CIV6 Civs and Leaders

[SMcM]

Nero was still a massively incompetent little twit.

How? What did he do incompetently?

 

[Navelgazer]

Nero's a mixed bag, honestly, with a ton of historical "bad press," much of it from Tacitus, who was clear about hating him and probably spread a lot of falsehoods about him. He's a lot better than his enemies painted him, for sure (for instance, it's very unlikely that he started the Great Fire of Rome, and we know that he stepped in to lead the rebuilding personally at a lot of personal risk) but his efforts were disastrous as often as they were successful, and he was driven from the throne and ended Julius' dynasty. (Of course, Churchill was driven out of office shortly after WWII, but that's not how he's remembered.)

I think Nero is an interesting example of a Roman Emperor focused on culture and happiness, but I doubt we'll ever see him.

 

[mitsho]

Do we even need leaders? Or rather: do we need a fixed structure? I'm all for a "The Senate of Rome" - though that would seem strange when Rome take a monarchic government system... But seriously, can we get a bit more flexible on the Leader and Civ side. Do whatever is best for immersion for each civ, for example I'd love if the Arabs counted from the hijra of Mohammed instead of the Birth of Christ. Just a bit of flavour here, that is all.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Would be very intrigued to have Teddy Roosevelt as the American leader. It would complete Mount Rushmore, would it not? Washington has been in a lot, Lincoln was in in Civ IV...was Jefferson in an earlier rendition? He would be a good one too, I think.

Wasn't Roosovelt in Civ 4?

Someone, somewhere made a list of Civilization used in Civ, (reddit, I'll try find the link here)

 

[Monado]

Wasn't Roosovelt in Civ 4?

Someone, somewhere made a list of Civilization used in Civ, (reddit, I'll try find the link here)

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/info/civilizations/


We're on Civfanatics...no need for reddit.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/info/civilizations/


We're on Civfanatics...no need for reddit.

I wasn't asking. Someone compiled a list of ALL leaders/civs that appeared and made a mini timeline of them (like Arabia has been ine very civ game since Civ 3, Zulu since Civ 1 etc).

Now I can't remember if this was on Reddit or CivFanatics.

Found it : https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/4j2ktc/i_crunched_some_numbers_to_give_some_insight_as/

 

[zagosya]

What if leaders work themselves as a civic system — e.g. Russia adopting monarchy gets Peter the Great but later it can switch to Lenin, Stalin or my be other leaders with specific traits

 

[Monado]

I wasn't asking.

The question mark probably wasn't necessary then.

Wasn't Roosovelt in Civ 4?

What if leaders work themselves as a civic system — e.g. Russia adopting monarchy gets Peter the Great but later it can switch to Lenin, Stalin or my be other leaders with specific traits

That would be interesting but it might be troublesome to fit a leader into each category for each civ.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I wasn't asking. Someone compiled a list of ALL leaders/civs that appeared and made a mini timeline of them (like Arabia has been ine very civ game since Civ 3, Zulu since Civ 1 etc).

Now I can't remember if this was on Reddit or CivFanatics.

Found it : https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/4j2ktc/i_crunched_some_numbers_to_give_some_insight_as/

Wikipedia actually has a comprehensive list including scenarios.

 

[sugerdady87]

Monotheistic Judaism came from the Polytheistic set of deities of the area. Yahweh was only one of the 'deities' at the time. That sect won.

Christianity came from a Judaism via a 'prophet' and/or rabbi and/or 'god' depending on which religion talks about it. The 'old testament' literally is the Judaic version and 'God' is Yahweh.

Arabs come from Abraham (Jew), and they founded Islam. They themselves consider it as an extension (3rd prophet and all that).

Some scholars even go so far to say that Islam is a hijacked (then extended) version of Judaism.

 

[m15a]

Do we even need leaders? Or rather: do we need a fixed structure? I'm all for a "The Senate of Rome" - though that would seem strange when Rome take a monarchic government system... But seriously, can we get a bit more flexible on the Leader and Civ side. Do whatever is best for immersion for each civ, for example I'd love if the Arabs counted from the hijra of Mohammed instead of the Birth of Christ. Just a bit of flavour here, that is all.

It's possible, but there's a lot gained by personifying the civs with leaders. People talk about and fondly remember things like Isabella always grabbing all the religions or Alexander always destroying you on turn 50 or whatever. It has been a big part of the game's culture. "The Senate" could also be interesting, but if there's too much variation, the game won't be taking advantage of that existing aspect of Civ gamer culture. On the other hand, one particularly appropriate pair or trio or group ruler could make one civ stand out from the rest.

 

[AlphaShard]

Ever since seeing Teddy Roosevelt in the Trailer and listening to the Developer rewind I now want to see Teddy as the leader for the USA Civ. Don't know if it will happen but it'd be nice for a change up.

 

[Zaarin]

Ever since seeing Teddy Roosevelt in the Trailer and listening to the Developer rewind I now want to see Teddy as the leader for the USA Civ. Don't know if it will happen but it'd be nice for a change up.

A break from Washington, Lincoln, and FDR is certainly nice, but they could have found someone less prone to condoning genocide, less fond of war for its own sake, and whose policies didn't massively expand the power of the federal government. I'd have gone with Calvin Coolidge, personally. However, I think Madison or Adams would have been other interesting possibilities, or (even though I'm not a huge fan of his) even Jefferson. As is, they could not have picked a more controversial pre-modern president short of Andrew Jackson.

That being said, if they emphasize TR's...colorful character and his works on behalf of national parks, I could see America becoming an expansionist culture civ, which could be interesting.

 

[cpm4001]

I'd have gone with Calvin Coolidge, personally.

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.

 

[BenSisko]

Oh oh! i want to play too.

This is my totally clueless and biased civs and leaders list for Civ VI.

1. America - Teddy Roosvelt. Would be a nice change from the old classic (and boring) leaders.
2. Rusia - Catherine the Great. One of the best options to include a female leader in the game.
3. France - Louis XIV. Perfect for a culture focused France.
4. England - Queen Victoria. Another great bet for a female leader. Or maybe Elizabeth again?.
5. Rome - Augustus Caesar. i know i know "enough with the Caesars". But Augustus is just great.
6. Greece - Pericles. Another great bet for a culture oriented Civ.
7. Germany - Bismarck. Just like Augustus, he is pretty cool.
8. India - Gandhi. Pretty much a given.
9. Japan - Emperor Meiji. I would love to see him in Civ, along with an industry-oriented Japan.
10. China - Keep Wu Zetian. She was perfect in Civ V and became quite iconic.
11. Egypt - Akhenaton, with Egypt as a religion/wonders oriented Civ.
12. Aztecs - Moctezuma. No civ without monty.

13. Inca - Manco Inca. A somewhat forgotten Inca ruler and a complete badass.
14. Spain - Isabella. Another excelent bet on a female leader. A great queen.
15. Mali - Mansa Musa. Bring. Him. Back.
16. Norseman/Vikings - Ragnar Lodbrok. I know.. not historical enough. But he is pretty popular right know. I can see Firaxis including him in the game.

 

[Haig]

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

The only thing it can mean is:

Spoiler :

 

[Captain Fargle]

How? What did he do incompetently?

He was a spoiled child given far too much power and no real sense of how to be responsible with it. Spent half of his time as Emperor arguing with his mother who refused to take him seriously and thought she could and should do his job better than him. (Not arguing there. The list of people who'd be better Emperor's than Nero is quite extensive.)

The other half was throwing bad parties on his boat and forcing the Senate and other Roman nobility to attend his extremely long and mediocre musical recitals.

A lot of the historical smearing of his name after he was forced out comes from "Sweet Jupiter if I have to sit there for three hours and listen to that little turd one more time..."

 

[Eger]

The only thing I really want is for them to bring back Multiple Leaders on a singe nation. The way France work on Civ 5 really annoyed me when he was changed from ancient regime to city of light. It would also give a better DLC feature too later.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

The only thing I really want is for them to bring back Multiple Leaders on a singe nation. The way France work on Civ 5 really annoyed me when he was changed from ancient regime to city of light. It would also give a better DLC feature too later.

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.

 

[JeszKar]

The only thing I really want is for them to bring back Multiple Leaders on a singe nation. The way France work on Civ 5 really annoyed me when he was changed from ancient regime to city of light. It would also give a better DLC feature too later.

Same here: for me either multiple leader (to represent the different periods, states of the civilization) or no leaders at all (easier modding, and more realistic)