Designing Egypt in Civ7: Which Ramses should lead?

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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 . . .

That to me sounds counterproductive. When I decide to start a civ game I usually go in knowing which civ I want to play as. So if I want to play a naval civ like Harald, I'd reroll anyways. At least starting with civs/leaders at the beginning they do have start biases which helps. I'm not sure if personas are different, but original Harald has a bias towards the coast.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That to me sounds counterproductive. When I decide to start a civ game I usually go in knowing which civ I want to play as. So if I want to play a naval civ like Harald, I'd reroll anyways. At least starting with civs/leaders at the beginning they do have start biases which helps. I'm not sure if personas are different, but original Harald has a bias towards the coast.

Never said it was perfect, but it's a 'solution' that requires the least manipulating of the current game mechanics in regard to Leaders and graphics and map generation.

Ideally, of course, a map would be generated that gave appropriate starting positions for the Civ/Leader you are playing, but since Civ hasn't managed that in at least the last 2 versions of the basic game, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Next best, since I agree that many people want to play X Civ with Y Attributes on a Z Map, would be the ability to pick from native and general attributes to 'warp' your Civ according to the map/starting position you wind up with. That, however, would require a lot of work coming up with multiple Uniques for each Civ plus a number of 'generic' Uniques for extreme terrain situations, like Mongols on a jungle island or Canada in the desert or Norway in the exact middle of a Pangaea-like continent.

Frankly, although everyone is used to it, the current model in which a Fixed Civ and Leader attributes are supposed to magically arise regardless of the conditions of terrain, climate, biome and geographical situation makes no sense at all. You are right next to Mongols, Zulus, and Aztecs, but are determined to remain a peaceful bunch of farmers. No, you are determined to be Extinct very shortly, bcause the situation Demands different Uniques than what you were given in the fixed model that is all that Civ allows.

 

[pokiehl]

I think we’d lose something by making it so the player can optimize their start every time…but in general I think this issue will become less annoying if they just design civs that aren’t so rigidly terrain-dependent.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Never said it was perfect, but it's a 'solution' that requires the least manipulating of the current game mechanics in regard to Leaders and graphics and map generation.

Ideally, of course, a map would be generated that gave appropriate starting positions for the Civ/Leader you are playing, but since Civ hasn't managed that in at least the last 2 versions of the basic game, I wouldn't hold my breath.

My hope is that a possible Nomadic/Neolithic Era where you wander around before permanently settling your first city would possibly end that headache.

I think we’d lose something by making it so the player can optimize their start every time…but in general I think this issue will become less annoying if they just design civs that aren’t so rigidly terrain-dependent.

I could see that happening. However, I think there are some civs that would still need to be. The Inca come to mind, as well as any civ that has a UU naval unit will eventually need to find some access to the coast.

 

[pokiehl]

My hope is that a possible Nomadic/Neolithic Era where you wander around before permanently settling your first city would possibly end that headache.

I know this idea gets floated around a lot but I quite dislike it. I don't think it did Humankind any favors.

I could see that happening. However, I think there are some civs that would still need to be. The Inca come to mind, as well as any civ that has a UU naval unit will eventually need to find some access to the coast.

You're of course right. There are some terrain-focused tropes that are always going to be represented (Inca being mountain focused), and of course coastal civs need coast, but I just think we went overboard with it in Civ 6 designs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I know this idea gets floated around a lot but I quite dislike it. I don't think it did Humankind any favors.

I think making it at least a toggleable game mode could work. Toggleable modes might be the direction they are going anyway.

 

[BuchiTaton]

The situation with civs appearing in a place not fitting with their bonus is a thing of proper world generation. It is not only possible for devs to do it better, it SHOULD be better like also the AI should be better. CIV5-6 modders have demostrated that if is possible for them it is also for Firaxis, they must do a better job with CIV7.
The small size of map and the district hoarding in CIV6 only turn worse the problem of bad starting points, since the world generation has few tiles to put all the different terrains and players hindering the chances to put every civ on their proper place.

I am also for a Neolithic Era that allows to already start building Villages (improvements) all around, included the one you choose to turn into your first City (action that advance you to Ancient Era). About this last, the kind of resource from the Villages you turn into your first City provides one from three early Ideologies (civic/policies); Agrarian, Pastorial or Maritime society (or Agrarialism, Pastorialism and Maritimism), with their own related bonus and uniques.

By the way one problem I have with CIVs traditional "Ancient Era" is that it mix the date and concepts of the historical urban states with actions that would be better represented in a "prehistoric" era like the exploration focus and settlement with techs from the neolithic. By the way Humankind goes to the other extreme with a very nomadic focus, so my question is...Where are the already sedentary/semidesentary pastorial, agrarian and maritime tribal villages?
Both CIV and Humankind fail to represent that point between nomadic bands and urban kingdoms, something that would also help Ancient Era to be less rushed and empty.

 

[Dale]

When I decide to start a civ game I usually go in knowing which civ I want to play as. So if I want to play a naval civ like Harald, I'd reroll anyways.

And this demonstrates why Civ6 essentially boils down to a single decision game. The only decision you REALLY make in Civ6, is which Civ to play. Once you pick your Civ, you have pre-determined how to play the whole game.

In my very personal opinion, this is why I believe Civ6 is the worst of all the Civ games.

 

[Patine]

And this demonstrates why Civ6 essentially boils down to a single decision game. The only decision you REALLY make in Civ6, is which Civ to play. Once you pick your Civ, you have pre-determined how to play the whole game.

In my very personal opinion, this is why I believe Civ6 is the worst of all the Civ games.

Although I've never played Civ4 or Civ5, Civ2 is my personal favourite - for the greatest ease of modding, mostly. Although, in Civ2, your civ is just a name, portrait, colour, starting point on official maps, and default Ancient City Architecture (that can be changed, along with the leader's name, civ name, and every city name when founded). Albeit, it's Vanilla game is rudeimentary (but was absolutely astounding for 1996).

 

[Henri Christophe]

In my very personal opinion, this is why I believe Civ6 is the worst of all the Civ games.

Although I've never played Civ4 or Civ5, Civ2 is my personal favourite

I just played 5 and 6, and despite 6 crash a lot, it have some mechanics better then previous.
For example, the city just have a ranged shot if it has walls
If you kidnap a settler, in civ 6, it don't are transformed at a workers as in civ5.
And I feel the militar units are more stronger in civ6 with more funny promotions.


I rly don't like loyallity system in civ6, make impossible sometimes make a conquest if you are struglling to survive, at least in civ5 mechanic of unhappnies, just spawn some barbarians in your empire who you can kill and win culture if you have all honor policies.

Also, I don't fell as civ6 is more diverse then 5, what is a important metric to me and more one raison why I agree with you about Civ6 being, at least, worst then 5.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

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.

1) Because the current system works better for marketing purposes. Every time a new game or expansion is announced there is a flurry of discussion and debate, here and on other social media platforms, about which civilizations be included in the game. This drives up engagement and hype, especially with the marketing type enchancing it via their trickle-by-trickle reveal style, which is what every good company wants. It also doubles as a good strategy to get new players into the series. I don't have any stats to back this up, but I'm pretty sure that the first-time inclusions of Indonesia (Civ5) and Vietnam (Civ6) drew a flock of newbies from those respective countries.

2) Too radical a change for the series. I see Civilization not as a single-decision game but rather as a choose-your-faction one. That these factions are based on real-life historical states and individuals is one of its chief draws. Strip away the mechanic of choosing a faction and replace it with a bland placeholder and you alienate a lot of people who would like to play as this or that faction with all the flavour and uniqueness and immersion that comes with it.