.

[Arent11]

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.

Sure, I think mods can rectify it.

 

[ArkhanTheBlack]

While I could probably live with having the same leader myself, I'm a bit worried what that means for for the leaders of AI factions.
If only a fraction of the nations have their own leaders, it would also mean that the other nations would use replacement leaders.
So can we expect stuff like this when meeting other leaders?

"Meet Hatshepsut, proud leader of Eg... Mongolia?! WTH!!"
"Meet Tecumseh, proud leader of Sha... Rome?! Huh?!"
"Meet Napoleon, proud leader of Fr... China?! Hm..."
"Meet Confucius, proud leader of Ch... the USA?! Oh my..."

For me, the main identification for an opposing faction is always the leader, and in all former Civs, the leader did at least fit the nation.
I would find it very immersion breaking, if the leaders for the other nations would suddenly be completely random.
Kinda: "Yeah, for the 69 € price tag of the game we unfortunately couldn't afford leader models for all nations. But well, there's always DLC..."

 

[Arent11]

While I could probably live with having the same leader myself, I'm a bit worried what that means for for the leaders of AI factions.
If only a fraction of the nations have their own leaders, it would also mean that the other nations would use replacement leaders.
So can we expect stuff like this when meeting other leaders?

"Meet Hatshepsut, proud leader of Eg... Mongolia?! WTH!!"
"Meet Tecumseh, proud leader of Sha... Rome?! Huh?!"
"Meet Napoleon, proud leader of Fr... China?! Hm..."
"Meet Confucius, proud leader of Ch... the USA?! Oh my..."

For me, the main identification for an opposing faction is always the leader, and in all former Civs, the leader did at least fit the nation.
I would find it very immersion breaking, if the leaders for the other nations would suddenly be completely random.
Kinda: "Yeah, for the 69 € price tag of the game we unfortunately couldn't afford leader models for all nations. But well, there's always DLC..."

Exactly, it breaks immersion.

Furthermore, since I as a child learned a lot of history from civilization - you can bet history teachers will soon be horrified when their students tell them that Hatshepsut was the leader of Mongolia.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Exactly, it breaks immersion.

Furthermore, since I as a child learned a lot of history from civilization - you can bet history teachers will soon be horrified when their students tell them that Hatshepsut was the leader of Mongolia.

Is that functionally any different than Germany building the Pyramids in 2000 BC? Or using a bunch of camels to speed up Charles Darwin discovering the Theory of Evolution? Or curing cancer in 1998?

The Civlopedia is there for the history.

 

[Olle Wernersson]

Namely, whether you're more attached to a civ or a leader and which do you feel you are while playing.

When I'm playing Civilization VI, I don't think I feel more attached to either the leader or the civilization. Both are constant throughout the game, and I have the same level of attachment to each. However, when thinking about Civilization VII, I would be more inclined to attach my roleplay to the leader, as that is what remains constant—and I’ve grown to really like this idea.

 

[Krikkit1]

Civ7 is taking option (1).

Actually... Civ7 is going with option 4
Civ name And bonuses change every Age
Leader Bonuses change every Age, but Leader Name stays the same.

The big problem with a new leader for the civ each age..... who is the ancient leader for Brazil or Russia? Modern leader for the Aztecs or the Hittites? Is John Paul II the Modern leader of the Roman Empire... or the current Mayor of the City of Rome?
(You could just do Montezuma in a business suit and Washington in a toga... but in that case why not have Mexico and Rome??)

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Guys, not here please. I know I can't stop you, but the rest of this forum is debating the merit of having any identity-bearing part of the game switching with eras and its implication for mechanics and "realism". Can we have this thread be a little haven where something different (albeit, related) is discussed? Namely, whether you're more attached to a civ or a leader and which do you feel you are while playing.

(Amen. Not every post has to be the same post over and over again).

What I do think is really necessary for this is if your "team" (i'll just call it that for now) colors, flag, whatever, remain constant. But I'll have to think about this: my old brain still keeps them as one entity, from back to one leader per civ times.

 

[Krikkit1]

Well yes, but wouldn't you say that's close enough to 1 for this poll? Especially when the focus is on immersion and relation? Besides the bonuses are things that you spend tokens to upgrade at will, you could choose to not spend any. It doesn't affect the identity of who your leader is (or how you attach to them) much more than building a wonder changes who your civ is.

I am very amused that the poll is so close to equal between the two main options. I've always been a Civilization-First guy who thought of leaders just as a side gimmick and visual candy in the diplomacy screen. I'd have never imagined so many people felt a connection with them while playing.

I think the thing is the leader is like the player, the civilization is the pieces. If you are going to change one, changing the civilization makes sense*.... The leader is how the player plays (along with some generic bonuses)

*If you want a graphics change, then changing the leader while keeping the same civ makes more sense.... and If they only took civs that could "sort of" span 3 eras then maybe... but none really can.

 

[Kwami]

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.

I can't think of a single civilization that would have a valid leader in all three ages unless you think that "Italy" and "Rome" are the same civilization, etc.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I can't think of a single civilization that would have a valid leader in all three ages unless you think that "Italy" and "Rome" are the same civilization, etc.

I would say China, Persia, and probably India if you see that as a single civ.

 

[Krikkit1]

I would say China, Persia, and probably India if you see that as a single civ.

Except that is like saying Europe is a single civ... only actually united at occasional points in history with lots of different people groups migrating in and through as well as drastic cultural and religious changes.

The problem is "civilization" is really amorphous as a concept and saying when a culture or civilization starts or ends can be a subject of archaeology PhDs plural.

 

[Kwami]

I would say China, Persia, and probably India if you see that as a single civ.

I don't see any of those as continuous civilizations that span the full timeline of the game. But even if they were, how much fun would the game be with three civilizations to play?

 

[TheGrayFox]

Except that is like saying Europe is a single civ... only actually united at occasional points in history with lots of different people groups migrating in and through as well as drastic cultural and religious changes.

The problem is "civilization" is really amorphous as a concept and saying when a culture or civilization starts or ends can be a subject of archaeology PhDs plural.

I think you're misread. He's not saying those three are all the same civilization. he's saying those three could each have leaders for every age

I don't see any of those as continuous civilizations that span the full timeline of the game. But even if they were, how much fun would the game be with three civilizations to play?

You could definitely put different Indian, Persia, and Chinese leaders/dynasties under an umbrella Chinese, Persia, and Indian civilization respectively and it would be much better than whatever Firaxis is trying to do with this swapping nonsense

 

[bv98132454]

I can't think of a single civilization that would have a valid leader in all three ages unless you think that "Italy" and "Rome" are the same civilization, etc.

Never said they need it for all three ages. I'm also hoping the ages mechanic goes away eventually as well.

 

[Arent11]

Is that functionally any different than Germany building the Pyramids in 2000 BC? Or using a bunch of camels to speed up Charles Darwin discovering the Theory of Evolution? Or curing cancer in 1998?

The Civlopedia is there for the history.

Fair enough, there are already lots of liberties of history in civ.

Guys, not here please. I know I can't stop you, but the rest of this forum is debating the merit of having any identity-bearing part of the game switching with eras and its implication for mechanics and "realism". Can we have this thread be a little haven where something different (albeit, related) is discussed? Namely, whether you're more attached to a civ or a leader and which do you feel you are while playing.

Ok, I'll stop the topic.

 

[Atlas627]

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.

Confucius is almost certainly an ancient Chinese dynasty that they weren't ready to show off yet.

 

[Atlas627]

While I could probably live with having the same leader myself, I'm a bit worried what that means for for the leaders of AI factions.
If only a fraction of the nations have their own leaders, it would also mean that the other nations would use replacement leaders.
So can we expect stuff like this when meeting other leaders?

"Meet Hatshepsut, proud leader of Eg... Mongolia?! WTH!!"
"Meet Tecumseh, proud leader of Sha... Rome?! Huh?!"
"Meet Napoleon, proud leader of Fr... China?! Hm..."
"Meet Confucius, proud leader of Ch... the USA?! Oh my..."

For me, the main identification for an opposing faction is always the leader, and in all former Civs, the leader did at least fit the nation.
I would find it very immersion breaking, if the leaders for the other nations would suddenly be completely random.
Kinda: "Yeah, for the 69 € price tag of the game we unfortunately couldn't afford leader models for all nations. But well, there's always DLC..."

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).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Except that is like saying Europe is a single civ... only actually united at occasional points in history with lots of different people groups migrating in and through as well as drastic cultural and religious changes.

The problem is "civilization" is really amorphous as a concept and saying when a culture or civilization starts or ends can be a subject of archaeology PhDs plural.

Well, we've already seen China throughout the series have leaders that would cover all three time periods: Qin in Ancient, Yongle in Exploration, and Mao in Modern. Wu Zetian's an outlier because she would have ruled in the "dark age" between Antiquity and Exploration.
It's quite probable that we'll get the same thing in Civ 7 anyways, regarding China. They just all might be named different dynasties instead of being under one civ called China.

I don't see any of those as continuous civilizations that span the full timeline of the game. But even if they were, how much fun would the game be with three civilizations to play?

I was just stating what possible civilizations could span all three eras with a possible leader for each. I wasn't necessarily advocating for the idea to play like this with only 3 possible civs.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

For all people saying this or that is "immersion breaking", I wonder what are you criteria to find that immersion breaking while having Rome and Byzantium (which are the same civs, heck, they called themselves by the same name) or Byzantium and the Ottomans (who both exactly had the same city as their capital, but apparently that doesn't breaks immersion, perhaps people don't have object permanence and changing Constantinople into Istanbul is enough to say that it's two different things). But that's not the topic.

On the poll, I took option 1 which is objectively the best choice gameplay-wise if you want to change core elements of your faction during the game. I already explained why at other places, but let me try again (as each time I refine my thought).

First, with the question of immersion: people think of their civilization as something continuous while leaders can come and go. Except that having a leader "dying" at each age is just as nonsensical as having them for all the game. Either way their near-immortal people leading your civilization. Having them "die" at one point would be odder than them living during an entire era, in my opinion.

But the main argument for eternal leader and fleeting civs in gameplay related. The main issue that a lot of people sensibly rose with this whole system is the potential lack of identification and continuity with your civilization. "Oh, I was the romans and now we're mongolians" => sure, that might be a problem. But what is the main way you interact with other civilizations? With the civilization itself? No, it's with the leader. Each time you interact with another civ, it'll be the leader that you see, because the leader is more characterful by their very nature of being characters, that's nearly a tautology as this point.

If you want to feel a better continuity with a foreign civ, you need continuity in their flagship, in the main thing you interact with, you see in it. And, as for now and since at least Civ IV (never played before so I can't really tell), this flagship is the leader. It's their head you see, and their voice you hear since Civ V. Therefore, keeping a continuity has to go with the leader, it's in the way of things.

I returned to Millennia recently, and they don't have leaders, merely civilizations, and truth be told, I barely think of my neighbors or opponents by their culture. When I get a message "South Korea is at war with India", I just ask myself: who are those guys? Oh, never mind. While if I had a message in Civ VII saying to me: "Augustus declared war to Hatchepsut", I'd quickly know that it's the twinkish boy with stick legs who declared war on the fiery queen with no hat at all. Those leaders are characters, and we humans are designed to recognize faces and get attached to them, so we feel a better connection with the leaders than with the civ.

Elements to further my point: in caricatures in newspapers, countries are often represented by characters. We all know Uncle Sam, we French have Marianne with her phrygian hat, Germans were automatically recognizable when you saw a moustached man with a pointy helmet, and everyone and everything goes through personification. So Civ VII is taking the sensible road and having those personifications representing the civilization, despite internal changes. The French might have gone through more political forms of governments than a trostkyist assembly under acide, but Marianne was able to keep a certain continuity since the French Revolution; less so during the monarchic phases, but even there, you knew only France could be represented that way. Despite changes, despite evolutions, despite everything, now we have our phrygian hat lady representing us. Caricatures are a very potent way of depicting a civ, and that's what Firaxis is doing, because, while people might like it or not, it's objectively the most efficient way to quickly have a visual image of the country, sometimes even more easily than with the flag.

Other element to further my point: imagine you're playing a Civ VI game, and you have Chandragupta against you. Then suddenly, it's Gandhi. Two questions: 1) would you feel as if you play against the same civilization? 2) would you react the same way? Other scenario: you start a game, and one neighbour is Chandragupta, the other is Gandhi. Would you react the same way against those two neighbours? If you think of an opponent first in terms of civilization then in term of leader, then your logical reactions would be to react the same against both of them; but I dare advance that each player would react differently. Why? Because each leader is much more impactful in the way a civ is played than the civ itself.

Because if we take another situation, it's even more jarring: Eleanor. If you are in a game against both Eleanors, you (at least I) would react quite similarly. You'd now that you'd have to take an eye on loyalty as she might try to gobble up your cities with her artworks. No matter if she's keener on wonders or harbours: in both cases, the loyalty mechanic will be much more impactful and you'd play against FrEleanor quite the same way than against EnglEanor; at least, in a much more similar way than if you played against Chandragupta or Gandhi.

And if we compare with the most comparable element, we have Humankind, which utterly failed at it. Avatars in Humankind are some of the blandest elements of the game (and it's not a small proclamation for this game). Therefore, you had factions that constantly changed cultures, but you didn't even have a characterful memorable avater to keep continuity, which is was it was quite badly implemented in Humankind, something that Firaxis seemed to have taken into consideration.

That's why I think option 1 is the best way to go. You might personally prefer or think that changing leaders would be better -and it's a perfectly valid opinion, that I cannot deny and it's as legitimate as any of the other options-, but from a gameplay perspective, if you start from the unchangeable and unalterable axiom that you have to change the leader, the civ or both across the ages, the best choice to maintain a sense of continuity in the game is to have the leaders being the continuous element.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Other element to further my point: imagine you're playing a Civ VI game, and you have Chandragupta against you. Then suddenly, it's Gandhi. Two questions: 1) would you feel as if you play against the same civilization? 2) would you react the same way? Other scenario: you start a game, and one neighbour is Chandragupta, the other is Gandhi. Would you react the same way against those two neighbours? If you think of an opponent first in terms of civilization then in term of leader, then your logical reactions would be to react the same against both of them; but I dare advance that each player would react differently. Why? Because each leader is much more impactful in the way a civ is played than the civ itself.

I can't personally speak for everyone, but I'd much rather see Chandragupta into Gandhi, and vice versa.
Then again, I've also reiterated that I'd still keep that an option for people to choose when setting up a game.

Because if we take another situation, it's even more jarring: Eleanor. If you are in a game against both Eleanors, you (at least I) would react quite similarly. You'd now that you'd have to take an eye on loyalty as she might try to gobble up your cities with her artworks. No matter if she's keener on wonders or harbours: in both cases, the loyalty mechanic will be much more impactful and you'd play against FrEleanor quite the same way than against EnglEanor; at least, in a much more similar way than if you played against Chandragupta or Gandhi.

It was an interesting gimmick, which I think it worked out better for Kublai than Eleanor. But it's a gimmick that I don't necessarily care to see again so that wouldn't have an impact on leader switching in game.