What type of player are you?

What type of player are you?

  • The Social Historian

    Votes: 23 37.7%
  • The Everyman

    Votes: 8 13.1%
  • The Dictator

    Votes: 3 4.9%
  • The Great Hero

    Votes: 3 4.9%
  • The Deity

    Votes: 4 6.6%
  • The Narcissist

    Votes: 6 9.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 8 13.1%
  • The Psychopath

    Votes: 6 9.8%

  • Total voters
    61
The Everyman for me. I am the spirit or ethos of my civilization, playing against the other leaders. I don't think that will change significantly in Civ7...no matter how much they try to shove my leader in my face.
 
The Collective
Combined identity vs the opposites: I am the fate of the nation, the people, and their leadership, and my enemies are the fates of each nations & peoples & leaderships.

I was originally the option #1 the Social Historian, but I found out it can be #4 the Great Hero after I played as Sejong the Great in Civ 5. And slowly, my POV was changed more complex, and finally reached to this idea: I'm not the only one of them, I am the mixture of all POV within the Civilization. The people are not just my loyal subjects, I am the hive mind of them when they have unique and dynamic society. The leader is not just my champion, I am the leader itself when they have strong vision for their nation. So when I play Korea, I am Sejong the Great who really care his people, and I am the spirit of Korean people who really crave the peaceful powerful nation, at the same time.

Though I ultimately voted Social Historian, I like this post and think it would be more accurate explanation of how I view things. I recognize enemy leaders when interacting with them but see them as extensions, spirits, ethoses of of their civs first and foremost.
 
I voted for the Everyman, but I rarely have a mortal enemy. I am also a builder, settling my cities, looking for my opportunities.

If a neighbor is in the way, I decide whether I can a) live with them, expanding in a different direction or b) add their distinctiveness to my empire, making them a target for conquering.

If Augustus pops up somewhere far away, or even in distant lands, I'm not going to go on a vengeful expedition just because "He's Augustus."
An opponent will need to earn my wrath.
 
I voted for the Everyman, but I rarely have a mortal enemy. I am also a builder, settling my cities, looking for my opportunities.

If a neighbor is in the way, I decide whether I can a) live with them, expanding in a different direction or b) add their distinctiveness to my empire, making them a target for conquering.

If Augustus pops up somewhere far away, or even in distant lands, I'm not going to go on a vengeful expedition just because "He's Augustus."
An opponent will need to earn my wrath.
My wording was perhaps a little exaggerated. All I really meant was, if the AI does something to incur your wrath, at whom are you directing your anger? The leader or the civ? And of course, I don't mean real anger, but it's fun to pretend. :D

Loving all the different answers, by the way.
 
Loving all the different answers, by the way.
Yeah, it was a great idea for a thread (even though the poll choices weren't all finely-differentiated versions of "I hate civ-switching.")

And possibly useful to Firaxis (not now, but for Civiliz8ion) as a kind of customer survey.
 
An opponent will need to earn my wrath.
Dom Satan (Pedro) in Civ6 earned my ongoing wrath. He backstabbed me too many times, often the turn a Declaration of Friendship expired. :D
 
I try to role play. I think of reasons for wanting to go to war, or to muscle in on someone's space. And do my darndest to not anger city-states that are near to me, being friendly, so I have a nice "shell" of them around me. With that, I almost never strive for world conquest. But I'll eventually go to war against warmongers D-Day-style if only to balance everyone's score (well) below mine.
I really don't think of "victory" at all in a game.
But with that said, I do actually quit most of my games.
 
Vey interesting Poll and Thread.

I don't quite, at least in my own mind, fit any category precisely. IF I had to characterize my own play, it would be:

The World Historian

I am writing a History of the World (Diodorus' "Library of History" or its equivalent: The Encyclopedia Gudenuforum)
With the added benefit (to me) that I get to shape the history I am writing. Role-play is crucial to enjoyment, at least for me, but I have always seen myself as more of a Scribe/Staff Officer than a Great Leader - let someone else stand up front and get shot at, I'll sit back and make a record of his Great Deeds - even if I have to massage some of them to make them Great!
 
Very much depends on what is my "goal" in that specific campaign: i.e am I achievement hunting, going for a challenge, just enjoying or something else entirely.
But I usually alternate thinking of my opponents as leaders first or civs first. I might first think "what's with these Chinese units near my border?" and then curse Wu Zetian, for no reason. (Well, actually in that game China was moving units as if to invade me then I produced one unit and the entire army turned around so I wasn't cursing her, but rather laughing how silly that was.)
 
Last edited:
It's difficult to answer for me, too. I mostly view the AI as different civilizations I come in contact with. A civilization has been ruled by multiple leaders across its existence because the human species aren't immortal or excessively long-lived, so it makes little sense to think that you are fighting Genghis Khan for millennia. To put it more simple, civilizations last longer than a leader in real life. I also like to take the role of a specific civilization when I'm playing a game session, but sometimes I pretend to be the leader as well, so I'm close to a Social Historian or a Dictator.

Perhaps a new category needs to be added. The Perfectionist or The Fanatic: My leader and associated civilization vs other leaders and their associated civilizations: I'm Machiavelli and Greece and my mortal enemy is Augustus and Rome. Think of it as the default way the game wants you to feel while playing.

Although, I have to admit that viewing yourself as a leader and his/her original civilization that fights against other leaders and their corresponding civilizations isn't perfect because most of the time the leaders aren't from the same time periods (e.g. Pericles and Trajan) or they might have never met in real life despite having lived in the same period (e.g. Gorgo and Pericles) but those that did it's fascinating to see them interact (e.g. Cyrus and Tomyris).

I would imagine that associating yourself with both a leader and a civilization at the same time would be more difficult now that not only a new civilization needs to be chosen per age, but at the same time the leader can be anyone from the depths of history and will stay relevant across all ages. I think in Civilization VII I will view myself exclusively as the leader unless that historical figure really belonged to the civilization I'm leading, then I will view myself as the civilization as well (e.g. Himiko and Japan).
 
My wording was perhaps a little exaggerated. All I really meant was, if the AI does something to incur your wrath, at whom are you directing your anger? The leader or the civ? And of course, I don't mean real anger, but it's fun to pretend. :D

Loving all the different answers, by the way.
Viewed through that lens, my wrath is usually directed at the leader, in the current generation of Civ games. "Why is Menelik messing with that city-state?" "Why is Kozlov declaring war again? He's down to two cities!" "Those troops of Shaka approaching my border are not coming for me, are they?"

Since I am directing my civ's foreign policy -- invade, trade, denounce -- I mentally assume that the leader is directing the other civ's foreign policy. And wartime policy. And issuing a foolish denouncement of my deeds.
 
Last edited:
The Everyman for me. I am the spirit or ethos of my civilization, playing against the other leaders. I don't think that will change significantly in Civ7...no matter how much they try to shove my leader in my face.
It's pretty much the same for me. I never really thought about civ vs leader before... It was all a whole !

If we take VI as an example, there are 3 main abilities to civs and only one for leaders... So for myself, I feel like I'm playing a civ more than a leader. On the other hand, the leaders are the ones taking actions against me, more than the civs... This is especially exacerbated by the agenda system, which for some leaders was downright annoying (hello Wilhelmina).

On instinct I would have thought I would have been more the Social Historian, but after thinking it through, I went with Everyman

Great poll, hard question !
 
Last edited:
The Mirror - me versus myself Me versus everyman's urge to dominate, kill, steal and destroy. Not to control but to react in a righteous way and win.
 
Back
Top Bottom