[R&F] Governor's breaking my immersion

[nzcamel]

Anton Stenger had this to say about Governors.

"In previous versions of Civilization, “governor” often referred to the AI behavior you could set for a city to act on your behalf. In this expansion, though, they are the opposite. Sending a Governor to a city is a way for the player to make an active decision about the development of one of their cities, and grow in a specific direction. Much like how districts operate in the base game, Governors are a way to specialize your cities. The difference: Governors have their own set of unique powerful bonuses and can move between controlled cities."

Does anyone feel that Governors specialise their cities?

I feel like all I do is pick the chop-chop one, or the extra builder charge one, and then just lose all interest.

Perhaps Governors should have been something more like a spy unit - build them based on capacity, random promotions from a pool, then assign them to cities. Maybe they'd still give loyalty, but their promotions you impact yields etc.

Then, perhaps what are currently Governors, could be made something else: like great families or dysnasties or estates or guilds, and could have been tied to specific cities.

The way Governors are now they feel like something out of cluedo or guess who ("Was it Pingala, in the study, with a candle stick holder?").

I agree its a bit questionable, you typically move the governors around quite a bit.
I also feel they are adding an extra level of planning and micromanagement that I don't particularly enjoy ("ok, so in 3 turns my builder will be ready, then it will take me 2 turns to move the builder to the forest tile, so I better move Magnus now..."). I think I like Amani the most in terms of mechanics. She's a way to have some influence over loyalty and an important chess piece for the city states game.

I realize this is most likely a rhetorical question and the assumption is that nobody feels that way but I do.

If I recruit Moshka early it's usually a game focused on religion and he will be stationed in my Holy City for most of the game. Consequently I will buy all apostles in this city and build all the faith building and happily fight religious battles in its territory. In essence this Holy City truly becomes the center of the religion and not just a city with 4x religious pressure.

If I recruit Magnus I often move him around early but if I choose to promote him fully his role changes and the city he stays in is the designated production powerhouse in my civilization. (The city does not become the production powerhouse just because I place him there. But if I have a city with very good production I can supplement that specialisation with Magnus and a few additional IZs in neighboring towns.)

I can tell stories like this about most governors although they don't happen every game. Sometimes Moshka is just a mobile loyalty boost and Magnus continues to jump around. But there are so games where you can use the abilities of some governors to an above average extend and in those games they certainly feel like city specializers to me.

Keep in mind that no matter how they spun governors as an addition to the game; the main reason they were added to the game was to give players who like a small empire a leg up against players who don't mind having an empire proper. They're to make tall possible. And while I think there may have been better ways of doing it, I certainly prefer governors to anything that punishes wide (global happiness) rather than finding a way to boost tall.

So the whole specialising your cities thing - as a few of you have said, that can happen; but it's circumstantial. It has added a layer of micromanagement that is a bit annoying (i.e. trying to space out when cities construct builders so Liang can be in said city at completion); but meh...

Circling back to the OP: I personally don't mind the names and the portraits but I could deal as well with generic ones like in the screenshot. But then again I do like art style and quotes and lightheartedness of Civ 6 in contrast to a lot of other very vocal people. And maybe a discussion about the game mechanics should take place in the other thread about governors and this here could focus on representation / UI?

As the OP, I personally do not mind that this thread discusses the practical side of governors as well as their aesthetics...I think their practicality is both close enough to the topic, and almost impossible to not head there at all; that I am fine with both being in this thread. Obviously mods may feel differently.

I think in terms of representation they hit a couple of key goals:

• Instantly recognizable - you can immediately tell which governor is in which city, friend or foe
• Clarity - the governors stand out, there's no mistaking their look in the city bar

Those two things are really on target. I might've preferred a slightly less caricatured look, but otherwise I think they're fine. I think this is a case where clarity has to take the lead over everything else. It would be nice to have a mod that customizes the look for each region, but I'm not opposed to the current system. I guess they had to choose between total abstraction or set looks, I think anything in between those two points would be too confusing.

I agree re the Clarity. Like if you swapped out their little faces in the City bars (though dammit those city bars are useless! It's close to impossible to just click on the city bar itself if there's any unit in the city! Gah ) for the generic Great people pics in the OP, that wouldn't work. So I think another generic symbol is better, as they aren't distinct enough at that small size.

I'd have a $ for the Financier; a sword for the Castellan; a sealed scroll for the Diplomat; etc...

 

[acluewithout]

@nzcamel " I certainly prefer governors to anything that punishes wide (global happiness) rather than finding a way to boost tall. " Agreed wholeheartedly.

 

[acluewithout]

I realize this is most likely a rhetorical question and the assumption is that nobody feels that way but I do.

If I recruit Moshka early it's usually a game focused on religion and he will be stationed in my Holy City for most of the game. Consequently I will buy all apostles in this city and build all the faith building and happily fight religious battles in its territory. In essence this Holy City truly becomes the center of the religion and not just a city with 4x religious pressure.

If I recruit Magnus I often move him around early but if I choose to promote him fully his role changes and the city he stays in is the designated production powerhouse in my civilization. (The city does not become the production powerhouse just because I place him there. But if I have a city with very good production I can supplement that specialisation with Magnus and a few additional IZs in neighboring towns.)

I can tell stories like this about most governors although they don't happen every game. Sometimes Moshka is just a mobile loyalty boost and Magnus continues to jump around. But there are so games where you can use the abilities of some governors to an above average extend and in those games they certainly feel like city specializers to me.

It’s not a rhetorical question, I was genuinely asking.

I don’t use Governors to specialise cities, and I wonder if I should more. The top tier promotions do seem directed at specialising, and at sort of reintroducing certain metas. eg Magnus allows for Facotry Bonus Stacking again, and Reyna encourages Harbour and Commercial Hub stacking.

I really think the Governor system is pretty solid in terms of gameplay - and personally I don’t think I’ve explored it enough. But I do think the presentation is not great.

 

[nzcamel]

It’s not a rhetorical question, I was genuinely asking.

I don’t use Governors to specialise cities, and I wonder if I should more. The top tier promotions do seem directed at specialising, and at sort of reintroducing certain metas. eg Magnus allows for Facotry Bonus Stacking again, and Reyna encourages Harbour and Commercial Hub stacking.

I really think the Governor system is pretty solid in terms of gameplay - and personally I don’t think I’ve explored it enough. But I do think the presentation is not great.

Well the two who's base benefit is a multiplier on what your city already produces (the Cardinal and the Educator) I suspect are certainly used in that fashion. It could be argued that the Financier is similar; but I suspect less people will get her for her base ability alone.

 

[acluewithout]

I think Governors would be a bit better at specialising if you could get some of them more than once.

That might seem counterintuitive, but because you can only buy each Governor once you end up with a bunch of Governors you don’t really want. It sort of “dilutes” the feel of the one you do want.

In the early game, you also move your Governors around more, so for a while you don’t really get the feeling of specialising a particular city.

Separately, having only one Victor or one Amani is very annoying, and seems a little daft. Seriously, my Empire has only ever produced one Diplomat (although, granted, she is an immortal diplomat who can travel any distance in only 5 turns)?

The Governors’ initial powers and promotions might need a bit of a rework, but I hardly think having two Reynas or two Amanis would be game breaking. Maybe there would be a limit of max 3 per type. You’d also need a few more faces to make it work!

 

[juanpavo]

• Clarity - the governors stand out, there's no mistaking their look in the city bar

.

They could have easily achieved this by using unique different color backgrounds in the portraits, without using gross caricatures. For example, Magnus could be a normal face on a blue background, Liang a normal face on a green backgound, etc. I'm sure there are other design style choices that could also achieve the same.

 

[shaglio]

They could have easily achieved this by using unique different color backgrounds in the portraits, without using gross caricatures. For example, Magnus could be a normal face on a blue background, Liang a normal face on a green backgound, etc. I'm sure there are other design style choices that could also achieve the same.

Similarly, you don't need a picture at all. You could have the current Victor represented by crossed swords on a red background, the current Reyna as gold coins on a yellow background, etc. They'd still give you the gist of what the governor does and who the governor is, while also being easily distinguished on the city banner.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Time to hack Ugandan Knuckles to be all of the governors, complete with sound effects and showing you the way to play. That'll help "immersion".

 

[nzcamel]

Similarly, you don't need a picture at all. You could have the current Victor represented by crossed swords on a red background, the current Reyna as gold coins on a yellow background, etc. They'd still give you the gist of what the governor does and who the governor is, while also being easily distinguished on the city banner.

