Role Playing and Narratives in Civ VII

[Thormodr]

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...


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...)

I loved Punk Joan of Arc. Now you are making me sad. Lol.

 

[mitsho]

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.

Ah, I see, we have different interpretations of "historical importance". I saw the term as follows: If you had ten slots for civs, these ten civs would be tier A. the next ten tier B. And so on. Each civ should have the same Uniques in my mind, but I do feel that the Tier A civs should receive some sort of bonus over other civs, but one that doesn't just make them straight up better. This is not about power or success one civ had over another, but about a way to show the diversity within a civ for civs that are more notorious.

It's also an asymmetrical view: not all civs are equal anymore, and I just think that's realistic.

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.

Yes, I agree with you, it'd be totally unrealistic. But I'm coming at this from a point of view for a fluent gameplay. I really really hate having to constantly switch screens when doing diplomacy. It's just such a hassle. I feel it would be a real quality-of-life improvement if that could be solved differently, and that "room" or "table" is just such a proposal. I have no idea if it'd work code-wise. But it for sure would be something marketable as a change with regard to previous games. Just imagine, all the leaders sitting around the map (that changes). some are hunched over a part, one is pointing at ... a newly built wonder or something. You click on them and get the talking options on a transparent field in front of them. Maybe the others don't hear what you talk about until technology X. That's way deeper than I thought about the proposal. But I think it could work. Marketing-wise, not sure about codes and graphics

 

[Zaarin]

I loved Punk Joan of Arc. Now you are making me sad. Lol.

I mean, I thought it was pretty clear they were portraying her as a Neo-Nazi, not a punk. It's probably a nod to the French far-right claiming her as a symbol, but I thought it was in pretty poor taste.

Ah, I see, we have different interpretations of "historical importance". I saw the term as follows: If you had ten slots for civs, these ten civs would be tier A. the next ten tier B. And so on. Each civ should have the same Uniques in my mind, but I do feel that the Tier A civs should receive some sort of bonus over other civs, but one that doesn't just make them straight up better. This is not about power or success one civ had over another, but about a way to show the diversity within a civ for civs that are more notorious.

It's also an asymmetrical view: not all civs are equal anymore, and I just think that's realistic.

I agree on focusing on asymmetric design and accepting that some civs will just have an advantage over others, at least in the correct circumstances, but I prefer Civ6's method of different unique abilities.

Yes, I agree with you, it'd be totally unrealistic. But I'm coming at this from a point of view for a fluent gameplay. I really really hate having to constantly switch screens when doing diplomacy. It's just such a hassle. I feel it would be a real quality-of-life improvement if that could be solved differently, and that "room" or "table" is just such a proposal. I have no idea if it'd work code-wise. But it for sure would be something marketable as a change with regard to previous games. Just imagine, all the leaders sitting around the map (that changes). some are hunched over a part, one is pointing at ... a newly built wonder or something. You click on them and get the talking options on a transparent field in front of them. Maybe the others don't hear what you talk about until technology X. That's way deeper than I thought about the proposal. But I think it could work. Marketing-wise, not sure about codes and graphics

It's an interesting concept, and it's in line with what I've discussed before about doubling down on leaders and adding more roleplay elements. I'm just concerned that 1) it takes the focus off leaders individually and 2) it brings us back to R&F's dubious world congress meeting before everyone in the world even knows each other. I think the idea still has merit for implementing the new world congress(es), though, and in particular I'd like to see ecumenical councils, meetings of coreligionists, be a thing in Civ7 so this could even work on a smaller scale for that. I'd also like to see a lot more politicking in Civ7: "my empire will give you X if you vote Y or vote against Y; my empire will give you X if you make or break such and such a deal with Y; etc."

 

[Thormodr]

Ah, well. I missed the supposed link with French politics.

I would prefer they keep real world politics out of the game. Well, except for the Dan Quayle lowest score tier. That can stay.

 

[Zaarin]

Ah, well. I missed the supposed link with French politics.

I would prefer they keep real world politics out of the game. Well, except for the Dan Quayle lowest score tier. That can stay.

Heartily agreed. (I mean, to some extent history is political, but divisive contemporary politics at least can be kept to an absolute minimum.)

 

[dagriggstar]

I think civilisation is too broad a game to model individual lives. Like on my YouTube channel I did a Poland play through where I did a bunch of research so during the video I can say things like “and so as part of the first coalition against Spanish aggression, King John III Sobieski led his winged hussars on deep raids into Spanish territory, allowing Poland’s allies to take back and liberate the city state of Venice.”. But it was incredibly awkward as I would advance so much in technology and time while fighting this war, like to maintain the I guess, suspense of disbelief.

For smaller stuff, I think the timeline should include random citizen names when stuff is completed. George the navigator completes his voyage around the globe. I think that would help a lot.

I’m not a fan of having small events, however I would like a few game changing events. I think whenever you advance an era, there should be some trnasformative event your faction goes through, some challenge to overcome. Like what is marking this new era? Why is our society changing ?

 

[awesome]

For smaller stuff, I think the timeline should include random citizen names when stuff is completed. George the navigator completes his voyage around the globe. I think that would help a lot.

Like, each civ gets a citizen name list?

I’m not a fan of having small events, however I would like a few game changing events. I think whenever you advance an era, there should be some trnasformative event your faction goes through, some challenge to overcome. Like what is marking this new era? Why is our society changing ?

Sometimes, that challenge is just, “how can we kill people more efficiently.” but, I definitely enjoyed the random events of civ4, so those should definitely still be a thing, but I guess you should opt in.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

I mean, I thought it was pretty clear they were portraying her as a Neo-Nazi, not a punk. It's probably a nod to the French far-right claiming her as a symbol, but I thought it was in pretty poor taste.

I wasn't there at the time, but I cannot imagine this to be the case. I always saw her as a punk, and as androgynous (historically correct), but didn't see her as a right-wing symbol. If 2001 Firaxis had wanted to nod to neo-Nazis, they could have chosen a couple leaders who were not so neo-.

 

[Zaarin]

I wasn't there at the time, but I cannot imagine this to be the case. I always saw her as a punk, and as androgynous (historically correct), but didn't see her as a right-wing symbol. If 2001 Firaxis had wanted to nod to neo-Nazis, they could have chosen a couple leaders who were not so neo-.

Perhaps. Either way, I'm not even Catholic, and portraying a saint as an androgynous punk still smacks of poor taste to me. This is a person many people--1.3 billion, according to Wikipedia--regard as a holy figure. I'm not saying the intent was necessarily malicious, but I would call it at best tacky and thoughtless. (Cf. Civ6's Jadwiga, another saint who was portrayed much more tastefully.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Perhaps. Either way, I'm not even Catholic, and portraying a saint as an androgynous punk still smacks of poor taste to me. This is a person many people--1.3 billion, according to Wikipedia--regard as a holy figure. I'm not saying the intent was necessarily malicious, but I would call it at best tacky and thoughtless. (Cf. Civ6's Jadwiga, another saint who was portrayed much more tastefully.)

I'm sure they weren't focused on the saint side, but more on the military side of her. But I agree that any resemblance wasn't probably intentional.

Besides I've seen people talk about Jadwiga being a waifu with her hips, so I'm convinced that some people will find something wrong no matter what.

 

[notNamed]

I wasn't there at the time, but I cannot imagine this to be the case. I always saw her as a punk, and as androgynous (historically correct), but didn't see her as a right-wing symbol. If 2001 Firaxis had wanted to nod to neo-Nazis, they could have chosen a couple leaders who were not so neo-.

Agreed. Being pro-US military is definitely a show of counterculture in 2001's France. I would warrant a guess that French neo-nazis would be extremely anti-American, but I'd let a French person have the last word on that.
Not sure why you'd see her as androgynous, though. Most accounts we have of her are from soldiers complimenting her good looks and how neither her, nor God would allow them to have any urges such a girl would normally bring up in them.

Perhaps. Either way, I'm not even Catholic, and portraying a saint as an androgynous punk still smacks of poor taste to me. This is a person many people--1.3 billion, according to Wikipedia--regard as a holy figure. I'm not saying the intent was necessarily malicious, but I would call it at best tacky and thoughtless. (Cf. Civ6's Jadwiga, another saint who was portrayed much more tastefully.)

Canonised saints are not holy figures. They are people recognised by the Church as being exemplary Christians. People who were tortured for their faith, people who sacrificed themselves for others, people who went above and beyond in living as a Christian should, that sort of thing. It's not some pantheon of demigods with associated taboos on depiction, just regular people whom you're supposed to be inspired by.

 

[Zaarin]

Besides I've seen people talk about Jadwiga being a waifu with her hips, so I'm convinced that some people will find something wrong no matter what.

I mean, Christianity isn't anti-sex, and Jadwiga wasn't a maiden so I don't really see that as a problem in her portrayal. She comes across as pious and devout; you don't have to be celibate to be chaste.

Canonised saints are not holy figures. They are people recognised by the Church as being exemplary Christians. People who were tortured for their faith, people who sacrificed themselves for others, people who went above and beyond in living as a Christian should, that sort of thing. It's not some pantheon of demigods with associated taboos on depiction, just regular people whom you're supposed to be inspired by.

It's almost like you don't have to be Catholic, Orthodox*, or liturgical Protestant to know what a saint is. I explicitly referenced the depiction of Jadwiga being more tasteful so it's not like I gave any indication of being an iconoclast or aniconist. I was saying the specific portrayal of Joan of Arc in Civ3 was irreverent, not that portraying a saint is inherently wrong. Also your definition of a saint is remarkably Protestant; the Catholic definition is someone who is recognized as having an exalted place in heaven who can make intercessory prayer on behalf of the living.

*I am philo-Orthodox, but more in the sense that Orthodoxy informs my Protestantism than in any intention of converting.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Wearing men's (soldier's) clothes was the specific reason she was executed. She claimed that God had instructed her to wear men's clothing, and her attire in captivity (after promising she would dress in women's clothes) was what led to her conviction. The reasons for this might be complex, and I don't have a background in gender in medieval Europe, but discussions in her trial centered around the violations of gender.

Now, the argument that her modern attire in Civ3 was a joke, and treating a saint in a flippant way; that's fair enough. I recall, too, the Norse leader wore cozy sweaters, Montezuma put on a bolo tie, etc. Most of the modern outfits for pre-modern leaders tended towards such jokes. Funny or in poor taste... I doubt Rangar's descendants mind, but that's not to say that French Catholics didn't. I'm not going to (and shouldn't) comment more, just pointing out that 20 years have gone by, and gaming has reached a far greater audience, with different sensibilities these days.

 

[Zaarin]

Wearing men's (soldier's) clothes was the specific reason she was executed. She claimed that God had instructed her to wear men's clothing, and her attire in captivity (after promising she would dress in women's clothes) was what led to her conviction. The reasons for this might be complex, and I don't have a background in gender in medieval Europe, but discussions in her trial centered around the violations of gender.

Yes, those were the arguments made, though it's also worth remembering that her trial was very political. She had cost the English dearly, for a time turning the tide in a war that had very much been going in favor of the English, and they weren't overly concerned about why she burned so long as she burned. She was also pardoned by the Vatican almost as soon as the War was over.

Now, the argument that her modern attire in Civ3 was a joke, and treating a saint in a flippant way; that's fair enough. I recall, too, the Norse leader wore cozy sweaters, Montezuma put on a bolo tie, etc. Most of the modern outfits for pre-modern leaders tended towards such jokes. Funny or in poor taste... I doubt Rangar's descendants mind, but that's not to say that French Catholics didn't. I'm not going to (and shouldn't) comment more, just pointing out that 20 years have gone by, and gaming has reached a far greater audience, with different sensibilities these days.

Yes, as I've said, obviously things have changed. Many things that passed in the game back then--whether its the flippancy of Civ3's leader portrayals or some of Civ4's dubious choices like Mao, Stalin, or even FDR--don't happen now. The franchise has grown much more conscious of historical accuracy and its audience, which is a good thing. I'm not bringing up Civ3 suggesting it should be retroactively canceled; I'm simply pointing out that it doesn't give me confidence about changing leader costumes--for more reasons than just the flippancy. E.g., there's still not a very good alternative to assuming inevitable Westernization in modern clothing. It's something I'd just rather not have in the game.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Ah, I see, we have different interpretations of "historical importance". I saw the term as follows: If you had ten slots for civs, these ten civs would be tier A. the next ten tier B. And so on. Each civ should have the same Uniques in my mind, but I do feel that the Tier A civs should receive some sort of bonus over other civs, but one that doesn't just make them straight up better. This is not about power or success one civ had over another, but about a way to show the diversity within a civ for civs that are more notorious.

It's also an asymmetrical view: not all civs are equal anymore, and I just think that's realistic.

Give "Tier A" civs a gameplay design that exploit some game mechanic in a way that they could shine in multiple kinds of victory. These civs should not be tagged as "cultural, militar, scientific, etc." when is obvious that they could be any of those things from a historical perpective. For example China could be about Governors, India about diverse POPs and America about Immigration and then use that mechanic to achieve the victory kind that the player want.

Meanwhile "Tier-B,C" civs could be more focused to a couple of victory paths since their historical base usually are know for a more specific reason, they still would be really good at it.

By the way at this point a CIV is almost the same as a Leader, so please do not spend all the work, time and design niches on multiple leaders for few civs. Also, I know most games are not played on Real World map, but please do not add alternate leaders that would share the same city.
I would be happy if the priority for civs with alternate leader are China with Chang'an (Tang) and Kukden (Qing) for Han and Manchu leaders, and India with Pataliputra (Maurya) and Thanjavur (Chola) for Magadha and Tamil leaders, since these civs suffer of the most blatant cases of "historical blobs".

 

[Zaarin]

Also, I know most games are not played on Real World map, but please do not add alternate leaders that would share the same city.

I agree on most points, but I'm pretty neutral on this one. I don't play with TSL, and I'm fine with having the same city on the map under different names. We're always going to have Constantinople and Kostantiniye, for example.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would be happy if the priority for civs with alternate leader are China with Chang'an (Tang) and Kukden (Qing) for Han and Manchu leaders, and India with Pataliputra (Maurya) and Thanjavur (Chola) for Magadha and Tamil leaders, since these civs suffer of the most blatant cases of "historical blobs".

Let's not forget Akbar for Agra (Akbarabad)

I agree on most points, but I'm pretty neutral on this one. I don't play with TSL, and I'm fine with having the same city on the map under different names. We're always going to have Constantinople and Kostantiniye, for example.

Louis XIV could have Versailles, since it's considered a separate city, while another could have Paris. And of course Alfred the Great could have Winchester.
I don't really care either way either, but it's fun to speculate.

 

[Zaarin]

Louis XIV could have Versailles, since it's considered a separate city, while another could have Paris. And of course Alfred the Great could have Winchester.
I don't really care either way either, but it's fun to speculate.

Henry VI could rule England from Paris (where he was crowned) and Charles VI could rule France from Reims.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Let's not forget Akbar for Agra (Akbarabad) .

Akbar could bypass be part of India just by using Lahore as his capital.

 

[civac]

A and B tier civs sound like a bad idea. It's part of the fun that in Civ some long-gone African nation or North American tribe can colonize Europe or dominate the world with their culture.