1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Choose seven alternative leaders you'd most like to see on Civ6

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by Xandinho, Aug 2, 2019.

?

Choose seven alternative leaders you'd most like to see on Civ6

  1. Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (Arabia)

    6 vote(s)
    6.5%
  2. Acamapichtli (Aztec)

    3 vote(s)
    3.3%
  3. Akbar the Great (India)

    16 vote(s)
    17.4%
  4. Alfred the Great (England)

    17 vote(s)
    18.5%
  5. Ashoka (India)

    7 vote(s)
    7.6%
  6. Augustus Caesar (Rome)

    29 vote(s)
    31.5%
  7. Casimir III the Great (Poland)

    8 vote(s)
    8.7%
  8. Catherine the Great (Russia)

    34 vote(s)
    37.0%
  9. Charlemagne (France/Germany)

    29 vote(s)
    31.5%
  10. Djoser (Egypt)

    10 vote(s)
    10.9%
  11. Eannatum (Sumer)

    6 vote(s)
    6.5%
  12. Elizabeth I (England)

    22 vote(s)
    23.9%
  13. George Washington (America)

    32 vote(s)
    34.8%
  14. Harun al-Rashid (Arabia)

    9 vote(s)
    9.8%
  15. Hatshepsut (Egypt)

    29 vote(s)
    31.5%
  16. Huayna Capac (Inca)

    5 vote(s)
    5.4%
  17. Isabella I of Castile (Spain)

    27 vote(s)
    29.3%
  18. Ivan the Terrible (Russia)

    19 vote(s)
    20.7%
  19. Kangxi Emperor (China, Qing dynasty)

    7 vote(s)
    7.6%
  20. Khosrow I (Persia)

    21 vote(s)
    22.8%
  21. Kublai Khan (China/Mongolia, Yuan dynasty)

    28 vote(s)
    30.4%
  22. Louis XIV (France)

    24 vote(s)
    26.1%
  23. Napoleon Bonaparte (France)

    37 vote(s)
    40.2%
  24. Otto von Bismarck (Germany)

    34 vote(s)
    37.0%
  25. Ramesses II (Egypt)

    33 vote(s)
    35.9%
  26. Sejong the Great (Korea)

    13 vote(s)
    14.1%
  27. Tokugawa Ieyasu (Japan)

    7 vote(s)
    7.6%
  28. William of Orange (England/Netherlands/Scotland)

    22 vote(s)
    23.9%
  29. Wu Zetian (China, Tang dynasty)

    24 vote(s)
    26.1%
  30. Yongle Emperor (China, Ming dynasty)

    16 vote(s)
    17.4%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. Kimiimaro

    Kimiimaro King

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Messages:
    3,574
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Paskov
    Eh, there is a rather great difference between Byzantium and Classical Rome. Classical Rome as we know had its core lands in Italy and its people spoke Latin. The Byzantines had their core lands in Balkans and Anatolia, spoke Greek and had it as their official language since Herakleios' reign.

    Thutmose III and Cleopatra, Cyrus the Great and Khosrow, be it I or II or Alfred and Victoria ruled over same core lands, spoke evolved versions of languages of the respective older leader (yes, Cleopatra was from Greek dynasty, but was able to speak the language of the Egyptian people).

    Maria Theresa and Barbarossa is the only one I'd not want share a Civ, because she kinda didn't hold power of Germany, and while she led the Holy Roman Empire, the HRE was a joke compared to Barbarossa's times, and to be frank, the Prussians held greater power within the German lands :p
     
  2. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,718
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    Honestly to me, Maria Theresa leading Germany is more of a desperate attempt to at least get her represented in the game. Though historically being an alt leader of Hungary would definitely make more sense but I don't see that happening.
    That's honestly where at least I am when I am open to the possibility of getting some sort of Byzantine representation in the game, even if we aren't able to get it as a full civ but as an alt leader.
    Of course I know others would rather them be skipped entirely than being reduced to an alt leader, and I can understand that as well. It's just my preference for the former.
     
  3. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,324
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    Kleopatra was, however, only the first of her entire Dynasty who could speak 'the language of her people' - the language of the Dynasty was Macedonian-accented Greek. This is, frankly, no Big Deal: Egypt, like China, had numerous 'foreign' Dynasties ranging from Hyksos to Nubian, and the Ptolemies were just the last of the bunch.

    I agree, but for different reasons. While the HRE was seriously declined in importance since the Medieval Era, Austria's strength had shifted to the Balkans, including Hungary but also including most of what is today Slokakia, the Czech Republic, and the lands that used to be Yugoslavia (and that I gave up trying to keep track of in all their geopolitical permutations). Prussia may have had more influence in Germany, but Austria had more influence in the powerful parts of Germany: Bavaria, Saxony, the Rhineland. And during the Seven Year's War, while Friederich and his Prussians won great victories over the Austrians at Leuthen and Hohenfriedberg, the Austrians beat the Prussians at Kolin and Prague, tore their supply lines to pieces with Hussars and Croat light infantry, and in all had far more resources at their disposal than the Prussians ever had.

    I think the proper place for Maria is not as an Alternate for Germany, but Leader of a separate Austria which encompasses Austria's Unique ability to control a mass of (in game terms) City States for almost 300 years and for most of that time make them an integral part of what was really an Austrian Empire.

    Of course, then we run into the game kind of geographical 'Overlap' in central Europe that we would have with a Rome - Italy, Celtic Gaul - France or Saxon England - Britain Civ combinations. I don't think that's particularly important, but it would bother the True Map Location folks no end.
     
    Kimiimaro likes this.
  4. Kimiimaro

    Kimiimaro King

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Messages:
    3,574
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Paskov
    I am quite well aware of the territorial extent of the Austrian Empire during different timelines. Being a Czech, the Habsburg Empire is one of the most detailed parts of Czech history lessons taught at schools, as they the Habsburg rule is directly tied with Czech history. Maria Theresa is one of the rulers and personalities where our history books stop and take a more detailed look on them, like they do with, say, Napoleon Bonaparte, Ivan IV of Russia, Elizabeth I, Julius Caesar or Peter the Great. In Czech history, Charles IV, Rudolf II, Joseph II, Franz Joseph, personalities of Czech national revival or several important personalities which appeared since the foundation of Czechoslovakia got such closer look. Maria Theresa is valued for her enlightened 40 years of rule (even though she disliked the Czechs for them crowning Charles VII of Bavaria before accepting her after the Austrian armies reconquered Bohemia) which reorganised and restructured the backward Empire to be able to compete with the rest of Europe, especially with Prussia. Compulsory school attendance is considered to be her most important reform here.

    Nevertheless, Friedrich II of Prussia was still victorious, gaining Silesia, one of the most industrialised parts of the Habsburg Empire, for his realm from Austria (albeit I have to admit that Friedrich had a huge luck, too, when Elizabeth of Russia died and Tsar Peter III signed a peace treaty when Prussia was almost defeated - when they made peace, Austrian-Russian armies were besieging Berlin).

    I definitely agree here. Austrian Empire led by Maria Theresa would be the best solution on how to include here (though I wouldn't mind her son, Joseph II, either), and giving Austria some sort of diplomatic abilities and special interactions with City States could work well.

    The TSL problem with Europe and Middle East in general is that there's a substantial number of interesting and distinct civilisations that could easily make it to the game thanks to the great amount of cultures and high population of the regions, but geographically, they're relatively small places (as opposed to vastness of, say, the USA, which, even though being just one country, is larger than all EU countries combined).
     
    Boris Gudenuf likes this.
  5. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold King

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    720
    I am not included in this "we." And that's not to say that I think Byzantium is undeserving or would be a "bad" civ by itself, but that given the blobbing of Phoenicia with Carthage and HRE with Germany and Maurya with India and Angevin with France/England, an independent Byzantium would go against VI's design generally (especially since I am getting the impression that the same thing will happen with the Timurids/Mughals in expack 3).

    More importantly, designating Byzantium as the regional power for SE Europe would do the same thing for Bulgaria as Georgia's regional dominance relegating the Armenian empire to a city-state (or if we get the Timurids, Kabul and the Afghani empires). And of all of the "lesser" empires I don't believe Bulgaria deserves this, having had two long, powerful imperial eras as well as a notable "Magna Bulgaria" region for some time. In fact, one could say that Bulgaria has an overall longer legacy than Byzantium and better covers the regions as yet unrepresented in the game (i.e. the East Balkans and Ukrainian steppes). Bulgaria would be an excellent addition, and a more than adequate substitute for Byzantium.

    As I've also noted elsewhere, decentralizing "Rome" away from the Italian peninsula would also make it more conceptually "global" and less "Italian," allowing for the opening of design space for an actual Italian civ. Which, albeit, has its own problems given that the Italian empire wasn't much of a thing, and the unified Kingdom of Italy wasn't much of a thing, and it's best "empires" were actually just Venice, Genoa, etc. But if players really want Italy that badly, conceptually distinguishing "Rome" from "Italy" feels practically necessary. So a Byzantine alternate leader would actually open up design space for two really solid, deserving and/or popular civs.

