Which unrevealed civ you want to turn out most "right"?

[Red Menace]

That's funny, because the Byzantines were the only European or two UU civ I was willing to play as in Civ5 because of their awesome religious bonus. But I admit it didn't fit the Byzantines all that well. I hope the UA returns under someone else, though--perhaps Armenia.

Well we all have our own opinions, but for me the Cataphract being a horsemen replacement was unforgivable, putting its Unique's in the same time as the Greeks and Romans was so obviously wrong. didn't care so much for their UA either, it probably should've been two parts like Sweden's.

For Germany I'd like them to do the reverse and drop the 19/20th century and go all out middle-ages. Barbarossa, Teutonic Knights, Hanse, city-states and religion focus come to mind.

perfect, Medieval German would be awesome.

 

[Sonmi]

Anyone but Robespierre please!

What's wrong with Robespierre?

He represents perfectly what could be considered the most important era in French history, is historically relevant, has never been used as a leader so far (if that counts for anything), and has a very distinct personality, which could make him a very interesting character to deal with.

I know he doesn't exactly represent the best of France's legacy considering the bloodbath that the French Revolution turned out to be, that his whole God complex is a bit off-putting, and that Civs don't usually have "bad" leaders representing them, but if Portugal can have Maria I and the Aztecs Montezuma, why couldn't France have Robespierre?

 

[4N4C0ND4]

What's wrong with Robespierre?

He represents perfectly what could be considered the most important era in French history, is historically relevant, has never been used as a leader so far (if that counts for anything), and has a very distinct personality, which could make him a very interesting character to deal with.

I know he doesn't exactly represent the best of France's legacy considering the bloodbath that the French Revolution turned out to be, that his whole God complex is a bit off-putting, and that Civs don't usually have "bad" leaders representing them, but if Portugal can have Maria I and the Aztecs Montezuma, why couldn't France have Robespierre?

I don't think he would be bad of a leader. Interesting one if one can be
The problem is that France has way "easier" or more convenient characters for Firaxis to dig that far imo.

 

[Maxattack]

In terms of big personalities I don't think it gets much bigger than Napoleon for those unfamiliar to the series.

France
Leader Napoleon
Historical Agenda Vive la revolution - Dislikes those with different governments
Civilization Ability City of Light- major tourism bonus in the capital
Leader Ability Can build the Voltigeur Unit, combat bonus against land units of different governments
Unique Unit Musketeer
Unique Building Chateau

Well I have to say I prefer the 2 meter high king who hired Leonardo Da Vinci, built some of the most beautiful castles in France, started the french expansion to the New World and checked the expansion of the Holy Roman Empire in Europe to the megalomanic dwarf who failed at conquering the continent after having used the Revolution to make himself an Emperor ^^

And well, Nappy was already in CiV, don't need him around every time

Catherine de medicis is not really known outside of France. Evenn Jeanne dArc who never lead the country would have a better chance to be there.

Really doubt they wont go for a famous King though like Francois 1 or Louis 14. Napoleon did civ5. They could put CDG too I guess like in civ4.

Dont really know who else an american company would chose. Louis 9 could also fit as a famous King.

Well, Hojo Tokimune doesn't seem to be very well known outside of Japan either It's a good choice if you want to rotate the female leaders and want someone about the age of exploration and religious wars but I clearly prefer François.

CDG was great but I think the french youth doesn't identify to him that much anymore. He was a strong opponent of the events of May 1968 which partly define the spirit of France in the late XXth century. That is to say basically he disapproved the parents of the people playing Civ today... And well he's not so much about the Age of Exploration is he ? Same for Saint Louis sadly (I had to check him out on Wikipedia cause I had totally forgotten his achievements, it's not a big chapter in History class in France...).

 

[Acken]

The king every successive king refered to as being a descendant of is no longer a major part of french history class ? A shame

 

[Loaf Warden]

5'7" (~170 cm) is a "dwarf"? I mean, I get that that's not exactly the stature of a basketball player, but still, ouch.

 

[Sonmi]

5'7" (~170 cm) is a "dwarf"? I mean, I get that that's not exactly the stature of a basketball player, but still, ouch.

Rosbif propaganda.

I don't think he would be bad of a leader. Interesting one if one can be
The problem is that France has way "easier" or more convenient characters for Firaxis to dig that far imo.

Is he really that obscure of a pick? I mean, outside of the leaders that were already used for France (Nappy, Jeanne d'Arc(eh...), the Sun King, CDG, arguably Charlemagne), he's probably the most iconic French leader I can think of. I understand if they pass him over in favour of a returning leader though.

 

[j51]

The thing about Francis is he got captured by Charles V/I. Not a good look IMO. For an Early Modern era king that's not Louis XIV, I'd go with Henri IV. He's pretty cool: ended the Wars of Religion, cared for the commoners, founded the Louvre as a center of culture.

 

[DeutschDachs]

What's wrong with Robespierre?

He represents perfectly what could be considered the most important era in French history, is historically relevant, has never been used as a leader so far (if that counts for anything), and has a very distinct personality, which could make him a very interesting character to deal with.

I know he doesn't exactly represent the best of France's legacy considering the bloodbath that the French Revolution turned out to be, that his whole God complex is a bit off-putting, and that Civs don't usually have "bad" leaders representing them, but if Portugal can have Maria I and the Aztecs Montezuma, why couldn't France have Robespierre?

The only real good Robespierre did for France was limiting foreign powers' influence and paving the way for Napoleon. He was a horrible murderous man who "led" France for only a very very short time. His control over the food supply led to widespread famine. His reign of terror only ended up weakening the new revolutionary government and led to his own ironic death.

He's basically the French Mao only far far less successful and you could throw a dart at French leaders throughout history and end up with a better leader. Sure he had an undeniable impact but he was just a dreadful ruler. If all they care about is charisma then I suppose he would work but there's really no reason to beyond that.

 

[Sonmi]

The only real good Robespierre did for France was limiting foreign powers' influence and paving the way for Napoleon. He was a horrible murderous man who "led" France for only a very very short time. His control over the food supply led to widespread famine. His reign of terror only ended up weakening the new revolutionary government and led to his own ironic death.

He's basically the French Mao only far far less successful and you could throw a dart at French leaders throughout history and end up with a better leader. Sure he had an undeniable impact but he was just a dreadful ruler. If all they care about is charisma then I suppose he would work but there's really no reason to beyond that.

One could argue that his revolutionary zeal was well meaning, though it certainly did end in disaster. As for him being a bad leader, so were many of the leaders already chosen to represent other civs (including Mao himself), how is he any different?

Charisma, uniqueness, and historical relevance/impact should be the criteria to choose a Civ's leader, no? If so, Robespierre checks all three

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

1800s industrial focused England under Victoria may have a chance to make it into the game.

Rome is a civilization that could take advantage of several mechanics added in the game:

• They are famous for their roads so they could build them without traders.
• They adapated quickly so they could be given 75% eureka boost in clasical age
• They was famous for their heavy consumption of water so they could get the sanitary distric early.
• Centurions was the backbone of the roman legion and was responsible for maintaining their discipline so they could be a support unit that increase melee strength.
• And of course we have the legionary.

Personally I think the centurion would be a good idea, it represent the roman military so well and would be a good unique unit that last the whole game.

 

[DeutschDachs]

One could argue that his revolutionary zeal was well meaning, though it certainly did end in disaster. As for him being a bad leader, so were many of the leaders already chosen to represent other civs (including Mao himself), how is he any different?

I suppose it's not impossible but I'd be disappointed. To each their own!

Charisma, uniqueness, and historical relevance/impact should be the criteria to choose a Civ's leader, no? If so, Robespierre checks all three

Well for one Mao ruled for over 30 years while Robespierre was in charge for about 13 months. Even France barely celebrates Robespierre. Just saying there are better French rulers. Like you could make JFK leader of the Americans for charisma uniqueness and impact but imo it would be odd when there are better options available

 

[Sonmi]

Well for one Mao ruled for over 30 years while Robespierre was in charge for about 13 months. Even France barely celebrates Robespierre. Just saying there are better French rulers. Like you could make JFK leader of the Americans for charisma uniqueness and impact but imo it would be odd when there are better options available

France barely represents Robespierre because he is, truth be told, a dark page in their history. He went too far to be celebrated, though you'd still find apologists for him here and there.

Considering I honestly wouldn't mind JFK representing the United States, I suppose our difference of opinion is simply that, a difference of opinion.

 

[Haig]

I started reading about Francis I after inspired by a post few posts above, pretty cool.

For a leader screen perspective, a flamboyant peacock Louis XIV would make a perfect leader!

Nappy is iconic but could be in a DLC pack.

p.s. anyone read De Gaulle biography 'General' ? Came out couple years ago, I wonder is it good..

 

[Zaarin]

In terms of big personalities I don't think it gets much bigger than Napoleon for those unfamiliar to the series.

France
Leader Napoleon
Historical Agenda Vive la revolution - Dislikes those with different governments
Civilization Ability City of Light- major tourism bonus in the capital
Leader Ability Can build the Voltigeur Unit, combat bonus against land units of different governments
Unique Unit Musketeer
Unique Building Chateau

Eh, we've had Napoleon for long enough I think. It's high time for Le Roi Soleil, who takes every opportunity to remind you that "L'état, c'est moi."

 

[Sherlock]

I always like the ancient Civs best... Babylon, Assyria, Sumer, etc.

 

[darko82]

Babylon and Hammurabi

 

[Jimdigriz]

Great thread!

Has to be Napoleon for France for me.
And Alexander for Greece has to be there too.
Victoria for England would be a good new choice.

Why cant we have multiple leaders for certain nations anyway as has happened in Civ's past (not V) - lets be honest, some nations need more than one choice.

 

[skyclad]

If they include Sweden (as a DLC they should no be one of the 18!) please no phrases like 'Välkommen till snökonungens rike' (welcome to the snow kings realm) that was to silly.

the 2 UU civs were boring in civ V but that will be better with the 4+ uniques in Civ Vi.

And I will be very disappointed if the Zulus are in and Kongo or Ashanti is not. I'm not that worried that they would portray those civs in a bad way of they included though.

My friend has a theory they made sweden weak and silly in civ5 as an ongoing feud between paradox and firaxis... I also noticed in the Europa Universalis 4 tutorial, they say something like "and of course you need transport ships to move your units across the sea. What kind of silly game would just let the unit hop into the ocean and swim across"

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Great thread!

Has to be Napoleon for France for me.
And Alexander for Greece has to be there too.
Victoria for England would be a good new choice.

Why cant we have multiple leaders for certain nations anyway as has happened in Civ's past (not V) - lets be honest, some nations need more than one choice.

Happened only twice.

Civ 2 and Civ 4 had multiple leaders.... what a coincidence actually.