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

[Vahnstad]

It's the same with people proposing too recent leaders for alternate leaders. The only modern (after 1945) alternate leaders i want are Eisenhower and Khrushchev. All other civs shouldn't have them. And too recent isn't good either. I see Ronald Reagan being proposed a lot, but I swear to god that i'm willing to accept a Canadian civ (that will come inevitable) a lot more than an overhyped leader that 1) fudged up his country and 2) was a divisive president. JFK is an option too, but i think Eisenhower is a better one.

And come on, we have ONE (again, one. And we can say it thousand times), one leader, and i have seen so much stupid suggestions. I really hope they stick with Isabella and don't admit to at least that American pressure, because there are literally five to ten other civs that deserve them more and where an alternate leader would be a. Alternates shouldn't be used for civs which would barely change their mechanics (no real addition to the game (like in America's case) or for civs that should be represented through a new civ (like they did with Macedon, could do but won't happen with USSR and should do with Mughals).

Isabella, Louis XIV/Napoleon/France, Old Egypt, Ashoka/Akbar, Medieval England, Arabia and Bismarck are all good suggestions to me. China and Rome have rich history too, and you don't have to dig in the Byzantine history therefore. Rome has 1200 years of history if you don't include the Byzantine Empire. There is enough choice. There are literally ten to twenty different options. It wouldn't add that much to the gameplay probably. Trajan covers almost all facets of the Roman Empire.

 

[pgm123]

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.

Those aren't really the same thing. Are you saying Constantine doesn't share the same culture as Diocletian? Not that "sharing culture" is the benchmark. Are you against having an New Kingdom leader of Ancient Egypt now that Cleopatra is in the game? What about a Sassanid leader for Persia? Or even Elizabeth and Victoria?

 

[Vahnstad]

Or Maria Theresa being an alternate leader of Germany, that's also quite similar.

It won't happen. They even made a separate civ for Alexander. And Ed Beach told several times that the alt-leader function is mainly included for modders, and that they won't add many leaders themselves. It will stay an underused feature. It's up to the modders to make the leaders the community desires. Also in the city list of Rome we don't see the Byzantine cities, that also does suggest this won't happen. And if i hear most suggestions of other people, it's maybe a good thing that they don't use that feature so much. ... We still lack so many important civs, i rather have them focus on including those, than on including Byzantine and Italian leaders for Rome, Ronald Reagan, Konrad Adenauer, Leif Erikson or a modern Egyptian leader.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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 can't see that happening. The Unique Ability is All Roads lead to Rome (would they go to Constantinople instead?). Besides they considered themselves more Greek than Roman and would have a different playstyle from the current Romans, probably with more religion based abilities. And I need Dromons with Greek Fire.

 

[pgm123]

Or Maria Theresa being an alternate leader of Germany, that's also quite similar.

That was done in Civ II, but I think that's a bit different. At least Maria was the Archduchess of Austria (before she was the Queen of Germany or the Holy Roman Empress). Justinian was never the Byzantine Emperor.

I can't see that happening. The Unique Ability is All Roads lead to Rome (would they go to Constantinople instead?). Besides they considered themselves more Greek than Roman and would have a different playstyle from the current Romans, probably with more religion based abilities. And I need Dromons with Greek Fire.

No, they didn't. They considered themselves Roman. Their Emperors were offended when the Popes and Kings of the west called them "Greek." There were former residents of the Eastern Roman Empire who considered themselves Roman up until World War I (they had just been living under Ottoman rule). Greek identity is older than the "Byzantine Empire" and it was revived during the Greek Independence movement, with a debate on their name (Hellenes was strongly associated with Paganism). Justinian is a popular choice for the Byzantine leader and he is clearly Latin (he spoke Latin, used Latin titles, and wrote his law code in Latin).

You could do the Alexander treatment and split Byzantium from Rome. You could have an alternative Roman leader with Dromons and the capital in Constantinople. Or you could allow leaders the option of going with multiple civs--Justinian gets One God, One Emperor, One Empire ability for both Rome and Byzantium, but he'll have Dromons with the latter and legions with the former.

 

[Prima Italia]

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.

Byzantium has been its own civ in the past three games. Also, the Roman city list is missing the Byzantine cities. It is almost certain that Byzantium will be a stand alone civ that is introduced in an expansion pack or DLC.

 

[ferretbacon]

Byzantium has been its own civ in the past three games. Also, the Roman city list is missing the Byzantine cities. It is almost certain that Byzantium will be a stand alone civ that is introduced in an expansion pack or DLC.

