A while back someone mentioned Bannerlord coming out and since then I've been playing it. Have I missed anything with DLC for Civ 6? Both this forum and Bannerlord have been good distractions from this pandemic.
I was thinking about the future of Civ6 and its female leaders. We have one in Subsaharan Africa, two in (South)East Asia, one in Central Asia (counting where Tomyris is from, not where her in-game capital is located), three in the Middle East (counting Cleo [and ignoring her ethnicity] and Tamar), and five in Europe. That leaves the New World as the only region where we have no female leaders, which makes Lady Six Sky or Yohl Ik'nal almost certainly the leader for the Maya, who have the best choices for female rulers.
A while back someone mentioned Bannerlord coming out and since then I've been playing it. Have I missed anything with DLC for Civ 6? Both this forum and Bannerlord have been good distractions from this pandemic.
Say if there are 8 civs coming and we know Maya and Portugal are big contenders for a spot. There should be 2 or more female leaders to choose from for these 2 civs. That leaves only 2 out of 6 civs left to be filled with a female. Europe and Asia should Still have multiple options left.
I guess i am more interested in the male leaders. I am missing some of my favorites. Roosevelt, Stalin, Napoleon, Julius Ceasar, Augustus, Mao. Ww2 leaders are scarce. You cant really roleplay a ww2 war with just Wilhelmina and Curtin.
The German peggy rating gives me a small hope for a ww2 scenario. And i hope it is coupled with an earth on all map sizes. (Yes i know there are mods for this). Or a western front map.
Say if there are 8 civs coming and we know Maya and Portugal are big contenders for a spot. There should be 2 or more female leaders to choose from for these 2 civs. That leaves only 2 out of 6 civs left to be filled with a female. Europe and Asia should Still have multiple options left.
I guess i am more interested in the male leaders. I am missing some of my favorites. Roosevelt, Stalin, Napoleon, Julius Ceasar, Augustus, Mao. Ww2 leaders are scarce. You cant really roleplay a ww2 war with just Wilhelmina and Curtin.
The German peggy rating gives me a small hope for a ww2 scenario. And i hope it is coupled with an earth on all map sizes. (Yes i know there are mods for this). Or a western front map.
But there is a whole lot of history that isn't 20th century. The game's probably already more 20th century-centric (?) than Eurocentric (which people don't like).
But there is a whole lot of history that isn't 20th century. The game's probably already more 20th century-centric (?) than Eurocentric (which people don't like).
I am not sure what you are trying to say. My English grammer is not that great. I’ve read so many posts on which people want less focus on Europe. And more on other area’s of the world. But none on civ 6 being to 20th century centric.
personally i like the first 5 era’s of civ 6 the most. But this is just a personal thing. I dont find the AI using aircraft, ranged artillery/drones and nukes enough while as a human i can take advantage of this.
Oh, just that there is already more 20th century representation than any other similar period. Sorry to be confusing, I had a hard time last night and am running on about two hours sleep.
I think we need more 20th century leaders. in the game. Civ VI has a strong tendency to shy away from them because they are more recent and therefore more controversial in the history of their respective nations and surrounding nations.
I have always thought it ridiculous for Civ VI to have no Communist leaders despite the fact it was a contender for global hegemony in the 19th and especially 20th centuries. The reason why there are no Communist leaders is that they are all 20th century and all controversial. But that reason goes for most other 20th century leaders. Whether they be communist, nationalist, non-aligned or whatever. Because they were so heavily involved in recent nation building, and in many cases remain objects of scorn or patriotic state ideology, they cannot be in the game as they are so polarising.
This is why the vast majority of Civ's have ancient or Medieval monarchs. Some may have been very brutal, but they are so historic that they do not stir the emotions in the same way that Ho Chi Minh, Mao, or many others would.
I think we need more 20th century leaders. in the game. Civ VI has a strong tendency to shy away from them because they are more recent and therefore more controversial in the history of their respective nations and surrounding nations.
I have always thought it ridiculous for Civ VI to have no Communist leaders despite the fact it was a contender for global hegemony in the 19th and especially 20th centuries. The reason why there are no Communist leaders is that they are all 20th century and all controversial. But that reason goes for most other 20th century leaders. Whether they be communist, nationalist, non-aligned or whatever. Because they were so heavily involved in recent nation building, and in many cases remain objects of scorn or patriotic state ideology, they cannot be in the game as they are so polarising.
