I know it's early, but what Civs do you plan on going for your first game?

[Zaarin]

I think we didn't have such thing as "historical choice" in previous civ games, so why it became important now? Or there was something you would call a historical choice?

I mean, in previous games without mods, it was literally impossible for a leader to lead a civ they weren't connected to, at least obliquely. I prefer to think of the AI leaders as the avatar and zeitgeist of their civ. I don't mind playing as Tecumseh of Han because the leader I'm playing as is a kit of bonuses, but I don't want to see AI Tecumseh of Han because Tecumseh is not the zeitgeist of the Han people.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There was no such thing as historical choice in previous games that is correct.
You played against AI Pedro who (fittingly) led Brazil, but he would still behave "un-brazilian" and builds non-brazilian wonders, units and buildings.
But apparently, that's accepted by all players that like any civ game as historical enough. Mix and match leaders still will need some time to get to that point, if they ever get there.

Yeah, that's my thought as well. We accept all other cases of not following history in civ games, so most of us probably will accept un-historical paths and mix-and-match leaders rather quickly.

 

[Siptah]

Yeah, that's my thought as well. We accept all other cases of not following history in civ games, so most of us probably will accept un-historical paths and mix-and-match leaders rather quickly.

That's actually a benefit of the "small" starting roaster: pathways are so unhistorical that many people will warm up to the wild paths more quickly compared to a game that comes with 15 "clean" pathways in vanilla.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I mean, it's probably true that most players are soon going to get used to pretty wild switching. The ones that don't or can't will probably just stop playing.

AI taking wild paths is going to be somewhat, eh, I dunno. If my neighbor Hawaii suddenly becomes France it would change my internal RP pretty drastically.

 

[Xandinho]

For me, leaders not leading their own civs is still... ugh!

But I can become less hostile to it if it gives us more opportunities to see civs that wouldn’t have been represented in the classic mode of previous games, like the Mississippians.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I mean, it's probably true that most players are soon going to get used to pretty wild switching. The ones that don't or can't will probably just stop playing.

AI taking wild paths is going to be somewhat, eh, I dunno. If my neighbor Hawaii suddenly becomes France it would change my internal RP pretty drastically.

That's why by default AI follow historical paths if they are available. But I'm pretty sure we'll see reasonable historical paths taken from AI quite often, so weird transformations will happen as well.

On the other hand, if interface will properly focus on leader instead of civ, I don't think it would harm RP that much.

 

[Zaarin]

On the other hand, if interface will properly focus on leader instead of civ, I don't think it would harm RP that much.

They already spoiled that with the Mortal Kombat diplomacy screen. Now the center of focus is on...my rival's capital. With two idiots screaming off to the side.

 

[Patine]

I prefer the AI to take historical choices where possible, and I look forward to historical choices becoming more historical over time.

I think we didn't have such thing as "historical choice" in previous civ games, so why it became important now? Or there was something you would call a historical choice?

There was no such thing as historical choice in previous games that is correct.
You played against AI Pedro who (fittingly) led Brazil, but he would still behave "un-brazilian" and builds non-brazilian wonders, units and buildings.
But apparently, that's accepted by all players that like any civ game as historical enough. Mix and match leaders still will need some time to get to that point, if they ever get there.

This can't help but remind me, speaking of, "historical," in my many Vanilla games of Civ 2 I played back in the late '90's on my first PC computer, Boadiccea of the Celts and Montezuma of the Aztecs were almost always by biggest AI competitors for the Space Race.

 

[Zaarin]

This can't help but remind me, speaking of, "historical," in my many Vanilla games of Civ 2 I played back in the late '90's on my first PC computer, Boadiccea of the Celts and Montezuma of the Aztecs were almost always by biggest AI competitors for the Space Race.

GS made Aztecs a space race powerhouse in Civ6, too.

 

[Fat Bastard]

I was hoping for more European antiquity options instead of just Rome or Greece. Now I guess I'll have to pick Rome or Greece first, into Normans, into Britain/America and wait for expansion packs. The last announced antiquity civ isn't going to be European.

 

[Zaarin]

I was hoping for more European antiquity options instead of just Rome or Greece. Now I guess I'll have to pick Rome or Greece first, into Normans, into Britain/America and wait for expansion packs. The last announced antiquity civ isn't going to be European.

TBH add Goths and Gauls and Antiquity Europe is packed down and filled to overflowing.

 

[Voidwalkin]

GS made Aztecs a space race powerhouse in Civ6, too.

They were pre-GS. Best overall civ in 6. Particularly on deity. EW could really turbocharge development via all those builders, something that was more true as the AI had more units available to slaughter on higher difficulties.

If you get hokey with it, keep 1 or 2 into the Renaissance for heavily dmg'd units, your infra adv is overpowering.

 

[j51]

AI taking wild paths is going to be somewhat, eh, I dunno. If my neighbor Hawaii suddenly becomes France it would change my internal RP pretty drastically.

You’ll be playing against French Polynesia I guess.

 

[NickTheGreek!]

Greece obviously , what do i switch to when it is time to switch? that is more difficult to answer (at least untill we know more about the mechanics involved with switching/evolving).

 

[Txomin]

When the Maya are in I'm playing the Maya! From there not sure, the Abbasid abilities could be fun to continue science. Honestly don't know enough about the 3rd age civs to make a judgment there.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Greece's extra influence generation will make it easier to interact with the new diplomacy system, and it'll likely automatically unlock Abbasid, an Exploration civ that's caught my eye. Depending on how the remaining civs and leaders turn out though, there might be a specific modern or exploration path I want to chase. An interesting Majapahit or Rasputin, for instance, would change how I approach the game.

 

[Fummy]

I've been playing through ever civ game in order as Rome, so Rome.

 

[CivKirk64]

I feel like Rome is always the vanilla Civ with some boosts that make things easier (Free Roads!) and don't lean to heavy on one mechanic.
I'll play them with Augustus on my one and only Quickest game speed on normal map. Just to get an idea of the mechanics and how a game plays out.

My first "Real" game on Slowest Jumboest map, I'll want to play with Nav rivers and Trade so probably Tecumseh with Missisipans>Shawnee > whoever I feel will amp my endgame based on the playthrough.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I feel like Rome is always the vanilla Civ with some boosts that make things easier (Free Roads!) and don't lean to heavy on one mechanic.
I'll play them with Augustus on my one and only Quickest game speed on normal map. Just to get an idea of the mechanics and how a game plays out.

My first "Real" game on Slowest Jumboest map, I'll want to play with Nav rivers and Trade so probably Tecumseh with Missisipans>Shawnee > whoever I feel will amp my endgame based on the playthrough.

I had a feeling America is more "vanilla" in Civ5 and Civ6, because I assume it's the first civ to play by the majority of players. For example, on Civ6 release Roman free monuments and free roads made the game really different, while vanilla Civ6 with vanilla Teddy had bonuses not affecting strategy at all.

In Civ7, since there's no antiquity America, it's really hard to pick one.

 

[Siptah]

Civs all have so much going for them that none looks vanilla. I‘d guess civs with UIs and no great persons are the easiest to start, especially Khmer with their flood prevention and keeping yields from underneath districts.