Are you using historical and regional choices?

[Siptah]

Now that many of us have some games under their belt, I'm wondering whether you whether a civ or leader is a historic or regional choice (by your own or Firaxis' definition) plays any role in your civ selection process.

For me, I played a "perfectly historical game of civ 7" (TM) by accident in my first run (Napoleon/Rome/Spain/France), but I didn't really choose it because of that. In my following games, I combined more wildly and had at least one "non-fitting" choice. Yet, it's still a minor factor for me, but less important than "in this situation, X would be interesting" or "I haven't played Y yet."

 

[stealth_nsk]

I often try to choose totally disconnected civ and leader to unlock more civs for later ages.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

There are some historical Leader + Civ pairings I would love to do, but alas, there is no Greek Leader and there is no Philippine Civ!

The feasible pairs that exist in the game simply don't excite me like my pet interests do.

 

[NickTheGreek!]

I like to have some connection between CIVs for roleplaying purposes. Starting CIV + Leader i also try to pair historically but unfortunatelly this is currently not always possible. My one Greece start was with Ben

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Too early for me to 'settle in' to historical choices, such as the game allows. I am still experimenting with the various Leader/Civ combinations and until that itch of experimentation is satisfied, historical connections are much less important.

Although, in 'semi-historical' connections, I have found that Charlemagne - Normans is almost hysterically OP for war-mongering and Machiavelli with his Diplomatic Gold Mining is good with almost any Civ, but I wasn't trying either for the history - yet.

 

[Cymsdale]

I picked "Such connections play a role when selecting a new civ but are one factor among others."

I probably favor civ->civ connections a lot more than persona->civ ones. I never saw the persona as a real person actually ruling the civilization, but a construct of the 'spirit of the civ' through time that just happens to be represented in game as a real life figure. You could have one of the persona choices be Zeus and it would make as much sense to me as any of the others.

 

[The Fanatical]

I like to role-play, so I prefer to combine a leader with a civilization that had some major or at the very least minor historical connection with that leader (Alexander leading Egypt would be up my alley because despite not ruling Egypt he was proclaimed Pharaoh there), but I like that any leader can be paired with any civilization in the game. It's an interesting mechanic, for sure.

 

[Uberfrog]

I think I’ll lean towards historical choices for aesthetic reasons (although many of these neat pathways are not currently possible), but I look forward to switching things up as I continue to play the game. I suspect there are a lot of fun progressions out there.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I haven't had a lot of playthroughs. The last game I choose Tecusmeh because I specifically wanted to pull the shawnee and run some UI serpent mound spam. I suspect I'll choose leaders and matching civs fairly often if only because the abilities tend to mesh a little better than two randos.

 

[VanEyck]

I'm still in my first game, but I chose Augustus with Han, then Abbasid. I haven't reached the modern age yet, so I'll let you know. But I don't think I'll ever limit my choices to "historical" pairings. I'm gonna choose according to whichever civ best suits my plans for that particular game.

 

[Isca Dumnoniorum]

It's all I can do to minimise the dissonance of leaders and civs being decoupled so I go with "logical" combinations where I can. As SammyKhalifa says above, it helps this is often not an inefficient way to combine abilities. As more civs and leaders come on board over time, this will become easier too.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I choose my opponents on that basis.

My second game was Friedrich and I went Rome/Mongolia/Buganda all based on the unique Commanders each of those Civs has!

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

For my first 11 games, I was primarily aiming to play all the civs, and I picked leaders that synergized with the mechanics of the civs I was planning to play.

Now that I've played each civ, I'm working my way through the rest of the leaders and I'm letting their historical/geographical options determine what civs to play with them.

 

[JTMacc99]

Last full game I was given Xerxes of Persia to start. Ended up in Mexico. It looks like he really didn't have a strategic/historical preferred path. Prior game was chalk with Pachacuti going Mississippians to Hawaiians to Americans.

​

There's an awful lot of combinations to explore.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

There's an awful lot of combinations to explore.

28,600 so far with more to come!!

 

[faber_avgust]

I love to play only historic way. My first game was with Himiko only to unlock Japan in modern age, so i go with Khmer/Majapahit/Japan. I wish devs add exploration age Edo Japan.
My second choice was Konfucije for playing with China, they have all 3 civs in each age, so it's perfect choice for me. So my leader choice always depends on which civ i wanna play. Now i'm planning to play with Pachakutiq as Maya/Inca/Mexico this way is interesting for me too.

Maybe sometimes i'll chose cultural connection for gameplay variety. For example playing as Han in antiquity and going to exploration as Mongols, it's quite logical for me.
But i'll never play different way, no transitions from Maya to Mongols etc.