I am pretty happy with how the partnership is working out. Hopefully its something other tribes can do with you, or other devs down the road. Civ has always done a good job bringing civs/leaders to light that are not as well known.(at least to me) So much cool history that has been forgotten
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.
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
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
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
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).
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 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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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
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.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