Yeah, that's my preference.

Time to hack Ugandan Knuckles to be all of the governors, complete with sound effects and showing you the way to play. That'll help "immersion".

 

[Vandlys]

[...] but the industrialist hat on Magnus from ancient times is still silly [...]

You don't mention Teddy wearing a modern suit in ancient times, or Wilhelmina, or Oda's sword, etc. Are they too immersion breaking to you?

 

[Art Morte]

I think Governors are a sign of how it's becoming increasingly difficult to add good stuff to the game. I'm not exactly against the Governors, but I don't feel they're really needed, either. Kinda gimmicky.

 

[Scaramanga]

I think Governors are a sign of how it's becoming increasingly difficult to add good stuff to the game. I'm not exactly against the Governors, but I don't feel they're really needed, either. Kinda gimmicky.

I think they wanted to bring back the social policy trees, so that you were making more permanent decisions about the character of your civilization.

 

[UWHabs]

I think they wanted to bring back the social policy trees, so that you were making more permanent decisions about the character of your civilization.

And they do work kind of well as a form of mobile loyalty. And as mentioned, there's a certain logic to "city specialization" with them as well. If you think of them as a sort of "mobile national wonder" like we had in previous games, they make some sense, although I do think in most cases they're a little under-whelming in terms of their effects.

 

[Sylfea]

I'm fine with them being not too powerful - more like tweaks than game changers - I just wish (a) there were more of them so you couldn't pick all of them every single game and (b) that you could rename them. Seriously, 9 Amani's bumping around the map by the classical age, so boring.

 

[Morningcalm]

You don't mention Teddy wearing a modern suit in ancient times, or Wilhelmina, or Oda's sword, etc. Are they too immersion breaking to you?

They don't break my immersion at all. Do they break yours?

 

[Scaramanga]

Having historical names for governors is a nice solution too, maybe especially so if coupled with the ability to rename them for hilarious purposes. I would like to be able to pick an industra advisor for say, Khmer/Korea/China etc who isn't just a Caucasian in a stereotypical hat, also. Customizable appearances please. The advisors surely can't all be clones.


Completely disagree. The governors are fictitious cartoon characters who appear serving multiple civilizations simultaneously in the same game (through cloning, teleportation, or maybe all foreign advisors in these worlds are quadruplets named Amani who all served different civilizations out of mutually shared hatred). The civ leaders are historically flavored personages drawn from real life that serve one entity each per game.

For gameplay purposes, it's easier to tell what governor a rival is using if it looks the same as the one that is available to me. If governors were real historical figures it would confuse them with great people and actual leaders or spies. I'm not sure what else there is to draw on other making some playful fictious types. It is historical fiction at least.

 

[Vandlys]

They don't break my immersion at all. Do they break yours?

Not really Although I would think it cool if leader images changed through the ages, with a non-Eurocentric look for appropriate civs.
I just wondered, because Magnus' hat in ancient times is not any less silly than Oda's sword before iron working, Teddy's suit, Wilhelmina's umbrella, etc. I'm curious why the one feels immersion breaking, and the other does not.

 

[Morningcalm]

Not really Although I would think it cool if leader images changed through the ages, with a non-Eurocentric look for appropriate civs.
I just wondered, because Magnus' hat in ancient times is not any less silly than Oda's sword before iron working, Teddy's suit, Wilhelmina's umbrella, etc. I'm curious why the one feels immersion breaking, and the other does not.

I see. I disagree with you re: leader garb though. It's an established fiction that Civ leaders come from all sorts of time periods and lead their civ (that's the nature of the what-if scenario that each Civ game brings). Period-restricted garb is appropriate for leaders like Trajan or Roosevelt who represent their nation's image in a way tied to a specific timeline (namely ancient Roman glory and imperialist American dominance). Re: Magnus being immersion-breaking, let me give you a parallel in Civ: we don't have the ability to make tanks in 3000 BC. Magnus, unlike the historical leaders in cartoonish form in Civ VI, is a fictitious cartoon character wearing an industrialist's garb who can be appointed in 3000 BC. Just as we can't built the Eiffel Tower in 3000 BC, so we should not be able to appoint an industrialist governor at that time.

For gameplay purposes, it's easier to tell what governor a rival is using if it looks the same as the one that is available to me. If governors were real historical figures it would confuse them with great people and actual leaders or spies. I'm not sure what else there is to draw on other making some playful fictious types. It is historical fiction at least.

They could just use icons for the AI governors (maybe with coupled with customizable cartoon characters for the player's own). Re: real historical figures, they could use names native to the culture at least (like with spies currently). The AI governors don't need to be named, but their type could be specified (I.e. Diplomat Governor).

 

[Scaramanga]

I see. I disagree with you re: leader garb though. It's an established fiction that Civ leaders come from all sorts of time periods and lead their civ (that's the nature of the what-if scenario that each Civ game brings). Period-restricted garb is appropriate for leaders like Trajan or Roosevelt who represent their nation's image in a way tied to a specific timeline (namely ancient Roman glory and imperialist American dominance). Re: Magnus being immersion-breaking, let me give you a parallel in Civ: we don't have the ability to make tanks in 3000 BC. Magnus, unlike the historical leaders in cartoonish form in Civ VI, is a fictitious cartoon character wearing an industrialist's garb who can be appointed in 3000 BC. Just as we can't built the Eiffel Tower in 3000 BC, so we should not be able to appoint an industrialist governor at that time.


They could just use icons for the AI governors (maybe with coupled with customizable cartoon characters for the player's own). Re: real historical figures, they could use names native to the culture at least (like with spies currently). The AI governors don't need to be named, but their type could be specified (I.e. Diplomat Governor).

I don't understand what being fictitious has to do with barring from ancient starts. It's the same as disallowing Teddy Roosevelt on earlier than Industrial and severely limits the player in governor choices. Buildings like the Eiffel Tower follow different rules because they represent a level of civilization while leaders and by extension governors represent a style of leadership. Customizable portraits for players' governors would not work in multiplayer because it's the same problem of not being able to identify a rival governor on sight. When folks say they want governors "like spies" or "like great people" they are pointing to the problem that governors will simply blend into those entities if they have the same naming scheme or icon. Here is where gameplay trumps immersion because I need to know that a governor is a projection of a leader's power, therefore they will have similar portraits and exist as long as that leader exists, even at 3000 BC. But to make them customizable is to multiply the combinations of governors and leaders needlessly.

 

[Morningcalm]

I don't understand what being fictitious has to do with barring from ancient starts. It's the same as disallowing Teddy Roosevelt on earlier than Industrial and severely limits the player in governor choices. Buildings like the Eiffel Tower follow different rules because they represent a level of civilization while leaders and by extension governors represent a style of leadership. Customizable portraits for players' governors would not work in multiplayer because it's the same problem of not being able to identify a rival governor on sight. When folks say they want governors "like spies" or "like great people" they are pointing to the problem that governors will simply blend into those entities if they have the same naming scheme or icon. Here is where gameplay trumps immersion because I need to know that a governor is a projection of a leader's power, therefore they will have similar portraits and exist as long as that leader exists, even at 3000 BC. But to make them customizable is to multiply the combinations of governors and leaders needlessly.

"Fictitious" matters because the central conceit of Civ is a "what if" scenario between history's great leaders. The relatedness inmersiveness is lost when fictitious cartoon characters who can clone endlessly appear in the game (Magnus) at an inappropriate time (ancient age).

The Eiffel Tower is as much a marker of its time (Industrial Age) as Roosevelt is of America (leadership style). What is Magnus other than an anachronistic anchor to an improper Governor system?

Customizable portraits would work in multiplayer so long as the Governor type was clearly signified when you moused over them (or the Governor icons could come in different shapes, like a star for the defensive Governor).

The governors are not a projection of the Civ leader's power. For that to be the case they would have to be more unique in the way a Civ leader or a Civ's bonuses are (I.e. Let's suppose only Egypt gets access to the Imhotep Builder Governor, who has a different Governor tree but otherwise similar bonuses to Liang). Governors are currently less projections of a leader's power and more representative of an "upgradable bonus" gameplay style. For governors to actually be a projection of a "leader's power" governments would have to become more than just a collection of random bonuses in Civ.

As another thread in this forum discusses, Civ VI is full of government but not governance. Civ IV has better governance and difficult domestic decisions and didn't even have "governors" in the way Civ VI does.