    And, finally, I would like to note, yet again, that Georgia seems to be really pushing to replace the Byzantine niche. The unique wall, the religious bonuses, the city-state suzerain bonuses. Even similar choral music. Tamar is stepping on toes and really it almost doesn't seem worth trying to differentiate Byzantium (especially when we also have other bits of strong Byzantine concepts strewn about Russia, the Ottomans, and Poland).

    Now, I acknowledge all of the counterarguments, particularly that the Roman uniques don't feel like late Byzantium. And that is certainly problematic, probably a problem without an especially satisfying solution in itself (I personally would be fine with an early Byzantine leader but even I admit it's a bit underwhelming). However, I have to emphasize that many Byzantine proponents seem to be completely missing the many new, good things a Roman alternate leader opens up. There is no clear best option here between Byzantium in all its glory juxtaposed against Byzantine Rome plus Bulgaria plus Italy.

    I obviously prefer the latter because getting Byzantium alone has grown stale for me. I want fresh blood, dammit.

    There is also nothing stopping the devs from making a Byzantine alternate leader for Rome just for expack 3. Then retrofitting a new "Byzantium" civ design onto said leader for a smaller future expack (y'know, the unofficial, unnecessary expansions for pedants who miss their favorite staple). It's one of the few civs alongside the Maya and probably Italy or Babylon that could sell a small DLC pack on its own.
     
  6. Kimiimaro

    Kimiimaro King

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2017
    Messages:
    3,574
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Paskov
    The problem here is that I don't see Phoenicia as an intentional blob Civ, but more like a slight modification to Carthage so they could smuggle an old Civ back into game, just under new name, to overcome the "4 new Civs, 4 old Civs" rule they placed upon themselves for the first and second expansion. If you take a closer look on their abilities, leader. agenda, unique district, you'll notice that if you make only really minor modifications, like removing the writing eureka from the Phoenician ability, you could basically call the Civ Carthage.
    India has been a blob since Civ I, it's not a new trend. We've had Maurya Emperor Ashoka leading India as well there.
    The Angevin Empire was merely a historically short-lived (60 years) personal union between France and England, not a Civ of its own. I see nothing wrong in here to see it as France and England led by one leader.
    Germany under Barbarossa is not unlike Greece under Pericles or Gorgo. If you notice that German city list includes only German cities of the Holy Roman Empire, you got the same principle on which Greece is built - a bunch of disconnected City-states unified under one leader from that era. I don't really consider Germany blobbed together with HRE, because HRE is not a Civ in my eyes (appearing in Civ IV only, among other horrendous blobs like Native Americans or Vikings). It was a political organisation, alliance of German, Italian, Dutch states (and Slavic Bohemia, too), with these states having strongly different culture each, different languages, and a rulers of their own, who fought wars among themselves inside the Empire. In Greece, they had that warring too, but they at least had one language, and very similar culture in each Greek City-state (like pantheon of gods, Olympic games...). Due to more similarities than differences, divided ancient Greece does make sense as united Empire under one strong Classical ruler. HRE does not, unless focused on one cultural and national branch, which Friedrich's Germany does.
    Actually, there's more of deblobbing going on compared to Civs of Civ IV and Civ V, with Maori taken out of blob Polynesia or Scotland being our sort of Celtic Civ. There would be nothing wrong with keeping the Byzantine Empire an independent Civ, especially considering how important power it was.

    If you build unified Italy like Greece - centered around the period of the Renaissance, when the country was divided, and then picking one or two significant leaders of the most significant states (say, Venice and Florence), I don't think there would be any need for de-italisation of Rome to make the two Civs distinct enough from each other.

    I wouldn't take Georgia as a serious decision of the devs for it to replace Byzantium, more like pleasing the fans by including their widespread meme Civ+leader (meme of every hint/reveal secrently pointing on Tamar of Georgia - seen both on reddit and Civfanatics) into the game. Obviously, that doesn't mean that Georgia doesn't belong into game. Tamar of Georgia is a splendid choice of leader of its own, and I'm glad to see a Civ from Caucasus. But I don't consider it a replacement of Byzantium.
    There's about 1000 years of Byzantine history to choose abilities and units from, to build a Civ from. Hints of Byzantium in the Ottoman Empire and Russia are quite unavoidable, since core lands of the former were also the core lands of the Byzantine Empire, and Russia and Byzantium had historically close ties, so there has been mutual influence, too. I'm not sure where Poland includes strong Byzantine concept, though?

    I don't understand here: Roman alt-leader gives us only space for a unique leader ability, and if we're lucky, a unique unit. You can open and build much more new good things by building a new Civ, especially if you open a time period yet unexplored in previous Civ game, like the Komnenian Restoration. By keeping it within the Roman Civ, you'd miss opportunity for new unique infrastructure, unique unit (provided that picked Byzantine/Roman-alt leader doesn't get one), unique palace, possibly even architectonical style of the Civ cities, you'd be using Latin/Italian names for diplomats and spies as a Civ that had Greek both as common and official language during most of its existence, and you'd miss unique music (and this plays a huge role for me, since I'm listening to Civ music regularly, and would be greatly disappointed to see devs missing on such great opportunity as Byzantine music, especially considering how much I love the Byzantine themes from both Civ IV and Civ V) As the alt-Roman leader, you'll thus get about a third of what you could otherwise get, and, as you said, it would feel strange to have a Civ built around Classical Roman Empire with Legions, baths and ability called "All roads lead to Rome" represent a Civ that didn't hold Rome for most of its existence, with a high medieval emperor slapped on top of it.
    Another problem is that we'd take away alternate leader slot from, say, China, Persia or Egypt, which, I believe, need an alternate leader much more.

    When it comes to Bulgaria, I'd like to see it myself, but I'd blame Alexander the Great Civ or the fact that Greece, out of all Civs, has two leaders, for the lacking space in Balkans more than I'd blame Byzantium. Let's admit that not much would have happened if Alexander was a Great General and, say, China had two leaders instead of Greece. Without these two, maybe we could now be debating about possibilities of including both Byzantium and some Balkan Slavic empire, like Serbia, or, yes, Bulgaria, in Civ VI.

    Though I believe we may have discussed this matter earlier... We might eventually end again by having to agree to disagree. I apologise if my writing is a bit weaker or my sentences are disjointed or hardly understandable somewhere, I was sort of tired and wanted to go to sleep, but I noticed this comment and felt a need to reply.
     
  7. TahamiTsunami

    TahamiTsunami Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2017
    Messages:
    420
    Gender:
    Male
    Looking back on the leaders we have so far, I've noticed that none of the leaders are armed with firearms such as pistols or rifles. Granted any of the leaders that could have a pistol or rifle don't necessarily need to have one but I'm wondering if any future leaders (alternate or otherwise) could have one or if Firaxis would be against that for some reason?
     
  8. ehecatzin

    ehecatzin Emperor

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,118
    I would love to see the Aztecs get a diferent leader TBH, while in theory we've gotten Monty I and Monty II, they havent really made them any different. I can see Monty I fitting the characterization, but Monty II should be the absolute opposite, if you read any account of the Conquistadors, Monty II should be refined and elegant.

    Nezahualcoyotl, or Ahuizotl could make interesting choices, or you know Monty II done right.
     
    TahamiTsunami and Uberfrog like this.
  9. Foxiron

    Foxiron Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2019
    Messages:
    14
    Akbar the Great : For such a historically cultured civ like India, it's a shame that there is a laser focus on religion in civ 6. While Akbar the Great was known religious tolerance, that was a pattern that most Indian rulers followed due it's religious diversity. Akbar is known for his court or the Nine Gems, a featuring the greatest scholars and artists of the Mughal Period, so he could lead india in an interesting turn.
    Ashoka : Ashoka could be somewhat of a religion/governors hybrid, since he used administrative skills to spread Buddhism and the path of non-violence. I chose him because i wonder what kind of play style he could have.
    Alfred the Great: It annoys me that every english ruler was either a descendant of a french noble or the descendant of a german prince. While as much as I would love to see people like Elisabeth, Matilda and Edward I in the game, I feel they are not the best representative of the english. Alfred the Great was an actual, english speaking Anglo-Saxon, and he could give England a Science based turn,.
    Augustus Caesar(I'll stop chosing A's after this): I'd like a roman leader focused very much on development of their giant empire. While Augustus could have some military expansion at first, he could settle down and start developing his advanced cities to pursue a more cultural/scientific victory.
    Ivan IV: Despite being terrible, Ivan was a relatively good Tsar and an iconic one at least. He expanded the size of russia, was a devout orthodox christrian and had a dream for Russia being Third Rome, the inheritors of the Byzantine empire
    Louis XIV: Honestly, any french leader except Cdm would be fine, but Louis XIV has the best synergy with France's CA, with a focus on culture and wonder building. He also could take a militaristic turn.
    Casmir III: Even though Jadwiga is an op leader, I don't feel like going for a religous victory playing as poland all the time. Poland's strength is (in my opinion) in the Succkience, which provides +4 gold from domestic trade routes. Play a domination victory would be amazing, since you can just spam domestic trade routes, without being worried your unit maintenance will be disrupted. Casmir would bring a pretty good conquest focused strength to poland
     
  10. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,324
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    Terrifying or Mighty are better translations, and they also better describe his appropriate attributes: first Streltsi musket men, first Russian Siege Train of artillery, first printing plant in Moscow, founded half-dozen new towns outh of Moscow to extend the borders and defend them against the 'Tatars', St Basil's Cathedral - he could combine religious, militaristic and scientific influences all in the same Leader.

    I like your other choices, although I'd probably argue for Hadrian or Marcus Aurelius as a more 'alternative' Alternative Leader to Trajan for Rome.
     
  11. Foxiron

    Foxiron Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2019
    Messages:
    14
    I would see Ivan IV more as a religous/military hybrid, more akin to spain. Russia in their unique district and ability are really the religous strengths you have, it's the leader that brings you a distinct play style. Marcus Aurelius and Hadrian are good alternatives too since they offer a completely different focus to Trajan's expansion gameplay. But honestly, as Rome what ever you do it is in your benefit to play wide, so interesting what Marcus and Hadrian would bring.
     
  12. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,324
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    Agree completely. I keep bringing up Ivan's largely unrealized 'science' impact (he may have personally written dozens of essays published by his new printing plant in Moscow) because, in general, previous renditions of 'Russia' have saved any science bonus for the late/end game with research establishments or other Soviet-era institutions. It would be interesting to see an earlier bend in that direction. Another possibility, since a lot of the printing out of Moscow under Ivan was religious texts, would be an extra bonus to Religious Spread or strength from Printing, which would reinforce Russia's already powerful Religious strength. That, however, is not really needed. In my experience, Russia on Tundra with Dance of the Aurora spamming tundra Lavras is a cultural and religious Behemoth that is almost impossible to match with any other Civ.

    There is a Mod of Hadrian as an Alternate Roman Leader already which gives him Cultural bonuses, which is a nice addition to the Expansionist/Military aspect of the Civ already. "Hadrian's Wall" is Red Herring: similar Border Fortifications had already been built by Roman Emperors in Germany, along the Danube, and in the East - the wall in Britain is simply the one that is best-preserved: Hadrian was no more a 'wall builder' than any other Emperor.
     
    Foxiron likes this.
  13. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold King

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    720
    Can you though? When the average player wants Carthage for Hannibal and elephants, and "Carthage" has neither of these things? I think it strays far more into characteristically Phoenician territory, i.e. "colonization," than Carthaginian territory which would be more explicitly conquest-oriented.

    So that doesn't really weigh in either direction.

    And yet it, like Gorgo and Ashoka, was seen as historically large and relevant enough to merit a second leader. Which means that even short-lived polities, if sufficiently "imperial" and showing off a different side of a culture's history, are candidates for alternate leaders and blobification.

    Except the HRE had been around for 300 years at the time and could hardly be considered as politically "disconnected" as the Grecian leagues, particularly if we are only talking about the "Germany" at its core. Also, as others have observed, Germany seems quite likely to have an alternate leader planned, which explains why the HRE has been appropriated into VI's depiction of German heritage and only has German cities.

    Broad statements that either "blobbing" or "de-blobbing" are overgeneralizations that skip the why behind the changes. Neither a hard rule of "blob more" or "blob less" serves VI's purpose if it's not done in service some specific design goal. In VI's case, likely due to fan backlash against the Celts and Polynesia, the design goal appears to be to "reorganize" civs by their cultural continuity, at least better than previous installments did. So, yes, both blobbing and de-blobbing could happen, it really depends on how culturally related two civs might be, and how much unnecessary design space they were occupying in the past. And the fact is that Byzantium was, to a large extent, a cultural extension of the Roman Empire, especially in its earlier years; and that it is often one of the last civs added because, let's be honest, it's just a roided out Rome in a Greek marinade.

    I'm not going to go into this one because the Italy problem is just too complicated. But I will say that settling for, say, a Florentine and Venetian leader, does not feel like it does Italy justice.

