Change the recommended Civs and unlocks for some leaders (Recommendations)

[Xefjord]

So, I am a huge Sinosphere / East Asian culture enjoyer. And one of the first things I noticed is that ONLY Confucius unlocks the Han... Which is very odd to me when we have Trung Trac and Himiko in the game, then I checked their recommended Civs and it very quickly was just like "What the heck?" Because they had very little to do with Vietnam/Japan culturally at all.

Trung Trac should be recommended to play the Han, as Vietnam was historically controlled by the Han Dynasty, they should also be recommended to play the Ming because the Ming Dynasty owned Vietnam at periods, and recommended the Qing because of cultural influence.

I think it's fine to also recommend the Khmer for Trung Trac, since it's geographically related and a closely related culture to the Champa which is an important culture to Vietnamese history. But Trung Trac should not be getting recommend the Majapahit. That makes no sense. Or India? It's a huge misunderstanding of Vietnamese history. Vietnam is a Sinosphere country, not an Indosphere country. They should be getting recommended China/Japan culturally, and Khmer/Siam Geographically, not India / Majapahit.

Obviously we know Dai Viet is coming and that will be a natural unlock down the line but for right now Trung Tracs recommendations don't need to be as off as they are.

Then you look at Himiko. Himiko is also recommended to start as either the Khmer (Very odd!) or as the Mississipians?! What the heck?

I can perhaps understand Himiko being recommended Hawaii because there are many Japanese in Hawaii now, but Japan should be getting recommended Han China and Ming China as well for cultural influence, obviously they unlock Japan. When Silla gets announced they should also be recommended that.

Japan should not be getting recommended Indosphere Civs. Maybe they can get recommended Vietnam when it comes out, but that's it. Himiko definitely should not be getting recommended Native American Civs, other than maybe Hawaii. It's just silly.

There are some leaders that have really interesting and informative recommendations, like I think Charlemagne's recommendations are pretty decent and teach interesting tidbits about Charlemagne. But the Sinosphere ones are very off and it's quite disappointing. It should be an easy fix too since it's just about Civ unlocks and recommendations.

If we need someone to recommend the the Indosphere Civs, Jose Ritzal works great for Hawaii and Majapahit because of the Malayo-Polynesian connection but is acceptable for Khmer -> Siam as the Philippines as well. Ashoka is also a fine pick for most Indosphere Civs because of the Cholas.

What do you all think? And is there any other Leader to Civ recommendations or unlocks you think should be fixed as well?

 

[MistroPain]

When you say "Unlock" do you mean "Recommend"? Since Han is available to anyone as an Antiquities Civ. Or do you mean Ming by the first set of statements? If its the first, shoulda been Lu Bu anyway

Also, Mississipians recommendation might be to do with Himikos legendary nature of leading Japan before it was "civilized" and being a shaman queen, at least according to Wiki (hopefully that does not come off insulting).

 

[Xefjord]

I said both recommended Civs and unlocks Civs in the title. But I see the confusion when I said that Confucius unlocks the Han (I meant to say is recommended the Han).

The only leader I would say needs their unlock changed is Trung Trac. She shouldn't unlock the Majapahit, Jose Rizal should. But both Himiko and Trung Trac need extensive changes to their recommended Civs.

 

[evonannoredars]

I believe some of the starting recommendations are strategic choices for abilities that would pair well together.
Some of the unlocks however are pretty odd, I'd rather they distinguished between unlocks on the basis of actually led these people versus geographically/vibey similar.

 

[Xefjord]

I believe some of the starting recommendations are strategic choices for abilities that would pair well together.
Some of the unlocks however are pretty odd, I'd rather they distinguished between unlocks on the basis of actually led these people versus geographically/vibey similar.

It does actually tell you why it recommends a Civ when you hover your mouse over the recommended Civs, with interesting nuance for many leaders. But that is not the case for Trung Trac. Everything is just marked Geographic, even though there is interestingly nuanced options for Trung Trac that are ignored. I know Trung Trac is just a fill for Majapahit because there is no Vietnam yet and no Indonesian leader, but again, Jose Rizal would be a better pick. I would be fine with Jose Rizal unlocking both Hawaii and Majapahit in the meantime, and Trung Trac should just have her recommended updated.

 

[Zaarin]

Also, Mississipians recommendation might be to do with Himikos legendary nature of leading Japan before it was "civilized" and being a shaman queen, at least according to Wiki (hopefully that does not come off insulting).

Mississippians is because Misssissippians unlock Hawai'i.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I also find it odd that there's no automatic path from the Chinese Civilizations to Meiji. If that was the only path I would understand the controversy, but there's a Chinese dynasty and leader as alternative options, and with how influential China was on Japan (look at the Japanese language, to start) it makes much more sense as a predecessor than Majapahit, which is... also in Asia and also made up of islands? It's not the strangest connection in the game (Songhai from Axum, anyone?), but the more obvious one should be there as well.

 

[Xefjord]

Mississippians is because Misssissippians unlock Hawai'i.

It lists Mississipians as being a "strategic" unlock. Which is fine by itself, If they want to recommend it for "gameplay reasons". But it should not disclude recommending the Han. If they are simply including it because it unlocks the Hawaiians though? That's a bad reason imo. The nuance is very good for the European leader recommendations. I think we can have that same situation with Asia.

I think there is nothing wrong with recommending the Hawaiians but not the Mississipians. That connection between Mississipians and Hawaii is artificial and will be changed over time as new Civs come in. So recommendations should be focused on what actually makes sense for each Civ Culturally/Geographically.

 

[Xefjord]

I also find it odd that there's no automatic path from the Chinese Civilizations to Meiji. If that was the only path I would understand the controversy, but there's a Chinese dynasty and leader as alternative options, and with how influential China was on Japan (look at the Japanese language, to start) it makes much more sense as a predecessor than Majapahit, which is... also in Asia and also made up of islands? It's not the strangest connection in the game (Songhai from Axum, anyone?), but the more obvious one should be there as well.

I find the Songhai-Aksum relationship lazy, but I understand why they did it because there is legitimately no better options right now. It should improve as we get more Civs. That said, there IS better options for Japan, so my main question is why aren't we taking those options? I understand the hazy idea of island Civs building into Island Civs. But the point I will keep reiterating is we hold the other Civ connections to a higher standard. So why shouldn't we do that for Asia?

 

[Zaarin]

It lists Mississipians as being a "strategic" unlock. Which is fine by itself, If they want to recommend it for "gameplay reasons". But it should not disclude recommending the Han. If they are simply including it because it unlocks the Hawaiians though? That's a bad reason imo. The nuance is very good for the European leader recommendations. I think we can have that same situation with Asia.

I think there is nothing wrong with recommending the Hawaiians but not the Mississipians. That connection between Mississipians and Hawaii is artificial and will be changed over time as new Civs come in. So recommendations should be focused on what actually makes sense for each Civ Culturally/Geographically.

You're preaching to the choir; Mississippians > Hawai'i makes my head spin (and Khmer > Hawai'i is only slightly better). I was simply pointing out that that's the reason the Mississippians and Khmer are recommended for Himiko.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

You're preaching to the choir; Mississippians > Hawai'i makes my head spin (and Khmer > Hawai'i is only slightly better). I was simply pointing out that that's the reason the Mississippians and Khmer are recommended for Himiko.

I find the Songhai-Aksum relationship lazy, but I understand why they did it because there is legitimately no better options right now. It should improve as we get more Civs. That said, there IS better options for Japan, so my main question is why aren't we taking those options? I understand the hazy idea of island Civs building into Island Civs. But the point I will keep reiterating is we hold the other Civ connections to a higher standard. So why shouldn't we do that for Asia?

