CIV6 Civs and Leaders

[Eger]

An interseting thing is that the Deluxe mentions DLCs such as "new maps, scenarios, civilization and leaders''

The more simplified graphical art style could mean that the time spent creating new leaders is shorter. So fingers crossed.

Hopefully it won't be like are you tired of Gandhi and peaceful India!? Get Asoka and his War Elephants for only $7.99. 75% off till release.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

The game has age rating 10+ for tobacco and alcohol reference.

The only thing it can mean is:

Spoiler :

While that would be cool, it's probably for wine.

 

[Cerilis]

Hopefully it won't be like are you tired of Gandhi and peaceful India!? Get Asoka and his War Elephants for only $7.99. 75% off till release.

You mean like that? http://store.steampowered.com/app/16868

Minus the unrealistic price. What was the price for civ-dlcs when they were new again?

 

[Xandinho]

I believe that civilizations to the base game will be:

America
A native Americans
Arabia
Aztecs
Babylon
Celts
China
Denmark or Vikings
Egypt
England
France
Germany
greece
Inca
India
Japan
Mongolia
Ottomans
Persia
Rome
Russia
Siam or Khmer
Spain
Zulus

And for expansions and DLCs:

A new Germanic people (Goths, most likely)
Assyria
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Byzantium
Carthage
Benin Empire
Empire of Ghana
Ethiopia
Hungary
Indonesia
Israel
Korea
Maya
Netherlands
Olmecs
One or Two native Americans
Romania
Poland
Portugal
Songhai or Mali
Sumeria
Sweden
Ukraine
Vietnam

Some civilizations with fewer possibilities:

Argentina
Australia or Aborigines
Canada
Congo
Florence
Gran Colombia
Huns
Holy Roman Empire
Mexico
Morocco
Nigeria
Phoenicians
Polynesia
Switzerland
Venice

 

[Brackenspore]

Spoiler :

I want these leaders and these leaderscenes

 

[Zaarin]

Coolidge may be less 'controversial' than TR (though I'd say, despite the fact he was certainly not flawless, TR is largely controversial because people have decided to make him controversial), but that's mostly because Coolidge is really, really, boring. Not to say he was a bad president per se, but hardly one of the more dynamic personalities we've ever had as president.

Perhaps, but his taciturn personality is quite iconic and could be quite interesting in the diplomacy screen, having him give dry, terse responses. He certainly accomplished more than TR did, and where TR said we should kill all the Native Americans Coolidge made them citizens and worked to restore their tribal lands. I think TR is a very mixed bag: his work to establish national parks was admirable and his colorful reputation makes him memorable, but aside from national parks it's hard to say he really accomplished much that was positive in his presidency, basically continuing the trend towards expanding the power of the executive branch that was begun by Lincoln. There are plenty of presidents who would make much better great leaders than TR; I suggested Coolidge largely because he was from a similar era as TR and because he was probably one of the better early 20th century presidents.

 

[brianshapiro]

Coolidge may be less 'controversial' than TR (though I'd say, despite the fact he was certainly not flawless, TR is largely controversial because people have decided to make him controversial), but that's mostly because Coolidge is really, really, boring. Not to say he was a bad president per se, but hardly one of the more dynamic personalities we've ever had as president.

I think among the broader public, TR is actually still pretty popular.

People who are into politics and partisans for some viewpoint or another have their reasons to hate him. That doesn't reflect popular opinion.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

The possibilities with TR are interesting. You have a likely National Parks UI and a UA that could include things to do with the Panama Canal or the Great White Fleet. That version of the American Civ is more interesting than the Manifest Destiny version in Civ V.

 

[Haig]

You know in some of the articles Ed Beach mentions that "if a leader has an Agenda of Manifest Destiny..", does anyone know what era that relates to? Could it fit Teddy Roosevelt?

 

[m15a]

Perhaps, but his taciturn personality is quite iconic and could be quite interesting in the diplomacy screen, having him give dry, terse responses. He certainly accomplished more than TR did, and where TR said we should kill all the Native Americans Coolidge made them citizens and worked to restore their tribal lands. I think TR is a very mixed bag: his work to establish national parks was admirable and his colorful reputation makes him memorable, but aside from national parks it's hard to say he really accomplished much that was positive in his presidency, basically continuing the trend towards expanding the power of the executive branch that was begun by Lincoln. There are plenty of presidents who would make much better great leaders than TR; I suggested Coolidge largely because he was from a similar era as TR and because he was probably one of the better early 20th century presidents.