    Oh, I'm aware of the Georgia meme. But also, if the aim was to fill geographic maps and only slightly broaden the idea of "empire," then Georgia was an excellent addition on its own merits. Of all of the Caucasus options, it's the clear frontrunner for several reasons, moreso than Khazaria or Armenia. My observation with respect to Byzantium is merely that Georgia got into VI first, is overall more unique than Byzantium, and coincidentally happens to fill a lot of mechanical and aesthetic niches that would normally be expected to be filled by Byzantium. It's not expressly a replacement for Byzantium, but in a game with a limited roster that would rather work on new cultures than constantly revisit old staples, it could suffice as an improved spiritual successor to Byzantium.

    Poland primarily trods on Byzantium with a heavy cavalry unit. It's purely a mechanical thing, just like Hungary's poaching on Byzantine territory is pretty nominally limited to a cross. In isolation these are fairly trivial to overcome, but they add up when trying to find design space for Byzantium.

    I believe I observed as much that blobbing Byzantium into Rome would indeed give Byzantium the short end of the design stick. That is problematic, at least if you are determined to play out your Byzantine fantasies. But the rest of this ranting seems to miss my exact point: everyone is so fixated on getting Byzantium the way they want it and not acknowledging what good things like Italy and Bulgaria might come of changing up the formula. A design decision to deliberately reduce Byzantine presence in the game could, in fact, result in equally fun things added to the game that you weren't even thinking about. I've heard this rant dozens of times at this point, but no one seems to care about all of the other cultures in the region was have been always missing out on because "Byzantium will do."

    This seems to be a non-issue. I am convinced that we will continue to get alternate leaders after expack 3. The shortlist and art design would likely have been completed long ago. They might already have some recordings ready if they lucked out on versatile voice actors. And given that there is no mechanical balancing or animation interaction with the map itself, the leader animation team could pretty much work on an independent timeline from the rest of the game's development. There could be a dozen alternate leaders at various stages of completion in the pipeline right now.

    And let's be frank. If any European civ deserves two leaders, Rome is high on the list. I would argue Germany also wants a Kingdom of Germany or Magna Germania leader, and Russia wants a USSR or Kievan Rus' leader, but Rome definitely wants another leader as well, especially if the leader represents the scope of its history in the same vein as Chandragupta does for India.

    (side note: yes China and Egypt need and deserve alternate leaders. However I don't think any culture hero could adequately stand beside Cyrus, and regardless if my "Alexander/Timur" theory below is true then Persia already has quasi-alternate leaders. And, depending on how you look at it, got more attention than other civs because it was split off into two or even three civs rather than lumped together like India.)

    Alexander is the big wrench in the alternate leader machine, but I posit two things that make Alexander very different from Byzantium or nearly any other potentially blobbable civ.

    The first, is that Alexander doesn't really represent a "civ" so much as a cult of personality. His empire was extremely short-lived, and really represents one of the purest examples of a large imperial expansion built purely around a single leader figure. Everything was named after him, and everything crumbled after him. So he really is an anomaly that didn't fit with Greece or any other civ, because his wasn't a "civ." It was just an unprecedentedly large explosion of narcissism. You absolutely cannot say the same thing about other figures. Maybe Napoleon. Maybe Tamerlane. But they didn't name dozens of cities after themselves, and Napoleon was ultimately a failure and Tamerlane had a massive cultural legacy.

    The second is that Alexander, by being grouped with another culture hero who held roughly the same territory, functions effectively more like a split-off alternate "Persian" leader, like the "western half" of the Persian legacy. Kind of like how Scotland has been split off from England as the northern half of the British legacy. Now, I admit this interpretation could easily swing in favor of Byzantium being separate from Rome as well, although I would point back to the fact that the political distinctions between Macedonia and Persia were stronger than those between the Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. But I don't see Alexander as obviating any Balkan states, when--and especially if we complete the "Persian" trifecta with Timur--he really feels more pertinent to Persia.

    Again, I have made peace with Byzantium. If done well I wouldn't see them at all as undeserving of being included, when juxtaposed against Scotland, the Netherlands, Macedonia. I'm just very bored of them and really want to give Bulgaria, to my mind an equally deserving candidate, a chance. And, furthermore, I still think that Byzantium--by virtue of actually being Rome--not only exists in that middle gray area where it could swing either way between a full civ or an alternate leader, but leans slightly toward begging to be blobbed with Rome for the sake of VI's clear preoccupation with cultural diversity. We already have Greece and the lavra and male church choirs in the game.

