Can we make everyone happy with civ switching?

[RD3]

I see a possible path to make everyone happy with civ switching. Consider if you will…

1. For each civ, FXS creates 3 civs for the 3 ages, but with the same name. For example, current “Egypt” would become “Antiquity Egypt” and FXS would create an “Exploration Egypt” and a “Modern Egypt”. Likewise, current “Shawnee” would become “Exploration Shawnee” and FXS would create a “Modern Shawnee”. There would be no “Antiquity Shawnee” since the current Shawnee does not appear until the Exploration age.
   1. Optionally, FXS could make an “Antiquity Shawnee” which allows the Shawnee to become a starting civ.
   2. For civs that have multiple ages, one age would be designated their “empire” age. For example, “Antiquity Egypt” would be Egypt’s “empire” age.
2. These new civs would have features relevant to their age.
   1. Perhaps the “non-empire” civs would be a bit less powerful, which would incentivize players to pick a age-matching civ.
3. There would be a game option that controls how civs change. Multiple options could be selected if they do not conflict.
   1. Historical. Similar to FXS’s current Egypt => Songhai. “Antiquity Egypt” => “Exploration Songhai”.
   2. Gameplay. Similar to FXS’s current Egypt => Mongolia if 3 horse resources are improved. “Antiquity Egypt” => “Exploration Mongolia”.
   3. Same. This option forces all civs to move on to their next age civ. “Antiquity Egypt” => “Exploration Egypt” => “Modern Egypt”.
   4. Any. This option would allow any civ to become any other civ of the appropriate age. “Antiquity Egypt” => “Exploration Egypt” or “Antiquity USA” => “Exploration Babylon”.
   5. One Random Hidden. This option would predetermine a random future civ, but you would not know it until it is time to switch. “Antiquity Egypt” => ???.
   6. Move Me. This option would limit civs to those that would benefit from an opposite playstyle in the next age.
   7. Others? There would be plenty of combinations for other themes.
4. Select your game option however you please.
   1. FXS would default this option to “Historical” + “Gameplay” to match their current strategy.
   2. Traditionalists would select “Same”.
   3. Historians would select “Historical”.
   4. A middle-ground option could be “Historical” + “Gameplay + “Same”.
   5. Want a surprise? Try “One Random Hidden”.
   6. Want a challenge? Try “Move Me”.
   7. Want a free-for-all? Select “Any”.

All starting civs having 3 ages to continue through fulfills the big complaint about “Don’t change my civ on me!” It fulfills FXS’s desire to keep civs interesting and their bonuses relevant throughout the whole game. it preserves FXS’s narrative that civs rise and fall and change. It also adds all kinds of combinations and replayability.

Yes, I know this has issues…

• The biggest obstacle is the expense and time for FXS. Adding triplicates of each civ would mean less civs and less civs would mean less flavor.
• Making “non-empire” civs relevant. For example, what would be the UB for “Modern Babylon”? What would be the UU for “Antiquity USA” without stealing from a Native American civ?
• Absolutely impossible to keep the purists happy. Too many inaccuracies for someone to not get their feelers hurt or their immersion bent.
• The “Antiquity”, “Exploration”, and “Modern” names are kind of gamey. Perhaps FXS can change them to something relevant to the age but obvious, like “Antiquity China” becomes “Shang China”, “Exploration China” becomes “Qing China”, and “Modern China” becomes “PRC China”. Not sure what the three names could be for newer civs like USA.
• Plenty more that I have not thought of.

But I think it makes the point there are possibilities. There is hope for the hopeless! Please run with this and see if it could work. Don't let PERFECT be the enemy of FUN.

 

[Zaarin]

I don't foresee this being the official take, but this isn't a bad idea for the "classic mode" some people want modded in.

 

[notNamed]

Someone will always dislike it. Trying to please everyone just doesn't work.
Both in old Greek tales and modern game development (think Total War Troy and similar projects).

This is Civ, there will be millions of people giving the game a chance even if they turned it into a WW2 FPS. The goal is really to make sure whatever they are making will satisfy the majority of those who do try.
Making 3-4 special modes to pick between, tripling civs, etc. is how you get lots of underbaked options where none feel like a true, full experience for the typical player who wants to play the game and have a good time.

 

[_hero_]

My idea is to give the option to lock in your starting Civ and abandon getting new bonuses, but in exchange, you get more/better Leader traits.

