Well, in former Civs you could switch which city was your capital by simply building a palace in a new one. It would really make a lot of sense that they bit back.
BTW could I ask sources about Toledo deemed the equivalent of the capital of Castile at that time. I find it specially curious because I even lived for a couple years in a village of Toledo, Los Yébenes, while doing anthropological research and never heard of that fact.
Burgos was caput castellae, hence it had the rights to expose first when the Castilian courts meet, and in Valladolid there was the main judicial power of the Crown of Castile, the "Real Audiencia y chancillería de Valladolid". The courts used to meet nearby Madrid (Alcalá de Henares, Toro, Madrid itself etc.). And Isabella lived many years in Seville, from where the Castilian Armies were lead during the final stages of the "Reconquista" (this one is indeed considered by some historians as kind of the "capital" during her reign).
Well my Iberian history is a bit rusty these days, but if I recall right the decision by Philip II to move his court from Toledo to Madrid was one of those important points in history at the time. Maybe I'm mistaken.
In any case, the important point of the prediction is "not Madrid" rather than Toledo. We'll see on that front.
Well, in former Civs you could switch which city was your capital by simply building a palace in a new one. It would really make a lot of sense that they bit back.
Im sure that different capitals will be used when appropriate for the leader, but most leaders wont have a unique capital. It just wouldnt fit the bulk of history for Rome, America, England, France- and most of the other civs only have one or two other cities to consider, and so if they get 3 or more leaders capitals will end up repeating.
We are likelly to see more capital cities for the likes of the Greeks, Germans, and Chinese though.
I think Philadelphia for George Washington makes a ton of sense. And I agree that they'd want leaders with different capitals (if only so that you can easily have multiple leaders of the same civilizations on the same map). So that increases the odds of Washington being a DLC alternate leader, in my opinion.
If the alternate leaders MUST have an alternate capital, this will lead to some problems. Can you think of a single English leader that did not have London as the capital? But it would still be a good idea to have an alternate English leader.
On the other hand, I think you are right that this seems to be likely. Thus I expect to see
John Adams - America, Boston (he spent most of his term in Boston and the White House was not completed, and he is an excellent candidate for isolationism)
George Washington - America, Philadelphia (the government offices were in Philadelphia until Washington was built, and Washington is a good candidate for the Minuteman as well as a Great People bonus for his cabinet)
Louis XIV - France, Versailles (obvious candidate for a strong French state)
Bismarck - Germany, Berlin (good candidate for a Germany that unites City-states instead of conquering them)
Yongle Emperor - China, Beijing (good candidate for a powerful capital since he built the Forbidden City, and culture from religious tolerance)
Asoka - India, Pataliputra (built religious monuments everywhere and did significant conquest, allowing for a different India from Gandhi)
Ivan the Terrible - Russia, Moscow (great personality, conquest oriented Russia)
Ramesses - Egypt, Pi-Ramesses (monument/wonder-builder)
Tokugawa Ieyasu - Japan, Edo/Tokyo (great personality, isolationism + conquering city-states)
Harun al-Rashid - Arabia, Baghdad (trade bringing in science and culture, possibly using thousand and one nights for pop flavor)
Umar - Arabia, Medina (set the administrative foundations for the Arab world and began the policy of military expansion that neither other ruler was famous for)
but unfortunately we lose the option for other great Roman leaders, English leaders, most French and Chinese leaders, etc.
If the alternate leaders MUST have an alternate capital, this will lead to some problems. Can you think of a single English leader that did not have London as the capital? But it would still be a good idea to have an alternate English leader.
George Washington - America, Philadelphia (the government offices were in Philadelphia until Washington was built, and Washington is a good candidate for the Minuteman as well as a Great People bonus for his cabinet.
Alfred the Great was based in Winchester, called Wintan Ceaster at the time.
Also, Washington deplored the citizen militias. Perhaps the largest political agenda he had as president was maintaining a standing army so the new nation wouldn't be reliant on militias. So Minutemen are actually not a good fit for Washington.
If the alternate leaders MUST have an alternate capital, this will lead to some problems. Can you think of a single English leader that did not have London as the capital? But it would still be a good idea to have an alternate English leader.
On the other hand, I think you are right that this seems to be likely. Thus I expect to see
John Adams - America, Boston (he spent most of his term in Boston and the White House was not completed, and he is an excellent candidate for isolationism)
George Washington - America, Philadelphia (the government offices were in Philadelphia until Washington was built, and Washington is a good candidate for the Minuteman as well as a Great People bonus for his cabinet)
Louis XIV - France, Versailles (obvious candidate for a strong French state)
Bismarck - Germany, Berlin (good candidate for a Germany that unites City-states instead of conquering them)
Yongle Emperor - China, Beijing (good candidate for a powerful capital since he built the Forbidden City, and culture from religious tolerance)
Asoka - India, Pataliputra (built religious monuments everywhere and did significant conquest, allowing for a different India from Gandhi)
Ivan the Terrible - Russia, Moscow (great personality, conquest oriented Russia)
Ramesses - Egypt, Pi-Ramesses (monument/wonder-builder)
Tokugawa Ieyasu - Japan, Edo/Tokyo (great personality, isolationism + conquering city-states)
Harun al-Rashid - Arabia, Baghdad (trade bringing in science and culture, possibly using thousand and one nights for pop flavor)
Umar - Arabia, Medina (set the administrative foundations for the Arab world and began the policy of military expansion that neither other ruler was famous for)
but unfortunately we lose the option for other great Roman leaders, English leaders, most French and Chinese leaders, etc.
This is exactly what makes it seem interesting. The thing is though that I doubt they'll add extra leaders to more than about half of the civs in the game as it stands, and the reason for thinking this through is seeing if it makes sense for them to do it that way. Again, it takes them breaking this pattern once with a DLC leader for this to be falsified, but if we're going on 4-5 second leaders and it's still following this...
As interesting as Ivan the Terrible would be, if they went for a Moscow based leader they'd be going for a Soviet one. The same goes for Beijing and Mao, although with China being a more serious market now that might be a problem.
What is interesting is that for some very strong candidates for extra leaders, particularly in style, this idea of different capitals would actually hold, i.e. Louis XIV, Isabella I, Bismark, Washington, Asoka, any number of Arab rulers. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it all. The real test is Isabella when she's announced though, and of course the next DLC of a second leader we weren't anticipating.
Alfred the Great was based in Winchester, called Wintan Ceaster at the time.
Also, Washington deplored the citizen militias. Perhaps the largest political agenda he had as president was maintaining a standing army so the new nation wouldn't be reliant on militias. So Minutemen are actually not a good fit for Washington.
This is exactly what makes it seem interesting. The thing is though that I doubt they'll add extra leaders to more than about half of the civs in the game as it stands, and the reason for thinking this through is seeing if it makes sense for them to do it that way. Again, it takes them breaking this pattern once with a DLC leader for this to be falsified, but if we're going on 4-5 second leaders and it's still following this...
As interesting as Ivan the Terrible would be, if they went for a Moscow based leader they'd be going for a Soviet one. The same goes for Beijing and Mao, although with China being a more serious market now that might be a problem.
What is interesting is that for some very strong candidates for extra leaders, particularly in style, this idea of different capitals would actually hold, i.e. Louis XIV, Isabella I, Bismark, Washington, Asoka, any number of Arab rulers. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it all. The real test is Isabella when she's announced though, and of course the next DLC of a second leader we weren't anticipating.
I think they've been trying to avoid excessively modern leaders for awhile now, so I doubt we'll see a Soviet or Communist China leader. I also wouldn't care for it, either, but that doesn't mean it won't happen.
Yes, I expect to see Isabella with Toledo or Seville. If she uses Madrid, I don't know what they're going to do. Sparta and Athens can both be in the game, but then what do they do for Madrid/Madrid? Not allow both Spains? Allow them and give one of them the "wrong" capital?
If alternative leaders have to have different capitals, that's huge restrictions. Many countries had the same capital throughout the whole history. For example, if Byzantium will be a separate civ, it's impossible to create another Roman leader with another capital. So I'd say this requirement shouldn't be hard. On the other hand, if different leaders could have the same capital, the option to not allow them appear at random should be on by default.
Washington led the Continental Army. The state militias only served as supplement to army when they actually showed up at all. And their general state of unreliability is what caused Washington to despise them so. If he had to use them, he used them as scouts or irregulars. The Minutemen are very over-mythologized.
Washington led the Continental Army. The state militias only served as supplement to army when they actually showed up at all. And their general state of unreliability is what caused Washington to despise them so. If he had to use them, he used them as scouts or irregulars. The Minutemen are very over-mythologized.
Here's my question:
(In the eyes of Civ6 designers,) is Austria German?
Do they follow the Großdeutschland school of thought or something more contemporary?
Here's my question:
(In the eyes of Civ6 designers,) is Austria German?
Do they follow the Großdeutschland school of thought or something more contemporary?
