Civ VII Idea - Roster Feedback

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

^ And reasons Han Gaozong (A.K.A. Liu Bang) is ignored?
It will be interesting that he might quote chinese Idiom 'To point a deer and called it a horse' (指鹿为马) which it happened in his youth (Liu Bang joined the rebellion after Zhao Gao staged a successful Coup d'Etat and began cleaning up process (removing his rivals using this deer as an instrument) in diplomatic screen.

 

[~frogchild~]

^ And reasons Han Gaozong (A.K.A. Liu Bang) is ignored?
It will be interesting that he might quote chinese Idiom 'To point a deer and called it a horse' (指鹿为马) which it happened in his youth (Liu Bang joined the rebellion after Zhao Gao staged a successful Coup d'Etat and began cleaning up process (removing his rivals using this deer as an instrument) in diplomatic screen.

No particular reason I just haven't had a chance to do any research on him.

 

[dark-mysterio]

you forgot an at least one base game Muslim or Arab-Muslim civ like Saladin or Harun al rashid who are leader of "Arabia civ" in each game they appeared (only civ 5 for Harun)

and as for the dlc (im not really if all these civ should by on the first dlc) i would also add

1.one civ for "the Maghreb/north Africa west of egypt/something that is not Carthage but in the Maghreb region" (regardless of the period) like the Moroccan (Ahmad al mansur) in brave new world civ 5 dlc
2.a Portuguese one
3.an modern Turkey/Ottoman/Anatolians Turks civ
4.Byzantium/modern Greece civ
5.an west African Mali or Songhai or any African empire

 

[~frogchild~]

Arabia is 100% coming in the game's first expansion pack

As for the other things, we'll see.

 

[dark-mysterio]

Arabia is 100% coming in the game's first expansion pack

As for the other things, we'll see.

i don't mind forcefully arabia but at least at least one islamic for the base game no ? what do you think ?

 

[~frogchild~]

i don't mind forcefully arabia but at least at least one islamic for the base game no ? what do you think ?

I admit that was a major oversight, but I'm pretty happy with the list and not sure what I'd cut. My addition would most certainly be Mali as one of my favorite civs but I'm not sure where it can fit in. I spose I can cut the Tlingit or Madagascar but I have a soft spot for both, though Madagascar is the weaker of the two.

I'll think on it

 

[~frogchild~]

I've decided, due to the Islamic World having no representation in the base game, to cut Madagascar in favor of Mali.

Madagascar is one of my favorite oddball civs, but it'll have to wait as it was a glaring error leaving out the Islamic World all together.

Sorry for the double post btw

 

[dark-mysterio]

I've decided, due to the Islamic World having no representation in the base game, to cut Madagascar in favor of Mali.

Madagascar is one of my favorite oddball civs, but it'll have to wait as it was a glaring error leaving out the Islamic World all together.

Sorry for the double post btw

an in between agreement would be to have the Swahili sultanate/kigdom which is near Madagascar and can represent a Muslim civ ?

 

[~frogchild~]

an in between agreement would be to have the Swahili sultanate/kigdom which is near Madagascar and can represent a Muslim civ ?

Swahili is a good idea, but I do really like Mali.

But then again, Benin and Mali overlap

I'll think on it

 

[Inthegrave]

This is some strange play pretend we are doing here.

So a few problems I have with this alternate reality:

1: I counted 18 Civs in your post which is even less then what Civ 6 had in the base game. Civ 6 had 20 why back peddle to the same amount Civ 4 had in the base game, and that game had MULTIPLE leaders!

2: The mongols as a preorder bonus is a horribly shady business practice, preorder bonuses are unwelcome in the gaming industry and you want to make a whole Civ pre order exclusive?
Even worse it's a Civ that is classic to the series. Civ 6 had the Aztecs as a preorder bonus but that was just to get early access to a Civ that would later be released
as a free update for all to use, you gave no indication the Mongols would be released in any other form later down the line.

3: The leader pick for the mongols doesn't seem particularly interesting. I admit I don't know much about her so maybe there are notable things about her as a leader I don't know, but as far as I can tell
she doesn't seem really noteworthy. Unique? Sure, but I'm not sure it's the greatest pick.

4: Rome not in the base game lineup. I know you said you are trying to be unique but that doesn't negate the fact that in this alternate reality you would get horrible backlash for not including Rome, especially
considering the reduced Civ count from 6 and your shady preorder bonuses. Teasing Rome as the first DLC pack wouldn't go over well, it's like if Super Smash brothers wanted you to pay to get Mario as DLC.
Not sure why fans of the previous games should be excited to pay for something that every Civ included in the base game.


