[NFP] Odd/Poorly 'themed' Civ implementations

[PhoenicianGold]

I think that all the discussions are missing something important about "synergy", and especially about how Peter should not lead a religious Russia.

When FXS created Civ 6, one thing that I really felt was that you had a Civ and you had a Leader and those are two different things. Synergy could exist but it's not what's important. Teddy Roosevelt had bonuses to National Parks and home continent and America was about governments; Greece was about governments, but Gorgo was militaristic and Pericles was all about diplomacy; CdM was the spymistress but France was about wonders... You can find synergies between them, though.

What I dislike are civs like Korea, Macedon or Zulus: they're not civs, but they're Seondeok's civ, Alexander's civ, and Shaka's civ. They built those civs around their leader, and it's clearly tailored solely for them. And I find it too close from Civ V.

I mean, if you consider that Peter's Russia shouldn't be religious, why separate civs and leaders? Why not return to Civ V system where you had just one ability that synergized itself?

The synergy for Peter is maybe not great, but for all the people complaining about Peter's Russia being too religious, you clearly not understood what the design of the game was. You have a leader, you have a civ, and each are based upon their own thing. Russia has always been religious except under some rulers (and still, it's one of the bastion of the Orthodox Church), so not making Russia religious would be a complete miss. It would be like giving no cultural bonus at all for France, or no religious bonus at all for Spain, just because you had Napoleon or Franco as leaders. No, France has always been cultured and Spain religious, and even if we change leaders, the culture here is the same.

I wholly agree with this but one wrinkle I would propose is that you're going to have some leaders who meld extremely well with their civ, particularly those with a narrower age of glory
(i.e. the Zulu kingdom, the Joseon empire, the Georgian empire) who typically can't do the "grand tour" thing and have to be shoehorned into a specific strength/playstyle. To use Korea again as an example, if the height of Korea involved the institution of a school system, and the leader of choice built observatories, then it's more a matter of happenstance that the science civ is led by a highly synergistic science leader.

Alexander is in a completely different boat. Macedonia only exists for the sake of Alexander: it is by and far the most cobbled together non-civ in the game. Although I don't completely disagree with the notion that Shaka occupies similar self-saken territory. But for Shaka, I think the devs might have gone with Zimbabwe or another Shona civ.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I wholly agree with this but one wrinkle I would propose is that you're going to have some leaders who meld extremely well with their civ, particularly those with a narrower age of glory
(i.e. the Zulu kingdom, the Joseon empire, the Georgian empire) who typically can't do the "grand tour" thing and have to be shoehorned into a specific strength/playstyle. To use Korea again as an example, if the height of Korea involved the institution of a school system, and the leader of choice built observatories, then it's more a matter of happenstance that the science civ is led by a highly synergistic science leader.

The thing is Seondeok is a Silla Queen who has attributes of Joseon Korea in the Seowon and Hwacha, so it is in a since a "grand tour" civ.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

The thing is Seondeok is a Silla Queen who has attributes of Joseon Korea in the Seowon and Hwacha, so it is in a since a "grand tour" civ.

Kind of. If it had been led by Sejong it would have been a pretty narrow snapshot of history and arguably created for his sake like with Alexander or Shaka. And that still would have been okay since Korea was a regional power for centuries, it just happened to have a smaller window to draw iconic features from. It's different when talking something like Macedonia, which was just a brief explosion of reactionism and narcissism surrounding Alexander's lifetime, and didn't have much else to draw from historically for uniques like Gran Colombia or Hungary.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Kind of. If it had been led by Sejong it would have been a pretty narrow snapshot of history and arguably created for his sake like with Alexander or Shaka. And that still would have been okay since Korea was a regional power for centuries, it just happened to have a smaller window to draw iconic features from. It's different when talking something like Macedonia, which was just a brief explosion of reactionism and narcissism surrounding Alexander's lifetime, and didn't have much else to draw from historically for uniques like Gran Colombia or Hungary.

Right if it had been Sejong it definitely would have felt like a Joseon civ, not that I would complain.

Then again Gran Colombia still fits the bill of being in the game because they wanted Simon Bolivar, just like Alexander for Macedon. Of course it's not like Alexander was the only possible leader for Macedon, but it wouldn't have worked as well with his father considering there would have also been two people named Phillip II in the game.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Right if it had been Sejong it definitely would have felt like a Joseon civ, not that I would complain.

Then again Gran Colombia still fits the bill of being in the game because they wanted Simon Bolivar, just like Alexander for Macedon. Of course it's not like Alexander was the only possible leader for Macedon, but it wouldn't have worked as well with his father considering there would have also been two people named Phillip II in the game.

It does, but the llanero and hacienda uniques kind of extend a bit further backward and than Bolivar's time. Granted, if they wanted to go even further back they could have had something like a Museo del Oro to refer to the Muisca, but I still consider GC to portray a substantially broader window of history than Macedonia. And it represents a common and unique colonial culture that had existed for centuries and continues to exist, whereas Macedonia disappeared almost as quickly as it happened, swallowed up again by Persian culture. Macedonia doesn't really represent anything except maybe perhaps one of the first incidents that the entire Hellenic states united (which really loses a lot of clout when Alexander is not even part of Greece and we have the Greek City-States generally better represented by the Delian and Pelopponnesian Leagues).

And yeah there's no way Macedon would have been in the game without Alexander. Phillip was never on the radar.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It does, but the llanero and hacienda uniques kind of extend a bit further backward and than Bolivar's time. Granted, if they wanted to go even further back they could have had something like a Museo del Oro to refer to the Muisca, but I still consider GC to portray a substantially broader window of history than Macedonia. And it represents a common and unique colonial culture that had existed for centuries and continues to exist, whereas Macedonia disappeared almost as quickly as it happened, swallowed up again by Persian culture. Macedonia doesn't really represent anything except maybe perhaps one of the first incidents that the entire Hellenic states united (which really loses a lot of clout when Alexander is not even part of Greece and we have the Greek City-States generally better represented by the Delian and Pelopponnesian Leagues).

I was under the impression that Llaneros came on the scene during the wars of Independence and their lifestyle at least continues to this day.
I do agree that the hacienda though is a broader unique infrastructure and basically represents all of Spanish influenced South America, than just (Gran) Colombia.

I was originally thinking a military academy replacement in the Lancero as it was hard for me to think of anything else unique for them to build even though it wasn't based off of Gran Colombia but modern day. The Museo would be interesting but I think it was better for them to just make a separate city-state for the Muisca in Hunza.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

I was under the impression that Llaneros came on the scene during the wars of Independence and their lifestyle at least continues to this day.
I do agree that the hacienda though is a broader unique infrastructure and basically represents all of Spanish influenced South America, than just (Gran) Colombia.

They were definitely relevant in the wars of independence, but it seems that they were around as herders just about as long as there were haciendas.

I was originally thinking a military academy replacement in the Lancero as it was hard for me to think of anything else unique for them to build even though it wasn't based off of Gran Colombia but modern day. The Museo would be interesting but I think it was better for them to just make a separate city-state for the Muisca in Hunza.

Yeah the Muisca city-state was a fine compromise, I'm not unhappy by any means (except that the GC abilities are fairly generic and OP).

 

[Morningcalm]

I think that all the discussions are missing something important about "synergy", and especially about how Peter should not lead a religious Russia.

When FXS created Civ 6, one thing that I really felt was that you had a Civ and you had a Leader and those are two different things. Synergy could exist but it's not what's important. Teddy Roosevelt had bonuses to National Parks and home continent and America was about governments; Greece was about governments, but Gorgo was militaristic and Pericles was all about diplomacy; CdM was the spymistress but France was about wonders... You can find synergies between them, though.

What I dislike are civs like Korea, Macedon or Zulus: they're not civs, but they're Seondeok's civ, Alexander's civ, and Shaka's civ. They built those civs around their leader, and it's clearly tailored solely for them. And I find it too close from Civ V.

I mean, if you consider that Peter's Russia shouldn't be religious, why separate civs and leaders? Why not return to Civ V system where you had just one ability that synergized itself?

The synergy for Peter is maybe not great, but for all the people complaining about Peter's Russia being too religious, you clearly not understood what the design of the game was. You have a leader, you have a civ, and each are based upon their own thing. Russia has always been religious except under some rulers (and still, it's one of the bastion of the Orthodox Church), so not making Russia religious would be a complete miss. It would be like giving no cultural bonus at all for France, or no religious bonus at all for Spain, just because you had Napoleon or Franco as leaders. No, France has always been cultured and Spain religious, and even if we change leaders, the culture here is the same.

