Civ 6 on E3?

[Acken]

And one of CivBE most common complaint is how the leaders have no personality.

You need a bit more than Agressiveness = 9 to make Shaka Shaka.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

You don't get it. Say you hate Shaka. You had bloody war with him in the past, nearly lost a city and so on. You're going to crush him despite your general goal of science victory. And then, boom, Shaka is replaced with some cute Zulu girl, with name unfamiliar even for historicians. And you're like "oops, where's my Shaka I wanted to kill?"

That's the point, it changes from hating Shaka to hating the Zulus.... OR you realize that Shaka is gone and the Zulus might make decent allies for a while (depending on your level of pragmatism)

 

[Guandao]

Changing leaders for civs depending on eras would require either getting rid of spoken dialogue or spending more effort on recording dialogue for the leaders.

Some civs have leaders who don't even fit in the ancient era (Netherlands, Portugal, even France or England, unless you have Vercingetorix for France and Boudicca for England)

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Changing leaders for civs depending on eras would require either getting rid of spoken dialogue or spending more effort on recording dialogue for the leaders.

Some civs have leaders who don't even fit in the ancient era (Netherlands, Portugal, even France or England, unless you have Vercingetorix for France and Boudicca for England)

The lack of dialogue/3d animations would be worth the trade off. And some leaders would be anachronistic (Shaka/Monty in Atomic Era, Washington in Ancient, etc.) some civs would only have 1 leader, some 2, more well known ones would have 4-6, probably none would have all 8)

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

And one of CivBE most common complaint is how the leaders have no personality.

You need a bit more than Agressiveness = 9 to make Shaka Shaka.

The leaders in BE were also completely fictional and totally new...at least in the main Civ series you have the real world component and that leaders actual history, not to mention each Civ players personal and often turbulent history with certain leaders across the franchise (I'm looking at you Catherine).

 

[Krajzen]

The leaders in BE were also completely fictional and totally new...at least in the main Civ series you have the real world component and that leaders actual history, not to mention each Civ players personal and often turbulent history with certain leaders across the franchise (I'm looking at you Catherine).

Personal history is awesome aspect of civ x) I always had good relations with Cath (my fav leader), always bad with Bismarck (I was afraid of him as he had ability to create powerhouses) etc.
And Motezuma is just awesome with his insanity.

My least favourite were Washington (extremely bland), Askia (songhai was always failed state in my games) and "would you like a trade agreement with england"

 

[stealth_nsk]

That's the point, it changes from hating Shaka to hating the Zulus.... OR you realize that Shaka is gone and the Zulus might make decent allies for a while (depending on your level of pragmatism)

It's a basic psychology thing. Target of strong emotions should be personalized. Depersonalizing opponents is a recipe for disaster.