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

[JtW]

What, no Maggie Thatcher?

Why not David Cameron? Unique ability: cancel trade deals ahead of time.

Great thread!

Has to be Napoleon for France for me.
And Alexander for Greece has to be there too.

Why?

I would be over the moon if they went with somebody else than these two. They are well known as famous conquerors but do they really represent the "soul" of their respective civs? Has France or Greece mostly been bloodthirsty warmongers? Or were they known for their science, art and culture?

 

[Zaarin]

Why?

I would be over the moon if they went with somebody else than these two. They are well known as famous conquerors but do they really represent the "soul" of their respective civs? Has France or Greece mostly been bloodthirsty warmongers? Or were they known for their science, art and culture?

100% agreed. Let Napoleon and Alexander be great generals. Louis XIV is the obvious leader for France when shooting for personality, and I couldn't care less who rules Greece as long as it's not Alexander the Trite and Obnoxious. In fact, if it meant ditching Alex, this is one case where I wouldn't even object to a mythological ruler; Greece can be lead by Pallas Athena as long as it's not Alexander.

 

[Sobornost]

As to the original question: either Russia or Persia.

I have played and beaten the game with one of these two first, going all the way back to Civ 3.

Persia in particular always seems to end up powerful in civ, good bonuses, Immortals are always useful, so I hope that continues.

 

[King Jason]

Has Greece mostly been bloodthirsty warmongers? Or were they known for their science, art and culture?

I think the fact that Alexander is merely perceived as a bloodthirsty warmonger is precisely the reason he should be better represented in the game.

He was very culturally and diplomatically inclined. It is believed that he viewed his conquests as a spreading of enlightenment across the world, yet he held respect and admiration for the persian culture that he defeated, Though the persians rightfully villify him, it was said he had those who desecrated the tomb of cyrus put to death, and insured it was restored. Further, he adopted many Persian customs himself and encouraged the leaders of his expedition to take persian wives and likewise integrate both cultures. It was this aspect that lost him great favor with his own people.

I believe there was more to the man than "If it moves, kill it."

Pericles would be a strong alternative, though.

 

[Gali]

Really Alexander was hated by the Greeks as a tyrant and destroyer of liberty. There is a reason tens of thousands of greeks fought with the persians. His policies in Persia were just the old policies of the Macedonian house. Marriage alliances with local nobles and bringing nobles into your court.. He was decently tolerant but a warmonger and autocrat. He built cities but no institutions and never stopped fighting until he died of it. If you want diplomacy have his father be the ruler.

India in civ 4 had a great UU. Fast worker allowed faster hookup of resources and was a continual economic advantage.

My civ is Japan. In Civ 4 Tokugawa is the biggest joke of an Ai in the game. ALl for a refusal to trade when he promoted trade with the Gaijin when it suited his purposes. His abilities are all warmonger and neither unique is useful. In civ 5 they are horrible as well. Again a warmonger and very weak UA and 2 UUs one of which is completely worthless. The other is a longswordsman which is on the weakest branch of units in the game.

America is looking great they were built to take advantage of the tourism mechanic but it came in too late for their civ.

 

[Thormodr]

Really Alexander was hated by the Greeks as a tyrant and destroyer of liberty. There is a reason tens of thousands of greeks fought with the persians. His policies in Persia were just the old policies of the Macedonian house. Marriage alliances with local nobles and bringing nobles into your court.. He was decently tolerant but a warmonger and autocrat. He built cities but no institutions and never stopped fighting until he died of it. If you want diplomacy have his father be the ruler.

India in civ 4 had a great UU. Fast worker allowed faster hookup of resources and was a continual economic advantage.

My civ is Japan. In Civ 4 Tokugawa is the biggest joke of an Ai in the game. ALl for a refusal to trade when he promoted trade with the Gaijin when it suited his purposes. His abilities are all warmonger and neither unique is useful. In civ 5 they are horrible as well. Again a warmonger and very weak UA and 2 UUs one of which is completely worthless. The other is a longswordsman which is on the weakest branch of units in the game.

