Changing Leader Mechanic in Civ 7

[Zaarin]

No, modern gamers are incredibly fat on this idea of production values. They will literally say "it's bad because graphics" or "not worth $x because graphics", explicitly arguing that price is somehow based on (their ignorant prediction of what was) cost or difficulty, and also explicitly saying the gameplay was there and they like it but graphics. They say a price tag is bad (or even morally repugnant) if it seems to them the game was easy to make, without of course having ever made anything themselves.

...Not one part of this strawman makes any sense at all.

 

[aieeegrunt]

...Not one part of this strawman makes any sense at all.

I’m not entirely sure what they were trying to say, but I do think that graphics is one of the major things people judge a video game by, and it can certainly increase or decrease your enjoyment of it.

How important it is or how you like individual “styles” can be just as subjective as anything else

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

...Not one part of this strawman makes any sense at all.

I am referring, obviously, to things I have seen and heard actual people say, as that is obviously the only reason I would be annoyed by it. You saying it doesn't make sense is what doesn't make sense. You got enough sense out of it to claim it's a strawman, which means you know what I asserted and that it was about a position and you can judge if other people have argued that position.

Why, on Earth, would I arrive to the thread with an axe to grind about a set of players that actually does not exist and would never have suggested the problem to my imagination?

 

[Zaarin]

I am referring, obviously, to things I have seen and heard actual people say, as that is obviously the only reason I would be annoyed by it. You saying it doesn't make sense is what doesn't make sense. You got enough sense out of it to claim it's a strawman, which means you know what I asserted and that it was about a position and you can judge if other people have argued that position.

Why, on Earth, would I arrive to the thread with an axe to grind about a set of players that actually does not exist and would never have suggested the problem to my imagination?

I called it a strawman because you seemed to be responding to an imaginary opponent rather than anything anyone said, and I'm genuinely trying to make sense of what you said because it does not add up to a coherent idea.

 

[luca 83]

And the very idea of the omnipotent leader having to be changed by introducing the ideologies and attitudes of the population would be a very good idea as I have already said no one is omnipotent and the internal conflict like. The external is necessary as part of the simulation, as well as losing power or facing internal coups d'état: the fact that moving from a monarchical to a republican state is inconsistent and not very immersive: a serious shortcoming

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Civilization series are so big they can do anything and will still fly and sell.
They can even make wrong history as puting Nzinga leading the Kongo and the players still buying.

Well what you said is more than wrong. Not only is it absolutely stupid, it supports colonial intentions. Hiawatha never led America!

 

[Caesar of Bread]

I was thinking, why each Civilization just have one leader? Is it a dictatorship?
And my propose is, for each civilization change it leaders in each era of the game. Changing it's personality and behaviour for each leader.

If Civilization was divided in 5 main eras:
Ancient age
Classical age
Middle ages
Modern ages
Contemporany age.

it means each Civilization should have at least 5 leaders. (if you disagre with that ages, go here)

Some problems and solutions for this idea:

There is two big problems with this idea, some nations are too old and not arrive in contemporany ages and others are so new and don't have leaders of ancient age.

My solution for this issue is intermixing some civilization who have some kind of historical or geographycal links.
For example: Babylon
It can be lead by Nebuchadnezzar in ancient age and be lead by Saddam Hussein in Contemporany age.

maybe changing the name of the Civilization too when change the leader. (or not)

Just stick to Babylon. Hussein was a bad man.

Other example: The Aztecs.
It can starts with Tenoch in ancient age, have Montezuma in classical age. But when it arrives in contemporany age have some president of Mexico as Benito Juárez

No. Mexico was not the Aztecs.

Other example: Brazil
It can starts with some native american leader as Cunhambebe in ancient age, goes to some colonial governor of Brazil in Classical age as Mem de Sá, after have our beloved Pedro II in middle ages. In modern age Brazil can have some president as Getúlio Vargas and finish it in contemporany age with Juscelino Kubitschek.

Same as above.

Other example: USA
It also can starts with some native american leader as Hiawatha (of Iroquois) in ancient age. After have George Washington in classical age and Abraham Lincon in middle ages.

Same as above.

Other example: The Zulus
It can start with Mnguni in ancient age, goes to Zulu kaMalandela in classical age, after have our beloved Shaka Zulu in middle ages and finish it in contemporany age with some South Africa president as Mandela or Jacob Zuma. Or instead of it have a South African president, the Zulu can still with Zulu kings in contemporany age as Goodwill Zwelithini kaBhekuzulu.