"Mixed bag" isn't necessarily a bad thing for a Civ leader. Especially, if like what you're saying, the leader is a mixed bag because some the leader did some good things and some bad things. I'm definitely not against shying away from leaders that are mostly known just for doing truly horrible things, especially if it's in the recent past. But I don't think trying to find the "best" (as in "most good") leaders is necessarily a good thing for the designers to do. If the designers did that, the game would be too biased towards the designer's political opinions (especially regarding a US leader from a US development team).

At least with the design philosophy of Civ 5, which seems to be strengthened in Civ 6, the Civ leaders should have strong characteristics (whether bonuses, behaviors, personality) based on what the historical person did. From what you described, TR might be too aggressive towards neighbors in "his land". That adds to the game even if it's a flaw - *because* it's a flaw, really.

(To be clear, I'm not devaluing any bad things TR did - I don't even know the specifics off the top of my head. If they were truly terrible, then he's not a "mixed bag," and my argument doesn't apply.)

You know in some of the articles Ed Beach mentions that "if a leader has an Agenda of Manifest Destiny..", does anyone know what era that relates to? Could it fit Teddy Roosevelt?

It was a 19th-century term but, yes, it could fit with TR as well in expanding on the ambitions of the past century.

 

[brianshapiro]

"Mixed bag" isn't necessarily a bad thing for a Civ leader. Especially, if like what you're saying, the leader is a mixed bag because some the leader did some good things and some bad things. I'm definitely not against shying away from leaders that are mostly known just for doing truly horrible things, especially if it's in the recent past. But I don't think trying to find the "best" (as in "most good") leaders is necessarily a good thing for the designers to do. If the designers did that, the game would be too biased towards the designer's political opinions (especially regarding a US leader from a US development team).

At least with the design philosophy of Civ 5, which seems to be strengthened in Civ 6, the Civ leaders should have strong characteristics (whether bonuses, behaviors, personality) based on what the historical person did. From what you described, TR might be too aggressive towards neighbors in "his land". That adds to the game even if it's a flaw - *because* it's a flaw, really.

(To be clear, I'm not devaluing any bad things TR did - I don't even know the specifics off the top of my head. If they were truly terrible, then he's not a "mixed bag," and my argument doesn't apply.)

I think they should pick leaders that they think are iconic and represent the spirit of the civilization. I think TR fits that bill, and its why he remains popular with the public even despite criticisms of him. People see him as representing "Americanism."

Describing TR as wanting to "kill all Native Americans" is a wee bit of an exaggeration. TR actually had a lot of respect for Native American culture. In fact, even in his own weird racial theories, Native American women made the best wives. Though, just as he used ideals as an excuse for imperialism in some cases, a lot of people see the same problem in America throughout its history, including today. So both his ideals and his flaws represent Americanism pretty well.

 

[frnknbry]

Would love to see
Canada
Unique unit Voyageur (scout little tougher can build trading posts (work like camps but also provide defensive bonus when used) on Bison, or furs,)
Unique ability Bonus resources +1 on any developed resource
Leader John A. McDonald, Pierre Trudeau (not the son)

 

[cpm4001]

Perhaps, but his taciturn personality is quite iconic and could be quite interesting in the diplomacy screen, having him give dry, terse responses. He certainly accomplished more than TR did, and where TR said we should kill all the Native Americans Coolidge made them citizens and worked to restore their tribal lands. I think TR is a very mixed bag: his work to establish national parks was admirable and his colorful reputation makes him memorable, but aside from national parks it's hard to say he really accomplished much that was positive in his presidency, basically continuing the trend towards expanding the power of the executive branch that was begun by Lincoln. There are plenty of presidents who would make much better great leaders than TR; I suggested Coolidge largely because he was from a similar era as TR and because he was probably one of the better early 20th century presidents.

Eh...don't buy too much into the TR-bashing that seems to be popular these days. TR didn't really suggest the U.S. should "kill" Native Americans; rather, he exhibited pretty much the prevailing Social Darwinist viewpoints of his time in that natives weren't as 'fit' as the "white man" to inhabit the West and should so be 'pushed aside' for civilization (and, really, he was more of the opinion that natives weren't inherently 'inferior', but just needed to be 'helped to become civilized' - sounds racist today but was somewhat radically forward-thinking in that time.) His policies tended to fit more of this view, and though hardly egalitarian were way less genocidal than some (i.e., Jackson).

In regards whether it was good or bad he strengthened the executive branch, that's a charged political discussion (and so this really isn't the right place to hold it); likewise, though I can certainly see where some people might consider his foreign policy bad, I personally would say getting the Panama Canal underway (even if the Colombians had their sovereignty trod on), securing the Philippines, and launching the Great White Fleet weren't the worst things we've ever done in that regards. At the same time, though I think even Harding would be a better leader than Coolidge (despite Teapot Dome, he did a lot to dismantle Wilson's active segregationary policies as one positive), I can see where others might like Coolidge's economic policies, for instance.

