Changing Leader Mechanic in Civ 7

[Henri Christophe]

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

I like your idea!
Maybe the same civ could have not junt one tradition, but more then one. As for example you gave of Marrocos, who is of a Magreb tradition could also be part of African tradition and Islamic tradition. And share with these tradition some unique units; on that way we get close of the ethnic units concept.
I was thinking about Elephant units, he can't just be part of African tradition, because was used just for Carthagen (as far I know). But was wide spread used in India and Indochina. Maybe we should have a tradition called elephant to englobe those nations and don't have innacurate unities.
And this tradition could subtrate units too, maybe should be more accurate if civs as the Aztecs don't have knights on it's tech tree. Maybe should be cool a tech tree for each civ based on theses traditions.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I was thinking about Elephant units, he can't just be part of African tradition, because was used just for Carthagen (as far I know). But was wide spread used in India and Indochina. Maybe we should have a tradition called elephant to englobe those nations and don't have innacurate unities.

Units like War Elephants, Camel Riders and even Horse Archers could be linked to in map resources. In the case of horses it was talked before that there is kind a difference between have horses and "high quality" horses, in this case great Horse Archers comes from pastorial semi-nomads societies with a strong horse riding tradition like the peoples of Central Asia.

And this tradition could subtrate units too, maybe should be more accurate if civs as the Aztecs don't have knights on it's tech tree. Maybe should be cool a tech tree for each civ based on theses traditions.

About this, it is way better to add uniques units than take away regulars units from any civ. Also it would be absurd and deterministic to take away horses from a civ like Aztecs, since in real history the horse was domesticated in the Eurasian and spread from there, being America isolated from the Old World and falling the Aztec Empire just with the early interactions do not justify an in-game Aztec players to do not have horses if they start right next all the others civs with horses.
Just an small trivia about this, now Mexico is the second country with most horses in the world just behind USA, so why Aztec would not breed horses if they have the chance to?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Units like War Elephants, Camel Riders and even Horse Archers could be linked to in map resources. In the case of horses it was talked before that there is kind a difference between have horses and "high quality" horses, in this case great Horse Archers comes from pastorial semi-nomads societies with a strong horse riding tradition like the peoples of Central Asia.

In the case of War Elephants, I'd still want to link those to owning an ivory corporation. Horse archers and camel archers could come from the nomadic plains "tribes" and desert "tribes", respectively. Maybe rainforest "tribes" could also get a unique blowgun unit.

 

[Evie]

That runs the risk of overly specialized civilizations, even more so than the current system, who might be completely unsuited to their starting location.

Instead have I'd say the same concept - traditions that unlock certain units only for the civs with that tradition - but make it something that can be unlocked in-game, with requirement reflecting your situation? And maybe certain preferences for certain civ to aim for certain traditions (but not beyond reason, we're talking higher odds of picking one tradition over another, not an unreasonable preference).

These requirement would be more than just having a tech or civic (because that,s just research), but might require having a certain ressource in your territory, starting the game in a certain terrain type, embracing certain combination of government and policies, etc. You'd need to actually build your civilization a certain way to earn them.

 

[Patine]

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:
View attachment 661374
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.

But, the question is, why are we back to the bad idea of blobbing Pre-Columbian Mesoamericans and Post-Indendence Mexicans? Ethnic units idea, aside.

 

[BuchiTaton]

That runs the risk of overly specialized civilizations, even more so than the current system, who might be completely unsuited to their starting location.

Instead have I'd say the same concept - traditions that unlock certain units only for the civs with that tradition - but make it something that can be unlocked in-game, with requirement reflecting your situation? And maybe certain preferences for certain civ to aim for certain traditions (but not beyond reason, we're talking higher odds of picking one tradition over another, not an unreasonable preference).

These requirement would be more than just having a tech or civic (because that,s just research), but might require having a certain ressource in your territory, starting the game in a certain terrain type, embracing certain combination of government and policies, etc. You'd need to actually build your civilization a certain way to earn them.

Maybe can help to get additional Traditions from "minor civs", in a similar way to the interactions with Goodie Huts, Barbarian Clans and City States. Basically if you play as England but happens that you starts in an area with little ocean you can still find some "minor civ" that help you to get a tradition to survive better until you expand to the sea. The interaction could be done in multiple ways, like direct conquest, diplomacy, trade, conversion, even some form of mission.

Like said before, I think traditions should be culture based in a way that every main(Empires=playable) or minor(Nations=BC+CS) civs have their own by default, but since start each player can assimilate a second tradition. Additional ones (not too many, maybe 2 or 3 more by end of the game?) could be unlocked with some civics/policies (even some civ could have a couple of extra slots as its UA!).

