New Expansion Speculation Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
In all this discussions about X important/classic/staple civ or leader being passed by for a less mainstream, underrepresented alternative, it’s worth mentioning that the vast majority of series regulars are still in the game (Rome, Greece, Egypt, England, France, Germany, America, Aztec, India, China, Japan, Russia, Zulu, Mongolia) as are Ghandi, Montezuma, Ghengis Khan, Alexander, and Shaka. The only major omission in VI is Babylon. Any other given civ shouldn’t be expected, but are of course, welcome additions.

Notice as well, the classic civilizations are far more consistently returning than the leaders. This is good, because it gives each civ a distinct flavor for each appearance. I find Roosevelt’s America far more compelling than Washington’s in V. It’s easy to see then that Firaxis has most strongly shown their streak of bringing in fresh faces through different leaders than previous games. But it’s really hard to argue that staple civs are being left out for the sake of diversity. That’s demonstrably not been the case.
 
No, new does not always mean better. But it is Firaxis' job as a developer to try to make a game that is both new and better at the same time. They can't just stick with the same old leaders every time that some players deem to be the "best". The fact is that there is no consensus on which leader was the "best" in history or even the "best" for a civ game. There are only personal preferences. I empathize with players who don't like the inclusion of certain leaders but Firaxis can't just cater to one group of players every time. I do agree that Catherine de Medici is not a conventional choice for France. I certainly would not have picked her for France. But I also appreciate that Firaxis wants to broaden people's historical perspectives as well as keep the game fresh for new players.

And there are always mods for players who do want a different leader.

In the most reductive sense Firaxis' job as a developer is to make an game that generates as much profit as possible. That means to sell as many copies of the game as possible. Considering the fact that two years later and more people still play Civilization V over Civilization VI on a daily basis, there is a a lot of improvement. They certainly can stick to the same old leaders that players deem the "best" because they are recognisable and will sell the game. Annoying a majority of your fan base is not the sound strategy.

If we take France as the example how many people would have complained if Napoleon was leader? I think much less than if Catherine de Medici is leader. If Firaxis wanted to introduce new leaders then they could have done what another poster suggested and introduced Napoleon first and then introduce Catherine de Medici as well, like they did with Greece. I don't see many complaints if any for Gorgo for this reason. That way they can introduce new leaders while covering all bases.
 
If we take France as the example how many people would have complained if Napoleon was leader? I think much less than if Catherine de Medici is leader. If Firaxis wanted to introduce new leaders then they could have done what another poster suggested and introduced Napoleon first and then introduce Catherine de Medici as well, like they did with Greece. I don't see many complaints if any for Gorgo for this reason. That way they can introduce new leaders while covering all bases.

I maintain that there will always some players who will complain no matter what. If Firaxis had picked Napoleon, you'd have players who wanted someone else instead. I don't think there really is a wrong answer when it comes to picking a leader. You may think that Napoleon is the obvious choice for France but someone else might argue it should be Louis XIV or Charles de Gaulle. But yes, I would love to see Firaxis release more alt leaders for current civs as that would give us more choices and make more players happy.
 
If we take France as the example how many people would have complained if Napoleon was leader? I think much less than if Catherine de Medici is leader.
I would have complained. Napoleon is boring. :p
 
I can't wait for December to arrive.....so we get some actual expansion news instead of leaked images and redditor claims.....:sleep:
 
The leaders also have to fit with the type of unique abilities that the devs want to give to that civ. So for example, if the devs want France to be a peaceful culture civ, it does not make sense for the leader to be Napoleon even though he was a famous French leader since Napoleon was a warmonger. So the type of play style that the devs pick for each civ also plays into what leader the civ will get. If you say that France should get Napoleon because you think he is the "best" leader for France in the game, then you are automatically putting France into the warmonger civ category.
 
The leaders also have to fit with the type of unique abilities that the devs want to give to that civ. So for example, if the devs want France to be a peaceful culture civ, it does not make sense for the leader to be Napoleon even though he was a famous French leader since Napoleon was a warmonger. So the type of play style that the devs pick for each civ also plays into what leader the civ will get. If you say that France should get Napoleon because you think he is the "best" leader for France in the game, then you are automatically putting France into the warmonger civ category.

Culture and warmongering aren't mutually exclusive, mind. I mean England...until Firaxis decided to nerf it four times until nobody wanted to play it any more... was Cultural/Economic and Warmongering.
 
If you say that France should get Napoleon because you think he is the "best" leader for France in the game, then you are automatically putting France into the warmonger civ category.
Though personally I think giving France strong culture bonuses as a civ and picking a leader like Philippe Auguste who might come with war and religious abilities would represent the scope of French history really well. I still wouldn't choose Napoleon, though: there are plenty of Ancien régime warmongers to choose from, like Philippe Auguste. Though at that point France is starting to look like Persia...
 
That was kind of her strong suit. She did sort of establish herself as a surrogate Virgin Mary. :p Elizabeth I had a knack for making people love her.

Unless you were a English Catholic of course. Not so much love for someone who is sentencing your loved ones to be hung drawn and quartered or crushed by weights.
 
Unless you were a English Catholic of course. Not so much love for someone who is sentencing your loved ones to be hung drawn and quartered or crushed by weights.
True, but she did manage to win the affection of both High Church and Low Church Anglicans without showing any signs of religious inclinations herself.
 
The leaders also have to fit with the type of unique abilities that the devs want to give to that civ. So for example, if the devs want France to be a peaceful culture civ, it does not make sense for the leader to be Napoleon even though he was a famous French leader since Napoleon was a warmonger. So the type of play style that the devs pick for each civ also plays into what leader the civ will get. If you say that France should get Napoleon because you think he is the "best" leader for France in the game, then you are automatically putting France into the warmonger civ category.

It’s too bad Napoleon wasn’t used as a R+F leader. He could have had some fun interactions with loyalty. I.e.: The cities you found have increased loyalty per citizen by 0.5 in all ages, reflecting Feance’s intense identity and loyalty to Napoleon as emperor. His march from Elba to Paris is perhaps the best example of this.

Sidebar: I think that any city you conquer should have a -0.5 loyalty per citizen penalty at all times.
 
Elizebeth I still gets away with a lot. Everybody remembers Elizebeth as this saintly ruler but Catholics were treat terribly under her rule. I know that Protestants were also treat cruelly under Mary I but that is all that 'Bloody Mary' is known for.
 
It’s too bad Napoleon wasn’t used as a R+F leader. He could have had some fun interactions with loyalty. I.e.: The cities you found have increased loyalty per citizen by 0.5 in all ages, reflecting Feance’s intense identity and loyalty to Napoleon as emperor. His march from Elba to Paris is perhaps the best example of this.

Sidebar: I think that any city you conquer should have a -0.5 loyalty per citizen penalty at all times.

I like your idea.
 
What is the chance of receiving something next tuesday (20th November)?

It would be a great birthday present :D

Something like what? A teaser?
 
The leaders also have to fit with the type of unique abilities that the devs want to give to that civ. So for example, if the devs want France to be a peaceful culture civ, it does not make sense for the leader to be Napoleon even though he was a famous French leader since Napoleon was a warmonger. So the type of play style that the devs pick for each civ also plays into what leader the civ will get. If you say that France should get Napoleon because you think he is the "best" leader for France in the game, then you are automatically putting France into the warmonger civ category.

Didn't stop them from making V's Napoleon entirely culture-based.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom