Changing Leader Mechanic in Civ 7

[Henri Christophe]

Thinking on separate civs of the same nation, the only one I would like to see is the Muslim Spain under the name of Al Andaluz.

Because the Byzantine fanboys are a LOT louder than the people who want separate Persias or separate Chinas.

Where theses fanboys scream their opnions? Because I'm here a several years screaming the needed of Haiti as civ, already won community aproval (since it was the most voted on Blacks Outside Africa thread) and I'm afraid civ 7 will still don't decapitating any Black outside Africa.
What Fireaxis need is a decolonial approach.
I think the problem is this game is almost made by white people, on the release videos the maximum I saw was one Asiatiac and all others works are white, I never saw a Black on the Fireaxis team, I think that's the why Fireaxis can't do a decolonial work.

 

[FishFishFish]

Where theses fanboys scream their opnions? Because I'm here a several years screaming the needed of Haiti as civ, already won community aproval (since it was the most voted on Blacks Outside Africa thread) and I'm afraid civ 7 will still don't decapitating any Black outside Africa.

It "won" community approval because all of the other options were terrible.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And this Byzantine case is very similar to France, when the Frankish empire appears on History it's pagan, then become Christian and in next milenia it will be muslim, it is 3 fases very distinct of the same civilization, but Fireaxis don't made separete civs for each fase of Frankish civ. Why Rome have the privilege to have their Byzantium era as a separate civ? On my understand this just stole room to other civs who can be made.

There is a lot more to Byzantium being different from Rome than just religion. France becoming a majority Muslim does not mean we need a separate civ from Christian France.

Because the Byzantine fanboys are a LOT louder than the people who want separate Persias or separate Chinas.

Yes, it's not a fair standard. Yes, I'd prefer to scrap the Byz. But I'm afraid we're stuck with them.

I mean it's become precedent for a separate Byzantium faction from Rome in a lot of historical games, not just Civ.

I think the problem is this game is almost made by white people, on the release videos the maximum I saw was one Asiatiac and all others works are white, I never saw a Black on the Fireaxis team, I think that's the why Fireaxis can't do a decolonial work.

Wow, just wow.

 

[Patine]

Byzantium if it were held to the same standards as China or Persia would not get in, but the Byzantine fanbase is abominably vociferous about wanting their chance at restoring the Empire.

Because the Byzantine fanboys are a LOT louder than the people who want separate Persias or separate Chinas.

Yes, it's not a fair standard. Yes, I'd prefer to scrap the Byz. But I'm afraid we're stuck with them.

Oh, that's absolutely stinging, Evie! But, while I don't know about the opinions deep in Fan Club Persia, but the PRC, nor Taiwan, nor many Chinese disapora players, apparently, nor a lot of Sinophile Western, want different Chinese Dynasties as different civ's, and the Chinese historical narrative always resists it historical strategy games, unless they focus on Chinese history, itself, so...

 

[Evie]

No offense, Henri, and I'm rather on the side that if colonial nations keep appearing Haiti would be a good addition to the game, but...you're not even remotely close to the numbers of the Byzantine lobby. Byzantine, and the idea of Roman survival, fascinates the vast majority of western history fans in a way no other civilization does. And so they get introduced in every western historical strategy game, and some bend over backward (Paradox) to emphasize Byzantium.

Pretty much nowhere else is ever going to get that level of fascination.

 

[Patine]

No offense, Henri, and I'm rather on the side that if colonial nations keep appearing Haiti would be a good addition to the game, but...you're not even remotely close to the numbers of the Byzantine lobby. Byzantine, and the idea of Roman survival, fascinates the vast majority of western history fans in a way no other civilization does. And so they get introduced in every western historical strategy game, and some bend over backward (Paradox) to emphasize Byzantium.

Pretty much nowhere else is ever going to get that level of fascination.

I think this point of view is a bit distorted, and takes your own disagreement on an issue to the level of presuming universal holding of presumed odious viewpoints by everyone you're disagreeing with. When a disagreement gets to that level, it's quickly on the path to being toxic. I suggest taking a few breaths, calming down at your keyboard, and taking in some perspective and proportion on this issue, instead of rushing to percotiously attack.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Other names, as Seminole, are controversial because they are a mix nation between black and natives who could have leaders of the both background. For they my ultimate suggestion is to have 2 leaders, as made before and can make everyone happy if we have Osceola and John Horse as leaders of Seminole.

They are not a mixed nation. They are overwhelmingly a Native American nation, with a very small minority of African ancestry. If you are trying to champion getting more Native Americans into the game, let's not erase them by claiming something that they aren't.

 

[Evie]

If Colonial nations belong in the game, then Haiti absolutely belong. "But they're catastrophically poor now" is a pathetic argument to ignore their accomplishments (we have a large number of civs that have only one moment of glory in the game).