 

[Henri Christophe]

About this, it is way better to add uniques units than take away regulars units from any civ. Also it would be absurd and deterministic to take away horses from a civ like Aztecs, since in real history the horse was domesticated in the Eurasian and spread from there, being America isolated from the Old World and falling the Aztec Empire just with the early interactions do not justify an in-game Aztec players to do not have horses if they start right next all the others civs with horses.
Just an small trivia about this, now Mexico is the second country with most horses in the world just behind USA, so why Aztec would not breed horses if they have the chance to?

If Aztecs could have horses, it could also have elephants.
Why have one and don't the other?
Despite being historical innacurate, I would like to play Zulu with Elephants.

But, the question is, why are we back to the bad idea of blobbing Pre-Columbian Mesoamericans and Post-Indendence Mexicans? Ethnic units idea, aside.

Ethinic units should be way more fluid if flow from native american units on early ages and have republican units on modern ages.
As for example US could start with Mohawks, and just then have some unit as the Minute man.

 

[Patine]

If Aztecs could have horses, it could also have elephants.
Why have one and don't the other?

Why would that have elephants anymore than they would have Post-Colonial Mexican cavalry? The last pachyderms in the Western Hemisphere went extinct several thousands of years before the early maize farmers who evolved into the Olmecs showed up.

As for example US could start with Mohawks

Why do you continue to view the Haudenosaunee as remotely appropriate as an, "earlier iteration," the U.S. civ? Don't you see how jarring, unrealistic, and unworkable - as well as offensive - it is?

 

[BuchiTaton]

If Aztecs could have horses, it could also have elephants.
Why have one and don't the other?
Despite being historical innacurate, I would like to play Zulu with Elephants.

Like was said before Aztec as any other playable civs could get some elephants from the proper source, that is either directly as a "rare/strategic" resource on map or in a more complex way from a minor civ.
Also lets remember that elephants unlike horses are not realy domesticated (selective breeded animals), historicaly elephants are captured from nature to be tamed. Camels are the ones that are also domesticated but their use is mostly restricted to deserts, scrublands and steppes.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Civilizations that had animal-based 'units' all had them first and foremost because they had Access to those animals. That has to be the basis for any camel, horse, elephant, or other specific animal-based units in the game or they become (as they largely are now) simplistic Fantasy.

On the other hand, animals could be traded or spread over wide areas. There were no elephants in the middle east, but all the Successor states after Alexander had elephants in their armies, because they bought them from India with gold or diplomacy, and the Ptolemies (and later, the Carthaginians) exploited the North African 'forest' elephant. Using too many of those in the arenas, the Romans sent the North African species extinct, and no European army has used elephants in Europe since.
Another factoid is that the earliest evidence for Elephants as war 'machinery' is from India and South China in the 6th century BCE - because the Asian elephant's native habitat was south/central India to southeast Asia to south China and so it was readily available - and, by the ay, there is evidence for elephants in the same areas as civilian work beasts up to 1500 years before any evidence that anyone tried taking them into battle.

So, in game terms, there needs to be a two-part Trigger to have Special Animal Units:
1. The animal resource (elephants/Ivory, horses, camels) has to be readily available, either on the map nearby or through Trade
2. You have to have access to a specific or general Unit Type that uses the Special Animal. Using elephants as an example, there were two 'general' Battle Elephant units, ranged and melee, with Indian and further east typically using elephants as platforms for Ranged Weapons and middle east and western using elephants as melee weapons. I don't know off hand of anyone who used both, which could make a good basis for your first Special Animal Unit decision: Ranged or Melee, which is exclusive for elephants but not so much for Horses (even the pastoral all-mounted Civs all had both cavalry with bows and cavalry with lances, swords, maces, and the primary tactic of closing to melee, and that includes even or especially the later types like Jurchens and Mongols)

Specific Special Animal Units, of course, is where Civ can take off, but only having the Special Units as alternatives. If 'India' doesn't have access to elephants, they should not be penalized by having no Unique Unit at all.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Personally I find a regular War Elephant good enough to cover both roles.
* Classified as cavalry
* Extra bonus from charge(unlocked by default), but more vulnerable to anti-cavalry
* Ranged, maybe less attack that regular archers since there are less shooters per area
* Movility in pair with meele infantry and regular ranged units, but do not suffer terrain penalties
* Bad at flanking and suffer extra damage by enemy flanking
Basically a powerfull mix of heavy cavalry and ranged units exceling at Classical and Medieval eras, balanced also by its cost and the scarcity of Elephant resource (either directly owned or by diplomacy/trade).

