• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Why not custom counties and custom leaders at start of game?

planetfall

Emperor
Joined
Jan 18, 2002
Messages
1,416
Location
California
Based on previous post, there have been many animated posts about countries and leaders. Why not improve on the civ6 design concepts and have custom counties and custom leaders.In civ6, for religion you can choose
1- religion, commonly known
2-custom religion, open field named by player
3- custom religion color, from list of colors
4- custom religion symbol, from list of symbols

So why not do the same with civ7 but at start of game allow:
CIV COUNTRY
1- commonly known country name, i.e. found with much detail in encyclopedias
2- custom country, open field name
3- custom country color
4- custom country leader from list of leaders or DIY custom leader.
5- country unique unit: from list or player attribute selected.

CIV LEADER
1- from leaders already declared by game
2- custom leader name, open field name
3- custom leader image, from list of images, or uploaded image
4- custom leader focus on play, similar to civ6 leader agenda's, pick 2 from either list or custom focus with user unique name and 2 from list of available focus, i.e., already created for other leaders in game.

So what do you think: A-- would this make the game more exciting for you? B-- would you love to see this as a DLC for civ7?
 
I enjoy Civ games generally, but I don't think the Civilization games are so superior to other 4X games that they could survive having their chief selling point, their historical flavor, stripped out. Part of what makes Civ appealing is the AAA budget that can be put into production values, but you lose that if everything becomes "custom."
 
I think being Able to choose your civ's name+city list+generic graphics would be a good idea (default should always be.name matches your current or previous civ uniques)
First choose the civ you will get the uniques from
choose if you want a different civ's name+city list+graphics (with the option to customize the actual name)

Then whenever you change civs get different bonuses if you change the name+city list+graphics or if you keep it the same.

For your leader, probably just customize the name (ie type in something new if you want)


The feel of an actual real civ is important (hence the necessary default of you current or previous civ, but allow the player some flexibility in self presentation would be good)

The Civ Gameplay Uniques and Civ Leader Graphics should stay fixed.... and the Civ Graphics+City List should be from a list of other civs rather than custom.... but being able to have you identify as you like (something you believe in) would be good.
 
Last edited:
Per Zaarin's comment, it would be easy to limit custom civs to a low number, such as 2 or 3. But would add some zip for those who have played all the provided civs and looking for a different type of challenge.
 
Per Zaarin's comment, it would be easy to limit custom civs to a low number, such as 2 or 3. But would add some zip for those who have played all the provided civs and looking for a different type of challenge.
But that wouldn't be a "challenge" if the "custom civ" is just a regular civ with a different name and graphics.....
Now if you are talking actual gameplay changes, there I disagree fairly strongly... the Civ7 Civs have a massive amount of detail, and making a custom one could quite possibly break game mechanics.
 
I feel like that’s why we have modding. It’s not hard to reuse existing assets and cobble together a new civ.
For custom civ uniques, sure. But being able to at least have the choice of changing or retaining your civs name+city list+nonuniques graphics on age transition would solve a massive chunk of the problem with civ swapping (and a lot of the rest could be solved by letting you start with the name+city list+nonuniques graphics of a future era civ)

…so you could play “as Spain” in all 3 eras…even if your first era had Persia uniques and your last era had Mexico uniques.
 
I don't think the Civilization games are so superior to other 4X games that they could survive having their chief selling point, their historical flavor, stripped out.
:dubious: But this is exactly what happens with the civ-switching and the goofy-leaders in Civ 7.
 
:dubious: But this is exactly what happens with the civ-switching and the goofy-leaders in Civ 7.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I strongly disagree. If anything, they're at risk of tilting too far towards historical simulation, though I'm not overly concerned. As for "goofy leaders," I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. The leaders looked like trash when they were first shown, but they've obviously been polished considerably since then.
 
As for "goofy leaders," I honestly have no clue what you're talking about.
These are leaders that were never historical leaders of civs and leaders who have lost their historical connection to their civs. They are acting in my eyes like comic figures who have lost their historical connections. Goofy, Mickey Mouse and so on in my eyes could be acceptable civ 7 leaders, too, as they all are stripped of their their "historical flavor" (or never had it).
 
Custom Lego brick build civs might be fun at the end of the game's run, but right now their concern is making well balanced civs that have nice flavor and feel like something fresh for each playthrough.
Leaders look nice this go around, you can argue the framing is different, maybe jarring in comparison to the last few but none of that should be deal breaking.
 
My only complaint about the leaders is they've overwhelmingly gone with the most boring and predictable leader choices possible. Augustus, Confucius, Napoleon--just waiting for Victoria to join the "you read about us in sixth grade" party.
 
I think it is funny that I still really want Victoria despite being "Vanilia gotta have them" because I always enjoy the Boaty McNavy Face and industrial bonuses she's bound to get each time.

I've suddenly thought it might be cool to get Admiral Horatio Nelson instead and pair him with any civ you want: Roman > Norman > France oh it makes me smile that so many people would be mad.
 
-just waiting for Victoria to join the "you read about us in sixth grade" party.
How else would you unlock Germany in the base game? :mischief:
 
The idea that people who were cultural, philosophical, social, etc leaders have less influence on the history of nations and civilization, less sway on what those nations become, that the political leaders, is antiquated history harkening back to a time when historY was just a propaganda tool for the king, that few self-respecting historians give much credence to anymore (heck, even great people history isn't exactly in vogue anymore, and that actualky recognized the infkuence of people beside political leaders).

Firaxis walking away from it isn't Civ going away from the historical flavor; it!s Civ getting better at it.
 
The "Great Man" historiography was under attack from before WWII, but it really went into decline by the time I got into University in t he late 1960s: there was one professor who was a Louis XIV expert and Dr Borza who was one of the Alexander the Great experts in the USA, but even they also were teaching courses with a more generalized view of 'historical trends' and trying to work their personal favorites into the "Movements" theory of historiography neatly summed up by the phrase:

"When it's time to railroad, people will railroad, and it doesn't matter who built it."

The cycle has become a bit more balanced, but lately is swinging back to Movements, and I suspect part of the reason is the application of 'hard' science to historical/archeological data gathering. DNA and molecular examination, LIDAR scans, radiographic dating, etc are all very good at revealing new facts about historical trends, but not so much at identifying any individual by name and specifying their accomplishments. To relate to the quote above, we now can get really precise dates for where and when people started to 'railroad', bt still aren't any better at identifying who built it.
 
Well, that's fine for historiography, but as we've said numerous times, Civ gameplay benefits from having some personage representing each of the AI civs, so there will always be some Great (however defined) Men (of whatever gender) as the leaders in a Civ game.
 
Top Bottom