Future Update - Speculation Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
And to that I say, fine, let's make an exception for Rome, because it deserves it. Make a Roman alternate leader that replaces the Roman uniques with Byzantine uniques. Just still call it "Rome" so the game maintains its interesting, heritage-oriented perspective on civilization rather than rotely listing off empires from a textbook. I don't think Byzantium fans care if it is called "Byzantium" or "Rome" as long as the civ feels like Byzantium.

This is so much more convoluted than just giving the Byzantines their own civ. I can't even imagine how it would be implemented and not confuse players. "Here's this alternate leader for Rome! Except the unit, district, city names, and icon are all different because of...reasons." :confused:

The fact is the classical Rome focus of the Rome civ immediately jumps out as anachronistic and out of place to players when mixed with a Byzantine leader. If a separate civ bothers anyone that much it's simple to edit the text to say Rome instead of Byzantium.
 
Last edited:
Emperor Norton leads San Francisco in Sid Meier's Civilization VI!

I wonder if they might consider releasing alt leaders alongside civs in smaller DLC packs. Like, for instance, Portugal plus Theodora as a Roman alternate leader. Just a thought; I think how they divvy things up would depend on what they had already developed.
If they added Theodora I would throw my purse at the screen quicker than Tamar is to denounce you.
 
Basically, this. It's not the same as Eleanor, who distinctly ruled different polities of England and France at different points in time. Rome and Byzantium were the same thing under Constantine, and so to create two separate civs just to satisfy historical pedantry would be creating an artificial distinction with no mechanical, aesthetic, or academic benefit.

This is so much more convoluted than just giving the Byzantines their own civ. I can't even imagine how it would be implemented and not confuse players. "Here's this alternate leader for Rome! Except the unit, district, city names, and icon are all different because of...reasons." :confused:

The fact is the classical Rome focus of the Rome civ immediately jumps out as anachronistic and out of place to players when mixed with a Byzantine leader. If a separate civ bothers anyone that much it's simple to edit the text to say Rome instead of Byzantium.
Would Justinian leading both Rome and Byzantium from Constantinople sound better? This is my preference, and it would make him unique. Having the capital tied exclusively to the leader, not a particular Civ.
His "Renovatio Imperii" or "Restoration of the Empire" included bringing the western part back into the fold, including Rome. It could be a great leader ability along with the infrastructure and building projects he did.
 
Personally I hope for once Byzantium doesn't get stuck with Justinian or Theodora. It's high time Byzantium is given a Medieval leader (Alexios I Komnenos gets my vote), which has the added advantage of making it maximally distinct from Rome. Toss in Anna Komnene as a unique governor to make Byzantium square off against the Ottomans nicely.
 
Personally I hope for once Byzantium doesn't get stuck with Justinian or Theodora. It's high time Byzantium is given a Medieval leader (Alexios I Komnenos gets my vote), which has the added advantage of making it maximally distinct from Rome. Toss in Anna Komnene as a unique governor to make Byzantium square off against the Ottomans nicely.
Add Alexander Nevsky for the Russians and Alexander Hamilton for the USA and we can have a four-way Alexiad!

I'm only half joking.
 
Personally I hope for once Byzantium doesn't get stuck with Justinian or Theodora. It's high time Byzantium is given a Medieval leader (Alexios I Komnenos gets my vote), which has the added advantage of making it maximally distinct from Rome. Toss in Anna Komnene as a unique governor to make Byzantium square off against the Ottomans nicely.

I would also like to see Alexios Komnenos for Byzantium.
 
Personally I hope for once Byzantium doesn't get stuck with Justinian or Theodora. It's high time Byzantium is given a Medieval leader
Well technically they would be a Medieval leader. :p At least I would put them at the Early Middle Ages instead of Late Antiquity.
But I can understand wanting a different leader for them. If it wasn't them, and the interesting idea I had, I would go for Basil II with his Varangian Guard.
 
Having a medieval leader for Byzantium would make an extra alt for both Rome and Byzantium even sweeter. Constantine still makes the most sense to me.

In any case, I still think it's more likely we'll see Justinian and Theodora as Governor or alt leader than either Alexios or Constantine.

And as far as double leaders go, I'm still hoping for Kublai Khan leading both Mongolia and China.
 
Would Justinian leading both Rome and Byzantium from Constantinople sound better? This is my preference, and it would make him unique. Having the capital tied exclusively to the leader, not a particular Civ.
His "Renovatio Imperii" or "Restoration of the Empire" included bringing the western part back into the fold, including Rome. It could be a great leader ability along with the infrastructure and building projects he did.

I just don't understand the fervent desire to tie the two together. It's not interesting to me. Let Byzantium be its own thing. And I don't care for leaders having two civilizations. It's just gimmicky to me.
 
I just don't understand the fervent desire to tie the two together. It's not interesting to me. Let Byzantium be its own thing. And I don't care for leaders having two civilizations. It's just gimmicky to me.

Yes. Eleanor makes for an interesting proof of concept, but I'd rather her dual-leadership remain a quirky one-off rather than common situation.
 
Is there some reason they couldn't do Justinian/Theodora for a Byzantium civ, while doing a separate DLC releasing Constantine for *both* Rome and Byzantium?
 
Is there some reason they couldn't do Justinian/Theodora for a Byzantium civ, while doing a separate DLC releasing Constantine for *both* Rome and Byzantium?
Technicality no - but it seems unlikely to me that they would add an alternate leader for a new Civ introduced so late in the game's life cycle, as opposed to adding one for a Civ like Egypt or China. It also seems unlikely that they will impeded on Elanor's uniqueness for leading two Civs. If they include Byzantium (which I am leaning towards "yes"), I don't expect them to double down on them.
 
Personally I hope for once Byzantium doesn't get stuck with Justinian or Theodora. It's high time Byzantium is given a Medieval leader (Alexios I Komnenos gets my vote), which has the added advantage of making it maximally distinct from Rome. Toss in Anna Komnene as a unique governor to make Byzantium square off against the Ottomans nicely.
Trust me, you're not alone. I have expressed my wishes for someone else than Justinian or Theodora coming for the fourth time in a row when the Byzantine Empire had about thousand years of history (though understandably, there are some periods to be skipped. Like the absolutely stupid Angeloi, all of them :p). Alexios, Ioannes or Manuel Komnenos, Basil II Bulgaroktonos, Michael VIII Palaiologos, Herakleios, all nice choices to pick from.
 
I'd second that Eleanor is a special case, in that she was a leader of France and England at separate times, and as separate nations.

A leader who lead an empire ruling over multiple 'countries' is a different model. I don't think Victoria should also be able to lead Australia, Canada, and Scotland just because they were in the British Empire at that time, that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Granted Constantine is neither of the above, in that he more less ruled one empire that has different 'names' considering how you look at it historically.
 
Well Byzantium separated from Rome is only really having sense ... Rome in Civ game is this ancient - pagan civ with Rome as Capital. Byzantium is totally different christian civilization in different time period and different position on map. Just because they called themself Roman does not mean they were -- in classical sense of being Roman.

But if you ask me there is also case of Germany in game where they melted Holy Roman Empire and Germany ... even thought I would rather have Prussia-centric german Civ. I mean there is no really too much sense of Barbarossa leading German Empire, but they have still done it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Xur
When it comes to Byzantium, Justinian and Theodora seem to always be the choices. And I understand completely why! But for a game that focused on leaders with big personalities over potentially better-known and -relevant rulers, and in a vast majority of cases favoring completely new leaders that were never-before seen in Civ, why would they go back to the same-old when both have been leaders in the past? Someone like Alexios I Kommenos or Basil II. Something new and fresh while not just being a “who?” pick either.

I realize I’m not alone in that haha, judging by the above posts, but still.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom