Greek - Hellenic Leader?

[CellKu]

No, that is not the "only plausible explanation". I'm not discounting the idea of an Ancient Greece scenario, of course. But Civ IV had multiple leaders for some civs, and there have been plenty of hints that they were restoring the feature for Civ VI (leader bonuses listed separately from civ bonuses, the Civilopedia entry stating the Rough Rider is a unique unit for America when led by Theodore Roosevelt, and so on). It is perfectly plausible that their intention all along was to eventually introduce multiple leaders for various civs, and Greece just happens to be the civ that's debuting the feature. They don't have to make scenarios to justify it.

You are right, my comment was a little hasty (I should have said "more" not "only"). I don't deny that there are many hints that in Civ6 we will see more than one leader per civ for several or all civs and that they have planned this feature all along. But having only one civ (Greece) with two leaders in the initial base game just to "test" whether that is well received by the community doesn't seem very plausible (see TheMarshmallowBear's comment above) since as you mentioned they have "tested" that already in CivIV. So, it is more plausible that they have created a scenario that comes with the initial game and therefore have introduced the second leader for Greece already.

 

[Fred_Bear]

No, it would be bad idea. It's likely you'll be able to manually set 2 greece civs in the game, with the same or different leaders.

Yeah no, they'd have to set up mechanics like that for every civ to make it viable and balanced. Otherwise you're gunna romp away with an extra bonus

Yes your right, every Civ would have to have the option, so a no go as is. Later on though, when / if all civs have multiple options, perhaps. Could also be tied to civic policies where it has to be a choice.

Just a thought, likely a silly day dream.

 

[Lucius_]

I don't understand why everybody is so upset about that. Wouldn't it be great to have a scenario on Ancient Greece shipped with the vanilla game? Isn't that better than another WWII scenario?

No. I've never played a scenario in the history of all Civs ever, so idc about scenario leaders. I've never really been very vocal on the whole multiple leaders discussion, but my concern is with multiple leaders, we'll end up with less civs. If that ends up not being the case, then yeah bring on more leaders. But if more leaders means 30 total civs by the end of the games lifespan, then no thanks.

 

[MadDjinn]

Scenario leaders are tack on stuff, not base game.

Ie, they would just rename current leaders (see a lot of civ v scenarios) or make basic 2D leaders if they wanted a scenario.

 

[GauntZero]

If it were only scenario leaders, I also dont think that Gorgo would

a.) be on the leaders bingo poster

b.) be the only additional leader appearing (there probably would be others from that scenario too)

So, there might be a greek scenario, but never the less, Gorgo will be a second leader for the greek too.

 

[True_Candyman]

If she was a scenario leader she almost definitely would not be animated too.

 

[Martinus]

A reason why Greece got this treatment and noone else could be that it is the only civ that, in the period that is of interest to players, never had a unified state or government (discounting a brief period of Alexander's conquest).

So unless you actually have Alexander (which many people dislike), having just Pericles or just Gorgo (or Leonidas) would result in a leader who never controlled the whole of Greece.

I suppose the other two civs who would be similar would be (renaissance) Italy and Phoenicia - but neither of them was ever in Civ games.

 

[Siptah]

A reason why Greece got this treatment and noone else could be that it is the only civ that, in the period that is of interest to players, never had a unified state or government (discounting a brief period of Alexander's conquest).

So unless you actually have Alexander (which many people dislike), having just Pericles or just Gorgo (or Leonidas) would result in a leader who never controlled the whole of Greece.

I suppose the other two civs who would be similar would be (renaissance) Italy and Phoenicia - but neither of them was ever in Civ games.

but that wouldn't explain Philip II / Isabella.
I don't think we'll see too many civs with two leaders (unlike cIV), I guess they'll make a few and leave the rest to modders. I want more civs first

 

[Martinus]

but that wouldn't explain Philip II / Isabella.
I don't think we'll see too many civs with two leaders (unlike cIV), I guess they'll make a few and leave the rest to modders. I want more civs first

But as far as we understand, Greece is the only civ that has two leaders in the vanilla. And people asked what would make Greece different from other civs to warrant that treatment - so I responded.

 

[LordProtector]

A reason why Greece got this treatment and noone else could be that it is the only civ that, in the period that is of interest to players, never had a unified state or government (discounting a brief period of Alexander's conquest).

So unless you actually have Alexander (which many people dislike), having just Pericles or just Gorgo (or Leonidas) would result in a leader who never controlled the whole of Greece.

I suppose the other two civs who would be similar would be (renaissance) Italy and Phoenicia - but neither of them was ever in Civ games.

Unless Pericles/Gorgo are leaders of The Greeks rather than Greece, which would be slightly more accurate.

 

[JimmyBanks]

Are you suggesting that they might both be leaders of Greece in the same game at the same time? How would that work?

 

[CellKu]

Scenario leaders are tack on stuff, not base game.

Ie, they would just rename current leaders (see a lot of civ v scenarios) or make basic 2D leaders if they wanted a scenario.

