Why The New Leaders?

[stealth_nsk]

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.

I think we'll have less famous leaders for new civs, but new leaders for existing civs are likely to be well-known, to be a selling point. So people like Washington or Napoleon are likely to have a return.

 

[Wellfooled]

I think we'll have less famous leaders for new civs, but new leaders for existing civs are likely to be well-known, to be a selling point. So people like Washington or Napoleon are likely to have a return.

I imagine you're right But I hold on to a hope. If nothing else, with two leaders already for Greece I hope we don't see Alexander for awhile.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I imagine you're right But I hold on to a hope. If nothing else, with two leaders already for Greece I hope we don't see Alexander for awhile.

Yes, but eventually he may come
In Civ4 America has 3 leaders.

 

[Menzies]

Something worth keeping in mind at this time is that the two examples of two leader Civs we know of, Gorgo with Greece and Isabella with Spain, both have different capitals. Pericles gets Athens, Gorgo gets Sparta. For Spain, Philip II gets Madrid (he moved the capital to Madrid), Isabella will likely get Toledo.

This makes sense from a gameplay perspective as well, as we know that multiple leaders from the same Civ can appear in the same game, having separate capitals for each would make this easier.

It will be interesting to see what others are announced in the future, or if the prediction for Isabella actually is the case. If it is though, maybe we need to refine our guesses to take that into account. Different leaders may well not simply be other interesting leaders for a Civ, but ones that represent different phases of a Civilization (i.e. Athens and Sparta, Castile and Spain).

Edit: This is particularly interesting as having Alexander with his capital of Pella is perfectly reasonable.

 

[stealth_nsk]

This makes sense from a gameplay perspective as well, as we know that multiple leaders from the same Civ can appear in the same game, having separate capitals for each would make this easier.

Yes, hope Russia will get Vladimir or Olga with Kiev as the capital

 

[Menzies]

Yes, hope Russia will get Vladimir or Olga with Kiev as the capital

It's worth noting that Russia has St. Petersburg as it's capital (as expected), which opens up the chance of a Soviet leader with Moscow as their capital.

Might be worth creating unreasonable hype around this concept by looking at each Civ so far and considering which other leaders are possible on that basis.

Edit: If this is correct,it precludes pretty much every United States leader apart from Washington or Jefferson Davis, and let's be honest about the latter.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's worth noting that Russia has St. Petersburg as it's capital (as expected), which opens up the chance of a Soviet leader with Moscow as their capital.

Yes, or some pre-Peter leaders. Although I don't know what's worse - having Stalin or Ivan the Terrible as Russian leader...

 

[Menzies]

We may actually see the Byzantine Empire as the Roman Empire this version as well, that should sort a lot of the arguments that go on around it.

Where do you put Charlemagne though?

 

[Cerilis]

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.

Fun fact! In classic latin, Caesar was actually pronounced like "Kaisar", only in medieval latin and later it came to be how it is usually pronounced today.

 

[nerovipusqc]

I might not be in the right place for this subject, but there are 20 civs at launch... ok. But Greece have 2 leaders, so that means the 20 have been announce? Don't get me wrong, I can't wait to play, me and my brother we played for over 1500 hrs of Civ V, but I am just a little worried that they are going to add only new leaders and not so many new civs(DLC). It won't be 100% a bad thing but I would like to see more civs with some of them with 2 leaders.

 

[Menzies]

I might not be in the right place for this subject, but there are 20 civs at launch... ok. But Greece have 2 leaders, so that means the 20 have been announce? Don't get me wrong, I can't wait to play, me and my brother we played for over 1500 hrs of Civ V, but I am just a little worried that they are going to add only new leaders and not so many new civs(DLC). It won't be 100% a bad thing but I would like to see more civs with some of them with 2 leaders.

There will be plenty of new civs unless this game is so poor that they can it before the first expansion pack. Let's be honest, the attitude on here, as is usually the case, will include a good number of people declaring that Civ VI is the worst in the history of the series (as they did with Civ V, Civ IV and Civ III), but when I mean poor, I mean No Man's Sky level poor.

We're getting at least 4 DLCs of unknown type, we'll probably get an expansion some time later, maybe more DLC in between. If it's anything like Civ V, an information drought will foreshadow that. We'll see though.

 

[Panixs]

It's worth noting that Russia has St. Petersburg as it's capital (as expected), which opens up the chance of a Soviet leader with Moscow as their capital.

Might be worth creating unreasonable hype around this concept by looking at each Civ so far and considering which other leaders are possible on that basis.

Edit: If this is correct,it precludes pretty much every United States leader apart from Washington or Jefferson Davis, and let's be honest about the latter.

For England that probably means pre William the Conqueror and using Winchester as the capital. Possibly Edward the Confessor and have faith bonuses. They could switch out the Royal Navy Dockyard and give him abbeys based on his version of Westminster abbey.
Or go with Alfred the Great and give him extra combat strength vs. enemies in his own territory and give him Burhs that are cheap early encampment replacement.

 

[StittsvileJamie]

I wish they would add some newer leaders when they add more leaders for existing civs. I'd like to see JFK and Khruschev (sp?) for a cold war scenario, or maybe add FDR to finish the Roosevelt collection.

 

[criZp]

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

Variation brah, variation.

 

[Metecury]

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.

Actually Caesar it's title named after a person, buddy, Gaius Giulius Caesar to be precise.

 

[Lord Yanaek]

Where do you put Charlemagne though?

I would say king of the Franks. If we have Scythia, we can have other less widely known civilizations. Charlemagne wasn't really a Roman emperor anymore (merely in title), and even less a french ruler.

 

[Staler87]

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.

Um... both Augustus Caesar and Julius Caesar are extremely famous with a couple other emperors not being too far behind. The initial post was comparing it to previous civs and both Augustus and Julius have been leaders in previous civs so it was extremely ambiguous. I will admit that listing Tsars and Kaisers is a bit semantic, but still interesting.

 

[Gintoki89]

Maybe I'm too idealistic and not cynical enough, but I'm gonna say the reason for new leaders is that variety is the spice of life.

 

[Jaybe]

Maybe I'm too idealistic and not cynical enough, but I'm gonna say the reason for new leaders is that variety is the spice of life.

Totally, TOTALLY Wrong!

You are NOT too idealistic and your cynicism is just FINE!
Variety IS the spice of life!

Alas, anticipation is often more fulfilling than when the event actually arrives.
Which means I am going to enjoy Civ6 just fine, considering how much I am anticipating it.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

10 leaders are new to the series with 3-2 belonging to new civilization (2 if you consider Norway civ VI version of the vikings).