Leader can represent not only a specific person, but also a nation - and I prefer to see Civ7 in this way

[gdr_willter]

Of course the leaders are great people who were picked up from a specific moment of history. In most time of Civ franchise we considered that Civs represent ethnic/national groups and Leaders did not.

However, based on the revealed system of Civ7, now I prefer to consider that Leaders represent both - specific great person and a group of people who share their national identity - while Civs represent a part of its history as specific period and form.

I'm understanding that the nation is a kinda fictitious concept rather than a solid definition. But we all could agree with a fact that the nation became an undeniable historical substance which play an important role to observe and deal with history. Many people regard themselves as a member of their nation and they also deem some historical individuals as their national hero and their representative - even while some of those heros can't be strictly considered as the same nation with them. This circumstance can give us an inspiration.



Let's start with an example. Egypt has one of the greatest history in the world, but there were such periods that Egyptian has been occupied by another powers and lost their own country. During this age, Egyptian had not be extinct. They had become a part of Arab history and finally became the modern Egypt republic who claims succession to legacies from both of Egypt and Arab empires.

Now back to Civ7, I will consider that choosing Hatshepsut means I'm playing as a group of people who call themselves Egyptian. My first Civ can be the Egypt Civilization which represent old kingdoms of Egypt. Facing the Age of Exploration, my Egyptian people realize that the system of old kingdoms is completely outdated and they need to innovate my empire. So I'll choose another Civ like Abbasid, Songhai, or even Mongolia, to adapt my Egyption people to the new challenges.

It can be interpreted in various way. I can imagine that a great prophet Muhammad was born in Cairo and spread Islam in my empire that led it becomes to the Abbasid Caliphate. I can imagine that the Nile flooded fatally and killed a lot of people therefore Egyptian accepted immigrants from the Niger river basin to procure manpower. Or I can even imagine that the rising Mongolian horde invaded Egypt and occupied the ruling class of it. However, the point is there still will be the Egyptian people in the second emprie regardless its form and name. The Crisis system will help you to build your interpretation like above. And the same process will be happened when the third age has come.

How about Benjamin Franklin? There wasn't the American(USA) people in ages ago. But we know that Amercan did not apear from void, they have their ancestors. So I will consider that choosing Benjamin Frankin means I'm playing as a group of people who will finally call themeselves as American. After the entire history that went through the Roman empire and Norman kingdom, my American people will accept the chance to become United States - or will not.



I think the Leader can be one of the most important difference between Humankind and Civ7. I saw many HK players complaining that they felt like playing a random changing anonymous factions instead of playing a solid historical experience. HK presented a costumisable avatar to replace the historical leaders, and it seems that this avatar failed to inspire players to be immersed in the game. I hope the Leaders in Civ7 works better, and I suppose so.

And I also have recognized that the diplomatic screen with both Leaders can be a method to remind players about their chosen Leader - and nation you lead. Originally I wasn't a fan of the new diplomatic screen, but now I accepted it that it is a good way to represent the combination of nation(Leader) and empire(Civ banner) of both side.



I know that this approach can't be fit with everybody neither persuade the public. I also will be upset for a while when I get only a single Civ and its Leader representing my history. But ultimately, I will accept it in the way I told.

I want to say it to someone who is not sure about Civ changing system. You may change a point of view in this way, and it could be better than you worried.

 

[luca 83]

It's a problem that exists and needs to be solved! Civilizations are not monolithic, they are born and merge, and the maps are random, so what's the point of having the Egyptians in a tropical continent? The Chinese in a Mediterranean climate? It can't evolve like that. Historical China; I repeat, a realistic historical simulation is needed in the evolution of the social, political and economic game.

 

[luca 83]

Of course the leaders are great people who were picked up from a specific moment of history. In most time of Civ franchise we considered that Civs represent ethnic/national groups and Leaders did not.

However, based on the revealed system of Civ7, now I prefer to consider that Leaders represent both - specific great person and a group of people who share their national identity - while Civs represent a part of its history as specific period and form.

I'm understanding that the nation is a kinda fictitious concept rather than a solid definition. But we all could agree with a fact that the nation became an undeniable historical substance which play an important role to observe and deal with history. Many people regard themselves as a member of their nation and they also deem some historical individuals as their national hero and their representative - even while some of those heros can't be strictly considered as the same nation with them. This circumstance can give us an inspiration.



Let's start with an example. Egypt has one of the greatest history in the world, but there were such periods that Egyptian has been occupied by another powers and lost their own country. During this age, Egyptian had not be extinct. They had become a part of Arab history and finally became the modern Egypt republic who claims succession to legacies from both of Egypt and Arab empires.

