I appreciate hearing this from someone with a lot of games in, I felt like 6 games was enough to get a sense, but it sounds like you have experienced more leaders and came to a different conclusiont. Can you talk a bit about how the leaders felt distinct for you, and maybe your approach to selecting leader/civ matches through the games. As I said, I never really developed a different feel between each of my leaders and civs (despite forcing myself to sometimes take the less optimum path so I could try a new civ in a particular age).
Thanks
Sure. I had two Himiko Queen of Wa playthru's, one where I took a Khmer -> Hawaii -> Japan approach, and one where I took a Han -> Ming -> Japan approach. Both were dramatically different primarily because of civ-specific traditions, which you can use in later eras. So in the modern era, I could use Khmer traditions -- as an example.
Those traditions, for whatever reason, are not very well-advertised. Attribute this to UI or marketing, but for some reason what I find to be the most meaningful part of the game is somehow never mentioned. The fact that you can slot in traditions from civs you played in previous eras is a total gamechanger that can make each playthru seem
totally different.
Add to this some really nifty civ-specific narrative events, and you got yourself some memorable playthrus. I remember playing Tecumseh and going Miss -> Shawnee -> America. As my modern America industrialized and I angled for an economic victory, there were
events specific to the Shawnee exploration civ and/or Tecumseh, but in the modern era, as you modernize. These events were chiefs lamenting the loss of land / the gradual de-beautification of the landscape, thereby presenting me with a decision: barrel forward in the name of tribal progress for a hefty economic windfall, or seek advice from the elders, increasing culture yields on some of my ageless unique improvements. I think this event sequence was three separate pop-ups, and I really had to think carefully about what to decide.
There are, of course, more straightforward games, sure. My game with Ibn went Persia -> Abbasid -> Mughal ... though there were still some surprises along the way. The plague was particularly bad and my trade empire was threatened at the beginning of the modern era with a world war. I still managed a science victory. I remember it well. This was a great lineup to get my bearings, so to speak. I'd like to try Ibn again soon.
My military domination victory was with Amina. Aksum -> Songhai -> Buganda. Insanely fun. I actually could have also gotten an economic victory, but ran for an ideology early. A ragtag group of smaller civs put up quite a fight, but in the end, my troops prevailed. I was on a fractal map with a bunch of scattered islands, and I remember carriers factoring in heavily to this game. It was also when I first noticed the AI sending fleets for me. It was tense. This was my first victory on Immortal.
I also did a dual science/cultural victory with Pachacuti... Maya -> Inca -> Mexico. Mexico has been one of my favorites, too. They have some insanely fun unique policies and great people. This playthru was likewise distinct.
Now I am Lafayette. Carthage -> Norman -> ?. I'm thinking French Empire, though. There is a huge inland sea that is seeing a lot of action. Movement of troops, fleets. Catherine recently was so far ahead that I decided to land a ton of my cavalry in her lands and capture a few culture-heavy cities (I was mainly mad that she stole Notre Dame). Again, such a distinct playthru. My Carthaginian traditions that I can slot in have supremely bolstered my navy. I have a feeling this will help a lot when I transition to France in the modern era. Lafayette, too, has an ability to create new tradition/policy slots, so I've been able to slide even more in by being friendly with (some of) my neighbors. Harriet Tubman is in this game and geez she has been quite the menace, but now we are buds.
OK, so breaking these down, I guess I can distill the distinctiveness of my playthrus to these (there are more, but let's say this for now):
- Traditions carry over from previous civs, thereby making your civ really feel like it came from something else ... truly "layered" ... and it also makes each playthru so different because you can find that suddenly a card from the ancient era synergizes so well with your civ in the modern era, and completely pivot as a result
- Narrative events. Some are more fleshed out than others, but the ones that are can totally change your empire and provide a memorable experience
- The lack of balance. Yes, you heard that right. I love the lack of balance. Balance is totally overrated in 4x games. I'm actually worried they will move to balance the game in the future. The fact that Catherine could spring forward in culture gave me pause in the game. I had to shift my strategy if I was going to contend with her Russia in the modern era.
- Changing landscape. I like the capital changes, and how that alone can suddenly inject energy into a totally different area of your empire. I like that each era feels like you can focus on something different. You can propel yourself forward in new ways, using what you did before as a springboard, but not a wall or a claw holding you back.
- The leaders. Their abilities are so dramatically different from one another, and mixing and matching them with civs, events effects, and traditions can utilize different facets of their abilities that you may have not used in a previous playthru.
Sekou said:
I'm still bothered by one big mistake and that is I really believe Firaxis messed up by having you switch Civs instead of leaders.
Couldn't disagree more. I love the leaderheads and what they represent. Civ was never, ever meant to be historical simulation. The leaders have personality and you come to hate or love some of them when they show up. That's a good sign. They carry with them certain ideologies and practices that make the game feel like it's a stage play, and I love this. I play Old World for what you desire.
Humankind failed in this area, which is why I don't like it: the leaders are not distinct. In Civ7, I can already tell you the personalities of most of the leaders and what I think when I meet them in the field.