|
I'm just not a huge fan of the Ptolemaic dynasty. It just feels like the least Egyptian of all the major Ancient Egyptian periods. But everyone's heard of Cleopatra.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
Cleopatra is a fine choice for an Egyptian leader if she is one of multiple possible Egyptian leaders available. But if she is the only leader then that's fine too because I would also rather not have Ramses be the Egyptian leader in all Civilization games until the end of time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
hatshepsut
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 02:44
|
|
|
Cleopatra was also the Egyptian leader in Civ Rev
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
And Civ 3
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:23
|
|
|
And also for a bit in real life
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:And also for a bit in real life Doing better than Dido then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:08
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:hatshepsut I would hope if she shows up they keep her fake beard
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
Cleopatra is a really terrible choice to represent Egypt. She's a really interesting leader, but Ptolemaic Egypt is... not really all that Egyptian. Or at least not representative of Egypt in general. If there are multiple leaders, that's fine (and folks have raised good points, I'm not sure there will be multiple leaders) but it feels off for her to be the one ruler of Egypt. It'd be like having Greece represented by Justinian or something. Yeah, the Byzantine Empire is pretty Greek, but it's a really different thing than what we generally mean by "Greece." I respect the need for female representation, but Hatshepsut fits that fairly well. She was a pretty competent ruler to boot. I guess Cleopatra's reign gives the inspiration a pretty interesting AI personality though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:34
|
|
|
You know, with the game coming out on Oct. 21, there's 17 weeks left and 17 more civilizations they haven't unveiled all the details for. It'd be quite fitting if they did a weekly spotlight from this point on; I remember following the Civ 3 website for when they'd feature all the Civs. Probably worth checking their channel next week, anyhow.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
I really doubt multiple leaders will happen. It'd probably take too much resources to design and animate and get a voice for each character when they could just create a new civ. So if you don't like Teddy or Cleo... I guess you'll have to tolerate them until Civ7. Yeah, I'm not too hot on these new leader choices, even when considering their personalities and potential agendas. I thought civ5's leader choices were solid, save Maria and Dido and maybe a few others where they could have picked someone better. (I'm still a huge Lincoln partisan.) I hope they'll stick with Harun al-Rashid, Darius, Napoleon, and Elizabeth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
I want Joan of Arc back, and similar kooky leaders
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Who says the Egyptian leader has to be from the classical era? How about Shajar al-Durr, the first sultana of Mamluk Egypt?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 06:24
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Who says the Egyptian leader has to be from the classical era? How about Shajar al-Durr, the first sultana of Mamluk Egypt? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
Anne Boleyn for England
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
Mussolini for Rome.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
AriadneThread posted:hatshepsut God bless you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 06:56
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:God bless you. thank you
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 07:00
|
|
|
Lol there's some serieus denial going on in this thread. Unless this is some insane marketing spiel, they've split up abilities according to leader and civ. Even if they never make official second leaders (which I doubt; this kind of DLC might sell better than new civs nobody cares about) there is a 100% chance that people will mod in their own leaders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Lol there's some serieus denial going on in this thread. Unless this is some insane marketing spiel, they've split up abilities according to leader and civ. Even if they never make official second leaders (which I doubt; this kind of DLC might sell better than new civs nobody cares about) there is a 100% chance that people will mod in their own leaders.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
Nobunaga would have been cool in V if they didn't make him a generic bushido samurai guy, when he's one of the worst examples you could pick for that. Nobunaga is the guy who would gun down the honorable samurai and burn some temples along the way
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Lol there's some serieus denial going on in this thread. Unless this is some insane marketing spiel, they've split up abilities according to leader and civ. Even if they never make official second leaders (which I doubt; this kind of DLC might sell better than new civs nobody cares about) there is a 100% chance that people will mod in their own leaders. It would be a bit weird if they made a whole alternate leader system and then never used it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 08:19
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:It would be a bit weird if they made a whole alternate leader system and then never used it. Except this isn't an alternate leader system. It's "we want a bonus that reflects the leader vs the Civ as a whole".
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Lol there's some serieus denial going on in this thread. Unless this is some insane marketing spiel, they've split up abilities according to leader and civ. Even if they never make official second leaders (which I doubt; this kind of DLC might sell better than new civs nobody cares about) there is a 100% chance that people will mod in their own leaders. In Civ 5, the UA's were also separate from the unique units in Civilopedia; UAs belonged to leaders, units to civs. It was only in the quick game setup screen that they were consolidated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 08:22
|
|
|
sarmhan posted:Except this isn't an alternate leader system. It's "we want a bonus that reflects the leader vs the Civ as a whole". The post I quotes suggests some sort of mechanical facility for having leaders separate from civs, which modders would be able to use. If it's entirely aesthetic they wouldn't bother making any such thing, they would just change some fluff lines.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Jay Rust posted:I love the art style that conquistador 
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 08:49
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The post I quotes suggests some sort of mechanical facility for having leaders separate from civs, which modders would be able to use.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 09:44
|
|
|
They said they were going to make this one more moddable, so maybe they'll build something in that allows you to make more leaders easily. Regarding leader choice: definitely seems like they're trying present a fresh group of leaders, which I can appreciate. I know cleopatra was in 3, but have any of the other leaders so far been in 4/5?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 12:05
|
|
|
Qin Shi Huang was one of the Chinese leaders in Civ 4.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 12:21
|
|
|
MMM Whatchya Say posted:They said they were going to make this one more moddable, so maybe they'll build something in that allows you to make more leaders easily. Gandhi
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Rexides posted:In Civ 5, the UA's were also separate from the unique units in Civilopedia; UAs belonged to leaders, units to civs. It was only in the quick game setup screen that they were consolidated. I didn't realize that. It's kind of silly. In that case I don't know why they'd press the matter of "You've got one unique unit for your civ, and one for your leader!!" angle so hard if they don't plan on letting you mix and match to some degree. I have to admit an ahistorical game mode with random leaders per civ would be straight up my alley though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:I didn't realize that. It's kind of silly. I imagine it's about how they probably have some research that shows that players identify more with people/personalities than with civilizations, so they emphasize the persona of the leader more in their game.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Gort posted:Gandhi Gandhi's not actually confirmed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Firaxis is pumping up the hype machine by making the first leaders released be new leaders that everyone has heard of. That gets people talking. A few months down the road we'll probably get the usual Gandhi and Isabella and Augustus and Elizabeth and Napoleon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Yeah, I can't imagine that any of the leaders that haven't been in literally every mainline Civ won't be in Civ6.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Eric the Mauve posted:Firaxis is pumping up the hype machine by making the first leaders released be new leaders that everyone has heard of. That gets people talking. A few months down the road we'll probably get the usual Gandhi and Isabella and Augustus and Elizabeth and Napoleon. I can dream. The main thing that makes me think they might do a switcheroo is one interview with Ed Beach where he's asked "Is Gandhi still OP?" and he sort of looks uncomfortable for a moment and then talks about leaders, mentioning which leaders and civs have been confirmed so far.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Who could replace Gandhi?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Trajan for Rome, Chandragupta Maurya for India, Cromwell () for England. Make it happen, Firaxis.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:04
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Who could replace Gandhi? Emperor Ashoka, who created an enormous empire and made Buddhism its state religion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:23 |
|
|
I hope Firaxis keeps Ghandi, but then when India's spotlight comes up it shows a picture of Indira Ghandi.
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2016 18:32
|
|
