Civilization VII Civs and Leaders Wishlist [Not a Prediction]

[Krajzen]

Again, the empire was Turkish, not Albanian, Bosnian, Greek, etc. It was centered on Turkey, ruled from Istanbul, the main language was Turkish. And when it fell apart it turned into the modern state of Turkey, because this is what it basically was: Turkey + conquered lands.

Easy. We focus on the people, not the political entities. Like with the Uzbeks, there were a few Uzbek states in history, there were Uzbek leaders, such as Muhammad Shayboniy. There is no need to go to Tamerlan and create a Timurid civ.


It is like calling the Russians "Romanovs" (or "Soviets"), or the English "Tudors" or "Stuarts". The Ottoman Empire was an episode of Turkish history, albeit a very long one.


You are confusing the terms "Turkic" and "Turkish".

There are not such struggle. The many possibilities are there but there are not real difficulty into just pick some of them with a defined design criteria.

Leaders have many design elements attached to them still others are civ (proper) based, so pigeonhole leaders from Classical to Atomic, from very different regions, languages, religions and thematic focus to the common elements of an unified contemporary based India waste a lot of personality and uniques that each one of those cultures could enjoy going as solo civs. Talking about five alter leaders for the same civ likely would lead to some mingy designs.

Even in the historical base entities like the Chola empire were not realy triying "to be India" neither their legacy is linked only to the contemporary India.

Then we have things like Scottish civ that not only is now part GB/UK but even many of their in-game design elements come from the period already under English dominance.

About Indian players, AoE2 splited off their already in-game Indian civ and the Indian players loved it.

How do you imagine classical Persia, Egypt and then suddenly Ghandi? Or Canada in ancient time anyway.

Consistency is precisely one of the main reasons to have multiple civs from the Indian subcontinent. Yes, because those "Indian" empires are not just contemporary India but Pakistan, SriLanka and Bangladesh history.
6 Chinese? Maybe not 6 proper Chinese but things like Jurchen and Miao civs are as valid as Gauls or Cree civs (of course Tibet is a popular option but Firaxis would not dare to mess with chinese goverment).
5 Greek? Since CIV6s multi-leader Greece + Macedonia + Byzantium + a Greek leader for base Egypt is not enough, right?!
The others could justify some when those are like the options for "India" from very different eras, cultures, religions and thematics. For example Nusantara could easily provide a Dharmic Javanese civ + a Muslim Malay civ. Or the also elephant in the room classical Zoroastrian vs modern Muslim Iranian civs that are as unique as Byzantium is to Rome and Greece.

I just wanted to admit you both made good points.

To be honest the main reason why I would like to see Timurid civ is uncomplicated, I'd just really like to see Tamerlane, his empire and Samarkand (Central Asia) at its prime, and I try to find some way to justify them being in game. We could have "Uzbek" civ centered around Shaybanids but let's be honest, they were simply infinitely less spectacular and influential on the global scale than Tamerlane. That's my problem with Central Asia: I want it to shine at its prime in civ series, but its hard to come up with its major representative which isn't some ephemeral multi ethnic political entity. Actually the best era for Central Asia wasn't even Timurids but pre-Mongol conquest era of perpetual political chaos in the region not inhibiting enormously refined culture and economy. It's hard to represent that.

To make matters even more messy, Central Asia was extremely important for Persian culture, Persian language and Islamic science, but you can't really include it under "Persia" or Arabic caliphates.

As for India ok you are maybe right, I wouldn't like to decide about it myself as there are too many possible options of dealing with India in civ7.

 

[Krajzen]

Speaking of city lists, you guys reminded me of a great dilemma.

Would you like city lists to be built around the civ's leader, or for their order and structure to transcend civ's leader and aim at some broader representation of given culture?

So for example:
- What should be the capital of Germany if we get some HRE ruler? Or Adenauer, should he rule from Bonn (feels strange as it was city of relatively little importance in German history)?
- If we have Constantine as Roman ruler (unlikely) then should Rome not be Roman capital?
- If we have Turkish/Ottoman leader preceding 1453, should capital be Edirne or Bursa instead of Istanbul? Feels very strange!
- lf Alexander is leader of Greece again (I kinda hope he's not) should he rule from Athens, symbolic capital of Greek civillization, or Pella?
- Let's say we get Brian Boru or whoever as Irish leader, should he/she rule from Dublin?

