[GS] Sneak Peek 4/2

[Phoenix1595]

Didn't Civ2 technically have the most female leaders?

One could argue no, if you discount those that were fictional. I still get a kick out of the feminine version of Shaka— wasn’t it Shakalana or something just as awful?

 

[Martinus]

Yes, I can. Personal unions aren‘t *that* rare. Is it necessary for civ? Absolutely no!

This is not meant to represent personal union as an important feature of historical politics, but rather to offer an interesting variety to the existing gameplay.

 

[cosmicmangobear]

“Eleanor… Roosevelt ALSO leads America in SMC6 Gathering Storm.”

 

[steveg700]

This one is guaranteed, and, in my opinion, it's becoming increasingly tiring to see such significant portions of various gaming communities react like this seemingly every single time a woman shows up either as a protagonist or other significant character. If only Civilization would have been exempt from this, but alas, no such blessing has graced us.

Well, we've had cases where the choice seemed to lack any merit in terms of accomplishment or distinction, but this is decidedly not one of them.

Eleanor of Aquitaine for England and France
Charlemagne for France and Germany
Sigismund III for Sweden and Poland
Kublai Khan for Mongolia and China
William of Orange for the Netherlands and England
James I for England and Scotland
Oscar II for Sweden and Norway
Muhammad Ali for Egypt and Ottomans (a stretch but would be interesting)

Probably a few more I could find or remember if I was looking seriously instead of what came to mind quickly.

In a world where ambitious folk have expanded through means such as conquest, annexation, and inheritance (to name a few), this shouldn't actually be too "gimmicky" at all I should tend to think.

 

[Red_warning]

Looks just like the sort of windows you'd expect to belong to a queen, probably of two medieval kingdoms, with a slight hint of crusader. I know this because I have seen many windows in my life.

 

[Siptah]

This is not meant to represent personal union as an important feature of historical politics, but rather to offer an interesting variety to the existing gameplay.

Yes, I understand it in that way as well, not because personal unions need to be included in some way. I just think it‘s not really necessary. You could also allow leaders to lead any civ and it would also add variety to the existing gameplay. Would I use it/Do I want it? Personally, no.

 

[Red_warning]

Eleanor of Aquitaine for England and France
Charlemagne for France and Germany
Sigismund III for Sweden and Poland
Kublai Khan for Mongolia and China
William of Orange for the Netherlands and England
James I for England and Scotland
Oscar II for Sweden and Norway
Muhammad Ali for Egypt and Ottomans (a stretch but would be interesting)

Probably a few more I could find or remember if I was looking seriously instead of what came to mind quickly.

If we get a third expansion and Firaxis decided to go with a complete Scandinavian trio then Margareta I would be an excellent choice. Would also work out for just Sweden and Norway too of course.

And in the more likely event that they would add Portugal in a third expansion you'd also get a few more monarchs to choose from.

 

[Ziad]

I hope a third expansion has mostly female leaders. Just for the resulting reaction memes of course.

 

[NukeAJS]

Bob Ross confirmed?

I don't see any happy clouds

 

[wilcoxchar]

If we get a third expansion and Firaxis decided to go with a complete Scandinavian trio then Margareta I would be an excellent choice. Would also work out for just Sweden and Norway too of course.

And in the more likely event that they would add Portugal in a third expansion you'd also get a few more monarchs to choose from.

I would actually like to see a hypothetical third expansion let you have an option for randomized or separately selectable leaders and civs. With the leader and civ abilities being separate it would add even more replayability.

 

[Prima Italia]

I hope it is Elizabeth I leading England of course.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

It's Tamar leading alternative Georgia.

Also. I WONDER WHO COULD IT BE. HMMM.

 

[Amrunril]

By the way, this presumed feature of leaders available for 2 civs seems a bit gimmicky to me... can you guys think about like 10 leaders in the world history for who that model would
be relevant?

In the current implementation, it's absolutely gimmicky. If, on the other hand, they had set it up to work more generally (that is, allow any leader to lead any civ as an advanced setup option and simply use Eleanor as an historical example to introduce the system), it would be a huge improvement, adding a amazing degree of civ customizability, virtually unlimited faction options, and an actual purpose for the distinction between civ abilities and leader abilities.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well, this one is pretty simple and it fits perfectly with the trend in leaders and Civs in Civ VI:

A tent with religious 'icons' or Christian-like images on it: obviously an itinerant religious Christian leader.
Tent walls are leaning, so the tent was put up by amateurs or poorly trained attendants: not a regular king then.

