Missed Potential for Alternative Leaders

[Caesar Augustus 27 BC]

I feel like the alternative leaders mechanic has been underused. As of Gathering Storm we'll have only 3 alternative leaders for 42 civilisations, surely we could have some more? I've been thinking of alternative leaders I'd like to see and abilities they could have. These 2 are for Rome just because Roman history is an area I'm very knowledgeable on, and Trajan isn't a favourite Emperor of mine.

I'd like to see Augustus and/or Constantine in Civ VI, I think both could really change the way you play Rome as well as represent 2 of the really great Roman Emperors. The abilities I'd like to see for each are as follows, and I'll explain the history and idea for them.



Augustus

Leader Ability: Pax Romana

- After successfully winning a war or winning an emergency, your cities get +100% production for 10 turns.

Idea: I had initially thought of a "City of Marble" ability giving you construction bonuses to early wonders and districts, but really it would supersede Trajan's ability being a construction ability, so I thought of this. The idea being Augustus brought in the Pax Romana, an enforced peace, and that you should be rewarded with the fruits of creating an enforced peace. This would encourage you to really get involved in wars and diplomacy, enforcing peace either with conquest or neutralising threatening foreign powers. I think it would be good as Rome while being very militaristic historically doesn't have any domination bonuses beyond the legion.

Constantine

Leader Ability: In This Sign You Will Conquer

- Conquering a city immediately converts it to your religion. +100% religious pressure from any conquered city.

Idea: Constantine is known for being the first Christian Emperor and winning civil wars to end the tetrarchy and take power as the sole Emperor. With this in mind, a conquest/religious ability makes the most sense for him. I think this would be really good to give Rome, and allow you to play them totally differently from Trajan going for a religious victory.



I think both of these would encourage you to play Rome differently, especially Constantine. Does anyone else think like me and think that more alternative leaders would be a great idea?

 

[Phoenix1595]

I agree that there are some awesome avenues to take that mechanic, but I also see why they did not go overboard with alt leaders, too. I think the main point of alt leaders is to highlight certain multi-faceted civs and the different playstyles they present (i.e. Sparta’s martial focus v. Athen’s cultural one, Gandhi’s pacifism v. Chandra’s expansionism).

There are certainly a few current civs that could also use that treatment (Rome being one of them, if one were to lump early Byzantine in there and give the alt some UA and UU unavailable to Trajan’s more traditional Roman Empire conceit). However, as much as many of us would rather have our own personal fav leader come in as an alt for every single civ, I could see it serving little purpose other than adding flavor and clogging up a pretty full field of playstyles. Plus, the developers seem to have intended the alt leader mechanic as a springboard for modders, which leads me to believe that alts were never going to be a widely used concept by Firaxis.

Eleanor, if the rumors are true, will take the alt leader to a new level in GS, and I do hope that there may be a few more alt leaders by the end of the title’s cycle. I just don’t know if mass creation of alts would make the game any better.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

The big Behemoths of History probably deserve another leader (India, Rome, China, Egypt) but I'd hope they don't go overboard, only because I believe that more alt-leaders means fewer new civs.

 

[Siptah]

When civ VI was released, it was stated that the alternate leaders mechanics were incorporated to encourage modders and that FXS themselves wouldn't release too much. I'm ok with that, as or me new civ > alternate leader.

And I think it's time for a republican leader of Rome (I don't really count Caesar for that).

 

[Guandao]

When civ VI was released, it was stated that the alternate leaders mechanics were incorporated to encourage modders and that FXS themselves wouldn't release too much. I'm ok with that, as or me new civ > alternate leader.

And I think it's time for a republican leader of Rome (I don't really count Caesar for that).

Who is the best Republican leader choice for Rome? I'm not too knowledgeable about that period of history.

 

[Caesar Augustus 27 BC]

Who is the best Republican leader choice for Rome? I'm not too knowledgeable about that period of history.

Probably Scipio Africanus, Sulla, Marius or Cincinnatus. I'd prefer Roman Empire leaders unless it was Scipio overall.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Scipio or Gaius Marius are the best choices, but both are also very militaristic leaders. I mean, if Trajan isn't aggro enough for you, you can always go with them, I guess.

 

[Siptah]

Who is the best Republican leader choice for Rome? I'm not too knowledgeable about that period of history.

Since Consuls changed each year, there are many options. I personally would go for Marcus Tullius Cicero, who is in my view the most important Roman in history (except for Augustus maybe). Also, I view Caesar's two partners in the triumvirate as much more republican than him and thus Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would be a very good choice as well in my opinion.

