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

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


  • Total voters
    403
I see the majority here doesn't like the civ switching features and the minority loves it. Again for the majority here it's not a dealbreaker and for the minority it is.

I was decided to buy Civ 7 until FXS reveal the gameplay and now I'm not. My money will go to ARA probably. I hope you (who love the feature) will enjoy Civ 7.
 
If, hypothetically, the game launches really smoothly and word of mouth, buzz, etc, is very strong, and it's apparently just a blast to play each era, would that change your opinion?

Like if they somehow successfully make it so each third of the game is as compelling as the early game and the endgame doldrums are gone, would that be enough? Pick up on a steam sale? Keep an eye on what they do with expansions?
 
I think most of you forget an important factor in your discussions about numbers of supporters, if civ-changing is the worst feature of Humankind or if not. There are civers who did not buy Humankind exactly because they think civ-changing as it is done in Humankind is complete nonsense. I am one of them. Of course I never had a need to post something against the civ-changing of Humankind in the steam forums. The unknown number of civers with this opinion in my eyes must be added to the number of people who posted, that they don´t like this form of civ-switching at steam.

For those who posted, that they didn´t notice a focus in negative posts about civ-switching in the steam forums, here is a link to a post of the CFC moderator Quintillus, that his steam review about Humankind "that the civ switching really breaks the immersion" had over 200 upvotes:
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...rom-buying-civ-7.691530/page-19#post-16659199

I am curious how Firaxis will solve the mess they have maneuvered themselves into, but I am thankful to Firaxis for creating Civ 3, giving me the opportunity- by the use of the C3X mod - to create my own civilization game that I like: CCM3. Here the leaders are changing in the different eras of the game and the civs have a normal evolution during the game (per example: Rome/Italian city states/Italy).

Nevertheless I haven´t voted in the poll that I will not buy Civ 7 due to the civ-switching. I am still curious about the new way to lead unit formations by the different numbers and tactical signs on tanks, that I had noticed when looking at the first Civ 7 introduction videos.
 
Last edited:
You don't change leader - the leader you selected stays the whole game. Instead, you'll get a new base Civilization when the era changes, with legacy benefits from your achievements in the previous era.

So for example, you pick Egypt for the Antiquity era. It's fully designed with the antiquity era in mind and all it's unique buildings, units, etc, are for that era. At the end of the Antiquity era, you'll hit a crisis event, when the crisis is over, there's some sort of nominal time gap, and you'll pick a new civilization that emerges from the changes that hit Egypt following the crisis and the cut-to-black. Say you pick Songhai for the Age of Exploration because it's also a river civilization and you spent all your time doing river stuff. Songhai is an Age of Exploration Civilization, so all it's stuff is designed for that age - it'll still have focuses like combat, or trade, or having really nice mountain resorts where people can find themselves, but it's unique buildings/units/etc are all designed around the Age of Exploration. At the end of the age of exploration you'll hit a crisis, there's a nominal time jump, and you'll pick a third civilization for the Modern Age, one that evolved out of the changes wrought to Songhai during the crisis and still having the legacies of it's founding culture, Ancient Egypt. Say you picked America because you want to go for the space race and America gets +10% bonus from Moon tile yields or whatever. All of America's stuff is designed around the modern age.

The third age is when you'll actually go for the game ending victory condition. Presumably there's also a crisis that means you have two competing gameplay imperatives, survive the crisis and pull off your chosen victory.
You don't change leaders at all. At the end of each Age (of which there are three), there is a crisis. There will be penalties, attacks, etc. You then "wake up" again afterwards with your cities in ruins, your units dead, your population reduced, and many of your precious buildings useless for the new challenges. To compensate, you get a new civ with abilities, civics, units and buildings fit for the era. And you also revert to some of the skills and achievements that were previously achieved in your land: some are static (= from your old civ), some are dynamic (you can choose based on what the old civ did/how much it excelled in that). I'm sure FXS will include a narrative or little movie for the transition.

