Poll, New Civs vs Alternate Leaders in First Expansion

[Guandao]

This is a poll regarding the first expansion for Civ6. I want to see if Civfanatics desire more New Civs or more alternate leaders for preexisting civs in the expansion.

There are five choices in this poll:
Entirely New Civs, with no alternate leaders for preexisting civs
Majority New Civs, with a few alternate leaders
Equal amount of New Civs and Alternate Leaders
Majority Alternate Leaders, with a few New Civs
Entirely Alternate Leaders for preexisting civs, with no New Civs

You can discuss your choice below.

 

[Siptah]

New civs. I don't care that much for new leaders. They are fun to play against, but for the first expansion, I think we should have new civs - and as much as possible. Leaders can be DLC and come later. A new leader is just graphics and agenda (that's why they are fun to play against because more diversity in games), but only 1 new ability for playing yourself.

 

[Xandinho]

To be honest, I do not care much about leaders except when they are great historical icons like Napoleon and Genghis Khan, I really want to see them in the game. I prefer more civilizations, of all places and cultural, the more the better. For me, unique and customized civilizations with many wonders makes the game more interesting.

 

[Lord of War N02]

I would say More civs is more important than new leader for existing civs, I believe that new leaders should be well known like Washington, Bismarck, Julius Caesar should be added for first priority. more new leaders could be separate pack addition later like Nader Shah, Akbar, Kangxi and someone who is not well known to many people.

 

[UkrNixon]

While I'd love to vote for the first option, extra leaders seem inevitable, so I had to settle for the second one

 

[Turrdy]

Before the first vanilla DLC i thought that DLCs are mainly going to be new leaders for existing civs and that new civs would be saved up for an expansion. Since they didn't go that route I'd like to see a second leader for every existing civ in an expansion (and few new civs, too, would be nice)

 

[Manifold]

Of course some major Civs are still missing but they should bring more new game content with the First Expansion ans not only a bundle of dlc Civs. Some major Civs which were already in the game need more variety! These are: Egypt, Rome, Greece, India, China, Russia, America, France, England, Japan, Germany, Arabia and Spain.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Of course some major Civs are still missing but they should bring more new game content with the First Expansion ans not only a bundle of dlc Civs. Some major Civs which were already in the game need more variety! These are: Egypt, Rome, Greece, India, China, Russia, America, France, England, Japan, Germany, Arabia and Spain.

Greece? There are already three Greeces in game! Athens, Sparta and Macedon! How does Greece need more variety?

 

[Amrunril]

I voted entirely new civs, though this was based on the presumption that alternate leaders will continue to work as they do in the current game. If leaders could be interchanged between civs (presumably as an advanced setup option) alternate leaders would be really interesting, but if they continue to work as entirely new civs that happen to share 3/4 of their abilities with existing civs, I'd just as soon not bother.

 

[Leyrann]

I voted for equal amounts of civs and leaders, I'd love seeing 10 civs and 10 leaders (to just name something) for a total of a little over 30 civs and a little over 40 leaders. I feel like that's a good balance. Maybe the second expansion then like 13 civs and 8 leaders for about 45 civs with 60 leaders or something like that.

Or maybe the numbers should be a bit smaller, I don't know.

 

[Manifold]

Greece? There are already three Greeces in game! Athens, Sparta and Macedon! How does Greece need more variety?

You forgot Cleopatra

Greece represents your Civilization here. Greece needs much more variety - IMO Minos, Agamemnon, Solon, Leonidas, Pyrrhus of Epirus...
And Rome needs even more. India, China/Japan, Arabia/Egypt, Spain/France/England, Russia/Germany, these are the Civs led me participate in every game. For me it is more important to have more variety for these Civs than for some other not so long lived Civs.

 

[Guandao]

You forgot Cleopatra

Greece represents your Civilization here. Greece needs much more variety - IMO Minos, Agamemnon, Solon, Leonidas, Pyrrhus of Epirus...
And Rome needs even more. India, China/Japan, Arabia/Egypt, Spain/France/England, Russia/Germany, these are the Civs led me participate in every game. For me it is more important to have more variety for these Civs than for some other not so long lived Civs.

Minos and Agamemnon are not real. And Leonidas is redundant with Gorgo already in the game.
How are Maya, Mongolia, Ottomans, Netherlands, Portugal, Ethiopia, Khmer, Siam etc not long lived Civs? The game is not about who lasted the longest anyways, America, Brazil, and Australia wouldn't be in the game if that were true.

 

[Kimiimaro]

Minos and Agamemnon are not real. And Leonidas is redundant with Gorgo already in the game.
How are Maya, Mongolia, Ottomans, Netherlands, Portugal, Ethiopia, Khmer, Siam etc not long lived Civs? The game is not about who lasted the longest anyways, America, Brazil, and Australia wouldn't be in the game if that were true.

You forgot to add that Solon is also redundant with Pericles in game.

 

[Manifold]

Minos and Agamemnon are not real.

Who says that, the same, who also thinks the moon landing has never taken place?

You forgot to add that Solon is also redundant with Pericles in game.

You mean for sure they have confused Pericles with Solon.

 

[Guandao]

Who says that, the same, who also thinks the moon landing has never taken place?



You mean for sure they have confused Pericles with Solon.

Minos and Agamemnon's existence is not backed by any archeological evidence so far. Why would I want mythical leaders in the game when I can have more historical ones? Besides, the Minoans weren't Greeks. They likely spoke a non-Indo-European languages.

For some reason, every line of yours, I read in my mind in a Russian accent.

 

[Morningcalm]

Solon would be a nice Greek leader choice for Civ VII; a shame they didn't do Pericles justice this time. There's no real indication Pericles is an inspiring speaker here--he is represented as a gravelly voiced philosopher with a misshapen helmet and an underwhelming leader ability that requires you to beat the AI in becoming suzerain (that will switch each 4-10 turns by the way).

 

[Manifold]

Minos and Agamemnon's existence is not backed by any archeological evidence so far. Why would I want mythical leaders in the game when I can have more historical ones?

No archeological evidence, like all the others in the game already Minos and Agamemnon were just from an era before a dark age. They must have been such important that their names lived on more than 3000 years of history. And did your hear about Troy and Knossos?
Although this is not so important.

Besides, the Minoans weren't Greeks. They likely spoke a non-Indo-European languages.

Yeah, they need their own Civ With the language it´s not save, or?

 

[Guandao]

No archeological evidence, like all the others in the game already Minos and Agamemnon were just from an era before a dark age. They must have been such important that their names lived on more than 3000 years of history. And did your hear about Troy and Knossos?
Although this is not so important.



Yeah, they need their own Civ With the language it´s not save, or?

Yes, I've heard of Troy and Knossos. Most of the leaders in the game have archeological evidence backing their existence, including written records. Minos is known for trapping a Minotaur in a maze under his palace. I'm definitely sure that didn't happen. Otherwise, we know nothing of his policies. And Agamemnon is known for leading a war against Troy (which wasn't even as glorious and important as the myths states in real life), and being kind of a douchebag towards Achilles as well as getting murdered by his wife upon the return home. Again, nothing of his policies is known. I don't want another Gilgamesh situation.

If the Minoan language is finally deciphered and the Kings' names are known. Then, I will allow it to be its own Civ. Otherwise, make Knossos a City-State, though it's still on the Greek city-list.

 

[TyrannusRex]

I like new (or returning) civs better, more diversity, but some alternate leaders would be nice.
Personally, I'd like to see Hiawatha and Shaka return with their civs, but even above that, I'd like to see Abraham Lincoln return for America. I'd love to see and hear him in the style of Civ 6.

 

[DudewiththeFood]

I'd rather have exclusively new civs but since we've got an alternate leader system in place, I'd also rather have it used by a few more civs and I know I wouldn't pay for a separate dlc for them.