Leaders revealed

[Haig]

I think the rage over euro civs goes to immature levels in some people, I think Firaxis has been pretty good lately (no more Vikings! or Native Americans! as civs).

They respected the Pueblo elders when they didn't want their civ into the game.

They have given us plenty new leaders even for old civs and listen to fan requests, for example Teddy's weight loss and Victoria losing her "butt chin".

Dont get to gamergate rage over a tiny thing in life, a computer game.

 

[Lord Lakely]

all of the modern era looks in civ 3 were so ridiculous. Anarchist Joan <3 Hippie Xerxes <3 Muslim Hipster Cleo <3

 

[Boom Shakazulu]

I'm really happy the Vikings got included. They were my first pick back in Civ II and the question of who would win a fight? Vikings or Romans? Was actually what drew me in as a little boy

However, I can't believe we get even one native american civ. Poland or two Greeces over the Sioux is really weird. A south american native civ should also be included as well as a South east asian one.

I really wish we had more diversity in civs, it makes the game more fun. Even as a european I'd rather play with interesting civs from other parts of the world that I do not know that well together with the classical euro civs.

 

[Uberfrog]

Wow! Did not expect that. It's so satisfying to finally have all the leaders on the portrait board up. Dual leaders have never been a priority of mine, but a ton of people round here like them, so that's fine - I'm looking forward to Isabella being a potential DLC for Spain.

I'm glad the Vikings are in, but it's a bit of a shame that this seems to mean no Native American, Inca, Southeast Asian, Persia, or Ottomans in the base game. Still, I am absolutely certain we will see all of these in future DLC/expansions, so it's just a waiting game .

Geographical diversity may be lacking, for the moment, but more important is gameplay and personality diversity, which so far seems better than ever.

 

[cakes]

I think the rage over euro civs goes to immature levels in some people, I think Firaxis has been pretty good lately (no more Vikings! or Native Americans! as civs).

They respected the Pueblo elders when they didn't want their civ into the game.

They have given us plenty new leaders even for old civs and listen to fan requests, for example Teddy's weight loss and Victoria losing her "butt chin".

Dont get to gamergate rage over a tiny thing in life, a computer game.

i agree. i think it's appropriate that civ are sticking to the 'spirit of the law' rather than the letters when it comes to eurocentrism. sprinkling in a few big foreign names from history and stirring the pot doesn't do a whole lot to challenge the larger cultural hegemony of which eurocentrism is a part, especially if in the end the message is white acceptance. including figures like catherine de medici and gorgo as leaders do precisely because they didn't 'technically' 'lead' whoever they represent but is more nuanced and coloured by context rather than approval of history books. this game is more than just reaffirming what we already (think we) know. it's about lateral thinking as well as logical. it's about the role of plausibility and letting the american industrial era pyramids justify themselves on their own terms

that being said the science and culture tree is still based on the european model lol but what can they do

 

[Mustakrakish]

This is NOT the final build, don't be idiots and expect that to be the final games leaders and get all stupid over it when half is just placeholders or whatever and get dropped.

Right. Are you going to come here and apologize to everyone later? Because certainly it's not we who are idiots and get all stupid You see, those certainly are the final leaders and certainly will not get dropped (minus someone possibly being DLC).

Ummm... the game is still in production.

And? That is the primary reason I'm pointing it out. If they ARE still working on those animations (and I sure hope so, but kinda doubt it), good, hope they fix it. Game in production... those magical words that for some people, somehow mean and are used to shut any and all discussion / critique / worries about the game When in fact that IS the biggest reason for those. If it was already released there wouldn't be much point in... well pointing out "crying" / hoping they fix [insert].

Seriously...

- I'm worried about / dislike [insert].
- Game is still in production.

- I wish they would / wouldn't [insert].
- Game is still in production.

Let's just all pack our things, go home and seize any and all discussion about the game.

I can't be the only one who would take "lesser" graphics so that every leader changed outfits depending on the era.

No, you certainly are not. I'd take static leaders if it meant appropriate era depending looks.

But you see, I'm some sort of a perfectionist (or an arse). If you chosen a direction, I expect you to follow through and do it properly. Clipping on models that have fixed limited number of movements is unacceptable. And if it remains I can't take seriously their talks about how "their artist did this and did that of a good job".

 

[Captain Fargle]

Someone compared France to Persia, Mongolia and Inca.

