• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

[LP] Leader Pass Pack 4: Rulers of the Sahara Revealed (Coming Feb. 16th)

Status
Not open for further replies.
For me, the issue with the gimmick isn't its historicity; it's that it muddies the leader's role as the face of their civilization when they're the face of multiple civilizations. (It doesn't help that Eleanor was a gimmicky choice in the first place.)
I will throw this out:

This multiple-Leaders/Civ, especially these latest Leader Packs, may in part be a reply to Humankind's Multiple Factions per Civ. HK gave you, potentially, a half-dozen different 'Civs' to play while playing as one Entity through the ages. Civ has long faced the problem of recreating civilizations like Egypt, China, Persia, that lasted thousands of years and had multiple personalities during those timeframes. Civ is not going to have you change Civs (at least, not Yet) during the game, so having multiple Leaders to choose from is What's Left.

In this respect, it's a bit hopeful: they are experimenting with alternatives to the One Leader - One Civ Forever that has been the basis of the game for 30 years. If, as they have shown, they are willing to sink the resources into Multiple Leader choices per Civ, then (please, please, please, please, please) next might be multiple Leaders per Civ in the same game.
Play as succeeding Chinese Dynasties/Mandates
Play as succeeding Roman Imperial families
Play numerous Louis and Henris as France

The mechanics of Succession/Change of Leader would still have to be worked out, and I suggest that sometimes the change would not be by choice if your game went completely Pear shaped on you.
For example, there was a Modded China in Civ V in which every time you conquered a foreign capital or lost your own capital, you changed Dynasties and got a whole new set of Uniques: I still think that mechanic or something like it would be neater than a Toad in a Tophat, and is the kind of thing that I hope they are exploring for Civ VII)
 
It's definitely going to be a bit of a shift transitioning to a buggy game with a few civs and partially fleshed out features from a buggy game with a lot more partially fleshed out features and civs.
I think we're kind of spoiled but the sheer amount of content in 6. It has to be unprecidented in the franchise. In a way it's shocking that it's as stable as it is.
 
(as an aside, I think it will be a rude awakening for people waiting for civ7; and when it comes out and there are 8, maybe 12 civs again.)
Yeeeeah, that's the hardest thing about a new base game, though I expect we'll see 18-20 again like we did with Civ6. It's especially hard when some of your favorites aren't in the base game (and you have to wait until the end of the game's life cycle to see them absolutely butchered--alas, poor Babylon). Here's hoping we actually get a Native American civ in the base game next time (day one DLC doesn't count, Firaxis!).

I mean out of all the civs China does make sense to have 5. Going forward I would be fine with 3 being the max for all potential civs.
Sure, but Civ6's approach to multiple leaders has been erratic to say the least. It started out with, "This is a feature for modders; Greece is just an example." Then it became a "once an expansion" feature. Then it became, "Our art team has nothing better to do while the programmers work on Civ7 so here, have a bunch of new leaders randomly distributed among just a few civs!"

In this respect, it's a bit hopeful: they are experimenting with alternatives to the One Leader - One Civ Forever that has been the basis of the game for 30 years. If, as they have shown, they are willing to sink the resources into Multiple Leader choices per Civ, then (please, please, please, please, please) next might be multiple Leaders per Civ in the same game.
I cannot emphasize enough how emphatically I don't want this. In fact, this feature could be enough to make me hard pass on Civ7 unless its other features were extremely, extremely compelling.
 
I mean, conceivably, Victoria could lead about half the civilizations in the game. :p Also Charles V could lead Germany, Spain, and the Netherlands, and Philip II could lead Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands. However, while Kublai definitely throws a wrinkle into the system, I think it's fair to exclude "ruler by conquest"--which rules out Charles or Philip with the Netherlands and "Victoria leads the entire world." (You also forgot Alexander leading Egypt. He literally introduces himself as "pharaoh" in the game. :p Might as well throw in Babylon while we're at it, even if he conquered them by proxy.)
Ya gotta stop somewhere, and I don't think it's fair to include countries/states/peoples already conquered by somebody else, or we'd have to include France, Spain, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, and Greece under every Roman Emperor, and most of the North American Native tribes under most US presidents - and, as stated, Everybody under Victoria. . .
 
Ya gotta stop somewhere, and I don't think it's fair to include countries/states/peoples already conquered by somebody else, or we'd have to include France, Spain, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, and Greece under every Roman Emperor, and most of the North American Native tribes under most US presidents - and, as stated, Everybody under Victoria. . .
That's why I draw the line at, "The one civ they ruled de jure." It's nice and tidy. :p Well, except for those like Gandhi and CdM that didn't rule any civ de jure...
 
