Changing Leader Mechanic in Civ 7

[Henri Christophe]

Why do you continue to view the Haudenosaunee as remotely appropriate as an, "earlier iteration," the U.S. civ? Don't you see how jarring, unrealistic, and unworkable - as well as offensive - it is?

Offensive is too much!
Is just a feasible idea, and is linked with the main topic discussion.
If we need to choice a native American civ per modern national state in order to compound a game, it could be:
Iroquois - USA
Cree - Canada
Aztecs - México
Mayans - Guatemala
Tainos - Haiti
Muiscas - Colômbia
Incas - Perú
Aymara - Bolívia
Mapuche - Chile
Tupi - Brazil
Charrua - Uruguay
On that way these nations could have ancient age units and ancient age leaders.

 

[Evie]

Uhm, civ 6 is the best selling game in the history of the franchise, Henri.

(And pretending the Iroquous and USA are successor nations is still inanely ridiculous)

 

[Patine]

Offensive is too much!
Is just a feasible idea, and is linked with the main topic discussion.
If we need to choice a native American civ per modern national state in order to compound a game, it could be:
Iroquois - USA
Cree - Canada
Aztecs - México
Mayans - Guatemala
Tainos - Haiti
Muiscas - Colômbia
Incas - Perú
Aymara - Bolívia
Mapuche - Chile
Tupi - Brazil
Charrua - Uruguay
On that way these nations could have ancient age units and ancient age leaders.

Offensive to these Indigenous people who don't view themselves as having Post-Colonial states as their own successors, thus stating a legitimizing, by their own continuum, of Colonialization as valid and good, and undermining their very struggles for rights, land claims, and cutural preservation. A backhanded way of Colonially assimilating them while superficially seeming, "noble."

 

[Xandinho]

I don't think so, first this game is already big enough to do however it want and still selling a lot.
And if we took comparisons between civ 5 and 6, they represent more white land outside Europe as Canada and Australia and sell less then previous games.
Maybe doing a game more decolonial as doing the blacks outside Africa civs could make it sell better. We just can know if they do.
And I think a decolonial civ 7 could have at least a continental quota, but for Europe I would like to see some unconventional civs as Romênia or Yugoslavia, not the same western powerhouse as UK, USA, France and Germany.
And also I don't think this kind of game is needed to we play with our nations. I for example never played with Brazil on civ 6, and it's since the vanilla edition.

Well, there are a lot of nationalistic sentiments out there, and we can say for sure choices of civilizations to compose the game are also marketing decisions, as adding a country generates publicity in that country. For example, certainly having Indonesia in the game sells there more than perhaps not having it. This is one of the reasons postcolonial nations are included.

See, I'm all for more civilizations from all over the world and for a less Eurocentric game. Civ6 at the current stage, although perhaps the most diverse and representative game in the franchise, there are still underrepresented parts of the world such as Africa, India, North America, the Caribbean... But some elements of the game are too important to be discarded, as the game needs sell, after all.

 

[BuchiTaton]

How ironic, because when I pointed a good chance to portrait other period of Mayan history through a secondary leader in a way that consequently help their struggles for rights, land claims and cultural preservations, it turned to be "guilt-tripping" when pointing that their ancient history was not "the only way to do them true justice", this for example considering that contemporary maya people have mainly monuments and awards after the Cruzoob movement and barely after ancient Maya leaders. I think is time to tell them what they should be proud of and not those "ragtag guerillas".

A secondary resistence modern leader for either Maya or Inca are a good option to go beyond the same eras that these regular civs always portrait. Object these options alleging a limited number of leader slots or not be optimal is contrary to examples just from CIV6 like:
- Wihelmina as a Dutch leader when there are perfect options from Netehrlands golden era.
- Nzinga as a secondary "Kongolese" leader.
- Trieu short resistance movement, when they have options like Le Thanh Tong.

Also just to clarify I dont agree with mix Haudenosaunee and American civs, there is a relation of replacement not continuinity between them.

 

[Patine]

How ironic, because when I pointed a good chance to portrait other period of Mayan history through a secondary leader in a way that consequently help their struggles for rights, land claims and cultural preservations, it turned to be "guilt-tripping" when pointing that their ancient history was not "the only way to do them true justice", this for example considering that contemporary maya people have mainly monuments and awards after the Cruzoob movement and barely after ancient Maya leaders. I think is time to tell them what they should be proud of and not those "ragtag guerillas".

Oh, yes, I remember that. You thought a Post-Colonial resistance version of the Maya and Inca and such, IN YOUR OPINION, were a great portrayal for a whole slot. Myself, and @Zaarin, and a lot of others, disagreed with YOUR OPINION, and felt that portrayal of them at their height was a better choice. You got angry, and portrayed the dissenting OPINIONS as tantamount to personal attacks on you, and bigotry by those who disagreed, and did use guilt-tripping tactics. Not an instance yuo really should be proud of bringing up, or that helps your viewpoint. It does make you look intolerant of disagreeing opinions, though.

Maybe doing a game more decolonial as doing the blacks outside Africa civs could make it sell better. We just can know if they do.

As I've said, there is really onyl one option for this that stands out as a viable choice - Haiti.

could have at least a continental quota

Not THIS again!

 

[Patine]

A secondary resistence modern leader for either Maya or Inca are a good option to go beyond the same eras that these regular civs always portrait. Object these options alleging a limited number of leader slots or not be optimal is contrary to examples just from CIV6 like:
- Wihelmina as a Dutch leader when there are perfect options from Netehrlands golden era.
- Nzinga as a secondary "Kongolese" leader.
- Trieu short resistance movement, when they have options like Le Thanh Tong.

I don't recall voicing support for these options. In fact, I've several times showed an aversion to Wilhelmia, for the same reason you did.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I don't recall voicing support for these options. In fact, I've several times showed an aversion to Wilhelmia, for the same reason you did.

Turn an observation about your little understanding about what Maya themselves consider worthy reflected by your use of "the only way to do them true justice" and call that period "ragtag guerillas" into a personal "guilt-tripping" is on your mind, is about how you "felt" and how you put words on other like was evident in this...

That's how it came across to me. You know, to paraphrase, "you're a horrible, heartless cad who is indifferent to the suffering, and antagonistic to the rights, of Latin American indigenous people, supporting, by default, their oppression and marginalization, because you would rather fill finite civ leader slots with Pre-Colombian Inca, Maya, and Aztec leaders at their apex rather than struggling Colonial and Post-Colonial Era guerilla leaders in the upcoming Civ game iteration. How could you?! You monster!" One can see this interpretation of how you phrased things, from a certain of view...

Building all these from a call of irony on your use of words.

I was not forcing the idea of modern-resistence Inca or Maya to be "THE" portrait of these civs, it was the suggestion of a secondary for some of them as there are not "optimal" or even expected leaders for many civs in CIV6.
Since you bring other commenters first, in that same I did not insisted with Zaarin precisely because he presented his opinion in a personal and clear way without use ironicaly taste less words like you did. His opinion is diffent than mine and that is 100% OK, after all the whole threat was from other people and I was playing with that idea and some justifications.

The need to enlist the examples of others laeders that are already in CIV6 in an equivalent situation that the suggested alternative Maya or Inca leader is to put context that the suggestion is not about figthing "bigotry", it was about protrait a different moment of Maya/Inca history (the possible social value was an secondary gain) as the mentioned leaders already do for Netherland, Vietnam and Kongo/Angola.

By the way again, you really like to bring words lke "bigotry" and "guilt-tripping".

 

[Patine]

@BuchiTaton The fact is, there is not value or merit at all to either of us in having this conversation. It only digs a nasty argument from months ago where BOTH said regrettable and nasty things to make petty points. Digging this old baggage up will not reflect well on either of us, and will not do well to advance either of our points and messages now. It's better leftt in the dustbin of forum history - for both of our sakes.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Offensive is too much!
Is just a feasible idea, and is linked with the main topic discussion.
If we need to choice a native American civ per modern national state in order to compound a game, it could be:
Iroquois - USA
Cree - Canada
Aztecs - México
Mayans - Guatemala
Tainos - Haiti
Muiscas - Colômbia
Incas - Perú
Aymara - Bolívia
Mapuche - Chile
Tupi - Brazil
Charrua - Uruguay
On that way these nations could have ancient age units and ancient age leaders.

