Also, fun thought, but we could feasibly have female leaders using male animations or vice versa. Imagine Irene of Athens using Matthias's animations or Trung Trac using Hojo's or Dihya using Shaka's. or, flip side, something like Simeon using Tamar's animations. Could make for some interesting switch-ups.
i was initially considering including this possibility, since some of my guesses would much better fit leaders of the opposite gender from the thematic point of view, but it would be difficult to implement animation-wise, would be my guess, since the different frames move differently as animations. I have no expertise or knowledge to back this up, it’s just my guess
Alexander should have just been an alternate leader for Greece and Persia. Would have been a lot more elegant and avoided the generally underwhelming Macedonia design.
I believe they stated they did it so that they could specifically focus Alexander on all war, all the time. Otherwise he would have hoplites and the acropolis.
I believe they stated they did it so that they could specifically focus Alexander on all war, all the time. Otherwise he would have hoplites and the acropolis.
Eleanor leads two civilizations by personal union, and the same would be true of Maria Theresa. Leading multiple civilizations by conquest is a little touchier.
Well besides touchier, I'd primarily just say it doesn't make sense. It depends on circumstance I suppose- Kublai elevated China to being the centre of his realm so him as a leader for China is different. If Cnut was a leader for the Danes he could justifiably be an English alt as well because the two realms had equal status and he focused primarily on governing his more significant western kingdom.
But for conquerors who were just subjugating lands they seized, or colonial rulers, having them as an alternate leader for those subjugated realms is bizarre. I haven't seen anyone advocating Queen Victoria as an alternate leader for India, and that was the territory which made her an empress!
So I think instead of getting carried away they should limit this feature of a ruler being able to lead two civilizations to very specific cases. I don't think it was a necessary feature in the first place tbh, it is a bit of a gimmick which I don't really feels adds too much to the game. But at least if they do have this option I think they should use it only where it definitely makes sense. So no Genghis leading China, etc.
Ahem. Having done my Post-Graduate Thesis on Alexander about a half-century ago, I gotta comment here.
The In-Game Alexander, Greece and Macedon will always have problems for several reasons:
1. Alexander was All War, All The Time - from the time he was 17 years old and possibly earlier, but that was not his greatest Effect on later events. W. W. Tarn's attempt to portray Alexander as the Great Unifier of Greeks and Persians does not withstand close examination: Alexander and the Macedonian/Greeks remained thoroughly Hellenistic/Hellenic in culture and language and simply adopted the Persian mechanics for governing a large multi-ethnic Empire, something neither Greeks nor Macedonians had any experience with before Alexander.
2. There is no historical leader of a unified Greece except foreign or semi-foreign (read: Roman or Macedonian) conquerors until maybe Byzantium, and one could argue (but I won't here) about how traditionally 'Greek' Byzantium was. All the various Leagues and powerful City-States of Classical Greece never included all the Greek city states, even in Greece, let alone the 'Greater Greek' cities in Anatolia, the Ukraine, or Sicily. That's a real problem in Civ, given the requirement for a Great Leader of some description. ALL actual Greek Leaders are going to be semi-fictional, because none of them actually led "Greece"
3. Macedonia by Alexander's time was aspiring to be Greek. Its culture was a mixture of contemporary Classical Greek, Dark Age/Mycenean Feudal Greek, and native Balkan/Macedonian. From all the descriptions we have from the time, Alexander's generation, greatly influenced by Alexander's example, was a real split from the previous generation in their attitude towards and embracement of contemporary Greek culture. That means that, realistically (a charged word to use in Civ, I know!) a 'real' Macedonian separate Civ would stop at Phillip, Alexander's father: with Alexander as Leader, the Civ almost has to be Greek or an amalgam of Greek and Macedonian, but culturally mostly Greek.
4. After Alexander, and again largely because of him and his accomplishments, the area of the Middle East/Persian Empire becomes a cultural mixing bowl called Hellenistic which increasingly is recognized as hugely significant in subsequent history. While politically the Diadochi, or Alexander's Successor States, only lasted a few generations (Ptolemaic Egypt lasting longest) in basic and applied science and engineering and the cultural and philosophical foundations of Christianity and Islam the influence was Huge, and therefore significant for most of subsequent World Events.
