All confirmed Civ 6 leaders so far

>medici
>france
The fuck were they smoking?

Saladin was literally revealed today, can't have been spammed that often

I'm 99% sure that Civs can have multiple leaders and Fraxis will be doing a "popular leader DLC" featuring Alex, Bismark, etc. at some point.

Because norwegian is the superior race

They all look like meme faces. Or some poor Indian artist's Disney character attempts. Disgusting.

Qin Shi Huang is especially ugly.

...

>how do we make it like a political cartoon style
>let's just make everyone hideous lmao

>Saladin with a capital in Cairo rules "Arabia"
oh lawd, though I don't know if this is bantering Kurds or Arabs

When they reveal my waifu Catherine

How come they went cartooney for some of them like Pedro II and Victoria but they went realistic for others like Theodore Roosevelt and Ghandi?

>ghandi
>not cartoony
are you 4 real?

>Ghandi
why the fuck do people do this?

Never played Civ, a bit curious about it.
Is Russia an option? Because I don't see Fredrick the Great or anyone.

why isn't justin trudeau included?

Weren't they going to have Sparta?

Make him look silly or make him a world leader?

Because 1) He was cartoony looking, and 2) He's a nuclear madman.

Canada has no place in civ

Frederick the Great was the greatest leader of Prussia.

You are thinking of Peter the Great...

No, why the fuck do people keep spelling his name Ghandi? It's Gandhi.

MOD WHEN?

Zelda reference on japan leader!

woah dude! Us gamers are epic!

I wanna fug cleopatra

>no based Hitler who did nothing wrong and was a great leader who took Germany into a Golden Age

Oh I get it, because another character was named after Gilgamesh. Haha, you are quite the joker.

Russia is unannounced but it will get in for sure.

Because Hardrada-kun is mai husbando.

thanks senpai, glad you enjoyed my little jokey

I am, but it's a easy mistake.

Just look at this ugly shit. How can anyone willingly play this?

It's not. Two completely different figures.

Are you Russian?

> they are all ugly

good bye civ, you were a good franchise.

Russia is always the option, they're getting Peter the Great again.

>complaining about leader choices

literally everyone important is likely to be in the game in the end, so the important part here is the civ choices, not the leaders

>Saladin represents Arabia
Why, he was a kurd, the caliphates != Arabia

they have a long history of having italians be the leader of france

>gilgamesh
seems like a bit of a stretch to me

And how many times was Napoleon a French leader?

HRE != Germany
Majapahit != Indonesia

they've been doing this shit forever

why havent they ever done charlemagne as the ruler of france

>complains about foreigners leading france
>wants charlemagne

>Mahatma Ghandi

It'll be fine.

How do the leaders live for thousands of years?

Nothing can change the nature of meme.

HOJO, THAI KIKKU!

They don't, their ideas do.

I still hope we get the Dutch back, either standard or as DLC

>tfw you realize Civilization is a shallow strategy game

Who would they pick if they want to go off the beaten path and pick different leaders than normal?

My vote is for Billy

>Kamehameha I
>any city other than Honolulu, Hilo, Oahu and Kailua

>religious spanish waifu taken out of the game
>all the females currently announced are hideous

why live

idk, maybe king William III yes, or Queen Wilhelmina, our queen during WWII

That's a pretty good album

Of course it is. Not everything needs to be complex.

I only liked the title track

Civ is comfy as fuck

Well, it lost a lot of depth between Civ 4 and Civ 5. You used to really be able to tear away if you knew Civ 4 well. Civ 5 introduced all these fucking punishments for being aggressive and ambitious.

Notably, besides the leader board leak and even the Civilopedia leak, there was also a video that has Peter's (miniature) face in it, so even before animation we know what he'll look like.

t. shit at civ 5

Looks cool. I guess we can expect to see his video tomorrow, just as the NDA is lifted.

Why isn't my boy Phil the leader of England?

When will Civ grow balls and slap hitler on germany

Never, because they want to sell their game in Germany, and because Hitler did not build a civilization that could withstand the test of time.

>Hitler
>good leader

t. fourteen year old

I'm sure he'll be the first mod on the Workshop anyway

>Hitler did not build a civilization that could withstand the test of time.
Nobody ever will.

Some came closer than others, though

Not shit. I'm fine at it. But the global happiness think dampers rapid expansion and tries to contain you in a little bottle. You can play wide, but it's less stable and reliable than playing tall.

Civ 4 had vast, sprawling empires and a ton of options as to how you'd use that. Civ 5 gets you micro-managing three to ten cities all game. Or just one city if you're Venice or something. The policy tree isn't really a depth thing but more like a level up thing, where you're going to follow a single strategy and not switch in the middle to respond to a change. Also the Civ 5 leaders get abilities which are occasionally broken and unfair, whereas Civ 4 had it toned down a lot more.

Will they ever have the courage to have Hitler as the German leader?

i doubt it even though they put stalin and mao before

If you're going to be fucking pedantic, It's actually Khandhil.

Hitler really was a shitty leader, though. He personally didn't do anything, leadership wise, that Germany wasn't already itching to do except for the system eradication of the Jews. Any hardliner alive in that time would have started WW2, and somebody other than Hitler might have been able to win it.

Why do they speak modern English back in pre-agricultural times?

making ghandi darker to appeal to white sjws who think he was dark skinned, theres fucking photos of him, hes not some fictional character you can dress up like jesus.

i dont give a fuck about skin tone ever, unless its about accuracy

There is very little reason not to go sprawling in Civ 5 unless you actively limit yourself, look at literally any multiplayer game. It not being completely free doesn't mean you can't be aggressive as hell or spread across the world. Hell, many civs have perfect tools for murdering neighbours early and often.

What's wrong with Perciles?

> theres fucking photos of him

in black and white, which show him as pretty dark skinned

why are you assuming an indian isn't indian looking?

>Brazil
>Instead of Portugal
EVERY THREAD
I GET TRIGGERED

What did Brazil do so great for the world? Nothing.
Meanwhile Portugal is full of achievements, true it's a shit country now, but historically it is easily top 3 tier.

No, there are a lot of reasons.
1. The only good cities are ones next to resources you don't own.
2. Every city you own decreases science growth by a percent amount
3. Every city decreases global happiness by 3
4. Having lots of stupid, underdeveloped cities prevents you from getting important buildings like the national college

Playing "wide" means owning lots of cities. If you're being aggressive and taking everything, you'll hold lots of cities, which develops a lot of unhappiness that obliterates your science, production, and fighting abilities.

The "liberty" policy can help mitigate the problem with being wide, but it's situational because sometimes going wide just hurts due to scarcity of luxuries, and "tradition" is far more stable because you know you're definitely going to have a capital all game.

Killing opponents is totally doable, but your campaigns are usually genocidal, where you burn everything but the capitol. That's not really the same as conquest.

Hey at least you won the Euros right ?

people like pedro 2 too much

absolutely nobody gave a fuck about him or brazil in civ until both their themes and leader were really cool, and their playstyle was really fun

...

>2. Every city you own decreases science growth by a percent amount

This (and the culture loss) is so incredibly minor I don't understand why it's being parroted everywhere as an inhibitor - any city of a population of 3 or more already has a net profit purely from that.

