Civ VII Idea - Roster Feedback

[~frogchild~]

Uh, hi there. Long time lurker, first time poster.

In recent months I've been working on a theoretical design for Civ VII. I've finished about half the civs in the base game but they still need a lot of tweaking and mechanics need polishing so I thought I'd post my base game roster idea and see what people thought.

A couple of the civs on this list I first became interested in due to these forums, but I've been trying to a lot of my own research and make them to a good degree of accuracy.

• GREECE (Themistocles) or (Leonidas I)
• EGYPT (Hatshepsut) or (Akenhaten)
• BABYLONIA (Hammurabi)
• CHINA (Kangxi Emperor)
• JAPAN (Tokugawa Ieyasu) or (Himiko)
• MAYA (Lady Six Sky) or (Yuk'noom)
• FRANCE (Cardinal Richelieu)
• ENGLAND (Henry V) or (Elizabeth I)
• GERMANY (Otto Von Bismarck)
• RUSSIA (Vladimir Lenin) or (Olga Of Kiev)
• ROME (Marcus Aurelius) or (Scipio Africanus)
• MAORI (Hongi Hika)
• BENIN (Idia)
• SWAHILI (Soleiman Hacen)
• NAVAJO (Manuelito)
• BURMA (Bayinnaung) or (Anawrahta)
• TLINGIT (Shotridge)
• BULGARIA (Simeon The Great)
• MUISCA (Nemequene)
• ARAM (Zenobia)
• + MONGOLIA (Mandukhai Khatun) - Pre-Order Bonus, available to all after 90 days

And the first wave of DLC

• CARTHAGE (Hannibal Barca) + NUMIDIA (Masinissa) + Punic Wars Scenario
• AZTEC (Ahuitzotl) + SPAIN (Isabella I) + Conquest Of The New World Scenario
• ITALY (Cosimo De Medici) + ETHIOPIA (Zara Yaqob) + Scramble For Africa Scenario
• MUGHALS (Nur Jahan) + MAURYA (Ashoka) + British Raj Scenario
• PERSIA (Darius I) or (Khosrow I) + Greco-Persian Wars Scenario

So yeah, tell me what you think

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

First, Good Luck!
But, recognize that the same mechanics for civilizations, technologies, civics. social policies, named leaders, etc are all repeats of the Civ VI version of Civ, and Civ VII really requires a major revision of some or all of them.

That said, some specific comments on some of your choices:

GREECE, Leonidas I - The name Leonidas is well-known, but let me suggest for a Spartan Brasidas, the man who actually won the Pelopponesian War against Athens. General Rule: Pick Winners whenever you can.
FRANCE: Cardinal Richelieu - I suggest that the game needs a new category of Great Person: Great Minister or Administrator, which is where people like Richelieu or Bismarck belong - not 'official' Leaders, but hugely influential in how and how well the Civ was run: even a mediocre ruler like Louis XIII looks good with Richelieu in charge! For a French leader, among the myriad choices not used yet in a regular game, may I suggest Henri IV ("Paris is worth a mass" and one of the few French kings who was also a very, very good Battlefield Leader) or Francis I for 'Medieval/Renaissance' or Clemenceau or DeGaulle for Modern/Atomic Era choices.
ENGLAND Alfred the Great is really Anglo-Saxon, which should be a separate Civ from 'England' - there were huge differences between pre- and post-Norman Conquest social and 'civic' policies. On the other hand, for contrast with Elizabeth I, Henry V (military) or James I (who could also be a dual Alternate for both Scotland and England) would work.
GERMANY - Otto von Bismarck, as stated above, is really a Minister rather than an official Ruler. IF we don't include Prussia as a separate Civ, then the Friederick Wilhem, the Great Elector of Brandenburg would be a good choice for a Political/Diplomatic leader like Bismarck, or Wilhelm I - who became the first German Emperor, and on the way was President of the North German Confederation and King of Prussia, so could have diplomatic or absorption of neighbors potential.
RUSSIA. I think, like Anglo-Saxon England, a case can be made for the Principality of Kiev being a separate state from Russia. Given that, in addition to the 'old standbys' of Peter and Ekaterina II, I've always had a soft spot for Ivan Grozhnyi - the "Mighty" or "Terrible" (as in "Terrifying") - religious, military, scientific possibilities for Uniques and his own personal Unique Unit and Wonder: he formed the first Streltsi and built St Basil's Cathedral

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Interesting choices.
Rome and India have always been every base game, so I don't think that would ever change especially with Rome, being Rome, and what's a Civ game without Gandhi?
I'd put them in over the Tlingit and Madagascar, or possibly Bulgaria.

