Why The New Leaders?

[rover6695]

Any reason why Civ 6 has so many different leaders or Civs as opposed to the usual people like Caesar?

 

[Menzies]

They usually cycle through different leaders.

 

[Morningcalm]

Because using the same leaders every time gets old fast.

See, e.g. general discontent with Alexander and Gandhi.

 

[omniplex]

Not to be too cynical, but it's so they can sell us the more famous leaders in DLC.

 

[Morningcalm]

Or perhaps better leaders, like Ashoka (now that discontent with Gandhi is known).

 

[AJ22PIZZA]

Firaxis said they want "big personalities" or something like that, probably to shake it up like how others have said

 

[geebo]

Not to be too cynical, but it's so they can sell us the more famous leaders in DLC.

I agree, as long as they don't rip us off(too much!) it's nice to look forward to more influential leaders, with different personalities. I'm really happy we have multiple leaders back, keeps the game feeling fresh!

 

[spfun]

Not to be too cynical, but it's so they can sell us the more famous leaders in DLC.

Exactly this.

 

[Staler87]

Any reason why Civ 6 has so many different leaders or Civs as opposed to the usual people like Caesar?

Caesar was a title not a person...
They do actually have a Caesar in the game, Trajan, and a Tsar (Russian for Caesar), and a holy Roman emperor who was kinda a Caesar, and will probably add a Kaiser (German for Caesar) so I think were covered on the Caesar front.

As to other not so well known people Ed Beach has said he is picking people for big personalities rather than historical significance or pop-culture awareness which have been more traditional indicators of a leaders likelihood to be in the game.

 

[Jaybe]

So we can look them up in the pedia and learn more about them, perhaps get interested in them and learn even more about them on our own.

 

[PandorasActor]

I kind of dislike the way they do leaders in Civ. It seems they spend way too much time on leaders instead of the civilizations. I always felt static leaders was a major immersion breaker. Still, Civ has always been pretty heavy on the influence of leaders so I can't expect that to change and people probably like it. Still, I wish the leader wasn't a huge determining factor of every civilization and they just served to complement them a bit. I was always bugged by the scoreboard in CiV that displayed the leader names instead of the civilization names. Washington shouldn't have a score of 1000, America should!

 

[Grotius]

I don't mind static leaders, as I think a leader-per-age would dilute leader traits too much. That said, I do enjoy the boardgame "Civ thru the Ages," in which you typically have about three leaders over the course of a game. I'd certainly enjoy trying that as an option in Civ VI, perhaps in a mod. But not as the default configuration.

 

[Furycrab]

Caesar was a title not a person...
They do actually have a Caesar in the game, Trajan, and a Tsar (Russian for Caesar), and a holy Roman emperor who was kinda a Caesar, and will probably add a Kaiser (German for Caesar) so I think were covered on the Caesar front.

Pushing the whole thing a little far? If you talk about "the Caesar", usually people know it's the one that gets assassinated in a certain famous play, sometimes with a side note about his next successor. It's everyone else who now has to make the distinction if they don't want to be confused for someone else.

I'm guessing they hit a certain quota of big returns with Ghandi and Cleo that they felt they could throw some more obscure ones, so later they come out with good mixes of known and relatively unknown leaders.

Hopefully double Greece to start means we have some time to breathe before Alexander makes his terrifying return.

 

[Abraxis]

Not to be too cynical, but it's so they can sell us the more famous leaders in DLC.

There's nothing cynical about pointing out they run a business to make money. I really doubt that's all there is to it though, generally practicality is the strongest motivation. With the new agendas system it's likely they came up with archetypes before selecting many of the leaders, in order to try and offer a specific variety for the starting roster, or to at least fill in many gaps left over after prioritising and building around some of the more pop-culture choices first (Cleo, Teddy, Gandhi, Monty, Gilgamesh, Saladin, Gorgo, Victoria). Then they sought the best leaders to fulfil the archetypes to best round out the game, having to dip into the slightly more obscure in order to meet objectives.

Just as I''m sure we'll see popular choices being released as DLC for the civs starting out with more obscure leaders, I'm sure we'll be getting our Hatshepsuts and Ashokas as well for the civs coming out of the gates with their cheerleaders already at the helm.

 

[zyx]

Civ IV had different leaders already. And I guess the most wanted leaders will be modded sooner than later anyway. So nothing wrong with that.

 

[Leyrann]

Caesar was a title not a person...
They do actually have a Caesar in the game, Trajan, and a Tsar (Russian for Caesar), and a holy Roman emperor who was kinda a Caesar, and will probably add a Kaiser (German for Caesar) so I think were covered on the Caesar front.

As someone with classical schooling I understand where you're coming from, but in all seriousness, Caesar is ALSO used for Gaius Julius Caesar (and I'm not sure if that name is fully unique, but if it itsn't, well, it's the Caesar that conquered Gallia). If someone simply mentions "Caesar", it is ALWAYS him. I mean, are you seriously going to call the next Roman ruler Octavanius Julius Caesar Augustus instead of just "Augustus" because everyone after him was called Augustus too?

 

[Brackenspore]

Exactly this.

mnogohodovochka

 

[King Jason]

Because the series is called "Civilization" - not "Rulers"

 

[Wellfooled]

Not to be too cynical, but it's so they can sell us the more famous leaders in DLC.

I'm sure I'll buy every DLC Civilization/Leader released whatever they are, but I hope the trend of using new and less famous Civs and leaders is continued in DLC. I've played for thousands of hours since Civ II, probably more than any other series, and I'm tired of Washington and Napoleon and Alexander. I would be more than happy if we didn't see them (and other classics) this whole generation. I'm sure I don't speak for everyone, but I'm much more excited to see leaders and Civs that are unfamiliar or rare to the Civilization games.

 

[narmox]

I for one enjoy the variety of leaders from game to game, and the variety of abilities leaders have (since those were introduced in CivIII or CIV)