The Influence of Alexander, then, is indirectly enormous in the Non-Military fields of culture, religion, and science, while his military accomplishments in the end amounted to breaking up the Persian Empire into separate Successor States so that Rome could sweep most of them up. That makes him worth including somehow in the game even though his 'Empire' lasted less than 20 years - it still lasted longer and had more real influence than frequently requested but even more ephemeral Civs like the Southern American Confederacy (4 years) or Nazi Germany (12 years)
In other words, a separate 'Alexander's Macedon' is appropriate, but it wouldn't be the same as a Phillip's or Traditional Macedon in culture, politics, or military effects.
In Civ VI terms, I would have made a 'Alexandrian Macedonia' slightly less completely military in focus and given him a UA related to Loyalty of conquered cities: his adoption of the Persian trick of having each Province or major city governed by a native or Persianized native but having a Macedonian in charge of all local military forces made the administration of the old Persian Empire remarkably stable given the near-continuous wars between his Successors. The 'Hellenistic Fusion' trait currently in the Macedon Civ is too ephemeral: the Hellenistic Fusion in Science and Philosophy lasted for several centuries, well into the Imperial Roman period and didn't involve any continuous conquest of cities to produce. I think a better version would be that every Campus, Holy Site or Theater Square in any conquered city gets a 50% increase in Adjacency Bonuses and +1 Great Person points of the appropriate type, making the 'Hellenistic Fusion Bonus' more continuous than episodic.
Well besides touchier, I'd primarily just say it doesn't make sense. It depends on circumstance I suppose- Kublai elevated China to being the centre of his realm so him as a leader for China is different. If Cnut was a leader for the Danes he could justifiably be an English alt as well because the two realms had equal status and he focused primarily on governing his more significant western kingdom.
But for conquerors who were just subjugating lands they seized, or colonial rulers, having them as an alternate leader for those subjugated realms is bizarre. I haven't seen anyone advocating Queen Victoria as an alternate leader for India, and that was the territory which made her an empress!
So I think instead of getting carried away they should limit this feature of a ruler being able to lead two civilizations to very specific cases. I don't think it was a necessary feature in the first place tbh, it is a bit of a gimmick which I don't really feels adds too much to the game. But at least if they do have this option I think they should use it only where it definitely makes sense. So no Genghis leading China, etc.
A lot of the fans here get really carried away with this idea of one ruler leading two civilizations. I agree with you completely - don't really like the mechanic that much to begin with because it's really gimmicky and it should be used very sparingly, if at all again.
A lot of the fans here get really carried away with this idea of one ruler leading two civilizations. I agree with you completely - don't really like the mechanic that much to begin with because it's really gimmicky and it should be used very sparingly, if at all again.
Considering they appear to be bringing back Kublai as a leader he should have at least been the primary pick to lead two civilizations, over Eleanor, in the first place.
Considering they appear to be bringing back Kublai as a leader he should have at least been the primary pick to lead two civilizations, over Eleanor, in the first place.
Thinking about Assyria, I agree that they should be military/science, or possibly military/culture, as reflected through their LUA and UI/UB, but I'm thinking about something I think came from Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, though maybe elsewhere, describing them as a culture that put so much emphasis into never losing a battle, that once they finally lost one, the façade crumbled.
As a CUA, I propose something like, "Extra faith, gold, science, culture, loyalty and combat unit effectiveness from Golden and Heroic Ages. Minus extra gold, faith, culture, science, loyalty and combat unit effectiveness from Dark or Normal ages (after the Ancient Era.) Extra Golden Age points spill over. Bonus Golden Age points for capturing enemy cities. When an enemy captures an Assyrian city, Assyria immediately enters a Dark Age."
Like, they can string powerful golden ages together as long as they keep conquering, but the loss of one city can throw them into a devastating dark age.
A lot of the fans here get really carried away with this idea of one ruler leading two civilizations. I agree with you completely - don't really like the mechanic that much to begin with because it's really gimmicky and it should be used very sparingly, if at all again.
I suppose once they've done it once it people probably think it seems a bit weird to just leave it at that and make Eleanor a weird odd one out leader, so people are trying to find other leaders they think this is applicable for. But yeah, I also would rather they just don't persevere with it.
I suppose once they've done it once it people probably think it seems a bit weird to just leave it at that and make Eleanor a weird odd one out leader, so people are trying to find other leaders they think this is applicable for. But yeah, I also would rather they just don't persevere with it.
That's how I feel. It would be weird to leave it at only one especially in the case of Eleanor where Kublai Khan, or even Charlemagne, would have been better examples if only using one dual leader.
Eleanor leads two civilizations by personal union, and the same would be true of Maria Theresa. Leading multiple civilizations by conquest is a little touchier.
Considering they appear to be bringing back Kublai as a leader he should have at least been the primary pick to lead two civilizations, over Eleanor, in the first place.
The big differentiator to me is not conquest, but that Eleanor led the two different 'civilizations' at different times in her life. She was never Queen of England and France at one time.
Everyone else - Kublai included - ruled at the same time.
Or in terms of game mechanics - Eleanor is the only one that could have two different 'capitals' (and different leader backgrounds) for the different 'civs' (if ideally not the actual ones used in the game). Kublai would just have one (Xanadu presumably) where he ruled both Mongolia and China.
That's how I feel. It would be weird to leave it at only one especially in the case of Eleanor where Kublai Khan, or even Charlemagne, would have been better examples if only using one dual leader.
1) Eleanor is the most clear-cut example of a dual leader they could have gone with to introduce the idea. She led both France and England during distinct, separate periods.
2) She fills marketing/representation quotas a lot better. While many might dispute whether Mongolia needed a second leader, England and France are near the top of the list to get two leaders. If we never got more content after GS, having the one dual leader fill out England and France was probably the most efficient choice.
3) This is to some extent personal taste, but I'm pretty sure neither Kublai nor Charlemagne would have had a leader ability as unique and flavorful as Eleanor's. Making the first leader really distinct I'm sure sold the concept well.
As for Charlemagne, I don't feel like he's clean cut option for France and Germany. Back then the two were effectively the same people so it's a little weird to have him lead them as separate civs. It results in a weird discrepancy where we have Victoria leading England but not Scotland or Philip leading Spain but not Portugal. Things get muddier with Charlemagne where they don't have to be with Eleanor or Kublai. Even Kublai has to stretch a bit, but there is a clearly defined period where he was a Mongolian emperor versus when he relocated to China and tried to syncretize into Chinese culture.
Not to mention, if we really wanted to make Charlemagne over two distinct polities, I would think it should be Germany and Italy, since Charlemagne had a summer capital in Rome and was also king of "Italy."
1) Eleanor is the most clear-cut example of a dual leader they could have gone with to introduce the idea. She led both France and England during distinct, separate periods.
2) She fills marketing/representation quotas a lot better. While many might dispute whether Mongolia needed a second leader, England and France are near the top of the list to get two leaders. If we never got more content after GS, having the one dual leader fill out England and France was probably the most efficient choice.
I can agree with that it was for marketing purposes. Even though I've gotten over it she would have been fine for England only so we could have gotten Louis XIV.
Not to mention, if we really wanted to make Charlemagne over two distinct polities, I would think it should be Germany and Italy, since Charlemagne had a summer capital in Rome and was also king of "Italy."
Sure bring on Medieval Italy.
I wouldn't prefer him to be a dual leader, or in Civ 6, but I think he makes as much sense as Kublai leading multiple civs, and still more than Eleanor does.
I also don't think we need a separate Francia civ either for him.
I assume there will be some teases during the livestream, because I don't think the changes in the August patch are enough to fill an hour-long stream. One probably only need ten minutes to explain them all.
But she did manage to become queen consort of an equally powerful monarchy after getting divorced. That's a remarkable feat for any period but particularly managing it several centuries before the formalization of the Anglican Church. The fact that she held two different crowns as a woman is so exceptional that I'm willing to forgive her first time around. Also, she was actually French so that still makes her more appropriate than Catherine in my book.
I can agree with that it was for marketing purposes. Even though I've gotten over it she would have been fine for England only so we could have gotten Louis XIV.
I see Catherine as the nail in Louis' coffin, not Eleanor. I would never see the devs choosing two French leaders who ruled so temporally close to each other when French history extends as far back as Charlemagne and as far forward as Napoleon.
I see Catherine as the nail in Louis' coffin, not Eleanor. I would never see the devs choosing two French leaders who ruled so temporally close to each other when French history extends as far back as Charlemagne and as far forward as Napoleon.
Eleanor being the second leader was the nail considering we definitely would not get another. I would have never predicted the new persona tough which is basically like playing as Louis XIV.
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.
