1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

CIV6 Civs and Leaders

Discussion in 'Civ - Ideas & Suggestions' started by AerisDraco, May 11, 2016.

  1. bite

    bite Unoffical Civilization Geographer Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,736
    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
     
  2. Krajzen

    Krajzen Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,461
    Location:
    Poland
    Actually, Kongo is one of fan favourites - in this poll of 215 people it was second most desired civ after Sumer http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=567299 and I recall 2k forums big polls where Kongo was in the top 3 too.

    Kongo wasn't in any previous civ game but every new civ has some "fresh" civilisations anyway and Kongo is popular for those reasons:
    1) Kingdom of Kongo has fairly impressive early modern history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kongo
    2) There are very few Subsaharan civs in series, and there are many African empires much more deserving than extremely overrated primitive Zulu :p
    3) Kongo civ would fill the "void" in central Africa http://i.imgur.com/lB2m6Mb.jpg
    4) One of Kongolese/Angolan kingdoms had fairly legendary ruler, queen Nzinga, who was interesting nad impressive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nzinga_of_Ndongo_and_Matamba - well she wasn't exactly queen of Kongo but Firaxis had no problems of "approximating" rulers in the past :p (Dido, Gandhi, Alexander, Maria, Kamehameha, Pacal...)
     
  3. SMcM

    SMcM Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2016
    Messages:
    1,194
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London, England
    You want a strong leader, however. You wouldn't want to have Wilhelm II for Germany, for example. I get what you're saying, but I feel that including the most successful significant leaders should always be a priority. The debate is not whether to include the most successful and significant leaders, rather it is who are the most significant leaders, and which should be in game. Obviously, many would disagree with me that FDR is more important than Theodore.
     
  4. TheMarshmallowBear

    TheMarshmallowBear Benelovent Chieftain of the BearKingdom

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,265
    Location:
    Inside an Ikanda.
    I disagree, I think now with the inclusion of Agendas we might see a more variety of leaders. Cleopatra is one that pops up. Her agenda fits with her role as being.. ahem .. submissive, to other strong nations (mind you I'm not a historical buff).

    So Agendas are now another opportunity to pick interesting leaders based on the type of agendas they could implement.
     
  5. Calyxx

    Calyxx Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2016
    Messages:
    133
    Location:
    Los Alamos
    Unfortunately I think the inclusion of Cleopatra means that they will be going for celebrity in current culture rather than actual accomplishments - so barring Augustus, Rome will almost certainly have Julius.
     
  6. m15a

    m15a Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,471
    You might want to (feel like you have) the most "successful and significant" leader for a civ, but the developers and many (I'd guess most) players don't actually want to ensure that the leader is ranked highest (based on whatever ranking system) - they just want a leader that is successful and significant.

    If Julius Caesar is in Civ VI, many people will be happy because they feel he is successful and significant, but they usually don't rank Roman leaders to ensure that he is the *most* successful before deciding to like that he's in the game.

    (And this is ignoring other thing people enjoy about civ leaders - personality, interesting history, etc.)
     
  7. AriochIV

    AriochIV Analyst

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    5,617
    Location:
    San Jose, California
    And most would say that either Washington or Lincoln was more important than FDR, but that is clearly not the criteria they use to decide. That's all I'm saying.

    They've had Joan of Arc as the leader of France, for crying out loud.
     
  8. bite

    bite Unoffical Civilization Geographer Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,736
    I don't think they are going for celebrity, I think they are going for interesting, and there is a lot you could say negatively about Cleo, but she is quite interesting
     
  9. Morningcalm

    Morningcalm Keeper of Records

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    3,775
    Location:
    Abroad
    Re: The Kongo suggestion--interesting, but who would lead them? A lot of the Kongolese kings seem to be Portugese vassals.

    Leaderwise, Queen Anna Nzinga seems better for an African leader--she was a 17th-century queen of the Ndongo and Matamba Kingdoms (Angola). Accomplished politician, diplomat, and warrior. What more could one ask for? :)
     
  10. Eagle Pursuit

    Eagle Pursuit Scir-Gerefa

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    14,142
    That would kick butt to have her. Sometimes the story sells itself. We got Enrico Dandolo just because his story is so improbably awesome.
     
  11. HanNorwood

    HanNorwood Tamar

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2013
    Messages:
    276
    Location:
    Georgia
    For Rome, I wanna move away from Caeser and Caeser. While Julius established the empire, and Augustus was undoubtedly one of the most important men in the development of the Western world, I wanna see one of the 5 'Good Emperors' make an appearance as something other than a general.

    Nerva probably wouldn't be the choice, as not as much is known about him.

    Trajan could be fun as a more aggressive Roman leader than we've seen in the past, and could perhaps have a bonus for building things in occupied cities.

    Hadrian would be fun, and gives the civ a focus towards infrastructure, which would be a nice change, though we began to see that in Civ V with Caeser's UA.

    Antoninus Pius could be a more gold happy Roman leader.