Civ6 kept to the leader approach, but it avoided some of the most controversial dilemmas.

 

[pokiehl]

Speaking of city lists, you guys reminded me of a great dilemma.

Would you like city lists to be built around the civ's leader, or for their order and structure to transcend civ's leader and aim at some broader representation of given culture?

So for example:
- What should be the capital of Germany if we get some HRE ruler? Or Adenauer, should he rule from Bonn (feels strange as it was city of little importance) or Berlin (anachronistic)?
- If we have Constantine as Roman ruler (unlikely) should Rome not be Roman capital?
- If we have Turkish/Ottoman leader preceding 1453, should capital be Edirne or Bursa instead of Istanbul? Feels very strange!
- lf Alexander is leader of Greece again (I kinda hope he's not) should he rule from Athens, symbolic capital of Greek civillization, or Macedonian capital of comparatively limited historical importance?
- Let's say we get Brian Boru or whoever as Irish leader, should he/she rule from Dublin?

Civ 6 generally did it based on the leader which suited me fine. It makes more sense to me that way, since we are identifying ourselves moreso as the leader than the civ.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

To be honest the main reason why I would like to see Timurid civ is uncomplicated, I'd just really like to see Tamerlane, his empire and Samarkand (Central Asia) at its prime, and I try to find some way to justify them being in game. We could have "Uzbek" civ centered around Shaybanids but let's be honest, they were simply infinitely less spectacular and influential on the global scale than Tamerlane. That's my problem with Central Asia: I want it to shine at its prime in civ series, but its hard to come up with its major representative which isn't some ephemeral multi ethnic political entity. Actually the best era for Central Asia wasn't even Timurids but pre-Mongol conquest era of perpetual political chaos in the region not inhibiting enormously refined culture and economy. It's hard to represent that.

To make matters even more messy, Central Asia was extremely important for Persian culture, Persian language and Islamic science, but you can't really include it under "Persia" or Arabic caliphates.

Did we not get a Central Asian civ at least with Scythia?
At least Tomyris herself was from the Massagetae tribe which lived east of the Caspian sea.

As for India ok you are maybe right, I wouldn't like to decide about it myself as there are too many possible options of dealing with India in civ7.

I personally think having two civs from the Indian subcontinent would be enough, at least right now.
I wouldn't mind if it's India and then the Mughals as a separate civ, because I think it can work.

 

[IgorS]

Speaking of city lists, you guys reminded me of a great dilemma.

Would you like city lists to be built around the civ's leader, or for their order and structure to transcend civ's leader and aim at some broader representation of given culture?

So for example:
- What should be the capital of Germany if we get some HRE ruler? Or Adenauer, should he rule from Bonn (feels strange as it was city of relatively little importance in German history)?
- If we have Constantine as Roman ruler (unlikely) then should Rome not be Roman capital?
- If we have Turkish/Ottoman leader preceding 1453, should capital be Edirne or Bursa instead of Istanbul? Feels very strange!
- lf Alexander is leader of Greece again (I kinda hope he's not) should he rule from Athens, symbolic capital of Greek civillization, or Pella?
- Let's say we get Brian Boru or whoever as Irish leader, should he/she rule from Dublin?

Civ6 kept to the leader approach, but it avoided some of the most controversial dilemmas.

I eventually decided I hate the way Civ VI went with capitals. It was so weird playing with Germany, and seeing Aachen as the capital (and later also Munich because of the weird decision to include Ludwig as leader). I think the city list should reflect the entire history of a civ, and in general civ characteristics should be separate from leader characteristics. I hated how Australia, for instance, was designed as a John Curtin civ, and not as Australia.

My idea regarding capitals is that each civ can have the first three cities on its list be settled in a random order before the cities that are fourth and onward settled, and the first city settled is the capital, regardless of who the leader is.

