Why The New Leaders?

[Staler87]

Augustus was Julius's nephew.

Sorry, I had one of those moments, I corrected the original post, however the point is unchanged.

 

[Silent23]

I kind of dislike the way they do leaders in Civ. It seems they spend way too much time on leaders instead of the civilizations. I always felt static leaders was a major immersion breaker. Still, Civ has always been pretty heavy on the influence of leaders so I can't expect that to change and people probably like it. Still, I wish the leader wasn't a huge determining factor of every civilization and they just served to complement them a bit. I was always bugged by the scoreboard in CiV that displayed the leader names instead of the civilization names. Washington shouldn't have a score of 1000, America should!

Well, I think it's done that way because that's the player scores. If you were in a multiplayer game, your screen name and the screen names of the other players would be listed here. In essence, Washington is playing as America.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Personal touch is important. The fact what you're playing against some person (even totally computer one) improves the game immersion a lot. That's why the game is focused on leaders and that's why there's no leader switch through the game.

 

[gunnergoz]

I like that VI unbundles leaders from civs. This allows more flexibility. Modders can create either readily and players can mix and match. My only gripe is the cartoony artwork for leaders but I suppose one cannot have everything in a game designed for a very wide audience. I'll settle for what I see so far in the vanilla but do hope they layer on some more interesting aspects to the game in future expansions. And of course, lots more civs & leaders.

 

[Silent23]

I pretty much immediately dropped all mods that added civs when I found out that the leaders were just static images. I absolutely loved the leader art style. They were gorgeous. The problem with that, though, was that it was incredibly hard for the modding community to create fully articulated custom leaders, and it just didn't look or feel right. I'm hoping the much more simplified style means more modded-in civs that can hold a candle to the official ones.

 

[VermelhoRed]

We may actually see the Byzantine Empire as the Roman Empire this version as well, that should sort a lot of the arguments that go on around it.

Where do you put Charlemagne though?

Nowhere. Charlemagne's capital was Aachen, Barbarossa already took it, so we can exclude him as a possibility. Just as well to me. But if he's to return in Civ VII I'd say the proper civilization for him would be a Frankish civ, separate from either France or Germany! As for the Byzantines, I have a huge expectation we'll finally see Constantine the Great as a leader of the Roman Civilization!

For England that probably means pre William the Conqueror and using Winchester as the capital. Possibly Edward the Confessor and have faith bonuses. They could switch out the Royal Navy Dockyard and give him abbeys based on his version of Westminster abbey.
Or go with Alfred the Great and give him extra combat strength vs. enemies in his own territory and give him Burhs that are cheap early encampment replacement.

Yeah I was thinking the same, it'd be pretty cool!

Augustus was Julius's nephew.

And adopted son

 

[Haggbart]

Any reason why Civ 6 has so many different leaders or Civs as opposed to the usual people like Caesar?

Because variation is refreshing for players and the devs? And it doesn't hurt that you can actually learn something new that you otherwise wouldn't. I think finding leaders who are good fit with UAs as well as historic agendas was important as well.

 

[SMcM]

What about his nephew Augustus Caesar. It was it was extremely vague to refer to Caesar as there were multiple leaders with that name, and many with that title. I don't get how it being a title based off a name somehow makes it not a title.

I never said it was not a title, just that it was a title named after person. Your original comment 'Caesar was a title not a person' was therefore inaccurate- you claim Caesar was not a person, but he was.

Anyway, Julius is a lot better known than Augustus, so when someone says 'Caesar', and does not specify, it is pretty obvious who they are talking about.

 

[ehecatzin]

You do realise that Firaxis haven't always had Montezuma I as the leader of the Aztecs right?

Yes but there's hardly any diference in the portrayal of any Monty done by Firaxis, its always a crazy psycho who likes to wave his hands, and if you go the historical route, Monty I and II were two worlds apart in terms of personalities.

 

[Staler87]

I never said it was not a title, just that it was a title named after person. Your original comment 'Caesar was a title not a person' was therefore inaccurate- you claim Caesar was not a person, but he was.

