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

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

It's not a complete deal breaker. But this added on top some other odd choices, like leaving out Pangea maps. Also I have a feeling the forced crisis, and the time jump between ages will break more immersion for me.

I think the civ swapping is a lazy mechanic to solve the issue that civs are only good in certain eras. They could have addressed that certain in a more simple and straightforward way, like chosing unique components in each age, and those components are based on your environment. Instead of chosing to be the Mongols to get a horse bonus, you stay as Egypt but chose that component

Not sure calling it lazy is fair, they must have considered your idea when discussing it, hardly a groundbreaking thought (no offence). I think they probably liked the idea of switching, so ran with it.

 

[Jojo_Fr]

Once you've tried the civilisation switching, you won't be able to do without it.
It's both logical - no civilisation has lasted throughout history - and very useful for reorienting your strategy.

 

[Deggial]

Well ... apparently I'm back (not that anyone noticed my absence ... ).

Anyway, I don't really care about the age mechanic. It's certainly not stopping me from buying. If anything, it makes me curious about how the age change will feel in terms of gameplay.
Now that we've learned that at least some civilizations have a continuous path through history, my optimism in this regard has actually increased.

We will have to see for how many civilizations such a path will exist. India, of course, as officially confirmed. There are probably hints for Japan. China should also be a strong candidate. And actually Egypt too, because that has also lasted for thousands(!) of years - even if it doesn't seem that Firaxis is of the same opinion here .

We'll have to see whether the respective crises at the end of each age are too disruptive for the feel of the game. Historically, they do make sense, although of course they happened at different times for every nation in the world. (The Sea Peoples for the Mediterranean, the plague for the whole of Europe, climate change for the peoples of Latin America, the Mongol invasion for China, ...)

There's still plenty of time until February and I'll certainly watch a few more YouTube videos before I pre-order.

 

[ColtSeavers]

It defaults to the historical choice in the first age. Then you still are going to play against Augustus of the Mongols or of Buganda

It defaults to the historical choice in the first age. Then you still are going to play against Augustus of the Mongols or of Buganda.

The way I understood Dennis Shirk at PaxWest, AI will go for the historical Route with each Civ Switching, not just for the first age.

 

[IgorS]

The way I understood Dennis Shirk at PaxWest, AI will go for the historical Route with each Civ Switching, not just for the first age.

The way I understood is that you pick a leader at the start of the game, and this is the leader you will have for every age.

 

[Zaarin]

The way I understood is that you pick a leader at the start of the game, and this is the leader you will have for every age.

Yes, and they'll continue to pick whichever civ is most historic for their starting civ or for them.

 

[AntSou]

The way I understood is that you pick a leader at the start of the game, and this is the leader you will have for every age.

The leaders are detached, which to me feels a bit disorienting, but the actual Civs will still prefer the historical paths by default.

You're mixing historical path of Civs with the starting historical choice for leaders (the little icon that appears when you're starting a new game). These are not the same.

Tbf it will be weird to see the icon of "Historical Choice" for Napoleon appearing over Rome, for instance, but that's not what this thread is about.

Edit: if that's still not clear enough, what I mean is that you could give Ancient Egypt to AI Napoleon, which is not the historical choice for that leader, but the historical paths for Ancient Egypt would remain the same.

 

[IgorS]

Once you've tried the civilisation switching, you won't be able to do without it.
It's both logical - no civilisation has lasted throughout history - and very useful for reorienting your strategy.

No civilization has lasted throughout history? I think the Chinese, the Greeks, the Japanese, and some others will disagree. Civilizations change with time, yes, some disappear or get assimilated into others, like the Ancient Egyptians or the Aztecs, and some have actually managed to survive as sovereign nations. What does not last is regimes, dynasties and so on, but these are not civilizations, but the people who rule them.
No civilization has lasted throughout history? Also - no civilization has changed itself from being Africans to Mongols.

Yes, and they'll continue to pick whichever civ is most historic for their starting civ or for them.

It still makes zero sense because it still means you will get Hatshepsut of the Songhai.

 

[AntSou]

It still makes zero sense because it still means you will get Hatshepsut of the Songhai.

That's a matter of lack of options at release, not inherent to the design.

No civilization has lasted throughout history? I think the Chinese, the Greeks, the Japanese, and some others will disagree.

They can disagree all they want, doesn't make them right.

 

[pokiehl]

It still makes zero sense because it still means you will get Hatshepsut of the Songhai.

Abraham Lincoln founding Washington in 4000 BC makes just as little sense.

 

[Civinator]

At present I think, a lot here must be reformed, on the other side at present we are not knowing a lot of the game yet.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Once you've tried the civilisation switching, you won't be able to do without it.
It's both logical - no civilisation has lasted throughout history - and very useful for reorienting your strategy.

Let's see, how exactly it is implemented and how much "fun" it will acctually be. You are very optimistic about here, I still have my doubts about that.

 

[Zaarin]

No civilization has lasted throughout history? I think the Chinese, the Greeks, the Japanese, and some others will disagree.

That's one perspective and certainly the one endorsed by most governments and the curricula they approve, but the idea that these civs have been continuous for thousands of years is debatable. Real history is a lot messier than textbook presentations.

It still makes zero sense because it still means you will get Hatshepsut of the Songhai.

I assume that Hatshepsut's historical path will be Egypt > Abbasids > ???.

 

[Hajee]

Will the core aspect of the game is build a civ that can stand the test time.

While yes no civ has done that, the game idea is to do so

Now, they have said you have the option to stay as your starting civ, and AI will always stay the same civ. That relaxes my concerns. But sill the option alone is bizarre and goes against the original intent and game philosophy of the series

 

[pokiehl]

Now, they have said you have the option to stay as your starting civ

They didn’t say that. If you play Civ 7 you’re gonna have to change civs on new age.

I think you’re not realizing that their conception of “civilization” in this game doesn’t refer to a singular faction, but rather the layered culture you create from all of your civ choices throughout the game. There’s nothing incongruous with the series about that idea, I think.

Your civilization is still trying to stand the test of time. The difference is your civilization is now a mix of cultures. It’s still a civilization you build.

 

[Hajee]

They didn’t say that. If you play Civ 7 you’re gonna have to change civs on new age.

I think you’re not realizing that their conception of “civilization” in this game doesn’t refer to a singular faction, but rather the layered culture you create from all of your civ choices throughout the game. There’s nothing incongruous with the series about that idea, I think.

Your civilization is still trying to stand the test of time. The difference is your civilization is now a mix of cultures. It’s still a civilization you build.

I am 100% sure they said at Pax interview

As a idea within the series itself, civ to stand the test of time from the agricultural revolution to the end game was the point of the game. Culture had nothing to do with it.

Your civ was your culture. That is now changed in civ 7. Because Egypt becoming the Mongols is a bizarre culture mix, I don't understand it, I don't care for it.

Now it's build an Empire to stand the test of an age

 

[pokiehl]

I am 100% sure they said at Pax interview

I’m really sure you’re mistaken. I watched the whole thing and didn’t see that. It’d have been big news.

(Also, the fact that you believe it to be true but you’re still unhappy with the game’s mechanic indicates to me that it’s probably not even worth their effort to change the game up and include it as an option…Some folks are going to immediately react negatively to the new game no matter what concessions they make, so they may as well believe in their idea and stay the course.)

 

[Zaarin]

Because Egypt becoming the Mongols is a bizarre culture mix, I don't understand it, I don't care for it.

We've been told the AI will default to historic paths so if ahistoric choices are made, that's 100% up to the player. However, I fully grant that some of the historic choices are more dubious than others. I feel that will get better as we get more civs.

 

[Hajee]

I’m really sure you’re mistaken. I watched the whole thing and didn’t see that. It’d have been big news.

(Also, the fact that you believe it to be true but you’re still unhappy with the game’s mechanic indicates to me that it’s probably not even worth their effort to change the game up and include it as an option…Some folks are going to immediately react negatively to the new game no matter what concessions they make, so they may as well believe in their idea and stay the course.)

I must have missed heard them.

(If the option was there, as I said before I would be okay with it). Since it's a forced change I am 100% not sold on this game

 

[Civinator]

The conquests campaign in C3C, created long ago by Ed Beach for that Civ 3 expansion, in my eyes seems to be the basic idea of this "civ-switching" in Civ 7. What Ed Beach achieved long ago, at least now should be possible, too (and many features now should work much better). So I think it could be interesting to have a look into the construction of such a C3C campaign.

In the C3C campaign 9 complete different scenarios with complete different civs and complete different leaders are connected to a campaign. The player receives a score for each of those scenarios and a total score for the campaign can be built.

In Civ 7 we can have three eras, each of them is equivalent to one of those Civ 3 Conquests. As in C3C many years ago, it was yet possible to connect much more than only three scenarios, of course this should be possible with Civ 7, too. That´s why in the long time I expect much more than only 3 eras for Civ 7. The mechanism for this is known since Civ 3.

This also allows to have in Civ 7 much more civs, that can evolve in their next "version" as now it is shown with the "three Indias" or the "three Chinas" which are in the current Civ 7 discussions.

When trying, as a Civ 3 modder, "to build a Civ 7-like mod", I have as one of the problems, that I cannot transform the campaign points from the score of ending one scenario as an additional benefit to the next scenario - here Firaxis had to introduce an additional mechanism. It is also not possible in C3C to do a "reset" when entering the next era in a game. In the C3C campaign a new conquests scenario must be loaded. The new loaded scenario can have the same civs (may be with new names and new leaders) and the same map and aditional may be new named cities on the map, a new techtree and new units without a place for units of the former era - but the only "legacy" you can carry to the new scenario in the C3C campaign is the score.

On the other side with the C3X mod it is yet possible in C3C to give the leaders and civs different names in the four different eras of C3C. So I am very confident, that Civ 7 without bigger problems - and continuing in its current concept - can be able to give us civers the "three-civs-solution" for many of the upcoming civs, too. What is possible for Civ 3 should be possible for Civ 7, too.