Another thing I hated in Civ VI was that only Phoenicia could change capitals, which was something every civ could do in previous games.

 

[pokiehl]

I eventually decided I hate the way Civ VI went with capitals. It was so weird playing with Germany, and seeing Aachen as the capital (and later also Munich because of the weird decision to include Ludwig as leader). I think the city list should reflect the entire history of a civ, and in general civ characteristics should be separate from leader characteristics. I hated how Australia, for instance, was designed as a John Curtin civ, and not as Australia.

This is in fact literally how the game is designed...I don't understand your point here. How is Australia a John Curtin civ? John Curtin's ability has to do with war. The civ ability is about housing and appeal, and the Outback Station is about Food and Production and pastures. How is all this a "John Curtin" civ?

My idea regarding capitals is that each civ can have the first three cities on its list be settled in a random order before the cities that are fourth and onward settled, and the first city settled is the capital, regardless of who the leader is.

This seems really random and arbitrary. I can't imagine that most players don't want their capital associated with the leader. I remember people complaining that Eleanor didn't get the most appropriate capital, so I think most people want the capitals and leaders to make sense. I mean...the capital reflects where the leader is governing from.

Another thing I hated in Civ VI was that only Phoenicia could change capitals, which was something every civ could do in previous games.

You can’t do it in Civ 5. I’m glad it’s just for Phoenicia in Civ 6. There are too many mechanics and bonuses based on where your capital is; if it were a universal mechanic it’d be abusable and hard to keep track of those bonuses for everyone.

 

[Evie]

Ludwig of Bavaria as leader of Germany is no less legitimate than Frederick of Prussia as leader of Germany. They were both the rulers of principalities within the greater German realm, and neither of them actually ruled Germany or came close to it, and the fact that Prussia, a century later, would actually unite Germany does not make Frederick more of a German leader.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

The Timurids? Who are the Timurids? Are they a nation? Is there a Timurid ethnicity? National identity? Culture? Language?

The Timurids were Persianised Turks. There.

Shah Rukh could actually be a pretty cool leader.

As could Ulugh Beg, the astronomer king.

You run into problems for uniques and city names if you have Akkadians, Babylonians AND Sumerians. Two is the absolute upper limit.

Nah. There are more than enough Amorite, Aramaean and Philistine city-states, as well as those mentioned in the Kurkh Monoliths, not to mention ancient Arab settlements like the recently-discovered Tu'am

And when it fell apart it turned into the modern state of Turkey, because this is what it basically was: Turkey + conquered lands.

That was due to the Turkish nationalist movement which took off in the last 100 years of the empire, ironically a big part of why it fell apart.

 

[UWHabs]

Maybe another case where people have different opinions, but I'm definitely pro making the capital based on what the leader was associated with. Even if it wasn't the actual capital for them. Like if Ben Franklin was a leader for the US, I think it would be a lot more cool to have their capital as Philadelphia.

I do agree though that I slightly miss the ability to move the capital. Especially with the government plaza and diplo quarter districts, those would have been a nice opportunity to let you have a little freedom and flexibility. For gameplay balance, maybe some of the abilities would have to be re-worded to be more explicit if they referred to your original capital or your "new" capital. Although I kind of feel with those districts and with governors, some games I would "mentally" move my capital somewhere else if that happened to be a city in a better location or with more bonuses around them.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Ludwig of Bavaria as leader of Germany is no less legitimate than Frederick of Prussia as leader of Germany. They were both the rulers of principalities within the greater German realm, and neither of them actually ruled Germany or came close to it, and the fact that Prussia, a century later, would actually unite Germany does not make Frederick more of a German leader.

Another non-Prussia non-HRE non-Unified-Germany German leader I'd like to see is Henry the Lion of Saxony

 

[Leucarum]

There are definitely ways to deblobify Civs without making it too counterintuitive for the players, and ambiguous for CivFanatics such as you and I. And you do not even need to do it the way I suggest it. If I can think of a system, surely the folks over at Firaxis can think of one as well, and one that is presumably better than mine.

