Future Update - Speculation Thread

[Kimiimaro]

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.

If we go for big personalities, go for Manuel I Komnenos. While not being as accomplished as Ioannes and Alexios and with the Byzantine Empire entering rather swift period of decline after his death and coming of regency for his son, he was still praised by not just the Byzantine historians, but also historians of many parts of medieval Europe, who aknowledged him to be the most powerful ruler in their time, calling him the most blessed emperor of Constantinople or even a divine emperor, commending his virtues and great energy, especially on the fields of diplomacy. He was also known to inspire great loyalty among his servants. Of course, one should always take that with a pinch of salt, but he definitely must have had a big charisma to inspire such comments on his person both home and abroad.

 

[Jeppetto]

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.

Yeah despite all their favoring there's still hellaton of classics that were in each game or many previous games. Why not try something new for India not counting the later alt leader? Something new for Mongolia? A game without Alexander the Great? Montezuma and Suleiman re-appear at least as names very often, possibly also as specific ones more often than not. They tried something new in Civ V but there's still Mansa Musa leading Mali, as per everyone's expectations. Or Shaka of the Zulu. Cleo also appeared decently. Pachacuti. Etc.

So you can ask why not try something new as much as you can ask why not have these return.

 

[nzcamel]

The only question is Constantine never ruled what is considered the Byzantine Empire because the empire wasn't divided yet. It's a tricky thing, though I know the same thing could be said about Justinian or Theodora, but I think it would work better.

The Roman empire got temporarily divided multiple times throughout history before it became a permanent thing; and it even started while it was still a Republic.

Also this. I see leaders as a really great way of showing the different polities/empires which make up a larger cultural legacy (i.e. the Mauryan Empire vs. modern India, the Angevin Empire vs. the British Empire, etc.). Consequentially, it's also a really great way to demonstrate mechanically how those cultural continuums changed under different regimes. You can absolutely say that Eleanor's France is just as French as CdM's France, even though they prioritize different things.

So, that's yet another reason why I really want Byzantine representation in VI's Rome. If we are getting multiple facets of England, France, India, and Greece, I think Rome is absolutely the most deserving of having its full breadth represented in the game, and I think anything less than a Byzantine alternate leader would to some extent be selling Rome short.

I recognize the tradeoff is that people don't think that Rome's uniques accurately feel like Byzantium, and I somewhat agree (although technically all of Rome's uniques could equally apply to early Byzantium; they just wouldn't be showing off later innovations that make Byzantium feel more "Byzantine"). 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.

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.

100%

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.

Byzantium can be its own thing, sure. Just as England was different somewhat to the UK, and to Wessex etc. If Civ is reaching a point where they can include hundreds of different Civs, then sure, lets represent Civilisations at significantly different points in their history. But if we're not there yet, no, lets have completely different Civs rather than 2 or 3 versions of the same one.

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.

I agree in part; but keep in mind that Victoria was close to only a figure head, not just in the UK, but also for Canada, Australia, NZ, etc. They all achieved independence from the UK gradually; but it's different to suggest that she ever ruled them in the way that we see some other leaders having genuine power over different countries. For most of their existance the colonies had their own parliaments and made their own laws which were signed, not by the monarch, but by their local representative who almost never defied the local parliament and would almost never have consulted the monarch over any of them.

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.

Again, Rome and Byzantium are as different as England and the UK. Or maybe Scotland and the UK seeing as the languages changed from Latin to Greek (though Scots is closer to middle English than modern English is, so... Bygones) We see this represented by Elenor really well actually as she (like all early English/Norman nobility) speaks French not English. I love that they didn't shy away from that in their portrayal of her out of fear it may confuse some people!
And all of Europe gradually went from being versions of pagan to Christian, so that's not unique to Rome/Byzantium either.

Byzantium is one of the better cases you can make of separating them out into their own Civ, but only from a simplistic POV. I'm fine if they do it, but I don't think it is a slam dunk that they should, especially not at the expanse of another Civ when we're going to get 50 odd.

 

[AntSou]

I like dual leaders and I think they add variety to the game. The game has enough space for two or three of those.

More Civs with unique governors would also be nice imo.

 

[AntSou]

Smokeb update.

 

[oSiyeza]

Smokeb update.

wrong thread dude

 

[AntSou]

Oh yeah, forgot there were two now

 

[Zaarin]

Again, Rome and Byzantium are as different as England and the UK.

Try as different as the Britons and the English. The Byzantines may have called themselves Romans, but they were Hellenes through and through. Politically, it's fair to call Byzantines Roman successors (it's also fair to call the Roman Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire Roman successors, in my opinion), but culturally they were a completely different civilization.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

So, is the general consensus that there is definitely some sort of DLC or xpac coming? I would love another xpac but would be quite happy with more civs/leaders too

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Try as different as the Britons and the English. The Byzantines may have called themselves Romans, but they were Hellenes through and through. Politically, it's fair to call Byzantines Roman successors (it's also fair to call the Roman Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire Roman successors, in my opinion), but culturally they were a completely different civilization.

Soooooo kind of like the very French Norman/Plantangenet era of Angevin England versus the more Germanic Hanover dynasty of the Victorian period. Or, to some extent, the Mauryan Empire versus the British Raj (which was also Victorian lol?).

Part of what I find fascinating about this cultural legacy thing VI seems to be angling is that many of the longer-lasting cultural identities actually aren't unified by culture, so much as a mutually agreed heritage. I think it's really cool to have leaders representing that, and I think Byzantium would be one of the best candidates for that illustration. It's also why I would prefer a second Chinese leader from a Mongolian or Manchurian dynasty as opposed to Wu Zetian, and why I really want Olga of Kiev for a Russian alternate leader.

 

[Neirai]

So, is the general consensus that there is definitely some sort of DLC or xpac coming? I would love another xpac but would be quite happy with more civs/leaders too

I believe the consensus is that we're looking at multiple "things" due to the number of depots they're updating on a regular basis. We don't really know what the things are, though.

 

[RohirrimElf]

So, is the general consensus that there is definitely some sort of DLC or xpac coming? I would love another xpac but would be quite happy with more civs/leaders too

Something is brewing. But still terra incognita. Firaxis is silent as a tomb.

 

[Kadu]

Something is brewing. But still terra incognita. Firaxis is silent as a tomb.

Wish they would be silent as Montezuma.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

2K is releasing info on their golf game next Wednesday. If that is in conjunction with the SGF, it could be the day they show off anything else they're doing.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Byzantium is one of the better cases you can make of separating them out into their own Civ, but only from a simplistic POV. I'm fine if they do it, but I don't think it is a slam dunk that they should, especially not at the expanse of another Civ when we're going to get 50 odd.

That's exactly where I am. If around 50 is the max what are the chances between Assyria/Babylon, Maya, Ethiopia, Portugal, Byzantium or the Iroquois returning?
That's not even counting possible never before seen Civs like Vietnam, Italy or another Native American tribe?
In this scenario Byzantium does make more sense making it a part of the "Rome" unless you want to combine Portugal and Spain. But I agree with the others wanting it separate that it wouldn't be ideal either but I could live with it.

 

[RohirrimElf]

2K is releasing info on their golf game next Wednesday. If that is in conjunction with the SGF, it could be the day they show off anything else they're doing.

Lets hope so. Or there would be another 2 weeks of silent treatment on social media. To let the PR department grind all the media attention out of the new golf game. Keeping silent on new civ 6 content.

 

[nzcamel]

(it's also fair to call the Roman Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire Roman successors, in my opinion)

I don't think the latter at all. Sure, in it's later German-centric form it had elements of democracy; but that alone isn't enough to qualify it. Most every country in Europe (and a few other places) have tried to recreate a type of Rome and lay claim to its legacy from Russia to the fascist Axis countries; and I'd rate their claims on a par with the HRE.
The former? If we're talking the Empire...I guess. Without any tolerance for other religious beliefs though, which isn't very Roman!

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Without any tolerance for other religious beliefs though, which isn't very Roman!

Well the Byzantine Empire, from what I can tell was not exactly a beacon for tolerance and the Franks had been a part of Rome for quite a while Before western roman collapse. Roman religious tolerance was also more or less as long as you do what we say which is generally not different from other states, their treatment of jews and such was quite terrible at times.

 

[nzcamel]

Well the Byzantine Empire, from what I can tell was not exactly a beacon for tolerance and the Franks had been a part of Rome for quite a while Before western roman collapse. Roman religious tolerance was also more or less as long as you do what we say which is generally not different from other states, their treatment of jews and such was quite terrible at times.

Okay, so choose the few things where Byzantium wasn't like Rome before the fall of the West; but that doesn't counter the overwhelming majority where they were; especially in their own minds (which may sound too loose, but it's like you telling people in China they aren't Chinese and are this other Civ because they speak a different language & adhere to a different religion to what was dominant in China a millennia earlier... Which would be plain nuts). There was no separation in continuity unlike with any other pretenders for a start. Well, yes Byzantium wasn't a beacon of tolerance - the Orthodox and Catholics were almost as bad as each other on that front. But I would never have compared a religion to a Civilisation myself; even if said religion pretty much did have huge sway over kingdoms and empires.
I don't think the Franks were that much a part of Rome for that long; but yes, like every man and his dog they were keen to carry on the torch.

 

[Inawordyes]

Do you think this is where we’ll finally see Genoa and Isabelle? Between Isabelle being in the list of civ leaders in that office poster pre-release and the Genoa strings in the base game files, for both they obviously had a plan to include them at some point, and whatever work they did have done would still be lying around somewhere, potentially making them “easier” to develop since they’re not starting from complete scratch