I think the game should get back to some realistic history

[Bast]

Firstly, I don't have the game yet and I don't have it because there's just not enough interesting leaders or civilizations for me to want to pay to play. But I've been keeping up with the reviews and videos about what's happening with the game because probably I will get it one day. Most of the negative feedback is on UI and most people who have a favorable opinion of the game want to think that that is the only issue. I don't believe that is the case. I think there's 2 sides. The negative side is that they might have UI as a main or one of the biggest problems amongst many other problems. The positive side that they admit that UI is an issue and thinks that once that's fixed it's all good. I think the positive side (which includes the developers) is ignoring many of us who thinks there are other issues.

I think the game has strayed too far from history. I really think it needs to get back to genuine leaders in history (not great people types), and actually have a sense that you're leading a genuine political/military leader through history. I don't mind leaders being able to lead any civ. But if there are rules around how a civ or leaders can unlock certain civs, why not make it a rule that Augustus can only lead Rome or Greece in antiquity and not Khmer. After all, Catherine the Great doesn't unlock Siam in modern age, so why does Augustus unlock Khmer in antiquity. Second, I'm also fine with changing civs but why not make it more natural progressions or gameplay progressions that make sense. Things like wine resources for France is silly. France is not the only civ that drank wine in history. It feels forced. Spain to Mexico, okay. How about use opportunities like religion to able to progress to another civ. For example, if Buddhism is spread in your civ, something like Siam becomes unlocked. It should be genuine historical reasons that unlock civs rather than forced ones.

Finally, civ changes should happen because something in history makes it happen, not because you get to a certain turn number. Especially the fact that at that turn all wars and wonder building stops. That's silly and heavy handed. Why not let the history and turns continue (not stop at a pre-determined point), you can still have crises, if you want to change civs. Changing civs should be something you'd want to do. It should be a major upgrade. For example, I agree that America should be a modern age civ. But becoming America should have something to do with government and policy changes that give that civ a major boost and something you'd want to do despite going through a major crises. Something like, yes we can go through this bad phase because we'll come out better. That is what the American Revolution was about. Also, civs shouldn't have to change, if you want to be China throughout the game, you can but you might not get the benefits of upgrading to a more modern civilization. That is the path you should be allowed to take. Take history, the nation of Germany formed from many states, but the unification of Germany didn't have to happen nor does it need to happen at a certain date. Why can't the Roman civ just have dynastic style changes like China with Han > Ming > Qing. Isn't that was civ is about. The what-if? The problem right now is, it's not what-if, it's what-will-be. You're allowed to choose in a box at a certain time rather than developing a real history that makes sense. I played past civs like a roleplay. I was never great player but I enjoyed building a somewhat historical empire where I could write my own history and tell a story. I don't think I was the only one and it's neglected a lot of players like me who liked that ability to create that free history with historical characters and civs.

I don't know, maybe someone who gets paid for thinking up this stuff should expand on this. I know this stuff probably won't happen in Civ VII as the game mechanics are set but Civ VIII?

 

[luca 83]

Firstly, I don't have the game yet and I don't have it because there's just not enough interesting leaders or civilizations for me to want to pay to play. But I've been keeping up with the reviews and videos about what's happening with the game because probably I will get it one day. Most of the negative feedback is on UI and most people who have a favorable opinion of the game want to think that that is the only issue. I don't believe that is the case. I think there's 2 sides. The negative side is that they might have UI as a main or one of the biggest problems amongst many other problems. The positive side that they admit that UI is an issue and thinks that once that's fixed it's all good. I think the positive side (which includes the developers) is ignoring many of us who thinks there are other issues.

I think the game has strayed too far from history. I really think it needs to get back to genuine leaders in history (not great people types), and actually have a sense that you're leading a genuine political/military leader through history. I don't mind leaders being able to lead any civ. But if there are rules around how a civ or leaders can unlock certain civs, why not make it a rule that Augustus can only lead Rome or Greece in antiquity and not Khmer. After all, Catherine the Great doesn't unlock Siam in modern age, so why does Augustus unlock Khmer in antiquity. Second, I'm also fine with changing civs but why not make it more natural progressions or gameplay progressions that make sense. Things like wine resources for France is silly. France is not the only civ that drank wine in history. It feels forced. Spain to Mexico, okay. How about use opportunities like religion to able to progress to another civ. For example, if Buddhism is spread in your civ, something like Siam becomes unlocked. It should be genuine historical reasons that unlock civs rather than forced ones.

