My biggest gripe about the game is how silly Benjamin Franklin...of the Mongols...is

[Sagax]

What? The entire point of this thread is to tell those of us that enjoy the current system that we're wrong and that Firaxis should change it.


No, there's a gameplay effect here. Two, really.

First, the AI isn't going to come up with arbitrary names. They're going to use the existing names. So if you're playing against Ben Franklin, then he's going to be Greece -> Norman -> America, or something like that. He's not going to rename himself to Rome -> Rome -> America. So if the current system breaks your immersion, then the proposed solution does nothing to fix it.

Second, opponents have to have a known set of bonuses to play around. You can't go into a multiplayer game, for example, and see "Ben Franklin of the Martians" and have no idea what bonuses he has. That just doesn't work.

And I don’t see how an OPTION to rename your civ is in any way subtracting from the experience of current enjoyers. You could disable/ignore this feature altogether and not have a single care about how other players interact with it.

Nothing prevents them from adding UI elements to clarify what actual civ you’re dealing with from a gameplay perspective. Also, if renaming for AI is that big of an issue, then I’m okay with AIs keeping the current way. It’s really more about your own civ - I care less about how AI ended up with a Rome-into-Buganda pipeline, but I do want more control over my own civ’s identity.

If multiplayer is that big of an issue, then you could always disable it for multiplayer. This was already done in Civ 5.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

I am discouraged that Civilization is no longer about one civilization (that is, the one you choose to play as). But rather some Mario Party-type game with different leaders playing a 4X minigame.

I can see what they were going for, since few if any real-life ancient civs barely survived to the present day and you do need historical changes, but this is less than an ideal way of implementing it.

 

[Isca Dumnoniorum]

For those that prefer the civs . . . what makes the civ stand out for you? When so many of its developed features are emergent via gameplay choices you've made? I doubt we can find agreement but I'm just interested to hear folks' takes.

For me it's the unity of a well-designed civ, i.e. a package comprising leader + civ + music. Before, I might haved played as Jayavarman with the purple and yellow borders of Khmer, its theme trumpeting triumphantly, building huge cities on my path to victory. It felt distinctly "Khmer" (as defined by the game), even as I might pursue a science victory in one game or face an onslaught from a superior foe in another. I felt a sense of nationhood in each game, I guess. I'm half Australian and by golly was I sucked in by filling the map with coastal cities and outback stations within my green and yellow borders, all while listening to Waltzing Matilda.

To contrast that with now, I don't feel the same through-line. My strength might switch from growing big cities to science to gold generation. The music that accompanies me on my journey changes twice and my empire ends up with a mishmash of city names from different cultures, perhaps none of which have anything to do with my leader (I realise this would happen if I warmongered but that's not how I play). There's no hook there for me to feel connected to a coherent whole, personally speaking.

 

[EpicWestern]

I've made this exact criticism on a different forum except I used Ben Franklin and Japan. It's just a massive unnecessary flavor fail and is my biggest issue with the game. Opposing civs are just brown blobs with cartoonish faces. Thousands of other video games are character driven, Civ should be civ driven.

We're still early into the game though so I don't think its too late to change. Suggestions:

1. Massively nerf leaders - I would do away with leaders completely but I understand that isn't going to happen. Just reduce power level down to that of something like a memento. A leader's abilities should not overshadow the abilities of a civ for the purposes of interaction.

2. Overhaul the interface to give prominence to the civ - Most people feel the interface needs an overhaul anyway. Instead of a large head above civ symbol in the icons at the top of the screen have it be a large symbol above a tiny head. The interaction page with the civs should show primarily a flag, symbol, or artwork emphasizing the culture instead of a leader's animated body.

3. Hard restrict leaders to certain civs - There's some sort of soft restriction right now where leaders are more likely to appear with appropriate (appropriate-ish) civs, and that human players are more likely to randomize into those types of pairings. Just crank that percentage whatever it is up to 100%. I understand that this will eliminate certain strategic options for the game, but I think that's worth the cost for the sake of flavor. You can also split the difference and restrict the AI but allow the player to mix things up. Or you can restrict some combo of that now but unlock it in a future expansion where people might actually have put in enough hours to be wanting some fresh new combos.

4. Allow leader changing between ages - Again, leaders should be more like mementos so this wouldn't be a big deal.

5. Have city/town artwork have more civ specific features - A lot of the flavor problem is leaders sucking up screen space, but even without them I think civs should pop out more on the map.

 

[Lexicus]

Ben Franklin of the Mongols is exactly as silly as immortal leaders, Great Pyramids being built by the Chinese, and the Roman Empire sending a mission to Alpha Centauri.

The only difference is that the first one was just added, while the rest have been core conceits of the series for 30+ years.

This is not even true, in Civ 4, which came out 20 years ago, Unrestricted Leaders is an option that allows any leader to be paired with any civ.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

And I've yet to hear an explanation for why Ben Franklin of America building Cossacks and Katyusha Rocket Launchers is somehow better for immersion than the current system.

I mean, some would consider it a step better than Ben Franklin of Russia building Cossacks and Katyusha Rocket Launchers.

 

[Kwami]

You could make your own thread then rather than being unpleasantly combative in this one. We're all Civ fans here.

Perhaps I don't understand the point of a discussion board, then. Are we all just supposed to +1 the original post and not offer any counterpoints or criticism? Shall we never disagree on something?

And I don’t see how an OPTION to rename your civ is in any way subtracting from the experience of current enjoyers. You could disable/ignore this feature altogether and not have a single care about how other players interact with it.

The original post wasn't asking for a simple option to rename your civilization. It was asking for much more than that. In essence, it was asking for the system implemented in Millennia.

Choose a leader and a civilization. The civilization gives you a flag and city names, but nothing else. Then, choose a set of bonuses in each age that isn't necessarily related to a particular real-world civilization.

It didn't work well in Millennia and it wouldn't work well here, either. It feels lifeless and bland, even when the bonuses are interesting. The leader and flag just become pointless colors that don't matter.

I mean, some would consider it a step better than Ben Franklin of Russia building Cossacks and Katyusha Rocket Launchers.

Why?

 

[Krikkit1]

I mean, some would consider it a step better than Ben Franklin of Russia building Cossacks and Katyusha Rocket Launchers.

And the main point is the player could choose Ben Franklin of the __________ building Cossacks and Katyusha Rocket Launchers.
Russia (match bonuses)
Rome (what I was last time)
America (matches with the leader)
Maya (I like the music)
Bulgaria (player is bulgarian)
Martian (sounded fun... using the Russian city list because if I have Cossacks My capital has to be Moscow.. and then I just customized the actual civ name)
etc.

There would be 3 elements
1. Leader (doesn't change)
2. Civ bonuses (based on a real world civ with narrative events*, gameplay unlocks, etc.)
3. Civ Name+city list (based on the same real world civs.. but 2+3 don't have to match if the player doesn't want them to.)

*This is something that really could help.
When you unlock a civ through gameplay... you should get a narrative event talking about how this civ may become your eventual next civ
During the Crisis period you should have Narrative events for civs that unlocked by playing a certain civ or leader explaining how they rise to prominence in the next age
and when you make the transition another set of narrative events with both description and actual choices

Keep your name...lump sum happiness (celebrating history..quicker to make space for old traditions)
Change your name to new civ...lump sum culture to a unique civic (moving in new directions)
Customize Name+city list...lump sum science?gold?

 

[evonannoredars]

people will get used to this eventually

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The whole point of this, and too many other pointless threads on this Forum, is Immersion.

And the reason it is pointless is that it means entirely different things to different people. In fact, no system of any kind will appeal to everyone, and a system that appeals to only one person is just as appropriate (for that one person) as a system that appeals to hundreds of millions.

Some people Immerse themselves in a Civilization, 4000 BCE to 2025 CE.
Others Immerse themselves in a named Leader.
Others, frankly, don't appear to Immerse themselves in any thing other than beating the game's mechanics as fast and efficiently as possible.

All and many dozens of other different examples a re equally appropriate TO EACH INDIVIDUAL GAMER.

So, with all due respect, you all keep arguing about the numbers of Civs and Leaders that can dance on the head of a pin and whether they should be dancing a tarantella instead of a fandango, and I will go play Civ VII as Charlemagne of the Mayans using an ancient Xiong-Nu city list so that I can easily advance the Civ into Medieval Bulgarians using an ancient Slavic city list in my own little personal Immersiveness . . .

 

[Sagax]

Perhaps I don't understand the point of a discussion board, then. Are we all just supposed to +1 the original post and not offer any counterpoints or criticism? Shall we never disagree on something?


The original post wasn't asking for a simple option to rename your civilization. It was asking for much more than that. In essence, it was asking for the system implemented in Millennia.

Choose a leader and a civilization. The civilization gives you a flag and city names, but nothing else. Then, choose a set of bonuses in each age that isn't necessarily related to a particular real-world civilization.

It didn't work well in Millennia and it wouldn't work well here, either. It feels lifeless and bland, even when the bonuses are interesting. The leader and flag just become pointless colors that don't matter.


Why?

My comment was specifically in regards to the proposal by @Krikkit1, which is as simple as allowing one to rename their civ. Your replies seemed to be quoting @Krikkit1 specifically, and not OP.

I’m not defending OPs’s proposal (which feels too vague for me to assess to begin with), I’m advocating for @Krikkit1’s proposal that I find quite tangible and realistic. If it fully addresses OP’s concerns, then all the better.

Why would a player prefer being called Ben Franklin of America with Katyushas over Ben Franklin of Russia with Katyushas? Because that’s what the player wanted to roll with in a given playthrough. Maybe they’ll want to be Ben Franklin of Russia with Katyushas in another playthrough, and they will be able to do that too.

