[GS] Sneak Peek 4/2

[Lord Lakely]

I can add Italy, sure (My prefered leader here is Matilda of Tuscany, but I can support Sforza, she was awesome in Assassin's Creed II.)

Argentina I never gave a [BLEEP] about though, so I'll pass

 

[Isengardtom]

Same for Italy for me.
Venice as a civ, fine but Italy, no

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

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.

This is a lovely quote that 'Republic of San Montuoso" attributed to me, but I can't take credit for it: not sure how that mis-attribution happened . . .

Well, I must admit that one of the reasons why I want a 3rd expansion is to play this little game again, starting to the beginning. It was so much fun!

We will all hold you to that: your posts have been among the High Points of the entire GS Reveal process.

Agree 100%. If Eleonor was known for something, it was mainly to have ruled two enemies countries at different times. Other leaders always have ruled their countries at the same time. They never had to switch sides and be in a situation where they could have attacked the first country they ruled.

The only other people I could think of are Henri III of France (being the first king of Poland. Bonus: he's the son of CdM. Malus: he did nothing worthly in his life, so making a leader about him would make less sense than Gorgo), or Bernadotte (but much about the funny story: he was a general under Popoléon and he was French ; Popoléon put him on the Sweden throne; Bernadotte then analyse the situation to see which country was the biggest threat for Sweden; he then join the league against Popoléon, the same guy that put him on the throne).

James I and VI of England and Scotland is the only one I'd add: while as King of England he never declared war on Scotland, and vice-versa, you could not call the two countries 'friendly' in any of their relationships up to his time or afterwards.

. . . Victoria never was the enemy of Australia.

Unlike later 'British' Leaders in World Wars One and Two, who threw away Australian lives in such profusion that in the latter war the Australian government had to demand that the British not commit any Australian units without the prior approval of the Australian government, such was the level of distrust after such fiascos as Tobruck and Singapore, and earlier, Gallipoli/Suvla Bay.

 

[GREATWHITE]

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")

Yeah we were too busy fighting a world war, being “Civilized” seemed unimportant.

 

[Pietato]

So one leader, multiple civs? Babylon, Portugal and the Mayans, I presume.

 

[Jkchart]

Yes, please, to Matilda.

I would LOVE Matilda if we could find a good way to get her in the game. She’s one of my favorite medieval women. And the historical fiction novel “When Christ and His Saints Slept” is an excellent work on that time period.

 

[Leathaface]

The leader is obviously going to be Eleanor seen we've seen her in the Hall of Fame. I wonder though will her leader abilities be different for when she plays with England or France.

 

[Ziad]

Mary Queen of Scots as leader of France, England, and Scotland.

 

[Equilin]

One leader on multiple civs?
Are we finally seeing the Habsburgs leading every European civs?
(Or Wladyslaw III (I think) of Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary).

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The more I think about dual leaders the less I like any of the options, mostly because no one fits as well as Eleanor. The only leader I think would make sense as well as make the roster feel "balanced" would be Kublai Khan as a male leader on the Asian continent who also moved capitals, embraced a different culture, and established a new mega dynasty.

But even that feels off because Mongolia is a DLC civ, so I question the likelihood of even him happening, unless they include Mongolia as a bonus for expack 3.

Really given that most proposals for dual leaders are all comparable European incest blah that don't actually represent both countries well (or in some cases neither country), I am happy if we just get Eleanor, maybe Kublai, and stick to single civ alt leaders for whatever else the devs add.

 

[Ziad]

Someone joked but I think if there were a third expansion, they'd use the opportunity for a new type of combination rather than repeat dual leader/dual civ. It's clear they want to push modders to develop such content.

The idea of using multiple leaders at the same time for one civ has potential. There wouldn't be twice the abilities or anything but you could possibly have two leaders on the screen and activate/deactivate a leader based on what you want to do (at some cost).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The more I think about dual leaders the less I like any of the options, mostly because no one fits as well as Eleanor. The only leader I think would make sense as well as make the roster feel "balanced" would be Kublai Khan as a male leader on the Asian continent who also moved capitals, embraced a different culture, and established a new mega dynasty.

But even that feels off because Mongolia is a DLC civ, so I question the likelihood of even him happening, unless they include Mongolia as a bonus for expack 3.

Really given that most proposals for dual leaders are all comparable European incest blah that don't actually represent both countries well (or in some cases neither country), I am happy if we just get Eleanor, maybe Kublai, and stick to single civ alt leaders for whatever else the devs add.

IF Eleanor turns out to be a popular leader/dual leader/pseudo-leader, then nothing will stop the Firaxiods from giving us more dual or triple-civ leaders wherever they can. If, on the other hand, she is met with resounding lack of interest, we'll hear no more about dual leaders of any kind.

Either way, I think it misses the point that 'dual leadership' results from either conquest (Kublai, Alexander) or Royal Breeding which is more enthusiastic than selective (Eleanor, the Hapsburgs, et al) and so neither, in game terms, currently exists at all. Conquer another Civ or City State, and it all becomes One Civ with One Leader - no duality possible. And having Immortal Leaders in the game means there is no Royal Breeding of any kind, so that's out, too.

