Changing Leader Mechanic in Civ 7

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And Toltecs should replace the Aztecs at least.

Toltecs are heavy mythologized without a good leader and language to make into a proper civ.

Eh, I'd like the Mayurans, Mughals, Chola, Bengals, Modern India, and then maybe Ahmednagar

Yeah, that's telling when you'd rather have Gandhi back than the Ahmednagar Sultanate appear. I'm in that boat too.

 

[Henri Christophe]

You realize that you are talking to an American?
And that he has partial English, French, and German ancestry?

You just play with USA?
Because I'm Brazilian but I don't play too much with Brazilian civ.
Acctually I don't like to play with Brazil because it's so pacifist. On Civ6 I played with the Zulus, Aztecs and Sparta, none of them represent me or my heritage and it's fine. Is cool to have our nation represented in the game, yes it's cool. But, it isn't the most important.

Toltecs are heavy mythologized without a good leader and language to make into a proper civ.

A good leader: Quetzalcoalt or Xochitl
Language: Nahualt (the same of the Aztecs)
The only point you acctually have is they may have a mythologized history, what I don't see any problem.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

You just play with USA?
Because I'm Brazilian but I don't play too much with Brazilian civ.
Acctually I don't like to play with Brazil because it's so pacifist. On Civ6 I played with the Zulus, Aztecs and Sparta, none of them represent me or my heritage and it's fine. Is cool to have our nation represented in the game, yes it's cool. But, it isn't the most important.

No. I do like playing as them though. I've played as America, Arabia, and Rome.

A good leader: Quetzalcoalt or Xochitl
Language: Nahualt (the same of the Aztecs)
The only point you acctually have is they may have a mythologized history, what I don't see any problem.

But the problem is that would only work for a Civ Mythos Spin-off

Now...
Hey
I guess I should make a thread about my Civ Mythos Idea!

 

[Patine]

Lump Europe together as Rome isn't a bad idea.

Uh, yes, it is...

And Toltecs should replace the Aztecs at least.
And Ahmednagar Sultanate should come with some others Indian's civs as the Mughals.

The Toltecs, whom we have no hard information on, except Aztec legendry (which is a very weak basis) and a minor petty Deccan monarchy (one of many in the Deccan, ALONE) that only you seem to care about, and isn't that big a deal, at all, even in India, should be shoe-in's to replace Germany? Really?

 

[Patine]

A good leader: Quetzalcoalt or Xochitl
Language: Nahualt (the same of the Aztecs)
The only point you acctually have is they may have a mythologized history, what I don't see any problem.

Those two leaders being mythologized is a problem. You may not have one, but the great majority of the Civ community tends see things differently.

 

[Henri Christophe]

But the problem is that would only work for a Civ Mythos Spin-off

Now...
Hey
I guess I should make a thread about my Civ Mythos Idea!

I saw you already made it, I already post there too

a minor petty Deccan monarchy

Ahmadnegar Sultanate could be small, but have one history who catch the attention because it's leader Malik Ambar, who was enslaved on Ethiopia and rise on power to become the leader of this Sultanete.

should be shoe-in's to replace Germany? Really?

I still want to know why Western power need to be in every game?
But if is to hard, we can at least take they out of Vanila edition.

Those two leaders being mythologized is a problem. You may not have one, but the great majority of the Civ community tends see things differently.

What Mexico need is other civs then just the Mayans and Aztecs. If the Toltecs don't have the community approval, it can be Zapotecs or Mixtecs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Ahmadnegar Sultanate could be small, but have one history who catch the attention because it's leader Malik Ambar, who was enslaved on Ethiopia and rise on power to become the leader of this Sultanete.

The Mughal Empire is a more compelling choice if we want to start having separate civs on the Indian Subcontinent. It would even be Muslim, the same religion as the Ahmadnegar Sultanate.

I still want to know why Western power need to be in every game?
But if is to hard, we can at least take they out of Vanila edition.

Because believe it or not, the western powers of Greece, Rome, England, France, Spain etc. had way more historical impact on the world than many other groups of people. Of course, there are always exceptions, like Mongolia and China, but they also get in every game too.
I'm all for alternate history games, and what if scenarios, but not at the cost of the major historical world powers which the majority of us agree on.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Because believe it or not, the western powers of Greece, Rome, England, France, Spain etc. had way more historical impact on the world than many other groups of people. Of course, there are always exceptions, like Mongolia and China, but they also get in every game too.
I'm all for alternate history games, and what if scenarios, but not at the cost of the major historical world powers which the majority of us agree on.

That about "historical impact" is very relative, these civs you listed could be important to Western world, but what are the importance of they to China? Or to the Zimbabwe?
Speaking about "historical impact", I think Haitian revolution was very impactfull to human history, but they don't deserve to be a civ untill today.
Civilization is an American game, and America had Indians and Africans in their population mixture, wasn't also important and of historical impact the history of Native Americans and Africans?
And if we think on human history whollistic, most of the population of the world is in India. So, what was impactfull to India should be impactfull to human being.

 

[Patine]

That about "historical impact" is very relative, these civs you listed could be important to Western world, but what are the importance of they to China? Or to the Zimbabwe?
Speaking about "historical impact", I think Haitian revolution was very impactfull to human history, but they don't deserve to be a civ untill today.
Civilization is an American game, and America had Indians and Africans in their population mixture, wasn't also important and of historical impact the history of Native Americans and Africans?
And if we think on human history whollistic, most of the population of the world is in India. So, what was impactfull to India should be impactfull to human being.

And, thus, it brings us back to what I said three times before, that each poster's preferences are OPINIONS, as valid as any others, and none is objectively correct or wrong, and terms like, "stole," "more deserving," "privilege," or other such toxic lingo do NOT belong in the conversation, and the view of objectively better or worse choices, by some pre-determined matrix unstated, and the authoritarian tone going along with that, needs to end, as I have already asked in several posts for it to be (posts that were all ignored by those I was addressing them to).

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That about "historical impact" is very relative, these civs you listed could be important to Western world, but what are the importance of they to China? Or to the Zimbabwe?

Well Portugal and the British Empire did set up colonies in China, see Hong Kong and Macau. And well I am guessing you are referring to the Medieval kingdom of Zimbabwe, but if not then Zimbabwe is definitely a nation that was carved out of former British territories.

And if we think on human history whollistic, most of the population of the world is in India. So, what was impactfull to India should be impactfull to human being.

Well, the point still stands about the British and Portugal with India as well.

 

[Patine]

most of the population of the world is in India.

A correction here. A statistical plurality is NOT, "most."

 

[Henri Christophe]

Well Portugal and the British Empire did set up colonies in China, see Hong Kong and Macau. And well I am guessing you are referring to the Medieval kingdom of Zimbabwe, but if not then Zimbabwe is definitely a nation that was carved out of former British territories.

Well, the point still stands about the British and Portugal with India as well.

Okay, maybe China, Zimbabwe and India isn't the best example.
I think only Ethiopia, Thailand and Iran avoid European colonialism, but even they have some kind of contact with Western powers.
So, I will change the argue. Why we need to endorsing the Imperialism as something good to the game?
I remember in Civ5 have a reference to the sun never set on British civ, a clear reference of the monstrous size of the British empire at this peek.
But I'm wonder, British people should be proud of their giant empire or be a shame?
Just to give an example why Imperialism is a bad thing, let's analyze the scramble of Africa.
Untill today we have wars on Africa because the way the boarders were draw. Nigeria, for example, was a monstruosity created by British imperialism, where they put at the same country Yorubas, Hauças and Igbos. The last one already try to get the independence of the country with a country named Biafra.
Also, was because of the scramble of Africa, that happens the World War I, the Western empire want land of others western empire, and in the end of the war, as British and France who share the lands of the Germany empire.
And was because World War I we have World War II, So, if the humanity never created the imperialism, we maybe don't will have the Nazism.
And what this Imperialism brings of good?
At the time of the British Empire, they used to say they are bring "Civilization" to the "Uncivilized" world, and I also heard the British made train lines on her colonies as something good. But this "Civilization" they bring just make Europe rich and Africa poor, so it isn't a noble thing as when they said that are suppose to be The White Man's Burden. As show in this image:

A correction here. A statistical plurality is NOT, "most."

Sorry, English isn't my first language.
But if you go correct me, please also say how is the right way to say it.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

So, I will change the argue. Why we need to endorsing the Imperialism as something good to the game?

This isn't endorsing imperialism, it is merely acknowledging the historical significance of those empires.

But I'm wonder, British people should be proud of their giant empire or be a shame?

That would go for every single empire in history.

In Civilization, everyone is practising imperialism. Everyone is the baddie. I'm not sure what an anti-imperialistic attitude will achieve here

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Okay, maybe China, Zimbabwe and India isn't the best example.
I think only Ethiopia, Thailand and Iran avoid European colonialism, but even they have some kind of contact with Western powers.
So, I will change the argue. Why we need to endorsing the Imperialism as something good to the game?
I remember in Civ5 have a reference to the sun never set on British civ, a clear reference of the monstrous size of the British empire at this peek.
But I'm wonder, British people should be proud of their giant empire or be a shame?
Just to give an example why Imperialism is a bad thing, let's analyze the scramble of Africa.
Untill today we have wars on Africa because the way the boarders were draw. Nigeria, for example, was a monstruosity created by British imperialism, where they put at the same country Yorubas, Hauças and Igbos. The last one already try to get the independence of the country with a country named Biafra.
Also, was because of the scramble of Africa, that happens the World War I, the Western empire want land of others western empire, and in the end of the war, as British and France who share the lands of the Germany empire.
And was because World War I we have World War II, So, if the humanity never created the imperialism, we maybe don't will have the Nazism.
And what this Imperialism brings of good?
At the time of the British Empire, they used to say they are bring "Civilization" to the "Uncivilized" world, and I also heard the British made train lines on her colonies as something good. But this "Civilization" they bring just make Europe rich and Africa poor, so it isn't a noble thing as when they said that are suppose to be The White Man's Burden. As show in this image:

A said above nobody is endorsing imperialism, I'm just stating a fact on their impact of the world. There's a reason why they are called the "Empire who's Sun never Sets" because they spread their influence across every continent in the world, for better or for worse.
Think of a Super Smash Bros. Game without Mario, or a Pokémon game without Pikachu? How well would that go over? Well, I guess you can't get Pikachu in any Gen 5 games, by any normal means, but still.