This is why the vast majority of Civ's have ancient or Medieval monarchs. Some may have been very brutal, but they are so historic that they do not stir the emotions in the same way that Ho Chi Minh, Mao, or many others would.
That it is, but when the vast majority of Civ's are ancient / medieval, one cannot help but admit that there is a slight gap. Even if they had one or two more.
Say if there are 8 civs coming and we know Maya and Portugal are big contenders for a spot. There should be 2 or more female leaders to choose from for these 2 civs. That leaves only 2 out of 6 civs left to be filled with a female. Europe and Asia should Still have multiple options left.
I highly doubt we'll see a female leader for Portugal again. "Joanna the Mad" was not a popular choice in Civ5, even if she may have been unfairly maligned by chroniclers of her time. (Also, Firaxis, both Isabella of Castille and her daughter Joanna were strawberry blondes. Can we get their hair color right the next time one of them appears instead of making them eternally brunettes?)
That it is, but when the vast majority of Civ's are ancient / medieval, one cannot help but admit that there is a slight gap. Even if they had one or two more.
I'd argue we already have one or two--or three--too many...Also we have exactly two Ancient rulers, one of whom may or may not have existed (to be clear, I'm talking about Dido, not Gilgamesh). I'd say Ancient era is the most pointed deficiency.
Say if there are 8 civs coming and we know Maya and Portugal are big contenders for a spot. There should be 2 or more female leaders to choose from for these 2 civs. That leaves only 2 out of 6 civs left to be filled with a female. Europe and Asia should Still have multiple options left.
I guess i am more interested in the male leaders. I am missing some of my favorites. Roosevelt, Stalin, Napoleon, Julius Ceasar, Augustus, Mao. Ww2 leaders are scarce. You cant really roleplay a ww2 war with just Wilhelmina and Curtin.
The German peggy rating gives me a small hope for a ww2 scenario. And i hope it is coupled with an earth on all map sizes. (Yes i know there are mods for this). Or a western front map.
Both do seem quite likely, given that they would juxtapose well against existing male leaders (Maya vs. Aztec, Portugal vs. Spain). I think Six Sky is likely. Portugal is a strong contender for a younger leader like Sebastian to add more diversity to the roster, so I'm less certain of a female, although an Isabella just feels like a good fit.
At this point, I think there aren't many strong female cultural icons left that are in the running. I'm looking toward likely candidates being Theodora, Trung Trac, Nur Jahan, Cixi/Wu Zetian. Maybe Margaret of Denmark, Zewditu, Idia (or Sayyida al Hurra?) as longer shots, and perhaps Maria Teresa getting Austria in through sheer cult of personality. Liliuokalani would be neat but there are so many more civs that would be prioritized before a second Polynesian civ. Point being, I think the list is very short, and those are even more limited by which civs would actually add something new mechanically and aesthetically to the game.
I...would not decline a WW2 scenario, but I generally don't miss the staple leaders. I have enjoyed the fresh blood and find it just as exciting as the old guard. I could see us getting Napoleon, maybe Stalin, since so far alt leaders have represented drastically different polities along their cultural continuum. But I think it likely that we won't see all of the favorites return.
I like that idea a lot. While I'm not overly enthusiastic about Portugal, I think an out-of-left-field choice like that could make what otherwise risks being "the other Spain" interesting. (Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not saying Portugal is "the other Spain"; I'm saying from a design standpoint it risks looking an awful lot like Spain as already depicted in Civ6.)
Should russia be a higher priority for firaxis due to its huge land mass on true strart locations. Would this add to the likelyhood of a 2nd Russian leader. Like a 20th century one. I know most of the country is more western orientated in population density. Having played a lot of eu4. There are a lot of 15th century minors i would also get excited about. Novgorod/muskovy. Or close to muskovy. Uzbek/golden horde etc.
Has Simon Bolivar ever been present in a Civilization game, apart from mods? I would like to see him. Only three civilizations on the whole of South America (But America itself is pretty devoid of civs)
Lazy list of era representation, might be a little inaccurate at the edges because this isn't meant to be a history lesson, years are semi-arbitrary chunks for the same reason
Modern (1851-1940): Gandhi, Pedro, Poundmaker, Teddy, Victoria, Wilfrid
Atomic (1941-1970): John Curtin, Wilhelmina*
Information (1971-2020): nobody lol but probably for the best
*(borderline, could be included with the one above it)
The Atomic era lineup isn't great, yeah, but the Ancient lineup is astoundingly barren. Shaka being the only Industrial rep is also kind of funny to me. If such a leader exists, it's probably better to try to pull from Ancient or Industrial than Atomic, mostly because the game has almost always been decided by the Atomic age.
