In your opinion, do VI's leader bonuses portend the addition of alternate leaders?

We gettin mutiple leaders?

  • Yes

    Votes: 83 50.0%

  • No

    Votes: 45 27.1%

  • Switzerland

    Votes: 38 22.9%
  • Total voters
    166
  • Poll closed .
M

moysturfurmer

Emperor
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
1,558
Popular opinion on this subject seems to be split.

Personally, given the language of the deluxe edition contents ("civilizations and leaders" in the first four DLCs), the simplified leaderheads (flat backgrounds) and the significance ascribed by the devs to the leader bonuses (at the end of a 40 minute, heavily advertised Q&A) I kinda feel like that's where they're going with it.
 
I suspect that there won't be any in the vanilla game, but if there are any they will be DLCs.
 
I really don't know (voted Switzerland) there's a good chance, but Im not sure how I feel about it, if they take advantage of it properly (Ivan the Terrible, Brennus/Vercingetorix, more interesting leaders) than Im more than happy. it would allow for them to do Female leaders without yet again cutting out someone else who may even be a better fit.

but it will probably be DLC, I would buy an Ivan the Terrible DLC. maybe even a Switzerland DLC.

Vote Switzerland if you like skiing.
 
There's no reason to distinguish leader abilities from civ abilities unless you're leaving the door open for multiple leaders of the same civ. Whether that's setting up for DLC/expansions, enabling advanced setup options (switching leaders between civs) or supporting modders is anyone's guess.
 
I'd like to think they do, but I think it's more about giving them a framework for ideas. With four civ bonuses it's easier to choose what they're about if you categorize them.
 
It's hard to say because I don't know.

The Leader Ability seems to be more of a temporary bonus given to leader fit ofr their specific time period.

So it's a temporary bonus at one point in the game, similiar to say, a conquer bonus for Alexander in classical era (in Civ 5 as a hypothethical example)
 
To me it would still seem like a bad idea, as the major bottleneck when it comes to Art seems to be creating and animating the Leaderhead to me with the rest being relatively easy - so why not go a step further and create a whole new Civilization? But I may be completely wrong on that, and if I am then I could totally see alternative leaders.

Although... thinking about it, creating Leaderheads seems to be a very different skillset from creating other Art and the way Cleopatra moves seems to suggest there's quite a professional animator at work, so maybe they have people who do just that all day long - in which case it would make sense to release Leaders, because they don't require much else mechanically.

I think in the end it really comes down to the availability and need to keep employees busy. I don't see good reasons to prefer Leaders over new Civilizations that could make the game feel more inclusive to more people, other than the abundance of specific workers that need to have something to do.
 
Sounds like it but not in Vanilla. Maybe in later DLC or scenarios.

To me it is a good way to sell scenarios. Like a specific war scenario with all time appropriate leaders, agendas, and bonuses. More bonuses give you more to modify and you don't have to change the visuals of units at all.
 
- Specific UU for leader
- The importance given to agenda
- The low impact of background
- And also alternate leaders JFD Edition DLC

All the facts point on the same direction: multiple leaders. Some good points towards it, but it must be balanced and tested well, so I am assuming only in DLC and main expansions.
 
The leader's ability/agenda seems just one more way to diversify each civ play. Like Ryika, I agree there is an opportunity cost on making more than one leader per civ. It requires time, resources and manpower that could be used to make a whole new civ, which I prefer. We got only 18 civs on Vanilla, and it isn't cool to know we'll have to wait quite some time to see this or that civ that has no chance to make it into Vanilla. With multiple leaders, this list can get much bigger.
 
To me it adds immense replay value. The Leader agendas will shape how the you play against them and the leader bonuses will encourage you to play differently. If Roosevelt encourages combat in the industrial era then maybe Lincoln will make it easier for you to gain civics in the civic tree. Who knows?
 
We've had 3 Civs and leaders shown I think it's kind of ridiculous to say we wouldn't have them in Vanilla but could be added later on.

Seems to me they'd be introduced right away or not at all. From the unique leader traits I'd say it seems likely we will have multiples. Or maybe I just wish that to make up for only having 18 Civs, same as Vanilla V.
 
Veras said:
The leader's ability/agenda seems just one more way to diversify each civ play. Like Ryika, I agree there is an opportunity cost on making more than one leader per civ. It requires time, resources and manpower that could be used to make a whole new civ, which I prefer. We got only 18 civs on Vanilla, and it isn't cool to know we'll have to wait quite some time to see this or that civ that has no chance to make it into Vanilla. With multiple leaders, this list can get much bigger.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that more civs are preferred.

But still itll allow for some more "nations" to join without having to re create buildings and everything again when the nations are all connected.

For instance there could the united kingdom civ. But then have a scottish, english, etc leaders.

Though Im kinda wondering if one could meege civs like the greeks, romans, and byzantines all into one just with different leaders for each eras.

Or like portugal and spain.



Honestly sounds a bit historically inaccurate if they mix and merge civs but im pretty sure firaxis has never been inaccurate before [emoji12].

Sent from my LG-H850 using Tapatalk
 
It does seem like a way of keeping that door open, yes. I agree with others, I don't think it will be a vanilla feature, but possibly something they're contemplating for DLC or expansions.
 
I'd guess that the answer is "no, but they're leaving the door open." To be fair, they did the same in Civ5--the bonus is nominally tied to the leader and in the Civolopedia under the nations it lists "leaders." We may see more leaders as DLC, though; personally, I'd rather see new civs with the exception that I'd love to see Cleo replaced with Akhenaten.
 
"Opinion" doesn't apply because this is a matter of fact. Unfortunately we don't have enough facts to know.

I certainly hope they are planning something like this, but my hope doesn't make it any more or less likely. Claiming that there are "leader bonuses" would seem to imply that there could be alternate leaders; if every civ always has the same leader, then saying some of the uniques are attached to the civ and others to the leader is a distinction without difference. On the other hand, it could have just been a way to say that each civ will get a temporary bonus, and the nature and timing of that temporary bonus is based on whomever they chose that civ's leader to be. The historical agenda is attached to the leader, and it's there to make the in-game leaders behave more predictably like their real-life counterparts so we'll have a better idea how to deal with them and play them off each other. The leader-based bonuses could be more of the same. Right now we don't have enough information to say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Crossroads of the World and Right to Rule DLC - themed predictions based on what we know
31 32 33
Replies
658
Views
60K
notNamed
N
Back
Top Bottom