It's statements like that and this:
>but your campaigns are usually genocidal, where you burn everything but the capitol
that make me think you have no actual clue about the game.

Keeping happiness up in incredibly easy, but yes, requires planning (not exactly a lack of depth there) because it means you aren't automating your workers any more like on Prince and keeping up diplomatic ties to trade shit (works in both MP and SP). Having stupid cities shouldn't be a thing that should be rewarded in the first place, but tactical playing wide works really well. Don't kid yourself: real time-wise, it might be the easiest to sit and turtle with four cities towards a passive victory. Turn-wise, the thing that actually matters, it's by far the most efficient to settle aggressively and conquer.

Fuck the Euros, I want our ancestors to get the praise they deserve.

We may have brought shame to our nation over the years, but we have pride in our past, fucking love reading our history.

The infuriating thing about Pedro II is that he's Portuguese.
So it's like fucking Portugal in the ass with any game he features in:
>"Oh hey there, play with the colony you lost that is being ruled by the grandson of your King."

It's a great poem, but also wrong. Ever been to Egypt? You can't walk a meter without tripping over some more shit Ramesses built. He's fucking everywhere.

Where's muh persia

I've never played a civ game but Phillip II is so based that I'd like to

>Americas
The continent is called America.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

theres 2 of them

>if it has a wikipedia article it's correct

>Where's muh persia
this. if they don't include persia at launch, I'm not buying it.

excellent so far desu

not necessarily, but likely more correct than random hissyfit anonymous

it's a term that exists and is a proper way to address North + South America, sorry

>This (and the culture loss) is so incredibly minor I don't understand why it's being parroted everywhere as an inhibitor - any city of a population of 3 or more already has a net profit purely from that.
It's not a minor inhibitor. You're barely grasping a smaller part of the mechanics, and if you do the math, you'd realize that generally you must NEVER take a city that isn't next to a new luxury unless you've got happiness to burn due to the industrial era or something.

That +3 pop is +3 unhappiness as well, so from having that city you're sitting at -6 unhappiness. Now, let's assume you're playing tradition and, because your capitols pop pays for everything and you don't need money, your trade caravans are delivering food to the capital and you could have +12 population in your capitol for the same happiness.

But that's optimal for you and assumes fast pop growth. Let's assume you're relying on nation-wide growth. Okay, now with the happiness you're using to support a city of 3 pop, you could have +6 pop instead in your existing capitol, which is even better because having fewer cities means you need LESS SCIENCE. People say that percent punishment to science and culture is a big deal because it all accumulates. Your smaller pop plus slower rate of science growth is making you slower overall.

Finally, let's consider the most important thing - buildings. Your core cities are already going to have libraries, universities, and so on. When you take a new city, you have to either buy those things again or spend turns building them. If you settle a new city, you have to build every single building. All of that takes time, and it's time you're wasting if your pop is catching up to your global happiness fast enough.

The need, or indeed, even the want to expand in Civ 5 is deeply situational and it's downright detrimental if you do it carelessly. Especially if happiness gets so out of control that it hurts your fighting ability.

Barbarossa is god tier, what is your problem

So, will this shit use denuvo?

Portugal was nothing more than Britain's bitch. Had everything to become the greatest and end up like this. Good job fleeing for an excuse of army Napoleon sent to your so sacred land. You deserve this.

The whole point is that nothing lasts. Ramesses doesn't rule any of that shit he built anymore.

>
>
>

>Keeping happiness up in incredibly easy, but yes, requires planning (not exactly a lack of depth there) because it means you aren't automating your workers any more like on Prince and keeping up diplomatic ties to trade shit
Diplomatic shit doesn't work, really, though, because each of those other players are your enemies and the AI is STONE FUCKING RETARDED. Most people play MP with the intent to kill and will storm your country the minute they get their UU. They'll also gladly cut you off if they're providing a lot, throwing your nation into an unhappiness spiral you'll struggle to escape.

The AI is so bad at diplomacy, meanwhile, that it'll nag your ass up a tree for winning a war even if it invited you to start the war in their aid. Kill another civ's worst nemesis? Expect a diplomacy ding for being a "warmonger". Another tradition is better is because it lets a nation be completely self-reliant, and though you can still benefit from trade, you can also choose instead to behead everybody around you and deal with the litany of embargoes the AI tries to punish you with in the later game.

If it does you can say bye bye to total conversion mods.
No game on the steam workshop uses denuvo

I dislike Medici, Barbarossa, and Scythia as a whole. The others i'm more or less okay with but I do have other preferences like Ramses II or Hatshepsut instead of Cleo.

Fuck you, one fool of a King does not condemn History that was shaped for over 800 hears.

>An actual greek
>Presided over golden age of Athens
>Not just a flash in the pan sheep-fucking warlord from "We're not even sure if they are Greek per se" Macedonia

>and if you do the math

Which you didn't, because you think it's a big penalty, for some reason. What the penalty does is to increase the cost of a tech with 5% multiplied with the number of cities.

How to calculate this:
- I look at a tech that I can research right now, but haven't started. I check in the Civilopedia how much it should cost (let's cal this X) and I check in the game how much it really costs (a higher number, let's call it Y).
- I calculate (Y-X), then divide by the number of cities I have and then divide it further by the number of turns it would take to research that technology (as shown in the tech tree). The resulting number is the number of beakers a city needs to produce per turn in order to break even at the current stage of the game.

The result is usually an easily achievable number, which is why I've pretty much stopped doing it and I've started assuming it's always worth making another city. The percent of your current science keeps dropping as you add cities (pic related), but by less and less. The quality of the city relative to your existing cities, however, increases. Once you have twenty cities, the new city must be half as good as your average city, over its entire life, to justify it. Easy.

>Finally, let's consider the most important thing - buildings. Your core cities are already going to have libraries, universities, and so on. When you take a new city, you have to either buy those things again or spend turns building them.

The entire point of taking other people's cities is that they still have buildings and population inside them. I don't understand this reasoning. It's not situational to expand in Civ 5, it's a question of when rather than if.

>Don't kid yourself: real time-wise, it might be the easiest to sit and turtle with four cities towards a passive victory. Turn-wise, the thing that actually matters, it's by far the most efficient to settle aggressively and conquer.
The best strategy in Civ 5 is to always expand if you can take a city with a new luxury. Especially if it also has access to horses, which can provide additional happiness with a related building. Taking a city that isn't next to a new luxury slows you down one small part at a time. Yes, you CAN do it, but it depends on the era and whether you have major happiness boosting structures, which is not something you can rely on since the two biggest ones are world wonders.

The Liberty policy makes it possible to play wide, but only if you're lucky and there are numerous luxuries to conquer. If you find yourself in a region with few luxuries, attempting to play wide only slows you down and makes your civ worse. Liberty is a gambling policy that sometimes provides more benefits than tradition, but tradition is stable, reliable, and insulates you from the united counsel voting shit. Tall is easier, more stable, and more reliable, and you can always transition from tall to wide if later scouting proves it's a good idea.

All in all, the game broadly tries to punish expansion by throwing as many tacks in the road as possible to make it unattractive.

it's just a videogame

Really, nobody cares about you or your shitty country.

He pretty much did lol

>North America
>South America
>The Americas

forgot pic

>Diplomatic shit doesn't work, really, though, because each of those other players are your enemies and the AI is STONE FUCKING RETARDED.

In MP everyone needs happiness and some people are a little more lucky than others. I've played ~200 MP games now and there was never a time where there weren't at least some trades going up. Happiness can be tricky, but expanding quickly is so crucial to MP games that you're willing to do pretty much anything.

The AI being retarded makes it pretty damn easy to acquire happiness, too. Unless you're shit at early-game diplomacy (no reason to be), they'll trade you luxuries 1:1 or 3:1 depending on how many copies they have. And no, AIs won't declare war on you as randomly as that. There's very clear signposted warmonger points in Civ 5, you keep them down through proper diplomatic means if you're surrounded by peace-loving pussyfarts or deal with the consequences. There's nothing bad about that.

>Kill another civ's worst nemesis? Expect a diplomacy ding for being a "warmonger"

You can avoid this by demanding cities in a peace treaty and leaving the enemy city with only one instead of completely wiping them out.

There there, user. There there.

Americlap here, and the place I was happiest living in the whole world was the Azores. Places like Italy were cool to visit but I still miss the Azores.

>people don't think cleopatra is hot
wierd

>north murrica
>south murrica
>not murricas

You can also avoid this by not being a little bitch and killing everyone in the fucking world.

>Some bullshit about how having twenty cities with high population makes it so wide is better than tall.

All that shit's in the industrial era. It's irrelevant for the part of the game that's most important, where people get their UU and actually go about conquering the known world. Prior to the industrial era you'll often be large enough with four cities to always be eating up the global happiness you have.

It needs to throw tacks in the road because expanding is so goddamn powerful. That's true of every Civ game, and it's true of Civ 5. But that doesn't mean it isn't still the most optimal strategy. Grabbing enemy cities and settling the best lands quickly ALWAYS nets you better results, unless you actively fuck up, in which case you deserved to be punished anyway.

>Can't jack off to my historical figures in this version.
>Better kill myself.

If you only go for domination victories you probably don't care about warmonger penalties at that point.

Wait, are you telling me that people go for other other victories conditions?

Yes, and actively fucking up takes the form of conquering a city without a new luxury in it. Better to burn those shits to the ground until you can support their happiness needs, because otherwise it just slows down your growth. The point is to expand by conquering, not to have a smaller overall population and less tech growth.

I've only played Civ v but I enjoyed it a lot, give it a try if you find a good offer. Also I cant wait to play Felipe II in civ vi, buying that game as soon as I see good reviews of the game

>teddy and not george
I know it's cliched, but George is one radical dude

Pericles is based af retard

The removal of attractive women in American games is getting old quickly. They don't even have to make my dick hard. Just make them aesthetically pleasing at the very least.

...

wasn't catherine de medici an italian

That user was talking about going very wide, so I was talking very wide. If you're wondering about earlier, I linked that table in the post afterwards - yes, the penalty is more punishing in the early game, but no, not worth not settling for. Come at me with math bro, not this shit.

Depends a lot on the city. There's usually some crap expands that have been settled close to the war that aren't worth taking over, but anything (especially if it has a library/university) with a decent population is pretty much always worth keeping.

>Peter the Great
One of the few men truly deserving the title.

i've never played a civ game before so i'm a little confused
how does it work that there are multiple figureheads from different points of history in the same game?

it doesn't. devs are just dumb af and didn't do any research

>Victoria
>England
Does that mean we're getting other British Civs?
Llywelyn or waifu Boudicca please
It probably means we're getting some Scottish cunt

Roosevelt was originally more cartoony, but his design got updated when Americans complained.

Why are all the people so fucking ugly(especially the women) and why are most of the male European leaders just le epic guy with beard.

No Alexander?
What a mistake.

>but anything (especially if it has a library/university) with a decent population is pretty much always worth keeping.
Not if it drops your happiness enough to hurt everything else you're trying to do. There is a mathematical limit to how much you can expand and when. You aren't doing yourself a favor by capturing 12 population in a random location in the pre-industrial era. It's just going to be -15 happiness, which is hard to overcome at that time.

NOBODY expands to twenty cities prior to the industrial era. Doing so is just retarded. You can't really conquer the known world before global happiness allows it to happen.

I gave you the numbers on it, but your counter-point was, "Oh, all the numerous synergistic penalties really aren't that big a deal".

Pericles > Memexander

that's... sort of disappointing
cleopatra and teddy roosevelt chumming it up is a cute idea, sure, but i'd like some sort of reason, even if it's a shitty one

Civ has always been a cartoony fantasy game, NEVER historical. I have no clue why people assume it should portray reality when it never has.

It's basically a digital board game where you can pick leaders with bonuses to fit your playstyle.

That bug secured Ghandi and India in every civ game until the end of time.

oops, meant for i guess there aren't enough famous leaders from similar time periods to work with?

It's a strategy game with a historical flavour, not a a history simulator

>i guess there aren't enough famous leaders from similar time periods to work with?
who fucking gives a shit about the time period in a game where you go from stone age to modern?

the game spans most of civilized history, having only leaders from a similar time period would defeat the purpose.

if they were going to have an italian rule france it should be napoleon

>I gave you the numbers on it

Where? You just gave me a bunch of shit on happiness, which isn't an issue.

Fale comigo quando inventar o avião, seu pretogays.

>Rome
>Trajan

LITERALLY WHO

..what was he like Cred Forums?

>Trajan
>LITERALLY WHO

This nigga.

oh that makes sense then
so really they just look at a region of the world, see who was an effective leader, and pick 'em?
is the in-game anachronicity ever touched upon?

A failure like most Roman Emperors

Literally the best font.

>one of the four good roman emperors
>a failure

>No Canadian civ

Dropped

Extended Rome's borders to their greatest extent.

Part of the "five good emperors", guys who didn't screw the pooch like some of the later rulers.

underrated

One of the "Five Good Emperors" and optimus princeps in his lifetime, he oversaw a lot of domestic works and brought Rome to its greatest territorial boundaries through war (though that was unsustainable)

No because the game has no plot, there is no lore.
It's a strategy game with historical flavor, that's it.

>LITERALLY WHO

>being this uneducated

so not even a little comment or two about how cleopatra's style is outdated, or something?

He's honestly just an emperor of the Islamic Empire.

>cleopatra's style is outdated

?????

>waste money and manpower taking land that you have absolutely no way of holding
>land gets lost
>Truly I am a great general.

>meme faces

what kind of a fucking retard are you? go google civilization video game and read a bit

look at that bitch's hair for two seconds

where do people get this "multiple leaders" idea from?

really? i love the artstyle. the cartoonish faces have a lot more soul than those rigid as fuck portraits in civ v

>no northern american native civ
seems weird, almost every civ game has had a token one at launch. if nothing else it makes TSL even more imbalanced for one of the american civs.

shoo shoo maple jew

no i want you spoonfeed information into my awaiting, throbbing asshole

>Canadian civ

Pffft, even Huehues had an interesting emperor. What did Canada have? A moose? Also Canada's empire was just an extension of France anyways, so why bother?

They did their jobs. Rome was a great empire and the birther of western civilization.

