Thanks for tuning in to our Shawnee livestream + Dev Diary #2: Leaders & Civs

[RedCourtJester]

Fantastic, well done guys. Looking forward to the PAX Panel.

 

[moondog385]

Seeing the Shawnee buildings and units was the highlight of the stream for me! The team's done such a fantastic job.

 

[gdr_willter]

Having a Native American light cavalry unit as a "Knight" is eleven kinds of ridiculous.

It seems there isn't a distinction between light and heavy cavalry unlike Civ6.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It seems there isn't a distinction between light and heavy cavalry unlike Civ6.

Yeah, came to write the same thing. Knight is a collective name for basic exploration-era cavalry, so it makes sense to have variety of equipment for local variations.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

It seems there isn't a distinction between light and heavy cavalry unlike Civ6.

Not sure how I feel about that, seeing as tactically there is a big difference.

But if it opens the door to more unique visuals for units I can't say I'm too miffed.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Not sure how I feel about that, seeing as tactically there is a big difference.

But if it opens the door to more unique visuals for units I can't say I'm too miffed.

Civ 7 changed combat a lot with big focus on commanders. I have a feeling we don't need separation between light and heavy cavalry in this context.

EDIT: And, honestly, I'm not sure this separation was important in Civ6.

 

[MasterPaw]

Am I the only one who find the claim from dev diary that player identifies other entitis by the leaders rather than civ surprising?
I always have the civ in mind not the leader

 

[stealth_nsk]

Am I the only one who find the claim from dev diary that player identifies other entitis by the leaders rather than civ surprising?
I always have the civ in mind not the leader

Each person is different, but I have strong feeling identification by leaders is much more common. I and all people I know do it that way.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Am I the only one who find the claim from dev diary that player identifies other entitis by the leaders rather than civ surprising?
I always have the civ in mind not the leader

I tend to perceive rivals by the leader, but I perceive myself as the civ. So, their rationale doesn't particularly ring true to me either.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Each person is different, but I have strong feeling identification by leaders is much more common. I and all people I know do it that way.

Even if you don't consciously feel one way or another about leaders, I think they do elevate Civ's "illusion" above most other 4X games (depending on their scope and focus, of course).

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I got a kick out of that they guys were civ players and got to play the game early.

The choice of keeping the same leader in Civ 7 makes sense in its context of the game. There's no need to claim that most players identify with the leader over the civ.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I think it’s less about what the player identifies with and more with what the player feels they’re interacting with. I think the Age passing to you now speaking to Gilgamesh of a different country V.S. Gilgamesh being replaced would have VERY different community reactions.

 

[Zaarin]

I think it’s less about what the player identifies with and more with what the player feels they’re interacting with. I think the Age passing to you now speaking to Gilgamesh of a different country V.S. Gilgamesh being replaced would have VERY different community reactions.

Very much this for me. The leader I'm playing as is a set of bonuses, but the leaders I'm playing against are the people I'm playing against. It's what makes Civ feel more human and personal than other 4X games.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I have a feeling we don't need separation between light and heavy cavalry in this context.

If that's true, it suggests a pretty big divergence between Civ 7's combat and how cavalry units were used historically. Light and heavy cavalry operated in very different ways. Light cavalry, who skirmished and harassed, were common; heavy cavalry, who could effectively charge tightly formed foot units, were not. Knights were the later, a rare unit used in only a small number of cultures over the ages. I'd be okay with heavy cavalry being limited to unique units (Byzantium, Normans, etc.). But getting rid of the distinction entirely seems odd, as would calling the more common light cavalry "knights".

 

[stealth_nsk]

If that's true, it suggests a pretty big divergence between Civ 7's combat and how cavalry units were used historically. Light and heavy cavalry operated in very different ways. Light cavalry, who skirmished and harassed, were common; heavy cavalry, who could effectively charge tightly formed foot units, were not. Knights were the later, a rare unit used in only a small number of cultures over the ages. I'd be okay with heavy cavalry being limited to unique units (Byzantium, Normans, etc.). But getting rid of the distinction entirely seems odd, as would calling the more common light cavalry "knights".

In the game where archers could shoot over 1/20 of the world, I don't think game tactics need to have anything to do with historical tactics. Things like historical skirmish require different scale where you could move units outside of main combat arena and it shouldn't be the other side of the continent.

 

[MasterPaw]

Had a poll about that boils down to, essentially, this question. Community on here seems to be split almost 50:50.

Ah yes thats right, but I think it's a slightly different question
Your poll was about what should happen in game
Mine is about what players identifies themselves and other civ/leaders in their in head narrative.
For example I would answer Civ for the later question but "keep leader change civ" for the first after taking into account several parameters, my question being only one of those

 

[dagriggstar]

Yeah I always think of my opponents as the civilisation rather than the leader. Like those are American rough riders not Teddys rough riders.
My favourite representation was actually cd-rom civ II with the animated diplomats.

Cavalry as represented in civ 6 was pretty bad imo. Like you used light and heavy cavalry basically the same way. That and they both did what was meant to be the scout lines purpose better than the scout line, rendering scouts basically useless.
But then again if all heavy cavalry had the winged hussar push back ability and light cavalry was a little stronger against ranged but weaker in melee, it might have worked a whole lot better.
I’m generally pro making it more simple though. Mount beats sword, sword beats spear, spear beats tank.

 

[Zaarin]

That and they both did what was meant to be the scout lines purpose better than the scout line, rendering scouts basically useless.

Scouts should probably be mounted anyway; that was a major use of cavalry IRL.

 

[Krikkit1]

Scouts should probably be mounted anyway; that was a major use of cavalry IRL.

That could probably work, Exploration age Scouts are a little bit tougher and mounted (faster)

 

[Willie5000]

I mean, the name would have still been Medieval Walls, so I don't think that would have been an issue. The same statement can be made about the Native American units, they don't wear plate armour, but nonetheless they will have an identical combat strength to European knights.

The name would have been, but being able to know that they're medieval walls without having to mouse over it is just good game design. Plus Europe doesn't have a monopoly on stone walls with battlements.