.

[bv98132454]

And this is exactly why the civ is switching instead of the leader. The main identification for the faction is their leader. That's who you'll keep track of all game; that's who you feel like you're playing against (and as, I suppose). If something has to stay the same so you recognize you're playing against the same faction, it should be the leader (aka player).

I've always identified with the Civs, not with the leaders. When there are multiple leaders, I just viewed them as different flavors of the same Civ.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I've always identified with the Civs, not with the leaders. When there are multiple leaders, I just viewed them as different flavors of the same Civ.

Same. TBH I've always found the animated leaders kind of annoying.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I can't personally speak for everyone, but I'd much rather see Chandragupta into Gandhi, and vice versa.

The question here specifically is not: "which would you prefer" but: "would you consider Chandragupta and Gandhi as similar opponents?" which, I think, you wouldn't. Playing against Chandragupta feels closer to playing against Alexander than against Gandhi, despite being the same civ. That's the point I'm trying to make: in Civ VI at least, the leader against whom you are define more your opponent than the civ they lead.

And we're not talking about the merits of including Eleanor of Kublai Khan, but about how they feel in game as opponents. And, in my experience, playing against FrEleanor or against EnglEanor feels more similar than playing against EnglEanor or Victoria or Elizabeth, or playing against FrEleanor or Catherine de Medici. They're might be a gimmick, but they illustrate the main point: that it's the leader that define an opponent more than the civilization, and that if a dev wants to ingrain a sense of continuity in your opponents, they better do it through the leaders than through the civilizations themselves.

Because a civilization is more defined by what they can do while a leader is more defined by how or why they'd do something. Because one is solely a bunch of abilities, while the other also have a personality, and it's the personality that define more how someone react. And while you might try to impose a personality over a civilization, it's easier to do it through a leader who is a human and is similar to us. Civilizations are eldritch beings beyond our understanding, and applying to them our meager ways of thought is futile, while creating a personality for a person (even them being an immortal caricature) would be more palatable for humans, and despite what some of us might project, nearly all players of Civ games are humans.

You'll have a better sense of continuity in the game if you are against a faction that might build mastabas then ordus then guillotines, but lead by the same warmongering twink, than if you played against the same civilization that, from end to finish, can build aqueducts but is successively led by a warmonger, then a urbanizer then an aesthet.

That's why keeping the leaders is the best choice in terms of gameplay. Not ranking opinions, it's purely in terms of outcomes. It's like the whole builder/worker things. Some people might prefer to move little characters along the map to build improvements, while some might prefer to do it through your pop growth, and both opinions are valid. However, in term of gameplay, of tediousness and of city management, getting rid of builders is objectively the best choice as it reduces clicks and allows more time for the player for the thinking part of the process rather than the clicking part of it. Just like identifying to the civ rather than the leader, or vice-versa, is valid both ways; but in term of gameplay and continuity, keeping the leader is the superior decision than the civ.

(And that's without taking into consideration some external choices, like you'll have civs that lack leaders in earlier or later eras, so you're bound to have leaders that aren't tied to their civilization, so you're fated to have unrelated civs and leaders at some point, so you'd always have a moment where you look at a civ through their leaders being their main communication portal, and thinking: "wait, this leader makes no sense, who are they leading again? Which diplomatic stance had I with them?".)

I've always identified with the Civs, not with the leaders. When there are multiple leaders, I just viewed them as different flavors of the same Civ.

So, genuine question: you play against Chandragupta the same way you play against Gandhi? Because if they are merely different flavours of the same civ, that's what it would entail, right? And you play against FrEleanor and EnglEanor more differently than if you played against EnglEanor and Elizabeth? Because it's not just "viewing", the most important thing is how you react to those opponents. Actions here are more relevant than thoughts.

 

[TheGrayFox]

The question here specifically is not: "which would you prefer" but: "would you consider Chandragupta and Gandhi as similar opponents?" which, I think, you wouldn't. Playing against Chandragupta feels closer to playing against Alexander than against Gandhi, despite being the same civ. That's the point I'm trying to make: in Civ VI at least, the leader against whom you are define more your opponent than the civ they lead.

I don't consider Benjamin Franklin morphing from the Greeks into the Mongols into America to be the same opponent either. The same way you feel about leaders here is the way many of us feel about civilizations too

I don't know why you're so fixated on Elenor either. If I was playing Civ 6 I would never play with both civs being lead by her in the first place.