>If a man were called upon to fix that period in the history of the world during which the condition of the human race was most happy and prosperous, he would, without hesitation, name that which elapsed from the deaths of Domitian to the accession of Commodus.

will civ 6 have iraq or assyrians? i'm from iraq and i'm assyrian.

trajan is the crazy one

>>pericles for greece
>are you for real
Don't worry, you will get Gorgo as a optional leader

The Civ VI Civilopedia entry for Leaders mentions that some Civs may have multiple leaders with their own unique bonuses.

Also, Gorgo (of Sparta) was in the list, and Isabella showed up on a leader portrait wall leak in an early video, too.

No

...

>he doesn't know about based john a macdonald, dief the chief, or pierre trudeau
you faggots whine and bitch when we don't know the tiniest thing about your history but you can't even be bothered to open wikipedia for five seconds

...

It is THE issue. Unhappiness lowers your productivity and gold by 2% for every point you suffer. If it goes below ten, you also start seeing rebellions. If it goes below twenty, our cities start switching allegiances. Every city you own lowers tech growth.

So you can conquer maybe one city you don't have happiness for. That's it. That's all you get, because that -6 happiness your crummy little city makes with it's 3 population is all you can afford - take another and you start seeing rebellions.

All this shit you're spewing about how playing wide is good is entirely based around the industrial era when you're getting all the massive buffs from ideology. That is the last stretch of the game.

and its shit
it was funny the next game but now its enough. Firaxis are like obnoxious people who can't let go the trollface meme
I really hope India is one of the civs that get a additional leader

Sometimes it isnt about the land. its about power projection.

Check out the US. It was never about land or resources - its about asserting dominance over the globe, keeping your military hardened just in case some cunts try to get cheeky.

learn to human nature please.

I agree, but they will probably have one fairly early into DLC, and definitely by the time the expansions come out.

ALSO I FORGOT LESTER B PEARSON GODDAMNIT

dats nero tho

Guys is CLEOPATRA black? is this game going WE WUZ?

>France
>Not Napoleon I or de Gaulle
>Germany
>No Bismark or Friedrich der Große
The fucking nerve they got, man.

Is that a close up shot of a butter knife inside a jar of peanut butter?

people like you will always bitch no matter what, so why bother?

Why is Queen Victoria being "English" instead of "British" a big deal?

Do people actually think they'll put Scotland or Ireland in the game or something?

>It's about asserting dominance
>Rome starts to crumble 100-200 years later
>Starts needing outsiders to man its army
Probably should have spent his time curbing Roman Succession autism instead of wasting roman blood over dick waving.

So you don't actually have shit about the science penalties actually mattering like you were claiming? Glad we're past that, then.

And no, that's not how unhappiness works. It only gives penalties when you have less unhappiness than happiness, and happiness is easy to get. At most, in the early game, you'll be stuck on -1 to -3 sometimes, but considering every single thing in the game has some help with happiness, it's not really a big deal. SP? Trade luxuries with AIs, or buy them for gold, because they will give shit up easy. MP? Throw them into the chat because your map is balanced and people always want to trade. I can't remember the last time I actually ran into happiness problems.

I kinda liked the Civ 5 leader backgrounds better. Meeting with someone in front of a burning city or on a balcony overlooking the canals in Venice is much more atmospheric than a splash painting thingy.

>Pierre Elliott "I'll make my own constitution with blackjack and hookers" Trudeau
>A proper leader

anglos pls

Who else? Alfred, Catherine and Charlemagne.

>Napoleon or Bismark
Don't act now like you won't be bitching about the same leaders all the time.

civ 6 is ugly as sin
literal mobile game seriously why the fuck you do this. normies won't the game anyway, why bother with clash of clans style.

So you're expanding to between ten and twenty cities prior to the industrial revolution, you just conquer shit without a care for what it's next to as long as it has people in it, and you never run into problems because you're just that gud at understanding when multiple, cumulative penalties are not a big deal - which is all the time apparently.

Great at fucking Vikings, Muslims and Horses respectively.

found the quebecois piece of shit, everyone!

Disregarding your bad attempt at sarcasm, hell yes, I am. Without a care is a bit strong, because you still have to pick and choose, so sometimes it's razing, sometimes it's keeping for strategical advantage or worthwhile buildings/pop, sometimes (in SP) dumping a shit city on some other civ that I want to get into a war and could use some border tension for. With the amount of luxuries, tenets, religious beliefs, and happiness buildings available since BNW it's not that hard to be sustainable.

I'm not saying happiness is a non-issue, by the way - it's clearly there for a reason, but that reason is to give tall empires even the remotest of chances. Tall, however, tends to be the loser's best option, not one that quickly wins games.

The man in gauze lives on in our hearts and cartoons.

Maybe the north american natives should have gotten gud enough to actually make kingdoms and empires

the central and south americans did it

Ah. So is your other secret is that you're always getting the religious tenets you want. I assume you're also building the right world wonders.

No, there are advanced tips to being good at this game, like understanding that city states are your worthless bitch good for nothing but raiding and tribute until later on, but I simply do not believe that wanton and aggressive expansion doesn't bite you in the ass if you aren't taking cities with luxuries you actually need or unless you're frankly shit at keeping up population growth.

>Pierre Eliott Trudeau
>Good Leader

Found the autistic square head.

He was also really fucking racist. Hated "Kaffirs" about as much as an average Cred Forumslack.

youtube.com/watch?v=N0u6COX6b3Y

It reprise the artstyle of the first 2D games, that was much more cartoonish.

too late you started bitching about anglos and now nobody gives a fuck what you think, poutine-breath

>India will never get a leader other than meme Gandhi.
>India will never get Chandragupta Maurya

>most universally-well like PM
>bad leader
sure thing

>that chinese guy
a bit over the top

>likeability makes a good PM

his son also has quite the good reputation you know

They would've gotten to it eventually.

Look up the Mississippian mound culture. They were pretty advanced.

sorry i couldn't hear you over nobody giving a fuck about quebec, something we have trudeau to thank for

>sins of the father, sins of the son
kid, your mum has gotten up to shit you'd find reprehensible

>Pushed the Canadian flag we have today, replacing the Red Ensign
>passed all the shitty multiculturalism laws that's biting out ass now
>Sent the army against Canadian citizens
>Bullied and back stabbed Quebec during the patriation of the Canadian constitution, to the point of reigniting the Independance movement in Quebec
>Was in bed with literal commies
>Left power with a crippling debt Canada never recovered from

Holy shit, such good leader. Fuck off William.

youtu.be/K4811viyarc

you said that like its a bad thing

>Barbarossa
>Pericles

It ain't but you gotta low key some things

Pericles is fuckin best

He also supported Nazi Germany so the British Empire would be weakened and get the fuck of India, he also let his wife die instead of taking "evil westen medicine", he took the same medicine when he feel ill.

The guy was a massive asshole compared to how people romantize him as a beacon of anti-racism and anti-violence

There are only 3 continents. America, Africa-Eurasia and Australia. Antarctica doesn't count since no permanent settlements exist.

I just named random aspects of the game where there's happiness, you're incredibly unlikely not to pick up at least a few. For religion: there's nine religious beliefs affecting happiness, five of which are very strong (in particular the buildings). Even if you're not able to get a religion AT ALL you're likely to get one from spreading.

I get the feeling you're thinking of ICS, not just going wide. The former is very hard in Civ 5 and doable in Civ 4, the latter is easy.

there's something bad about everybody

The greatest irony is that the sjw devs have turned everyone into racist caricatures, embellishing the stereotypical facial and body features in a way that cartoons did in the early 20th century.

But not everybody gets pushed to almos messiah status about peace and tolerance.

yeah, y'all niggas should read up on mother yheresa

Hey man, it pays to win. Look at Stalin.

There's nuance to history. He wasn't Jesus nor was he the devil. You're acting like a high school student after learning that something you heard in 3rd grade has another facet to it.

Are there no Native American tribe leaders this time around? That seems kind of lame. Wheres muh Sitting Bull? or Red Cloud? or mah nigga Spotted Elk?

QUEBECOIS DETECTED NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT YOUR LIES

>2nd Row
>5th Column
>MRW

As long as that bitch Dido doesn't return, I'm content

you mean 3rd row, 5th column?
also leave my husbando alone, away from your shitty-ass memes

pretty sure they'll be added soon enough

Yes. In Civ 4 the tendency was often to manage as many cities as you could bring under your control and to understand how to do that. You built actual empires. In Civ 5 you run small countries that sit on four or five cities before civil service and usually less than ten before the industrial era. Then in the industrial era you adopt an ideology and your happiness EXPLODES, at which point you're free to expand as much as possible.

I personally find it's very easy to use up all happiness in the pre-industrial era by just passively playing. I'll conquer one, maybe two civs. The production advantage for conquering a new city shrinks until eventually the tech disadvantages balances with the production advantage and there is no incentive to conquer anymore. Then you need to wait for the industrial era to produce obscene amounts of usable happiness.

The game is putting a mechanical limit on your expansion, and it's based on global happiness rather than something more nonsensical like gold maintenance for land area.

Good
Fucking faggots constantly ruining my comfy NA run as washington

ics wasn't really killed until bnw in 5
in vanilla it was rampant

>cleopatra
>africa

WE

WUZ

QUEENZ

>Portugal
>top three

You're shitting me, right? It's not even top 10 within Europe.

>edgy game for edgy faggots: the game.gif
thought so, fag

At the outset they were still clearly trying to make ICS annoying to do. I used to do it, but I remember getting in situations where an enemy civ would surrender his entire country to me, and the spike in global unhappiness from having won the war would drive my nation into total anarchy. You'd get over it, but it was still super obnoxious.

Also the AI initially didn't know how to maneuver around the grid, so it frequently walked itself into stupid situations.

In BNW the mechanics with empire sprawl are very strict. You really don't get a lot of wiggle room. Certain bonuses exist, but I've always been led to believe most people play tall for the first few eras and then switch to wide in the later eras because you kind of just have to.

>doesn't know about England and Portugal: Pirate Buddies
>doesn't know about how Portugal was a colonial power that rivalled England's despite them being buds
literal retard don't even speak to me

yeah, neither is greece but there they are
look backwards further than 10 years, you might learn something neat about history

Egypt is in Africa.

Alexander.

More than likely the Celts will again be represented as a whole entity including the Gauls, the Welsh, the Scots, the Britons, and the Irish. If we're lucky we'll get Vercingetorix as a leader.

Alexander and Justinian.

Why is it called Sumeria? It's Sumer, SUMER

Russ
Macedon
Lithuan
Slovak
Bulgar
Latv
Alban
Syr
District of Columb

Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it?

>Portugese for Spain
>Italian for France
>Macedonian for Eygpt

He was so good the Roman's basically considered him the best Emperor

Greece, Russia, Italy, Germany, Great Britain, France, Spain, Austria, and even countries like Sweden, the Netherlands, and Poland are all historically more relevant than Portugal.

most of those have the suffix in their original language too though, sumer doesn't

You're right, it does. You proved absolutely nothing, though.

Sumer is correct.

>Phillip II
>Portuguese
t. Alberto Barbosa

If you noticed, they actually removed ALL the non-US North American civs. No based Shoshone.

Sumer was called Sumer
Rus was a state. Russia is a successor state of Rus which takes its name from the Byzantine Greek word for Rus (Rossiya).
The rest of your examples are completely retarded.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovak_language

Is there going to be more?

You kidding me? Only Spain and Rome are interesting there. Asia has a neat bunch.

...

Because France didn't even exist back when Karl der Große was still alive?

hehehe
große

Is that supposed to prove something? By this logic, half of the Portuguese kings were actually Spanish because their mothers were Spanish. Are you legitimately retarded?

The same reason USA was shoe-horned in as a "civilisation." To sell copies in that country. If you think this is about contributions to mankind then you are quite mistaken.

>his mother was Portuguese, which means he was Portuguese even though his father was Spanish
t. Alberto Barbosa

She was Henri II's wife, thus making her queen of France
But yeah, she's born in Italy

turns out "most" does not mean "all"

weird, huh? check it out on

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language

>de Medici
That should answer your question.

Because Sweden got their chance and Denmark is douchebags.

Except Teddy, he just looks like Teddy

this.

D R O P P E D
R
O
P
P
E
D

tell you who I want king Gustav Vasa of Sweden and the mad king Henry of England.

best kings, best fashion, best dudes.

I'm hoping they put in a Denmark with some other gimmick than the viking thing later on. We've done things other than looting England.

Yes, but she ruled over France.

Major assholes, both of them.

I want Sigurd Hring for Sweden and Harald Wartooth for Denmark
No she didn't. She was Queen consort. She was literally just the wife of the king.

It doesn't make sense to include the United States at all.

Are american egos so fragile that they wouldn't play if the game didn't treat them like an ancient civilization?

Where's Poland?

please, tell me more

This art direction is retarded

If that wanted to fill a quota then Margaret I would have been a good choice. Not terribly famous but still far from obscure, she actually wielded executive power and she left a fair mark in history.

The mother is an incubator what counts is the father

So they changed a lot of the leaders to shake things up a bit, I assume, but kept fucking Ghandi?

The Aztecs aren't an ancient civilisation, my friend. The Aztec Empire was literally founded in the 15th century. Neither are any of the Scandinavian countries.

Maybe in the last 100 years, sure
Greece also hasn't been historically relevant in about a millennium, and yet we still talk about them.

Why would you change the nuke leader?

>tfw no Mexican leader

>called the Age of Catherine because she was the de facto leader over her young sons
>"didn't rule"

come on now, she's a weird choice but she definitely was a ruler

>only in the last 100 years

No, in general.

Portugal was literally only relevant during the colonization era, all of those countries have richer histories and have legacies past being a failed colonial empire.

>All those quotes sound like "... and the khaffirs, WHO I FUCKING HATE BY THE WAY..."

I'd rather be a crazy/ glorious asshole than pajeet jesus ghandi

USA has only existed since 1776. Not 4000 BC. It doesn't fit in with the game at all, the USA is just an extension of British colonialism..

This kind of shit annoys me. If they're going to separate the Scotland, Wales and Ireland from England, why do they insist on clumping them together as some imaginary Celtic union? All three of them contributed to the success of the actual British empire by the time of Victoria's reign, and it's kind of offensive to be excluded.

