Anchor, or why civilization-changing is not important per se

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, ...).
1724661032024.png

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:AntiquityAntiquityAntiquityModernModernModern
Civilization:EgyptBugandaAmericaEgyptBugandaAmerica
Leader:HatshetsupRandomFranklinHatshetsupRandomFranklin
Abilities:EgyptRandomRandomRandomBugandaAmerica

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.
 
This is why to increase “Anchor”

1. Civilization Name should reflect your whole history
its not Buganda…it’s either
Egypt-Songhai- Buganda or
Aksum-Songhai-Buganda
(and I should see that for my opponents as well) (and banner where it’s practical to display more than one)

2. Map Color needs to stay the same

3. City names should have the OPTION to change, and new cities should have the option to use your historical civs’ city name list

4. The graphics of “non gameplay buildings” should have a mix of all civs in your history (there is some “historical architecture” ie columned buildings in America) say
2 civs: 1/3 old, 2/3 new
3 civs: 1/4 first, 1/4 second, 1/2 new
(This could also reflect the previous owners….If the Inca Romans founded this city and lost it in 2nd Age, to the EgytMongol then the two “old” would be Inca and Rome and the new would be whatever the Egypt Mongols went to in age 3)
 
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.
How do you “know for a fact” that implementing a game mode completely at odds with the core design of the game would be a “truly not time-consuming feature to add”? The game is built around civilization switching.

Accept that or don’t, but these calls for “classic mode” seem to be unrealistic coping. People are setting themselves up for disappointment. I guess we’re at stage 3 of the grief process, “bargaining.”
 
Last edited:
How do you “know for a fact” that implementing a game mode completely at odds with the core design of the game would be a “truly not time-consuming feature to add”? The game is built around civilization switching.

Accept that or don’t, but these calls for “classic mode” seem to be unrealistic coping. People are setting themselves up for disappointment. I guess we’re at stage 3 of the grief process, “bargaining.”
I am sorry, I don't think I follow and I don't think you have read my post either.
You would have to first prove to me that it is "the core design of the game" and "the game is built around civilization switching". And I mean the core design and game, not marketing around the game.
Especially after I put an effort to explain why I find it not an important part of the design of the game and reduced it to graphical/theme gimmick. I don't see a single gameplay thing it offers.

I don't know how to explain things that are obvious to me to others. First, you must understand that when you choose/click to select a new civilization upon era switch it triggers, let's call it a function. The game received your input, that player 0 wants to become a civilization with id 0. Now it fires all stuff needed (change civilization name, apply abilities, assign unique units... and so on). This "player 0" and "civilization 0" are called variables. What is very simple to do is add an extra variable. This one will be boolean (true/false) and let's call it bOnlyAbilities. When bOnlyAbilities is true, we can make function ignore part of it functionality (do not change civilization name... and other non-gameplay related things).
This bOnlyAbilities will be based on game setting, a simple checkbox, let's call it a "Classic Mode".

You would also have to apply other minor changes to game setup interface (kind of included in opening post) and minor logic adjustments to functions that initialize players on new game start.

All things considered, the amount of input would be much likely shorter than this post.

Right now, our knowledge of the game is limited, maybe there will reveal things that will make it more consuming. Still to reach unrealistic status, not possible. It is simply to easy to attach uniques to player.

I will try again.
You don't have to:
Player -> Civilization -> Unique Gameplay.
You can:
Player -> Unique Gameplay.
 
I am sorry, I don't think I follow and I don't think you have read my post either.
You would have to first prove to me that it is "the core design of the game" and "the game is built around civilization switching". And I mean the core design and game, not marketing around the game.
Especially after I put an effort to explain why I find it not an important part of the design of the game and reduced it to graphical/theme gimmick. I don't see a single gameplay thing it offers.

I read your post, I just disagree with your assessment of the mechanic. Each era is a discrete section of the game, designed that way to evidently address mid- and late-game boredom. Part of that problem was that civs felt bad during certain eras they weren’t balanced for. So now we have 3 eras and in each age, it’s designed around all civs getting a full kit of uniques to take advantage of. That’s why we switch civs. On top of that, ages are drastically different, with a changing map, evolving mechanics and game systems, etc.

Remaining as the same civilization completely goes against this. Canada in Antiquity will be a dud with no uniques, no access to their unique civic tree, etc. And with the ages being so individually distinctive and actually bookended by starts and ends, there’s no point or sense of continuity with a single civ in the first place. Hell, even the tech trees and civic trees are completely Age specific.

