.

[member66170]

.

 

[OzzyKP]

The issue is that each leader needs to have some animated figure, each civ doesn't, so it is cheaper/easier to provide us with lots of different civs to switch into.

 

[Arent11]

Civ7 is taking option (1).

But the other two options could lead to exactly the same mechanics. The attributes / uniques / abilities could be switched around between leaders and civilizations and everything work just the same way. Possible choices for transitions locked by what you did in the previous era works equally well for changing leaders as for civilizations. There's of course nothing preventing both changing simultaneously if leaders and their civilizations are hardwired together. The only difference would be thematic, and it boils down to what you associate with most closely and what part of the game you, as a player, personally identify with the most during a game.

Personally, I think I'd like (2) the most. I do see myself as more the collective will of a civilization than the incarnation of a leader. I find it more natural to think of civilizations as being eternal and leaders coming-and-going than the converse. On the other hand, maybe I do think of my rivals on the map as leaders more than civilizations - or, at least, closer to 50:50. But the recent discussions have made me realise that some people might care far more, and be more attached, to their leader than to their civs. Lastly, I included the final option for those who have little attachement between themselves and either the leader or civ they're playing as, but are are very committed to the leader and civilization being a cohesive, historical package.


Note that I specifically didn't include a "change nothing" option. Partially because that's already been discussed argued to death already, partly because that it would be different mechanically (in terms of having a choice of new uniques every era), and partly because its intrinsically very different from the 3 options I do want to compare. It's of course a valid opinion to hold, but not what I'd like to understand about the community with this thread.

Give me a civ "skill tree" that allows me to "level up" my civs with additional "culture bonuses". Throughout the entire game.

I want warrior civs, mage civs, merchant civs, druid civs

 

[DWilson]

I voted change leader, as the best of the three options, but my preference by far is change neither

 

[Kwami]

Things that aren't changing:

1. The core mechanic of the game, which is that civilizations rise and fall with each new era.
2. Choosing a leader to guide your civilization through the entire game.

I don't understand why y'all keep making these threads.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd personally rahter change leaders. I didn't vote for it because of
1) Not every civ will have an appropriate leader for every era, and
2) I still would not like to be forced to change leaders every era, if I don't want to

I'd much rather a system where you choose your civ (let's say Rome) and a potential leader for Rome (Julius or Hadrian) at the start of a game. If you want to go on a conquering spree early game, you might choose Julius for that based off of his abilities. After you've done all that and change your government, which I'd much rather that idea than leaders changing by eras, then you switch to Hadrian because he has bonuses towards building infrastructure that you will need to quickly repair in your own cities and ones you've conquered.

 

[DWilson]

If you want to change civs, I think it should have been implemented similar to historical grand strategy games (particularly Paradox), in which it is a. optional and b. pre-defined by your civ meeting certain logical criteria.

It would have been much better for Firaxis to have simply added era-relevant bonuses if they intended on it being a core phase shift. These could have either been a pre-defined path (ala Civ Rev), a self-developing tree of bonuses (kinda like Civ BE:RT), or a pool of abilities that civs could claim (kinda like religion - this is my least favorite, but is probably most balanced in a worst civ picks first system)

 

[luca 83]

Leaders is the result of times and eras Stalin is the result of the Russian Revolution and the struggle for power after the death of Lenin, Hitler is the result of the crisis of 1929, the pavé de Versailles and the Weimar crisis Napoleon the crisis of the directorate after the end of Robespierre Fixed leaders are useless Every leader should have special characteristics for the political situation, of each nation

 

[AriochIV]

The issue is that each leader needs to have some animated figure, each civ doesn't, so it is cheaper/easier to provide us with lots of different civs to switch into.

At the moment it seems that leaders and civilizations are mapping one to one, so there's no cost savings there.

There are no known civs with no leaders, but it looks like Napoleon has two graphical versions without being the default leader of France.

 

[Zaarin]

At the moment it seems that leaders and civilizations are mapping one to one, so there's no cost savings there.