It's also not only Western powers that practiced imperialism either. Persia, China, Ottomans, Mali, Khmer, Inca, and of course Mongolia who created the largest continuous land empire, etc. did the same thing.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Think of a Super Smash Bros. Game without Mario, or a Pokémon game without Pikachu? How well would that go over?

Luigi's Mansion don't have Mario and Pokémon Black&White don't have Pikachu.
But what I'm trying to say isn't to remove western powers of the game, I can understand the importance of they to the world.
What I think is feasible is to remove western powers from vanila game.

It's also not only Western powers that practiced imperialism either. Persia, China, Ottomans, Mali, Khmer, Inca, and of course Mongolia who created the largest continuous land empire, etc. did the same thing.

And you are right, almost all nations at this game have some kind of imperialist behaviour. And I think is hard to avoid to be imperialistic in this game, because one of the main objectives of this game is conquer the whole world.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Luigi's Mansion don't have Mario and Pokémon Black&White don't have Pikachu.

Well, I specifically said Super Smash Bros., not Luigi's Mansion, and I did clarify my statement on Pikachu. Though that generation was interesting because they wanted to do a reboot with all new ones, so...

But what I'm trying to say isn't to remove western powers of the game, I can understand the importance of they to the world.
What I think is feasible is to remove western powers from vanila game.

On the flipside usually base games civs will be more basic than other civs released later on, because they will most likely include expansion mechanics. So if you relegate civs like America and England to DLC expansions they might end up being more unique than the civs in the base game. Just something to think about.
Also, Spain usually isn't always included in the base game. It was in Civ 6 I think only to add another religious civ, because religion was a new victory condition. I have a feeling it will sit out of vanilla in Civ 7. The Dutch and Portugal always come out later, along with Byzantium. I fully expect to at least see America, England, France, Germany, Greece and Rome. Then there is Russia, but one could consider that an "eastern" power.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Luigi's Mansion don't have Mario and Pokémon Black&White don't have Pikachu.
But what I'm trying to say isn't to remove western powers of the game, I can understand the importance of they to the world.
What I think is feasible is to remove western powers from vanila game.

Luigi's mansion isn't Smash Bros.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Back to main topic,
I was wondering about ethinic units.
It will be more easier to do it if we bloobed civs as Toltecs + Aztecs + México Republic.
The same civ can have the Atlantes of Toltecs, Eagle Warriors of Aztecs (also have the Jaguar warriors) and in the modern age it can have the rurales:

And would be way more fun if civ 7 have ethinic units to all civs, once I play an other game of the same kind where all units of Aztecs were unique.
The only downfall to do all units uniques is, Aztecs didn't had horses or gunpowder and battle against civ who had this was desavantagous.
But also I download once the steam patch of ethinic units were he imagine how would be an Aztec cavalary and an Aztec Gunpowder, it also fun but was very historical innacurate.
With the main idea of bloobed civs as a continuity one of to others, the horse and gunpowder units of Aztecs could be inspired on Mexican examples.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I'm not sure what @Henri Christophe is on about, but I think this is an opportune time to mention how Rise of Nations had unique units that could be common to more than one nation, and also that different nations had different numbers of unique units. So the Persian and Indian nations, for example, had the War Elephant line of units, but the Persians also had the Immortal line of units, which the Indians didn't have. If the Civilization series were to adopt this, the UU asymmetry could be rectified by having the civ have a better UA, or more UBs/UIs. Though I don't see such a move being popular among the series' playerbase.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I'm not sure what @Henri Christophe is on about, but I think this is an opportune time to mention how Rise of Nations had unique units that could be common to more than one nation, and also that different nations had different numbers of unique units. So the Persian and Indian nations, for example, had the War Elephant line of units, but the Persians also had the Immortal line of units, which the Indians didn't have. If the Civilization series were to adopt this, the UU asymmetry could be rectified by having the civ have a better UA, or more UBs/UIs. Though I don't see such a move being popular among the series' playerbase.

Rise of Nations also have regional looking units including complete Modern an Contemporany sets for Meso/Andean and NA-Native regions.

By the way since many times X or Y civs are more in need of either an additional unit, building or bonus (but not a secondary of all those), I think a "wild card" unique named Tradition could be added to all civs. This one will be cultural related giving you a secondary unique unit, building or bonus(ability). Additional ones could be optained from others cultures, obviously with some limitations to not accumulate too many in each game.

So for example a "Magrebi" civ could have 2 unique units, one of these come from their Tradition being this time the Numidian/Berber Zenata cavalry that could be used as mercenary/auxiliar by others civs.