Role playing Civilizations

[Scaramanga]

I always roleplay as Phillip II since that's the best way to warmonger as him.
I find that the roles leaders have are generic strategies dialed up a notch (different religions, city-state killer, city-state competitor, enthusiastic disciple).
Anyone can use the Wars of Religion card, conquer city-states that don't belong to them, maximize envoy usage, or leverage an outside religion; so the roles they have is a way of exploring the plethora of strategies out there.

 

[UWHabs]

I usually try to play to the uniques of the civ, which leads you down a certain road. So if I'm playing Norway, obviously I will war and pillage, and have a naval focus. I always hate to play as a civ and not use their special abilities.

 

[AntSou]

I usually try to play to the uniques of the civ, which leads you down a certain road. So if I'm playing Norway, obviously I will war and pillage, and have a naval focus. I always hate to play as a civ and not use their special abilities.

That's when I reload. I don't care much for how strong a start is, other than spawning on snow, but if I'm playing the Inca and I spawn next to a single mountain surrounded by mostly desert and hardly any hills, there's no way I'm playing that.

 

[steveg700]

That's when I reload. I don't care much for how strong a start is, other than spawning on snow, but if I'm playing the Inca and I spawn next to a single mountain surrounded by mostly desert and hardly any hills, there's no way I'm playing that.

Heh. I've been playing Australia recently. Keep getting stuck in the middle of jungles. Hope that's not a starting bias.

 

[CaptainUnknown]

Usually if by the Renaissance I already know which victory I'm going for, I'm doing something wrong. It's only around the Industrial Era that I tend to narrow it down, and only around the modern era that I start gamey mode and consider which Civs might win the game if I don't stop messing around.

There's some exceptions, like Mongolia, but most Civs allow for a fluid play style.

As for Score Victory, it should be more fun than what it actually is. It's pretty bland. It's one of the things that makes me anticipate Humankind. They are creating what at the moment sounds like a proper Score Victory.

Score Victory is theoretically the best one for immersion and role-playing, but in practice not much thought seems to have been put into it and the scoring can feel a bit broken and unrewarding.

Edit: Pretty sure there's a mod that locks the end era. Not sure if it's up to date.

Yeah, I could see the score victory points distribution being a bit wonky and favoring certain things over others. I totally agree about Humankind having potential to unlock more RP aspects, and contain a proper score victory.

I always roleplay as Phillip II since that's the best way to warmonger as him.
I find that the roles leaders have are generic strategies dialed up a notch (different religions, city-state killer, city-state competitor, enthusiastic disciple).
Anyone can use the Wars of Religion card, conquer city-states that don't belong to them, maximize envoy usage, or leverage an outside religion; so the roles they have is a way of exploring the plethora of strategies out there.

That sounds like a fun way to play Philip. I do agree, using religion can be easy way to realistically role-play a character. For city-state killers, I actually never kill city-states (because I like their bonuses) but if I am Frederick Barbarossa and I need to create the Holy Roman Empire then yes, I am going to crush city-states that are within my logical borders. So I agree, the leader benefits do really encourage some new strategies, it's just unfortunate that a lot of them seem weak (from a role-play aspect).

 

[AntSou]

That sounds like a fun way to play Philip. I do agree, using religion can be easy way to realistically role-play a character. For city-state killers, I actually never kill city-states (because I like their bonuses) but if I am Frederick Barbarossa and I need to create the Holy Roman Empire then yes, I am going to crush city-states that are within my logical borders. So I agree, the leader benefits do really encourage some new strategies, it's just unfortunate that a lot of them seem weak (from a role-play aspect).

Had a fun game recently where I was actually hot-seating two Civs on a 6-Civ game. It was all randomised, and the two Human Civs ended up next to one another. It was Frederick and Gilgamesh.

It was really fun, as I was role-playing both. Gilgamesh trying to control city-states and levy their units while Frederick was positioning itself to conquer the city states which could prove troublesome in the future.

There was an Epic war for Brussels, which was right at the centre between Germany and Sumeria. It started as a cold war for many turns because Germany didn't quite have the strength to make the first move... but then a huge volcano erupted, bringing Brussels defences down and its health to nearly half. Germany did take it in the end, but they couldn't quite press onwards towards Sumeria because the land was too hilly and the going was slow. Never finished that game.

Hot-seating does solve many of the AIs issues . You kind of need to set your own rules for stuff like spies and world congress. It's a lot of fun, but slow-going.

 

[Scaramanga]

That sounds like a fun way to play Philip. I do agree, using religion can be easy way to realistically role-play a character. For city-state killers, I actually never kill city-states (because I like their bonuses) but if I am Frederick Barbarossa and I need to create the Holy Roman Empire then yes, I am going to crush city-states that are within my logical borders. So I agree, the leader benefits do really encourage some new strategies, it's just unfortunate that a lot of them seem weak (from a role-play aspect).

There are cases where you would want to take out city-states because they don't belong to you and their weakness makes them better targets than their suzerain, and their suzerain is a runaway. With Barbarossa this is your bread and butter but sometimes you have to channel your inner Barbarossa. I think all the agenda role-play makes sense in some perspective, just don't get bogged down in the details.

 

[ghost88]

You mean like the custom options in Stellaris? Custom options are easier in Sci-Fi titles I think, which is why they're a part of Beyond Earth as well, even if in limited form.

I think it would be interesting if they released a bunch of art assets unused in the base game and maybe improved/simplified modding tools. I would pay for that. It would still require more work than your typical plug and play kind of custom Faction, but I agree the current tools aren't particularly welcoming to first time modders.

While Civ6 is based on history it falls under the "Alternative History" branch of Science Fiction.
As for "plug and play" Civs 2,3&4(iirc) had plug and play modding and easy map editing/creation with three being perfect for users like me who are typing impaired and get vision migraines if having to concentrate for long periods which is why I could never learn coding. Which modding for 5&6 entail to the extreme. So until firaxis include P&P to the modding tools they are lying if the claim their game is the most Modder friendly Civ game ever as it is not friendly at all to players like me.
I like at this time to thank @Gedemon for his TSL mod. Without who's existents I would have wasted my money on 6. Because of his mod I can play the game my way.

 

[CaptainUnknown]

Had a fun game recently where I was actually hot-seating two Civs on a 6-Civ game. It was all randomised, and the two Human Civs ended up next to one another. It was Frederick and Gilgamesh.

It was really fun, as I was role-playing both. Gilgamesh trying to control city-states and levy their units while Frederick was positioning itself to conquer the city states which could prove troublesome in the future.

There was an Epic war for Brussels, which was right at the centre between Germany and Sumeria. It started as a cold war for many turns because Germany didn't quite have the strength to make the first move... but then a huge volcano erupted, bringing Brussels defences down and its health to nearly half. Germany did take it in the end, but they couldn't quite press onwards towards Sumeria because the land was too hilly and the going was slow. Never finished that game.

Hot-seating does solve many of the AIs issues . You kind of need to set your own rules for stuff like spies and world congress. It's a lot of fun, but slow-going.

The hot-seating idea sounds fun but yeah, definitely need discipline. In board games it is common to have a solo mode with automata rules, perhaps implemented with an "AI" deck. I wonder how hard this would be to create? You of course would only need to bring this out when the 2-hot seat civs are contending for the same thing

 

[Dragonflow]

When playing on TSL earth map I tend to try and stick to the historical borers or expansion of Civs. That and I occasionally try following the leader's agenda.

 

[Socrates-]

I like this roleplaying mindset for my games of Civ as well. For me it's a fun way to add some flavor to the games instead of taking the same (optimal?) route to victory each game.

Currently I'm playing a game with Trajanus and fighting a bloody borderwar with Alexander from Macedon. Although not perfectly historical correct, the fights between both civ's UU's do feel great. To keep the ingame Roman 'spirit' alive i'm currently focussing on gaining control over as much land as possible. I keep every conquered city unless the opposing civ did to much damage to my own empire: in which case i'll raze their capital (like the Romans did with Carthage).

Maybe after this game I'll choose England or The Netherlands to play a 'tall' empire until the early renaissance & after that start expanding to different continents in search of new luxuries. It's a shame there's no such thing as a commercial victory because this would be quite fitting for this idea (ethical issues concerning colonialism aside off course!)

Anyone else has some suggestions for roleplaying particular Civs?

 

[konokono]

One of my goals eventually is to play as North Korea, which means getting a dark age in the modern era and using the "rogue state" policy card while pumping out nukes

 

[Velvet glove]

I've tried to, but whatever roleplay or victory type I go for (except religion), I end up doing domination. I guess that's roleplaying the 4x genre where the 4th x doesn't stand for "and they lived happily ever after"

 

[CaptainUnknown]

One of my goals eventually is to play as North Korea, which means getting a dark age in the modern era and using the "rogue state" policy card while pumping out nukes

That sounds like an excellent idea. I haven't considered using policy cards for role-play, but I do usually try to pick the government that best matches.

 

[Tech Osen]

While I did conquer Dido and Victoria my recent Mongol game ended in a cultural victory. Which gave me an achievement which only 0,6% of players have...
Also found out there is a historic moment for having a tradepost in every other civ. Which is of course easier with the instant tradepost of the Mongols.

 

[Sostratus]

For example, the Germany leader, Fredrick Barbossa, has attack bonus versus city states. This bonus implies that the Civ should focus on "creating the holy roman empire" and to do this the the player should conquer near by city states.

The true path of Germany is to break the world under the weight of German efficiency. PRODUCTION IS THE TEUTONIC WAY! THE MORE WE PRODUCE THE FASTER WE CAN BUILD FACTORIES FOR MORE PRODUCTION!!
*orderlies subdue a raving CivFanatic and send him back to bed*

Actually, I always wanted to do some kind of ice civ, for example Norway with additional tundra/ice bonuses, ships & barbarian yields. Basically the ultimate explorer civ that can settle the poles.

It would be really fun to play. But as others said, I would need to invest serious amounts of time to create it & frankly, there are soo many other games that crave my attention

Whelp, I'll probably just go watch Frozen 2 and dream about my unrealized ice civ

Learning to mod Civ6 is like learning any language. It takes time to master, but if you just want to learn a few phrases like “I’d like to order a beer” to walk around town, you can do that in an afternoon.
The only real limitation is if you decide you want something that goes outside the regular modifiers system and strays into LUA territory. But you could, for example, very easily just change Norway (or some other Civ’s) abilities and even throw in a new color.
I’ve made my own civ for personal enjoyment and sure, I couldn’t get in game leader art working right but you never see that. Everything else- color, UU, UI, etc- was relatively easy and something I picked up in a weekend.

 

[Arent11]

Learning to mod Civ6 is like learning any language. It takes time to master, but if you just want to learn a few phrases like “I’d like to order a beer” to walk around town, you can do that in an afternoon.
The only real limitation is if you decide you want something that goes outside the regular modifiers system and strays into LUA territory. But you could, for example, very easily just change Norway (or some other Civ’s) abilities and even throw in a new color.
I’ve made my own civ for personal enjoyment and sure, I couldn’t get in game leader art working right but you never see that. Everything else- color, UU, UI, etc- was relatively easy and something I picked up in a weekend.

Right now I'm creatively creating other stuff. Which I like much more