    We have, crowding around Byzantium, a civ with trade route infrastructure and unique forts (Rome), a civ with trade route extrastructure (Russia), a civ with city-state protectorates and walls (Georgia), a civ with city-state levying and a cross-symbol (Hungary), a civ with a diplomat UG and unique naval unit (Ottomans), a civ with heavy cavalry and territory-grabbing forts (Poland); and several of these have a strong religious bent. Byzantium's design space is incredibly cramped. What we don't have is a Bulgarian woman's choir, or a European civ with a science UB, or a civ that could reasonably represent all of South Slavia and most of Ukraine while feeling culturally authentic as opposed to yet another Greco-state. So it is totally fine that you love Byzantium, but it seems like it wouldn't add as much to the game as many think it would.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2019
  14. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,718
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I think that would give Italy the justice that it deserves. It would be the same as having an Athenian or Spartan leader for Greece, which by the way we have.

    I would argue that the one thing the Byzantines might have going for them is a unique early ranged naval unit (quadrireme replacement)that hasn't been done yet where we have plenty of unique heavy cavalry units.
     
  15. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold King

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    720
    Except Athens and Sparta were not only the clearly two most resonant Greek city states, but also the epicenter of two of the most relevant Greek leagues.

    To include Florence and Venice but omit Genoa or the Papal States (or even Sicily) is representing far less of "Italy" than omitting...Corinth or Thebes.

    I would further observe that you can't do Florence without a Medici, and we have plenty of those in the game already. I could see a very narrow design space for Venice and Genoa as two sides of a thassalocracy coin, but even then you're missing out on a lot of Italy.

    I would agree with this, and it would be a better unique than the cataphract. It's practically the only option left to give them any character. But an alt leader for Rome could have a UU so I don't think Greek fire alone is enough to make them a sure sell.
     
  16. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,718
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    With a good Civ ability I can see it representing a vast majority of the Italian city states without having to rely on at least 4 or more alternate leaders for all the different cities.

    In my mind there are still parts of other Civs histories that the game is still missing out on as well, particularly unified modern Germany, other than the U-boat UU, and a Soviet era Russia, when they were at least in their most powerful form. And let's not forget India under the Mughals, because design wise I don't see how they would give us a separate Mughal Empire, but at least we got the Mauryan representation. Italy I don't see a problem if it's done right under a Renaissance era ability with a leader or two.
     
  17. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold King

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    720
    It's the leader that really sells the unified polity concept though, and aside from--oh look, another Medici--we really don't have anyone representing a concept of "Italy." They kind of cocked up with CdM in that respect, since she's stepping on Lorenzo's toes.

    See, I think for civs with much longer legacies, token representation like the U-boat is considered enough. Just like the Mughals are vaguely represented in India's design with the step-well. But it's a different sort of problem to solve because you're dealing with disparities of large, singular civs over the course of time, not the cultural differences between coextant city-states. And I just don't see it working as elegantly as Greece, because the concept of "Greece" is more easily parsed into a democratic/militant dichotomy. Italy begs, at minimum, to be cultural (Florence), commercial, (Venice/Genoa), and religious (Vatican City), and all while never technically being unified in the same way the Greek leagues were (except for the short-lived Italic League). That is asking each leader to pull almost twice the conceptual weight of Pericles or Gorgo.

    So I'm extremely skeptical, and, again, only think two concepts come close. Either a single Vatican City State puppeteering the other city states. Or blobbing the Genoese (including Rome, Naples, and Corsica and commercially influencing Milan and Sicily) and Venetian maritime colonial empires into a sort of super-Venice "Italy" civ that you could play on either side of. The latter seems the fairest representation, since I think Italy's commercial achievements are its strongest aspect, and it would give players the same satsifaction as the Greek split--having the fun of the old Venice civ return, but bigger and better.
     
  18. Alexander's Hetaroi

    Alexander's Hetaroi Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Messages:
    2,718
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    I've posted this before but I think this is a good way to get my point across. This Civ ability is actually inspired by your thread of solving the "Italy problem."
    UA: Birthplace of the Renaissance- Each city, founded after your capital, becomes a specialist city depending on the type of specialty district it constructs first:

    Scientific cities universities gain great Engineer points and tourism based off of campus adjacency bonuses.

    Cultural cities art museums are automatically themed when completed.

    Religious cities gain more Holy Site tourism when Worship Building is built. Trade routes from your Holy city provide more gold to cities with your religion.

    Industrial cities gain extra production when producing wonders.

    Trade cities gain +2 gold for shipyards. Culture is spread to other cities through trade routes.

