You're right. I had my timelines mixed up. He was charged with mutiny and slated for execution during the voyage to America, but he was named a leader of the colony upon arrival by order of the Virginia Company.
Great People to Shake Up Civ VII
- Thread starter Boris Gudenuf
- Start date
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
@How to know , the most pertinent point you raise is one I have skipped over without realizing it: how do Great Ministers and Great Revolutionaries appear in the game, and how must that mechanic be different from the other Great People?
And, as an aside, is the mechanic so different that the Ministers and Revolutionaries need to be in an entirely new category of named people in the game?
To deal with the second point first, I have used the terms Great Minister and Great Revolutionary so far because, on the one hand, they are so perfectly descriptive of the effects I'm looking for, and, on the other, everyone is already familiar with the Great Person system and so elaborate definitions are less necessary. You are absolutely correct, however, that their effects are designed to be much more far-reaching and 'game changing' than those of the other Great People, and so perhaps they need to fall into an entirely new category.
I just, at the moment, have no idea what to call that category. I'm open to suggestions.
As to where the little digital Minsters and Revolutionaries come from, here are my initial thoughts:
Great Ministers are not received completely by choice - by things the Gamer does specifically to get them. Historically, Great Ministers were appointed by the Leader, and frequently removed when it turned out to be a bad or uncomfortable choice. They could also be removed by force, either from the Leader or other elements of the Civilization. Importantly, their appearance is at least partially Random, because the Leader’s judgement as to what/who he/she was appointing did not always result in a Great, or even Mediocre Minister.
So, since the Consequences of a Great Minister are more important Civ-wide than that of any other Great Person or Governor, the mechanic for receiving one has to be something different as well. I suggest the following:
Great Ministers are appointed by the Civ Leader. However, since the Leader’s ‘choice’ does not always result in a Great Minister, each appointment has a percentage chance of resulting in just another Ordinary Minister, and no change in the Civ. Every failed appointment increases the chance that the next attempt will succeed. The occasions when an attempt can be made to appoint a Great Minister are:
1. When the Civ changes Eras or Ages (I do not think Golden, Normal or Dark Ages should be directly connected to the Eras, which I also think should be much more variable than the artificial and rigid Eras in the game now, hence this distinction)
2. When the Civ gets a Great General or Great Prophet or Theologian, that Great Person can be exchanged for a new Great Minister (This always results in a new Great Minister, but note that exchanging Generals or Theologians/Prophets for a Great Minister does not mean that you will get one with either military or religious effects)
3. Whenever the current Great Minister is lost for any reason.
4. Whenever the Civ concludes a Civil War or Revolutionary Event.
5. Whenever the Civ changes governments.
You can only have one Great Minister at a time, so when/if you successfully appoint a new Great Minister, the old one is instantly replaced. You may also, at any time, remove a Great Minister without appointing a new one. Note also that having or not having a Great Minister does not in any way change the chances of getting a new Great Minister from Events: if we wanted to complicate the game enormously, there are plenty of historical examples of Civs that had more than one Great Minister of some kind at the same time, but introducing that into the game would complicate the interactions between the Uniques and attributes of Leaders, Civs and Ministers beyond what I think is either necessary or desirable.
Great Revolutionaries are normally Unwanted, so you do not directly ‘choose’ to get one or (normally) make any effort to increase your chances of getting one - unlike all other Great People or Great Ministers.
Instead, Great Revolutionaries happen to your Civ, like Hurricanes, Volcanoes, Droughts, etc - they can be regarded as Natural Disasters on two legs that tend to affect the entire Civilization instead of just one unlucky City.
Some of the occasions that may result in a Great Revolutionary are similar to those that result in a Great Minister - both personages could be regarded as the Civ’s general response to an event as opposed to the Leader’s chosen response to the Event:
1. When the Civ goes into a Dark Age or ends a Golden Age: both of these are Events leading to dissatisfaction (to say the least!) among the Civ’s population, raising the chance that someone is going to be upset enough to try to do something Revolutionary about it.
