Crisis events and its potential for villainous AI leaders

[ArkhanTheBlack]

From what I've seen so far from those end of era crisis events, you're just drawing some cards with some negative effects, and I do have to admit, that it looked a bit... boring to me.

Since they seem to try to make the eras more immersive and they also seem to have leaders from different eras, I wonder if that potential could be also used for soemthing with a bit more, let's say *impact*.
What I'm thinking about is, that an opposing AI suddenly switches to an infamous villainous leader that was a really bad boy in history, and who also acts like that.

Some examples:
- You play against Rome in the first era and their leader switches to Nero (arguably, he was more a problem for Rome itself, but who cares as long as he just likes to burn stuff lol)
- You play against Mongolia in the second era and their leader switches to Genghis Khan
- You play against Germany in the third era and their leader switches to Adolf Hitler
- You play against Russia in the third era and their leader switches to Josef Stalin (or a more recent one...)

I think those crisis events could be a lot more interesting than just... uh you get -20% income for the next ten rounds.
Granted, it's a bit inspired by me playing TW Warhammer and seeing an Archaon or Vlad von Carstein appearing on the horizon gives me that fuzzy "oh no, this can't end well" feeling.
But I'm pretty sure, this could also be fun with bad boys from world history.

 

[moysturfurmer]

I don’t see them modeling leaders that are AI exclusive, let alone the political minefield that is Adolf Hitler.

However, we’re led to believe that the crises aren’t just a series of negative policy cards you have to take. As far as I understand, that coincides with a gameplay mechanic that crops up during that crisis. For instance we have screenshots of the policy cards of a plague crisis that refer to sickness and migration. The language of these cards makes it seem like these are two mechanics that are introduced during this specific crisis.

But to your point about getting naughty: there has been vague reference to how if you do poorly in a crisis you may be presented with a “dark path” in the next age. No idea what that could mean but it might model the kind of thing you’re asking about.

 

[chaosprophet]

From what was said, it seems like each crisis something actually happens on the map, like a massive barbarian attack. And at the same time the crisis is happening, you have to pick those crisis cards, probably the number increasing as the crisis intensifies, which means you will have to face some threat while also having your empire weaker by picking some crisis negative effects.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

so far the only thing i like about civ7 is the idea of the crisis mechanic . finally the game wont end after you conquer your first AI capitol. hopefully they will ensure that the AI wont get destroyed completely during the crisis

 

[Josephias]

From what was said, it seems like each crisis something actually happens on the map, like a massive barbarian attack. And at the same time the crisis is happening, you have to pick those crisis cards, probably the number increasing as the crisis intensifies, which means you will have to face some thread while also having your empire weaker by picking some crisis negative effects.

So clear!

Maybe it is worth to add/remind the following image to the discussion.

Three crisis points identified, while still some “age bar” to go after the crisis culminates.

I’d say the event is “active” from the first to the third milestone (this is, new entries: be it barbarians, infections, etc.). The last age turns provide already a crisis aftermath, an epiloge, in which the threats slowly burn down (barbarian example is perhaps the easier to figure: after the massive wave of barbarians entering the map on crisis culmination, there are no new barbarians apoearing, but of course all those already roaming in the map do not dissapear, and you still have to deal with them)

Probably crisis cards are added as well at each milestone (they may skip the first one, letting you start the crisis with no malus, but it seems a waste of potential for the mechanic)

I’m interested to see if the crisis policies become more extreme with each step: I think it would be a nice touch, but maybe it becomes an overkill both stacking and increasing.

And as a shameless intent to make this on-topic with the OP intention: I’m afraid this system has little potential to introduce new leaders,(and, as some others commented, modelling them just for a crisis and risking the potential marketing hit is maybe too much).
I won’t mind however, a diplomacy-related crisis in which each interaction among leaders leads inevitably to tensions escalating and war. However, I ferl it would be dificult to manage/implement.

 

[pokiehl]

From what was said, it seems like each crisis something actually happens on the map, like a massive barbarian attack. And at the same time the crisis is happening, you have to pick those crisis cards, probably the number increasing as the crisis intensifies, which means you will have to face some thread while also having your empire weaker by picking some crisis negative effects.

This is what I initially assumed and I hope you're right.

If the crisis system ends up being just "Here are some policy cards with maluses, pick your poison" then that would be a huge letdown.

 

[Krikkit1]

So clear!

Maybe it is worth to add/remind the following image to the discussion.

View attachment 702295

Three crisis points identified, while still some “age bar” to go after the crisis culminates.

I’d say the event is “active” from the first to the third milestone (this is, new entries: be it barbarians, infections, etc.). The last age turns provide already a crisis aftermath, an epiloge, in which the threats slowly burn down (barbarian example is perhaps the easier to figure: after the massive wave of barbarians entering the map on crisis culmination, there are no new barbarians apoearing, but of course all those already roaming in the map do not dissapear, and you still have to deal with them)

Probably crisis cards are added as well at each milestone (they may skip the first one, letting you start the crisis with no malus, but it seems a waste of potential for the mechanic)

I’m interested to see if the crisis policies become more extreme with each step: I think it would be a nice touch, but maybe it becomes an overkill both stacking and increasing.

And as a shameless intent to make this on-topic with the OP intention: I’m afraid this system has little potential to introduce new leaders,(and, as some others commented, modelling them just for a crisis and risking the potential marketing hit is maybe too much).
I won’t mind however, a diplomacy-related crisis in which each interaction among leaders leads inevitably to tensions escalating and war. However, I ferl it would be dificult to manage/implement.

Crisis that I could see

1. Military units that threaten you territory
-Barbarians (from outside your empire/edge of the map)
-Rebels/Partisans/Ambitious Generals (from within your empire.. more distant/unhappy/previously conquered parts more)

**From other empires. (requires breakdown in diplomacy between two large empires.... the problem is for this to be a crisis that threatens both players, the war has to be so destructive that is is bad for both... as such I would say not a Primary crisis... although it could be a secondary factor in another crisis... a nice crisis policy might be +1 every military unit of a major civ killed in the last 10 turns, -3 each turn since you last razed?conquered? a foreign settlement)

2. something else threatens your "resources"
-Plague kills pops
-Famine kills pops
-Economic crisis destroys $/buildings/trade routes

I would guess having #1 is necessary unless #2 is Very severe (not losing territory means you are probably ok..... unless you are relying a lot on trade/CS/vassals you don't directly control.