    Militaristic cities gain 50% extra production towards Renaissance Walls. Armory provides production toward naval units as well.
    Is it that a big deal to have another Medici, if that does help in solving the problem of a unified Italy? Besides there's no need to try to get Lorenzo when we have Cosimo. :D
    Either way I believe a hypothetical Italian Medici leader would have a great focus on the commercial side and maybe even corporations (Medici Bank) if they are part of a third expansion with a lot of culture and tourism bonuses geared toward the civ ability.
     
    Kimiimaro likes this.
  19. PhoenicianGold

    PhoenicianGold King

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2018
    Messages:
    720
    Which is nice, if massively overdeveloping a single civ. Even still, we are still presented with the problem of which city is the capital, lead by what reasonably "Italian" leader, and why that city over others which were excluded? Why Venice or Florence and not Genoa or Vatican City? Two leaders is still insufficient under this model. Which is why I proposed this idea be led by Vatican City specifically, because of the Vatican's role in both the liberation of the Italian city-states from Byzantine and Lombard rule, as well as it's current relevance as the cultural "heart" of modern Italian identity. But aside from that, I do not see a Medici or a Sforza or a Dandolo or a Garibaldi fully selling this concept, because--aside from the Italic League--they never actually led a coalition of Italian city-states. The next best thing is treating them as puppet states of the ever-enduring Vatican City State--which is itself a problem because that is such a niche interest group and many player would not find that a satifying depiction of "Italy" either (even if it is perhaps more honest).

    I think it is a reasonably sized deal, given that we only have so many leaders and it ends up feeling very masturbatory toward certain aristocratic families when there are a wealth of other leaders to choose from (*glares at the Hapsburgs*). Again, if I could have a redo--and this is no disrespect to CdM who is a really fun character and works perfectly fine in a vacuum for France--I would have done Louis instead and allowed Italy to be "the Medici civ." But at this point that's like asking for Mexico over the Aztecs. Regardless, another Medici feels at best like just "settling," and at worst like history porn priming you for a middling, soapy HBO series.
     
  20. Boris Gudenuf

    Boris Gudenuf Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2012
    Messages:
    2,324
    Location:
    north of Steilacoom, WA
    I regard this as a problem brought on entirely by Designers being unfamiliar with the Byzantine military machine. Yes, they used Cataphracts very successfully. But the bulk of their army and the truly Unique unit was the Thematic or Tagmatic Infantry: spearmen equipped with a large wooden shield and some body armor who also carried, and were trained to use, a long double-edged sword. A Unit, in other words, that combines the characteristics of Swordsmen Melee and Spearmen Anti-Cav. Now that's a Unique Unit, not another heavy cavalry clone.

    I grant you (and agree thoroughly) that Alexander is a "Civ Outlier" in that his political Empire was ephemeral. On the other hand, his indirect or Non-Political Influence was (and Is) Huge.
    First, because his conquests introduced Greek Philosophical schools and thought into the Middle East, from Egypt to Mesopotamia and, to a lesser extent, all the way to the borders of India (the Hellenistic Bactrian Kingdoms). As it happened, that included Tarsus, where a Greek Stoic school educated Saul, who became Saint Paul, and who wrote a great deal of the New Testament and so added a strong overlay of Stoic thought to Christianity, and that influence is still present in modern Christianity.
    Second, Alexander provided a Model, a Goal for every other would-be Conquerer that followed: they all felt a twinge of failure if they hadn't managed to match his successes, which was a Hard Act to follow.
    Third, there is what my old Professor (who was one of the Alexandrine Experts in the USA at the time) called "The Romance of Alexander" There are stories, fables, poems and 'tall tales' about Iskander and his side-kick, the Wizard Aristotle from Finland to Thailand: in all, in over 90 countries, most of which Alexander never physically got within a 1000 kilometers of. Thus, indirectly, Alexander had a huge impact on Popular Culture over a wide swath of Asia and the middle east.

    All of which, of course, is Invisible in the game.

    What you didn't mention, but to me is more important, is that Macedon as a Civ is strictly an appendage of Greece: they emulated Greek culture, sports, and military techniques, were part of the Greek economic sphere and adopted the Greek language in all public discourse, and as stated above, the culture they spread in their conquests was Greek, not Macedonian. There's a reason that historians don't speak of a Macedonian Age as a result of Alexander's career, but of the Hellenistic Age. Byzantium versus Rome has more legitimate independence as a Civ than Macedon versus Classical Greece.

    Within the context of Civ VI, though, Alexander could be an Alternate Leader for either Persia or Greece, since he conquered both of them. That would have been a much better choice than Alexander heading a 'Macedonian' Civ hiding behind a bunch of Greek attributes.
     
    Meluhhan, AsH2, steemroller and 2 others like this.

Share This Page