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

[Zaarin]

I must say, the idea of Khmer turning into Vietnam or vice versa sounds dreadful. Like stomach churningly bad.

Well then good news, it turns into Majapahit.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I really can't fathom being that self-absorbed.

You seriously expect people to cheer for a sales success, if they think the game is going in the wrong direction? If he thinks that the game mechanisms are fundamentally flawed, why should he want them to be validated by sales figures?

 

[Zaarin]

You seriously expect people to cheer for a sales success, if they think the game is going in the wrong direction? If he thinks that the game mechanisms are fundamentally flawed, why should he want them to be validated by sales figures?

Wanting a game to fail because you personally dislike it is one of the most egocentric things I can think of. If I dislike a game, I'll go play something else, not wish ill upon the people who made it out of petty vindictiveness.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Wanting a game to fail because you personally dislike it is one of the most egocentric things I can think of. If I dislike a game, I'll go play something else, not wish ill upon the people who made it out of petty vindictiveness.

You get that wrong. Some people hope (including myself), that a shot across the bow will push the Devs to make some necessary corrections. For me, that's not just on Civ Switching, but the whole gamey approach this franchise took since Civ 6, like the Agendas or having Policy Cards instead of real Governements. If the sales figures are great, obviously nothing will change. Let's face it, a lot of players will probably buy Civ 7 not matter what, just because they love the previous games so much and the competition of turned based strategy games rather sucks (sorry Era, HK etc.). So in the hypothetical scenario, where Civ 7 really struggles sales wise, I think that really could help improve the game in the long run. At least, that's they way I see it. I don't want to hurt anyone or be vindictive, I just want the game to get back on track and prevent the game to turn into superficial version of the game I always liked playing so much.

 

[Voidwalkin]

The most noteworthy competitors of civ are really Paradox games. The strategy and RP itches are scratched similarly, if not equivalently, by both, and there's a lot of overlap in the player bases. Civ may not have a true competitor in 4x. If you widen the genre to strategy though, no, it's not the only game in town.

The extent to which switching impacts RP is a question. I don't think we can look at the fan reaction to past changes like 1UPT and conclude much. Those were changes to the strategy side of the coin. Switching is changing the RP side, and it's a change of magnitude never before seen.

Is it possible that avg hours in 7 are low consequently? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't think it'll be like 1UPT, which was always analyzed by mechanic effects. Those are pretty rational arguments. Changes to the RP side get more irrational, as emotions, attachments, loyalties and rivalries effect emotion and produce opinions very distant from the dispassionate. Not all players will have their RP effected. Many will.

 

[IgorS]

It's like 1UPT. It's contentious upon adoption. A small part of the fan base will refuse to even consider it. Most of the rest will accept it for good or bad. It will factor into future iterations to one extent or another, even as a few holdouts vainly express hope that it will be discontinued.

It is nothing like 1UPT. 1UPT was a (relatively) minor change, it did not change the core of the game. Civ switching is a fundamental change to the game series, something that takes it in a completely different direction. Civ VII to the Civ franchise is like Odyssey to the Assassin's Creed franchise. I am playing this game now, after keeping away for many years, and I must say that it is indeed not Assassin's Creed, just a game that for some reason bears the franchise's name. It is fun in general, but I can't say I would pick it up if it wasn't an AC game, and I have actually almost skipped it completely. The feelings I have towards Civ VII are similar. Maybe I will pick it up years after it comes out because of my love for the series, but I really doubt it, because while AC is a franchise that is based on a story, Civ is not, and you don't have to really play every game to understand what is going on, so you can skip games without missing anything.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

It is nothing like 1UPT. 1UPT was a (relatively) minor change, it did not change the core of the game. Civ switching is a fundamental change to the game series, something that takes it in a completely different direction.

You're underestimating how huge the 1UPT change was viewed by the Civ community, how heated the arguments about it were, and how much it fundamentally changed the nature of the game, in the opinion of many players. You're also overestimating (in my opinion), how big a deal civ-switching is. I don't see how it's any more significant than "unpacking the city" from Civ 6. I get that you - and others - view it as a fundamental change. I've played every version of Civ from 1 through 6 and, to me, its just another, natural evolution in the series, no more significant than lots of past changes. Your civ bonuses and unique units change each era, how's that a big deal? There are crisis turns leading into the transitions; that's an evolution of the "dark ages" mechanics from Civ 6. You still guide your people from antiquity to the space age, there are just some new twists along the way.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm actually more concerned about possible dumbing down of the game rather than civ switching. But to be fair, we've seen no evidence of that yet. But I do think there's a strong possibility of huge maps not being a thing anymore, and that bothers me.

 

[Sephi]

Before civ5 was released most of the community actually liked 1Upt or was neutral. Here is the old thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/units-per-hex.354950/. 80% wanted a change to the stacks of doom from civ4 at the time. Quite a difference to this poll.

In the end it might not matter. The average civ player played civ6 for 30 hours (steam database). In civ7 they can choose a few civs they like and play a single age game with each of them, leave a positive review on steam and then move on. Without ever doing any awkward civ switching like Spain to France.

 

[King Flevance]

I think the key difference between something like 1UPT vs Civ switching is that in every version of Civ, if I want to play Greece I start a game as Greece. My strategy is already plotted at the beginning. I know I will get Hoplites and all the other special bonuses that come with Greece. These are constants in the game and I can plan accordingly as I explore the map. I have constant knowledge of what I will have access to and can use that knowledge to strategize as I explore the map and discover the terrain.

In Civ 7, I do not know what Civ I will get in round 2 or 3. My first games even more so. Eventually, I will learn paths through it but only through trial. The map and how it relates to my Civ is alien to me. At the start of a game, I don't know what I need to be planning ahead for. Now if you like adaptive strategy (like me) this sounds fun. However, a fair amount of players do not play civ for adaptive strategies. It is downright impressive what some players can formulate and pre-plan for, not to mention execute. This big ball of "unknowables" will certainly be a put off to them and it won't weigh in the same as switching to 1UPT since 1 UPT can still be precalculated.

 

[Evolena]

In the gameplay reveal showcase, Sid Meyer says "build an Empire that stands the test of time". Granted, empire is not the same as civilization, but the motto is not totally abandoned either.

[Edit] how haven't I seen that it was not the end of the discussion but only of the page?

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

It is nothing like 1UPT. 1UPT was a (relatively) minor change, it did not change the core of the game.

I disagree on this one. 1UPT changes the actual gameplay, quite significantly. Switching doesn't, it's just flavour.

I must say, the idea of Khmer turning into Vietnam or vice versa sounds dreadful. Like stomach churningly bad.

I said this in another thread but I'm really surprised by how many people are still struggling with the concept of switching. Sure, Egypt to Mongolia sounds a bit goofy but meh, whatever, doesn't affect gameplay, let's just embrace it! But it seems many people still can't.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Before civ5 was released most of the community actually liked 1Upt or was neutral. Here is the old thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/units-per-hex.354950/. 80% wanted a change to the stacks of doom from civ4 at the time. Quite a difference to this poll.

In the end it might not matter. The average civ player played civ6 for 30 hours (steam database). In civ7 they can choose a few civs they like and play a single age game with each of them, leave a positive review on steam and then move on. Without ever doing any awkward civ switching like Spain to France.

Decided to dig a little to find this 30 hour average statistic you mentioned. I can't find anything on steam dB, but on steam Spy, median play time is about 24.5 hours for civ 6, and 52 hours for civ V. I had not appreciated how stark a drop off that was. With an extra 6 years since release, I'd expect civ vs numbers to provably be a little higher, but not double!

I do wonder whether firaxis may already face a trust issue with the brand for casuals after a halving of the median play time. Obviously new game is very shiny and I think a lot of people will be won over by the graphics alone, but I could imagine a lot of people being cautious towards buying given a lot of 6s elements are still in there and with more elements that take away from the core of the franchise added.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think the key difference between something like 1UPT vs Civ switching is that in every version of Civ, if I want to play Greece I start a game as Greece. My strategy is already plotted at the beginning. I know I will get Hoplites and all the other special bonuses that come with Greece. These are constants in the game and I can plan accordingly as I explore the map. I have constant knowledge of what I will have access to and can use that knowledge to strategize as I explore the map and discover the terrain.

In Civ 7, I do not know what Civ I will get in round 2 or 3. My first games even more so. Eventually, I will learn paths through it but only through trial. The map and how it relates to my Civ is alien to me. At the start of a game, I don't know what I need to be planning ahead for. Now if you like adaptive strategy (like me) this sounds fun. However, a fair amount of players do not play civ for adaptive strategies. It is downright impressive what some players can formulate and pre-plan for, not to mention execute. This big ball of "unknowables" will certainly be a put off to them and it won't weigh in the same as switching to 1UPT since 1 UPT can still be precalculated.

If people want a fixed strategy they just take a path that is opened up by previous civs.

I may not always be able to play Greek-Mongol-Buganda… But I can always play Greek-Norman-France.

 

[Kev1916]

You get that wrong. Some people hope (including myself), that a shot across the bow will push the Devs to make some necessary corrections. For me, that's not just on Civ Switching, but the whole gamey approach this franchise took since Civ 6, like the Agendas or having Policy Cards instead of real Governements. If the sales figures are great, obviously nothing will change. Let's face it, a lot of players will probably buy Civ 7 not matter what, just because they love the previous games so much and the competition of turned based strategy games rather sucks (sorry Era, HK etc.). So in the hypothetical scenario, where Civ 7 really struggles sales wise, I think that really could help improve the game in the long run. At least, that's they way I see it. I don't want to hurt anyone or be vindictive, I just want the game to get back on track and prevent the game to turn into superficial version of the game I always liked playing so much.

Hoping getting the game back on track is not the party line thou and this new Civ may ruin the series all by itself .
I dont think PC sales will effect the long term outcome IMHO it will be how it sell's on the mobile and console's

Anyhow you can always play millenia on the PC

 

[IgorS]

You're underestimating how huge the 1UPT change was viewed by the Civ community, how heated the arguments about it were, and how much it fundamentally changed the nature of the game, in the opinion of many players. You're also overestimating (in my opinion), how big a deal civ-switching is. I don't see how it's any more significant than "unpacking the city" from Civ 6. I get that you - and others - view it as a fundamental change. I've played every version of Civ from 1 through 6 and, to me, its just another, natural evolution in the series, no more significant than lots of past changes. Your civ bonuses and unique units change each era, how's that a big deal? There are crisis turns leading into the transitions; that's an evolution of the "dark ages" mechanics from Civ 6.

I did not come here yesterday, I've been playing Civ since the first game, and I remember well the uproar in the community regarding 1UPT. I was one of the people in favour of that change since I hated the stacks of doom in previous games. But regardless of whether I liked it or not, this change did not break the main principle of the game. I just can't understand how people say that civ switching is not a very significant change, and I also don't see anything natural about it either. All the changes in previous iterations were truly natural and truly tried to address issues with the game or add some new interesting elements. Some were successful, some were not, but they did not alter the main concept of the game - you pick a civ (or a civ and a leader in IV and VI) and play as them from the stone age to the space age while adapting to your environment, and not becoming a totally different civ midgame.

You still guide your people from antiquity to the space age, there are just some new twists along the way.

You guide your people from antiquity to the Middle Ages. Then you guide some other people. Not to mention that you can pick Augustus and lead Axum, so you are not really guiding your people in the first place.
Now, I am not against mixing civs and leaders, but only as an optional feature you can select when you set up your game, just if you want to have some fun and experiment, not as a main part of the game itself.

 

[IgorS]

I disagree on this one. 1UPT changes the actual gameplay, quite significantly. Switching doesn't, it's just flavour.

1UPT changes gameplay, yes, but not the main concept of the game. If you ask people what Civilization is, they will say "a game in which you build a civilization to stand the test of time", not "a game in which you have multiple units on the same tile."

 

[King Flevance]

If people want a fixed strategy they just take a path that is opened up by previous civs.

I may not always be able to play Greek-Mongol-Buganda… But I can always play Greek-Norman-France.

That is a fair point. I wonder how off putting it is - if at all - that you can't play the entire game as just simply Greece for some people. What if I want to play Greece, but I do not want to play France. I ask because I actually do like to play Greece, it is my heavily first played civ in each iteration. I also coincidently rarely play France. I wonder if "You can play Greece, but you also have to play France" ruins something for others. There are some who I could see being put off by this.

Unimportant Ramble about myself: I am partial to Greece because as a kid I used to always pick Alexander the Great in Civ 1 on my SNES. I thought Alexander was so cool when I was a kid and even more so for the war game Civ 1 basically was. When Civ 2 came out, I just continued playing as him. Then 3 brought in unique units and leader traits. This had me start branching away from Greece and trying different Civs. Now I play my first couple games as Greece and then set my civ pick to Random on game creation. (I did appreciate Leader Pools in 6 as sometimes the RNG likes to give duplicate picks oddly.)

EDIT: So even as someone who doesn't mind the civ switching mechanic, this first playthrough is going to feel very different for me this iteration. My intimate trip down memory lane with Greece now must be shared with France and the Normans. 2/3 of the game is "civs I do not want to play as". Now, as I have said this isn't a deal breaker for me but I have also voiced that I would rather Civ leave Civ switching alone. I don't think it suits the franchise well. I would rather have Greece "level up" in the second Era and I get a new UU, UB, and perhaps be able to pick a new trait. However, I still remain Greece. This does pose questions for civs at different stages in the game as to what their UU and UB could be. But considering that Civ is more of a caricature of history more than a portrait I say make some stuff up. Just look at balance in gameplay and flavor in design and give us "Liberty Chariots" for America in the Ancient Era. But that is just my tastes.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

1UPT changes gameplay, yes, but not the main concept of the game. If you ask people what Civilization is, they will say "a game in which you build a civilization to stand the test of time", not "a game in which you have multiple units on the same tile."

Baffles me that this is such a block for people, it's such a rigid interpretation of a nebulous idea. Oh well!

 

[Siptah]

You can also make the argument that the phrase was meaningless in civ I-VI, because there was no test of time. Only a test of opponent empires. Civ VII is the first one in which time itself is a factor at all.