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

[gamemaster3000]

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.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

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.

 

[gamemaster3000]

…well maybe if they hadn’t used lead pipes

 

[queenpea]

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.

I agree, but I think it is possible that this mechanic has pushed the silliness too far. I guess we won’t ever know, but it is possible that this change has alienated a chunk of the player base.

 

[Isca Dumnoniorum]

I agree, but I think it is possible that this mechanic has pushed the silliness too far. I guess we won’t ever know, but it is possible that this change has alienated a chunk of the player base.

It is fascinating how different people have different shark-jumping features they can't get over. I'm one of the people for whom space age Romans or immortal leaders was no problem but Charlemagne of Hawai'i really makes me double take. I still can't place why that should be but it does influence how I play. Just yesterday I had had a strong science start as Tecumseh of the Mississippians and had improved three camels. I really grappled with myself over whether to play as the Abbasids or Shawnee in Exploration - I went for the Shawnee in the end and I don't think it was the best choice for that game but it just felt right. Plus I really like their music

 

[Kwami]

Didn't Civ IV also allow you to mix & match leaders and civilizations?

The AI wouldn't do that, so it's not quite the same situation as we have in Civ VII, but still.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

To me it's just not a fun idea, and that's my personal taste.

Humankind had it from the start, and I didn't like it conceptually in that either, so for me it's not it "it's because its new" thing, it's that it's a feature which fundamentally detracts from the fun of the game

 

[King of Prussia]

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.

I dont agree with this and we can see here and in other places, many others feel the same. It is very subjective if this is too far. I wouldnt say i am hostile to it, but i dont like it either.

I will say it is nice to have civs or leaders we wouldnt have otherwise because they are no longer connected.

 

[queenpea]

It is fascinating how different people have different shark-jumping features they can't get over. I'm one of the people for whom space age Romans or immortal leaders was no problem but Charlemagne of Hawai'i really makes me double take. I still can't place why that should be but it does influence how I play. Just yesterday I had had a strong science start as Tecumseh of the Mississippians and had improved three camels. I really grappled with myself over whether to play as the Abbasids or Shawnee in Exploration - I went for the Shawnee in the end and I don't think it was the best choice for that game but it just felt right. Plus I really like their music

In my games, I've found myself almost ignoring the other civs completely and focusing only on the opponent leader. I guess this is partly what the game developers intended, but I don't see it as a positive change. I get so irritated by Revolutionary Napoleon or whomever that I focus so much on the him that I lose track of whatever weird pairing he's been stuck with.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

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.

Interestingly, the optimum path of Siam is that Player choose Nicky Machiavelli, begins as Greeks and researchc all Greek Civics. Then at the next age wins ANY options to unlock Siam at Third Age, and can use its finisher 'Itsaraphab' at an independent power to instantly make a vassal out of them with much less infleunce costs than anyone else chosing more direct approach (like playing as either Trung Trac or Ashoka and begins as either Khmer or Marauyas, then Chola (both of which cah choose Chola by default) which pathways naturally ends up being Siamese.

This is possible with Xenia tradition.

 

[protocol7]

In my games, I've found myself almost ignoring the other civs completely and focusing only on the opponent leader. I guess this is partly what the game developers intended, but I don't see it as a positive change. I get so irritated by Revolutionary Napoleon or whomever that I focus so much on the him that I lose track of whatever weird pairing he's been stuck with.

Exactly, I’m not sure I really mind leader drafting, but they really minimised how forward they put the civ you’re playing. I do miss being a civ and playing against civs.

 

[Gorbles]

Civilisations have always been what we made of them. The Romans with tanks launching a Science Victory via the Space Shuttle to me isn't the Romans as I historically understood them to be (and enjoyed studying them! As well as consuming fiction such as the Eagle of the Ninth, or even Asterix and Obelix). It was my take on the Romans. I started off with Rome in 5,000 BC, but what I ended up with was Gorbles ruling through Caesar across the pan-Roman Conquering Dynasty (some flexibility required; I always aimed for Oracle and the Pyramids in Civ 1).

To that end, the leader has always stood out for me. As far back as Civ 1. It makes sense for the leader to be the focal point.

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.

 

[queenpea]

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 just that the civilization really gets lost between its three identities (and perhaps, with further expansions, four). Often times, when I look at Augustus, I just call him "Rome" regardless of whichever civilization he is representing. Another part of the problem may be that 100 turns or so is just not enough for a civilization to make much of an individual impression at all.

 

[Krikkit1]

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.

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)

 

[Kwami]

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)

Why is that any better? That's just even more confusing.

1. You're still switching civilizations for the third era.
2. The bonuses no longer match the civilization, which makes no sense at all.
3. You're making a "correct" path for Ben Franklin and for Rome, which leads to other problems regarding civilizations and leaders that don't have a "correct" path.

 

[Krikkit1]

Why is that any better? That's just even more confusing.

1. You're still switching civilizations for the third era.
2. The bonuses no longer match the civilization, which makes no sense at all.
3. You're making a "correct" path for Ben Franklin and for Rome, which leads to other problems regarding civilizations and leaders that don't have a "correct" path.

The point is the player chooses both the bonus (with gameplay limitations) and the names (with no limitations…but possibly with gameplay impacts).
Default would be name match the civ.
But a player should be able play as “Romans” all 3 ages,,, or as “Zulus*” (using whatever city list you want) or as “Americans” all 3 eras.

or…as I gave example play as Romans for 2 eras then switch.

*or “Srotvad9” ie customizable name

 

[Sagax]

Why is that any better? That's just even more confusing.

1. You're still switching civilizations for the third era.
2. The bonuses no longer match the civilization, which makes no sense at all.
3. You're making a "correct" path for Ben Franklin and for Rome, which leads to other problems regarding civilizations and leaders that don't have a "correct" path.

“Stop having fun in your games because I don’t get it” is how you’re sounding.

There is zero downside to having that as an option, if that can improve immersion to a sizable chunk of players. If you don’t get it, that’s fine - you still keep the current naming system in your own games. Let people change the civ names in their own games if it helps them immerse better.

 

[Kwami]

“Stop having fun in your games because I don’t get it” is how you’re sounding.

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.

There is zero downside to having that as an option, if that can improve immersion to a sizable chunk of players. If you don’t get it, that’s fine - you still keep the current naming system in your own games. Let people change the civ names in their own games if it helps them immerse better.

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.

 

[Kwami]

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.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

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.

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