Yeeeeah, that's the hardest thing about a new base game, though I expect we'll see 18-20 again like we did with Civ6. It's especially hard when some of your favorites aren't in the base game (and you have to wait until the end of the game's life cycle to see them absolutely butchered--alas, poor Babylon). Here's hoping we actually get a Native American civ in the base game next time (day one DLC doesn't count, Firaxis!).
My guess is the Iroquois makes a comeback next time around.
 
I'd always assumed the biggest bottleneck behind more new leaders would be generating the art assets. One nice thing about the leader pass is that suggests that lt isn't something which would get in firaxis' way... So maybe we will see civs have more leader choices in 7...

I definitely agree no more than one per game. Humankind's civs evolving was a cool idea but it was just messy to keep track of in practice.
 
I will throw this out:

This multiple-Leaders/Civ, especially these latest Leader Packs, may in part be a reply to Humankind's Multiple Factions per Civ.

Considering the first different leader for the same Civ came out 2,5 years before Humankind was released, I'd hardly say it's a reply : P
 
The way the industry is working, Humankind is too recent to influence a potential Civ7 much. But of course, the ideas influencing Humankind in turn can have been floating around in the industry as such longer.
 
They should just include the option to play any faction with any leader like in older games. Balance really does not matter in SP and that would still be less of a problem than say Babylon.
 
I reaaally need to see this one in motion, because he is looking weirdish.

Also, the round geometries are too sharp.

1676132060760.png
1676132115967.png


vs

1676132078813.png
1676132088232.png
 
My guess is the Iroquois makes a comeback next time around.
I actually hope not. Too many indigenous civs we haven't had for them to become a staple. Don't get me wrong--they deserve to be a staple. But until we can get 3-4 Native North American civs per iteration, I don't think we should have a Native North American staple. It was extremely disappointing that Civ6 only had one after Civ5 had two.
 
Giuseppe Garibaldi of Italy/Uruguay
Joao VI of Portugal/Brazil
John Lennon of England/America
Diocletian of Byzantines/Rome
Constantine of Byzantines/Rome
Frederick II of Germany/Sicily
Canute of England/Denmark
William I of England/France
Charlemagne of France/Germany

I'm surprised they didn't make Alexander a dual leader.
 
I actually hope not. Too many indigenous civs we haven't had for them to become a staple. Don't get me wrong--they deserve to be a staple. But until we can get 3-4 Native North American civs per iteration, I don't think we should have a Native North American staple. It was extremely disappointing that Civ6 only had one after Civ5 had two.

Well, I hope they can have SOME North American civs because the TSL map is pretty unbalanced. Cree, Canada, and America get tons and tons of land. They also need some northeastern + north central eurasian civs, because Siberia is huge and empty and move valuable in civ than it is IRL.
 
I'm surprised they didn't make Alexander a dual leader.
I would have preferred to see Alexander take Gorgo's slot as "militaristic Greece" TBH.

Well, I hope they can have SOME North American civs because the TSL map is pretty unbalanced. Cree, Canada, and America get tons and tons of land. They also need some northeastern + north central eurasian civs, because Siberia is huge and empty and move valuable in civ than it is IRL.
Of course, so do I! I just don't want to see the same North American civs recurring over and over again when there are so many to choose from and so far we've gotten a maximum of two. I don't care about TSL because I only play TSL when I feel like laughing at putting all the Greeks in the game together while I chill in China or the New World or something, but I do care about having more indigenous North American civs and fewer Canadas. :mischief:
 
I actually hope not. Too many indigenous civs we haven't had for them to become a staple. Don't get me wrong--they deserve to be a staple. But until we can get 3-4 Native North American civs per iteration, I don't think we should have a Native North American staple. It was extremely disappointing that Civ6 only had one after Civ5 had two.
I mean if one was to become a staple, I think the Iroquois makes the most sense.
I'm surprised they didn't make Alexander a dual leader.
I mean theoretically he could have probably been a triple or quadruple leader, leading Persia and Egypt as well. But there's also no point in making a separate Macedon civ if he was also going to lead Greece.
 
I actually hope not. Too many indigenous civs we haven't had for them to become a staple. Don't get me wrong--they deserve to be a staple. But until we can get 3-4 Native North American civs per iteration, I don't think we should have a Native North American staple. It was extremely disappointing that Civ6 only had one after Civ5 had two.
Given the controversies that pop up and the extra work that Firaxis has to do every time a non-Iroquois indigenous civ is included, I'll be somewhat surprised if we get more than one in each game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom