• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Small question related to power levels

Joined
Jan 13, 2022
Messages
354
Location
Usa
in a fantasy dlc how would your perfect version of CIV handle heroic and superheroic characters?

let's define three levels of this

heroic: people at mild superhuman levels, could defeat 3 armored and trained by tthemselves. or maybe they can fly.

superheroic: individual named characters that have more power than regional or even global governments. individual named characters that could do more than 100 or 1,000 in universe people could do at a certain thing. an example is some sort of Dynasty Warriors like character who could defeat an army of 6,000 by themselves. this not only applies to brute strength but to more outo f the way powers: a Heroic character might be able to stop time within a certain area. or summon an army of golems

apocalpytic: The character is a walking natural disaster. They could destroy an entire country if they wanted in one stroke. or the planet

this is important for franchise crossovers. for instance let's say Civ VII gets a Genshin Impact Crossover DLC. Or a Marvel/DC crossover DLC. Or a Fate Crossover DLC. I can give an example of absurd power from Fate.

 
Last edited:
personally, i would let the apocalyptic or superheroic characters destroy cities, flatten mountains and peaks, even outright delete some tiles.
 
This is one of the primary reasons I dislike Fantasy games as a rule. The Fantasy characters tend to be vastly over-powered, which makes for a very bad competitive game: you gets the right character, you win. Period. End of game. What's the point?

On the other hand, to warp the discussion a bit, Civ, and especially Civ VI, has gone whole hog for the 'Great Man' theory of History: History as a series of events and reactions to events driven by the actions of Great Men (and Women). This was a thoroughly discredited notion as recently as the 1990s, when Great (White) Men were themselves discredited as positive influences on events. The Marxist theory of history as Inevitable Actions of Peoples and their Cumulative Events held sway. Then the Soviet Union collapsed, Marxism was discredited, and historians rediscovered the fact that while conditions may be set by the long-term actions and reactions of large groups of peoples and nations, specific historical events all too often hinged on an Individual: an Alexander of Macedon, a Chingus, a Kong Fu Tse, a Saul of Tarsus, or any of dozens of Great Generals, the precisely Right Person at the Right Time and Place.

Given that Civ VI abounds with Named Characters from Leaders to Governors to Great People of all kinds, its orientation is obvious.

So, to put the Fantasy definitions in Civ terms, what historical (or even semi-historical) individuals deserve the definitive titles of Heroic, Superheroic or Apocalyptic?

I'll start off:
Using the delineator of their effect on subsequent events and peoples, 'Apocalyptic' characters require that they have a major and lasting effect (lasting for at least centuries) and that the effects cannot be imagined in quite the same way without them:

Gautama Buddha
Mohammed
Kong Fu Tse
Plato
Saul of Tarsus
Alexander of Macedon
Martin Luther
Napoleoni Buonaparto

'Superheroic' I would imagine historically as those individuals who, while their effects might have been accomplished by other named individuals or groups, accomplished them in unique and memorable ways that in themselves had lasting effects, so in Civ VI terms might be:

All Great Generals
Many Leaders
Some Great Merchants, Great Scientists, or Governors

'Heroic' individuals create myths or models that persist, at least among their own culture/society and so provide models for behavior and accomplishment. Consequently, their effects may be strictly Local or local to a single Civ or cultural group. Examples might be:

Leonidas of Sparta
Barbarossa of Germany
George Washington
Jeanne D'Arc
Robyn in the Hood
Thasunke Witko of the Lakota
 
Regarding great men vs great movements theory of history, I will also contend that even were great men history utterly discredited and forever gone, it would remain the popular perception of history - because the history of the deeds of our ancestors play the same social role as the myths and legends of yore. Human need heroes to relate to, and vilains to despise, need the belief that individual actions matter, and need tales that remond them of who they are and what they stand for.

"Great People" history provides that in a way Marxist history never can, and so it remains the one that speak to the common folk, and remembered by the people.
 
Regarding great men vs great movements theory of history, I will also contend that even were great men history utterly discredited and forever gone, it would remain the popular perception of history - because the history of the deeds of our ancestors play the same social role as the myths and legends of yore. Human need heroes to relate to, and vilains to despise, need the belief that individual actions matter, and need tales that remond them of who they are and what they stand for.

"Great People" history provides that in a way Marxist history never can, and so it remains the one that speak to the common folk, and remembered by the people.
I was sitting in undergraduate and graduate classes when the "Great Movements" or Marxist historiology was in force, but didn't buy it then and don't buy it now, simply because some people at some times and places are, at the very least, catalysts for Massive and sometimes Fundamental change. Whether they could be replaced by other people at the same time and place we'll never really know - alternate history being even more of a guessing game than predicting the consequences of actual historical events. The fact remains indisputible that some individuals had great effects and should be acknowledged, even if you hedge your bets by also acknowledging that Background, Time and Place are also very important in the type and amount of effect they have.
 
@Boris Gudenuf
This is one of the primary reasons I dislike Fantasy games as a rule. The Fantasy characters tend to be vastly over-powered, which makes for a very bad competitive game: you gets the right character, you win. Period. End of game. What's the point?
fantasy games would be better for you if they were single player, me thinks.

as for the rest of your post: that's very interesting. i like how you reworked my definitions into civ terms.

i can imagine saul of tarsus picking up aa mountain and throwing it, which is funny.

Regarding great men vs great movements theory of history, I will also contend that even were great men history utterly discredited and forever gone, it would remain the popular perception of history - because the history of the deeds of our ancestors play the same social role as the myths and legends of yore. Human need heroes to relate to, and vilains to despise, need the belief that individual actions matter, and need tales that remond them of who they are and what they stand for.

"Great People" history provides that in a way Marxist history never can, and so it remains the one that speak to the common folk, and remembered by the people.
yup. it's why i suggested in civ radical you could make your own great people.
 
i made this question in part because...well, i want to make my own fall from heaven 2 for Civ6 (if I can), but more anime inspired, and that comes with it power levels
 
@Boris Gudenuf
i can imagine saul of tarsus picking up aa mountain and throwing it, which is funny.

No, no: Saul's (St Paul's) Great Power is that he can convince anybody of anything, even something that has nothing to do with what he's supposed to be teaching, like converting the teachings of Jeshua of Nazareth, whatever they were, into a compilation of Greek Stoic philosophical tenets that he has been taught in Tarsus, a Hellenic Greek city. His influence on 'Christian' thought is why I used him as an example and not Jeshua - we can't really be certain what Jeshua said, given that the earliest accounts are from 30 - 50 years after his death and filtered by some very Un-Jewish Greek philosophy!
 
No, no: Saul's (St Paul's) Great Power is that he can convince anybody of anything, even something that has nothing to do with what he's supposed to be teaching, like converting the teachings of Jeshua of Nazareth, whatever they were, into a compilation of Greek Stoic philosophical tenets that he has been taught in Tarsus, a Hellenic Greek city. His influence on 'Christian' thought is why I used him as an example and not Jeshua - we can't really be certain what Jeshua said, given that the earliest accounts are from 30 - 50 years after his death and filtered by some very Un-Jewish Greek philosophy!
that sounds much better for a competitive game.
 
Top Bottom