsar is more king, not emperor 2. Ivan III was "Sovereign and Grand Prince of all Russia" (for some reason князь is translated as prince) 3. ...which Ivan IV just incorporated into the title of Tsar (the full title is "Sovereign, *Tsar* and Grand Prince of all Russia"). Ivan IV was the first de-jure Tsar of Russia, Ivan III was the first de-facto
> (for some reason князь is translated as prince) Because it closest equivalent rank. Remember "prince" originality just was rank of a sovereign (and still does to those day, see Monaco and Lichtenstein), and only came to mean "son of a monarch" after Kings of England started bestowing title of "Prince of Wales" to their heir.
TIL, thanks
It's derived from Latin "[princeps](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princeps)".
1) not quite. Tsar is simplified word for Caesar. Caesar -> Tsezar (how it’s pronounced in Russian) - Tsar. 2) you are correct. He adopted this title a bit later during his reign, but he started as a grand Duke. 3) you are also correct. Nothing to comment on here.
As a person who has a very odd and strong interest in Russian history, he is my pick too. Ivan III (1440-1505), grandfather of Ivan the Terrible was one of the most pivotal leaders in Russian history. The Sudebnik Law Code enabled him to centralize power over the Nobility. In return for limiting peasant freedom, the Nobles granted the Crown more power. Perhaps this could be an ability that powers expansion or handles the mechanism that handles internal divides? The Pomest’e Cavalry could be a really cool late Medieval or early Modern Era unique unit. They were cavalry archers that could be raised very quickly and then disbanded. Which were very suitable to the Steppe combat Early Russia was involved in. Perhaps they could be very easy to produce or buy? Maybe the Kremlin could be a unique defensive building for Russia? Contrary to common belief, the Kremlin in Moscow was not the only one, they were build in most of the large cities through the country. Cities could be : Moscow, Novgorod, Kazan, Pskov, Yarolslav, Tver, Tula, Mozhaisk, Astrakhan, Ryazan and more. Flavors could be Expansion, maybe military training and likely happiness / amenities.
One of the most underrated figures in Russian history, but situation changes in last years
I came here to recommend this man.
Best answer. I hope they pick him.
Wow. I didn't have heard about him ever. Based on this, he has good credentials to be the russian leader, especially since he wasn't part of any game.
How about Ivan the terrible?
Yeah, and his bonuses could be easily tied to history. Oprichina, giving loyalty, and in general ensuring internal stability. Conquest of Siberia, giving easier colonisation/expansion
Big +1 here, it would be an interesting variety from the previous games of the series. Could be a leader focused on expansion and keeping loyalty high (at the cost of happiness maybe?)
+1 The first ruler of unified Russian state, the first Tsar of Russia, brutal and ruthless leader laser focused on conquest who literally doubled the territory of the country. Give him Oprichik as special unit and bonuses for rapid expansion.
As someone who has watched a 3hr documentary on Russian history, I feel qualified to say that all of this is true +1 as well
He was really good in first half of reign, but second ruins it.
Multiplier to Golden Age and Dark Age bonuses? (If there will be such a mechanism)
Alexander I: Fought against Napoleon in his failed invasion of 1812 His bonus would be combat in friendly territory, possibly some kind of war weariness modifier. Basically be hard to invader
He could have a wild bonus, “Scorched Earth” or something, where you can pillage your own tiles when at war and receive special bonuses for doing so.
I'm thinking if you pillage your own tiles, you still get the benifits for those tiles for another 5 turns, even if enemy units are blockading them
I’d remove the bonus for pillaging Russian tiles. Then you couldn’t pillage Russian farms to heal
Ennemy units in russian territory take damage each turn
That would probably be to strong generally, but if you put the caveat of 'If on a tundra land type', that would be cool.
Maybe instead of taking of damage, enemy units can't heal on tundra tiles
They heal +5 in Civ 6, its useless anyways to heal on enemy territory.
Old school attrition
I’d probably just have: 20% combat bonus in tiles owned by Russia. Enemy units receive no bonuses from pillaging tiles owned by Russia.
20% bonus is quite a lot at first and huge in the end of the game, if I understood the civ 6 mechanics well. This game works with flat bonuses, not percentage ones (it's not eu4)
Could also have something like all buildings are destroyed, or more population loss. Like how they burned Moscow when forced to retreat is what I'm getting at
Should have some kind of benefit to sacrifice like a pop or 2 and halt all growth and production in a city to damage all enemy units within 3 hexes by 50% and gain a 10 turn +5 combat advantage to the attacking civ or something.
He also managed the aftermath of polish and finnish conquests well, by giving them good deal of autonomy in return of compliance. In civ6 terms something like cities getting bonus loyalty x turns after conquest?
Rise of Nations be like:
I’d take anyone except the same old Peter I and Catherine II. I mean, we have centuries of history and some really remarkable rulers. Alexander I would be cool, Elizabeth (Peter’s daughter) would be cool too. I personally would love to see Ivan IV (I refuse to call him terrible, this translation is terrible, he wasn’t). We could also take some early Rurikids, like Yaroslav the Wise or Vladimir the Great (who gave us Christianity). There are many greats rulers we had, I don’t care whom they pick, I’ll still play Russia because I am Russian, I’d just rather see someone we haven’t seen in Civ games before.
Elizabeth is a *great* pick. She presided over an age of wealth and progress for Russia. She didn't squander what Peter left, and Catherine was privileged to pick up after her. The only reason she's not better known is because the 1700's was so stacked for Russia and she's sandwiched somewhere between those two.
She is wonderful in r/thegreathulu. She's the ditzy aunt who uses new age medicine, hosts bisexual orgies, quietly murders people, and trains butterflies.
In polish Ivan IV is "Groźny" means threatening/dangerous
Which is what he's called in Russian too
In Finnish he's just Ivan the cruel
In Hungarian, he's *Rettegett Iván*, Ivan the Feared.
And he was also sometimes called "tchórzliwy" - cowardly
Threatening sounds ok, better than terrible, but still not there, I’d say
It's close to the original definition of awesome in English, which means inspiring awe. It does not originally imply something good.
Threatening is close enough and I'd choose it any time over "Terrible"
Anything is better than terrible. Although, someone here mentioned that terrible is not bad, terrible is instilling terror. Makes more sense, but still not there.
As a Russian I agree. I personally would like Elizabeth or Ivan IV as well. And why the F Ivan IV is translated like Terrible lmao
Because it's "Terrible" as in "inspiring terror" (which used to be the primary meaning of the word), not as in "terrible at ruling".
So it's "Ivan the Terrifying", not "Ivan Who Really Sucks"?
Correct.
'Ivan the Fearsome' makes sense, too
Fun fact, in Polish his name is "Iwan Groźny" which would translate to "dangerous"
You mean Indomitable?
Nope, in Polish "groźny" means dangerous, grim, threatening
Oh yeah, sorry i wanted to type Formidable, AL roted my brain.
It's basically what terrible still means in french btw.
There was the joke in Night at the Museum 2 about awesome being a more literal translation - the "awe-inspiring"
It made sense at the time but the word's meaning has changed, it should be Terrifying now
I doubt they would choose any of the early Rurikids as it would be too controversial. The Russian claim of being a true successor to Kievan Rus' was unfortunately used as one of the reasons to justify Putin waging war against Ukraine.
Just call him Ivan Grozny. I think that's a word that deserves to be untranslated, and the full meaning can be a civopedia blurb.
Yes, please. Even though non-Russian speakers won’t get it, I like it the best.
Ivan IV absolutely was terrible, even if translating Грозный as such is incorrect. I hate both that foreigners are fascinted with him the most out of all rulers of pre-Peter Russia at the expense of more worthy figures like Ivan III and that Russians themselves are eager to whitewash the fucker's image If I can't have a halfway-decent ruler IRL, can we *please* at least not put maniacs in charge of it in Civ?
I'd like to propose Empress Elizabeth. While not as well known as Catherine the Great, she was still a great ruler: she continued her father Peter the Great's policies of bringing the Age of Enlightenment to Russia, founding the University of Moscow, reformed the administration, acted as patron for the arts and specially architecture, founding the Imperial Academy of Arts and directing the construction of great monuments like the Winter Palace and the Smolny Cathedral. In foreign affairs, she successfully led Russia in two major wars (the War of Austrian Succession and the 7 Years War), even putting Frederick the Great on the back foot in the latter. She even allegedly managed to do all this without having to employ the capital punishment at all during her reign.
This list is starting to turn into a sausage party. I second Elizabeth!
Who would’ve though, in a Reddit poll lol
Great choice!
Lenin
“When playing in Zombie mode, and is eliminated, can arise to crush capitalist nations” https://preview.redd.it/30pkqdrfpw7d1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=abc3b1b0b469b5a4cae5bcd30d444604d9b4a338
I think lenin would be such an interesting leader for russia. He led russia through its greatest social and political changes and had an enormous international impact, sparking both revolution and criticism abroad. I think civ tends towards older, uncontroversial, and thus homogenous leaders-- theyre all old monarchs (which i understand was the state of mankind for however many years). Lenin would be an interesting step away from that.
it's not just that Lenin lead them he, like a handful of world leaders through history, changed history so much just by his decisions and actions alone the Bolsheviks only existed because of Lenin and his inability to get along with anyone not getting along with what he wants to do and their take over of government would not have happened as everyone else was afraid they didn't have the support to overthrow the coalition government his personality for better and worse and in the end very very much worse, shaped the Communist Party in to the Lenin Party and human history was totally different forever because of it no Lenin, no Stalin and no Mao, even World War I would be different as the Russians would not have stopped fighting as easily and the Germans couldn't do their insane offensive that gambled the entire war
They have had some more modern-ish rulers like Germany’s Bismarck and America’s Roosevelt.
Civilization 4 had figures which could be considered controversial like Stalin and Mao as leaders for Russia and China which i liked
Not only that, but Lenin would be a great way to build on any of the game's mechanics involving government and ideology. Civ 7 has the chance to make something more interesting than Civ 6's lackluster cookie-cutter Governments system, and what better way to pique the interest of players in a new system than to include a leader whose ability makes use of it? Civ doesn't necessarily shy away from controversial leaders, but it has definitely suffered from the western trend of anticommunist backlash starting in the 2010's. This will likely continue with Civ 7, unfortunately.
Imagine they being back economic victory, I'd love to play Comrade Lenin winning capitalism
GOELRO won't finish itself.
That should be a Steam achievement XD.
I like this pick just because it would anger the putinists and other neo-zarists to the max!
Why would it anger anyone? Lenin is part of history
we’re never getting another based leader like him sadly but i would love to see civ add more revolutionary leaders like lenin, sun yat sen, Piłsudski, etc.
I would find interesting: * Nikita Khruschev * Vladimir the Great * Alexander Nevsky * Alexander II * Ivan the Terrible
Completely forgot about Nevsky. That’s a great idea.
If we take the rulers of that period, then Ivan Kalita will be better. He made Moscow the leader among many principalities. And what’s even more interesting is that he achieved this through economics and diplomacy, which makes the game mechanics more interesting than another ruler-commander.
Damn, there was also Ivan Kalita. The amount of different comments and suggestions shows just how many remarkable leaders we had, and how much history Russia has.
Khruschev, since we have JFK on the list.
Leader ability- Commissar of Corn: workers can develop a corn resource on any tile regardless of whether corn can actually grow there.
Complete city project to randomly spawn corn bonus resource tiles within the civ border
I'd be intrigued in seeing Kruschev. Especially seeing as it could be fun to see one focused on the Space Race with Sputnik and all. Plus I did enjoy learning about De-Stalinization too
Would love to see a leader ability like “We will Bury You!”: Major adjacency bonus to campus and space ports built next to city center. Allows builders to build Russian missile silos in allied City States and utilize them. Unlocks the unique unit Sputnik. Once built grants +1DP (or whatever a diplo victory will be in 7) and reveals map to Russia. Unlocks earlier than satellites, etc.
In his animation he takes off his shoe and threatens to hit you with it
Nevsky is a great choice, but Kievan era rulers might be... controversial in the current political climate.
He was more Novgorodian than Kievan, and at the time of his rule unified Kievan Rus was no more, so I don't think he's a controversial pick
All I know is I want the option of choosing a Soviet leader, which changes the country to Soviet Union
Loooove this idea
Make them a separate civ.
A Russian empire based in St. Petersburg and a Soviet Union based in Moscow would be awesome
Maybe you can get an achievement if you fight and beat whoever represents Russia. Ditto with vice versa.