 

[DWilson]

The question here specifically is not: "which would you prefer" but: "would you consider Chandragupta and Gandhi as similar opponents?" which, I think, you wouldn't. Playing against Chandragupta feels closer to playing against Alexander than against Gandhi, despite being the same civ. That's the point I'm trying to make: in Civ VI at least, the leader against whom you are define more your opponent than the civ they lead.

And we're not talking about the merits of including Eleanor of Kublai Khan, but about how they feel in game as opponents. And, in my experience, playing against FrEleanor or against EnglEanor feels more similar than playing against EnglEanor or Victoria or Elizabeth, or playing against FrEleanor or Catherine de Medici. They're might be a gimmick, but they illustrate the main point: that it's the leader that define an opponent more than the civilization, and that if a dev wants to ingrain a sense of continuity in your opponents, they better do it through the leaders than through the civilizations themselves.

Because a civilization is more defined by what they can do while a leader is more defined by how or why they'd do something. Because one is solely a bunch of abilities, while the other also have a personality, and it's the personality that define more how someone react. And while you might try to impose a personality over a civilization, it's easier to do it through a leader who is a human and is similar to us. Civilizations are eldritch beings beyond our understanding, and applying to them our meager ways of thought is futile, while creating a personality for a person (even them being an immortal caricature) would be more palatable for humans, and despite what some of us might project, nearly all players of Civ games are humans.

You'll have a better sense of continuity in the game if you are against a faction that might build mastabas then ordus then guillotines, but lead by the same warmongering twink, than if you played against the same civilization that, from end to finish, can build aqueducts but is successively led by a warmonger, then a urbanizer then an aesthet.

That's why keeping the leaders is the best choice in terms of gameplay. Not ranking opinions, it's purely in terms of outcomes. It's like the whole builder/worker things. Some people might prefer to move little characters along the map to build improvements, while some might prefer to do it through your pop growth, and both opinions are valid. However, in term of gameplay, of tediousness and of city management, getting rid of builders is objectively the best choice as it reduces clicks and allows more time for the player for the thinking part of the process rather than the clicking part of it. Just like identifying to the civ rather than the leader, or vice-versa, is valid both ways; but in term of gameplay and continuity, keeping the leader is the superior decision than the civ.

(And that's without taking into consideration some external choices, like you'll have civs that lack leaders in earlier or later eras, so you're bound to have leaders that aren't tied to their civilization, so you're fated to have unrelated civs and leaders at some point, so you'd always have a moment where you look at a civ through their leaders being their main communication portal, and thinking: "wait, this leader makes no sense, who are they leading again? Which diplomatic stance had I with them?".)

So, genuine question: you play against Chandragupta the same way you play against Gandhi? Because if they are merely different flavours of the same civ, that's what it would entail, right? And you play against FrEleanor and EnglEanor more differently than if you played against EnglEanor and Elizabeth? Because it's not just "viewing", the most important thing is how you react to those opponents. Actions here are more relevant than thoughts.

I think the distinction you're missing is you are talking about who they're playing against, where as they're talking about who they're playing as. To which I think both are correct, and that's why I think neither should change

 

[bv98132454]

Here's my argument for why leader swapping is superior to civ swapping (in no particular order):

1. Leader swapping has more support from previous Civilization games
Previous Civilization games have had multiple leaders for the same Civ. This at least provides some precedent for allowing the player to switch between different leaders. Civ swapping has precisely one element of support in previous games (Eleanor of Aquitaine).

2. Leader swapping is more realistic
The premise the developers provided in their (mostly abysmal) reveal last week, was that Civilizations transform into something else when faced with a crisis. This is only really true if you look at the crisis as one of being conquered, subjugated, or colonized. Anglo-Saxons became English because they were conquered, not because they were faced with some nebulous crisis.

It is far more in line with human nature to look to a new leader in a time of crisis, rather than wholesale changes to ones culture, traditions, language, etc.

3. Leader swapping provides for more interesting gameplay
I fundamentally disagree with the developers' reasoning for adding civ swapping into the game, which is to always have civs that are well-suited to the time they are in. I believe this is a huge misunderstanding of their own game. Since Civilization 3, when we first saw differences between civs, a core challenge to Civilization gameplay has been navigating times where your civ lacks advantages and capitalizing on times where it has advantages. It makes for interesting gameplay when you have to take drastic actions to bring the situation more in your civ's favor.

