Leader Switching

[Leucarum]

It's quite possible to be down on civ switching and still expect you'll be playing Civ7. It's far from the only change thus far.

For me, the quality of life features in Civ7 - especially lessened micromanagement (no builders, citiy/town split) and army commanders - make me excited for the game regardless of anything else the devs may have added. Personally I'm also excited about mixing and matching leaders/civs, and think (other than one design issue that I'll mention later) they've done a great job with leaders.

I think encouraging the devs to increase player agency would go a long way to win waverers over. Historicity vs a free-for-all seems to be the biggest complaint, and could be a game setup choice. Similarly just presenting civ switching as a new cultural influence and allowing players to decide which one is dominant (i.e. do you keep your old city name list and art style for non unique buildings/units) I think would also help for players who feel strongly for or against specific civs. There's less of an ick factor for civs that historically got wiped out by another if you can just let that other civ be an "influence" and frankly it helps with roleplaying/alt-history and immersion... Even if there are no mechanical changes involved this just feels like a win-win for players and firaxis...

Being constructive, I think I have two other complaints with civ switching which aren't insane:

Civs in exploratiom/modern age which rely on specific map features. This is the game dictating how you play, it removes interesting decisions from the player if the map dictates these major choices. As an over-analyzer, I really want to be able to plan out my run in advance too and this has dented my interest in a lot of exploration civs. I'd love to see the player get more control over start biases (either directly by letting players set this in game setup or by ensuring a wider range of start biases are covered by leaders. If civs depend on a given start bias there should be a variety of leaders at launch with that bias, to allow a player to aim for a specific run. I'd add that civs in later eras who want to play the map must suck for the AI by historical paths pushing them into suboptimal civ selections, so I think free-for-all civ selection helps here too.

Secondly, Exploration age victory tracks were a big letdown. They are very prescriptive in playstyle, and I think Firaxis are already aware of this since Mongols and Songhai already have ways to advance which don't depend on the established route. Again this has dented my excitement in the civs in this age. While I'd like to see an expansion shake up the exploration age victory tracks, I think the more practical thing would be for new civs to explore alternative ways to progress along these tracks - especially in exploration!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Thirdly, not every Civilization is created equally if you want Uniques. America's uniques kick in much later than Egypt's or Rome's. Antiquity-fronted Civilizations will start the game by building up a lead, forcing the later Civs to catch up. You can use your leader to stay level but what isn't to say Rome or Egypt wouldn't use the same leaders to extend their lead?

I get that for Civ 7, but I never understood that argument for previous games. In Civ 6 you could start with massive amounts of science or culture as America in high appeal tiles, or combat strength on your home continent right off the bat depending on which Teddy you played as. If you are talking about unique units and infrastructure, sure, but it's never been a problem regarding abilities as all of them happen before the Industrial Age.

 

[Inhalaattori]

If people would think this through they would pretty fast understand that leader switching does not work for a game like Civ and is not viable option for many obvious reasons (who would be Sumerian modern leader? who would be ancient era leader for America etc.). Civ switching is much better option.

I guess more realistic option would be a Civ game that would not have any leaders are at all. That would be pretty boring though. Its more fun to play against historical leaders.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

I certainly don't think they should ignore all criticism; there's plenty of great feedback here. I'm saying that, in the chorus of that feedback, it probably doesn't make too much sense to try to placate those who have straight up said over and over that the changes are a "hard pass" or a "firm line" or whatever, and that they hope the game fails. All you might end up doing is compromising the central vision of the game.

The entire game hinges on this ages/civ switch mechanic. The game comes out in a matter of weeks. The die has been cast, no going back on their bold vision now. So, best to buckle down and make sure their execution is as high quality as possible.

Your statement is false because the world you describe is black or white. Either you like the idea, or you hate it and not gonna play. In my opinion, it is more nuanced and grey. Some people don't like the idea but will give the game a chance. Those players will not expect a revolution that changes foundation rules, but some adjustments and options that make the game more suitable for them. Perhaps a game mode or setting options, dunno. Not now but in the predictable future. Otherwise, their patience might have its limits.

 

[Lord Lakely]

If people would think this through they would pretty fast understand that leader switching does not work for a game like Civ and is not viable option for many obvious reasons (who would be Sumerian modern leader? who would be ancient era leader for America etc.). Civ switching is much better option.

I guess more realistic option would be a Civ game that would not have any leaders are at all. That would be pretty boring though. Its more fun to play against historical leaders.

It could work in the sense that if you gave every Civ a set number of leaders, you are free to pick any of them as soon as you enter the next era.

