And as for the Kleopatra - Greece discussion, gimme a break: if any post-Alexander Macedonian is going to get a shot at leading Greece, let it be the Diadochi (Successors) Antipater or Lysimachus, both of which actually ruled Greece. My choice would be Antipater, a student of Aristotle along with Alexander, executor of Aristotle's will, regent and later ruler of Greece. His agenda might be that he hates all female rulers - he spent most of his reign fighting with Alexander's mother, Olympia, who insisted on trying to run things despite him.
I think Minos would be better, he'd be a nice representative of minoan culture and he's probably amongst the most well known greek bronze era kings by accident.
I once dreamt there would be a Cretan Pirate Civ, led by Minos. Let the prophecy come true!
Although another Civ in that dream was Nauru, whose UU was a dolphin-riding Ukelele player that replaced the Rock band. So maybe don't copy everything my REM conjures up.
I don't think this has been posted in here yet, saw it on Reddit and was a bit surprised that it wasn't. But we have a key art for the Great Negotiators pack specifically:
Not sure where it came from, but we've got a concept art now of how Saladin's persona design is gonna look
I don't think this has been posted in here yet, saw it on Reddit and was a bit surprised that it wasn't. But we have a key art for the Great Negotiators pack specifically:
Not sure where it came from, but we've got a concept art now of how Saladin's persona design is gonna look
Yes. I think they made it to where Cleo was more likely to have this agenda. Honestly, I might have been one of the few that didn't mind it.
Hannibal would probably just lead Phoenicia as an alt leader. You can't have a separate Carthage civilization and not being able to build a unique Cothon harbor.
My point is a separate Carthage civilization wouldn't have a Cothon, which is the main thing they are known for building, because Phoenicia would already have it.
Phoenicia is basically the Carthage civilization from previous games anyway, so no need to make a separate Carthage one. Hannibal would work fine as an alt leader for Phoenicia.
It was before I got the game, but I don't think I objected to it. I didn't see how it was implemented, what the phrases were etc, so maybe it was worse than the impression I got
It was before I got the game, but I don't think I objected to it. I didn't see how it was implemented, what the phrases were etc, so maybe it was worse than the impression I got
There was 'Flirtatious', which liked the opposite sex and disliked the same sex, and 'Curmudgeon', which disliked the opposite sex and liked the same sex.
There wasn't anything specific to male/female, and there wasn't anything relating to Cleopatra.
My experience was that people were pointing out that the agendas were inflexible - they were essentially a random like/dislike that you couldn't do anything about. Whatever 'backlash' I experienced was about the gameplay problem that presented.
Honestly inflexible agendas don't seem like the worst mechanic. Sometimes folks just don't get along and there's nothing you can do about it. Makes for a good rivalry in my opinion.
Like although agendas didn't exist in Civ V, you knew Attila's MO was to wipe everyone off the face of the planet. And you had to play around that
There was 'Flirtatious', which liked the opposite sex and disliked the same sex, and 'Curmudgeon', which disliked the opposite sex and liked the same sex.
There wasn't anything specific to male/female, and there wasn't anything relating to Cleopatra.
My experience was that people were pointing out that the agendas were inflexible - they were essentially a random like/dislike that you couldn't do anything about. Whatever 'backlash' I experienced was about the gameplay problem that presented.
Thanks, I didn't remember the specifics.
I do remember them making "Flirtatious" more likely to show up as Cleopatra's hidden agenda when they released it, however.
Honestly inflexible agendas don't seem like the worst mechanic. Sometimes folks just don't get along and there's nothing you can do about it. Makes for a good rivalry in my opinion.
Sure, although I think it works better when the personality is complex, so they end up having biases against (or for) you to varying degrees, rather than "you picked the wrong leader so I'm going to burn your cities and salt your fields".
Unfortunately, Civ 6 isn't complex enough for that.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.