With leader swapping, you would have choices of different leaders, but no guarantee that any of them are perfectly suited to the time and place your Civ is in, keeping a core challenge of Civilization in the game. Civ swapping, as proposed, removes that challenge.

4. Leader swapping removes what I believe is problematic cultural commentary
Humans are not interchangeable widgets which easily transition from one culture to another. The idea of Egypt becoming Mongolia or Songhai without being invaded and subjugated is proposterous.

5. Leader swapping allows for roleplaying or creating a new history as a civ, which many players enjoy
This isn't particularly important to me, but many players like having modern Romans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, etc. Civ swapping removes that aspect of gameplay.

 

[Arent11]

(6) You build a "civilization that stands the test of time". That's the stated goal of civ 1. From the stone age to alpha centauri.

You're not building a leader that stands the test of time.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

I don't know why you're so fixated on Elenor either. If I was playing Civ 6 I would never play with both civs being lead by her in the first place.

I'm fixating about her because, rather than discussing on the comet about hypothetical situations that might or might not happen, I'm actually taking experience from the closest thing to it that actually happened.

We're talking about: "what is the best: civ with different leaders or leaders with different civs?" and io and behold, we already have historical cases and actual evidences of both cases to compare it and analyze it and draw conclusions from. We have civs with different leaders (like India) and we have leaders with different civs (like Eleanor). I'm fixating on Eleanor because she's one of the two we can take example on, she was the first and the longest and most people have interacted with her than Kublai Khan that appeared later in the New Fronier Pass, at the time of which lots of people have already lost interest or not bought at all, so using him as a comparison would be less relevant.

That's why I'm talking about her, because we have the examples and experience and cases to talk about the difference between facing a civ that could be led by different leaders and a leader that could lead different civs. If you prefer to talk in a vacuum based purely on hypothetical, do it, be my guest, but that would be utterly pointless as, without factual elements to base your argumentation on apart from vague feeling, you won't really go far into the discussion.

The question to ask, that would be difficult to answer, would be: what's the biggest danger? People not identifying with their civs (while keeping the same cities, the same urbanization, the same historical unique buildings and districts, the same legacy bonuses and lots of elements except a name and a bonus), or people not keeping track of who their neighbors are, who were they at war with, who were your trade partners and who were your friends? I think, personally, that the biggest danger would be loosing track of who your opponents are rather than who you are; because we always know who we are, but it's more difficult to keep track of others. But here we enter the realms of pure personal appreciation and I have no elements that would be more factual to defend my position, so it's still in the open and at each their own appreciation.

I think the distinction you're missing is you are talking about who they're playing against, where is there talking about who they're playing as. To which I think both are correct, and that's why I think neither should change

Except that the starting postulate is: "something must change. Now, which one?". I'm sorry, but saying "none" is quite pointless to the whole exercise. It's like saying: "who would you think people should vote for the next election?" and you'd say: "I'd prefer if we were in an hereditary monarchy". Which... yes, OK, good for you, but that wasn't the point here. We weren't talking about the merit of different forms of government, but in this specific instance of this specific form of goverment where we have to have winner in the next election (and won't throw a revolution right away), who would you think we should have?

However, your other point stands out and is perfectly valid. It's just that, in lots of comments, people were also talking about how they would recognize their neighbors and opponents, so it's also a valid part to take into account. As for the: "the civilization I belong to"... Yeah, that's a personal opinion that I don't personally adhere to as I see civilization more as a bundle of abilities and skins, but skins changed over time (your cities don't have the same architecture in the Ancient Era than in the Information Era), and I saw way more often the names of other civilizations than my own. If anything, the thing I identify with most would be the name of my cities... but this will be a thing that would stay along the Ages, so it wouldn't change a thing.

(6) You build a "civilization that stands the test of time". That's the stated goal of civ 1. From the stone age to alpha centauri.

You're not building a leader that stands the test of time.

Except that it's still your civilization? You keep your old districts, your older cities keep their names, you keep legacy parts... Your civilization is the same, it just gain new bonuses (which is better gameplay wise) and changed a bit of skin (which already happened with changing architecture), but ultimately it will still be the legacy and heritage you build upon, right?

In our real world, we're still talking about the Western Civilization and we draw a continuity from the Romans and the Greeks, despite having different names, cultures, languages and borders. That's what a civilization is, right? So a civilization that evolved through the ages but staid put is standing the test of time.