You’re also throwing around a lot of programming terms as if you know how the game will work, which I think is pretty premature.
 
You don't have to:
Player -> Civilization -> Unique Gameplay.
You can:
Player -> Unique Gameplay.

That's Millennia, right?

Remaining as the same civilization completely goes against this. Canada in Antiquity will be a dud with no uniques, no access to their unique civic tree, etc. And with the ages being so individually distinctive and actually bookended by starts and ends, there’s no point or sense of continuity with a single civ in the first place. Hell, even the tech trees and civic trees are completely Age specific.

I prefer "remaining as the same civilization" to be my decision.
 
I don't necessarily think "force every civ down a strict path" would be impossible to implement. All it would do is lock out the selection screen, or force you through a single option on that screen. I think given the feedback from people, they probably will look to have something of an option for that.

The "hard" part I guess would be to figure out and remember in-game what option you are choosing, when there are multiple options that can lead into each other. Like to remember whether you are supposed to be on Qin China -> Mongolia -> USSR, or are you on Qin China -> Ming China -> Modern China, or are you on Qin China -> Ming China -> Vietnam? They all may start the same place, but presumably you'd have to have a specific entry screen to pick that you are forcing the Mongolia path or the China path or the Vietnam path.

Maybe they could have designed things that way, but it would also potentially confuse people a little bit. Like could you use any of those options with Confucius, being an ancient China leader? Would you be able to select any of the 3 paths when you chose him, or would his leader default path be the middle all-China variation? Would you choose Mongolia path first, and then be presented with only the leaders that could fit that path?

And then the larger question, maybe they are already designing the AI to follow that way. For all we know when you roll an AI opponent, if they choose Genghis Khan, he will always appear with that path. And so if the human wants to play with a strict path to follow, you can simply choose that.
 
Remaining as the same civilization completely goes against this.

And with the ages being so individually distinctive and actually bookended by starts and ends, there’s no point or sense of continuity with a single civ in the first place. Hell, even the tech trees and civic trees are completely Age specific.
This is an opinion about theme. I don't say you are right or not. I know that civilization as an anchor is not must. I know that some people will like civ switching. I am not trying to take it away from them. In fact, remember it is okay to like things that others do not enjoy.

You are into what I described in OP as 3 separate games, I would prefer one game with 3 subgames.

Canada in Antiquity will be a dud with no uniques, no access to their unique civic tree, etc
Sigh, maybe I was not clear enough. I will try again. This part:
Era:AntiquityAntiquity
Civilization:CanadaCanada
Leader:Wilfrid LaurierHatshepsut
Abilities:RandomAksum
We have combo boxes/pulldown lists (game - era, player - civilization, player - leader, player - abilities).
When we select Canada in antiquity it automatically fills hypothetical leader (Wilfrid Laurier) and puts abilities to random, because Canada has no assigned uniques in Antiquity. However player can adjust it to Hatshepsut (leader <- this one is already confirmed to work that way?) and Aksum (abilities for antiquity). We have a pool of abilities for each era.

Approach "a".

You’re also throwing around a lot of programming terms as if you know how the game will work, which I think is pretty premature.
They cannot reinvent math and logic. Games' rules are surprisingly basic part of making games.

That's Millennia, right?
This is civ 6, civ 5, civ 4, civ 3... and it is civ 7. And it is Millenia.
 
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, ...).
View attachment 700994
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:AntiquityAntiquityAntiquityModernModernModern
Civilization:EgyptBugandaAmericaEgyptBugandaAmerica
Leader:HatshetsupRandomFranklinHatshetsupRandomFranklin
Abilities:EgyptRandomRandomRandomBugandaAmerica

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.
The variant that everyone (players and developers) point-blank ignores:
d) Create a well-developed and deep System of Governments (hello, Europa Universalis), which will contain both unique infrastructure and unique units, and even have civilizational shades (hello again, Europa Universalis).

Governments are exactly what has undergone social evolution and has been with humanity since birth, and will die with humanity. Unlike civilizations that could have emerged not so long ago (America), or which died long ago (Assyria). From Hydraulic Despotism through Feudal Monarchy, Enlightened Absolutism and to Constitutional Monarchy. From the Classic Republic through the Maritime Republic, Utopian Meritocratic Republic (Campanella) and to the Liberal, Socialist and Fascist Republics. History knows a bunch of government systems. It is possible to make sure that both the wolves are fed and the sheep are safe, but...
 
@Brackenspore the point with a fully dynamic system is that it works well when other factors lead to completely different games, e.g., the geography and political surroundings in EU4 (in which culture and tag switching are used to unlock other governments or abilities as well). On a random map, I fear it would lead to the same choices over and over again, making games a bit less interesting in the long run. Especially, if the balance is off (see Humankind at release).

@OP I‘m not sure whether people that dislike switching civs would actually prefer ancient America researching the Egyptian civics trees + recruiting Medjay + building Mortuary Temples to a completely bland civ with no uniques. Maybe most do, but for myself, I‘m actually not that sure about it.
 
I find it odd to begin the thread by arguing historicity and then in the same breath asking everyone else to refrain from doing it in the thread. If you truly want us to refrain from the topic, then you should reconsider going into it yourself in the OP.

As for your thoughts on civ-changing being a product of other design choices: I see no reason to exclude your own option C or being more creative when giving each civ their bonuses. I.e. perhaps giving a modern civ like America a more front-loaded civ- and leader ability whilst letting unique buildings etc come in late. Or giving India three unique buildings, one for each era, whilst having a less potent civ- and leader ability. There are many ways in which their design choice could have manifested. I don't, however, see discussing how they decided to approach their decision as very productive. The choice is made and this is what we got.

And to the topic on anchors: Humankind kept the fictional leaders, the colours and the city names consistent and allowed nations to keep the unique districts they built in previous eras. In my opinion, these were not sufficiently strong anchors. In my games, I tend to just identify everyone by their colour. It is far from the same relation I would usually get in civ where I'm looking at the Indians led by Gandhi or the English led by Elizabeth. For now, it is still hard to tell how well they will be able to give us a good anchor, so we will have to wait and see.

For now, I cannot agree with you: It is much easier to form a strong identity for a faction if you create one coherent package with a leader, a nation, perhaps a unique look to their cities or the landscape of their empire, music and a - to the faction - appropriate colour. Maybe they will succeed in forming an equally strong identity for factions in Civ7 - all we can do is to hope for the best. For they have not shown that this is the case so far.
 
Brackenspore said:
The variant that everyone (players and developers) point-blank ignores:
d)...
Yes, I ignored it or ommited it. However we can go infinite with new systems of acquiring uniques. To be frank I always wanted uniques to represent player's actions. You have trained X spearmans? Unique. Instead of bonus towards certain wonder, we could just get production bonus first time we start constructing a wonder that no one else placed yet. And so on.
I have let myself think inside 33-33-33 firaxis framework and assumed they want uniques tied to civilizations.

@OP I‘m not sure whether people that dislike switching civs would actually prefer ancient America researching the Egyptian civics trees + recruiting Medjay + building Mortuary Temples to a completely bland civ with no uniques. Maybe most do, but for myself, I‘m actually not that sure about it.
I am fully aware that people would hate the "a" approach as well. Even pointed that out. :)

I find it odd to begin the thread by arguing historicity and then in the same breath asking everyone else to refrain from doing it in the thread. If you truly want us to refrain from the topic, then you should reconsider going into it yourself in the OP.
I am sorry if I have used a historicity argument anywhere. Can't find it.

As for your thoughts on civ-changing being a product of other design choices: I see no reason to exclude your own option C or being more creative when giving each civ their bonuses. I.e. perhaps giving a modern civ like America a more front-loaded civ- and leader ability whilst letting unique buildings etc come in late. Or giving India three unique buildings, one for each era, whilst having a less potent civ- and leader ability. There are many ways in which their design choice could have manifested. I don't, however, see discussing how they decided to approach their decision as very productive. The choice is made and this is what we got.
Unfortunately I have never seen that concept of late unique components, early abilities to work out in earlier iterations. Especially that now more than ever they want to balance out a game for a start in later eras (3 subgames are marketed).
I actually enjoy to understand the decisions behind a choice.

For now, I cannot agree with you: It is much easier to form a strong identity for a faction if you create one coherent package with a leader, a nation, perhaps a unique look to their cities or the landscape of their empire, music and a - to the faction - appropriate colour. Maybe they will succeed in forming an equally strong identity for factions in Civ7 - all we can do is to hope for the best. For they have not shown that this is the case so far.
Without a doubt full civ + leader is a stronger anchor than just a civ or a leader.
 
1. (A)Historicity is not an argument.

It is when the devs introduce a mechanic speicfically saying its historical and a better abrasction of history

2. Why civilization changing itself is not important.

Speak for yourself

3. Why an "anchor" is important.

There wouldn't be a need for an "anchor" if Firaxis didn't decide to go down this Humankind gimmick route

4. Why a "classic mode" is something simple that Firaxis can announce within a month.

They're designing the entire game around the ages and civ swapping mechanic. including sepearting the game into three rounds to justify this mechnaic
 
Yes, I ignored it or ommited it. However we can go infinite with new systems of acquiring uniques. To be frank I always wanted uniques to represent player's actions. You have trained X spearmans? Unique. Instead of bonus towards certain wonder, we could just get production bonus first time we start constructing a wonder that no one else placed yet. And so on.
I have let myself think inside 33-33-33 firaxis framework and assumed they want uniques tied to civilizations.


I am fully aware that people would hate the "a" approach as well. Even pointed that out. :)


I am sorry if I have used a historicity argument anywhere. Can't find it.


Unfortunately I have never seen that concept of late unique components, early abilities to work out in earlier iterations. Especially that now more than ever they want to balance out a game for a start in later eras (3 subgames are marketed).
I actually enjoy to understand the decisions behind a choice.


Without a doubt full civ + leader is a stronger anchor than just a civ or a leader.

Historicity: There is no need to apologise. You are fine. I simply found the approach to be odd and counterproductive.

Reason for civ-changing: Our lack of experience and imagination should not be a reason to exclude the option when considering why the devs chose the path they did. When it comes to examples on strong civ- or leader abilities that come online early on for civs with unique units and techs which don't come online until much later: Canada in civ6 gains a bunch of bonuses to tundra early on and cannot be the target of a surprise war which makes them feel and play uniquely from the start, despite both the Mountie and the Hockey Rink. Australia is another example with more housing to coastal cities, pastures triggering culture bombs and districts gaining adjacency depending on how appealing the tile is. This in spite of the civ being a modern one that cannot build Ziggurats. With this, I would claim that it is far from impossible to pull off, let alone imagine, going for option C - or something similar to what they have already done in previous games, perhaps mixed with option C.

Does your - believed - understanding of the reason behind their decision affect the point you are trying to make?
 
Regarding Anchors, this is a two-faceted issue for me. One facet is the identity I'm role-playing as. The other facet is who I'm playing against.

For me, the roleplaying anchor is the civ I've selected, not the leader. I don't play as a historical leader, I play as the avatar of that culture.

For the adversaries, the anchor is the leader. I don't play against the civilization. I don't like or hate the things the civilization does. I like or hate the face that pops up when things from that civilization affect me.

I think Civ 7 is trying very hard to get us to switch personal anchors to leaders from civ avatars, and this is why the crappy face-off diplomacy screen exist. I don't think it will work.
 
If I understood it properly, I think I agree with the premise of the thread. The real game changing mechanic is the three Age structure, not civ switching. The new structure enables civ switching, but the game would likely function in just the same way if they did not include switching.

This is probably why I'm bored of the whole discussion, it doesn't seem so significant to me, but equally it would explain why others see it only as a "gimmick".

I can see arguments for and against including switching. Since they have decided to include it, I agree that an anchor is necessary to make it work effectively; leaders are one thing, but I'm keen to see what they have planned for city names, player/rival colours, architecture, etc.

Looking forward to learning more about how these Ages work.
 
2. Why civilization changing itself is not important.

Speak for yourself

it's not important because it's a set of properties, you can keep the gameplay without changing those, ie keep the name, color, icon, etc...
 
it's not important because it's a set of properties, you can keep the gameplay without changing those, ie keep the name, color, icon, etc...

If it's all just a set of properties and nothing is important and only gameplay matters than why not make Civilization a game about aliens and fantasy races? You can keep the gameplay while making everyone orcs that morph into magi that morph into dreadlord necromancers lead by an Elf as long as you keep the name, color, icon, etc.
 
If it's all just a set of properties and nothing is important and only gameplay matters than why not make Civilization a game about aliens and fantasy races? You can keep the gameplay while making everyone orcs that morph into magi that morph into dreadlord necromancers lead by an Elf as long as you keep the name, color, icon, etc.
you can easily have the option you want is what we say.
 
I've been trying since the reveal to mull over how I might experience the civ-switching as a player. I'm responding to only one tiny detail in this thread because it's the first time I've really thought about this aspect. If all of my city names change to ones appropriate to the new civ at the switchover point, that would be very disconcerting to me. (But on the other hand, if they don't, how will you feel you really have become that new civ?) Now, you've always been able to edit city names. So maybe that's what I'd do. Change them all back to the original ones (and then gradually change some of them over to the new civ, I guess).
 
Top Bottom