site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1d ago (text post)   1032 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for December 20, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The hotly anticipated Civilization VII continues to unveil its leaders, and they’re raising a few eyebrows. Full list - https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Leaders_(Civ7)

There are some classic heavy hitters: Augustus, Charlamagne, Xerxes, Napoleon, Hatshepsut, Queen Isabelle of Spain.

Then there some fairly obscure figures that even most history buffs probably don’t recognize: Trung Trac, Pachacuti, Queen Amina.

Then there are some odd choices that seem to indicate the series is being a bit more abstract as to what constitutes a civilizational “leader,” like Confucious and Benjamin Franklin. They were never heads-of-state, but they were extremely influential figures on states and societies.

But some of the leaders are real stretches: Machiavelli? Ibn Batutta? And most controversially of all… Harriet Tubman? She did great stuff, but she was nowhere close to being a national leader or a major cultural force. If they wanted a black American, why not go with MLK? Or at least Frederick Douglas?

It’s hard not to see woke forces at play. Back in the CIV 4 days, the vast majority of leaders were men and disproportionately white or Asian, and the game was politically insensitive enough to let you play as Stalin. Since then, the leader options have become far more diverse, especially in Civ VI. For instance, if you were to try to think of French leaders who embody the nation, who would come to mind? Probably Napoleon, Charles De Gaulle, Louis XIV, maybe Henri IV, Napoleon III, or if you wanted to stretch what “France” is, you could say Vercingetorix or one of the Merovingians. Instead, Civ 6’s French leaders were… Catherine De Medici and Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Who are some leaders that should be included in Civ VII that haven’t been in any previous games?

The hotly anticipated Civilization VII

I would say that I at least have no interest in it even despite the leaders. With the ages mechanic, and not keeping a single civ through the entire game, what they are making isn't Civ any more despite having the same name on the box. And on top of that, not only are they destroying the game (imo of course, YMMV), they're doing to to correct something I don't even agree was a problem that needed solving. So I don't really care who they pick, I'm not interested in a new game wearing the skin of Sid Meier's Civilization.

More on topic, I'm not terribly surprised that they are picking leaders based on DEI. It was a problem in Civ VI already (e.g. Catherine de Medici, Tomyris, Amanitore, etc) and it's unfortunately the case that game studios which start down the path of ideologically driven game decisions don't stop there. For more small scale politically correct game design, I also noticed that they have hopped on the "BCE/CE" bandwagon. It's a small thing, but it is pretty annoying to me as well.

I suspect that the whole "one leader, several civs" mechanic is inspired by DEI, even. Now you can girlboss your way through the millennia, and not just one but several patriarchal empires will bow under you.

I don't think it is, personally. It strikes me as an outgrowth of the (imo misguided) design philosophy of Civ VI where you picked a leader first, and a civ second. They really leaned hard into the leaders in Civ VI, and I think they decided from there that what people really cared about is the leader they pick, not the faction name they have. Thus the decision in VII to go with changing civs but a constant leader, when if anything it should've been the exact opposite.

Am I mis-remembering, or could you match any leader with any civ in, I think, Civ 2?

I know you could in Civ IV (not by default but you could enable it in the options). Not sure about 2, that was before I started playing.

The focus on leaders in 6 was a bit ironic given they made them all look like cartoony caricatures. The 2d and 3d art styles was my biggest annoyance about it.

They should bring back palaces. I loved building them. And have the leaders and throne rooms change during the eras and political systems.

Machiavelli

I guess he was a pretty strong proponent of a unified Italy back when there were many competing city-states?

..hotly anticipated.. by whom?

These games have gone to shit. Civ 5 was only so,so. They're not even trying. You should have a fricking globe. You should have good AI. None of that is present.

You should have good AI.

This is the most unbelievable choice by far to me. The ai genuinely plays like a 5-year old and needs to cheat its ass off to present even a mild challenge.

Civ 5 in multiplayer was a 9.5/10 experience for me. Single player is straight up tedium in comparison.

Do you have better strategy game recommendations?

Similar to Civ:

SMACx if you haven't played it, go play it. The graphics is a little rough but I think you can get used to it. The game itself is excellent, almost unsurpassed. Check if there aren't mods that fix AI, iirc there are some, the vanilla game has uneven AI that can be exploited. This mod is probably good.. Good writing & memorable leaders. Some quotes even made it into the real world iirc. Not the ones linked but I swear I saw certain phrases outside of the game context..

Endless Legend. It's kind of like Civ V/SmacX except it has quests and researching or even stealing a tech makes all further research more expensive. Units stack, are pretty customizable and battles are tactical but not that long. Factions are truly asymmetric, unlike in Civ with significant differences in playstyles due to different abilities. The only downside I know is that there's really no religion / cultural layer to the game. AI is good on normal difficulty, to lethal on higher difficulty settings due to cheating.

Less similar:

Age of Wonders 2 +(Shadow Magic DLC). Hard to describe it, it's like a mix between Heroes of Might & Magic and Civ. Supposedly a remake of the old Master of Magic games. Every player in the game controls a wizard, whose magic can affect the entire map. In addition to the classic 4x resources, there's mana. You don't have to control mana sources but it's massively beneficial, as it allows casting and maintaining enchantments of ..units, cities, or entire map regions. If you're a water-magic based swamp civ, you can turn your entire domain into a literal swamp, hindering everyone's movement but yours.. etc. In addition, there's 3 underground layers of the map and certain units can tunnel through soil (but not rock).

AoW 2 is notable for having a religious system that actually matters and it's not just a few % modifiers .. you have to take your God into consideration. IIRC you need to build a temple to do so, then it starts. So If you worship a War god, war & genocide gets you in his good graces. He will grant you war-related boons... it's not very deep but it wasn't all that deterministic and was a pretty nice touch. E.g. if a War God commands you to destroy a city, and you don't do so because your impious ass cares about diplomacy, well..

Master of Orion 2 -needs dosbox, only 640x480 is a classic 4x game. Pretty much like simpler Civ except tech are exclusive - in most research tiers you have to pick 1 of 3, so there are trade-offs to make and combat is godly because it's done using starships and these are designed using your known techs and then the fight itself is iirc initiative & turn based. Ship design is about twice as complex than Stellaris and the turn based combat is pretty fun. Even with it, it's nowhere near as time-intensive or tedious as Stellaris, even a huge map can be finished in ~12 hours.

Endless Space 2: the economic / research system is pretty similar to Endless Legend,but it's a space based game. The combat is a little disappointing bc you can't control it, only select tactic to be used. So it's like Stellaris. Very stylish game.. Also disappointing: the blurbs/concepts for various economy-related techs are seemingly very low effort and nonsensical on second look. Sseth has a video on it.

Sometimes it feels like Alpha Centauri was the last time they tried anything truly revolutionary with the formula. I should really play it again and refresh my memory. I remember it was the singular instance of being able to design my own units, do any sort of serious geo engineering, have floating cities, seriously need to worry about the local flora or fauna, etc. Many of those features haven't been seen again. I can't recall the last Sid Meier 4X game that let you create custom units. Even the spiritual successor, Beyond Earth, didn't.

Unit design is in Endless Legend. It doesn't have geo-engineering though...

..neither floating cities, though a DLC brings in ocean control & resources.

Unfortunately, the AI in Alpha Centauri is still kind of bad. It will forward-settle 5 tiles away from your cities like a complete imbecile and all the AIs band up together if the player ever gets strong.
Plus, you don't really get to choose between econ/tech/military. If you do, the ginger bitch will declare war and invade you with 50 units as soon as mathematically possible.

My favourite part of the expansion was how war crimes against the aliens suffered no diplomatic penalties.

So you could play as a respected democratic society that upheld human rights, and still load up your units with chemical weapons and gas alien cities.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats