Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by El Castellano, Jul 7, 2016.
I wouldn't say it's just you, but I do think other people appreciate aspects of the leaders that you seem not to (or not to the same extent). Leaders don't just add to the game when you see them on the screen. People construct characters out of the leaders that occur any time they're playing against them, and the effect is strong enough that people talk about the leaders as characters on CFC when they're not playing. I mean, people talk about "Lizzy" when they could just as easily type "England" because the interaction with the civ is personified. And that is due to a number of aspects in addition to the "pretty" graphics: the civ's unique features, their personality traits (like warmonger, etc.), their dialogue, their real-world history, past in-game experiences (which might be random rather than due to the programming).
People are affected by different "immersive" features differently. Some people (me included) consider things like Civ 3's era-specific clothing and Civ 2's advisors to be negatives. Some people think wonder movies are a waste. Maybe, you just happen to be not so affected by the leaders. Doesn't mean that the game stopped trying to be immersive.
That's sort of what the agendas are for. Cleopatra doesn't suck up to you and your strong military because she's the ruler of Egypt; she does it because she's Cleopatra. This effect will only be heightened if they actually do what some of us are suspecting and introduce multiple leaders at some point. Ramesses II or Hatshepsut or Djoser would have other agendas that Cleopatra doesn't have, and so it would make a genuine difference in how you interact with them. How you'd respond to having Greece as your neighbor would be very different depending on whether Alexander or Pericles were the leader. That sort of thing. The agendas seem like they're going to personalize the leaders in a big way, so that which leader is chosen for each civ is not arbitrary at all, but in fact has a real, perceivable effect on gameplay.
not to sound too pedantic, but its Gan'dh'i and not 'Gh'andi. The D at the end of the word is a soft D, kinda the same effect that you get when you suffix h with t (Ex: think). English doesn't have an equivalent letter
I think you're fighting an uphill battle. Seems like most people on here spell it Ghandi despite seeing the name probably hundreds or thousands of times (from Civ if nowhere else). Kinda weird...
Spain has plenty of good candiates for a leader, but honestly none as popular as Isabella.
The character design in Civ V was spot-on, but please, please, for the love of god, change the voice actress.
As a native spanish speaker I can assure you that was a terrible, terrible job.
Just wondering- do the leaders speak their own languages in 6, or English?
(I'll be happy either way!)
Exacly the same as in Civ V (their own language).
Maybe they think he was from Ghana?
In civ3 they went with at least the portrait of this William III, but described him as William the Silent which was very confusing (for a Dutchman that is). I always thought that Maurice, Prince of Orange was the best other male option for William the Silent. Mostly because he's from the same time period during the 80 year war with Spain and was a great military strategist. Nothing wrong with Wilhelmina as a female leader but during her rule the Netherlands didn't have a "golden age", so to say (during her rule there was the decline of the Netherlands as a major colonial power).
But I don't think we'll see the Dutch untill the first (hopefully) or second expansion. Unless they come as a dlc like Spain with CiV did, maybe now bundled with Indonesia .
As a person who doesn't speak a word of Spanish, I can tell she did a terrible job. But the two leaders we've heard speak so far have sounded decidedly superior to most of Civ5's.
Yeah they really seem to have stepped up their leaderscreen game
Strike that and reverse it. Civ5 had Montezuma I, all others had Montezuma II.
Anyway, I don't expect 100% change in leaders. That being said, England caught me by surprise since I thought Elizabeth was a given. I'd still predict Gandhi for India with 90% confidence, so let's see on that one before we guess a complete change. But I wouldn't be surprised if half of them are different. It makes sense to switch things up to avoid staleness when you have voice actors.
In fairness, Civ5 shook things up too, so you can go with Civ4, 3, 2, or 1 choices and still be different from Civ5. For example, Louis XIV, Hammurabi, etc. would all be different from Civ5.
Out of all the leaders from V Monty and Gandhi are the only ones that will make a comeback for sure. The rest is probably going to get the boot.
1. Isabella - can easily be replaced by somebody else like Felipe II or Carlos I.
2. Alexander - not nearly as iconic as Monty or Shaka among the warmongers and he'd have to go if they wanted a less warmongering Greece.
3. Catherine - might make it in since she fits the big personalities category but so do Peter and Ivan. We'll have to wait and see.
4. Genghis - Kublai Khan will probably replace him.
5. Napoleon - Easily loses to Louis XIV in the big personalities department. Louis would just make for a more interesting leader to work with.
6. Bismarck - Will probably be replaced by the personality wise more interesting Frederic II( the Prussian one). Although personally I'm hoping for Barbarossa so we can have a big, gaudy, loud and red bearded medieval emperor leader screen.
7. Augustus Caesar - Probably getting replaced by Julius Caesar.
8. Suleiman - They'll just revert to using Mehmed again.
I personally think Bismark remains an interesting personality. He'll be someone constantly looking for alliances and will want to diplomatically isolate his enemies. He also can try to engineer others into declaring war on him.
It seems to me that they're picking leaders whose real-world leadership styles would make interesting play mechanics. Along those lines, my suggestions for possible leaders are:
Carlos I of Spain - Probably some kind of bonus to capturing/annexing city-states.
Ashoka of India - Probably likes Civs with high faith outputs.
Henri IV of France - Either likes Civs with high happiness or something to do with having multiple religions.
Hadrian of Rome - Prone to building religious improvements and holding off Barbarians.
Mongkut of Siam - (yes, THAT King of Siam. He was a very important figure in the history of Southeast Asia.) Impressed by Civs with high science.
Just a few ideas for leaders. I'd be surprised if there wasn't some overlap with Civ V, though.
I still think the French leader will remain Napoleon. Given the changes to Units as regards creating Corps and Armies, he's prime candidate for some Leader bonuses relating to that.
That's a good point. Plus they're adding a "Napoleonic Era" to the tech tree so it would be weird to not have Napoleon.
Bismark is one of the most brilliant rulers in history, but he doesn't exactly say "personality" to me.
I hope not. Napoleon's rather boring; Louis XIV is the far more interesting leader.
That is unconfirmed; it was only referenced in a single article early on and it wasn't clear what they were referring to.
Oh good. I thought it was a silly name for the time period anyhow. If they want an age between the Renaissance and the Industrial age, maybe Enlightenment. And I agree with you on Louis. Interesting doesn't begin to cover it.
Separate names with a comma.