That's basic object permanence. How can so many people be thrown away by such a basic thing?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The question here specifically is not: "which would you prefer" but: "would you consider Chandragupta and Gandhi as similar opponents?" which, I think, you wouldn't. Playing against Chandragupta feels closer to playing against Alexander than against Gandhi, despite being the same civ. That's the point I'm trying to make: in Civ VI at least, the leader against whom you are define more your opponent than the civ they lead.

And we're not talking about the merits of including Eleanor of Kublai Khan, but about how they feel in game as opponents. And, in my experience, playing against FrEleanor or against EnglEanor feels more similar than playing against EnglEanor or Victoria or Elizabeth, or playing against FrEleanor or Catherine de Medici. They're might be a gimmick, but they illustrate the main point: that it's the leader that define an opponent more than the civilization, and that if a dev wants to ingrain a sense of continuity in your opponents, they better do it through the leaders than through the civilizations themselves.

Because a civilization is more defined by what they can do while a leader is more defined by how or why they'd do something. Because one is solely a bunch of abilities, while the other also have a personality, and it's the personality that define more how someone react. And while you might try to impose a personality over a civilization, it's easier to do it through a leader who is a human and is similar to us. Civilizations are eldritch beings beyond our understanding, and applying to them our meager ways of thought is futile, while creating a personality for a person (even them being an immortal caricature) would be more palatable for humans, and despite what some of us might project, nearly all players of Civ games are humans.

You'll have a better sense of continuity in the game if you are against a faction that might build mastabas then ordus then guillotines, but lead by the same warmongering twink, than if you played against the same civilization that, from end to finish, can build aqueducts but is successively led by a warmonger, then a urbanizer then an aesthet.

That's why keeping the leaders is the best choice in terms of gameplay. Not ranking opinions, it's purely in terms of outcomes. It's like the whole builder/worker things. Some people might prefer to move little characters along the map to build improvements, while some might prefer to do it through your pop growth, and both opinions are valid. However, in term of gameplay, of tediousness and of city management, getting rid of builders is objectively the best choice as it reduces clicks and allows more time for the player for the thinking part of the process rather than the clicking part of it. Just like identifying to the civ rather than the leader, or vice-versa, is valid both ways; but in term of gameplay and continuity, keeping the leader is the superior decision than the civ.

(And that's without taking into consideration some external choices, like you'll have civs that lack leaders in earlier or later eras, so you're bound to have leaders that aren't tied to their civilization, so you're fated to have unrelated civs and leaders at some point, so you'd always have a moment where you look at a civ through their leaders being their main communication portal, and thinking: "wait, this leader makes no sense, who are they leading again? Which diplomatic stance had I with them?".)

So, genuine question: you play against Chandragupta the same way you play against Gandhi? Because if they are merely different flavours of the same civ, that's what it would entail, right? And you play against FrEleanor and EnglEanor more differently than if you played against EnglEanor and Elizabeth? Because it's not just "viewing", the most important thing is how you react to those opponents. Actions here are more relevant than thoughts.

You do bring up an interesting point about the opponents. Even though I tend to associate more with the civ I choose in game, I definitely pay more attention the leaders of the other civs probably because I do interact with them.

So yes, in regard to leader switching, I was really only thinking about the idea of you as the player switching leaders, depending on what bonuses you might want at a particular time. We've already seen that to an extent with social policies and governments etc. If that's the case, there can also always be an option for "no leader switching for the AI."

I've also said multiple times that I wouldn't tie leaders to certain eras either. If you wanted to start a game with Napoleon as France to expand quickly and then jump to Louis XIV to build wonders, or stay as Napoleon and conquer the world the whole game, it doesn't matter to me.

 

[bv98132454]

I'm fixating about her because, rather than discussing on the comet about hypothetical situations that might or might not happen, I'm actually taking experience from the closest thing to it that actually happened.

We're talking about: "what is the best: civ with different leaders or leaders with different civs?" and io and behold, we already have historical cases and actual evidences of both cases to compare it and analyze it and draw conclusions from. We have civs with different leaders (like India) and we have leaders with different civs (like Eleanor). I'm fixating on Eleanor because she's one of the two we can take example on, she was the first and the longest and most people have interacted with her than Kublai Khan that appeared later in the New Fronier Pass, at the time of which lots of people have already lost interest or not bought at all, so using him as a comparison would be less relevant.

That's why I'm talking about her, because we have the examples and experience and cases to talk about the difference between facing a civ that could be led by different leaders and a leader that could lead different civs. If you prefer to talk in a vacuum based purely on hypothetical, do it, be my guest, but that would be utterly pointless as, without factual elements to base your argumentation on apart from vague feeling, you won't really go far into the discussion.

The question to ask, that would be difficult to answer, would be: what's the biggest danger? People not identifying with their civs (while keeping the same cities, the same urbanization, the same historical unique buildings and districts, the same legacy bonuses and lots of elements except a name and a bonus), or people not keeping track of who their neighbors are, who were they at war with, who were your trade partners and who were your friends? I think, personally, that the biggest danger would be loosing track of who your opponents are rather than who you are; because we always know who we are, but it's more difficult to keep track of others. But here we enter the realms of pure personal appreciation and I have no elements that would be more factual to defend my position, so it's still in the open and at each their own appreciation.

Except that the starting postulate is: "something must change. Now, which one?". I'm sorry, but saying "none" is quite pointless to the whole exercise. It's like saying: "who would you think people should vote for the next election?" and you'd say: "I'd prefer if we were in an hereditary monarchy". Which... yes, OK, good for you, but that wasn't the point here. We weren't talking about the merit of different forms of government, but in this specific instance of this specific form of goverment where we have to have winner in the next election (and won't throw a revolution right away), who would you think we should have?

However, your other point stands out and is perfectly valid. It's just that, in lots of comments, people were also talking about how they would recognize their neighbors and opponents, so it's also a valid part to take into account. As for the: "the civilization I belong to"... Yeah, that's a personal opinion that I don't personally adhere to as I see civilization more as a bundle of abilities and skins, but skins changed over time (your cities don't have the same architecture in the Ancient Era than in the Information Era), and I saw way more often the names of other civilizations than my own. If anything, the thing I identify with most would be the name of my cities... but this will be a thing that would stay along the Ages, so it wouldn't change a thing.

Except that it's still your civilization? You keep your old districts, your older cities keep their names, you keep legacy parts... Your civilization is the same, it just gain new bonuses (which is better gameplay wise) and changed a bit of skin (which already happened with changing architecture), but ultimately it will still be the legacy and heritage you build upon, right?

In our real world, we're still talking about the Western Civilization and we draw a continuity from the Romans and the Greeks, despite having different names, cultures, languages and borders. That's what a civilization is, right? So a civilization that evolved through the ages but staid put is standing the test of time.

That's basic object permanence. How can so many people be thrown away by such a basic thing?

I've never went into the game setup page thinking about what leader I want to play as. I always decide what civ I want to play as first. If there are multiple leader options, that choice comes after.

 

[Arent11]

Except that it's still your civilization? You keep your old districts, your older cities keep their names, you keep legacy parts... Your civilization is the same, it just gain new bonuses (which is better gameplay wise) and changed a bit of skin (which already happened with changing architecture), but ultimately it will still be the legacy and heritage you build upon, right?

Great! Then can I keep calling it Rome, have cool legion banners & red flags? After all, my civilization is the same, it just gained new bonuses?

It would also be ok to call if "Rome 40k" and conquer the galaxy

 

[bv98132454]

But is that civilization the label (name, art work, adjective, map colour, etc...) that you pick at the game creation screen? Or is it the sum total of every city, unit, improvement, and wonder you've built; every technology you've researched, every missionary you've sent? Which of the two is the permanent object, and which are the malleable properties that is has? Did you take a pre-existing Babylon to space? Or did you build a new civilization that had the name Babylon to space? The latter can survive a change of the label, the former cannot. The former can survive an extended loss of player control where things "randomly" change to it, the latter cannot.

[The 3rd alternative would be is that it's the leader which is the permanent object, and both of the others merely it's attribute].


Honestly, I think there's some fascinating aspect of the psychology of gaming in here.

The game is called Civilization, not Leader. I think that sums up my feelings rather succinctly.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

1. Leader swapping has more support from previous Civilization games
Previous Civilization games have had multiple leaders for the same Civ. This at least provides some precedent for allowing the player to switch between different leaders. Civ swapping has precisely one element of support in previous games (Eleanor of Aquitaine).

