Wtf? Separate Leaders Choosing?

[Omega Sirius]

You mean I can choose to be Augustus when I'm playing America? Is this true? What kind of bs is this?

[Oaks]

You are correct, but as far as I can tell, it's totally optional. If it's not your thing, I doubt it will be very intrusive and (hopefully) we can tell AI players to stick with their historical leader as well.

[universecreep]

From what I've seen you can choose any combination but the game will suggest the historical leader/country match but you're apparently free to not take that advice.

[The Doctor]

I guess this is another innovation of Humankind that has found its way into Civ. It's not one which bothered me. The game won't force me to play the USA with Hatshepsut but if I really want to, I can.

[Targonis]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Omega Sirius:

You mean I can choose to be Augustus when I'm playing America? Is this true? What kind of bs is this?

Think about it another way, what would have happened if you put a full on warrior in charge of what was a peaceful civilization in our world with certain benefits that go along with that leader? Really, having our own custom leader with different perks/benefits would be better in my opinion.

[Omega Sirius]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Targonis:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Omega Sirius:

You mean I can choose to be Augustus when I'm playing America? Is this true? What kind of bs is this?

Think about it another way, what would have happened if you put a full on warrior in charge of what was a peaceful civilization in our world with certain benefits that go along with that leader? Really, having our own custom leader with different perks/benefits would be better in my opinion.

All they have to do is add like 10 historical Roman leaders for the nation Rome, and just make them have all different perks and unique abilities to choose from.

This bs they're pulling is just pure laziness.

[The Doctor]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Omega Sirius:

Opprinnelig skrevet av Targonis:

Think about it another way, what would have happened if you put a full on warrior in charge of what was a peaceful civilization in our world with certain benefits that go along with that leader? Really, having our own custom leader with different perks/benefits would be better in my opinion.

All they have to do is add like 10 historical Roman leaders for the nation Rome, and just make them have all different perks and unique abilities to choose from.

This bs they're pulling is just pure laziness.

I agree that that your solution would be better. However, I don't attibute it to laziness so much as I attribute it to the 3D artwork they've been going with since Civ VI. It's expensive to make and requires a lot of work. Realistically, we're not going to get large numbers of 3D animated avatars for each faction beyond the ones we've already seen.

Personally, 2D animated portraits would suit me better and while going 3D draws in a certain type of gamer, I see it as a net drawback. In this respect, less is more.

[SuperCrumpets]

its not even new, this was already an option in older civs

[lethminite]

Opprinnelig skrevet av The Doctor:

I guess this is another innovation of Humankind that has found its way into Civ. It's not one which bothered me. The game won't force me to play the USA with Hatshepsut but if I really want to, I can.

That's not even a thing in Humankind. Why do people keep attributing everything to humankind, when it just simply does not have those mechanics?
In humankind you get an avatar for yourself, which is the same unless you change it, and is not related to any real person, except some youtube personalities.

To the OP, I kinda agree it's a bit weird, I feel like they should have started things a bit gentler, they were already being a bit controversial with their "important historical figure, not just political leader" change. But I don't really mind, is it really weirder for Gandhi to be leading France, than it is for him to be leading India in a war against it's neighbour France, who is lead by Napoleon, in 1000BC?

You can kind of see how they came to the choice though. They wanted Civ 7 to have the rise and fall of nations as a key theme, so added civ swapping across ages. That means leaders will become in charge of what ever country they swap into.
Which means you A) have leaders in charge of civs they've never been in charge of, and B) can only have leaders who lead ancient era civs.
So it makes sense, if France isn't an ancient era civ, but you want Napoleon to be a leader choice, you have to let him lead something other than France.
And once you allow that, the question follows, why not allow other prominent figures from a nations history? If Napoleon can lead the Gauls, or what ever civ eventually can turn into France, why can't Joan of Arc, or Descartes lead France. Then to let them do that, you need to let them lead the Gauls, just like Napoleon, so just let anyone lead anything.

As above, I am sceptical, it might dilute the flavour of your civs identity even further, where one Mongolia is completely different to another Mongolia that came from a different civ, with a different leader. And i'm also concerned, complete freedom will lead to meta choices based on how bonuses overlap, which might lead to some very degenerate pairings, on what are two reasonably benign bonuses when kept apart.
But I'm only sceptical, not out right against it. I'll reserve judgement until we see some full games, and how it all plays out.

[Oaks]

Opprinnelig skrevet av lethminite:

Opprinnelig skrevet av The Doctor:

I guess this is another innovation of Humankind that has found its way into Civ. It's not one which bothered me. The game won't force me to play the USA with Hatshepsut but if I really want to, I can.

That's not even a thing in Humankind. Why do people keep attributing everything to humankind, when it just simply does not have those mechanics?
In humankind you get an avatar for yourself, which is the same unless you change it, and is not related to any real person, except some youtube personalities.

It did have historical people too as leaders. I remember playing against Edgar Allen Poe and Beowulf.

[The Doctor]

Opprinnelig skrevet av lethminite:

Opprinnelig skrevet av The Doctor:

I guess this is another innovation of Humankind that has found its way into Civ. It's not one which bothered me. The game won't force me to play the USA with Hatshepsut but if I really want to, I can.

That's not even a thing in Humankind. Why do people keep attributing everything to humankind, when it just simply does not have those mechanics?
In humankind you get an avatar for yourself, which is the same unless you change it, and is not related to any real person, except some youtube personalities.

I know you've played Humankind so you know that Humankind came with a number of leaders, some historical (Victor Hugo) and some fictional (blue-haired Lucy) who were unrelated to the actual civilizations/cultures they led except for the costume changes. You must have been able to deduce from reading the part of my post you quoted that that was a thing in that game too.

[colostmy4]

It's a game not a documentary. A game doesn't have to fit 100% to history, and it always can't. The purpose of a game is to have fun. For some it's fun to throw in some stuff from actual history, but it is still going to be the game that you make it to be and not one that history makes it to be.

[Defective Dopamine Pez Dispenser]

This honestly doesn't bother me anymore than, say, being able to make a fantasy team in a basketball game consisting of players who could never have played together due to their respective eras, on a team in a city they never played on. It's just there as a fun "what if I played this Civ with this leader?" option. Or for those want to think, "Hmm, what if I combined these leader traits and bonuses with this Civ and its bonuses?" We're not forced to avail ourselves of it.

Unlike the civilization shifting stuff, which is more integrated into the core design, and about which I'm reserving judgment until I see how flexible it is and how many options we actually have for our choices. There are ways I can see that being fun, and ways I can imagine it feeling jarring or off to me.

[Astasia]

Opprinnelig skrevet av Oaks:

You are correct, but as far as I can tell, it's totally optional. If it's not your thing, I doubt it will be very intrusive and (hopefully) we can tell AI players to stick with their historical leader as well.

It's not really optional, given that a specific civilization isn't likely to exist in all three ages so at some point in every game any given leader will be leading the "incorrect" civilization. Napoleon for example can't start as the leader of France, as that will undoubtedly not be an antiquities age civilization. So if you want to play Napoleon leading the French, you have to start as like Egypt, and then create a lot of great works of art or something to unlock France as a civilization pick in a later age.

[SBA77]

Opprinnelig skrevet av The Doctor:

I guess this is another innovation of Humankind that has found its way into Civ. It's not one which bothered me. The game won't force me to play the USA with Hatshepsut but if I really want to, I can.

Hate to be that guy, but Civ 4 let you mix and match leaders too, though it was very much presented as an optional features (buried in the game settings). Also I don't think Humankind's ideas that were brought it down, it was the implementation of them.

[The Doctor]

Opprinnelig skrevet av SBA77:

Opprinnelig skrevet av The Doctor:

I guess this is another innovation of Humankind that has found its way into Civ. It's not one which bothered me. The game won't force me to play the USA with Hatshepsut but if I really want to, I can.

Hate to be that guy, but Civ 4 let you mix and match leaders too, though it was very much presented as an optional features (buried in the game settings). Also I don't think Humankind's ideas that were brought it down, it was the implementation of them.

I honestly had no idea you could do that in Civ IV. It's not a feature I would have used had I been aware of it either. Why have Stalin lead England for example?

I didn't care about it in Humankind because, as mentioned by a previous poster, I used my own custom avatar to lead my faction and, to be honest, I quite liked that. But the 'historical' leaders were pretty lame - Victor Hugo, Edgar Allen Poe etc. I had to resort to downloading other gamers' avatars but I didn't feel any connection with them either. I usually ended up beating the crap out of Quill18 (no offence intended mate - it was just that you were the only recognisable face in most of my games)