Ching Shih's pirates would be an interesting addition, either as a civ,
just her as a new leader, or as a scenario for SEA. The latter two are
far more likely given that her and her nogoodniks aren't a civilization
as such.
OTOH, nor is Australia, so who knows.
One could very liberally count India as Southeast Asian. It's really not, but most of Southeast Asia other than Vietnam is heavily influenced by India and many, many players would welcome an alternate leader for India.
If the DLC06 has a second leader, I think it will probably be for Indonesia. I think they will save alternate leaders for existing civs for the first expansion. And judging by fan popularity, Egypt, India, France, and Spain would be among the first to receive them.
2kqa_a is now testing Civ GH and DLC06. That's two qa build updates for this week, following the pattern laid out by DLC05. Things look good for the end of October.
If the DLC06 has a second leader, I think it will probably be for Indonesia. I think they will save alternate leaders for existing civs for the first expansion. And judging by fan popularity, Egypt, India, France, and Spain would be among the first to receive them.
That's a fair call. I can picture plenty of good alternate leaders for each of those civs without too much effort. Back before the Australia DLC many of us (myself included) were pretty sure Isabella was a certainty for that particular DLC.
I could see an alternate leader for India that represents the Chola counting as South East Asian, after all, their sphere of influence included Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula. Plus, they would be a good fit for a scenario.
Having worked on QA (developer testing) before I wonder how 2K/Firaxis are testing Civ VI. I've heard they use a group of beta users/gamers, so I mean besides them. Systems or frameworks?
I didn't actually get to play Civ V very much when it first launched. It wasn't until 2012 that I had time to really play but I don't remember it being this buggy/flawed a year after release.
Having worked on QA (developer testing) before I wonder how 2K/Firaxis are testing Civ VI. I've heard they use a group of beta users/gamers, so I mean besides them. Systems or frameworks?
I didn't actually get to play Civ V very much when it first launched. It wasn't until 2012 that I had time to really play but I don't remember it being this buggy/flawed a year after release.
The beta testers are called the Frankenstein Group and many high-profile members of the fan community are in it. You can read their names in the credits. It doesn't appear that Firaxis uses them on DLC like this. The QA testing seems to be done both in-house, and through the parent company, 2K Games.
Civ V did get a lot better after several patches, but wasn't great until the first expansion, in my opinion. The worst of the current bugs in Civ VI have been recently introduced by the last two patches, and can hopefully be rectified.
The Chola (Tamils) may loathe to be representative of India.
FYI they ruled for about a millenia (so hardly a flash in the pan) and the Tamil-Sinhala conflict in Sri Lanka has raged for more than 2000 yrs most recently in a 30 yr war for a Tamil homeland, when the Tamil Tigers (who use the Chola symbol) assassinated India's Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi (no relative of nuke mad megalomaniac we all love).
India is a modern civ like Australia or America. Prior to the British there was no (single) country called India
The Chola (Tamils) may loathe to be representative of India.
FYI they ruled for about a millenia (so hardly a flash in the pan) and the Tamil-Sinhala conflict in Sri Lanka has raged for more than 2000 yrs most recently in a 30 yr war for a Tamil homeland, when the Tamil Tigers (who use the Chola symbol) assassinated India's Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi (no relative of nuke mad megalomaniac we all love).
India is a modern civ like Australia or America. Prior to the British there was no (single) country called India
True, although it remains to be seen how flexible Firaxis are in terms of assigning alternate leaders. And the India civ takes its uniques from ancient India, not modern. I would probably prefer an independent Chola civ for more flavor but I wouldn't get mad if we just got a Chola leader.
A Chola ruler, like Raja Raja Chola, as an alternate leader for India? I wouldn't mind, due to their influence in Southeast Asia. I would make sense to add a Chola leader if they are in the SE Asian DLC scenario.
A Chola leader would be very interesting but I'm thinking they're going to stay in SE Asia and give us another civilization,
They'll probably hold alternate leaders for the expansion, as for India I would like to see more Ashoka and Chandragupta before a Tamil king.
I think people strongly overestimate how much Firaxis is interested in doing alternate leaders at all.
When they did the Gorgo livestream way back when, they outright stated that they were including a second leader for Greece because they knew alternate leader mods were popular in previous games, and that Civ 6 was being designed to make mods like that more convenient. But they also said that this was something they were planning to leave mostly to the mod community to play around with, and that their own priority would continue to be creating entirely new civs.
Which makes sense. Art assets, especially animated art assets, are always the most expensive and time-consuming part of creating a video game. Which means that the most expensive and time-consuming part of creating a new civ is created the leader model and animating it. Voice acting is also expensive. The much less expensive part of the process is designing and balancing new abilities. Alternate leaders come with only 1 new ability, while brand new civs come with 4. So if Firaxis is going to commit the immense amount of time and money necessary to create a new leader, then they might as well also throw in the comparatively tiny amount of additional investment it would take to just create a whole new civilization instead.
But despite that, every time there's a new DLC, somebody thinks that this will be the one to have an alternate leader for an existing civ. And now people are starting to get their hopes up for the expansion sets. But I feel like that's just setting yourself up for disappointment again. I would expect the expansions to be much like the base game, where if they do have any alternate leaders at all, they will probably only have 1 each.
Not to mention that much of the DLC so far (*cough* Poland *cough* Australia *cough*) is obviously targeted at a specific market. Add in a new civ and people in that country are likely to buy the DLC. A new leader for an existing civ has infinitely less market-broadening appeal
Actually, it seems a lot more likely that the next DLC will be the one to have an alternate leader rather than two distinct civs.
We've talked about the vague phrasing of the announcement before, but c'mon, we all know if they were going to do three new civs they would have explicitly said that, none of this vague wordplay to keep it mysterious. At the time when they made the announcement (when they were trying to appease dissatisfied deluxe edition customers) they would have opted for the wording that created the best impression of getting more for less. So, if they could have said "three new civilisations are coming" as opposed to "two new civilizations along with an alt leader", they would have. It just makes for a better marketing spiel. As a compromise we got "three new leaders are coming" since that keeps the chance of three civs alive in our minds, whilst granting Firaxis the ability to simply point out that we simply got our hopes up in vain.
I do agree with you that those who think it will be a new leader for an existing civ will be disappointed though; one, that would require Firaxis to twist their own words in regards to the statement that the new content would be for Africa and SEA-related civs, and two, it just strikes me as a little odd to suddenly introduce a new leader for an old civ when so far their DLC's have focused on new content only.
Not to mention that much of the DLC so far (*cough* Poland *cough* Australia *cough*) is obviously targeted at a specific market. Add in a new civ and people in that country are likely to buy the DLC. A new leader for an existing civ has infinitely less market-broadening appeal
I don't think that marketing to specific game markets is a good move on Firaxis's part. I almost never play as America, and when I bought Civ6 (my first Civ game) I didn't rifle through the leader list and say "Ooo! America!"
And that diminishes DLC interest for the rest of us
I don't think that marketing to specific game markets is a good move on Firaxis's part. I almost never play as America, and when I bought Civ6 (my first Civ game) I didn't rifle through the leader list and say "Ooo! America!"
America has always been in the roster of civilizations since the first game. It's there not because it wants to cater to the American market but because of its historical influence as a superpower. So making the same assumption about, say, Brazil, as with America when it comes to trying to sell content doesn't really make sense either in the marketing or in the historical perspective.
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.
