civ 6 is a good game with issues.

[Duke William of Normandy]

Because as much as awsome as Turtles ship is
... it ain't everything. In fact Hwacha is just as important if not more to traditional Korean military than Turtle ship

Plus, it's basically early rocket artillery. That's gotta count for "cool" points, right?

 

[Kupe Navigator]

Plus, it's basically early rocket artillery. That's gotta count for "cool" points, right?

and created by Joseon king- Munjong of Joseon

 

[Heyesey]

You must spend a lot more time in your own tab of the diplomacy screen than I do then; frankly I only go there if I forget what a particularly civ ability does and I don't feel like looking it up in the Civilopedia.

What ARE you gibbering about? The roman civilization has a single leader, Trajan, for the entire game. The Cree, Poundmaker, and so on and so on. You don't need to look in a mirror to make sure you're still you, do you?

 

[Linklite]

What ARE you gibbering about? The roman civilization has a single leader, Trajan, for the entire game. The Cree, Poundmaker, and so on and so on. You don't need to look in a mirror to make sure you're still you, do you?

No, but when the game makes no effort to identify you as Trajan, it makes no odds. If you're an actor in a film but the film never has your name mentioned in drogue or otherwise associates you with a name, then what does it matter if you're character is called John? What difference does it make if you call yourself Bob in your head? I never identify myself with the specific leader in Civ 6 for this reason. It just makes no difference.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

How can you like Korea that hasn't even got Turtle ships? No offence but it was really painful to see Korea without turtle ships...

Neither does Civ 4 Korea, or Civ 3 Korea. Civ 5 is the only iteration that has the Turtle Ship.

At least we have Admiral Yi in the game that can give you an early ironclad unit. That being said ideally I would have loved getting them but I can live without them.
I was going to have more issues if the Byzantines didn't come with dromons though.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

No, but when the game makes no effort to identify you as Trajan, it makes no odds. If you're an actor in a film but the film never has your name mentioned in drogue or otherwise associates you with a name, then what does it matter if you're character is called John? What difference does it make if you call yourself Bob in your head? I never identify myself with the specific leader in Civ 6 for this reason. It just makes no difference.

but the potrait of the leader is on the top of the game? Surely you do look at it if only to see whose turn is the game processing right now?

 

[Gedemon]

They should use the Civilization icons only, it's confusing to have 2 different icons for the same player in a game.

Thankfully that was easily moddable.

I want to play Civilization, not Leaders, I don't like how the latter have taken more importance than the former in the franchise.

They won't be removed of course, but if we need to have something at the head of the Civilization with its own abilities, I'd prefer something more dynamic than one immortal leader. Most simple would be one leader per era, but as said there will be difficulties for some civs in some eras. I'd go for a pool of (global, regional or ethical) tribes/families/political factions (in order of appearance) that you could change on some events/action to lead your Civilization and build/modify its abilities as the game progress.

 

[Zegangani]

I foresee that leading to as bad of results as the changing clothes in Civ3. Frankly I don't want nationalist nonsense like "Matthias Corvinus leads the Sumerians in the Middle Ages!" or "Saddam Hussein leads Babylon in the Modern Age!" or "Benito Juarez leads the Aztecs in the Modern Age!"

True, but here is also Potential to a Rise and Fall of Nations mechanism, where Civs if aren't stable (would require a new national Yield, like Stability in Humankind) they may fall as that Civ but rise as another (from a Pool of suitable Civs), merge with neighboring Civs with low stability and creating a cross-calture Civ (the Civ Name and Leader will be either history/legend (we already have Gilgamesh and Gorgo in the Civ Games) inspired or just improvised ( from a preset of names/leaders - the human Player can choose the name and leader)) or maybe flip to a neighbooring Civ that puts enough Loyalty Pressure for the first to flip to it rather than founding a new Civ (yeah, I'm suggesting an improved Loyalty Mechanism taken one (or more) step(s) further). But it has to be really hard for a Civ to keep itself stable to not fall, which would lead to a true Civ standing the test of Time (I never got this feeling in the Civ Games, No one can, the Civs/Leaders (apart from Civ3 or was it 4 where you could switch leaders durring a game?) are the same for the whole Game).

I think this would make for an interesting Gameplay, but also would make it possible to introduce new Civs that don't have a high chance to be introduced into the Game with its current model, and instead of searching for leaders of a Civ for each era, we could have 1 leader for that specific Civ only. Like for example we could have a Game where you could start as the Numidians, then may later turn into The Berbers (if you didn't merge with Rom and rose as . . . Num( lol ??)) and finish the Game as Morocco.

Admitted, designing all those Civs will obviously take much more time than with the current Civs model, including choosing a Unique for each Civ, but I would rather sacrifice the 3D Leader models for just 2D Portraits of the Leaders to have this kind of mechanism (I would do anything for this kind of model), which I think is much better than how Humankind is doing it (the main reason why I'm not eager of getting that Game, unless it will be moddable).

So yeah, this way Saddam Hussein coold lead Irak instead of Babylon.

 

[Zaarin]

what argument is there in against being immortal leader the intro screen literally calls you a "leader"-Trajan for Rome. Kupe for Maori ect. Who did you think you are when you are playing a game?

The civilization itself? That's really all the leaders are: faces of the civilization.

The only way I see it working is if the leaders aren't specifically tied to eras. Thinking about it it would be an interesting system, similar to Humankind already switching between cultures. That way you can choose to play England and start with someone like Victoria for early naval exploration and in the Medieval Era switch to Elizabeth I for a mid-game culture push based on their abilities.

The downside is you would definitely need to make every civ have more than one leader for that mechanic to work, and for some that's difficult.

I still wouldn't be a fan. I enjoy Humankind and I enjoy Old World, but I don't want that kind of mechanic in Civ personally.

What ARE you gibbering about? The roman civilization has a single leader, Trajan, for the entire game. The Cree, Poundmaker, and so on and so on. You don't need to look in a mirror to make sure you're still you, do you?

If you like roleplaying as Trajan, no one's telling you can't; I'm just saying the game doesn't tell you you have to.

I would rather sacrifice the 3D Leader models for just 2D Portraits of the Leaders to have this kind of mechanism (I would do anything for this kind of model)

If Civ7 went this direction, I probably wouldn't buy it. Since there are mechanically better 4X games out there, the sumptuously designed historical leaders is a big part of the game's appeal to me.

 

[Linklite]

but the potrait of the leader is on the top of the game? Surely you do look at it if only to see whose turn is the game processing right now?

Nope. Not only does it not appear on my screen, but it's not exactly a central part if the game, I don't even pay attention to their moves and just look during my turn. And a little portrait, even if it was something I would pay attention to, wouldn't really make me identify as Trajan. If they want that, they need to show Trajan while doing negotiations or have other characters address me as Trajan, or in some meaningful way actually remind me that I'm playing as Trajan. Civ 6 only does that in any way during the load screen and the Victory screen.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I still wouldn't be a fan. I enjoy Humankind and I enjoy Old World, but I don't want that kind of mechanic in Civ personally.

Yeah ideally I would want what we have now, just more civilizations with alternate leaders. As long as it's not at the expense of adding new civs though.

 

[UWHabs]

Nope. Not only does it not appear on my screen, but it's not exactly a central part if the game, I don't even pay attention to their moves and just look during my turn. And a little portrait, even if it was something I would pay attention to, wouldn't really make me identify as Trajan. If they want that, they need to show Trajan while doing negotiations or have other characters address me as Trajan, or in some meaningful way actually remind me that I'm playing as Trajan. Civ 6 only does that in any way during the load screen and the Victory screen.

It's not just about the portraits - leader abilities are usually for the length of the game too. Nubia gets cheap districts because their leader is "alive" for the length of the game, Victoria gets free units in every era, not just Redcoats, etc...

Now, granted, as others have said, there's definitely a debate about whether you actually want a game that changes abilities over time, whether Nubia should cheap gatling guns and not just slingers and archers. But other than a few rare cases like China or France, most civ's bonuses last through the game.

 

[Linklite]

It's not just about the portraits - leader abilities are usually for the length of the game too. Nubia gets cheap districts because their leader is "alive" for the length of the game, Victoria gets free units in every era, not just Redcoats, etc...

Now, granted, as others have said, there's definitely a debate about whether you actually want a game that changes abilities over time, whether Nubia should cheap gatling guns and not just slingers and archers. But other than a few rare cases like China or France, most civ's bonuses last through the game.

