Based on their rea-life exploits, what traits do YOU think the C5 leaders will have?

[moysturfurmer]

A list of them, if necessary:
Otto von Bismark
Wu Zeitein/Zetein
Washington
Oba Nobunaga
Harun al-Rashid
Genghis Khan
Bonaparte
Caeser
Gandhi
Stalin(?)

Now for a lot of these guys (I'm looking at you Gandhi) we have a pretty good idea, as they're pretty much mainstays of the series, but what about the newcomers? I myself would venture some guesses, but my limited knowledge of history precludes me from doing so (and truth be told, this thread is mostly just a half-assed attempt at higher learning).

Keep in mind though that the leaders all get their own specialized traits this time, so it doesn't necessarily have to follow the same format (perhaps Gandhi's cities wouldn't need as much food as anyone elses).

So, my esteemed scholars of historical happenstance, what do you think?

 

[GoodSarmatian]

We don't know enough about the gameplay mechanics ye ´t and if the traits will be more representative of the civilization or the leader but here are some educated guesses anyway.
I hope that Bismarck get's some sort of tangible diplomacy bonus. Normal diplomacy modifiers would be useless in a MP game but things like better bonuses from allied city states, better results from cimbined research or icreased trade or anything that let's Germany profit more from alliances than other civs would be good.
Caesar would obviously have some sort of happiness bonus for his popularity and maybe faster progress in the social policies tree for hs political talent (this would be more fittingif they had Augustus). For Rome itself cheaper roads/faster road movement.
For Genghis Khan something to improve cavalry, maybe more cavalry units per horse resource than other civs or faster unit movement and possibly increased enemy war weariness for hs dual approach of totally annihilating everybody who oppsed him and at the same time respectfultreatment of those who surrendered, something Alexander did as well.
I don't know much about Oba Nobunaga but he might get cheaper unit upgrades and a bonus to combined research in militry technology.

 

[Dragonflow]

We can only guess what the traits could be and what their effect on gameplay is.
I think Napoleon would get some kind of military and social bonus, maybe a price reduction for gunpowder units and happiness in French cities or faster progress in social policies.
Stalin ( if he is included) would get a bonus on building improvement and industrial buildings, he could also reduce War Weariness of his civilization.
Harun-al-Rashid could get cultural and research bonuses, but I don't know enough about him to suggest more.

 

[Mango Elephant]

I think Napoleon should get a bonus that makes your cities require less maintenance and one that gives him a military bonus.

Wu should get a diplomatic bonus that makes Civs more likely to trade with her, but that might be useless if its on a multiplayer map or if the computer is talking to the player.

 

[Izanaki]

The original poster said later in the thread that he misinterpreted some concept art and thought a picture of Bismarck was Stalin, so Stalin isn't in the game (EDIT: or rather, is not confirmed to be in the game, and I hope he isn't.)

I wouldn't be surprised if Napoleon and Genghis Khan had some kind of military traits to help subjugate their neighbours

 

[MrBanana]

There are two confirmed ones: Bismarck doesn't get diplo penalties for war, and Washington's troops get the equivalent of leadership and morale promotions, if I remeber correctly.

 

[Shiggs713]

Washington should probably have some bonuses related to military as well. Perhaps more passive than Napoleon or Genghis's bonuses. He was prestigious and charismatic as well (even before he was commander-in-chief), but where he really earned his reputation was on the battlefield.

I'd say something along the lines of cheaper conscripts (less penalty for drafting), cheaper upgrades, or perhaps a free promotion, like flanking for all units. It always bothered me that in civ4 defenders could not withdrawal from combat. Maybe Washington's units should be able to do that, since that was something he was really good at.

edit: didn't see that before I posted MrBanana

 

[EMT]

There are two confirmed ones: Bismarck doesn't get diplo penalties for war, and Washington's troops get the equivalent of leadership and morale promotions, if I remeber correctly.

I made that up in a speculation thread similar to this one, remember?

 

[bonafide11]

There will never be a trait for diplomatic bonuses because it'd be irrelevant and worthless in multiplayer.

Besides, I think the generic traits as we know them are gone. Now there will just be unique bonuses for each civilization.

 

[Dragonflow]

The original poster said later in the thread that he misinterpreted some concept art and thought a picture of Bismarck was Stalin, so Stalin isn't in the game (EDIT: or rather, is not confirmed to be in the game, and I hope he isn't.)

