Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Eagle Pursuit, May 11, 2020.
Rajaraja chola is the great admiral iirc, but yeah, the Chola are my #1 most desired civ.
it was civ 4 where this happened. Mao got removed as a chinese alt leader in the chinese version of the game
There's nothing there about USSR being illegal. And we have a government called "communism" in game, just like we have one called "fascism", which is banned in more important Firaxis markets than your examples.
Wouldn't it be fun if Ho Chi Minh would lead the vietnamese people?
Yeah, Civ 4 does have an official (mainland) Chinese version published by the Chinese department of 2KGames. Don't know whether the current steam version of civ4 still has Mao or not though - anyway, the authority will definitely give a pass to Wu Zetian.
Well first, depends what we mean by modern. I think by 'modern' the other person referred essentially to contemporary history, WW2 and onwards. So most of those you talk about here are besides the point, only Curtin and Wilhemina are that recent. Also if we are talking about modern leaders in a broad sense, 'early modern period' is often taken to end at the French revolution- Shaka, Pedro II, Simon Bolivar and Poundmaker are all leaders since that too.
I'm confused as to the point of this list, are you saying the controversial leaders here shouldn't have been included?
I've looked up what you are talking about, and what it comes down to is brutal means used in conquest. Yes Menelik of a leader of the late modern period, but this is still a long time in the past. Many civilization leaders carried out conquests and atrocities were committed in these, and Africa today still has tribal warfare that is still just as brutal.
His attitude would be typical at that point, most Western/European leaders had similar outlooks until very recent times.
This is true, although Mao was reused in Civilization Revolution.
Well Mandela was early on in his life involved in indiscriminate terrorist attacks, so hardly an uncontroversial pick.
Thatcher is hardly universally reviled, she's actually generally ranked as one of the better recent prime ministers. But no, she certainly isn't an uncontroversial pick. And I don't want a British leader from after the collapse of Empire anyway.
I'd argue at this point the actions of Menelik II are only marginally more relevant to be honest, it's not like he was a ruthless warlord in a peaceful continent, he was a product of his times every bit as much as Alexander.
Poundmaker didn't pay taxes. Shaka doesn't buy conflict free diamonds. Pedro never called his mother. They're all evil.
Interesting, so if Vietnam and Kublai are (possibly) coming in the January pack, then it's still an open question who's coming in September. (See my current wishlist, but it doesn't seem they'll add two more Southeast Asian civs). I think it'll be Portugal in September? Just a gut feeling.
Well, Theodore Roosevelt is not very much liked in Colombia, actually. People there say that his method of achieving the Panama Canal wasn't appropriate, as he just went ahead and invaded Panama and declared the creation of the Republic of Panama independent from Colombia just so he could arrange a deal that would allow full sovereignty for 100 years to the US of the Panama Canal Zone, just because the Colombian Congress didn't want to approve such a deal. Quite anti-democratic. However, that doesn't negate the fact that he did great things for the US and I guess it was a good leader choice, but I can assure you that Bolivar wouldn't be to fond of him if they had met in real life.
He was also in Civ4
September comes with a new map and it is presumed that the map will accommodate the new civs like Asia accompanied Khmer/Indonesia, so speculation is generally moving away from European civs because we already have a European map (although that doesn't outright preclude a Mediterranean map, or Portugal being paired with an America map).
I'm further guessing that, unless we get Italy or by some random offchance the Inuit, no newcomer civs are so widely requested as to be able to carry a DLC pack by themselves. So I suspect returning powerhouses like Portugal, Byzantium, Assyria would be sold in solo DLC packs, while DLC pack 3 stands a fairly good chance of introducing two completely new civs.
yeah that’s my point. He’s a good choice but his recentness makes him a dangerous choice because of the fact that ppl in latin america might not like him
I'd argue that his appropriateness as an imperialist leader and his reputation in Latin America are directly related. As a general rule, emperors are not well-liked by the people they take over.
My theory on the names, all of them are a stretch, but it kind of makes sense for me to link all the names to abilities somehow if they mean anything???:
Runner: Bolivar goes fast
Plaid: Square-ish rock-hewn churches with their non-adjacency rule could form a plaid-like pattern laid out on multiple tiles of a map
ZoomZoom: Zoom conferences are the envoys of our time. And Teddy doubles them
Tiny Car: I can see some dev imagining the Court Festival and picturing a clown walking out of a tiny car in front of amused Catherine. That or there maybe is a diminutive word play hidden in there.
If so, SoonTM sounds to me like a perfect clue for a nation that is waiting their entire history for something. Perhaps a divine individual of some sort?
(yes, I do realize that it won't happen)
By the way, I think somebody mentioned here (albeit half a year of posts ago) that there was a leak of all the leaders in Civ V back in 2010 before the release, is there any way to learn more about it?
my theory, based partially on wishful thinking, is that it’s civs which existed a long time ago, so i’m predicting it’ll be two bronze age middle eastern civs. 2 of Babylon, Assyria, Hittites, and perhaps Elam as a dark horse?
Well that would still definitely be controversial. They basically reused the all the leaders from Civ Revolution when designing the game first and I guess didn't initially take in the consideration of changing Mao in the beginning for some reason.
Not as fun as Trung Trac or Lê Lợi.
or Ngo Quyen
Soon(TM) was kind of pioneered by Blizzard games when advertising upcoming content and patches.
So, Blizzard = Inuit or Saami.
I'm Vietnamese and I'd prefer to see a communist Vietnam over seeing Trung Trac or the Trung sisters any day. Vietnam dated back at least 1 thousand year BC, the Trung sisters had 1 rebellion and led the country for 3 years, they are remembered for what they symbolize other than them having an actual impact on the course of history. I hope in this case the devs would look somewhere else for inspiration instead of the forum. Maybe if Vietnam is gonna be released with Kublai, Tran Nhan Tong, who led the country against 2 out of 3 Mongolian invasions, should be the leader. Literally anyone but the Trung sisters.
As much as I want Justinian I to lead Byzantium or a new leader for Portugal other than Maria I, if Theodora and Maria come back to fill the 3 female leader quota per expansion, so that Vietnam won't be led by the Trung sisters, I'm down with it.
I also do not want to see the Trung sisters. They are so massively overhyped here.
Ugh, speaking of civs with long histories, I'd rather not have Byzantium than have the return of Justinian or Theodora. The only way I want Byzantium is if it has a later leader--like Alexios I Komnenos or Basil II. Otherwise, we're well-stocked on Classical Greeks at this point.
I guess I'm not as picky as to what leaders are in, compared to the actual civs.
Separate names with a comma.