Leader Unlocks - Basic Question

[queenpea]

Basic question here, and apologies if this has already been answered on the forums. I understand as well if this can’t be answered yet, but is my understanding of leader unlocks (outlined below) correct?

Does the choice of a leader always guarantee that their associated civ is always available for unlock? If so, the following options would be available to the player, right?

For example:

Playing as Napoleon
Maurya -> Chola -> France

As Tecumseh
Rome -> Shawnee -> (Wherever Shawnee goes from here)

As Benjamin Franklin
Han -> Ming -> USA

 

[8housesofelixir]

Yes, IIRC they used Franklin as an example. If you picked Franklin at the beginning, you can always choose USA in the 3rd Age.

 

[queenpea]

Yes, IIRC they used Franklin as an example. If you picked Franklin at the beginning, you can always choose USA in the 3rd Age.

Thanks, I never really considered how strange that is until last night.

 

[Siptah]

Is it… stranger than Ben leading Maurya > Chola > Mughals? (Honest question)

I think 2nd/3rd age leader unlocks are a nice way to guarantee a specific option. It allows to play an America game without having to start as a specific civ! Thus, creating your own version of America without the fear that you might not be able to unlock it with gameplay.

 

[queenpea]

Is it… stranger than Ben leading Maurya > Chola > Mughals? (Honest question)

I think 2nd/3rd age leader unlocks are a nice way to guarantee a specific option. It allows to play an America game without having to start as a specific civ! Thus, creating your own version of America without the fear that you might not be able to unlock it with gameplay.

I think a lot of VII has some wackiness to it, and I guess I understand why the leader unlock has to work this way.

But this is where the civ switching risks feeling very reminiscent of Humankind in their drastic, chaotic, totality.

The tagline for VII is “build something you believe in,” right? So credulity should be up for discussion here.

 

[chaosprophet]

The tagline for VII is “build something you believe in,” right? So credulity should be up for discussion here.

And if you don't believe in a non historical options like the one you listed, you can avoid picking them, and avoid picking leaders that aren't associated to the basic path of the civ you picked (that seems like what the AI will always do, at least as default). That will give you less options, especially at release though.

But really, for those who don't like the possibility to go completely wild on switch, just don't pick them, the AI will do the same. Similarly, in an MP game the players can all agree on rules to do same if that is what they want.

 

[queenpea]

And if you don't believe in a non historical options like the one you listed, you can avoid picking them, and avoid picking leaders that aren't associated to the basic path of the civ you picked (that seems like what the AI will always do, at least as default). That will give you less options, especially at release though.

But really, for those who don't like the possibility to go completely wild on switch, just don't pick them, the AI will do the same. Similarly, in an MP game the players can all agree on rules to do same if that is what they want.

That would be fair, I suppose, if there was a greater wealth of realistic, historic paths to choose from…

 

[chaosprophet]

That would be fair, I suppose, if there was a greater wealth of realistic, historic paths to choose from…

I was more addressing you point of going even beyond the historical paths, but that is true, for those whose historical paths is important, they are unlikely to be very strong at launch, and probably still not until quite later if one is willing to buy the dlcs.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

From what we know, a civ can be unlocked by a leader choice, a civilization, or a set of goals (Mongolia was used as a reference with controlling a number of Horse Resource deposit as an example)

I also will assume that the goals are an OR requirement. So you could be playing as Genghis Khan (if he's included), and automatically unlock Mongolia, but playing as a different leader, you'll need the Horses to unlock Mongolia, and that rule applies to other nations.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Thanks, I never really considered how strange that is until last night.

Reference to Ben Franklin, though, if I may throw in a contrary opinion:

Civ games have always played fast and loose with Time Scale: battles that take decades to resolve, ships that take centuries to circle the globe, Immortal Leaders (and now, Governors).

So, an Immortal Franklin is no great leap. Furthermore, Benjamin Franklin was IRL born before there was a United States, and had already made his reputation as an author, printer, and experimental scientist before the colonies became a new 'Civ'.

So, to me, it appears to be just another example of Warped Time Scale so well known and studiously ignored in all previous Civilization games. If Nefertiti can last from 4000 BCE to 1970s, Franklin can be her contemporary and flirt with her outrageously throughout the centuries.

I'm okay with that, as long as the game also allows me to name one of my Exploration and/or Modern Age warships the Bonhomme Richard . . .

 

[queenpea]

Reference to Ben Franklin, though, if I may throw in a contrary opinion:

Civ games have always played fast and loose with Time Scale: battles that take decades to resolve, ships that take centuries to circle the globe, Immortal Leaders (and now, Governors).

So, an Immortal Franklin is no great leap. Furthermore, Benjamin Franklin was IRL born before there was a United States, and had already made his reputation as an author, printer, and experimental scientist before the colonies became a new 'Civ'.

So, to me, it appears to be just another example of Warped Time Scale so well known and studiously ignored in all previous Civilization games. If Nefertiti can last from 4000 BCE to 1970s, Franklin can be her contemporary and flirt with her outrageously throughout the centuries.

I'm okay with that, as long as the game also allows me to name one of my Exploration and/or Modern Age warships the Bonhomme Richard . . .

Oh, I’m not bothered by the immortality of the leaders. Just the inelegance of many of these potential switches.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Oh, I’m not bothered by the immortality of the leaders. Just the inelegance of many of these potential switches.

I think it's safe to say you not alone in that: in fact, I suspect far stronger words than 'inelegance' would spring to many minds . . .

 

[Krikkit1]

Oh, I’m not bothered by the immortality of the leaders. Just the inelegance of many of these potential switches.

The thing is those are Potential switches
The AI will stick to “historical” switches, and Humans (with gameplay) can open up a massive number of “crazy” switches but the “historical” ones will always be available.

If you choose Ben and not Rome/Greece (which fit in Americas Heritage nicely) but instead choose Aksum or Han.. you are starting crazy, so you get to take crazy transitions.

Human Ben also doesn’t have to go to America he could go Rome-Norman-France or Han-Ming-?Meijii…or Aksum-Songhai-America. (or Rome-Mongol-America depending on the game)

 

[vorlon_mi]

The thing is those are Potential switches
The AI will stick to “historical” switches, and Humans (with gameplay) can open up a massive number of “crazy” switches but the “historical” ones will always be available.

If you choose Ben and not Rome/Greece (which fit in Americas Heritage nicely) but instead choose Aksum or Han.. you are starting crazy, so you get to take crazy transitions.

Human Ben also doesn’t have to go to America he could go Rome-Norman-France or Han-Ming-?Meijii…or Aksum-Songhai-America. (or Rome-Mongol-America depending on the game)

I agree with most of this, but wonder...

• Will an AI player always choose the historical path? If an AI leader has a particularly successful Antiquity Age, might it choose an Exploration civ that builds on those gains, whether or not it's historical? We Civfanatics have been assuming that an AI leader would always make the predictable choice, but I've not heard that confirmed by the Firaxis folks.
• The Civfanatics include a bunch of minmaxers. I do expect us to try out crazy choices, crazy transitions, and try to find the overpowered set of civs for a fast economic victory.

 

[Krikkit1]

I agree with most of this, but wonder...

• Will an AI player always choose the historical path? If an AI leader has a particularly successful Antiquity Age, might it choose an Exploration civ that builds on those gains, whether or not it's historical? We Civfanatics have been assuming that an AI leader would always make the predictable choice, but I've not heard that confirmed by the Firaxis folks.

They have confirmed that (at least as a default, I’m hoping it’s an option to switch on or off.)

 

[kaspergm]

Thanks, I never really considered how strange that is until last night.

I know I've said it before, but for me, this whole civ evolution/leader mix-and-match thing is turning the game into a big mess. I can see some value in civ switching from a gameplay perspective, but man could I have wished for a better implementation than the one they've gone with.