    Marcus Aurelius could be a more cultural/faith based leader.

    There are so many things for Firaxis to do with this.
     
  12. Eagle Pursuit

    Eagle Pursuit Scir-Gerefa

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2010
    Messages:
    14,142
    If the Coliseum is really in, and assuming all leaders have a unique that is directly tied to them, the Roman leader could be Vespasian.
     
  13. Plus Ultra

    Plus Ultra Conquistador

    Joined:
    May 27, 2016
    Messages:
    702
    Location:
    Spain
    I'm afraid this is very unlikely unless we are getting more than one leader per Civ, in fact, with Cleopatra back in the game, I expect Julius will be joining us too.

    I do like your idea, especially Hadrian and Trajan. The fact that they were born in Hispania (modern Spain) has nothing to do with it, honest. :lol:
     
  14. SMcM

    SMcM Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2016
    Messages:
    1,194
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    London, England
    Well, there is no single criteria for civ leaders. Clearly, in some cases, they choose women, e.g. Wu Zetian, because they want to maintain some gender balance. Some are the most famous leaders, for example Gandhi for India. Some are chosen because they lend well to a particular civ style, for example Haille Selassie for religion. Also, some are chosen for cultural variety, e.g. Polynesia.

    But there are also leaders chosen because they represent the greatest successes of their civilization;Genghis Khan, Ramesses II, Gajah Mada, Askia, Alexander, Gustavus Adolphus. Arguably Hitler was more powerful, but Bismarck was clearly one of the most important German leaders in terms of the unification of Germany and its emergence as a great power, and Germany is an important market for video games, so they could not include a character that would get it banned there, let alone the fact that it would put off many Israeli players, as well as many other people in countries like the USA, UK and France.

    You are right that this isn't always the case, for example Pacahuti and Elizabeth I did not rule their nations at their peak, but the success and significance of leaders is clearly a factor in the choosing of leaders. For this reason I was suggesting FDR was most appropriate.
     
  15. kamex

    kamex Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,272
    Location:
    UK
    Pretty sure Elizabeth I represents 'England' at its peak. Probably Victoria for Britain - depends if you consider England / Britain to be different.
     
  16. kamex

    kamex Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,272
    Location:
    UK
    Anybody else hoping for the Caligular dlc? :lol:
     
  17. nunor

    nunor Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2010
    Messages:
    776
    I think we can summarise past civ leaders choices in 3 main criteria:

    1) Female leaders (chosen for the simple reason they're female, eg Maria I)
    2) Charismatic/well-known leaders (chosen mainly because they're staples of popular culture, eg Cleopatra, Gandhi)
    3) Historically acclaimed leaders (chosen for their historical significance)
    3a - Leaders who ruled during the peak of their nation (eg Elizabeth I)
    3b - Leaders who founded/unified their nation or led it to its golden age (eg Bismarck)

    Some of the leaders fill more than one criterion, eg Elizabeth, Isabella, or Napoleon.
    For Civ6, the new feature of historical agendas will probably introduce a new layer to these criteria.
     
  18. Krajzen

    Krajzen Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2013
    Messages:
    2,461
    Location:
    Poland
    Yeah damn, Hitler was so succesfull: 7-9 million dead German people, completely ruined country, East Prussia (German land for centuries) completely lost for German nation, decade wasted on pointless militarisation, half of century with Germany divided and de facto occupied, loss of countless Jewish intellectual citizens and devastating cultural legacy of Holocaust perpetrators - all that as a direct result of Hitler's actions, both evil and incompetent.

    Hitler simultaneously managed to completely fail at identifying Germany's problems, apply wrong solution, fail causing the greatest catastrophe Germany endured for 400 years (since 30-years war), devastate the entire continent, and the best part of it is the fact he invented the conflict which was determined to lose anyway (German industry, barely capable of sustaining war effort, vs enormous USSR + enormous USA + western colonial empires + millions of partisans).

    Hitler = complete failure, that's primary reason why he IMO should never appear in such games :p
     
  19. winddysphere

    winddysphere Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    157
    I don't know who will be much more awesome than Bismarck (I don't know much about Hitler other than "mass-issues" with the Jews. I think putting Hitler in the game will make controversial even worse).
    I'm not a geek in history but I rarely see any notable leader in Germany at all. The Habsburg,in my opinion, just totally ruined Germany. And I think choosing the leaders in the divided states is not a good idea at all in my opinion..Unless they change the taste by choosing Prussia's, Bavaria's or whatever (speaking of Prussia maybe the one that ever doing political things with Maria Theresa of Austria will be chosen?)
    Also good to see you back Krajzen. :)

    And PS.does anyone know the exact time that Firaxis will live or something? My local Facebook page does mention about E3 but only the companies that I have no interest to watch.
     
  20. Staal

    Staal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    192
    Someone isn't biased at ll. ;)

    But I do agree, there are better options than Hitler. Other than Bismarck, Frederik I or II are always a good options.
     

Share This Page