 

[~frogchild~]

First, Good Luck!
But, recognize that the same mechanics for civilizations, technologies, civics. social policies, named leaders, etc are all repeats of the Civ VI version of Civ, and Civ VII really requires a major revision of some or all of them.

That said, some specific comments on some of your choices:

GREECE, Leonidas I - The name Leonidas is well-known, but let me suggest for a Spartan Brasidas, the man who actually won the Pelopponesian War against Athens. General Rule: Pick Winners whenever you can.
FRANCE: Cardinal Richelieu - I suggest that the game needs a new category of Great Person: Great Minister or Administrator, which is where people like Richelieu or Bismarck belong - not 'official' Leaders, but hugely influential in how and how well the Civ was run: even a mediocre ruler like Louis XIII looks good with Richelieu in charge! For a French leader, among the myriad choices not used yet in a regular game, may I suggest Henri IV ("Paris is worth a mass" and one of the few French kings who was also a very, very good Battlefield Leader) or Francis I for 'Medieval/Renaissance' or Clemenceau or DeGaulle for Modern/Atomic Era choices.
ENGLAND Alfred the Great is really Anglo-Saxon, which should be a separate Civ from 'England' - there were huge differences between pre- and post-Norman Conquest social and 'civic' policies. On the other hand, for contrast with Elizabeth I, Henry V (military) or James I (who could also be a dual Alternate for both Scotland and England) would work.
GERMANY - Otto von Bismarck, as stated above, is really a Minister rather than an official Ruler. IF we don't include Prussia as a separate Civ, then the Friederick Wilhem, the Great Elector of Brandenburg would be a good choice for a Political/Diplomatic leader like Bismarck, or Wilhelm I - who became the first German Emperor, and on the way was President of the North German Confederation and King of Prussia, so could have diplomatic or absorption of neighbors potential.
RUSSIA. I think, like Anglo-Saxon England, a case can be made for the Principality of Kiev being a separate state from Russia. Given that, in addition to the 'old standbys' of Peter and Ekaterina II, I've always had a soft spot for Ivan Grozhnyi - the "Mighty" or "Terrible" (as in "Terrifying") - religious, military, scientific possibilities for Uniques and his own personal Unique Unit and Wonder: he formed the first Streltsi and built St Basil's Cathedral

Ok so
Concerning the new mechanic thing, I totally agree, and while I'm still trying to figure out what the new game changing mechanic will be, I 100% agree it needs to be there

GREECE - I chose Leonidas specifically because he's a contemporary leader with Themistocles, and with my proposed Persian leader, which would allow for some interesting historical moments imo.

FRANCE - While I agree Richelieu would fit better as a behind-the-scenes puppeteer, I still think due to his major influence, and the fact I have no idea how that kind of mechanic would work, I think he's gonna stay, but the others you suggested are all tantalizing options for a second French leader.

ENGLAND - This I definitely agree on, so I'll probably cut Alfred and either add a later medieval English leader alongside Liz or just not a second one at all (though I'm a little reluctant cuz of a cool LUA I thought up that synergizes with the rest of the design white well)

GERMANY - I thought Bismarck was the one in charge?

RUSSIA - This one, I agree with the idea of it but I really like the duality I've got in my Russian design, so uh, I'll think on it. I definitely have double standards. Ivan would be a good choice for a third leader, to represent the Years, or a second if I cut Olga

Interesting choices.
Rome and India have always been every base game, so I don't think that would ever change especially with Rome, being Rome, and what's a Civ game without Gandhi?
I'd put them in over the Tlingit and Madagascar, or possibly Bulgaria.

