Speculation on civ unlocks in the base game

[Krikkit1]

Assuming no civ duplicates, a game with certain leaders will not have Ben lead Greece: Isabella would probably choose Greece first, and Augustus or Napoleon gets Rome. Now Ben might choose Mississippians. But what if you have Tecumseh in the game? Will Ben lead the Maya in the first age then? This all seems quite difficult to disentangle... maybe civ duplicates *is* the standard option? I mean, it seems likely that some people want to play a game with Ben, Isabella, Augustus, Napoleon, and Friedrich.

I think in a game with Augustus, Isabella, Tecumseh, Machiavelli, Franklin and Napoleon (with choosing in that order) then Franklin leading the Maya (best remaining connection to America) and Napoleon leading Persia (gameplay affinity) is just fine.

The issue is prioritize non duplicate or best historical choices or lose historical choices.... if its historical choices then you could end up with 4 Romes (Franklin, Augustus, Isabella, Napoleon)

I'd prefer this priority
1. Leaders own Civ (Augustus Rome... even if duplicate)
2. Best historical nonduplicate (Franklin Rome/Greece)
3. Random historical (ie civ path unlock) nonduplicate (Franklin Maya)
4. Random Non duplicate that has been unlocked (Napoleon Persia)...possibly prioritize gameplay synergy
5. Best historical Duplicate

Then with options to
Prioritize historical connection (Y/N)
Avoid duplicates (Y/N)
both default to yes to give the setup above

 

[uppi]

I mean, it seems likely that some people want to play a game with Ben, Isabella, Augustus, Napoleon, and Friedrich.

If those people manually select those leaders, they can probably also assign civs to them. So they could decide for themselves whether to go the duplicate route or the non-thematic route. Then the only question would be what happens on an age transition when there is a conflict.

I am more interested in what happens if the leaders are all left to random. Will it pick civs first and then roll appropriate leaders? That way you would avoid duplicates, but it would mean that you'll be staring into the face of some leaders more than others.

 

[BK_PEARL]

Hellenic into Byzantine then into .......hopefully not Turks/Ottomans as only pic.

 

[AriochIV]

I *think* they said in a livestream the AI wouldn't pick the same civ as the player - honestly this is the main reason I'd assumed each civ would unlock 2 later civs. But I guess if you have a multiplayer game with AIs mixed in the problem is still there even with 2 unlocks...

Each leader may have two unlocks to prevent a situation where there aren't any options.

 

[Krikkit1]

Each leader may have two unlocks to prevent a situation where there aren't any options.

Leaders should probably only have 1 unlock (“their” civ) But their priority should probably be flexible
1. their civ (even if duplicate)
2. civs that lead to their civ
3. civs unlocked by their current civ
4. civs with matching gameplay attribues
5. civs unlocked through gameplay
6. 2-3 but duplicates

 

[chaosprophet]

Assuming no civ duplicates, a game with certain leaders will not have Ben lead Greece: Isabella would probably choose Greece first, and Augustus or Napoleon gets Rome. Now Ben might choose Mississippians. But what if you have Tecumseh in the game? Will Ben lead the Maya in the first age then? This all seems quite difficult to disentangle... maybe civ duplicates *is* the standard option? I mean, it seems likely that some people want to play a game with Ben, Isabella, Augustus, Napoleon, and Friedrich.

That is a problem I though of before and my conclusion that would solve any problems was that when you left the other civs as random, the game would pick a random leader and civ. But later they confirmed that leaders and civs, when left at random, are picked by the associated civs (or civs in the path), so it then brings that problem that some leaders are less likely to be in a random game because they share the same initial path with too many other leaders and some leaders are unlikely to be in the same game. And then it could also make some civs more likely to be in the game if the random generator first picks a leader, as some civs will have more leaders associated.

Even if they made it very balanced from release, after a few dlcs packs it would likely be a completely mess. So random wouldn't be really random, but I guess if there is too many options as more things are added, it would be so messy it would feel like random.

 

[Leucarum]

Each leader may have two unlocks to prevent a situation where there aren't any options.

Well... Even 2 unlocks doesn't guarantee that for multiplayer games.

 

[gdr_willter]

Well... Even 2 unlocks doesn't guarantee that for multiplayer games.

They confirmed that MP will allow to choose same civ multiplely.

 

[Leucarum]

They confirmed that MP will allow to choose same civ multiplely.

Yes. The question (I think) was about the AI trying to pick a different civ to the player - hence they need multiple unlocks - meaning that for multiplayer even 2 unlocks doesn't guarantee this.

 

[j51]

Ummm... Can’t the AI just pick a random civ from the remainder if they can’t get a historical or otherwise thematic pick? I’m assuming that’s what will happen in single player. As for multiplayer, which I don’t play, let the players pick their own rules.

 

[Krikkit1]

Ummm... Can’t the AI just pick a random civ from the remainder if they can’t get a historical or otherwise thematic pick? I’m assuming that’s what will happen in single player. As for multiplayer, which I don’t play, let the players pick their own rules.

It should be from one they have unlocked*, but yes

*assuming most civs can get unlocked through gameplay, and this doesn’t apply in antiquity civs anyway

Napoleon of Egypt is fine, so is Franklin of the Maurya->Mongols (if Chola was blocked and he has 3 horses)

 

[gdr_willter]

Yes. The question (I think) was about the AI trying to pick a different civ to the player - hence they need multiple unlocks - meaning that for multiplayer even 2 unlocks doesn't guarantee this.

Well, just let them all share the same rule. Even 3 human Spain with 2 more AI Spain still make sense.

 

[AriochIV]

What I understood the devs said regarding multiplayer was that there are no unlock restrictions in multiplayer, not specifically that people could choose the same civ.

Since the leaders exist for all three Ages, it may make sense for leaders to have one unlock for each of the Exploration and Modern Ages. Civ unlocks only help you with one Age.

 

[gdr_willter]

What I understood the devs said regarding multiplayer was that there are no unlock restrictions in multiplayer, not specifically that people could choose the same civ.

Since the leaders exist for all three Ages, it may make sense for leaders to have one unlock for each of the Exploration and Modern Ages. Civ unlocks only help you with one Age.

They told about it in the Mongolia reveal thread in reddit. Only Mongolia can use Ortöös' ability, but *all* Mongolians in the game can. They specifically mentioned the MP case for this statement.

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1gjjbh4/comment/lvdtpbt

 

[Leucarum]

Well, just let them all share the same rule. Even 3 human Spain with 2 more AI Spain still make sense.

I think we're saying the same thing?

People have been arguing there need to be multiple unlocks so the AI doesn't duplicate the player's civ. That issue remains though for multiplayer, as you'd need more unlocks than the max player count. So, either the AI will duplicate, or it breaks the rules in MP. So I suspect the AI will pick duplicate civs there if it has to.

That said, it sounds like in single player they want AIs to pick different civs to the player, which makes sense for keeping the player feeling like the 'protagonist.' But if civs like spain only have one modern era unlock, we probably do get a situation where AIs will pick duplicate civs in the modern era? Or at least Mexico becomes more common because it'll sometimes get duplicated...

Have they just not revealed a second unlock yet? Or will we have single player duplication, and all the speculation about multiple "historic" paths goes out the window.

 

[j51]

I think we're saying the same thing?

People have been arguing there need to be multiple unlocks so the AI doesn't duplicate the player's civ. That issue remains though for multiplayer, as you'd need more unlocks than the max player count. So, either the AI will duplicate, or it breaks the rules in MP. So I suspect the AI will pick duplicate civs there if it has to.

That said, it sounds like in single player they want AIs to pick different civs to the player, which makes sense for keeping the player feeling like the 'protagonist.' But if civs like spain only have one modern era unlock, we probably do get a situation where AIs will pick duplicate civs in the modern era? Or at least Mexico becomes more common because it'll sometimes get duplicated...

Have they just not revealed a second unlock yet? Or will we have single player duplication, and all the speculation about multiple "historic" paths goes out the window.

I doubt they’ll make duplication the single player ai default when there’s no unlock. It’s totally gonna just be random, for varieties sake.

 

[Krikkit1]

What I understood the devs said regarding multiplayer was that there are no unlock restrictions in multiplayer, not specifically that people could choose the same civ.

Since the leaders exist for all three Ages, it may make sense for leaders to have one unlock for each of the Exploration and Modern Ages. Civ unlocks only help you with one Age.

No need for leaders to have civ unlocks for 3 Eras (except for their special civ ie Franklin-America) because there are already civ unlocks

no Reason Franklin should unlock Norman or Inca or Hawaii or whatever unlocks America from Exploration... but he would prefer those if his Antiquity civ unlocks them (and he prefers antiquity civs that unlock those)

 

[AriochIV]

Unless I've missed something, you can play any leader with any civ in the Antiquity Age, so of course leaders don't need unlocks for Antiquity civs.

I would expect that they would want the player to have at least 2 choices in each of the next two Ages, so if each civ has one unlock, that means giving each leader two.

I don't know if that's what they actually did, but it seems logical. But even having only two choices per Age is really not a very compelling set of choices. The whole point behind Age switching is supposed to be variety of choice; if you're locked into the same civs for switching every time, then the whole mechanism is pointless.

 

[Krikkit1]

Unless I've missed something, you can play any leader with any civ in the Antiquity Age, so of course leaders don't need unlocks for Antiquity civs.

I would expect that they would want the player to have at least 2 choices in each of the next two Ages, so if each civ has one unlock, that means giving each leader two.

I don't know if that's what they actually did, but it seems logical. But even having only two choices per Age is really not a very compelling set of choices. The whole point behind Age switching is supposed to be variety of choice; if you're locked into the same civs for switching every time, then the whole mechanism is pointless.

Well there are gameplay unlocks as well.
I would see the normal as leader has ~1 unlock (total)
Civs have 1-3 unlocks (will increase for base game civs over time as every new Exploration or Modern DLC civ needs to be unlocked by a Base game civ or a civ that is bundled with it)
Gameplay unlock for every Exploration/Modern civ (Mongols, Abbasids, Ming, and Normans all have a resource as part of their start bias... seems good for an unlock)

So you always have at least 1, and will often have 3 or 4, and probably be able to choose to get a civ through gameplay. (ie the choice isn't just at the end of the age)

 

[Kulko]

Well there are gameplay unlocks as well.
I would see the normal as leader has ~1 unlock (total)
Civs have 1-3 unlocks (will increase for base game civs over time as every new Exploration or Modern DLC civ needs to be unlocked by a Base game civ or a civ that is bundled with it)
Gameplay unlock for every Exploration/Modern civ (Mongols, Abbasids, Ming, and Normans all have a resource as part of their start bias... seems good for an unlock)

So you always have at least 1, and will often have 3 or 4, and probably be able to choose to get a civ through gameplay. (ie the choice isn't just at the end of the age)

Since they have already the revealed that the gameplay unlock for the mongols will be something like own 3 Horse resources, it makes sense that other Civs with a similar resource bias have a similar gameplay unlock. But it looks like the don't want to reveal those unlocks ahead of time (apart from that 1 example in the first stream).

But I am not sure, what you mean by the last sentence. do you believe I will unlock the Mongols if I have 3 horses anytime in the antiquity? I wouldn't think it works that way, doesn't also really make sense, to play the mongols when all your horse resources are gone again.

BTW Another interrsting speculation would be what unlocks spain? If every Civ is unlockable through gameplay (Which is not given), what would spains be? have 3 coastal towns or 3 "harbors" (not sure what they are called in Civ7).