Will it be good? And why is Poland getting in again?

getting out again?

Do they still have those ridiculous civilization abilities that cause the aztecs to win a cultural victory **rolls eyes** every time ?

please **cringes** go back to plebbit

Butthurt Mexican detected.

new **and** stupid

gustavus adolphus when?

>Scythia
>civilisation
They were nomads.

You didn't complain about the Mongols.

I haven't been paying attention to civ 6 much at all. I saw the civ introduction videos and I know districts are a thing, global happiness is gone, and workers instabuild stuff but wear out like missionaries did in 5

But other then that I know nothing. Is there a good video or series of videos I should watch to know all the changes?

>Catherine de Medici for France just to fill the strong womyn quota
>instead of Napoleon
>instead of Philip II
>instead of Louis XIV
>instead of Hugh Capet

They were going for leaders they hadn't used before, hence no Napoleon.

>TFW your first game is going to be France, shooting for a culture victory with heavy use of espionage

Gonna hon hon hon so hard you have no idea. If America's in the game too I'll try to be friends so we can remove rosbif together.

just look at that smug ghandi

he's about to nuke something for sure

>They were going for leaders they hadn't used before
That's why I mentioned Philip II and Hugh Capet.

Hopefully soon after release. I wonder how he would be changed.

>Montezuma
>Cleopatra
reeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Gandhi doesn't count because he's Civilization's mascot.

what game is this?

Is Gandhi the leader that is closest to the modern era that they ever put into the Civ games?
or have there been other leaders who came after him that they put in

Hence Ghandi, Pedro II, Gilgamesh, Cleopatra, Roosevelt, Montezuma, Saladin and Victoria.

Stalin was in CivIV

Neither did Dido or Hiawatha. Gilgamesh already made an appearance in Civ 4 anyway.

It's actually more one's they've rarely used mixed with newcomers. Apparently with an emphasis on personality/unique gameplay mechanics

Also, Teddy's never been in another civ.

I'm kinda disappointed they didn't put in Indria Gandhi into the game

Oh right, Franklin Roosevelt was in IV. My bad.

You have to use montezuma because no one else knows anything about Aztec leaders.

>add poland
>not jan sobieski

De Gaulle, Stalin, Mao and Selassie are all modern leaders.

>Although Gilgamesh was originally considered by scholars to be a semidivine hero, he is now generally regarded as a historical king. In most cuneiform texts, the name of Gilgamesh is preceded with the star-shaped "dingir" determinative ideogram for divine beings, but there is no evidence for a contemporary cult, and the Sumerian Gilgamesh myths suggest that deification was a later development (unlike the case of the Akkadian god-kings). The earliest datable cuneiform tablet bears the name of Enmebaragesi of Kish; he and his son Aga of Kish are associated with Gilgamesh in the epic, as well as appearing in the kinglist and Tummal Chronicle. If Gilgamesh was a historical king, he probably reigned in about the 26th century BC.

I was actually hoping for her or Nehru.

I know a lot of people say Ashoka should lead, but I'd rather they use him for an individual Maurya civ. Same with the Mughals. Thought that's pretty unlikely tb.h

Thank you, I didn't know. Though his Epic of Gilgamesh-inspired abilities are still made up.

Not quite. There are records for other Aztec leaders. I mean, the really old stuff's lost, but the Aztec Empire does have an okay bit of it's history written down. Not Europe/Middle-East/Asia tier depth, but definitely enough to pick another leader.

Also, trivia: The Montezuma in CIV and CV and CVI were different people. So you could even work with that.

where is russia and the horsefucker?

*The Montezuma in CIV is a different one from the one in CV and CVI

It's Peter the Great this time.

>It's Peter the Great this time.

Fuck, what that user posted in another thread is real? Russia is probably the shittiest civ then. Catching up to people you're behind on sounds iffy as fuck.

>no Cuauhtemoc
dropped

Don't know about the other thread, but he's been spotted in the livestreams and his image was in the original leak.

It could have been an user speculating.

>ivan the terrible
>expanded the russian empire to the pacific

when will Russia's greatest leader be in Civ

Poland? There's going to be 18 civs in the base game according to the devs. We currently have 17 civs announced plus the Aztecs, whom apparently don't count. So it's just Russia then, right?

Person really into aztec history here. While there are other aztec emperors (the term the aztecs would use would be tlatoani, though that also could mean king of a specific city in the empire) to pick from, none of them are really good choices

If I absolutely had to pick another leader for the aztecs other then Montezuma I, it would be his brother, Tlacaelel I, who occupied a postion best described as high priest during Montezuma I's rule

But the thing is is that they as a pair accomplished most of the noteworthy shit, so it's really not even worth it since having Montezuma as the leader and picking him for what he did is also implictly selecting Tlacaelel in a way anyways,

>wanting the literal left overs

>tfw no operation blue star

Huh. I won't lie, I'm not really well versed in Aztec history, but I've seen other suggestions. Mind if I ask about a few as potential candidates? Specifically:

>Montezuma II (Since IV is using Montezuma I)
>Itzcoatl
> Huitzilihuitl

Mostly cause I've seen the latter two recommended a few times, along with another I can't quite remember the name of.

One day we'll have a civ game where you can create your own leaders and your own civ, with a character creator. You will be able to create an idenity for your nation more organically. This is what I've been waiting for.