Rome isn't in the base game so they can be made an OP DLC civ, and also because I find them very interesting but somewhat overdone, so have relegated them to DLC to make room for civs I consider more interesting

And I'm deblobbing India

 

[Sostratus]

Rome isn't in the base game so they can be made an OP DLC civ, and also because I find them very interesting but somewhat overdone, so have relegated them to DLC to make room for civs I consider more interesting

Who says they can't be OP in the base game?
Feedback from a business standpoint:
You need the "staple" civs to sell the base game. This means the classical group [Rome/Greece/Egypt] + the big europeans [England/France/germany/Russia/Spain]+east asia [China/Japan/India] + USA.
Brazil, poland, and Australia are probably all going to be in every future civ game because they are targeting their gaming markets.
You've surely seen the high levels of complaining about X being in over Y, but if you don't put Rome in your base game, you will get massive amounts of criticism. There are a lot of civ players I know who only play Rome. People won't be pleased to pay for something they feel should be included - sort of like a Star Wars game making you buy DLC to play as Luke or Darth Vader.

The Up shot is those "big names" are all flexible enough to do almost anything - look at how different a civ like England has been between civ5, release civ6, and civ6 GS. The USA can literally be whatever you want. Heck, if you could make an interesting and dynamic design for America you would succeed where Sid Meier has failed for decades. (personally I think an industrial/gilded age USA would be one neato burrito. Teddy was an unusual take and tied in the National parks mechanic, but the civ as a whole is quite vanilla.)

Concerning the new mechanic thing, I totally agree, and while I'm still trying to figure out what the new game changing mechanic will be, I 100% agree it needs to be there

I imagine districts will stay for a while in some concept because they add a lot of gameplay. But you could easily change everything else about them and create a radically different playing experience. Like some people have suggested making the concept of specialists/pops working in districts to be a crucial part of the game, for example. Or you could come up with a way to bring the same level of "playing the map" that civ6 added with adjacencies and districts etc to how you actually develop your cities and empire. That would bring a lot to the table if you could make it have depth without being complex. (You know how you can't really build up cities beyond placing the same 7 specialty districts? You could fix that.)

 

[~frogchild~]

I'm aware not including Rome and the like isn't especially good for marketing, but the core basis of this idea is being unique from the rest of the franchise. To me it seems unfair to include the same civs on the basis of them being staples. I do want to include civs like Rome and the US, but in favor of more interesting civs that wouldn't sell their own DLC, or an expansion pack, I've cut them from the base game. For example, one of my expansion ideas is immigration focused, so I'm saving the US for that, allowing them to have a more specialized and interesting kit.

As for Rome, I understand they are popular but I think that more unique civs could be used in the base game and Rome could be used for a good DLC that also allows it to be more complex than vanilla designs often allow

 

[Sostratus]

As for Rome, I understand they are popular but I think that more unique civs could be used in the base game and Rome could be used for a good DLC that also allows it to be more complex than vanilla designs often allow

What makes a civ “more unique” or “more interesting?”
The fact that a civ is relatively less known- for example, Benin- doesn’t make it unique: you, the designer, the architect, make it unique & interesting via abilities and mechanics.

I am not criticizing the concept, so don’t take it as such. But, it’s harder to pull off. The staples are mostly there for a reason- they have immediate appeal (well known) and they have deep histories that give lots of material to go in almost any direction. Almost like a meme when they are well executed because an identity is instantly understood when someone looks at them.
Please don’t take this to be some kind of philosophical assault- a lot of the fun of these exercises is thinking things out, and I’m just being a little contrarian to prod the brain juices.

 

[~frogchild~]

I don't mean less unique in terms of being generally unique, but in the terms of the franchise. Rome is no less unique than Benin, but in the context of the Civ franchise, it is.

But yeah, discussion is always welcome. No problem at all

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I imagine districts will stay for a while in some concept because they add a lot of gameplay. But you could easily change everything else about them and create a radically different playing experience. Like some people have suggested making the concept of specialists/pops working in districts to be a crucial part of the game, for example. Or you could come up with a way to bring the same level of "playing the map" that civ6 added with adjacencies and districts etc to how you actually develop your cities and empire. That would bring a lot to the table if you could make it have depth without being complex. (You know how you can't really build up cities beyond placing the same 7 specialty districts? You could fix that.)

I love the idea of districts, but visually they don't feel connected to the city at all.

For Civ VII whenever you found your city there can be a separate ring of hexes around the city center to put in most of your districts, maybe wonders? And of course if you build walls they will surround all the districts. The rest of the tiles will go towards the improvements like before, farms, mines, lumbermills etc.

