Role Playing and Narratives in Civ VII

Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,794
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
Haven't finished all of this, but have enough to start a discussion, so here goes . . .

Disclaimer: I have not played Crusader Kings III at all, nor Old World very much, nor any RPG Computer or Board Games in years (decades, really). So if a lot of my musings are already covered or touched on in other games, by all means run with that.

What this little essay will try to do is open up a discussion for the possibilities of adding Narrative Events and even a bit of Role Playing to Civ, and specifically to Civ VII because, as I’ve said before, I think Civ VI has a fork in it already and is Done as far as further development by the official game design team is concerned. We might get a Bug Fix this year, but I wouldn’t even bet money on that.

History is, at its best, the story of Other People. In Other Places, and especially in Other Times, all doing People Things. That’s what makes history so fascinating: you can’t help but identify with the Poor Sods having History done to them, even if only to think “There, but for the Grace of Dog, could be me . . .”

In the game, it Should be you, and it seems a crying shame that it isn’t, more explicitly than it is.

Parenthetically, I think one of the great mistakes of Humankind was that while it had an explicit identification of the gamer with an Avatar, there was almost no identification of the Avatar with the Faction or Civ and so no real connection between the Gamer and the Game his Faction was experiencing.

So, here are some ideas for discussion, on how to add more elements of Role Playing and (In Game) History as Narrative Events in Civ VII.

Leaders

1. Better and more extreme Reactions

There were a few mild and self-effacing Leaders for Civilizations. But damned few. Most of them tended towards the histrionic, extreme, and volatile. Some of them, in fact, were notorious for murderous tempers. Where’s all that in Civ? As long as we’re going to throw all the resources into Fully Animated Voice-Acted Leaderboards, let’s get some scenery-chewing Melodrama out of it:

Kleopatra (or Hatshepset, or Gitarja) throwing things at you when she gets mad

Alexander (or Charles XII, or Hannibal) drawing his sword and threatening you with it, maybe decapitating a statue in the background.

Catherine (any of them: French or Russian) with an icy, frozen smile suggesting that perhaps you should reconsider your last statement - at length and somewhere else.

There’s no sense wasting the potential sheer Entertainment Value of an animated Leader

2. Multiple Backgrounds

Given that the Leader backgrounds are static art, why is there only one of each? Here’s a relatively cheap (in Graphic Art Assets) place to add some ‘commentary’ and narrative to the animated Leader - change their background to match Events.

The ‘Defeat’ screen showing a humbled Leader standing in front of flaming ruins or in a burnt-out audience room.

The ‘Victory’ screen showing the Leader’s troops in the background hauling away cartloads of loot and screaming captives - appropriate to Alexander, Trajan, Genghis, and too many others to mention.

If they feel threatened, the background should show armed troops gathering, sharpening weapons, etc.

Every Era, at least, the background should change - I agree that changing Leader costume has a potential for ghastly caricatures, but a developing Civ could be reflected in the background static art and, among other things, might give a clue as to what and how their Civ is doing - see gantries for a Launch Platform rising in the background, and that’s a clue that they are aiming at a Science Victory - a new Palace by the river behind the Leader, and they are waxing Cultural, etc.

3. Leaders on the Map

In a great many Cultural/Government Types, the Leader is/was also a Military Commander - Monarchy, many Aristocracies, the Roman Empire, all Pastoral groups, etc.
So why can’t we replace the Leaderboard with a Great General on the map and use him, possibly with Special Bonuses, as a military Great Person? Of course, while they are excursioning with the Army (or Fleet) none of their usual Leader Uniques would apply to the Civ as a whole*, and if they get themselves killed, you’d lose all the Leader Uniques for another X turns and there could be a (faint) chance they would be Captured, in which case you’d have to ransom the little varmint back.

Some Leaders also had other specific abilities/talents represented elsewhere in the game by Great People: they were musicians (NOT Nero!), writers, calligraphic artists, philosophers, etc. Again, if used to produce a Great Work or bonuses from a non-Leader type of Great Person, you’d lose their usual Leader Uniques for X turns.

Leader as Real Game Piece would provide numerous chances for Narrative Events in the Game instead of just being an animated Face for Diplomacy.

* This would, of course, be a great excuse for adding Great Administrators as a new Great Person type, who could take over and add some Unique to the Civ while Leader was off playing soldier/sailor see Gustaphus and Oxenstierna for IRL example.

Events, Random and Otherwise

In any system as big and complex as History and a Civilization involving 10s, 100s, or 1000s of thousands of people, there are Unexpected Events. Some are near-random, some simply the result of a lot of people all pursuing their own agendas. Some turned out to be important in either the long or short term.

Europa
has “Events and Decisions” which was modded into Civ V, and basically provided Events about which you had to make a decision, which in turn led to some kind of outcome or bonus or - usually slight but sometimes significant - change in Social. Civic, or Political situation.

Example: A Mercenary company arrives in the civ for hire - or if not hired, turn Bandits.

Example: The Minister of Silly Walks accidentally insults the Ambassador from Gondwanaland at a banquet: you have three ways to handle this, each of which leads in a different direction.

Example: Gold is discovered in Slobbovia, which is on your border but in the territory of a City State:
(A Gold Resource appears on the map, you have Expansionist/military, or Diplomatic, or even Trade options to pursue)

The sky is almost the limit, here, and the type of Event could vary depending on the type of Culture/Government/Economy/Religion you have, the Civics/Social Policies you have adopted, or the Uniques, terrain, weather, Resources you are exploiting. Likewise, the decisions available to you could vary wildly depending on the same things.

Side ‘Quests’ and/or Narrative Events.

The game Anno 1800, and others, have Quests or what I call Narrative Events which require certain in-game actions on your part, and in return lead to events, outcomes, bonuses, that affect for good or ill your play and in-game situation. These fit neatly into the idea of increasing the in-game Narrative style of play - “writing your own history”. Civ already has a very limited form of these in the actions that can be taken to affect City State relations or fulfill Leader Agendas, but they can be expanded to cover a wide range of actions and, potentially, affect relationships and actions with everyone and everything in the game, both External and Internal. These will also dovetail neatly with the idea that many things now tightly under the Gamer’s control should in fact be generated outside of the gamer’s control and require a reaction or action in response.

Example: A Barbarian Clan asks permission to settle in or cross your territory to get away from a nasty enemy.
If you deny the request, they may invade, turn around and get massacred by the nasty enemy - who then invades you or thanks you for not aiding their enemy, or the barbarian clan beats the snot out of the nasty enemy and starts raiding across your borders because you didn’t help them

If you allow them in, they may add new Settlements/Population to your Civ, new Units to your Army, simply cross your territory and disappear (permanently or Temporarily, with More To Come later) or some idiot tax collector of yours messes with them and they attack you from within.

Whatever you decide starts a narrative story with multiple possibilities, and your continued actions and reactions will fill in that story in a way that will be unique to your Civ in that particular game.

Family

Obviously, with the Civ Immortal Leader, there will be no Succession Wars or change of Leadership at the top, but that only slightly limits the potential of Family Members to mess with things.

A Royal Family (Monarchial government) provides potential marriagable sons and daughters to cement diplomatic relationships, but also can get you involved in Conflicts, Military and/or Diplomatic, with other actors in the game - including City States and Barbarians, as well as other Civs.

Great Families (Every Great Person, Governor, Aristocratic Government, lots of potential sources) may provide Great People, bonuses to accomplishing certain things, new mechanics in your Civ (Merchant Princes, Banking Families, invention of Champagne, etc) - again, Narrative Events or Bonuses or things the gamer has to react to one way of the other.

More to come: Governments, Society, News, Legends & Propaganda, Personalization of Your Individual Game, History within the 4X Game, probably tomorrow . . .
 

MistroPain

Chieftain
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
72
Leaders:

1 - Definitely agree with all of it! My main concern though is all of that effort currently resides in the diplomacy screen. Would be great if they could take the leaders out of the diplomacy screen to take advantage of these propositions. Maybe just sticking their head in from one of the corners and reprimanding you (would also be fantastic if it means the turn transition doesn't result in 6,000 bits where someone wants to tell me they are angry at me because I declared war on someone they've never met! ESPECIALLY if the associated animations are to be made more intricate and detailed).

2 - Pfftt I loved Civ 3s costume changes! Bring them back! Otherwise agree with everything else! Maybe it could have been done with more taste to be fair.

3 - This one strikes me as weird. I've always played civ with the idea that the 'immortal leader' was just representing the civilization and isn't the actual acting leader. In the background with each press of the end turn button there is an actual other leader involved, and each time I press that button depending on the time between turns they are being succeeded by someone else. Maybe it'd be wise to add this in as a leader trait for a select few leaders rather than having it available for everyone; having alexander the great as your immortal leader but never having him lead armies also feels weird afterall.

Events:

I would actually love to see more events in the game! As long as it's balanced.

Since you mention Old World I actually think they do something for events that would actually work really well in a game like Civ, where events are triggered each time you pass from one culture threshold to another in a city, triggering a city specific event that is often a positive event. Mostly from watching multiplayer games most players use this to trigger founding a religion, but overall was just a fun addition that can take advantage of an already existing mechanic (culture). Since you mention Europa Universalis they have a missions system where upon achieving certain criteria you can press a button an trigger some kind of change, and that could be added in as a layer over the city-specific events to trigger civ-wide events, although it'd need an overhaul from how its done in Europa. Civ also has other tools that can be used to trigger events; being the first to research pivotal research nodes for example. In addition to that the game can do things where it can tie unhappiness mechanics into event triggers, where total unhappiness (not accounting for positive happiness) can cause a negative event to trigger. And they can also be completely random, although I'd be careful with any such implementation as it can often feel like the game is specifically punishing you, the infamous comet sighted event is a good example, always knowing to hit at the worst of times.

Family:

This one, for more or less the same reason as leaders point 3, I just am not a fan off personally. I guess this one really depends on the player. A good example is it seems a lot of people liked the governer system from Civ 6, where there happens to be a number of immortal people with a great knack for governing cities, who also happen to have a large number of identical yet traiterous siblings! Some people really liked that, and to be fair its likely because they liked the mechanic more so than the immortal governer themselves, but it felt weird to me as I'm sure it did for others. Maybe there are better ways to implement such a system, could be like the envoys system where you have a number of 'notable people' you can assign to certain things and they generate over time. At that point though it becomes a flavourless mechanic, unless you immortalise them as well.

Other Ideas:

Let resources shape society: Have resources that your cities have access to shape how that city appears might be cool. If you have marble, maybe large city buildings with marble arches and columns become commonplace; if you have bamboo holy sites will see pagoda like structures appear; horses will see horse drawn carts moving through the streets whereas cattle will see oxen used as beasts of burden in their place; silk will see your people moving through the city wearing smoothe silk robes; an abundance of strategic ores will see brighter furnaces to indicate strong industry, wheres a complete lack of it might see a single smith out in the open working on tools, etc. etc.

Give the populace a voice: Allow people to hover over their population icons and get an idea of what their affiliations/opinions are. Not sure if any of you have played any Impressions Games games, but one of the most memorable parts was clicking on a random civilian and hearing their opinions or how they're feeling. Would be cool to see some of that. The idea of giving populace a voice in a way that mechanically affects the game, however, is a seperate discussion as that might really create a micro-intensive game if not done with care.

Create natural flow of goods: I've spoken about trade systems before in that I really think they should develop independently from the player, and develop as a result of goods flowing from a place of abundance to a place where it lacks. Any such system enriches the world you are in, and creates points of tension that can enforce certain actions from players and ideally bots, becoming a source of things like war or cunning ploys.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2021
Messages
70
Side ‘Quests’ and/or Narrative Events.
I've played board games where you can choose 'Quests' which can earn you extra points and i've never thought about how well those would fit into Civ until now. Usually they Quest descriptions available to everyone, but who is assigned/chose the quest is secret. There will be a pool of say 10 quests for 5 players, and each time a quest is taken a new one is added to the pool.

Leaders/Family on the map - they could work as trade routes but effect loyalty. As long as the princess is traveling between London and Nottingham all is well. Then you may have to assign her to say Paris for the duration of a friendship and loose some loyalty in Nottingham.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,794
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
Do you have an archive of all these idea threads, they are interesting

For this thread and a few others that I started, I've got Word files of the basic propositions, but there's a lot of stuff I posted in other threads that remains 'at large'.

I keep telling myself to put together a single file of all my thoughts on Civ VII, but:
1. Time. I'm in the middle of editing 18 chapters of a book my buddy and I are writing, finishing translation of a Russian book on the air war over Moscow, and, slowly, rewriting a set of 12 books I wrote over 20 years ago with a mass of new information now available. I have to steal time for anything related to gaming of any kind.
2. My ideas about Civ VII keep changing, largely based on ideas that percolate out from the crowd here at Civ Fanatics - they keep modifying my ideas so that I'd have to keep rewriting any file constantly.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,794
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
@MistroPain
1. Using Leaders "on the map" I agree should be dependent on the individual Leader. Gandhi never pretended to be any kind of General, nor did many others in the game, and it wouldn't make sense to stuff them into that role. On the other hand, with a little stretching and pulling we can probably find some kind of On The Map role for every Leader: diplomatic, military, naval, commercial, artistic, etc. - And by 'personalizing' their On Map roles, we make them even more of individuals and therefore increase the personal identification between them and the gamer, which is exactly what I'm aiming for.

2. Family/Notable People - Personalizing more individuals in Civ the game and the Civ you are specifically playing is, I think, the way Civ VII should try to go. For one thing, it is that personalization that will set it firmly apart from Humankind, which has no named people of any kind in it. That could include the current Governors converted into potential Governors for each Civ that are a little different based on the Civ itself and the Civics, Social Policies, Government-type, Culture, etc - the attributes or aspects of gthe Civ. That would make the Governors for each Civ slightly different, slightly customizable, and sometimes (I would hope) very surprising.

3. Let resources shape society: Great Idea, and one I've been toying with: on the one hand, each Civ could have building types related to its "historical geography" - mudbrick for Babylon or Egypt, wattle and daub for northern Europe, timber and bark for North America, etc. But the game could also have an option for basic and specialized construction to be based on the Resources available - if your Cree start in the desert, they will be building in mudbrick or fired brick, not timber. And the architectural engineering you use - big timber buildings, stone or brick arches, domes, etc would have to be Researched or otherwise developed: before you get Wooden Truss systems in the early Medieval Era, you will not be building Great Halls in wood!

4. Give the populace a voice: Anno 1800 is one of several games in which if you click on an individual he talks back to you - it was used as far back as the Caesar IV city-builder, I believe. In addition, Anno 1800 allows you to go 'First Person' mode, drop down and actually walk around in your cities. I think such a mechanic would be absolutely stunning in Civ, but I'm not sure that level of individual involvement is appropriate in a century-spanning Global scale 4X game. Definitely, though, some mechanism for getting feedback from the population is necessary, whether it is the sight of angry mobs gathering in the central square in front of the Palace or graffiti defacing the Temple or an anti-government Broadside newspaper being published and displayed - there are lots of ways to implement such things, and they can even be appropriate to the Era to a large extent.
 

Thormodr

Servant of Civ
Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
5,061
Location
Vancouver, Canada
They had events in cIV that I really enjoyed. They definitely could be brought back and expanded upon.

Old World does a good job with this. :)
 

Leucarum

Emperor
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
1,408
I'd say rather than family members, this could better be tied to Great People that you recruit? Maybe allow the player to have a council made up of great people they'd recruited who have ongoing effects... You could even do a callback to civ2 and have your council give tips...
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,794
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
I'd say rather than family members, this could better be tied to Great People that you recruit? Maybe allow the player to have a council made up of great people they'd recruited who have ongoing effects... You could even do a callback to civ2 and have your council give tips...

Family Members have special attributes compared to Ministers or Advisors, although the two groups are certainly not exclusive.
The biggest differences are:
1. Advisors the Leader can largely choose and dismiss at will. Family members the Leader is Stuck With. Executing family members gets you talked about negatively, and the idiocies of family members are hard to ignore since they will be blamed, directly or indirectly, on the Leader sooner or later.
2. Family members, by being married into other Noble/Royal families, provide a potential Diplomatic Action not usually available with Advisors. This could be specific to certain types of Government (Monarchy, Noble Aristocracy) that are based on Family/hereditary, but it is still a very real and persistent thing in history. Countries as different as Austria, German City States and Imperial China all made great use of 'royal' or noble family members as Diplomatic/Political tokens, and in some cases, like the German City State token Catherine (the Great) had enormous influence on another Civ: Russia.

That's why I separated Family from other internal Great (and not-so-great) Personalities in rthe game.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,606
Location
Texas
I was the one that mentioned a Noble/Royal family idea on other threads. My idea however is to have it tied to one particular government type (Monarchy). If you switch away from a Monarchy then you lose the ability continue to "marry off" your noble citizens to other civs. Of course certain leaders, like Maria Theresa, could have this ability built in without having to be a Monarchy government. Really what it comes down to is it almost acts like an extra delegation or ambassador.

As for who the particular nobles/royal family are I was thinking of just pulling them out of the pool of citizens names, instead of real people, considering that would be hard for some civs.
 

Leucarum

Emperor
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
1,408
Family Members have special attributes compared to Ministers or Advisors, although the two groups are certainly not exclusive.
The biggest differences are:
1. Advisors the Leader can largely choose and dismiss at will. Family members the Leader is Stuck With. Executing family members gets you talked about negatively, and the idiocies of family members are hard to ignore since they will be blamed, directly or indirectly, on the Leader sooner or later.
2. Family members, by being married into other Noble/Royal families, provide a potential Diplomatic Action not usually available with Advisors. This could be specific to certain types of Government (Monarchy, Noble Aristocracy) that are based on Family/hereditary, but it is still a very real and persistent thing in history. Countries as different as Austria, German City States and Imperial China all made great use of 'royal' or noble family members as Diplomatic/Political tokens, and in some cases, like the German City State token Catherine (the Great) had enormous influence on another Civ: Russia.

That's why I separated Family from other internal Great (and not-so-great) Personalities in rthe game.

Yeah, they definitely fill different purposes, though adding the requirement for documented family members would further limit the available leader pool - presumably much more severely for the more ancient civs... I'd be more inclined to support adding family members if we had some form of dynastic changes a-la crusader kings in the game...
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
I like all of your ideas except for leaders on the map--I'm a little hesitant on that front. However, I'd love to see something like the Endless franchise's heroes, which sort of occupy a space similar to both Governors and Great Generals but also have a presence on the map (either in the system or in the fleet/army they administer), improve their abilities over time, etc. They're much more flexible and personal than Civ6's Governors, and I like them a lot. They'd be a great way to incorporate named characters with personalities into the game world without having to demistify Leaders.

Kleopatra (or Hatshepset, or Gitarja) throwing things at you when she gets mad
Elizabeth I very famously threw her shoe at an ambassador when she was angry--and she had a notoriously fiery temper.

Pfftt I loved Civ 3s costume changes! Bring them back!
Kill it with fire. :shifty: I have several objections to changing costumes: 1) the resources that go into changing costumes could go into new leaders and civs; 2) costumes that change are inevitably going to be less detailed than costumes that don't as a corollary to the first point; 3) I don't have confidence that Firaxis is more mature than it was twenty years ago, and I don't want to see a repeat of Neo-Nazi Joan of Arc or Abe Lincoln in a loincloth; 4) what do you do with modern clothing? Civ3 chose to put everyone in suits as though Westernization were inevitable, but if I'm the culture leader as China why am I suddenly exchanging hanfu for suits? Why isn't everyone else wearing hanfu? I'd much rather have detailed historically accurate costumes for the leaders as they appeared at the time they ruled.
 
Joined
Mar 11, 2012
Messages
4,794
Location
north of Steilacoom, WA
I was the one that mentioned a Noble/Royal family idea on other threads. My idea however is to have it tied to one particular government type (Monarchy). If you switch away from a Monarchy then you lose the ability continue to "marry off" your noble citizens to other civs. Of course certain leaders, like Maria Theresa, could have this ability built in without having to be a Monarchy government. Really what it comes down to is it almost acts like an extra delegation or ambassador..

Thank you. I remembered the gist of the post but not the source.
And I agree, only Governments in which genetics is important (Aristocracy, Monarchy) could make use of this form of Genetic Diplomacy, but given that it was practiced from at least rthe lassical to trhe Industrial Era it seems a shame not to find some way of including it as a mechanism - and not just reserved as a Unique for one Civ or Leader.

As for who the particular nobles/royal family are I was thinking of just pulling them out of the pool of citizens names, instead of real people, considering that would be hard for some civs.

Given that Monarchy has been described as "government by genetic chance' in that you cannot really predict what you will get in sex, temperament or health in heirs or family members, I would agree - make it as Random as possible, and have potential Genetic Diplomatic Markers generated at near-random. There could be modifiers, in that an institution like the Harem widens the genetic 'pool' potentially, but it also 'cheapens' the value of each Marker. Something like this could be a Social Policy enhancer/modifier to a monarchial/aristocratic government type.
 

Thormodr

Servant of Civ
Supporter
Joined
Feb 15, 2005
Messages
5,061
Location
Vancouver, Canada
I loved the costume changes in Civ III. Lol. I want Shaka in a business suit! :thumbsup:
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
I loved the costume changes in Civ III. Lol. I want Shaka in a business suit! :thumbsup:
That really is my biggest issue with changing costumes, though, even more than the resource investment or the potential for immaturity. Why is Westernization inevitable? If Shaka is leading the culture game, why isn't everyone else wearing hide kilts? If Genghis Khan is leading the culture game, why isn't everyone else wearing deel? If Russia is leading the culture game, why isn't everyone else wearing cherkeski? On the one hand, everyone in suits shows a lack of imagination; on the other hand, Neo-Nazi Joan of Arc reminds me that I don't trust Firaxis' imagination...

There could be modifiers, in that an institution like the Harem widens the genetic 'pool' potentially, but it also 'cheapens' the value of each Marker.
More heirs also means more risk of wars of succession. You have to find a way to deal with unwanted heirs, like the Ottoman policy of state-sponsored fratricide or the European practice of sending extra heirs into the Church. (And then when things go unexpectedly you get Louis IX...)
 

mitsho

Deity
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
8,197
Location
Europe, more or less
The Diplomacy Screen should be something like this:


By that I mean, the leaders should be seated around a single table or in a big ballroom. You interact with all of them at once and not bilaterally. Or maybe at different tables depending on who knows whom, got to test out what works best. This way, you see your own avatar as well. Only matters of great importance are talked about here: the standard selling of resources happens on another screen that represents a market: you offer, others may buy. As for the diplomacy table, I'd rather go for over the top silly antics (see video) than an actual sober negotiation.

So with that I'm with you all. The leaders don't need to be on the map for me, Governors may do that just as well, but why not. It's a gameplay decision. Events and quests: yes, sure, but do it in a clever way (I will not give details on what that would be ;-)).

I'd add that you may change leaders throughout the game which would give your civ a change of direction. In a more somber game, I'd call that dynasties which would allow for all civs to be treated the same (make up family names where necessary). But in this civ with the focus on the antics of leaders (see video), you'd need the personalities to make it fun. Think of these leader changes as 1-2 opportunities per game to do something else, like choosing a new culture in Humankind. But here you can set the timetable yourself and you chose "within your own civ". Big civs would have 3-5 leaders and thus more flexibility - it's what makes the Romans stronger than the Mapuche in accordance to their historical importance without giving them overpowered gear.

Governments and the demands of your population should play a role as well - and that rounds out the roleplaying elements of the game for me.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,606
Location
Texas
Big civs would have 3-5 leaders and thus more flexibility - it's what makes the Romans stronger than the Mapuche in accordance to their historical importance without giving them overpowered gear.
So what about Spain? :mischief:
In all seriousness as much as I would like changing leaders in game, for a more varied approach, the inflexibility of some is what is keeping me from thinking it should be in the game. As long as some civs still have multiple leaders to choose from at the beginning of the game is fine by me.
 

mitsho

Deity
Joined
Nov 3, 2003
Messages
8,197
Location
Europe, more or less
So what about Spain? :mischief:
In all seriousness as much as I would like changing leaders in game, for a more varied approach, the inflexibility of some is what is keeping me from thinking it should be in the game. As long as some civs still have multiple leaders to choose from at the beginning of the game is fine by me.

What about Spain? (sorry, I really don't get it)

And yes, multiple leaders in a game would be a matter of taste. It has more wide-ranging effects on gameplay than the other proposals in this thread and what this thread is about anyways. So yeah, no need to convince anyone here. As clarification, I wouldn't want the leaders in chronological order anyways and you wouldn't need to change them up. From the group of AI-opponents, only every other or so would do it - it's important to keep the overview, as Humankind has so deftly shown us (where it gets confusing). I'd see it mainly as a way to have "all" Persias in the game, but again, personal taste.
 
Joined
Oct 17, 2017
Messages
8,606
Location
Texas
What about Spain? (sorry, I really don't get it)
Just pointing out that historical importance isn't really relevant when it comes to multiple leaders considering the Mapuche were able to resist Spain, which I would assume would be on the same level of multiple leaders as Rome. :p

And yes, multiple leaders in a game would be a matter of taste. It has more wide-ranging effects on gameplay than the other proposals in this thread and what this thread is about anyways. So yeah, no need to convince anyone here. As clarification, I wouldn't want the leaders in chronological order anyways and you wouldn't need to change them up. From the group of AI-opponents, only every other or so would do it - it's important to keep the overview, as Humankind has so deftly shown us (where it gets confusing). I'd see it mainly as a way to have "all" Persias in the game, but again, personal taste.
I agree with all of what you are saying and wouldn't mind starting an English game with Victoria and then ending with Elizabeth as leader. But that would also mean a lot of civs would lose out on this mechanic.
 

Zaarin

Diplomatic Attaché to Londo Mollari
Joined
May 14, 2016
Messages
11,260
Location
Babylon 5
By that I mean, the leaders should be seated around a single table or in a big ballroom. You interact with all of them at once and not bilaterally. Or maybe at different tables depending on who knows whom, got to test out what works best. This way, you see your own avatar as well. Only matters of great importance are talked about here: the standard selling of resources happens on another screen that represents a market: you offer, others may buy. As for the diplomacy table, I'd rather go for over the top silly antics (see video) than an actual sober negotiation.
I'm all for including councils and congresses if they can be done better than they have so far in the franchise, especially if they give it a more personal touch as you suggest, but that shouldn't replace individual diplomacy IMO. Pre-Medieval era, it was not at all common for a multitude of nations to come together to discuss diplomacy, and even in the modern age one nation can treat with another without getting the entire UN involved.
 
Top Bottom