2. Whenever the Civ changes governments. Someone always preferred the old government to the new, and may express their opinion in a Revolutionary Way.
3. Whenever the Civ has negative Military Events. Examples:
- Losing a city to an enemy force
- Losing two battles in a row
- Losing its Capital
4. Whenever the Civ has negative Civil Events. Examples:
- Losing Population to a Natural Disaster
- Having more than 10% of its Districts Pillaged/damaged by Natural Disasters
- Having a City change to a foreign Religion
Great People may become Great Revolutionaries. Basically, what you thought was a Great Writer becomes radicalized by any of the above Events, or a Great Merchant loses too much Gold to a Natural Disaster and decides the Leader/Government need to change to protect his interests, or a Great General decides he would make a better Leader than the current Leader and a percentage of the army agrees with him.
You can only have one Great Revolutionary active in a Civ at the same time, but you may get sequential Great Revolutionaries if Bad Things keep happening to or in your Civ: as soon as one Great Revolutionary does his thing and is used up, another appears the following turn and you start imitating the famous clown act with the plates on the sticks, racing from one to the other and trying to keep everything spinning . . .
I would appreciate any additions or comments: this is a very rough first draft of thoughts on the subject and probably needs a great deal of work.
And, as an aside, is the mechanic so different that the Ministers and Revolutionaries need to be in an entirely new category of named people in the game?
To deal with the second point first, I have used the terms Great Minister and Great Revolutionary so far because, on the one hand, they are so perfectly descriptive of the effects I'm looking for, and, on the other, everyone is already familiar with the Great Person system and so elaborate definitions are less necessary. You are absolutely correct, however, that their effects are designed to be much more far-reaching and 'game changing' than those of the other Great People, and so perhaps they need to fall into an entirely new category.
I just, at the moment, have no idea what to call that category. I'm open to suggestions.
As to where the little digital Minsters and Revolutionaries come from, here are my initial thoughts:
Great Ministers are not received completely by choice - by things the Gamer does specifically to get them. Historically, Great Ministers were appointed by the Leader, and frequently removed when it turned out to be a bad or uncomfortable choice. They could also be removed by force, either from the Leader or other elements of the Civilization. Importantly, their appearance is at least partially Random, because the Leader’s judgement as to what/who he/she was appointing did not always result in a Great, or even Mediocre Minister.
So, since the Consequences of a Great Minister are more important Civ-wide than that of any other Great Person or Governor, the mechanic for receiving one has to be something different as well. I suggest the following:
Great Ministers are appointed by the Civ Leader. However, since the Leader’s ‘choice’ does not always result in a Great Minister, each appointment has a percentage chance of resulting in just another Ordinary Minister, and no change in the Civ. Every failed appointment increases the chance that the next attempt will succeed. The occasions when an attempt can be made to appoint a Great Minister are:
1. When the Civ changes Eras or Ages (I do not think Golden, Normal or Dark Ages should be directly connected to the Eras, which I also think should be much more variable than the artificial and rigid Eras in the game now, hence this distinction)
2. When the Civ gets a Great General or Great Prophet or Theologian, that Great Person can be exchanged for a new Great Minister (This always results in a new Great Minister, but note that exchanging Generals or Theologians/Prophets for a Great Minister does not mean that you will get one with either military or religious effects)
3. Whenever the current Great Minister is lost for any reason.
4. Whenever the Civ concludes a Civil War or Revolutionary Event.
5. Whenever the Civ changes governments.
You can only have one Great Minister at a time, so when/if you successfully appoint a new Great Minister, the old one is instantly replaced. You may also, at any time, remove a Great Minister without appointing a new one. Note also that having or not having a Great Minister does not in any way change the chances of getting a new Great Minister from Events: if we wanted to complicate the game enormously, there are plenty of historical examples of Civs that had more than one Great Minister of some kind at the same time, but introducing that into the game would complicate the interactions between the Uniques and attributes of Leaders, Civs and Ministers beyond what I think is either necessary or desirable.
Great Revolutionaries are normally Unwanted, so you do not directly ‘choose’ to get one or (normally) make any effort to increase your chances of getting one - unlike all other Great People or Great Ministers.