I think we can all agree that the obvious conclusion here is that the devs should add the Tu'i Tonga empire and the Swahili or the Kilwa Sultanate to fill out Polynesia and East Africa as soon as possible, because these are incredibly popular Civilizations that more people than just me would be willing to drop $30 USD or so on a DLC pack for!

...ah, why do I delude myself...

 

[Zaarin]

I know the devs have made it clear that civ connections are not a priority in selecting civs, but I was genuinely surprised by the absence of Tonga in the upcoming DLC. Most other civs have decent if hacky options, but Hawai'i is kind of sitting out there all alone...

 

[Xefjord]

Yeah. Well we can't do much about the Civs they choose to pick. I am just thinking that recommending the most sensible Civs for specific leaders is still doable though. There is far more sensible recommendations for Himiko and Trung Trac than what is offered right now. In the case of the the Civs/leaders that lack sensible options in general. It is what it is.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I agree with the sentiment that Trung Trac should also be recommended for the Han, despite the fact that she is known for fighting them. I mean they are both scientific. Not sure about changing the Majapahit relationship right now because that's the current Exploration Age SEA civ. Maybe things will change once Dai Viet gets released?

 

[Xefjord]

I agree with the sentiment that Trung Trac should also be recommended for the Han, despite the fact that she is known for fighting them. I mean they are both scientific. Not sure about changing the Majapahit relationship right now because that's the current Exploration Age SEA civ. Maybe things will change once Dai Viet gets released?

I mean, Charlemagne is recommended Spain just because he fought there too lol. I do highly expect she will unlock Vietnam when it releases though.

 

[Sagax]

I also find it odd that there's no automatic path from the Chinese Civilizations to Meiji. If that was the only path I would understand the controversy, but there's a Chinese dynasty and leader as alternative options, and with how influential China was on Japan (look at the Japanese language, to start) it makes much more sense as a predecessor than Majapahit, which is... also in Asia and also made up of islands? It's not the strangest connection in the game (Songhai from Axum, anyone?), but the more obvious one should be there as well.

We’ll never know the truth, but there is a possibility that they didn’t want to kick that nest of hornets at all, even if the transition into Qing is also in the game. Which I would find ironic - all that preaching about “history is built in layers”, and then running into Ming > Meiji pipeline and going “oh….yeah, maybe not in this case”.

That said, I can see Han becoming a hub for unlocking future Exploration East Asian civs, including Japan - as it is generally not a controversial take that China heavily influenced the region in Classical > Medieval.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

We’ll never know the truth, but there is a possibility that they didn’t want to kick that nest of hornets at all, even if the transition into Qing is also in the game. Which I would find ironic - all that preaching about “history is built in layers”, and then running into Ming > Meiji pipeline and going “oh….yeah, maybe not in this case”.

This could also be the case for the lack of Hawai'i -> America, even though the Shawnee and Tecumseh are in a similar boat and still unlock it.

 

[Xefjord]

After a couple games, it looks like the AI always generally picks one of its recommended civs to pair with leaders (Unless that civ is taken). This just further increases my desire to see Trung Trac and Himiko get fixed, there was no China in a game but a Vietnamese India and a Japanese Khmer. That was... very weird... especially since I was playing on Gedemons TSL Earth map.

 

[Wabnosa]

Leave Hikimo alone. Shes been the dark horse. She might be my favorite for Michi Sipi.

 

[Leucarum]

Siam's gameplay unlock also doesn't seem to be working - 4 temples should be something which happens in almost every game - so I think they're currently the hardest civ in the game to actually get to play! And also the modern civ I most want to play. Grr.

Civ unlocks really weren't all made equal. Some, like Chola and Normans I think have happened every single game. Others are really RNG, and then you have Spain which is just... "Ok. I get the flavour, but really? You thought that was a good idea?"

I'd also like to see some leader start biases changed. Tecumseh not having a navigable river bias when Shawnee have a malus if they don't get those baffles me.