America is looking great they were built to take advantage of the tourism mechanic but it came in too late for their civ.

I don't believe Alexander died of fighting. I believe he either died of malaria or from excessive drinking.

 

[j51]

I don't believe Alexander died of fighting. I believe he either died of malaria or from excessive drinking.

Yes. This argument is why multiple leaders are good. For such hugely influential civs like Greece and China, multiple leaders allows for a more varied representation of their culture.

 

[ThisNameIsTooLo]

Greece, keep the city-state focus, lose the warmonger personality.

I do hope Pericles makes an encore appearance. He was my preferred Greek leader in Civ4 BTS.

 

[Thormodr]

I do hope Pericles makes an encore appearance. He was my preferred Greek leader in Civ4 BTS.

Pericles would be an excellent choice. A more scientifically minded Greece would be fun to play.

 

[Calyxx]

I would be over the moon if they went with somebody else than these two. They are well known as famous conquerors but do they really represent the "soul" of their respective civs? Has France or Greece mostly been bloodthirsty warmongers? Or were they known for their science, art and culture?

I would like to point out that Napoleon, for all of his conquests, cannot be described simply as a 'bloodthirsty warmonger.' Napoleon was a fantastic ruler - he took control in a time of extreme chaos, and brought both stability and prosperity to France. He made major reforms to the legal and education systems, and implemented a strict meritocracy (except for the unfortunate nepotism for his largely incompetent siblings). Wars during his reign started in large part before his ascension - revolutionary France was seen as an existential threat to the monarchies of other European powers. Napoleon didn't start a lot of wars, but he did decisively end almost all of them, and he did it while rebuilding France from being perhaps the weakest country in Europe to the strongest.

Even in a culture as rich and old as France, with great leaders like Louis XIV or Charlemagne, Napoleon is among the best they have to offer, and not just from a military perspective. My greatest fear about this game is that they will pass over Napoleon and -instead of choosing someone else worthy, like Louis XIV - they will have Joan of Arc be the French leader. Nothing could be worse.

tldr; Napoleon was an amazing leader - respect him!

 

[joncnunn]

Moderator Action: Moved to Ideas & Suggestions

 

[Ikael]

So, which kind of bonuses would you like to see each civ represented with? I know that the old system of "common traits" is not going to come back, but which type of general direction would you like to see for each civilization? Mine would be:

Greece - Technologic, diplomatic
Germany - Industrious, technologic
England - Commercial, naval
Spain - Naval, religious
Persia - Cultural, religious
Rome - Militarists, industrious
Russia - Defensive, Expansionist
Egypt - Religious, industrious
Japan - Defensive, Technologic
Aztecs - Militarists, religious
France - Cultural, diplomatic
China - Industrious, defensive
Arabs - Religious, expansionist
Mali - Expansionist, commercial
Portugal - Naval, expansionist
India - Religious, diplomatic
Inca - Commercial, industrious
Summer - Technologic, cultural
Maya - Religious, technologic
Indonesia - Naval, cultural
America - Cultural, militarist
Zulu - Militarist, expansionist
Kongo - Militarist, commercial
Ashanti - Expansionist, technologic
Iroquois - Diplomatic, expansionist
Thailand - Diplomatic, commercial
Vietnam - Defensive, cultural
Khmer - Industrious, cultural
Babylon - Defensive, religious

 

[ThisNameIsTooLo]

big list

I don't know how to properly make a table here, but I tried mapping out these traits.

X, , , , , , , , ,
, Aztec, Babylon, Spain, India, Arabia, Egypt, X, Maya, Persia
, America, Vietnam, Indonesia, France, X, Khmer, X, Sumer
, X, Japan, X, Greece, Ashanti, Germany, X
, Kongo, X, England, Thailand, Mali, Inca
, Rome, China, X, X, X
, Zulu, Russia, Portugal, Iroquois
, X, X, X
, X, X
, X

What I found is that Navy is seriously under-represented, and Religion overly so. Besides which, any list which doesn't give Expansionist traits to America or Naval traits to Japan, and which leaves out big players like Korea and the Ottomans for Vietnam and Kongo, is not particularly well thought-out.