Why link Maya only with Guatemala, when the vast majority of them lived in present-day Mexico?
Same with the Taino who lived all across the Caribbean. In fact, if you had to pick one country for them, wouldn't it be Cuba?
The Iroquois homeland also went into modern-day Canada, and have as much of an impact on the history of Canada, as they do the U.S.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Thanks for read all, is always good more thoughts about the main discussion and the off to

I don't think so, first this game is already big enough to do however it want and still selling a lot.
And if we took comparisons between civ 5 and 6, they represent more white land outside Europe as Canada and Australia and sell less then previous games.
Maybe doing a game more decolonial as doing the blacks outside Africa civs could make it sell better. We just can know if they do.
And I think a decolonial civ 7 could have at least a continental quota, but for Europe I would like to see some unconventional civs as Romênia or Yugoslavia, not the same western powerhouse as UK, USA, France and Germany.
And also I don't think this kind of game is needed to we play with our nations. I for example never played with Brazil on civ 6, and it's since the vanilla edition.

Canada and Australia should not be in game.
America, England, France, and Germany should because of profit (even though I don't like capitalism, I can see that sometimes it is good), and that they were major players in history.

And about the continental quotas...

Offensive is too much!
Is just a feasible idea, and is linked with the main topic discussion.
If we need to choice a native American civ per modern national state in order to compound a game, it could be:
Iroquois - USA
Cree - Canada
Aztecs - México
Mayans - Guatemala
Tainos - Haiti
Muiscas - Colômbia
Incas - Perú
Aymara - Bolívia
Mapuche - Chile
Tupi - Brazil
Charrua - Uruguay
On that way these nations could have ancient age units and ancient age leaders.

My god that is insulting to the native peoples.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Back to topic please. Let us not bring old issues between specific folks into this thread.

 

[BuchiTaton]

@BuchiTaton The fact is, there is not value or merit at all to either of us in having this conversation. It only digs a nasty argument from months ago where BOTH said regrettable and nasty things to make petty points. Digging this old baggage up will not reflect well on either of us, and will not do well to advance either of our points and messages now. It's better leftt in the dustbin of forum history - for both of our sakes.

OK, agree.

Why link Maya only with Guatemala, when the vast majority of them lived in present-day Mexico?
Same with the Taino who lived all across the Caribbean. In fact, if you had to pick one country for them, wouldn't it be Cuba?
The Iroquois homeland also went into modern-day Canada, and have as much of an impact on the history of Canada, as they do the U.S.

Of course I neither like the whole idea of mix native and post colonial nations. Still and despite the numbers about pre-conquest Taino populations are far (if ever) from be reliable the Hispaniola seems to be the best place to center an in-game Taino civ considering its location, historical know about their chiefdoms and figures like Anacaona, Puerto Rico also have some interesting Taino figures and places.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Of course I neither like the whole idea of mix native and post colonial nations. Still and despite the numbers about pre-conquest Taino populations are far (if ever) from be reliable the Hispaniola seems to be the best place to center an in-game Taino civ considering its location, historical know about their chiefdoms and figures like Anacaona, Puerto Rico also have some interesting Taino figures and places.

Sure, I just thought that linking the Taino to only Haiti was weird. Puerto Rico would also make sense, but then again, it's not it's own separate country so that's why I said Cuba.

 

[reddishrecue]

If indigenous why not bring in great women as well? People like Rigoberta Menchu were really protective over native American Indians.
It would be kind of weird if great women were introduced but what would that produce? More culture economy or military?
How can implementing great women benefit a male-dominated civilization?

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

If indigenous why not bring in great women as well? People like Rigoberta Menchu were really protective over native American Indians.
It would be kind of weird if great women were introduced but what would that produce? More culture economy or military?
How can implementing great women benefit a male-dominated civilization?

You mean a separate Great Person category called 'Great Woman'? Because there are already Great Scientists, Writers and Artists in the game who are women. And historically women have benefited male-dominated societies: Marie Curie, Ada Lovelace, etc.

 

[Patine]

You mean a separate Great Person category called 'Great Woman'? Because there are already Great Scientists, Writers and Artists in the game who are women. And historically women have benefited male-dominated societies: Marie Curie, Ada Lovelace, etc.

Also Joan of Arc, Bruta, Boadiccea, possibly Mariya Oktayabarskaya,, Uesugi Kenshin (if the somehat compelling evidence that he/she was really a woman are verifiably true), Laskarina Bouboulina (an admiral), and others are also potential choices for female Great Generals.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Maria Shapiranova

who

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Bruta

also who

 

[Patine]

who

I corrected the name in an edit. It was erroneous.

also who

Apparently an Italic chieftainess around the modern Apulia area who famous gave the Roman Republic more grief, militarily, than any other Non-Latin Italc leader.