CIV6 Civs and Leaders

[Plus Ultra]

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.

This thread is all about waiting for E3:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=568913

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.

Count me in the "biased against Hitler/Stalin/Mussolini/Franco" group.

 

[Gangrin]

My 5 cents: Civ - Probable leader/Leader i'd like to see. Assuming 18 base civs:

1) Usa - Teddy already confirmed. I was surprised, but hey, it's not Washington. Again
2) China - Qin Shi Huang confirmed. I am on cloud nine. Enough with this joke of an empress or Mao
3) Egypt - Cleopatra confirmed. Ok, i get it, they are tired of good old Ramses, but as female ruler Hatsheput would be better
4) Russia - Catherine the Great / Alexander II
5) England - Elizabeth / Victoria
6) Germany - Bismark / Bismark.
7) France - Napoleon / Richelieu (yeah, i know, he wasn't de jure ruler, but man can dream)
8) Rome - Augustus / Julius
9) Aztec - Monty / Monty
10) Ottomans - Suleiman / Mehmed II
11) Arabs - Harun al Rashid / Saladin
12) Japan - Tokugawa / Meiji
13) India - Gandhi / Aurangzeb (yes, HIM, and i know that he is Mughal emperor and not proper Indian, i know, but god that would be awesome)
14) Greece - Alexander / anyone but him. Hell, i would welcome even Odysseus
15) Mali - Mansa Musa / Mansa Musa
16) Inca - Huayna Capac / Huayna Capac
17) Persia - Darius / Cyrus II
18) Mongolia - Genghis Khan / Genghis Khan

 

[SMcM]

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

Completely immoral, yes, I am definitely not a Nazi sympathiser, and obviously condemn the enactment of the 'final solution', as well as other terrible crimes such as the forced euthanasia of the disabled and murder of Romania and Slav people, but the reich did occupy most of Europe in 1942. So, yes, Hitler WAS more powerful than Bismarck at the peak of his empire. And so what that it crumbled; did the same not happen to Napoleon? And did the same not happen of Boudicca? Did Haille Sellassie not lose his kingdom for the duration of the Second World War? Was Pedro II not toppled from power and exiled? We're both Oda Nobunga and Alexander the Great both betrayed? Many civ leaders had huge defeats.

Obviously most of these examples aren't remotely equivalent to Hitler's defeat, but surely you can agree that Napoleon's defeat is very comprable. Though I suppose Hitler's main mistake was not learning from Napoleon; he invaded Russia during the winter.

 

[Morningcalm]

That would kick butt to have her. Sometimes the story sells itself. We got Enrico Dandolo just because his story is so improbably awesome.

True! Enrico Dandolo was also in because Venice seemed like such an interesting idea of a (non-Roman) Italian civ. Everyone knew about Renaissance Italian merchants and warriors and yet they weren't in Civ until Civ V. Maybe we will see something similar with lesser-known, but no less impactful, African civs.

My 5 cents: Civ - Probable leader/Leader i'd like to see. Assuming 18 base civs:

1) Usa - Teddy already confirmed. I was surprised, but hey, it's not Washington. Again
2) China - Qin Shi Huang confirmed. I am on cloud nine. Enough with this joke of an empress or Mao
3) Egypt - Cleopatra confirmed. Ok, i get it, they are tired of good old Ramses, but as female ruler Hatsheput would be better
4) Russia - Catherine the Great / Alexander II
5) England - Elizabeth / Victoria
6) Germany - Bismark / Bismark.
7) France - Napoleon / Richelieu (yeah, i know, he wasn't de jure ruler, but man can dream)
8) Rome - Augustus / Julius
9) Aztec - Monty / Monty
10) Ottomans - Suleiman / Mehmed II
11) Arabs - Harun al Rashid / Saladin
12) Japan - Tokugawa / Meiji
13) India - Gandhi / Aurangzeb (yes, HIM, and i know that he is Mughal emperor and not proper Indian, i know, but god that would be awesome)
14) Greece - Alexander / anyone but him. Hell, i would welcome even Odysseus
15) Mali - Mansa Musa / Mansa Musa
16) Inca - Huayna Capac / Huayna Capac
17) Persia - Darius / Cyrus II
18) Mongolia - Genghis Khan / Genghis Khan

Why not Pachacuti instead of Capac?

