All leader portraits

[stealth_nsk]

There's also absolutely no reason to think that the DLC leaders have to be on this leader board. The Aztec leader might be a bit of temptation towards it, but we don't have a concrete pattern yet.

Post launch DLC should be in design process already. That's why they could have their place on the board. But it's totally possible not all of them are there. For example, 2 DLC leaders could be defined by the time of the video and 2 on early debating stage.

 

[retrocity5]

Does anyone else feel that Cleopatra was added just because she's well known. I mean to be honest the majority wouldn't know of ANY of her accomplishments. I'd prefer Hatshepsut, Narmer, or Djoser.
Hatshepsut: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatshepsut
Narmer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmer
Djoser: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djoser

 

[stealth_nsk]

Does anyone else feel that Cleopatra was added just because she's well known. I mean to be honest the majority wouldn't know of ANY of her accomplishments.

That's the reason to include most of the leaders, civs and units in the game.

 

[m15a]

Does anyone else feel that Cleopatra was added just because she's well known.

Depends on your definition of "just". By one definition: no, like every other leader in Civ, there are multiple factors that played a part in her being chosen. By the other definition: of course - every leader in Civ is "well known" to some extent.

 

[retrocity5]

That's the reason to include most of the leaders, civs and units in the game.

A leader is well known for doing something. She's just well known as an Egyptian leader and not for her accomplishments.

 

[stealth_nsk]

A leader is well known for doing something. She's just well known as an Egyptian leader and not for her accomplishments.

There are no formal rules for inclusion of particular civ or leader. The only real reason is whether it generates additional sales or not (not within civfanatics as we'll buy the game anyway, it's broader audience what matter here). So for this it's doesn't matter what the leader is known for.

 

[Siptah]

A leader is well known for doing something. She's just well known as an Egyptian leader and not for her accomplishments.

While I'm not too happy with the choice I must say she is arguably one of the most famous people in history. Every child knows her name and often also the combination with Julius Caesar. She's a part of pop culture, too. Did I know about Napoleon when I was 6 years old? No. Did I know about Washington or Lincoln? No. I probably knew about them if I was french or american. Did I know about Cleopatra and Caesar being a historical pair, one committing suicide through asps and the other being murdered? Sure, despite being not egyptian or italian. One benefit of including her is also that people that know her just by name might read something about her.
She has every right to be included and is already confirmed, discussion about not liking that have been on these forums - so why bother again and using this thread for it?

Edit: another + for Cleo is that we know things about her character from multiple contemporary sources. For the great Pharaohs such things are way more shaky and I rather have Cleo than a Khufu or Menkaure character modeled after Herodotus...

 

[jye42]

Does anyone else feel that Cleopatra was added just because she's well known. I mean to be honest the majority wouldn't know of ANY of her accomplishments. I'd prefer Hatshepsut, Narmer, or Djoser.
Hatshepsut: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatshepsut
Narmer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmer
Djoser: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djoser

In an interview I watched, the developer said that they choose leaders with "Big Personalities." This automatically says to me a different method of selection for leaders than in the past and one in which Cleopatra is well suited. Additionally, the big personality idea works well with the new agendas system for the AI. Cleopatra's agenda being she likes leaders with a powerful military is a makes sense in the context of her love affairs with roman leaders. Furthermore, her mechanic of returning food along trade routes perfectly represents Egypts relationship with Rome during her reign as the bread basket of the empire. For all of these reasons I think she is an interesting a suitable choice for the Civ 6 concept of "Big Personalities."

I agree she is not a great leader, but she fits the idea the devs have for civ 6.

 

[Civciv5]

"Big Personalities."

Well, I'm not sure that Marie de Medici, Hojo Tokimune or Qin Shi Huang have the "biggest personalities".
I think that would be Louis XIV, Oda Nobunaga and Wu Zetian.

 

[Atlas627]

Well, I'm not sure that Marie de Medici, Hojo Tokimune or Qin Shi Huang have the "biggest personalities".
I think that would be Louis XIV, Oda Nobunaga and Wu Zetian.

They didn't say biggest, they said big. They are also going for new. They are additionally going for an interesting gameplay element that they can mesh with an AI agenda.

Louis is famous for his divine right absolute monarchy, which has nothing to do with a diplomatic agenda. Nobunaga is famous for uniting the daimyos, which also has nothing to do with a diplomatic agenda. Wu Zetian is famous for getting to the throne through political intrigue, which also has nothing to do with a diplomatic agenda.

 

[m15a]

Well, I'm not sure that Marie de Medici, Hojo Tokimune or Qin Shi Huang have the "biggest personalities".

Meaning simply that the developers considered more than one factor when choosing a leader.

 

[stealth_nsk]

A side note, she's Catherine de Medici, not Marie.

 

[Bast]

They should've considered Anne of Austria who was regent for Louis XIV.

 

[SMcM]

Well, I'm not sure that Marie de Medici, Hojo Tokimune or Qin Shi Huang have the "biggest personalities".
I think that would be Louis XIV, Oda Nobunaga and Wu Zetian.

Well, I think that Qin is easily one of the biggest personalities for China. Maybe Wu is as well, but I would certainly not say she was any better a choice than Qin. And he is a lot more internationally known than Wu.

 

[Krajzen]

Do you seriously assume there were no emperors greater than Qi or with bigger personality than Wu for 2000 years of Chinese imperial history? There were tons of both. For example IMO Taizong would be better than Qi.

I am a bit disappointed by choice Firaxis made - while Qi was, obviously, great ruler, he is known in the West as "chinese emperor we actually remember the name of" - Firaxis could display more obscure yet equally or great emperors not known to the Western public, that would be fresh and educational.
Tang Taizong, Ming Chengzu, Qianlong, Wen of Sui, Wu of Han and others would be more interesting than Qi "terracotta" Shi "first" Huangdi.

 

[Krajzen]

Do you seriously assume there were no emperors greater than Qi or with bigger personality than Wu for 2000 years of Chinese imperial history? There were tons of both. For example IMO Taizong would be better than Qi.

I am a bit disappointed by choice Firaxis made - while Qi was, obviously, great ruler, he is known in the West as "chinese emperor we actually remember the name of" - Firaxis could display more obscure yet equally or great emperors not known to the Western public, that would be fresh and educational.

Tang Taizong, Ming Chengzu, Qianlong, Wen of Sui, Wu of Han and others would be more interesting than Qi "terracotta" Shi "first" Huangdi.

EDIT
Sorry, accidental duplicate, please delete redundant post

 

[Siptah]

I kind of agree with what you are saying Krazjen, but I think Firaxis chose good leaders this time. I would have picked someone else for most civs but they are all sensible choices to me (except for Gandhi). I also like the mix of famous and less famous people. If they chose too many obscure ones (at least for non history nerds) the feeling (and sales) might drop significantly. Also the Chinese pick might have been influenced by the feelings of the Chinese towards their emperors. If you choose someone unpopular there, you might loose customers and the opposite might be true as well. Many polish people might not like it if August the strong of Saxony-Poland would lead Poland in a civ game, right?

 

[zwei833]

Yes, there are many good choices, but I don't think "there are some better choices" is a good reason to against Firaxis' choice.

 

[cakes]

Tang Taizong, Ming Chengzu, Qianlong, Wen of Sui, Wu of Han and others would be more interesting than Qi "terracotta" Shi "first" Huangdi.

i guess firaxis just want to make a really bad game or something. it's the only logical explanation

 

[Civciv5]

Wu Zetian just screams "big personality".

Born with almost nothing, Wu Zetian had to fight her way to the top, for every little success she had to work hard. An incredibly charismatic, intelligent and capable woman, there's a reason she was the only woman in 4000 years to become Empress. Cruel but just, she was a capable administrator and a respected ruler.
She also had the privilege of having male concubines. Not only was she prepared to sacrifice anyone or anything, she was one of the most remarkable people in history. Also, the Chinese people love her, she's like the subject of a bazillion tv-series.

She was also a capable ruler. Imo, if they were going for big personalities, combined with fame, Wu Zetian would be the obvious choice. Qin Shi Huang is more famous, but doesn't have the "big personality" thing, not at Wu's level.