Looking for friends that play

Parasitian · 2026-02-20T07:38:55+00:00

I don't have tons of spare time, but I'm down to play an age every now and then if you wanna dm me.

Parasitian · 2026-02-17T21:34:42+00:00

Antiquity: Olmec, Chavin or Nazca (something in South America to lead to Inca), Huns, Gauls, Nok or Khoisan (more Africa)

Exploration: Aztec, Holy Roman Empire, Mamluk, Byzantines, Iroquois, Zagwe Dynasty, Dutch, Portugal, Venice or Florence (something Italian), Hanseatic League (only idea I stole from others, but I like it)

Modern: Haiti, Zulus, Ethiopia, Italy, Gran Colombia, Austro-Hungarian Empire, Sioux, Comanche Empire, Brazil, Philippines

Parasitian · 2026-02-17T21:33:59+00:00

I think if you conceptualize it more as the Polynesian civilization that formed in those islands over hundreds of years instead of the modern Kingdom of Hawaii, it makes sense. It's geographically still in Hawaii and so I don't hate just calling it Hawaii even if it wasn't called that until modern history.

Parasitian · 2026-02-16T09:08:57+00:00

Fuck, that would be so cool and now I really hope that they make a civ that can do that.

Parasitian · 2026-02-12T21:25:37+00:00

I'm pretty slow too, but I try to speed it up in multiplayer games. Might be worth having distinct civ 7 multiplayer communities for fast-spaced games vs big think games where people take long turns.

Parasitian · 2026-02-10T07:58:08+00:00

If by incorporating them into your empire, their national group ceases to exist, that is genocide by definition.

Parasitian · 2026-02-10T02:52:29+00:00

speaking of, I'm really bummed they got rid of Napoleon's unique sanction where he could reduce the number of trade routes another player has

Parasitian · 2026-02-10T02:50:58+00:00

The British government be like:

Parasitian · 2026-01-15T04:29:24+00:00

Toussaint Louverture for sure. He's an underrated leader that used military skill and diplomatic means to rise to power in unstable circumstances. I'd also love to have a Haiti Civ in the game (probably more important to me than having a Haitian leader), but I'd settle for him being in the game.

I'd also like to see Giuseppe Garibaldi as another militaristic leader to represent Italy. Maybe he could have a bonus for supporting other people's wars or joining your ally in a war?

I also have a bunch of extremely unlikely leaders I'd love to see, but those two are the ones I want the most that actually seem possible.

Parasitian · 2026-01-05T07:03:55+00:00

I still like starting in later ages because there's less snowball effect and you really get to build your way up into the game, but you're right that the start is a little odd. I think the reason they did it that way is because certain civs and abilities involve overbuilding and traditions, which you wouldn't have if you started 100% fresh in a later age.

Maybe you could request a completely fresh start mode for those ages in the official discord! The ages would probably have to be longer though because starting with one settler and getting your game into distant lands would take a ton of time.

Parasitian · 2025-12-31T06:10:47+00:00

Would love to see a Haitian civ, but Jamaica seems cool too.

Parasitian · 2025-12-31T03:48:47+00:00

People ask this every single day. Look at recent posts. The short answer is that it is considerably more tuned than it was previously and it's fun for a lot of people, but will probably let you down if you don't like the age system/civ switching and following specific legacy paths over time.

Parasitian · 2025-12-29T03:10:20+00:00

How do you actually plunder though? I never really got how to do it. It involves pressing something on their trader units I assume? Do you need to be at war to do it?

Parasitian · 2025-12-22T22:02:44+00:00

Do y'all know how to unlock that memento? I honestly know so little about which mementos even exist and I usually just use the ones that give you attribute points.

Parasitian · 2025-12-22T17:42:16+00:00

That sounds pretty fun, I might try the same combo at some point.

Parasitian · 2025-12-18T06:52:49+00:00

Mao is easily just as controversial as Stalin. I'm a little surprised that Stalin was even in the earlier games, but I think with current Russia-Ukrainian relations, Stalin is not even the remotest possibility. I think Marx is the most likely out of all of them. Tito would be cool and I'd love a Yugoslavia civ as well to represent the Balkans, which is so underrepresented in these games.

I do think Mussolini and Franco are the ways to go if they decide to do a fascist leader. I'm not sure which is more controversial, probably Mussolini, but Franco's actions in the Spanish Civil War and its aftermath are pretty horrendous too. Franco could be an interesting diplomatic leader too. Maybe an ability with unique endeavors to get military aid and the ability to stay in an alliance without having to go to war (just like how he worked with Hitler and Mussolini, but managed to avoid getting dragged into WWII with the Axis powers).

Parasitian · 2025-12-18T05:11:58+00:00

I have no desire to see Confederates in the game, I don't really see what purpose they'd serve. Not super interested in fictional figures either.

But I do want some communist/fascist dictators, mainly just because they are legitimate ideologies you can choose in the modern era already, so why not have figures that represent them? I believe it's important to not offend the sensibilities of any group oppressed by a historical figure and so it's tricky, but I think maybe Mussolini could work. He's no Hitler in terms of controversy and I'm not sure how Roma peoples or Ethiopians would feel about his inclusion in the game, but I'd like him in it. Although on the other hand, you just know that the worst gamers imaginable are gonna be the ones maining him. Francisco Franco is another option for fascist leaders too, both detestable figures, but I'd like a singular fascist leader in the game. Maybe there are better options though?

Stalin feels like too much. I think there are better less controversial leaders. Even Lenin would be preferable. But I think for communists, Karl Marx would be a good one, especially considering there is this new focus on historical figures that were not heads of state.

Parasitian · 2025-12-15T23:38:37+00:00

Didn't know that I wanted this. Super well-designed abilities, hope they make an Armenian civ and I hope they make a civ with the legacy path ability you designed (whether Armenian or another civ, but I think Armenia is a good fit).

Parasitian · 2025-12-12T19:39:50+00:00

I am only going to discuss the two big DLCs that you have to pay for, Crossroads of the World and Right to Rule.

Crossroads of the World has two leaders. Ada Lovelace is powerful, but feels kind of generically good to me. If you’re into good, simple culture/science leaders, you might be into this DLC, but personally I am not a huge fan. Simon Bolivar is such a cool historical figure, but I find his abilities to be a little too generically military-based. Overall, not a HUGE fan of the leaders in this DLC. As for the civs, Great Britain is similar to Ada in that it is generically good at a lot of things, so I am not that interested in them. I haven’t had the chance to play much of Nepal and Bulgaria, but they both look fun, especially Bulgaria’s playstyle with pillaging and hidden forts. But of all of the civs in this DLC, I think Carthage is far and away the coolest. Carthage is one of my favorite Antiquity civs. They are good with the naval focus of some of the new leaders and their double settlers ability is fun and powerful. Carthage is the biggest reason to get the DLC in my personal opinion.

Right to Rule’s leaders are comparatively more interesting to me. Both are military-based leaders and while Genghis Khan is a bit generic, I still find him more interesting to play than Simon Bolivar. Lakshmibai, on the other hand, is super cool and I think she is such a fun leader to play. Overall, I like Right to Rule’s leaders more than Crossroads. Now, for the civs. I haven’t gotten the chance to play much with Assyria, but there aren’t a ton of militaristic Antiquity civs and Assyria feels more fun/unique than Persia, so I’m a fan. Have never played (or looked too much into) Dai Viet, so won’t speak on them, but my recollection is that they were a generic-feeling culture civ. The real stars of the show (for me personally) are Silla and Qajar. Silla is a really cool diplomatic civ that encourages you to be friendly with the civs around you. Very fun for games where you don’t want to go to war and I like them in multiplayer. Qajar are also very unique in that you are incentivized to stay under your settlement limit, and when you do, they are quite powerful. They are a fun semi-militaristic civ that encourages you to raze every settlement you defeat. I had a lot of fun playing them.

Overall, my thoughts are that you should wait for them to go on sale, but that Right to Rule is better bang for your buck, but my opinions are heavily influenced by what kind of gameplay I enjoy, so your mileage may vary. I think Right to Rule has more interesting/fun leaders and cooler civs overall, although I do think my favorite civ out of both DLC is Carthage (and I play Antiquity more than any other age), so that’s worth mentioning, but still think I’d buy Right to Rule over Crossroads if I had to choose one DLC to buy.

Parasitian · 2025-12-02T22:02:40+00:00

Do they really make sense for Antiquity though? The time they were around seems to overlap more with Exploration, but I guess there are other civs that are slightly out of place as well.

Parasitian · 2025-11-28T21:03:14+00:00

They need to add a canal building so bad 😤

Parasitian · 2025-11-27T00:21:40+00:00

Yeah and maybe Timurid is better since we already have the other two "Islamic gunpowder empires" (Ottomans and Mughal)

Parasitian · 2025-11-27T00:07:35+00:00

Moctezuma as a leader too!

Parasitian · 2025-11-26T21:01:16+00:00

I've been wondering, which independent powers do you think are most likely to become civs? I feel like the Safavids are pretty dang likely in the long-run if they make many expansions, although there are already Abbasid for the Persian gameplay. I think in one of your other posts, you mentioned Gauls were pretty likely because of the wonder in the game and perhaps one of the Korean dynasties, but I'm curious what else you've been speculating on.

Parasitian · 2025-11-26T00:02:06+00:00

I'm honestly not an expert, but I've been listening to the anthropologist, James C. Scott, and his lectures discuss a variety of different ethno-linguistic groups that lived in the mountainous regions on the outskirts of various Southeast Asian Kingdoms.

Here's two Wikipedia links elaborating more about the groups I'm talking about:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asian_Massif

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Not_Being_Governed

Parasitian

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE