*Another* French leader?

[Charlemagne]

Cathy Medici in white
Cathy Medici in black
Eleanor of Aquitaine pre-treason (she was French betrayed France and became English)
Ambiorix Gaul...
Well, Vive la France, I guess. The devs have problem with variety though. So many great Civs that are buried in oblivion and we keep getting repeats (new versions, whatever) of the same.

[SPC_UK]

Belgian.

[Charlemagne]

Oh. But Gaul was essentially what today is France. They could have chosen any other Gaul leader and he would probably hail from what today is France. In fact the French are sometimes poetically called Gauls. It's like the Aztecs and Mexico, Incas and Peru, Rome and Italy etc.

[Lemurian1972]

Originally posted by Charlemagne:

Oh. But Gaul was essentially what today is France. They could have chosen any other Gaul leader and he would probably hail from what today is France. In fact the French are sometimes poetically called Gauls. It's like the Aztecs and Mexico, Incas and Peru, Rome and Italy etc.

There are plenty of leaders from different regions whose areas overlap. Not just in Civ VI but in the whole franchise. The Gallic tribes were different from the French in almost every way imaginable, so it's fine they're a different civ.

[General Eclectic]

I mean if you had kept up with the posts speculating the new releases, you would have realized that Firaxis isn't just releasing civs by pulling names from a hat. They have patterns and planned releases and probably planned to release the Gauls in a new DLC as early as the last civ dropping in Gathering Storm. We technically have 5 "Greek" rulers (Cleo, Basil II, Alex, Pericles, and Gorgo). This is particularly why I'm looking forward to Humankind because you make your own nation by adding Ethnic-groups to create your empire. Which is kind of what happened anyways. I always hated that aspect of civ, that you start from Ancient era to Modern era with the same national identity.

[Charlemagne]

Hadn't caught that about the Greeks. Reinforces my point I think.
OK I admit that new leaders even if they are French-ish or Greek-ish add something to the game. However what I feel is not good is double personalities (two Medicis, two Teddies, etc.). I really like America before but I don't much like any of the new Teddy twins.

[KiroTheImmortal]

Idk i disagree with the double personalities. I think the idea is intresting specialy for rulers that pretty much had changed teh playing field like Medicis. She was a generic queen turned to behind the scenes mastermind. Teddy went from beeing one of the most well known generals to boosing american economy and appeals. The current system focuses on what people are most known for and singles that out, Specificly between Warring, Economic, Technological, ect., so having twins that show off the other side of their rulings isnt realy that bad of an idea.

[KiroTheImmortal]

With that said it would be amazing even more with the twins stuff if you could mix factions by leader skills and civic traits. Imagine the new leader bazile with sumeria war carts lol. It would make lady six's zerg rush look like a joke.

[Demystificator]

I'm pretty sure that Civ 6 has the widest variety from all the Civ games. I mean, Grand Colombia, Australia, Hungary... I don't remember them in Civ 4 or 5.

Also, Gaul ain't the same than France even if French are called "Gauls" sometimes, it's a misconception of what France has been during its history. It'd be like saying Native Americans and Roosevelt belong to the same civ...

Tbh I'd expect more double leaders just to inject some gameplay variety but on the other hand I like the idea of playing a lot of different civs.
And when they get to Colombia or Sweden or Ethiopia, they could add a lot of civs and sure a lot gets "forgotten". But I mean, I don't remember when Sweden ruled over the continent or the world unlike the other European civs or Asians.
So if they consider putting them in the game, sure you could complain about tons of lesser civs being left out.

[OMniscient.]

Vercintegorix would have been frenchier. But I am not complaining, i'm French.

[corwing]

Vercingetorix ruling Gaul ~ Jesus ruling Israel (Palaestina).
Asterix ruling Gaul ~ Red Skull ( or rather, crimson, for copyright reasons ) ruling Germany.
What´s next? Sokka ruling Antarctica.

[Charlemagne]

Well maybe we have to adapt to this "new" modality, but I've played since Civ 1 and I'm used to have less quantity but more quality. Do we really need drools of different characters? And the devs must really crack their heads to try and find new civ perks and agendas to make each "unique". It can be overdone, some perks and agendas are really silly. It's the same problem with TW Warhammer 2, they feel like they need to keep churning out "new" stuff, and each new thing has to be completely different. Can't have two factions or civs with the same attribute.

[Demystificator]

On one hand you complain that they're letting out a lot of civs, on the other hand you're asking why they're putting so many new civs ?

I really enjoyed Civ4 for the double leaders mechanics but civ5 was only 1 ruler per civ and ppl kinda accepted it.

About civ6, I've never could make my mind on what they're doing. Is the double leader stuff made for modders to implement new rulers to the existing civs ? Or they're really trying to design gameplay mechanics around it ?
When I try to play English Alienor, I don't feel like the ruler fits that well the civ, about gameplay.

[Charlemagne]

Originally posted by Demystificator:

On one hand you complain that they're letting out a lot of civs, on the other hand you're asking why they're putting so many new civs ?

I really enjoyed Civ4 for the double leaders mechanics but civ5 was only 1 ruler per civ and ppl kinda accepted it.

About civ6, I've never could make my mind on what they're doing. Is the double leader stuff made for modders to implement new rulers to the existing civs ? Or they're really trying to design gameplay mechanics around it ?
When I try to play English Alienor, I don't feel like the ruler fits that well the civ, about gameplay.

Maybe what I'm getting at is that before there were less, but better defined civs. You had that undeniably great ancient civilization, Babylon, Rome, Egypt, Aztec, etc., or undeniably great modern power (USA, Russia, France etc.). Led by clear-cut famous figures like Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Ramesses etc. The civs had characteristics that defined them well and gave the "feel" of Egypt, Rome, USA, etc. Now we have all this sprinkling of modern states (probably to improve sales in each) and poorly defined civs led by obscure figures. The devs seem to actually go out of their way to try and not repeat leaders that have appeared in a previous game. I suppose, to cater to the nowadays fashion that everything has to be new and nothing can be repeated or duplicated (well except the cloned leaders they throw at us).

[corwing]

I think it was 'Bandit Kings of Ancient China' that pioneered peppering games out with hero governors, MoM popularized it, MoO2 was great, MoO3 was drowned by its micromanagement focus, ...
What changes do people want to see from one civ version to the next? My impression: the developers seem to try to get the players in touch with people / events / quotes / people form human history, ... including medieval paintings, 1920s pulp SF, ...
But, yes, maybe, once a series reaches the fourth or so sequel, the fan base might be more happy encountering faces familiar from the previous version.

[Demystificator]

I think a lot of ppl actually like to learn historic infos through civ games. Then it kinda makes sense to take "more obscure" figures. It's also debatable, but Alienor is kinda a major figure for middle-age. It's not because it's not worldy known that those people weren't that important during their time imo.
And even if I don't really like how Catherine of Medicis is pictured in the game (seapking italian half of time), I appreciate they kinda show someone else than Napoleon. Same goes with Roma, it's fresher to play Trajan than Caesar cause there are several important people from Roma.

About defined civs, I really don't know. I feel like some civs in 6 are strongly defined, even if they're "obscure". But some of them look like "jack of all trades". I guess it's a design thing.

More flexible, less strongly designed civs allow player to adapt through the game. I feel civ 6 is actually more designed like a strategy game with a lot of options each turn, each time with a lot of civs, whereas some old civs in 4 or 5 were "all-in" in one victory path just because the civs was known for one tihng.