 

[Somebody613]

0. Spend LESS money and efforts on useless Leader Heads. Spend SOME money and efforts on Unique Units instead.
1. Take a clue from RFC and "regionalize" civs. Make comprehensive lists of "top 10 civs that existed in this region (continent or smaller) at this time".
2. Allow the PLAYER to CHOOSE one of the civs on the list at the START. See (0) about "DON'T waste too much resources on stupid HEADS".
3. At the "era break", allow the PLAYER to CHOOSE from the list of options similar to the one OP made:
-Continue as is (no civ change, may or may not change the leader, cumulative civ-based bonuses).
-Switch to a regional neighbor civ (see the list of civs, allow to choose any civ from it, optional leader change, optional cumulative OR replaced bonuses).
-Switch to a random contemporary civ (see the list for the upcoming era, any civ, optional leader, optional bonuses).
-Customize into a new civ (choose an existing civ and an existing leader as a template, rename one or both, customize SOME traits and/or bonuses).
-Total randomness (RNG chooses all of the above for you, optional limits on what can and can't be randomized).
4. Profit. You can now CHOOSE between uninterrupted continuity, directed customization, or total randomization.
9999. See (0). Stop excusing yourself with "we need to spend Super Big Moneys on useless HEADS, so we can only make THREE of them". You DON'T. STOP THAT. PERIOD.

 

[Thormodr]

If modding capabilities are great then it will be fine. Hundreds of Civs and very logical and reasonable transitions will make this work immersion wise. At least enough for me.

Egypt into Songhai, the Mongols or Buganda does not work for me. It's like nails on a chalkboard. Everyone has their red lines, I suppose. Some people just play Civ to "fill buckets" and get higher and higher numbers. Immersion is not really important for them. I am not one of them.

If not, I could content myself with playing two ages as the precursor Andean Civ into the Incans.

Will that be enough to justify buying it if the modding capability is not great? I'm leaning towards no.

The leaders are still a concern, though. I don't want to see Ben Franklin or Confucius leading the Zulus, France or the Aztecs. Hopefully once again, modders will save the day.

 

[Zyntax]

My view regarding civ switch is that a switch should occur because of something i did, not because the game swapped era. And that civ switch would be related to the civ that i was playing otherwise it would just feel strange.

 

[lt22677]

I see a possible path to make everyone happy with civ switching. Consider if you will…

1. For each civ, FXS creates 3 civs for the 3 ages, but with the same name. For example, current “Egypt” would become “Antiquity Egypt” and FXS would create an “Exploration Egypt” and a “Modern Egypt”. Likewise, current “Shawnee” would become “Exploration Shawnee” and FXS would create a “Modern Shawnee”. There would be no “Antiquity Shawnee” since the current Shawnee does not appear until the Exploration age.
   1. Optionally, FXS could make an “Antiquity Shawnee” which allows the Shawnee to become a starting civ.
   2. For civs that have multiple ages, one age would be designated their “empire” age. For example, “Antiquity Egypt” would be Egypt’s “empire” age.
2. These new civs would have features relevant to their age.
   1. Perhaps the “non-empire” civs would be a bit less powerful, which would incentivize players to pick a age-matching civ.
3. There would be a game option that controls how civs change. Multiple options could be selected if they do not conflict.
   1. Historical. Similar to FXS’s current Egypt => Songhai. “Antiquity Egypt” => “Exploration Songhai”.
   2. Gameplay. Similar to FXS’s current Egypt => Mongolia if 3 horse resources are improved. “Antiquity Egypt” => “Exploration Mongolia”.
   3. Same. This option forces all civs to move on to their next age civ. “Antiquity Egypt” => “Exploration Egypt” => “Modern Egypt”.
   4. Any. This option would allow any civ to become any other civ of the appropriate age. “Antiquity Egypt” => “Exploration Egypt” or “Antiquity USA” => “Exploration Babylon”.
   5. One Random Hidden. This option would predetermine a random future civ, but you would not know it until it is time to switch. “Antiquity Egypt” => ???.
   6. Move Me. This option would limit civs to those that would benefit from an opposite playstyle in the next age.
   7. Others? There would be plenty of combinations for other themes.
4. Select your game option however you please.
   1. FXS would default this option to “Historical” + “Gameplay” to match their current strategy.
   2. Traditionalists would select “Same”.
   3. Historians would select “Historical”.
   4. A middle-ground option could be “Historical” + “Gameplay + “Same”.
   5. Want a surprise? Try “One Random Hidden”.
   6. Want a challenge? Try “Move Me”.
   7. Want a free-for-all? Select “Any”.

All starting civs having 3 ages to continue through fulfills the big complaint about “Don’t change my civ on me!” It fulfills FXS’s desire to keep civs interesting and their bonuses relevant throughout the whole game. it preserves FXS’s narrative that civs rise and fall and change. It also adds all kinds of combinations and replayability.

Yes, I know this has issues…

• The biggest obstacle is the expense and time for FXS. Adding triplicates of each civ would mean less civs and less civs would mean less flavor.
• Making “non-empire” civs relevant. For example, what would be the UB for “Modern Babylon”? What would be the UU for “Antiquity USA” without stealing from a Native American civ?
• Absolutely impossible to keep the purists happy. Too many inaccuracies for someone to not get their feelers hurt or their immersion bent.
• The “Antiquity”, “Exploration”, and “Modern” names are kind of gamey. Perhaps FXS can change them to something relevant to the age but obvious, like “Antiquity China” becomes “Shang China”, “Exploration China” becomes “Qing China”, and “Modern China” becomes “PRC China”. Not sure what the three names could be for newer civs like USA.
• Plenty more that I have not thought of.

But I think it makes the point there are possibilities. There is hope for the hopeless! Please run with this and see if it could work. Don't let PERFECT be the enemy of FUN.

It would be an excellent idea, but it is unlikely that it will be done at the release of the game perhaps with a possible DLC/Expansion... the fact remains that Ara: History Untold will be released at the end of September and if Oxide Games does its homework well (which is not certain ) I would say that many will not wait a year or two to have something that needed to be done from the beginning

 

[Krikkit1]

Much better to have players prompted to choose how much the “fluff” of their civ changes.

So on civ change
Select your “Primary Civ identity” from the old or new

Customize Civ Name if you wish
Default=Primary (other, other)
—-so the other parts are still there, but you chose if it was
Rome (Mongol) or
Mongol (Rome) or
Smurfing

Default City names would come from the “primary civ identity” city lists

Flags/Banners would come from the primary (with others shown in smaller versions when there is enough space/detail)

Map color would probably not change (maybe linked to a leader)

City graphics should probably change
but to
2/3 new, 1/3 old
or
1/2 new, 1/4 each old
(the new should be dominant because it matches the Era far better tech wise)

 

[Jeffery Bagley]

I was really wanting to like it, and hopeful, but they killed the game for me for the following reasons:
1) If I want to play Rome, I want to play Rome....Not have to switch Civs every time Age changes
2) I rarely get to use unique units because the Age changes so fast they can never be built or used.
3) Maps are too small, and can only play a handful of Civs at once. I want a Giant map with TSL's for all Civs.
4) Don't take my units away every time a Age transitions
5) I really really don't like to have all these mixed leaders and Civs
6) I would have gladly taken a Civ 6 with Giant maps, better graphics, better AI, and improved resource management.
7) The UI is about the worse I have ever seen.

I have already deleted game and only played 7.5 hours I hate it so bad. 2K and Fireaxis have managed to destroy the franchise. Because I played more than two hours cannot get a refund. Now I am out $120 some odd dollars. Thanks for nothing Fireaxis/2K. I would be ashamed to have released this game and called it Civilization.

There will never be a CIV 8 as this game will kill the series.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Sorry you didn't like it but totally disagree with point 2, love how they've made unique units relevant throughout the age with the different levels they have and now even late game civs UUs will be relevant.

 

[Siptah]

Yeah, I don‘t see how you can‘t get mileage out of your uniques. Even the ones that unlock late, e.g., legions, are relevant for long enough to be very impactful.

I also like the setback and losing units if you don‘t intervene (with commanders or a golden age).

But we probably disagree more fundamentally. I love the evolving civs, age mechanics and the decoupled leaders.

 

[James_Champagne]

I was really wanting to like it, and hopeful, but they killed the game for me for the following reasons:
1) If I want to play Rome, I want to play Rome....Not have to switch Civs every time Age changes
2) I rarely get to use unique units because the Age changes so fast they can never be built or used.
3) Maps are too small, and can only play a handful of Civs at once. I want a Giant map with TSL's for all Civs.
4) Don't take my units away every time a Age transitions
5) I really really don't like to have all these mixed leaders and Civs
6) I would have gladly taken a Civ 6 with Giant maps, better graphics, better AI, and improved resource management.
7) The UI is about the worse I have ever seen.

I have already deleted game and only played 7.5 hours I hate it so bad. 2K and Fireaxis have managed to destroy the franchise. Because I played more than two hours cannot get a refund. Now I am out $120 some odd dollars. Thanks for nothing Fireaxis/2K. I would be ashamed to have released this game and called it Civilization.

There will never be a CIV 8 as this game will kill the series.

Yeah, despite my caveats about all of the game's issues, I could tolerate Antiquity Era fairly well, but once I got to Exploration and I had to pick a new civ, my enthusiasm just plummeted. I guess this is a stumbling block that some people can overlook or get past, but others cannot. I'm sorry, I hate it. In some cases there is certainly a logic to them that I can kind of meet them halfway on (like it makes sense for Han China to become Ming China to become Qing China), but so many of them are very illogical.

It also bothered me a lot about how when I finished Antiquity the timeline was at 20 BC but when Exploration started the game jumped to 400 AD. It's like, "Okay, what the hell happened in that 400 year span?" It's a lacuna that creates a very disjointed and schizophrenic experience.

 

[Mesix]

Having civs progress into a later version of the civ in each era creates great narrative and story opportunities. Rather than have it be the same civ, perhaps it could be progress from one version of the civ to another. Adjacent civs might also unlock.

For example Antiquity Babylon might have options to become Ottoman or Abbasid in the Exploration Age which might open up options for modern Middle Eastern civs.

Ages might also be more interesting if the civs fragment. As it is currently implemented, taking out civs early means fewer opponents in later ages. What if there were 4 civs in the Antiquity era and expanding to 6 civs in the Exploration Era and 8 civs in the Modern Era? In some cases, it might make sense to seen new civs (for example the 4 civs in Antiquity might share a continent, and then new civs are seeded overseas). In other cases, a civ might fragment (for example, an Exploration Era England might spawn a Modern Era America made up of the overseas cities from the prior age or perhaps with some growth). In this example, perhaps the player could be given the choice of playing the United Kingdom or America in the Modern Era.

 

[Yzman]

I see a possible path to make everyone happy with civ switching. Consider if you will…

1. For each civ, FXS creates 3 civs for the 3 ages, but with the same name. For example, current “Egypt” would become “Antiquity Egypt” and FXS would create an “Exploration Egypt” and a “Modern Egypt”. Likewise, current “Shawnee” would become “Exploration Shawnee” and FXS would create a “Modern Shawnee”. There would be no “Antiquity Shawnee” since the current Shawnee does not appear until the Exploration age.
   1. Optionally, FXS could make an “Antiquity Shawnee” which allows the Shawnee to become a starting civ.
   2. For civs that have multiple ages, one age would be designated their “empire” age. For example, “Antiquity Egypt” would be Egypt’s “empire” age.
2. These new civs would have features relevant to their age.
   1. Perhaps the “non-empire” civs would be a bit less powerful, which would incentivize players to pick a age-matching civ.
3. There would be a game option that controls how civs change. Multiple options could be selected if they do not conflict.
   1. Historical. Similar to FXS’s current Egypt => Songhai. “Antiquity Egypt” => “Exploration Songhai”.
   2. Gameplay. Similar to FXS’s current Egypt => Mongolia if 3 horse resources are improved. “Antiquity Egypt” => “Exploration Mongolia”.
   3. Same. This option forces all civs to move on to their next age civ. “Antiquity Egypt” => “Exploration Egypt” => “Modern Egypt”.
   4. Any. This option would allow any civ to become any other civ of the appropriate age. “Antiquity Egypt” => “Exploration Egypt” or “Antiquity USA” => “Exploration Babylon”.
   5. One Random Hidden. This option would predetermine a random future civ, but you would not know it until it is time to switch. “Antiquity Egypt” => ???.
   6. Move Me. This option would limit civs to those that would benefit from an opposite playstyle in the next age.
   7. Others? There would be plenty of combinations for other themes.
4. Select your game option however you please.
   1. FXS would default this option to “Historical” + “Gameplay” to match their current strategy.
   2. Traditionalists would select “Same”.
   3. Historians would select “Historical”.
   4. A middle-ground option could be “Historical” + “Gameplay + “Same”.
   5. Want a surprise? Try “One Random Hidden”.
   6. Want a challenge? Try “Move Me”.
   7. Want a free-for-all? Select “Any”.

All starting civs having 3 ages to continue through fulfills the big complaint about “Don’t change my civ on me!” It fulfills FXS’s desire to keep civs interesting and their bonuses relevant throughout the whole game. it preserves FXS’s narrative that civs rise and fall and change. It also adds all kinds of combinations and replayability.

Yes, I know this has issues…

• The biggest obstacle is the expense and time for FXS. Adding triplicates of each civ would mean less civs and less civs would mean less flavor.
• Making “non-empire” civs relevant. For example, what would be the UB for “Modern Babylon”? What would be the UU for “Antiquity USA” without stealing from a Native American civ?
• Absolutely impossible to keep the purists happy. Too many inaccuracies for someone to not get their feelers hurt or their immersion bent.
• The “Antiquity”, “Exploration”, and “Modern” names are kind of gamey. Perhaps FXS can change them to something relevant to the age but obvious, like “Antiquity China” becomes “Shang China”, “Exploration China” becomes “Qing China”, and “Modern China” becomes “PRC China”. Not sure what the three names could be for newer civs like USA.
• Plenty more that I have not thought of.

But I think it makes the point there are possibilities. There is hope for the hopeless! Please run with this and see if it could work. Don't let PERFECT be the enemy of FUN.

That is a ton of work for little payoff. You are practically describing another game.

 

[Yzman]

Having civs progress into a later version of the civ in each era creates great narrative and story opportunities. Rather than have it be the same civ, perhaps it could be progress from one version of the civ to another. Adjacent civs might also unlock.

For example Antiquity Babylon might have options to become Ottoman or Abbasid in the Exploration Age which might open up options for modern Middle Eastern civs.

Ages might also be more interesting if the civs fragment. As it is currently implemented, taking out civs early means fewer opponents in later ages. What if there were 4 civs in the Antiquity era and expanding to 6 civs in the Exploration Era and 8 civs in the Modern Era? In some cases, it might make sense to seen new civs (for example the 4 civs in Antiquity might share a continent, and then new civs are seeded overseas). In other cases, a civ might fragment (for example, an Exploration Era England might spawn a Modern Era America made up of the overseas cities from the prior age or perhaps with some growth). In this example, perhaps the player could be given the choice of playing the United Kingdom or America in the Modern Era.

I would actually love if new civs came into bring to replace ones that were destroyed. Or maybe we could have a civil war type crisis in an expansion that separates large empires. I've always wanted that.

 

[Yzman]

Yeah, despite my caveats about all of the game's issues, I could tolerate Antiquity Era fairly well, but once I got to Exploration and I had to pick a new civ, my enthusiasm just plummeted. I guess this is a stumbling block that some people can overlook or get past, but others cannot. I'm sorry, I hate it. In some cases there is certainly a logic to them that I can kind of meet them halfway on (like it makes sense for Han China to become Ming China to become Qing China), but so many of them are very illogical.

It also bothered me a lot about how when I finished Antiquity the timeline was at 20 BC but when Exploration started the game jumped to 400 AD. It's like, "Okay, what the hell happened in that 400 year span?" It's a lacuna that creates a very disjointed and schizophrenic experience.

I don't even pay attention to dates but there has to be some gap...all the civs are changing. The idea is the crisis got so bad and caused them to fall.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Someone will always dislike it. Trying to please everyone just doesn't work.
Both in old Greek tales and modern game development (think Total War Troy and similar projects).

This is Civ, there will be millions of people giving the game a chance even if they turned it into a WW2 FPS.

somebody want to tell him or should I?

I would actually love if new civs came into bring to replace ones that were destroyed. Or maybe we could have a civil war type crisis in an expansion that separates large empires. I've always wanted that.

I've been saying since the day they annonced it that Firaxis should've looked at the Revolutions mod from IV to give us dynamic revolutions/civil wars and internal empire management... instead of going the path of arbitrary ages and civ swapping

 

[James_Champagne]

I don't even pay attention to dates but there has to be some gap...all the civs are changing. The idea is the crisis got so bad and caused them to fall.

All I can say is that the crisis in Antiquity in my first game was such a nothingburger I could barely remember what it entailed after the fact. Something about a "scourge rising" I think? Anyway it didn't seem to bother the AI civs all that greatly either.

It just seems weird to me that in a 400 year span you not only have no new cities being built (or destroyed), apparently no major wars between other civs, and so on and so forth. It's like the world goes into hibernation for a 400 year span, then suddenly wakes up again at the start of Exploration and says, "Okay, things can start happening again now."

 

[Noble Zarkon]

no new cities being built (or destroyed

How would you know if they've been and gone lol.