Instead, Great Revolutionaries happen to your Civ, like Hurricanes, Volcanoes, Droughts, etc - they can be regarded as Natural Disasters on two legs that tend to affect the entire Civilization instead of just one unlucky City.
Some of the occasions that may result in a Great Revolutionary are similar to those that result in a Great Minister - both personages could be regarded as the Civ’s general response to an event as opposed to the Leader’s chosen response to the Event:
1. When the Civ goes into a Dark Age or ends a Golden Age: both of these are Events leading to dissatisfaction (to say the least!) among the Civ’s population, raising the chance that someone is going to be upset enough to try to do something Revolutionary about it.
2. Whenever the Civ changes governments. Someone always preferred the old government to the new, and may express their opinion in a Revolutionary Way.
3. Whenever the Civ has negative Military Events. Examples:
- Losing a city to an enemy force
- Losing two battles in a row
- Losing its Capital
4. Whenever the Civ has negative Civil Events. Examples:
- Losing Population to a Natural Disaster
- Having more than 10% of its Districts Pillaged/damaged by Natural Disasters
- Having a City change to a foreign Religion
Great People may become Great Revolutionaries. Basically, what you thought was a Great Writer becomes radicalized by any of the above Events, or a Great Merchant loses too much Gold to a Natural Disaster and decides the Leader/Government need to change to protect his interests, or a Great General decides he would make a better Leader than the current Leader and a percentage of the army agrees with him.
You can only have one Great Revolutionary active in a Civ at the same time, but you may get sequential Great Revolutionaries if Bad Things keep happening to or in your Civ: as soon as one Great Revolutionary does his thing and is used up, another appears the following turn and you start imitating the famous clown act with the plates on the sticks, racing from one to the other and trying to keep everything spinning . . .
I would appreciate any additions or comments: this is a very rough first draft of thoughts on the subject and probably needs a great deal of work.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
The fact that governors have faces is precisely why Great Ministers CANNOT use that system. Faces means graphic creation means time and resources - there's a reason the game as a whole has only eight (counting the unique Ottoman one) governors ; using them goes against the whole need to have a solid pool of options, and brings us right back to the problem of adding multiple leaders. It's a complete no-go.
Homestly though I think you're overcomplicating things, Boris. Working within the existing great people system is probably best here rather than essentially creating two new game systems on top of the existing ones.
Also, given the sheer numbers of "Great revolutionary but also Great Minister" names so far (with the chief difference being whether they got their hand on power or remained outsiders to power), it seems to me that a "Great Reformers" category incorporating parts of both, with passive penalties for not appointing them (they're stirring revolution since they're outside power) and a replacement ability if you do appoint them.
Homestly though I think you're overcomplicating things, Boris. Working within the existing great people system is probably best here rather than essentially creating two new game systems on top of the existing ones.
Also, given the sheer numbers of "Great revolutionary but also Great Minister" names so far (with the chief difference being whether they got their hand on power or remained outsiders to power), it seems to me that a "Great Reformers" category incorporating parts of both, with passive penalties for not appointing them (they're stirring revolution since they're outside power) and a replacement ability if you do appoint them.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
I don't think so. The graphics are all static and in the game, virtually monochromatic: the resources required are an order of magnitude less than the animated Leader, even without the additional expense and effort of voice acting in obscure languages. I know of at least two Mods that provide individual static portraits of Great People, a much larger category than the governors, so I don't see it as an insurmountable resource sink the way the Leader representations are.
Here I agree completely, but my philosophy is always to start by including everything conceivable, and then whittle it down to What Actually Works. At this stage of conceptualizing, "overcomplicated" is what it should look like before the proverbial Axe gets taken to the concepts.
The lists are far more Inclusive than Playable at this point, which is why I mentioned finding Attributes to assign to the names, which should quickly identify a bunch of people that are repetitive and therefore expendable, and start the whittling process.
But the idea of combining the two into a single listing/group that sub-divides into Those In Power and Those Outside the System is worth exploring. Along with the idea that Minister/Revolutionary attributes should be toned down to closer to Governor's effects to keep the Great People system more coherent that includes them.
