[R&F] Based on the new features - which civilizations and leaders should be introduced in R&F?

[Rosty K]

If Fixaris wants to surprise everybody in a First look, next week would be a good time to do it. I'd be looking for either a surprise civ/leader that we didn't expect or we'd expect either Tamar of Georgia or the Mongols.

Lapland lead by Santa Claus. Or is that the week after?

 

[DeutschDachs]

Byzantium led by Heraclius would be a pretty great choice for a game centered around the motif of "rise and fall." He won a Civil War by deposing Phocas and then immediately saw the Empire lose Jerusalem, Armenia, Syria, and Egypt to the Persians. Meanwhile, the Slavs and Avars ran amok north of Constantinople, leaving the Empire in a very precarious state. Almost miraculously, he managed to diplomatically deter the Slavs and Avars while reconquering lands lost to the Persians. He recaptured the "True Cross" and likely was the inspiration for the future Crusades. By the end, however, following the death of Muhammad in Arabia, the Arab world would come alive and conquer much of the land Heraclius had recovered. The end of his reign undoing much of what he had accomplished in life.

He surely is a flawed leader, but could be perfect for the theme. He had tremendous highs and lows much like the Byzantine Empire itself.

 

[megabearsfan]

As for alt leaders, I would like to see:
- An alternate Indian leader. Someone who's a more imperialist or militaristic alternative to Gandhi. Maybe a Mughal leader like Akbar?
- A Byzantine leader as an alternate for Rome. Constantine, Justinian, or Theodora.
- King Richard the Lionheart to represent medieval England / Europe, since the game is kind of lacking much medieval European representation (other than maybe Barbarosa).
- I would like to see Bismark come back as a representative of a more modern Germany.
- Napoleon of France.

In general, I've been very disappointed that Firaxis hasn't released more alt leaders as DLC. I feel it's a very under-utilized feature right now. I was expecting to see "Alt leader packs" as DLC, containing 3-5 alt leaders for something like $3-$5. Hasn't happened yet though.

 

[Vahnstad]

I will never understand why people want a Byzantine leader as an alternate of Rome.

 

[megabearsfan]

Byzantium led by Heraclius would be a pretty great choice for a game centered around the motif of "rise and fall." He won a Civil War by deposing Phocas and then immediately saw the Empire lose Jerusalem, Armenia, Syria, and Egypt to the Persians. Meanwhile, the Slavs and Avars ran amok north of Constantinople, leaving the Empire in a very precarious state. Almost miraculously, he managed to diplomatically deter the Slavs and Avars while reconquering lands lost to the Persians. He recaptured the "True Cross" and likely was the inspiration for the future Crusades. By the end, however, following the death of Muhammad in Arabia, the Arab world would come alive and conquer much of the land Heraclius had recovered. The end of his reign undoing much of what he had accomplished in life.

He surely is a flawed leader, but could be perfect for the theme. He had tremendous highs and lows much like the Byzantine Empire itself.

I'd personally rather see Byzantium represented as an alt leader for Rome rather than a whole new civilization. I think that would be a good use of the alt leader feature (which is currently sadly under-utilized). After all, they currently use a Holy Roman Empire leader as the representative for Germany. Same principle. Again, really surprised we haven't seen an "Alt leaders pack" as DLC yet.

 

[Duckfromstatefarm]

As for alt leaders, I would like to see:
- An alternate Indian leader. Someone who's a more imperialist or militaristic alternative to Gandhi. Maybe a Mughal leader like Akbar?
- A Byzantine leader as an alternate for Rome. Constantine, Justinian, or Theodora.
- King Richard the Lionheart to represent medieval England / Europe, since the game is kind of lacking much medieval European representation (other than maybe Barbarosa).
- I would like to see Bismark come back as a representative of a more modern Germany.
- Napoleon of France.

In general, I've been very disappointed that Firaxis hasn't released more alt leaders as DLC. I feel it's a very under-utilized feature right now. I was expecting to see "Alt leader packs" as DLC, containing 3-5 alt leaders for something like $3-$5. Hasn't happened yet though.

2018 is going to be a year where we do see more alt leaders, it was in a interview with Ed beach that said there will be more alt leaders in Year 2 for Civ 6 don't remember where the interview was but it was back in November I think. Greece won't be the only one next year. Also in the leader portraits when the game was gearing for release Isabella was spotted in that Leaderboard. She could be the alt leader for Spain.

 

[Zaarin]

I will never understand why people want a Byzantine leader as an alternate of Rome.