Finally, civ changes should happen because something in history makes it happen, not because you get to a certain turn number. Especially the fact that at that turn all wars and wonder building stops. That's silly and heavy handed. Why not let the history and turns continue (not stop at a pre-determined point), you can still have crises, if you want to change civs. Changing civs should be something you'd want to do. It should be a major upgrade. For example, I agree that America should be a modern age civ. But becoming America should have something to do with government and policy changes that give that civ a major boost and something you'd want to do despite going through a major crises. Something like, yes we can go through this bad phase because we'll come out better. That is what the American Revolution was about. Also, civs shouldn't have to change, if you want to be China throughout the game, you can but you might not get the benefits of upgrading to a more modern civilization. That is the path you should be allowed to take. Take history, the nation of Germany formed from many states, but the unification of Germany didn't have to happen nor does it need to happen at a certain date. Why can't the Roman civ just have dynastic style changes like China with Han > Ming > Qing. Isn't that was civ is about. The what-if? The problem right now is, it's not what-if, it's what-will-be. You're allowed to choose in a box at a certain time rather than developing a real history that makes sense. I played past civs like a roleplay. I was never great player but I enjoyed building a somewhat historical empire where I could write my own history and tell a story. I don't think I was the only one and it's neglected a lot of players like me who liked that ability to create that free history with historical characters and civs.

I don't know, maybe someone who gets paid for thinking up this stuff should expand on this. I know this stuff probably won't happen in Civ VII as the game mechanics are set but Civ VIII?

I have been arguing for years that the change of civilization and dynasty should be. Accompanied. By an ideological historical narrative and economic historical movements

 

[Gorbles]

I think the game has strayed too far from history.

Civ has never been a strict historical simulator, and has always "strayed" from history. "too far" is an impossible metric that's going to turn out subjectively for everyone involved.

 

[luca 83]

Civ non è mai stato un simulatore storico rigoroso e si è sempre "allontanato" dalla storia. "Troppo lontano" è una metrica yes if putting useless leaders like harriet tubman for the uneducated and politically correct mass for last time civ must not be a strict historical simulator but simulate. various possibilities of events and governments which this game is not doing che si rivelerà soggettiva per tutti i soggetti coinvolt

yes if putting useless leaders like harriet tubman for the uneducated and politically correct mass for last time civ must not be a strict historical simulator but simulate. various possibilities of events and governments which this game is not doing

 

[Pedro P]

This complaint about realism is exactly part of why we got this system, to solve the imaginary "Americans in the Bronze Age" issue.

No civ in the game fits a 6000BC start. Carthage, Aztecs and the English in the stone age is as non-sensical as Washington leading the US.

And no real life civilization would exist in a randomized world that is not earth, you can't have Greece in a desert in the middle of Pangea bordering the Mayans and Japan.

This further drives into things like, you will always make the city of San Francisco, Saint Petersburg, even if your America is taoist and your Russia hindu, your civs will always have a certain type of architecture, a civ from a tropical jungle will always have something that mirror that climate, even if you settle in the cold barren north.

And about the concept of realistic unlocks, that just gets extra silly. Because it assumes historical progression, but what if China is the one that colonizes the Americas, and the Anglo Saxons never existed because in this game the Celts overtook the Germans, and the Greco-Roman concept of a Republic doesn't exist because Persia wiped the both of them early. Then what sense does it make for an Anglo-Saxon Senatorial Republic US of A to show up in the modern age?

They try and try, following questionable "advice" from fans, and yet, the games continue to be as unrealistic as ever, no matter how on the rails it becomes. People still didn't get an America that makes a sense, but I lost my fun runs like taking Imperial Rome or Babylon to the modern age or simply beating back the Spaniards as the Incas.

It would all be much better if people simply took Civ as a history themed video game, where immortal leader figures act as if they are playing a game, moving pieces about. But the quest for the history simulator continues, leading only to disaster, for Civ and for all similar games.

 

[Evie]

As to the idea of "realistic" history being history that only has "real leaders" in it, that's a very narrow view of history as only a matter of politics and warfare. The idea that only "real leaders" in political roles guided the fate of civilizations and history hasn't been considered "real history" by anyone who actually study history in a long time - it's a field of rank amateurs and Hollywood filmmakers, and an intellectual straitjacket to any serious consideration of history.

What you're asking for is not "realistic history", but the modern mythology - the aggrandized events centering on a handful of greater-than-life heroes and villains that supposedly give a simple explanation of how the world is as it is now and give us examples to follow - of popular culture.

Which, fair, mythology still endures in this new form because it's a very human thing to desire, and those symbols speak to us for a reason but let's not call realistic history somethign that is neither.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think the game has strayed too far from history. I really think it needs to get back to genuine leaders in history (not great people types), and actually have a sense that you're leading a genuine political/military leader through history. I don't mind leaders being able to lead any civ. But if there are rules around how a civ or leaders can unlock certain civs, why not make it a rule that Augustus can only lead Rome or Greece in antiquity and not Khmer. After all, Catherine the Great doesn't unlock Siam in modern age, so why does Augustus unlock Khmer in antiquity. Second, I'm also fine with changing civs but why not make it more natural progressions or gameplay progressions that make sense. Things like wine resources for France is silly. France is not the only civ that drank wine in history. It feels forced. Spain to Mexico, okay. How about use opportunities like religion to able to progress to another civ. For example, if Buddhism is spread in your civ, something like Siam becomes unlocked. It should be genuine historical reasons that unlock civs rather than forced ones.

That's a tricky situation. Honestly, I wouldn't mind it if Augustus can only lead Rome and Greece as AI, but I'm not sure there needs to be limitations in regard to the player when starting the game in Antiquity. Because Catherine could realistically end up leading Siam in the Modern Age by building enough temples.

As for France unlocking Wine, I agree it's a bit silly, but it doesn't really bother me. Looking up the information on wine producing countries they are either first or second, with Italy being the other and it's not like there is any later Italian civ right now.
To make it more interesting I think it might make it better if you had to have a certain number of wine resources be adjacent to a river, similar to the Loire Valley achievement for Civ 6.

Finally, civ changes should happen because something in history makes it happen, not because you get to a certain turn number. Especially the fact that at that turn all wars and wonder building stops. That's silly and heavy handed. Why not let the history and turns continue (not stop at a pre-determined point), you can still have crises, if you want to change civs. Changing civs should be something you'd want to do. It should be a major upgrade. For example, I agree that America should be a modern age civ. But becoming America should have something to do with government and policy changes that give that civ a major boost and something you'd want to do despite going through a major crises. Something like, yes we can go through this bad phase because we'll come out better. That is what the American Revolution was about. Also, civs shouldn't have to change, if you want to be China throughout the game, you can but you might not get the benefits of upgrading to a more modern civilization. That is the path you should be allowed to take. Take history, the nation of Germany formed from many states, but the unification of Germany didn't have to happen nor does it need to happen at a certain date. Why can't the Roman civ just have dynastic style changes like China with Han > Ming > Qing. Isn't that was civ is about. The what-if? The problem right now is, it's not what-if, it's what-will-be. You're allowed to choose in a box at a certain time rather than developing a real history that makes sense. I played past civs like a roleplay. I was never great player but I enjoyed building a somewhat historical empire where I could write my own history and tell a story. I don't think I was the only one and it's neglected a lot of players like me who liked that ability to create that free history with historical characters and civs.

I did like the change to Civ 6 in the expansions where not everyone would reach the same era at the same time. I'm not sure how it would be implemented in this game, but it would be interesting if civilizations started ages differently as well, considering oceanic exploration and industrialization happened around the world at different times for different people.

Oh, and I'm sure we'll get another "dynasty" of Rome, the Byzantines, later on in DLC in Exploration.

 

[luca 83]

Only by simulating political and economic schemes can the simulation problem be solved, communism, Stalinist, or Trotskyist? Economy. Totally planned or a minimum of free trade? Fascism, Italian or Germanic, what types of democracy, French, English, oligarchic, popular? Put luis riel or ada lovelace and just please. An ethnic minority of a country for names that we study history these people are as useful as a stone on Mars, they are historically irrelevant

 

[Bast]

As to the idea of "realistic" history being history that only has "real leaders" in it, that's a very narrow view of history as only a matter of politics and warfare. The idea that only "real leaders" in political roles guided the fate of civilizations and history hasn't been considered "real history" by anyone who actually study history in a long time - it's a field of rank amateurs and Hollywood filmmakers, and an intellectual straitjacket to any serious consideration of history.

What you're asking for is not "realistic history", but the modern mythology - the aggrandized events centering on a handful of greater-than-life heroes and villains that supposedly give a simple explanation of how the world is as it is now and give us examples to follow - of popular culture.

Which, fair, mythology still endures in this new form because it's a very human thing to desire, and those symbols speak to us for a reason but let's not call realistic history somethign that is neither.

So let's say we buy into this. Why then did we get Napoleon but not a US president? Why couldn't we have gotten Abraham Lincoln and Marie Antoinette? It doesn't make sense why they've chosen who they've chosen. By any standard, there are so many better choices than who they've chosen for many of them. Like Napoleon and Catherine the Great aren't bold choices. They're actually quite boring choices. For France and Russia, there are so many other possibilities from leaders, writers, artists, scientists. So I don't understand why them but then you have Ada Lovelace for Great Britain? It's quite random and bizarre. I kind of feel like you either have all known great people consistently across the board like Lincoln, Victoria, Catherine the Great, Louis XIV. Or you have the likes of Tubman, Lovelace, Marie Curie, Pushkin. For me, this is as jarring as, being told at a certain turn that the age is over.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I haven't bought it yet either, but I disagree with allllllllllllll of this.