Within that framework, the question is do the effects we want from the Ministers/Revolutionaries more resemble those from Governors or from Great People?
Each type of Great People have different types of effects:
Great Generals and Great Admirals stick around for at least 1 - 2 Eras, effect a varying number of other Units, or may be turned in for specialized effects or Units.
Great Prophets start a Religion. Period.
Great Writers, Great Artists, Great Musicians provide Great Works of their various types. Period.
Great Merchants, Great Engineers, Great Scientists provide a variety of effects, including Eurekas, bonus construction of Buildings and Wonders, 'extra' Strategic or Luxury Resources, Gold, Trade, etc.
Governors, by contrast, provide a variable number of effects which can be enhanced by Promotions but all affect only the City in which the Governor is placed. Within that City, however, they can be very powerful.
So, within the framework established by the current Great Merchants, Great Scientists, Great Engineers, Great Admirals and Great Generals, there is ample scope for a wide variety of effects from Great Ministers and/or Great Revolutionaries. I think the critical point is that those effects should be Civ-wide and relatively powerful, which makes or may make them closer in concept to the Governors' effects, especially their higher level Promotions, but with far more in-game effect since they apply beyond a single city.
I would say then, that the new People, Governing or Great, split the difference between the two existing sets of Less Than Leader personages in-game. In relation to the historical basis, they should resemble the Great People in that each Great Minister should have somewhat or very different effects: promoting Thomas Cromwell into a Tallyrand or Bismarck just wasn't possible, and frankly, is too bizarre a concept for me to accept.
By keeping them separate, they fall into the Great People system, so their effects have to be carefully gauged. IF we want them to critically effect the way your Civ is going rather than simply add another point or two to some in-game currency, perhaps that effect should be a product of multiple Ministers/Revolutionaries 'nudging' a Civ in one direction or the other rather than a single Person/Event throwing everything in a new direction.
Here the Minister/Revolutionary concept would be toned down for game play purposes, which is acceptable even though the actual effects of some of the proposed Great Ministers (Bismarck, Richelieu) and Great Revolutionaries (Paine, Garibaldi, Lenin) were dramatic and massively changed their respective Civs.
One possibility is 'progressive effects' - the Great Minister or equivalent would be the Great Person that can effect the way your Civ/Government operates. By some mechanic, his effects are negated by an in-game event or decision, and that not only 'dismisses' the Great Minister, it also has a chance to 'spawns' a Revolutionary: the two Great Person types become part of the same mechanism, basically, and it results in either a relatively benign modifying of your Civ but if the modification is reversed or thwarted, a much less benign and more radical modification of the Civ.
This has rambled on, but I'm trying to put down ways to satisfy the various aspects of the proposed mechanics and systems that both @Evie and @How to know have brought up, because I think their points have validity . . .
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
The way I'm starting to envision the Great Reformers is as follow
1. Great Reformers appear by accumulation of points, like all other great people, but where they differ is that Great Reformer Point are earned in a way similar to how corruption worked in older games, plus from unhapiness. They represent the will for change because the people of your empire are no longer well served by your government. But you can absolutely purchase one if you so will (eg, you have lots of resource and a particular great reformer whose Minister ability is well suited to your game plan is available).
2. Unemployed Great Reformers have a static revolutionary ability (ala great general) that penalizes your civilization for the duration of an era or maybe two (they can only appear in the corresponding era ; if they appear in the last ten turn of an era their effect last until the end of the next era instead).
3. They also have their "Reform" ability, which will allow you to gain their unique reform effect. I'm thinking these should be very powerful, but *replace your leader ability* (and any other minister ability). This is the only way to get rid of a great reformer you have - and it comes at a very pricey cost...or with immense benefits if you use it in the right place at the right time.
It's a rough sketch, but I kind of like it, though teaching the AI to handle when to let the revolutionary be a bother and when to reform may be difficult.
1. Great Reformers appear by accumulation of points, like all other great people, but where they differ is that Great Reformer Point are earned in a way similar to how corruption worked in older games, plus from unhapiness. They represent the will for change because the people of your empire are no longer well served by your government. But you can absolutely purchase one if you so will (eg, you have lots of resource and a particular great reformer whose Minister ability is well suited to your game plan is available).
2. Unemployed Great Reformers have a static revolutionary ability (ala great general) that penalizes your civilization for the duration of an era or maybe two (they can only appear in the corresponding era ; if they appear in the last ten turn of an era their effect last until the end of the next era instead).
3. They also have their "Reform" ability, which will allow you to gain their unique reform effect. I'm thinking these should be very powerful, but *replace your leader ability* (and any other minister ability). This is the only way to get rid of a great reformer you have - and it comes at a very pricey cost...or with immense benefits if you use it in the right place at the right time.
It's a rough sketch, but I kind of like it, though teaching the AI to handle when to let the revolutionary be a bother and when to reform may be difficult.
Saxo Grammaticus
Clerk
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2021
- Messages
- 684
Initially, I thought your concept leaned more toward great people than governors. In that sense, I assumed they would just add a leader ability, sort of like retiring a great person but with more staying power. The big question mark I would reiterate from previous comments is the disconnect between traditional mechanics for earning great people and how great ministers/revolutionaries-as-great people would accommodate this.
On the other hand, building on the governor mechanic, specifically promotions, offers a nifty way to more fully represent a historical figure's contributions and complexity. I also sense this latter interpretation leaves more room for incorporating yet-to-be-revealed game mechanics, specifically linking certain revolutionaries to revolutions and civil war. A practical question along this line of thought would be how one earns these ministerial promotions.
This seems like a prudent step toward balance. I am partial to adding lots of unique abilities in the style of great people to add flavor and up the stakes but recognize that appears to be a perennial challenge for the AI. How ministerial abilities/effects interact with civilization and leader abilities is a good question.
CatboyEmperor
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2021
- Messages
- 18
Got some suggestions:
Great Ministers:
Wang Anshi (Medieval)
Niccolo Machiavelli (Early Modern)
John Dewey (Industrial/Modern)
B.R. Ambedkar (Modern)
Olof Palme (Atomic)
Friedrick Hayek (Atomic)
Deng Xiaoping (Atomic)
Great Revolutionaries:
Liu Bang/Gaozu of Han (Classical)
Spartacus (Classical)
Wat Tyler (Medieval)
Jan Hus (Medieval/Early Modern)
Oliver Cromwell (Early Modern)
Ching Shih (Industrial)
John Brown (Industrial)
Louise Michel (Industrial)
James Connolly (Industrial/Modern)
Emmeline Pankhurst (Industrial/Modern)
Bela Kun (Modern)
Bhaghat Singh (Modern)+
Mordechai Anielewicz (Modern)
Che Guevara (Atomic)
Malcolm X (Atomic)
Patrice Lumumba (Atomic)
Nelson Mandela (Atomic)
Great Ministers:
Wang Anshi (Medieval)
Niccolo Machiavelli (Early Modern)
John Dewey (Industrial/Modern)
B.R. Ambedkar (Modern)
Olof Palme (Atomic)
Friedrick Hayek (Atomic)
Deng Xiaoping (Atomic)
Great Revolutionaries:
Liu Bang/Gaozu of Han (Classical)
Spartacus (Classical)
Wat Tyler (Medieval)
Jan Hus (Medieval/Early Modern)
Oliver Cromwell (Early Modern)
Ching Shih (Industrial)
John Brown (Industrial)
Louise Michel (Industrial)
James Connolly (Industrial/Modern)
Emmeline Pankhurst (Industrial/Modern)
Bela Kun (Modern)
Bhaghat Singh (Modern)+
Mordechai Anielewicz (Modern)
Che Guevara (Atomic)
Malcolm X (Atomic)
Patrice Lumumba (Atomic)
Nelson Mandela (Atomic)
Jan Hus really belongs in a separate category with other religious reformers. His movement coincided with more than caused the formation of a distinctively Czech identity, and if you want to point at someone for starting a Czech revolution I'd say you want Jan Žižka or the like.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Jan Hus is in my overgrown Historical Timeline/Database (180 pages and growing!) as a Great Theologian for his effect on the Protestant movement in general and the Bohemian Reformation in particular. Jan Zizka is in the same list as a Great General for his innovations in the use of field artillery and hand cannon combined with peasants and fortified wagons against Medieval Knights before anybody else had figured out (in Europe, anyway) how to use gunpowder weapons effectively on a battlefield. Both certainly shook things up, but they did so in such specific ways that I think they better belong in more specific categories.