By contrast it's probably best to avoid Classical, Medieval, or Renaissance when the civ allows for it, although admittedly in many cases it doesn't.
I highly doubt we'll see a female leader for Portugal again. "Joanna the Mad" was not a popular choice in Civ5, even if she may have been unfairly maligned by chroniclers of her time. (Also, Firaxis, both Isabella of Castille and her daughter Joanna were strawberry blondes. Can we get their hair color right the next time one of them appears instead of making them eternally brunettes?)
I'd argue we already have one or two--or three--too many...Also we have exactly two Ancient rulers, one of whom may or may not have existed (to be clear, I'm talking about Dido, not Gilgamesh). I'd say Ancient era is the most pointed deficiency.
1. Alexander
2. Amanitore
3. Cleopatra
4. Cyrus
5. Dido
6. Gilgamesh
7. Pericles
8. Qin Shi Huang
9. Tomyris
10. Trajan
Medieval Era leaders (I merge in the Renaissance here due to their similarity)
1. Catherine De Medici
2. Chandragupta
3. Eleanor
4. Frederick Barbarossa
5. Genghis Khan
6. Gitarja
7. Harald Hadrada
8. Hojo Tokimune
9. Jadwiga
10. Jayavarman VII
11. Kristina
12. Kupe (? *legendary / mythical)
13. Lautaro
14. Mansa Musa
15. Matthias Corvinus
16. Montezuma
17. Mvemba a Nzinga
18. Pachacuti
19. Peter the Great (Enlightenment era, but cant really place him among the modern 19th/20th century types).
20. Philip II
21. Robert the Bruce
22. Saladin
23. Seondeok
24. Suleiman
25. Tamar
19th/20th Century (Modern?) leaders (I merge here due to their similarity)
1. Gandhi
2. John Curtin
3. Pedro II
4. Poundmaker
5. Shaka
6. Teddy Roosevelt
7. Victoria
8. Wilfrid Laurier
9. Wilhelmina
As I said, the vast majority of rulers in the game are Ancient / Medieval monarchs. This is for the obvious reason that in a great many cases more modern 19th / 20th century leaders remain extremely controversial within polities that still exist due to their role in modern nation building. They are either objects of scorn, or objects of state mandated political devotion and ideology - a focal point for loyalty.
There is more than enough room for more 19th / 20th century leaders, its just that so many of them cannot be fit in. The days of Civ IV and before when they literally put Chairman Mao in the game are long gone. Pick most potential 19th / 20th century leaders for Civ and they are either Nationalists or Communists who remain very controversial figures among living populations to this day.
I accept that we cant put them in, but the Ancient era is not the most deficient. The modern is by far the most deficient. Although it has only one less than the Ancient, the range of Ancient leaders is fairly well represented in the game. The range of 19th / 20th century leaders in their Nationalist and Communist forms has virtually no representation in the game - for political reasons.
Has Simon Bolivar ever been present in a Civilization game, apart from mods? I would like to see him. Only three civilizations on the whole of South America (But America itself is pretty devoid of civs)
I like that idea a lot. While I'm not overly enthusiastic about Portugal, I think an out-of-left-field choice like that could make what otherwise risks being "the other Spain" interesting. (Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not saying Portugal is "the other Spain"; I'm saying from a design standpoint it risks looking an awful lot like Spain as already depicted in Civ6.)
I think Spain is more a religious warmonger than a colonizer, and it is a very weak civ in general. Said that, I don't think Portugal would be a design overlap with Spain. With England/Victoria, perhaps, but I think they can make Portugal sufficiently distinct from England given that most of England's colonizing abilities are with Victoria, while England itself is an industrialist.
1. Classical
2. Classical
3. Classical
4. Borderline case, but close enough to the usual cutoff I'd call him Classical, especially since the rise of Persia and fall of Babylon is one of the hallmarks of the transition to the Classical era
5. Ancient
6. Ancient
7. Classical
8. Classical
9. See #4
10. Classical
With England/Victoria, perhaps, but I think they can make Portugal sufficiently distinct from England given that most of England's colonizing abilities are with Victoria, while England itself is an industrialist.
We don't currently have a Civ that has a particular focus on exploration, and Portugal makes the most sense for it.
If we do have another 20th century leader make it Eva Peron so it can be a female from the Americas too.
Though I would also take Lenin for Russia along with several more ancient leaders.
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.
