You know that civ won't put Stalin in the game anymore, because of the huge emphasis on feminine leaders in the game. The game needs to be (slightly) more politically correct than in previous versions. There is also much more emphasis on certain traits of leaders, and since the leaders would be animated, it would feel very weird when you see suddenly Stalin denouncing you, while touching his moustache with an evil laugh... .
I actually think they would make the SU a seperate civ, like Macedon, if they do it at all. They could also implement an unique science district like that (though I actually think an unique research lab would me more fitting, though redundant. Science district comes up too early for a modern era civ.)
Maybe in a "cold war" DLC with some american alt leader.
I can't see that happening especially with the naming of cities. Moscow is already on the list of Russian cities, and that would probably be a majority of them they would have to take away from Russia. That's why if they wanted to do anything Soviet related it make the most sense to make Lenin as an alternate leader from Moscow.
I actually think they would make the SU a seperate civ, like Macedon, if they do it at all. They could also implement an unique science district like that (though I actually think an unique research lab would me more fitting, though redundant. Science district comes up too early for a modern era civ.)
Maybe in a "cold war" DLC with some american alt leader.
Dwight Eisenhower as an American alt leader, and Khrushchev as Soviet civilization leader? I would like that! And some achievements that would refer to the movie Dr. Strangelove (or how I learned to love the bomb) would be nice too. A Cuba civ would fit too in that theme, with Fidel Castro as a leader (or Che Guevara). I think Douglas McArthur would be an original choice as well.
Paradox should really make a Cold War game or expansion for HoI4.
Cuba for Scenario or actual game? I wouldn't necessarily want it if that were the case other than a Scenario and even then Fidel Castro might be a little too controversial, as well as Che Guevara certainly. I could think of several post-colonial Spanish speaking countries I would want before: Gran Colombia, Argentina, even Mexico before Cuba.
As for the Mughals that might fall into the same problem a separate Soviet Union civ would have. The capitals and possible city names are already on the list of names for India. But they could always make one an alternate leader.
They can change that. It's not because a city state is in the game, that the civ won't ever make it into the full game. And if we complain about geographical areas that lack a civilization, than the Caribbean come into mind, and who would be much better and iconic than Cuba. They could do the Taino as well however. Fidel Castro is maybe controversial, but again, the demographic numbers and the actual accomplishments are so good that they do better in certain areas than nations like the USA who even don't have guaranteed healthcare for all. And. If i had to be poor, i would favour living in Cuba much more than living in the USA. I would however be okay with (Gran) Colombia and maybe Mexico as well. I would not like Argentina that much however.
I think it would be better for the game if the Mughals were a separate civ like Macedon was, and if i'm not wrong, Greece also covered certain parts of Macedon as well.
I would take the Taino or even Haiti with Toussaint Louverture. But that's just my personal preference maybe because I am from the U.S. and know they are the reason why we received so many Cuban immigrants. If Firaxis could make a non Castro led Cuba I would be for it.
Geographically it's not a problem but if you do a Mughal civ you would have to probably take Agra out and so many other Indian cities that you would just have to replace them. It's a lot easier to do with a city state in my opinion. At least with Macedon most of the city names were named after Alexander himself and spread across the lands of Greece, Egypt, and Persia.
You're far better off in Cuba, than in any other Caribbean country. Look to Haiti and Dominican Republic where capitalism destroyed their nations. If Fidel Castro is controversial, well at least, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan (or the much proposed option Richard Nixon) should be considered controversial as well. And explain to me why Cubans have higher life expectancy than in the USA when they have a dictatorship and the USA not? According to this kind of reasoning, many leaders would be controversial.
I don't want to get too political here but I think this the case where just like Mao Zedong for China, any close to modern day leader might face some controversy due to the fact there might be players who live or have lived in those countries. Any form of them being portrayed either positively or negatively might have bad results. Ronald Reagan would definitely be too modern for me as well. Anybody ruling past the sixties I would personally leave out. I'll leave it at that.
I don't want to get too political here but I think this the case where just like Mao Zedong for China, any close to modern day leader might face some controversy due to the fact there might be players who live or have lived in those countries. Any form of them being portrayed either positively or negatively might have bad results. Ronald Reagan would definitely be too modern for me as well. Anybody ruling past the sixties I would personally leave out. I'll leave it at that.
You know that civ won't put Stalin in the game anymore, because of the huge emphasis on feminine leaders in the game. The game needs to be (slightly) more politically correct than in previous versions. There is also much more emphasis on certain traits of leaders, and since the leaders would be animated, it would feel very weird when you see suddenly Stalin denouncing you, while touching his moustache with an evil laugh... .
You've hit it with animations here I think. I believe that Civ5 and Civ6 deliberately go for the pre-TV and motion picture times, so they have more freedom in character creation. If I'm not mistaken, in the two games only Teddy Roosevelt and Haile Selassie are from the visual media age (well, some photographs of Pedro II must exist probably).
Well, and Khrushchev animations could be a challenge because of how funny a character he was. So when denouncing you he'd have to make some homophobic or otherwise unacceptable remarks and attempt to hit you with a shoe
Mao Zedong's China is too controversial (although widely appreciated among the Chinese), and China was during Mao's age not that relevant compared to the USSR who were the absolute major power. Without the USSR, China would probably not have been communist as well, and they would had an entire different future (and tbh probably not even better as well), although they did a good job with modernizing their country (obviously not perfect), but a better choice than the Gang of Four. China will probably be the most important world's super power in this century (or together with the USA / combined western forces), but they were not relevant (and too controversial) enough to deserve a 20th century representation, especially when they have such a rich history that dates back two to three-thousand years. So i'd to prefer see Wu Zetian, Yongle Emperor, Taizong and all other famous Chinese leaders that i don't know instead of Mao Zedong. That would be kinda insulting to be honest. That's different than Russia that has been on the world stage for 500 years and already been a world super power for 50 to 100 years, bringing the first men in an orbit around our planet, and you can't just ignore that part.
Fortunately, we know quite certainly that we won't see that happening (and Cuba however won't happen as well). But I think Lenin or Khrushchev should happen at some point.
The 60s can be fine. JFK was a leader in Civ Rev 2 as well as Lenin. Personally the latest leader I could think of that I would want would be Churchill who resigned in 1955. I also don't know how many people from China play Civ but I know that the 2010 board game depicted Mao as the leader and they couldn't sell the game in China. Of course this was due to the fact that he could not be represented in a game to where he could lose, so they reprinted with Wu Zetian as the leader to distribute the game in China. (This is the version I got, and introduced me to Civ in the first place.
You've hit it with animations here I think. I believe that Civ5 and Civ6 deliberately go for the pre-TV and motion picture times, so they have more freedom in character creation. If I'm not mistaken, in the two games only Teddy Roosevelt and Haile Selassie are from the visual media age (well, some photographs of Pedro II must exist probably).
Well, and Khrushchev animations could be a challenge because of how funny a character he was. So when denouncing you he'd have to make some homophobic or otherwise unacceptable remarks and attempt to hit you with a shoe
All I can say that when the expansion comes, I'll be waiting for a while to see what people say about it. If the AI isn't improved, I see no point in buying.
I think we'll get a couple DLCs with an expansion next Summer or Fall. Personally, it seems like they've neglected the colonial period, with no Meso-American civs and most of the European leaders being either 1500s or earlier or 1800s or later. To me that implies an expansion centered around all of that. They could add the Portuguese, Dutch, possibly Irish, a 17th or 18th century leader for England, America, France, Spain, a couple Meso-American Civs.
In the meantime, they could do DLCs for civs like the Mongols (honestly it doesn't feel like Civ without Ghengis).
it seems like they've neglected the colonial period, with no Meso-American civs and most of the European leaders being either 1500s or earlier or 1800s or later. To me that implies an expansion centered around all of that.
It could be covered in the next DLC, however new colonization mechanics could be a feature of the next expansion, although i don't expect an expansion centered on exploration, especially when you already have such a eurocentric line-up. We will probably just see Inca + Isabella in next DLC somewhere in february during Australian Summer. We will have the Dutch in the next expansion, and possibly Maya's or a native American civ. I doubt we will see Portugal soon, especially since we already have Brazil, and because having both Portugal and the Dutch could be too much of one kind.
We're quite certain to see the Netherlands, Inca's and Mali soon.
I still think it is ridiculous to have an age of exploration themed game and not have two thirds of the most important civs for that theme. I guess we‘ll see both Portugal and the Netherlands soon. Maybe even in one explorers DLC. Otherwise in the first expansion. And no, they are very different nations and civs, I don‘t think they are mutually exclusive.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