Eh ok

Other example: Rome
It can have a leader as Júlio César in classical age and goes for Italians leaders in modern age as Garibaldi.

Italy wasn't the Roman Empire.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Overall I don't like this idea, keep it to leaders and maybe their family/friends.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

?

 

[luca 83]

A Cesar does not and the historical leader in a historical period simulated comne the barbaric reservoirs because the character's cups are different so Pierto the great and suitable for representing communism or the republic

 

[luca 83]

The leaders as they are made today were fine in civ of 1991 - 2000 with the graphics and the then today need more mechanics and less leaders

 

[Evie]

You still cannot rid a game franchise of its defining features, which the leaders very much are for civ.

It's not a bad idea for a game in general, but it's an idea that simply would gut civilization of what makes it civilization. Maybe another 4X would be better suited for it.

 

[Naokaukodem]

@Evie You definitely cannot replace squares by hexes, it's the franchise definition. You can't get rid of stacks of doom, it's the franchise definition. You can't have a social policies tree, science is what drives progress, which is the franchise definition. You can't unstack cities, because otherwise you wouldn't have tiles to work anymore, which is the franchise definition.

Honestly, I don't think leaders are the franchise definition either, except for forumers and youtubers maybe, who love inserting a joke on nuclear Gandhi for example. But for the PLAYER, leaders have, ingame, where you are in front of the map, pretty much few impact. First, you cannot see the leader you picked up. You can only see the unique units and improvements, like terrace farms, or Civ5 polders, which are the two examples that modify the look of the map drastically. Units are just mere icons, you can know their abilities but it's just that. You most of the time cannot see your leader abilities, and you have to constantly go in the civilopedia to check them out, especially in Civ6.

I think that the true essence of the series is however graphical, eventhough is hasn't shown its full potential yet. Graphical and mechanical. (for example, a creation of the map taking into account the tectonic would be a revolution for map generation, far more realistic than it is now - you can even imagine that the tectonic plaques move before you and you have to choose when to appear, eventhough we would a bit go away from strictly historical flavor, like we could live with dinosaurs, why did this idea despised so hard by the way ? There's no decisive evidence that intelligence can't grow in a hostile world - what's the diffence between humankind and animals beside language ? What does humankind pursue ? If you ask me, human is a sick animal. An insane one.)

 

[Evie]

Sure, you might not see your own leader during the game...but you see the dozen other leaders who are in the game with you a lot. Trying to say you don't see the leaders much because you don't see yours much is...at best a massive misrepresentation.

I'd in fact venture to say that the leaders are probably, in fact, the most visible and recognizable aspect of the game and, their badly AI coded personality and agenda, and the way the game plays differently against some of them over others are among the most memorable aspects of every civ game, despite your claims otherwise.

Even outside the game, they're front and center in the marketing since at least Civ III, and the fanfare surrounding every new leader reveal in recent years is just more proof of that.

None of the game rules and concepts, except one (the tech tree), comes even close, and on that one, nobody ever suggested removing the tech tree altogether. A separate social tree was added, and techs were kept which is completely different from removing the tech tree entirely.

 

[Naokaukodem]

But who cares of leaders that have a couple sentences of vocabulary and are above all and at best all annoying bastards ? I don't want to see their ugly faces when I'm trying out to figure how to win. So there's left the fact that they represent a starting choice and that you can incarnate them. And we don't even have that feeling of incarnating them when we are in front of the map. That's the problem.

You're totally wrong, the most visible aspect of the game is the map. It's the true hero of that series. That's why we should take great care of it with for example things I suggested before. The most memorable aspects of my games are when there is a civ or a city state in an awkwardly important place ; that happened only once to me. (in Civ5)

Yeah they are good to advertise the game but that's not the game itself. People are attaching importance to leaders because they can eventually incarnate them, again. And because of youtube/forums jokes hype train. That doesn't make the game itself better, it's even the contrary.

My examples are there to proove that what we think is eternal is not. All else what I said is to minimize the importance of leaderheads, according to my opinion obviously, and the vision I have of such a game that have immense potential than what it already is. If you expect more leaders, why not play Civ3, Civ4, Civ5, Civ6, or even Civ1 and Civ2 ? Do you have wet dreams as to a particular civ could be in the next iteration ? Is all this all about it for you ? I bet even not. So you see, leader heads are not the most important thing in Civ.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

But who cares of leaders that have a couple sentences of vocabulary and are above all and at best all annoying bastards ? I don't want to see their ugly faces when I'm trying out to figure how to win. So there's left the fact that they represent a starting choice and that you can incarnate them. And we don't even have that feeling of incarnating them when we are in front of the map. That's the problem.

