New Expansion Speculation Thread

[Uberfrog]

"distinctive".
I think you're overselling how the AI acts. That aside, it's quite easy to give anyone a 'distinctive' personality. All it takes is exaggerating certain traits. Like how Victoria comes off as a brat when she's angry.

If anyone is overselling it, it is Firaxis. They've made the leaders with their unique abilities and agendas prominent in their marketing from the very beginning.

Also, your second point feels rather inane. By that reasoning we should just do away with leaders altogether and just use country banners.

Country banners would not seem to offer much in the way of personality.

She is most certainly not recognisable. Case in point, look at how many people on this forum alone thought her concept art was Aethelflaed.

An occupational hazard for representations of medieval leaders, I should think, since no accurate likeness generally exists. Eleanor may not be as well-known as Elizabeth but few medieval leaders are. For the period, I think her name recognition, at least in the UK, is pretty decent.

 

[Lord Xavius]

I actually feel Kristina is not a bad choice for a more culturally and/or scientifically focused Sweden, the two obvious choices (her father Gustav(us) and Karl XII) being mostly known for their military pursuits. Sure, her Catholic turn and abdication at a relatively young age overshadow much of what she did, but she did have a keen interest in art, science, philosophy, and religion, and wanted Stockholm to be the "Athens of the North". If we must have Sweden in the game (which I don't consider an absolute necessity, Norway is good enough Norse representation in my eyes) I don't mind Kristina leading it.

And that's speaking as a Swede.

 

[Chirthorpe]

Man, that's not a good argument for your case. It's a person for whom no photographs exist, and it's as you say "concept art."

Few, if anyone, wanted to believe Eleanor would be the identity of the new leader over the more meritorous Aethelflaed. My point stands, even if half of civfanatics has a bad case of stockholm syndrome when it comes to Firaxis and their decisions.

But whatever, I'm done bothering with this particular argument, else I won't hear or see the end of it. I dislike Eleanor as a pick and firmly believe we should have standards for who Firaxis picks that's better than ideas like "personality".

 

[Anno]

In which case the concept of "leaders" becomes entirely redundant and you again create a scenario where the alllure of Civilization vanishes.

I think that’s just your allure, though. Personally I’d love it if every new Civ was someone I’ve never heard of from someplace I barely know existed. It’s all just a thin veneer to keep you grounded in an otherwise very abstract board game anyway, may as well call attention to lesser known important people in history when you can.

Besides, if I, someone who’s generally very ignorant of history in general, know who she is, she can’t be that obscure.

 

[Haig]

This is what Firaxis themselves say about picking leaders:

"People often ask how we select new leaders and civilizations to include in expansions – and we have nine new leaders and eight new civilizations which will be revealed over the coming weeks with Civilization: Rise and Fall. Well, it is a collaborative process that involves the whole team from art and design to production and even our legal department. We also ask ourselves some core questions as we select potential leaders:

• “Is this region of the world represented?”
• “Is this time in history represented?”
• “Is this represented/revered in previous Civilization games or totally new?”

We strive to have a diverse and varied selection of leaders, and it is also very important to us to include female leaders. Women are often underrepresented in traditional historical accounts, and recent scholarship has revealed more and more the fascinating and powerful women that lived between the lines of history textbooks. We also look for leaders whose history makes them particularly well-suited for a bonus related to new expansion systems."
- Anton Strenger / Firaxis

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Few, if anyone, wanted to believe Eleanor would be the identity of the new leader over the more meritorous Aethelflaed. My point stands, even if half of civfanatics has a bad case of stockholm syndrome when it comes to Firaxis and their decisions.

More or less "meritous" (?!?!) Then Eleanor Roosevelt or Joan of Arc or "Skakala?" Because that's the standard.

 

[wige]

Most, dare I say, ALL, of the leaders in civ have wikipedia pages.

Well, yes, because there is a standard to the level of profile of person that gets in as a leader.

In this case, a woman who led armies, was queen of both France and England and gave birth to, and almost certainly educated in the ways of leadership, three future Kings.

I didn't have a clue about who she was before reading these leaks, like I didn't about many of the leaders in Civilisation games before I started playing Civ 3. Now I do.

Your original post was railing against the decision to include her versus what are more recognisable/worthy leaders. Great, go for it. I disagree - now I know more about Eleanor, Queen of France, Regent of England who will have played a pretty large role in the development of the way those countries were ruled.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Here's a fun read on Eleanor that may sway your opinion of her. Be aware there is strong language.

https://longreads.com/2018/04/04/qu...r-of-aquitaine/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

 

[AmazonQueen]

How about significant person from history then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_of_Aquitaine

• As a member of the Ramnulfids (House of Poitiers) rulers in southwestern France, she was one of the most powerful and wealthiest women in western Europe during the High Middle Ages.
• As queen of France, she participated in the unsuccessful Second Crusade.
  
• She led armies several times in her life
  
• As soon as the annulment to her marriage with King Louis was granted, Eleanor became engaged to the duke of Normandy, who became King Henry II of England in 1154
  
• She bore eight children: five sons, three of whom became kings
  
• As queen dowager, Eleanor acted as regent while Richard went on the Third Crusade;
  
• Eleanor lived well into the reign of her youngest son, John. She outlived all her children except for John and Eleanor.

So a military leader, Queen of France, Queen dowager/regent of England living a long prosperous life as one of the most prominent women of her time.

vs

Joe BillieBob of Wessex

The page "Joe BillieBob of Wessex" does not exist.

