pre-release info New First Look: Lafayette

pre-release info
I think it's going to be a problem for people who play against random opponents. If the game selects Augustus, Ben Franklin, Lafayette, Machiavelli, and Napoleon, that "the AI favors historical paths" thing is flying straight out the window.
I hope they add soon an option at start for the game where you can randomize the AI associations in some form. Like making so AI leaders both at game start and when civ switching pick random civs instead of associated ones. Or at least, in case they make so the civ switching paths are generally balanced paths for the AI to pick in succession and work well, then at least randomize which path a leader will pick (instead of having Napoleon, being randomly picked with a path that lead to French Empire, in a game they may be given the India path, etc.).
 
I hope they add soon an option at start for the game where you can randomize the AI associations in some form. Like making so AI leaders both at game start and when civ switching pick random civs instead of associated ones. Or at least, in case they make so the civ switching paths are generally balanced paths for the AI to pick in succession and work well, then at least randomize which path a leader will pick (instead of having Napoleon, being randomly picked with a path that lead to French Empire, in a game they may be given the India path, etc.).
While I don't particularly want that, I'm sure it will be added sooner or later for the people that do. I'm more interested in seeing Civ6's leader pool return so I can control the randomization to a certain extent.
 
While I don't particularly want that, I'm sure it will be added sooner or later for the people that do. I'm more interested in seeing Civ6's leader pool return so I can control the randomization to a certain extent.
it feels more and more evident to me that between the leader pass and new horizons the dev team knew they really wanted to go in the decoupled direction after civ 6.

the biggest difference to me is that civ 6’s leader choices felt far more inspired in general to begin with, so the well-known leaders that came later on (like Theodora, Julius Caesar) didn’t feel as basic or wrong

civ 7’s misstep to me is that it picked up from the leader pass rather than choosing leaders appropriate for the start—how hard would it be to give us a roman emperor who’s famous, successful and accomplished, but not Augustus Caesar, like Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Antonious Pius—none of whom have appeared before)

giving us repeated american or french leaders wouldn’t be unfortunate if they’d waited until the third expansion to do it, but from launch it feels limiting.
 
the biggest difference to me is that civ 6’s leader choices felt far more inspired in general to begin with, so the well-known leaders that came later on (like Theodora, Julius Caesar) didn’t feel as basic or wrong
Yes, the bulk of Civ7's leader choices have been very boring and predictable. I do appreciate some of the more surprising choices like Ibn Battuta, Harriet Tubman, and (in a vacuum where Napoleon and Charlemagne weren't there) Lafayette, but the bulk of the choices have been the same old faces or very uninspired new faces. As has been said elsewhere, I think they're counterbalancing the bolder civ choices, but I do hope we get some bolder leader choices as well later on. I'm missing my Hojo Tokimune, Jadwiga, CdM, Tamar, and other interesting choices who aren't Standard Average Sixth Grade Textbook choices.
 
Yes, the bulk of Civ7's leader choices have been very boring and predictable. I do appreciate some of the more surprising choices like Ibn Battuta, Harriet Tubman, and (in a vacuum where Napoleon and Charlemagne weren't there) Lafayette, but the bulk of the choices have been the same old faces or very uninspired new faces. As has been said elsewhere, I think they're counterbalancing the bolder civ choices, but I do hope we get some bolder leader choices as well later on. I'm missing my Hojo Tokimune, Jadwiga, CdM, Tamar, and other interesting choices who aren't Standard Average Sixth Grade Textbook choices.
so many of them feel like easily missed opportunities too—india has never had mughal representation before, Akbar is both in a 6th grade textbook AND a unique choice

