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

[Zaarin]

Why is it important the leader stays the same but the civ can change?

Because if I sit down to a game of chess, I want to finish the game with the opponent I started with. I don't want to sit down to a game with John, then have John get up part-way through the game and now I'm playing against Mary.

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.

100% this.

 

[pokiehl]

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.

We've had zero instances where leaders change throughout a single game. It's a core feature. I'm much happier with civs changing.

 

[thecrazyscot]

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.

I mean, I think it's clear that Civilization means different things to different people, so as the "main concept of the series" I think is arguable. But if it's "the main thing that makes civ feel like civ" to you, I respect that. I've tried a lot of other 4x games and none of them "felt" like civ to me, so I always ended up coming back to this franchise. It's funny, because even within the franchise certain games feel "more civ-like" to me. I will be interested how the game "feels" given some of its mechanical shakeups, but of course in a lot of ways that's a nebulous metric which will vary for every person.

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.

There has been some discussion on that, but my own view is that they probably chose to go with civ switching over leader switching for a combination of factors, including:

• They want to represent more cultures, and having greater civ variety allows them to do that
• They want each player's "avatar" to remain static throughout the whole game for recognizability
• Leaders require much more effort

Whether you think they made the right call is of course entirely up to you, but I do think they considered all these options very carefully and ultimately chose the option that was most inline with their game design goals and resource allocation.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Because if I sit down to a game of chess, I want to finish the game with the opponent I started with. I don't want to sit down to a game with John, then have John get up part-way through the game and now I'm playing against Mary.

It's funny because I see it that way too, but with civs. I'd much rather start and finish a game with Rome and not have have to part way with it for England. But I guess that's the differences of opinion.

We've had zero instances where leaders change throughout a single game. It's a core feature. I'm much happier with civs changing.

We've had that with 6 iterations of Civ games too until now, though.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Because if I sit down to a game of chess, I want to finish the game with the opponent I started with. I don't want to sit down to a game with John, then have John get up part-way through the game and now I'm playing against Mary.


100% this.

It's funny that some of you that are so adament against leader swapping and feel that it would break your immersion with the game don't see how we feel the same exact way about the civilizations we play and play against. This change for us is just as jarring as the idea of changing leaders is for you

 

[Mahi]

I guess we just have to agree to disagree. Personally I think it's more sensible/logical to change the leader than the Civ. But I'd rather just prefer a title/trait change to the leader above all.

 

[Zaarin]

It's funny because I see it that way too, but with civs. I'd much rather start and finish a game with Rome and not have have to part way with it for England. But I guess that's the differences of opinion.

I definitely get it. I have mixed feelings about civ changing. I just like enough other systems they've shown, many of which are related to civ changing, that I'm willing to keep an open mind about it. Plus, Ed Beach saved Civ5 and made a great game in Civ6 so I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Civinator]

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)

This is an excellent post in my eyes! And the best is: The feature of connecting the different conquests in C3C from Mesopotamia up to WW2 to a "single campaign" in C3C "comes out of the box". Here you can watch the story of such a "campaign": https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/the-nine-conquests.677408/

Page 12 of the C3C manual:

Connecting different own scenarios in C3C to a campaign in C3C is also possible with the editor.

Civ 7 in one of its main features is Civ 3 Conquests, with the discussion, if it is done better or not as in C3C.

And now please guess, who was responsable for the Conquests and the Campaign in C3C.

 

[Professor Phobo]

It's funny that some of you that are so adament against leader swapping and feel that it would break your immersion with the game don't see how we feel the same exact way about the civilizations we play and play against. This change for us is just as jarring as the idea of changing leaders is for you

It's super jarring, you're not wrong. But the board state changes all the time, it's just a dramatic version of that.

 

[pokiehl]

We've had that with 6 iterations of Civ games too until now, though.

I was responding to the notion that somehow having "alternate leaders" is the same thing as leader switching in-game.

 

[bv98132454]

We've had zero instances where leaders change throughout a single game. It's a core feature. I'm much happier with civs changing.

My stance has far more support in the way the franchise has operated in the past, and it's not particularly close. Going off the top of my head, we had at least 10 Civs in Civ 6 which had multiple leaders to choose from. I can't recall how many in Civ 4, but remember America, England, and Russia all having multiple leaders. These instances all suggest that Civs can have multiple leaders from various points in their history. Again, there is one instance of a leader having two different Civs.

I'd prefer to not have the switching at all, but, if you're going to do it, leader switching is far more in line with what Civ has done in the past than forced Civ switching. Instead, they chose something which has one instance which supports its implementation.

In effect, your stance is, "my core feature good, your core feature bad" and little more.

 

[pokiehl]

Going off the top of my head, we had at least 10 Civs in Civ 6 which had multiple leaders to choose from. I can't recall how many in Civ 4, but remember America, England, and Russia all having multiple leaders. These instances all suggest that Civs can have multiple leaders from various points in their history.

Alternate leaders is not leader switching mid-game. That's my point. It seems like you're suggesting they're really similar.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I would personally like leader switching less than I'm growing to like the idea of civ switching. But both would be departures from precedent. I'm okay with this, change is good, sometimes you gotta experiment.

 

[TheGrayFox]

We've had zero instances where leaders change throughout a single game. It's a core feature. I'm much happier with civs changing.

and we've had zero instances where civilizations change throught a single game. it's a core feature. (is this really your argument?)


I'm much happier if neither changed

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I was responding to the notion that somehow having "alternate leaders" is the same thing as leader switching in-game.

Oh I understand. You are right that that feature hasn't been present.
Then again, I was maybe one of the biggest proponents of alternate leaders for Civ 6, and think that idea of switching leaders would have worked better for me, than civ switching.

 

[pokiehl]

I'm much happier if neither changed

I get that, but this is the game we're getting.

 

[TheGrayFox]

It's super jarring, you're not wrong. But the board state changes all the time, it's just a dramatic version of that.

I don't nesecarily buy this either because leader swapping could implemented without "changing the board state" at all and is no more "changing the board state" than whole sale civ swaps are

and the swapping gimmick is happening between seperate rounds anyway.

 

[bv98132454]

Alternate leaders is not leader switching mid-game. That's my point. It seems like you're suggesting they're really similar.

It's far more similar than Civ switching. I'll borrow some words from the US Supreme Court. My stance at the very least has "penumbras, formed by emanations" of what has been done in past games. Yours doesn't even have that.

 

[pokiehl]

It's far more similar than Civ switching. I'll borrow some words from the US Supreme Court. My stance at the very least has "penumbras, formed by emanations" of what has been done in past games. Yours doesn't even have that.

I think they're both valid points. Agree to disagree here then. Hopefully you can still find some way to enjoy the game, and if not, there are at least a lot of other 4x games now.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I get that, but this is the game we're getting.

and? does that mean people are not allowed to criticize or openly disagree with the direction?

If leader swapping had been introduced instead of civ swapping, the shoe here would simply be on a other foot here from the sounds of it