Including the founder of the Han Dynasty, Liu Bang, means I'll probably have to go back and include most of the founders of the Chinese Dynasties - which is not actually a bad idea for a basic database to be whittled down later. In fact, a Great Revolutionary might be a great mechanism for depicting the passing of the Mandate of Heaven and including multiple Dynasties in a Chinese Civ in Civ VII, each with its own distinct set of Uniques related to the Dynasty rather than the (eternal and immortal and animated) Leader.
Of course, that means this Great Revolutionary data base ma have to expand again to include a bunch of "successful rebels" that started new Dynasties in numerous States, which could wind up doubling the size of the current list!
Eddie Verdde
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2020
- Messages
- 81
I see great potential in this idea to a very specific aspect of the game.
A lot of people (me included) complain that the game develops in a very straightforward fashion. The decisions you make in the early game are just the foundations for what is going to happen in the mid game and there's not a lot of action (i.e. war and conflict) in that stage. The ancient and classical eras are just stepping stones to the folowing eras and you never really use archers, swordsman or catapults for a long time.
Even playing at Epic or Marathon game speeds does not solve this problem because, at those speeds, tech costs may be higher but production costs are also higher. This has even lead to the development of some mods where the tech costs are increased but the production speeds remain standard, so that you spend more time in the ancient and classical ages with more things going on.
But introducing a system where technological or civics advancements would slow because of the action of some revolutionary person would be an interesting way to keep things flowing more slowly while at the same time seeing a lot of action. Revolutions could even lead to the destruction of libraries and universities and you could lost knowledge of certain techs and have to research them again later.
Ryansinbela
King
MLK, Malcolm X, and Huey Newton, great revolutionary
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
I am generally leery of including contemporary or near-contemporary Great People, both because of trhe near-certainty of some kind of controversy and because anything Late Game is too often wasted unless we can revise the game mechanics enough to keep potentially 'up-ending' the game right to the end - something no 4X game has managed yet, as far as I know.
BUT, while not specific to Great People, here's a thought: if Civ VII treats Ideologies as Late-Game Religion substitutes (a concept by no means new or exclusive to gaming!), then Great Revolutionaries could take the place of Great Prophets after the Industrial Era dawns, and by the nature of Ideologies, keep right on Revolutionizing them or modifying them to local, Civ-specific conditions until End of Game (see the rather radical 'modifications' of Marx's theories made by Lenin & Co to apply Marx's Industrial Theories to a near-completely Un-Industrial Russia)
civilizationfanatic2000
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2022
- Messages
- 332
The An Lushan rebellion would cause many players to reset their game
Saxo Grammaticus
Clerk
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2021
- Messages
- 684
Agreed. After reading posts here and there, I have thought a bit more about what kind of negative feedback would be acceptable on a personal and more general level. Such chaos as An Lushan brought would probably intimidate even the most resistant to reloading. Something others (perhaps most recently The goggles do nothing) have brought up would be offering options to give some agency. In the case of an An Lushan Rebellion, this could be as simple as taking most of the military and rebelling, or remaining with the economic/cultural core and defending. It appeals to me that if a player peaks early, they could have a scenario like this to break up the snowball.
As for ideology as religion, it remains to be seen when/if/to what extent such a shift will take place globally. At the very least, there are numerous religious and spiritual figures of varying impact from the past two centuries. I do like this idea of how a Great Revolutionary could give rise to a revolution that also goes through stages and adapts to local conditions. Would add some dimension to the end-game.
