LastSword
Prince
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2013
- Messages
- 1,100
Salutations fanatics,
civ changing is a topic I was not much interested in, however it dominated early talk about civilization 7 and after I came across some comments stating that simple things would require "extreme amount of work" or "cannot be done" I decided to write about it from my cold/gameplay centered perspective. I would like to cover following things:
1. (A)Historicity is not an argument.
2. Why civilization changing itself is not important.
3. Why an "anchor" is important.
4. Why a "classic mode" is something simple that Firaxis can announce within a month.
Calling something (a)historical is not an argument
At first there were voices how civ changing is ahistorical then there was a counter wave of how civ changing is finally truely representing history of civilization and... blah blah blah. None of those approaches is historical at all. It doesn't even matter at all. People who write that something is (a)historical are just afraid to write that they (dis)like something. It is personal opinion/feeling and there is no point in discussing feelings. Civilization series is a video game that loosely use history as its theme. As we all know world history is quite well established and free lore.
Therefore I would ask to not mention historicity in this thread at all (I believe there are already enough topics about it). I would like to keep design-logic focus here.
Civ-changing is a by-product of other design decisions
I am gonna state/repeat some obvious observations. The main theme of civilization 7 is game "semi-split" into 3 subgames. It is only logical to have abilities sets designed for an individual subgame and obviously we want players to have an ability set in each subgame.
It is semi-logical to equalize ability sets to certain civilizations (see leaders are weaker anchors).
The other approach (where civilization would have uniques spread across eras) would require even more complicated system where players would "earn" their uniques to complete their abilities sets.
This design solves an issue of "useless late game uniques". It also brings a lot of balance to the game.
However it also presented Firaxis equally imperfect paths:
a) Civilizations adopt each others uniques to fill gaps. (Ex. we have America with Ziggurats in Ancient Era)
b) Introduce civilization switching.
c) Make a lot of uniques for each civilization.
I have included option "c" however many of you probably can see that it would be impossible to create a rooster with it... Therefore I will simply ignore it.
Why Firaxis went with "b"? We can only make assumptions. Notice that game now requires a lot more civilizations for a base rooster. Civilization switching requires an alternative "anchor" for a player to keep an identity - it forces making leaders permanent. With a leader permanent that jumps from civilization to civilization we can... introduce leaderless civlizations (which saves us a lot of money on leader art). We need 3x more civilizations than usual but only about 2x more leaders (for example). Profit.
It could be that they were inspired by Humankind.
Now, let me assure you that people would be equally mad about solution "a". What? Why is my America building Ziggurats, are those developers mad?
There was no way to please everyone.
I have this small conspiracy theory that it is better to start with "b" and then introduce "a" as an solution than the other way around.
"B" is something new to series (a shock value) and by later introducement of "a" (something familiar) you have a better response from players.
If you start with "a" and people are unhappy, and then you introduce "b" (something new and unfamiliar) then people are still scarred and unhappy.
The need of anchor (leaders are weaker anchors than civilizations)
What do I mean by anchor? It is to create a feeling that we are playing one single game with three subgames in it rather than three separate games. It helps us recognize who is who.
We need a rivalry, we need to know who dared to steal our wonder in era #1 so we can properly punish him in era #2. We need to know who is who to maintain a proper diplomatic relations.
Therefore the permanent leaders come for the rescue (again). And that's why a diplomatic screen includes our leader as well. We need to start identifying leader as an anchor because we lost a civilization as an anchor.
Unfortunately all I wrote in this paragraph is a bit subjective. There are people who like celebrities and are more focused on people and for them leaders may work great as an anchors. However in general a civilization is something grandeur than some mortal imperfect person. We have also a legacy of view where we were not seeing our leaders much (diplomacy was designed like we were leaders of our civilizations). It all leads me to a simple opinion: keeping one civilization across the game is more fun to player and provides more enjoyment.
Now back to more logical approach. Colours are the most important visual stimulus. However I don't know if we change them on civilization switching. I can stress enough how important is to keep colours of each player the same for a proper anchor.
However, civilizations are also backed up with city-names, city-styles and music. They are simply the best anchor this game series can provide.
