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

[UWHabs]

Sure, this poll is not a scientifically perfect, but let's also not split hairs here. I mean, how many registered CivFanatics Users are out there, who do love the Civ Switching Idea, but will not buy the game anyway!?
What ist the big difference between "cautiosly optimistic and will buy the game" and "do not care about the idea in particular and will buy the game"?
Nevertheless, If anyone out there wants to set up a scientifically more accurate poll about this, I will happily participate! I doubt there will be a major different outcome overall, though.

I do care about the idea And the poll is listed as "do not like the idea in particular", not "do not care about the idea". i still haven't quite made up my mind whether I like it or not yet.

Probably the "I still hope they can fix it" option from the poll is closest to my view. But that implies a negative. If the implementation is very bad, it might prevent me from buying the game at launch. But if the implementation is good, then it definitely won't prevent me. I don't know all the civs, all the criteria for switching, all the options you are given, so I have a hard time feeling that it's broken or even needs fixing yet.

But it seems like about 25% of people like the idea and are happy for it, 25% are unhappy with it, and the other 50% are in the middle, somewhere between indifferent, wanting some tweaks, or simply wanting more information.

 

[Civinator]

Why exactly is Maurya>Chola>Mughals fixed? What is better there compared to, e.g., Romans>Normans>French Empire?
Note: I don't think there is something wrong with any of these, or that the switching as far as we know it needs to be fixed. Just curious why this would be considered "fixed" when they both seem equally "drastically" to me.

Because it is much closer in geography to what today is identified with India. My fix would be a civ India, represented by 3 or better 4 eras with 4 four different leaders with a geographical and historical focus on India as it is in my Civ 3 mod CCM 3 (and this for every civ in the game). To make it even more clear: The fix for me is to have more different historical changing leaders for every civ in the game instead of different civilizations for the same obscure immortal "Mickey Mouse" leader.

 

[Siptah]

Because it is much closer in geography to what today is identified with India.

err... I guess geography isn't a positive science then or I'm missing your point. I'm pretty sure Romans>Normans>France is similarly associated with what is today identified as France. Well, come to think of it and how countries are still fighting over borders, geography probably really isn't a positive science but rather subjective. Wasn't expecting to realize this from this short forum exchange!

My fix would be a civ India, represented by 3 or better 4 eras with 4 four different leaders with a geographical and historical focus on India as it is in my Civ 3 mod CCM 3 (and this for every civ in the game). To make it even more clear: The fix for me is to have more different historical changing leaders for every civ in the game instead of different civilizations for the same obscure immortal "Mickey Mouse" leader.

Why is a Chandragupta leading India for the first 4000 years of the game, switching to an Rajendra III who leads it for the next 1500, then switching to Aurangzeb for the last 500 better? They are still immortal "Mickey Mouse" leaders in that scenario, plus they lead a monolithic blob culture. The only sensible solution is to drop leaders altogether Or non-immortal leaders, as in the Paradox GSGs. But with civ's scope, that would mean every leader dies every turn for a large part of the game.

 

[pokiehl]

Yeah I’m not clear on how switching leaders is more realistic or immersive. You still have leaders staying around for hundreds/thousands of years.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I don't really understand your point.

We all know that the success of Civ VII, for Take-Two, 2K, and FXS, is measured in sales.

But is that how you will measure the success of Civ VII? If the game sells well, will you change your opinion on switching? That seems highly unlikely, and quite right too, why should your opinion change just because it sells well?

i'm reminding everyone that at the end of the day, we are talking about a corporation selling a product. Their only obligation is to their shareholders and their success is marked in sales, player retention, and an ability to peddle future DLCs. My subjective opinion won't measure the success of Civ VII, it's ability to sell and then retain a playerbase comparable to its predessecor's will.

You're right that we're a long way from getting sales figures but the fact that over half polled here in fan communities are outright negative to the idea and a near quarter have no intention of buying/playing the game because of mechanical changes at launch should be worrying to Firaxis. Not something written off with "well we're not obligated to make a game they want"

Hence Zaarin's initial point: nothing obliges them to make a game you like.

