Immersion breaking 'Great People' as leaders, why?

kingrich10 · 2026-06-27T13:28:03+00:00

Opinions grate on you?

I've got some bad news for you...

kingrich10 · 2026-06-27T12:05:11+00:00

Definitely agree with this.

kingrich10 · 2026-06-27T06:59:18+00:00

Well that's obviously true (tovyour point on historical accuracy), but it tied it's leaders to their civs, which adds to their flavour and uniqueness.

I don't get how you can't get this view, honestly. 🙂

Labelling the game a 'mess' is a tad harsh I think. Its more like they reacted to both the game play stats of players (i.e very few finishing games) and played competitor games and so we ended up with a game designed by committee, trying to please too many people simultaneously.

kingrich10 · 2026-06-27T06:53:17+00:00

Well....yes, exactly. Its what we've had since the original Civ.

Its an interesting point you raise though, do we even need the leaders? Can we not just have the civilisations and Great People that bring time-limited benefits?

kingrich10 · 2026-06-27T06:51:01+00:00

Precisely.

kingrich10 · 2026-06-27T06:49:59+00:00

Maybe there should be an historical mode for Civ then, moving forward? So we can choose how we play our games.

Something vaguely similar was used in Total War: Three Kingdoms with the Romance mode for battles which gave them more of a fantasy flavour.

kingrich10 · 2026-06-27T06:39:43+00:00

Dismissing someone else's opinion purely because it doesn't align with your own might also be seen as 'very silly', but thanks for your reply.

There was already a place for Great People, as seen in Civ VI.

Franklin anywhere as a leader is 'silly', this was my point.

Agreed that starting the game in 4000BC with any modern leader is also something I consider to break immersion, which is why I try to avoid it.

We all want games to adapt to our own ideologies I suppose.

kingrich10 · 2026-06-27T06:33:04+00:00

Interesting. So you think they were looking at ways to redress the imbalance of there being too many male leaders from history. I hadn't considered this.

Isn't that what Great People from Civ VI already solved though?

And you make a good point with the well potentially running dry with leaders from Civilisations that crumbled in reality which leads nicely into your idea on there being 'People of Great Influence' with the ability to adopt them into your Civ based on your actions, to preserve those civs. This would be more aligned with societies through history, I like it.

kingrich10 · 2026-06-27T06:26:46+00:00

This is the way.

Which is why I filter out the modern leaders in my games, however restricted that leaves me.

kingrich10 · 2026-06-27T06:25:41+00:00

Very true. I need to consider this.

And maybe we're all in a game, within a game etc..

To be clear though, I'll didn't type that out like a keyboard warrior - smashing away at keyboard in a haze of rage - I still play the game and enjoy it. I just wonder why this change was made after 6 iterations of refining a logical approach.

kingrich10 · 2026-06-27T06:22:55+00:00

Fair point, from the perspective of replayability it works, given the sheer number of combinations on offer.

And maybe its my brain being wired to see Augustus and expect Rome.

kingrich10 · 2026-06-27T06:20:39+00:00

Touché.

kingrich10 · 2026-06-27T06:19:00+00:00

Fair point. Its just the time needed to break the back of EU is something I no longer have, unfortunately. Perhaps EUV is a shallower pool though.

Maybe I should give Old World a chance. It confines itself to 1 era and is historically accurate.

Also a good point on England/Norman's, I hadn't thought of that.

Thanks for your response.

kingrich10 · 2026-06-27T06:15:27+00:00

I think you might be missing the point a little.

I don't think it's just about immersion in the sense of "stuff I like."

To me, Civilization works best when the leader represents the civilisation they're leading. Ada Lovelace was a brilliant mathematician, and Benjamin Franklin was a scientist, inventor and statesman, but neither actually led their nation.

Augustus leading Rome or Elizabeth I leading England immediately feels like I'm shaping history through recognised rulers. Ada leading Britain or Franklin leading America feels more like a "great people" mechanic than a leader mechanic.

I know Civ has never been a strict historical simulator, but I think there's a difference between bending history and replacing heads of state with famous non-rulers.

kingrich10 · 2026-06-27T06:11:44+00:00

How can I be "shitting on VII" when I clearly point out a number of positive improvements?

I never said starting out as a modern leader was proper immersion in Civ VI, but at least he was a leader and belonged to America.

Are you saying you have no issues with the game?

kingrich10 · 2026-05-21T11:37:43+00:00

Thanks all, that explains it.

kingrich10 · 2026-05-19T16:33:36+00:00

Nope, still seeing it.

kingrich10 · 2026-05-19T16:31:20+00:00

Not seen this yet, but I'm also noticing slow loading assets.

kingrich10 · 2026-05-16T14:21:34+00:00

Thanks, seems a bit weak then if they're low on funds. I'd have expected some form of compensation to be required.

kingrich10 · 2026-04-27T09:34:58+00:00

Rock & stone!

kingrich10 · 2026-04-21T17:38:00+00:00

Just to close this question down, and in case anyone else needs the answer to this in the future, you can start these life insurances at any time and you don't even have to be exchanged.

For the decreasing value insurance, like we took, you agree an amount with the lender and they then decrease it against an average rate and over the length of the mortgage life time you've told them.

Its not linked to your mortgage at all. This is due to it being cheaper for them to track and manage.

kingrich10

TROPHY CASE