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

 

[luca 83]

Causality in history: if a leader dies or is assassinated the outcome of a war and offer thousands of path possibilities, gameplay and a challenge to the modern AI stop, leaders and advisors and I recommend massive improvements to the AI and game dynamics and historical paths

 

[luca 83]

Causality in history: if a leader dies or is assassinated the outcome of a war and offer thousands of path possibilities, gameplay and a challenge to the modern AI stop, leaders and advisors and I recommend massive improvements to the AI and game dynamics and historical paths

I'm reading Kyle Harper's The Fate of Rome, Climate, Epidemics, and the End of Rome where he explains the theses that I have always supported, the changes and epidemics that have influenced history, I recommend it

 

[Naokaukodem]

Things like wine resources for France is silly.

YES ! It's such a caricature... on the other hand, it's a fair shortcut for deciding if you can pick France or not (in the popular culture), and gameplay-wise it just requires to hook up a specific resource.

Especially the fact that at that turn all wars and wonder building stops. That's silly and heavy handed.

I'm on the same boat. That induces such thing as FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) early and Never mind the bollocks (the album of the Sex Pistols, mods , if don't agree replace "bollocks" by "crap" and delete this bracket, thank you !) later. Unpleasant.

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?

Those were gameplay issues due to the fact they wanted to make the game more "realistic". To begin with the Exploration Era : that's pretty much fine-set with Earth human History, plus the mechanic is emphasizing the eXploration part a bit longer. Theoretically, because I'm a Civ theoretician, that's what I always wanted. But it's poorly executed, as some say. I wanted an exploration age in EVERY Continent map, depending on how we manage the science advancement of one continent compared to the other one. (unless it'd be diseases, but I don't get why the New World would be more impacted by the Old World than equally impacted - I strongly think that's a revisionnism idea launched by conquerors - the episode of Montezuma (?) being sequestered show at least a vast difference in thinking, especially trickery, I've known that on the internet itself !) But in Pangaea maps, I would rather have spoken not of an Exploration Age, but of a Colonization Age, depending on the terrain porosity and vastness of said Pangaea. It appears that one way the developers found this feasible is separating the game by Ages. The true star of all ages is the second one, in the middle of two others. Alas, it brings more problems than it solves. Only 100 gold per treasure fleet. (should have been at least 1000) Billions of self generated TF to reach aberrant milestones, for I-don't-know-what-benefits. (I still don't know what benefits we get for the two first ages accomplishments ; I have to restart a 4th game, because the 3rd was kind of RNG meh-facepalm start thanks to "Normal" starting location - that was less than 5 more minutes playing for me, yes, 3 games on low difficulty and never completed a single one) The problems you mentionned and are valid IMO. Plus a couple others probably I'm forgetting.

 

[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.View attachment 727629

and this is precisely the problem! the change of eras as I have already explained months ago is not based only on technology but on raw materials in England coal fueled the industrial revolution, which began with the mills, which became steam factories, mechanical mills, steel mills, mass goods, this led to the growth of cities, to the detriment of the countryside, to the birth of the proletariat, to electoral reforms, to juvenile laws, to 18-hour working laws, to communism, to socialism, to the end of the large estates to the birth of capitalism to the imperialism of the 1800s a
see cecil rhodes the change of era cannot be based only on technology

 

[luca 83]

The new generation of artificial intelligence should consider 1 realistic alliances on logical principles and economic and political interests, not all against all as now, 2 problems of diplomacy classic example two nations at war, a third neutral, do not allow military access to two nations at war with each other. Then fight in their territory 3 improvement in the diplomatic system secret agreements, division of territory, between nations, with treaties, spheres of influence, military, economic, political treaties, even subversions of governments, with military coups, . The environment the natural environment influences the development of a civilization, England being an island will develop a maritime trade and a navy, Russia a continental army

 

[fantsu]

Real leaders again would be so nice.
Shame that Firaxis went for Ada Lovelace and other made up leaders just to add more females in the roster.
But I think consumers can vote with their wallets, like I did, and correct history and erase the lies.

 

[luca 83]

Real leaders again would be so nice.
Shame that Firaxis went for Ada Lovelace and other made up leaders just to add more females in the roster.
But I think consumers can vote with their wallets, like I did, and correct history and erase the lies.

It's not a problem of leaders.. but of events that brought this leader to power. How did Ada Lovelace rise to power? Dynasty? Coup d'état?; if you don't simulate the historical and political cycles you won't get anything this is the problem and it must be solved, then yes the woke culture and politically correct and present in the fandom and in the developers at the level of world history Harriet Tubmann counts for little if compared to a Caterina de Medici. O Teodora

 

[evonannoredars]

It's not a problem of leaders.. but of events that brought this leader to power. How did Ada Lovelace rise to power? Dynasty? Coup d'état?; if you don't simulate the historical and political cycles you won't get anything this is the problem and it must be solved, then yes the woke culture and politically correct and present in the fandom and in the developers at the level of world history Harriet Tubmann counts for little if compared to a Caterina de Medici. O Teodora

What room is there for simulating historical and political cycles when leaders have always been immortal beings that ruled over a civ from like three thousand BC. Civ just isn't and has never been the accurate historical simulation franchise you seem to want it to be.

 

[evonannoredars]

Real leaders again would be so nice.
Shame that Firaxis went for Ada Lovelace and other made up leaders just to add more females in the roster.
But I think consumers can vote with their wallets, like I did, and correct history and erase the lies.

	Women	Men
'Real' Leaders	5	9
'Made up' Leaders	3	6
% 'Made up'	37.5%	40%

Besides women still being a minority in the leader selection, they're not at all disproportionately 'made up' compared to male leaders. You're just sexist.

 

[fantsu]

	Women	Men
'Real' Leaders	5	9
'Made up' Leaders	3	6
% 'Made up'	37.5%	40%

Besides women still being a minority in the leader selection, they're not at all disproportionately 'made up' compared to male leaders. You're just sexist.

So you say in history there were 50% female leaders?

 

[evonannoredars]

So you say in history there were 50% female leaders?

No that's not what I said at all

 

[fantsu]

No that's not what I said at all

So why complain over representation then in a thread about historic accuracy?

 

[GeneralZift]

There's a 3:2 ratio on Men to Women and around a 3:2 ratio on Real to 'Fake' Leaders. There's actually a lot more thought put into the roster than you might originally think
Still, no black male leader, kinda a bummer

 

[Siptah]

There's a 3:2 ratio on Men to Women and around a 3:2 ratio on Real to 'Fake' Leaders. There's actually a lot more thought put into the roster than you might originally think
Still, no black male leader, kinda a bummer

I‘m sure some people count Ibn Battuta as black. He is African, and ethnically Berber (despite being Arabic cultured).

 

[evonannoredars]

So why complain over representation then in a thread about historic accuracy?

you started by complaining that there's too much representation and incorrectly alleging that they had to use 'made up' leaders to achieve it.

Moderator Action: Edited post. Be civil to one another-AH