I'm still not keen on Eleanor as leader of either France or England, but I'll admit there is a case for making her English leader, as much for her influence in her son's reigns, particularly Richard who wasn't very interested in ruling or England, as for her marriage to Henry II. Her brief and unhappy marriage to Louis is a lousy reason for considering her as a French ruler.

 

[Zdarg]

Well, Eleanor Roosevelt was a leader in an earlier version (civ II, I think), despite not being elected, or even running, for president.

No she wasn't. I am quite sure of that.

 

[Chirthorpe]

This is what Firaxis themselves say about picking leaders:

"People often ask how we select new leaders and civilizations to include in expansions – and we have nine new leaders and eight new civilizations which will be revealed over the coming weeks with Civilization: Rise and Fall. Well, it is a collaborative process that involves the whole team from art and design to production and even our legal department. We also ask ourselves some core questions as we select potential leaders:

• “Is this region of the world represented?”
• “Is this time in history represented?”
• “Is this represented/revered in previous Civilization games or totally new?”

We strive to have a diverse and varied selection of leaders, and it is also very important to us to include female leaders. Women are often underrepresented in traditional historical accounts, and recent scholarship has revealed more and more the fascinating and powerful women that lived between the lines of history textbooks. We also look for leaders whose history makes them particularly well-suited for a bonus related to new expansion systems."
- Anton Strenger / Firaxis

Yes, that particular statement was a massive red flag for me when it first came out. A blatant statement that they were, in my opinion, using lower standards for their choices to suit what can only be described as a "diversity hire" strategy.

More or less "meritous" (?!?!) Then Eleanor Roosevelt or Joan of Arc or "Skakala?" Because that's the standard.

Did you ever see me condoning Shakala, Joan of Arc, or Eleanor Roosevelt? Because I can tell you, those games were before I was into civ, and I would have railed against them as well had I been. Heck, I think I would have railed against Joan of Arc and Shakala quite a lot more than I will ever for Eleanor or Catherine de Medici. It was stupid then, and it's stupid now. And, hilariously, the presence of Shakala and Eleanor were purely to have female leaders. Civ VI's strategy is not quite as low as that, but it's not exactly a low bar to beat.

But as I said, I'm ending this now, because there will be no end to it otherwise. Don't bother replying further, it'll just detract from this thread's main purpose.

 

[WillowBrook]

I'm surprised how many of you seem to simply accept this second list as real. So I posted a new poll (oops, forgot to copy link - it'll be near the top of this forum)

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

No she wasn't. I am quite sure of that.

She was. Civ II. The version where they tried to do a male and female leader for each civ, even if they had to invent a person to do it.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Yes, that particular statement was a massive red flag for me when it first came out. A blatant statement that they were, in my opinion, using lower standards for their choices to suit what can only be described as a "diversity hire" strategy.



Did you ever see me condoning Shakala, Joan of Arc, or Eleanor Roosevelt? Because I can tell you, those games were before I was into civ, and I would have railed against them as well had I been. Heck, I think I would have railed against Joan of Arc and Shakala quite a lot more than I will ever for Eleanor or Catherine de Medici. It was stupid then, and it's stupid now. And, hilariously, the presence of Shakala and Eleanor were purely to have female leaders. Civ VI's strategy is not quite as low as that, but it's not exactly a low bar to beat.

But as I said, I'm ending this now, because there will be no end to it otherwise. Don't bother replying further, it'll just detract from this thread's main purpose.

But you know what? It didn't ruin the game. It didn't really make a difference one way or the other.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I'm surprised how many of you seem to simply accept this second list as real. So I posted a new poll (oops, forgot to copy link - it'll be near the top of this forum)

I was happy to doubt it until the leaked leader pictures were revealed making it seem like at least three of the leaders on the list are legit. Now it's looking more likely than the Hungarian list.

 

[ZenSpider]

No she wasn't. I am quite sure of that.

She totally was: http://civilization.wikia.com/wiki/American_(Civ2)

 

[Arianrhod]

More or less "meritous" (?!?!) Then Eleanor Roosevelt or Joan of Arc or "Skakala?" Because that's the standard.

When you need to bring up terrible precedents from 15 years ago or more that were made under completely different philosophies that should not be directly comparable to what we have now, you have already lost.

But you know what? It didn't ruin the game. It didn't really make a difference one way or the other.

You could add Minions as a joke civ and it would not necessarily ruin the game. That does not necessarily mean it's an improvement, nor is it a good precedent to set.

 

[DeepKing]

Speaking of Hungary, I can’t wait to see how they portray their leader! Very excited about that one

 

[AmazonQueen]

I'm surprised how many of you seem to simply accept this second list as real. So I posted a new poll (oops, forgot to copy link - it'll be near the top of this forum)

A good point. Both may turn out to be fake and then there will have been a lot of heated argument over nothing.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

When you need to bring up terrible precedents from 15 years ago or more that were made under completely different philosophies that should not be directly comparable to what we have now, you have already lost.


You could add Minions as a joke civ and it would not necessarily ruin the game. That does not necessarily mean it's an improvement, nor is it a good precedent to set.

I'm not sure what I was trying to "lose" except for noting that choice of leaders really isn't that big a deal (to me). In general I'd like to see a "greatest hits" type list, but I totally see the reasoning for mixing things up.

I for the love of god can't fathom why some people are so militant about who the talking leader head is, or why it would so ruin someone's day to find out it was somebody they didn't personally approve of.