CIV6 Civs and Leaders

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Because we already had Franklyn in Civ IV

We had Quin Shi Huang in Civ 4 as well, and he returns in Civ 6.

 

[m15a]

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?

That's a good reason for having FDR be the leader. That's not a good reason for FDR to be the leader over TR - how they compare is irrelevant because leaders aren't chosen because they're better than everyone else in the real world. They're chosen because they'd make good leaders in the game.

 

[King William I]

That's a good reason for having FDR be the leader. That's not a good reason for FDR to be the leader over TR - how they compare is irrelevant because leaders aren't chosen because they're better than everyone else in the real world. They're chosen because they'd make good leaders in the game.

Not to mention I never said I didn't want FDR

 

[AriochIV]

They include different leaders in Civilization for variety and interesting gameplay options. Inclusion in Civilization is not some kind award for being the best leader.

Same goes for the civilizations themselves.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

They include different leaders in Civilization for variety and interesting gameplay options. Inclusion in Civilization is not some kind award for being the best leader.

Same goes for the civilizations themselves.

They go for gameplay mostly, as well as staples. If they can make the civ interesting to play you sure know they're going to include it.

 

[dexters]

They go for gameplay mostly, as well as staples. If they can make the civ interesting to play you sure know they're going to include it.

Expansions will include Civs that highlight that expansion's features plus fill in fan requests or fill in gaps
DLC will include Civs that works with a scenario or map that is bundled with it and possibly fill in gaps or Civs cut from the vanilla game
Vanilla is the recycling of the core Civs we always get plus whatever they can fit in that highlights the vanilla core's features.

There's no real science to it.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Expansions will include Civs that highlight that expansion's features plus fill in fan requests or fill in gaps
DLC will include Civs that works with a scenario or map that is bundled with it and possibly fill in gaps or Civs cut from the vanilla game
Vanilla is the recycling of the core Civs we always get plus whatever they can fit in that highlights the vanilla core's features.

There's no real science to it.

Not sure if you agreed or not with me actualyl

 

[Morningcalm]

What civs and leaders can we expect to see? Almost certainly Rome: Julius Caesar. Very likely given that Cleopatra is in the game. Aztecs will be Montezuma (it matters little whether it's Moctezoma I or II, since they are both represented as crazily aggressive. scantily-clad war dancers in the Civ series), England likely Queen Elizabeth (but Victoria would be a nice change, even if Queen Elizabeth is the more interesting leader for agenda purposes), India will be Gandhi again, France will be Napoleon, I suspect (though the Sun King would be quite interesting), Russia with Queen Catherine (though Peter the Great would be interesting), Mongols will be Genghis Khan, Greece likely will be Alexander (though Pericles is far more suitable).

Other civs we don't know about (but some which will almost certainly be in expansions, like the Koreans), I will simply list what leaders I would prefer:

Byzantium: Theodora is likely for diversity, and a very interesting personality, but I would prefer Justinian.

Carthage: Queen Dido. Yes, she's legendary and so on, but she was also an actual ruler of Carthage (unlike Hannibal).

Gran Colombia: It's about time South American civs got more love. We had Brazil in Brave New World, which was nice. Now we should have one of the most famous South American leaders in world history, Bolivar.

Hebrews: Likely to be controversial, but Moses or King David (both revered in the three Abrahamic faiths) would at least be non-controversial leader choices with interesting agendas. The Hebrews were a small nation with a large historical footprint where religion was concerned, so given the religion victory now purportedly added to Civ VI, we should see them in an expansion at least.

Korea: Queen Seondeok (not only female like Wu Zetian, which helps diversity, but a better and more respected leader in her country's history as well).

Sioux: While not per se an empire, they were an interesting group of people with a well-known leader (Sitting Bull) who could be quite cool to have with the new agenda system and such.

Sumeria: As one of the earliest civilizations in world history, I would like the Sumerians in as well. Gilgamesh is a likely leader but Kubaba could be interesting as a female leader (tavern-keeper who fortified the city of Kish--not much else is known though, sadly).

Turkey: Mehmed II would be interesting, but I'm fond of Suleiman as well (we've only seen him twice in Civ so far).

 

[Scaramanga]

For Persia, I like saying 'Xerxes' over 'Darius' but that's neither here nor there. The ancient Persians should dislike independent city-states or something to that effect.

 

[dexters]

Not sure if you agreed or not with me actualyl

I do agree. Was just wanting to elaborate and add my thoughts to yours.

 

[Colmar]

Seeing as the game has been described as evoking the Age of Discovery, I think Portugal should be included, and led by João I, or his son Henry the Navigator. Aside from the usual solid ones (Japan, France, Arabia, etc.), I think Mexico should be included under Juarez (and replace the Aztec), Maya should be included, and the Omani empire.

 

[Thormodr]

Would like to see either Hadrian, Trajan or Marcus Aurelius as the Roman Leader(s).

You've got a defensive minded, offensive minded and a "philosopher king" to choose from.

 

[lp_04]

Colmar: João II would fit better the Portuguese civ for Age of Discovery. Henry is a bad choice, as he was no leader, just a nobleman with some power over Atlantic trade. João I is a very nice king, but João II fits the agenda concept qith a secrecy policy, as well as the exploration/age of discovery focus. And he was just as important for the country as João I. As a Portuguese citizen, my opinion goes towards João II rather than any other ruller, but João I also fits well, just like Manuel I.

Thormodr: The leaders you proposed are better than Julius Caesar, and could lead ROme to a new strategy perspective. But I would see Julius coming instead of any other choice, unfortunately.

 

[bite]

My prediction of civs based on no other reason than I think so

Europe

1) Greece
2) Rome
3) France
4) England
5) Germany
6) Russia

Asia

7) China
8) Japan
9) India
10) Vietnam
11) Mongols

Middle East

12) Ottomans
13) Persia
14) Arabia

Africa

15) Egypt
16) Kongo

Americas

17) America
18) Aztec
19) Inca
20) Sioux

 

[dexters]

@Bite, I would maybe add Zulus as I feel they may not want to leave it out for 2 vanilla games in a row, though I personally really like Ethiopia in Civ5. Selassie gives more flavour to the continent as I feel the game already already has too many stone/iron age indigenous Civilizations.

 

[bite]

@Bite, I would maybe add Zulus as I feel they may not want to leave it out for 2 vanilla games in a row, though I personally really like Ethiopia in Civ5. Selassie gives more flavour to the continent as I feel the game already already has too many stone/iron age indigenous Civilizations.

Zulus will always make someone buy them, so I honestly will not be surprised if they leave them for an expansion pack as a draw card.

With Ethiopia, I expect one of the post launch DLCs will be an Africa pack and will include it them.

I picked Kongo and Vietnam as they were both on the short list for BNW, and they always like to have one or two new choices in the base game

 

[Thormodr]

Vietnam and Kongo would both be welcome additions.
I hope you are right, Bite.

 

[StrideColossus]

My prediction of civs based on no other reason than I think so
...
Africa

15) Egypt
16) Kongo
...

Kongo is an interesting suggestion - what makes you think/hope they would be included (other than 'you think so' )? Have they been in any previous civ incarnations, can't remember them if they were? What sort of civ could they be?

 

[Plus Ultra]

I value historical relevancy (yes, probably form a Eurocentric point of view) over uniqueness, so my list is too boring to post here.

Some options for those that enjoy having new, somewhat less known Civs added to the game:

-Umayyad Caliphate
-Maurya Empire
-New Spain / Mexican Empire
-Italian Empire
-Hephthalite Empire
-Phoenicia
-Grand Duchy of Lithuania
-First Bulganian Empire

For those that value uniqueness over historical relevancy, I'm sure they would enjoy:

-Tibetan Empire
-Inuit
-Arawak
-Cambeba People
-Srivijaya

 

[SMcM]

Not to mention I never said I didn't want FDR

And I never claimed that you said that either...