Except that, in Civ VI, you choose a leader to play, not a civ. I was the leaders that were proposed. And even in the case of Eleanor, you choose "Eleanor (France)" or "Eleanor (England)". But you didn't choose "India (Chandragupta)" or "Greece (Gorgo)". It was Chandragupta or Gandhi or Pericles or Gorgo. If anything, this point more about the leader being the defining characteristic rather than the civ.

2. Leader swapping is more realistic
The premise the developers provided in their (mostly abysmal) reveal last week, was that Civilizations transform into something else when faced with a crisis. This is only really true if you look at the crisis as one of being conquered, subjugated, or colonized. Anglo-Saxons became English because they were conquered, not because they were faced with some nebulous crisis.

Except... it's not. In both cases, you have an immortal leader. Having him die after a three thousands year instead of staying until six thousands years is not "more realistic". They're both unrealistic to such degrees that making a difference is pointless.

Also, I thought we went through it, but "realism" shoudl absolutely not be an argument in the discussions about a game where Montezuma built the Hanging Gardens in the taoist holy city of Timbuktu. Talking about immersion is much more relevant. However, I personally don't feel than swapping leader would be more immersive than swapping civs.

5. Leader swapping allows for roleplaying or creating a new history as a civ, which many players enjoy
This isn't particularly important to me, but many players like having modern Romans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, etc. Civ swapping removes that aspect of gameplay.

I'd say the opposite. Despite everthing, we're all humans, and most people have an easier time roleplaying as people (even immortal leaders) than as countries.

I spent some years on a political forums where each player was roleplaying a country; but, to be honest, we were all more roleplaying as the main characters of the countries than the country in itself. When talking to another kingdom, I was talking mainly to their queen or her ambassador more than the country itself. It was a necessary basis, but even their, where we were roleplaying countries, we naturally chose to use characters as the main roleplaying element.

And I say that as someone who loves roleplaying countries and nations and blocks like that.

I've also said multiple times that I wouldn't tie leaders to certain eras either. If you wanted to start a game with Napoleon as France to expand quickly and then jump to Louis XIV to build wonders, or stay as Napoleon and conquer the world the whole game, it doesn't matter to me.

While I personally have no problem with this idea, just imagine the uproar of the fanbase about "breaking immersion". They already can't stand having Franklin leading Rome, do you imagine how their mind would break if you could play Louis XIV after Napoléon?

Great! Then can I keep calling it Rome, have cool legion banners & red flags? After all, my civilization is the same, it just gained new bonuses?

Sure, why not? Have some generic bonuses without any cultural tie to how and why you have them, just pile them up atop from each other! That's what Humankind did, and at the end, each civ was looking exactly the same.

More realistically, the point of having a civ rather than a bunch of bonuses under a generic flag or name is that the player know what kind of bonuses they can have through a superficial knowledge of what they are. Mongolians? I can expect to have horses. Rome? I can expect them to be good builders and conquerors. Byzantium? I can expect them to be good at religion. But adding new bonuses on top of each other will cause problems, because you'll have to have generic bonuses untied to the civilization itself. Because what bonuses would you give to Information Era Romans? And what bonuses would you give to Ancient Era Americans? So, for those civs, you'd have to have "generic" bonuses that are untied to History for when you play them at those eras. And you'd loose what make each part of your history meaningful. You wouldn't be the wonder-building Egyptians, you would be the wonder-building, horse-riding, trinket manufacturing, literary artists known as the Egyptians, while the neighboring romans who made the same choices would be the city-building, horse-riding, trinket manufacturing, literary artists known as the Romans, and they would loose their identity much quicker than otherwise. Which, for people who seem to care about identity, would make you go the opposite way of what you're looking for. Instead of having civilizations you can relate to, you'll end up with a mash-up of random bonuses than end up having no identity, like in Humankind.

The game is called Civilization, not Leader. I think that sums up my feelings rather succinctly.

Except we never played civilizations. Because playing a civilization would be at the same time much more restricted and too broad to have any meaning.

Prithee, pray tell: give me a definition of civilization that could explain having at the same time British England and British Scotland, having at the same time the city-State of Venice and the nomadic Huns, that split the Romans and the Romans between two separate civilizations (here the Byzantium) while still presenting as a same civilization the Mauryas and modern day India, a definition that include at the same time the cultural people known as Maoris and the modern nation-state built as Australia, a definition that ended up separating Germany and Austria while often depicting Germany in its state where Austria was blended into the monstrosity that was the HRE? The definition of a "civilization" is so nonsensical that staying on the idea what we play a "civilization" makes no sense.