Say that for Sumer your options are Gilgamesh (Mil/Cul), Enheduanna (Cul/Exp), Gudea (Exp/Sci) and Sargon (Mil/Dip). You pick one leader for Antiquity, a second different leader in Exploration and in the Modern Era you pick ("elect") your leader for that era from the two remaining choices. The Leader has a bonus that changes or scaled depending on what Era you're in, allowing you to use their ability in light of the Era mechanics.

Or, I suppose instead of strict "Civs" you go after geographical cultures, where you have a "Mesopotamian Civilization" spanning Sumer, Babylon, the Abbasids and Iraq with the leader pool offering you options from those nations. So the Mesopotamian pool picks between Gilgamesh, Hammurabi, Harun al-Rashid and -heaven forbid this is JUST AN EXAMPLE- Saddam Hussein.
(notice that this variation is effectively what Civ7 is doing)

The other option for leader switching is by having a fixed pool of leaders for every Act and you pick whoever you want. the Act 1 pool includes Hatshepsut, Gilgamesh, Augustus, etc, the Act 2 pool features the likes of Charlemagne and Tokugawa, the act 3 pool has leaders such as Benjamin Franklin and Shaka Zulu.

I personally would vastly prefer the first option over the other two, but that's massively resource heavy. Can you imagine, 3-4 leaders, PER CIV, all animated and voiced? It would be difficult to make a profit then.

 

[GeneralZift]

If people would think this through they would pretty fast understand that leader switching does not work for a game like Civ and is not viable option for many obvious reasons (who would be Sumerian modern leader? who would be ancient era leader for America etc.). Civ switching is much better option.

I guess more realistic option would be a Civ game that would not have any leaders are at all. That would be pretty boring though. Its more fun to play against historical leaders.

I really don't think this is a fair statement? I outlined multiple times that the leaders would have to be detached from the Civilisation.

Obviously there is not going to be a Modern Sumerian leader or Modern Roman leader or Modern Mayan leader OR EQUIVALENT.

I am not even anywhere near suggesting that.

I'm suggesting you pick the Civilisation and you pick the Leader separately. In fact, you pick a "Person" and not a Leader.

You pick SOMEONE to lead and not the LEADER of the Civilisation. So I'm now the Chinese. I choose to lead me.... Joanne of Arc.

Now I'm imagining Joanne was born in China and is now the leader of the Chinese.

Then we are now in the Modern Era and Joanne has to go. So, I would switch to a Modern leader, but I'd still be playing China. Get it?

If you want you can play a Leader that fits the Civilisation (i.e. Confucius) but that's not the required or even suggested concept behind this idea.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

That isn’t what I said. My point was simply that trying to placate the intractably dismissive portion of an audience is a fool’s errand.

How do you know what part of "the intractably dismissive portion of an audience" will play the game? Or even like the game overall but do not like this one particular part?

I am a web data analyst. I have been working a lot with the UX department lately. It taught me a few things
- We have no idea how many users hate our single solutions but still use our product.
- There is always room for improvement and sometimes trivial solutions work best.

In general, I don't like the approach "If you don't like the product, get out you are not worth our attention". Sometimes it ends with throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There should be always space for discussion and improvements.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It could work in the sense that if you gave every Civ a set number of leaders, you are free to pick any of them as soon as you enter the next era.

Say that for Sumer your options are Gilgamesh (Mil/Cul), Enheduanna (Cul/Exp), Gudea (Exp/Sci) and Sargon (Mil/Dip). You pick one leader for Antiquity, a second different leader in Exploration and in the Modern Era you pick ("elect") your leader for that era from the two remaining choices. The Leader has a bonus that changes or scaled depending on what Era you're in, allowing you to use their ability in light of the Era mechanics.

Or, I suppose instead of strict "Civs" you go after geographical cultures, where you have a "Mesopotamian Civilization" spanning Sumer, Babylon, the Abbasids and Iraq with the leader pool offering you options from those nations. So the Mesopotamian pool picks between Gilgamesh, Hammurabi, Harun al-Rashid and -heaven forbid this is JUST AN EXAMPLE- Saddam Hussein.
(notice that this variation is effectively what Civ7 is doing)

I definitely would have preferred this to civ switching. This is the model I've been going off of considering there wouldn't be an Antiquity American leader or Modern Sumerian leader. France for example could have Jeanne D'Arc, Louis XIV, and Napoleon and no one would stop you from picking Napoleon first.
And if people are saying it's too confusing with AI leaders switching, maybe let there be an option that only allows yourself to change leaders, while the AI could stay the same.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Secondly, creating a leader is much more expensive than designing a Civilization is. Every leader is 3D animated and voice-acted, in the closest approximation of their native language possible. Designing a roster of 10 leaders per Era and 21 playable Civilizations (with temporal variations) is more expensive and could put the devs in problems with their publisher who wants their deadlines to be met.