Agreed. Why not just tack on France and Spain while we're at it. And Russia is called "Third Rome," so we can throw in Peter the Great as an alternate leader of Rome, too. And the Ottomans claimed to be the new Rome, so Suleiman the Magnificent can lead Rome. If everyone who descended from, identified with, or claimed to be Rome was attached to Rome, there'd be very few civs left in the game.

 

[DeutschDachs]

I'd personally rather see Byzantium represented as an alt leader for Rome rather than a whole new civilization. I think that would be a good use of the alt leader feature (which is currently sadly under-utilized). After all, they currently use a Holy Roman Empire leader as the representative for Germany. Same principle. Again, really surprised we haven't seen an "Alt leaders pack" as DLC yet.

I would agree in theory with that but I would still want the representation of Byzantium to have its own UU and set of traits that aren't so anchored to Rome specifically as the current Rome UA is. I suppose the UU could be tied to the leader ala Victoria or Roosevelt though

 

[Vahnstad]

Well, if we follow that kind of reasoning, we could also have Benito Mussoloni as an alternate of Rome. ... (like Zaarin just said).

 

[megabearsfan]

I will never understand why people want a Byzantine leader as an alternate of Rome.

Because Constantine relocated the Roman capital from Rome to Byzantium / Constantinople and converted Rome to Christianity. The people living in Byzantium considered themselves Roman and were governed by the same laws.

This video sums it up nicely:

Well, if we follow that kind of reasoning, we could also have Benito Mussoloni as an alternate of Rome. ... (like Zaarin just said).

I would support that idea as well.

I would agree in theory with that but I would still want the representation of Byzantium to have its own UU and set of traits that aren't so anchored to Rome specifically as the current Rome UA is. I suppose the UU could be tied to the leader ala Victoria or Roosevelt though

That's how I'd handle it.

 

[Josephias]

Agreed. Why not just tack on France and Spain while we're at it. And Russia is called "Third Rome," so we can throw in Peter the Great as an alternate leader of Rome, too. And the Ottomans claimed to be the new Rome, so Suleiman the Magnificent can lead Rome. If everyone who descended from, identified with, or claimed to be Rome was attached to Rome, there'd be very few civs left in the game.

You forgot Barbarrosa of the Holy Roman Empire

 

[Vahnstad]

My 9 bets now after the new information
Korea
Netherlands
Mongols
Georgia
Ottomans
Navajo (or a different American civ)
Mali (or different West-African civ)
Inca (or Maya)
Isabella of Spain

DLC 1 after expansion:
Canada with Chateau Frontenac

 

[Mobfire]

I might be missing something, but why would Chateau Frontenac appear in the promo art of Rise & Fall if it wasn't in the base expansion? Canada could come separately but it doesn't make sense for them to feature it prominently then not include it.

 

[Vahnstad]

I might be missing something, but why would Chateau Frontenac appear in the promo art of Rise & Fall if it wasn't in the base expansion? Canada could come separately but it doesn't make sense for them to feature it prominently then not include it.

I don't get it too... I'm now actually disappointed since i liked the wonder, but maybe it's like the polish winged hussars. They also appeared somewhere in a trailer, to not show up in the game, but then made it in the first DLC, or maybe it will be a unique building of the Canadian civ.

 

[DeutschDachs]

I'm really hoping they hold off with the "meme" Civ of Georgia until the 3rd expansion or later (or as a standalone DLC). It was a funny (and quickly played out) joke in the poster thread but there are several Civs and areas of the world we need to cover before Georgia

 

[pgm123]

I will never understand why people want a Byzantine leader as an alternate of Rome.

I don't really understand why people don't want it. But I think a compromise where the leader could play as Rome or as Byzantium works. You could then allow Alexander to lead Greece.

 

[ferretbacon]

My 9 bets now after the new information
Korea
Netherlands
Mongols
Georgia
Ottomans
Navajo (or a different American civ)
Mali (or different West-African civ)
Inca (or Maya)
Isabella of Spain

DLC 1 after expansion:
Canada with Chateau Frontenac

That's pretty much the updated list I'd write, though I'm still hoping the alternate leader is for France or India.

 

[Vahnstad]

Well, it could also be a compromise to let George Washington lead the English people. They even share much more culture with each other than Byzantium and Rome does. And John Curtin can join the mix as well.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

Well, it could also be a compromise to let George Washington lead the English people. They even share much more culture with each other than Byzantium and Rome does. And John Curtin can join the mix as well.

Or Gandhi leading England.

 

[Vahnstad]

Or Gandhi leading England.

Ashoka could then lead India.