Mughals are much requested, but I doubt we'll see them in Civ VI unless they pull a Venice on us. I would prefer Akbar the Great for their leader though.

For Aztecs, I would prefer Itzcoatl, who overthrew the Tepanacs, built up Tenochtitlan, solidified the Triple Alliance's grip over south Mexico, and so on.

And yes, thank God for no more Wu Zetian/Mao.

 

[SMcM]

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.

But Elizabeth I ruled at nowhere near the peak of the English/British empire...

 

[Plus Ultra]

Though I suppose Hitler's main mistake was not learning from Napoleon; he invaded Russia during the winter.

If history has taught as anything is this: Do not invade Russia during the winter.

In fact, avoid invading Russia altogether.

 

[SMcM]

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?

Definitely agree. And it would help prevent gender imbalance. I would also suggest Ranavalona for Madagascar for similar reasons.

 

[nunor]

But Elizabeth I ruled at nowhere near the peak of the English/British empire...

Well I'm no expert in English history, but many seem to consider Elizabeth's reign the golden age of England.

 

[SMcM]

Well I'm no expert in English history, but many seem to consider Elizabeth's reign the golden age of England.

It was a golden age; for exploration and achievement in other areas too, yes, but she didn't have an empire at all. Colonisation did begin at this time, but this was only a small start. Hardly the peak of an empire that would go on to be the largest in history, controlling tens of millions of square kilometers. The British empire was far larger even than that of Russia at its peak.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It was a golden age; for exploration and achievement in other areas too, yes, but she didn't have an empire at all. Colonisation did begin at this time, but this was only a small start. Hardly the peak of an empire that would go on to be the largest in history, controlling tens of millions of square kilometers. The British empire was far larger even than that of Russia at its peak.

1. peak doesn't have to mean peak of power/land

2. one can argue she was at the peak of England's empire (rather than Britain's)

 

[SMcM]

1. peak doesn't have to mean peak of power/land

2. one can argue she was at the peak of England's empire (rather than Britain's)

Peak what then? I'm not neccasserily disagreeing, but what? And as for you England argument, that makes no sense; the capital of the British empire was still London, and the formation of the United Kingdom was basically an expansion of the English empire. Anyway, even if we want to pretend that England doesn't dominate the UK, and that the British empire wasn't and English empire, then I'm sure people would still rather have Britain in the game than England.

 

[Chinese American]

Having only "good" rulers makes moods 1-dimensional. Just because you personally despise controversial leaders don't mean you can and should rewrite history and games to fit your temperament and ideology.

Another issue is with Civ5 taking away choices from players to choose their leaders. Civ4 let you choose from more than one leader in some civilizations. So you can roleplay different leaders of your choice.

 

[m15a]

I agree that there should be some "evil" leaders in the game, but I don't think there should be evil leaders that ruled over or tried to kill potential Civ players or their close relative (e.g., parents).

 

[Andrewthelord]

Venice will be here again, maybe in an expansion.
It was a very popular civ.

 

[Monado]

Venice will be here again, maybe in an expansion.
It was a very popular civ.

It was the worst UA in the entire game. Any time the AI had control of Venice the map was a lopsided mess. Free territory the AI Venice could never fill.

I had to mod them out to make Civ V playable again.

 

[Morningcalm]

SO--The E3 video revealed that there will be leaders/civs that have NEVER been in the Civ series. Who could they be? Ed Beach said they wanted "big personalities" for the game. But as far as the civs, I have little idea--Ed did mention they wanted to look at what the fans wanted.

So...Majapahit?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

SO--The E3 video revealed that there will be leaders/civs that have NEVER been in the Civ series. Who could they be? Ed Beach said they wanted "big personalities" for the game. But as far as the civs, I have little idea--Ed did mention they wanted to look at what the fans wanted.

So...Majapahit?

Heard mention of Kongo... that region has never had a civ before in the series.

 

[Morningcalm]

Maybe the Sioux? Khazar?

 

[Krik_IDDQD]

Maybe the Sioux? Khazar?

Vietnam and Kanem-Bornu.

 

[j51]

I think, with only 18 in vanilla, our sub-Saharan pick will be either Kongo, or Mali (who were in IV, but not V and could maybe count as new then?). The Mali thing fits with the big personalities: Mansa Musa just throwin' money around.