If people would think this through they would pretty fast understand that leader switching does not work for a game like Civ and is not viable option for many obvious reasons (who would be Sumerian modern leader? who would be ancient era leader for America etc.). Civ switching is much better option.

I'll answer two posts with one. In retrospect I think the move into leader voices and full body animations has largely been a mistake, from the perspective of game development resources.

Had they not had to do this, they would've had more time, and we would have many more leaders to play around with, and by extension more civs. The characters would be simpler in terms of presentation onscreen for sure, but there you go...
Though mine is probably a small minority view.

 

[King Flevance]

I had an idea a few days ago concerning leader switching reading this thread. It was to have an emissary that is immortal to speak to the empire and be a generalized "face". These emissaries would be nameless but speak "for the ______ Empire". Behind them, their artwork would be of the leader chosen for that era. Having the Emissaries dialogue constantly reference "the _____ people", or "the views of the ____ Empire" instead of speaking for the leader could work to broaden our view into empires vs leaders.

As originally offered, leaders would be separated from Civs but I would age lock them. Probably region lock them also. So that William Wallace isn't leading China. I would make a few call backs to Civ 2, personally, just for fun. Like Ancient America's emissary would totally be an Elvis impersonator in a toga.

I know this conversation is pretty moot at this point, considering we won't see this feature in Civ 7 most likely, but it is a fun discussion.

 

[Zaarin]

It was to have an emissary that is immortal to speak to the empire and be a generalized "face". These emissaries would be nameless but speak "for the ______ Empire".

Part of the fun of Civ is interacting with interesting historical personalities, though; this wouldn't be any better to me than leader switching.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I had an idea a few days ago concerning leader switching reading this thread. It was to have an emissary that is immortal to speak to the empire and be a generalized "face". These emissaries would be nameless but speak "for the ______ Empire". Behind them, their artwork would be of the leader chosen for that era. Having the Emissaries dialogue constantly reference "the _____ people", or "the views of the ____ Empire" instead of speaking for the leader could work to broaden our view into empires vs leaders.

As originally offered, leaders would be separated from Civs but I would age lock them. Probably region lock them also. So that William Wallace isn't leading China. I would make a few call backs to Civ 2, personally, just for fun. Like Ancient America's emissary would totally be an Elvis impersonator in a toga.

I know this conversation is pretty moot at this point, considering we won't see this feature in Civ 7 most likely, but it is a fun discussion.

I posted something like this a couple of years ago, as an alternative to the 'resource-sink' Leaders in Civ VI. The idea was, instead of blowing the budget on numerous animated, voice-acted Leaders, the Civ would be represented by a Diplomat or Minister for the entire game, but behind him might be a throne room seen through an open door or a portrait of the Leader on the wall - and servants changing the portrait every once in a while or a mason chiseling out an old name from over the door and replacing it. As posted, the Minister would be nameless but the provision might be included to get a Named Diplomate like Tallyrand (who would not necessarily be an entirely positive Bonus!), or Metternich, or Shaprut or Tlacaelel, who could provide some 'extra-Leader' bonuses to your Civ or diplomacy.

I still think it could be a legitimate alternative to the numerous animated Graphic Resource Sinks that are the Civ Leaders, but I also don't think there's any chance that Civ will go that way unless they run out of any alternative: the animated Leaders are too much a basic part of the game now, and the Swapping Civ and Unattached Leaders of Civ VII show, I think, how far they are willing to go in changing the game to keep them.

 

[King Flevance]

Part of the fun of Civ is interacting with interesting historical personalities, though; this wouldn't be any better to me than leader switching.

I can understand that view. We all are drawn to different aspects of the game. It is interesting to see everyone's view of civs and leaders now that they are so in flux. (More specifically, how many different views there are) I am not even completely certain of my own preferences at this point. It isn't like I have much for reference beyond HK. (Which is not a good reference IMO)

I posted something like this a couple of years ago, as an alternative to the 'resource-sink' Leaders in Civ VI. The idea was, instead of blowing the budget on numerous animated, voice-acted Leaders, the Civ would be represented by a Diplomat or Minister for the entire game, but behind him might be a throne room seen through an open door or a portrait of the Leader on the wall - and servants changing the portrait every once in a while or a mason chiseling out an old name from over the door and replacing it. As posted, the Minister would be nameless but the provision might be included to get a Named Diplomate like Tallyrand (who would not necessarily be an entirely positive Bonus!), or Metternich, or Shaprut or Tlacaelel, who could provide some 'extra-Leader' bonuses to your Civ or diplomacy.

