Never before in this game, I guess.

[AsH2]

So we can think in how many people would like to play as each civ. I'm brazilian but I just play as Pedro II once.
How many people like to listen Bob Marley and don't believe in Rastafari-faith?

I guess it time to look to Africa and what think, what can call the atention of new players. I'm giving great ideas to call atention of Black-America community as Shango leading Oyo Empire (And also Nigerians would like to see Shango in this game).

Nowadays this game is as Hollywood, making the same was made before. If this game want to sell more, they need to be Bollywood or Nollywood, making histories by others perspectives. Stop to looking the same sources as ever and try to find natives and ask what they think about they self.

Actually, I would rather see them take a step back (from this utterly american format of exploiting cultures) and let Civ7 base game focus on dynamics than current static stereotyping images (that could remain but as a game mode). The base format should be inclusive and honouring cultures - players would have to earn them instead of getting them as free-picked gift.

 

[Patine]

Actually, I would rather see them take a step back (from this utterly american format of exploiting cultures) and let Civ7 base game focus on dynamics than current static stereotyping images (that could remain but as a game mode). The base format should be inclusive and honouring cultures - players would have to earn them instead of getting them as picked gift.

I'm not clear on EXACTLY what you mean, here.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I voted for Tupi/Guarani, Haiti, Cherokee, and Oyo. Vietnam is a foregone conclusion at this point. None of the other options interest me much.

I would prefer we get a couple more North American civs than Haiti or the Tupi/Guarani, and the Berber or Swahili over the Oyo or anything along the Guinea Coast.

 

[AsH2]

I'm not clear on EXACTLY what you mean, here.

hehe Ok, I'll make a try to evolve it a bit..
I think this current format of picking a leader and civ would better be an optional game mode.
So instead of picking a fully preset civ at game setup, I'd rather have a minimal preset to choice only a "starting alignment" (aspect) - like currently civs are considered scientific, cultural, warmongers, et c.
Then depending on map and what's been done, cultures will rise and (possible) adopted - ie a civ is taking form (and then there can be the Test of Time challenge).

There are more thoughts around it and I'm trying to put them together to something sensible in https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ideas-for-the-perfect-4x-historical-game.654805

 

[fredrikslicer]

hehe Ok, I'll make a try to evolve it a bit..
I think this current format of picking a leader and civ would better be an optional game mode.
So instead of picking a fully preset civ at game setup, I'd rather have a minimal preset to choice only a "starting alignment" (aspect) - like currently civs are considered scientific, cultural, warmongers, et c.
Then depending on map and what's been done, cultures will rise and (possible) adopted - ie a civ is taking form (and then there can be the Test of Time challenge).

There are more thoughts around it and I'm trying to put them together to something sensible in https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ideas-for-the-perfect-4x-historical-game.654805

While this "Rise of civilizations" sounds delightful I feel it would end up to far out of the brands appeal zone so to speak. It would probably be better served as a seperate franchise

 

[Zaarin]

hehe Ok, I'll make a try to evolve it a bit..
I think this current format of picking a leader and civ would better be an optional game mode.
So instead of picking a fully preset civ at game setup, I'd rather have a minimal preset to choice only a "starting alignment" (aspect) - like currently civs are considered scientific, cultural, warmongers, et c.
Then depending on map and what's been done, cultures will rise and (possible) adopted - ie a civ is taking form (and then there can be the Test of Time challenge).

I love the idea of civ bonuses developing more dynamically. However, forgoing leader personifications would be a grave error on Firaxis' part; they need to double down on that to distinguish themselves from competitors like Humankind.

 

[Henri Christophe]

I like to pic civs, I feel friend of Hiawatha, he always is the last Civ I attack, he is kind of a friend to me.

I'm very upset with Kamehameha and Suleiman, I never set a game with they
*I still playing civ 5 more than civ 6*

 

[AsH2]

While this "Rise of civilizations" sounds delightful I feel it would end up to far out of the brands appeal zone so to speak. It would probably be better served as a seperate franchise

I love the idea of civ bonuses developing more dynamically. However, forgoing leader personifications would be a grave error on Firaxis' part; they need to double down on that to distinguish themselves from competitors like Humankind.

I'm not suggesting "leader personifications" should be forgone. I just think it would better been put into an optional game mode.
That way Firaxis could let us (players) encounter cultures from every corner of the whole (real) world and actually learn something by playing (which used to be one of this brand's signum).
To keep claiming cultures are something static, is rather "alternative" than "true" in these days of 2020.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm not suggesting "leader personifications" should be forgone. I just think it would better been put into an optional game mode.

Putting them on an optional layer, though, is backing off on them, when Firaxis' best strategy at this point is to double down on them.

To keep claiming cultures are something static, is rather "alternative" than "true" in these days of 2020.

I feel like this is a bit of a straw man, as I haven't seen anyone make this claim...

 

[AsH2]

..best strategy at this point is to double down on them.

That could be famous last words for a lot of things, though common failures rarely made their way into history books.

I feel like this is a bit of a straw man, as I haven't seen anyone make this claim...

Of course not, this forum is focused on yields and most just can't think outside the box (the american format).

 

[Henri Christophe]

If I understand your idea Ash2,I would to make a suggestion inside your idea.

If each nation have more than one leader? Looking straigh geography of the land of nowaday country, which nation have lived in each boarder and make their leader per age.

Confuse? Let me give examples.
Sumeria can start with Gilgamesh and have Saddam Hussein in Atomic Era.
Brazil can have Tupi in ancitent times and Getúlio Vargas in Atomic Era (Pedro II in the middle)
USA starts as Iroquois and Mexico as Mexica-Aztec.
South Africa starts as Zulu and finish as Nelson Mandela (Paul Kruger in the middle).
France start as the Gauls, after the Franks, Kaiser-César in the middle and going on... (France deserve a leader per era)

Civs as Rome the player can choice what to become after, it means, you can finish as Italy or Turkey in late game (Or Austria, or Russia)
But, if you choice Germany you can also finish as Austria if none of player had made it before.

Maybe, if the leaders was more Cartoonish it can make more of them, more people will be happy to see their our own avatar on this game.

 

[Patine]

If I understand your idea Ash2,I would to make a suggestion inside your idea.

If each nation have more than one leader? Looking straigh geography of the land of nowaday country, which nation have lived in each boarder and make their leader per age.

Confuse? Let me give examples.
Sumeria can start with Gilgamesh and have Saddam Hussein in Atomic Era.
Brazil can have Tupi in ancitent times and Getúlio Vargas in Atomic Era (Pedro II in the middle)

Civs as Rome the player can choice what to become after, it means, you can finish as Italy or Turkey in late game (Or Austria, or Russia)
But, if you choice Germany you can also finish as Austria if none of player had made it before.

Maybe, if the leaders was more Cartoonish it can make more of them, more people will be happy to see their our own avatar on this game.

Why are you obsessed with inserting modern leaders with horrible track records and who led to utter ruin for their countries? Just because they've been in the news in recent memory? It is a wretched method to build leaders for this game off of, really, and you should disabuse yourself of that habit.

 

[Henri Christophe]

You don't get my point. I just give an example about a modern era leader, I forgot it is so controversial to some players...

 

[AsH2]

If I understand your idea Ash2,I would to make a suggestion inside your idea.

If each nation have more than one leader? Looking straigh geography of the land of nowaday country, which nation have lived in each boarder and make their leader per age.

Confuse? Let me give examples.
Sumeria can start with Gilgamesh and have Saddam Hussein in Atomic Era.
Brazil can have Tupi in ancitent times and Getúlio Vargas in Atomic Era (Pedro II in the middle)
USA starts as Iroquois and Mexico as Mexica-Aztec.
South Africa starts as Zulu and finish as Nelson Mandela (Paul Kruger in the middle).
France start as the Gauls, after the Franks, Kaiser-César in the middle and going on... (France deserve a leader per era)

Civs as Rome the player can choice what to become after, it means, you can finish as Italy or Turkey in late game (Or Austria, or Russia)
But, if you choice Germany you can also finish as Austria if none of player had made it before.

Maybe, if the leaders was more Cartoonish it can make more of them, more people will be happy to see their our own avatar on this game.

Not really. That's more what Humankind is doing.

I don't mind that some people prefer to play Civilization as an extremely mechanics-heavy Risk.
I do mind some of them think that what they prefer should be what Civilization is all about.

 

[AsH2]

If I understand your idea Ash2,I would to make a suggestion inside your idea.

If each nation have more than one leader? Looking straigh geography of the land of nowaday country, which nation have lived in each boarder and make their leader per age.
..
Civs as Rome the player can choice what to become after, it means, you can finish as Italy or Turkey in late game (Or Austria, or Russia)
But, if you choice Germany you can also finish as Austria if none of player had made it before.

Maybe, if the leaders was more Cartoonish it can make more of them, more people will be happy to see their our own avatar on this game.

While this "Rise of civilizations" sounds delightful I feel it would end up to far out of the brands appeal zone so to speak. It would probably be better served as a seperate franchise

I love the idea of civ bonuses developing more dynamically. However, forgoing leader personifications would be a grave error on Firaxis' part; they need to double down on that to distinguish themselves from competitors like Humankind.

Having a second or third thought about this, game modes (GM) and victory conditions (VC); I think there could be three (3) separate play modes - scenario, classic and epic.
What I suggest would be epic, while what's already in civ6 would be somewhat cut up into game modes and put in classic.
I think they could tie specific VC to specific game modes - eg Immortal leaders GM and Diplomatic VC, Missionary GM and Religious VC - to let those optional GM be some fantastic additions to a realistic base game.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Sorry dude, I just can't understand your idea very well.
What exactly do you want to change?

 

[AsH2]

Sorry. I meant those are changes for Civ7.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Sorry. I meant those are changes for Civ7.

that I understand.
Let's set an hypothetical game as Aztec in Deity. How should your Civ 7 game began?

I read your forum, your posts, I can't full understand your idea.

 

[Patine]

Hello guys,

I made my wishlist of never before in this game of civlizations and leaders.

Let's vote?
Which you also would like to see in this game?

Many of these options should logically form the basis of City-States and not whole Civ's, realistically.

 

[Henri Christophe]

Many of these options should logically form the basis of City-States and not whole Civ's, realistically.

Some are already represented by city states as Olmecs and Ashante.
Olmecs I'm cool because La Venta city state is the best city state in the game, next to my favorite Civ (The Aztec) in world map and a very good suzerain effect, my last game as Aztecs I made giant heads over everywhere in world map.

Kumasi was a cool city state but not amazing, it should be very better become a Civilization.


Maybe Palmares can become a city state (SOuth America is very empity)