Anyway, even if the traits were properly distributed, the leaders of Civ 6 won't be picking out traits from shared pool the way they did in Civ 4, so I don't really see how this post was meant to contribute to the discussion.

 

[Ikael]

What I found is that Navy is seriously under-represented, and Religion overly so. Besides which, any list which doesn't give Expansionist traits to America or Naval traits to Japan, and which leaves out big players like Korea and the Ottomans for Vietnam and Kongo, is not particularly well thought-out.

Anyway, even if the traits were properly distributed, the leaders of Civ 6 won't be picking out traits from shared pool the way they did in Civ 4, so I don't really see how this post was meant to contribute to the discussion.

It was more of a reflection of the "general direction" to go with the representation of said civs. It is clear that Civ 4's system of trait combination is not going to come back, and that civs will be more flavourful due to the multiple uniques + leader uniques. But it was fun to guess how will they represent each civilization. It would seem that England will be economic and navy focused afterall!

 

[daft]

Byzantium has to have Religious motive to them, the first Christian Empire and all, they were very spiritual.
Besides that also a great military power. They invented the famed Greek-Fire ships (Dromons). Their heavy cavalry, the Cataphracts-from which Knights originated, sure weren't Byzantine invention, but they made them better than the Parthian/Seleucid ones.
Varangian Guard was great too.
They built the Hagia Sophia, a great wonder.
Belisarius, one of the greatest generals of history was a Byzantine as well.
To me they should be honorable, spiritual and expansive (even colonial), great empire builders, with culture and architecture bonuses, militarily powerful with strong unique armies and ships.

 

[Iapetus303]

This one caught my eyes, no, please not Tlacaelel, despite being responsible for the implementation of the Garland wars, he never ruled, and its also the reason we know so little of the Toltecs (he burned every codex he could find contradicting the "official" Aztec history).

=> Unique Ability to erase culture from conquered cities?

 

[Ezumiyr]

100% agreed. Let Napoleon and Alexander be great generals. Louis XIV is the obvious leader for France when shooting for personality, and I couldn't care less who rules Greece as long as it's not Alexander the Trite and Obnoxious. In fact, if it meant ditching Alex, this is one case where I wouldn't even object to a mythological ruler; Greece can be lead by Pallas Athena as long as it's not Alexander.

Louis XIV, or Richelieu.
Richelieu represents the both diplomatic/politic and the cultural aspect of France (with the Académie Française), and he was also a builder.
And he's probably one of the most famous french leaders, thanks to the Mousquetaires.

 

[Zaarin]

Byzantium has to have Religious motive to them, the first Christian Empire and all, they were very spiritual.

I don't disagree that Byzantium should have spiritual bonuses, but Byzantium was not the first Christian state.

 

[benjamin28]

There are other potential Aztec leader tho, Ahuizotl, Cuauhtemoc, or you could even push it to Nezahualcoyotl, while not being Aztec himself was instrumental in founding the triple alliance (which was the Aztec Empire really).

I think they've already mentioned Montezuma as the aztec leader in several articles, so I don't believe they'll add Nezahualcoyotl any time soon (though that would be AMAZING!).

By the way, I don't want to sound nitpicker but I really hope jaguars are properly represented in Civ 6. They tend to have a bonus in jungle and forest, but the aztecs lived in a region with high altitude, relatively dry. Said bonus could fit better with the Maya.
Also, I hope they are not a replacement for warrior: that is to imply the Aztecs existed during the Antiquity, but they actually thrived during the European Middle Ages and early Renaissance.

 

[Zaarin]

Also, I hope they are not a replacement for warrior: that is to imply the Aztecs existed during the Antiquity, but they actually thrived during the European Middle Ages and early Renaissance.

Yes, but the Aztecs themselves would appear to have been in the Classical Era.