Civ Ideas & Suggestions Not-Worth-Their-Own-Thread

[pokiehl]

That's a ridiculously restrictive vision of what the leaders must be.

The leader is (and has always been, in the context of civ) one piece of the civ, not the civ an extension of the leader. You're not playing Nader Shah's Persians, you're playing Persia - all of Persia throughout history - with Nader Shah as your leader.

The other way around would be a complete about-face from what Civ has traditionally done, and I see no redeeming quality to it.

I don't really think it's so farfetched to see it in Civ, and that's actually the framework for a lot of factions. With all the emphasis placed on the leaders, I actually do feel like I'm playing the leader, not the culture.

Just my opinion. Plus it would lead to more total factions than just alt leaders, which don't feel that great to me. It's the opposite of restrictive.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

not to mention Gandhi with nukes

 

[Evie]

Most of the "big long history" factions use elements from the length and breadth of their history even in Civ VI : Germany mixes a twelfth century leader with a thirteen to sixteenth century UI and a twentieth century UB ; France has a sixteenth century leader with a seventeenth century UI (per the Civilopedia, which refers to the chateau of the 1600s) and a nineteenth century UU ; England has a nineteenth century leader with an sixteenth century UU. India

The civs that are focused on a single era are those that are either A)specific to a single era (yes, all Aztec uniques are going to be fourteenth to sixteenth century), or b)that are perceived as single-era civ in popular culture, wrongly (ie, Persia getting reduced to the Achaemenids wars with Greece). Inevitable for the former, but the later is a problem in need of fixing.

It's clear that, even in civ 6, the leader is an aspect of the civ, not the civ a continuation of a leader, and I see no redeeming value in changing that. Only a strange need for some sort of "logic" that has never been part of Civ, and that would take away its charm.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Alongside all of your well-informed historical insights, we need to also include the marketing and sales of the game. Would more people buy the game if it included Austria separate from Germany? Would more people buy the game if it had both Rome and Italy? Would more people buy the game if it had Ireland, Poland, or Czech Republic?

I've seen Austrians on the forum that have already voiced their opinions that they would hate the idea of being part of a German civ, even if it would be historically correct.
Regarding Ludwig and Bavaria, it seems that's more accepted at being merged, considering the state of Bavaria is also part of modern Germany today.
And yes, I'd buy the game if both Rome and Italy were available.

Most of the "big long history" factions use elements from the length and breadth of their history even in Civ VI : Germany mixes a twelfth century leader with a thirteen to sixteenth century UI and a twentieth century UB ; France has a sixteenth century leader with a seventeenth century UI (per the Civilopedia, which refers to the chateau of the 1600s) and a nineteenth century UU ; England has a nineteenth century leader with an sixteenth century UU. India

Even though I don't mind Gandhi. I'd hate to see India reduced to everything being 20th century related.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I've seen Austrians on the forum that have already voiced their opinions that they would hate the idea of being part of a German civ

that just makes me want a Grossdeutsch civ all the more

 

[Patine]

I've seen Austrians on the forum that have already voiced their opinions that they would hate the idea of being part of a German civ, even if it would be historically correct.

But again, that's not how Austrians in Maria-Theresa's day saw things. If we actually had North Koreans on the forum...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But again, that's not how Austrians in Maria-Theresa's day saw things. If we actually had North Koreans on the forum...

I'm not denying that at all. Just pointing it out that's what many feel today. I'm sure WWII didn't help the situation.

Historians or history buffs aren't the only ones that play Civ.

 

[Patine]

I'm not denying that at all. Just pointing it out that's what many feel today. I'm sure WWII didn't help the situation.

Historians or history buffs aren't the only ones that play Civ.

Imposing modern ideologies and viewpoints on history and historical media to rewrite the historical lens is a scourge today, regardless of the viewpoiint or motive of those doing so.

 

[Patine]

I'm not denying that at all. Just pointing it out that's what many feel today. I'm sure WWII didn't help the situation.

Historians or history buffs aren't the only ones that play Civ.

But, given I've known four people from Austria with any depth, and one of them was a young history professor (well, young for a professor)...

 

[Evie]

Making a post-1871, non-WW2 Austrian leader (not that we should get him) lead Germany would indeed be out of place. It's clear that modern Austria is not part of Germany, and pretending otherwise is misplaced German over-nationalism.

