Why The New Leaders?

[Brianstorm]

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?

Personally I would like there to be leaders who can rule two or more civs (though not in the same game). Charlemagne being able to lead France, Germany and even the Roman Empire would add a lot of variety. It would have to be a mod however as that mechanic would mean Saladin is able to lead both Arabia and Egypt, so we can rule it out so far.

 

[Menzies]

Personally I would like there to be leaders who can rule two or more civs (though not in the same game). Charlemagne being able to lead France, Germany and even the Roman Empire would add a lot of variety. It would have to be a mod however as that mechanic would mean Saladin is able to lead both Arabia and Egypt, so we can rule it out so far.

...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).

 

[Brianstorm]

...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 depends on your view. The Holy was added to denote the Bishop in Rome chose him as Roman Emperor in comparison to the Eastern Roman Empire. I wouldn't add him to the base game as leader of Rome however.

 

[TeraHammer]

I think this variation in leaders takes the current DLC meta even further into a subsequent game series meta; so next game series will feel 'newer' with other leaders.

Playing a civilization game should be, in my opinion, that you take the role of the most impactful civilizations throughout history with their most iconic leaders. Catherine de Medici is much less iconic than Louis XIV or Napoleon. Maybe they make this choice because of game design with espionage and diplomacy in it, but I dislike this. Rather give me 6x Julius Caesar than weird other leaders, although it makes for a nice history lesson.

Civ IV had different leaders already. And I guess the most wanted leaders will be modded sooner than later anyway. So nothing wrong with that.

Whenever modders are needed, everything is wrong with that. Just give me a good game to start with, ugh!

 

[Brianstorm]

Whenever modders are needed, everything is wrong with that. Just give me a good game to start with, ugh!

Good leaders are highly subjective. There are probably 10 people at least who could lead Rome or even England. Russia could add Ivan the Terrible or Lenin, unless they wanted 500 leaders in the game there will always be room for mods.

 

[TeraHammer]

Good leaders are highly subjective. There are probably 10 people at least who could lead Rome or even England. Russia could add Ivan the Terrible or Lenin, unless they wanted 500 leaders in the game there will always be room for mods.

Personally I would have preferred the most iconic ones in the vanilla game, and then that modders add the less known ones, rather than the other way round.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Good leaders are highly subjective.

I agree. Some people consider for example Stalin as a "good" leader and he have been in several civ games as well had a big impact on history.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

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?

He can lead Germany OR France

And I think the reason Saladin doesn't lead Egypt OR Arabia, is because they haven't settled on that mechanic yet...but if they put Charlemagne (or a Byzantine leader) in the game, it would be a likely mechanic added at that point.
(In addition to the above 3, also Kublai for China/Mongolia, and probably others depending on the civs they put in)

 

[ehecatzin]

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.

Byzantium has never appeared in civ as part of the Roman Empire, even when they had the opportunity to use mutliple leaders (civ4), and seeing as they also appeared in civ5 expansions unders Ed Beach, I really see no reason as to why they wouldn't come back. If anything is an oportunity to showcase a leader from Republican Rome for once (not counting Caesar), as for Byzantium, they could also showcase 2 very diferent takes and personalities, personnally, I'd love to see both Basil II and Theodora as leaders.

As for OP question, there's a lot of leaders and personalities to choose from for all civs, it gives variety and takes the oportunity to showcase more history, besides it keeps the franchise fresh. If only Firaxis let Ghandi and Monty take the bench, there are a lot of other good candidates.

 

[ExemplarVoss]

As for OP question, there's a lot of leaders and personalities to choose from for all civs, it gives variety and takes the oportunity to showcase more history, besides it keeps the franchise fresh. If only Firaxis let Ghandi and Monty take the bench, there are a lot of other good candidates.

I can see why they didn't, though. If I were to pick leaders as the faces of the Civ series, it would be those two (well, kind of three, but they don't really differentiate between the Montys) specifically.

 

[Menzies]

Byzantium has never appeared in civ as part of the Roman Empire, even when they had the opportunity to use mutliple leaders (civ4), and seeing as they also appeared in civ5 expansions unders Ed Beach, I really see no reason as to why they wouldn't come back. If anything is an oportunity to showcase a leader from Republican Rome for once (not counting Caesar), as for Byzantium, they could also showcase 2 very diferent takes and personalities, personnally, I'd love to see both Basil II and Theodora as leaders.

As for OP question, there's a lot of leaders and personalities to choose from for all civs, it gives variety and takes the oportunity to showcase more history, besides it keeps the franchise fresh. If only Firaxis let Ghandi and Monty take the bench, there are a lot of other good candidates.

Which is why I suggested it was unlikely they would go down that path, but the choice of Sparta being part of Greece, but with the leaders being so clearly defined as different (i.e. different capitals and colours), means that it is something they may well try. I doubt they will, but it would be interesting.

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

 

[Wolle68]

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

Sure, the Civilization games have waffled between whether Montezuma was I or II, but it never seemed to have influenced his character, appearance, or gameplay features.

 

[Morningcalm]

Sure, the Civilization games have waffled between whether Montezuma was I or II, but it never seemed to have influenced his character, appearance, or gameplay features.

Which is a shame really, because Montezuma II definitely had a big personality. He could be portrayed as skeptical/paranoid, but still a proud warrior-king with a strong devotion to his religious beliefs. He ruled the Aztec empire at its height and successfully conquered many new areas in his reign, so he was no pushover.

 

[Martinus]

...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).

The Frankish empire under Charlemagne covered today's France, Western part of Germany and Northern Italy, including Rome. His capital was Aachen - the same as Barbarossa's in game. I don't think it is that much of a stretch to make him rule Germany, France or Rome as the poster suggested.

 

[Martinus]

As for multiple leaders, I am all for it, but I would like them to represent not just a different leader personality, but a significant difference between two types of government / aspects of history that the country in question represents.

Gorgo and Pericles are a very good example of this working, since they represent so much different aspects of Greek history. On the same basis, having Napoleon for France, one of the communist leaders (Lenin?) for Russia or Bismarck for Germany would be appropriate. On the other hand, having another French ancienne regime monarch to lead France or another Rome-based Emperor to lead Rome would, imo, be redundant - it would be much better for the second Rome's leader to represent either Italy, Byzantium, Papacy or Roman Republic.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Gorgo and Pericles are a very good example of this working, since they represent so much different aspects of Greek history. On the same basis, having Napoleon for France, one of the communist leaders (Lenin?) for Russia or Bismarck for Germany would be appropriate.

I really wouldn't want any communist leader for Russia. It's an awful boil down here. May be Khrushchev would be great. He's controversial, but really interesting.

On the other hand, having another French ancienne regime monarch to lead France or another Rome-based Emperor to lead Rome would, imo, be redundant - it would be much better for the second Rome's leader to represent either Italy, Byzantium, Papacy or Roman Republic.

I don't think we'll see Rome stretched to Italy and Byzantium is likely to come as separate civ. Roman Republic is interesting, though. Tiberius Gracchus or someone like him could be cool.

 

[Lyoncet]

Roman Republic representation officially added to my wishlist.

 

[SMcM]

Caesar was a title not a person...

No, the title Caesar comes from Julius' name. Julius Caesar is clearly who was being referred to by the OP.

 

[Staler87]

No, the title Caesar comes from Julius' name. Julius Caesar is clearly who was being referred to by the OP.

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.

 

[God of Kings]

What about his son 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.

Augustus was Julius's nephew.