It seems fairly clear leaders have been decoupled from civs. I'm of the mind i'f always prefer new Civ being released before additional leaders for existing civs. It did get me thinking. How much easier would it be to release a new Civ compared to simply a new leader? In effect, would the time spent by the artists be any less for a new leader?
New DLC civs vs new DLC leaders
- Thread starter rastak
- Start date
moysturfurmer
Emperor
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2010
- Messages
- 1,058
New leaders, in addition to not needing all the other unique stuff of a civ, don't need this dynamic/procedural music they're doin this time around.
Also, new leaders/new civs could occasionally overlap. E.g. Shah Jahan and the Mughals for India.
TPangolin
Just the worst person
The interesting part is that when the leaders for Civs change, their historical capitals will also probably change. China for example has it's Capital at Xian, whereas a Qing dynasty leader would probably have themselves situated at Beijing.
I really wouldn't be surprised if they chose another leader like Akbar for India in Civ VI and released Gandhi as a DLC. That's essentially one way to print money.
I'm pretty much predicting at this point that they're going to make a "Classic Leaders DLC" pack with all our favourite leaders from previous games like Washington, Bismarck, Catherine etc.
I really wouldn't be surprised if they chose another leader like Akbar for India in Civ VI and released Gandhi as a DLC. That's essentially one way to print money.
I'm pretty much predicting at this point that they're going to make a "Classic Leaders DLC" pack with all our favourite leaders from previous games like Washington, Bismarck, Catherine etc.
True_Candyman
Emperor
Judging from teddy, there's likely gunna be a unique unit tied to each leader, so that's more modelling and design in game. Then there's the balancing of the various uniques they provide to the civ, to make sure none are so obviously better or worse particularly than others of the same civ. There's the leader screens themselves, dialogue and voice acting. There could well be an additional track dedicated to each leader like there was one for each civ in V, but that's pure speculation.
But I think we're likely to get plenty of both new civs and leaders, and the more we ask the more we will get. I will spend money to keep getting new additions for this game, and as long as plenty of others are too, there will be more than enough to keep everyone happy
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 16,938
It seemed from what was said in the Q&A that Teddy is peculiar in having a unit as part of his Leader Unique.
Ed Beach said there are 18 leaders in the game, so in vanilla there is one leader per civ. I think more civs give more variety and possibilities (a new civ and leader at the same time) than more leaders. So I want more civilizations.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
I think new leaders would be easier than new civs. With new civs, you have to make new music and new art for the cities and such, plus implement a new civ ability, unique unit and unique infrastructure. With a new leader, all the civ stuff stays the same and you just need a new leader and new leader ability/unit.
I do think that there will be DLC leaders. Especially since the leader bonuses are pretty meaty bonuses. For example, Teddy basically gets a unique ability, a unique unit and a unique improvement. That would be enough content to justify a leader DLC in my opinion. Plus, the added bonuses of being able to diversify your civs with the same civ bonuses but a different leader.
Plus Ultra
Conquistador
I Want It All (And I Want It Now)
A full Civ requires a leader. Therefore, creating only the leader (and his unique stuff) can only be easier/faster than creating a full Civ.
A full Civ requires a leader. Therefore, creating only the leader (and his unique stuff) can only be easier/faster than creating a full Civ.
Plus Ultra
Conquistador
I agree. Posted in the Hojo Tokimune Thread:
Should we consider the fact that they are using less "standard" leaders in Civ IV as another reason to believe we might eventually get a "Extra leaders DLC package" in the future?
Washington, Oda Nobunaga, Ramses II... we just need Ghandi and Shaka too, and we've got ourselves a 9,99 pack that would sell like hot chocolate...
![[offtopic]](/images/smilies/offtopic.gif "Offtopic [offtopic]")
True_Candyman
Emperor
Barathor
Emperor
- Joined
- May 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,202
Well, I've heard that in Civ 5, new leaders took up a majority of development time compared to a whole new civ -- some have said as much as 75% here! Which, I can definitely believe, considering everything that went into Civ 5 leaders (a bit wasteful, in my own opinion). Still what those actual costs really are, and how they affect and compare to the amount of revenue generated by these DLC's is another consideration.
Anyway, personally, I prefer alternate leaders as DLC. They just feel more "optional" than whole new civs (though, I guess making DLC that "you must have" is a good incentive for Firaxis, haha). They could make a whole bunch of them and you just pick and choose which ones you like -- maybe they could come in packs too with scenarios or something.
Though, I wouldn't mind new civs as well (I just prefer new leaders a bit more), as long as they're not classic civilizations in the franchise. I wasn't a fan of that in Civ 5, and felt that they should've just been released as a part of expansion packs. New DLC civs should be more of the ones whose inclusion would be questionable in an official expansion pack versus other more iconic civs.
Also, alternate leaders avoid any "muddying up" of your civilization pool when creating random games. I personally want to play against big iconic civs in my games, like India, China, Spain, etc. I rather not get games filled with civs like the Sentinelese. I'm not a TSL player, nor do I like to play on immensely huge maps jammed with every available civ; I prefer keeping things Standard.
New civilizations are also more important from the gameplay perspective - different scenarios or the World Map that they want to make better this time. To fill the world map, especially big one, we need a lot of new civs. That said.
True_Candyman
Emperor
Whichever route they go (or both), one of the important things that seems to have been overlooked is the need to improve the selection screen, especially in multiplayer.
I would love having a mini world map with the civs available in highlighted colours. Then a scroll down list of leaders, or even a pop up with different columns for different leaders, showing a still of the leader with their uniques listed below. The scroll down list from V is so difficult to navigate.
I would love having a mini world map with the civs available in highlighted colours. Then a scroll down list of leaders, or even a pop up with different columns for different leaders, showing a still of the leader with their uniques listed below. The scroll down list from V is so difficult to navigate.
+1
Personally I'd prefer seeing 50 civilisations than 25 civilisations each having two leaders
Plus Ultra
Conquistador
I think almost everyone would agree with that.
BUT, IF (pure shameless speculation) 1 Civ = 2 Leaders (development time) then the choice would be:
40 Civilizations
-20 of which have 2 leaders
vs
50 Civilizations
-1 leader per Civ
How does that sound?
Besides, maybe we will get more DLC this time around. I honestly have no idea why they stopped producing DLC for Civ V, unless when you reach a certain point, you have to offer too obscure (to be profitable) Civs..
If (so much speculation in this post, I now) that is the case, maybe we could have EVERYTHING, more Civs and more Leaders.
Who wouldn't buy a Lincoln, Churchill, Luis XIV, Leonidas, Xerxes I and Bismark DLC pack, with their own unique units, abilities and agendas?. Maybe a WWI Leader Pack? Yeah, those would sell like crazy.
Lord Tirian
Erratic Poster
Goes both ways, though. More leaders mean you mess less with the world map in terms of placement (overcrowded Europe) yet give players more variety.
Another argument in favour of more leaders is: tuning for multiplayer scenarios. They already said that they try to make multiplayer games more accessible with scenarios and so on for shorter sessions if people desire. If each civ has a early and late game leader, it means you could play an ancient/classical era game and yet keep every civ viable.
TPangolin
Just the worst person
As I mentioned earlier in the thread, it's probably pretty that each leader will have their own Capital. This makes TSL placement for many civs like China (Beijing vs. Xian), Russia (St. Petersburg vs. Moscow) a bit more variable.
Similar threads
