Changing Leader Mechanic in Civ 7

[Evie]

Well, we actually agree on that one : AI is (very) difficult, largely for the reasons you cited.

Luca - I get that it's your own ideas, and you don't owe anyone to defend ideas you don't like, but the thing is...we know they're your ideas by now. You've posted them quite a few times already. Many of us have pointed out our objections - about as many times. Reposting the same ideas and the same argument isn't going to get a different answer (it may get a shorter, more flippant answer, but the arguments remain the same) - it just comes off as trying to bury the criticism under repeated posts. It's...not great.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Well, we actually agree on that one : AI is (very) difficult, largely for the reasons you cited.

Luca - I get that it's your own ideas, and you don't owe anyone to defend ideas you don't like, but the thing is...we know they're your ideas by now. You've posted them quite a few times already. Many of us have pointed out our objections - about as many times. Reposting the same ideas and the same argument isn't going to get a different answer (it may get a shorter, more flippant answer, but the arguments remain the same) - it just comes off as trying to bury the criticism under repeated posts. Which is generally not considered a great way to discuss thing.

I have to agree with Evie here. This argument is like beating a dead horse. You aren't doing anything to prove your point, Luca and Nauokoukedum (is that right?).

 

[Evie]

Note that I did not address that second paragraph at Naokaukodem.

My point is more about one participant trying to restart a discussion after we've already gone over the topic at length and nobody is talking about it anymore. Not arguing back in the middle of an argument, which...well, if that's wrong, we're all guilty of it.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Note that I did not address that second paragraph of Naokaukodem. He has not (to my knowledge) gotten into that debate before today, and it's fair to have the discussion out now in his case.

What I'm talking about is more trying to restart this discussion every few days, rather than arguing intensely in *one* discussion (Which, if THAT were a problem, this entire forum would be guilty of it, myself very much included).

Ok. Thank you Evie. I'm sure all of us are guilty for that crime

 

[BuchiTaton]

I dont see CIV replacing the historical figures as leaders of the civs, neither using changing random/customizable avatars (a la Humankind), and certainly multiple leaders just for when you change era or goverment is not possible (after all there are almost no civ´s history that could cover all the combinations of eras and goverments). BUT even if leaders are an iconic element of CIV series, I (and also great part of the players) disliked the emphasis in leaders from CIV6:
- Poor AI (worse that previous version in some ways)
- Annoying and/or laughable agendas
- Literal cartoonish cellphone game like designs
- Cheap reused animations
- Also low effort "persona" skins for leaders
- Alternative leaders spending design elements for the same civs when they can be used in new different civs
- Civ's design around a single historical figure

Give personality to the game? More unique visuals and sound for units and buildings from each civs could add a lot more of personality to each civ that another custome to the same cartoon guy. Keep the leaders in CIV, but dont turn CIVILIZATION into LEADER, in CIV6 the civs were close to be accesories for the leaders (with some leaders using alternative civs).

More CIV "Leader Pass DLC"? Civ content without actual new civs means "I PASS your DLC" to me.

 

[Evie]

Oh, in terms of there being room for improvement and changes in how leaders are implemented, yes, definitely. Agenda were a fiasco (sounded neat on paper, ridiculously bad and unreasonable implementation that turn some leaders into utter morons), the AI leaned a little too much into competitive boardgaming, etc.

As far as "cartoonish" design, that seems more of a matter of personal preference than an actual design flaw: some people don't like saturated less realistic figure, others find dessturated hyperrealistic ones. I wouldn't call that a design flaw, though I fully expect a different graphic design approach for the next game - every game has its own graphic signature, and whatever they go with for VII, my chief hope is that it's more standardized than VI where the graphic leaned cartoonish and saturated, but were all over the place.

 

[reddishrecue]

It would be nice if the leaders could have a 3d background like they used to in civ 5.

 

[pineappledan]

changing leaders would probably mean changing personalities midway through a game. I think a side effect of a system like this would be that the AI would actually be worse at the game.

civ games have you slowly work towards an end goal, so if the leader change is anything more than aesthetic it could disrupt a coherent game plan.

 

[Henri Christophe]

it could disrupt a coherent game plan

I don't think so.
When Gandhi achieve Democracy he changes his behaviour drastically, stop to being a pacific Gandhi to become a nuclear warmonger.
The same should happen with all civs in order to better emulate the real life.
México lead by Aztecs should be a warmonger meanwhile when it be lead by Benito Juárez it should be more pacific...
The oposite to the US, when lead by Hiawatha it should be pacific and when it's leader is a president it should be more agressive.
I re think the concept, and believe 5 is a perfect number of leaders per civ. This game is expensive a lot and the budget can cover all languages and figurine changes.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The same should happen with all civs in order to better emulate the real life.
México lead by Aztecs should be a warmonger meanwhile when it be lead by Benito Juárez it should be more pacific...
The oposite to the US, when lead by Hiawatha it should be pacific and when it's leader is a president it should be more agressive.
I re think the concept, and believe 5 is a perfect number of leaders per civ. This game is expensive a lot and the budget can cover all languages and figurine changes.

If you want to emulate real life let's start by not having Mexico and Aztecs as the same civ, or Hiawatha leading the U.S.

 

[Patine]

When Gandhi achieve Democracy he changes his behaviour drastically, stop to being a pacific Gandhi to become a nuclear warmonger.

I think you've actually bought into believing the stupid (and ironic) memes about Gandhi. Unless, of course, you're referring to Indira.

 

[pineappledan]

posted this in wrong thread.

If a civ hits a new era and changes from a leader who was pursuing a tech lead to maybe a cultural or religious leader, it will look schizophrenic to the player. They will break off from one focus and start doing something else. Switching onto and off of military would be intelligible to the player, since investing in and disbanding military focus throughout the game is something that the game supports with fluidity, but what if you have a religious leader following a leader that doesn’t have the tools to help it found religion? What is that leader supposed to do when 1 leader needs the infrastructure and investment a previous leader neglected, but fall flat on its face until the next leader gets swapped in? It will leave the human player as the only faction capable of holding a single thought and follow through on a strategy.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I don't think so.
When Gandhi achieve Democracy he changes his behaviour drastically, stop to being a pacific Gandhi to become a nuclear warmonger.
The same should happen with all civs in order to better emulate the real life.
México lead by Aztecs should be a warmonger meanwhile when it be lead by Benito Juárez it should be more pacific...
The oposite to the US, when lead by Hiawatha it should be pacific and when it's leader is a president it should be more agressive.

When will you stop with this argument??? Aztecs and Mexico are not the same thing, and the same goes for Iroquois and America! I have at least 3 leaders for the Aztec and Iroquois though, and a list for America.

I re think the concept, and believe 5 is a perfect number of leaders per civ. This game is expensive a lot and the budget can cover all languages and figurine changes.

Then say goodbye to so many unique civs. And no don't tell me that the Mughals were Mongols, or some other dumb quack like that.

Sorry if I am sounding a bit upset. Today was not the best of days.

 

[Henri Christophe]

When will you stop with this argument??? Aztecs and Mexico are not the same thing, and the same goes for Iroquois and America! I have at least 3 leaders for the Aztec and Iroquois though, and a list for America.

I don't think so, Mexico is the continuation of millenia of center of valley of Mexico, being the sucessor of Teotihuácan, Toltecs and Aztecs! (And numerous others).
And even the name México is as Nahualt word who the Aztecs used to refer they self. Side note: Aztec is who born in Aztlán, even the main rival of Aztecs, the Tlaxcaltecas were Aztecs, because come from Aztlán, the mytical land in nowadays New México - USA.

And about Hiawatha, he found a nation maded by 5 states.: Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida and Mohawk.
It was the first United States of Americas (!)
And is know that George Washigton sit with Iroquois leaders at the time to independency to understand how manage so well a state made by states as it was Iroquois and USA.

And no don't tell me that the Mughals were Mongols, or some other dumb quack like that.

Another very good extrapolation of concept, using Mongols and Mughals as one only civ.
Rome is also curious civ who can go to a lot of different versions, but should pass from Byzantium for sure.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I don't think so, Mexico is the continuation of millenia of center of valley of Mexico, being the sucessor of Teotihuácan, Toltecs and Aztecs! (And numerous others).
And even the name México is as Nahualt word who the Aztecs used to refer they self. Side note: Aztec is who born in Aztlán, even the main rival of Aztecs, the Tlaxcaltecas were Aztecs, because come from Aztlán, the mytical land in nowadays New México - USA.

All your evidence is geography.

