Leaders revealed

[Cerilis]

We have to see. Even if Greece unique ability is based on multiple leaders it won't make multiple leaders impossible it just mean that Greece get a very unique mechanic.

Then again, there are also 2 (presumably) spanish ones on the board.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

But would not Isabella I be in the middle in such case? At so close to release they have probably finished the leaders.

 

[Cerilis]

But would not Isabella I be in the middle in such case? At so close to release they have probably finished the leaders.

She could be a DLC (like Jadwiga).

 

[m15a]

I dont think one of them is scenario-only. It wouldnt be in the civilopedia then, would it?

It could be. Not necessarily likely, but there are a lot of unlikely possibilities simply because the Civilopedia is a work in progress and wasn't meant to be shown. Maybe an entry is automatically added to the Civilopedia when a leader is added to the test build, and they wanted to test that scenario leader in the build right now.

Same argument can be made for one of the leaders being DLC or even just something a developer put in there for fun.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Next time I guess the developers may troll the people here by putting a whole bunch of leaders who will not be in the game in the civiliopedia.

 

[Navelgazer]

Hey all!

Production is crazy and it seems pretty clear to me that there are going to be different leaders dropping as DLC and whether they're in a non-finalized draft of the Civilopedia or not has very little to do with anything.

That's my theory, anyway.

 

[Sitalkas]

Jazzed about Hardrada and even Philip II...

Having two leaders for a civ (Greece) that could accurately be split into city-states, when we have no SE Asians, Iran, Ottomans, and a number of other places... that's some nonsense.

Also my eternal hate for Gandhi, but I've accepted the white people who design this game are never going to bother a) getting rid of the nuke joke or b) portraying India as anything other than something out of George Harrison's acid-soaked hippie dreams.

Also not a fan of Gilgamesh/Sumer -- I'd much prefer Ashurbanipal or demon-voiced Nebuchadnezzar. And the Hittites. And Iran, whose omission is absolutely criminal. Cripes, they have two Greek city states, and the civ that made them unite and/or fight against each other isn't even in the game....

http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_civilizations_in_Civ3

List of civilization that were playable on vanilla Civ 3, and on expansions.

What? Arabia, Mongols and Ottomans were not available on vanilla ?

Those damn eurocentric bastards.

Come on people, get serious. The amount of european - non european civs is just decent. Civilizations will be added with every expansion. They cannot include 36 civs on the vanilla version of the game.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

This game, has all the leaders that have appeared in every base game. every, base game. from Civ I.

The TWO extra ones are simply Norway and Brazil.

And that's it.

 

[Metecury]

http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_civilizations_in_Civ3

List of civilization that were playable on vanilla Civ 3, and on expansions.

What? Arabia, Mongols and Ottomans were not available on vanilla ?

Those damn eurocentric bastards.

Come on people, get serious. The amount of european - non european civs is just decent. Civilizations will be added with every expansion. They cannot include 36 civs on the vanilla version of the game.

Stop with your logic, firaxis is obviously eurocentric and racist!


Seriously speaking DLCs will cover the rest of the world in abundance also what is wrong with playing as european civs? Sure, it is nice to have your specific area of the world/country represented but it is not the end of the world if it is not. DLCs and mods will get you what you want. Italy has never been in CIV yet I have been able to enjoy several games in the series regardless.

 

[Xandinho]

This game, has all the leaders that have appeared in every base game. every, base game. from Civ I.

The TWO extra ones are simply Norway and Brazil.

And that's it.

Yes, and Brazil is not Eurocentric (I am in order to discuss about it, if someone disagrees)

Europe has always been always the best represented continent in the game, nothing new. I see no reason for such a complaint.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Yes, and Brazil is not Eurocentric (I am in order to discuss about it, if someone disagrees)

Europe has always been always the best represented continent in the game, nothing new. I see no reason for such a complaint.

You're right, but people often call the Colonial powers euro-centric.

So with that arguement. We only have one brand new Euro civ - Norway.

 

[SMcM]

Well, damn that guy with his fake leaks! I should never have been naive enough to believe that Ottoman leak for a second! And yeah, my outlandish Korea suggestion was wrong too (But at least I had already admitted that one was pretty silly). But no, next time I see a leak here, I will remember this; clearly discussion forums are too infested with trolls.

Harald Hadrada could look cool visually, with the big tough Viking thing going for him. But why can't we finally have Cnut as Viking leader? I know it isn't all about achievement as I am oft reminded, but whilst Harald died unsuccessfully trying to conquer England, beaten by a man who would in turn be beaten by another, with his only other territory being Norway, Cnut not only successfully conquered England, but ruled Denmark, Norway, and significant territory in Sweden, as well as having Wales, Scotland and areas of Ireland as tributary vassal states. Cnut is probably the most powerful Viking in history. But also, in terms of personality, I see no reason why Harald is better than Cnut; the story of Cnut and the waves, for example. The only way I could make sense of this would be if Harald in fact leads Norway, not the Vikings, and so this is meant to be the addition of another new Civ for the sake of variety. Though, even then, I would sort of prefer Haakon IV, but then I suppose he has not got the same viking thing going for him. And despite Harlad's sticky end, he was, to be fair to him, a capable leader.