Lili’uokalani would’ve been a lay-up considering that we have both Hawai’i AND a need for modern-era leaders

obviously agree that our Ibn Battuta/Lafayette/Harriet Tubman/Machiavelli choices are good in a vacuum, but it just does feel like it’s a little bit of a missed opportunity, especially since i do think the boldness of the civ choices is a bit overstated—we got some bold choices early on but pretty much everything else has been basic and expectable
 
i do think the boldness of the civ choices is a bit overstated—we got some bold choices early on but pretty much everything else has been basic and expectable
To be fair, I think Antiquity is where civ-switching creates the most opportunities--like the Mississippians, for example. In the future we might well see Minoa and Harappa, civs that would not have been possible when they needed leaders. (I don't want FXS to go overboard with archaeological cultures. I don't need Corded Ware culture, Poverty Point culture, or Jeulmun Pottery culture in my game--but for proto-historic cultures with limited records and no languages or leaders, it definitely feels like a fresh opportunity.) There are some interesting choices in Exploration as well (I certainly never expected to see Hawai'i in the base game, and I'm still very confused about their unlocks in the absence of a Hawai'ian leader). Modern is definitely very predictable, but Modern is always the least interesting to me anyway. A few outliers like Qing, Mughals, and Buganda at least give it a little spice.
 
To be fair, I think Antiquity is where civ-switching creates the most opportunities--like the Mississippians, for example. In the future we might well see Minoa and Harappa, civs that would not have been possible when they needed leaders. (I don't want FXS to go overboard with archaeological cultures. I don't need Corded Ware culture, Poverty Point culture, or Jeulmun Pottery culture in my game--but for proto-historic cultures with limited records and no languages or leaders, it definitely feels like a fresh opportunity.) There are some interesting choices in Exploration as well (I certainly never expected to see Hawai'i in the base game, and I'm still very confused about their unlocks in the absence of a Hawai'ian leader). Modern is definitely very predictable, but Modern is always the least interesting to me anyway. A few outliers like Qing, Mughals, and Buganda at least give it a little spice.
all very fair points—i agree with antiquity to be sure. hawaii and chola do stand out to me as unique choices as well.

i don’t know that i’d classify qing and mughals as “unexpected” beyond the fact that we’re getting deblobbed india and china at-launch, but as two of the most important centers of civilization across history consistently, i somewhat expected both to get launch full-paths, so maybe that’s just me. buganda is definitely new and unexpected, so there’s that.

i just meant by “in the start” in the sense that a lot of the surprising civ choices were front loaded in the announcement—we found out about most of them real quick.
 
so many of them feel like easily missed opportunities too—india has never had mughal representation before, Akbar is both in a 6th grade textbook AND a unique choice

Lili’uokalani would’ve been a lay-up considering that we have both Hawai’i AND a need for modern-era leaders

obviously agree that our Ibn Battuta/Lafayette/Harriet Tubman/Machiavelli choices are good in a vacuum, but it just does feel like it’s a little bit of a missed opportunity, especially since i do think the boldness of the civ choices is a bit overstated—we got some bold choices early on but pretty much everything else has been basic and expectable
The good thing about France having so many leaders is that it makes me hopeful for China, India, Egypt, and Japan to get more leaders as well. Just a few months ago, I didn’t think civs could have more than one associated leader. I really like Ashoka and Hatshepsut, but I agree that India and Egypt need more leaders in the future. I sincerely hope another Chinese leader doesn’t take too long to arrive, and personally, I’d love one from the Tang since we don’t have that dynasty represented as a civ. I’m also looking forward to another Japanese leader because Himiko doesn’t interest me much.
 
The good thing about France having so many leaders is that it makes me hopeful for China, India, Egypt, and Japan to get more leaders as well. Just a few months ago, I didn’t think civs could have more than one associated leader. I really like Ashoka and Hatshepsut, but I agree that India and Egypt need more leaders in the future. I sincerely hope another Chinese leader doesn’t take too long to arrive, and personally, I’d love one from the Tang since we don’t have that dynasty represented as a civ. I’m also looking forward to another Japanese leader because Himiko doesn’t interest me much.
yeah those 4, plus persia, england, russia and arabia prob have the strongest claims to getting additional leaders.

i’m still opposed to getting multiple leaders from one place when most civs will prob go their entire lifetime in the game without a leader though—i know they’re meant to be decoupled, but it feels less immersive to play civs that don’t have leaders attached, plus for many ppl the new civs are wishlist items that they always wanted an attached leader for—having all three of lafayette, tubman and franklin is taking away spots (both right now, and in total) from civs that might never get leaders (like Buganda)

civs that can’t reasonably have leaders are a seperate thing, ofc
 
Since both versions of Napoleon are extras, could they possibly not count toward the leader count. Leaving 2 unrevealed?
 