Of course, that's one big "if"

(And while slavery in the America might have been unviable in the long term, it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that it's this lack of viability that destroyed it. Economy had precious little to do with the reason why people supported or opposed the institution.

 

[FishFishFish]

If Colonial nations belong in the game, then Haiti absolutely belong. "But they're catastrophically poor now" is a pathetic argument to ignore their accomplishments (we have a large number of civs that have only one moment of glory in the game).

They have been "catastrophically poor" for their entire history.

 

[Patine]

If Colonial nations belong in the game, then Haiti absolutely belong. "But they're catastrophically poor now" is a pathetic argument to ignore their accomplishments (we have a large number of civs that have only one moment of glory in the game).

Of course, that's one big "if"

(And while slavery in the America might have been unviable in the long term, it's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that it's this lack of viability that destroyed it. Economy had precious little to do with the reason why people supported or opposed the institution.

Yes. Civ games are about what-if's. I mean, one can play Babylon or the Maya, for instance, until the very end. Haiti is the one of Henri's "Blacks Outside of America," list I can give full support to. The others all have problematic elements, and some of his ideas are just way out there - but Haiti is probably a good choice.

 

[Evie]

The entire part of their history after France deliberately used its naval power to extort absolutely ludicrous payments (with the tacit support of most colonial and western nations) specifically designed to utterly ruin them and discourage attempts to set up colonies among independent slaves. Which is several years after their independence.

But be that as it may, economic success is a completely irrelevant factor to whether a civ deserve included. Whether they have a cool and interesting history (Haiti, the only nation born from slaves managing to break free of their exploiters, certainly does) is where it's at, and Haiti meet that threshold - arguably more so than the various other colonials.

They're not a necessary inclusion, but saying their poverty make them less deserving of inclusion than colonial nations is nonsense.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Anyways, Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western hemisphere. It had one moment of glory (it's revolution) and then got destroyed by reparations by France. The newly independent Haiti agreed to pay France the equivalent of $22bn in reparations in exchange for its independence. Haiti spent approximately 80% of its GDP for the next 120 years paying off this debt, leaving almost no funds for infrastructure and development. In addition to this, it has has a series of corrupt puppet governments controlled by colonial powers for most of its history, despite it’s revolutionary origins. I don't see why this such an appealing civilization.

Haiti is at least the only one of his ideas that I genuinely could get behind, as long as you base it off it's early history (revolution period) and not modern day.
Compared to the other colonial nations in the game it checks off a few boxes that at least haven't been seen yet:
Post-colonial nation of primarily African descent
The first civ from the Carribean
French-speaking (well Canada had a leader who could speak French)

 

[FishFishFish]

economic success is a completely irrelevant factor to whether a civ deserve included

They're not a necessary inclusion, but saying their poverty make them less deserving of inclusion than colonial nations is nonsense.

These are completely subjective opinions. I do weigh economic success into who should be a civilization, and I don't see why it shouldn't be.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I don't get where you got the idea that Haiti was the catalyst for the end of slavery in the Americas but it is simply not true.

It could be Spartacus, on ancient Rome, who ended the milenar system of Slavery. But isn't, Spartacus fail where Haiti sucede.
And Petión, the president of South Haiti, give fundings to Simon Bolivar do their independence war under the condition he liberate the slaves, so Haiti was directly envolved on end of America slavery.

Slavery in the Americas was unviable in the long term

I don't think so, even today in XXI century we can found modern slavery. On Brazilian media is commun to show slavers owners today being arrested because are making slavery.
We don't do more slavery because we finally understand it's wrong, not because our technology modernization.
The concept of all humans born free from French/Haitian revolution is the reason why we stoped with slavery. If we need to be thanks for someone outside Haiti for this revolution, it could be the Iluminist thinkers, but, was Haiti who put on pratice the new concepts of Iluminism in a real revolution.

If the Confederates States of the South US won the Civil war, we could still have slavery untill today.
The end of slavery wasn't a thing who could end just because the modernization of industry, of course not, what happens and was needed was the revolution, as it happens. And first happens on Haiti (a sucessfull revolution). Thats the why Haiti is the responsible to the end of Global Slavery.

They have been "catastrophically poor" for their entire history.

And it's not true also, untill the reign of Faustino Solouque, the Haiti was an empire. I say an Empire because they rule over Dominican side of the Island.
As I said before, Haiti found Bolivar independence, so it isn't irrelevant at a global scenario.
But Haiti suffer embargo since it's born, because all their neighboors were slave owners. They can be the poorest country of Americas today, but in XIX century it isn't so evident they will be so poor.

Also, Greece today is a failed state, and don't mean they don't deserve to be a civ.