And about Hiawatha, he found a nation maded by 5 states.: Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida and Mohawk.
It was the first United States of Americas (!)
And is know that George Washigton sit with Iroquois leaders at the time to independency to understand how manage so well a state made by states as it was Iroquois and USA.

The Iroquois had a different culture then America. And there are stories of our first president burning down Haudenosaunee villages. So yeah, totally a successor state.

Another very good extrapolation of concept, using Mongols and Mughals as one only civ.
Rome is also curious civ who can go to a lot of different versions, but should pass from Byzantium for sure.

Mughals were literally India.
Byzantium was a Christian defensive civ
Rome was a Pagan offensive and construction civ

Hold on
1100s/1200s - Pueblo collapse
1350 - Tenoch finds the eagle and the snake after his people have been spending a long time trying to find it
PaRaLeLlS

 

[Patine]

I don't think so, Mexico is the continuation of millenia of center of valley of Mexico, being the sucessor of Teotihuácan, Toltecs and Aztecs! (And numerous others).
And even the name México is as Nahualt word who the Aztecs used to refer they self. Side note: Aztec is who born in Aztlán, even the main rival of Aztecs, the Tlaxcaltecas were Aztecs, because come from Aztlán, the mytical land in nowadays New México - USA.

And about Hiawatha, he found a nation maded by 5 states.: Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida and Mohawk.
It was the first United States of Americas (!)
And is know that George Washigton sit with Iroquois leaders at the time to independency to understand how manage so well a state made by states as it was Iroquois and USA.

Umm, no. The Nahua empires and city-states, and their whole system of governance, religion, society, and any national continuity were reduced to ruins, plundered for gold and silver, and then had the core of a Spanish Viceroyalty built triumphally on it's blood-soaked volcanic soil, with harkening to old Nahua traditions in revisionist, inaccuarate historigraphical used much later as a contrived tool of Nationalism. Let's me real here!

Also, the the impact of the Haudenosaunee on the American Constitution is an old folktale with no real proven validity, and the Haudenosaunee was one of the first of many Native American nations to be screwed over good by the dishonourable and nasty way the new American nation dealt with Indigenous people who happened to be long sitting on prime land they wanted to settle.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Also, the the impact of the Haudenosaunee on the American Constitution is an old folktale with no real proven validity, and the Haudenosaunee was one of the first of many Native American nations to be screwed over good by the dishonourable and nasty way the new American nation dealt with Indigenous people who happened to be long sitting on prime land they wanted to settle.

Infact, the American constitution is more related to the Magna Carta of England then the Haudenosaunee. When I went to the National Archives this March, why was there a copy of the Magna Carta, and not a Haudenosaunee constitution? That is a good question for you to answer, Henri.

 

[Henri Christophe]

All your evidence is geography.

Geography is a important matter to this game concept, but, isn't the only one.
Even in the case of Aztecs I used ethimology, when I say the Mexica is the name they use to refer it self.
And in case of Mughals and Mongols, as you pointed out, they don't even share a geography space.

Umm, no. The Nahua empires and city-states, and their whole system of governance, religion, society, and any national continuity were reduced to ruins, plundered for gold and silver, and then had the core of a Spanish Viceroyalty built triumphally on it's blood-soaked volcanic soil, with harkening to old Nahua traditions in revisionist, inaccuarate historigraphical used much later as a contrived tool of Nationalism. Let's me real here!

I don't think so, some conquistadores as Pedro de Alvarado start to believe he was the god Tonatiuh, and the Spaniards made the Toltec dream of a united México.
The culture of Mexicas wasnt destroyed, we cann see influence in the food, archteture, even in the way the spanish is spoke on México still have some Nahualt words on vocabulary, main name of places or food.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Geography is a important matter to this game concept, but, isn't the only one.
Even in the case of Aztecs I used ethimology, when I say the Mexica is the name they use to refer it self.
And in case of Mughals and Mongols, as you pointed out, they don't even share a geography space.

Etymology? Because heck, if you ask an American, German, Mexican, and Japanese to say "America" in their own language, they'll all say America. The Mughals used that name as a publicity stunt of sorts.
Mexico and Mexica practically refer to the same region, the Mexica valley.

 

[Henri Christophe]

to say "America" in their own language, they'll all say America.

That is a very good point! The way a country stole for it self a name of an entire continent to design his own nation.
Here in Brazil we find a word to refer to your nation without using just "American", we say: Estadounidense.