Yeah, if they fundamentally change the system they are using then the sky is the limit. If they are sticking to a 33% new formula though, I hope this isn't where they focus their efforts. There's much more impactful areas of change!

 

[Krajzen]

Did we not get a Central Asian civ at least with Scythia?
At least Tomyris herself was from the Massagetae tribe which lived east of the Caspian sea.

Yeah, but they were a collection of ancient nomadic peoples, they were in no way representative of later urban civilizations of Samarkand, Bukhara etc, particularly Islamic ones and Persianized. There is a difference between "Central Asia" as in "steppe nomads of Kazakhstan, Mongolia etc" and "Central Asia" as in "Sogdiana, densely urbanized area mostly located in modern Uzbekistan, house of great cities and kingdoms".

Honestly "Scythians" themselves are highly questionable blob, amassing all various nomads living on the enormous areas from Ukraine to Kyrgyzstan, with very badly attested leader and weird city list.

 

[Evie]

Another non-Prussia non-HRE non-Unified-Germany German leader I'd like to see is Henry the Lion of Saxony

Age of Empires II flashbacks intensifying...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

This seems really random and arbitrary. I can't imagine that most players don't want their capital associated with the leader. I remember people complaining that Eleanor didn't get the most appropriate capital, so I think most people want the capitals and leaders to make sense. I mean...the capital reflects where the leader is governing from.

The thing is with Eleanor is that when she married the king of France, Aquitaine was still it's own kingdom and France already had Paris as it's capital, so to me that made more sense than her capital being Poitiers.
The one leader to me they really messed up with was Shaka. His capital should have been Bulawayo instead of Ulundi.

 

[FishFishFish]

As could Ulugh Beg, the astronomer king.

Ulugh Beg seems to be a good scientist, but a pretty ineffective leader. I'd prefer his predecessors.

 

[Evie]

The thing is with Eleanor is that when she married the king of France, Aquitaine was still it's own kingdom and France already had Paris as it's capital, so to me that made more sense than her capital being Poitiers.
The one leader to me they really messed up with was Shaka. His capital should have been Bulawayo instead of Ulundi.

It's own duchy. Independent duchy to all practical purposes, given how weak the French crown was, but not a separate kingdom.

 

[Patine]

The one leader to me they really messed up with was Shaka. His capital should have been Bulawayo instead of Ulundi.

An odd choice, given Bulawayo was founded by the Ndebele king Lobengula, in the 1840's, notably after Shaka's death in 1828.

 

[IgorS]

The Timurids were Persianised Turks. There.

They were Mongol Persianised Turks who later established a kingdom in Afghanistan and from there went on to create the Mughal Empire in India. This is one mess of a civ.

That was due to the Turkish nationalist movement which took off in the last 100 years of the empire, ironically a big part of why it fell apart.

Which only proves my point.

This seems really random and arbitrary. I can't imagine that most players don't want their capital associated with the leader. I remember people complaining that Eleanor didn't get the most appropriate capital, so I think most people want the capitals and leaders to make sense. I mean...the capital reflects where the leader is governing from.

I would argue they didn't like it within the mechanics of the given game. Because this is how the game works, everything should work right, and it didn't in this case. I don't think you can deduct from this that the players generally liked this mechanic.

In general I can say this: the capital decided by leader mechanic can work if each civ has different leaders with different capitals, but when there is just one leader, it is not so fun.

An odd choice, given Bulawayo was founded by the Ndebele king Lobengula, in the 1840's, notably after Shaka's death in 1828.

There were two Bulawayos, one in Zimbabwe, and one in Zululand (kwaBulawayo).

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

They were Mongol Persianised Turks who later established a kingdom in Afghanistan and from there went on to create the Mughal Empire in India. This is one mess of a civ.

No no no, it was one Timurid prince who established the Mughal Empire, which was in fact a continuation of the previous Delhi Sultanates. I've spoken extensively about this all over the place. The Timurids of Transoxiana and Persia were a very different thing from the Mughals of India

 

[IgorS]

I'll put it this way: for me, one of the main things about whether something deserves to be a civ is a national identity, which I don't really see in the Timurids.