So I think we'll need to agree to disagree on this one, though in passing I'll mention I do like the idea of Silent Cal having one- and two-word responses on his leaderscreen.

I think among the broader public, TR is actually still pretty popular.

People who are into politics and partisans for some viewpoint or another have their reasons to hate him. That doesn't reflect popular opinion.

This sums it up brilliantly. A lot of the points raised against (and, I'll admit it, in favor of) TR in this discussion and those in the larger historical community fall into this partisan "TR is good because [reason that matches my political views] but bad because [reason that goes against my political views]" trap. Those who dislike one or the other of those trends are biased against him and so condemn him for doing the thing(s) they dislike (I happen to be the odd case that likes both TR's imperialist endeavors and his social projects, so I'm biased in favor of him in a different way.) However, this inherent disagreement doesn't make him more or less fit to be a leader in Civ VI, where really it should be more importance in history and general notability/awareness that are the deciding factors (where the fact that popular opinion is for him works in his favor).

You know in some of the articles Ed Beach mentions that "if a leader has an Agenda of Manifest Destiny..", does anyone know what era that relates to? Could it fit Teddy Roosevelt?

That's a general mid-to-late 19th-century U.S. term, and could well fit TR, though the first thing that popped into my mind was actually James K. Polk (who, let's face it, would have his own leaderscreen music courtesy of They Might Be Giants...)

 

[Zaarin]

I admit I was being a bit harsh on TR. Much like James I of England, he was more radical in his ideas than policies. He said things like "I don't think we should kill all the Indians, just 9 out of 10 of them" (paraphrase), but in policy he wasn't particularly harsher towards the Native Americans than his predecessors or his successors and did indeed, in practice, pursue the adage "Kill the Indian, save the man." Chiefly my biggest issue with Teddy is that, while he was a standout personality, he wasn't a standout president--neither so egregiously bad as Jackson nor so notably influential as Washington, Lincoln, or FDR (any one of whom I could find faults with, but all of whom had undeniably influential presidencies).

I hadn't thought of your point that his mixed policies could make him interesting in terms of gameplay, though. Teddy's reputation for aggressive negotiation, imperialism, and boisterous witticisms would certainly make him an interesting opponent to say the least; starting near him would be worse than starting next to Alexander in Civ5.

 

[m15a]

I admit I was being a bit harsh on TR. Much like James I of England, he was more radical in his ideas than policies. He said things like "I don't think we should kill all the Indians, just 9 out of 10 of them" (paraphrase), but in policy he wasn't particularly harsher towards the Native Americans than his predecessors or his successors and did indeed, in practice, pursue the adage "Kill the Indian, save the man." Chiefly my biggest issue with Teddy is that, while he was a standout personality, he wasn't a standout president--neither so egregiously bad as Jackson nor so notably influential as Washington, Lincoln, or FDR (any one of whom I could find faults with, but all of whom had undeniably influential presidencies).

FWIW, the rankings listed on this Wikipedia page (e.g., from historians or political scientists) rank TR very high, just under the top 3 you listed. Incidentally, Jackson is just a little lower, somewhere around #10.

 

[King William I]

You all seem to forget TRs work with destroying monopolies and trusts. I'll admit it went in the opposite direction as he'd hoped but it was still more than what others were doing.

But in honesty I'll be happy as long as it's not Washington there's a overrated figure if I've ever seen one

 

[Zaarin]

You all seem to forget TRs work with destroying monopolies and trusts. I'll admit it went in the opposite direction as he'd hoped but it was still more than what others were doing.

But in honesty I'll be happy as long as it's not Washington there's a overrated figure if I've ever seen one

Personally, I think Washington was one of our best presidents and perhaps the only one everyone can agree on, but I certainly agree he's gotten boring.

 

[King William I]

Personally, I think Washington was one of our best presidents and perhaps the only one everyone can agree on, but I certainly agree he's gotten boring.

Honestly I think we just call him the best because he was the first. but his administration was bland and he really wasn't that great at leading the army during the revolution. Then there's that little known fact that his screw up started the French and Indian War

 

[SMcM]

You all seem to forget TRs work with destroying monopolies and trusts. I'll admit it went in the opposite direction as he'd hoped but it was still more than what others were doing.

But in honesty I'll be happy as long as it's not Washington there's a overrated figure if I've ever seen one

Surely Franlkin Roosevelt's winning four presidential elections, combined with him being President at a time when the USA was emerging as the most powerful nation in the world, is a good argument for his being in the game instead of Teddy?

 

[AlphaShard]

Because we already had Franklyn in Civ IV