She was the regent. A regent ruling during a regency was common. She was not special in any way. It's not just a weird choice, it's a completely retarded choice.

its completely retarded and pisses me off. gandhi was never the political leader of india. it should be ashoka or akbar the great or even nehru if they want a modern indian.

I assume because the joke isn't funny at this stage.

So is India.

Claiming she never ruled remains incorrect though, she did rule, but in her sons's names.

who is the comedy jury that established that?

I'd prefer Christian IV. With a gimmick about securing trade dominance through military means, however that would be represented in game terms. He also built a lot of cool shit still around today that would make for good unique buildings.

>No she didn't.
>She was the regent. A regent ruling

make up your fucking mind, you're literally agreeing with me now

>If we're lucky we'll get Vercingetorix as a leader.
Please, anything but Memedica
I would even take some Celt-Iberian leader even.

The Aztec Empire only existed 1428.
Scandinavia stopped being an uncivilised tribal shithole only in the 12th century.
The Scythians were nomads and were a civilisation since literally never.

Although all those countries are relevant in world history and are interesting in their own right, don't underrate Portugal's influence on the world. Portugal managed to become a trading and navy super power in the 16th century and directly left a cultural legacy all around the world. Moreover, you can sort of argue that their role in history was slightly different from the other powers at the time - they were more pioneers and less colonizers (due to the very low population).

>Austria, Sweden and Poland
Very powerful countries for European history

>Netherlands
If the Netherlands are relevant, so is Portugal.

civ 6 cleopatra feet pics WHEN

Since Civ 2, they've liked putting in a Viking civ. The only difference is that starting with Civ V, they've made it more discrete than a blanket "Vikings" nation.

With Norway taking the main "vikings" slot this game (and the Berserker unit), it's pretty possible that a returning Denmark would get a new spin, though perhaps not completely detached from those roots (Civ V has Mongolia and the Huns, for instance).

Judging by Denmark's Civilopedia entry in V, Margaret I and Christian IV are indeed the most likely candidates (assuming Bluetooth doesn't come back).

What would you want the Unique Unit and Improvement/Building/District to be?

A regent is not the leader of a country. They do not rule in their own right. They rule in the name of the actual ruler.

Which means they're the de facto ruler. Yes. Thanks for establishing that.

>TFW they will never represent Native American tribes besides the Aztecs
>TFW I will never get to play as the Timucuans and shit talk the Spaniards
>TFW I will never be able to create Pueblos as the Anasazi
>TFW I will never be able to create mounds and great temples for the gods as the Mississippians

So much lost potential

>all these shoehorned in female leaders

I can't stand this. Who the fuck is Medici? They replaced Napoleon for some bitch? Civ is fucking stupid and is aimed at SJW redditors who will cry if there's no women in the game, despite women never actually leading shit.

>not knowing Monte

Tribes are not civilizations, you retard. They are tribes.

AZTECS WERE THE MOST RELEVANT AMONG WITH MAYANS

>TFW they will never represent Native American tribes besides the Aztecs

what

>who the fuck is DE Medici

Your stupid is showing, lad.

damn, we lasted so long without neo-Cred Forums buzzword posts like this one, too

So basically only the Sumarians, Liangzhu, Jomon and older are allowed in Civilization games?

but we've had Incas, Sioux, Shoshone, Iroquois, and Maya in the past

what are you on about?

they had like 4 natives last game

That's not nesxcarily accurate.

The Aztec empire was formally founded in the 15th century, but the city states that eventually formed the empire were founded mostly in the 14th century, and the people who founded those city states were around for much longer still as those ethnic groups

Fuck off redditors. Tired of you faggots ruining games that have such potential.

>lol look at me guys i've researched some dumb slut after she was revealed in civ! i better act like she was such a great leader and that everyone knows who she is!

Fuck off.

>you will never get to be a Apache, Cherokee, or Pocahontas and culturally enrich Europe.

Feels bad man

>buzzword user wants a non-frenchman for France
Figures

who are you quoting?

You are in high school
You have never seriously investigated any single country's history

>what are the Iriqouis
>what are the Shoshone
>what are Civ IV's "Native American"
>what are the Inca
>what are the Maya

>>TFW they will never represent Native American tribes besides the Aztecs
uhhh

The United States was formally founded in the 18th century, but the colonies that eventually formed the Union were founded mostly in the 17th century, and the people who founded those colonies were around for much longer still as those ethnic groups.

Fuck me those faces are inconsistent as shit.
Are they real or caricatures? Make up your minds.

>he thinks you need to do research to know who de Medici is

I don't even think she's a good pick for a French leader, but you're severely ignorant about European history if you didn't know about Catherine de fucking Medici and the Wars of Religion.

>counting Egyptians as African

how far do you want to go back?

the worlds only been around 6,000 years

to be fair Catherine is shoehorned in

>You are in high school
Completely wrong. I'm sorry I don't take women's studies classes at community college like you.

But they have a civ. Its Phillippe II

Look at a map. Find Egypt on the map. Now look at the continent Egypt is located in. Notice how that continent is called Africa.

The Emperor who brought rome to it's absolute zenith. In hindsight most of his conquests turned out to be big mistakes though.

there are people who count egypt as "westen" to bitch about how the game is eurocentric

Oh, my mistake.
You are a high school dropout.

it's kind of sad that you didn't even get to finish high school

Civ 5 had Shoshone and Iroquois as civs, plus Incans and Mayans along with Aztecs.

No. In the US we learn about the American Revolution and the Civil War until high school, and then in high school we have one semester of "world history" which teaches a little about ancient Egypt.

We don't know who did anything unless they farted on George Washington or Abraham Lincoln first.

We had Alexander the Great starting off in Athens in Civ 5
nothing new

>A semester
holy shit, I had two years of World History, why couldn't I go to your school?

>game called civilization
>has brazil and not the country that originated it

every game features niggers now, disgusting.

I know this might be a bit hard for you with all the applauding you might be doing right now while shoving half pound burgers in your face and all, but there is this magical thing called READ A BOOK NIGGA

>my ignorance is the school's fault
>i don't know who de medici are
>i don't know these leaders so they must be bad

you're pathetic

Wrong again friends. I love how hard you try to make some insignificant slut sound like she should even be a choice for a leader. How long has reddit been infesting this place?
Wrong. We learned a lot more than that, but some stupid insignificant slut was not a highlight. These euroshits probably don't even know Washington or Lincoln anyways if they actually think some meme shit slut is a good choice for leader.

You forgot about ww2 being shoved down everyone's throat in addition to the revolution and civil.

Saladin's capital in Civ VI is Cairo.

You're trying too hard.
or stop.

>if I keep saying reddit it might start to mean something

you're the ultimate neo-Cred Forums retard

For Christian IV

Rundetårn (Round Tower) which was built for astronomical purposes, or Nyboder which is large housing complex for military personnel. Both are still here today, Nyboder even still being used by the Danish military. They are both pretty easy to represent in a Civ game.

As for unique unit, I don't know. As far as I know we had some standard Renaissance stuff. Maybe a naval unit with a Danish name.

That's a lot of buzzwords there champ, when we're you bent over by the de Medici family?

I'm pretty sure his problem is that kurds and arabs have vastly different ancestry. This wasn't the case with macedonian greeks and southern greeks.

Either way it's a dumb thing to complain about.

>i didn't know who the de medicis were
>fuck they called me out on it
>b-b-b-better call them reddit! yeah! that will show them

top kek

Got double teamed by them and the Borgia's in a Florence alleyway most like.

>had barely any history in high school
>I liked history
>took a geography class hoping it'd be about actual geography
>it was listed as "World Geography"
>it was actually "World Social and Cultural Geography"
>it was barely about the entire world at all
>50% about Mexico, 20% about the rest of Latin America, 20% about Africa, and 10% about the rest of the world
>had to learn all my geography and history by myself

Nigga, de Medici was a key actor in the Catholic-Protestant divide, you not knowing about her makes you ignorant, it doesn't make her irrelevant.

Man, this is some grade a shitposting. Well done, user.

That would explain why he never recovered, they're both brutal when it comes to rape

% about Mexico

Why?

I'm gonna play as Teddy
Because every leader needs to carry a big stick.

He was in Texas

It should point out that Saladin is from Arabia not Egypt too, makes even less sense than Victoria.

California, actually. It was like a fucking travel ad. They would not stop shilling about how great Mexico, Mexican culture, and Mexican food is.

At the very least he ruled Athens, Saladin wasn't in any way Arab or ruling Arabian.

Nice nice, as a Mexican i am glad that the Reconquista is doing fine.

WH1 was rise of man, stuff, sumeria, babylon, egypt, skipping to the greeks and persians, then Rome and thje middle ages.

WH2 was Renaissance and onward, when we get to the americas it goes on to the Aztecs Maya and Inca.

Largely for my school Japan was ignored, and China only got a bit about the Xia dynasty.

Oh wow she was the wife of an actually important man? If thats what you consider a key actor then i'd hate to see what you consider a minor actor. But I guess its only in your nature to try your best to elevate a useless child bearer to something of relevance after all

>equality XD

Hilarious how stupid you redditors are. Women were trash back then, certainly not key actors in anything other than birthing children and getting fucked by important powerful men.

He ruled Egypt, but he's not from Egypt mate.

>be a generally bad person
>get revered as a saint

Vlad the Impaler is considered a national hero by the Romanians. That doesn't excuse what he did regardless of the historical timeframe.

It's not. Mexican migration to California has slowed to a crawl at this point. We get tons of Asian immigrants now. The capital, Sacramento, is also being flooded with Slavs. I went there a couple months ago and saw more ads in Russian than in Spanish. There was also two radio stations in Russian and one in Spanish. California will be partitioned between China and Russia.

Right, badly phrased. Point is in no way fucking makes sense him ruling "Arabia", as he wasn't from there any never ruled any state anything like the Arab Empire.

with the new influx of kids since 2014 i legit can't tell if this is parody, shitposting, or actual legit retardation any more

I can believe you doubly so if you were in the San Diego area.

>impaling Turkish invaders like the roaches at they are
>bad
t. Mehmet Gozmanlu

his seed created Justin, that's reason enough to hate him

It's legit retardation

considering the capital they give him in the OP's video is Cairo, they seem to realize that

It wasn't. It was in northern California.

Yeah, several Mexicans are actually returning from USA. Funny how Trump still attacks them when the Chinese and Indians are now flooding the USA.

Really makes you think huh?

yea but she was greek

How many squatting slavs did you see

Don't you worry my dear user, its all three at once. Alt-Right isn't a sarcastic joke, its fucking real, so get outta this country and let the door hit you where the good lord split you!

Then why the fuck did they pick him for "Arabia"? You might as well have Richard the Lionheart for "Holy Roman Empire", or "Francia" or something retarded.

She was the regent of the most powerful country in Europe for a quarter of a century and pretty much the reason why France didn't turn Protestant.

It's not about equality, I'd rather she wasn't in the game seeing as France has several better choices for a notable leader, but to act like she's irrelevant is completely ridiculous.

very few of those come here illegally you stupid fucking spic

the ultimate mount stupid factoid

>You might as well have Richard the Lionheart for "Holy Roman Empire", or "Francia" or something retarded.

Or Fredrick Barbarossa for "Germany"? Yeah, exactly.

Doesn't matter, Chinese and Indians usually enter as tourists and overstay their visas but have kids there and stay there

Not him but I live in Sacramento and there are tons of slavs here. Haven't come across any adidas-clad gopniks yet though.

I don't give a fuck about cartoony graphics but I swear to god, if Civ 6 doesn't come with all of the features that Civ 5's expansions added, I am going to write a strongly worded memo to the developers. We had better not get a game that was as barebones as vanilla Civ5. AND BRING BACK TRADING TECHNOLOGY.

At least that is a successor state

I saw a group of at least 8 Slavs squatting and listening to loud Slav music when I was driving through the suburbs.
>visiting my cousin
>he used to live in a shitty neighborhood full of blacks
>go there
>nothing but Slavs now

When have arabs ever had a single civilization that was needlessly split because mohammed wore pink on thursday? It's the reason why Scythia is in for all the steppe civs so far

Everything except diplomacy victory is in the game on release. Diplomatic victory should come later when the devs "have acquired data on how the games meta works"

Canadian leader when

Wrong, Chinese and Indians come here as students and as workers in the Bay Area tech industry through the H1B program. The Chinese and Indians that come here are usually professionals.

...

Well it's survival of the fittest. Though would they be better than the blacks?

And the Ayyubids weren't? I mean, it's really in about the same ballpark here

Who would it even be? Mackenzie King? Weedman's father?

to be good it has to be worth playing over civ 5
so no
it never ever will be good

Catherine and Victoria are already in

Big difference is Barbarosa actually ruled Germany.

You'd think if you were picking a leader for a civilization, the first thing you'd look for would be them ruling it at some point. Literally the first fucking thing.

I always figured R. B. Bennett would be a good choice. He served like a motherfucker through the Great Depression, donating a lot of money back into Canadian family's.

Well, the design is that any era of the nation can be represented, even if it's a little incongruous looking at a whole (Barbarossa's U-Boats).

Heimþegar might be an option (gotta keep 'em visually distinct from Berserkers, of course).

I suppose they could trot out the gunboats (even if they were ultimately unsuccessful; doesn't stop the Minas Geraes from being a thing) for more naval representation.

Or yeah, just some locally named standard military from some point.

>no one complaining about Gilgamesh even though he's the most ahistorical choice of any of the leaders

They are in my experience. They also open small businesses, so that's a positive. If that Sacramento user is here, he can probably confirm that. I saw lots of little grocery stores where they sell imported European food.

>Civ 5 had bitches and alphas
>every single leader in Civ 6 is ugly faggot

It's not even a nation, they just vaguely get some figure that is in some way associated with a nation or country or civilization and just shove them together.

Pic related should be an alt leader for germany
the bants between him and Phillipe would be glorious

Welcome to history. Everyone is born into power and genetics aren't always nice

>Catherine in Civ 5
>not ugly
user please, there were ugly leaders in 5

underrated bait

I see you nigga

Is actually accepted he existed
He is not even that ahistorical compared to what we had in past games

>Both Rights of Man and Civ VI coming out next month.

