The leaders must be removed completely because it makes no sense to have Gandhi for millennia in times of peace and war the leaders must be replaced by ideology
Civ VI Leader Pass 2
- Thread starter TheSpaceCowboy
- Start date
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
And Pokémon would be more realistic if you removed the monsters completely, yet that would be a mind-numbingly terrible idea.
The leaders are the literal face of the franchise. They're what people think about first and foremost when you say civilization, the core of the game. What you'e proposing isn't change, it's a completely different franchise. It might be a good franchise, maybe not (Humankind did similar and it wasn't too great), but it isn't Civilization.
Which, bad game design, which no amount of history justifies.
The leaders are the literal face of the franchise. They're what people think about first and foremost when you say civilization, the core of the game. What you'e proposing isn't change, it's a completely different franchise. It might be a good franchise, maybe not (Humankind did similar and it wasn't too great), but it isn't Civilization.
Which, bad game design, which no amount of history justifies.
Aurelesk
King
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2017
- Messages
- 602
This is a wild take. Realism isn't something Civilization should aim for, as Civilization never aimed to be realistic. It is a whole "what if" where you roleplay more around a theme than around a Civilization. It is a non-sense to play as the American in 4000 BC, yet the whole franchise is around building an empire by playing a theme. Sure Gandhi is long overdue and should no longer lead an Indian civilization ever again, but Gandhi was introduced in the franchise as a way to play as a pacific civilization, not as the Indian civilization.
I was working on the list I created, and I am more and more seduced by Hojo Tokimune "Zen" Persona, as suggested by @Alexander's Hetaroi. He will replace Tomyris. Sadly, Gandhi "Ambulance Corps" stays. Sure, the Ambulance Corps part can be changed, but Gandhi have to stay if I continue to follow my own rules (well, I could give a full explanation of my thought process...). Plus: the best way to never see Gandhi is to overuse him now.
By removing Tomyris, I am short of a female leaders to stay true to the 1:2 female/male ratio. I really wanted to add a female leaders to America, but I am struggling a lot. The two person I am thinking are Abigail Adams and Eleanor Roosevelt. I like both, since they were involved in politics and quite far away from both Lincoln (#16) and Teddy Roosevelt (#26), as Abigail Adams was both married to John Adams (#2) and mother of John Quincy Adams (#6) while Eleanor Roosevelt was married to Franklin D. Roosevelt (#32) and had a huge diplomatic influence. But which one would fit better?
I am working on what abilities they would have. Alexander's Hetaroi talked about editing the current Hojo's ability, just as Teddy Roosevelt has its ability split between his Bull Moose and Rough Rider Personas. I like that idea a lot, since I could do the same if I introduce a Persona for Peter the Great and Mvemba A Nzinga. It is a shame that Peter's ability "The Grand Embassy" wasn't updated with the Diplomatic Quarter, while Mvemba A Nzinga could have its obsolete vanilla ability reworked to be able to build Holy Site even if he cannot pursue a Religious Victory.
For France, maybe I am stubborn, but I want an overrated or highly requested leader. Even if I like Philip Augustus, Henri IV and Louis XIV, they are too close to Eleanor (contemporary), Catherine de Medici (contemporary) and the Magnificent (same spirit). If Napoléon is out of the picture, which one do you think? I am thinking about Charles de Gaulle. It could be a military leader, with a unique Tank for example but it is unlikely they will create new units. He could also be a Science leader, since he pushed France to acquire its Nuclear Arsenal and its own Space Program. The lame way to do it would be some %Production to projects, and maybe some Science on kill (military experience for progress) for some early game use.
Last edited:
Between the two, I'd choose Abigail Adams.
Or you could just give France Jeanne D'Arc.
Since we are all history buffs! You will know well that Caesar is not Diocletian times change history is not all uphill. But it goes up and down! How to simulate a breakup of the Western Roman Empire? Since empires don't last they change A warrior leader is not the stress of one in crisis
Attachments
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
And how does that have anything to do with the fact that Prussia is not a separate civ from Germany?
Leaderless civ (since that seems, as best as I can decipher, to be the point you're making (again)), is just not happening.
Leaderless civ (since that seems, as best as I can decipher, to be the point you're making (again)), is just not happening.
tbh, the more I think of a Gandhi persona, the more I like it. Didn't know of his role on Ambulance Corps on South Africa [so I went to read the Wiki, ofc] (and the outfit is dope, would be great to see him younger and on uniform), but immediately come to mind this persona be called "Deterrance" with some kind of support bonus (basically Gilgamesh but not related with pillage/exp, but with some kinda of healing
As much I really really want new different Indian leaders, I also agree that we should 'use and abuse' Gandhi now
Or would it be redundant?
edit: "deterrance" Gandhi would trigger so much the paranoid agenda leaders if neighboor but (maybe?) literally do the opposite of chandra
Last edited:
Bonyduck Campersang
Odd looking duck
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2022
- Messages
- 4,003
I vehemently dislike the entire idea of personas. If personas are meant to portray two or more aspects of a leader, that feels excessive considering we already have alternative leaders to portray two or more aspects of a civilization.
Bonyduck Campersang
Odd looking duck
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2022
- Messages
- 4,003
Also not a fan of basing a leader's ability on a non-leader stage of their life
To me it works whenever there also doesn't seem to be a clear choice for another leader, like for instance making a non-Viking leader for Norway, or having a more accurate portrayal of Saladin. On the other hand, making a "Greek" inspired Cleopatra, and a more "Magnificent" Catherine does seem excessive.
I do like "Magnificence" Catherine ability though, but it could have been Louis XIV.
Ironically two of the best implementations of personas, Rough Rider Teddy and Varangian Harald, are just that.
Bonyduck Campersang
Odd looking duck
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2022
- Messages
- 4,003
For Norway, have Haakon IV or Sigurd I? And do we need a non-Viking leader for a civilization that spent much of its non-Viking history as a lesser partner in royal unions?
The issue with Saladin is that he his Vizier ability could have been given to any of a host of Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid figures. I'm not a fan of his Sultan persona either; would have preferred something based more on his diplomatic abilities rather than his military skill (he was a competent commander, but he owed his success largely to his diplomatic maneuvers and negotiations).
I have neither of those, so I can't say. In fact, I don't have any persona leaders, except for Gedemo's Timur mod.
My hope was that he'd at least make Norway more religious and trading oriented, which is still Viking-like but with less emphasis on the pillaging and raiding part of their history. I do agree that Sigurd could have still filled that role if they wanted to go that route.
I won't disagree with you there. But since Vizier Saladin existed first it made sense to have a separate persona for him, at least over another leader, in my opinion.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Modeling and animating a whole new leader is significantly more resource-intensive than changing the accessories on one. Personnas are not an alternative we get instead of a new civ or a new leader; they're an extra new playable combo that we can get because it's easy to produce and requires very limited resources.
BuchiTaton
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
- Messages
- 1,231
I think a famous series like CIV should not resort in lazy ways to add content like these "personas", new leaders are a thing but this is a new level of cheapinest.
Some of those gameplay designs could have been used in actual new civs. For me is easy, no new civs = not buy that DLC.
Like said before, leaders are a characteristic part of CIV, but I hope they dont push it more in a direction that turn "Civilization" into "Leader".
Some of those gameplay designs could have been used in actual new civs. For me is easy, no new civs = not buy that DLC.
Like said before, leaders are a characteristic part of CIV, but I hope they dont push it more in a direction that turn "Civilization" into "Leader".
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Considering they gave the DLC in question away to most players, "cheapness" is a pretty dumbfounding accusation. Of course you'e not going to expand too much resource on a product that most people won't even have to buy.
(And the new designs never were going to be used for new civs. Because civ is past the point where it make sense to invest into it the resources needed to create full civs.)
(And the new designs never were going to be used for new civs. Because civ is past the point where it make sense to invest into it the resources needed to create full civs.)
Last edited:
They addressed the wishes of people saying that the alternate leader mechanic was one of the most underused features in the game. One could argue that they might have went a little overboard, but then again it was free to most players.
Hellenism Salesman
King
I can understand that, though I suppose it’s a nice system for modders.
Honestly wouldn’t mind giving each leader different abilities to choose from (each based on an aspect of their time in power) but minus the whole persona theming. Like, the appearance of the leader would stay the same but the abilities would change.
For example, you could have Queen Elizabeth, and one of your abilities could be a mercantile one (like we have now) and another could be one that represents the defeat of the Spanish Armada. That way, you can have a leader fulfill all of their historical highlights in game without having to clunkily smash ones with different goals together into one ability (which the first personas and their splitting of Teddy aimed to do).
This is basically personas in everything but name, I know, but it wouldn’t change their appearance or agenda, which could save on some resources. Plus, more player choice is always good, and- if it were extended to all leaders- would let each one be who any given gamer expects them to be.
Though, at the same time, I can understand the appeal that a complex/multifaceted ability has (like Teddy’s old one). Having an ability pointed in two different (but not contradictory) directions gives you options and flexibility, and, at least for me, the feeling of depth.
I just like clean designs and love synergy, so I appreciate the persona system for that. I have to agree with its criticisms, though.
Queen Elizabeth however needs a different agenda, regardless of another persona, or not.
It was a missed opportunity for her to hate civilizations that had a bigger navy than her.
Oh, no. I want her agenda to be tied with trade deals... so I guess we'll need to add Elizabeth persona to a 2nd Leader Pass to settle thisQueen Elizabeth however needs a different agenda, regardless of another persona, or not.
It was a missed opportunity for her to hate civilizations that had a bigger navy than her.
My problem with her agenda is two thing: 1) It was already Wilhelmina's agenda and 2) it's one of the worst agendas in the game.Oh, no. I want her agenda to be tied with trade deals... so I guess we'll need to add Elizabeth persona to a 2nd Leader Pass to settle this
