|
I'm not in favor of multiple leaders, seems like it just frontloads onto the most well-known civs (like 4's America having more leaders than almost everybody else).
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
They tweeted something about the fall of Constantinople on May 29th, strongly hinting that the Ottomans would be returning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
Hey, England, France and Russia got 3 leaders in 4 as well! And given the theme of the "third leaders" it seems like Germany would have as well if it weren't for that detail of wanting to sell the game in Germany. I think the pro-leaders people like the variety and having a way to get different faces in Civs that are otherwise usually dominated by familiar faces, such as India and Mongolia. And with the leader policy system it could make for some more varied AI personalities. Plus it'd be a nice hook for the Workshop to have a system in place. It'd make the "access to four post-launch DLC packs that will add new maps, scenarios, civilizations and leaders" possibly more meaningful in having all of those items listed separately, anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
I just don't see any gain from making multiple leaders vs just making new civs outright. The leader scenes are the most graphics/animation to do. I seriously doubt we'll see the return of multiple leaders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:I just don't see any gain from making multiple leaders vs just making new civs outright. The leader scenes are the most graphics/animation to do. I seriously doubt we'll see the return of multiple leaders. New personalities are a gain. Egypt under Cleoptra will try to be buddies with the strong and bully the weak. Egypt under another hypothetical leader down the line might have another UI and playstyle. If they pull it off, then yeah, there's a certain level of randomisation on how Earth map games play out. Also, money. If fans are willing to hand over cash for leader packs, and their animators don't have anything better to do in between expansion packs, then go for it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
Hogama posted:Hey, England, France and Russia got 3 leaders in 4 as well! And given the theme of the "third leaders" it seems like Germany would have as well if it weren't for that detail of wanting to sell the game in Germany.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
CountFosco posted:So... turn them off? I did, I only had them on because the old Noble's Club games had them on by default and then after that one I just went "gently caress it" and manually turned them off constantly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 08:31
|
|
|
I know it's illogical, unlikely and possibly even an insult to the world's many centuries-old cultures, but dammit I want Australia in a civ game. Who wouldn't want to see Henry Parkes' beard rendered in glorious HD? If nothing else it would make the tsl maps prettier. Edit: the civ, not the beard. It was p. big though. Tree Bucket fucked around with this message at 09:16 on Jun 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:New personalities are a gain. Egypt under Cleoptra will try to be buddies with the strong and bully the weak. Egypt under another hypothetical leader down the line might have another UI and playstyle. If they pull it off, then yeah, there's a certain level of randomisation on how Earth map games play out. It's an opportunity cost thing. What do you gain by implementing another leader for the same Civ, other that people who like that specific feature nodding their heads in approval? With just a bit more resources you can add an entire new civ that can actually draw new customers. Also, I find the randomization argument a bit weak. Having more Civs adds more to randomization than having more leaders for fewer civs. Sorry for framing the argument as either-or, but when you make a game on a specific budget, that's how it is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 12:19
|
|
|
Australi is poop im just mad Canada will never be in the game My guesses Certain: America Aztec/Mexico China Egypt England France Germany Japan India Mongolia Ottomans Rome Russia Vague: Some variation on Malaysia, The Philippines or Indonesia. (Kind of wish they'd be more direct about putting the Majaphits or something in but I know civs style is to lump historic empires with modern ones) of those I might actually lean toward the Philippines because they're probably not doing Indonesia again. Some Native American civ, probably a central or western one. Comanche or Sioux maybe? South American civ, something to fill that gap especially further south. I'm guessing they might get really wild with it and go Mapuche or maybe even Tehuelche. I think we're getting a few African civs this time. Kongo would be a good new one. Old mainstays like Mali and The Zulu could comfortably return as well. Ethiopia might make another expansion or DLC
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
Tree Bucket posted:I know it's illogical, unlikely and possibly even an insult to the world's many centuries-old cultures, but dammit I want Australia in a civ game. Who wouldn't want to see Henry Parkes' beard rendered in glorious HD? If nothing else it would make the tsl maps prettier. Well, we had Brazil and USA, it aint that much different
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 12:55
|
|
|
what would the leader and unique ability/unit be for the philippines?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 13:02
|
|
|
Man, I know they've been mainstays, but Shaka and the Zulu ain't poo poo. I really hope they go with Mali, or hell Kongo or the Ashanti would be cool, too. I do really like how contemporary cities look in this one, with wonders and districts creating more sprawl.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 13:17
|
|
|
Davincie posted:what would the leader and unique ability/unit be for the philippines? Either Jose Rizal (though he wasn't actually a political leader) or Marcos (the one who instituted martial law). I don't really know of any President that was notable otherwise. Idk about a UA or UU besides something that'd have something to do with Religion or Trade, likely. Edit: Maybe Manuel Quezon, but I'm not all that well versed in Filipino history. Xelkelvos fucked around with this message at 14:01 on Jun 16, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Re: Philippines Don't know jack poo poo about the Philippines but for Indonesia they took a historic leader from the region, would it be possible to do the same with the Philippines? double negative posted:Man, I know they've been mainstays, but Shaka and the Zulu ain't poo poo. They've got a good location though
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 14:22
|
|
|
