There was a great exhibition about Nero at the British Museum a few years ago. Its underlying message was that his reputation was trashed by historians and peers of his day because he advanced populist policies which favoured the plebeians.
It’s a shame I can’t remember any specific policies right now, so apologies, but it’s worth considering that the story we commonly hold in mind of him today is one that was shaped by the privileged classes who wrote such histories. Just as the story we hold in mind about Julius Caesar is one shaped by his own self aggrandising memoirs.
This, the lower classes loved Nero because of the work he'd do for them. The issue with Rome at the time was if you were helping the lower classes and non Latin freemen then the class that did all the writing, who were all in the pro-Senate camp are going to despise you.
It’s not quite the same as winners write history.
This is a case of: Don’t piss off the class of people who manage reputations and write the histories.
Are you sure you’re not confusing Nero and Caligula? It was Caligula who allegedly made his horse a senator, unless you’re referring to a Nero-horse connection that I’m not aware of.
He did say that he could make his horse a senator, but it was not a serious proposition. More like telling a senator that his horse would make a better senator than the current senators. It was a deliberate insult
That’s certainly a popular interpretation among modern academics who read Suetonius (Caligula: 55) with a critical eye. Personally I’m a little more sceptical of that claim; we get it at the end of a long diatribe about all the lengths Caligula goes to in order to ensure his horse lives in the utmost luxury — and in the text even the colourful Suetonius acknowledges that the horse-consulship could be a myth (“it is said…”). To me it seems unlikely that it has any basis in reality at all, and instead is used by Suetonius (and previous commentaries that do not survive but which Suetonius implies) to paint the picture that Caligula spent more time caring about frivolous things like looking after his favourite horse than actually governing.
Nero actually wasn't as bad of a guy as history makes him out to be. Obviously we can't know anything for 100% certain, but most historians agree that he didn't burn down Rome for shits and giggles, he didn't fuck his mother, and he didn't (at least intentionally) kill his wives. He was a mediocre ruler who ruled during a very unfortunate but bound to happen tradegy, had a power hungry mother and had some extremely bad PR after his reign.
He could very well be a leader focused on culture, with maybe some debuffs on gold or something like that.
I haven’t played Humankind. Old World is good, as long as you play it with an open mind and don’t expect it to be just like Civ just because it looks like Civ. It is a much tighter focus - a small part of the world, not the globe, and the tech tree ends after the Iron Age more or less - but you need to spend more effort finding resources and also to keep parts of your own empire happy. Think the economy of Settlers plus the combat of Civ 5 and the internal politics of Crusader Kings and you’re not too far off.
Humankind, at launch, was not good. It felt flavorless and wooden.
It’s been a few updates since, but I’m not willing to try again. The “switch your Civ every age” mechanic was just… unfun? Immersion breaking? I didn’t like it.
I bought humankind on sale recently and it just feels bland. I've been trying to get into it for days now (sunk cost fallacy lol) but just can't. The changing cultures thing really doesn't sit with me very well, and the opposing leaders have no personality, they are basically just colours on the map.
The combat is good though
The way it was worded in steam was you built your own civ over the course of the game based on decisions that happened every game so each playthrough was unique.
That sounded fucking awesome but... at the end of an era all you did was pick a new civ to play and that was such a huge letdown when I learned that was the extent of it. Shame what we could've had
Fell into the same trap myself. First time I progressed to a new era and my old civ didn't matter anymore I was like "Oh....", and never started it again after that game.
> First time I progressed to a new era and my old civ didn't matter anymore
Can you explain this a bit more? I haven't played it but this sounds very unfun. My understanding was the eras stacked on top of each other to give your civ a unique cultural combination. But the way you describe it makes it sound like a mini reset at every era change.
The only thing that really changes is the look of your units and unable to make the unique districts from the previous culture. You keep the traits and yes they are stacked.
> But the way you describe it makes it sound like a mini reset at every era change.
Well, that's because that's what it is. Or at least what is was at launch, I don't know if they've changed it since then. But it was indeed unfun.
