Theodore Roosovelt 100% confirmed

[Martin Alvito]

I'm surprised FDR (who won a war) and Thomas Jefferson (who wrote the Declaration) didn't get in first.

FDR was in CIV (Civ 4).

Jefferson's a little touchy, given the way that slavery got personal for him.

An alternative possible curveball would have been Eisenhower. That could be fun for a more militaristic version of America. Truman's not likely to get the nod because of the bomb.

 

[Rusty Edge]

Eh, I never could take leader screens seriously anyways. Civ IV's were plain goofy at times, and in CiV I could never play against Askia without saying "Um, dude, your city is one fire". Granted, CiV did do a good job of making leaders appear more regal (Ashurbanipal sounds incredible) but I suppose I do appreciate some of the silliness a bit more. It's all a matter of preference. Teddy looks and sounds good to me so that's all I really care about.



Guess we'll just have to build that fleet ourselves.

Well, it would be nice if some of the A.I.s did, to provide competition. I guess they suggested that "largest navy" could be one of the hidden agendas. So that, at least, gives me hope.

 

[Zaarin]

Just putting a painting behind Teddy instead of placing him in a scene seems kind of lazy. Is this a placeholder or are they going cheap on the leaderscreens too?

It's entirely possible (and I sincerely hope) the painting is a placeholder. Otherwise it certainly seems a step back from Civ5's jaw-dropping leaderscreens. Still, on the whole I like what I see--the new leaders seem to have a lot of personality, both in terms of art style and AI.

 

[altayrneto]

It's entirely possible (and I sincerely hope) the painting is a placeholder. Otherwise it certainly seems a step back from Civ5's jaw-dropping leaderscreens. Still, on the whole I like what I see--the new leaders seem to have a lot of personality, both in terms of art style and AI.

I think the painting background is not a place holder, but a way that would make possible multiple leaders per civ. Making more complex backgrounds like Civ V (which I prefer), would take more work, time and money to make each leaderscreen. That's a choice that I personally, agree (if there's other leaders for the civilization). Anyway, I liked the painting background...

 

[moysturfurmer]

Idk if anyone mentioned this but the background wasn't completely 2D. The different figures in the composition rest on multiple planes along the z axis, so when the camera moved, there was a (maybe too subtle) but of parallax going on. A nice touch, if you ask me.

On another note why come Arioch no mention America's film studio hmm? No place for a 3rd unique in his chart/spreadsheet.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

So much yes to having Teddy Roosevelt for America, really excited to see if we have other totally new to the series leaders for other mainstay civs.

 

[Spaceturtle]

I think the painting background is not a place holder, but a way that would make possible multiple leaders per civ. Making more complex backgrounds like Civ V (which I prefer), would take more work, time and money to make each leaderscreen. That's a choice that I personally, agree (if there's other leaders for the civilization). Anyway, I liked the painting background...

Also, maybe the painted background will change to reflect the current era of the civilization.

 

[Zaarin]

I think the painting background is not a place holder, but a way that would make possible multiple leaders per civ. Making more complex backgrounds like Civ V (which I prefer), would take more work, time and money to make each leaderscreen. That's a choice that I personally, agree (if there's other leaders for the civilization). Anyway, I liked the painting background...

I'd personally rather have more detailed leader scenes and more civilizations than multiple leaders per civ, at least on release (I would buy the crap out of a DLC for an Egyptian leader of Egypt), but I imagine that people's opinions on this subject vary wildly.

 

[Camikaze]

It's used in game as seen in the gameplay footage. I'm all for more civs but V still managed the most civs any game despite having (and because of having) the most detailed leaders (granted it had DLC). It's hard not to be disappointed when a sequel ends up looking a bit worse than the previous game, not just because they removed the scenery porn but also because the painting itself is kind of crap looking.

Firaxis has mentioned in the past that leaderscreens were a major development bottleneck for Civ5. They managed to streamline the process by the time BNW development came around, but before that it required major art resources to actually churn out each single leaderscreen. A fair few players also turned these leaderscreens off, because they were too resource-intensive for slower/older computers to deal with. It was also impossible for the modding community to produce similar leaderscreens.

I somewhat agree that I prefer the Civ5 leaderscreens to what we've seen with Teddy's, but I'd rather have more leaderscreens, and the ability for the modding community to create more leaderscreens.

 

[dexters]

I'd personally rather have more detailed leader scenes and more civilizations than multiple leaders per civ, at least on release (I would buy the crap out of a DLC for an Egyptian leader of Egypt), but I imagine that people's opinions on this subject vary wildly.

With the Agenda system, they can more meaningfully sell us DLCs now as it could change a Civ from completely peaceful to insane crazy warmonger.

With roughriders attached to T.R.'s American Civ, I also wonder if UUs, at least one of them, are now attached to leaders.

 

[Rusty Edge]

As impressive and beautiful as the V version of Cathy was, I feel like the language, expression and visual detail was a drain on resources better devoted to optional leaders and play styles. I feel that realistic approach made it harder to include additional responses, sort of precluding, if not excluding additional diplomacy development in patches and expansions.

Then again, I had a multi-year hiatus on playing V, and maybe my memory is playing tricks on me and I'm wrong. It would hardly be the first time. Maybe diplomacy has evolved a lot.


Oh. While I was multi-tasking Camikaze clarified the issue.

 

[dexters]

Catherine looked good in Civ5? I felt she was one of the weaker leaders. She looks really off, per proportions especially. More like an animated doll than anything.

 

[Dumanios]

I'm surprised to see Teddy in unmodded civ. I like it.

 

[StittsvileJamie]

I'm going to bet that America can build a Panama Canal much like China can build a Great Wall as a tile improvement, and not a wonder. Maybe only spanning 2 or 3 tiles max, and providing all kinds of tile appeal or money or something. The video where Ed Beach is asked about canals, he specifically mentions they added Roosevelt who's known for the Panama Canal. Why else mention that when asked about canals if it's not a thing? Especially if China has a tile improvement like the great wall.

I hope so anyways.

 

[MacAurther]

I think Teddy's UA might be the "Square Deal," due to its prominence in the official update on the Civ VI website . Not only does the article describe his policy, but it re-emphasizes TR's trust-busting and also provides a link to the Wikipedia page on the Square Deal. I can only see this as a hint.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm going to bet that America can build a Panama Canal much like China can build a Great Wall as a tile improvement, and not a wonder. Maybe only spanning 2 or 3 tiles max, and providing all kinds of tile appeal or money or something. The video where Ed Beach is asked about canals, he specifically mentions they added Roosevelt who's known for the Panama Canal. Why else mention that when asked about canals if it's not a thing? Especially if China has a tile improvement like the great wall.

I hope so anyways.

We already know America's 3 uniques. If it's the UA, that would be a very limited, weak UA. Although I could see America getting some kind of efficiency for building a canal as a portion of their UA.

BTW, both Pete Murray has hinted, and Ed Beach all but said there would be canals in the game in some form.

 

[StittsvileJamie]

We already know America's 3 uniques. If it's the UA, that would be a very limited, weak UA. Although I could see America getting some kind of efficiency for building a canal as a portion of their UA.

BTW, both Pete Murray has hinted, and Ed Beach all but said there would be canals in the game in some form.

Maybe all civs get a couple unique units, a unique building, a unique ability, and a unique tile improvement, or wonder, or something?

 

[Louis XXIV]

I wonder if the third unique replaces having a UA for America.

That was my takeaway. The fact that it hasn't been mentioned seems to support this. We'll see.

Have to say, I'm disappointed by the Rough Riders. They're a historical footnote at best (although they are associated with Teddy Roosevelt). Their spirit is something I'd support in a unit, but I've always pushed for a more Davy Crockett-esque "pioneer" type unit with the racoon cap and all that as something that truly stands out as American before the modern age.

Wooh, it's Andy Reid.

Teddy definitely filled out as time went on. This is a bit more exaggerated than he was, but I have no problem with it.

 

[clanky4]

This guys inclusion just makes me so happy for so many reasons.

Spoiler :

 

[Zaarin]

We know unique abilities are in because we know at least part of China's is that their workers can rush wonders; I would be astonished if any civ lacked a UA. I'm guessing each civ will have three of UU/UB/UI plus one UA.