I concur. Regardless of how the Byzantines viewed themselves or what mental gymnastics you can perform to justify a Byzantine emperor leading Rome, they're set to appear as their own entity again.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

No, they didn't. They considered themselves Roman. Their Emperors were offended when the Popes and Kings of the west called them "Greek." There were former residents of the Eastern Roman Empire who considered themselves Roman up until World War I (they had just been living under Ottoman rule). Greek identity is older than the "Byzantine Empire" and it was revived during the Greek Independence movement, with a debate on their name (Hellenes was strongly associated with Paganism). Justinian is a popular choice for the Byzantine leader and he is clearly Latin (he spoke Latin, used Latin titles, and wrote his law code in Latin).

You could do the Alexander treatment and split Byzantium from Rome. You could have an alternative Roman leader with Dromons and the capital in Constantinople. Or you could allow leaders the option of going with multiple civs--Justinian gets One God, One Emperor, One Empire ability for both Rome and Byzantium, but he'll have Dromons with the latter and legions with the former.

Maybe I used the wrong term. They used Roman law, but they spoke Greek and Greek culture and education flourished. Still this debate on what they were more, is justifiable enough that they should be their own Civ.

 

[Zaarin]

Those aren't really the same thing. Are you saying Constantine doesn't share the same culture as Diocletian? Not that "sharing culture" is the benchmark. Are you against having an New Kingdom leader of Ancient Egypt now that Cleopatra is in the game? What about a Sassanid leader for Persia? Or even Elizabeth and Victoria?

Actually, I'd argue the opposite: Constantine was clearly Roman, not Byzantine. While Valentine made Christianity legal and Constantine made it the state religion, they were still perfectly Roman.

Rome was secular; Byzantium was deeply religious (one Medieval writer wrote that one could not buy bread in the marketplace of Constantinople without overhearing debates on Christology). Rome imitated Greek art; Byzantine art was innovative. Roman military was centered on infantry; Byzantine military was centered on cavalry (and navy). Rome spoke Latin; Byzantium spoke Greek.

The Byzantines may have called themselves Roman, and they certainly inherited a great heritage from both Rome and Greece, but there is more than ample ground to distinguish them as a unique civilization.

 

[pgm123]

Maybe I used the wrong term. They used Roman law, but they spoke Greek and Greek culture and education flourished. Still this debate on what they were more, is justifiable enough that they should be their own Civ.

Their culture was a hybrid of Greek and Roman. But it's not like there was something abrupt. Cincinnatis - Julis Caesar - Augustus - Trajan - Diocletian - Constantine - Justinian - Heraclius and so on.

Could it justify its own civ? They could be their own civ the same way Saladdin could lead his own civ. Or Qin and Tang could be different civs. Is the Bakufu of Tokugawa really at all similar to the Bakufu of Hojo? Having a Byzantine alternative leader is a way to increase diversity in the Roman civ without taking up space that can go to different culture.

Actually, I'd argue the opposite: Constantine was clearly Roman, not Byzantine. While Valentine made Christianity legal and Constantine made it the state religion, they were still perfectly Roman.

Constantine made it legal and Theodosis I made it the state religion.

Rome was secular; Byzantium was deeply religious (one Medieval writer wrote that one could not buy bread in the marketplace of Constantinople without overhearing debates on Christology). Rome imitated Greek art; Byzantine art was innovative. Roman military was centered on infantry; Byzantine military was centered on cavalry (and navy). Rome spoke Latin; Byzantium spoke Greek.

1. Rome was absolutely not secular. It heavily merged religious and political. Julius Caesar used the pontifex maximus position to help launch his career. It allowed minority religions to a certain extent, but even Byzantium had moments of that. Debates on Christology existed during the days of Constantine (the first ecumenical council was during the reign of Constantine).

2. Roman art was far more creative than you give it credit. But even if you don't think it was at all innovative until after 476, there's still another 1000 years of history with a ton of outside influence, including from the Islamic world. It makes sense that it would evolve over time.

3. Roman military centered on cavalry after the crisis of the 3rd century. The first cataphractarii in the Roman army date to Trajan. Byzantium eventually became known for its navy, but the time of Justinian (a popular choice) was not known for its navy. Not more than Trajan's day.

.4. Byzantium spoke Latin in the time of Justinian, a popular choice for the leader in Civ. Theodora spoke Latin and Greek.

The Byzantines may have called themselves Roman, and they certainly inherited a great heritage from both Rome and Greece, but there is more than ample ground to distinguish them as a unique civilization.

Sure. Same could be said for the Ptolemey and Egypt. Or even Old Kingdom and New Kingdom Egypt. But we're talking about a limited number of civs that will realistically be included. I'd prefer they make Rome more interesting by adding an alternative Byzantine leader and worry about making a different civ another time.

And it's more than the Byzantines calling themselves Roman. They were the Roman Empire. Nobody doubted they were the Roman Empire at the death of Constantine. Nobody doubted they were the Roman Empire when Odoacer deposed the Western Roman Emperor and sent the regalia to the Eastern Empire saying he would rule Italy in the Eastern Emperor's name. Nobody doubted they were the Roman Empire at the time of Justinian when he was reconquering Rome. Even Charlemagne attempted to marry into the Roman family to secure his legitimacy. When the Quran and Hadith talk of conquering Rome, it's speaking of Constantinople. When it talks of the Romans, it speaks of the Byzantines.

 

[Josephias]

Now we seem to confirm the "waterpark-pier" seems a water recreational district, ¿any Idea of a civ that could bring an unique twist to that?.

I'd say Georgia, but they haven't been as many times America's cup winners as Switzerland.

Polynesia is the first actual one that comes to my mind, but I don't think they'll repeat them, at least in the x-pack (maybe as DLC?), I don't see Carthage being as recreational with water. Any other ideas?

 

[Yordinul]

As was said in another thread Zenobia could be an alt leader for Rome.Though it would be pretty strange but not as strange as Bizantine leaders.

 

[Haig]

I watched closely at the Rise & Fall Trailer and yeah, the warriors fighting against Sean Bean look exactly like those Georgian khevsureti warrios.

I don't know much about Georgian history but I quickly read a bit and:

Tamar fought against Suleiman the Magnicifienct and won the ottoman army, so if they release Ottomans that could be a nice scenario.

Also interaction with Byzantine kingdom and Saladin.

Later Georgian empire was under attack by the mongols.

She seems pretty cool, but I don't want any new religious civs at the moment, unless the mechanics and bonuses are awesome.

 

[Hakan-i Cihan]

I don't know much about Georgian history but I quickly read a bit and:

Tamar fought against Suleiman the Magnicifienct and won the ottoman army, so if they release Ottomans that could be a nice scenario.

I think you read it a bit too quickly.

Suleiman the magnifient reigned like 3 centuries later than Tamar and the Ottoman empire didn't exist yet during the reign of Tamar. What I think is that you read about Suleymanshah II of Seljuqid Sultanate of Rum. Just correcting a little misread. The other facts you mention are correct though.

 

[Sascha77]

Answering the original question:

I would love to see a truly unique and "different" civ again. Like Venice in V. Probably one of my favorite civs of the entire series - simply because it had such an unconventional feel to it and not "just" some UU/UB, which, if we're honest, only go so far in making a civ feel special or unique, anyway.

E.

 

[Zaarin]

Now we seem to confirm the "waterpark-pier" seems a water recreational district, ¿any Idea of a civ that could bring an unique twist to that?.

I'd say Georgia, but they haven't been as many times America's cup winners as Switzerland.

Polynesia is the first actual one that comes to my mind, but I don't think they'll repeat them, at least in the x-pack (maybe as DLC?), I don't see Carthage being as recreational with water. Any other ideas?

Yes, a landlocked country makes perfect sense for a unique water district.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yes, a landlocked country makes perfect sense for a unique water district.

This is what came up when I googled Switzerland Pier. If Switzerland ever became a Civ I would like a Ski Resort Improvement built on a Mountain tile.
At least Georgia is on the Black Sea but I don't realistically see anyone getting a Unique Water Park.

 

[Rosty K]

A different kind of a resort (not tied to the sea) is a very obvious possible addition, I wouldn't be surprised to see something like that in this expansion really.

Though there are National Parks already, but those are too situational and expensive...

 

[Vahnstad]

Yes, a landlocked country makes perfect sense for a unique water district.

I was thinking about making the same comment, but then i remembered it's located next to the Black Sea, but still...

And Georgia is also known for it's mountains that made it a very isolated country (hard to invade too). The people far into the mountains are one of the most isolated in Eurasia, with a language even regular Georgians can't understand, and with almost no road network.

 

[Rosty K]

I was thinking about making the same comment, but then i remembered it's located next to the Black Sea, but still...

And Georgia is also known for it's mountains that made it a very isolated country (hard to invade too). The people far into the mountains are one of the most isolated in Eurasia, with a language even regular Georgians can't understand, and with almost no road network.

"Official" Georgia includes the territory with some well-known (at least in ex-USSR) sea resorts, just they don't control the territory since 1992 or so... And well, even the cut-down Georgia still has access to Black Sea and has a major port there.