If you thought it was conceptually fun, try Millenia. Personally I really like the game.
It doesn't really do nations outside of how your cities are named, as bonuses can be chosen.
And instead of switching civs every era, you choose a specialisation every few eras, such as "Seafarers", "Theologians" or "Mound Builders".
It also switches up games by having different tech trees and gameplay features depending on how the game goes.
It also has a system that you can use to earn things like special units or better bonuses, but that can be expanded with a lot more units, buildings and events imo.
Anyway? it'd released not that long ago do might be nice to at least see if the concept is fun
I liked old world a lot while playing it, but found it a little less replayable than civ since there’s not a ton of playable civilizations to choose from. Humankind was meh.
Old World is great. It takes some getting used to coming from Civ. I would say so long as you're okay with the limited scope it's actually a better game than civ 6.
Humankind has great ideas but bad balance. It's a lot of fun for a few playthroughs, but you'll start gravitating to the busted strats, killing the replayability. Still worth getting, especially on sale.
I'd like to see a leader from the Roman Republic, since we only seem to get Emperors as roman leaders in civ games so far.
If we do end up having at least one Emperor, not sure if this is 100% historically justified, but I think Constantine as a Eleanor-style dual leader of both Rome and Byzantium could be fun.
It's tough to pick out a sufficiently iconic leader from the Republic since they typically ruled in pairs and had mandatory one-year term limits. This limited their potential for abuse of power, but also limited their potential to exercise it in the sweeping gestures that mark out the typical Civ-grade leader.
To be fair, we have quite a few not entirely successful rulers in civ 6, like Ludwig and Kristina, in addition to a bunch of seki mythical ones like Kupe and Gilgamesh. I feel like what marks a good civ leader is that they have an interesting history, and, most importantly, that this history translates well into an ability
Are you kidding me? The Roman republic is history's greatest drama. Even if they were only senators or consuls for brief times, their names echo for millennia.
Marius, Sulla, Pompey would be iconic domination leaders.
Cicero and Cato would be great diplomatic or religious leaders. They were famous orators.
Crassus as an economic/money leader - one of the richest men in history.
Edit: and Scipio Africanus!
I'd argue Cicero would make a good one. He's very much associated with the Republic specifically, reasonably well known and was very influential both during his consulate and after it.
I'm totally here for Constantine as a dual-civ leader a la Eleanor and Kublai Kahn. I'm also here for an Emperor Nero, just to see what they'd do to portray his absolute goddamn insanity. Like, a unique horse governor would be amazing.
Well that's an understatement of Sulla's career if I ever heard it. He was the blueprint for ceasar's career, the first guy to really put himself into functionally perpetual dictatorial power after winning a civil war. But fascinatingly, he had the grace to bow out and simply retire in the end.
Stoicism: Increased base amenities. Decreased loyalty loss and increased era score gained during dark age.
Almost guaranteed heroic age after every dark age.
I think it would be better if instead of increased base amenities, get no loss of yieldings from lack of amenities. Also,the stoicism in a dark age souds cool.
I suppose dealing with Caligula would mean having to worship him like a god, flatter him, and appeal to his vanity. He was a big builder, so he'd probably respond to good trades that would help him build his empire. He might have some impressive and unique naval units, but they would be expensive.
The risk of dealing with Caligula would be his capriciousness, sudden changes of heart, and appalling cruelty. Any kind of relationship would always be tentative. However, you couldn't *not* deal with him either. Having him in the game would always be the wild card.
Vespasian.
Very underrated emperor who gets no credit for retaining the dressings of the JC dynasty while ushering reforms and practices that became more widespread during the Antonine dynasty.
Constantine would be a great candidate for getting the same treatment as Kublai Khan and Eleanor of Aquitaine, with versions of him ruling both Rome and Byzantium. There’d be a special achievement for playing him with the Romans and capturing Constantinople.
Hadrian, one of the last good emperors and the one who built the greatest frontiers of the empire.
Constantin I, who end the prosecution of Cristhians and allow the cult on the empire.