I can give you Persia - but the other two comparisons are simply laughable. Mongols were a bunch of steppe raiders who were good at conquest, but within two generations or so got completely assimilated by the much more advanced people they conquered. They produced no lasting advancements, and Mongolia today is a rather third rate country.

Likewise, Incas - they produced an "empire" that lasted for less than 100 years, with no trace of it being left today. They were an interesting political entity, but compared to contemporary Europeans or Asians they were hopelessly behind both in terms of technology and political thought.

Meanwhile, France has existed as a political entity for nearly a thousand of years (or longer if you count Charlemagne). Not only at one point it controlled a world-spanning empire, but it has produced countless artists, philosphers, scientists and thinkers who influenced and still influence the entire world.

Only someone extremely ignorant could think these are even remotely comparable.

The Incans built a massive empire across some of the most difficult land in the world. They did without wheels, without horses. An empire stretching the entire length of the Andes with no communication faster than a jogger running a marathon.

The fact that they accomplished so much despite their lack of technological sophistication speaks only to their credit, not to their detriment.

And the Mongols? Genghis Khan killed and conquered so many people that it caused a miniature ice age.

 

[Talvi]

I've got mixed feelings about it.

I love North European countries. I'm happy that we'll get Norway. But damn, that's surprising. I wish they'll be more like "Viking-style" civ then modern, but with more interesting gameplay then was Denmark in Civ V.

I'm not the bigest fan of Greece having two leaders in Vanilla, even if it is indeed Athens and Sparta as separate nations. But i'm curious how it will plays out.

Again, Poland. I'm happy that it will be in the game. Maybe as DLC, but there is no doubt that Jadwiga was there at the portrait list. It's bittersweet becouse it looks like Poland will be the only civ from the list being a DLC only. I wouldn't mind if there would be 2,3 or 4 DLC civs as we previously thought. But the only one from the list that didn't made into the vanilla... this sucks. The only thing that cheers me up is the fact that maybe there will be a bonus scenario with Poland aswell, as the DLC part, as we did in civ 5 with Korea or Denmark.

Overall i'm pretty exited. I was never a fan of Persia or Ottomans so i'm not disappointed with them being out. And i'm looking forward expansion to see some more Native Americans and Asians. And others too, i'm not being picky.

 

[Nixalo]

I think the rage over euro civs goes to immature levels in some people, I think Firaxis has been pretty good lately (no more Vikings! or Native Americans! as civs).

They respected the Pueblo elders when they didn't want their civ into the game.

They have given us plenty new leaders even for old civs and listen to fan requests, for example Teddy's weight loss and Victoria losing her "butt chin".

Dont get to gamergate rage over a tiny thing in life, a computer game.

I'm upset about the large amount of euro civs for mechanical reasons.

From the list of civs displayed, I don't see the type of unique civilization foci I'd see from some non-euro civs.

I'm gonna have to wait for terrace farms, steles, forest adjacency bonus, impi, surprise emus, and flammable hockey pucks.

The world isn't the same without the fear of Shaka.

 

[historix69]

Is there a statement by Firaxis that the shown list is final?

It is still 2 month until release so they can still take all of the not-officially-anounced leaders and replace them with others. 2 greek leaders might be a hint that they are still deciding which one to take for the base game. They probably also have a 2nd group of leaders prepared which will not appear in the base game but as DLC or AddOn.

 

[Magil]

Is there a statement by Firaxis that the shown list is final?

No, and since it's likely an unintentional leak, don't expect one. They haven't even released the livestream footage as a video yet.

I think anyone expecting them to change leaders at this stage in the game is rather optimistic though. We're probably in UI-polishing/balance/bug-fixing phase now.

 

[Thorburne]

Is there a statement by Firaxis that the shown list is final?

It is still 2 month until release so they can still take all of the not-officially-anounced leaders and replace them with others. 2 greek leaders might be a hint that they are still deciding which one to take for the base game. They probably also have a 2nd group of leaders prepared which will not appear in the base game but as DLC or AddOn.

I doubt it... They would have to come up with additional civs/leaders, work or their abilities and uniques, create the assets, implement them, then balance it out. Really, their is barely more than a month left before the gold disc gets burned (they still have to get the game to retailers).

Not gonna happen! What is there is final.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[stealth_nsk]

The list of leaders should be complete by the time - otherwise, their balancing would be a piece of hell. So, let's just stick with it and speculate about theabilities of those not presented and which civs/leaders we'll get in DLC

 

[Miravlix]

Right. Are you going to come here and apologize to everyone later? Because certainly it's not we who are idiots and get all stupid You see, those certainly are the final leaders and certainly will not get dropped (minus someone possibly being DLC).