In a simplified model is easy to associate the unique mount resource with the tradition that allows you to get as "special regular" unit:
- Elephants > War Elephant
- Camels > Camel Rider
- Horses > Horse Archer

Punic and Indian civs should have a different non-elephant UU, still in the case of Indian civ I have a special way to secure the access to their iconic War Elephants. In my model where each civ have a Tradition India have the UA that gives every third founded city a different culture, so the second tradition (Bengali? maybe) allows to place a Elephant resource from each city of that culture.

It has been mentioned before that the absolute necessity and scarsity of "strategic" resources could be replaced by huge discounts and eurekas when the resource is owned (directly or traded). So once the proper tech is researched cavalry units can be trained in any city with Stable (representing the necesity of horse breeding, while a city with on-map Horses resources can train them even withuot stable).
Since the on-map horses represent areas where both feral horses and the semi-nomadic peoples associated to them thrive, this sites would produce Horse Archer as a "special regular" unit. After all is not coincidence that even famous European light cavalry units like Jinete, Uhlan and Hussar are related to the traditions from the peoples of the Magreb and the Pontic Steppe.

 

[Patine]

Personally I find a regular War Elephant good enough to cover both roles.
* Classified as cavalry
* Extra bonus from charge(unlocked by default), but more vulnerable to anti-cavalry
* Ranged, maybe less attack that regular archers since there are less shooters per area
* Movility in pair with meele infantry and regular ranged units, but do not suffer terrain penalties
* Bad at flanking and suffer extra damage by enemy flanking
Basically a powerfull mix of heavy cavalry and ranged units exceling at Classical and Medieval eras, balanced also by its cost and the scarcity of Elephant resource (either directly owned or by diplomacy/trade).

In a simplified model is easy to associate the unique mount resource with the tradition that allows you to get as "special regular" unit:
- Elephants > War Elephant
- Camels > Camel Rider
- Horses > Horse Archer

Punic and Indian civs should have a different non-elephant UU, still in the case of Indian civ I have a special way to secure the access to their iconic War Elephants. In my model where each civ have a Tradition India have the UA that gives every third founded city a different culture, so the second tradition (Bengali? maybe) allows to place a Elephant resource from each city of that culture.

It has been mentioned before that the absolute necessity and scarsity of "strategic" resources could be replaced by huge discounts and eurekas when the resource is owned (directly or traded). So once the proper tech is researched cavalry units can be trained in any city with Stable (representing the necesity of horse breeding, while a city with on-map Horses resources can train them even withuot stable).
Since the on-map horses represent areas where both feral horses and the semi-nomadic peoples associated to them thrive, this sites would produce Horse Archer as a "special regular" unit. After all is not coincidence that even famous European light cavalry units like Jinete, Uhlan and Hussar are related to the traditions from the peoples of the Magreb and the Pontic Steppe.

This seems a little wonky in it's viewpoint, and makes the assumption that non-historically cavalry cultures will automatically take up horse archery as their style, by default, despite it being one of the rarest equestiran military styles. And, non-historical elepahant users getting an elephant unit that has both ranged and melee features, together, means they have a major advantage over civ's that historically used elephants. I think this scheme needs serious revision and reconsideration.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Like was said before Aztec as any other playable civs could get some elephants from the proper source, that is either directly as a "rare/strategic" resource on map or in a more complex way from a minor civ.
Also lets remember that elephants unlike horses are not realy domesticated (selective breeded animals), historicaly elephants are captured from nature to be tamed. Camels are the ones that are also domesticated but their use is mostly restricted to deserts, scrublands and steppes.

Yes, like I said before I think the easiest way to streamline the use of elephants, camels, and horse archers to all civs is by tying them to specific corporations, city-states, tribes etc.

A War Elephant could be built by the civ who owns an ivory corporation. That doesn't preclude any Indian or SEA civs like Siam or Khmer etc. from producing their own UU variant.
Camel units can be unique to desert tribes, and once allied you can purchase them. Same thing would go for horse archers and nomadic steppe tribes. Still possible civs like Arabia or Scythia/Huns/Mongolia etc. can get their own camel/horse archer UUs without having to ally with these tribes.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Exactly, things like Horse Archer is a kind of unit that required warriors raised and forged at "horse back". In this model "normal" cavalry units do not necessarily need on-map Horses resource to be produced, this allow Horses to be a resource exclusive to steppes, prairies and arib shrublands. Then, like in the Barbarian Clans certain "minor civs" are linked to particular biomes and units like Horse Archer, Camel Rider and War Elephant comes from them.

