Alternate Ideas to the humankind inspired CIV development

[Zaarin]

HK was, and is, an unmitigated disaster. Civ-switching has been commonly blamed for HK's woes

Humankind's problem isn't that it didn't do its main selling point well. Humankind's problem is that it didn't do anything well. At its best, it was forgettable; at its worst, it was poorly designed and incoherent. (I was very sad. I'm a big fan of Amplitude, and ES2 remains one of my favorite 4X games. But HK had no soul.)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

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

Not quite. What we've seen is Humankind's version of this mechanic in action in Humankind's overall game design, where it failed spectacularly.

What we have not seen, except in glimpses, is this mechanic in Civilization's version in a Civilization overall game design.

It may still fail spectacularly, but I regard the reactions to it so far as being similar to the reactions to the Italians' attempted tank attack in the Spanish Civil War: it also failed spectacularly, so the conclusion among French and British military observers was that "massed tank attacks don't work."
BUT
The German military observers' conclusion was that "massed tank attacks by the Italian Army don't work" - and continued to develop their own Auftragstaktik and Operational Bewegungskrieg based on panzer divisions - which worked all too well, as the same French and British military observers discovered a few years later . . .

We don't really know yet whether we are looking at an example of something that will not work in a game design, or simply did not work as done in a Humankind game design.

 

[GeneralZIft]

I'm very curious about how they will twist this or 'save' this for legacy players as time goes on. I wonder about that classic mode (btw I coined this term )
Somehow I doubt it though.

Their new design shows something very specific, that every Civ has their own extra culture tree and also tons of very specific bonuses, which won't work out well in a game missing culture switching

The way the game is designed (woe is us all) makes it impossible for a classic mode without major reworks to the game as far as I can tell

 

[Zaarin]

massed tank attacks by the Italian Army don't work

In general, attacks by the Italian army don't work.

The way the game is designed (woe is us all) makes it impossible for a classic mode without major reworks to the game as far as I can tell

I'd be concerned if they made a bold choice and then backpedaled on it. In the words of John Sheridan, if you're falling off a mountain, you might as well try to fly.

 

[Wabnosa]

I like Humankind, I think Civ is implementing thier best ideas. The problem with Humankind is it doesn't have the depth of systems that civ does. Civ has a lot more polish and they made a lot of the systems fun. Also a lot of things break later in the game in Humankind. The pollution system really pisses me off.

Elevation, love it and evolving civs, like they...do. Outposts/ towns are just fine. Earn more influence if you want to expand faster I have no problem in Humankind.

I am happy with civ stealing thier good ideas and polishing them to perfection.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The way the game is designed (woe is us all) makes it impossible for a classic mode without major reworks to the game as far as I can tell

Not necessarily.
It would be difficult to provide a Continuous 3-Age set of characteristics for all Civs without serious 'work arounds' for some, but it would be relatively easy for others.

Off the top of my head, the following have been more or less continuously in independent or near-independent existence for at least part of all three Ages in the game (in no particular order):
Japan
China (as separate dynasties)
Persia (as separate Royal Families/Dynasties)
India (as separate states)
Germany (Germanic tribes, Holy Roman Empire, modern Germany)
Spain (Celtiberian/Iberians, Germanic/Muslim Spanish Kingdoms, modern Spain)
Korea (Joseon/Three Kingdoms, Silla/Goryeo, Joseon)

But in addition, given that the game postulates a Singularity (Crisis) mechanic between each Age representing a Massive Change, there are a bunch of other possibilities:

France (Gaul - Singularity - Royal France - Singularity - French Republic)
Egypt (Pharaonic Egypt - Singularity - Islamic/Mamluk Egypt - Singularity - modern Egypt)
Italy (Rome - Singularity - Italian Kingdoms/City States - Singularity - modern Italy)
Greece (Mycenean/Classical Greece - Singularity - Byzantium - Singularity - Greek Republic)

I'm most familiar with the Classical Med and Europe, so forgive the lack of other world examples, but given that the game postulates a Singularity Event or set of events between Ages, there is no reason to get wrapped up worrying about complete unbroken continuity - some states, like Gaul or Rome, will have disconnects that act as the Singularity Event between Ages and then go on to the next version in the next Age.

The real problem is coming up with all the attributes for the same or similar Civ in all the Ages, and the Alternatives even within a continuous Civ: for example, is Byzantium a 'continuation' for Greece or Rome? I'd argue for Both, myself, but this kind of 'continuation' is much more common than people realize - most modern 'Civilizations' are actually amalgamations of prior states rather than linear descendants of a single set of polities or cultures.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Clarification: Any kind of 'classic' version of Civ VII should, IMHO, be reserved for a DLC or Massive Mod: let us get used to playing the game the way they designed it, and if the chorus of vitriolic condemnation becomes deafening, Then start working on a Fix.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

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.

Yeah, in an interview I saw today Ed Beach casually said that they had started development "before the Pandemic" which almost certainly would have been 2019, fight?

Also I haven't seen anyone mention that the unique units that people love and swear by were themselves "inspired" by other games of the time. Civ survived that it seems.

 

[ehecatzin]

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.

and the fast era switching, the non sensical player punishing diplomacy, the ultra costly unbuildable districts, the bland leader personas, the never ending turn bug, the late game clickfest, the super unbalanced yields that later got nerfed into oblivion...the.....you get the idea.

I agree with you, Humankind failed because of a botched execution not because of the idea itself. All I'm seeing from Firaxis so far is a very well thought out, flavorful execution of the same concepts, from what we've seen so far, It's Amplitude who should be taking notes not Firaxis.

while we ar at it, the one thing I find immersion breaking is leaders staying the same, at least give leaders a little cross cultural detail you can switch around depending on your active civ, Toga, Egyptian make up, a Greek helmet...something to tie it together. Not so odd historically, I could absolutely see a Alexander with a Pharaoh attire.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I really wish if they wanted to take inspiration from another 4X game, they would have looked to Old World instead of Humankind.

 

[BrotherInJah]

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

We have examples of both. Countries emerge late or they have 4k years history, 2k.. 1k..

What I want from civ7 is option to stay unchanged, keep the line unbroken. It may be costly, crisis systems, stagnation, sure.. but it should be there.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

the game is not out , we dont even have a full playthrough , just one age . so lets wait a little bit to see more or the implementation of this idea. my personal hope is that there will be an option to continue as your own civ eventually in the game before release. if it is just a problem of balance and relevancy of abilities at each stage of the game surely that can also be achieved without changing the civ i chose to play as. just give the civ new abilities at each start of an age

 

[BuchiTaton]

I'm very curious about how they will twist this or 'save' this for legacy players as time goes on. I wonder about that classic mode (btw I coined this term )
Somehow I doubt it though.

Their new design shows something very specific, that every Civ has their own extra culture tree and also tons of very specific bonuses, which won't work out well in a game missing culture switching

The way the game is designed (woe is us all) makes it impossible for a classic mode without major reworks to the game as far as I can tell

There are options, for example a civ that dont want to change their identity could still change others elements of their culture like some unique religion or form of government. For example for Exploration Age we can have generic legacy revolutions like a "Secluded" option with abilities, civics, units and infrastructure related to defensive militar and cultural gameplay. A "Holy" option about diplomacy and religion, or a "Colonial" for expansion and economy.

So you can be the "Secluded Rome", "Holy Maya" or "Colonial Egypt" between others in the Exploration Age.

 

[luca 83]

We have examples of both. Countries emerge late or they have 4k years history, 2k.. 1k..

What I want from civ7 is option to stay unchanged, keep the line unbroken. It may be costly, crisis systems, stagnation, sure.. but it should be there.

It is necessary to simulate historical events that are not real but realistic, such as assassination, coups, revolutions, which fixed leaders for millennia and governments chosen by the player

 

[Nonstop069]

I have just seen a test video on youtube of the german "gamestar" which gave me a bit more insight of the "humankind" system.

The player has the option to play historically or for example as cleopatra of rome or as octavian from egypt etc. ...i just think for my personal taste i will not like this decision as i disliked it in humankind already. That we players can keep the "classic/historical" road is a big plus to keep all sort of players happy.

But still, i would prefer a more atmospheric/historical/realistic system and experience as i have explained it before:

- Etruscians > Romans > Italians
- Celtics > East Franks > Germans
etc.

- With fitting leaders
- With fitting visual buildings/units
- With fitting sounds
for each development stage / era
- True starting locations on a real earth map
- Bonusses for the area conditions (Egypt with desert, nordics with tundra/water)
- Comprehensible Leader behaviour (as in CIV VI)

This would be my personal taste for a CIV VII.

 

[Haig]

It may still fail spectacularly, but I regard the reactions to it so far as being similar to the reactions to the Italians' attempted tank attack in the Spanish Civil War: it also failed spectacularly, so the conclusion among French and British military observers was that "massed tank attacks don't work."
BUT
The German military observers' conclusion was that "massed tank attacks by the Italian Army don't work" - and continued to develop their own Auftragstaktik and Operational Bewegungskrieg based on panzer divisions - which worked all too well, as the same French and British military observers discovered a few years later . . .

I love this comparison, need to inject it into some discussion at my workplace's break room..

"This reminds me of Italy's failed tank attack in the Spanish civil war.."

 

[bitula]

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.

Egypt can change to Mongolia. This won't change play it or not. Or you mean I should play it to see maybe it can't? It's easier and cheaper to ask someone who played it.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Egypt can change to Mongolia. This won't change play it or not. Or you mean I should play it to see maybe it can't? It's easier and cheaper to ask someone who played it.

It was revealed two days ago. Two. There is still so much we don't know. Yes, Egypt can change to Mongolia. But we don't know how many civs the game will include, how many historical routes will be available, how the transition will actually occur, whether you can toggle a game mode that only allows historical routes, how many civs it will be possible to switch to, how the crises work, how the Ages work, what happens at the beginning of each new Age, etc. etc.

You can be opposed to the idea of Egypt turning into Mongolia, all cool. It seems a bit mad to me too. But there are other sides to this mechanic that are very interesting, it has a lot of potential, not least because it gives FXS scope to add a ton of civs that we have never seen before and do them justice, owing to civs being locked to an Age.

Ultimately, if I'm not forced to turn Egypt to Mongolia, if I have other interesting options, if the pacing of the game is better than previous civ games, if the end game monotony is gone, and if, most importantly, the game is fun, then this is surely a good thing.

I have no problem with people expressing concern about the mechanic in a reasonable way, I share some of this concern. Criticism can be a good thing, when offered with good will and expressed constructively. But the amount of hyperbolic negativity and entitled conservatism that I've seen is frankly ridiculous, given how little we truly know. I will never understand this attitude to a game / series that people claim to love.

 

[ombak]

All this focus on HK's failures is understandable, but this is just how AAA development works. You take other ideas, sometimes ones that flopped or just didn't reach their potential, and you throw them into your pile of ideas, you brainstorm, you implement an early iteration and you try to make it better with the resources that you have but that smaller developers don't.

As has been said in many threads in this Civ 7 section, the devs themselves don't want to make the same game over and over again. One thing devs do, or at least they did at the AAA I worked at, is play a ton of games. Their games, other devs' games, indie games, any games out there, not just video games, and take the concepts that they see potential in and build new things with those, then iterate (a lot) and improve upon it. Doesn't mean they're always going to hit a home run, but it usually means it won't feel the same when you play it, even if it sounds the same when you read about it.

Districts have been around since before Civ 6 and Humankind. Talk about how to fix the end-game monotony has been a constant theme for the genre. These kinds of things point to a long time spent defining Civ 7 rather than one moment of "let's copy this" as the pivotal building block.

It feels like this rant doesn't even belong in this thread though, I think the title "Alternate ideas..." has a lot of potential, but most of the conversation has been lamenting the things that remind people of HK. Actually coming up with alternate ideas is exactly how each Civ (and some of the competition) shines.

 

[bitula]

It was revealed two days ago. Two. There is still so much we don't know. Yes, Egypt can change to Mongolia. But we don't know how many civs the game will include, how many historical routes will be available, how the transition will actually occur, whether you can toggle a game mode that only allows historical routes, how many civs it will be possible to switch to, how the crises work, how the Ages work, what happens at the beginning of each new Age, etc. etc.

You can be opposed to the idea of Egypt turning into Mongolia, all cool. It seems a bit mad to me too. But there are other sides to this mechanic that are very interesting, it has a lot of potential, not least because it gives FXS scope to add a ton of civs that we have never seen before and do them justice, owing to civs being locked to an Age.

Ultimately, if I'm not forced to turn Egypt to Mongolia, if I have other interesting options, if the pacing of the game is better than previous civ games, if the end game monotony is gone, and if, most importantly, the game is fun, then this is surely a good thing.

I have no problem with people expressing concern about the mechanic in a reasonable way, I share some of this concern. Criticism can be a good thing, when offered with good will and expressed constructively. But the amount of hyperbolic negativity and entitled conservatism that I've seen is frankly ridiculous, given how little we truly know. I will never understand this attitude to a game / series that people claim to love.

The idea of civ mix could be OK. Egypt -> Mongolia is NOK. Frankia - France is OK. But this doesn't work with 3 eras and, anyways, I don't think they will have 100+ civs like in eu4 to make this concept work: thats too ambitious, but it they will, that is a different issue. Of course if you don't care about immersion that much, and just want to enjoy a game, that again is a different issue. It's not a showstopper anyway even for me because I will purchase the game as soon as "classic mode" is confirmed. I just wnated to purchase the Founder edition day one. I just wonder how many people are holding back their pre-order purchase because of this same reason. I don't think it is just me.