Not to restart the debate again, I'll clarify just one point--the issue isn't that Russia has different leader and civ bonuses. The problem is that the specific leader chosen for his ability has a history that goes against the civ bonus IRL. Now gameplay wise that doesn't pose problems--obviously it creates flexibility. But for the more historically minded, it's one thing to have a flexible civ with a grab-bag of different leader/civ abilities and another thing entirely to have an ironic contradiction between the leader chosen to lead that civ and the civ ability chosen to reflect that civ. Like it or not, the leader and civ are a package together, not apart, especially when, as in Russia's case, you can only choose the Church-hating Peter to lead the religious Russia. The leader and civ bonuses don't need to synergize too much to create one-trick ponies (*coughAlexandercough*) but at the same time the leader shouldn't be an ironic, contradictory pick for the civ IMO (and I know others disagree, as we've been through that in the early pages of this thread).

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Not to restart the debate again, I'll clarify just one point--the issue isn't that Russia has different leader and civ bonuses. The problem is that the specific leader chosen for his ability has a history that goes against the civ bonus IRL. Now gameplay wise that doesn't pose problems--obviously it creates flexibility. But for the more historically minded, it's one thing to have a flexible civ with a grab-bag of different leader/civ abilities and another thing entirely to have an ironic contradiction between the leader chosen to lead that civ and the civ ability chosen to reflect that civ. Like it or not, the leader and civ are a package together, not apart, especially when, as in Russia's case, you can only choose the Church-hating Peter to lead the religious Russia. The leader and civ bonuses don't need to synergize too much to create one-trick ponies (*coughAlexandercough*) but at the same time the leader shouldn't be an ironic, contradictory pick for the civ IMO (and I know others disagree, as we've been through that in the early pages of this thread).

The lavra, although a holy site replacement, functions just as much as a cultural district though with all the GWAM points. And that's very much Peter.

I think the juxtaposition wouldn't be so jarring if we had a religious leader like Olga of Kiev paired with Peter, then the two would be seen as different sides of Russia in the same way Victoria and Eleanor show different sides of England. I agree that Peter seems odd alone, but I mostly attribute that to the lavra UD which by nature is very Byzantine/Kievan.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The lavra, although a holy site replacement, functions just as much as a cultural district though with all the GWAM points. And that's very much Peter.

I think the juxtaposition wouldn't be so jarring if we had a religious leader like Olga of Kiev paired with Peter, then the two would be seen as different sides of Russia in the same way Victoria and Eleanor show different sides of England. I agree that Peter seems odd alone, but I mostly attribute that to the lavra UD which by nature is very Byzantine/Kievan.

Honestly if I was going to design the civs to me it would kind of make a little more sense to switch Georgia and Russia's unique infrastructure. Russia could get a Kremlin as a Renaissance wall replacement while Georgia could have gotten the unique Holy Site. I'm not sure of a particularly good name for it other than whatever the word monastery is in Georgian.

The Kremlin would have made Russia a little bit more defensive but at the same time maybe generate more culture. And the unique Holy Site for Georgia is explainable. Then again I can also see why they went with the choices they did.

 

[PhoenicianGold]

Honestly if I was going to design the civs to me it would kind of make a little more sense to switch Georgia and Russia's unique infrastructure. Russia could get a Kremlin as a Renaissance wall replacement while Georgia could have gotten the unique Holy Site. I'm not sure of a particularly good name for it other than whatever the word monastery is in Georgian.

The Kremlin would have made Russia a little bit more defensive but at the same time maybe generate more culture. And the unique Holy Site for Georgia is explainable. Then again I can also see why they went with the choices they did.

Well of the two Russia undoubtedly had a larger cultural impact globally and religious impact regionally, and really trended more expansionist than defensive over the centuries. And Georgia does seem more fairly characterized as a defensive civ with political leverage over city-states than a civ with massive regional influence.

 

[Jewelrunna]

Not to restart the debate again, I'll clarify just one point--the issue isn't that Russia has different leader and civ bonuses. The problem is that the specific leader chosen for his ability has a history that goes against the civ bonus IRL. Now gameplay wise that doesn't pose problems--obviously it creates flexibility. But for the more historically minded, it's one thing to have a flexible civ with a grab-bag of different leader/civ abilities and another thing entirely to have an ironic contradiction between the leader chosen to lead that civ and the civ ability chosen to reflect that civ. Like it or not, the leader and civ are a package together, not apart, especially when, as in Russia's case, you can only choose the Church-hating Peter to lead the religious Russia. The leader and civ bonuses don't need to synergize too much to create one-trick ponies (*coughAlexandercough*) but at the same time the leader shouldn't be an ironic, contradictory pick for the civ IMO (and I know others disagree, as we've been through that in the early pages of this thread).

I don't really think of it that way, to be honest. Firaxis have always made it clear that the Civ ability (and I guess if you wanna extrapolate, the other uniques) represent the Civ throughout its history, and the Leader ability reflects what happened that specific leader's life. There doesn't have to be a cognitive dissonance because you can, on one hand, acknowledge that Peter was a fairly secular leader, and in the same design acknowledge the deeply embedded roots of Religion within Russia's history.

Also, calling Peter a "church-hater" is a bit extreme. He was a very devout man in his personal life; he simply did not like the power that the Patriarch of Moscow wielded over the government. So he abolished the Patriarchy and replaced it with a council that answered to a bureaucrat. He was a secular leader, not an anti-theist. So there's even less contradiction than there's being made out to be.

Well of the two Russia undoubtedly had a larger cultural impact globally and religious impact regionally, and really trended more expansionist than defensive over the centuries. And Georgia does seem more fairly characterized as a defensive civ with political leverage over city-states than a civ with massive regional influence.

Yeah, I think Georgia is a well-designed Civ historically speaking. In terms of game balance... ehhh not so hot.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well of the two Russia undoubtedly had a larger cultural impact globally and religious impact regionally, and really trended more expansionist than defensive over the centuries. And Georgia does seem more fairly characterized as a defensive civ with political leverage over city-states than a civ with massive regional influence.

Yes I was thinking more along the lines of well both Napoleon and Hitler notoriously tried to invade Russia but ended up failing at it. But luckily they added in the blizzards doing more damage to other civ's units into Russia's UA so that helped the idea along with the idea of being expansionist at the same time.

 

[Morningcalm]

I don't really think of it that way, to be honest. Firaxis have always made it clear that the Civ ability (and I guess if you wanna extrapolate, the other uniques) represent the Civ throughout its history, and the Leader ability reflects what happened that specific leader's life. There doesn't have to be a cognitive dissonance because you can, on one hand, acknowledge that Peter was a fairly secular leader, and in the same design acknowledge the deeply embedded roots of Religion within Russia's history.

Also, calling Peter a "church-hater" is a bit extreme. He was a very devout man in his personal life; he simply did not like the power that the Patriarch of Moscow wielded over the government. So he abolished the Patriarchy and replaced it with a council that answered to a bureaucrat. He was a secular leader, not an anti-theist. So there's even less contradiction than there's being made out to be.

Yeah, I think Georgia is a well-designed Civ historically speaking. In terms of game balance... ehhh not so hot.

As I mentioned, the biography of Peter the Great by Robert K. Massie points out Peter's actions weren't just "secular" but fundamentally ruptured the authority of the Church. It's not just about the Patriarch's power (in fact the pages of the biography I cited earlier on P.2 of this thread nowhere mentions the Patriarch). Rather, it's about Peter removing the Church's function as a moral authority that *sometimes* stood up against the government, which basically crippled it thereafter. There are some contemporary parallels there too--certain leaders ruling now rule "religious" countries but their actions against the religious authorities in that country could not fairly be ascribed to faith increases. So I strongly disagree about it being "less of a contradiction than there's being made out to be".

Also, being a "secularist leader" alone doesn't make you an irreligious leader (see Menelik II for example).

As for Georgia, it's better designed historically but I wouldn't say it's "well-designed" historically as such. It's overly concerned with walls, and note for example that Tamar didn't dislike people who didn't build walls, didn't care nearly as much about "barbarians" entering a country or no, and was more concerned with relics IRL than the game design makes her out to be. Frankly, I think Peter's leader ability is more historically accurate to him than Tamar's is IMO, especially as Tamar's doesn't reflect her conquest success as such.

The lavra, although a holy site replacement, functions just as much as a cultural district though with all the GWAM points. And that's very much Peter.

I think the juxtaposition wouldn't be so jarring if we had a religious leader like Olga of Kiev paired with Peter, then the two would be seen as different sides of Russia in the same way Victoria and Eleanor show different sides of England. I agree that Peter seems odd alone, but I mostly attribute that to the lavra UD which by nature is very Byzantine/Kievan.

Exactly. It's the selection of Peter to lead a religious-flavored Russia that is jarring. If it was Peter leading a cultural, expansionist, scientific Russia that would have been fine (and the other abilities, and almost every other incarnation of Russia in the Civ series as a whole), attest to that.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

As for Georgia, it's better designed historically but I wouldn't say it's "well-designed" historically as such. It's overly concerned with walls, and note for example that Tamar didn't dislike people who didn't build walls, didn't care nearly as much about "barbarians" entering a country or no, and was more concerned with relics IRL than the game design makes her out to be

neither did Menilik got angry at nations with lots of hills or pachacuti got angry at nations with lots of mountains, or Dido and Gitarja got angry at nations setting close to coast. Or Qin Shi Huang got angry at other nations for building great buildings....

As I mentioned, the biography of Peter the Great by Robert K. Massie points out Peter's actions weren't just "secular" but fundamentally ruptured the authority of the Church. It's not just about the Patriarch's power (in fact the pages of the biography I cited earlier on P.2 of this thread nowhere mentions the Patriarch). Rather, it's about Peter removing the Church's function as a moral authority that *sometimes* stood up against the government, which basically crippled it thereafter. There are some contemporary parallels there too--certain leaders ruling now rule "religious" countries but their actions against the religious authorities in that country could not fairly be ascribed to faith increases. So I strongly disagree about it being "less of a contradiction than there's being made out to be".

Saying Peter is church hater is like saying Henry VIII is a religious hater because he demolished monasteries. Heck even Elizabeth I continued demolishing monasteries and any other religious people that might pose threat to her rule.

If it was Peter leading a cultural, expansionist, scientific Russia that would have been fine (and the other abilities, and almost every other incarnation of Russia in the Civ series as a whole), attest to that.

he is leading cultural Russia? I mean lavra works much like a bonus cultural district. Heck apart from being a cheap holy site ( and thus grantee quick set up in religious race) there is almost no bonus in the religious game for Russia. Sure you could use dance of tundra to get a heap of faith but... that's about it. Compare that with other religious civs like India, Georgia, Ethiopia and you will see that Russia just doesn't have that much advantage in religious victory. I always go for cultural victory whenever I play as Russia.

 

[Morningcalm]

neither did Menilik got angry at nations with lots of hills or pachacuti got angry at nations with lots of mountains, or Dido and Gitarja got angry at nations setting close to coast. Or Qin Shi Huang got angry at other nations for building great buildings...

Historical wrongs with other leader representations doesn't mean Tamar's representation is any better off by comparison. And for Pachacuti, Gitarja, Dido and Qin Shi Huang, their agendas make more historical sense than Tamar's.

Saying Peter is church hater is like saying Henry VIII is a religious hater because he demolished monasteries. Heck even Elizabeth I continued demolishing monasteries and any other religious people that might pose threat to her rule

I didn't say "Peter is church hater". Also, Henry VIII is not a Civ leader, and Elizabeth I has never been represented in the Civ series with religious bonuses or alongside a religiously flavored England civ.

he is leading cultural Russia? I mean lavra works much like a bonus cultural district. Heck apart from being a cheap holy site ( and thus grantee quick set up in religious race) there is almost no bonus in the religious game for Russia. Sure you could use dance of tundra to get a heap of faith but... that's about it. Compare that with other religious civs like India, Georgia, Ethiopia and you will see that Russia just doesn't have that much advantage in religious victory. I always go for cultural victory whenever I play as Russia.

Last I checked, the Lavra was a religious district. It may have cultural bonuses, but its primary function, as a religious district, is to generate faith based on adjacency, unlock access to various religious buildings, allow founding a faith...in short, all the things religious districts do. If they wanted a truly cultural Peter they would have made a Theater Square replacement for Russia.

Russia getting faith from tundra is a religious bonus, and the fact that an entire part of what makes Russia unique is a religious district means they are inherently religious (see, for other examples, Korea and Maya having campus district replacements which helps render them scientific, or Zulu having an encampment replacement which renders them militaristic, etc).

And not everyone agrees with you re: cultural victory being better for Russia. Russia may be strong in culture, but they are stronger in religion, partly because they get doubled Great Prophet points from their lavras, in addition to lavras being really fast to build. See Zigzagzigal's guide to Russia for analysis in that regard: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1923759261

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And not everyone agrees with you re: cultural victory being better for Russia. Russia may be strong in culture, but they are stronger in religion, partly because they get doubled Great Prophet points from their lavras, in addition to lavras being really fast to build. See Zigzagzigal's guide to Russia for analysis in that regard: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1923759261

He rates cultural victory as a 9/10 while Religious is 10/10. That's a very minimal difference though considering in his guide he references Russia as being both religious/cultural. I see it as no different from Arabia being both religious/scientific.
Still faith is used for culture victory a lot such as rock bands and naturalists and Great People points which has more synergy than other victory types.

 

[Kupe Navigator]

And for Pachacuti, Gitarja, Dido and Qin Shi Huang, their agendas make more historical sense than Tamar's.

how? Patchacuti being angry at mountainous nation? Gitarja and Did being angry at costal nations? Qin Shi Hung being angry at nations with great buildings? And shall we say how Cryus is portrayed as backstabber and montezuma is obsessed with luxary items and how Kristina is angry at nations with lots of great works. I never read how Kristina was angry at nations with lots of great works.

I didn't say "Peter is church hater". Also, Henry VIII is not a Civ leader, and Elizabeth I has never been represented in the Civ series with religious bonuses or alongside a religiously flavored England civ.

I just used them as an example of how rulers didn't like churches interfering with government works... and Peter was no exception. Especially since during Peter's time a lot of religious leaders were against Peter's progressive changes since they were conservative. To say that Peter isn't deserving of religious Russia is bit unfair.
In this game Devs wanted Russia to be portrayed as hybrid of religion and culture civ... which is what we have got. Why is it so weird that We have Peter as a leader?

In fact one of the most poorly themed civs are... KOREA!
here is why:
They wanted Chosen civ but in the midst of the production they decided they wanted more female ruler.
So they looked through history of Chosen but oops they didn't have ruling female ruler so they hastly chose an OK female ruler and quickly changed the name of CA and LA.
Three Kingdoms really doesn't portray Korea well... nor does Hwarang ability.
Heck even icons, UD and UU are all from Chosen period. ONLY the leader and LA are from Sillia.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

how? Patchacuti being angry at mountainous nation? Gitarja and Did being angry at costal nations? Qin Shi Hung being angry at nations with great buildings? And shall we say how Cryus is portrayed as backstabber and montezuma is obsessed with luxary items and how Kristina is angry at nations with lots of great works. I never read how Kristina was angry at nations with lots of great works.

A lot of these I'm okay with, except Cyrus, for gameplay reasons. The Inca wanting to be near mountains is understandable and Gitarja wanting to colonize as many islands as possible is good too.
Kristina arguably could have got Pedro's Agenda where maybe she gets mad at you for recruiting Great People she wanted while Pedro could get mad at you for not recruiting as many Great people.
That way Ashurbanipal for Assyria could have gotten Kristina's Agenda.

In fact one of the most poorly themed civs are... KOREA!
here is why:
They wanted Chosen civ but in the midst of the production they decided they wanted more female ruler.
So they looked through history of Chosen but oops they didn't have ruling female ruler so they hastly chose an OK female ruler and quickly changed the name of CA and LA.
Three Kingdoms really doesn't portray Korea well... nor does Hwarang ability.
Heck even icons, UD and UU are all from Chosen period. ONLY the leader and LA are from Sillia.

I don't think it's poorly themed at all. They wanted Korea to be a science civ, so they made it a science civ. Three Kingdoms probably should have been a different name though. Maybe the name Hermit Kingdom representing the isolationist period of Korea and the isolationism of the Seowon District?

 

[Kupe Navigator]

A lot of these I'm okay with, except Cyrus, for gameplay reasons. The Inca wanting to be near mountains is understandable and Gitarja wanting to colonize as many islands as possible is good too.
Kristina arguably could have got Pedro's Agenda where maybe she gets mad at you for recruiting Great People she wanted while Pedro could get mad at you for not recruiting as many Great people.
That way Ashurbanipal for Assyria could have gotten Kristina's Agenda.


I don't think it's poorly themed at all. They wanted Korea to be a science civ, so they made it a science civ. Three Kingdoms probably should have been a different name though. Maybe the name Hermit Kingdom representing the isolationist period of Korea and the isolationism of the Seowon District?

Yeah but naming of CA and leader is the problem... not to mention Korea revolves only around Sewon. Korea has a lot of dynamic history and this is best they could have come up with?