Alternate Ideas to the humankind inspired CIV development

[Nonstop069]

First of all, I was very happy about the announcement of CIV VII, but I was not happy about the HUMANKIND-inspired idea with the CIV changes. Why? I would like to explain that below:

I have been playing CIV since I was a little kid, back then I played CIV 1 and got to know the different CIV's on their geographically historical starting locations including the national anthem in DOS music. Yes, the map EARTH was exactly what I played over and over again...so I also learned something about our human history and I also got good grades in school.

I don't want to go on too much and now I'll get to the point:

I don't want to start out - like in Humankind - as a Roman, be an Aztec in the middle and then finish the game as a Mongol. That just doesn't make sense to me. For me, Sid Meier's CIV is always a connection to historical facts, which was always a big plus for me. The behavior pattern of the leaders in CIV VI, for example, is also historically comprehensible and simply great.

Instead of following a disjointed CIV development, I would have the following idea to implement time-steps instead:

Etruscans -> Romans -> Italians
Celts -> West Franconia -> French
Teutons -> East Franconia -> Germans

In this example a CIV development would make historically and geographically sense, also the units for the specific timeline would make sense. Legions for the Romans and Tanks for the Italians. Leaders could develope as well, without having cleopatra dropping nuclear bombs *lol* (tbh i liked the CIV 1 bug with Ghandi - this was fun tho)

There is also a way to play with different state forms / alignments like in Hearts of Iron IV. To develop a CIV in a specific direction with special benefits, without distorting the historical aspects too much.

 

[Zaarin]

Based on what we've been told, that's roughly how it's said to work.

 

[Nonstop069]

As far i understood the 1 screenshot, it looked for me that players can develope from rome to mongolia to aztecs (as in humankind) - which would be a very terrible decision for my taste. But please correct me if i understood it wrong.

 

[Zaarin]

As far i understood the 1 screenshot, it looked for me that players can develope from rome to mongolia to aztecs (as in humankind) - which would be a very terrible decision for my taste. But please correct me if i understood it wrong.

The era change mechanics are not well understood yet, but at the moment it seems like the default is that your civ is given a set of "historical" options to evolve into (we can debate how historical those actually are), but that there is a setting you can choose if you want to change into any civ you like. So if you develop from Rome to Mongolia to Aztecs, it's because you chose to do so.

 

[Nonstop069]

As far i understand this picture, that you can't keep your "original" CIV and you have to develope to Songhai, Mongolia or to the 3rd option. Actually, when i choosed a CIV in all previous CIV games, then i wanted to experience Egypt for example - historically, geographically, visually (buildings, units) in the next round France with Napoleon and so on. When i play Egypt in CIV VII and look on this screenshot, it looks for me like i am forced to leave the "Egypt road" and play for example as mongolia in geographic egypt - which is absolute nonsense for my historic mind. Hopefully this will be better explained in the near future, but this is actually what players dislike a lot in humankind.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I think there are three main elements to ballance about a change civ mechanic:
* HISTORICITY that is related to Recognition, it is easier for most people to follow a know historical sequence of entities. But remember that if we dont have some alternatives to pick each era then you dont have multiple civs, you just have a label change added to era thematic uniques.
* VERSATILITY allows players to actually have Agency, because certain level of freedom is needed to gives this mechanic a gameplay objetive. The choice of bonus and uniques should matter something each match, still be allowed to turn into anyone from nowhere would feels cheap and forced.
* NARRATIVE mechanics that Justified the change, some in match requirements that make the transitions both gameplay challenging and therefore rewarding plus provide immersive reasons to the transformation of your society. Of course ballanced to not be too dependent of random world generation.

Again I must point that the real historical succession of historical entities we know have causes to be that way, like are militar conquest, immigration, religious conversion, ideological secession, dynastic struggles, etc. In a traditional CIV game you can be the Celts with Aztecs, Japanese and Malinese as neighboors so why should you turn into France if there are not Romans and Franks anywhere around to conquer you, why you even want to be conquered in the first place?
The historical outcome we know could be recognizable but should be ballanced with gameplay wise options that come with some form of narrative justification.

 

[KurisC]

As far i understand this picture, that you can't keep your "original" CIV and you have to develope to Songhai, Mongolia or to the 3rd option. Actually, when i choosed a CIV in all previous CIV games, then i wanted to experience Egypt for example - historically, geographically, visually (buildings, units) in the next round France with Napoleon and so on. When i play Egypt in CIV VII and look on this screenshot, it looks for me like i am forced to leave the "Egypt road" and play for example as mongolia in geographic egypt - which is absolute nonsense for my historic mind. Hopefully this will be better explained in the near future, but this is actually what players dislike a lot in humankind.

This one likely occurred because Songhai in this case is probably the current closest geographical development that Egypt can take that isn't Egypt (assuming that Exploration Age Egypt isn't in the game yet, based on this), they will absolutely be adding more Civs, I mean they have already confirmed 10 more in the same year that the game comes out, so I think we can expect the roster to be padded out there will be considerably more options. I also do think that starting as Egypt but being horse-centric (for example) would naturally lead the civilisation to developing like Mongolia did, and with the world not being accurate to your true Earth location, I think therefore in that sense it kind of works out when you think of it that way (Civs representing what made those Civs known rather than a geographical position in the World, with your leader/flag/emblem/colours and old architecture style following you through the game).

 

[Stilgar08]

I had the same concerns about civ vii when I watched the video yesterday: humankind 2.0. but it's not like that I think and I would recommend to wait for further input...

There are 3 eras, so you switch 3 times. That's not so much... You can't go from Rome to Canada or something.. it's less generic as in humankind. Your choice of the follow up civ depends on history (let's wait for adequacy here) or on what happened during your game (you gotta meet certain criteria)...
I always am appalled by the vast resentment of new game design ideas without having seen it in the flesh and/or played by your own...

 

[Haig]

Why do you think it's Humankind-inspired? The designing of VII probably started 2019 when last expansion pack dropped, that's how it was with Civs VI and V.

 

[moondog385]

As far i understand this picture, that you can't keep your "original" CIV and you have to develope to Songhai, Mongolia or to the 3rd option. Actually, when i choosed a CIV in all previous CIV games, then i wanted to experience Egypt for example - historically, geographically, visually (buildings, units) in the next round France with Napoleon and so on. When i play Egypt in CIV VII and look on this screenshot, it looks for me like i am forced to leave the "Egypt road" and play for example as mongolia in geographic egypt - which is absolute nonsense for my historic mind. Hopefully this will be better explained in the near future, but this is actually what players dislike a lot in humankind.

Egypt can also switch into the Abbasids in the second age, which isn't shown in this graphic. I don't view that as hugely different, historically speaking, from the examples you gave in your first post.

 

[Linklite]

I like the idea in principle that your civ evolves. I can't say I'm enthusiastic about the idea that you can't just play one civ and see what an anachronistic Rome would look like. Instead, you have to be Italians...which only fully makes sense in the real timeline, not the counterfactual one you're creating in the game.

 

[Nonstop069]

I had the same concerns about civ vii when I watched the video yesterday: humankind 2.0. but it's not like that I think and I would recommend to wait for further input...

There are 3 eras, so you switch 3 times. That's not so much... You can't go from Rome to Canada or something.. it's less generic as in humankind. Your choice of the follow up civ depends on history (let's wait for adequacy here) or on what happened during your game (you gotta meet certain criteria)...
I always am appalled by the vast resentment of new game design ideas without having seen it in the flesh and/or played by your own...

That sounds good at least...i mean i am fine if CIV VII doesnt stick 100% to the historical facts and gives players more freedom to develope your own personal civ as long it doesnt goes the crazy way as humankind is doing it. But egypt and mongolia are far away from each other tho....i would prefer to keep the CIV name "egypt" just with other specializations as the origin egypt instead of renaming it into the misleading name "mongolia" - lets see which sort of insights will come the next months.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I always am appalled by the vast resentment of new game design ideas without having seen it in the flesh and/or played by your own...

1000% this. I can't believe the number of people on here who are so vehemently angry about this whole thing, despite having seen very little of the game and having not played it. Absolutely boggles my mind.

Edit: for clarity, that's not directed at the OP, who is much more measured.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't want to start out - like in Humankind - as a Roman, be an Aztec in the middle and then finish the game as a Mongol.

According to everything I've read (which, like most folks, isn't a huge amount - we're still filling in the gaps here), that doesn't seem possible in VII.

 

[BrotherInJah]

Kind reminder, these are ages not eras

 

[Nonstop069]

Haha thanks...i played all CIVs (+ Colonization) and i am puting in big hopes in VII. No hate at all and looking forward for more information from the devs.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Why do you think it's Humankind-inspired? The designing of VII probably started 2019 when last expansion pack dropped, that's how it was with Civs VI and V.

It's a consequence of Humankind releasing this gameplay mechanic first, even if Firaxis came up with the idea first. However, 2019 is also when Humankind announced their game.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

1000% this. I can't believe the number of people on here who are so vehemently angry about this whole thing, despite having seen very little of the game and having not played it. Absolutely boggles my mind.

We've already seen this mechanic in action in Humankind; granted Civ's take may be different, but it was disastrous enough in HK to justify a bout of hair-clutching or two

 

[mackintosh]

Civ 6 is outplaying HK on Steam by a margin of 58:1. HK was, and is, an unmitigated disaster. Civ-switching has been commonly blamed for HK's woes, and it's basically the reason many people have been taken aback when they saw a similar thing in Civ. Mayhap Firaxis have implemented it (and other changes) a lot more gracefully than people fear and it's all going to turn out to be a nothingburger. We'll see soon enough.

 

[luca 83]

From a historical and correct point of view, civilizations change over time, they mix: as already suggested, I would create a more political game based on ideology rather than on leaders