Change Civ or Change Leader?

[bv98132454]

I think people are overacting to the fact that modern leaders wouldn't start off with any uniques at the beginning of the game. For example, Teddy Roosevelt in Civ 6 had two personas: one gave absurd yields when settling near places with high appeal, such as natural wonders, forests, mountains etc. The other persona gave him +5 combat strength when fighting on his home continent. These bonuses were still used all game. I don't see why it couldn't be any different now?

I never played Civ 3, but was that a thing? Because I have yet to see it in later iterations. The only thing I know that happens every era is they change clothes which that can stay in Civ3.

To me that's still as immersion breaking than civ switching, but that's just me.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Since Civ 3 introduced differences between the civs, a core challenge of the game has been to navigate times where your civ has a disadvantage and capitalize when it has an advantage. Civ switching in order to give the player a bonus, unique units, buildings, etc. for each era of the game fundamentally destroys that challenge in my view.

 

[Olleus]

It changes that challenge, but destroying it seems a bit much. It would be like saying that Civ3 destroyed the challenge of not playing without any unique traits. True on a technicality, but hardly complaint worthy.

And the poll is back to a perfect 24:24:5. I dont think I'll ever stop finding just how evenly balanced it is entertaining.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Sorry, I should have been more clear. Since Civ 3 introduced differences between the civs, a core challenge of the game has been to navigate times where your civ has a disadvantage and capitalize when it has an advantage. Civ switching in order to give the player a bonus, unique units, buildings, etc. for each era of the game fundamentally destroys that challenge in my view.

Each era is long enough you'd probably still have timing-based strategies for civilizations. If your unique unit is a warrior replacement you're incentivized towards early war, for example.

 

[bv98132454]

It changes that challenge, but destroying it seems a bit much. It would be like saying that Civ3 destroyed the challenge of not playing without any unique traits. True on a technicality, but hardly complaint worthy.

And the poll is back to a perfect 24:24:5. I dont think I'll ever stop finding just how evenly balanced it is entertaining.

No, it destroys it, and here's why:

It would be one thing if the progression between civs was locked to one or two choices that are the same each time. However, we have seen that they are not. This makes it virtually impossible to build in the highs and the lows. Instead, the players will go from strength to strength, having a civ that is suited for the time it is in or the place it finds itself on the map.

If, instead, the choices in civs were much more limited, you could make it work, but that's not what they are doing. For example, let's say your options were something like Rome -> Byzantium or Rome -> Spain every time for Rome, the developers could do more to balance the strengths and weaknesses over the entire length of the game. But, we've seen that isn't how it's going to work. The number of different possibilities the player could change to depending on various conditions makes it virtually impossible for the developers to balance the game in that way. As a result, they're just having the player go from strength to strength in each era, which I think is an awful direction for this franchise to go.

 

[Olleus]

It would be one thing if the progression between civs was locked to one or two choices that are the same each time. However, we have seen that they are not. This makes it virtually impossible to build in the highs and the lows. Instead, the players will go from strength to strength, having a civ that is suited for the time it is in or the place it finds itself on the map.
[...]
As a result, they're just having the player go from strength to strength in each era, which I think is an awful direction for this franchise to go.

But so will your rivals on the map. If everyone gets stronger, than balance is maintained and no one benefits. If both teams in a football match get to have 5 more players on their team at the same time, then it's still fair. Now is it possible that by giving extra strategic choices and the possible for complex plans (ie, picking an ancient civ because it will unlock a specific modern civ 400 turns later) will benefit the player over the AI? Possibly. Likely even, considering the track record this series has with the AI. But that's not a good enough reason to not include it IMO, otherwise we'd use the same reasoning to remove all long term strategic decisions from the game, and it would be a very bad game indeed.

 

[bv98132454]

But so will your rivals on the map. If everyone gets stronger, than balance is maintained and no one benefits. If both teams in a football match get to have 5 more players on their team at the same time, then it's still fair. Now is it possible that by giving extra strategic choices and the possible for complex plans (ie, picking an ancient civ because it will unlock a specific modern civ 400 turns later) will benefit the player over the AI? Possibly. Likely even, considering the track record this series has with the AI. But that's not a good enough reason to not include it IMO, otherwise we'd use the same reasoning to remove all long term strategic decisions from the game, and it would be a very bad game indeed.

I'm not talking about balance between players. Read my point again.

 

[Olleus]

I'm not talking about balance between players. Read my point again.

I did. And, as a courtesy, I read it again. My interpretation hasn't changed. If you want me to understand it, I'm afraid you'll have to rephrase it. Or you can be content with being understood with others but not by me.

The only thing that popped at me this time is when you mention "highs and lows" - is that across time within a playthrough rather than across players at a given point in time? It's true that before if you played as Rome you'd have a "high" when legions were around, and a "low" the rest of the game. But that low was really very very minor (and completely undermined by snowballing which meant early game bonuses where so much more valuable than late game ones). More to the point the system of crises intrinsic to the civ-swapping will force there to be multiple periods of very strong "lows" regardless of civ/leader-specific stuff. So I suspect we'll be feeling the swing between "low" and "high" more often and more strongly in Civ7 than in any prior entry.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I think it might actually improve the depth of civilization benefit timing strategies. Here's why:

In classic Civs, the early game was the only one that mattered, so if you were playing "to win", early game benefit Civs were the ones that mattered outside of just, you know, playing for fun.

In Civ 7, you have three eras, and the pool of civilizations for each era is designed with that era in mind. But each era is still quite a lot of gameplay, and not every benefit will be equally valuable at all points during the era, or for every playstyle, or for every game board state. So aren't we in the same problem as before, you ask? Early Antiquity benefits will be better than the later ones, and then early Age of Exploration ones, and then early Modern ones, and we've just moved the problem around three times. We've done a ton of work to end up in the same place; the civ with a headstart is the one that is most likely to just runaway with the whole age.

HOWEVER, we also have to account for the crisis & legacy mechanics. A civilization with late-age benefits might be more equipped to deal with the crisis, and then leave behind more for the next age. Or a civ could be designed where they're not super strong in the age they appear in, but have a really powerful legacy capability. And so on - the design space for civilization traits is much more open and flexible now. A civilization that comes out hot in early antiquity might be in a "low" phase by the crisis and suffer more, and vice versa. Does your early advantage allow you to mitigate later disadvantage? Does your later advantages help compensate for a slower start? These are all still in the game.

 

[uppi]

No, you wouldn't. Under leader-only switching, you would always have an era appropriate leader, even if it's not civilization appropriate.

So for option 1, you might have: Augustus of Rome -> Augustus of the Normans -> Augustus of the USA
But with option 2 you'd have: Augustus of Rome -> William the Conqueror of Rome -> George Washington of Rome
or: Augustus of the USA-> William the Conqueror of the USA-> George Washington of the USA

Considering that the unique ability / traits / units of the Normans could be given to William the Conqueror (and similarly between the USA and Washington) the two could be identical mechanically.

Ah, sorry, I misread the proposal. Probably got confused by the people talking about multiple Roman leaders which would not make sense under such a system.

So, yes, if you would give the traditional* civ bonuses to leaders and the traditional leader bonuses to civs then this would lead to the same mechanics. But isn't that just civ switching in disguise? If the "Americans" are building Legions and Temples of Jupiter while the "Germans" are building Bowmen and Ziggurats should we call them Americans or Germans? In my headcanon it makes more sense that Normans take up the legacy of the Romans instead of the Americans disposing Augustus in favor of William and getting Norman-in-all-but-name in the process. But this is very much a matter of personal perspective, I guess. As long as the mechanics are fun, I could live with either.

*Although Civ6 already broke with that tradition in a few examples

I think people are overacting to the fact that modern leaders wouldn't start off with any uniques at the beginning of the game. For example, Teddy Roosevelt in Civ 6 had two personas: one gave absurd yields when settling near places with high appeal, such as natural wonders, forests, mountains etc. The other persona gave him +5 combat strength when fighting on his home continent. These bonuses were still used all game. I don't see why it couldn't be any different now?

If you have a bonus that could last all game, what is the point of switching? None, you might say, but the premise of the thread is switching something.

 

[Olleus]

But isn't that just civ switching in disguise?

Yes! But some people have very strong opinions about which disguise they prefer. It's not about immersion in the usual sense, but about keeping an attachment between them and the-thing-on-screen-they're-playing-as. You're one of the ones who doesn't have a strong opinion either way seems to be a "mechanics first/only" kind of player. Which is also interesting.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If you have a bonus that could last all game, what is the point of switching? None, you might say, but the premise of the thread is switching something.

Maybe you decide to pivot towards a certain victory, with a new leader. In regard to Civ 6 maybe you found a relic in a goody hut, which leads to early faith generation and a pantheon, and decide to switch to a leader with religious bonuses, as an example.

 

[cairnsy44]

Here's my argument for why leader swapping is superior to civ swapping (in no particular order):

1. Leader swapping has more support from previous Civilization games
Previous Civilization games have had multiple leaders for the same Civ. This at least provides some precedent for allowing the player to switch between different leaders. Civ swapping has precisely one element of support in previous games (Eleanor of Aquitaine).

2. Leader swapping is more realistic
The premise the developers provided in their (mostly abysmal) reveal last week, was that Civilizations transform into something else when faced with a crisis. This is only really true if you look at the crisis as one of being conquered, subjugated, or colonized. Anglo-Saxons became English because they were conquered, not because they were faced with some nebulous crisis.

It is far more in line with human nature to look to a new leader in a time of crisis, rather than wholesale changes to ones culture, traditions, language, etc.

3. Leader swapping provides for more interesting gameplay
I fundamentally disagree with the developers' reasoning for adding civ swapping into the game, which is to always have civs that are well-suited to the time they are in. I believe this is a huge misunderstanding of their own game. Since Civilization 3, when we first saw differences between civs, a core challenge to Civilization gameplay has been navigating times where your civ lacks advantages and capitalizing on times where it has advantages. It makes for interesting gameplay when you have to take drastic actions to bring the situation more in your civ's favor.

With leader swapping, you would have choices of different leaders, but no guarantee that any of them are perfectly suited to the time and place your Civ is in, keeping a core challenge of Civilization in the game. Civ swapping, as proposed, removes that challenge.

4. Leader swapping removes what I believe is problematic cultural commentary
Humans are not interchangeable widgets which easily transition from one culture to another. The idea of Egypt becoming Mongolia or Songhai without being invaded and subjugated is proposterous.

5. Leader swapping allows for roleplaying or creating a new history as a civ, which many players enjoy
This isn't particularly important to me, but many players like having modern Romans, Babylonians, Carthaginians, etc. Civ swapping removes that aspect of gameplay.

You sum it up way better than I could have, but I agree with these points completely. Leaders come, leaders go and I would prefer to have a leader's time come to an end as we advance than the whole civ morphing. Just my preference. Still plan to purchase and, hopefully, enjoy it though.