So yeah, there is some good and unique ideas here but so far I can say I'm glad this is just a what if scenario and not a real thing, because aside from some cool new Civs, this entry seems like a step backwards.
And since you didn't go over many new gameplay concepts I can only assume it's more or less the same as Civ 6.

 

[~frogchild~]

1. This also has multiple leaders, which have more focus. Also I thought VI had 18 in base game?
2. I should have said they'd be released later, but they function the same as the Aztecs in 6
3. She's cool.
4. Rome is interesting but has been cut from the base game a) for variety, seeing as it is yet another rep for an overcrowded region and b) to make room for civs that wouldn't stand on their own. Yes, Rome is a classic, but it can stay out for a small time being

And from reading your post, I can tell you didn't really read mine. This is just a roster, which I was asking for feedback on while I refined the designs and gameplay mechanics. I should have said Mongolia was the same way the Aztecs was, yes.

And honestly? I don't subscribe to the whole "best and greatest" thing going on in previous civ games (other than vi), which is why I included less known cultures, and cut staples that I find overdone (though I'm making sure all the classics will return over time)

That's how I see it at least

 

[Inthegrave]

Also I thought VI had 18 in base game?

You are right, I accidentally counted some of the ones released with free updates. But I do think going forward Civ should have 20. As the budget for these games increase I don't see why not.
Makes a sequel feel more like a sequel.

This also has multiple leaders, which have more focus

Oh I thought the "Or" part was you debating whether you wanted one or the other in. Since that means those Civs get 2 leaders that makes the value a lot better.

I should have said they'd be released later, but they function the same as the Aztecs in 6

Okay makes sense.

She's cool.

I mean, if you just find her personally interesting and want to see her as a leader then I can't argue against her. But I think you would find it a challenge to get people on board for her if she didn't do anything notable.
It seems like she would just appeal to SJWs. But I could just be ignorant and maybe she has done something noteworthy that I'm not aware of. If so I would love to learn.

Yes, Rome is a classic, but it can stay out for a small time being

But the problem is your vision is to expect people to want to pay for Rome, and I have a feeling fans of previous games or fans of history are not going to be happy with that.
If anything Rome should be released as a free update down the line and even that is questionable considering Rome is one of the most iconic Civilizations of all time that lasted a 1000 years.
Greece didn't even last half that long. I personally would rather pay for new Civs and leaders, not pay just to get back what has been taken away.

And from reading your post, I can tell you didn't really read mine.

I'm not sure what you mean, I know this is a "what if" scenario and I know you didn't have the gameplay mechanics finished and posted but you propose this as Civ 7.
If this was a spin off and not a mainline game then I could see most of your decisions being completely fine, but as a mainline game some decisions are questionable.

And honestly? I don't subscribe to the whole "best and greatest" thing going on in previous civ games

I agree I don't mind (In fact I encourage) having other Civs in the game. But I do think in a game series that focuses on the great things humans can achieve, that Civs such as China, Egypt and Rome shouldn't be excluded.
Mix the great with the humble. As for leaders I fully agree, I don't think every leader included needs to be the greatest thing ever but I do think they should be notable in some way.
I actually applaud your choice of Akenhaten because of his interesting history and rule, one of my favorite oddball leaders. But yeah I don't mind leaders that are known for being evil, terrible or losers included in Civ,
but I do think they should be notable for one reason or another.

Sorry that I am being critical but I'm coming at this from the perspective of it being Civ 7 and some decisions I can't see going over well.

 

[~frogchild~]

On Mandukhai, yes she has the diversity factor but she also reunited Mongolia for the first time in 100 years. She may not be the best choice though. I'll do some research into other Mongol Leaders

On Rome, I definitely see your perspective, but the way I see it, it isn't taking something that's deserved away. There isn't any reason that it is deserved in the first place. Though, if I do move up to 20 civs, which I may do, Rome will be one of the two, along with another oddball

(EDIT: just to clarify, when I say deserved, i don't mean Rome doesn't deserve to be in, but that there's no reason why it, intrinsically, is more deserved by players. Now that I reread this whole section is dumb. Ignore it pls)

On the not reading my post, that was me misinterpreting your quote about gameplay. I apologise for that

I agree that China, Egypt and Rome shouldn't be excluded, but I think that doesn't mean they need to be in the base game every time. They are iconic, yes, but so are many of the civs that are popular in the franchise. I agree Rome is very deserving, but I feel like it is yet another rep for an overcrowded region

And criticism is welcome. I'm sorry for my last post's aggressive tone, I misinterpreted your criticism.