Frankly, even Eleanor is a 'gimmick' Leader: it all depends on what she brings to either England or France to make her worth playing: her origins are immaterial to the game.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

IF Eleanor turns out to be a popular leader/dual leader/pseudo-leader, then nothing will stop the Firaxiods from giving us more dual or triple-civ leaders wherever they can. If, on the other hand, she is met with resounding lack of interest, we'll hear no more about dual leaders of any kind.

Either way, I think it misses the point that 'dual leadership' results from either conquest (Kublai, Alexander) or Royal Breeding which is more enthusiastic than selective (Eleanor, the Hapsburgs, et al) and so neither, in game terms, currently exists at all. Conquer another Civ or City State, and it all becomes One Civ with One Leader - no duality possible. And having Immortal Leaders in the game means there is no Royal Breeding of any kind, so that's out, too.

Frankly, even Eleanor is a 'gimmick' Leader: it all depends on what she brings to either England or France to make her worth playing: her origins are immaterial to the game.

Well the issue is already mired in so many extent leader choices. It can't be "conquest," or else Alexander, Cyrus, Trajan, etc. all ought to be leaders of several civs. And it can't be royal breeding because then Philip and Frederick and Victoria should all be leaders of several civs as well. So the deliberate limitation is appreciated since so many civs are already represented at the height of their empires, and those empires in question were either acquires by force (which is frankly not very friendly and in line with VI's cheery leader choices) or by coincidence. Either way, in a game where civs are supposed to be represented vicariously by these figurehead personifications, neither represented the "acquired" civ very well. To take an extreme example, it would be like making Hitler an alt leader for Poland; if the Poles didn't even like or benefit from Nazi occupation, they probably shouldn't be represented by it.

And that is why I think Eleanor hits a nice narrow sweet spot. Even if it is historically an anomaly, in the Civ VI mentality of player choice and agency, she elected to lead both countries. And in spirit of leaders actually representing some cultural aspect of their civ, Eleanor was accepted in both France and England.

Also since I am living for these expy leader concepts (Hermione, Maui in Moana, Hungary is Game of Thrones aesthetic meets House of Cards music, etc.) her Julie Andrews / Sleeping Beauty designs just tickle me. Firaxis is playing such a smart PR game from the bottom up that I can't help but love even many of their superfluous additions.

 

[Pietato]

Maybe we will have more like this as DLC. Putin as dual leader of Russia and the US, for example.

Moderator Action: Please leave current events and politics out of the game threads. Do not derail threads. leif

 

[Josephias]

Also since I am living for these expy leader concepts (Hermione, Maui in Moana, Hungary is Game of Thrones aesthetic meets House of Cards music, etc.) her Julie Andrews / Sleeping Beauty designs just tickle me. Firaxis is playing such a smart PR game.

Don’t forget Uncle Phil of Mali...

Back to dual leaders: I agree nor all “rulers of several places” qualify. As you identify, the ruled “civs” must have both benefited somehow of its reign, while keeping a disctintive status and, in general, must keep that leader in high regard in terms of the country/Civ hostory.

So, civ VI’s Phil II couldn’t pose as leader of the Netherlands, Portugal or England, as is historically seen as a Spain/Spanish empire-focused monarch. However, daddy Charles V of the HRE / I of Spain is much more likely to be a double leader, as he managed in a relatively independent way both its German and Spanish rule (of course, both as allies against France, that was the important thing here... and mostly due to political management diferences, but nevertheles, and maybe due to after his reign being separated again, it can not be said Spain ruled over Germany or Vice-versa)

Other obvious multiple leader is the Burger King... err, Charlemagne. This one because he didn’t actually rule neither France nor Germany, but a proto-empire that would later be split in these two civs. Its empire did not leave such a cohesive cultural mark to be a strong civ contender per se, but parts of it are inherited by France and Germany, and he as a leader is both regarded as a forefather of France and Germany, thus qualifying, IMHO, to be oferted as a leader for both these Civs.

 

[Kimiimaro]

(Or Wladyslaw III (I think) of Bohemia, Poland, and Hungary).

Wladyslaw III was only king of Poland and Hungary.

Wenceslaus III of Bohemia, on the other hand, was king of all three mentioned realms. But given he hasn't done anything significant (except not having a male heir which caused the end of Přemyslid dynasty (which we can't really blame him for - he was assassinated in 16 years, not exactly the right age to have a heir )

 

[Ersoperso]

Mehmed II for the Ottomans but there is no chance any soon. Maybe next dlc.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Have deleted several posts that were spam. This thread is not about current events or politics. That is for OT. Please do not derail threads, stick to Civ VI topics.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Timothy001]

I hope Elanor has interesting abilities, that clearly sets her apart from Victoria and Catherine. Making both England or France different to play, then the original leaders. So far, the other alt leaders, have done so. We'll se in about 70min.

 

[Prima Italia]

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.

I was being sarcastic considering the fact that even a cursory read of the thread tells us who it is.

I changed my mind. I hope it is Napoleon being released. That would be great.

Moderator Action: Please do not comment on moderator actions. Post edited. leif
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889