What can they do to improve leaders as anchors? Not much to be honest. It would be great if they add a short jingle for each leader when the diplomacy starts - sound is a strong stimulus as well.
Civilization switching is nothing more than a gimmick with no gameplay value
We are changing our name, city-names, music (?) and some other things that do not impact game at all.
Some people may like it and that's all it truely provide.
For abilities instead of choosing Mongolia we can simply choose a set of abilities called Örtöö (or whatever their main ability is named).
Visual representation of player instances (simplified)
It is simple, don't bother to take it too seriously. Anyway, we have players (0, 1, 2, 3...) and we want to link them to data (leader, city names, ...).
Right now we are picking our civilizationID and it sets or links our player to city-names, civ name. It also attaches some abilities, unique replacements, this new production bonus towards one wonder (which is in fact an ability).
About colours I am not sure, because it can be done like civ6 jersey system and be a bit complicated. Let's ignore it.
Well, however we can choose civilizationID and ask a game to only attach abilities, unique replacements and this new production bonus towards one wonder.
Uniques aren't truely tied to civilizationID for a long time. We had special units like Warrior Monk or Landknechts.
Though I am afraid I cannot explain it any simpler. Therefore believe me or not: it is trivial.
Game setup
"It cannot be done."
"Some civilizations don't have leaders." (this one is particularly funny because solution is already present)
"What about modern civilizations for antiquity?"
All we need is one additional pregame player integer value that is tied to civiliationID and that is an effort required to finish classic mode.
Basically those are 4 combo boxes and I showed what will happen when player chooses Era and then Civilization (it auto-fills Leader and Abilities to default values).
What is more, when America enters Modern from Exploration it will automatically acquire American abilities (no choice available in such cases).
Is it a big deal or is it not a big deal?
Answer is left to you and every other player.
I would personally like for Firaxis to include a "classic mode" because I know for a fact that I and probably many other players will enjoy game more with it and it is truely not time-consuming feature to add.
civ changing is a topic I was not much interested in, however it dominated early talk about civilization 7 and after I came across some comments stating that simple things would require "extreme amount of work" or "cannot be done" I decided to write about it from my cold/gameplay centered perspective. I would like to cover following things:
1. (A)Historicity is not an argument.
2. Why civilization changing itself is not important.
3. Why an "anchor" is important.
4. Why a "classic mode" is something simple that Firaxis can announce within a month.
Calling something (a)historical is not an argument
At first there were voices how civ changing is ahistorical then there was a counter wave of how civ changing is finally truely representing history of civilization and... blah blah blah. None of those approaches is historical at all. It doesn't even matter at all. People who write that something is (a)historical are just afraid to write that they (dis)like something. It is personal opinion/feeling and there is no point in discussing feelings. Civilization series is a video game that loosely use history as its theme. As we all know world history is quite well established and free lore.
Therefore I would ask to not mention historicity in this thread at all (I believe there are already enough topics about it). I would like to keep design-logic focus here.
Civ-changing is a by-product of other design decisions
I am gonna state/repeat some obvious observations. The main theme of civilization 7 is game "semi-split" into 3 subgames. It is only logical to have abilities sets designed for an individual subgame and obviously we want players to have an ability set in each subgame.
It is semi-logical to equalize ability sets to certain civilizations (see leaders are weaker anchors).
The other approach (where civilization would have uniques spread across eras) would require even more complicated system where players would "earn" their uniques to complete their abilities sets.
This design solves an issue of "useless late game uniques". It also brings a lot of balance to the game.
However it also presented Firaxis equally imperfect paths:
a) Civilizations adopt each others uniques to fill gaps. (Ex. we have America with Ziggurats in Ancient Era)
b) Introduce civilization switching.
c) Make a lot of uniques for each civilization.
I have included option "c" however many of you probably can see that it would be impossible to create a rooster with it... Therefore I will simply ignore it.
Why Firaxis went with "b"? We can only make assumptions. Notice that game now requires a lot more civilizations for a base rooster. Civilization switching requires an alternative "anchor" for a player to keep an identity - it forces making leaders permanent. With a leader permanent that jumps from civilization to civilization we can... introduce leaderless civlizations (which saves us a lot of money on leader art). We need 3x more civilizations than usual but only about 2x more leaders (for example). Profit.
It could be that they were inspired by Humankind.
Now, let me assure you that people would be equally mad about solution "a". What? Why is my America building Ziggurats, are those developers mad?
There was no way to please everyone.
I have this small conspiracy theory that it is better to start with "b" and then introduce "a" as an solution than the other way around.
"B" is something new to series (a shock value) and by later introducement of "a" (something familiar) you have a better response from players.
If you start with "a" and people are unhappy, and then you introduce "b" (something new and unfamiliar) then people are still scarred and unhappy.
The need of anchor (leaders are weaker anchors than civilizations)
What do I mean by anchor? It is to create a feeling that we are playing one single game with three subgames in it rather than three separate games. It helps us recognize who is who.
We need a rivalry, we need to know who dared to steal our wonder in era #1 so we can properly punish him in era #2. We need to know who is who to maintain a proper diplomatic relations.
Therefore the permanent leaders come for the rescue (again). And that's why a diplomatic screen includes our leader as well. We need to start identifying leader as an anchor because we lost a civilization as an anchor.
Unfortunately all I wrote in this paragraph is a bit subjective. There are people who like celebrities and are more focused on people and for them leaders may work great as an anchors. However in general a civilization is something grandeur than some mortal imperfect person. We have also a legacy of view where we were not seeing our leaders much (diplomacy was designed like we were leaders of our civilizations). It all leads me to a simple opinion: keeping one civilization across the game is more fun to player and provides more enjoyment.
Now back to more logical approach. Colours are the most important visual stimulus. However I don't know if we change them on civilization switching. I can stress enough how important is to keep colours of each player the same for a proper anchor.
However, civilizations are also backed up with city-names, city-styles and music. They are simply the best anchor this game series can provide.
What can they do to improve leaders as anchors? Not much to be honest. It would be great if they add a short jingle for each leader when the diplomacy starts - sound is a strong stimulus as well.
Civilization switching is nothing more than a gimmick with no gameplay value
We are changing our name, city-names, music (?) and some other things that do not impact game at all.
Some people may like it and that's all it truely provide.
For abilities instead of choosing Mongolia we can simply choose a set of abilities called Örtöö (or whatever their main ability is named).
Visual representation of player instances (simplified)
It is simple, don't bother to take it too seriously. Anyway, we have players (0, 1, 2, 3...) and we want to link them to data (leader, city names, ...).
Right now we are picking our civilizationID and it sets or links our player to city-names, civ name. It also attaches some abilities, unique replacements, this new production bonus towards one wonder (which is in fact an ability).
About colours I am not sure, because it can be done like civ6 jersey system and be a bit complicated. Let's ignore it.
Well, however we can choose civilizationID and ask a game to only attach abilities, unique replacements and this new production bonus towards one wonder.
Uniques aren't truely tied to civilizationID for a long time. We had special units like Warrior Monk or Landknechts.
Though I am afraid I cannot explain it any simpler. Therefore believe me or not: it is trivial.
Game setup
"It cannot be done."
"Some civilizations don't have leaders." (this one is particularly funny because solution is already present)
"What about modern civilizations for antiquity?"
All we need is one additional pregame player integer value that is tied to civiliationID and that is an effort required to finish classic mode.
Era: | Antiquity | Antiquity | Antiquity | Modern | Modern | Modern |
Civilization: | Egypt | Buganda | America | Egypt | Buganda | America |
Leader: | Hatshetsup | Random | Franklin | Hatshetsup | Random | Franklin |
Abilities: | Egypt | Random | Random | Random | Buganda | America |
Basically those are 4 combo boxes and I showed what will happen when player chooses Era and then Civilization (it auto-fills Leader and Abilities to default values).
What is more, when America enters Modern from Exploration it will automatically acquire American abilities (no choice available in such cases).
Is it a big deal or is it not a big deal?
Answer is left to you and every other player.
I would personally like for Firaxis to include a "classic mode" because I know for a fact that I and probably many other players will enjoy game more with it and it is truely not time-consuming feature to add.