I think the game should get back to some realistic history

[Leucarum]

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.

Without wading into subjective questions of who should make it in, where for both leaders and civs it's impossible to please everyone...

I do think the one thing we can say about these changes is that even if they aren't liked, they do make a lot of sense. The ages and civ switching from the dev diaries are presented as ways to deal with some of the ongoing flaws in Civ games, especially around snowballing, a dull late game, civs being weak outside their specific ages. When you look at it through that lens they do build a cohesive picture.

Distinct ages can be used to curtail snowballing, and civ switching makes all civs play in the part of the game where they are unique. It also has the potential to make late game more dynamic. Once you put those together leader mixing and matching leaders, and having more non-leaders follows naturally, as they no longer have to tie in with civs.

There'a a lot of issues with implementation, plenty of subjective choices that players may dislike, and they didn't hit all their goals. But I'd take umbridge with the idea that the changes don't make sense. I don't like them all, but they are incredibly cohesive and well thought out!

 

[luca 83]

As I explained years ago, we do not need leaders who attribute events but events of the Atlantic triangle: slaves, molasses, gold, economic events that trigger events, which lead to other events.

 

[Leucarum]

As I explained years ago, we do not need leaders who attribute events but events of the Atlantic triangle: slaves, molasses, gold, economic events that trigger events, which lead to other events.View attachment 727629

It sounds like you want a paradox game and not a civilization game. Fortunately both exist!

 

[socratic]

As I explained years ago, we do not need leaders who attribute events but events of the Atlantic triangle: slaves, molasses, gold, economic events that trigger events, which lead to other events.View attachment 727629

I'm all for expanding/refining the age transitions, but this is too much. You shouldn't have to do 400 arbitrary steps to play as America or Mexico

 

[luca 83]

repeat, it is the events that make history, the wars, the economies, the movements of peoples that make history, it is useless to put peoples to please a minority, the Bulgarians if you do not explain or there is not an event like the battle of Anchialus and the creation of the first Bulgarian empire there is no simulation, which is possible with the new AI