Edit: off course Harald is leading Norway, stupid me, I was forgetting the alpabetically order on the leader board; Vikings is not a fit.

Also, I think Scandinavia should have been left till DLC anyway; Europe is already fairly well covered.

Having said all that, I am very pleased about Felipe II; I don't have of a problem with Isabella (other than here being in every game), but it is good to finally have someone else.

Gorgo for Greece is, er, interesting to say the least. I've read her Wikipedia page and still can't see a good reason for her being leader of Greece as opposed to just Sparta. Did the Spartans ever rule more than a fraction of the Greek speaking world of the time?

So, Poland under Jadwiga, Isabella of Castille as an alternative leader for Spain, Pericles as an alternative leader for Greece, and Montezuma leading the Aztecs as an initial pre-Oder bonus will likely be the leaders that are not included in the initial 18 that was talked about.

So, no Persians, Ottomans or Mongols? Well, I suppose we can be fairly certain they'll each make a future DLC, but unlikely with the leaders that we would expect. Oh, and perhaps most notably of all, no Tamar of Georgia!

 

[Craig_Sutter]

Monty is from a DLC. It is quite possible that any of the leaders exposed on the board are DLC except for the ones already officially revealed.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Monty is from a DLC. It is quite possible that any of the leaders exposed on the board are DLC except for the ones already officially revealed.

Except the list had every leader except two, Jadwiga and Isabella are the only two civs missing from tonight's livestream.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Well, damn that guy with his fake leaks! I should never have been naive enough to believe that Ottoman leak for a second! And yeah, my outlandish Korea suggestion was wrong too (But at least I had already admitted that one was pretty silly). But no, next time I see a leak here, I will remember this; clearly discussion forums are too infested with trolls.

Harald Hadrada could look cool visually, with the big tough Viking thing going for him. But why can't we finally have Cnut as Viking leader? I know it isn't all about achievement as I am oft reminded, but whilst Harald died unsuccessfully trying to conquer England, beaten by a man who would in turn be beaten by another, with his only other territory being Norway, Cnut not only successfully conquered England, but ruled Denmark, Norway, and significant territory in Sweden, as well as having Wales, Scotland and areas of Ireland as tributary vassal states. Cnut is probably the most powerful Viking in history. But also, in terms of personality, I see no reason why Harald is better than Cnut; the story of Cnut and the waves, for example. The only way I could make sense of this would be if Harald in fact leads Norway, not the Vikings, and so this is meant to be the addition of another new Civ for the sake of variety. Though, even then, I would sort of prefer Haakon IV, but then I suppose he has not got the same viking thing going for him. And despite Harlad's sticky end, he was, to be fair to him, a capable leader.

Also, I think Scandinavia should have been left till DLC anyway; Europe is already fairly well covered.

Having said all that, I am very pleased about Felipe II; I don't have of a problem with Isabella (other than here being in every game), but it is good to finally have someone else.

Gorgo for Greece is, er, interesting to say the least. I've read her Wikipedia page and still can't see a good reason for her being leader of Greece as opposed to just Sparta. Did the Spartans ever rule more than a fraction of the Greek speaking world of the time?

So, Poland under Jadwiga, Isabella of Castille as an alternative leader for Spain, Pericles as an alternative leader for Greece, and Montezuma leading the Aztecs as an initial pre-Oder bonus will likely be the leaders that are not included in the initial 18 that was talked about.

So, no Persians, Ottomans or Mongols? Well, I suppose we can be fairly certain they'll each make a future DLC, but unlikely with the leaders that we would expect. Oh, and perhaps most notably of all, no Tamar of Georgia!

I'm glad to see you are taking it well. The passion of your posts in defense of your conclusions had me worried.

 

[SMcM]

I'm glad to see you are taking it well. The passion of your posts in defense of your conclusions had me worried.

What? Taking it well? What else would I do; cry myself to sleep ?

BTW, if the passion you refer to is overly lengthy posts, that is more accurately having way too much free time to waste away .

Maybe it's an elaborate hoax... all it takes is a few simple changes in the Leader text XML files and voila!

I sincerely hope not; there's already been enough hoaxes!

 

[Craig_Sutter]

Maybe it's an elaborate hoax... all it takes is a few simple changes in the Leader text XML files and voila!

 

[Brutus2]

Monty is from a DLC. It is quite possible that any of the leaders exposed on the board are DLC except for the ones already officially revealed.

I don't think its really fair to classify Monty as DLC. He's in the current list because he is essentially part of the base game and is free (not paid DLC), he just doesn't unlock for 90 days for some people.

 

[Craig_Sutter]

It would take about 2 minutes to create a faux list in civ 5.

 

[Acken]

I want to see the mistake on the video now.