Now back to Civ7, I will consider that choosing Hatshepsut means I'm playing as a group of people who call themselves Egyptian. My first Civ can be the Egypt Civilization which represent old kingdoms of Egypt. Facing the Age of Exploration, my Egyptian people realize that the system of old kingdoms is completely outdated and they need to innovate my empire. So I'll choose another Civ like Abbasid, Songhai, or even Mongolia, to adapt my Egyption people to the new challenges.

It can be interpreted in various way. I can imagine that a great prophet Muhammad was born in Cairo and spread Islam in my empire that led it becomes to the Abbasid Caliphate. I can imagine that the Nile flooded fatally and killed a lot of people therefore Egyptian accepted immigrants from the Niger river basin to procure manpower. Or I can even imagine that the rising Mongolian horde invaded Egypt and occupied the ruling class of it. However, the point is there still will be the Egyptian people in the second emprie regardless its form and name. The Crisis system will help you to build your interpretation like above. And the same process will be happened when the third age has come.

How about Benjamin Franklin? There wasn't the American(USA) people in ages ago. But we know that Amercan did not apear from void, they have their ancestors. So I will consider that choosing Benjamin Frankin means I'm playing as a group of people who will finally call themeselves as American. After the entire history that went through the Roman empire and Norman kingdom, my American people will accept the chance to become United States - or will not.



I think the Leader can be one of the most important difference between Humankind and Civ7. I saw many HK players complaining that they felt like playing a random changing anonymous factions instead of playing a solid historical experience. HK presented a costumisable avatar to replace the historical leaders, and it seems that this avatar failed to inspire players to be immersed in the game. I hope the Leaders in Civ7 works better, and I suppose so.

And I also have recognized that the diplomatic screen with both Leaders can be a method to remind players about their chosen Leader - and nation you lead. Originally I wasn't a fan of the new diplomatic screen, but now I accepted it that it is a good way to represent the combination of nation(Leader) and empire(Civ banner) of both side.



I know that this approach can't be fit with everybody neither persuade the public. I also will be upset for a while when I get only a single Civ and its Leader representing my history. But ultimately, I will accept it in the way I told.

I want to say it to someone who is not sure about Civ changing system. You may change a point of view in this way, and it could be better than you worried.

the only way to solve the problem of leaders and ceisi is to introduce politics, dynastic wars and religious wars

 

[vorlon_mi]

Of course the leaders are great people who were picked up from a specific moment of history. In most time of Civ franchise we considered that Civs represent ethnic/national groups and Leaders did not.

However, based on the revealed system of Civ7, now I prefer to consider that Leaders represent both - specific great person and a group of people who share their national identity - while Civs represent a part of its history as specific period and form.

I'm understanding that the nation is a kinda fictitious concept rather than a solid definition. But we all could agree with a fact that the nation became an undeniable historical substance which play an important role to observe and deal with history. Many people regard themselves as a member of their nation and they also deem some historical individuals as their national hero and their representative - even while some of those heros can't be strictly considered as the same nation with them. This circumstance can give us an inspiration.



Let's start with an example. Egypt has one of the greatest history in the world, but there were such periods that Egyptian has been occupied by another powers and lost their own country. During this age, Egyptian had not be extinct. They had become a part of Arab history and finally became the modern Egypt republic who claims succession to legacies from both of Egypt and Arab empires.

Now back to Civ7, I will consider that choosing Hatshepsut means I'm playing as a group of people who call themselves Egyptian. My first Civ can be the Egypt Civilization which represent old kingdoms of Egypt. Facing the Age of Exploration, my Egyptian people realize that the system of old kingdoms is completely outdated and they need to innovate my empire. So I'll choose another Civ like Abbasid, Songhai, or even Mongolia, to adapt my Egyption people to the new challenges.

It can be interpreted in various way. I can imagine that a great prophet Muhammad was born in Cairo and spread Islam in my empire that led it becomes to the Abbasid Caliphate. I can imagine that the Nile flooded fatally and killed a lot of people therefore Egyptian accepted immigrants from the Niger river basin to procure manpower. Or I can even imagine that the rising Mongolian horde invaded Egypt and occupied the ruling class of it. However, the point is there still will be the Egyptian people in the second emprie regardless its form and name. The Crisis system will help you to build your interpretation like above. And the same process will be happened when the third age has come.

How about Benjamin Franklin? There wasn't the American(USA) people in ages ago. But we know that Amercan did not apear from void, they have their ancestors. So I will consider that choosing Benjamin Frankin means I'm playing as a group of people who will finally call themeselves as American. After the entire history that went through the Roman empire and Norman kingdom, my American people will accept the chance to become United States - or will not.



I think the Leader can be one of the most important difference between Humankind and Civ7. I saw many HK players complaining that they felt like playing a random changing anonymous factions instead of playing a solid historical experience. HK presented a costumisable avatar to replace the historical leaders, and it seems that this avatar failed to inspire players to be immersed in the game. I hope the Leaders in Civ7 works better, and I suppose so.

And I also have recognized that the diplomatic screen with both Leaders can be a method to remind players about their chosen Leader - and nation you lead. Originally I wasn't a fan of the new diplomatic screen, but now I accepted it that it is a good way to represent the combination of nation(Leader) and empire(Civ banner) of both side.



I know that this approach can't be fit with everybody neither persuade the public. I also will be upset for a while when I get only a single Civ and its Leader representing my history. But ultimately, I will accept it in the way I told.

I want to say it to someone who is not sure about Civ changing system. You may change a point of view in this way, and it could be better than you worried.

I like this way of thinking. The people, the identity, as followers of the leader (which is, in some ways, me!) rather than tie their identity to the faction name. It's a way to think about the progression, the layers, that works for you. It works for me, too.

Is it different from other games in the franchise? Yes. But Civ7 is a fundamentally different game from its predecessors. It's not a simulation of historical trends, it is an empire building game.

 

[luca 83]

It is the economic and political choices that make empires and events the great as small events , can not be only rational planning

I like this way of thinking. The people, the identity, as followers of the leader (which is, in some ways, me!) rather than tie their identity to the faction name. It's a way to think about the progression, the layers, that works for you. It works for me, too.

Is it different from other games in the franchise? Yes. But Civ7 is a fundamentally different game from its predecessors. It's not a simulation of historical trends, it is an empire building game.

 

[dagriggstar]

I’ve always viewed the “leader” as a vague technically ruler but not really sense. Like how technically King Charles III is technically ruler of Australia but doesn’t actually decide anything.

But now like, the leader doesn’t change everything else does. So the qualities and ideas of the leader last the test of time. Now I have to look at the leader as the defining force of a society rather than the society defining itself….

 

[BuchiTaton]

I could agree with the vision of the leader being the anchor of each faction for both recognition and narrative. The sad part is that even if we want this to be the interpretation for CIV7's, its implementation of civs changing mechanic is lame. Better that Humankind? Likely, but still feel as a missed opportunity.

It is hard to just use your imagination to pretend "we Egyptians had a lot of horses so we just decided to rebrand ourselves to Mongols and going full horde mode in the same river biased land that we still use to sustain our cities". Even worse turn into Mongols comes with our units and architecture changed to a Far East style (all these contradicts the idea that there was not a significative population replacement) instead of keep the more fitting MiddleEast/NorthAfrican for our still controled original environment. Same for the many examples where Mongols ended being "dissolved" into the more populous conquered population, the many times foreign dynasties (Nubians, Lybians, Hyksos, Persian) used the Pharaoh and egyptian ways to legitimize themselves, and when that finally changed was after centuries of foreign Pharaohs, almost 700 years of Roman/Byzantine provincialism and some "incentives" to change religion twice.

Now, dont take me wrong I have no problem with the change and even the examples when we "imagine" some alter scenarios are great, but the problem is that Firaxis could have portrayed that scenarios way better with some changes. For example, certainly as Egyptians we can see a group of Mongols or(and) Arabs turning into an important force of change in our land, but it would helps to keep track of "who is who" to instead of have Egyptians turning into Mongols or Abbasids to change from Pharaonic Egypt to the Khanate of Egypt and the Sultanate of Egypt respectively. In gameplay these would still add to the mix the uniques and bonuses from Mongols and Abbasids but without the exaggerated changes of identity, names, architecture and units. By the way the "history of melting" elements are not lost since your new unique units and buildings would still come from the new faction something that by the way is more realistic.

Also in another aspect that the American example help us to point out, the model in CIV7 (like in Humankind) are basically a change of costume for monolithic "civs/empires". What I mean is that Rome or Normandy are not just part of American history they are part of many histories. In this game the civs, nations, empires, cultures or whichever way you want to call the playable factions are discrete entities that would be played to claim and change into identites that in many cases were never limited to one discrete lineage. Along history "civs" merge, diverge and exchange elements in ways the CIV7's musical chairs of identities model is faulted to portrait. By their own nature the legacy of great empires/civilizations are never exclusive to one nation, the bigger they are the more influence they generate so the more regions would share their heritage.

 

[luca 83]

I’ve always viewed the “leader” as a vague technically ruler but not really sense. Like how technically King Charles III is technically ruler of Australia but doesn’t actually decide anything.

But now like, the leader doesn’t change everything else does. So the qualities and ideas of the leader last the test of time. Now I have to look at the leader as the defining force of a society rather than the society defining itself….

