Can we make everyone happy with civ switching?

[Kankan]

I personally think the best way of going about it is for more logical progression in the game for all areas (it doesn't necessarily have to be a case of say Antiquity Egypt, Exploration Egypt and Modern Egypt) because it is still very true that empires rise and fall and various states come and go. Already this is the case with China and India where they have 3 civs to represent each era (Han, Ming and Qing & Maurya, Chola and Mughal respectively) as this is overall fitting with their respective histories as they all overlap with each other.

However, as with much of the rest of the world represented in the game it is less so the case where progression is a bit more illogical or entirely illogical outright as whilst Khmer -> Majapahit (Dai Viet being DLC helps more here) -> Siam is fine since they all overlap one way or another, the same can't be said for Aksum/Egypt -> Songhai -> Buganda as regardless of whether it is Egypt or Aksum they have 0 connection with Songhai or Buganda whatsoever as not only are they thousands of kilometres away from each other but they don't overlap historically nor share any linguistic similarities. Rome unlocking most European civs is forgivable as Rome still has a massive cultural influence across most of Europe however European Civ options in the Exploration Age are extremely limited (only Normans and Spain). If however, representation of all parts of the world is more balanced out to be a lot more fluid and organic regarding representation it makes the option of a Historical progression mode all the more interesting, enticing and appealing to players who want a more traditional Civ experience that is less immersion breaking.

Having more leaders from different civs across the world would also help a lot more as there are currently as many French leaders (Charlemagne, Napoleon, Lafayette) as there are African leaders (Amina, Hatshepsut, Ibn Battuta).

 

[DukeSammael]

The switch needs to be more organic. There needs to be an in-game connection between your current and future civ. Emerging new civ should appear through nearby city-states, migrations from other continents, and narrative events. It should not be just a function of a leader and triggering certain conditions. I know it's not easy to implement, but that's what I was hoping the crisis would be, not just random abstract penalties that are easy to deal with.

Example: when you destroy an independent city, you receive migrants. If you accept enough migrants, you get a crisis where your culture is no longer dominant and a new one emerges. There is unhappiness, you can deal with it by giving towns independence or embracing the new culture, which has different bonuses and unique abilities.

 

[Lanthar]

It's impossible to make everyone happy.

I think Civ switching could be made fun, but I haven't seen an example of that yet. It slowly strangled my interest in Humankind. Civ7's age system + civ switching really breaks the immersion of the game for me. It feels like playing 3 arbitrary Civ-adjacent games, complete with the hordes of adjacency and other minor bonuses that on most difficulty levels, are not interesting decisions.

So far, Civ7 is a dud game for me. It's not what I want out of this series, and I think it would take a lot of rework to make me happy.

 

[Leucarum]

I love the leader mixing and matching, and I get/agree with the mechanical reasons why civ switching helps the game but I really wish you could choose to keep the flavour (names, city style, adjectives) of your previous civ, and choose for your new culture to be just an influence on your overall civ. There's plenty of examples of a "new" civilization trying to present itself as the continuation of a precursor so I really don't think you can even claim it would be ahistorical.

For me the problem is that most of my favourite civs in the series would now be classed as antiquity era civs. Just on vibes alone, I would say out of the civs I really click with 5 are antiquity civs (Maya, Aksum, Egypt, Greece, Mississippi), 4 exploration civs (Songhai, Hawai'i, Inca, Shawnee) but just 2 of the modern civs (Mexico, Buganda).

Mechanics can make civs you don't vibe with more appealing (and that absolutely is the case for me)... But my excitement still drops rapidly over the course of the game, because I just don't get excited by the civ I am switching into and a simple flavour change could make it far more fun.

The main strike against it would be keeping track of who is who, but honestly I think that goes out the window for me anyway once the first era switch happens. I always have to double check if it becomes relevant. However for single player it doesn't matter - assuming the AI always changes identity - and you could disable it for multiplayer...

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I really wish you could choose to keep the flavour (names, city style, adjectives) of your previous civ, and choose for your new culture to be just an influence on your overall civ

100% agree with this.

 

[Bast]

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.

That's kind of like what I suggested. So you're given options.