LOW number of civilizations at launch

Personally, I don't feel like I've played against the same Civ twice in a row in VI if I have Catherine in one game and Eleanor in the next. It's a different face with a different personality and different abilities to keep in mind. I don't see why it would be different in VII.

See I'm the opposite. If I was playing with Catherine in one game and Eleanor the next, I'd still feel I'm playing against the same civ just with a different leader because I see leaders choice as just another way of flavoring civilizations.

I wouldn't see a Greece lead by Ben Franklin and a Greece lead by Harriet Tubman and think I'm playing against two different civilizations. Of course thats my opinion but also part of the reason why Firaxis' detaching leaders from their civilizations falls flat for myself and many others.
 
I can't help but feel the math is a little bit off in this one, and maybe also leaving out some important context, namely that you don't play as the civs; you play as the leaders. I've stated this time and time again, but it has become very clear that FXS never intended the player to envision the nation state as their avatar; you've always played as Gandhi rather than as India

In my first video on taking a critical look at CIV 7's new features, I specifically address viewing leaders in the diplomacy screen from the third person. I have never played as Gandhi. I have led India with his attributes, and I've played against him, but everytime I play, I am me.
 
BackseatTyrant was so close to getting it right. Against, not as. You don't play against Civs, you play against leaders. Leaders are the counterpart of the player, the opponents you must defeat.

YOU however, always play a Civ, or within the context of this game, three.
 
BackseatTyrant was so close to getting it right. Against, not as. You don't play against Civs, you play against leaders. Leaders are the counterpart of the player, the opponents you must defeat.

YOU however, always play a Civ, or within the context of this game, three.
This is definitely how I view it. It's a game, so it has players, one of which is me. It's a game about leading nations, so the other players and I must be leading nations. My "leader" is thus flavor, while the other leaders are the "players" I am up against.
 
This is definitely how I view it. It's a game, so it has players, one of which is me. It's a game about leading nations, so the other players and I must be leading nations. My "leader" is thus flavor, while the other leaders are the "players" I am up against.
Same, which means that I identify more with my civ than any leader I might pick, but in terms of my opponents, I identify more with the leaders, since they are the face of the civs that I am against. Therefore, I don't think I will notice a low number of civs as my opponents, because there are plenty of leaders, but I'll probably always be slightly irritated by seeing my leader on the diplo screen.
 
Personally, I don't feel like I've played against the same Civ twice in a row in VI if I have Catherine in one game and Eleanor in the next. It's a different face with a different personality and different abilities to keep in mind. I don't see why it would be different in VII.
Would you see the two different Catherine personas as different civs? At the end of the day they are all France, just different variations. But I still see that I'm playing Catherine or Eleanor of France.
Same, which means that I identify more with my civ than any leader I might pick, but in terms of my opponents, I identify more with the leaders, since they are the face of the civs that I am against. Therefore, I don't think I will notice a low number of civs as my opponents, because there are plenty of leaders, but I'll probably always be slightly irritated by seeing my leader on the diplo screen.
So, the real problem isn't the LOW number of civilizations at launch, but the LOW number of leaders, including personas? ;)
 
It's defo the low number of both. we want MOOOOOOORE. :mwaha: :mwaha:

WHEN DO WE WANT IT? NOW. :mwaha::mwaha::mwaha:
 
But aren't there as many Leaders (without even personas) in Civ 7 as Civs for Civ 6 launch? ( ;))
Two more, or one more counting Pericles/Gorgo separately, and not counting personae.
 
So, the real problem isn't the LOW number of civilizations at launch, but the LOW number of leaders, including personas? ;)
That’s how I see it too. (But it’s not an issue)

You’re playing against the leaders, not the civs. seeing the same leader faces in my games will be more of an “issue” than the civs they’re using because I have a feeling that I often won’t notice it much
 
You don't play against Civs, you play against leaders.(...)
You’re playing against the leaders, not the civs(...)
Sid Meier's Leaderization, now more than ever. :crazyeye:

We've always played against leaders, be it insidious, nuke-happy Gandhi or bloodthirsty Montezuma.

As for the count, slightly fluffy but not too much. I find it considerably more controversial that they've cut away a historically always base civ (Britain) from launch, in order to force a likely obligatory upsell or DLC purchase for some.

I'm usually wary of people who criticize DLC as being cut content from the base game, but this is a bit too on the nose.
 
Sid Meier's Leaderization, now more than ever. :crazyeye:

We've always played against leaders, be it insidious, nuke-happy Gandhi or bloodthirsty Montezuma.

As for the count, slightly fluffy but not too much. I find it considerably more controversial that they've cut away a historically always base civ (Britain) from launch, in order to force a likely obligatory upsell or DLC purchase for some.

I'm usually wary of people who criticize DLC as being cut content from the base game, but this is a bit too on the nose.
When DLC first emerged most people still bought game disks. So some early dlc was on the physical disk you bought at launch but you had to pay extra to access it. That's generally when this sentiment emerged.
 
I do wanna say that apart from Civ 4, statistcally, Civ 7 more civs to choose from in given era if you take into acount that there's roughly 8 max spots per player. And that we had I believe 18 base game Civilizations in Civ 6 with 22 max player per map. So... they're on par xD
 
I do wanna say that apart from Civ 4, statistcally, Civ 7 more civs to choose from in given era if you take into acount that there's roughly 8 max spots per player. And that we had I believe 18 base game Civilizations in Civ 6 with 22 max player per map. So... they're on par xD
 

Attachments

  • y3z_rUV5a1N1O-l9x_1VJQphIZFH6H4cEdPrZahbD1U (1).jpg
    y3z_rUV5a1N1O-l9x_1VJQphIZFH6H4cEdPrZahbD1U (1).jpg
    48 KB · Views: 29
Embarrassing that there are no Aztecs at the launch. Always been from Civ 1
 
Top Bottom