I get that Rome was at it's climax of power in later times, but I still view the republic as the Golden Age of Rome instead of Augustus and his direct successors.

 

[Depravo]

In terms of missing historical niches, someone from the Roman Republic, someone from post-ancient China, someone from post-Achaemenid Iran, and perhaps a German leader from the post-1871 period. Russia could do with one or maybe even two new leaders to cover its medieval and modern faces - Peter's reign was an anomaly in many ways.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

In terms of missing historical niches, someone from the Roman Republic, someone from post-ancient China, someone from post-Achaemenid Iran, and perhaps a German leader from the post-1871 period. Russia could do with one or maybe even two new leaders to cover its medieval and modern faces - Peter's reign was an anomaly in many ways.

Egypt first.

 

[Siptah]

Egypt first.

With a non-Ptolemaic and non-New Kingdom ruler, preferably.

 

[Zaarin]

With four Greek leaders already in the game, the last thing we need is more Romans. (Well, second-to-last. The last thing we need is more Greeks. ) Egypt, China, and Persia would be my top priorities for an alt leader.

 

[Ferocitus]

Scipio or Gaius Marius are the best choices, but both are also very militaristic leaders. I mean, if Trajan isn't aggro enough for you, you can always go with them, I guess.

No, I am Spartacus.

 

[Sagax]

With four Greek leaders already in the game, the last thing we need is more Romans. (Well, second-to-last. The last thing we need is more Greeks. ) Egypt, China, and Persia would be my top priorities for an alt leader.

“Justinian also leads Rome in Sid Meier’s Civilization 6: Third Expansion”

 

[Zaarin]

No, I am Spartacus.

They can't use living people.

 

[Kimiimaro]

With a non-Ptolemaic and non-New Kingdom ruler, preferably.

Tsk, I want my Thutmose III

(Well, second-to-last. The last thing we need is more Greeks. )

Tsk, I want my Byzantium

 

[Caesar Augustus 27 BC]

I get that Rome was at it's climax of power in later times, but I still view the republic as the Golden Age of Rome instead of Augustus and his direct successors.

Which part of the republic? Late republic was awful and no golden sge of any kind, Augustus and then the Five Good Emperors are Rome's main golden ages.

 

[Naktis]

I sayed many times , that alternative leader feature is underused , and prob a failed feature it seems now. Most of the vanila civs should get alt leader for sure.

 

[HanNorwood]

Egypt, China and Rome for sure could use second leaders, in my opinion. I think an official "leader pack" DLC isn't out of the question at some point, with 4-6 leaders, that could look something like this.
Or at least should, IMO.

1. Kublai Khan (China/Mongolia)
2. Narmer or Ramses II (Egypt)
3. Augustus (Rome)

And then the wild cards, which would probably be market appeals.

4. Lincoln, Washington, or Jefferson (America)
5. Elizabeth I (England)
6. Bismark (Germany)

I intentionally did all Vanilla civs (with the exception of Mongolia, but Kublai could easily lead both them and China, in the vein Eleanor seems likely to be in), so that people wouldn't need the expansions for the DLC, which is standard.

 

[cosmicmangobear]

I’m still holding out for an alt leaders DLC Bundle somewhere down the line, but that’s seeming less and less likely now. I was SO excited when this feature was announced but now I am SO disappointed. I would say the alt leaders I most want to see are as follows:

America
Leader: Thomas Jefferson
Capital: Philadelphia
LUA: Louisiana Purchase
Agenda: Democratic Republican

Arabia
Leader: Umar
Capital: Medina
LUA: Bayt al-Mal
Agenda: al-Farooq

China
Leader: Sun Yat-sen
Capital: Beijing
LUA: Northern Expedition
Agenda: Three Principles of the People

Germany
Leader: Bismarck
Capital: Berlin
LUA: Iron Chancellor
Agenda: Blood and Iron

Egypt
Leader: Hatshepsut
Capital: Thebes
LUA: Djeser Djeseru
Agenda: Gifts of Punt

Rome
Leader: Constantine
Capital: Constantinople
LUA: Nicene Creed
Agenda: Tolerant

Russia
Leader: Ivan
Capital: Moscow
LUA: Oprichnina
Agenda: First Tsar

Spain
Leader: Isabella
Capital: Valladolid
LUA: Voyages of Columbus
Agenda: Reconquista