Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Teddy Roosevelt?

Meh...

Not too keen on either of the Roosevelts. There are much better choices, even if you ignore Washington and Lincoln.

Oh, well.

Out of curiosity, who would you like to see as the leader? I think Teddy is a good choice, and I do like that they're adding variety to it besides Lincoln and Washington.

JFK could be an interesting choice, too

I concur, JFK would be a good one. Plus then we can get someone to imitate his voice for us.

Also, Eisenhower wouldn't be a bad choice either, perhaps we get some cheaper road buffs and 'massive retaliation' if they went that route.

I’d kind of like them to have multiples, and personally shifts.

One thing I liked about the older versions where you had to swap government styles was sometimes your neighbor would radically shift personalities.

It would be nice for Gandhi the peaceful to swap over to the nuclear despot.

The only time Gandhi is not a nuclear despot is before he discovers nuclear bombs. He's worse than Genghis Khan as a neighbor.

 Hanskrampf wrote:
After being utterly disappointed with Civ:BE, I'm gonna wait for reviews this time before ordering.

Me too. Civ V was pretty poor on launch I thought compared to IV, took the expansions to give it some depth. Graphics aside of course.

The one thing I really wanted out of Civ IV was for the leaders to not just be a picture.

I think it'd be wonderful if every nation had a certain theme/unit/era, but the leader you pick has an additional effect (like Kennedy getting a bonus to happiness vs Eisenhower getting a bonus to something with combat).

Finally! the new concept of city construction that becomes more realistic than before. in reality a city shouldn't be limited to one hex/tile but should expand. This is the favorite feature.

but can a player chose a different leader of the same nation?
Ex: England
- HenryVIII (gets Longbowmen instead of crossbows)
- Oliver Cromwell (gets an Ironside cavalry)
- George III (HMS Victory)
- Victoria (Line infantry with pith helmet in place of a (kepi wearing) riflemen (and superior!) )
- Winston Churchill (Dreadnough, replaces a generic battleship)

France
- Jean d'Arc (Crusader)
- Louis XIV (Mousquetaire do Roi, in reality this unit was dragoon and not a footslogger so the unit should replace dragoon or cav)
- Napoleon I (Grognard or Fusilier, replaces musket-arming troops)
- Napoleon III (Mittraileus, if gatling shows up the weapon should replace it)
- Charles du Galle (FT-17 or Char B1)

Germany
- Frederick II (either Black Hussars or 'white shirts' Gardes du Corps, replacing cavs)
- Bismarc (Jager, replaces riflemen)
- Wilhem II (Panzerkampfwagen)

China
- Qin Huangdi (repeater crossbowman)
- Wu Zetian (handgunner)
- Mao Zedong (Red guard, replaced infantry, cheaper but weaker)

They are totally ripping off Endles Legend with the city thing. Hahah. Took it a bit further too.

I still think Endless Legend will be my go to 4x for the time being even surpassing Civ 6.

I just hate how poor civ games run and their terrible DLC policy. I can't play with my dlc and friends at the same time unless I choose to not use the dlc or they all have it. Which is so stupid. So I'm not going to buy this since all I played of Civ 5 was multiplayer games with the very rare singleplayer.

Eumerin wrote:
Teddy Roosevelt?

Meh...

Not too keen on either of the Roosevelts. There are much better choices, even if you ignore Washington and Lincoln.

Oh, well.

- JFK (modern, you get Aircav instead of regular paratroops)
- Thomas Jefferson (Super Frigate or Long Rifleman)
- Ulysses S. Grant (Gunslingers, replaces cavalry, faster but weaker)
- Franklin d. Roosvelt (another Roosvelt, the Flying Fortress Strategic Bomber)
- Jefferson Davis (another 'America' yes the rebellios CSA, comes with Whitworth rifled cannon OR steam-powered blockade runner (replaces privateers), also the capitol is Richmond instead of Washington D.C., also the second city will be Norfolk VA rather than New York City)
- William Brewster (leader of The Pilgrims, actually they arn't 'Americans' (if you consider that the 13 colony revolutionaries ARE the first to call themselves 'Americans') but since the New England of these pilgrims did NOT become British Colony until the late 17th century or early 18th century.. i.e. they were 'independent' before (unlike Virginia, which were 'controlled' from London, England since the beginning... John Smith (Same dude who date a native girl Pochahontus, but he didn't die in the New World) did journey between England and Virginia for some time until the french bouccaneers robbed him somewhere in the Caribbean and then he went back to London, never leave England for the rest of his life.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 2BlackJack1 wrote:
I concur, JFK would be a good one. Plus then we can get someone to imitate his voice for us.

Also, Eisenhower wouldn't be a bad choice either, perhaps we get some cheaper road buffs and 'massive retaliation' if they went that route.

Also in Civ4. If you play as Russia, you may choose either to play as Katherina (an amazon with Tricorne and green coat), and Iosif Stalin... / Vladimir Lenin (can't remember which of the Soviet chairmen is available to choose) choosing any communist leader gives you a different city name too! (Leningrad instead of St. Petersburg, and Stalingrad in place of Volgograd (and this is NOT a pre-soviet name of that city))

Out this week, anyone pick it up / played it?
Im sorely tempted as I genuinely loved 5 but am not as keen on the new art/gfx style they have gone for.

Neat. Might get it if it goes on sale in the winter. Have too much to pay for as it is, outside of gaming.

Been playing since release. Enjoying it muchly!

Too pricey for me right now, but it seems to be getting very good reactions so far.

It's down at £49.99 in the UK at the moment which seems a tad expensive, will wait a little bit for it to fall to a reasonable and stardard PC price for a game.

Also doesn't help that I felt I got my fingers burnt by the Civ V release (which felt very bare-bones on launch, and needed an expansion pack to start moving towards the depth of Civ IV) - would be grateful to anyone who has played the new game if this seems similar, or if the new game feels suitably padded out!

Civ 6 doesn't feel stripped of features like Civ 5 did on launch, and there's plenty of new mechanics to learn that actually make the game better imho.

I think it's worth buying now if you're a Civ fan.

Yes but... £50!

I haven't spent that much on a video game since Turok Dinosaur Hunter on the N64!

Good to hear the game is comprehensive though, I might have a look around and see if I can get a physical copy of the game for less than the Steam price..

I’ve got it on my steam wishlist. Once it hits a reasonable sale I’ll grab it. But I’m both stingy and patient, so no way am paying full price.

Got it, played it, loved it.

It's not Civ 5 redux, and it definitely feels like a solid game this time around.

I'll pick it up at some point. My life doesn't let me get into the Civ games the way I could as a younger man.

I heard that happiness is on a city-by-city basis again, which should be less punishing for sprawling civilizations. Which is good for me, since my instincts -- honed on the early editions of the game -- are to grab territory.

 gorgon wrote:
I'll pick it up at some point. My life doesn't let me get into the Civ games the way I could as a younger man.

I heard that happiness is on a city-by-city basis again, which should be less punishing for sprawling civilizations. Which is good for me, since my instincts -- honed on the early editions of the game -- are to grab territory.

Yes, it's much better than empire-wide happiness.

Lots of great new improvements to the series. Enjoying it so far.

There are issues though. I expect most are fairly minor and will be patched soon enough.

The big ones being that barbs are absolutely ridiculous. Holy fething gak. It's like playing on raging barbs in Civ V. Its genuinely frustrating when a camp will spawn 4 (4!!!) horseman in less than 20 turns.

Unit selling is a broken feature too. You can now sell units (delete them) for a gold refund, as you always could, but now you can do it outside your borders with no penalty. The pay back is somewhere in the 50% ballpark, which means with policies you can get a nearly 1:1 ratio of production to cash. This gets especially broken with Scythia who gets two units for one. Oh, and you can sell a nearly dead unit for full price too, so if you know you're going to lose a guy next turn, just sell him.

Diplomacy feels a little unfinished. I can't seem to fully use most of the Casus Belli, especially if I want to liberate a captured city-state. Plus, the AI loathes anyone that doesn't have their government. Additionally, the random agenda the leaders can spawn with may be totally contradictory to their permanent agenda. Had a game with Cleopatra who loved people with strong militaries...but hated people with strong militaries. Queue endless cycle of denounce and kind messages about the strength or weakness of my military.

Oh, and I miss having a United Nations-esque mechanic. I'm sure one will come along in the future though.

The big ones being that barbs are absolutely ridiculous. Holy fething gak. It's like playing on raging barbs in Civ V. Its genuinely frustrating when a camp will spawn 4 (4!!!) horseman in less than 20 turns.

I actually like this myself, it means that Barbarians are actually able to cause problems.

Diplomacy seems the big thing however that everyone wants fixed, it really is one of the major issues, religious combat seems a bit bare bones as well.

I haven't noticed problems with barbarians, myself.

A thought occurs to me, though. In IV, there would be periods of time when barbarians would suddenly start spawning en masse. You'd go for plenty of turns with intermittent barbarian problems, and then the game would suddenly start throwing them at you for a few dozen turns. Perhaps VI does something similar?

I think there's a compromise between a piddly warrior every 30 turns and 4 horsemen at turn 20.

I like that they're relevant, as it really changes what the 'ideal' opener is. In V, it used to be scout -> scout -> archer -> monument, or some minor variation thereof. Now, its spam slingers, upgrade them to archers once you've killed something with your slingers, and let your warrior do the scouting.

I find scouts pretty underwhelming, especially with the ferocity of the barbs. They don't move all that much faster than a warrior, but at least the warrior can take a beating.

I'd like for the religious combat to be overhauled, and a little more fleshing out of the unit progression lines and government progression. Already JFD, who's made some of the more popular new civ mods and total overhaul mods, is working on adding more religious and governing flavours to the game.

I like the base game quite a bit now, especially city building which is excellent. I'm just hoping a few of the bugs are ironed out and the game expanded in a few areas.

I want my United Nations.