Thank guys. I felt like I was close.. so you don't switch your civ leader, you stay as, let's say Augustus but you can adopt America's civ traits after a crisis era/age. So you become Augustus of America?
Yeah, I don't like it, (I think). Maybe it's not that bad but I defintily don't like the "renaming" of the Leader's title if that's the case. Funny enough I care more about staying the same civilization than the leader. In my head it should have been switched around so it's the leader that changes and not the civ traits :)
 
I think I'm too dumb to understand exactly the purpose of the mechanic. For a civ leader to change I would expect something drastically to happen in game, like a major cultural change.. or something. As I understand it, you change leader when reaching a certain age without any 'good' explanation to why this happens. It just happens... Could someone explain the purpose and the gameplay benefit to me like I'm 5? I would say there were other ways to implement new/other traits to a civ rather than changing it completely.

Practically the aim was to reduce the final "snowball" phase given that in previous civilizations at a certain point in the final phase of the game the human player had the advantage, the idea they had was to break the campaign into three scenarios (which in practice they will become mini campaigns with separate exploration, expansion and conquest phases),
The cause of this change is due to the fact that the AI cannot keep up with the human player especially since the 1UPT was adopted (Civilization 6 has the worst artificial intelligence) they thought that this could be a solution, in in reality I fear that the "Snowball" will occur again for all 3 scenarios, as far as Civ-Switching is concerned I think it is a crude solution to predict the evolution of a civilization i.e. they could create a system of skill enhancements, social policies etc. ... also linked to the various eras and instead they tell you Egypt (settled agricultural African society) if you have 3 horses you become Mongolia (Asian nomadic society) without any logical connection (the only opinion I can have that so they can flood us with DLC of additional Civilizations at least to read what the various pre-orders contain)
 
Funny enough I care more about staying the same civilization than the leader. In my head it should have been switched around so it's the leader that changes and not the civ traits :)
But then your opposing leaders change as well, and, as HK demonstrated, that is enormously confusing.
 
Yeah I'd prefer to keep leader instead of civilization, because throughout the course of the game I always end up fond of the good neighbor and irritated with the bad one, and I wouldn't want to lose track.
 
Meanwhile I prefer to keep both, as I play as a civilization, but play against leaders

I'll also note that I miss Civ V's personality tables for leaders, which I think worked very well
 
But then your opposing leaders change as well, and, as HK demonstrated, that is enormously confusing.
I don't think leaders in the world get confused about having to deal with a new "selected" leader of a nation :) . I mean, if I was a leader and talked to "Joe Biden of America" one day and some day I woke up and now had to deal with "Joe Biden of Spain".. THAT would be confusing :D
 
Thank guys. I felt like I was close.. so you don't switch your civ leader, you stay as, let's say Augustus but you can adopt America's civ traits after a crisis era/age. So you become Augustus of America?
Yeah, I don't like it, (I think). Maybe it's not that bad but I defintily don't like the "renaming" of the Leader's title if that's the case. Funny enough I care more about staying the same civilization than the leader. In my head it should have been switched around so it's the leader that changes and not the civ traits :)
I think the big ups of changing civs are:
a) each civ is in an age where it shined historically and gets fitting unique civics, buildings, units, and abilities for specifically that age.
b) you get to experience such a package 3 times per game
c) you will always play against civs that are from the same age
d) leaders stay the same and you can identify your opponents better

If you change the leader instead, you get, e.g., leaders in wrong age for many civs - who would lead the US in Antiquity and who Rome in Modern Age? And would unique civics would the US research in Antiquity? The core ideas of civ VII seem to be not anybody's cup of tea, but I think it's worth a try. We only know so much so far and no one has played a transition yet, so whether we like it or not is just thinking on paper though. I'm curious when we'll see someone playing a real game over such a transition with all the bells and whistles that accompany the change.
 
I trust that they will implement it in a way that enhances the game. Yes, there's a possibility it could be bad, but so far it looks promising.

Now, I did not particularly enjoy the feature in Humankind, but that was due to a whole host of iffy design decisions, which don't seem to be present here.

At the end of the day, it's cool to have Civ7 feel substantially different from previous entries in the series.
 
But then your opposing leaders change as well, and, as HK demonstrated, that is enormously confusing.
Not if this is handled properly (per example in CCM 3) - but unfortunately in Civ 7 (with the present knowledge) this seems to be true.
 
I think the big ups of changing civs are:
a) each civ is in an age where it shined historically and gets fitting unique civics, buildings, units, and abilities for specifically that age.
Yes, and for me that's a bad thing and gets rid of something fundamental to the Civilization franchise. This aspect alone is a dealbreaker and makes the game a non-buy unless they change it.
 
I trust that they will implement it in a way that enhances the game. Yes, there's a possibility it could be bad, but so far it looks promising.

Now, I did not particularly enjoy the feature in Humankind, but that was due to a whole host of iffy design decisions, which don't seem to be present here.

At the end of the day, it's cool to have Civ7 feel substantially different from previous entries in the series.

It could be as you say, but it could go like with the 1UPT which has created many more problems (AI cannot manage this feature well and even though more than 10 years have passed since they introduced it they have not managed to fix it even though they have 2 games and tons of patches and DLC and only in Civ 5 and thanks to MODs was it possible to find a satisfactory solution)
Furthermore, to me (and other people) this modification seems extremely ridiculous since it forces you to change the civilization you are playing for no reason
 
Yes, and for me that's a bad thing and gets rid of something fundamental to the Civilization franchise. This aspect alone is a dealbreaker and makes the game a non-buy unless they change it.

Any civilization trait that was late game (or even middle game) oriented was effectively worthless outside of flavor, though. It's much better for game balance if your trade-offs between specialization and versatility are constantly relevant.
 
I don't think leaders in the world get confused about having to deal with a new "selected" leader of a nation :) .
But would you be confused if you were playing Dragon Age and Morrigan turned into Liara? I consider leaders much more like RPG characters than world leaders. If I want to play a game where the leaders are literal people, I'll play CK3 or Old World. ;)

Not if this is handled properly (per example in CCM 3) - but unfortunately in Civ 7 (with the present knowledge) this seems to be true.
I can't think of any way to handle this I would consider "proper" short of starting a new game.
 
For me, this concept is a deal breaker. I think it is a dumb concept, and should have remained with Humankind. Civilization should be the game teaching others how to do it, and now it just steals from other, less successful, games. I am actually considering giving ARA a chance, instead of Civ VII. And I hope Civ VII never becomes popular, so the devs realize what a mistake they've made.
 
Any civilization trait that was late game (or even middle game) oriented was effectively worthless outside of flavor, though. It's much better for game balance if your trade-offs between specialization and versatility are constantly relevant.
That's because they refused to give late game Civs traits with big enough effects to overcome the the early-game disadvantage. They used dynamite to solve a problem which needed a scalpel.
 
I think the big ups of changing civs are:
a) each civ is in an age where it shined historically and gets fitting unique civics, buildings, units, and abilities for specifically that age.
b) you get to experience such a package 3 times per game
c) you will always play against civs that are from the same age
d) leaders stay the same and you can identify your opponents better

If you change the leader instead, you get, e.g., leaders in wrong age for many civs - who would lead the US in Antiquity and who Rome in Modern Age? And would unique civics would the US research in Antiquity? The core ideas of civ VII seem to be not anybody's cup of tea, but I think it's worth a try. We only know so much so far and no one has played a transition yet, so whether we like it or not is just thinking on paper though. I'm curious when we'll see someone playing a real game over such a transition with all the bells and whistles that accompany the change.

I get it but in my head it still makes sense you switch to a different leader instead of the civilization. I'd rather have there was like new trait selections to a leader OR the existing civ without merging in another civilization. Why can't it just be "select these new traits for your civilization or leader for this new age" without mentioning of other civilization? I don't mind these traits selection would come from another civilization I just don't want my pure civ "contaminated" with another civilization. Basically they could just add some sort of skill tree to the leader without ever mentioning other civilizations and I would be happy enough, I think.
 
Back
Top Bottom