I don't see what I have to apologies for at all. I only say it's stupid if people get all emo if this list doesn't end up being the "leaders".

Please explain, preferable with pictures how there is anything wrong with warning people to not expect this list to be even remotely correct?

I don't think I've seen a single video where we aren't warned against taking what we see as the release build details and still you INSIST on taking it as 100% guaranteed fact. Do Firaxis have to apologise for warning too?

 

[Thorburne]

I don't see what I have to apologies for at all. I only say it's stupid if people get all emo if this list doesn't end up being the "leaders".

Please explain, preferable with pictures how there is anything wrong with warning people to not expect this list to be even remotely correct?

I don't think I've seen a single video where we aren't warned against taking what we see as the release build details and still you INSIST on taking it as 100% guaranteed fact. Do Firaxis have to apologise for warning too?

The warning was against numbers and starts as that is getting balanced out. It is fairly safe to say that all assets are in place at this point. Right now is balance and debugging. The game goes gold in little more than a month.

Sent from my LG-H345 using Tapatalk

 

[historix69]

The list of leaders should be complete by the time - otherwise, their balancing would be a piece of hell. So, let's just stick with it and speculate about theabilities of those not presented and which civs/leaders we'll get in DLC

I think they first balance the core game and then they balance the leaders individually. Maybe they automatically test all leaders against all other leaders on different maps. If it is an automated test running autoplay games on 20 PCs in parallel, it is not much effort and you should have results within hours or a day (for one leader), depending on the number of maps to test. However I suppose they skip testing leaders in autoplay and more likely make a few games on small maps quick speed to see if the leaders are fun and manually adjust them.

I suppose they did maybe 25-30 leaders and have 18-20 in the base game, some in coming DLCs and some less funny leaders for future use.

 

[Captain Fargle]

So then. Given the list and assuming that we get nine civs per expansion like in 5 who ought to be in the first expansion? I'm going with:

1: The Ottomans
2: Persia
3: The Inca
4: The Cherokee
5: Mali
6: Ethiopia
7: Mongolia
8: Vietnam
9: Portugal (Given that we've got Brazil AND Kongo under Alfonso I we really do need Portugal to be added. Replace their City State bonus to Venice or something.)

 

[Cerilis]

So then. Given the list and assuming that we get nine civs per expansion like in 5 who ought to be in the first expansion? I'm going with:

1: The Ottomans
2: Persia
3: The Inca
4: The Cherokee
5: Mali
6: Ethiopia
7: Mongolia
8: Vietnam
9: Portugal (Given that we've got Brazil AND Kongo under Alfonso I we really do need Portugal to be added. Replace their City State bonus to Venice or something.)

That's a solid list, just Korea is missing.

 

[Homusubi]

So then. Given the list and assuming that we get nine civs per expansion like in 5 who ought to be in the first expansion? I'm going with:

1: The Ottomans
2: Persia
3: The Inca
4: The Cherokee
5: Mali
6: Ethiopia
7: Mongolia
8: Vietnam
9: Portugal (Given that we've got Brazil AND Kongo under Alfonso I we really do need Portugal to be added. Replace their City State bonus to Venice or something.)

Since Firaxis said they wanted to have balanced representation after all DLCs were released, the first one is likely to be New World-heavy: three out of eighteen/nineteen in vanilla isn't a very good start. I'm going with

1: Inca
2: Maya
3: Iroquois/Shoshone/Shawnee/some other N American native
4: Inuit (wishful thinking, I know!)

and then a couple in Africa

5: Zulu
6: Ethiopia (seems to be the go-to choice when Firaxis panics about not having enough African civs; Mali is too close to Civ 5's surprise Songhai)

and maybe two more in Asia

7: Mongolia
8: something from South East Asia (Indonesia, or Siam/Khmer? Indochina is, and has always been, almost fragmented enough to make Sukritact the leader as a compromise)

and the only real glaring omission closer to Europe

9: Persia

 

[Gabriel Sergio]

Some of them might be DLC leaders.

First of all, put aside Montezuma, second we get a 19 leaders. If Greek is become a one civ, then we get 18 Civ. But, if The Greek is seperate, become Spartan and Athens, then we get A 1 bonus DLC, either it Will be Pericles or Gorgo.