PC Power Play (Aus) interview with Ed Beach

[Disgustipated]

Yeah it's far too difficult to get late cities up and running. You can use trade routes to help things, but it's still limited. Think of how many productive great American cities are just only a few hundred years old. But in this game you really need thousands of years to get a decent amount of districts up. The city I live in is only 100 years old (a little more actually), but the metropolitan area is 2 million people and has a pretty good economy.

 

[Uberfrog]

Yeah it's far too difficult to get late cities up and running. You can use trade routes to help things, but it's still limited. Think of how many productive great American cities are just only a few hundred years old. But in this game you really need thousands of years to get a decent amount of districts up. The city I live in is only 100 years old (a little more actually), but the metropolitan area is 2 million people and has a pretty good economy.

Chopping helps a lot with getting districts up and running, because the harvest yield increases proportional to the district cost increase.

 

[trev1972]

Chopping helps a lot with getting districts up and running, because the harvest yield increases proportional to the district cost increase.

If there is forest then yeh it helps, im just thinking of one of the tsl game i played, i was england and playing greatest earth map with new world empty.

I rushed to get over there and colonize, i think my first colony was turn 100-120 ish. But although the luxuries were great the cities never became power houses despite the rushing.
and prime locations... i only settled a few cities in the end because it just wasnt worth settling more.

It all adds to the feeling of late game being tedious in my opinion, i dont understand the idea of the mechanic at all unless its a clumsy way to stop infinite city sprawl (it doesnt, it just encourages early spamming)

 

[leandrombraz]

I wasn't a Civ 5 player, more a Civ I-IV one, but Civ VI feels very automatic to me. Even on deity, you conquer a few AIs early, & nothing else really matters.

All those systems you mention can be pretty much ignored, & you still coast to Deity victory.

The micromanagement in Civ IV by contrast always seemed far more impactful to me.

That's because the AI doesn't offer much of a challenge. If you're trying to be optimal, there's a lot more micromanagement to do, same if you're going for a peaceful match, which I personally enjoy, conquering a few AIs early isn't my thing so I need to play well to keep up. In anyway, you need at least some planning and micromanagement if you don't want to find yourself in a bad situation and go through more trouble than you need to. I see this when people show up in forums complaining about production, their space projects take 50 turns or something when you can reduce it to 10 turns.

 

[SirWill90]

She might have been a 'looney,' but she did defeat the English armies occupying France. There was no other female French leader of note.

Eleanor of Aquitaine might be a viable choice. However as with Joan she wasn’t really a ruling queen (queen consort, yes) of France. She was however Duchess of Aquitaine, and actually went on Crusade. And was the mother of two kings of England. Certainly one of the most powerful nobles of her era, male or female. In my mind she has a better claim to be a Civ ruler than Catherine de Medici.

 

[Gorbles]

Nobody cares that people don't like strong women depicted in video games. It is the developers' prerogative to include them, and if you create some half-baked "historical realism" justification to justify your own bias (in a series that has X-COM units, Giant Death Robots, ancient leaders surviving for thousands of years), then that's all it is. Your own personal justification of your own personal bias, wrapped up in some poor excuse at "objectivity". Moreso considering all leaders are optional, and you're not forced to play as them.

There are no "quotas" when it comes to helping people identify with video games. It's a simple economic choice. People like seeing themselves, or their favourite play styles, represented in the Civilisation franchise. Expanding that base, adding in more women leaders, or different mechanical features, increases the market draw of the game to a potential audience. It's a far more business-centric ideal than consumers like to tell themselves it is. The market goes for what sells.

 

[liv]

I am not sure about your claim that nobody cares. I care. I think it is sad that the interpretation of history is such that people still think that civilisations should be mainly represented by males. It is just a very poor understanding about how history worked. I care that people do not recognize that Catherine of Medici is a good female representative because in the renaissance women like her contributed greatly to the spreading of art of science that would set countries like France up for so called greatness later. But I am not going to cry about it.

And how on earth is Victoria a more important ruler than Catherine? Victoria did not have much more power than Elisabeth II has now. Catherine on the the other hand....
But I do approve of Victoria as a leader of England.

 

[Gorbles]

Sorry, I should rephrase. I understand ya Nobody making these decisions cares, at the kind of scale of franchise we're talking about. If the developers care strongly about the representation of women, then that will be what decides it. Otherwise, it's simply market forces at work.

Being disappointed, mad, or otherwise making inferrals about the developers and their worldviews? The developers aren't going to care, because either it's their own politics informing their product (as it is with literally everything on the planet; everybody has political beliefs, whether they recognise them or not, and this informs the things they make as much as the arguments they partake in), or it's a business decision to maximise revenue (that the developers will have little control over).

 

[HF22]

That's because the AI doesn't offer much of a challenge. If you're trying to be optimal, there's a lot more micromanagement to do, same if you're going for a peaceful match, which I personally enjoy, conquering a few AIs early isn't my thing so I need to play well to keep up. In anyway, you need at least some planning and micromanagement if you don't want to find yourself in a bad situation and go through more trouble than you need to. I see this when people show up in forums complaining about production, their space projects take 50 turns or something when you can reduce it to 10 turns.

I don't disagree there is plenty of micro one could do, & that bad AI is why it seems mostly pointless.

But it does seem mostly pointless. One can without any micro at all win a 500 turn Deity game in less than 250 turns.

 

[Esperr]

You can be pretty liberal with leaders of old countrys, seeing as how the average guy that they ruled didn't even know who they were or care about them in the slightest. A lot of historical nations are very retroactive.

 

[ltccone]

Eleanor of Aquitaine might be a viable choice. However as with Joan she wasn’t really a ruling queen (queen consort, yes) of France. She was however Duchess of Aquitaine, and actually went on Crusade. And was the mother of two kings of England. Certainly one of the most powerful nobles of her era, male or female. In my mind she has a better claim to be a Civ ruler than Catherine de Medici.

She was Queen of England though, and not France. Though Henry II DID rule half of France. As for Catherine de Medici, that is a low bar, that's for sure.

You can be pretty liberal with leaders of old countrys, seeing as how the average guy that they ruled didn't even know who they were or care about them in the slightest. A lot of historical nations are very retroactive.

Large Man with Dead Body: Who's that then?

The Dead Collector: I dunno, must be a king.

Large Man with Dead Body: Why?

The Dead Collector: He hasn't got sh*t all over him.

Nobody cares that people don't like strong women depicted in video games.

It has nothing to do with 'strong women.' Victoria, Elizabeth I, Cleopatra, Catherine the Great, etc. are great choices for the ruler of their civilizations. When you have choices like Charles Martel, Napoleon, Louis XIV, etc, Catherine de Medici is a square peg in a round hole.

 

[Depravo]

Anything to make the late game less of a coast to victory would be great, but civil wars would be incredibly hard to implement without wrecking immersion. In any case, when was a 'civilization' (not a state) immediately and permanently split by an internal war? For instance Alexander's empire collapsed, but the successor states were broadly a cultural continuum, and remained so.

 

[liv]

Anything to make the late game less of a coast to victory would be great, but civil wars would be incredibly hard to implement without wrecking immersion. In any case, when was a 'civilization' (not a state) immediately and permanently split by an internal war? For instance Alexander's empire collapsed, but the successor states were broadly a cultural continuum, and remained so.

Rome? British Empire?

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Rome? British Empire?

Holy Roman Empire? Ottoman Empire? Spanish Empire? Austro-Hungarian Empire? Indeed, almost every empire that got too large eventually split into multiple parts. Degree of Ethnic variation within the empires also played a part, as did overall happiness. All of which could be determinants of a good Civil War Mechanic.

 

[Depravo]

Well it depends on how you define a civilisation, both in the game and in life, and I've not got the time to get into that one again so each go your way.

 

[SirWill90]

She was Queen of England though, and not France. Though Henry II DID rule half of France. As for Catherine de Medici, that is a low bar, that's for sure.

Queen of France (Queen Consort) 1137-1152 while married to Louis VII, Queen of England 1154-1189 while married to Henry II. Yes I had to look that up, heh. So at least it can be said that she was a Queen of France. My history is a little hazy, Cassius, but didn’t the French have a law forbidding a female ruler?

 

[HF22]

@SirWill90

Yes, the Salic law, which didn't apply in England.

It is what split of succession of England & Hanover for example, when Victoria was crowned Queen

 

[Ferocitus]

Sorry, I should rephrase. I understand ya Nobody making these decisions cares, at the kind of scale of franchise we're talking about. If the developers care strongly about the representation of women, then that will be what decides it. Otherwise, it's simply market forces at work.

Being disappointed, mad, or otherwise making inferrals about the developers and their worldviews? The developers aren't going to care, because either it's their own politics informing their product (as it is with literally everything on the planet; everybody has political beliefs, whether they recognise them or not, and this informs the things they make as much as the arguments they partake in), or it's a business decision to maximise revenue (that the developers will have little control over).

There is absolutely no imperative for Firaxis to choose for any civ the most
successful, or most competent, or the most famous leader. (Some arguments of
leader abilities here are hilarious, similar in style and substance as to
whether Thor would beat a T. Rex in a carpark fistfight.)

Firaxis (primarily Ed Beach, I guess) will choose who they think adds texture
and interest to their game. Maybe they wanted to make a political point by
having a little known, zaftig woman leading Nubia. They are unlikely to lose
sales because of that choice (apart from some dim-witted troglodytes) and they
might actually increase interest in Civ among demographics they have identified
in their market research.

@Ferocitus

I, and most historians, ascribe Joan far more agency than any infant.

Yes, but she was far more of a symbol than an actual political leader, or
battlefield commander. There were other leaders at the same time who
were instrumental in lifting the siege of Orleans.

Those around the Court at the time would have used her as a propaganda
tool, maybe even agreeing with her decisions to take some action, but only
while it was not completely nutty. They were fully aware that the previous
king was a fruitcake, and were watching Charles VII for signs he might have
a glass jaw, limbs, and head, and body, like his father thought he had.

She led them.

She led those she was allowed to lead, and she was not given free rein to
command entire armies, nor to make political decisions affecting the
nation.
She was a nine day wonder, and a fruitcake to boot.

 

[HF22]

@Ferocitus

Shrug. That you don't like the manner in which she changed history is immaterial.

She remains a historically significant figure & leader, as justified of a place as anyone who wasn't actually a head of State.

 

[Siptah]

Didn't Ed say in some video where he explained how they chose the BNW civs that the decision for Morocco was heavily influenced by his daughter going on vacation there and sending nice pictures?
There are probably a lot of personal reasons and preferences involved in the selection all the time, and chance as well. Guessing is fun to do , discussing can be fun as well, but there are always unexpected or unknown factors in such a process.