So let's say we buy into this. Why then did we get Napoleon but not a US president? Why couldn't we have gotten Abraham Lincoln and Marie Antoinette? It doesn't make sense why they've chosen who they've chosen. By any standard, there are so many better choices than who they've chosen for many of them. Like Napoleon and Catherine the Great aren't bold choices. They're actually quite boring choices. For France and Russia, there are so many other possibilities from leaders, writers, artists, scientists. So I don't understand why them but then you have Ada Lovelace for Great Britain? It's quite random and bizarre. I kind of feel like you either have all known great people consistently across the board like Lincoln, Victoria, Catherine the Great, Louis XIV. Or you have the likes of Tubman, Lovelace, Marie Curie, Pushkin. For me, this is as jarring as, being told at a certain turn that the age is over.

I personally dislike two persona Napoleon on top of Lafayette, and would have been happy with just one. I also would have preferred, if Lafayette, anyone but Ben Franklin because I don't need that much representation of Franco-American relationships in my game tyvm.

But neither really matters, as it seems there are roughly only 2-3 factors that determine whether someone should be a leader in VII:

1. Did they or their efforts represent or kick off a massive cultural paradigm? (yes to everyone so far)

2. Does that individual facilitate a unique leader playstyle (yes to most people so far, I think some range on the spectrum of fully uninspired to...needing some massaging: Pacha, Hatty, Catherine, Augustus, Isabella--which actually constitute the most traditional leaders in the game).

3. Does that individual sufficiently represent the "idea" of their respective civ, regardless of whether it is in the game? (this factor seems a lot more fuzzy, and so far only Ada seems to be pushing it a bit, but is still a very Victorian mix of industrialism and nobility).

I would like to throw my hat in as a very pointed and totally opposite counterpoint to your OP for whatever devs read this: although I'm sure we will get more traditional heads of state in the game, I do not need any more and will celebrate every new leader added to the game who is not that (with the exception of a few religious figures that I think amount to wankerous zealotry).

 

[Gorbles]

By any standard, there are so many better choices than who they've chosen for many of them.

I think this is the problem. You have specific issues with specific choices. That's fair, you can.

But your choices are not automatically better, by "any" standard. To quote the big guy, that's just like, your opinion, man.

And completely valid! But nothing more than that. It's not a "standard".

 

[RedCourtJester]

I think this is the problem. You have specific issues with specific choices. That's fair, you can.

But your choices are not automatically better, by "any" standard. To quote the big guy, that's just like, your opinion, man.

And completely valid! But nothing more than that. It's not a "standard".

We also have to acknowledge that the "tradition" is not being bent that much. Of the first 25 leaders in the game (not counting the leaks), very few do not resemble what we already have experienced in civ:

* Confucius/Lafayette/Ben/Machiavelli: pretty close analogues to Gajah Mada and Catherine de Medici
* Himiko: Gilgamesh, Dido, and Kupe
* Harriet: Kind of a Lautaro/Poundmaker in many respects
* Rizal: Not that far off from Simon Bolivar

Ada is so far the only leader who really bucks trends, and I think she mostly exists as a matter of circumstance and serendipity. A desire to definitely have a Victorian leader to accompany the all-too-necessary modern Great Britain civ but not repeat Victoria, and also represent some aspect of industry that was relevant at the time (and being particularly unique in the field of computers). Is she the ideal choice for industrial Britain? Possibly not, but I also think a lot of the alternatives would have been "fat cat" types that go against some of the other design goals of the game evidenced by modern civ designs.

My perspective: if people are so offended by not having traditional heads of state as leaders, they have six other games they can go back and play. I think it quite boring to expect/want to repeat the same experience every 10-15 years.

 

[luca 83]

We also have to acknowledge that the "tradition" is not being bent that much. Of the first 25 leaders in the game (not counting the leaks), very few do not resemble what we already have experienced in civ:

* Confucius/Lafayette/Ben/Machiavelli: pretty close analogues to Gajah Mada and Catherine de Medici
* Himiko: Gilgamesh, Dido, and Kupe
* Harriet: Kind of a Lautaro/Poundmaker in many respects
* Rizal: Not that far off from Simon Bolivar

Ada is so far the only leader who really bucks trends, and I think she mostly exists as a matter of circumstance and serendipity. A desire to definitely have a Victorian leader to accompany the all-too-necessary modern Great Britain civ but not repeat Victoria, and also represent some aspect of industry that was relevant at the time (and being particularly unique in the field of computers). Is she the ideal choice for industrial Britain? Possibly not, but I also think a lot of the alternatives would have been "fat cat" types that go against some of the other design goals of the game evidenced by modern civ designs.