Obviously, it's Peter the Hermit leading the People's Crusade: a non-leader for a non-Civ: perfectly in tune with Civ VI's Gilgamesh, Eleanor, Gorgo, and Teddy the Bear Roosevelt leading 'civs' like Sumer-Akkad-Babylon Mashup, France ("any country with 300 kinds of cheese cannot be completely civilized" - as someone said sometime something like that), Sparta ("the only Greek city-state that left absolutely no cultural or civilized traits in the historical record"), and America ("the only country that ever went straight from Emerging to Decadent without having a Civilized era in between")

 

[Kimiimaro]

By the way, this presumed feature of leaders available for 2 civs seems a bit gimmicky to me... can you guys think about like 10 leaders in the world history for who that model would
be relevant?

Nicolas-Henri I, King of France, King of Scotland and Duke of Burgun- wait, sorry, that's my EU4 campaign

 

[CivLuvah]

I hope it is Elizabeth I leading England of course.

How often do you go in these forums? There was a leak of the list of leaders for GS months before the announcement of the expansion, at it seems that the leak is 100% confirmed by now.

It's Eleanor. Even I knew that by now and didn't give my guess.

 

[steveg700]

In the current implementation, it's absolutely gimmicky. If, on the other hand, they had set it up to work more generally (that is, allow any leader to lead any civ as an advanced setup option and simply use Eleanor as an historical example to introduce the system), it would be a huge improvement, adding a amazing degree of civ customizability, virtually unlimited faction options, and an actual purpose for the distinction between civ abilities and leader abilities.

True, but the distinction is largely undermined simply by underservicing players with regards to alternative leaders. There's some DLC money they are leaving on the table.

 

[bbbt]

Kublai Khan for Mongolia and China, Charles V for Spain and Germany, Karl XIII Bernadotte for Norway and Sweden.

Victoria for England/Scotland/Ireland/Canada/India/Australia/New Zealand..... oh, wait...

Kublai Khan (China/Mongolia, but is a bit of a stretch)
Charles XIV John (Sweden/Norway)
Louis I or Vladislaus III (Poland/Hungary)
James VI (England/Scotland)
Mary, Queen of Scots (France/Scotland, a HUGE stretch though because it was for about 3 Years as Queen of France and she had no power really)
Charlemagne (France/Germany)
That’s 7 with current game civs

If we add a couple potential future civs that we are hoping for/expecting release:

Maria of Portugal (Brazil/Portugal)
Justinian I (Rome/Byzantium)
And as if we didn’t hate him enough, Philip II could also rule Portugal (see the Iberian union from 1580-1640)

William II/III (Netherlands/England)

None of these are really the same though - Eleanor was Queen of France and England separately/at different times. She makes sense as someone who can choose England OR France. She never ruled England and France as one empire.

Almost every else ruled an empire containing multiple of the Civs at the same time. Ie Victoria was never Queen of only Australia - she was Queen of Australia and Britain and India etc as one empire. I don't think she ever set foot Australia.

I know that's a mild distinction by civ logic - sure Victoria could be like "Ive tired of ruling from England these last 20 alternative universes, let's give it a go as just Australia and not the rest of Britania this time."

But I think Eleanor was chosen for her uniqueness in that regard, and I have trouble thinking of another leader who ruled two civs in the game separately and not under one empire.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

True, but the distinction is largely undermined simply by underservicing players with regards to alternative leaders. There's some DLC money they are leaving on the table.

- and there are Mods that have already picked up some loose change from that potential DLC money. Just for France and England/Britain already there are Charlemagne, Henri IV, Francois I, Louis XIV, Charles De Gaulle, Napoleon I alternate leaders for France and Elizabeth I alternate for England, plus a separate Anglo-Saxon Civ with Alfred, Offa, and Aethelfleda. Except for animation in the Leaders, they frequently match any Firaxis offering for interesting alternatives to the 'commercial' leaders.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

None of these are really the same though - Eleanor was Queen of France and England separately/at different times. She makes sense as someone who can choose England OR France. She never ruled England and France as one empire.

Almost every else ruled an empire containing multiple of the Civs at the same time. Ie Victoria was never Queen of only Australia - she was Queen of Australia and Britain and India etc as one empire. I don't think she ever set foot Australia.

I know that's a mild distinction by civ logic - sure Victoria could be like "Ive tired of ruling from England these last 20 alternative universes, let's give it a go as just Australia and not the rest of Britania this time."

But I think Eleanor was chosen for her uniqueness in that regard, and I have trouble thinking of another leader who ruled two civs in the game separately and not under one empire.

Matilda was really really close to being Queen of England after a stint of being Empress of the Holy Roman Empire.