If the game does poorly, we can have an interesting discussion about how much the whole switching idea contributed to poor sales, but we're realistically at least a year or two away from having the information needed for that discussion.

To me, Zaarin's initial point seemed like an easy way to dismiss valid criticism of Firaxis from long time fans of the series hence why I responded by pointing out who Firaxis is actually obligated to here.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Yeah I’m not clear on how switching leaders is more realistic or immersive. You still have leaders staying around for hundreds/thousands of years.

All a matter of perspective, I guess. To me playing as Britain a Celtic King in the antiquity age , Elizabeth I in the exploration age and Victoria in the Modern Age feels much more immersive, than playing Augustus as the enternal Leader of China throughout all ages.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

All a matter of perspective, I guess. To me playing as Britain a Celtic King in the antiquity age , Elizabeth I in the exploration age and Victoria in the Modern Age feels much more immersive, than playing Augustus as the enternal Leader of China throughout all ages.

Make it an Anglo-Saxon King, instead of a Celtic King, and I agree.

 

[Civinator]

err... I guess geography isn't a positive science then or I'm missing your point. I'm pretty sure Romans>Normans>France is similarly associated with what is today identified as France.

Please explain in our days an Italian citizen of Rome, that in truth he has the French Nationality and I am sure you will soon be convinced about the not fitting part in your theory - but this are all discussions that belong to several other threads about that topic.

This thread is about the poll and the current result of the poll, that more than 3/4 of the voters are not satisfied with the current civ switching.

 

[Siptah]

Please explain in our days an Italian citizen of Rome, that in truth he has the French Nationality and I am sure you will soon be convinced about the not fitting part in your theory - but this are all discussions that belong to several other threads about that topic.

This thread is about the poll and the current result of the poll, that more than 3/4 of the voters are not satisfied with the current civ switching.

Well, we all know that the poll options are "suboptimal." And as one of the items is about "fixing", I am still genuinely interested why you would consider the Maurya > Chola > Mughal part fixed, but not others such as Romans > Normans > French Empire.

I honestly don't get what your standards or indicators are for judging one as fixed and the other not. So I would be happy if you could help me out here and not come up with nonsense as if modern Romans should be French, because France is one of the offsprings of the Roman Empire. Are you trying to deny the Roman past of France because Rome isn't in modern France or what? Or is it because Rome absolutely needs to go Italy and everything else is a blasphemy? But why would Maurya > Chola be a good path then if you are so convinced of core territory continuum or whatever you take as benchmark? Their territory only marginally overlapped (if at all), and as far as I know (but I haven't read more than a few books on Indian history and I've forgotten most of it), Chola would not be in any way a successor to Maurya in spirit nor in culture (as one could claim for the Franks and Rome, for example). And Chola > Mughals looks way more far fetched than Normans > French Empire to me by culture, territory, and population. So, honestly, I don't understand your point why a more or less random combination of 3 civs from the Indian subcontinent that don't form a continuum in any way is "fixed" but a similar (and in my very personal opinion more comprehensible path) in Europe is problematic.

 

[Krikkit1]

Please explain in our days an Italian citizen of Rome, that in truth he has the French Nationality and I am sure you will soon be convinced about the not fitting part in your theory - but this are all discussions that belong to several other threads about that topic.

This thread is about the poll and the current result of the poll, that more than 3/4 of the voters are not satisfied with the current civ switching.

Rome Split.. Israelis, Egyptians, French, English, Spanish, Greeks, Romanians, Turks are all as Roman as modern Italians are (unless the Italians actually live in Rome)

The only reason a present day citizen of Rome isn't called French is because
1. The Frankish Germanic tribes settled for north of the alps to the coast
and
2. Charlemagnes kids couldn't hold it together

That said.... a present day inhabitant of the city of Rome on playing their Civ game
1. Should be able to choose whatever civ they want at the beginning of the game and call it Rome, Italy, Venice... whatever they want
2. When they choose a new civ at the beginning of a new Age, they should be able to choose to keep their name, as well as keep their previous city name list/flag/ and city graphics group (or to get a custom civ name for that Age)

 

[Civinator]

I honestly don't get what your standards or indicators are for judging one as fixed and the other not. So I would be happy if you could help me out here and not come up with nonsense as if modern Romans should be French, because France is one of the offsprings of the Roman Empire.

Please don´t add parts that I don´t have written in my post. I never posted something about offsprings of the Roman Empire. Funny is, that you call your own addition, that I have never posted, "nonsense". I start my look at the current existing civs on the globe and not with the offsprings of the civs. A start with the offsprings would begin with "Adam and Eve" if there is no starting limit for the game. The problem is, that Rome/Italy becomes France, so France is in no case one of the offsprings of the Roman Empire / Italy.

Once again, there are other threads for those who want to discuss the details of civ switching. I don´t want to waste my time with this kind of discussions. You asked me how I would fix it and I answered it, so it is not part of this thread. Your use of the word "nonsense" is a last sign that the offtopic-discussion triggered by you now has to stop.

Again: This thread is about the poll and the current result of the poll, that more than 3/4 of the voters are not satisfied with the current civ switching.

 

[pokiehl]

I don’t think the poll here is very meaningful. The options are definitely biased towards the negative. There is no option reflecting “like” or “neutral” and buying, and the wording is loaded to be negative or over-the-top positive in the first choice.

In general poll options should have fewer words and be less editorializing.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

At the end of the day, the poll tells us something, and we should definitely recognise that. The results are big fat raspberry in the general direction of switching.

But we shouldn't overstate the significance of a poll that has been answered by a tiny fraction of CF members, who themselves represent the extreme end of a rather tiny fraction of the Civ player base.

I think the poll confirms that switching is contentious, and that many people are not happy with the idea. Quelle surprise, if you've spent any time here, or Reddit, or YT comments, then you'd already know this. I don't think we can conclude much more than that though. I.e., it would be wrong to extrapolate from this poll that 3/4s of all Civ players dislike the feature.

One thing is for certain, it will be fascinating to see how it sells.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Rome Split.. Israelis, Egyptians, French, English, Spanish, Greeks, Romanians, Turks are all as Roman as modern Italians are (unless the Italians actually live in Rome)

The only reason a present day citizen of Rome isn't called French is because
1. The Frankish Germanic tribes settled for north of the alps to the coast
and
2. Charlemagnes kids couldn't hold it together

That said.... a present day inhabitant of the city of Rome on playing their Civ game
1. Should be able to choose whatever civ they want at the beginning of the game and call it Rome, Italy, Venice... whatever they want
2. When they choose a new civ at the beginning of a new Age, they should be able to choose to keep their name, as well as keep their previous city name list/flag/ and city graphics group (or to get a custom civ name for that Age)

This discussion proofs to me, how messy this whole CivSwitching stuff could eventually turn out to be, especially if you want to do it in a "historical way". For instance, I have no clue, why you left out Austria or Germany as Rome successors, but included Turkey, which I would expect to succeed one of the Arab nations. Anyway, at least FXS promised to come up with some kind of historical path, how this will eventually look like, remains a mystery to me. Especially in the more difficult cases, i.e. the colonized countries (US, Mexico... etc.).

 

[Krikkit1]

This discussion proofs to me, how messy this whole CivSwitching stuff could eventually turn out to be, especially if you want to do it a "historical way". For instance, I have no clue, why you left out Austria or Germany as Rome successors, but included Turkey, which I would expect to succeed one of the Arab nations. Anyway, at least FXS promised to come up with some kind of historical path, how this will eventually look like, remains a mystery to me. Especially in the more difficult cases, i.e. the colonized countries (US, Mexico... etc.).

Civs not only have multiple successors, but they have multiple progenitors

Rome ->all of those
but also
Celts (Gauls), Germans (Franks), Rome, etc->France

Turkey would have basis in multiple different civs (Germany is a bit of a stretch because the Roman Empire never controlled Germany...(although the holy Roman empire did....and that makes Mexico and Brazil and Australia also "from Rome")

I think the "historical path" is what civ in this age occupies a part or all of the territory you controlled in the previous age (if not available go for some closer ones.)

 

[ColtSeavers]

I don’t think the poll here is very meaningful. The options are definitely biased towards the negative. There is no option reflecting “like” or “neutral” and buying, and the wording is loaded to be negative or over-the-top positive in the first choice.

In general poll options should have fewer words and be less editorializing.

I told this many times before, why don't you just come up with your own poll then, if you think that this one is so misleading!? I really would be curious, if you could come up with a scientific poll yourself, and if the results really would be that much different after all?

 

[Voidwalkin]

But we shouldn't overstate the significance of a poll that has been answered by a tiny fraction of CF members, who themselves represent the extreme end of a rather tiny fraction of the Civ player base.

I think the poll confirms that switching is contentious, and that many people are not happy with the idea. Quelle surprise, if you've spent any time here, or Reddit, or YT comments, then you'd already know this. I don't think we can conclude much more than that though. I.e., it would be wrong to extrapolate from this poll that 3/4s of all Civ players dislike the feature.

Eh.

If on all available media, enthusiasm is low, support lukewarm, with a sizable continent of outright hostile opinions, it's fair to call the community skeptical and alarmed.

These concerns may dissipate, of course, but Firaxis wouldn't be the first studio to flop on an installment of their flagship franchise.

If it's not too late Firaxis, please let people create their own civ. It'd solve the vast majority of complaints.

 

[Chiyo]

I don’t think the poll here is very meaningful.

The biggest issue is that we do not know how Civ switching will really work in the end. Will your whole Civ become the new one? And what will happen to your city names? Will the city of Rome become Rouen or maybe directly London? Or will you only keep a part of your empire? In the Rome to Normans example it could make sense if you lose 95% of your empire, especially the core part and just keep a small rather uninportant part and the rest is either destroyed or belongs to someone else, maybe even several other new Civs. It does not sound like much fun to me but it would make sense historically.
I am really looking forward to the next developer stream and hope they will finally clarify what will happen. Then we can make a better judgement.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Eh.

If on all available media, enthusiasm is low, support lukewarm, with a sizable continent of outright hostile opinions, it's fair to call the community skeptical and alarmed.

These concerns may dissipate, of course, but Firaxis wouldn't be the first studio to flop on an installment of their flagship franchise.

If it's not too late Firaxis, please let people create their own civ. It'd solve the vast majority of complaints.

Do you have any data to prove to that "on all available media, enthusiasm is low"? And what about the substantial group of players who don't engage with CF, Reddit, YT?

Happy to see it, if you do. This poll surely does not count: the results are not meaningless, but 282 responses on CF is not a big or representative sample. What else can we conclude from it, other than that switching is contentious?

 

[ColtSeavers]

Civs not only have multiple successors, but they have multiple progenitors

Rome ->all of those
but also
Celts (Gauls), Germans (Franks), Rome, etc->France

Turkey would have basis in multiple different civs (Germany is a bit of a stretch because the Roman Empire never controlled Germany...(although the holy Roman empire did....and that makes Mexico and Brazil and Australia also "from Rome")

I think the "historical path" is what civ in this age occupies a part or all of the territory you controlled in the previous age (if not available go for some closer ones.)

Thanks for the clarification. Based on this concept though, I guess colonial powers like the British would have literally dozens of historic paths available? Will the Anglo Saxon AI then become then the UK, US, Australia or even India or one of the many African nations in the modern age?! Don't get me wrong, your concept acctually makes sense to me, I just think, it will be very difficult to acctually put this into practical gameplay.