pre-release info New First Look: Lafayette

[Seek]

Lafayette’s agenda is mystifying, it has nothing to do with any of his abilities. I think this takes the cake for worst one (perhaps apart from Trung Trac, whose agenda is opposite of what it should be).

 

[evonannoredars]

If you accept the ESRB leak, it's only one we don't know: Himiko (confirmed), Napoleon (confirmed), Frederick the Great (implied), Catherine the Great (implied), and one unknown. Three of them (including Napoleon) will have personae.

I'll admit the way I've grouped these is a little awkward and probably could be done better, but for a rough sense of the leader distribution that means

1 Native North American Leader (Tecumseh)*
1 South American Leader (Pachacuti)
2 African Leaders (Amina, Ibn Battuta)
2 Near East Leaders (Hatshepsut, Xerxes)
4 Asian Leaders (Ashoka, Confucius, Trung Trac, Himiko)
10 Western Leaders (Napoleon, Frederick, Catherine, Augustus, Benjamin Franklin, Charlemagne, Harriet Tubman, Lafayette, Isabella, Machiavelli) (or perhaps better 2/3 modern American and 8/7 European, I'm not sure how I feel counting Harriet Tubman as a western leader)
+ 1 unknown

*Mandatory DLC disclaimer they always have

 

[Zaarin]

I think this takes the cake for worst one (perhaps apart from Trung Trac, whose agenda is opposite of what it should be).

Amina's is the worst to me, as it basically can be summarized as "hates people who exist." Trung's makes sense to me: she hates empires who have been in lots of wars; she's supposed to be taking down the game's "bullies." I still hate the agenda system, but I can at least see what they were aiming for with Trung.

 

[Seek]

Amina's is the worst to me, as it basically can be summarized as "hates people who exist." Trung's makes sense to me: she hates empires who have been in lots of wars; she's supposed to be taking down the game's "bullies." I still hate the agenda system, but I can at least see what they were aiming for with Trung.

I had a feeling you might chime in on this post!

Amina’s agenda ties in with her abilities, though (as do all the leaders aside from the two in my post), which is great. She has a strong military ability relating to her agenda so she should be looking to obtain land from those who are disadvantaged in it.

What would impel Trung Trac to go after strong civs, though? Seems she should be aiming for militarily weak civs - or better yet, civs with a lot of Tropical tiles.

And Lafayette’s agenda seems nonsensical.

 

[Zaarin]

Amina’s agenda ties in with her abilities, though (as do all the leaders aside from the two in my post), which is great. She has a strong military ability relating to her agenda so she should be looking to obtain land from those who are disadvantaged in it.

What would impel Trung Trac to go after string civs, though? Seems she should be aiming for militarily weak civs - or better yet, civs with a lot of Tropical tiles.

If we have to have agendas, I'd rather they be flavorful rather than mechanical. To me, "hates civs who have X terrain" like Amina and Pachacuti are the worst.

 

[Mudkip1001]

And Lafayette’s agenda seems nonsensical.

I think they grafted Napoleon the III's potential agenda of Haussmann's Renovation of Paris onto Lafyette lol.

 

[Gen.Washington]

If we have to have agendas, I'd rather they be flavorful rather than mechanical. To me, "hates civs who have X terrain" like Amina and Pachacuti are the worst.

The leader flavors in Civ V are still better than the agendas system by far. Gave them each an actual personality that didn't feel gamey.

 

[Zaarin]

The leader flavors in Civ V are still better than the agendas system by far. Gave them each an actual personality that didn't feel gamey.

It's one of the only things Civ5 did well, IMO.

 

[Seek]

If we have to have agendas, I'd rather they be flavorful rather than mechanical. To me, "hates civs who have X terrain" like Amina and Pachacuti are the worst.

And I am the opposite.

“Flavorful” agendas end up feeling arbitrary and forced, especially since there is no in-game explanation describing whence the flavor originated.

I prefer my strategy game opponents to act, well, strategically.

 

[Gen.Washington]

It's one of the only things Civ5 did well, IMO.

I wouldn't go that far as I'm a certified Civ V lover, but while I can admit other games have various advantages compared to V, the leaders (and leader screens) are still completely unmatched.

 

[Zaarin]

“Flavorful” agendas end up feeling arbitrary and forced, especially since there is no in-game explanation describing whence the flavor originated.

I prefer my strategy game opponents to act, well, strategically.

I prefer my opponents to act rationally or humanly, and the agenda system is just generally antithetical to that.

I wouldn't go that far as I'm a certified Civ V lover, but while I can admit other games have various advantages compared to V, the leaders (and leader screens) are still completely unmatched.

Civ5 remains my least favorite entry in the franchise. But the leader personalities were a very good feature I would have liked to have seen return.

 

[SirMediocrity]

I can't say that I expected to see Lafayette in Civilization VII (considering we're already getting Napoleon), but he certainly fits in with the new leader formula! He's one of the most interesting figures from the American and French revolutions, so I'm quite happy to see him included (although having two [technically three French leaders if you count alternate personas] is a bit much at launch).

P.S. - Does this mean we'll get Tadeusz Kościuszko next?

 

[Gen.Washington]

Civ5 remains my least favorite entry in the franchise. But the leader personalities were a very good feature I would have liked to have seen return.

I can smell a Civ IV enjoyer from a mile away

 

[untitledjuan]

It seems that having a person in your civs history that has connections with the US is a plus too so if the Netherlands gets a leader it will probably be Peter Stuyvesant even if he only lead a small insignificant colony (at the time New Amsterdam/York was just that) and he was an biggot, but it was in what now is the modern US.

That's so true and it shows in Civ7. Just look at the list of Unique Unit Conquistador names for the Spanish Civilization, their are almost all linked to the Spanish exploration of modern-day USA, plus Cortés and Pizarro. I bet the Spanish conquistadors who founded Buenos Aires and Bogotá are waaay more historically important than some Spanish guys who just happened to get lost in Texas or Florida.

 

[Krajzen]

Very happy for Lafayette, but I’m not a fan of “French Empire” as the official name for the French Civ.

Yeah, what if I'm playing as city state France akin to Singapore, or communist France, or nordic style pacifist social democratic France?


I can't say I'm very excited about France getting second leader (third if you count Charlemagne) and that leader being from the exact same era as Napoleon, whereas we have so many civs with no leaders and so many underused centuries of French history. I'd be infinotely more excited by the Cardinal Richelieu (finally a game where he can appear despite not being a leader) or even Joan of Arc (same), not to mention Louis XIV or Louis XII etc.

 

[Zaarin]

I can smell a Civ IV enjoyer from a mile away

Civ6, actually. I don't share many Civvers nostalgia for Civ4. It was a nice game in its day (certainly better than Civ5 IMO), but it hasn't aged well.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Civ3 was the worst one but also the one I played the most (had a lot of time on my hands).

 

[seasnake]

I view this as a second French leader who had international impact more than a third American leader. I think it's interesting that America's two greatest leaders (Washington and Lincoln) are not in the game yet. Down the line I would love for there to be a leader pack featuring Washington and Cincinnatus one day, but there are many things I would rather see happen first.

 

[untitledjuan]

Actually, the underrepresented continent is easily Asia. We have: a token Chinese leader, a token Indian leader, a token Japanese leader, a token Persian leader and a token SEA leader. That's about as close to a bare minimum as it gets. We still don't have anyone representing Central Asia, the Turks or Mesopotamia. I hope the last unrevealed leader is someone that does.

America is also looking bleak with it's 4.5 leaders, 2.5 of which are America-adjacent, but the choices there are generally more inspired and interesting.

Northern America (US, Canada, Greenland) is extremely overrepresented compared to Latin America and the Caribbean.

Northern America:
-Tecumseh
-Benjamin Franklin
-Harriet Tubman
-Lafayette

Latin America+Caribbean
-Pachacuti

My wishlist for future Latin American leaders would be:
-Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz (Mexico/Spain)
-Pedro I (Brazil/Portugal)
-Simón Bolívar (Colombia)
-Policarpa Salavarrieta (Colombia)
-Benkos Biohó (Palenque: African Free Slaves in South America)
-José de San Martín (Argentina)

For Native leaders from Latin America:
-Moctezuma (Aztec)
-Anacaona (Arawak)
-Agüeybaná (Taíno/Arawak)
-Nemequene (Muisca)
-Lautaro (Mapuche)

 

[seasnake]

Civ6, actually. I don't share many Civvers nostalgia for Civ4. It was a nice game in its day (certainly better than Civ5 IMO), but it hasn't aged well.

I came in on civ III, and would rank them as:

Civ IV
Civ V
Civ III
Civ VI