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

[canadamufc]

immortal leaders, Great Pyramids being built by the Chinese, and the Roman Empire sending a mission to Alpha Centauri.

Is why Civilization is the greatest 4x game of all time and one that is renowned around the world.

Ben Franklin of the Mongols

Is (part of the reason) why this game has less than 10,000 active players.

Equivocating these two is not true in my honest opinion.

 

[Lexicus]

Is why Civilization is the greatest 4x game of all time and one that is renowned around the world.


Is (part of the reason) why this game has less than 10,000 active players.

Equivocating these two is not true in my honest opinion.

Unrestricted leaders in civ 4 is part of the reason I still play that game 20 years after it was released. More combinations = greater replayability.

 

[Leucarum]

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.

I suspect once the modding tools are out we'll see a plethora of options...

 

[untitledjuan]

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.

But it was just an optional thing and rather "hidden" at the near end of a list in a campaign editor. It wasn't meant as a main feature of the game, much less as the main way to play Civ4. Also, every Civ had one (or more) corresponding leader.

 

[queenpea]

But it was just an optional thing and rather "hidden" at the near end of a list in a campaign editor. It wasn't meant as a main feature of the game, much less as the main way to play Civ4. Also, every Civ had one (or more) corresponding leader.

Yep, and it’s an option that I never played around with for all the years I obsessively played Civ IV.

 

[gamemaster3000]

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.

Where are you getting "of the Romans?"

I'm proposing Benjamin Franklin, of America, with the American city list. For the entire game, so there is some continuity in where his empire his and who founded which city originally.

And a small subscript that says "playing with the bonuses of the Mongols in the Ancient Age" or "Non-historical abilities: Mongol" or some other small note that lets other players know what his abilities are.

 

[Lexicus]

But it was just an optional thing and rather "hidden" at the near end of a list in a campaign editor. It wasn't meant as a main feature of the game, much less as the main way to play Civ4. Also, every Civ had one (or more) corresponding leader.

*shrug* it's absolutely integral to the way I play civ 4 to this day. That being said, i'm not sure precisely how this specifically would work in civ 7 given the age transition mechanic, but i am generally in favor of more things being optional on/off toggles rather than unchangeable.

 

[jaegermeister]

1. Units "teleporting back" to base (random distribution) when the era ends. It's damn annoying.
2. Having Charlemagne but not having Holy Roman Empire in the game as a base civ, making him resort to taking up irrelevant civs is just silly. If you want to bring leader, bring its native civ, or don't bring him/her at all.

 

[Leucarum]

1. Units "teleporting back" to base (random distribution) when the era ends. It's damn annoying.

Civ7 does a really bad job of communicating what happens with millitary units on age transition. And it is frustrating losing units and seeing them teleport around unexpectedly.

I get that there is a bit of a reset so I doubt the devs would make it so that all units were exactly where they were before without eliminating ages altogether... But I think this is an area where more options the player can choose from in game settings would be wise. How much millitary should be kept? Should those units be distributed to closest city/spread out among cities? Etc...

 

[JNR13]

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 . . .

Yea like, personally I'd be up for each civ having their exclusive wonder and making it part of progressing through that civ within an age. Wonders as yet another unique instead of gimmicky wonder races. Very immsersive, much wow.

But: I'd get absolutely piled by people complaining that this is not what civ is supposed to be, that it would go against the core identity of the game to not end up with the Colossus next to Stonehenge and the Forbidden City, all built in New York. And you know what? I'd have a hard time disagreeing. Even if my personal preference for a historic 4X would be something else, mashing together wonders like a child does with their action figures *is* part of the core identity of Civ. It's okay for each game to have its own identity instead of striving to be THE ultimate end-of-all experience for the entire genre designed around maximizing "immersion" or "historicity" or whatever.

If there's a problem, it's that Civ VII is torn between trying to be both. The somber and serious tone of the narrative design and art on one hand to appeal to the "I miss the grandeur of Civ V crowd", and going back to "you know what? go nuts and do silly things with history" on the other hand. This gap had already opened up with how people regarded the game modes in Civ VI ("everything is allowed if it's cool and fun" vs. "vampires and Hercules don't belong in civ"). As long as the competition doesn't excel in bringing out a statement game for either niche and forcing Civ to settle its own identity, I don't see the conflict resolving anytime soon.

 

[protocol7]

My understanding is that the new civ and units killed all the old civ ones and moved into the ruins of your civ, to build on top of it. Because this happens offscreen there’s no real way to give the player agency I don’t think. Though maybe it would be fun to kill your own civ with the new one each game.

 

[Yzman]

Where are you getting "of the Romans?"

I'm proposing Benjamin Franklin, of America, with the American city list. For the entire game, so there is some continuity in where his empire his and who founded which city originally.

And a small subscript that says "playing with the bonuses of the Mongols in the Ancient Age" or "Non-historical abilities: Mongol" or some other small note that lets other players know what his abilities are.

I literally copied that from krikkits proposal...I even quote it in post 37.

Just very odd that we are talking we don't like Ben Franklin if the Mongols...yet you still wanna use their abilities. It just makes no gameplay sense and is even farther detached from traditional civ. If you want to have the abilities of the Mongols...be the Mongols. Your proposal makes the civ lose ALL their identify, even more than others complained. So now when I am playing, I see Franklin and I have to read that he has bonuses if Mongols instead of America. So the only difference in your proposal from the game besides it bring way more awkward...is city names. That is it. Rename your cities then if that is the deciding feature here. I'm sure a mod can even just change the city name list.

 

[UWHabs]

I literally copied that from krikkits proposal...I even quote it in post 37.

Just very odd that we are talking we don't like Ben Franklin if the Mongols...yet you still wanna use their abilities. It just makes no gameplay sense and is even farther detached from traditional civ. If you want to have the abilities of the Mongols...be the Mongols. Your proposal makes the civ lose ALL their identify, even more than others complained. So now when I am playing, I see Franklin and I have to read that he has bonuses if Mongols instead of America. So the only difference in your proposal from the game besides it bring way more awkward...is city names. That is it. Rename your cities then if that is the deciding feature here. I'm sure a mod can even just change the city name list.

Yeah, I think if you want to skip the civ changing, I'd rather have Ben Franklin of "Generic Exploration America" rather than "America (but actually Mongol)". I don't necessarily hate bringing in random traditions if that's how you want to handle it, so yeah, maybe your Generic Exploration America has an "American Baghatur" tradition to give you increased combat strength on cavalry units, if you want to make sure the generic civ has some bonuses available to them.

 

[gamemaster3000]

A more realistic suggestion would be to have the player's tag as the name instead of the leader.

 

[sixty4half]

It'll be "sixty4half as Napoleon's Emperor personna with Mayan civ bonuses with United States named settlements"



You're people turn to one another and begin to ask the question, "Who are we?"