Some others will obviously built out of the city hex though like the military encampment etc. and harbors would need the city center to go on the water to be built.

 

[~frogchild~]

That's an interesting idea indeed. The only problem I see with it is that it severely restricts the way district adjacency works, but that's a fixable problem

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That's an interesting idea indeed. The only problem I see with it is that it severely restricts the way district adjacency works, but that's a fixable problem

Not necessarily.
If you want a good campus settle adjacent to many mountains or rainforest tiles and build the campus in a tile, in the ring adjacent to them.
Same thing goes for a commercial hub next to a river/harbor and a theater square next to wonders.

Basically it's like the city gets it's own workable district rings inside the city, in addition to the farms, mines, other improvements like it did in the previous games outside of the city hex.

 

[~frogchild~]

Yeah, it just makes it harder I spode

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That's an interesting idea indeed. The only problem I see with it is that it severely restricts the way district adjacency works, but that's a fixable problem

"District Adjacency" as it is implemented in Civ VI, is an almost completely artificial game mechanism. It works, but it has little relationship to Historical Reality, and therefore can be changed, mangled, deleted, or otherwise modified at will - and should be.

Campuses are a good example: what do most of the Great Universities of the world (short list: Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, Sorbonne, Moscow, Humboldt) have in common? Among other things, None of Them are anywhere near any *&#$%^ Mountains. "Mountain Adjacency" is an artificial adjacency.

Doesn't mean 'adjacencies' aren't a useable game concept, they just need to make More Sense:
Commercial Hub next to a Harbor?
Makes sense: Trade = Gold, Long Distance Sea Trade = More Gold
Industrial Zone next to a Mountain?
Makes less sense: The Pittsburgh steel industry concentration, or that in the Ruhr, are not next to Mountains because Peaks inspire more productivity. They are next to mountains because when they started up (Industrial Era) those mountains were full of Coal that was needed to make Steel, the primary output of their Mills. - also, both were connected by railroad to their markets all over their respective countries, so that other 'raw materials' like Iron Ore and Limestone could also be shipped in.

Adjacencies, in most cases, need to be Reworked. Most of them, in fact, should not be to another District, but to specific Improvements, Buildings, or such that 'enhance' the workings of the District. Examples:
Industrial Zone: within a Transportation Radius of a Coal or Iron Mine - early on that might be only a couple of tiles - say, within the same City Radius. With a Harbor or Railroad, they just have to be Connected by Trade Route or rail.
Commercial Hub: next to a Harbor, next to a River (river boats can carry lots more Trade Goods than carts), next to an Aerodrome.
- And all Bonuses should be, up to a point, Cumulative: a Commercial Zone next to a river and a Harbor and an Aerodrome should be a Cash Cow for you.
Holy Site: This doesn't really have to be 'adjacent' to anything EXCEPT the City Center, which should give a Bonus simply because it makes it easier for the Followers to get to the shrines, temples, and other buildings in the Holy Site. BUT you should (as now) get most of the Bonus from your Pantheon what's 'sacred' to your particular religion in-game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Industrial Zone next to a Mountain?
Makes less sense: The Pittsburgh steel industry concentration, or that in the Ruhr, are not next to Mountains because Peaks inspire more productivity. They are next to mountains because when they started up (Industrial Era) those mountains were full of Coal that was needed to make Steel, the primary output of their Mills. - also, both were connected by railroad to their markets all over their respective countries, so that other 'raw materials' like Iron Ore and Limestone could also be shipped in.

They've never needed to be next to a mountain as far as I'm aware. Strategic resources, mines and lumber mils yes.

Holy Site: This doesn't really have to be 'adjacent' to anything EXCEPT the City Center, which should give a Bonus simply because it makes it easier for the Followers to get to the shrines, temples, and other buildings in the Holy Site. BUT you should (as now) get most of the Bonus from your Pantheon what's 'sacred' to your particular religion in-game.

