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

[Gedemon]

The only way to implement those gameplay changes without civ-swapping is to create a version of each civilization for each era and transition between them without choice. I.e. from Antiquity Egypt to Exploration Egypt to Modern Egypt. Any other approach would hurt gameplay as, for example, developers specifically stated what they wanted players to have a separate set of uniques for each era. However, this solution would lead to some problems:
1. The amount of work. If we consider putting the same amount of work as now, we'll end up with 10 civs overall. Even some "untouchable" civs of the series won't fit.
2. The immersion. This approach would require creating sets of uniques for each civilization, so developers would have to invent some fantasy antiquity building and units for America, or modern buildings and units for Maya.

So, compared to this, switching civs really looks like better and more immersive solution.

1. is not very different from today: 10 civs on the map at any point.
2. if people want antique America, and modern Maya, why would they complain of "what if" elements ?

But I'd not visualize like that, the way I see it we'd have 31 civs to chose from, you'd also chose a set of abilities/uniques at start if you pick a non-antiquity civ, then chose new uniques/abilities after each age from a list of that age preset, some being unlocked by your initial choice, some by gameplay. Same gameplay after setup than what we have now, and no change of Civilization mid-game.

 

[Krikkit1]

1. is not very different from today: 10 civs on the map at any point.
2. if people want antique America, and modern Maya, why would they complain of "what if" elements ?

But I'd not visualize like that, the way I see it we'd have 31 civs to chose from, you'd also chose a set of abilities/uniques at start if you pick a non-antiquity civ, then chose new uniques/abilities after each age from a list of that age preset, some being unlocked by your initial choice, some by gameplay. Same gameplay after setup than what we have now, and no change of Civilization mid-game.

I'd see it slightly inverted from that

1. Choose Leader
2. Choose Antiquity Civ (from the 10 at launch)..unique abilities, civics, units, buildings, etc.
3. Choose Civ name (from the 31 at launch)...civ name*, city list, emblem, generic unit/building graphic region (If I choose Buganda in the Ancient age I will use the African graphic for units+buildings), terrain names, etc.

*has an additional customize button so you could play as the Klingons (using the American Emblem and City list and)
Then repeat 2+3 on Age Transitions
(ideally with Narrative Events)

 

[stealth_nsk]

1. is not very different from today: 10 civs on the map at any point.
2. if people want antique America, and modern Maya, why would they complain of "what if" elements ?

But I'd not visualize like that, the way I see it we'd have 31 civs to chose from, you'd also chose a set of abilities/uniques at start if you pick a non-antiquity civ, then chose new uniques/abilities after each age from a list of that age preset, some being unlocked by your initial choice, some by gameplay. Same gameplay after setup than what we have now, and no change of Civilization mid-game.

1. Civ6 default map size has 8 civs by default on the map at any point. This number has nothing to do with neither replayability nor civ representation. Having even 30 civs in Civ7 means a lot of historical cultures are represented, plus due to various paths possible, you get a lot of potential combinations.
2. The original complain was about immersion. If you accept "what if" here, I don't understand the problem with civ switching. We already have a map of the world, which has nothing to do with Earth, so why "what if Egypt was conquered by Inca" is worse than "what if Maya had tanks"?

Choosing abilities from a list means they all are generic and not tied to a particular civilization. So, you're not choosing culture, or anything, you choose between things like "stronger knights" or "better trade routes". And yes, it still has the same problem with amount of work as each of those bonuses would require a lot of balance work. I understand what it's playable and I could see how people could see it being better than the current game. I really expect a mod for this. although I don't plan to use it myself.

 

[TheGrayFox]

"My point of view is that all gameplay changes introduced by the civ-swapping coud be done without civ-swapping"

and this is a completely different conversation than whether or not the civ swapping mechanic introduced in VII is changing gameplay or not.

again two different arguments going over each other

 

[Krajzen]

After so many years and games, it became stale to always recreate San Marino‘s historical achievement, so it was time for change.

Offtop, I read it several times as "to always recreate Sid Meier's historical achievement" and my brain was so broken trying to understand that sentence and what other famous achievement did Sid Meier have besides beginning Civ game series (hence rendering the notion nonsensical, recreating him creating civ game in a civ game)

 

[Siptah]

Offtop, I read it several times as "to always recreate Sid Meier's historical achievement" and my brain was so broken trying to understand that sentence and what other famous achievement did Sid Meier have besides beginning Civ game series (hence rendering the notion nonsensical, recreating him creating civ game in a civ game)

American unique civilian unit that creates a unique bonus resource? Too early in VII, but maybe in IX?

 

[Voidwalkin]

the beloved San Marino experience

I don't know what this means and I've heard it referenced multiple times.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Choosing abilities from a list means they all are generic and not tied to a particular civilization. So, you're not choosing culture, or anything, you choose between things like "stronger knights" or "better trade routes". And yes, it still has the same problem with amount of work as each of those bonuses would require a lot of balance work. I understand what it's playable and I could see how people could see it being better than the current game. I really expect a mod for this. although I don't plan to use it myself.

Civ has always been very unbalanced. Most players don't use the most optimal techniques, because to play that way is joyless.

I suspect that the vast majority of 6 players did not optimize chopping, but from a purely strategic perspective, there's no reason not to. You're costing yourself by letting any forest stand. Mathematically I think the only exception to this might be a forest/plains/hills tile adjacent to a river, and even then that's only true if youre using the two higher speed settings. If you aren't, always chop, the sooner the better. A wave of deforestation Saruman would stand in awe of is meta. Hardly anybody does it, though.

Firaxis could have players create their own civ, picking from presets, without fear of balance issues, because it almost certainly won't be balanced to begin with and few will exploit things to the logical maximum anyway.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Civ has always been very unbalanced. Most players don't use the most optimal techniques, because to play that way is joyless.

I suspect that the vast majority of 6 players did not optimize chopping, but from a purely strategic perspective, there's no reason not to. You're costing yourself by letting any forest stand. Mathematically I think the only exception to this might be a forest/plains/hills tile adjacent to a river, and even then that's only true if youre using the two higher speed settings. If you aren't, always chop, the sooner the better. A wave of deforestation Saruman would stand in awe of is meta. Hardly anybody does it, though.

Firaxis could have players create their own civ, picking from presets, without fear of balance issues, because it almost certainly won't be balanced to begin with and few will exploit things to the logical maximum anyway.

I don't think this has anything to do with optimized strategy. Interesting things involve meaningful choice, not interesting things involve doing a lot of micromanagement without choices is not interesting. Most people don't chop not because it's optimized, but because it requires some preparation in getting builders and bringing them to the right place at the right time. And for those efforts there's no real choice - as you correctly mentioned, chopping is just plain better.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I don't think this has anything to do with optimized strategy. Interesting things involve meaningful choice, not interesting things involve doing a lot of micromanagement without choices is not interesting. Most people don't chop not because it's optimized, but because it requires some preparation in getting builders and bringing them to the right place at the right time. And for those efforts there's no real choice - as you correctly mentioned, chopping is just plain better.

I coulda maybe spotlighted my point better by using Monte/Aztecs as the example.

Monte's UU and UA are strong as all bleep, and synergize extremely well. Their strength is head and shoulders above most other civs, with very few possible exceptions(I'd argue they're actually the strongest).

Yet, most players do not choose Monte. It's not necessary for victory, even on deity. You can dominate deity, in the ancient era, with any civ, even those without any relevant bonuses in that era.

Unbalanced options, in civ, playstyle, cooked maps, are all available as it is. Don't need to worry much about it, because players don't really take those options in SP.

In MP, for balance, real balance, uniques of any real stripe basically either gotta go entirely or at minimum be moderated by player agreement. Just hopeless otherwise.

 

[Siptah]

I don't know what this means and I've heard it referenced multiple times.

It‘s a tongue in cheek way to refer to the games that had the player lead a single civ through the ages. The reference is the small republic of San Marino on the Apennine peninsula: a state that gained its independence from the Roman Empire in the 4th century and still exists today in similar form without any major disruptions. Probably the best (and only?) contender in today‘s world for a civ that actually stood the test of time.

