Civ V - One World Speculation Thread!

[blackcatatonic]

They could just not have anything to announce. I mean, even if Firaxis are working on something, it doesn't mean that it's anywhere near an announcable stage. The supposed evidence of 'One World' doesn't at all indicate whether they were six months into the development process or two weeks, or whether they were just flying an entirely different kite using the Civ5 base or engine. The same decline of interest that you note as occurring in this thread would be much worse if they came out and said 'One World, to be released in November!'. Then there's the need to have confirmed details to append to what would otherwise be little more than revealing an already known name.

Finally, someone is actually talking some sense.

I refuse to believe an expansion is actually due out this year until they announce something to that effect.

 

[anandus]

And for a little realitycheck:

Dungeons & Dragons Anthology was found in the Steam database, like One World was, on 29-02-2012 and there's, a year later, still no sign of it appearing on Steam (if it ever will).
So an entry in the Steam database doesn't necessarily mean it'll actually be released.

We need more to go on

 

[MacAurther]

I agree with the previous notion that it would be hard to implement new leaders, hard to balance them, and overall expensive for the developers because of the amount of work that goes into their screens, and thus it is unlikely. However, I also agree that it would be amazing if they did add new leaders for already existing civilizations because it would solve a lot of under-representation problems such as China being represented solely by a Tang dynasty empress, whereas there are so many other more influential Chinese leaders and very different Chinese empires, and India being represented by a very modern political activist, whereas India's history of great leaders is immense. As far as what American leader would be chosen if there were multiple leaders, and honestly if there were multiple leaders America would have one looking at the Western-centric development of the game, not to mention that the US had three leaders in CIV IV, I think Theodore Roosevelt has a pretty good chance, along with Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, of course. When looking at choices for leaders in CiV so far, the developers tended to avoid leaders that they have already done in CIV IV where possible, such as having Theodora for Byzantium, Wu Zetian for China, and Oda Nobunaga for Japan. I'm not saying any of these leaders are bad for the choice, but I think the same logic used in them being chosen could be used in choosing Theodore Roosevelt. Although, once again, multiple leaders are unlikely in my opinion.

Here is my 'wishlist' for civilization with multiple leaders (using the trend that three leaders is max based off of CIV IV):

Russia - Catherine the Great, Vladimir Lenin, Peter the Great
America - George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt
England - Elizabeth I, Oliver Cromwell, Victoria
Ottoman Empire - Suleiman the Magnificent, Selim I, Mehmed II
India - Mohandas Gandhi, Ashoka the Great
China - Wu Zetian, Mao Zedong, Qin Shi Huang-di
Japan - Oda Nobunaga, Emperor Meiji
Persia - Darius I, Cyrus the Great
Arabia (Ummayad/Abbasid Caliphates) - Harun al-Rashid, Salah al-Din
Greece - Alexander the Great, Pericles
Rome - Augustus Ceasar, Julius Ceasar, Constantine
Germany - Otto von Bismarck, Frederick the Great
France - Napoleon Bonaparte, William the Conqueror (Although, this could be confused with William the Silent...)
Mongolia - Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan
Egypt - Ramses II, Muhammad Ali Pasha

Some of the leaders 'expected' to be in this list (*cough Joseph Stalin) were purposefully left out to add some variety.

 

[smallfish]

ah yes, Frederick the Great... I think everyone is gonna love him, in addition to every other hostile leader out there

Spoiler :

 

[Menzies]

They could just not have anything to announce. I mean, even if Firaxis are working on something, it doesn't mean that it's anywhere near an announcable stage. The supposed evidence of 'One World' doesn't at all indicate whether they were six months into the development process or two weeks, or whether they were just flying an entirely different kite using the Civ5 base or engine. The same decline of interest that you note as occurring in this thread would be much worse if they came out and said 'One World, to be released in November!'. Then there's the need to have confirmed details to append to what would otherwise be little more than revealing an already known name.

It will almost certainly be released in June or July. They wouldn't have been sitting on their hands this whole time or they would have been feeding us DLC. They also don't release expansions late in the year, they release them around June/July. The only question now is how many more weeks before they officially announce it. If it's not announced this coming Thursday it will be a July release, but I'd have assumed that they'd do as they did with Gods & Kings and release it in June.

 

[calad]

Just to note, this is essentially another way of saying "the game should have been released three or four years later". Game features don't grow on trees.

You seems to misunderstand something. All features exist in civ4, no need to grow them. They also are very popular and well used, so why not to include them in original game? Thats why people feel cheated and cashed.

 

[Sonereal]

You seems to misunderstand something. All features exist in civ4, no need to grow them. They also are very popular and well used, so why not to include them in original game? Thats why people feel cheated and cashed.

That must be why people stopped buying expansions for Sims 3.

 

[TimeWeaver]

And for a little realitycheck:

Dungeons & Dragons Anthology was found in the Steam database, like One World was, on 29-02-2012 and there's, a year later, still no sign of it appearing on Steam (if it ever will).
So an entry in the Steam database doesn't necessarily mean it'll actually be released.

We need more to go on

We sure do, but no matter what I'm sure it will be released. It got to!
And IIRC, that D&D anthology didn't fly eventually coz of the troubles with Atari and WotC concerning rights and such.

Still, the suspense is killing me. And I can't bear the wait any longer. I'll think I'll give Gandhi a thorough twisted wedgie till 2K coughs up some sweet info!

 

[fufie]

Here is my 'wishlist' for civilization with multiple leaders (using the trend that three leaders is max based off of CIV IV):

Russia - Catherine the Great, Vladimir Lenin, Peter the Great
America - George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt
England - Elizabeth I, Oliver Cromwell, Victoria
Ottoman Empire - Suleiman the Magnificent, Selim I, Mehmed II
India - Mohandas Gandhi, Ashoka the Great
China - Wu Zetian, Mao Zedong, Qin Shi Huang-di
Japan - Oda Nobunaga, Emperor Meiji
Persia - Darius I, Cyrus the Great
Arabia (Ummayad/Abbasid Caliphates) - Harun al-Rashid, Salah al-Din
Greece - Alexander the Great, Pericles
Rome - Augustus Ceasar, Julius Ceasar, Constantine
Germany - Otto von Bismarck, Frederick the Great
France - Napoleon Bonaparte, William the Conqueror (Although, this could be confused with William the Silent...)
Mongolia - Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan
Egypt - Ramses II, Muhammad Ali Pasha

Some of the leaders 'expected' to be in this list (*cough Joseph Stalin) were purposefully left out to add some variety.

I think this would be very interesting, but it would/should probably mean new UAs for each leader causing rebalancing. If we're also to drop the most controversial leaders, along with Stalin one should probably drop Mao as they're both responsible for killing off (many many) millions of their own citizens

Other leaders who probably should be considered if the next expansion is economic in nature:
America: FDR (New Deal), Reagan (Friedman/Reaganomics)
England: Thatcher (Milton Friedman inspired economy), Tony Blair (New Public Management)
India: One of the Guptas (Guild-based economy)
China: Deng Xiaoping (china -> market economy)
Japan: Hayato Ikeda (post-war economic miracle)
Germany: Konrad Adenauer (Wirtschaftswunder)
France: Jean Monnet (EU)

(A Keynesian representative would also be interesting but couldn't think of a PM or leader that personified Keynesian economy as they all went for it post-war)
It would certainly be nice if the expansion was economic in nature

 

[Sonereal]

If the goal is not to cause a flamewar, Reagan and Thatcher would be one of the last choices for leaders. Really, Victoria for England and Lincoln for America would be safer, and better, bets.

Edit: All honesty, it would be better if they didn't include 20th century leaders.

 

[fufie]

If the goal is not to cause a flamewar, Reagan and Thatcher would be one of the last choices for leaders. Really, Victoria for England and Lincoln for America would be safer, and better, bets.

The suggestions were not meant as flamebait, but more of an attempt to look at which leaders could be relevant for an economic theme and provide variation in gameplay. How people value the political and economic contributions of (followers of) Friedman, (followers of) Keynes, Thatcher, Reagan, Deng Xiaoping, Monnet, etc is less interesting than the variation in economic policies and economic transitions which could provide interesting gameplay if (and probably only if) the One World expansion is economic.

The different economic policies or "UAs" could be leaders or just an expanded "commerce" policy tree which is gradually unlocked as you trade a certain amount of gold (much like social policies now are unlocked by culture). There is a long evolution in economics from hunter-gatherer societies to post-Lehman economics which is quite interesting

The examples provided were mostly 20th century (and non-communist) as I am more familiar with those.

 

[anandus]

For England I'd think people like Pitt the Younger, Gladstone, Disraeli, and quite some more would be *at least* as eligible for Britain as Thatcher would be.

But personally I'd go for Victoria as well.

Edit: All honesty, it would be better if they didn't include 20th century leaders.

I agree on that

 

[Pouakai]

Edit: All honesty, it would be better if they didn't include 20th century leaders.

They've got Gandhi and Halie Selassie, and they've had Churchill in the past

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Civ 4 also had Stalin and Roosovelt.

 

[Pouakai]

It had deGaulle too, didn't it?

 

[ShahJahanII]

It had deGaulle too, didn't it?

Don't forget Mao.

 

[Sonereal]

They've got Gandhi and Halie Selassie, and they've had Churchill in the past

Doesn't make it right.

 

[Gucumatz]

Also look at the 20th Century leaders: Churchill and Stalin are both controversial choices. The more modern you go, the more controversial. That said, I am happy with Haile Selassie and FDR, even Stalin to an extent.

 

[Arachnofiend]

I think everyone agrees on Teddy. I don't think I've met someone that has a bad opinion of Theodore Roosevelt?

 

[MacAurther]

I think everyone agrees on Teddy. I don't think I've met someone that has a bad opinion of Theodore Roosevelt?

Tell that to William Howard Taft in 1912.