What’s next? More DLCs or first expansion

[Vahnstad]

Louis XIV is okay too, but I feel like Catherine De Medici would be too much like him. I also think they chose CdM above Louis XIV, just because of their more feminine emphasis on leaders. Louis XIV didn't made it into civ vi, because he was a man. I wished they chose for Joan of Arc, and than went for Louis XIV, but no either Joan of Arc (two feminine leaders) and Louis XIV (culture) would again be weird.

 

[trev1972]

The problem aren't just the dates though, it is that the game (and especially the late game) goes far too quickly. Essentially, research costs are too low compared to production costs. Slowing research down is the easiest way of fixing that.

Personally id add in 20% more science cost AND do something to reign in extreme beelining, so the more techs you missed in the previous era, the more the tech in the new era costs.

 

[Uberfrog]

Louis XIV is okay too, but I feel like Catherine De Medici would be too much like him. I also think they chose CdM above Louis XIV, just because of their more feminine emphasis on leaders. Louis XIV didn't made it into civ vi, because he was a man. I wished they chose for Joan of Arc, and than went for Louis XIV, but no either Joan of Arc (two feminine leaders) and Louis XIV (culture) would again be weird.

Catherine only has bonuses and agenda to do with espionage, not culture. It would be perfectly feasible to have Louis as an alternate leader with cultural bonuses.

 

[God of Kings]

CdM is why France has ice cream.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Joan of Arc would make even less sense than Catherine. I like her where she is as a Great General who creates a relic. And Louis XIV would definitely be a cultural leader as opposed to being into espionage. Maybe he could give extra amenities from his palace and even let chateaus grant amenities (something for which they probably already should). France is already geared toward culture, but not because of their leader.

 

[Winged Hussar]

Before they get too creative...

I'm hoping for Catherine the Great for Russia again, with an obvious expansionistic and military flavor. ...an aggressive Russia just feels more "right".

The Dutch were awesome as well, and William of Orange was a great choice.

...and man, I really hope the Mongols come back. No need to reinvent the wheel with them as well - bring on GK!

 

[Vahnstad]

I don't think Catherine would add much to Russia, because she's too much like Peter The Great. We need a non-Tsarist alternative leader (or Ivan The Terrible), but again, when you have such a rich history, why would you ignore the time where Russia was a superpower, and if they think it would be too controversial, then remember how bad the people had it during the Tsarist Russia and why the Russian revolution was there in the first place. Life improved much for the Russians during Lenin's reign. Even when Stalin was in power, people still had it much better than during Tsar Nicolas' reign, although i'm not advocating for his inclusion, but for Lenin's inclusion or maybe Nikita Khrushchev.

Also, we had Catherine in civ 2, civ 3, civ 4 and civ 5. We only had Peter The Great, Josef Stalin, Vladimir Lenin and Catherine The Great as leaders of the Russian civ, and Lenin's inclusion is from civ 2. Lenin, Ivan the Terrible or Nikita Khrushchev would be fresh choices.

 

[Quarz]

I did not read the whole thread yet, and I may im a bit late here... anyway....

I prefer the expansion model because it forces the developer to focus their resources on overhauling aspects of the game that are truly lacking. Without an expansion there's nothing to guarantee drastic new features like the World Congress or late game ideologies ever materialize. Instead the developers might grow complacent and just stick with a slow drip of new Civs.

Not sure, but can't they "mix" both somehow?
1. They might do DLC with low impact on gameplay. (I would love to see the palace screen return in a DLC for example plus additional leaders for existing Civs)
2. Then they could ship expansion(s) with really gameplay changing overhauls / features.

Would this work?

 

[Siptah]

Does anyone know what the falconchase branch in the steamdb is? Is it new? Can't remember seeing it there before.

 

[Katakanja]

Does anyone know what the falconchase branch in the steamdb is? Is it new? Can't remember seeing it there before.

@Eagle Pursuit can explain that for you, though perhaps you can work it out yourself just from thinking about the names...

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Does anyone know what the falconchase branch in the steamdb is? Is it new? Can't remember seeing it there before.

It is new. They made it last Friday, and appears to be a reference to my username.

 

[cvb]

Some of this saw already a bit daylight ... as far as I remember, the point is that Eagle Pursuit and Ed Beach are each others alter egos. Of course Ed knows this, but somehow Eagle can't remember it - probably in order to be able to freely investigate and speculate about the development of the patches and also write here in the forum unwearied ... "they" made it last Friday ...

I suppose, it is hint for a coming North American civ ... Crow?

 

[unpossible251]

French leader? I reckon go for De Gualle. Led the government in exile, free french forces, french resistance, provisional government... so yeah, definitely leadership material. But on top of that, a hell of a "character" with traits that would work well in civ. He pushed very hard for independence, nuclear weapons, clamped dpwn on colonies, and had been pretty disagreeable as an ally. And, attracted a boatload of assassination attempts too! Hell of a character.

And Russia? Contravertial choice, but how about Rasputin? Duh, obviously, not a statesman, but some accounts have him as a de facto leader of Russia for a time. Fascinating character anyway. Holy man, to healer, to council, to political domination of the royal family.

It fits in woth the civ6 approach of "not necessarily the most influential leaders... but the most bombastic".

 

[Vahnstad]

Yes, come on. Why all the love for WW2 leaders. It would be a real insult to go for a leader like De Gaulle when you have such a rich history as a civilization. Also, De Gaulle would be too much like England (he was Anglophile or a Gaullist), and i rather have the Gauls than De Gaulle If you want a militarist French leader, please stick to Napoleon. Otherwise, there are plenty of options, but not De Gaulle. You could have Charlemagne, Joan of Arc, Louis XIV, Napoleon and it should honestly not even be a question at all. And De Gaulle is honestly not "the most bombastic person". If you really want a WW2 leader, stick to Churchill, but again, there are better options too. Elizabeth I (the safe choice), or a medieval English king. Victoria already covers the British Empire-period.

Also, Russia has so many options that I would be really disappointed with a choice of Rasputin tbh. I'm begging for a Soviet leader. That's also when Russia reached their climax as a civilization, so you can't ignore that in my opinion. You can always go for Ivan The Terrible as well. And even Catherine The Great is a better choice than Rasputin.

 

[Uberfrog]

Yes, come on. Why all the love for WW2 leaders. It would be a real insult to go for a leader like De Gaulle when you have such a rich history as a civilization. Also, De Gaulle would be too much like England (he was Anglophile or a Gaullist), and i rather have the Gauls than De Gaulle If you want a militarist French leader, please stick to Napoleon. Otherwise, there are plenty of options, but not De Gaulle. You could have Charlemagne, Joan of Arc, Louis XIV, Napoleon and it should honestly not even be a question at all. And De Gaulle is honestly not "the most bombastic person". If you really want a WW2 leader, stick to Churchill, but again, there are better options too. Elizabeth I (the safe choice), or a medieval English king. Victoria already covers the British Empire-period.

I think old Charlie would be spinning in his grave if he heard you describe him as "Anglophile"

But I agree, I would favour Louis XIV, and he would seem to perfectly embody the "big personality" ideal for Civ VI leaders. "L'état, c'est moi," and all that (even if it's probably apocryphal).

A Soviet leader (best not Stalin, but maybe Lenin) for Russia would be interesting, but I imagine difficult to approach.

Still I think we're going to be waiting at least eight months at this stage for an expansion in Summer 2018. Ed's interview with PCGamesN seemed to be gearing up for an expansion announcement with his talk of larger-scale changes, and I'd be very surprised if they have any DLC for us.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Rasputin certainly would be interesting but I would prefer Lenin as the next leader. For England I would love Churchill but if they wanted to go for big personalities they could always throw us Henry VIII. I for one would also like to see Thomas Jefferson for America.
As for DLC, I believe that if we don't get one this winter, say around the holidays there will be no more.

 

[Vahnstad]

Lenin or Khrushchev. Stalin is obviously too controversial and it would be weird to play with him. If Hitler shouldn't make it in the game, then neither should Stalin. And there are always games like HoI if you really want to experience world war II and play as them. That's why I prefer other leaders, and i'm not so keen on ww2 leaders, especially since even the victorious are controversial, and since I want to explore other leaders, than always the same famous four leaders in every game + Mussolini.

But I think you can't ignore the SU, even when you would argue that it's a dictatorship. There are many dictatorships in the game, and even some democracies are not that democratic as well (i'm looking towards the USA). The SU is maybe one of the most scientifically advanced countries we've ever had, for some time they even had an edge on the USA, and they were one of the two global superpowers during 50-60 years in the 20th century. Some cruelties did indeed happen (mostly under Stalin's rulership), but they happen everywhere on the world (although less covered by media), but compared to Tsarist Russia, the USSR was a blessing, and when the USSR collapsed, the welfare system went down, and life expectancy went down.

To prove my point.

Spoiler :

How life looked like in the Tsarist Empire.

The average Russian was a peasant and pre-revolutionary Russian peasant's 32 years life expectancy looked like this:

Childhood

Daily Life

Work

How life looked like in the USSR

The average Russian was a worker, and the Soviet worker's 68 years life expectancy looked like this:

Childhood

Daily Life

Work

Life got so much better that most Russians still feel nostalgic about the communist age!

In Tsarist Russia

An average Russian before WWI was an illiterate peasant having little to no property, starving from hunger from time to time, and having no medical treatment because couldn’t afford it. Child mortality rate was extreme and life expectancy wasn’t high either.

“Famine-stricken villagers who have left their homes on the way to St. Petersburg. 16,000 villagers arrived last week at St. Petersburg, and many more are expected.”

This is 1891, one of many famines hitting the Russian Empire like previously in 1885, 1880, 1873, etc. and again in 1897–1898, 1905–1908, 1911. These peasants made their way to cities hoping to find some food and shelter because death was the only alternative. The government sent troops to prevent peasants from leaving their poverty stricken villages.

“The famine in Russia: Cossack patrol near Kazan preventing peasants leaving their village. From a sketch by a Russian officer.”

“The Russian famine - the interior of a cottage in the distressed districts”

The was no free food from the government to those starving. They could qualify for a loan instead. If they were unable to pay it back, their remaining property was seized.

“The famine in Russia: searching villages for hidden stores and stolen grain. From a sketch by a Russian officer.”

Russia kept exporting grain because capitalism cared only about profits. When Ivan Vyshnegradsky, the Finance Minister in 1887 to 1892, banned grain exports and attempted to introduce progressive taxes on the rich people, he was fired and grain exports resumed. Even the word голодъ (famine) was banned from Russian mass media by the emperor’s order. The word недородъ (poor harvest) had to be used instead.

The situation was so bad that many young peasants were willing to join the army where they could get some food. The official sources mentioned that 40% recruits tasted meat for the first time in the army.

Imperial Russia had the worst death rates in Europe for infectious diseases. An official report by Serge Novoselski, “Mortality and Life Expectancy in Russia”, 1916, is an excellent source. 30% infants died before their 1st birthday. 57% survived to the age of 5 (Italy 72%, Germany 71%, England 77%, France 79%, Sweden 84%). Only 18% could make it to the age of 70 (Italy 28%, Germany 29%, England 31%, France 34%, Sweden 43%). Death rate due to smallpox, measles, scarlet fever, diphtheria, pertussis and typhus was 528 for 100,000 citizens (Italy 98, Germany 92, England 90, Sweden 56). Quite possible these official figures for Russia were more favourable than they should be because the imperial statistics wasn’t reliable, but health care quality in the Russian Empire was terrible definitely.

The NUMBERS

Literacy

1917 - 25.2%

1926 - 51.0%

1939 - 89.7%

1950 - ~100%

Numeracy Rate

1890 - 97.2%

1910 - 98.4%

1930 - 99.9%

1950 - 100%

Average years of education

1900 - 1.2 years

1910 - 1.3 years

1920 - 1.9 years

1930 - 2.5 years

1940 - 3.9 years

Life Expectancy

1896 - 32.3 years

1926 - 44.4 years

1958 - 68.6 years

What did the Bolshevik revolution meant for us? The option of the USSR was much, much, much more preferable than a continuation of the Tsarist regime. Also the bolshevik revolution (and dissatisfaction with WW1) caused the political elite in Europe to enact much needed social reforms, building the first steps for the foundation of a social welfare state we have now in Europe out of fear of the spread of the revolution to Europe. Without communism, not much would have been changed. The rise of the USSR is still one of the best things that ever happened in our history (ironically maybe even more for Europeans).

______________

All of this just to tell that there is no ethical reason to not implement the USSR, since in my belief the USSR played a major role in civilization, and shaped the world we now know for a large part. The ISS was built by a lot of Russian experience and knowledge for example. They shaped our world too, and ignoring that, would be kind of crazy. I've also heard in other topics that Russia maybe even shouldn't made it to the vanilla line-up, and that sounded to me kind off nuts, since they're geographically isolated and together with Rome/Greece and England/USA one of the most influential civilizations. Even more important than China who also has a rich history (and like Japan's) stayed a bit untouched because it's isolated from European battlegrounds (and Roman influence), but the Chinese culture isn't spread that much on the world. However, China is now an "emerging" superpower, and is now taking over from the USA. I believe it won't be that long, before China will be recognized as the most important world super power (maybe even less than 10 years). You can already see that Europe doesn't care anymore about the USA on environmental issues, and align themselves with China who are now the world's leader on environmental issues. USA is completely alone in not signing the Paris agreement. The USA (and Israel) are also completely alone on the embargo against Cuba. So, when China does make that transition, they will definitely join Russia, England/USA and Rome as most influential civilizations. Now they're just one step behind.

EDIT: and sorry for elaborating too much. I'm going to spoiler sections of the post.

 

[member66170]

Has everyone forgotten that Stalin was in Civ4?? He already has been in a Civilization game, how can he be too controversial for it?

 

[Vahnstad]

Has everyone forgotten that Stalin was in Civ4?? He already has been in a Civilization game, how can he be too controversial for it?

I don't play civ that long, and i think if it wasn't an issue back then, then it would be an issue now. It will never happen anymore. I can't see making a developer that choice anymore, especially when you have to choose a leader very consciously and carefully. But it would be wrong to ignore the USSR also because it's too controversial, since that would be kinda bogus. You can't forget that in the western world there is a lot of anti-Russian propaganda (and yes we have lots of propaganda). Those leaders were not evil. Gorbatsjov was even one of the best leader the world ever had, and he got the Nobelprice for Peace for leading his country to ashes .

I would be disappointed with Josef Stalin as a Russian leader, especially when you have to choose between a huge pool of leaders, and Lenin and Khrushchev are much, much better (and fresher).

 

[God of Kings]

Lenin and Khrushchev would make excellent alt leaders for Russia to represent the Soviet period. Better yet, neither were Georgian, which would make room for a potential Georgian civ.