Here, we would be playing civilizations, in the way that civilizations evolved and changed name. In the way that Rome became Byzantium rather than being two distinct "civilizations". In the way that modern day Germans and Italians and French all reclaim the heritage of the Roman and Greek civilization. We'll claim the heritage of our previous "civs", while still being one age-spanning civilization that, despite what you may say, will stand the test of time, by evolving rather than monolithically staying the same.

(Also, the games Victoria, Victoria 2 and Victoria 3 dared existed while allowing us to play other people than queen Victoria. What a shame. Everyone knows that a game should stick exclusively to what the title say rather than exploring new avenues.)

 

[bv98132454]

Except that, in Civ VI, you choose a leader to play, not a civ. I was the leaders that were proposed. And even in the case of Eleanor, you choose "Eleanor (France)" or "Eleanor (England)". But you didn't choose "India (Chandragupta)" or "Greece (Gorgo)". It was Chandragupta or Gandhi or Pericles or Gorgo. If anything, this point more about the leader being the defining characteristic rather than the civ.

Except... it's not. In both cases, you have an immortal leader. Having him die after a three thousands year instead of staying until six thousands years is not "more realistic". They're both unrealistic to such degrees that making a difference is pointless.

Also, I thought we went through it, but "realism" shoudl absolutely not be an argument in the discussions about a game where Montezuma built the Hanging Gardens in the taoist holy city of Timbuktu. Talking about immersion is much more relevant. However, I personally don't feel than swapping leader would be more immersive than swapping civs.

I'd say the opposite. Despite everthing, we're all humans, and most people have an easier time roleplaying as people (even immortal leaders) than as countries.

I spent some years on a political forums where each player was roleplaying a country; but, to be honest, we were all more roleplaying as the main characters of the countries than the country in itself. When talking to another kingdom, I was talking mainly to their queen or her ambassador more than the country itself. It was a necessary basis, but even their, where we were roleplaying countries, we naturally chose to use characters as the main roleplaying element.

And I say that as someone who loves roleplaying countries and nations and blocks like that.

While I personally have no problem with this idea, just imagine the uproar of the fanbase about "breaking immersion". They already can't stand having Franklin leading Rome, do you imagine how their mind would break if you could play Louis XIV after Napoléon?

Sure, why not? Have some generic bonuses without any cultural tie to how and why you have them, just pile them up atop from each other! That's what Humankind did, and at the end, each civ was looking exactly the same.

More realistically, the point of having a civ rather than a bunch of bonuses under a generic flag or name is that the player know what kind of bonuses they can have through a superficial knowledge of what they are. Mongolians? I can expect to have horses. Rome? I can expect them to be good builders and conquerors. Byzantium? I can expect them to be good at religion. But adding new bonuses on top of each other will cause problems, because you'll have to have generic bonuses untied to the civilization itself. Because what bonuses would you give to Information Era Romans? And what bonuses would you give to Ancient Era Americans? So, for those civs, you'd have to have "generic" bonuses that are untied to History for when you play them at those eras. And you'd loose what make each part of your history meaningful. You wouldn't be the wonder-building Egyptians, you would be the wonder-building, horse-riding, trinket manufacturing, literary artists known as the Egyptians, while the neighboring romans who made the same choices would be the city-building, horse-riding, trinket manufacturing, literary artists known as the Romans, and they would loose their identity much quicker than otherwise. Which, for people who seem to care about identity, would make you go the opposite way of what you're looking for. Instead of having civilizations you can relate to, you'll end up with a mash-up of random bonuses than end up having no identity, like in Humankind.

Except we never played civilizations. Because playing a civilization would be at the same time much more restricted and too broad to have any meaning.

Prithee, pray tell: give me a definition of civilization that could explain having at the same time British England and British Scotland, having at the same time the city-State of Venice and the nomadic Huns, that split the Romans and the Romans between two separate civilizations (here the Byzantium) while still presenting as a same civilization the Mauryas and modern day India, a definition that include at the same time the cultural people known as Maoris and the modern nation-state built as Australia, a definition that ended up separating Germany and Austria while often depicting Germany in its state where Austria was blended into the monstrosity that was the HRE? The definition of a "civilization" is so nonsensical that staying on the idea what we play a "civilization" makes no sense.

