Playing One civ through the Ages

[Leucarum]

Oh yeah, options are good (but they should stick to their gun for what the default is) .

I mean, they added sticky game settings... So default is going to be relative soon if it isb't already.

 

[Crashdummy]

This premise, I would like to keep pointing out, actually changed to "empire" in CiV.

There is no such thing as Empire, the game is called Civilization

We always knew what the premise meant, and Civ VII destroys such premise

 

[Gorbles]

There is no such thing as Empire, the game is called Civilization

We always knew what the premise meant, and Civ VII destroys such premise

I never said the game was called Empire. I said, CiV changed the tagline from what you quoted it to be.

If you didn't mean the tagline commonly associated with the franchise, then "you knowing what the premise meant" is a "you" thing. Personal, singular.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There is no such thing as Empire, the game is called Civilization

We always knew what the premise meant, and Civ VII destroys such premise

But that's the original premise

 

[ColtSeavers]

It's very impractical to expect the number of new leaders this would require. So this is the one element of a classic mode I'd give almost 0% chance of happening. What could be plausible is a mode which turns off "unmatched" civs and leaders - but that roster would be pretty sparse.

I really like leader mixing and matching. It lets us have civs with poorly attested leadership (like Mississippians), or means for civs wifh few choices we don't need to see the same one over and over which is really awesome!

At a first glance, there quiet lot of historically fitting Leader / Civ combinations possible with the current roster already:

1.) Franklin, Lafayette, Harriet Tubman/ America
2.) Frederick, Charlemagne / Prussia
3.) Napoleon, Charlemagne, Lafayette / France
4.) Isabella/ Spain
5.) Xerxes/ Persia
6.) Pachacuti/ Inca
7.) Confucius/ China
8.) Hatsheput/ Egqpt
9.) Ashoka/ India
10.) Augustus/ Rome
11.) Genghis Khan/ Mongolians
12.) Trung Trac/ Vietnam
13.) Catherine/ Russia
14.) Lovelace/ British
15.) Amina/ Buganda

That’s not a bad roster to start with, and I guess they have some more historically fitting Civs in their pipeline anyway. From my point of view, allowing players to lock in these kinds of combinations from the start should be a no brainer, and nobody can tell me it would take a lot of resources to accomplish that!

 

[Siptah]

At a first glance, there quiet lot of historically fitting Leader / Civ combinations possible with the current roster already:

1.) Franklin, Lafayette, Harriet Tubman/ America
2.) Frederick, Charlemagne / Prussia
3.) Napoleon, Charlemagne, Lafayette / France
4.) Isabella/ Spain
5.) Xerxes/ Persia
6.) Pachacuti/ Inca
7.) Confucius/ China
8.) Hatsheput/ Egqpt
9.) Ashoka/ India
10.) Augustus/ Rome
11.) Genghis Khan/ Mongolians
12.) Trung Trac/ Vietnam
13.) Catherine/ Russia
14.) Lovelace/ British
15.) Amina/ Buganda

That’s not a bad roster to start with, and I guess they have some more historically fitting Civs in their pipeline anyway. From my point of view, allowing players to lock in these kinds of combinations from the start should be a no brainer, and nobody can tell me it would take a lot of resources to accomplish that!

It's not so easy though. You might think Amina + Buganda, Trung Trac + Dai Viet, Ashoka + Mughals, or Charlemagne + Prussia fit, but I think these are quite off in such a list. If this is the standard, Augustus + Egypt is perfect (which also fits historically), and even something like Isabella of the British should be similarly ok.

 

[ColtSeavers]

It's not so easy though. You might think Amina + Buganda, Trung Trac + Dai Viet, Ashoka + Mughals, or Charlemagne + Prussia fit, but I think these are quite off in such a list.

That’s why it should be up to the players to make that decision. If it’s not the right fit for you, you should be able to adjust your matches accordingly in the initial setup screen. Basically, it works the same way as in the previous titles. You assign a leader to a civilization, or just click "random", whatever you prefer!

 

[Siptah]

That’s why it should be up to the players to make that decision. If it’s not the right fit for you, you should be able to adjust your matches accordingly in the initial setup screen. Basically, it works the same way as in the previous titles. You assign a leader to a civilization, or just click "random", whatever you prefer!

You can already do that though. All that’s missing is to stop the AI from changing civs during the game.

 

[ColtSeavers]

All that’s missing is to stop the AI from changing civs during the game.

Yes, and that’s the problem. You can set it up for the first age, but you have no control over what happens in the second or third age. But again, that’s just a minor adjustment, so I don’t understand why people claim that this kind of change would take too many resources and keep the devs away from developing their “original vision".

 

[Siptah]

Yes, and that’s the problem. You can set it up for the first age, but you have no control over what happens in the second or third age. But again, that’s just a minor adjustment, so I don’t understand why people claim that this kind of change would take too many resources and keep the devs away from developing their “original vision".

The fear is that they'll invest time and money to make the already existing 40+ civs and the upcoming 40 civs fitting for all ages, instead of just for one age each and investing in better core gameplay. The two of us have been over this previously, I don't think our opinions diverge that much on this.