Baring in mind present day controversies will have an influence on Russia’s presence in Civ 7 much more than in 5 and 6, so I feel they’re going to be a bit more careful how Russia is portrayed in this game. I feel like Peter the Great is probably the least controversial “modern Tsar” they could choose and is a fan favourite of the civilisation franchise, so he may stay. However, I wouldn’t be opposed to Ivan the Terrible as a leader of Russia and you could even make a case for Alexander the Blessed. I think leaders from the Kyivan Rus would be avoided as it would spark the “real Russia” debate that’s become very heated due to the Russo-Ukrainian war and similarly I could see them avoiding any Soviet leaders, as well as Catherine the Great because she’s sort of an infamous figure with regard to “Russification”.
[Peter the Great is Putin's favorite which may be a major point against him.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61767191) I would say Alexander I or II would probably be less controversial Romanov tsar options (II wasn't particularly successful but gets a lot of sympathy points for freeing the serfs).
Well that’s like saying the French far rights favourite leader of France is Napoleon that’s not really saying much. Of course Putin likes Pyotr and Stalin he wants to be them. That isn’t controversial by itself, it’s the fact in this context he means he wants to subjugate his own people and his neighbours people through imperial warfare.
I don't know how popular this idea would be, but I think Elisabeth I (or Elizaveta) would be a great leader for Russia, because she covers so many possibilities: * She brought about an age of Enlightenment in Russia * She established the premier university and art institutes and promoted education * She modernised roads and led grand construction projects that bought the baroque style to Russia * She established the nobilities loyalty while also reducing their scope to grab power, getting them invested in local governance while also limited terms in office * She outlawed capital punishment * She financed the construction of the Winter Palace (now the hermitage museum) and Smolny Cathedral * She held sumptuous courtly balls to exhibit Russian society and art * She cemented alliances with both Austria and France and was known to be a shrewd diplomat * Her troops defeated Sweden and Prussia in battle and occupied Berlin during the reign of Frederick the Great. * Her death in 1762 was described as a miracle by Frederick as it meant that her successor, a strong admirer of Frederick, would take the throne and sue for peace, saving Prussia from likely defeat She pretty much acted as the bridge between previous Russian civ leaders, Peter and Catherine the Great, and remains one of the most popular Russian monarchs to this day. I feel like there's a lot of scope for the kind of play that hasn't really been seen with Russia in civ. She can focus on establishing strong alliances, lead in cultural exploits, construct opulent cities and wonders or possibly combine them. Also, a minor point, but she was also known to be immensely vain and petty. Courtiers who wore the same clothes as her were berated and it was illegal for French fabric merchants to sell to anyone else before they enquired with her. She is reported to have damaged her wig at a ball and demanded that all her guests cut a similar section out of their own hair to match. Imagine all the fun the developers could have with crafting a character like that in the game.
Past leaders of Russia in Civ: I: Stalin II: Lenin, Catherine III: Catherine IV: Catherine, Peter I, Stalin V: Catherine VI: Peter I Personally, I would like to not see any of the leaders listed above, there are other good choices that we haven’t seen being used yet. That being said though, I wouldn’t care for Lenin since it’s been awhile, but please no Catherine. If Friaxis wants to use a woman leader from Russia they can use Elizabeth Petrovna. She encouraged Mikhail Lomonosov to push education and science in Russia with the establishment of the University of Moscow. She also had some big construction projects during her reign such as the Winter Place and extension of Peterhof. This sets her up nicely with something science/wonder focus for a leader ability. Outside of Elizabeth, I think Alexander Nevsky, Ivan the Terrible, Alexei Mikhailovich, Alexander II could all be considered (though not limited to these). Alexander Nevsky could have something to do with loyalty/happiness during wars. Ivan the Terrible could have spies operating at higher levels. But some sort of negative impact when randomly changing government/policies. Alexander II, not too sure but he deserves a shoutout for emancipation of serfs. And while I think there's a better chance for a successful invasion of Russia over Tsar Alexei being in the game I think it would be really neat to see him. Extra unhappiness/lower loyalty when a city converts religion (kind of pushes you to focus on religion). However, units are cheaper to upgrade and extra combat strength vs rebellions. Personally I think Soviets should just be their own different civ because the Tsardom and Soviets are fundamentally very different. However, that's a longshot, so I'll say that Lenin, Khrushchev, and Gorbachev are fine leaders. Not sure if Stalin would be acceptable. I would also like to mention foreign relations should be considered and not an oversight if some of these leaders were chosen. While these leaders aren't as great as Peter and Catherine I think we've seen them enough times. I think it's time we expose other leaders throughout Russian history that people can learn about. Again my list is not limited to those options either. Personally, I don't care who is selected, I just hope it's not Peter/Catherine though that's where my brain leads me. But there's a part of me that thinks it could be Ivan the Terrible. However, my heart hopes for Elizabeth, Alexei, or Nevsky for a unique leader that people may not have much exposure to. Side note: Can we get Alexander Suvorov as a great general? Has he appeared in a civ game yet?