Rexides posted:It's an opportunity cost thing. What do you gain by implementing another leader for the same Civ, other that people who like that specific feature nodding their heads in approval? With just a bit more resources you can add an entire new civ that can actually draw new customers. In Civ 4 it was good for adding in more trait combos (if you were running unrestricted leader/civ combos) without having to add in a completely new civ, and if you're running restricted, it was pretty good at maybe adding a new spin on a Civ.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Chucat posted:In Civ 4 it was good for adding in more trait combos (if you were running unrestricted leader/civ combos) without having to add in a completely new civ, and if you're running restricted, it was pretty good at maybe adding a new spin on a Civ. One more reason not to add that feature again, trait combos were a horrible way to differentiate civs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Well, we had Brazil and USA, it aint that much different The USA is actually important tho
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
I mean, so is Brazil
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 16:22
|
|
|
Rexides posted:One more reason not to add that feature again, trait combos were a horrible way to differentiate civs. The trait combos were for leaders, the Unique Buildings and Units are for Civs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 16:37
|
|
|
The main thing with leaders is to give them different personalities, so that Gandhi is a peacenik no matter what civ he's leading, Montezuma will happily send his Roman Legionnaires up against your tanks, Ramesses will make England into a bastion of world wonders, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
i'll gladly take multiple leaders per civ if it gets us a non-gandhi indian leader again
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Yeah I'd love to see somebody other than gandhi
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Either Jose Rizal (though he wasn't actually a political leader) or Marcos (the one who instituted martial law). I don't really know of any President that was notable otherwise. Idk about a UA or UU besides something that'd have something to do with Religion or Trade, likely. Firaxis please don't make Marcos the Filipino leader
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
yeh i dont think firaxis wants to introduce incredibly divisive leaders yeah, there's mao and stalin, but the two aren't viewed as irredeemable back in their home countries
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 16:57
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:I just don't see any gain from making multiple leaders vs just making new civs outright. The leader scenes are the most graphics/animation to do. I seriously doubt we'll see the return of multiple leaders. All the more reason to scale down the leader screens, but I guess that's off the table. They're dead set on making the prettiest history-based dating sim around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Except they're fine with not making it pretty at all
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:All the more reason to scale down the leader screens, but I guess that's off the table. They're dead set on making the prettiest history-based dating sim around. Ugh, Teddy Roosevelt chose the worst possible Tinder pic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
I don't understand the need for Civs to be meticulously justified historical empires. Bring on the nation-states imo, I would have a blast with the Canadians and Australians.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
MrChupon posted:I don't understand the need for Civs to be meticulously justified historical empires. Bring on the nation-states imo, I would have a blast with the Canadians and Australians. New DLC civilization pack: Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Lesotho, Singapore
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:The USA is actually important tho I though the problem was that Australia aint a "civilization", but a former colony just a few centuries old. Which is the case for Brazil and USA too Personally, I prefer old civilizations cause is kinda stupid have a USA in 5000 BC. But who gives a poo poo really, "civilizations" in this games are just a color and a face and a set of city names
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
I mean America has existed for longer than Germany's modern incarnation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:New DLC civilization pack: Andorra, San Marino, Liechtenstein, Lesotho, Singapore I mean if Firaxis doesn't do it the modders will.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:I mean America has existed for longer than Germany's modern incarnation. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
Poil posted:I'll have you know Germany has over 4000 years of history. Who did it steal them from?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
Elias_Maluco posted:Personally, I prefer old civilizations cause is kinda stupid have a USA in 5000 BC. But who gives a poo poo really, "civilizations" in this games are just a color and a face and a set of city names Exactly, let go and have fun. Give the Canadians their Mountie and Tundra bonuses, maybe something for immigration or something like that, have fun with new city names. You actually satisfy a large group of gamers who are in a 1st world country that will spend 1st world money on your video game, and only spergs will care otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 22:43
|
|
|
I want Wales as a civ because hahahah city names motherfucker. Welcome to Wales, capital city Llwwwyrnrngfffynrngnffyyn. President: Gwwffnynffllywwwffgn ap Ryyrnrngwwffrwys.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
MrChupon posted:Exactly, let go and have fun. Give the Canadians their Mountie and Tundra bonuses good god, I mean, yeah, canada probably shouldn't be in the game, but if they are in don't do it like this
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
I could see Canada getting 2x strategic resources or luxuries on tiles that are snow or tundra. Don't they have a ton of mines and like... oil... pipes? Up there? Somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
Rexides posted:It's an opportunity cost thing. What do you gain by implementing another leader for the same Civ, other that people who like that specific feature nodding their heads in approval? With just a bit more resources you can add an entire new civ that can actually draw new customers. I don't yearn for the return of multiple leaders per civ but I'm saying there's an opportunity cost that we might not know about. Like having animators or model artists sitting around not creating animations or models. Or maybe being able to get your rabid fanbase to hand over 5 dollars each so they can play with an obscure pharaoh instead of Cleopatra is more profitable than bloating the game with civs nobody cares about, like the well-known empires of Luxemburg or, God forbid, Canada.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 23:18
|
|