Here, we would be playing civilizations, in the way that civilizations evolved and changed name. In the way that Rome became Byzantium rather than being two distinct "civilizations". In the way that modern day Germans and Italians and French all reclaim the heritage of the Roman and Greek civilization. We'll claim the heritage of our previous "civs", while still being one age-spanning civilization that, despite what you may say, will stand the test of time, by evolving rather than monolithically staying the same.

(Also, the games Victoria, Victoria 2 and Victoria 3 dared existed while allowing us to play other people than queen Victoria, that's a shame. And Crusader Kings should have staid with us allowing us to play crusader kings and only them, not anything about other cultures and religious nonsense... Everyone knows that sticking to the game is much more important than actually thinking about game mechanics and making them evolve compared to the evolution of the game industry.)

I noticed that you cut my quote on point #2. I'm going to be charitable and assume that it wasn't an attempt to misrepresent my argument.

 

[Krikkit1]

You ought to be prompted to choose your new civ name

Mongol
Rome
Mongol (rome) …default that AI chooses
Custom__________

So players can be Roma Eterna or ride the waves of history.

 

[Arent11]

But is that civilization the label (name, art work, adjective, map colour, etc...) that you pick at the game creation screen? Or is it the sum total of every city, unit, improvement, and wonder you've built; every technology you've researched, every missionary you've sent? Which of the two is the permanent object, and which are the malleable properties that is has? Did you take a pre-existing Babylon to space? Or did you build a new civilization yourself that had the name Babylon to space? The latter can survive a change of the label, the former cannot. The former can survive an extended loss of player control where things "randomly" change to it, the latter cannot.

[The 3rd alternative would be is that it's the leader which is the permanent object, and both of the others merely it's attribute].


Honestly, I think there's some fascinating aspect of the psychology of gaming in here.

Oh, I can answer that. This is mostly determined by what you see:

In civilization, you see cities, units, flags, city names. You build every single city, every improvements, you try to keep your units alive, you ragequit if your elite legion dies, you weep if one of your cities gets razed and your loyal citizens die. You *name* your cities (I do), you name your civ (I do in Alpha Centauri), you choose its traits (I do in AC).

So, of course renaming a city or the entire civilization isn't half as bad as seeing your citizens or trusty legions dying. But if I can help it, I of course don't want either of these

 

[Arent11]

But is that civilization the label (name, art work, adjective, map colour, etc...) that you pick at the game creation screen? Or is it the sum total of every city, unit, improvement, and wonder you've built; every technology you've researched, every missionary you've sent? Which of the two is the permanent object, and which are the malleable properties that is has? Did you take a pre-existing Babylon to space? Or did you build a new civilization yourself that had the name Babylon to space? The latter can survive a change of the label, the former cannot. The former can survive an extended loss of player control where things "randomly" change to it, the latter cannot.

[The 3rd alternative would be is that it's the leader which is the permanent object, and both of the others merely it's attribute].


Honestly, I think there's some fascinating aspect of the psychology of gaming in here.

For example, if the civ 7 designers would tell me that several of my cities get razed in the "crisis" age without me even getting the chance to defend them, I would consider this a direct attack on the health and well-being of my citizens

But renaming is an attack on the civilization's culture and identity and almost as bad as killing off my citizens

 

[bv98132454]

For example, if the civ 7 designers would tell me that several of my cities get razed in the "crisis" age without me even getting the chance to defend them, I would consider this a direct attack on the health and well-being of my citizens

But renaming is an attack on the civilization's culture and identity and almost as bad as killing off my citizens

We haven't seen enough of the transition yet to form an opinion. But if they use it to rubber band and equalize me relative to the other players, that's even more of a dealbreaker for me than the civ swapping is, and I think I've made it clear where I stand on that issue.

 

[Atlas627]

We haven't seen enough of the transition yet to form an opinion. But if they use it to rubber band and equalize me relative to the other players, that's even more of a dealbreaker for me than the civ swapping is, and I think I've made it clear where I stand on that issue.

That is the one thing that we KNOW they're doing. Sounds like the game isn't for you, then, at least until modders can get rid of that.

 

[bv98132454]

That is the one thing that we KNOW they're doing. Sounds like the game isn't for you, then, at least until modders can get rid of that.

I don't believe in using mods to fix core features that are completely against what I think the game should be. Why? Because I must pay Firaxis to get a game that I then need someone else (who doesn't get paid) to fix. That goes against what I believe. No, Firaxis will not get any money from me on this one unless they make changes.