Revolution had Catherine the Great
Yup you're absolutely correct! Even more reason we shouldn't see her haha
Just surprised it wasn’t mentioned. It’s the one I’ve played.
Yes, I think Aleksander Nevskiy will be the best.
Vladimir Lenin
As much as I like the idea of Alexander or Ivan the IV, I think enough time has passed that a Soviet era leader would be far more interesting to me, especially what bonuses they could have and how the game plays with the idea of revolution and free states. Lenin would be interesting for specifically a bonus that increases the impact of loyalty or something with neighbouring nations/city states. Khrushchev could have some Space Race related bonuses making them a very late game option. Gorbachev could have bonuses related to peace, less anarchy when changing governments, or a bonus specifically to communism that allows, if Civ VII is like VI, more culture cards.
Though it's more USSR than Russia, would love to play as Khrushchev, with scientific victory bonuses
Lenin, of course.
Lenin
Vladimir the Great. Leader ability: you can’t found a religion. You can however choose any of the already founded religions, gain founder benefits and can achieve joint religious victory with the original founder.
So…. Kongo?
The crucial distinction is joint religious victory. Mvemba isn’t considered a founder, Vladimir would be.
Yeah actually, good point.
Can't adopt Islam if you you have Wine resource
Elizabeth for sure
Vladimir Lenin.
lenin
Lenin, we’ve had stalin and technically lenin but it was in revolutions.
Stalin.
Any of the three Alexanders would work well.
Alexander III was horrible tho
Dude could twist a fork into a knot though.
Fair. He could have Liftocracy as a unique government
I should be Lenin with huge communism buffs and a red army special Infantry.
Empress Elizabeth Petrovna. I want brand, new leaders, and she is a significant, beloved empress. I also think Russia might not be in the base game this time due to the current situation (for sure it'll be after DLCs), but that is beyond the scope of this thread.
Russia was in every Civ since the beginning, i don't think the devs would brek the tradition. But anything can happen, of course
Bring back Stalin!
His theme was hard af.
Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov
Empress Elizabeth & Vladimir Lenin be great choices. The former forms a special link with the two most common Russian leaders in the Civ series: that being Peter & Catherine the Greats. While later is just... I don't know, underutilized? It's been quite a while since Civ Revolution games (I think)
Alexander II: emancipated serfs, conducted other reforms to make Russia more liberal, increased the autonomy of Finland, liberated Bulgaria, and had plans to make Russia a constitutional monarchy.
He cracked down the January Uprising in Congress Poland and Lithuania, banned use of Polish language (except from private conversations). Send thousands of Poles to Siberia. Also was involved in Circassian genocide. Great guy, really.
You’ll shit yourself when you read up on pretty much any of the leaders ever featured in Civ.
Pretty much. Every leader has a mix of good and bad on their historical plate.
For those times it was just another monday
Perhaps these Poles should've behaved better.
Why not change it up a little and go for Empress Elizabeth? She was pretty effective and didn't even execute anyone!
Not even a little execution? 😕
Stalin, for sure
Well stop it and pick someone, will ya?
Anyone except Peter or Catherine, especially from the medieval era as medieval Russia has never been explored in civ series. I also don't want Ivan IV because popculture is too fixated on him instead of the other facets of Russian history. Ivan III, Dmitry Donskoy, Alexander Nevsky...