I'm not sure you're understanding my point. Yes, I know that various civs and leaders have different abilities, but that's not what I'm talking about. There's nothing really to tell you that you who your character is. I could start a game as Victoria, other than to load screen, what's to stop me imagining that I'm George III? Once I get past the loading screen...pretty much nothing would break that immersion, until the Victory screen. The only thing mentioned is a little bouncing portrait in between turns that was deemed inconsequential enough to drop when ported to the Switch (and probably the other consoles too).

The identity of your leader is pretty inconsequential and not really referenced in the game proper. I mean, I was playing with my wife on hotseat, and it was only about 150 turns in that I happened to look over at the screen while she was responding to my trade offer that I remembered that "I" looked like an old man (I was Pericles). There really is nothing interfering with role playing or connecting yourself to your avatar (which can be a good or a bad thing).

 

[PiR]

Totally agree on that one. In CIV VI, I roleplay only with the civ, not with the leader. I forget who I am.
It's not the case about my enemies though, as I see them all the time in the diplomacy screen. I'll never forgive them for backstabbing me.

That is why the immortality of leaders does not bother me at all.

 

[Zaarin]

Totally agree on that one. In CIV VI, I roleplay only with the civ, not with the leader. I forget who I am.
It's not the case about my enemies though, as I see them all the time in the diplomacy screen. I'll never forgive them for backstabbing me.

That is why the immortality of leaders does not bother me at all.

And I think this is the way it should be: the leaders should serve as the face of the AI civilizations--someone to simulate a personality that one can love or hate or love to hate--while it really shouldn't matter who is the alleged face of your own civilization because that's the human player.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

And I think this is the way it should be: the leaders should serve as the face of the AI civilizations--someone to simulate a personality that one can love or hate or love to hate--while it really shouldn't matter who is the alleged face of your own civilization because that's the human player.

Making use of just that, Civ V allowed me to rename Civs and Leaders, so I almost always played as someone other than what the game presumed: like Asterix of the Gauls, Ivan the Tolerable of Russia, Red Orm of the Vikings/Norse, etc. Since I never see my own face, it doesn't matter to me who the game thinks I am.

Something they'd do well to add back in to Civ VII for all of us Contrarians in the game market . . .

 

[Evie]

Weird thought I just had in relation to that: I think we should bring back, sort of, the Civ II concept of the Ambassador (who, in Civ II, was the unidentified foreign-clothed official who visited you on the diplomacy screen).

In this new version, the Ambassador is the 3D personification of the civ whom you interact. Unlike Civ II, ambassadors should be based on actual people, personification or mythological figures representative of that civilization. They could be political leaders, but, since the whole point is that the ambassador is separate from the leader, they wouldn't have to be - Elvis could finally make his return to civ as the American ambassador, for example. Or it could be Uncle Sam. And we coudl park Gandhi here where he can still threaten people with nukes and keep the meme fans happy while having actual Indian leaders lead India. These ambassadors might well never be refered to by name - they could simply be displayed as "American Ambassador", "English Ambassador", etc.

The leader - (maybe call him a Founder instead?) -, meanwhile, would be represented in a much less graphic-intensive way (an icon of some sort, perhaps), but otherwise function as the leader in Civ VI, granting abilities and tweaking the AI (in subtler and more reasonable ways) of their civ. The less intensive requirements of new leaders shoudl allow for additional leaders and thus alt leaders for more civs , and possibly open the door for game modes relying on the existence of alt leaders.

 

[Heyesey]

I'm not sure you're understanding my point.

I'm trying to explain that there isn't one. This game is not, and cannot be, historically accurate. The most glaringly obvious example o fthat is that nobody lives for six thousand years in order to guide a civliization from stone age to atomic age.

It's a game. Quit whinging about historical accuracy UNLESS you are deleting the game after two turns becauses you don't live for more than a hundred years.

Moderator Action: Please do not troll other users. Keep your comments relevant to the discussion not the individual. ~ LK

 

[Heyesey]

On an entirely different note: I've just spend seven turns manouevring my scout past a boatload of Indonesian army, to reach the fallen meteor that was on the other side of them from me.

If the AI isn't even capable of "When a free cavalry unit appears one hex away from you, step on it" then I don't think there's much point worrying about it's ability to plan long-term...

 

[Tuvok694]

My new number one most urgent issue for this month is... starting positions
On the average, about 4 out of 5 starts are unplayable above level prince. The classic pattern: Starting on one of the few green tiles between huge flat desert and huge flat tundra. Happens too often.