What do you think of the Leaders?

[Hilton1]

Hard to say. Firaxis have said this will be the game with the most leaders (including personas) but some people think they forgot that Civ4 launched with 26. So five personas (from the higher priced editions + one of the Napoleons), ten leaders with a first look, Amina, Himiko, Ben Franklin, and Napoleon means we're already at 19. The ESRB revealed that Frederick and Catherine the Greats may be in the game, and people expect a Hawaiian or Indonesian leader to round out the exploration reveals. Are there another five leaders on top of that? Firaxis' lips are sealed but I suspect maybe not.

On top of that, they've been revealing one leader per week and there's only 11 more Thursdays left until the early release, with one of those being Boxing Day, so there simply may not be enough time to reveal 12 more leaders, unless they just break the scheduling of course.

Thanks. Taking all that into account, could this look like a plausible roster for the remaining leader reveals:

Confirmed:
Amina [Songhai]
Benjamin Franklin [America]
Himiko [Meiji Japan]
Napoleon (two personas) [France]

Speculated based on ESRB:
Catherine the Great [Russia]
Frederick the Great [Prussia]

Additional:
Polynesian leader (Lili'uokalani or Kamehameha) [Hawaii]
Victoria [Britain]
1x new, curveball leader along the lines of Machiavelli. Possibly a Mexican leader [I posted a separate thread on Frida Kahlo as a potential curveball], or a cultural leader not linked to any of the launch civs.
1x series favourite, revealed as a standalone or alongside a civ with a tenuous connection: Genghis Khan (alongside Qing?), Gandhi (alongside Mughals?) or Shaka (alongside Buganda?).

Personally I think that Frederick the Great might not be in at launch, because I think Prussia/Germany is going to be in Right to Rule DLC. I have a feeling that that the ESRB leak might have been based on both the game at launch and the already announced DLC. I could be completely mistaken.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I have a feeling that that the ESRB leak might have been based on both the game at launch and the already announced DLC. I could be completely mistaken.

I'm pretty sure that additional content is always rated separately by the ESRB, so I don't think that's likely.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

1x new, curveball leader along the lines of Machiavelli. Possibly a Mexican leader [I posted a separate thread on Frida Kahlo as a potential curveball], or a cultural leader not linked to any of the launch civs.
1x series favourite, revealed as a standalone or alongside a civ with a tenuous connection: Genghis Khan (alongside Qing?), Gandhi (alongside Mughals?) or Shaka (alongside Buganda?).

I'd choose Montezuma (alongside Mexico) as more likely than Gandhi right now, considering we already have Ashoka.

 

[ehecatzin]

Monty will forever be the leader of not only the Aztecs, but Mayans, and Mexico too. /s

I really don't want to see Monty repeat, yet again. Im rather pessimistic that if there's not a leader for either Mexico or Mayans in vanilla, there won't be one later on.

 

[Hilton1]

I'm pretty sure that additional content is always rated separately by the ESRB, so I don't think that's likely.

Ah fair enough, I didn't know that. Interesting - do you think they would include Frederich the Great without Prussia/Germany, or do you think the leak means both are in?

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Ah fair enough, I didn't know that. Interesting - do you think they would include Frederich the Great without Prussia/Germany, or do you think the leak means both are in?

It's converted me to JNR13's model: Germany and Russia as our last two civs, with no Britain in vanilla. I really can't see Frederich or Catherine as solo acts with Europe having so many leaders already.

 

[Hilton1]

It's converted me to JNR13's model: Germany and Russia as our last two civs, with no Britain in vanilla. I really can't see Frederich or Catherine as solo acts with Europe having so many leaders already.

But wasn't Britain mentioned by the devs, and London used as the basis for the model of layered cities?

Personally I find it hard to believe they wouldn't launch with Britain - the world's largest empire, one of the most influential modern civs, and a massive English-speaking consumer base.

Maybe Qing might not make it?

 

[Siptah]

I‘m wondering who the last two personas for the premium editions are. If Friedrich is in, I can see him having two personas: militaristic-cultural and diplomatic-cultural. But for the other one? Himiko seems unlikely. So, double Ben?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So, double Ben?

I could see Diplomatic Ambassador Ben and Scientist/Inventor Ben.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

But wasn't Britain mentioned by the devs, and London used as the basis for the model of layered cities?

Personally I find it hard to believe they wouldn't launch with Britain - the world's largest empire, one of the most influential modern civs, and a massive English-speaking consumer base.

Maybe Qing might not make it?

They've mentioned it as inspiration, which was enough for me for a while, but they've yet to show any actual materials related to it... we've already got a western European civ closely related to the Normans and an Anglophone civ in France and America, so I could see them cutting it for "variety." I also think China to Japan is a controversy they would prefer to avoid, and I agree with others that China seems to be the route for players who aren't certain about civ switching yet.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

They've mentioned it as inspiration, which was enough for me for a while, but they've yet to show any actual materials related to it... we've already got a western European civ closely related to the Normans and an Anglophone civ in France and America, so I could see them cutting it for "variety." I also think China to Japan is a controversy they would prefer to avoid, and I agree with others that China seems to be the route for players who aren't certain about civ switching yet.

They have shown Oxford University, but that could just be an unassociated wonder. I would personally choose Big Ben for the British anyways.

But yeah, they aren't going to only have China for two ages. Qing will definitely be in, and we've even seen a wonder for them.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I could see Diplomatic Ambassador Ben and Scientist/Inventor Ben.

I agree that Franklin and Frederick are the likeliest Double Persona candidates of those we still need First Looks on (though Frederick has only been circumstantially confirmed and could be a full DLC deal)

 

[Krikkit1]

But wasn't Britain mentioned by the devs, and London used as the basis for the model of layered cities?

Personally I find it hard to believe they wouldn't launch with Britain - the world's largest empire, one of the most influential modern civs, and a massive English-speaking consumer base.

Maybe Qing might not make it?

The thing is the massive English speaking consumer base is not British... it is American.
And having both Britain, and America may seem too much overlap in terms of cultural similarities (especially when you also have the French another WIERD imperialist society.) when you only have 10 Modern civs

I'm pretty sure Britain will be in fairly early (ie in a DLC no later than May 2026)

Russia I am pretty sure is in (strong cultural and geographic distinction from France as another European civ... easy connection to Mongols)

The only weirdness with Prussia/Germany is it seems to have terrible possible connections the nearest Exploration civs are Normans, Spain, Abbasids.... I could see them opened up by the Normans IF the lists of what civs unlock aren't complete yet (ie Normans actually unlock 3 civs.. ie France, America, Prussia)

 

[Hilton1]

The thing is the massive English speaking consumer base is not British... it is American.
And having both Britain, and America may seem too much overlap in terms of cultural similarities (especially when you also have the French another WIERD imperialist society.) when you only have 10 Modern civs

True that the American market is much bigger than the British market, but I would assume the UK is still a massive market and segment of the player base for Civ?

I think the other points about historical significance and influence also still stand. In my eyes, not having England/Britain in a game that is partly about empires and has a designated Modern Era would be equivalent to not including Rome, Greece or Egypt in the Ancient Era. It feels particularly strange to launch with smaller regional powers such as Buganda and Siam but not the largest empire of the modern era, especially given its impact on much of the world today.

I am British, so perhaps I am betraying my bias here!

And yes, the other point is that Rome->Normans->Britain fits perfectly into the three era evolution design. They even used the city of London as an example of the inspiration for the mechanic. Whereas Prussia/Germany would have to evolve from the Normans or Spain?

Don't get me wrong, I won't be upset if Britain isn't in, and I'm always happy to see experimentation and geographical diversity. But I do still think it would be a strange decision. Perhaps they're banking on it selling DLC copies.

 

[Cuauhtémoc's Rage]

True that the American market is much bigger than the British market, but I would assume the UK is still a massive market and segment of the player base for Civ?

I think the other points about historical significance and influence also still stand. In my eyes, not having England/Britain in a game that is partly about empires and has a designated Modern Era would be equivalent to not including Rome, Greece or Egypt in the Ancient Era. It feels particularly strange to launch with smaller regional powers such as Buganda and Siam but not the largest empire of the modern era, especially given its impact on much of the world today.

I am British, so perhaps I am betraying my bias here!

And yes, the other point is that Rome->Normans->Britain fits perfectly into the three era evolution design. They even used the city of London as an example of the inspiration for the mechanic. Whereas Prussia/Germany would have to evolve from the Normans or Spain?

Don't get me wrong, I won't be upset if Britain isn't in, and I'm always happy to see experimentation and geographical diversity. But I do still think it would be a strange decision. Perhaps they're banking on it selling DLC copies.

Yeah, I think the mention of London specifically is a sort of pseudo-confirmation for Britain's inclusion, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Krikkit1]

True that the American market is much bigger than the British market, but I would assume the UK is still a massive market and segment of the player base for Civ?

I think the other points about historical significance and influence also still stand. In my eyes, not having England/Britain in a game that is partly about empires and has a designated Modern Era would be equivalent to not including Rome, Greece or Egypt in the Ancient Era. It feels particularly strange to launch with smaller regional powers such as Buganda and Siam but not the largest empire of the modern era, especially given its impact on much of the world today.

I am British, so perhaps I am betraying my bias here!

And yes, the other point is that Rome->Normans->Britain fits perfectly into the three era evolution design. They even used the city of London as an example of the inspiration for the mechanic. Whereas Prussia/Germany would have to evolve from the Normans or Spain?

Don't get me wrong, I won't be upset if Britain isn't in, and I'm always happy to see experimentation and geographical diversity. But I do still think it would be a strange decision. Perhaps they're banking on it selling DLC copies.

I think those DLC copies may be it.

I could see some of the big Markets (Britain, Germany, Korea) being put off to DLCs because of other geographically and culturally close regional powers already being there (America, France, China, Japan).

I mean... they don't have anything from Mesopotamia in the Age of Antiquity (settling building cities and early empires). It would make sense that they don't have Britain in the Age of Modernity (Industrial Age)

I'm pretty sure that either Britain or Germany (maybe both) is in the initial DLCs, but that neither is in the Base Game.

 

[Zaarin]

Tyrian purple (which is more of a violet than anything)

As the local Phoenician nerd, I feel the need to point out that Tyrian purple is the exact opposite of violet; in fact, it's so red that it's called red in some languages. Tekhelet is the bluer purple dye derived from Murex snails. The Phoenicians produced that, too, but it wasn't called Tyrian purple. The dying method and exposing or not exposing the dye to sunlight during the dying process can also affect the color. Exposing Tyrian purple to sunlight while setting produces a darker primary purple, while not exposing it to sunlight produces a more vibrant red-purple, which was generally considered the more desirable color.

is painstaking to produce.

Yes, and more pointedly not available in the Americas to my knowledge. (Murex species are pretty widespread, but not the two that produce dyes, Bolinus brandaris and Hexaplex trunculus, which produce Tyrian purple and tekhelet respectively.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

True that the American market is much bigger than the British market, but I would assume the UK is still a massive market and segment of the player base for Civ?

I think the other points about historical significance and influence also still stand. In my eyes, not having England/Britain in a game that is partly about empires and has a designated Modern Era would be equivalent to not including Rome, Greece or Egypt in the Ancient Era. It feels particularly strange to launch with smaller regional powers such as Buganda and Siam but not the largest empire of the modern era, especially given its impact on much of the world today.

I am British, so perhaps I am betraying my bias here!

And yes, the other point is that Rome->Normans->Britain fits perfectly into the three era evolution design. They even used the city of London as an example of the inspiration for the mechanic. Whereas Prussia/Germany would have to evolve from the Normans or Spain?

Don't get me wrong, I won't be upset if Britain isn't in, and I'm always happy to see experimentation and geographical diversity. But I do still think it would be a strange decision. Perhaps they're banking on it selling DLC copies.

I agree with you but I'm starting to just suspect that the only representation for England/Britain might just be the Normans in the base game, along with a potential leader such as Elizabeth or Victoria. I mean their associated wonder is also the White Tower which is found in London.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

As the local Phoenician nerd, I feel the need to point out that Tyrian purple is the exact opposite of violet; in fact, it's so red that it's called red in some languages. Tekhelet is the bluer purple dye derived from Murex snails. The Phoenicians produced that, too, but it wasn't called Tyrian purple. The dying method and exposing or not exposing the dye to sunlight during the dying process can also affect the color. Exposing Tyrian purple to sunlight while setting produces a darker primary purple, while not exposing it to sunlight produces a more vibrant red-purple, which was generally considered the more desirable color.


Yes, and more pointedly not available in the Americas to my knowledge. (Murex species are pretty widespread, but not the two that produce dyes, Bolinus brandaris and Hexaplex trunculus, which produce Tyrian purple and tekhelet respectively.)

A small correction: the purpura, a marine gastropod from the family muricidae, while very different from the Phoenician species, is native to Mesoamerican coasts and was used by both Mayans and Aztecs to produce a 'dull red' or purple-ish color for fabrics and paintings. A 'truer purple' could also be derived from the logwood (Haematoxylum campechianum) tree, which is native to Mexico, but the color was completely 'fugitive' - it changed dramatically when exposed to sunlight or contacted by water, so, basically, could not be used on any surface or fabric outside in any weather!

 

[Zaarin]

A small correction: the purpura, a marine gastropod from the family muricidae, while very different from the Phoenician species, is native to Mesoamerican coasts and was used by both Mayans and Aztecs to produce a 'dull red' or purple-ish color for fabrics and paintings. A 'truer purple' could also be derived from the logwood (Haematoxylum campechianum) tree, which is native to Mexico, but the color was completely 'fugitive' - it changed dramatically when exposed to sunlight or contacted by water, so, basically, could not be used on any surface or fabric outside in any weather!

Interesting to know! I'm mostly familiar with North American pigments, which were largely mineral-based (red from ochre or galena; yellow from ochre; black from soot; white from chalk, calcium carbonate, or clay; occasionally blue or blue-green from copper oxides), usually with bear grease as a mordent/medium.