All confirmed leaders of Civ 6 so far

What does Cred Forums think?

I want to FUCK Victoria.

The graphics are mobile phone freemium tier, they made the leaders ugly on purpose because muh sjw, and they took out barbarians because muh sjw

Civ V was the last good Civ, anything from this point on will be shit unless they purge the dev team

Replace womyn with kings for France and England and give Egypt Ramses.

pretty dope lineup actually

Plus that Gandhi looks like he's ready for another global genocide

They made Trajan look like a skinny little bitch, and it seems they got Pericles and Socrates confused.

Vile

phillip,catherine,harald,pedro II all had lighter hair

Am I the only one who thinks they look like Disney Pixar characters?

Out of all the emperors they chose Trajan? At that point why not just go with Hadrian? Nero would have been based

Why is Scythia in Europe?

>tfw dues vult

>Rome
Should have been Augustus since we usually have his uncle Julius Caesar.

>USA
That's a based choice, if you're going to get anyone but Washington to represent us TR is a good choice, Andrew Jackson would be good but there's no way SJW devs would pick him, so TR is at least better than Lincoln.

Stop posting this gay thread go to v fagot.

They look fucking terrible, the selection is basically nothing, they shoehorned in MUH WIMMEN in several Civs, and I bet the game is further simplified trash.

>Scythia
>Europe

>Kongo
>Civilization

Delte tis

Why can't they just stick with the iconic leaders like Napoleon, Alexander, Augustus? Even Charlemagne and Julius Caesar would be better choices. Also I literally don't know who the Scythian or Congolese dudes are.

They've already used Ramses I do like that they are trying out different leaders this time.

Victoria is actually a good choice for the British Empire as her reign was really long and represents the height of their power.

What the fuck how can you remove barbarians?

>Catherine de Medici

Why? Just why?

should have been Charlemange if it's not going to be Napoleon

Barbarians are in the game. Not sure what you're talking about there. The graphics look decent now that they fix the color palette a little.

>no Genghis Khan or mongols because he was too mean and the devs wanted another STRONG WOMAN

Straight to the trash. The only way to stop this leftist shit in the games industry is to starve it of money.

Civ 5 was shit too. Civ IV BTS master race reporting in.

...

Or even De Gaulle or Louis 14.

are these threads jokes, I never understood if this is some meme or not. Why not play a paradox or total war game at least

anyway
>harald hardrada not harald fairhair
>catherine de medici not napoleon, or atleast charlemagne

>brazil
>scythia
>kongo

muh powerful wiminz

They are still in the game.

you're fucking delusional if you think Civ IV is better than Civ V you fucking cunt

why are we still not allow to play the greatest leader of all time in human history?

>Cleopatra

Fuck you. Nero was a shitty leader. Constantine would have been badass though.

1 unit per tile lol

Queen Victoria was based, nigger

>triforce

You're obviously underaged

Because he was actually a shit leader that got his country rekt.

Maria Theresa and Catherine were actually decent choices for female leaders if they wanted more women. I mean they fucking included Pedro II, Monty and Gandhi again so why not?

...

There is no tactical game at all unless you have limited stacks. The combat was one of the best parts of Civ V.

>tfw no Catherine the Great

>implying anyone liked the massive stacks of never-ending spam units
b&?

>Tomirys
>Trajan
>Cleopatra
>Catherine de Medici

Should've been either Julius Caesar or Marcus Aurelius imo

I'm good with TR for US. He's a real Hemingway man

Norway yay
yaay

>cleopatra

She was a vassel puppet ruler for Giaus Julius Caeser after Ptolemy XII was removed. Literally no reason to use her as an example of a leader other than her being a woman.

Gandhi always triggers me but he'll never be removed because of le gandhi nuke freak meme, should bring back Civ 4 multiple leaders

a womyn leader who is denied to have existed

>no Russia
Shit game

That cartoon graphics is fucking garbage

Rumor has it, they are.

There is a list of spoiled leaders and Gorgo of Sparta and Isabella of Spain were both on it in addition to Philip and Pericles.

Why did Civ 5 leaders look so much better?

No, you're not. The graphics look a little too cartoonish for me, like they're caricatures of who they're supposed to be. I haven't seen any previews but just from a .webm in this thread it seems they emote and act like caricatures as well.

Why can't we have serious civ? How awesome would it be for Montezuma to remind you that further subjugation is needed to gather enough human sacrifices to ensure the rise of the sun the next day? Now THAT'S an encouraging reminder that you don't have enough military development.

Nah, it's gonna be "Aztecs shall rule!" and other generic unoffensive BS with no personality.

Eh, maybe I'm jumping to conclusions to fast, but I'm just not feeling it.

Why the fuck is Norway in the game?

Trajan was Emperor at the height of Romes power. He extended the borders to their apex and has remained unblemished by history as a just and righteous ruler.

The Romans had a name for him - Optimus Princeps "the best ruler." Over Vespasian, Claudius, Titus, Domitian and even Augustus himself, Trajan was chosen above by the Romans themselves as the greatest ruler in their history.

Anyone who bitches about Trajan being in Civ needs to crack a history book.

Catherine is hotter

Don't forget about the second leaders

Leader of US should have been Harriet Tubman.

source on that, please?

Famous bush man

>t. Frederick Barbarossa

Why are the graphics so shit; isn't this going to be 2016 game, serious wasn't civ 5 character graphics pretty decent and now it just looks cartoonie?

Nah I used to think the graphics were off-putting but it's grown on me a bit. Game looks pretty good too.

Civ IV was the pinnacle of the series.

This