I wouldn't be surprised if Napoleon and Genghis Khan had some kind of military traits to help subjugate their neighbours

Wasn't Stalin confirmed by a Danish magazine? I remember that the French magazine had a Bismarck concept which was misinterpreted as Stalin but I don't remember somebody confirming that the Danish magazine didn't confirm Stalin.

 

[cybrxkhan]

A couple of my guesses:

Wu Zeitein/Zetein: Probably something to do with culture or agriculture - it'd make sense since she ruled China around the Tang dynasty (even though technically she founded her own dynasty...), when China was extremely powerful economically and agriculturally.
Harun al-Rashid: I'd say perhaps a cultural or social policy bonus, not sure how that would work.


Anyhow, what I hope is that when giving the leaders the bonuses that the bonuses also reflect the civilization too, not just the leader. For example (bad one here), let's just say that Hitler was the leader for Germany. If there was only bonuses that, say, applied to war weariness, that would not really be representative of the entire German civilization and history, and in a way it'd be kind of insulting. Even though I like having interesting and dynamic leaders, the important base of the game are civilizations, not leaders - which is why the game is called Civilization, not Leader.

 

[Alter Ego]

Wasn't Stalin confirmed by a Danish magazine? I remember that the French magazine had a Bismarck concept which was misinterpreted as Stalin but I don't remember somebody confirming that the Danish magazine didn't confirm Stalin.

I remember confirming that it wasn't Stalin.

 

[axi]

AFAIK, the leaders in civ5 will have different AI personalities. The civs will be the ones with the traits. This doesn't mean that the AI personality will be accompanies with tangible traits. This will make additional leaders in an expansion easier to implement.

This means that the Germans may be industrious, but Bismarck will be expansive/diplomatic (try to build a powerful alliance and antagonize other powerful civs). If Frederic II comes in an expansion, he may be militaristic/cultural (build barracks and culture buildings everywhere).

 

[Flying Pig]

I think the way that leaders will be done will be more 'organic' than in CIV - compare it to using python rather than XML, or writing in paragraphs rather than ticking boxes. Therefore, the whole idea of 'traits' will probably disappear to be replaced with 'personalities' which are completely scratch-built. That's my hope for it

 

[Dragonflow]

I remember confirming that it wasn't Stalin.

You did? Thanks for clarifying the misunderstanding, I though that the Danish magazine still had a picture of Stalin. Well, that means the Russian leader is still unknown, I just hope they don't add Catherine since there are better choices.

 

[civ_king]

You did? Thanks for clarifying the misunderstanding, I though that the Danish magazine still had a picture of Stalin. Well, that means the Russian leader is still unknown, I just hope they don't add Catherine since there are better choices.

I like Civ IV Catherine better than Civ III if ya catch my drift




J/K

 

[Shiggs713]

Anyhow, what I hope is that when giving the leaders the bonuses that the bonuses also reflect the civilization too, not just the leader. For example (bad one here), let's just say that Hitler was the leader for Germany. If there was only bonuses that, say, applied to war weariness, that would not really be representative of the entire German civilization and history, and in a way it'd be kind of insulting. Even though I like having interesting and dynamic leaders, the important base of the game are civilizations, not leaders - which is why the game is called Civilization, not Leader.

good point. Really when you put it in that perspective maybe leaders shouldn't have any kind of traits at all, or very minimal. Civilization traits or strengths-whatever you want to call it, would be better.

 

[cybrxkhan]

good point. Really when you put it in that perspective maybe leaders shouldn't have any kind of traits at all, or very minimal. Civilization traits or strengths-whatever you want to call it, would be better.

Glad someone agrees.

That's why I think maybe it would have been better if they did something similar to the system in Colonization, where each civ had two leaders, and the leaders would share one mutual bonus exclusive to the civ, but each leader would have their own unique bonus too. I think Rhye's and Fall proves that there are many possibility for leader traits, so... yeah.

Just hope this won't turn out to be "Let's see if Shaka gets angry at Bismarck because Bismarck was being a @#$%! Har har har, immature leaders bashing it out middle school style!". That would really make the game lose its 'epic' flavor.

 

[mjs0]

... something similar to the system in Colonization, where each civ had two leaders, and the leaders would share one mutual bonus exclusive to the civ, but each leader would have their own unique bonus too.

This would be my preferred approach also.