Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Eagle Pursuit, May 11, 2020.
BTW, is there an ETA for the patch notes?
I awoke way too early, jonesing for them.
They have been dropping with the patch for NFP.
Scrap, I’d forgotten. Time to try to get a couple more hours of sleep now, so I don’t fall asleep in 3 hours.
However, if he leads China and uses an RnF mechanic for his leader ability, he would need RnF to play even as China. The requirements are not so much about civilizations, but mechanics. It might be something related to loyalty, governors or plaza. I would bet for a government plaza building. Qin's ability is The First Emperor - the ancient wonders and builders ability.
I personally wouldn't mind him.
Except that then GS would also work, not only R&F, as GS adds all the mechanics of R&F.
A Mongol-only Kublai with Beijing as his capital is already weird. But if that does happen, then the capital will be called Dadu/Khanbaliq and Beijing will remain on China's city list. I don't see why Qin would lose Beijing.
Additionally, we've seen instances where they have GS/non-GS variants, like Ethiopia. So the mechanics aren't actually the limit.
Uh oh, Xanadu
Did you read the first sentence that I wrote? Like I said, he is guaranteed to lead Mongolia (thus the RnF requirement), but there is nothing to confirm or de-confirm that he will lead China AS WELL. Really not sure why you keep pointing out the RnF requirement as if that is something meaningful regarding his association with China. No one here even said that he ONLY leads China, they are saying while leading Mongolia, he may or may not lead China as well. There is nothing to suggest he can, there is nothing to suggest he cannot either.
Nope, that is not how it works. If he uses a RnF mechanic, owning GS will work as well. The only thing that is included in RnF but not in GS are the civs that were introduced in RnF. So the fact he requires RnF specifically and not GS means he must lead a civ that was introduced in RnF. Again, regarding China, there is nothing to suggest he leads them, also nothing to suggest he cannot.
If he can lead China, then you do not need R&F to play him. Full stop. I don't understand what you don't understand. If you want to play him as leader of Mongolia, you need R&F, but you can play him without R&F, contrary to the marketing materials, if he also can lead China.
Do you need GS for Eleanor or can you use her in Vanilla? England and France are base game civs. All they have to do is slot her in, no?
If Genghis needs mechanics introduced in R&F, you can't use him in the game without R&F, and it doesn't matter whether China is in the base game. His leader ability affects R&F rules. So yes, he can definitely potentially be a leader for both Mongolia and China.
Eleanor is a GS civ and can only be used with GS because Eleanor is GS content. It has nothing to do with Eleanor's mechanics.
Look at Ethiopia. It has Rock-Hewn Churches which can be built on Volcanic Soil in addition to Hills. Volcanic Soil is a GS mechanic. However, you don't need Gathering Storm to play as Ethiopia. For Vanilla or RnF-only, it simply omits the portion about Volcanic Soil. The Oromo Cavalry replaces the Courser if you have GS. It's a stand-alone UU if you only have Vanilla or RnF.
So, when it says that the alt-leader requires RnF, it's not because of the mechanics. They've already shown the willingness and capability to work around that restriction.
Therefore, the alt-leader must be for an RnF civ.
Eleanor uses loyalty, which requires R&F or gathering storm. If Kublai Khan leads China and requires a R&F mechanic, you could play him leading China with GS because GS adds all the mechanics of R&F, just not the civs.
Other aspects of NFP require R&F or GS, but the new leader requires R&F, indicating it's not a mechanic that they use from R&F, or GS would also be sufficient.
It would work, however that would require them creating various conditions in the files specifying for GS but not RnF. And it might end with two different DLCs, as one of the requirements in any mod is the required Expansion. If you had a version that required RnF having both Mongolia and China, you would need also separate DLC for required GS only, where he leads China and that would be duplicitous. No, no, keep it simple and have him be only in one DLC with required RnF, to avoid confusion among folks who buy the package but only get half the value.
I think you're not considering that they may have written it that way because saying "Requires Rise and Fall to play... mostly.", or something similar, would be odd. It might just be because it's simple and straightforward, and worst case scenario it's not negatively misleading people who buy the pass.
If they didn't put RnF as a requirement, and then it turned out the leader fit much better with Mongolia than China, it might be troublesome.
In any case, I'm no longer inclined to see Kublai as alt for China as I was some months ago. Mainly because it might be seen as a contentious leader in the Chinese market.
To my knowledge, if Kublai only leads Mongol, it will still raise controversy in the Chinese market: "Kublai was a Chinese emperor in the first place and Mongol isn't really important" is a common argument in China.
I don't believe this kind of sinicization BS, but I am afraid that a lot of other Chinese are believed in this BS, and a Mongol-only Kublai will easily anger them - the same as how a Kublai as Chinese leader will anger those Han nationalists.
To sum up: Kublai will be a contentious leader choice for Chinese market no matter he leads only Mongolia or he leads both Mongolia and China. The only way to avoid this situation is to not include Kublai in the game, which is very unlikely.
I don't want to start any big political debate, considering I know very little about this, but how big is this Han nationalist movement? It seems similar to the Gaul nationalist movement in France that I have recently heard about on this forum, but I don't think that would preclude anything Gallic getting in.
They are not really a "movement", more like very vocal about the topic; it's a posture thing. I think your Gallic analogy can apply here.
Every new civ or new leader can cause some dissatisfaction, but few are serious about them.
I don't want to get overly political here, but it's borderline mainstream Chinese culture at this point. You will always have dissenters of course, but the general notion is "Han = good. Other stuff = less good".
How come there wasn't that kind of reaction when Kublai Khan was an alternative leader for Mongolia in Civ4?
Separate names with a comma.