 

[Leucarum]

1. is not very different from today: 10 civs on the map at any point.
2. if people want antique America, and modern Maya, why would they complain of "what if" elements ?

But I'd not visualize like that, the way I see it we'd have 31 civs to chose from, you'd also chose a set of abilities/uniques at start if you pick a non-antiquity civ, then chose new uniques/abilities after each age from a list of that age preset, some being unlocked by your initial choice, some by gameplay. Same gameplay after setup than what we have now, and no change of Civilization mid-game.

Another option would be to invert leaders and civs. Your civ gives a small constant bonus that you can improve with xp trees and each age you pick a new leader who gives you the in depth bonuses from that era?

A lot of the displeasure seems to stem from people really being attached to a given civ, or having major cognitive dissonance from the available civ transitions.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

The only way to implement those gameplay changes without civ-swapping is to create a version of each civilization for each era and transition between them without choice. I.e. from Antiquity Egypt to Exploration Egypt to Modern Egypt. Any other approach would hurt gameplay as, for example, developers specifically stated what they wanted players to have a separate set of uniques for each era. However, this solution would lead to some problems:
1. The amount of work. If we consider putting the same amount of work as now, we'll end up with 10 civs overall. Even some "untouchable" civs of the series won't fit.
2. The immersion. This approach would require creating sets of uniques for each civilization, so developers would have to invent some fantasy antiquity building and units for America, or modern buildings and units for Maya.

So, compared to this, switching civs really looks like better and more immersive solution.

That's a hard disagree from me. 10 civs would be lovely, the way I see it we currently have 2.

And as to fantasy uniques, I'm all for that. Tbh I think the best way would be the reverse or fast forward whatever the later/earlier age thing is. So eg. Mayan pyramid in ancient era, mayan temple in exploration, mayan skyscraper in modern or something.

Or the American minuteman can be the exploration era unit, with American GI in the modern and American militiamen in the antiquity, all with bonuses to similar things based around the minutemans benefits.

Take a similar design and purpose and extrapolate to get a flavour of the civ across the game. I would unironically love that.

 

[gdr_willter]

And as to fantasy uniques, I'm all for that. Tbh I think the best way would be the reverse or fast forward whatever the later/earlier age thing is. So eg. Mayan pyramid in ancient era, mayan temple in exploration, mayan skyscraper in modern or something.

Or the American minuteman can be the exploration era unit, with American GI in the modern and American militiamen in the antiquity, all with bonuses to similar things based around the minutemans benefits.

Oh, never.

 

[IgorS]

That's a hard disagree from me. 10 civs would be lovely, the way I see it we currently have 2.

And as to fantasy uniques, I'm all for that. Tbh I think the best way would be the reverse or fast forward whatever the later/earlier age thing is. So eg. Mayan pyramid in ancient era, mayan temple in exploration, mayan skyscraper in modern or something.

Or the American minuteman can be the exploration era unit, with American GI in the modern and American militiamen in the antiquity, all with bonuses to similar things based around the minutemans benefits.

Take a similar design and purpose and extrapolate to get a flavour of the civ across the game. I would unironically love that.

While this is an interesting idea, there is absolutely no need to go the fantasy route. You can do something much simpler. For example, if the Americans have the Minuteman as their unique unit, then every melee unit gets a certain minor bonus across the ages with the Minuteman receiving the major bonus as the unique unit. Or, let's say, the Romans have the Legionary, and it can build roads and forts, every Roman melee unit can also have this ability without the other bonuses the Legionary has.

 

[Kev1916]

it's a good example, there was version of kick off with or without official teams, but gameplay was identical.

Na it dont work like that ..

Fifa 25 ,

guys lets play the new FIFA , sure I'll go Man Utd , cool I'll go Liverpool. me I'll go Everton....

Hold they have changed the way the GAME IS PLAYED , you cant go any off those teams until you have played two seasons first .
Gameplay is in no way shape or form identical to the previous version

 

[Gedemon]

Na it dont work like that ..

Fifa 25 ,

guys lets play the new FIFA , sure I'll go Man Utd , cool I'll go Liverpool. me I'll go Everton....