Last edited:
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Or the English or American Civil Wars, the French Revolution, the Economic Crashes of 1873 and 1929 - even though in each of those cases, the Civ, world, or economies recovered and went on to bigger and better things, as the game is structured now ANY set-back is potentially Game-Ending unless it affects everyone equally or near-equally. That has to change before any major negative event or set of events (Plague, for instance) can be a part of the regular game - and that would be a Fundamental Change in the structure of Civ, which has always been a strictly Linear Progress system.
bene_legionary
Searching for the daguerrotype of God
I'll give my thoughts about negative effects, I hope I am not derailing the conversation or being too cynical, but it is important to talk about. I like the sound of Great Revolutionaries and Ministers, but the way Civ is going, it will be pushed away - I know that's already been talked about and the conversation is based on if the system was to be in Civ 7, but I'd also like to find a way to fit these concepts well.
You couldn't be more right. I really wanted Dramatic Ages to be like this. People complain about AI being horrible and a not a threat after the Medieval era and things like that, but that's only after they've restarted their spawn to get that perfect district layout 10 times, come up with a strategy that maximizes whatever yields they're going for, and made sure that they rush and destroy the first AI they meet. But when anything happens that goes against that work they've done - an AI takes a city by surprise (because the player was so focused on playing that industrial adjacency game) or builds a wonder before you, for example - to some people there's no point in moving forward, although it's likely that the AI's bad decisions in the near future would allow the player to conquer them back, or the wonder was Petra. I think singleplayer Civ 6 is a very long-winded win simulator, where the start is fun because the strategy is being made and put into action, while at the end the strategy is already done, there is no opposition, and it's simply a wait to the end. It's why I agree that Civ 6 AI is meant to look like there's opposition but are meant to fail convincingly, but I disagree that they should fail. Although, I can't think of any good solutions for this.
I really want Great Revolutionaries to work well, at least into how I see Civilisation. But Civ 6 (and in general, most 4x and grand strategy) players hate having their hard-thought out strategy impacted negatively, because they're used to having no major challenge / crisis affecting their empire. If the Great Revolutionaries are a part of a new range of major crises and challenges, I think they will work very well. I might have skipped some bits, but how do the the Great Revolutionaries work? Are they independent of your player, controlled by the AI but still representing your civ? Will they result in your civilization feeling, playing and reacting differently? Civ has always been about controlling your entire people from the moment it existed, any opposition was something or someone else; Barbarians, Free cities, other civs, disasters, etc. I hope this can be changed, but for the moment, things like civil wars in most 4x and grand strategy games have been non-existent or are means to the player's end, and if they are unpreventable in the game, it is not hard to start a new game or go from a previous save file. The difference in real life is that you can't load your old save file to avoid the civil war. Although, people who believe in re-incarnation might have the better of me in that one.
We don't know how Civ 7 is meant to play, so it's hard to put these pieces we have into a puzzle we don't know what looks like. If there are major negative effects (not just these natural disasters we have now that give more than they take) such as revolutions, civil wars and better AI in the next Civ, they'd better make them convincing and regular, not something to be avoided but to be pushed through and come out on top of. This might mean having to give more bonuses and things to pad the game and make it more familiar to players; perhaps after defeating a revolution or civil war your cities are fully loyal or produce more gold, something like that. At least, there is some challenge to getting this bonus, it isn't given to you after you fill a meter. It will be difficult to judge if there will be anything like civil wars and revolutions in Civ 7, given that Civ's design philosophy up to this point is a sandbox of human development and not a thematic history simulator. There are other debates about if Civ should become one, and my answer is that you should make your own.
If there's one change I think will have a good chance of landing in Civ 7, it's to Great Prophets (as long as religion stays similar). I see Great Prophets as being the weird exception to other Great People. Perhaps they could act like other Great People in that they give bonuses (like JFD's Great Theologians), but they could also perform a secondary action:
1. To players who already have founded a religion, Great Prophets could evangelize beliefs instead of Apostles
2. To players who haven't founded a religion and don't want to, Great Prophets could make a splinter religion based on an existing religion which could choose a belief the original religion had, as well as other new beliefs. The belief the original religion had cannot be selected when creating a new religion, it would be a way to gain bonuses of existing religions that a player might have missed out on.
