[R&F] Governor's breaking my immersion

[Morningcalm]

I see what you're saying about Gilgamesh being an actual person shrouded in legend but I think it's actually a strength that the governors are fake, but believable people. This is because it lets them have more abilities than a historical person could have and no real statesman is demeaned by being another leader's underling (I think Gandhi as a governor was mentioned in this thread). I agree that Amani is the exception and I mentioned in a reply to another poster that having different appearances for each civilization might help in distinguishing them apart ...unless they're both Greek.

I think you're stretching when you say that fake people have more abilities than historical figures would have. That's speculation, and not really supported by logic. There is plenty of room for historical characters to have unique abilities--if not drawn from their specific life story, then certainly from their culture. I don't understand your point about the underling.

I don't understand the references to Great People icons, they are a different breed and using their likeness will only confuse them with governors. Great People are very distinct in what they do because each one of them has a role that is only beneficial in a short window of time, so their icons have to be very generic in terms of era. It's harder to pin down what some Governors specialize in.

Again, I said governors could have icons. I didn't specifically say they need to copy Great Person icons. An easy example would be using a stylized hammer to represent the Industrial Governor (currently Magnus). Easy to understand, generic enough, and open to customization (adorned with Egyptian colors for Egypt, and maybe the Egyptian player who appointed him would have named him "Imhotep" for example, if only for flavor.)

No, I would definitely only appoint Magnus because his name has usage in Norwegian - only if China, Hong Kong, or Indonesia was my ally would I consider Liang as Norway . But really here is where their appearance might add to gameplay because if it feels very ahistorical to appoint a certain governor it could very well be a bad game decision. I don't have any problem hiring Liang as Ancient Norway though, anymore than getting a medieval relic from a nameless tribal village. You don't have to tell Magnuses apart because they can only be assigned to a civilization's own city - you just look at the city bar. Amani is still the exception with this issue.

Appreciate the responses thus far.

Here it seems to me you are conceding that certain governors don't fit a certain Civs - this is sensible, because in no historical timeline does ancient Norway appointing Liang make historical sense. I might as well be able to invent glasses in the ancient age (especially since Liang is wearing them). In my gameplay experience so far, I've very rarely encountered free relics, and most have been from appropriate timelines. The governors are more jarring than any ahistorical relics because you will see governors in ALL playthroughs of Civ in Rise and Fall, not just when you're lucky or pursuing a religious victory as the Khmer for example.

I think being able to tell Magnuses apart is important for immersion (which is ultimately where this OP began). I shouldn't have to endure the irritation of seeing cloned governors with hats that weren't invented in the ancient era, all of the same appearance and name.

In the very least, we should be able to change our governors' names and appearances in single-player.

 

[balparmak]

I was excited for R&F, until I read about governors. A strategy game should have similar elements working in similar level of abstraction, but this "governor" feature is so out of place. They could've learned a lot from Paradox, I mean just make them magistrates, earned a bit like resources, and it'd at least not be irritating, but they've chosen to follow mobile-gamey idiocy. meh.

 

[acluewithout]

Governors, Tier 1 Government Plaza Buildings, and totally stuffing England. And a bit of anti-cav still being rubbish. I don’t really know why, but these three (or four) things have really sapped my will to play. Equally, fixing one or two of these would probably solve my problems.

I really dread my first Governor coming along. And I really find I just avoid the Government Plaza entirely to avoid the stupid tier one buildings. Seriously. What is an Ancenstral Chamber!?! The fact the Plaza gives a flat +1 adjacency is also desperately tedious, because it reduces all the clever district placement down to “swarm stuff around the purple building = yay, profit!!!!!!”. (Okay, 5 things.)

These are all very small things. And being annoyed about them makes me feel ... petty. But small as they are... they just really kill the game for me. I dunno. They can’t please everyone. Plenty of people are happy enough. Good luck to them.

 

[Equilin]

By the way, now that Governors are distinct mechanic, what do we call the AI that manages tiles for us now? And when we move in a governor does that governor manages the tile instead? :thinking:

 

[shaglio]

I was excited for R&F, until I read about governors. A strategy game should have similar elements working in similar level of abstraction, but this "governor" feature is so out of place. They could've learned a lot from Paradox, I mean just make them magistrates, earned a bit like resources, and it'd at least not be irritating, but they've chosen to follow mobile-gamey idiocy. meh.

Governors, Tier 1 Government Plaza Buildings, and totally stuffing England. And a bit of anti-cav still being rubbish. I don’t really know why, but these three (or four) things have really sapped my will to play. Equally, fixing one or two of these would probably solve my problems.

I really dread my first Governor coming along. And I really find I just avoid the Government Plaza entirely to avoid the stupid tier one buildings. Seriously. What is an Ancenstral Chamber!?! The fact the Plaza gives a flat +1 adjacency is also desperately tedious, because it reduces all the clever district placement down to “swarm stuff around the purple building = yay, profit!!!!!!”. (Okay, 5 things.)

These are all very small things. And being annoyed about them makes me feel ... petty. But small as they are... they just really kill the game for me. I dunno. They can’t please everyone. Plenty of people are happy enough. Good luck to them.

It’s funny you two should say this, because every time I get the notification that I have a Governor promotion, I get annoyed. I have too much going on and now I have to ponder something else that I don’t really have the time to worry about.


Now that I think of it, maybe the problem for me with this game is that there’s TOO much stuff to do. Gone are the days where you just built some cities, buildings, wonders, and some units. Then you’d go off and explore, attack some other civs, and maybe build a spaceship. Now we have to deal with Policy Cards, a Civic tree in addition to the Tech tree, trade units, Amenities, Housing, Governors, District placement, Great Works, Great Work theming, Religion, Religious combat, Spy missions, enemy Spy missions, Governors, Loyalty . . . I feel like there’s more and I’m forgetting it all. I used to be able to play a game of Civ 1 or Civ 2 in a few hours. Now, even on Online Speed, it takes me forever.

 

[acluewithout]

I guess adding any new elements to the game is a trade off. It inevitably adds more micro, but what do you get out of it? Either deeper gameplay or deeper roleplay.

Governors and the Government Plaza are neither. I don’t really mind the Governors mechanically, but they dont really deepen gameplay much, and they really dont help with roleplay. The Government Plaza and first tier buildings feel the same. I’m okay with these things not expanding gameplay really - there’s plenty of good stuff already - but to lack depth and be so bland really kills me.

Anti-cav and England annoy me more. If the first one was better, it would open up so much more of the game. Ruining the second both took away a lot of strategic depth and really stuffed up the roleplay / fun factor.

I cant honestly say R&F has made the game worse - thats crazy internet rant territory - but it has made the game feel more half-baked and shallow overall.

 

[King Rad]

I like the governor system and pretty much everything added in R&F. I don't micro the governors to the extent that it seems some do, often putting them in a city and leaving them there unless/until I really need their ability somewhere else; but I do use them a lot in the 'loyalty' game. I was recently brought into a war when Nubia attacked my ally Rome. She had a city next door to one of mine [a free city I had taken after it left Egypt] that I had been having to manage loyalty for quite a while to maintain. I took her city and a couple of more, getting really high disloyalty initially [i.e. rebellion in 3 turns] but with the right governors, I was able to delay this until I got some population growth and then ended up with positive loyalty in all three cities. Are they perfect? No. But in a complex game like civ, i think they did a pretty good job on the initial use of this mechanic.

 

[acluewithout]

... i think they did a pretty good job on the initial use of this mechanic.

I have a lot of gripes about Governors. But I still agree with this statement. Some good ideas and definitely a good "first" attempt.

I think FXS are on the right track with Governors ... they just need a little more work.

Something to think about though. There are obviously a few different ways FXS could have taken Governors. But the approach FXS have taken is that everyone has to take at least one or two.

That obviously makes it easier to balance the game, because everyone has at least some Governors. But it means you can’t have empires without them, nor do you have the possibility of some contrast between empires investing in them and others not. eg “My English Empire is totes colonial and has all the luxes and frigates and we have all the Governors to hold our many (unhappy) colonies together! Bwah hahaha!” “So be it England, but the noble Korean empire (four cities) have foresworn colonies and Governors and have instead invested our energy into peaceful science so we may leave for the stars (and also like totes nuke your face last turn before we bail this mudball...).”

Compare eg spies where you can not have them, have “the usual” amount, or really lean into them via government buildings and civ choice.

Not saying this is a problem. Just wanted to be clear about what the current system gives up. Governors, as a system, could have been something other than “Govenors”. The bonus could have been guilds or estates or town charters or flat out “social policies” like Civ 5. And Governors could have been something else, maybe more like spies. But FXS went with a design where everyone has Governors, everyone has the same Governors, and they all mostly do radically different things.

 

[acluewithout]

As an aside: playing around with sql, and there’s an xml called “governorreplaces”. It’s empty, but the columns suggest maybe you could have a unque governor that replaces normal govenors. Maybe it’s empty because they ditched this idea, or maybe something is planned for the future?