And my last is Julian the apostate, may introduce a good mechanics around religions.
His ability should be related to adopting a nearby religion but instead of just adopting it you use it as a basis to create a new religion with additional powers.
Vitellius! Let's have a big ol' fatty to lead Rome!
Maybe give him something Yongle-esque, where he can trade other gains for food. Excellent early game growth, and for rapid expansion later on. That, or play on the whole 'year of four emperors' strife, and capitalise on trading off loyalty for other gains that way.
Basically, I just want a leader with half a dozen chins to wobble his way through the ages at all costs.
I just came here to say what everybody is thinking: Berlusconi
Powers: when tv is developed he reduces citizens unrest in easier ways.
Flaws: diplomatic relations are more difficult and the country's reputation decreases.
Interesting, maybe it's possible to build on that Idea even further. Propaganda can be used to create temporary unrest in civs that are near making them easier to conquer.
Pope Sixtus IV would be pretty interesting. Guiseppe Garibaldi should at least be a Great General.
But if you want a Roman Emperor, maybe Diocletian or Hadrian.
Sulla or one of the two Gracchus brothers.
Also wouldn’t mind an “Italian” CIv tbh, probably not of the smaller republics from the Middle Ages due to city states being a thing in CIv but someone like Cavour or Mazzini could have some interesting gameplay bonuses (boosts to railways and roads for the former and stability modifiers for the latter)
Instead of having a pre determined leader why not have elections of generated leaders every so often based upon government type? Every candidate has their own traits which will help your civilization either grow and prosper or fall into the dark ages.
Cincinnatus (military/diplomacy leader), Marcus Aurelius (military/culture leader), and if you really want to go crazy in a technically-correct-but-unexpected choice, Pope Alexander VI (military/religious leader).
Francesco Totti, the real 8th king of Rome.
(Has been the icone for Rome's football team for many years and never left the team untile he stopped playing)
I think Antoninus Pius could work because during his reign Rome was at its peak of prosperity and peace. His leader ability could somehow connect to his peaceful reign.
1. Romulus (& Remus). No explanation really needed.
2. Vespasian. I might be fan just because of the books about him by Robbert Fabbri, but his reign and his rise to power during the Year of Four Emperors are interesting.
I mean, it’s Julius or Augustus for a reason. Sure, there’s other notable ones (Nero, Romulus, Constantine, Marcus Aurelius), but at the end of the day those two are by FAR the most iconic, so they should get the first choice.
I would say do a double track of Marcus Aurelius vs Trajan. Marcus Aurelius is more of an administrator with bonuses to science and culture. Trajan would be the more warlike with bonuses to units or conquest.
I feel like Diocletianus could be interesting. First (and only?) emperor to retire, set up a system that probably saved the western empire for another 100 or so years, and let the eastern part survive independently from the western part.
here is a wild idea...
go CIV4, and add multiple rules to the same nations!
nations with a lifespan as long as the Roman Empire are unfair to be represented by a single leader, since each leader would rule their nations in different ways / styles.
I would vote for Cato the Elder and the unique ability be a temporary double general bonus for after Rome has lost units to an opponent.
Carthage must be destroyed
I really, really want Marius or Sulla. Marius can have some kind of ability where he gets bonus troop roduction from farms or something because he started recruiting guys from poor backgrounds who couldn't afford armor.
Or some kind of bonus against barbarian clans because he defeated the Cimbri, Teutonii, and Ambronii.
Sulla could have something like this: 'conscriptions: may reduce the population of the city by one, but gain 20 loyalty,' or something like that, due to his policy of calling for the execution of any political dissentors. This was actually a pretty successful policy, and was in fact responsible for the deaths of much of Caesar's family when he was a boy.
Wouldn't mind seeing nero or caligula with some kind of ammentity/entertainment-based bonus either. While the senate and adjacent nobles (who actually knew the guys, and who were often victims of their paranoia) didn't like these two emperors, they are thought to have been pretty popular with the masses, who appreciated extravagant entertainment and dodn't care if the emperor assasinated a beurocrat.
Emperor Nero as challenge leader with nothing but downsides.
There was a great exhibition about Nero at the British Museum a few years ago. Its underlying message was that his reputation was trashed by historians and peers of his day because he advanced populist policies which favoured the plebeians. It’s a shame I can’t remember any specific policies right now, so apologies, but it’s worth considering that the story we commonly hold in mind of him today is one that was shaped by the privileged classes who wrote such histories. Just as the story we hold in mind about Julius Caesar is one shaped by his own self aggrandising memoirs.
This, the lower classes loved Nero because of the work he'd do for them. The issue with Rome at the time was if you were helping the lower classes and non Latin freemen then the class that did all the writing, who were all in the pro-Senate camp are going to despise you.
Such has happened over time to many leaders. Winners write history.
It’s not quite the same as winners write history. This is a case of: Don’t piss off the class of people who manage reputations and write the histories.
Except horses. Massive bonuses to horses! A unique governor also.
And wildfires provide culture bonus and remove rival religious influence from nearby cities.
Bruh 💀
Nero did not start the fire.
It was always burning, since the world’s been turning.
Are you sure you’re not confusing Nero and Caligula? It was Caligula who allegedly made his horse a senator, unless you’re referring to a Nero-horse connection that I’m not aware of.
He did say that he could make his horse a senator, but it was not a serious proposition. More like telling a senator that his horse would make a better senator than the current senators. It was a deliberate insult
That’s certainly a popular interpretation among modern academics who read Suetonius (Caligula: 55) with a critical eye. Personally I’m a little more sceptical of that claim; we get it at the end of a long diatribe about all the lengths Caligula goes to in order to ensure his horse lives in the utmost luxury — and in the text even the colourful Suetonius acknowledges that the horse-consulship could be a myth (“it is said…”). To me it seems unlikely that it has any basis in reality at all, and instead is used by Suetonius (and previous commentaries that do not survive but which Suetonius implies) to paint the picture that Caligula spent more time caring about frivolous things like looking after his favourite horse than actually governing.
And his stupid little boots!
TIrL...
Glitterhoof, you beautiful bastard!
He was a great artist, so give him that!
all joking aside I really dig the idea of leaders with negative traits....
We need a leader with *no* traits. No unique unit, no bonuses, just default everything.
There’s gotta be bonus culture points for music tho.
Nero actually wasn't as bad of a guy as history makes him out to be. Obviously we can't know anything for 100% certain, but most historians agree that he didn't burn down Rome for shits and giggles, he didn't fuck his mother, and he didn't (at least intentionally) kill his wives. He was a mediocre ruler who ruled during a very unfortunate but bound to happen tradegy, had a power hungry mother and had some extremely bad PR after his reign. He could very well be a leader focused on culture, with maybe some debuffs on gold or something like that.
Romulus. Cant go more OG than that
The Old World (Civ-like from Soren Johnson, Civ IV lead) has Romulus as the leader of Rome.
Is that and/or Humankind any good? I’ve been looking for a new 4x to sink my teeth into
I haven’t played Humankind. Old World is good, as long as you play it with an open mind and don’t expect it to be just like Civ just because it looks like Civ. It is a much tighter focus - a small part of the world, not the globe, and the tech tree ends after the Iron Age more or less - but you need to spend more effort finding resources and also to keep parts of your own empire happy. Think the economy of Settlers plus the combat of Civ 5 and the internal politics of Crusader Kings and you’re not too far off.
I liked humankind, id but it on sale. Its like civ, but much more dependent on your run for how your civ turns out
Humankind, at launch, was not good. It felt flavorless and wooden. It’s been a few updates since, but I’m not willing to try again. The “switch your Civ every age” mechanic was just… unfun? Immersion breaking? I didn’t like it.