Are the political ideologies, and economic thoughts, philosophical to shape leaders, and the structure of a society , aristocratic , capitalist? , communist , democratic , theocratic? The people are rich or poor? , l economy , and prosperous or poor? , how does the people behave?

 

[gdr_willter]

I could agree with the vision of the leader being the anchor of each faction for both recognition and narrative. The sad part is that even if we want this to be the interpretation for CIV7's, its implementation of civs changing mechanic is lame. Better that Humankind? Likely, but still feel as a missed opportunity.

It is hard to just use your imagination to pretend "we Egyptians had a lot of horses so we just decided to rebrand ourselves to Mongols and going full horde mode in the same river biased land that we still use to sustain our cities". Even worse turn into Mongols comes with our units and architecture changed to a Far East style (all these contradicts the idea that there was not a significative population replacement) instead of keep the more fitting MiddleEast/NorthAfrican for our still controled original environment. Same for the many examples where Mongols ended being "dissolved" into the more populous conquered population, the many times foreign dynasties (Nubians, Lybians, Hyksos, Persian) used the Pharaoh and egyptian ways to legitimize themselves, and when that finally changed was after centuries of foreign Pharaohs, almost 700 years of Roman/Byzantine provincialism and some "incentives" to change religion twice.

Now, dont take me wrong I have no problem with the change and even the examples when we "imagine" some alter scenarios are great, but the problem is that Firaxis could have portrayed that scenarios way better with some changes. For example, certainly as Egyptians we can see a group of Mongols or(and) Arabs turning into an important force of change in our land, but it would helps to keep track of "who is who" to instead of have Egyptians turning into Mongols or Abbasids to change from Pharaonic Egypt to the Khanate of Egypt and the Sultanate of Egypt respectively. In gameplay these would still add to the mix the uniques and bonuses from Mongols and Abbasids but without the exaggerated changes of identity, names, architecture and units. By the way the "history of melting" elements are not lost since your new unique units and buildings would still come from the new faction something that by the way is more realistic.

Also in another aspect that the American example help us to point out, the model in CIV7 (like in Humankind) are basically a change of costume for monolithic "civs/empires". What I mean is that Rome or Normandy are not just part of American history they are part of many histories. In this game the civs, nations, empires, cultures or whichever way you want to call the playable factions are discrete entities that would be played to claim and change into identites that in many cases were never limited to one discrete lineage. Along history "civs" merge, diverge and exchange elements in ways the CIV7's musical chairs of identities model is faulted to portrait. By their own nature the legacy of great empires/civilizations are never exclusive to one nation, the bigger they are the more influence they generate so the more regions would share their heritage.

Firstly, this is "how I see the Civ-changing", not "how FXS did on it" nor "how you have to see it". I'm just want to gain some enjoyable trend and inspiration from the game system.

Making a balance between symbolizing and simplifying is very hard, especially when we're going to develop a 4X strategy game, not a historical simulation game. But FXS is still trying to deal with this well, as far as I feel. They kept the most of old buildings and settlments with their original names regardless the Age and Civ-changing, this widely gives us the strong sense of continuity through the Ages. So I consider this is not a metaphor about the replacement, but about gradual transition.

"Keeping MiddleEast/NorthAfrican way" or "Transtion to Mongolian way" is fully depends on the choice of you, the Leader of Egyptian people. When your empire become Mongolia and your people get dressed and build like EastAsian, it because you led them in that way. I told the people and their identity depend on the Leader, so the Hatshepsut still represent the people who were originally Egyptian, regardless the present civ and their looking. This is more likely the Egyptian riding horde or Egypte Khanate as you said, not the Mongolians who entirely conquered Egypt.

Based on this insight, naming the civilizations with more amalgamative way sounds cool, but this may cause some confusions to recognize the rival factions and their abilities. Sultanate Egypte can represent any Muslim Civ came after AA Egypt Civ, not only Abbasid. So I consider this is the unavoidable simplification for the game design purpose. I hope there will be some Mods about the integrative Civ branding, for ones who want the historical flavor more than the distinguishability.

And finally, I really want to see the Civ splitting mechanism like civil wars or independence events as the crisises at the end of each Age. This can be the answer about the influence and division of old Civilizations you mentioned. But I strongly doubt that this system will be contained in the based game. I'll bet this could be the theme of the upcoming expansion later.

 

[Krikkit1]

Interesting way to view it.
Firaxis could help by letting you have some more control over your identity (separate from the gameplay uniques)

 

[vorlon_mi]

It is the economic and political choices that make empires and events the great as small events , can not be only rational planning

Hi Luca! Still singing your same song, I see. Hope that you have a good day.