I don't think we have enough evidence to say either way yet; I'm personally not expecting a 1:1 mapping. (We know the proposed DLC have a 1:2 mapping, but that's also not conclusive evidence for the base game.)

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

There are no known civs with no leaders, but it looks like Napoleon has two graphical versions without being the default leader of France.

Axum? Songhai (if you don't count Amina)?

 

[AriochIV]

Axum? Songhai (if you don't count Amina)?

Aksum has Amina. We don't know the leaders for Songhai or Buganda yet, but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't have leaders.

The know that Franklin and Confucius are leaders for non-Antiquity civs.

 

[Zaarin]

Aksum has Amina. We don't know the leaders for Songhai or Buganda yet, but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't have leaders.

If anything, Amina seems closer to representation for Songhai than Aksum, but doesn't exactly fit either. (I guess speaking a Chadic language maybe arguably puts her slightly closer to Cus-hitic/Semitic Ethiopia...but geographically and chronologically closer to Songhai. You have to squint, either way.)

EDIT: Dear auto-censor: the Cu$hites are not profane, for crying out loud.

 

[Arent11]

So like a beefed version of the leader EXP tree we seem to be getting? I guess that would fall under the "change neither" non-option. This thread is more about which kind of evolution in the identity of the thing-the-player-is-playing-as the community likes more than others. Interestingly balanced for now.

Yeah, in that case changing the leader makes more sense, because a non-immortal leader would necessarily die.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Aksum has Amina. We don't know the leaders for Songhai or Buganda yet, but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't have leaders.

I would think it's implied that Songhai doesn't have leader considering one of the requirements go evolve into Songhai is to have Amina as your leader.

 

[Arent11]

Things that aren't changing:

1. The core mechanic of the game, which is that civilizations rise and fall with each new era.
2. Choosing a leader to guide your civilization through the entire game.

I don't understand why y'all keep making these threads.

I once asked a game studio how much it would cost to comission/make my own civ I actually enjoy creating my own mods/games and talking about how the perfect civ mechanics would be.

 

[TheGrayFox]

You know if i really had a choice I'm picking change niether but if i had to choose, I'd prefer a leader swapping system to civ swapping

 

[Kwami]

I once asked a game studio how much it would cost to comission/make my own civ I actually enjoy creating my own mods/games and talking about how the perfect civ mechanics would be.

Well, OK, but that's pretty far outside the scope of this game!

I guess mods can emulate the "no changing civs" idea by just making a version of each civilization for each era. It might be harder to get the AI to play along, though.

 

[Hannibal XIII]

If you want to change civs, I think it should have been implemented similar to historical grand strategy games (particularly Paradox), in which it is a. optional and b. pre-defined by your civ meeting certain logical criteria.

The core of my entire issue with the mechanic -- it's so much easier to flesh out why a tag switch in EUIV makes sense with the systems available to a GSG like no randomized maps, assigned set trade goods/religion/culture for provinces, and mission trees compared to a 4X game that, while not entirely sandbox, is a lot closer to one.

Anyways, I voted change leader rather than civ. I understand this would cause problems for civs without multiple leaders, but maybe an alternative for those could be designing three era bonuses for those and having multi-leader civs divide their era bonuses between their multiple leaders.

 

[bv98132454]

The core of my entire issue with the mechanic -- it's so much easier to flesh out why a tag switch in EUIV makes sense with the systems available to a GSG like no randomized maps, assigned set trade goods/religion/culture for provinces, and mission trees compared to a 4X game that, while not entirely sandbox, is a lot closer to one.

Anyways, I voted change leader rather than civ. I understand this would cause problems for civs without multiple leaders, but maybe an alternative for those could be designing three era bonuses for those and having multi-leader civs divide their era bonuses between their multiple leaders.

To be frank, if I civ doesn't have three leaders you could justify having in the game, I think it's fair to question whether that civ should be in the game at all.