Interesting point to be made... on CivFanatics in a discussion by people who post on CivFanatics. Dude...
how so? isnt it true? the opinions we have here as hard core fans might not be true of the fans who only use reddit, or discord, or don’t talk about the game on social media at all.
You can compare the number of downloads of even the most popular mods with the game itself. I play the game heavily modded. But I know that’s not the majority. A lot of players of the game are too old or young to know how to use steam workshop or other modding sites. Others are just uninterested and aren’t hardcore fans who want a modded experience.
But don’t take the average experience of CivFanatics, which is a big minority of the fanbase, and apply it to a larger player base of millions of people.
I know this isn’t a representative body of the fanbase because I logged back on for the first time in 4 years and most of the same users are still posting (shoutout
@Alexander's Hetaroi)
Translation, please?
Do you mean that non-Pc gamers wouldn't be able to use them (no idea, not a modder myself), or that we shouldn't relegate the task of "fixing the game" to mods to begin with?
yes, xbox, switch and ps players cannot download mods as mods are generally not supported on console and there is no way to download mods on console without hooking it up to computer (in the case of xbox and playstation) and directly modifying game files, or homebrewing your console (in the case of switch)
Crisis is also something forced ...
UI pop-out and says "Now its crisis time, choose two of this bad policies" .... thats all forced, its not natural
Crisis would be if barbarians naturally become more violent because there is less non-claimed tiles on map, forcing them to start invasions.
Thats how it should be done, not by some button on screen at turn X.
hard agree
3) Balancing civs would be made around the non-classical mode.
while not ideal, this isn’t *that* different than how civs previously were, since they’d just all come online at their appropriate eras and try to snowball while their civ was at its peak
One possible requirement. Not the only one.
If we were sticking to purely historical options (eg, only civ that are actual historical precursors of the Songhai and leaders who actually led the Songhai can pick them), the only way to play Songhai would be to have a Songhai leader a non-Songhai civ in the fist part of the game. There's no identified precursor civ - Mali and Ghana certainly are not!
You essentially cannot have both flexible civ/leader pairings AND historical civ/leader pairings at once. Making the pretense, at the cost of artificially limiting the number of civs by demanding each mustnhave a leader, would be a farcical mistake.
it’s how the game series has always been played. Yes, leader/civ relationships been toyed with before, but never to the point that the core gameplay of at least 1 leader for 1 civ was toyed with.
i also don’t see how making the leader of the Hausa, who don’t share geography with the Songhai, were at their peak around the end of the Songhai empire and cannot be called Successors of the Songhai, the “default” leader for the Songhai, is any better than your aforementioned example of locking in a Mayan leader to the Olmecs. The “default path” is effectively their recommended path and the one which requires the most hoops. At high difficulties where you have to mix-max, can you afford to waste time trying to unlock other progressions? Will people who misguidedly think they’re being more historically accurate or maintaining flavor pick her because they think she is a Songhai leader?
The devs said it themselves, their goal is to educate. How are you educating about lesser known people’s and kingdoms and civs when you can’t highlight the leaders of these great empires like the Songhai, and can’t highlight the nations of great leaders like Amina of Zazzau. I got into history because I wanted to know more about Montezuma of the Aztecs, Pachacuti of the Inca, Kamehameha of Hawai’i. These are not engagements with history that occur in the same way when you don’t connect leader and civ in the same way.
I don’t disagree that this allows us to explore civs like the Indus Valley Civ and the Olmecs, but respectfully, at what cost? The game has always been fairly explicit about what it’s able to realistically include as an entry, and part of the reason why civs were excluded bcs we can’t depict their leader or don’t know their language is because the leader plays an educational role in actually *engaging* with the civ. hearing their language, learning about them by googling their abilities.
We know the real reason they’re doing this—leaders are expensive to animate, research, voice act and implement. So they’re creating a system where they need to do far less of that. Cost Cutting while making deluxe edition $120 doesn’t sit right with me.
Civs too modern to have leaders without controversy
