Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Eagle Pursuit, May 11, 2020.
What? If it is an alt for an R&F civ then it has to require R&F. GS has nothing to do with it.
I think the argument is that you wouldn't need either expansion to play the new leader with the new civ. It doesn't completely rule out this possibility, but the wording on the Civ website makes it sound like it's going to be an alt for one of the R&F civs only; every other possibility would technically be playable with just Vanilla or with Vanilla & GS.
I see zero good reasons why the alt leader should also lead a base game civ - they are trying new things here. Also, I don't see why they would say you need R&F to play the leader if you can play it with a base game (or any non-R&F) civ. I think the only logical interpretation of the R&F requirement is that the new leader leads only a R&F civ (or more than one R&F civ, but that seems highly unlikely), as the civs are the only thing not also included in GS.
Now, they have been inaccurate in their marketing material in the past, but if the requirement is accurate, it means that we almost certainly are getting an alt leader for a R&F civ and no other civ. Kublai Khan seems a reasonable bet, and I wouldn't expect him to also lead China. I also wouldn't be surprised to see a different Mongolian leader or one for the Netherlands, Korea, or Scotland.
It does. I was just saying there is a possibility that Kublai Khan could lead China as well as Mongolia.
... if you ignore the hundreds of millions of deaths it caused. Yes, hundreds.
That's great! I want that!
Simply from a historical perspective, a lot of the domestic deaths attributed to the USSR weren’t actually the fault of the USSR, while the deaths caused by their foreign interference, while many, were overshadowed by the deaths that the US caused during foreign interference.
Sigh. USSR didn't handle things well. Neither does USA but at least USA has gay rights and does NOT have a Chernobyl incident. Ultimately this is OT, lets just agree to disagree.
Moderator Action: Yes, very off topic. Please move on.
He wasn't nearly as "mobile," a conqueror as his grandfather. He got settled in Beijing pretty quickly, actually.
True. I think conceptually it would be nice to have him focused on developing conquered land to the detriment of old territory. Perhaps a better idea would be to have him be a leader which can go for culture victories but relies on conquered land to do so.
That's not a correct year. Civ2 was first released in 1996. Civ1 was first released for DOS as an operating system, like the original Colonization, Pirates, and Railroad Tycoon were.
Civ1, like such games as Ultima 1-5, Might & Magic 1-3, Bard's Tale (like all of them), and even the original release of Doom had next to influence from Internet fan feedback.
I'm not sure if you meant "next to no influence", which I wouldn't entirely agree with, but just to elaborate, back then there were not the kind of prominent "make Sonic's arms blue again" kind of campaigns. Gamer culture was different, communication technology was less sophisticated, and ultimately I think gamers of that era were a little less entitled (not a magnitude less, but a little less).
But I digress because this is starting to get off topic. Back to previous Civ leaders, is Winston Churchill also a person non grata? Obviously he'll go down as the most legendary PM (not necessarily the best) of Britain. And that means something for a country who conquered much of the known world as a Parliamentary government with a largely ornamental monarchy. But he was an unabashed supporter of colonialism, and I bet there are other bad things that he did.
Agree. That’s a smart way of going about his design.
Yup, they wouldn’t have massive pushback for leader choices in the development era of the internet. Although, I don’t think Wu Zetian is poorly looked upon.
Yes, Gamer culture on the internet was very small until the late 2000s.
And yes, Churchill was a poor (dare I say evil) leader, widely disliked, was immensely racist and supported colonialism vehemently. If he got into civ, I would perhaps not buy the DLC or game that he was in.
Civ2 had a default, female Aztec leader (that iteration had one default leader for each gender for each civ, though renaming your leader, or even your civ, wasn't a big deal, because civ's had no intrinsic qualities other than the colour scheme where you couldn't have two civ's of the same colour in one game) who was named Nazca, which, of course, is not a person, but a whole civ, and an Andean one, not even a Mesoamerican one. THAT was weird! Melinche, for instance, may have been a wee bit controversial as a female Aztec leader, but would have still been a BETTER choice comparatively, especially given some of the other phoned-in female default leaders in Civ2.
I think it is more important for the leaders in VI to be figureheads than to be competent leaders, since part of VI's attempts to distinguish itself from V is to give the civ a personality to play off of. Victoria is an excellent choice for representing the idea of England, regardless of her actual influence.
I think many are too lost in historical pedantry like this to appreciate that the developers are trying to make a game that is fun to play, and that often clashes with or even supercedes textbook expectations.
I wouldn't mind a Stalin, especially the way Russia is designed as kind of a grand tour in the same way other base game civs like England, France, Germany, India, and Japan are designed. Doubly so now that Eleanor doesn't seem to match the French/English uniques either. The USSR I think was large and influential enough to excuse its relatively short existence.
Although I would much prefer Olga of Kiev so we could get some vicarious Ukrainian representation and make the lavra unique feel more at home. I'm really hoping they release a few more alternate leaders at some point after NF.
I agree with all of this. Just to defend myself, I didn't intend that to be a shot at Vicky so much as a reason why Churchill is especially significant. I think the exercise of distilling an essence of a long-running civilization is a more interesting challenge, and a more relevant one for the scope of Civilization, than trying to embody a single extant polity at any one time.
that's also why I am okay with Teddy Roosevelt over better presidents like Lincoln, FDR, or Washington, because Roosevelt really captures something about American civilization that the others didn't really. that's also why I would like to see William the Conqueror and Charlemagne at some point. They represent England and France's civilizations at key moments that are in the popular conscious, but have never really been fleshed out in a Civ game before.
I think you'll find this not to be the case regarding guys like Hitler, as time isn't the only factor involved. On one hand, by WW2 there's the renaissance of information and documentation that makes the events seem more real. We'll always have visceral documentation of these atrocities and they're forever ingrained into our society in ways guys like Napoleon are not. There's also the increased sense that we 'knew better' by the time of WW2, whereas guys like Napoleon to some extent we feel were products of their time, and particularly so for earlier leaders.
I also think that into even the distant future for as long as people are still interested in WW2 and Hitler, people will in general will be more interested in the complex societal factors that led to his rise and the temporary gains of his short-lived empire than celebrate the man himself. I think this goes for any distant future Civ game and any mainstream representation of him in general.
what does that have to do with my quote?
I'm not altogether sold on the idea that new civs or leaders are here just to celebrate them. To steer this back to this thread's topic, and as an example of what I mean, I'd be totally into the idea of a Nero, Caligula, Diocletian or Julian the Apostate as alt Roman leaders. Same with Vlad the Impaler, although I'm not sure Translyvania really rises to the level to get their own Civ (although if they do ever get included, you heard it from me first.)
Separate names with a comma.