 

[Naokaukodem]

I'm all for making decisions that aren't realistic but give good gameplay....but maybe just present the info differently.

Oh, this is not a big gripe then. Your biggest gripe is tiny, no biggies.

 

[Kwami]

My comment was specifically in regards to the proposal by @Krikkit1, which is as simple as allowing one to rename their civ. Your replies seemed to be quoting @Krikkit1 specifically, and not OP.

If the only ask is that you be allowed to rename your civilization to whatever, then sure, I can't imagine why I would object to that. But I would want an option to disable it for multiplayer and I wouldn't want the AI picking random names.

But I think I saw @Krikkit1's post as building on the ideas in the original post, which were a lot more than just renaming your civilization. So, I asked for clarification and pointed our why it didn't make sense to me. I don't see the problem.

 

[Skojardu]

All and many dozens of other different examples a re equally appropriate TO EACH INDIVIDUAL GAMER.

I mean, I got the ick playing Civ 6 as Sweden (light blue and white units... where is the white on the Swedish flag, hmm?) and I immediately got the ick meeting Pericles of the Greeks as orange and black

 

[Leucarum]

I really enjoy the leader mixing and matching, I think I would have preferred it if they left out civ switching.

I get that for some people having historical accuracy matters a lot more than it does to me. I personally like that it no longer means every civ has to have a leader, opening the door to more ancient civs with poorly attested leadership - and vice versa for interesting historical figures who never led a country. I think that more than outweighs the lower immersion.

Civ switching is a disruption in usual gameplay though, and it usually ends up being a "feels bad" moment as you lose the abilities you were playing around.

 

[Yzman]

I'm all for making decisions that aren't realistic but give good gameplay....but maybe just present the info differently. For a very small change, even if it was just Benjamin Franklin (Playing with the Bonuses of the Mongol Civilization) would be better because it...doesn't imply that he was a Mongol. And then keeping the names of the cities as the American cities throughout the game.

Ben Franklin playing with thr bonuses of the Mongols sounds like such a silly concept. Can you imagine the game saying that? I would instantly burst out laughing and wondering why the heck that was in the game. Either let me play as the Mongols or not.

 

[Yzman]

Which is exactly why they should let you choose the name (and city list) of your civ in each era.

Playing as
Ben Franklin of the Romans (with Egyptian bonuses)
into
Ben Franklin of the Romans (with Mongol bonuses)
into
Ben Franklin of the Americans (with Russian bonuses)

would smooth a lot over (and they could have narrative events involving the choice of keeping civ name or changing it..to help with the immersion of that era change)

This concept is obtuse and makes no sense gameplay wise. So Franklin of Rome with Egyptian bonuses doesn't ruin immersion to you? At that point, why even say he is of Rome? And why is Ben leading Rome? This reeks of way worse than the problem supposedly being fixed. You are removing all point in any differentiation. May as well just be generic person with generic bonuses at that point.

 

[gamemaster3000]

Ben Franklin playing with thr bonuses of the Mongols sounds like such a silly concept. Can you imagine the game saying that? I would instantly burst out laughing and wondering why the heck that was in the game. Either let me play as the Mongols or not.

and it's not the least bit silly that the game says "Benjamin Franklin of the Mongols" SMH

 

[Yzman]

and it's not the least bit silly that the game says "Benjamin Franklin of the Mongols" SMH

Not compared to saying Benjamin Franklin of Rome with Mongols bonuses. At that point, there is no uniqueness. It is just random crap thrown together. And why is Benjamin Franklin of Rome with Mongol bonuses LESS bothersome to you? What does that even mean? Just Roman city list? Why does Benjamin Franklin have a Roman city list? Why does he have Mongol bonuses?

So basically instead of a leader mixed with a civ that has unique bonuses, we are proposing all leaders can have any city list, and then can pick a random civs bonuses? What is the point?

Let's assume you were proposing that it would be Ben Franklin of America with American city lists but with Russian bonuses. How is THAT better? What logocal sense would that make? Doesn't that destroy exactly the uniqueness that people are talking about missing? So now you have both a leader and civ that don't match the bonuses?

I can't imagine that people complaining about civ switching because they can't identify with the civ are going to be like, oh let's do Franklin of America but he has all of the Russia abilities as a good solution to that. It seems to exacerbate the problem.

 

[Yzman]

I really enjoy the leader mixing and matching, I think I would have preferred it if they left out civ switching.

I get that for some people having historical accuracy matters a lot more than it does to me. I personally like that it no longer means every civ has to have a leader, opening the door to more ancient civs with poorly attested leadership - and vice versa for interesting historical figures who never led a country. I think that more than outweighs the lower immersion.

Civ switching is a disruption in usual gameplay though, and it usually ends up being a "feels bad" moment as you lose the abilities you were playing around.

I think the switching can be done as more of an optional thing and less scheduled and it would feel a lot more fin and natural. Have it happen by choice if certain criteria are fulfilled.