I still think it could be a legitimate alternative to the numerous animated Graphic Resource Sinks that are the Civ Leaders, but I also don't think there's any chance that Civ will go that way unless they run out of any alternative: the animated Leaders are too much a basic part of the game now, and the Swapping Civ and Unattached Leaders of Civ VII show, I think, how far they are willing to go in changing the game to keep them.

I agree. Like Klaus stated above, I am not particularly fond of exaggerated animations of these leaders. I could be just as entertained with a static serious portrait of Alexander with dialogue at the bottom. However, sales have proven the desire for more expressive personality in diplomatic screens, which makes sense considering it is the "social" aspect of the game. It does have an initial charm but that charm usually wears out fast for me. I just need to trade pigs for cotton, I don't need your opinions and expressions Julius!

 

[Lord Lakely]

Part of the fun of Civ is interacting with interesting historical personalities, though; this wouldn't be any better to me than leader switching.

Eh.

In Civ2 you interacted with the Ambassador, with the leader's painted portrait visible in the background.

In a game where you can swap leaders, the figurehead would instead be this ambassador who would be an endemic and symbolic representation of the nation (the French ambassador could be modeled after Marianne, the American Ambassador could be modeled after Franklin, etc). It would work similarly to Beyond Earth, but with recognisable characters, both fictional and non-fictional.

 

[Zaarin]

Eh.

In Civ2 you interacted with the Ambassador, with the leader's painted portrait visible in the background.

Civ2 is the first Civ game I played, but my memories before Civ4 are pretty hazy. And since Civ4 there has definitely been an increasing focus on the leader.

In a game where you can swap leaders, the figurehead would instead be this ambassador who would be an endemic and symbolic representation of the nation (the French ambassador could be modeled after Marianne, the American Ambassador could be modeled after Franklin, etc). It would work similarly to Beyond Earth, but with recognisable characters, both fictional and non-fictional.

Yeah, I'd be out. I can play Endless Space 2 if I want a 4X game where I don't care about the leaders.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Civ2 is the first Civ game I played, but my memories before Civ4 are pretty hazy. And since Civ4 there has definitely been an increasing focus on the leader.

All Civ games (except for Civ2) put major focus on the leader, though with increments. Civ3 debuted (hilariously ugly) animated leaderheads, Civ4 added body language, Civ5 voice acting.

If I'm honest, I kind of prefer the Civ1 style of diplomacy?

There is something very charming and authentic about 2D Cutscenes, flanked with lofi soundtrack. If someone were to design a Civ-like with similar pixellated leaders + midi jingles diplomacy screens in this present-day and age, i'd be inclined to buy it on charm alone.

 

[Zaarin]

There is something very charming and authentic about 2D Cutscenes, flanked with lofi soundtrack. If someone were to design a Civ-like with similar pixellated leaders + midi jingles diplomacy screens in this present-day and age, i'd be inclined to buy it on charm alone.

I've been suggesting traditionally animated leaders for a while. It will never happen and wouldn't actually be less work than the 3D leaders, but I can dream.

 

[AD1730]

I've been suggesting traditionally animated leaders for a while. It will never happen and wouldn't actually be less work than the 3D leaders, but I can dream.

Something like what Paradox used for Stellaris could work well. It's very moddable, has some movement for the characters, and has some variation between them. Could open up more capability to have "ministers" who are unique to a Civ (i.e., Hamilton, Dulles, Mahan, etc.).

But, I really don't understand why the 3D leader models are as labor-intensive as they are made out to be. It's not like creating a video game character that needs to be capable of a wide variety of unscripted movements and potentially have thousands of lines of dialog.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Eh.

In Civ2 you interacted with the Ambassador, with the leader's painted portrait visible in the background.

Well, some of those leaders were completely fictional characters, like Shakala, so maybe generic ambassadors were the way to go for that game?

 

[Zaarin]

Something like what Paradox used for Stellaris could work well. It's very moddable, has some movement for the characters, and has some variation between them. Could open up more capability to have "ministers" who are unique to a Civ (i.e., Hamilton, Dulles, Mahan, etc.).

But, I really don't understand why the 3D leader models are as labor-intensive as they are made out to be. It's not like creating a video game character that needs to be capable of a wide variety of unscripted movements and potentially have thousands of lines of dialog.

Civ leaders aren't designed like RPG characters where they have a single skeleton or low-poly body. All of the animations have to be created individually (I'm not sure if they're motion captured or not).