Civ Switching - Will it prevent you from buying Civ 7?

[cinattra]

Culture switching or more like "morphing" is very common IRL (check out the Visigoths and Spain's history) and could be very cool in a Civ game - if implemented well.
I'll have to see how Civ7 and the other new Civ-likes are doing it. Sadly, Humankind's culture switching appears to be too abrupt to make a cohesive story.

Yeah, but everyone mighty morphing at the same exact time?

 

[Professor Phobo]

I still disagree with your assertion that things like 1unit per tile, hexagons, and distrcits were "rejected" at first and not a heavily clamored for changes to the formula that generated tons of excitement (with a tiny minority complaining potential AI mishandling or tedium of micromanaging)

Surely it's not controversial to say those things were controversial, though? By the scale of the change, civ switching is one of the biggest changes the franchise has ever seen, so it makes sense the controversy would likewise be elevated.

 

[Kev1916]

Again, every major change to any franchise whose community I've followed, regardless of how well that change was later judged, was rejected at first. It's just how it goes. So pointing to a poll in a niche community forum is not a persuasive case for the underlying fact of whether or not the design decision is a bad one or not. You can make your own prediction and that's fine, but for all we know by the time Civilization 25 rolls around we'll be swapping civs twice a turn and people will love it.

Mmm best no head over to steam then with a fair amount o threads against the new Civkind game ..

"
Dear Firaxis, Please note the criticism and take the time to remake and save 7
The fans clearly aren't onboard with this new change in direction. Please, for all of us, take a step back and listen. We don't want to not like Civ 7. We've all been waiting years for this title. But this reveal was honestly not it. We play Civ and not Humankind for a reason.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Not to mention that Firaxis and 2K aren't dumb. They're going to go this far into developments with beta testing and seeing how various audiences respond - especially because the comparisons with the unpopular Humankind are obvious. And, considering they have a lot of money riding on this, I'm willing to bet that their market research is going to be a lot higher quality than a day old poll in a forum that is obviously not representative and is invariably going to be biased against major change.

Ehhh...I don't know if I agree there. Firaxis can absolutely shoot themselves in the foot on this. Market research can be just as misleading as fan sentiment. But I don't think anticipatory fan backlash is good evidence one way or the other, it's far too often been wrong for me to put any stock in it. Just have to see how it plays.

 

[mackintosh]

Not to mention that Firaxis and 2K aren't dumb. They're going to go this far into developments with beta testing and seeing how various audiences respond - especially because the comparisons with the unpopular Humankind are obvious. And, considering they have a lot of money riding on this, I'm willing to bet that their market research is going to be a lot higher quality than a day old poll in a forum that is obviously not representative and is invariably going to be biased against major change.

You would think that, and yet we've already seen Simcity bomb so hard it killed the entire franchise, and more recently the massive flops that were Imperator and Cities Skylines 2. Devs and publishers aren't infallible, and groupthink and cognitive biases haven't gone out of fashion even though there are entire books written about them.

 

[Professor Phobo]

You would think that, and yet we've already seen Simcity bomb so hard it killed the entire franchise, and more recently the massive flops that were Imperator and Cities Skylines 2. Devs and publishers aren't infallible, and groupthink and cognitive biases haven't gone out of fashion even though there are entire books written about them.

Yep, and likewise, I've seen people be mega hyped for a game that turned out to miss the mark in every way that matters. Sometimes you just have to play a thing to judge a thing in full.

 

[TheGrayFox]

People didn't hate 1UPT just by chance, but for two reasons:

1) the AI was not able to use the system (it makes it incredibly difficult to move the various units optimally without creating traffic jams)

2) the System requires more extreme micromanagement (you have to line up the melee units in front of the launch units and the cavalry units on the flanks, but the map was much narrower than necessary given that it simulates continents while the units simulate a division that should stay where a combined army would fit) creating a move here, put there, move this way situation which is quite annoying.

So much so that the complaints surfaced once the game was released and not before

exactly

I vividly remember most people being super excited for doom stacks being removed before release of 5 and most of the complaints about 1 unit per tile and the AI gained traction because of the state of its terrible release.

Surely it's not controversial to say those things were controversial, though? By the scale of the change, civ switching is one of the biggest changes the franchise has ever seen, so it makes sense the controversy would likewise be elevated.

it is because the changes were not that controversial when they were announced and showcased and in the case of 1unit per tile the change was recieved with overwhelming positivity and most of the complaints were raised because of the state their launches.

 

[Professor Phobo]

exactly

I vividly remember most people being super excited for doom stacks being removed before release of 5 and most of the complaints about 1 unit per tile and the AI gained traction because of the state of its terrible release.



it is because the changes were not that controversial when they were announced and showcased and in the case of 1unit per tile the change was recieved with overwhelming positivity and most of the complaints were raised because of the state their launches.

We may have been participating in separate communities, because the Civ IV to Civ V transition was among the most contentious I can recall in the franchise history. I was even in the camp that Civ IV was the superior game until Civ V turned it around over time.

 

[Xandinho]

The fact that leaders aren't leading their own civilizations is, by far, the biggest dealbreaker for me. The civ switching is something I could probably get used to over time, especially if the civilizations - or at least most of them - have a proper historical progression (though I doubt that will be the case at launch; I'll likely have to wait for expansions and DLCs).

That said, I'll eventually buy the game because I really like everything else I've seen so far.

 

[Kev1916]

Yeah, but everyone mighty morphing at the same exact time?

Yep lol with a very small pool of Civ's on lauch and tiny map's it's not going to be fun fighting and trading with say Maya, Rome , Aksum, Maurya then they suddenly morph into god knows who/
or what and will the morph always be hard coded so your fighting Rome one year and then Mongolia every game ?

Or on your next play through will Rome be say Songhai

 

[pokiehl]

Yep lol with a very small pool of Civ's on lauch and tiny map's it's not going to be fun fighting and trading with say Maya, Rome , Aksum, Maurya then they suddenly morph into god knows who/
or what and will the morph always be hard coded so your fighting Rome one year and then Mongolia every game ?

Or on your next play through will Rome be say Songhai

Where are you getting "very small pool of civs" and "tiny maps" from? None of these things are confirmed, and I think people are actually even expecting like 45 civs on launch, which would be by far the biggest launch roster for Civ ever.

 

[lt22677]

I agree with the rest of your post, but this is factually not true. You don't appear to have been on this forum way back then, so you might not have noticed. But there was a *lot* of hate about it a long time before release. Which - mostly - went away. Or, at least, became less vocal.

It may be as you say, but I remember that there was no great resistance before the game came out, also because no one was clear what would happen by introducing 1UPT into a map that simulates an entire planet while until then this method was designed for Wargames which they simulated a theater of war (like Panzer General) the complaints (for me justified due to the problems due to space and AI management) came out when the game came out since the Civ 5 Demo lasted too little to allow us to understand the situation and even now there are many people who would like a return to stacks (we should do a survey and see which option wins)

 

[Professor Phobo]

I'll whisper the Forbidden Suggestion and voice that maybe wave units would work better than point units, but I could be alone on that...

 

[TheGrayFox]

Where are you getting "very small pool of civs" and "tiny maps" from? None of these things are confirmed, and I think people are actually even expecting like 45 civs on launch, which would be by far the biggest launch roster for Civ ever.

45 civs will not be enough to make this humankind gimmick work in any sensible way

 

[pokiehl]

45 civs will not be enough to make this humankind gimmick work in any sensible way

That doesn't have anything to do with what I'm replying to. I assure you that I am well aware you don't like the civ-changing mechanic, considering nearly all 101 of your posts you've made since you registered 4 days ago are about how much you dislike it.

 

[Gedemon]

Congrats. You are in the 19.5% that like this. 81.5% don't like it with varying degrees of us holding our noses about it.

56% dislike it at the time of this post, not 81.5%

I know, I voted 2.

 

[TheGrayFox]

That doesn't have anything to do with what I'm replying to. I assure you that I am well aware you don't like the civ-changing mechanic, considering nearly all 101 of your posts you've made since you registered are about how much you dislike it.

Well you questioned what a "small pool of civs" meant in his post and where the user you were asking got such information. I was explaining

45 civs is a small pool when the game is split into the rounds and each civ is only regulated to one era

 

[pokiehl]

Well you questioned what a "small pool of civs" meant in his post and where the user you were asking got such information. I was explaining

45 civs is a small pool when the game is split into the rounds and each civ is only regulated to one era

In no world is 45 civs small; you're moving goalposts. Civ 5 and 6 launched with like 1/3 of that.

 

[lt22677]

I had heard 15 ancient age, 15 exploration age and 15 modern age, total 45

 

[Kev1916]

Where are you getting "very small pool of civs" and "tiny maps" from? None of these things are confirmed, and I think people are actually even expecting like 45 civs on launch, which would be by far the biggest launch roster for Civ ever.

Will try find the youtuber that made the comment on map sizes being smaller, It's already confirmed re MP being smaller and as for 45 that is not going to happen .

Be lucky if there is 21 which will be actually only 7 as you'll need the rest to morph into when the game does it's hard re-set