pre-release info New First Look: Machiavelli

[GeneralZift]

At least this one seems more unique. Will love you if you attack others, but not him.

Actually, this is finally something that caught my eye:

The Spider: If not at war with Machiavelli, increase Relationship by Medium Amount for each other war.

Could it be they finally listened to my feedback? And that it now scales, instead of just being a boring toggle?

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.

Yea you are both right. He looks nice. And his agenda is better designed than previous agendas for sure. So it's got that going for it.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Of course he advised that.

It's a ploy, so that he would be able to levy them himself.

I think the idea with levying isn't that he should rely on it, but rather that he's able to bypass city state allegiances and make them unreliable for others. Really, all of his abilities force you to consider them as his rival, and I think that will make him one of the more interesting opponents in both single player and multiplayer. Denying deals or hiring mercenaries aren't the givens that they might be otherwise.

 

[FishFishFish]

My preferred choice for an espionage leader would've been Louis XI, the universal spider. (Who Machiavelli was ironically pretty critical of). But I guess they already made France the espionage civ last time...

I do think Machiavelli gives very strong evidence for Italy being in the base game. Which makes sense since they have always been highly requested but in an awkward position due to Rome covering the same area.

 

[Uberfrog]

It is inevitable that historical people are reduced to one-dimensionality in their civ portrayal. Given that this guy literally wrote a book and unknowingly coined an adjective, I think it is absolutely fair enough that Firaxis went with this depiction.

 

[Navelgazer]

At least this one seems more unique. Will love you if you attack others, but not him.

"How do you intend to grow your empire if you refuse to fight for your people?"

i.e. This looks like a rehash of Alexander's Civ6 agenda to me, which was certainly one of the more annoying agendas in that game IMO.

That said, I love the look of this design. I'm curious if his Agenda counts whether you're currently supporting any wars or just actively fighting them yourself.

In my goal to create Ankh-Morpork in this game, I have a feeling he's eventually going to play the role of Havelock Vetinari.

 

[The Fanatical]

If there's a Greek leader in game, I'd expect them to use it. Unless we're getting Leonidas or someone Spartan, I guess, but I don't exactly think that's very likely.

I think Leonidas I has a good chance to finally appear as a leader in the series, especially now that Xerxes I is a leader. Definitely not as part of the base game, though.

 

[GeneralZift]

I think Civ is going on the right direction by pushing conflict onto the scene instead of avoiding it.
I'm always a fan of sneaky leaders and just sneaky play in general, having come from Civ5, where I actually enjoyed the aspect of a backstab and untrustworthy acquaintances.

I think it makes the game feel more lively if you have to watch your back from time to time, which seems like the purpose of this character as an AI

 

[fjaoaoaoao]

I think his ability design is pretty bad. They could have done a lot more with political power.

It is inevitable that historical people are reduced to one-dimensionality in their civ portrayal. Given that this guy literally wrote a book and unknowingly coined an adjective, I think it is absolutely fair enough that Firaxis went with this depiction.

This isn't about one-dimensionality or lack of nuance. This is about going the wrong direction. It would be like portraying George Washington as a cultural thinker or Clara Barton as a war general.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In my goal to create Ankh-Morpork in this game, I have a feeling he's eventually going to play the role of Havelock Vetinari.

As Havelock and Ankh-Morpock were written, I would think he'd need a much more Commercial attitude towards Your Wars:

"Why not fight those folks over there - I'll sell you some weapons (wholesale!) and hold your coat."

 

[gdr_willter]

This isn't about one-dimensionality or lack of nuance. This is about going the wrong direction. It would be like portraying George Washington as a cultural thinker or Clara Barton as a war general.

But regardless his life which was mostly the general and millionaire, Washington eventually became the symbol of the free nation and modern presidential republic. It because he conducted his term very well as the world first president including the retirement. I consider the leaders can represent not only their own life but also their symbolism and influence over further generations. I'll not be surprised when we see Washington as the leader who mainly focused on the internal stabilization of his nation. I just doubt the possibility because we already have Ben Franklin for this position.

 

[fjaoaoaoao]

But regardless his life which was mostly the general and millionaire, Washington eventually became the symbol of the free nation and modern presidential republic. It because he conducted his term very well as the world first president including the retirement. I consider the leaders can represent not only their own life but also their symbolism and influence over further generations. I'll not be surprised when we see Washington as the leader who mainly focused on the internal stabilization of his nation. I just doubt the possibility because we already have Ben Franklin for this position.

I could see a more symbolic Washington being used and i'd be totally fine with that, but I would think it is odd if his bonuses were to buff universities, rock bands, and fast food production, simply because that's what America is known for nowadays.

Like for instance, Machiavelli's agenda is he likes it if you are at war with others except him. That's just odd and not something he would have likely advocated, even for purely selfish/nationalistic reasons. He likes display of force and brief wars, but all for the purpose of security. Being at war just for the sake of being at war is destabilizing. He shouldn't like you more just because you have more wars. While he did not like neutrality and his agenda sort of makes a Machiavelli player choose to not go to war, it also doesn't go further and help push the Machiavelli towards allyship or enemyship. (Maybe a simple fix would have been he likes it if you are at war and have allies with others.)