There would definitely be an interesting choice to be made between choosing a new belief or gaining a bonus, and new dynamics based on splinter religions and their interactions / relationships with the original religion. I'd talk more about other religion aspects but they're for a different conversation.
You couldn't be more right. I really wanted Dramatic Ages to be like this. People complain about AI being horrible and a not a threat after the Medieval era and things like that, but that's only after they've restarted their spawn to get that perfect district layout 10 times, come up with a strategy that maximizes whatever yields they're going for, and made sure that they rush and destroy the first AI they meet. But when anything happens that goes against that work they've done - an AI takes a city by surprise (because the player was so focused on playing that industrial adjacency game) or builds a wonder before you, for example - to some people there's no point in moving forward, although it's likely that the AI's bad decisions in the near future would allow the player to conquer them back, or the wonder was Petra. I think singleplayer Civ 6 is a very long-winded win simulator, where the start is fun because the strategy is being made and put into action, while at the end the strategy is already done, there is no opposition, and it's simply a wait to the end. It's why I agree that Civ 6 AI is meant to look like there's opposition but are meant to fail convincingly, but I disagree that they should fail. Although, I can't think of any good solutions for this.
I really want Great Revolutionaries to work well, at least into how I see Civilisation. But Civ 6 (and in general, most 4x and grand strategy) players hate having their hard-thought out strategy impacted negatively, because they're used to having no major challenge / crisis affecting their empire. If the Great Revolutionaries are a part of a new range of major crises and challenges, I think they will work very well. I might have skipped some bits, but how do the the Great Revolutionaries work? Are they independent of your player, controlled by the AI but still representing your civ? Will they result in your civilization feeling, playing and reacting differently? Civ has always been about controlling your entire people from the moment it existed, any opposition was something or someone else; Barbarians, Free cities, other civs, disasters, etc. I hope this can be changed, but for the moment, things like civil wars in most 4x and grand strategy games have been non-existent or are means to the player's end, and if they are unpreventable in the game, it is not hard to start a new game or go from a previous save file. The difference in real life is that you can't load your old save file to avoid the civil war. Although, people who believe in re-incarnation might have the better of me in that one.
We don't know how Civ 7 is meant to play, so it's hard to put these pieces we have into a puzzle we don't know what looks like. If there are major negative effects (not just these natural disasters we have now that give more than they take) such as revolutions, civil wars and better AI in the next Civ, they'd better make them convincing and regular, not something to be avoided but to be pushed through and come out on top of. This might mean having to give more bonuses and things to pad the game and make it more familiar to players; perhaps after defeating a revolution or civil war your cities are fully loyal or produce more gold, something like that. At least, there is some challenge to getting this bonus, it isn't given to you after you fill a meter. It will be difficult to judge if there will be anything like civil wars and revolutions in Civ 7, given that Civ's design philosophy up to this point is a sandbox of human development and not a thematic history simulator. There are other debates about if Civ should become one, and my answer is that you should make your own.
If there's one change I think will have a good chance of landing in Civ 7, it's to Great Prophets (as long as religion stays similar). I see Great Prophets as being the weird exception to other Great People. Perhaps they could act like other Great People in that they give bonuses (like JFD's Great Theologians), but they could also perform a secondary action:
1. To players who already have founded a religion, Great Prophets could evangelize beliefs instead of Apostles
2. To players who haven't founded a religion and don't want to, Great Prophets could make a splinter religion based on an existing religion which could choose a belief the original religion had, as well as other new beliefs. The belief the original religion had cannot be selected when creating a new religion, it would be a way to gain bonuses of existing religions that a player might have missed out on.
There would definitely be an interesting choice to be made between choosing a new belief or gaining a bonus, and new dynamics based on splinter religions and their interactions / relationships with the original religion. I'd talk more about other religion aspects but they're for a different conversation.
Last edited:
