Designing Egypt in Civ7: Which Ramses should lead?

Which Ramses should lead Egypt in Civ7?

  • A. Ramses II

    Votes: 2 66.7%
  • B. Ramses III

    Votes: 1 33.3%

  • Total voters
    3
it would be disappointing to see Cleopatra again.
Every time Egypt has had a male leader it's been Ramses II, which has been 5 times. :)
The problem here these leaders were overrepresented, so that's why everyone agree it should change.
But these no Native Egyptian rethoric to disqualify Cleopatra was invented by Patine, and endorsed by Dale, to disquilify Piye as a possible civ leader.
But it's a terrible rethoric, Cleopatra and Ramsés shouldn't be in the game because were already made, maybe they can come back on civ8.
Who everyone really wants now is Akhenaton and Hatshepsut.
 
The problem here these leaders were overrepresented, so that's why everyone agree it should change.
But these no Native Egyptian rethoric to disqualify Cleopatra was invented by Patine, and endorsed by Dale, to disquilify Piye as a possible civ leader.
But it's a terrible rethoric, Cleopatra and Ramsés shouldn't be in the game because were already made, maybe they can come back on civ8.
Who everyone really wants now is Akhenaton and Hatshepsut.
Thank-you for disingenuously misrepresenting Dale and my argument to make flawed polemic attack... :nono:
 
One might even call them ptolemic attacks.

But much like the way it doesn't matter for now whether Cleopatra is a valid Egyptian leader choice, because the vast majority of us can agree she's an overused one, it doesn't matter whether Piye should or should not count as an egyptian leader, because the vast majority of us can agree he's neither important enough nor interesting enough to prioritize ahead of more significant or interesting figures. In both cases, there are a lot of interesting and/or important Egyptian leaders who deserve their turn ahead of those two.

If black people from the Nile region were completely unrepresented, maybe there might be a vague "interesting" case, but Nubia (and Ethiopia, for that matter) is in VI, so a Nubian-Egyptian leader on top of the Nubian one is just not a great case,
 
Last edited:
Yes, that's what I meant. Every time Egypt has had a male leader it's been Ramses II, which has been 5 times. :)
Yeah its kind of the same though for Egypt sort of like Gandhi for India or Elizabeth for England, for example, since they also came out on most of the civilization versions in the past also. If they put Rameses III it would look different.
 
I agree with @Patine

Here's a thought, why can't all players start as a blank slate, and acquire traits and bonuses based on how you play and what's around you? I've been asking for this for 4 Civs now, Civ7 would be the 5th.
 
I agree with @Patine

Here's a thought, why can't all players start as a blank slate, and acquire traits and bonuses based on how you play and what's around you? I've been asking for this for 4 Civs now, Civ7 would be the 5th.
How do leaders work in your Old World game? Regrettably, I likley won't be investing in it until I invest in a newer computer - currently, Civ6, WoW, and the remastered AoE3 from FE on Steam are my highest specs-demanding games. The blurb mentions, "great leaders, from the revered to the feared," but how do you deal with the issue, mechanically-speaking, if I may ask?
 
The idea of growing into bonuses as the game evolves is interesting, though I think you'd still want the historical leaders as avatar of their civs - not because 4x games need it (they obviously don't), but because Civ, specifically, is at this point I think indissociable from the idea of your avatar being immortal historical leader X.
 
How do leaders work in your Old World game? Regrettably, I likley won't be investing in it until I invest in a newer computer - currently, Civ6, WoW, and the remastered AoE3 from FE on Steam are my highest specs-demanding games. The blurb mentions, "great leaders, from the revered to the feared," but how do you deal with the issue, mechanically-speaking, if I may ask?
It's not an exact comparison between Civ and Old World. In Old World, it's the Dynasty that's important. Characters in OW age and die, to be replaced by those further down the family tree. You need to keep the line of succession going, through marriage, births, adoptions, legitimising bastards, etc. All your characters have unique traits and qualities, which can change over time depending on your actions in the game.

Old World also has a full leader customiser. You can completely customise all attributes of your starting leader with whatever options you like. You can even choose the horse portrait (you'd understand if you had the game :) ).

Old World has default starting leaders:
- Assyria: Ashurbanipal
- Babylonia: Nebuchadnezzar
- Carthage: Dido
- Egypt: Hatshepsut
- Greece: Phillip (of Macedon)
- Hatti: Hatusilli
- Persia: Cyrus
- Rome: Romulus

But yeah, not really a proper comparison.
 
Here's a thought, why can't all players start as a blank slate, and acquire traits and bonuses based on how you play and what's around you? I've been asking for this for 4 Civs now, Civ7 would be the 5th.
Civ already has this. Players thoroughly customize their empire with the bonuses from governments, policies, religious beliefs, wonders, city-states, etc.
 
Civ already has this. Players thoroughly customize their empire with the bonuses from governments, policies, religious beliefs, wonders, city-states, etc.
That's not what I meant.
 
Civ already has this. Players thoroughly customize their empire with the bonuses from governments, policies, religious beliefs, wonders, city-states, etc.
Civ has only part of this. You can customize your Civ with bonuses from everything EXCEPT the Leader, who is a Fixed Entity from 4000 BCE to 2023 and on in every game.
And that means that the Leader and their attributes that were perfectly wonderful in and for their own time has to also apply to another 5900+ years in the game. Because that is Damn Difficult, a great many Leaders as a result are considered much less powerful or useful than others, even though historically they may have had much greater 'impact' than others.
I suspect what @Dale is looking for is the same kind of flexibility and potential in Leaders that Civ VI has for the rest of the Civ's attributes in game.
 
What I meant is that you start the game with a blank civ and leader. Then as you start playing, you acquire civ and leader bonuses based on your actions, and/or your surrounds. Start on the coast and build some ships? Gain a bonus to shipbuilding or raids or a stronger early harbour. Have horses nearby and build some units with horses and win a battle with them? Maybe it unlocks a special horse based UU. Start near a mountain with gems, and you trade lots of jewellery with your neighbours? Gain access to produce Fine Jewellery with a +50% trade bonus.
 
What I meant is that you start the game with a blank civ and leader. Then as you start playing, you acquire civ and leader bonuses based on your actions, and/or your surrounds. Start on the coast and build some ships? Gain a bonus to shipbuilding or raids or a stronger early harbour. Have horses nearby and build some units with horses and win a battle with them? Maybe it unlocks a special horse based UU. Start near a mountain with gems, and you trade lots of jewellery with your neighbours? Gain access to produce Fine Jewellery with a +50% trade bonus.
I think, to be honest, given the momentum of the game and it's community, if this did happen, it would likely have to be an alternate play mode to having a standard Leader/Civ concept.
 
Like I said, we already have that I feel like. If you're on the coast and want to focus on naval abilities, you build the Great Lighthouse, slot in policies like Maritime Industries, and prioritize becoming suzerain of Wolin or Auckland. Etc. These things all give your civ the abilities you'd want and are the result of organic, emergent gameplay decisions.
 
What I meant is that you start the game with a blank civ and leader. Then as you start playing, you acquire civ and leader bonuses based on your actions, and/or your surrounds. Start on the coast and build some ships? Gain a bonus to shipbuilding or raids or a stronger early harbour. Have horses nearby and build some units with horses and win a battle with them? Maybe it unlocks a special horse based UU. Start near a mountain with gems, and you trade lots of jewellery with your neighbours? Gain access to produce Fine Jewellery with a +50% trade bonus.
That really sounds similar to what Humankind already does. It sounds like a cool idea but I don't know if I'd like it for Civ.
 
Like I said, we already have that I feel like. If you're on the coast and want to focus on naval abilities, you build the Great Lighthouse, slot in policies like Maritime Industries, and prioritize becoming suzerain of Wolin or Auckland. Etc. These things all give your civ the abilities you'd want and are the result of organic, emergent gameplay decisions.
And yet, as I said, you an do all kinds of things with your Civ, but nothing with your Leader, to 'customize' your attributes. Build Wonders, select Civics and Social Policies, build lots of certain Districts and Buildings, but your Maritime-resulting Civ still has a Leader who is as aquatic as a Brick and there's no chance of changing him/her or anything about them throughout the game.

Heck, you can even work towards acquiring certain Great People by accumulating points towards the ones you want, but although your Maritime Civ might have every Great Admiral in the game, your Leader is still the same Rubber Duckie he was in 4000 BCE.

One simple way to come at least closer to having a Civ/Leader whose attributes had some relevance to, say, the map and starting position, would be to change the Starting Sequence: Now you select your Civ and Leader and map type and size and maybe a few other things you like to play with, and then you get a starting position.
Instead, how about selecting map type and size, maybe number of opponents, and then you see your Starting Position and only Then do you select your Civ and Leader. No more Harald of Norway in the middle of the desert! - That alone might make me want to play Harry again . . .
 
To be honest we have already plenty of ways to gain different bonus to specialize your civ, like policies, religions/pantheons, resources, districts, citystates, great people, wonders, etc. Even eurekas and inspirations are pretty much short cuts for the preferred focus. Also get bonus just by pick or use something that you will do anyway, could produce some annoying effects like:
- Redundancy, if these bonus are as common and easy to get like use some X unit or take Y resource pretty much those would be like their passive bonus/status that they already have.
- Exacerbation, the accumulation of bonus could scale at the point that civs that did not developed the same aspect would end into an unsalvageable disadvantage. So now every civ that didnt move to the see since start would end being "rubber duckies" anyway.
- Triviality, meanwhile the bonuses that could be achieved by anyone would be "balanced" but pretty much that equals to "pointless" since most of the others civs would going to have it also.

Now I myself propose some new bonus that would add to the specialization methods list, but in a different way that is limited and force you to choose between mutually exclusive options:

- IDEOLOGIES, equivalent to civics+policies but they come from a more organic based on an action>event>decision system (similar to Beyond Earth missions and CIVs inspiration). They are also related to a Denizen centered model with three identitarian parameters Heritage (ethno-cultural), Belief (religion) and Class (social caste). One example of these decision events:

When you defeat an enemy faction (either BC/CS/Civ) for the first time instead of get a militar oriented "Honor" branch you get a decision event like this:
"My leader our heroic warriors have emerged victorious, bringing glory to all our nation. Now only remains the question of how to retribute our troops"
a) "The blood of our heroes was shed for this land, the less we can do is to honor their legacy with titles and riches" > HONOR​
b) "This victory is without question a divine blessing. Call the warriors and all the people to reverence at the shrines." > DEVOTION​
c) "They have served well their leader. Organize some celebrations and then redistribute the troops wherever are needed." > AUTHORITY​

So from an easy way to trigger this event (a militar victory) you can select the decision that customize your society in the way you want. Still with some pros and cons, for example more privileges for Warrior class in a) and Clergics in b) and temporal global happinest boost from c). Of course is important to note that these events are mostly one time per match for every civ.
Like we can see the decision dont just add a bonus to an endless list of bonus, it is exclusive to the others options so the player would gain but also lose in others areas, even to themes that were not so obvious from the very triggering action (win a battle is not just about military it could turn to be about social control or religion). They give you a clear narrative background to understand your own civ bonuses and flavor.

- TRADITIONS, these are exclusive bonuses and uniques (resources, units, buildings, etc.) that come from specific denizen's Heritages. In other words, each Heritage (culture) for both "main" (playable) and "minor" (non playable) civs have a tradition (bonus/unique), but there is also the option to gain more from others civs when population of some of those others civs are integrated into your empire.
This need you to manage population that by conquest, diplomacy or immigration ended being part of your cities until is not only quite conformable with your rule, but also they represent at least X% percentage of your total population. Also another limiting factor is that there would be a limited number of slots for these integrated heritages (say for example 3 by last era), so this way you can gain some nice bonus/uniques but not too many or too easy, all in a different way that the other already on game ways to gain specializations.
 
Last edited:
Of course, the leader being itself just another source of bonus to your civ, any customizing your leader become very hard to distinguish from customizing your civ.
 
Top Bottom