 

[Leucarum]

At a first glance, there quiet lot of historically fitting Leader / Civ combinations possible with the current roster already:

1.) Franklin, Lafayette, Harriet Tubman/ America
2.) Frederick, Charlemagne / Prussia
3.) Napoleon, Charlemagne, Lafayette / France
4.) Isabella/ Spain
5.) Xerxes/ Persia
6.) Pachacuti/ Inca
7.) Confucius/ China
8.) Hatsheput/ Egqpt
9.) Ashoka/ India
10.) Augustus/ Rome
11.) Genghis Khan/ Mongolians
12.) Trung Trac/ Vietnam
13.) Catherine/ Russia
14.) Lovelace/ British
15.) Amina/ Buganda

That’s not a bad roster to start with, and I guess they have some more historically fitting Civs in their pipeline anyway. From my point of view, allowing players to lock in these kinds of combinations from the start should be a no brainer, and nobody can tell me it would take a lot of resources to accomplish that!

Ok. I thought that was a small roster. But if that works for you then great. Since we can already kinda set it up if we want (just that civ switching makes it go wonky, and not all at once), sounds like the only question about your wish once civ continuity is live is how many button clicks it'll take to set up.

 

[luca 83]

Oh yeah, options are good (but they should stick to their gun for what the default is) .

Yes the options of civilization must be free from historical ages and civilizations but do you agree with me that they must be better managed by artificial intelligence? In a coherent and narrative way? And that the economy and politics and technology mark the passages of era because we talk about managing and defining a historical era

 

[Smegger213]

Ok. I thought that was a small roster. But if that works for you then great. Since we can already kinda set it up if we want (just that civ switching makes it go wonky, and not all at once), sounds like the only question about your wish once civ continuity is live is how many button clicks it'll take to set up.

I can tell you that it takes a long time to set up a game to put accurate leaders next to the accurate or close to accurate Civs. But all that effort goes out of the window when you transition to the next age.

 

[Xandinho]

I think civ switching and leader and civ mix and matching would have been far more torelated overall if it had been introduced since the beginning with historically corresponding leaders and civilizations. That way, there's always the option match each civ with their corresponding leader or not. Moreover, leaders could also change after a civ change at the end of an age or remain the same, depending on the game configuration.

I think the civilization transitions would have been better received if they were more historically accurate. Take Africa, for example—it’s a mess. There’s no historical connection between Aksum, Songhai, and Buganda. If, instead of those illogical jumps, it were something like Ghana > Songhai > Morocco/Sokoto or Aksum > Somali > Ethiopia, I’m sure the sense of immersion-breaking transitions would have been greatly reduced.

Now, keep in mind that this kind of inconsistency exists in other regions too, like Latin America, Europe, Japan... I’m sure some people reject the idea of civilization switching altogether, but speaking for myself—and probably for others who feel the same—if the transitions were more thoughtfully designed and made more sense historically, they would be much easier to accept.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

At a first glance, there quiet lot of historically fitting Leader / Civ combinations possible with the current roster already:

1.) Franklin, Lafayette, Harriet Tubman/ America
2.) Frederick, Charlemagne / Prussia
3.) Napoleon, Charlemagne, Lafayette / France
4.) Isabella/ Spain
5.) Xerxes/ Persia
6.) Pachacuti/ Inca
7.) Confucius/ China
8.) Hatsheput/ Egqpt
9.) Ashoka/ India
10.) Augustus/ Rome
11.) Genghis Khan/ Mongolians
12.) Trung Trac/ Vietnam
13.) Catherine/ Russia
14.) Lovelace/ British
15.) Amina/ Buganda

I'd switch Amina/Buganda with Himiko/Meiji Japan, or well Tecumseh/Shawnee obviously.
Amina historically doesn't belong to any civ currently in the game, but the closest to her would be Songhai.

I think the civilization transitions would have been better received if they were more historically accurate. Take Africa, for example—it’s a mess. There’s no historical connection between Aksum, Songhai, and Buganda. If, instead of those illogical jumps, it were something like Ghana > Songhai > Morocco/Sokoto or Aksum > Somali > Ethiopia, I’m sure the sense of immersion-breaking transitions would have been greatly reduced.

I guess it does make sense that they were looking to prioritize geographic diversity in Africa in the base game, over historical accuracy, because those transitions will probably come later.
As much as would have liked to see Aksum go into Ethiopia, right now, that would have left off Western Africa and Central/Southern Africa if only focusing on the Horn.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Ok. I thought that was a small roster. But if that works for you then great. Since we can already kinda set it up if we want (just that civ switching makes it go wonky, and not all at once), sounds like the only question about your wish once civ continuity is live is how many button clicks it'll take to set up.

Well that roster is good enough for me, and I also expect that they will come up more Leaders like Alexander (Greece), Ragnar (Normans) or Hannibal/ Dido (Carthage), after all. So yes, I think I could work with that!

 

[Crashdummy]

Ok. I thought that was a small roster. But if that works for you then great. Since we can already kinda set it up if we want (just that civ switching makes it go wonky, and not all at once), sounds like the only question about your wish once civ continuity is live is how many button clicks it'll take to set up.

I think more than that is needed, but

That can easily be solved with the current "options remembering system". But it can easily be improved even further if you could save option configurations, in case you like to play with different ones. That shouldnt take a huge amount of resources

 

[reddishrecue]

They should have a leader to civ match for bonuses.

 

[luca 83]

In the first civilizationation the dynamics of the civil war why not improve it? Instead create pirate-themed scenarios?