pre-release info New First Look: Machiavelli

[kaspergm]

Every time I see an agenda my heart breaks one tiny bit

Amen.

But he looks great.

I guess his model along with Xerxes gives us some hope that there will be reworked models for Augustus and some of the leaders we saw first before release of game.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

He loves the face-eating leopards until they eat his face

 

[UWHabs]

They're certainly branching out in leader selections with the new system.

 

[chaosprophet]

Damn, his abilities seems crazy. While he has the diplomatic attribute and the video recommends him with diplomatic civs, I think he would go better with militaristic ones, as he abilities would make he great for war. And if you get a civ with the attribute militaristic, that means you also get militaristic attribute points to upgrade him in that direction, iirc.

 

[pokiehl]

Also not sure that taking everything in The Prince at face-value rather than as an ironic satire of the immorality of other mirrors-for-princes manuals is fully correct.

The idea that The Prince is satire gained credence like a century ago but today is falling out of favor. At the very least, there's much debate to be had about this.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Damn, his abilities seems crazy. While he has the diplomatic attribute and the video recommends him with diplomatic civs, I think he would go better with militaristic ones, as he abilities would make he great for war. And if you get a civ with the attribute militaristic, that means you also get militaristic attribute points to upgrade him in that direction, iirc.

He seems like a generalist. You can use the influence to get Science, Culture, Gold, trade agreements, declare war, perform espionage, support others' wars, deal with independent peoples. He's versatile.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

God, how I LOVE this animation style! I know I might be in the minority (I remember at the beginning how so many people loathed the "two leaders together" diplomacy screen style), but it's so vivid, so alive, so endearing!

And I love how, when war is decleared, all leaders are sort of aggressive and ready to fight, but Machiavelli is like... teasing and smirking.

Can't wait to play him or have him against me. Should be fun, his abilities are really intriguing as well.

 

[Willie5000]

Why? Wouldn’t it be better to use actual leaders and not political philosophers?!?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'd really like to know what's in the diplomatic attribute tree now.

 

[chaosprophet]

He seems like a generalist. You can use the influence to get Science, Culture, Gold, trade agreements, declare war, perform espionage, support others' wars, deal with independent peoples. He's versatile.

The influence part, yes. But the being able to levy troops from any city state, being able to do a formal war regardless of relationship, and the gold makes him pretty good at war imo. If you have a good relationship with someone you can still stab them in the back, if you have a bad one you can farm gold by trying things with them that they will likely reject, and use that gold to levy troops for a war.

 

[CivKirk64]

Or none. He could be a stray leader with no signifcant civ to lead.

I'm hoping he is a stray, I was hoping for this yesterday when I thought Magellan would be a cool leader without adding Portugal.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

The influence part, yes. But the being able to levy troops from any city state, being able to do a formal war regardless of relationship, and the gold makes him pretty good at war imo. If you have a good relationship with someone you can still stab them in the back, if you have a bad one you can farm gold by trying things with them that they will likely reject, and use that gold to levy troops for a war.

I think the Influence probably levies units now, since most of your interactions with Independent Peoples involves Influence.

 

[gdr_willter]

Why? Wouldn’t it be better to use actual leaders and not political philosophers?!?

Continued from the leader discussion thread, just let them have some front seats. We can met the kings and emperors later.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Why? Wouldn’t it be better to use actual leaders and not political philosophers?!?

Considering he's the first post Roman leader from Italy, I'll give him a pass. I like this choice better than Confucius when there were plenty of other emperors to choose from.

I'm hoping he is a stray, I was hoping for this yesterday when I thought Magellan would be a cool leader without adding Portugal.

Definitely a stray for the base game. I'll be surprised if there's not a three age Italian path by the games end.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Considering he's the first post Roman leader from Italy

Except Catherine de Medici and Enrico Dandolo.

 

[Nikolai II]

Why? Wouldn’t it be better to use actual leaders and not political philosophers?!?

No, not really. Leaders can be more than one kind of leaders, I love it. Of , even in previous civs it wasn’t always actual leaders we got. Remember we got Gandhi from the start.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Damn, his abilities seems crazy. While he has the diplomatic attribute and the video recommends him with diplomatic civs, I think he would go better with militaristic ones, as he abilities would make he great for war. And if you get a civ with the attribute militaristic, that means you also get militaristic attribute points to upgrade him in that direction, iirc.

Yeah. I want to play a game as Machiavelli and Rome to combine his diplomatic and economic bonuses with Rome's militaristic and expansionist bonuses.

 

[Xandinho]

Why? Wouldn’t it be better to use actual leaders and not political philosophers?!?

I think Machiavelli is the best and most interesting non-leader personality we could have as a leader, so in this case, he doesn't bother me. Definitely much more fitting than Confucius.

 

[Atlas627]

I've always found this perception of Diplomacy (one of the all time greatest board games IMO) to be quite funny. Superficially the game is about diplomacy, but if you dig one layer deeper then it's obviously about betrayal. But look deeper than that and actually being honest and loyal to your allies 99% of the time is the best move. Especially if you play with the same people repeatedly. Not betraying your allies, and waiting for the other coalition to explode is the best way of being on the winning side. But the 1% of the time when you really dig the knife in, or even just the possibility that someone might do that, is what the game hinges around. Found that out when I used to play online daily games (ie, one move per day) a lot; I don't think I've ever finished an actual game in person before everyone was too drunk to remember what colour they were.

And unfortunately, this perception reinforces itself, as the only people who end up getting into Diplomacy are the ones who've heard of this perception and actively want it. I've introduced a couple dozen people to the game and showed them you can win while being 100% honest all the time, but I've also played with strangers who play regularly and none of them believed I could possibly be honest 100% and so they all backstabbed me simultaneously: an obvious meta that had formed between them because they all like to backstab.

I think this suits Machiavelli very well. He can be honest with his dealings, because he doesn't have to lie to get what he wants, he has to play you like a fiddle. Go to war with other people and he'll be happy. Decline his offers and he'll be happy. Accept his offers and he'll be happy too.

 

[Sagax]

No, not really. Leaders can be more than one kind of leaders, I love it. Of , even in previous civs it wasn’t always actual leaders we got. Remember we got Gandhi from the start.

Which makes his current absence ironic, seeing how Gandhi would be the perfect fit for Civ 7’s definition of leaders. Although, I can see them still adding him as “technically a stray” leader, even in the base game when Ashoka is already there.