I believe Austria would be its own Civ. Its the same designers as Civ5 expansions, and Austria was its own Civ with very unique abilities. If it returns, it will likely be its own Civ again.
Yes, I expect to see Isabella with Toledo or Seville. If she uses Madrid, I don't know what they're going to do. Sparta and Athens can both be in the game, but then what do they do for Madrid/Madrid? Not allow both Spains? Allow them and give one of them the "wrong" capital?
Well up to 1705-16, when Philip V force-merged both, there were in the Iberian Peninsula two main independent political entities ruled by the Spanish Monarchs: Crown of Castile and Crown of Aragon.
See it like Sparta and Athens, both had different main language (Aragon: Latin, Catalan and Aragonese; Castile Spanish), different political systems (Aragon: confederation with a medieval parliamentary system in each country, the king had to negotiate with each country; Castile a unitarian and totalitarian monarchy, the King didn't negotiate but imposed), different philosophies (Aragon: pactist and focused on economy; Castile: authoritatian and militaristic), expansionist policies (Aragon created new countries and added them into the confederation in the Mediterranean; Castile created colonies in the New World) etc.
With and after Philip II they were both ruled from Madrid (with little exceptions, like Philip III took it to Valladolid, Philip V to Seville, and during the Napolonic invasion in Cadiz/Seville).
But before the holy emperor Charles V, both crowns had different monarchs, so you can draw Ferdinand II or James I for the Crown of Aragon with capital Barcelona or Valencia and then a Alfonso X or Isabella I for the Crown of Castile with Seville / Burgos / Valladolid as capital.
Or Meiji with Tokyo too. I second Bismarck for Berlin. And others have mentioned Egypt having a few viable options.
I like the idea of different capitals for each leader, though it might be awkward for some. I am looking at you, America! Well, maybe you could do uh Philadelphia for Washington...?
Washington is the only viable one with a different capital. Either Philadelphia or New York would work. Philly is the home of the Continental Congress, but Washington's government was based in New York. Honestly, though, America and England are two that make me skeptical that this rule will be universal. The temptation to include someone like Lincoln seems too strong.
ETA: Just for fun, another suggestion:
Since Saladin has Cairo as the capital, it makes sense to go with someone with Baghdad (meaning Abbasid Caliphate). Harun al-Rashid is logical, but Al-Mansur works too if they want someone new.
Well up to 1705-16, when Philip V force-merged both, there were in the Iberian Peninsula two main independent political entities ruled by the Spanish Monarchs: Crown of Castile and Crown of Aragon.
See it like Sparta and Athens, both had different main language (Aragon: Latin, Catalan and Aragonese; Castile Spanish), different political systems (Aragon: confederation with a medieval parliamentary system in each country, the king had to negotiate with each country; Castile a unitarian and totalitarian monarchy, the King didn't negotiate but imposed), different philosophies (Aragon: pactist and focused on economy; Castile: authoritatian and militaristic), expansionist policies (Aragon created new countries and added them into the confederation in the Mediterranean; Castile created colonies in the New World) etc.
With and after Philip II they were both ruled from Madrid (with little exceptions, like Philip III took it to Valladolid, Philip V to Seville, and during the Napolonic invasion in Cadiz/Seville).
But before the holy emperor Charles V, both crowns had different monarchs, so you can draw Ferdinand II or James I for the Crown of Aragon with capital Barcelona or Valencia and then a Alfonso X or Isabella I for the Crown of Castile with Seville / Burgos / Valladolid as capital.
I know all of that, but my point is, from a programming and rules consistency perspective, what will they do it they DO give Isabella Madrid? I know they have great options for not making it Madrid, but making it change capital if the other Spain is in the game gives you information about who your random opponents are.
Washington is the only viable one with a different capital. Either Philadelphia or New York would work. Philly is the home of the Continental Congress, but Washington's government was based in New York. Honestly, though, America and England are two that make me skeptical that this rule will be universal. The temptation to include someone like Lincoln seems too strong.
The government was in New York at first, but they made Philadelphia the temporary capital until Washington was built. So I agree it could be either, I just think Philadelphia is more likely (unless they want 3 US leaders). And John Adams didn't lead from DC, either. And Benjamin Franklin could still work despite not technically leading, simply because he was so influential. Its like Catherine de Medici.
But yeah, America and England make this VERY difficult to work. Rome as well, though they don't need an extra leader as badly imo.
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.
I am looking at you, America! Well, maybe you could do uh Philadelphia for Washington...?