Anyway, Julius is a lot better known than Augustus, so when someone says 'Caesar', and does not specify, it is pretty obvious who they are talking about.

I will admit that my statement was incorrect unless you argue the extremely semantic position that 'was' defines only an unspecific period in the past and at some period in the past Caesar was a title and not a person.

I actually doo disagree with the second statement though, I learned who Augustus Caesar was before Julius and think both are quite famous. Although I'm by no means an expert on popular knowledge and may very well be wrong.

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I really like the new leaders. It's nice to shine a spotlight on some new eras of history for all these civs. In fact, I was disappointed that they repeated as many leaders as they did. For a couple Civs it probably couldn't be helped (not sure if there are any other really viable options for Sumeria and Brazil, e.g.), but I thought China and India could have gotten someone new.

 

[Staler87]

I really like the new leaders. It's nice to shine a spotlight on some new eras of history for all these civs. In fact, I was disappointed that they repeated as many leaders as they did. For a couple Civs it probably couldn't be helped (not sure if there are any other really viable options for Sumeria and Brazil, e.g.), but I thought China and India could have gotten someone new.

But Ghandi...

 

[narmox]

But Ghandi...

A rogue Gandhi AI threatened the Firaxis headquarters with nuking if he wasn't included in the game.

 

[Zaarin]

(not sure if there are any other really viable options for Sumeria

Oh, really.

 

[ptoss1]

Why isn't Gilgamesh a blonde European pretty boy? He looks like an Afghani bodybuilder. That's racist.

 

[VermelhoRed]

Oh, really.

I think the key word here is "viable". Which of those would lend to an interesting ability and personality?

 

[CaiusDrewart]

Oh, really.

Well haha yeah, we have tons of names of Sumerian kings, but do we really know enough about any of them to make a good Civ leader? The only two people on that list with any modern fame at all are Sargon of Akkad (who is not really Sumerian) and Gilgamesh. It doesn't seem like Egypt where there are a number of pharaohs whose actions and policies we know in some detail.

 

[True_Candyman]

Nowhere. Charlemagne's capital was Aachen, Barbarossa already took it, so we can exclude him as a possibility. Just as well to me. But if he's to return in Civ VII I'd say the proper civilization for him would be a Frankish civ, separate from either France or Germany! As for the Byzantines, I have a huge expectation we'll finally see Constantine the Great as a leader of the Roman Civilization!

I think it's a little premature to rule him out based on a capital. I don't see any problem with two leaders having the same capital. In any situation where both are in game the first gets the capital and the second gets the next city from the list.

They are choosing leaders for their big personalities after all. It would be very strange for them to then exclude some because they share a capital.

 

[Civciv5]

...Charlemagne took the title of Holy Roman Emperor, that was not the title of Roman Emperor, he was never a leader of Rome, nor was it really a position as leader of what would become known as the Holy Roman Emperor (which was a collection of German and central European states).

Well, Charlemagne was NOT crowned "Holy Roman Emperor" but "Emperor of the Romans", the appelation "Holy Roman Emperor" is sometimes given to Charlemagne by modern historians though. The actual first Holy Roman Emperor was Otto I. In fact, you could argue that he revived the Roman Empire for a short time. His empire also included Rome itself.

Also the Holy Roman Emperor was seen as a direct continuation of the Roman Empire, as in the Roman Empire that was also Holy (meaning Catholic).

 

[VermelhoRed]

I think it's a little premature to rule him out based on a capital. I don't see any problem with two leaders having the same capital. In any situation where both are in game the first gets the capital and the second gets the next city from the list.

They are choosing leaders for their big personalities after all. It would be very strange for them to then exclude some because they share a capital.

I think that due to the rules they've set, it's very likely to rule him out. Your solution comes with many other problems and feels like an unnecessary duct-taping over something that's not really a problem, imo. There are plenty of leaders with interesting personalities without repeated capitals, no need to make crazy rules to fit one that has.