[LP] Civilization VI: Leader Pass - Discussion Thread
- Thread starter Laurana Kanan
- Start date
tedhebert
Emperor
Lincoln ? Really ? that’s unbelievable 
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 18,114
Lincoln ? Really ? that’s unbelievable
Yongle and Tokugawa have some of the more interesting mechanics in the Pass, so they make sense in the top three. Plus, Yongle was part of the Chinese pack, which was marketing genius.
Lincoln's main draw is his position as a national hero in the US. I would expect that a lot of low-information players in the US picked him due to that. And, he was in the initial pack, which probably benefited from the opening marketing campaign.
It makes me wonder where the drop-off is between popular leaders and unpopular. Like, how many leaders are brutally underperforming due to disinterest?
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,465
Yeah, he's been one of the ones available the longest. More games overall have been played since he was introduced than many of the others.
It's curious that the top 3 are from the first 3 packs released. I expect as time went on the packs started to become underwhelming to many people, so maybe even if some great leaders like Theodora and Ludwig haven't been touched.
I only got around to starting a Ludwig game a week or two back, getting through games with the other earlier leaders and then a little break from fatigue means I'd had to catch up.
That being said I haven't done Lincoln yet either, but that's because his ability always struck me as underwhelming. But there's just an extra few months for people to get a game in with him vs the later leaders so not surprised.
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,465
I keep going back to neocleo so I've missed a lot of the leaders.
AntSou
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2019
- Messages
- 3,043
One is Chinese, the other American. That alone is likely to have a strong impact on popularity. Yongle being genuinely one of the most fun leaders from the Leader Pass, it's easy to see how it would take the first spot.
I'm just glad Julius Caesar isn't in the top 3.
I'm just glad Julius Caesar isn't in the top 3.
AvianBritish
King
It would be intresting to see who are the least played leaders in the LP.
I've only got one left to complete a game as and that's Age of Steam Victoria; whenever I play as her I get so bored because she has nothing intresting about her at all. I don't know why people love her so much because, sure, production is OP; but why do you want to play a boring but over powered leader?
I've only got one left to complete a game as and that's Age of Steam Victoria; whenever I play as her I get so bored because she has nothing intresting about her at all. I don't know why people love her so much because, sure, production is OP; but why do you want to play a boring but over powered leader?
Last edited:
Hellenism Salesman
King
As the guy who made that one overly long post about her, raving about the increase in production she brings (showing the calculations and percentages, no less!), even I don't.
I tend to stray away from overpowered things in general, I feel "dirty" using them. Can't give any logical reason- I'm just a contrarian. Sometimes I whip out Pericles specifically for bonkers culture (not a fair game- I stack the ruleset with Barbarian Clans and city states), but that's just yield porn psychology at play. The fun of it wears off after a while.
Meanwhile, I have never even touched Gran Colombia, Ethiopia, Portugal, or Yongle, all because I've heard of how strong they are.
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,465
Ethiopia is fun though. Strong but boring, no thanks; interesting sure.
Well, if you want a challenge just play Ethiopia on a Wetlands map or Portugal on Pangea.
Sometimes it's fun to play an OP civ. If you just want an easy game, or want bonkers yields, or want to win as fast as possible, or whatever. It's one game, it's fun sometimes to just roflstomp the opposition. Same with playing out a game where you have Roraima sitting 3 tiles from your capital. Sometimes it's fun to just go wild.
But if I had to choose one leader to play for the rest of existence, yeah, I wouldn't want those "easy win" civs. Like Yongle was a ton of fun to play in the first game with him, but I bet if I played another one, it would just feel like a bore.
Hellenism Salesman
King
Yeah this is how I feel in a nutshell. If I’m having fun with an OP civ/leader, it’s because they’re OP, not really because I find them super fun to play.
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,465
Hmm, I'm opposite. I look for interesting abilities (whether civ is good OR bad) that give a little different game.
Hellenism Salesman
King
I wouldn't say so- I'm also interested by unique abilities! Some examples are Maya, Mali, Vietnam, etc.
It's just if those abilities tend to give an overwhelming advantage (such as Portugal), then I tend to avoid them.
(I also dislike how Portugal is so binary, as well. If you have the right map type and location, you make exorbitant amounts of gold. Otherwise, you have almost nothing. That speaks to a greater issue of naval civs in general and how maritime abilities just don't tend to be useful in an ordinary game, but that's a topic for another thread.)
Then there is the Maori who is one of the most interesting and OP civs in the game. That is as long as you find a good place for your first city.
AvianBritish
King
For me I don't care if a Civ is OP or weak; I just want to play a civs who are unique; so I love going out as Portugal to build Feitoria; I love Indonesia to spam Kumpung; I love Ethiopia to gets as many cities on hills as possible and build as many rock hewn churches; I love original Victoria to get a city on every continent and build an empire that the sun never sets on (I have to disable "Animated Time of Day" for that because the world is flat with the sun going over and under it from west to east 
), I love Vietnam, Gran Colombia, Maya, Australia Mali, Brazil, Ludwig... basically I love any civ and leader that makes you play the game differently or gives you tile improvements of city/district placement bonuses and maximising those aspects.
Civs/leaders I dislike are ones which basically make you play the game as normal and give you bonuses for no reason other than just playing the game as like anyone else; so Steam Victoria, Pericles, Frederick (As I don't attack city states), Sultan Saladin, new Sulieman, Sejong and Rameses I dislike playing the most.
), I love Vietnam, Gran Colombia, Maya, Australia Mali, Brazil, Ludwig... basically I love any civ and leader that makes you play the game differently or gives you tile improvements of city/district placement bonuses and maximising those aspects.Civs/leaders I dislike are ones which basically make you play the game as normal and give you bonuses for no reason other than just playing the game as like anyone else; so Steam Victoria, Pericles, Frederick (As I don't attack city states), Sultan Saladin, new Sulieman, Sejong and Rameses I dislike playing the most.
For me I don't care if a Civ is OP or weak; I just want to play a civs who are unique; so I love going out as Portugal to build Feitoria; I love Indonesia to spam Kumpung; I love Ethiopia to gets as many cities on hills as possible and build as many rock hewn churches; I love original Victoria to get a city on every continent and build an empire that the sun never sets on (I have to disable "Animated Time of Day" for that because the world is flat with the sun going over and under it from west to east
Civs/leaders I dislike are ones which basically make you play the game as normal and give you bonuses for no reason other than just playing the game as like anyone else; so Steam Victoria, Pericles, Frederick (As I don't attack city states), Sultan Saladin, new Sulieman, Sejong and Rameses I dislike playing the most.
I would potentially debate Gran Colombia being in the first group. I mean, yeah, they sort of "force" you into a different style of play because they're so OP offensively, but personally their bonuses feel more like the second group, since it's not like I do anything differently in conquering people around. It's not like the Ottomans where you run your cavalry through your opponents, or even someone like the Aztecs where you have a swarm of builders returning from the battlefront. Although my biggest flaw with the leaders that change the game a lot is that since it forces you down a path, if something in the game doesn't let you use that, it's always a letdown. Like it's annoying when you start up a game as the Aztecs and don't find anyone nearby...
AvianBritish
King
My bad; I should of lead with the fact that I'm not a warmonger so I play as Gran Colombia mainly for their haciendas, bonus movement and their more economic bonuses from comendante generals.
I never play civ with the intention to warmonger, so I don't choose a civ with the intention to warmonger as it (although I will try to spam as many of their unique units as possible) or utilize any of their war-based bonuses. My armies are a deterant, unless provoked or have a just reason to war.
Similar threads
