Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Eagle Pursuit, May 11, 2020.
That's just guessing. There's nothing that can make a person 'quite sure' of that.
Which doesn't exclude anything. Pleague could be expansion on Housing (or something to go alongside Housing and Amenities) with debuff akin to Siege on unhealthy city and debuffs to cities having Trade Routes to them. Making it like spreading Miasma like Beyond Earth or Black Death Scenario is less likely, as it would very much be based on GS which is not required for the later Game Modes. Corporations could be expansion on City-States spawning later in game.
Not just the last, the next one too.
Opps! Yes, corrected my post.
I don't think we have any hard evidence that Kublai Khan will be an alt for China. Lots of speculation and wistful thinking, but the leak does not identify who he would lead, and the description for the alt leader pack says the leader requires R&F, which strongly suggests he does not lead China (or R&F would not be required to play him). Now, maybe he will and the marketing material is off (nothing new), but the leak didn't give us more than his name.
I live in San Antonio and here we have a building called the Spanish Governor's Palace (Presidio San Antonio de Béjar). This was the original office/residence of the commander of the military garrison during the colonial era in Texas (1700-1800).
I'd love to see a similar building/district that acts like a second capital with regards to loyalty pressure. The current Government plaza SHOULD fill that role, but the way it's designed, it's loyalty bonus is wasted as you want to build it early to get the nifty bonuses from the buildings.
If they were to create a Colonial Governor's Palace that gives +8 loyalty to the city and acts as a capital for loyalty degradation to nearby cities, give an automatic trade route to your capital, perhaps with +2 Food, +2 Prod (and its own buildings if it's a district) and you'd have a real reason to go and colonize other land masses. Maybe even have it open up a new governor type (as they've done with the Secret Societies) with a linear promotion path (and a free governor to slot in it) that helps cities affected by the loyalty bonus provided by the Colonial Governor's Palace...
Then, with the Government Plaza, you take away the loyalty buff, keep everything else, maybe add a little bene... and we'd be good. Personally, I only build it so I can get the Ancestral Hall/Warlord's Throne/Audience Chamber out early and that's usually either in the capital or near the capital so the loyalty bonus is nothing.
I found out that government plazas would be built better faraway than near the capital to prevent rebellions and to increase loyalty in newly captured cities.
I would focus on early expansion, campuses, holy sites and defense early to get a religion, more technologies, wonders and a decent amount of units to protect from early surprise attacks (followed by commerce for upgrades and maintenance).
Building a government plaza near the capital would be a waste of loyalty, IMHO. I would build one when I need loyalty in newly captured cities or faraway cities that need loyalty. There's a lot of things to focus on in the early game to build a gov't plaza.
Kublai likely DOESN'T lead China. His DLC wouldn't have R&F requirements if he did, because then he would still unlock for China for players who don't own R&F.
Please stop passing off wishful thinking as facts. It's getting annoying -_-
While I agree that this is the literalist interpretation, I would be quite surprised if it wasn't just poor wording. To my mind there is no reason to include an alternate leader solely for Mongolia while leaving China, Arabia, Russia, and Egypt with only one leader. Kublai probably only is in the game because he can be a dual leader.
Is it fine to still think of it as wishful thinking, and not a fact, until it is confirmed or not?
They felt like it?
It's their game - they don't have to adhere to any notion of fairness, historical representation or realism. Maybe some commercial market research, but while that diminishes the inclusion of very obscure civs, that doesn't explain a rule like "we can only give civ X a second leader when civs Y and Z have received one". Rather, due to re-used leader animations, the opposite may be true: "We can re-use that animation since he is of similar stature, so he gets in, and not the other one".
Besides, there's a whole thread for that discussion. I just had to point out the absurdity of the argument "Civs X,Y and Z deserve a second leader". Nobody deserves anything here. That's an absurd historical argument.
Lol the devs have been making painfully calculated design decisions since the base game release, all to maximize resonance and player buy-in. This isn't a question if historical importance: it's the fact that players really want another Chinese leader and probably couldn't care less about a second Mongolian leader.
Citation please for that assertion. How do you know what players want? Those who post on the internet are a minority, so it can't be them. Maybe you studied the posts on Social Media, but then the actual in-game data from what is being played may be worth much more and paints a different picture - maybe, we don't know after all. And lastly, when have "the players" ever agreed on anything? I believe there's a big group "who couldn't care less" which leader gets added as long as he/she's cool. I challenge you to explain to me how f.e. the Nubia DLC was a "painfully calculated design decision". You are reading patterns into the devs decisions where there are none - or maybe there were but the situation has changed.
It's a general conclusion that China de facto one of the most marketable civs in the game as an observation of:
1) What parts of history will be accessible and resonant to the casual player, with China generally receiving more coverage than Mongolia.
2) What parts of history will hold the niche interest of armchair and professional historians, with China being a regional superpower with three milennia of evolving paradigms to catch the eye of historians while Mongolia's height was much shorter lived and more of a one-trick pony.
3) What cultural identities will be more resonant with players, where billions of people identify as being of Chinese heritage or have visited China, while only of a fraction have an equivalent relationship to Mongolia.
I'm not answering along this line of argument any further. Just because it is very easy for someone to have no context to draw conclusions doesn't mean all of us have no context or that context doesn't exist.
Indeed. Egypt and China lasted for 2,000 years (using a conservative analysis as beginning with the Qin Dynasty), but they're definitely not more deserving of a second leader than barely-a-century-old Australia.
Not every civ is market pandering, but it's irrefutable that the devs have been much more keen on pandering this time around: Brazil in the base game, Poland as early DLC, the additions of Canada, Australia, Gran Colombia, etc. Just because Sudan isn't a major market doesn't mean the devs haven't shown themselves to be very pointedly targeting major and emerging markets.
I am not hard against anyone here, and I am fully aware that there isn't really concrete, written-on-paper evidence saying that "Kublai will lead China" or "China deserves an alt leader".
However I want to point out that IRL Kublai's capital is Beijing (called Dadu/Khanbaliq at his time). Because he was being considered as an illegitimate Great Khan by other Khans, so he moved his court to China to hold what he already had.
Kublai eventually let Mongol Empire divided into several Khanates, and ruled his 1/4 from Beijing/Dadu till the end of his life.
Now imagine a Mongol-only Kublai with Beijing as his capital, while Qin lost Beijing in his city list as a result.
And I would dare to say a situation like that is very unlikely, unless the devs choose to simply ignoring history and put Kublai into Xanadu or Qaraqorum.
If they were to add a colonial district, they could fold the Colonial Offices and Colonial Taxes policy cards into its buildings. Not that they're bad cards, I just can't imagine anyone running them when there are so many great economic policy cards competing for a few precious slots.
PS - Alternatively, they could add a colonial-themed governor and fold the aforementioned policy cards into his or her promotions.
He is confirmed to lead Mongolia, but there is nothing to confirm or de-confirm he will be associated with China. To say that there is something "strongly suggests he does not" is just as wrong as to say there is something strongly suggests that he does.
Not sure if you have been around on the discussions of this forum at all during the last few years, but to completely refute the fact that devs do get inspirations from suggestions/recommendations from here at this point is just absurd, for better. None of the first 3 civ choices were close to being surprising, and that includes the leader choices. Of course, it is their game and it is their ultimate decision and they did make out-of-the-box choices, but as much as I hate to say this, to say people on this forum have no sway on some of the final inclusions just shows lack of information/updates on your part.
Do you think that next week we get video describing the 3rd DLC content?
Or maybe a note to "come back here next week for more info of dlc" ?
If he leads China, then R&F is not required to play him, contrary to marketing materials. Therefore, the marketing statement strongly suggests he leads Mongolia only. The only reason I am not sure of this conclusion is because Firaxis marketing materials are occasionally wrong.
I doubt we get a substantive video until the week of September 7 at the earliest (the following week is more likely IMO). We might get a teaser that hints at one of the civs. If so, then I would expect the first First Look the week of the 7th.
To be fair, nothing is confirmed about Kublai Khan. It was just words found in the game files, therefore making it highly likely.
Separate names with a comma.