 

[Inthegrave]

On Mandukhai, yes she has the diversity factor but she also reunited Mongolia for the first time in 100 years. She may not be the best choice though. I'll do some research into other Mongol Leaders

One you could look into is Kublai Khan. Never been in Civ as far as I am aware.

There isn't any reason that it is deserved in the first place.

I mean, Civ is all about the great achievements of mankind, and who better encapsulates that then Rome? 1000 years of history is nothing to sneeze at.
Few real life Civs even make it past 500.

but that there's no reason why it, intrinsically, is more deserved by players.

As a spinoff I would agree, but as a proposed 7th entry you need mass appeal and to not piss off fans. In a lot of players minds not having Rome is like missing a part of the franchise.
The game released like that could make people think the devs are out of touch.

They are iconic, yes, but so are many of the civs that are popular in the franchise. I agree Rome is very deserving, but I feel like it is yet another rep for an overcrowded region

I agree the region is overcrowded but if any Civ is more deserving of that area, it's Rome. It's not that it's just popular but it's a shinning symbol of what a great civilization is. It embodies the very title of the game.

 

[~frogchild~]

Yeah, I might do Kublai instead.

I think Rome's something we'll forever disagree on, seeing as we both seem firm in our stances.

To me, the only way Rome gets in base is if I go to 20 civs or I cut another European civ

I'm leaning towards the first, but I'm open to the second.

I don't know, really. I'll probably end up going to 20, adding Rome and another oddball, and then figuring out what to do with the DLC.

I'll sleep on it

And I'm probably swapping out Mali for Swahili

 

[Inthegrave]

I think Rome's something we'll forever disagree on, seeing as we both seem firm in our stances.

Yeah even outside of Civilization I believe that every game series has something you simply always include and don't touch.
I have to ask though, how would you deal with the backlash? Since this is a hypothetical 7th entry I think it's only realistic to consider how the game will be viewed by the public.
I mean if the changes only appeal to you and not the fans then I have to ask who is this Civ 7 for?

I'm leaning towards the first, but I'm open to the second.

Well it's up to you if you want to increase the Civ count, I was just thinking if Firaxis wants to keep making these games then they should be including more base game Civs
to make it feel more like a proper sequel. But as for cutting another to make room for Rome, maybe Greece. I personally would not do this but it at least makes more sense
than cutting Rome, but cutting either is pretty bad because they are both historically and culturally important.

But anyways have fun, thinking about new possible Civs is always interesting.

 

[~frogchild~]

I'm gonna go up to 20 civs, adding Rome and Palmyra to the base roster, and adjusting the first wave of DLC, so that the first one is an alternate Roman leader (Scipio Africanus) instead of a whole new Rome civ.

I agree with you that there would be backlash, and as much as I want to cut Rome, I am trying to be realistic to some extent, so I'm enacting these changes

Alongside this, I'm cutting Mali and putting in Swahili/Kilwa, and swapping out Alfred The Great for Henry IV.

 

[Inthegrave]

I'm cutting Mali and putting in Swahili/Kilwa

Poor Mansa Musa, maybe as DLC?

I forgot to ask how are you handling DLC?

• CARTHAGE (Hannibal Barca) + ROME (Scipio Africanus) + Punic Wars Scenario
• AZTEC(Ahuitzotl) + SPAIN (Isabella I) + Conquest Of The New World Scenario
• ITALY (Cosimo De Medici) + ETHIOPIA (Zara Yaqob) + Scramble For Africa Scenario
• PERSIA (Xerxes I) or (Khosrow I) + Greco-Persian Wars Scenario

Are these all a part of one pack or is that 4 separate packs?

 

[~frogchild~]

Poor Mansa Musa, maybe as DLC?

I forgot to ask how are you handling DLC?

Are these all a part of one pack or is that 4 separate packs?

Yeah, I need to find room for Mali somewhere

As for DLC, yes, they are all seperate packs, coming with a number of civs/alt leaders and a scenario that relates to the civs.

 

[clapyourhands]

I know you already said you're going to include Rome in the base roster, but to really illustrate why it's unrealistic to not include them, the Steam statistics show that Rome is the most played Civilization of all time in Civ VI. 26% of all players who have won a game have done so as Rome (over a quarter!), and the margin between the next most popular civs is quite large. In fact, after the top 6 civs, Rome is played by more than twice as many players as 7th place (the Aztecs). This doesn't even include the major group of casual players that have never won a game, and while the Steam statistics don't show this part, you can glean from the casual discussions and video playthroughs that Rome, Germany, and America are almost exclusively the only civs played to any extent. Again, you already said you would include Rome, and I love your civ choices otherwise, but I thought some numbers would help make the reason why everyone is pushing back so hard a bit more clear.