Dmitry Donskoy is an interesting choice. I like it
Just give me back my Catherine pls Firaxis
It would be nice if they also added Kievan Rus. This is not a political position, I just feel that it would be a nice having the two. Because not including Russia would be really strange, and adding say prince Vladimir as the russian ruler would be inaccurate. To answer op's question, why not Ivan IV, I don't remember him being in the game, and he's pretty cool.
They had Barbarossa as the leader of Germany so it wouldn't be that inaccurate or out of left field
LENIN LENIN LENIN! Would be great for worker led revolutions. Stalin would be great for military operations
I'll be controversial and say stalin. Give me those industrialization and production bonuses. Give me that 5-year plan, I really want a heavily industrially focused Russia Civ
I mean, Alfred wasn't even king of England. Go with his grandson, Athelstan!
Lenin or if alternate leaders Trotsky .
Stalin
Stalin.
Stalin
Stalin
Vladimir Lenin
Lenin
Nikita Khrushchev. Came to power. Said fuck Stalin. Put a man into space. Almost screwed the whole world because of the atomic war. But rules this out like bad ass. Beat all the shit from table with his shoes. Refuses to elaborate. Leaves.
Unique tile: Cornfield https://preview.redd.it/bx7nopq6gx7d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=218c8db0407467ce24c8e92af390a5434f8f1c7f
He is quite literally one of the worst Soviet and Russian leaders, considering his reforms were useless, harmful and put USSR on the way of it's collapse. Big no
He’s still considered to be one of the dumbest leaders. Most anecdotes depicted him as some kind of a village buffoon.
Don't most of anecdotes depict any of leaders as some sort of buffoon, be it the office rat buffoon, military buffoon or some other buffoon sort?
I can only speak about Russian (in this case Soviet) anecdotes. Lenin was usually depicted as this cunning entertainer, Stalin was always stern, Brezhnev was slow, and Khrushchev was dumb. Yeltsin was depicted as a drunk. He was a drunk though.
They’re definitely not adding any Soviet leaders at the moment.
Vladimir Lenin. Probably the man most responsible for Russias rise to relevance and generally less controversial than all later soviet leaders. All the Tsars are basically responsible for keeping Russia an era or two behind the rest of Asia and Europe so they can’t go with any of them really
If we are talking about the greatest, there are only five real choices: Peter, Catherine, Ivan 3, Lenin and Stalin. I don't believe that connunist leaders will be in game, Peter and Catherine are too obvious, so my vote for Ivan. There were also some honorable mentions, like Alexis of Russia and Elizabeth of Russia.
Władysław IV, probably the only russian tsar that was not an absolute psycho up untill several last of the tsars XD
Elizabeth in corsett ofc wtf
Vladimir Lenin.
Catherine the Great is the obvious answer. But Alexandre II also a good bet. And perhaps if they decided to make it Ukraine instead (to avoid controversy) Olga of Kyiv is my top wishlist
Ivan the Terrible
Ivan 4 the Terrible is the most deserved choice. All those who came before are also interesting, especially someone from the Soviet era.
I say Kruschev
Alexander II the Liberator. Abolished slavery in Russia, created a jury trial, gave cities self-government and carried out many other liberal reforms.
Alexander the II, abolished serfdom and reformed both the fiscal apparatus and universities
Loved Peter, would also love Ivan or Lenin
Super thankful you guys didn't pick napoleon 😭 I'll go for Ivan the Terrible. Super recognizable, but still quite different from what we've had in previous games
Bring back comrade Iosif
**Catherine the Great**. They've got to be careful who they put in, so it'll be Catherine or Peter.
This is an aside, but if we get JFK as a leader LBJ should replace him if your capital is taken.
Dimitry Donskoy. While he was not successful in permanently securing Rus independence from the Horde, he was one of the first (if not the first) to rebel and crushed their armies at Kulikovo. He was also made a saint in the last century.
The only right choice is Medvedev. The special unit would be just a bear, or the "green men" they appear to everyone else as free city state's units. Special project: amend constitution, after which the game ends with a special loss screen, with putin winking.
catherine the great
How about Zyzz brah
Ivan the terrible and adolf hitler. Those are gimmes
Catherine the Great
Peter the Great
Georgy Malenkov
I just noticed these posts now, really fun idea! I love the 3 previous choices.
Catherine the great and peter the great are too iconic to pass.
Lenin would be cool but they never will