It's equally clear that historical Austria was part of Germany, and indeed the most important part thereof, for much of history before that. Maria Theresa was the Holy Roman Empress. It is equally misplaced Austrian over-nationalism to pretend otherwise because today Germany and Austria are separate.

That's not to say Maria Theresa couldn't lead Austria (in a world where we have enough civs to spend some on subdividing Germany). It is to say that claiming she shouldn't lead Germany, or that her version of Austria cannot be part of Germany is out and out revisionist history and denial.

History is not written by petty pride.

 

[Patine]

You're right on the money. Insisting on "Germanness" is actually a conservative political signal in Austria outside of the mainstream: http://www.photoglobe.info/ebooks/austria/cstudies_austria_0070.html

Austrians today indeed see themselves as Austrian and part of a distinct nation.

Political nation-states TODAY and a, "civilization," are different. And it's very disingenuous (and I'm very certain, deliberately so) to bring up modern far-right-wing movements. And, I just addressed the issue of imposing modern views and ideals to rewrite and revise the past, which I notice you specifically didn't address.

This is written like some far off possibility even though it already happened in Civ 5 (and was actually planned for Civ 3 too).

I already addressed the flaw of the arguement, "it has been done in a past iteration," here,

Do tell these reasons, without defaulting to, "it was done in a past iteration," as a reason? Mao and Stalin appeared in past iterations, after all, and that momentum got the Nuclear Gandhi joke stuck.

 

[Patine]

No one said she shouldn’t lead Germany or is denying history.

And, yes, a lot of the dbate by several, incuding yourself, effectively said just you claim no one said, and plaintiffly so.

 

[AffineConstant]

But again, that's not how Austrians in Maria-Theresa's day saw things. If we actually had North Koreans on the forum...

Which great leader is greatest leader???

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I already addressed the flaw of the arguement, "it has been done in a past iteration," here,

And Maria Theresa also lead Germany in the past. So sometimes things do change.

Political nation-states TODAY and a, "civilization," are different.

A "Civilization" in the game is any playable faction. Obviously, there are plenty of nation-states that are already playable civilizations in the game, so that's not necessarily true regarding the franchise.

And, yes, a lot of the dbate by several, incuding yourself, effectively said just you claim no one said, and plaintiffly so.

Do you have specific names? Because I never said she couldn't lead Germany. Ideally, I'd want her to lead her own Austrian civ, but obviously Germany would be the alternative if we didn't get Austria in the game.

 

[I was NC]

Part of this debate is mixing individual likes and what should be available. Personally I don't care for relatively recent leaders (Roosevelt), modern-only civs (Australia), or those which never grew past a small area (Scotland). They're not in the games I play, but that's just me. Others think those are fun, and it's totally fine for the designers to build for them.

 

[historix69]

Since Civ 3 the more and more detailed 3D-graphics in newer Civ games have greatly limited the supported map size and number of Civs per game.

Examples :
For Civ 3 there is a 500x262 tiles Earth Map : https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/the-monstrosity.30055/
The Giant Earth Maps for Civ 4,5,6 are much smaller (180x94). Playing Giant Earth in Civ 6 even became a problem with one of the expansions so I stopped playing it.
In Civ 5 to place all available Civs in a game, modders had to replace 3D-leader-graphics with static 2D-leader-screens.

I therefore would suggest to add an alternative low cost set of static 2D-terrain-, units- and leader-graphics to allow players to play on much larger (eg TSL Earth) maps than the high detailed 3D-graphics would otherwise allow. Players then could choose between playing a game with highly detailed 3D graphics on a smaller map and a game with simpler 2D graphics on an arbitrary large (giant) map. Map Size is a quality which should not be ignored.

 

[Wade-FIN]

I hope there will be an option to save the game settings of the previous game as the defaults for the next game. I know it's possible to save/load the settings in the advanced menu in Civ 6 but it feels like a chore having to go through several selections just to have the basic settings that I always use.

 

[Ambiorix]

I really liked the feature where, at the end of the game, we could see the full map and track how each civilization spread out over time.
Definitely want to see that back in Civ VII.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I really liked the feature where, at the end of the game, we could see the full map and track how each civilization spread out over time.
Definitely want to see that back in Civ VII.

Is there a "view the replay" mod for Civ6? I miss that feature also.

 

[Chuma]

At the opp shop. It was actually only $4

with a quick-start manual and the chart