This way the ability to optain these "special regular"(note that are not "unique") units is linked to certain biomes>cultures, acorded to history where most of these units were used as mercenary and auxiliars. Keep in mind that civs have starting bias that would make easier for any civ to get access to their proper "special regular" units:
- Civs like Arabs, Berbers, Somalis, etc. Would start close to camels.
- Civs like Mongols, Turks, Lakotas, etc. Would start close to horses.
- Civs like Indians, Siameses, Malays, etc.Would start close to elephants.

So the historical users have the upper hand to get these "special regular" units, adding to their options that include their proper UU. There is not disadvantages since their UU could be any other kind of unit, or even an actualy unique replacement for the "special regular" like for example the "Giant Crossbow" Elephant for Khmers. After all CIV7 is likely to have around of 50 civs plus BC+CS at this point is pretty obvious that multiple civs would be historical users of Horse Archers, Camel Riders and War Elephants, so keep these units as absolute "unique" to any of these historical users jeopardize the representation of the others. At the same time this model also allow their access to other civs (included some historical that used them but more sporadically and as mercenary/auxiliars) under the proper conditions.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Personally I find a regular War Elephant good enough to cover both roles.
* Classified as cavalry
* Extra bonus from charge(unlocked by default), but more vulnerable to anti-cavalry
* Ranged, maybe less attack that regular archers since there are less shooters per area
* Movility in pair with meele infantry and regular ranged units, but do not suffer terrain penalties
* Bad at flanking and suffer extra damage by enemy flanking
Basically a powerfull mix of heavy cavalry and ranged units exceling at Classical and Medieval eras, balanced also by its cost and the scarcity of Elephant resource (either directly owned or by diplomacy/trade).

Just a few things to add/change:
Elephants are slightly less vulnerable to 'anti-cavalry' spears because the same pear or pike that will kill a man has to hit exactly the right spot or it will just annoy the elephant.
BUT With every bit of damage inflicted on the elephant unit, there is a chance the elephant will decide on its own to leave. This results in both the elephant unit being lost and, if there are any friendly units behind it, they suffer damage from being trampled.
Ranged on elephants , if anything, have Increased Factors for two reasons:
1. They can target enemy units and individuals more easily from their greater elephant-back height
2. They have virtually unlimited supply of arrows (or crossbow bolts) compared to the foot archer who has to carry all his ammunition on his own back.

You left out the very important elephant attribute that horses are scared by them (not because of their smell or noise, but because of their Size - horses are not used to being around anything so much bigger than they are, and it makes them nervous, and when they get nervous their first instinct is to Run Away). Elephant units should get a bonus versus any horse-mounted cavalry.

 

[Venceslau Pietro Pietra]

Very off topic but i finished reading all the posts and i belive that before we debate on what is a American or what is a white person we should go to therapy and resolve our identity issues with the help of a professional

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Very off topic but i finished reading all the posts and i belive that before we debate on what is a American or what is a white person we should go to therapy and resolve our identity issues with the help of a professional

I'm sure that would include many people on the internet, not just in this forum.

 

[Caesar of Bread]

Very off topic but i finished reading all the posts and i belive that before we debate on what is a American or what is a white person we should go to therapy and resolve our identity issues with the help of a professional

We all need that

 

[Xandinho]

Why should we have this Western powerhouse in every game? As USA, England, France, Germany and Spain.
I believe don't will hurt if these civilizations just appear in late DLC.

Well, that would ruin the game commercially. Most consumers of the game are Americans, Western Europeans and now Chinese.

I don't think we should have too many European nations in the base game, but the ones you mentioned are essential (Spain could come a little later, though).

And Toltecs should replace the Aztecs at least.

Unlikely, Aztec is given. Personally speaking, I'd prefer Taino as a third option for Mesoamerica/Central America/Caribbean. Mexico, Haiti or Zapotecs could be considered as well, but obviously none of them at the expense of the Aztecs or Maya.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Very off topic but i finished reading all the posts and i belive that before we debate on what is a American or what is a white person we should go to therapy and resolve our identity issues with the help of a professional

Thanks for read all, is always good more thoughts about the main discussion and the off topic discussion.

Well, that would ruin the game commercially. Most consumers of the game are Americans, Western Europeans and now Chinese.

I don't think so, first this game is already big enough to do however it want and still selling a lot.
And if we took comparisons between civ 5 and 6, they represent more white land outside Europe as Canada and Australia and sell less then previous games.
Maybe doing a game more decolonial as doing the blacks outside Africa civs could make it sell better. We just can know if they do.
And I think a decolonial civ 7 could have at least a continental quota, but for Europe I would like to see some unconventional civs as Romênia or Yugoslavia, not the same western powerhouse as UK, USA, France and Germany.
And also I don't think this kind of game is needed to we play with our nations. I for example never played with Brazil on civ 6, and it's since the vanilla edition.