Historical flavour over accuracy

[Zaarin]

It doesn't matter if india assumes the role of soviet russia , the game and simulation should simulate communist government , and the economy . As it should simulate a Yugoslavia situation of disintegration in 1991 , it does not matter if it is China civilisation , or Greece

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Civilization has never been a simulationist game.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I’d love to see communist civs in game, but I agree with Zaarin—civ isn’t a simulation game and government choice has never had a serious impact on your actual gameplay when things like economic inequality aren’t really things in Civ.


Of the possible communist civs, Yugoslavia is probably one of the more mundane ones, Tito and Yugoslavia remain widely popular to this day, and the state was largely successful until the power vacuum of Tito’s death allowed for ethnonationalists to come to power.

Ho Chi Minh leading Vietnam is prob one of the more reasonable ones to include too, though Vietnam has a laundry list of great leader choices that are longer ago.

Lenin and the USSR in a more generic form are probably fine

He remains especially controversial in the US, so Fidel Castro is likely not on the table, but he’d be a really cool choice to me personally. Che Guevara is an interesting one that i’ve seen thrown around a couple of times because he could reasonably serve as a leader for a number of different civs he was involved with organizing in or had connections to—Congo, Bolivia, Cuba, Argentina, etc.

Patrice Lumumba and Thomas Sankara strike me as particularly compelling leader choices, but neither the DRC nor Burkina Faso feel like compelling civ choices.

 

[Olleus]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Civilization has never been a simulationist game.

I believe he's saying that we should replace the designers and code of Civilization with an AI that simply simulates everything for us. Not only is that very far from plausible to begin with - as a prerequisite it would first require history as an academic field to be solved. More than that, it's pointless to discuss this in a thread (or, indeed, a forum) about game design. Saying "make an AI" decide is the opposite of designing something.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I believe he's saying that we should replace the designers and code of Civilization with an AI that simply simulates everything for us. Not only is that very far from plausible to begin with - as a prerequisite it would first require history as an academic field to be solved. More than that, it's pointless to discuss this in a thread (or, indeed, a forum) about game design. Saying "make an AI" decide is the opposite of designing something.

i took it to mean they wanted simulations of past scenarios (a la civ 4) or for governments to have a deeper meaning in gameplay (which isn’t really civ’s MO)

 

[luca 83]

i took it to mean they wanted simulations of past scenarios (a la civ 4) or for governments to have a deeper meaning in gameplay (which isn’t really civ’s MO)

If the game simulates revolutions, politics is very important for the development of government and economics and ideology, today's modern ai can make. This simulating ideologies: the game should be based on ideologies not on leaders who are mortal and replaceable

 

[Thenewwwguy]

If the game simulates revolutions, politics is very important for the development of government and economics and ideology, today's modern ai can make. This simulating ideologies: the game should be based on ideologies not on leaders who are mortal and replaceable

generative AI is garbage, environmentally damaging, plagiaristic, disrespectful of real artists and their time, and more,

if civ had generative ai used in its production at all, let alone for what its price point is, i would not buy the game.

also, civ *is* about the leader. there’s games if you care more about ideological guidances—vicky 3, hoi4, etc.

 

[luca 83]

generative AI is garbage, environmentally damaging, plagiaristic, disrespectful of real artists and their time, and more,

if civ had generative ai used in its production at all, let alone for what its price point is, i would not buy the game.

also, civ *is* about the leader. there’s games if you care more about ideological guidances—vicky 3, hoi4, etc.

Leaders are the product of an ideology of a historical period Caesar was created by the crisis of the republic and the influence of the army that of politics and the enlargement and management of the empire. Hitler by the versailles treaty and the 1929 economic crisis. The Russian and Lenin revolutions from the defeat of the army in the west in 1917 and the February revolution, Mussolini from the crisis of the liberal state and the red communist fear. Petain and came out of the collapse of France in 1940 leaders are outdated economic, political and individual events count.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I think I'd dislike Leader swapping more. The Leader you develop a kind of game relationship with; you hate Montezuma being your neighbor, you're besties with Chairman Shen-Ji Yang, etc. Some level of continuity for the whole three act campaign is necessary and I think Leader is the way to go on that.

 

[pokiehl]

I think I'd dislike Leader swapping more. The Leader you develop a kind of game relationship with; you hate Montezuma being your neighbor, you're besties with Chairman Shen-Ji Yang, etc. Some level of continuity for the whole three act campaign is necessary and I think Leader is the way to go on that.

Leader swapping is outright unfeasible for the majority of civs too. They’d need to just make up fake characters at that point which i absolutely don’t want to see.

 

[luca 83]

Leader swapping is outright unfeasible for the majority of civs too. They’d need to just make up fake characters at that point which i absolutely don’t want to see.