So I just feel his military-focused abilities are missing a purpose. There are leaders who like war for the sake of war, and that's not Machiavelli.

Also feel like has too many random gold-focused abilities. He would have advocated for developing a stronger militia rather than spending money to hire mercenaries. They also could have gone a different direction instead of giving gold rewards for diplomatic wins/losses.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I could see a more symbolic Washington being used and i'd be totally fine with that, but I would think it is odd if his bonuses were to buff universities, rock bands, and fast food production, simply because that's what America is known for nowadays.

Washington isn't primarily famous for writing a book about hamburger recipes that historians debate whether he used himself. Now, if we get Ronald McDonald as a semi-mythological leader in the future...

 

[gdr_willter]

I could see a more symbolic Washington being used and i'd be totally fine with that, but I would think it is odd if his bonuses were to buff universities, rock bands, and fast food production, simply because that's what America is known for nowadays.

All of them belong to America, and it's obviously shown as the civ in the game. We don't have to put them all to Washington.
But Machiavellism doesn't depend on a state or a nation, this ideology is clearly based on the famous writing of Machiavelli.

 

[fjaoaoaoao]

All of them belong to America, and it's obviously shown as the civ in the game. We don't have to put them all to Washington.
But Machiavellism don't depend on a state or a nation, this ideology is clearly based on the famous writing of Machiavelli.

yeah but Machiavelil's civ 7 abilities/agenda are not based on the famous writing of Machiavelli, it's based on some pop culture perception of the famous writing of Machiavelli.

and even his abilities aren't about Machiavellianism (opportunity, scheming, and power)... it's just other nations' war-mongery-ness and gold-focused diplomacy.

so my point about including hamburgers and rockbands wasn't because Washington is America but because Washington was the first president of America, a symbol of America. It's all about loose associations which is what I feel these Machiavelli civ 7 abilities embody. Machiavelli's civ 7 abilities are more-so a symbol of pop culture perception of Machiavellianism.... a symbol of a symbol (pop culture) of a symbol (Machiavellianism) of a symbol (Machiavelli). This is far off from what I would have wanted from Machiavelli.

 

[The_J]

I think this is definitely one of the (probably few) instances where the leader itself is more interesting to be included than the civ, AND at the same time most people will agree that he's worth including.
Good choice IMHO.

 

[gdr_willter]

Like for instance, Machiavelli's agenda is he likes it if you are at war with others except him. That's just odd and not something he would have likely advocated, even for purely selfish/nationalistic reasons. He likes display of force and brief wars, but all for the purpose of security. Being at war just for the sake of being at war is destabilizing. He shouldn't like you more just because you have more wars. While he did not like neutrality and his agenda sort of makes a Machiavelli player choose to not go to war, it also doesn't go further and help push the Machiavelli towards allyship or enemyship. (Maybe a simple fix would have been he likes it if you are at war and have allies with others.)

Well, I think the agenda means "he like the guy who is not at war against him, especially when he faced another wars"... Making friends during wars is not only a point of his writing, but also what he really did as a diplomat.

 

[fjaoaoaoao]

Well, I think the agenda means "he like the guy who is not at war against him, especially when he faced another wars"... Making friends during wars is not only a point of his writing, but also what he really did as a diplomat.

The problem is not that he likes it when a nation is at war. The first problem is that there is incentive for war but not for allyship. The second problem is that he prefers the other nation to have more and more wars.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Yeah, Firaxis clearly opted for fun > fidelity, but it's just a game, so I can't fault them.

 

[fjaoaoaoao]

Yeah, Firaxis clearly opted for fun > fidelity, but it's just a game, so I can't fault them.

yeah and i can't fault them for that but for me this is unfun, not what I would have wanted from Machiavelli. Thinking about how to omit Mach from my games.

I was excited but this just makes Machiavelli too much like other leaders amidst the cruelty, pragmatism, and more interesting trade-offs of what political power can be. just my opinion.

 

[gdr_willter]

So I just feel his military-focused abilities are missing a purpose. There are leaders who like war for the sake of war, and that's not Machiavelli. Also feel like has too many random gold-focused abilities. He would have advocated for developing a stronger militia rather than spending money to hire mercenaries. They also could have gone a different direction instead of giving gold rewards for diplomatic wins/losses.

I consider his abilities quite clearly focused on the diplomatic way. The Machiavelli players are strongly driven to make more diplomatic deals actively.
I'm also curious why they gave him a levying bonus, but I noticed that he have not a real bonus about levying. No combat strength, No discount, just he can levy armies from neutral CSs. I consider this is a metaphor about bribing them and preventing the enemy actions via those CSs.

The problem is not that he likes it when a nation is at war. The first problem is that there is incentive for war but not for allyship. The second problem is that he prefers the other nation to have more and more wars.

I thought the written condition of "each other war" is related with Machiavelli, not the opposite. So his agenda effect will be increased when he is at wars. He like someone in peace with him and try to build good relationship with them. And this approach is meant to supress his warfront and make allies. Again, this diplomatic way is what he really conducted as a diplomat.