The strategy gods have blessed us.

You inspired me

Well I'm trying to avoid the viking meme. I'd be cool with gunboats, good idea.

We know that there was a king of Uruk named Gilgamesh. That's it. Any of his achievements are purely mythological. There are plenty of Sumerian rules who actually did shit that we know about.

Pericles looks like Don Quixote. Why ?

Guess I'll be going back to Civ IV instead.

Played a game of Civ V the other day and realized that one unit per tile just still ruins the game no matter how many sweet features they've added.

>fictional character like jesus

You know Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, right? Whether or not he was Jesus The Christ is another question.

But, user, it's 2UPT now!

>Catherine de Medici
She went full Hitler on the Protestants.
So will Hitler be leader of the Germans in Civ VII? Because at this point, why not?

>why not?
Something about selling their game in Germany

There's easier ways to draw in the edgy demograph

>catherine de medici for france
Why not this guy?

>Barbarossa
>awful

My favorite criticism because it's so extremely removed from reality.

thats not guise

no sale. limiting the amount of units on a tile just destroys all sense of realism the game might have had.

Barely anyone remembers or cares about Medici
Everyone knows who Hitler is.

There is no proof of that

Right, sense of realism

>civ
>realism

what the fuck

literally the best emperor

good ol' sense of realism back when we had cities that were perfect squares between blocky landmasses

don't worry, the new generation of Civs was made for you guys.

>England
>Europe

You could just say you've never liked Civ

the old generations, too

we win everything, us non-realists!

The Roman Empire had its biggest outreach under his rule. It was never larger after his rule.

Who are the other 4?

t. mad ass t*rkroach.

>Catherine de Medici
>instead of Napoleon
>instead of Charlemagne
>instead of Hugh Capet

Nerva, Hadrian, Atoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius (Trajan was the second).

>Two non frenchmen
Only good suggestion is Hugh

>two
You mean three

well trolled.

Then I stand corrected about Hugh

Oh, it's a Roman era.
They are all successors of each other

Saying Hugh was french is like saying Trajan was spaniard

This. Karel de Grote was Dutch

Pericles and Catherine are my favorite inclusions.

Could do without Gilgamesh or Teddy

The term was coined by Niccolo Machiavelli.

>"From the study of this history we may also learn how a good government is to be established; for while all the emperors who succeeded to the throne by birth, except Titus, were bad, all were good who succeeded by adoption, as in the case of the five from Nerva to Marcus. But as soon as the empire fell once more to the heirs by birth, its ruin recommenced."

>"Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus, and Marcus had no need of praetorian cohorts, or of countless legions to guard them, but were defended by their own good lives, the good-will of their subjects, and the attachment of the senate."

And yet people want Hitler.

Explain this.

Are edgelords people?

Since we're gonna have multipler leaders my main hope is for packs

>modern day leader packs featuring leaders from the last 50-60 years
>Dictator packs with historical baddies

They're Immortal, they can live where they want

ai smells uranium

>not using Rance Kenshin as the Japan leader
Dropped

But what about the most powerful race on Earth?

Would it be fair to include therm?

Does Civ 6 include everything the Civ 5 DLC's brought to the table? or will it be another step backwards like Beyond Earth?

Barbarossa is great, probably predictable but it's a good choice.

Medici pisses me off though. Could've been any French cuck.

Pericles is all right. Awesome career, basically saved Greece then got his thanks by being ousted and dying in obscurity. Pretty great story there.

I don't know why they don't call it a day and introduce a Kalmar Union civilization.

>Karl der Große
>Not German
Educate yourself

Also
>Dutch
>Not also German
Never forget who you are

Damn, I really want an Italian civ lead by Macchiavelli one day

Barbarossa is a great choice! They should just stick with the name "Friedrich" for him or they shold have gone with Friedrich II., der Große, from the middle ages.
I can't imagine how they could have fucked more with people

>Pericles
>awful

>anyone who is great
>German
lmaoing @ ur country

So you admit you've a shitty education. What's even your fucking point? I'll admit that I have no idea why the put in a meme president named after a toy but I don't go around and spew shit being proud of my ignorance.

but Macchi was an unsuccesful cunt who turned bitter at the Medicis. Then he was shown mercy and turned into a basement dweller writing an equivalent of tentacle porn fiction.

He offered his services everywhere and was turned away.

He died bitter, basement dwelling and poor.
He's Cred Forums's greatest hero.

They don't care who did what anyways as long as they sound nice, so what?
Cleopatra is literally best known for getting fucked by two Roman emperors and losing her country to them and she followed that old egyptian tradition of incest, so why can't Italy get a leader that's best known for writing a guide on how to be an efficient dictator?

>inb4
>Italian
>efficient

Karel de Grote conquered Germany, he wasn't from Germany.

Because it's hard to pass fascism off as a positive thing.

>Does Civ 6 include everything the Civ 5 DLC's brought to the table?

It includes pretty much everything except for World Congress.

>mfw Incest, >because girl and WE WUZ CIV is accepted though

You're expected to know a very unimportant leader who died hundreds of years ago.

So which Euro do I get to attack for not knowing who George M Dallas is?

>Pericles
>Dying in obscurity
read some Thucydides nigga

>Pretty great story there.
Pretty generic story you mean

And that's likely to make some return in an expansion when they figure out how they want to retool it.

I'm just saying, Egypt is literally in Africa.

MB here, both Trudeau's are shit and should've been aborted.

She was Greek so it's very unlikely she'd be black. The black Egyptians were the Nubian civilization, and that was a different time period.

Cyrus. The only non-Jew considered by the Jews to have potentially been the messiah.

>the Nubian civilization
The Nubians were just some tribe in the desert, though. And they never ruled Egypt or had any influence, they were merely slaves.

At best they slapped Upper Egypt when they were being silly and then fucked off

Don't be mean to Eddie. He has to deal with stupid people all day.

>And they never ruled Egypt
They literally did. Granted, it wasn't for very long, but they did

Yes it does, because his purges were of criminals and the corrupt nobility, not to mention it made the Turks not want to invade. There's a reason people of his nation like him today, he was just what they needed.

Gilgamesh is the best and has already been in Civ. I can see you're a V babby, but fuck off anyway.

Ancient Egyptians were black... and white... but mostly black.

In fairness, I do enjoy authentic Mexican food.

No that's the Flips. They come here on vacation and just don't leave.

But then the Philippinnes is basically the Mexico of East Asia.

Okay tyrone, there's not a single lie you said

>Believing the Hollywood lie that ancient Egyptians were black
Okay buddy, you go watch Ghost in the Hamburger for me k?

We don't know for sure. The Bible tries to triangulate a date of his birth despite the dates not lining up correctly, but the fact that they try so hard to square a circle lends credence to there most likely being some dude living around that time that fit Jesus's description.

4 is my favorite civ and I think Gilgamesh is stupid

Good cover

Well of course you can choose to not believe me if you want to, but I'm just saying it's stupid to say that someone is a "civ 5 babby" just cause they don't like a certain leader

>And they never ruled Egypt or had any influence
But they did though, they did in fact rule Egypt.

For less than 100 years, but still.