Do you prefer fixed leaders who do not represent the history and epochs in a style of play that is stuck in 1991? Congratulations!

 

[Zaarin]

Do you prefer fixed leaders who do not represent the history and epochs in a style of play that is stuck in 1991? Congratulations!

Leaders aren't the literal leaders of their civilization. They're the people you're playing against. Leader changing would lose the personability and humanity of the game.

 

[luca 83]

Leaders aren't the literal leaders of their civilization. They're the people you're playing against. Leader changing would lose the personability and humanity of the game.

Losing historical veracity Napoleon in 1500 he son of the revolution, Stalin in 1700 ? the son of a cobbler at the head of holy russia?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Leader swapping is outright unfeasible for the majority of civs too. They’d need to just make up fake characters at that point which i absolutely don’t want to see.

I don't see it working out for every civ either. But I don't every civ needs to have multiple leaders, for it to be a viable game mechanic. Since leaders are already decoupled from civs I wouldn't see the problem where you could choose if leaders were decoupled, or tied to their historic civilization.

Leaders aren't the literal leaders of their civilization. They're the people you're playing against. Leader changing would lose the personability and humanity of the game.

I'm of two minds about this, as I've said before that I myself align myself more with the civ, while my opponents I do see them as more the leader. The proposed solution that I would suggest is you yourself might be the only one changing leaders, at least as a game option. This is to me is just like civ switching in the form of civ changing and evolving your bonuses. That way you still get to see the other leaders in game.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm of two minds about this, as I've said before that I myself align myself more with the civ, while my opponents I do see them as more the leader. The proposed solution that I would suggest is you yourself might be the only one changing leaders, at least as a game option. This is to me is just like civ switching in the form of civ changing and evolving your bonuses. That way you still get to see the other leaders in game.

Civ7's leaders already look cheap. Now imagine we need 45 of them on release. Also now we're not just excluding civs that it's difficult to find a leader for; we're excluding civs we can't find multiple leaders for. Leader switching feels like multiple levels of game development nightmares to me.

 

[luca 83]

I don't see it working out for every civ either. But I don't every civ needs to have multiple leaders, for it to be a viable game mechanic. Since leaders are already decoupled from civs I wouldn't see the problem where you could choose if leaders were decoupled, or tied to their historic civilization.

I'm of two minds about this, as I've said before that I myself align myself more with the civ, while my opponents I do see them as more the leader. The proposed solution that I would suggest is you yourself might be the only one changing leaders, at least as a game option. This is to me is just like civ switching in the form of civ changing and evolving your bonuses. That way you still get to see the other leaders in game.

No, you cannot change the leader by choice, it would not be historical and would not respect the case, the events, and the ideology.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Civ7's leaders already look cheap. Now imagine we need 45 of them on release. Also now we're not just excluding civs that it's difficult to find a leader for; we're excluding civs we can't find multiple leaders for. Leader switching feels like multiple levels of game development nightmares to me.

My statement was outside of how Civ 7 is presenting it's leaders (yes, they aren't the best looking), civs, ages, and especially the forced switching, which is my biggest concern. Even above I stated that I wouldn't give every civ multiple leaders either. In my mind it's closer to with how Civ 6 handled it's leaders with some having one per civ, and others had multiple to avoid exclusion.

Granted I'm not a game developer, so I could imagine it might be hard to implement. But ideally between making modern U.K. go from Roman to Norman to Britain, I'd rather take the other approach of evolving England through the possible switching of Anglo-Saxon Alfred, Norman William the Conqueror, Tudor Period Elizabeth, and British Empire Victoria. But that's just me.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

No, you cannot change the leader by choice, it would not be historical and would not respect the case, the events, and the ideology.

this isn’t a historical game. how would you even implement this. it literally makes no sense.

 

[luca 83]

this isn’t a historical game. how would you even implement this. it literally makes no sense.

For the last time, it does not simulate history or a historical period, but a chosen, or imposed, form of government, with political, economic and cultural implications in a. wide range of possibilities

 

[Thenewwwguy]

For the last time, it does not simulate history or a historical period, but a chosen, or imposed, form of government, with political, economic and cultural implications in a. wide range of possibilities

it doesn’t do that either. governments have basically been lip service for as long as they’ve been in this game series

this game simulates the growth of a culture more than being a political simulator in any capacity. and i use the world simulate loosely. i don’t think it simulates much.

 

[Zaarin]

For the last time, it does not simulate history or a historical period, but a chosen, or imposed, form of government, with political, economic and cultural implications in a. wide range of possibilities

From your posts, I really think you'd enjoy Paradox's games more than Civ; they come closer to doing what you're looking for.