Carefully selecting which board game or other props they display could help.The problem is that Mali, the Ottomans, Phoenicia/Carthage, and Sweden are all in the quadrant of the globe. It would be hard to infer exactly which one is intended.
Carefully selecting which board game or other props they display could help.The problem is that Mali, the Ottomans, Phoenicia/Carthage, and Sweden are all in the quadrant of the globe. It would be hard to infer exactly which one is intended.
Fingers crossed.Carefully selecting which board game or other props they display could help.
I wasn't going to vote in these polls, but now your post has gotten me excited.Hey, Someone on reddit found an interesting pattern on the live streams that may hint to future announcements:
Hey, Someone on reddit found an interesting pattern on the live streams that may hint to future announcements:
CdM held little influence during her husband's reign, but she managed to serve as regent for three sons. Her policies mostly failed, but she at least had policies. Eleanor only ruled briefly in Aquitaine. She spent about a decade married to the king of France, where she had virtually no influence because they both loathed each other. She then spent decades as the queen-consort/queen-mother of England, it's true, but she used her influence chiefly to support her sons' (unsuccessful) rebellions. Virtually any king of France would be a better option for France--even Charles VII. As for England, there are not only better options but even a good handful of better female options--Lizzy, of course, but also Mary I, Empress Matilda--even the lackluster Mary II or Queen Anne wouldn't be worse choices. Eleanor's a great pop culture figure, but in terms of actual political influence she's beneath Gandhi.
...That could actually be compelling, though the only king she was married to or mothered who would make a good leader choice, Henry II, she spent her entire marriage subverting. Richard I would be a big personality, but John would be a bigger one and Richard only spent a few months in England.
Clearly even a mere child could see where the globe hints at...
.. Next week, First look: NOONGAR
On which note, where is the Tamar of Georgia option in the poll?There was the Tamar of Georgia...
Plot twist: it's not Eleanor, it's Tamar! Now she can lead England and France tooOn which note, where is the Tamar of Georgia option in the poll?
"Felipe II leads Spain, Portugal, Austria, Germany, Netherlands. Italy, Aztecs, Inca, Maya, Mapuche and Philippines in Sid Meier´s Civilization VI"Fear not, next expansion we'll get Charlemagne leading both France or (England - strike that, I'm tired) Germany, James II/V leading both England or Scotland and Charles V. leading Spain, Austria, Germany or Netherlands just to confuse everybody
I am a massive fan of Eleanor as a person but I broadly agree with this: whichever way you slice it, it's difficult to argue that she is the best leader choice for either country. However...
What really sells me on her is the idea that she will be an interchangeable leader for both England AND France. IMO it's the only way to justify her inclusion. When you look at the list of historical royalty who were King/Queen of both during their lifetimes, the list is pretty damn small. I think we can exclude English "Kings" of France, Henry V and Edward III in particular, because I can't see that making an English conquering figure leader of England and France would be a particularly sensitive move (almost like making Vicky an alt-leader for India).
The gameplay implications of having an interchangeable leader has got me REALLY excited to see what they do with Eleanor and (along with the fact that she is one of the most interesting and influential figures of the medieval history of either country, whether you think she counts as a ruler or not) has completely sold me on her inclusion. If it turns out that the leak is wrong and she can only lead one or the other, then yes, that would be mystifying because both Civs have a long and glittering roster of better choices, and France already has one iffy leader option...
Didn't see this till now. Bloddy excited. How am I going to sleep!!!Hey, Someone on reddit found an interesting pattern on the live streams that may hint to future announcements:
Also England, as he was King of England (without much power though) while married to Mary I."Felipe II leads Spain, Portugal, Austria, Germany, Netherlands. Italy, Aztecs, Inca, Maya, Mapuche and Philippines in Sid Meier´s Civilization VI"
They did a fine job of centering New Zealand in the shot.
and now.. Noongar....
I am a massive fan of Eleanor as a person but I broadly agree with this: whichever way you slice it, it's difficult to argue that she is the best leader choice for either country. However...
What really sells me on her is the idea that she will be an interchangeable leader for both England AND France. IMO it's the only way to justify her inclusion. When you look at the list of historical royalty who were King/Queen of both during their lifetimes, the list is pretty damn small. I think we can exclude English "Kings" of France, Henry V and Edward III in particular, because I can't see that making an English conquering figure leader of England and France would be a particularly sensitive move (almost like making Vicky an alt-leader for India).
The gameplay implications of having an interchangeable leader has got me REALLY excited to see what they do with Eleanor and (along with the fact that she is one of the most interesting and influential figures of the medieval history of either country, whether you think she counts as a ruler or not) has completely sold me on her inclusion. If it turns out that the leak is wrong and she can only lead one or the other, then yes, that would be mystifying because both Civs have a long and glittering roster of better choices, and France already has one iffy leader option...
The other really great thing about Eleanor is that she cements the design philosophy that alt leaders are reserved for civs with a long history under different polities. Chandragupta represents Maurya, not India. Gorgo represents the Peloppenesian League, not the Delian League. And Eleanor represents the Angevin empire/Norman English post-heptarchy/the Franks, not Great Britain and France.
This is honestly a very responsible design choice, because it offers historical/civ variety in a way that opens dev resources for new civs, while simultaneously placing greater emphasis on very large and long-standing civs. Russia, Arabia, and Rome can now have Kievan Rus/USSR, Umayyad/Saudi, and Byzantine leaders and it strengthens the weight of both "civs," by pointing toward their storied history/legacy, rather than minimizing them.
It's incredibly elegant and I love that Eleanor keeps up the trend. This is how you do history, by representing a continuity of culture. Not by focusing on the same tired cults of personality.
Savage.A leader with Big Personality that could lead two different civs, both with a large fanbase?
King George III leads England and America in Sid Meier's Civilization VI
I'm pretty sure the Noongar is the tribe.Are starting another meme again? NOONGAR OF [I honestly can't spell the tribe unfortunately] CONFIRMED, Y'ALL!!!
Alexander the Great? He would have been perfect for Macedon, Greece, Egypt, Persia, Babylon, Illyrians, Bactria, Media, Phoenicia, Parthia etc. Maybe it's just me.A leader with Big Personality that could lead two different civs, both with a large fanbase?