Which Leader would you pair with a different Civilization?

[TheSpaceCowboy]

It's been speculated that Civilization VI will allow players to separately select their Civilization and Leaders, so that the leader of one Civilization could be used while playing as another. If such proves to be the case, which combinations would you be eager to employ?

I'd personally want to have Qin Shi Haung as the Leader of Egypt. His leader ability of "The First Emperor," which allows builders to contribute production towards Wonders (in addition to giving Builders one extra charge), would pair well with Egypt's Civilization Ability of "Idaltu," which allows all Wonders to be built along floodplains, and at an accelerated rate too. Such would allow Qin dynasty Egypt to spam early Wonders and pull ahead to a commanding lead.

 

[Thormodr]

Very interesting idea. I think it would be fun to play with a hybrid/chimera civ.

 

[rastak]

I don't believe that was implied anywhere nor do I think that would be in the design. It was implied we might be able to have multiple leaders for a single Civ.

 

[AJ22PIZZA]

Teddy Roosevelt as the leader of China

 

[Atlas627]

An interesting thought experiment, but I don't know if we have enough combinations yet.

I was probably going to pick Qin for Egypt too, but instead I'll go with Qin for France. More builder charges and more early game wonders means more and better Chateaus. Yum.

Hojo with England and Montezuma of Scythia both sound powerful too.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Combining leaders and civilizations would only work if we have reasonable separation between leader and civilization abilities. I'm not sure we have it for all civs.

 

[Atlas627]

Combining leaders and civilizations would only work if we have reasonable separation between leader and civilization abilities. I'm not sure we have it for all civs.

For example, does anyone know which parts of Scythia are Tomyris' and which are the civ's?

 

[Magil]

If we go by the list posted here, then a lot of the leader bonuses are pretty general. There are a few combos I can see, like combining Qin Shi Haung with the Aztecs to put the builder-related leader ability to work along with stealing builders. Or Hojo's half-price encampments, holy sites, and theater squares working well with Brazil. You'd have four different districts (those three plus street carnival) at half price plus the rain forest bonus, since neither of those benefits appears to be tied to Pedro in particular.

 

[Ivan Hunger]

I really love the idea for this feature. It's like a more limited version of Endless Legend's "custom faction" feature.

I seem to recall seeing a video where someone did something like this in Civ 4, but I'm not sure if that game was modded or not.

Imagine if we could turn on "custom mode" at the beginning of the game, then choose our leader, ability, unit, and infrastructure from a list of all options, similar to how you would choose your seeding bonus in Beyond Earth. I imagine it would be impossible to balance and would need to be banned in online multiplayer, but it could definitely lead to some crazy singleplayer games.

 

[SMcM]

Pericles + Ottomans = Byzantium

 

[thecrazyscot]

It's been speculated that Civilization VI will allow players to separately select their Civilization and Leaders, so that the leader of one Civilization could be used while playing as another.

By who? Anyone who actually has any reason to believe so? Genuinely curious.

 

[Valmighty]

It's not confirmed but i'd say it's very probable. It's more probable than having multiple leader.

What else is separating leader/civ trait for?

 

[Browd]

As you acknowledge, separating leader and civ traits would allow multiple leaders for a civ. Whether or not multiple leaders are ever shipped by Firaxis, the capacity to have multiple leaders should make modding different leaders for existing civs a bit easier. But, as you also note, nothing's confirmed.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

It's not confirmed but i'd say it's very probable. It's more probable than having multiple leader.

What else is separating leader/civ trait for?

The same reason they did it in 5... just because (maybe it allows modding new leader/civ combinations more easily, if you can edit 1)...

But 5 did not have leader/civ swapping OR multiple leaders, even though leader abilities were separate from civs

 

[Brackenspore]

Very interesting idea. I think it would be fun to play with a hybrid/chimera civ.

What about chimera leader? Catherine de Medici with katanas. Pedro II with the fan. Roosevelt with the glass.

 

[Thormodr]

What about chimera leader? Catherine de Medici with katanas. Pedro II with the fan. Roosevelt with the glass.

Now that would be awesome.

 

[shaglio]

The way civs are designed, they’re not balance in regard to each individual component, but by the civ as a whole. Civ A’s UA isn’t balanced against Civ B’s and Civ C’s, Civ A’s UU isn’t balanced against Civ B’s and Civ C’s, Civ A’s UB isn’t balanced against Civ B’s and Civ C’s, etc. But Civ A as a whole, theoretically, should be balanced against Civ B and Civ C as a whole.

Therefore, creating multiple leaders for a civ would only require each leader’s Leader-Specific Uniques to be balanced with each other, since the rest of the civ’s uniques are already in balance with the other civs’. The OP’s suggestion of swapping leaders in and out would not be balanced if the Leader-Specific Uniques go along with the leader, because that would break apart the balanced whole. If it’s just the name and leaderscreen being swapped, then it’s a different story.

The best way I can describe it (using 1 each of a UA, UU, and UB in pseudo-Civ 5 fashion for simplicity’s sake) is by assigning hypothetical strength values to each component:

Civ A: UA = 5, UU = 3, UB = 2 for a total of 10 strength
Civ B: UA = 3, UU = 4, UB = 3 for a total of 10 strength

If you were to swap the leaders (and their corresponding UAs), you would get:

Civ A: UA = 3, UU = 3, UB = 2 for a total of 8 strength
Civ B: UA = 5, UU = 4, UB = 3 for a total of 12 strength

Hopefully that makes sense to someone other than just myself.

 

[Atlas627]

The way civs are designed, they’re not balance in regard to each individual component, but by the civ as a whole. Civ A’s UA isn’t balanced against Civ B’s and Civ C’s, Civ A’s UU isn’t balanced against Civ B’s and Civ C’s, Civ A’s UB isn’t balanced against Civ B’s and Civ C’s, etc. But Civ A as a whole, theoretically, should be balanced against Civ B and Civ C as a whole.

Therefore, creating multiple leaders for a civ would only require each leader’s Leader-Specific Uniques to be balanced with each other, since the rest of the civ’s uniques are already in balance with the other civs’. The OP’s suggestion of swapping leaders in and out would not be balanced if the Leader-Specific Uniques go along with the leader, because that would break apart the balanced whole. If it’s just the name and leaderscreen being swapped, then it’s a different story.

The best way I can describe it (using 1 each of a UA, UU, and UB in pseudo-Civ 5 fashion for simplicity’s sake) is by assigning hypothetical strength values to each component:

Civ A: UA = 5, UU = 3, UB = 2 for a total of 10 strength
Civ B: UA = 3, UU = 4, UB = 3 for a total of 10 strength

If you were to swap the leaders (and their corresponding UAs), you would get:

Civ A: UA = 3, UU = 3, UB = 2 for a total of 8 strength
Civ B: UA = 5, UU = 4, UB = 3 for a total of 12 strength

Hopefully that makes sense to someone other than just myself.

You're assuming someone who uses this feature to put Qin as the leader of Egypt cares about balance.

If its an optional feature, it isn't necessarily balanced. Hell, the game is balanced for Continents, but they still give you all the other map types *just in case you want them*, even though the game clearly isn't balanced for Archipelago or Tilted Axis.

Edit: But yes, I agree it is obviously not balanced. Unless Civs are balanced without leaders and then all leaders are roughly the same power...but even still, some combos will be better than others (as this thread points out)

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

By who? Anyone who actually has any reason to believe so? Genuinely curious.

It was a while back in some YouTube video or forums post. I wasn't using the passive voice to hide a lack of sources; I genuinely can't remember, and don't feel like scouring for the citation.

 

[thecrazyscot]

It's not confirmed but i'd say it's very probable. It's more probable than having multiple leader.

What else is separating leader/civ trait for?

Except they've had multiple leaders in the past, so there's precedence there. There is none for mixing and matching leaders and civs...which would be a MAJOR departure for the series. It just doesn't seem likely at all to me.