My perspective: if people are so offended by not having traditional heads of state as leaders, they have six other games they can go back and play. I think it quite boring to expect/want to repeat the same experience every 10-15 years.

I have no problem with non-political leaders but but need and explain how they came to power! Dynasty? Coup? Election? Historical mechanics

 

[RedCourtJester]

I have no problem with non-political leaders but but need and explain how they came to power! Dynasty? Coup? Election? Historical mechanics

Do they? Not every "people" is led by the formalized assumption of power. That certainly wasn't the case for Kupe, and it's not the case in reality.

Many social movements have accumulated around non-political figures and ideas. I think (a) it is great that civ is recognizing that, and (b) I really hope that maybe in the atomic or future era we see "civs" reflected around that kind of self-organization rather than formal polities.

 

[luca 83]

Do they? Not every "people" is led by the formalized assumption of power. That certainly wasn't the case for Kupe, and it's not the case in reality.

Many social movements have accumulated around non-political figures and ideas. I think (a) it is great that civ is recognizing that, and (b) I really hope that maybe in the atomic or future era we see "civs" reflected around that kind of self-organization rather than formal polities.

All leaders have a rise to power mythology and politics from Hammurabi to Hitler, by dynasty or election or coup

 

[RedCourtJester]

All leaders have a rise to power mythology and politics from Hammurabi to Hitler, by dynasty or election or coup

Power mythology is pretty broad, and I think otherwise you are equivocating a lot of the specifics.

 

[Bast]

I think this is the problem. You have specific issues with specific choices. That's fair, you can.

But your choices are not automatically better, by "any" standard. To quote the big guy, that's just like, your opinion, man.

And completely valid! But nothing more than that. It's not a "standard".

Well I'm not a game developer and I'm not making money of my choices so there's a difference. If you make a choice for the product that you're selling that is non-sensical, there are going to consequences.

 

[Bast]

not repeat Victoria,

Then why repeat Catherine the Great for the millionth time? Or Napoleon?

I haven't bought it yet either, but I disagree with allllllllllllll of this.



I personally dislike two persona Napoleon on top of Lafayette, and would have been happy with just one. I also would have preferred, if Lafayette, anyone but Ben Franklin because I don't need that much representation of Franco-American relationships in my game tyvm.

But neither really matters, as it seems there are roughly only 2-3 factors that determine whether someone should be a leader in VII:

1. Did they or their efforts represent or kick off a massive cultural paradigm? (yes to everyone so far)

2. Does that individual facilitate a unique leader playstyle (yes to most people so far, I think some range on the spectrum of fully uninspired to...needing some massaging: Pacha, Hatty, Catherine, Augustus, Isabella--which actually constitute the most traditional leaders in the game).

3. Does that individual sufficiently represent the "idea" of their respective civ, regardless of whether it is in the game? (this factor seems a lot more fuzzy, and so far only Ada seems to be pushing it a bit, but is still a very Victorian mix of industrialism and nobility).

I would like to throw my hat in as a very pointed and totally opposite counterpoint to your OP for whatever devs read this: although I'm sure we will get more traditional heads of state in the game, I do not need any more and will celebrate every new leader added to the game who is not that (with the exception of a few religious figures that I think amount to wankerous zealotry).

My suggestion wasn't just about leaders but age transactions which are heavy handed and actually don't make sense. I actually think that's the bigger problem. I also don't want to be paying extra to play Great Britain which I believe should be in the base game. Great Britain in modern age, a civilization that arguably defined the era of industrialization, is not in the modern age? It doesn't make sense.

 

[Bast]

Like they literally say "Modern Age - Enter the Industrial Revolution", who entered the Industrial Revolution. Great Britain? But I have to pay MORE for Great Britain. It's ridiculous.

 

[Pedro P]

I have no problem with non-political leaders but but need and explain how they came to power! Dynasty? Coup? Election? Historical mechanics

See, when they showed up to the cavemen in the first turn of the game, they just gave them power because of how fancy their clothes were. For the next 400 generations the clothing factor would be less important, replaced by the fact they are immortal (although arguably, so is every soldier and worker that doesn't go into combat. But these are hardwired to be permanently loyal to the leader so its a non-issue)