The way that holy sites are presented in game they feel like the only one that needs to feel secluded, as in it feels more like you are building a monastery which is why they get currently get the bonuses towards natural wonders and unimproved woods. Of course monasteries are also in the game, but they don't have any adjacencies that require them to be secluded like the Holy Site.
That's at least my interpretation especially the unique Lavra for Russia are actual monasteries.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The way that holy sites are presented in game they feel like the only one that needs to feel secluded, as in it feels more like you are building a monastery which is why they get currently get the bonuses towards natural wonders and unimproved woods. Of course monasteries are also in the game, but they don't have any adjacencies that require them to be secluded like the Holy Site.
That's at least my interpretation especially the unique Lavra for Russia are actual monasteries.

Which, I say, means that Holy Sites specifically have be re-thought. IF they are supposed to be some kind of Faith Generating place for your religion, then, yes, many of them will be at 'holy places' out in the wilderness - like, say, Delphi in Greece, which is off in the mountains where even the goats find it hard to make a living. BUT those are not the places that make a Religion powerful and important in the lives of the people and the civilization: for that you need the religious infrastructure of temples, cathedrals, mosques, shrines, etc that people can actually use to interact with God & the Prophets (and provide Profits for the church). Having a Holy Site be the site for shrines and temples and such means they are wasted out in the boonies, but the boonies are exactly where a lot of holy places are.
I have collected some notes on this, and posted on it once which post I would gladly delete now because I've changed my mind about a lot of it, but still haven't sat down and thought it out. We may need both a Religious District in the city for the Temples, Cathedrals and Ziggurats and a Holy Site construction/Improvement out in the wilderness - which could be further 'improved' by building, say, a Monastery, Hermitage, or Shrine around it and creating your own little Llourdes or Delphi . . .

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Uh, hi there. Long time lurker, first time poster.

In recent months I've been working on a theoretical design for Civ VII. I've finished about half the civs in the base game but they still need a lot of tweaking and mechanics need polishing so I thought I'd post my base game roster idea and see what people thought.

A couple of the civs on this list I first became interested in due to these forums, but I've been trying to a lot of my own research and make them to a good degree of accuracy.

• GREECE (Themistocles) or (Leonidas I)
• EGYPT (Hatshepsut) or (Akenhaten)
• BABYLONIA (Hammurabi)
• CHINA (Kangxi Emperor)
• JAPAN (Tokugawa Ieyasu) or (Himiko)
• MAYA (Lady Six Sky) or (Yuk'noom)
• FRANCE (Cardinal Richelieu)
• ENGLAND (Alfred The Great) or (Elizabeth I)
• GERMANY (Otto Von Bismarck)
• RUSSIA (Vladimir Lenin) or (Olga Of Kiev)
• MAORI (Hongi Hika)
• BENIN (Idia)
• NAVAJO (Manuelito)
• BURMA (Bayinnaung) or (Anawhrata)
• TLINGIT (Sheiyksh I)
• MADAGASCAR (Ranavalona I)
• BULGARIA (Simeon The Great)
• MUISCA (Nemequene)
• + MONGOLIA (Mandukhai Khatun) (Pre-Order Bonus)

And the first wave of DLC

• CARTHAGE (Hannibal Barca) + ROME (Scipio Africanus) + Punic Wars Scenario
• AZTEC(Ahuitzotl) + SPAIN (Isabella I) + Conquest Of The New World Scenario
• ITALY (Cosimo De Medici) + ETHIOPIA (Zara Yaqob) + Scramble For Africa Scenario
• PERSIA (Xerxes I) or (Khosrow I) + Greco-Persian Wars Scenario

So yeah, tell me what you think

Finally. Queen Himiko 卑弥呼 to lead Japan (Capitol should be Yamatai, Unique infrastructure should be Haniwa ring)

 

[~frogchild~]

Finally. Queen Himiko 卑弥呼 to lead Japan (Capitol should be Yamatai, Unique infrastructure should be Haniwa ring)

Yamatai will be the Capital, but I'm not sure if she'll get her own UI

"District Adjacency" as it is implemented in Civ VI, is an almost completely artificial game mechanism. It works, but it has little relationship to Historical Reality, and therefore can be changed, mangled, deleted, or otherwise modified at will - and should be.

Campuses are a good example: what do most of the Great Universities of the world (short list: Harvard, Yale, Oxford, Cambridge, Sorbonne, Moscow, Humboldt) have in common? Among other things, None of Them are anywhere near any *&#$%^ Mountains. "Mountain Adjacency" is an artificial adjacency.

Doesn't mean 'adjacencies' aren't a useable game concept, they just need to make More Sense:
Commercial Hub next to a Harbor?
Makes sense: Trade = Gold, Long Distance Sea Trade = More Gold
Industrial Zone next to a Mountain?
Makes less sense: The Pittsburgh steel industry concentration, or that in the Ruhr, are not next to Mountains because Peaks inspire more productivity. They are next to mountains because when they started up (Industrial Era) those mountains were full of Coal that was needed to make Steel, the primary output of their Mills. - also, both were connected by railroad to their markets all over their respective countries, so that other 'raw materials' like Iron Ore and Limestone could also be shipped in.

Adjacencies, in most cases, need to be Reworked. Most of them, in fact, should not be to another District, but to specific Improvements, Buildings, or such that 'enhance' the workings of the District. Examples:
Industrial Zone: within a Transportation Radius of a Coal or Iron Mine - early on that might be only a couple of tiles - say, within the same City Radius. With a Harbor or Railroad, they just have to be Connected by Trade Route or rail.
Commercial Hub: next to a Harbor, next to a River (river boats can carry lots more Trade Goods than carts), next to an Aerodrome.
- And all Bonuses should be, up to a point, Cumulative: a Commercial Zone next to a river and a Harbor and an Aerodrome should be a Cash Cow for you.
Holy Site: This doesn't really have to be 'adjacent' to anything EXCEPT the City Center, which should give a Bonus simply because it makes it easier for the Followers to get to the shrines, temples, and other buildings in the Holy Site. BUT you should (as now) get most of the Bonus from your Pantheon what's 'sacred' to your particular religion in-game.

That makes a lot of sense.

 

[The googles do nothing]

Rome isn't in the base game so they can be made an OP DLC civ, and also because I find them very interesting but somewhat overdone, so have relegated them to DLC to make room for civs I consider more interesting

I really like this idea but as @Sostratus pointed out you would need it available at the time of game release or at least have it's release date announced. I would prefer it to be an 'Italian' DLC that included Rome, but then you lose some of the cachet from the name Rome. Start with Republic with Lucius Junius Brutus, Empire with Gaius Octavius, Lombards with (Fill in the blank..).

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

About Burmese leader. I know who Bayingnaung is. but not "Anawhrata"
Why Alaungbaya (Founder of Kongbong Dynasty) not chosen?

And Why you don't propose Siam too?
(I'd put King Narai or Ramadhipati I (Founder of Autthaya) or one of the two 1932 Revolutionary leaders (P. Phibunsongkram or P. Banomyong),)

And China. i'd like to see Liu Bang (A.K.A. Emperor Han Gaozong) leads this civ. i'd think he's better leader than Qin Shi Huang. Also Kangxi himself is not Chinese but rather Manchurian.

 

[~frogchild~]

I really like this idea but as @Sostratus pointed out you would need it available at the time of game release or at least have it's release date announced. I would prefer it to be an 'Italian' DLC that included Rome, but then you lose some of the cachet from the name Rome. Start with Republic with Lucius Junius Brutus, Empire with Gaius Octavius, Lombards with (Fill in the blank..).

Well, in this fictional timeline the Rome/Carthage DLC would 100% be the first to release, and would probably be teased when the game came out

About Burmese leader. I know who Bayingnaung is. but not "Anahwrata"
Why Alaungbaya (Founder of Kongbong Dynasty) not chosen?

And Why you don't propose Siam too?
(I'd put King Narai or Ramadhipati I (Founder of Autthaya) or one of the two 1932 Revolutionary leaders (P. Phibunsongkram or P. Banomyong),)

And China. i'd like to see Liu Bang (A.K.A. Emperor Han Gaozong) leads this civ. i'd think he's better leader than Qin Shi Huang. Also Kangxi himself is not Chinese but rather Manchurian.

Anawrahta is the founder of Pagan, the first Burmese Empire, and expanded it to great heights

I didn't put Siam in because while I definitely think there should be multiple SEA civs I chose Burma for the base game as they have never shown up before and interest me greatly

As for China, yes the Qing were Manchurian in origin but afaik they are regarded as a Chinese dynasty, and Kangxi is a very interesting and influential emperor to me and thus was chosen