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

[Zaarin]

Civilization should be the game teaching others how to do it, and now it just steals from other, less successful, games.

[citation needed]

And I hope Civ VII never becomes popular, so the devs realize what a mistake they've made.

It's fine if it's not for you, but don't you think that's extraordinarily petty?

 

[Professor Phobo]

I suspect you pick the full package/civ name for legibility; otherwise you'd have to go and check what stuff each Civ picked, whereas this way you eventually learn what civ does what.

 

[pokiehl]

And I hope Civ VII never becomes popular, so the devs realize what a mistake they've made

It’s a mistake to you. To me and many others it’s a breath of fresh air and we’re excited to see it succeed.

 

[lt22677]

It’s a mistake to you. To me and many others it’s a breath of fresh air and we’re excited to see it succeed.

Well if you want you can also do it with the other Civs let's take Civ 3 take a conquest (Rise of Rome), then the second (Age of Exploration) and one that simulates the modern age (and there are many Mods that deal with the topic) and voilà you have Civ 7 without waiting until February 2025 (at most you will have to edit the saves)

 

[IgorS]

It’s a mistake to you. To me and many others it’s a breath of fresh air and we’re excited to see it succeed.

It is a breath of fresh air to Humankind, as this game may be better, but it is not a breath of fresh air to Civilization, as it breaks the main concept of the series - picking a civ and a leader, and play with it from the stone age to the space age. I don't want to play as Amina of Egypt/Songhai/Buganda. It may be an interesting idea from a gameplay perspective, but it totally ruins the atmosphere of the game as it makes no sense. Civilization without playing as one civ is like GTA without cars or Assassin's Creed or Hitman without stealth. It is such an important aspect of the game, that without it it is a completely different game, a spin-off at best.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I feel like the core of the game is playing through an alternate history. Actual history has a lot of churn and flux in what is a dominant culture, great power arrangement, etc. Rise and fall. So an alternate history should have that stuff too.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But then your opposing leaders change as well, and, as HK demonstrated, that is enormously confusing.

I could see how that would get confusing.
Though if that mechanic were released in Civ and we saw Julius Caesar and then Hadrian later, wouldn't you know that they both would be Roman?

 

[Zaarin]

Though if that mechanic were released in Civ and we saw Julius Caesar and then Hadrian later, wouldn't you know that they both would be Roman?

Not if I already have a relationship with Julius Caesar. Leaders are outside the game. They're avatars of the people I'm playing against. They're not immortal god-kings sitting somewhere inside the map like Paradox leaders. That's how I see it.

 

[bv98132454]

I could see how that would get confusing.
Though if that mechanic were released in Civ and we saw Julius Caesar and then Hadrian later, wouldn't you know that they both would be Roman?

The obvious middle ground was having Civs stay the same and each Civ has a pool of 3-5 leaders which can be switched to when transitioning to a new age. Instead, they chose the most extreme implementation and here we are.

 

[Zaarin]

The obvious middle ground was having Civs stay the same and each Civ has a pool of 3-5 leaders which can be switched to when transitioning to a new age. Instead, they chose the most extreme implementation and here we are.

That would have been a deal breaker for me.

 

[pokiehl]

The obvious middle ground was having Civs stay the same and each Civ has a pool of 3-5 leaders which can be switched to when transitioning to a new age. Instead, they chose the most extreme implementation and here we are.

Deal breaker for me. And that's not a middle-ground at all. It goes against a fundamental feature of the series (unchanging leader avatars). It's also not feasible for the vast majority of civilizations, so we'd have a much smaller civ pool. I want as many civs as possible.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Yeah leaders should definitely stay the same. They're an important part of the metagame.

 

[bv98132454]

Deal breaker for me. And that's not a middle-ground at all. It goes against a fundamental feature of the series (unchanging leader avatars). It's also not feasible for the vast majority of civilizations, so we'd have a much smaller civ pool. I want as many civs as possible.

Ok, so let me get this straight. In your view:
1. Changing Civs isn't breaking a fundamental feature
but,
2. Changing leaders (when we have had multiple leaders available for various Civs in the past) is?

 

[pokiehl]

Ok, so let me get this straight. In your view:
1. Changing Civs isn't breaking a fundamental feature
but,
2. Changing leaders (when we have had multiple leaders available for various Cvis in the past) is?

Let me get this straight. In your view, changing civilizations (when we've had multiple civilizations represented by various leaders) is a dealbreaker?

Do you see how your parenthetical there is a non-sequitur?

 

[Zaarin]

Ok, so let me get this straight. In your view:
1. Changing Civs isn't breaking a fundamental feature
but,
2. Changing leaders (when we have had multiple leaders available for various Civs in the past) is?

Changing civs isn't a feature I wanted...but it's connected to mechanics I find interesting so I'm willing to give it a chance. Changing leaders would be a non-starter for me. What you suggested was not a "middle ground." It was an alternative you like better, which is fair enough, but just the opposite extreme of what we're actually getting.

 

[Mahi]

Yeah leaders should definitely stay the same. They're an important part of the metagame.

I don't get this. Why is it important the leader stays the same but the civ can change? I would say it to be equal important if you insist on keeping the same leader avatar.. But then again, I don't see why it couldn't be the traits only for the leader or civ that changed and nothing else. Hell, you could name Augustus for "Augustus Ruler of Horses" with the Mongolian traits but at least don't rename it to something like "August - Ruler of Mongolia".. Honestly they could have avoided alot of these angry faces if they had just bothered coming up with some nice leader titles for the selected traits. That way it would also be fairly easy to identify which traits the oppossing player chose.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Changing Civs is definitely a bold departure from the established norms of the franchise. Changing leaders would also be such a departure.

I prefer the former to the ladder because you develop this kind of social relationship with the leaders throughout the course of the game. A civilization though is just a template for city building and some special bonuses. You get angry with Montezuma because he's a jerk and he settled next to that juicy spot you wanted.

 

[bv98132454]

Let me get this straight. In your view, changing civilizations (when we've had multiple civilizations represented by various leaders) is a dealbreaker?

Do you see how your parenthetical there is a non-sequitur?

No, it isn't a non-sequitur. Civ 4 and Civ 6 both had multiple leaders available for the same Civ in the game. We have had a grand total one instance where a leader represented multiple Civs. In other words, the fact that there can be multiple different leaders for a Civ (but all historically linked to that Civ) has been suggested in previous titles. Forced civ switching, as proposed for this game, simply has not been.

 

[IgorS]

The obvious middle ground was having Civs stay the same and each Civ has a pool of 3-5 leaders which can be switched to when transitioning to a new age. Instead, they chose the most extreme implementation and here we are.

As leaders are basically bonuses, like an extra ability for a civilization, this could make perfect sense. You don't even need five leaders, make it three per civ - one leader who was a "founder", another leader from a time of growth and expansion, and a third leader from a more "modern" era. The early leader, regardless of when he was alive in real history, will always have bonuses of a "founding father" - exploration, early expansion, founding a religion, etc. The "middle" leader will have bonuses to strengthening you civ, while the "modern" leader will have more late game bonuses.
It can work for pretty much every civ.
The Americans can have Washington as their early leader, Lincoln as their middle leader, and Roosevelt (Teddy or FDR) as their modern leader.
The English can have Aethelstan, Elizabeth, and someone like Queen Anne or maybe even Churchill.
The Romans can have Julius Caesar, Trajan, and Constantine (or if you want, make Constantine a middle leader, and some Italian leader like Lorenzo or even Garibaldi as a modern one).
So you take a civ's history and just divide it into three parts, and take a leader from each part.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I don't get this. Why is it important the leader stays the same but the civ can change? I would say it to be equal important if you insist on keeping the same leader avatar.. But then again, I don't see why it couldn't be the traits only for the leader or civ that changed and nothing else. Hell, you could name Augustus for "Augustus Ruler of Horses" with the Mongolian traits but at least don't rename it to something like "August - Ruler of Mongolia".. Honestly they could have avoided alot of these angry faces if they had just bothered coming up with some nice leader titles for the selected traits. That way it would also be fairly easy to identify which traits the oppossing player chose.

I think because the civilization is on the map, and the map (i.e., the game board state) is supposed to change throughout the course of the game. That's the game. The leader though, is more a proxy for the player/other players. They aren't on the map, they're across the table from you. That's how I distinguish them.