Most Anticipated New Civilization

Which civilization do you anticipate the most in the new expansion?

  • Netherlands

    Votes: 91 24.8%
  • Mayans

    Votes: 60 16.3%
  • Byzantines

    Votes: 72 19.6%
  • Carthaginians

    Votes: 69 18.8%
  • Celts

    Votes: 75 20.4%

  • Total voters
    367
Status
Not open for further replies.
I guess I'll do one last update.

1) Netherlands - 75 (Last Time: 3rd with 46)
2) Byzantines - 66 (Last Time: 1st with 53)
3) Celts - 61 (Last Time: 2nd with 51)
4) Carthaginians - 55 (Last Time: 4th with 40)
5) Mayans - 50 (Last Time: 5th with 35)

Obviously, the Dutch have had a spike in popularity in the last month. The Mayans remained the least anticipated, a position they've held for quite some time.
 
I think having some knowledge of their units or abilities might change their popularity.
 
The Mayans remained the least anticipated, a position they've held for quite some time.

I would have voted for the Mayans if we got 2 votes, but the Celts just barely edged them out on my anticipation meter.
 
Well the reason I honestly think the top 3 have the lead is because we know something about each of their UAs and some of them we even know about their units. That fact lends to more excitement.
 
I voted "Netherlands". Coffeeshop-improvement would be hilarious:lol:
 
I feel they should add more than one leader to a civilization (like they did in BTS) that's is one of the main things I really enjoyed about that game. You had the option of choosing more than one leader...such as Queen Victoria or Churchill for England. I hope to see that happen with Civ 5 at some point.
 
I feel they should add more than one leader to a civilization (like they did in BTS) that's is one of the main things I really enjoyed about that game. You had the option of choosing more than one leader...such as Queen Victoria or Churchill for England. I hope to see that happen with Civ 5 at some point.

You never know, that may be the theme of a future expansion :).
 
Honestly, I couldn't care less about multiple leaders!

There are no generic traits any more in CiV that just are mixed differently with new leaders as in Civ4. CiV's UAs are part of the civs and ballanced with their UU/UB currently. (Strong UA -> weaker UUs). Additionally, UA and UU form combos very often.

*If* there would be new leaders, each of them must have a totally new, unique, inspired and balanced UA. I really don't think it's worth the effort! It costs money to do so. Money, I want to be spent on other parts of the game: AI, new units, new civs (and not only new leaders for already existing ones), new concepts.
 
Honestly, I couldn't care less about multiple leaders!

There are no generic traits any more in CiV that just are mixed differently with new leaders as in Civ4. CiV's UAs are part of the civs and ballanced with their UU/UB currently. (Strong UA -> weaker UUs). Additionally, UA and UU form combos very often.

*If* there would be new leaders, each of them must have a totally new, unique, inspired and balanced UA. I really don't think it's worth the effort! It costs money to do so. Money, I want to be spent on other parts of the game: AI, new units, new civs (and not only new leaders for already existing ones), new concepts.

I had hoped in the past that they might introduce additional multiple leaders for at least some of the civilisations, but I think that you are probably right. Even with the costs of doing so set aside, it is probably not worth it in terms of the depletion of ideas that takes place; better to use ideas for unique abilities to introduce new civilisations.

I had noticed that the unique buildings and units are not attached to the leader or civilisation solely, but split between them. I do still wonder if this was somewhat intentional.

Probably things to stay as they are, however.
 
Honestly, I couldn't care less about multiple leaders!

There are no generic traits any more in CiV that just are mixed differently with new leaders as in Civ4. CiV's UAs are part of the civs and ballanced with their UU/UB currently. (Strong UA -> weaker UUs). Additionally, UA and UU form combos very often.

*If* there would be new leaders, each of them must have a totally new, unique, inspired and balanced UA. I really don't think it's worth the effort! It costs money to do so. Money, I want to be spent on other parts of the game: AI, new units, new civs (and not only new leaders for already existing ones), new concepts.

I disagree with you
 
Actually most of these are valid points regarding multiple leaders
IMO the best would be to merge the benefits of the Civ V and Civ IV systems:

All civs have different UAs, which is the most important - and thus the most powerful bonus
This is in sync with UUs and UBs, the things which are tied directly to the civ
So UAs can truly emphasize the differences of the given civs, the way it already happened in Civ V

Each civ could get multiple leaders if they get a couple different traits - but both positive and negative, like it was already implemented in quite a few Civ IV mods.
All these traits would be smaller bonuses and penalties, IMO it would already spice up gameplay pretty decently.

But what's even more important about multiple leaders: personality.
Seemingly everyone forgets this, but it can - and should - have a huge impact on the AI playstyle.
I want to see a very differently controlled Greece, when played against AI Alexander or against AI Pericles.
AI personalities was solved almost perfectly in Civ IV, combined with the small bonuses and penalties from leader traits it would give a very nice touch to Civ V as well
 
While it would certainly impact play style to a degree, I think it's only to a limited amount. For example, for those clambering for Justinian and Theodora, how would the AI play them differently?
 
While it would certainly impact play style to a degree, I think it's only to a limited amount. For example, for those clambering for Justinian and Theodora, how would the AI play them differently?

How about Theodora and Basil II or Heraclius for Byzantium?
Just to stick with the expansion civs: how about having both Dido and Hannibal for Carthage; both Boudica and Vercingetorix for the Celts?

Having multiple leaders could greatly improve the complete feel of the civ:
For the Byzantine, we could have not only a more or less roman leader, but a "real", greek Byzantine one too.
For the Celts noone would feel it represents only the Britons

The same is true to many of the previously released civs too
If implemented correctly, multiple leaders only have benefits. Especially on replayability and on the overall feel
 
Why are the Huns not included in this poll? To my knowledge they have NEVER been included in a civ game except as generic barbarians. Plus the nature of their civilization suggests that they may have a groundbreaking flavor that moves away from cities, something that has never been done before in the Civ series. Even if you never play as them, I think everyone will want to see how theyre implemented.

To me, they just blow all the other civs out of the water as far as my anticipation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom