Which confirmed leaders are you most happy with?

[plasmacannon]

Yes, Mandela as leader of a South African civ is a very good idea; as you say, he removes the need for Gandhi and Shaka. He is one of the most iconic leaders in history. Some could argue that Mandela as a recent politician does not well represent the history of the region, but the same is true of Gandhi, and India is one of the world's oldest nations.

This statement I do not understand; off course Mandela is better known than Catherine de' Medici. I'd imagine that was the case in France even.

I mentioned Shaka and Gandhi earlier in this post. These two, alongside Isabella of Castille, have been nearly every Civ game (Shaka in every one). We can't yet be sure about Shaka, but it at least appears that Isabella and Gandhi will be returning. Neither of these would be my top choice to represent their nations, and I know that others share this sentiment, particularly in the case of Gandhi. Why, if we have eccentric choices for leaders of other nations, have we got these returning?

Exactly!
So, IMHO, the Empires and Leader could be something like:
India: Ashoka
Zulu/Nguni/South Africa: Nelson Mandela
Egypt: Neferneferuaten Nefertiti - and her husband were known for a religious revolution, in which they worshiped one god only, Aten, or the sun disc and were very wealthy.
Still having the Civilization feel, but with a few new faces with names many would recognize.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Modern leaders are more known than historical ones, but they are also more controversial. That's quite a balance. We have Stalin and Mao before, but the world was different when we had those leaders in civ.

 

[Alexander Boney]

If you'd like a queen of Iron Age Norfolk, rather than any possible definition of England.

It was a little joke there. "Victoria" and "Boudicca" are essentially the same name.

 

[Liufeng]

It's different Montezuma this time

In Civ5 we had Montezuma II, in Civ6 we have Montezuma I.

Sorry, but you are wrong. In Civ4 it was Montezuma II. In Civ5 it was Montezuma I, as in the upcoming Civ6.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Sorry, but you are wrong. In Civ4 it was Montezuma II. In Civ5 it was Montezuma I, as in the upcoming Civ6.

Yes, I corrected myself already.

 

[LDiCesare]

Devs usually have enough history research (some mistakes remain, though), they just need to pick more famous figure to attract broader audience of players.

That just doesn't fit with the choice of Catherine. She's not famous. The only way she can attract a broader audience is if she appeals to women or a few obscure history freaks.
Why a particular leader is chosen is obscure. It looks like they went for novelty in part, which means that sounding new in order to please old-timers was a factor.

 

[apocalypse105]

I actually hoped they choose "Tlacaelel" as the leader for the aztec he brought them to power in the year 1400 he made them a huge empire

It olso fits perfectlly with their unique ability because he started the "flowe war". goal of these battles would not be taking land or killing the enemy, but simply capturing prisoners.So getting free workers after defeating enemy fits pretty good.


Aztecs could have easily taken Tlaxcala, but the city was kept alive as a "farm" for new human sacrifices

Imagine if firaxis used tclacaelelel as leader and used his special ability "flower wars" that would be amazing.. He was the leader who started those religious wars for capturing people.

source:
http://www.aztec-history.com/aztec-flower-war.html

 

[stealth_nsk]

That just doesn't fit with the choice of Catherine. She's not famous. The only way she can attract a broader audience is if she appeals to women or a few obscure history freaks.
Why a particular leader is chosen is obscure. It looks like they went for novelty in part, which means that sounding new in order to please old-timers was a factor.

I wouldn't say so. Check here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_de'_Medici#In_popular_culture (they have Civ6 already in the list ).

Also note - the list includes television series "Reign" which is shown in US right now.

 

[LDiCesare]

She IS obscure. Reign may help a bit, but it's not outstanding series. In France, ask people in the street, most either don't know her or think she's italian. Any way, she's less famous than at least a dozen other potential candidates. She is only there because Ed Beach is a fanboy.

 

[gfeier]

But she does match up well with the philosophy of the game. Her spying ability should make her very interesting to play, so I have no problem with her at all.

 

[Zaarin]

Exactly!
So, IMHO, the Empires and Leader could be something like:
India: Ashoka
Zulu/Nguni/South Africa: Nelson Mandela
Egypt: Neferneferuaten Nefertiti - and her husband were known for a religious revolution, in which they worshiped one god only, Aten, or the sun disc and were very wealthy.
Still having the Civilization feel, but with a few new faces with names many would recognize.

If Nelson Mandela were in the game, I wouldn't buy it. He ended apartheid, which needed to be done, but that's no reason to gloss over the fact that he was a despicable human being.

Also, while the identification of Neferneferuaten with Nefertiti is probable, it's by no means confirmed. I wouldn't mind seeing Nefertiti in game, but it would be comparable to the selection of Theodora and other queens-consort who were co-regents with their husbands--but not at all comparable to Isabella, since everyone knew Isabella was the real power and no one pretended differently. With the dubious selection of Cleopatra, I would prefer to see Akhenaten than Nefertiti.

 

[bison21]

Most happy with de Medici. More of that please. No Ghandi. Let that joke die.

 

[gfeier]

It just wouldn't feel like Civ without Gandhi, so I'm good with him.

 

[SMcM]

If Nelson Mandela were in the game, I wouldn't buy it. He ended apartheid, which needed to be done, but that's no reason to gloss over the fact that he was a despicable human being.

Really? Let's just say for a second that your 100% correct, and Mandela was nothing but a 'despicable' man- would you insist on not buying Civ 6 if it had Stalin or Mao? Anyway, yes, he was involved in some absolutely terrible things when he was younger (violent crime, terrorist activities, responsible for the deaths of many, including women and children), but, he saw the error in his ways, and became an entirely different person. Now, in the United States, the man would have been executed. But, in Europe, even for the worst of the worst, rehabilitation is placed above retribution. Even people who we would reasonably see as irredeemable have been rehabilitated.

And no, his flaws don't end at terrorism. Even as president, he did maintain friendly relations with dictators, and in fact benefit from these. But you have to remember that the United States even has been oddly silent when it comes to criticising certain dictatorships. If that is enough to make Mandela a terrible president, then Obama too fits the bill, and many presidents before him.

When looking up a consensus on the good and the bad of Mandela, I found this, which seems very fitting:

The apartheid regime was a crime against humanity; as illogical as it was cruel. It is tempting, therefore, to simplify the subject by declaring that all who opposed it were wholly and unswervingly good. It’s important to remember, however, that Mandela has been the first to hold his hands up to his shortcomings and mistakes. In books and speeches, he goes to great length to admit his errors. The real tragedy is that too many in the West can’t bring themselves to see what the great man himself has said all along; that he’s just as flawed as the rest of us, and should not be put on a pedestal.

 

[Loaf Warden]

Of the actually confirmed leaders so far, I am happiest with Theodore Roosevelt. While I acknowledge his flaws, overall I am a long-time admirer of his, and I was surprised and very pleased to see him get chosen. While his character design is more, uh, "Taft" than I would have liked, I'm still quite happy they finally gave him a turn to be the face of America in-game.

I'm second happiest with Hojo Tokimune. It's refreshing to finally have a Japanese leader who isn't from the Sengoku era. Yeah, that's a very famous period, and it gets a lot of attention by the popular media both in Japan and abroad. But it's nice to have it acknowledged that there's more to Japan than Sengoku and World War II.

Of the leaders on the "leader bingo" thing that have not been officially confirmed, the one I would be happiest to see actually confirmed is Pericles. I've been saying for some time that the agenda system and the "leader bonuses" makes Alexander a poor choice to represent Classical Greece, and frankly I'm tired of seeing Alexander in game after game anyway. I really wanted the Greek leader to be Pericles this time around, so the focus can be more on culture, science, Great People, and so on, with less of a militaristic focus. If that "leader bingo" thing is correct, then I've actually gotten my wish in that regard. (Yes, Pericles was added in a Civ IV expansion as an additional choice for Greece. And yes, the possibility still exists that DLC will bring multiple leaders to Civ VI and that Alexander will be one of them. It's still refreshing, if it's true, that they chose Pericles this time as the primary Greek leader instead of slipping him in as an afterthought.)

 

[Ll1442]

quick question on the abilities of different leaders.

So in the US first look video, it sounds like Teddy Roosevelt gives a combat bonus for fighting on own continent to all his units. Is this right, or is it solely for the Rough Rider (it sounds like you can interpret it both ways). Also in the Civ analyst (link) the French only gets it for their unique unit. It then seems like both US and France has the same combat bonus for their UU.

http://well-of-souls.com/civ/civ6_overview.html#civilizations

 

[Zaarin]

Really? Let's just say for a second that your 100% correct, and Mandela was nothing but a 'despicable' man- would you insist on not buying Civ 6 if it had Stalin or Mao?

Yes, I would not buy Civ6 if it included Stalin and Mao.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The only big difference between Stalin and Mao and most other leaders are that they are more recent.

 

[rastak]

Yes, I would not buy Civ6 if it included Stalin and Mao.

You kind of a newcomer to the series or did you boycott 1-4?

 

[SMcM]

Yes, I would not buy Civ6 if it included Stalin and Mao.

So I take you never played Civ IV? Because a great many did. And, as Denkt points out, the only thing which sets Stalin apart from say Attilla the Hun or Qin Shi Huang is that he is more recent. Anyway, Mandela isn't actually anywhere near as bad as those two in my view. Stalin, following the death of his first wife, had no warm feeling for anyone. He may well have killed his second wife himself. His regime killed millions. And not only did he never change, but he got away with it. He lived and died a killer. For all we know, he may never have regretted the things he did. Mandela, on the other hand, realised his wrongs. He went on to achieve great things, and became a symbol of freedom for many. But he also had to live with his wrongs, regretting greatly what he'd done in his past. Perhaps his wrongs cannot be forgiven, but he did his best to make up for them.

Edit: I never played Civ 1 or 2, and forgot about 3 but as rastak has just pointed out, these two leaders were have been in Civ games throughout the series.

Anyway, back to original topic, I think the inclusion of Gwanggaeto of Goguryeo is quite interesting !