Hold they have changed the way the GAME IS PLAYED , you cant go any off those teams until you have played two seasons first .
Gameplay is in no way shape or form identical to the previous version

I'm just pointing that if you have access to all teams from the start or not, playing the seasons obey the same rules, points for winning a match, FIFA rules during a match, whoever score more goals wins, etc...

it's a difference in content, and a loss of immersion, fully agree, but the way you play is the same.

 

[Kev1916]

I'm just pointing that if you have access to all teams from the start or not, playing the seasons obey the same rules, points for winning a match, FIFA rules during a match, whoever score more goals wins, etc...

it's a difference in content, and a loss of immersion, fully agree, but the way you play is the same.

I think IMHO that by not having "access to all teams from the start" is in the context of this rather never ending "arguement" a major change to game play .

And also no, the way you play ( FIFA) is to a fairly large degree impacted by the stats of your team, so again it's not the same

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I should probably leave it, but I wanted to return to this discussion because I’m terribly tragic and found it interesting. Please feel free to ignore my rather long ramble, I had fun thinking about it, even if no one reads it.

I think I’ve figured it where the disagreement is coming from, and it’s not because anyone is “objectively wrong” but because of miscommunication and misunderstanding; classic internet is serious business stuff.

It comes down to the tricky business of words. We are all using terminology that FXS has given to us, quite understandably, but to refer to a mix of ideas, both mechanical and thematic, which is causing some confusion and preventing constructive discussion.

To avoid this confusion, I believe it would be better to separate the mechanical and thematic, using different terminology for each. I’m not suggesting that we actually do this, but I think it helps to illustrate why this discussion has rumbled on. I was beginning to do this already, but inconsistently, which is where a large part of the misunderstanding has come from. For clarity, I have made a short table below, to illustrate everything else that I’m about to say, with the mechanical and thematic elements given different names.

The big fundamental change to Civ, I believe, is the creation of a three-part structure, with sub-mechanics that only work as part of this fundamental structural shift. This is a total change to the "rules" of the game. FXS have themed this “Ages”.

I have been using the term “Ages” to refer to both the theme and the mechanics of this new structure, including all the sub-mechanics that have been introduced as part of this change. I think this is justifiable, because 1) “Ages” doesn’t really mean anything by itself, and 2) because it doesn’t provoke strong and often emotional reactions. However, I have seen thematic objections to this whole idea – specifically objections to the precise timelines, which civs they should / should not include, and the names used for each part of the structure (“Exploration” being the main source of contention). I therefore think it is more accurate, and more conducive to constructive discussion, if we use “Ages” to refer to the thematic element, and “Chapters” to refer to the mechanical. I haven’t been doing this, which has caused some misunderstanding.

Throughout this discussion, I have been using the term “Civ switching” to refer only to the thematic element of this change – I think this is the correct thing to do, as per above, but is inconsistent with how I have been using “Ages”, hence some confusion. In contrast, others have been using the term “Civ switching” to refer to both the theme and the mechanic of new bonuses/uniques in each “Chapter” of the game, consistent with how they have used “Ages”. As with above, this is justifiable, but I think it is also quite problematic for the opposite reasons: 1) the phrase “Civ switching” does mean something, by itself, and 2) it elicits a strong emotional reaction that in 99% of cases has nothing to do with the mechanical aspect of new bonuses and uniques.

I think “Civ switching” as a phrase, is therefore best applied only to the theme, which is what I was attempting to convey (badly); it’s quite an accurate description of the theme, but not a very accurate description of the mechanic. The two things can be separated, and I think they should be separated if we’re going to have a clear discussion about it. In this case, if someone says “I hate civ switching”, we can all understand that they mean the thematic implications, and if they say “I hate that we get new bonuses in each chapter”, we can all understand that they mean the mechanical aspect.

Illustrative:

Mechanic	Sub-mechanic	Theme
Chapters		Ages
	Chapter climax	Crises
	Chapter bonuses	Civ switching
	Chapter progress	Age specific tech trees
	Chapter success	Legacy paths
	etc.	etc.

 

[Gedemon]

yep, it's an interpretation issue.