Lafayette is an awesome choice and one of my favorite historical figures (Big fan of revolutions lol). But...now France has 2 leaders too.

Bigger issue: And even as an American, I'm genuinely POd that America is getting 3 "American" leaders (Controversially 4 if you count Tecumseh given his history wth conflict with the US) in the base game. Like, I go to play Civ to play a simulated WORLD history...not just one nation that's less than 300 years old. I don't understand how they are picking leaders but America has never been left out of any Civ game in terms of representation so these continued choices baffle me. Is this to please the game awards maybe?

On a side note...is there seriously a reason why they won't make Toussaint l'Overture a leader? They went with two lesser known revolutionaries to represent the 1750s-1850s age of revolution in the USA meanwhile he is right there and had another really cool story.
 
Since both versions of Napoleon are extras, could they possibly not count toward the leader count. Leaving 2 unrevealed?
I think they’re counting all content possible to obtain as “on launch.” They’ve included the pre order bonuses and the edition personas.
 
all very fair points—i agree with antiquity to be sure. hawaii and chola do stand out to me as unique choices as well.

i don’t know that i’d classify qing and mughals as “unexpected” beyond the fact that we’re getting deblobbed india and china at-launch, but as two of the most important centers of civilization across history consistently, i somewhat expected both to get launch full-paths, so maybe that’s just me. buganda is definitely new and unexpected, so there’s that.

i just meant by “in the start” in the sense that a lot of the surprising civ choices were front loaded in the announcement—we found out about most of them real quick.
If Mughals aren't considered unexpected, then wouldn't Chola be unexpected as well considering they are part of the deblobbed India pathway? Unless you are saying that originally the Mughals at Exploration into Modern India was more likely a given.
On a side note...is there seriously a reason why they won't make Toussaint l'Overture a leader? They went with two lesser known revolutionaries to represent the 1750s-1850s age of revolution in the USA meanwhile he is right there and had another really cool story.
Well, releasing him would have checked all the boxes to where we might not have needed Tubman, Lafayette, or Napoleon.
 
If Mughals aren't considered unexpected, then wouldn't Chola be unexpected as well considering they are part of the deblobbed India pathway? Unless you are saying that originally the Mughals at Exploration into Modern India was more likely a given.
i mentioned that the chola is also unexpected earlier
Well, releasing him would have checked all the boxes to where we might not have needed Tubman, Lafayette, or Napoleon.
agreed
 
i mentioned that the chola is also unexpected earlier
Sorry I meant considering India was shown to be deblobbed from the start than that would make the Chola actually expected to show up.
 
Sorry I meant considering India was shown to be deblobbed from the start than that would make the Chola actually expected to show up
i think the chola aren’t the most well-known indian medieval/rennaissance peoples—the marathis, rajputs, delhi sultanate, etc. have a little bit more notoriety. south india in general just tends to be forgotten when the average person thinks about india as well.
 
i think the chola aren’t the most well-known indian medieval/rennaissance peoples—the marathis, rajputs, delhi sultanate, etc. have a little bit more notoriety. south india in general just tends to be forgotten when the average person thinks about india as well.
Sure, but they do fit the idea and theme of the Exploration Age. I'm also pretty sure they didn't want to concentrate all the civs to the northern part, so in that regard I'm not surprised they were chosen.
 
Sure, but they do fit the idea and theme of the Exploration Age. I'm also pretty sure they didn't want to concentrate all the civs to the northern part, so in that regard I'm not surprised they were chosen
for sure
 
Back
Top Bottom