You're totally wrong, the most visible aspect of the game is the map. It's the true hero of that series. That's why we should take great care of it with for example things I suggested before. The most memorable aspects of my games are when there is a civ or a city state in an awkwardly important place ; that happened only once to me. (in Civ5)

Yeah they are good to advertise the game but that's not the game itself. People are attaching importance to leaders because they can eventually incarnate them, again. And because of youtube/forums jokes hype train. That doesn't make the game itself better, it's even the contrary.

My examples are there to proove that what we think is eternal is not. All else what I said is to minimize the importance of leaderheads, according to my opinion obviously, and the vision I have of such a game that have immense potential than what it already is. If you expect more leaders, why not play Civ3, Civ4, Civ5, Civ6, or even Civ1 and Civ2 ? Do you have wet dreams as to a particular civ could be in the next iteration ? Is all this all about it for you ? I bet even not. So you see, leader heads are not the most important thing in Civ.

I'm against your point of view.
These leaders are engrained in the Civ series. It's like cheese and crackers, bread and butter, Popeye's and gang wars (no offense to Popeye's though). You need leaders like you need the map, or it ain't Civ and would be like those fake Civ games that are not as cool or popular.

 

[Evie]

You're still mistaking the "how" for the "what".

The map is how. It's a tool (and an essential one) on which the game is played, that allow the concept at the core of the game to translate into actual gameplay.

But the leaders (and civilizations) are what. They're the aforesaid central concept of the game - build your own empire as one of history's great leader and civilization.

Sure, you may only care about the empire building, and not care for the leaders and civilization, and that's fair, you're free to enjoy the parts of the game you want and not care about other parts. But it is plain observable fact that Civ has been marketed precisely on that "build a civilization as one of the great leaders of history" for decades, and that leaders have been ever-increasingly more central to the way the game is played (so it's not just marketing, it's design and development too). That's not my personal opinion: that's the reality of the game as Firaxis is making and selling it. (And no, none of the "feature" you pointed at are even remotely comparable in importance to either the marketing or the development, so any attempt to bring them into the discussion is pure apple-and-banana comparison).

They're almost as much the face of the franchise as the monsters are the face of Pokémon. The odds of them being removed any time soon are minimal.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

You're still mistaking the "how" for the "what".

The map is how. It's a tool (and an essential one) on which the game is played, that allow the concept at the core of the game to translate into actual gameplay.

But the leaders (and civilizations) are what. They're the aforesaid central concept of the game - build your own empire as one of history's great leader and civilization.

Sure, you may only care about the empire building, and not care for the leaders and civilization, and that's fair, you're free to enjoy the parts of the game you want and not care about other parts. But it is plain observable fact that Civ has been marketed precisely on that "build a civilization as one of the great leaders of history" for decades, and that leaders have been ever-increasingly more central to the way the game is played (so it's not just marketing, it's design and development too). That's not my personal opinion: that's the reality of the game as Firaxis is making and selling it. (And no, none of the "feature" you pointed at are even remotely comparable in importance to either the marketing or the development, so any attempt to bring them into the discussion is pure apple-and-banana comparison).

They're almost as much the face of the franchise as the monsters are the face of Pokémon. The odds of them being removed any time soon are minimal

All Evie is preaching is the truth. Taking them out of the game is like taking the Pokemon out of Pokemon or the Smash bros characters out of Smash bros. Nobody wants to play as the Mii the entire game for all games.

 

[Evie]

Ohhhh, Smash Bros.That's an even better parallel than the Pokémon! Good catch, Caesar. Sure, you could have the game with just Mii and the fun mechanics...but the core marketing and design of the game is all about having famous Nintendo (and other video games) characters beating each other up.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Ohhhh, Smash Bros.That's an even better parallel than the Pokémon! Good catch, Caesar. Sure, you could have the game with just Mii and the fun mechanics...but the core marketing and design of the game is all about having famous Nintendo (and other video games) characters beating each other up.

Thanks, Evie. I thought of a game mode in which it is kind of like smash bros, but with historical figures. So you could have Gandhi use his "Nuclear Weapons" to beat up Abe Lincoln or something. But hey that could be a separate game.