Well, if they want to make Civ6 better than Civ5, they won't want to revert back to mere 2D leaders for scenarios after so much work with the base game leaders? In addition: That way they demonstrate what we can expect in the DLCs to come (good and subtle advertisement strategy). If you look at the potential for DLCs, even the "tack on stuff" must be interesting enough for players to buy it. If leaders are just in 2D, the interest will likely be much smaller. And if they introduce all these leaders into the vanilla game as well, they will give that an additional flair with more leaders to choose from. So they got two birds with one stone.
Moreover, it would be a logical explanation for why they have provided additional leaders for certain civs but not for others. So they won't have to fear being critizised for being politically incorrect (we see this already in other threads with regard to the included civs).
Finally, all the history based arguments - while definitely worthwhile to read - are way to sophisticated IMHO. After all they are supposed to make money with this game (which they should after all the effort they have put into it).

 

[Siptah]

Unless Pericles/Gorgo are leaders of The Greeks rather than Greece, which would be slightly more accurate.

they should do that for all civs. IMHO would make more sense to be leader of the Romans instead of Rome, and being leader of the English instead of England. Being leader of country always refers to a territory and, well, that is something that changes usually a lot during a civ game. If there is a leader of the people, that seems more immersive to me. But this will probably never happen, so far they are only doing it if the civ name would otherwise include empire or kingdom or whatever.

 

[Greek Stud]

I was wondering which Civilization people thought deserve two or more leaders and why? Aren't the Greeks the first culture group to distinguish between Civil society and Brute (Barbarian) society by officially defining the moral standards between the two publically. I'm getting the impression that not many people on here see Greece as a significant Civilization yet the Western European Renaissance flourished due to Greek teachings brought to them from the Greek elites who fleed Constantinopolis from the Ottoman invasion. Which Civilizations should have 2 leaders and why? I'd like to understand the logic behind everyone's disappointment?

 

[Siptah]

I was wondering which Civilization people thought deserve two or more leaders and why? Aren't the Greeks the first culture group to distinguish between Civil society and Brute (Barbarian) society by officially defining the moral standards between the two publically.

I think most ancient cultures did that. I am sure for Egyptians, Babylonians and Hitties.

I'm getting the impression that not many people on here see Greece as a significant Civilization yet the Western European Renaissance flourished due to Greek teachings brought to them from the Greek elites who fleed Constantinopolis from the Ottoman invasion. Which Civilizations should have 2 leaders and why? I'd like to understand the logic behind everyone's disappointment?

I am very aware of the influence of the Greek civilization. I am happy they have two leaders and I'd severely miss them if they were not in the game. Btw: the biggest influence from ancient Greek civilization on renaissance Europe came via the translation movement in the caliphate and how that knowledge came back to Europa over time in numerous ways afaik.

 

[Greek Stud]

I think most ancient cultures did that. I am sure for Egyptians, Babylonians and Hitties.

I do not agree. The Mizraim (Egyptians), the Arphaxad (Babylonians) and the Canaanite (Hittites) did not define Civilization in their teachings. The Greeks discovered and taught this wisdom. Alexander the Great in his conquests made it one of his goal to educate the world about the difference in barbarism and civility.

 

[Greek Stud]

I am very aware of the influence of the Greek civilization. I am happy they have two leaders and I'd severely miss them if they were not in the game. Btw: the biggest influence from ancient Greek civilization on renaissance Europe came via the translation movement in the caliphate and how that knowledge came back to Europa over time in numerous ways afaik.

That is not true! The Muslim world today is funding a reinvention of history saying that the genocides they imposed never happened and that they educated the West to the renaissance when they were illiterate and would force Roman infidels in the east to change their names into Arab or Turkish names to represent them. A majority of their society could not read or write, how can you teach someone to do something you can't even do yourself. Another fabrication is that Mansa Musa was the richest man ever and he was not, King Solomon of the Jews was, this will always be true.

 

[Siptah]

Well, you believe what you believe in and I believe what I believe in. I posted what I think is true, you posted what you think is true. Probably the best to leave it at that and not try to convince anybody.

 

[Greek Stud]

Well, you believe what you believe in and I believe what I believe in. I posted what I think is true, you posted what you think is true. Probably the best to leave it at that and not try to convince anybody.

Sounds good to me, may I add that in Muslim teachings they are taught to destroy the teachings of the infidels that only the Quran is the only book of knowledge the world needs to know.

When the first conquest into Egypt occurred and the Muslims found the Great Library of Alexandria, they made it their mission to destroy all the books in the Library.

They are also taught to make false witness if it leads to converting the infidel to their Allah. You may choose to bind yourself to the thought that Islamic Caliphate taught the west pagan education by listening to their claim that every burning of our scrolls was an accident but I will tell you, their Quran tells them to destroy every bit of knowledge the Eastern Roman Empire had, and that which ever Muslim does so would be guaranteed a place in their heaven.

 

[Siptah]

As I said, best not to try to convince anybody...