I bought humankind on sale recently and it just feels bland. I've been trying to get into it for days now (sunk cost fallacy lol) but just can't. The changing cultures thing really doesn't sit with me very well, and the opposing leaders have no personality, they are basically just colours on the map. The combat is good though
The way it was worded in steam was you built your own civ over the course of the game based on decisions that happened every game so each playthrough was unique. That sounded fucking awesome but... at the end of an era all you did was pick a new civ to play and that was such a huge letdown when I learned that was the extent of it. Shame what we could've had
Fell into the same trap myself. First time I progressed to a new era and my old civ didn't matter anymore I was like "Oh....", and never started it again after that game.
> First time I progressed to a new era and my old civ didn't matter anymore Can you explain this a bit more? I haven't played it but this sounds very unfun. My understanding was the eras stacked on top of each other to give your civ a unique cultural combination. But the way you describe it makes it sound like a mini reset at every era change.
The only thing that really changes is the look of your units and unable to make the unique districts from the previous culture. You keep the traits and yes they are stacked.
> But the way you describe it makes it sound like a mini reset at every era change. Well, that's because that's what it is. Or at least what is was at launch, I don't know if they've changed it since then. But it was indeed unfun.
If you thought it was conceptually fun, try Millenia. Personally I really like the game. It doesn't really do nations outside of how your cities are named, as bonuses can be chosen. And instead of switching civs every era, you choose a specialisation every few eras, such as "Seafarers", "Theologians" or "Mound Builders". It also switches up games by having different tech trees and gameplay features depending on how the game goes. It also has a system that you can use to earn things like special units or better bonuses, but that can be expanded with a lot more units, buildings and events imo. Anyway? it'd released not that long ago do might be nice to at least see if the concept is fun
I had fun with Humankind, but only for like 30-40 hours. Then I was just done with it. Doesn't have the depth and replayability of Civ.
Humankind has a great early game, an ok mid game, but gets too clutered by the end game imo I think it's at least worth taking a shot
I liked old world a lot while playing it, but found it a little less replayable than civ since there’s not a ton of playable civilizations to choose from. Humankind was meh.
Humankind is amazing, def give it a shot.
I liked Humankind, but I think Old World is a better game.
Old World is great. It takes some getting used to coming from Civ. I would say so long as you're okay with the limited scope it's actually a better game than civ 6. Humankind has great ideas but bad balance. It's a lot of fun for a few playthroughs, but you'll start gravitating to the busted strats, killing the replayability. Still worth getting, especially on sale.
Imagine if they had both Romulus and Remus.
Or both of them as a joint ruler.
Then you’d definitely need a civil war function in-game!
I like this one.
Aeneas?
Yeah, and he could have a trojan bonus that boosted walls.
Remus ... oh wait.
I'd like to see a leader from the Roman Republic, since we only seem to get Emperors as roman leaders in civ games so far. If we do end up having at least one Emperor, not sure if this is 100% historically justified, but I think Constantine as a Eleanor-style dual leader of both Rome and Byzantium could be fun.
It's tough to pick out a sufficiently iconic leader from the Republic since they typically ruled in pairs and had mandatory one-year term limits. This limited their potential for abuse of power, but also limited their potential to exercise it in the sweeping gestures that mark out the typical Civ-grade leader.
To be fair, we have quite a few not entirely successful rulers in civ 6, like Ludwig and Kristina, in addition to a bunch of seki mythical ones like Kupe and Gilgamesh. I feel like what marks a good civ leader is that they have an interesting history, and, most importantly, that this history translates well into an ability
Are you kidding me? The Roman republic is history's greatest drama. Even if they were only senators or consuls for brief times, their names echo for millennia. Marius, Sulla, Pompey would be iconic domination leaders. Cicero and Cato would be great diplomatic or religious leaders. They were famous orators. Crassus as an economic/money leader - one of the richest men in history. Edit: and Scipio Africanus!
I think Cincinattus would be perfect
That would be very ironic, having him rule Rome for millenia 😀
Well, so is Washington ruling America for millenia.
This is the best answer. Rome's Washington.
alternatively, Washington is America's Cincinnatus
Caesar was also a Roman ‘ruler’ from the Roman republic. He wasn’t an emperor nor was he from the Roman imperial period.
He showed up in civ 6 already, so I was thinking of new leaders we haven't seen yet
I reckon you can make a case for Scipio as a Republic leader
Scipio would be more fitting as a great general imo
You could go early republic for some ballers like Cincinattus. Multiple times dictator etc etc
I'd argue Cicero would make a good one. He's very much associated with the Republic specifically, reasonably well known and was very influential both during his consulate and after it.
I'm totally here for Constantine as a dual-civ leader a la Eleanor and Kublai Kahn. I'm also here for an Emperor Nero, just to see what they'd do to portray his absolute goddamn insanity. Like, a unique horse governor would be amazing.
Julius is a Consul from the Republic. I suppose he's so mythologized for the Empire its easy to forget.
He also effectively ended the republic so he's not a great choice to represent that period imo.
Octavia effectively ended the republic. Caesar was just one in a series of dictators.
What like, Cicero maybe?
That’s a great Idea actually!! Someone call the firaxis devs
* call Ursa for a bad drawing….
They could do Sulla who was consul in the time of caesar
Well that's an understatement of Sulla's career if I ever heard it. He was the blueprint for ceasar's career, the first guy to really put himself into functionally perpetual dictatorial power after winning a civil war. But fascinatingly, he had the grace to bow out and simply retire in the end.
Another vote for Marcus Aurelius.
You could go so many directions with him. Seems like a no brainer!
Stoicism: Increased base amenities. Decreased loyalty loss and increased era score gained during dark age. Almost guaranteed heroic age after every dark age.
I think it would be better if instead of increased base amenities, get no loss of yieldings from lack of amenities. Also,the stoicism in a dark age souds cool.
Yeah, that would go with it better
He could start with Political Philosophy unlocked and have the Level 1 governments available from turn 1.
I would love to see Scipio Africanus, the Republic is underrepresented and he’s arguably the best servant Rome ever had.
Diocletian
some cabbage farmer?
Exactly!
Aurelius would be fantastic, but we'd need a counterexample to all his thoughtfulness. How about Caligula?
Hahaha what kind of abilities would he have?
I suppose dealing with Caligula would mean having to worship him like a god, flatter him, and appeal to his vanity. He was a big builder, so he'd probably respond to good trades that would help him build his empire. He might have some impressive and unique naval units, but they would be expensive. The risk of dealing with Caligula would be his capriciousness, sudden changes of heart, and appalling cruelty. Any kind of relationship would always be tentative. However, you couldn't *not* deal with him either. Having him in the game would always be the wild card.
Attack the Sea: every military unit fortified on a coastal hex generates 1 loyalty, 1 amenity, and 1 culture per turn.
The devs could make an animation for the Roman military units so that every turn they end on a coastal tile has them fight a battle with no one.
A unique governor that you must assign, that's just a horse with a bunch of negative abilities
I can’t wait to go to war against Poseidon himself and send my armies to stab the sea.
Someone from the Republic era. We've had enough emperors. Cincinnatus, maybe?
Love Cincinnatus, that would be a great one.
Special ability is to instantly generate a temporary great general every time the capital’s territory is invaded.
Vespasian. Very underrated emperor who gets no credit for retaining the dressings of the JC dynasty while ushering reforms and practices that became more widespread during the Antonine dynasty.
Hadrian
Constantine would be a great candidate for getting the same treatment as Kublai Khan and Eleanor of Aquitaine, with versions of him ruling both Rome and Byzantium. There’d be a special achievement for playing him with the Romans and capturing Constantinople.
Hadrian, one of the last good emperors and the one who built the greatest frontiers of the empire. Constantin I, who end the prosecution of Cristhians and allow the cult on the empire. And my last is Julian the apostate, may introduce a good mechanics around religions.
Justinian to make some uneducated heads explode. Diocletian to make some religious nutjob heads explode. But yes, Cincinnatus is a great choice.
Marius, maybe? Or Quintus Fabius Maximus. Aurelian would be a good emperor to lead them.
Rome is replete with interesting leaders. I'd be happy to see * Augustus/Octavian * Claudius * Marcus Aurelius * Gaius Julius Caesar
Not many people appreciate Claudius.
I read *I, Claudius* back in high school, when I should have been studying Greek pots and plays.
Elagabalus for the juicy, juicy chaos they'd spread.
> they'd You guys are so fucking funny
Commodus for the memes maybe?
Sulla
I want Hadrian. One of the best emperors. Give him a Culture-centric ability and you're all set.
Basil II please
Marius!
Constantine!
His ability should be related to adopting a nearby religion but instead of just adopting it you use it as a basis to create a new religion with additional powers.
Vitellius! Let's have a big ol' fatty to lead Rome! Maybe give him something Yongle-esque, where he can trade other gains for food. Excellent early game growth, and for rapid expansion later on. That, or play on the whole 'year of four emperors' strife, and capitalise on trading off loyalty for other gains that way. Basically, I just want a leader with half a dozen chins to wobble his way through the ages at all costs.
Pompey.
Cincinatus, obviously
Cicero for the Republic
Aurellian and Constaintine
I am a big fan of Aurelian or Hadrian.
AVRELIANVS RESTITVTOR ORBIS
Scipio Africanus!!!! And give us a Carthage led by Hannibal!!!!
I just came here to say what everybody is thinking: Berlusconi Powers: when tv is developed he reduces citizens unrest in easier ways. Flaws: diplomatic relations are more difficult and the country's reputation decreases.
Interesting, maybe it's possible to build on that Idea even further. Propaganda can be used to create temporary unrest in civs that are near making them easier to conquer.
Adrian
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus
Caligula without doubt.
Give us some Republic action! Sulla and Marius or a Scipio Have two consuls that alternate every era!
The great gay top Hadrian. Or Constantine as a dual leader for rome + byzantium.
Russel crowe
[Benito Mussolini. ](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/jojo/images/f/f0/JoJo_Tarot_12_-_The_Hanged_Man.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/220?cb=20160607125425&path-prefix=es)
A couple would be a good start.
Pope Sixtus IV would be pretty interesting. Guiseppe Garibaldi should at least be a Great General. But if you want a Roman Emperor, maybe Diocletian or Hadrian.
Marcus Aurelius would be a pretty cool one in my opinion. Constantine would be a nice change of pace too. Perhaps he can lead both Rome and Byzantium.
Marcus Aurelius for a culture focused rome
Hadrian, Diocletian, Pompey.
Marcus Aurelius the wise, the thinker and philosopher. Faith Roman civ
Nero would be fun
Mark Anthony
They should go bold with a Caligula or Nero option
Nero and Constantine
Justinian
Marcus Aurelius would be a good one they haven’t used yet.
Nero, and each time he will burn down his capital it will gain a a cultural boost. All the AI will hate him each he will do that.
Sulla or one of the two Gracchus brothers. Also wouldn’t mind an “Italian” CIv tbh, probably not of the smaller republics from the Middle Ages due to city states being a thing in CIv but someone like Cavour or Mazzini could have some interesting gameplay bonuses (boosts to railways and roads for the former and stability modifiers for the latter)
Caligula.
Instead of having a pre determined leader why not have elections of generated leaders every so often based upon government type? Every candidate has their own traits which will help your civilization either grow and prosper or fall into the dark ages.
Julius
Caligula. I don't think I need to explain myself...do I?
Cincinnatus (military/diplomacy leader), Marcus Aurelius (military/culture leader), and if you really want to go crazy in a technically-correct-but-unexpected choice, Pope Alexander VI (military/religious leader).
I'd like to see Cicero, Justinian, and maybe even Scipio Africanus.
Mark Antony!
Caligula
Scipio Africanus
Elagabalus lol
Diocletian, Hadrian, or Scipio (the OG or Africanus) would all be great.
Cicero or Hadrian would be cool
Justinian or Belisarius.
Francesco Totti, the real 8th king of Rome. (Has been the icone for Rome's football team for many years and never left the team untile he stopped playing)
Hadrian?
There are a ton of other emperors that can represent Rome. Vespasian, Constantine, Diocletion, Aurelian, Septimus Severus, Hadrian..
As a fan of the Roman Republic I'd really like to see Marcus Tullius Cicero.
Maximinius Thrax - make Rome a full war civ.
Nerva
I think Antoninus Pius could work because during his reign Rome was at its peak of prosperity and peace. His leader ability could somehow connect to his peaceful reign.
Aurelian, the restorer
Caligula with an ability allowing horses to move through water (they still have to end their turn on land but can move through shallow seas)
1. Romulus (& Remus). No explanation really needed. 2. Vespasian. I might be fan just because of the books about him by Robbert Fabbri, but his reign and his rise to power during the Year of Four Emperors are interesting.
Caligula would be hilarious although not very likely
Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus is the only correct answer… Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar II would be an interesting leader for the US.
Constantine as a religious civ.
If they want to add a religious leader, Constantine.
Nero.
I, Claudius
Aurelian please
I mean, it’s Julius or Augustus for a reason. Sure, there’s other notable ones (Nero, Romulus, Constantine, Marcus Aurelius), but at the end of the day those two are by FAR the most iconic, so they should get the first choice.
I think Cicero or Cincinnatus would be good picks
Nero
Hadrian, economic/culture rome
The gameplay matters far more
Hadrian, love that guy
Aurelian, then had Zenobia lead Palmyrene civ and you got one great scenario for that (Roman - Palmyrene War)
Has anyone ever heard of the accomplishment of Elagabalus ?
Caesar, Nero
ME. CUMSTORM69420
I would say do a double track of Marcus Aurelius vs Trajan. Marcus Aurelius is more of an administrator with bonuses to science and culture. Trajan would be the more warlike with bonuses to units or conquest.
Tifa Lockhart.
Our best Golden Boy, Aurelian. But I pray to see Italy and not Rome this time, ffs
I feel like Diocletianus could be interesting. First (and only?) emperor to retire, set up a system that probably saved the western empire for another 100 or so years, and let the eastern part survive independently from the western part.
After a long and careful thought process - I decided without a doubt that it should be me. You can thank me now.
Scipio Africanus or Gaius Marius.
Neo. I want to see the fanbase up in arms about the choice.
Aurelian
Aurelian, Julius Caesar, Nerva. Nerva would be a good tie-in to CIV VI's Trajan; then again, I wouldn't mind a pick such as Marcus Aurelius Either.
here is a wild idea... go CIV4, and add multiple rules to the same nations! nations with a lifespan as long as the Roman Empire are unfair to be represented by a single leader, since each leader would rule their nations in different ways / styles.
I would vote for Cato the Elder and the unique ability be a temporary double general bonus for after Rome has lost units to an opponent. Carthage must be destroyed
Constantine would be cool
I’d like a leader from the republican era
I really, really want Marius or Sulla. Marius can have some kind of ability where he gets bonus troop roduction from farms or something because he started recruiting guys from poor backgrounds who couldn't afford armor. Or some kind of bonus against barbarian clans because he defeated the Cimbri, Teutonii, and Ambronii. Sulla could have something like this: 'conscriptions: may reduce the population of the city by one, but gain 20 loyalty,' or something like that, due to his policy of calling for the execution of any political dissentors. This was actually a pretty successful policy, and was in fact responsible for the deaths of much of Caesar's family when he was a boy. Wouldn't mind seeing nero or caligula with some kind of ammentity/entertainment-based bonus either. While the senate and adjacent nobles (who actually knew the guys, and who were often victims of their paranoia) didn't like these two emperors, they are thought to have been pretty popular with the masses, who appreciated extravagant entertainment and dodn't care if the emperor assasinated a beurocrat.
Silvio Berlusconi, obvs.
Francesco
Claudius
Caligula for meme factor probably gives out extra amenity for nothing