 

[Evie]

I think this point of view is a bit distorted, and takes your own disagreement on an issue to the level of presuming universal holding of presumed odious viewpoints by everyone you're disagreeing with. When a disagreement gets to that level, it's quickly on the path to being toxic. I suggest taking a few breaths, calming down at your keyboard, and taking in some perspective and proportion on this issue, instead of rushing to percotiously attack.

I apologize if what I described came off as a negative. It was more an attempt to describe somethnig I've observed in many games communities: the level of interest in Byzantium is extremely intense, comparable to the most famous Ancient civilizations, which result in a very high demand for Byzantine inclusion, that just about no other proposed civilization but the most obvious inclusions can hope to match.

I don't share that enthusiasm (That's nothing new, there's a lot of things people are enthusiastic about that I'm not onboard for), but I'm cognizant of its existence, and of the economic value of giving them what they want, hence the conclusion that Byzantium is not going away. Even if I would prefer another approach.

These are completely subjective opinions. I do weigh economic success into who should be a civilization, and I don't see why it shouldn't be.

Because that's a standard that grossly favor overrepresentation of European colonial powers (and their offshots) at the expanse of the rest of the world, and erase much of the diversity of human civilization.

More than that, this is the (nonsensical) idea that being a civilization is a "reward" ford historical success. It should not be (and never was, considering the Zulu for all they won a few battle ended up by most every relevant metric worse off than Haiti), because at its heart civilization is a What If game, and taking the losers of history and making them win is part and parcel of what makes the game. Which you can't do if you only include the historical winners in the game.

 

[Patine]

These are completely subjective opinions.

An OPINION, by nature, is SUBJECTIVE. And we're all discussing what we'd LIIKE to see, and PREFER not to see, not measuring against up against some pre-agreed, well-calculated, OBJECTIVE standards table.

 

[Patine]

I apologize if what I described came off as a negative. It was more an attempt to describe somethnig I've observed in many games communities: the level of interest in Byzantium is extremely intense, comparable to the most famous Ancient civilizations, which result in a very high demand for Byzantine inclusion, that just about no other proposed civilization but the most obvious inclusions can hope to match.

I don't share that enthusiasm, but I'm cognizant of its existence, and of the economic value of giving them what they want, hence the conclusion that Byzantium is not going away.



Because that's a standard that grossly favor overrepresentation of white colonial powers at the expanse of the rest of the world, based on the fact that they stole the wealth of everywhere their hands could reach.

I think the big issue is, you didn't even ask why me, or @Alexander's Hetaroi, supported Byzantine inclusion, but assumed it must be the same as, "the fanboys." But, that being said, I accept your apology.

 

[FishFishFish]

Because that's a standard that grossly favor overrepresentation of European colonial powers (and their offshots) at the expanse of the rest of the world, based on the fact that they stole the wealth of everywhere their hands could reach.

This is only true if you look at one time period for Civilizations.

An OPINION, by nature, is SUBJECTIVE. And we're all discussing what we'd LIIKE to see, and PREFER not to see, not measuring against up against some pre-agreed, well-calculated, OBJECTIVE standards table.

I know. Evie said that my opinion was "nonsense". Hence, why I said it was subjective.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Haiti is at least the only one of his ideas that I genuinely could get behind, as long as you base it off it's early history (revolution period) and not modern day.
Compared to the other colonial nations in the game it checks off a few boxes that at least haven't been seen yet:
Post-colonial nation of primarily African descent
The first civ from the Carribean
French-speaking (well Canada had a leader who could speak French)

Other thing very cool about Haiti is it own religion, the Voodoo (who in Haitian Creyole it's Vodóu)
Who can be used to design a cool unique unit as a voodoo priest or their own heroe can be a Voodoo Lwá, as Baron Samedi.
Also, the Haitian have their own language, the Creyole. I know the Haitian revolutionary speak more often French then Creyole, but, for a game purpose, should be nice if they speak Creyole.
And nowadays have Haitian Creyole even in Duolingo, I also made some lections.

 

[Evie]

Well, then sticking to opinion, the idea of economic prosperity as a benchmark for admission strike me as way too close as making Civ status a "reward" for "success" based on arbitrary benchmarks of what a successful civilization is. As civilization is a what if game where history gets rewritten, I am opposed to that idea, because a "what if" by its fundamental nature include the ability for the losers to win, instead of losing again.

Being able to play as civilization that ultimately were less successful, but who did things no one else did, or who had unique traits that were found nowhere else in the world, and explore that question "what if they had thrived" is a fundamental part of what make Civ, Civ. Something that is lost if we focus our selection on civ only on the successful, rather than including interesting civilizations regardless of success.

A bunch of prosperous nations will be included because a lot of those prosperous nation are in fact interesting because of their accomplishments, but their prosperity should in no way determine their inclusion.