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

[Professor Phobo]

It might feel sudden in game though, since for all we know you'll click "end crisis", get a pop up to pick your new civ, and then boom, next turn you've got a whole different aesthetic and your cities are all on fire.

I can see that being jarring. Would people be happier if civ switching was a "progressive" thing, where you picked a "destination" civ to evolve in and had to gradually buy it's unique traits, and so you spent a good portion of the inter-Age transitional periods as a hybrid between civilizations? So instead of Egyptlike going to Mongollike in a turn, you gradually sculpted your Egyptians into horse archers with inexplicably popular youtube channels about yurt construction. Eventually so much change has occurred you change identifiers, but there's continuity.

 

[Zaarin]

It's a problem with several historical classics. They are often outdated in a hilarious way. But for some reason, every now and then new editions are printed and people still read it... I never tried reading original Gibbons. But I tried Breasted once... and really couldn't continue.

I've read Gibbons in part. He's basically the original RomeBro throwing a fit because Christians ruined his idealized hyper-masculine Rome.

 

[Siptah]

By the way, one way to make the mechanic less jarring (if you think it is problematic) is a shift of viewpoint from teleology to history. You are not deciding to switch civilization for the future. When the new age starts, you find yourself as a civilization that just starts out its journey. But they start their journey on a past, using what they find in the newly acquired land and people.

 

[lt22677]

Rome survived the barbarian invasions. Really. It stayed Rome until 1453. It even survived the Latin invasion, at least in some form. But not everybody accepted that. And then historians centuries later invented the term Byzantium, which gained a lot of followers since then. But even the contemporaries that didn't agree with Byzantium = Rome called them Rhomanoi in official parlance, and used Graekuli only when condescending. And now, civ fans are calling to have Byzantium in age 2 as a follow up on Rome... oh, the irony.

If the western part of the Empire had survived the empire would have always remained a Western Roman Empire, Byzantium was actually more of a successor state than a continuation of the Roman Empire, especially with the passage of time the Byzantine Empire became increasingly Greekized more, in fact from a certain point of view the successor to the Western Roman Empire would be divided between the Holy Roman Empire and the Papal State (the pope usurped various characteristics of the emperors and this is why the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy clashed during the Middle Ages)

 

[Olle Wernersson]

Remember that every narrative that develops in a game of civilization is, by definition, fictional. When Egypt "becomes" Mongolia, I don't think of historical Egypt "becoming" historical Mongolia, because this is a fictional world where neither of those exist. Instead, I think of this fictional Egypt I'm playing as as having traits that we associate with historical Egypt, and evolving in response to a crisis (including some element of invasion from its neighbours) such that it develops the traits that we associate with historical Mongolia. In doing that, it becomes a fictional Mongolia. Thinking of things this way is not much of a stretch, because it's already what we do when Russia starts in 4000 BC next to Babylon deep in the jungle.

I like this way of thinkng very much thank you sir

 

[lt22677]

You're framing it unhelpfully. You're interpreting the transition as if all of a civilization's people, language, culture, art, etc... gets killed by Alien Space Bats and replaced by a completely different group of people with a new language, culture, art, from thousands of miles away etc... That is not the only interpretation.

Remember that every narrative that develops in a game of civilization is, by definition, fictional. When Egypt "becomes" Mongolia, I don't think of historical Egypt "becoming" historical Mongolia, because this is a fictional world where neither of those exist. Instead, I think of this fictional Egypt I'm playing as as having traits that we associate with historical Egypt, and evolving in response to a crisis (including some element of invasion from its neighbours) such that it develops the traits that we associate with historical Mongolia. In doing that, it becomes a fictional Mongolia. Thinking of things this way is not much of a stretch, because it's already what we do when Russia starts in 4000 BC next to Babylon deep in the jungle.

Of course you don't have to interpret things this way. But if you're willing to, you might find the mechanic a lot less jarring. Of course, if you're keen to hate it before giving it a go, then go right ahead and ignore this. Rage hating is fun after all

The problem is that Firaxis could make the characteristics of the civilization change without changing the name, but let's take the example of Egypt, now we don't know if there can be other civilizations that can take the Egypt-Mongolia road, let's make sure there are like the Zulus (I'll give a random example) if they both meet the requirements what do we do with dice or do we have two Mongol empires?

 

[CanuckSoldier]

If I understand your point, I thing you overestimate the number of people that play civ with mods.

Well I can only speak for the MP community which is 100% played with balance mods, and I'm pretty sure if you look at the Civ5 community they all play with the lekmod.... So I guess if you just want to play OP Civs against the AI in single player no mods is fine.....but then you have to ask yourself, if the Age system is so good why is Humankind dead...not just dead in MP but totally dead as a game...

 

[Zaarin]

I'd say this is a hot take, but only for amateurs. No professional (or even serious amateur) historians considers his work of much worth except for its historiographical influence. Which, as the start of serious source criticism, is quite a legacy...

Indeed, but his ideas are still pervasive in pop history.

if the Age system is so good why is Humankind dead...not just dead in MP but totally dead as a game...

Because it was a bad game, which goes far, far beyond changing cultures.

 

[Professor Phobo]

The problem is that Firaxis could make the characteristics of the civilization change without changing the name, but let's take the example of Egypt, now we don't know if there can be other civilizations that can take the Egypt-Mongolia road, let's make sure there are like the Zulus (I'll give a random example) if they both meet the requirements what do we do with dice or do we have two Mongol empires?

That's a good question! I imagine by default there's a no-duplicates rule, so you'd always have to have enough choices available you'd never be locked out of a new civ for the next era entirely.

 

[Siptah]

If the western part of the Empire had survived the empire would have always remained a Western Roman Empire, Byzantium was actually more of a successor state than a continuation of the Roman Empire, especially with the passage of time the Byzantine Empire became increasingly Greekized more, in fact from a certain point of view the successor to the Western Roman Empire would be divided between the Holy Roman Empire and the Papal State (the pope usurped various characteristics of the emperors and this is why the Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy clashed during the Middle Ages)

Yeah, I have read books in which authors made such argumentations (Peter Heather, amongst others). I never found them convincing. Especially not form a historical in contrast to a modern perspective. Sure the HRE and the Popes saw themselves as successors. But the "byzantines" just didn't. And think about it, when would this have started that they identified/count as "successors"? Diocletian and the tetrarchy creating 4 successors to Rome with different capitals? Constantine bringing the territory under one rule again? When the city of Rome fell (and when exactly?)? Justinian not being able to reunite the former Roman empire? Why should any of this made the people in the capitol of the Roman Empire feel disconnected from their history?

To use a modern example: if the Catalans become independent and create their own nation state. Why would the remaining rump state of Spain identify (or be regarded as by others) as the successor state of Spain?

 

[pokiehl]

I'm not a MP player, but my understanding is that if the host has the relevant DLC/expansion, it's usable in the game.

That’s how it works for Paradox games (at least EU4) but it’s not how it works for Civ.

So for example you can’t play Gathering Storm in Civ 6 MP unless everyone has it.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I just hope there's a good naming convention for distinguishing multiple copies of the same Civilization. Because I can imagine the confusion when Mongolia 2 is my mortal enemy with whom I've feuded for centuries, but Mongolia 3 is my best friend and I trade them citrus for rubies.

 

[lt22677]

I'd say this is a hot take, but only for amateurs. No professional (or even serious amateur) historians considers his work of much worth except for its historiographical influence. Which, as the start of serious source criticism, is quite a legacy...

I don't want to say that every historian of the last 100 years that's studied this question disagrees with you... but only because I can't check them all.



Going back on topic, I wonder if we could have an option where when you switch Civs, you keep your original colours, and the name becomes an AI-generated name which is a mix of the original and new Civilization. So Egypt->Songhai would becomes Songypt or Eghai or something. Similarly when it comes to founding new cities, they have a hybrid name reflecting the entire linguistic evolution of the civilization your playing as. Maybe this would help people view it as an evolution happening in a fictional narrative, rather than ahistorical replacement.

I can cite many other authors who would think as I told you, such as Peter Heather

Peter Heather - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

of which I read "The Fall of the Roman Empire: a New History of Rome and the Barbarians"

The fact remains that Byzantium gradually separated from the western territories both from a cultural point of view (already under Heraclius the official language passed from Latin to Greek) and from a cultural and religious point of view

 

[pokiehl]

I just hope there's a good naming convention for distinguishing multiple copies of the same Civilization. Because I can imagine the confusion when Mongolia 2 is my mortal enemy with whom I've feuded for centuries, but Mongolia 3 is my best friend and I trade them citrus for rubies.

I think the general impression is you won’t be able to have duplicate civs.

 

[Siptah]

That’s how it works for Paradox games (at least EU4) but it’s not how it works for Civ.

So for example you can’t play Gathering Storm in Civ 6 MP unless everyone has it.

To be fair, is easier to restrict this for civ, where there are basically two packs that everybody needs to have. I think leaders you didn't buy can appear in a MP game, right? It would be almost impossible to get every participant of an EU4 MP (which can be a lot of players) game to have the exact same share of all the expansions...

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Indeed, but his ideas are still pervasive in pop history.


Because it was a bad game, which goes far, far beyond changing cultures.

Well I guess we will just have to wait and see if Firaxis can do a better job with Ages, and maybe I'm a cynic but I think the Age system was a major contributor in HK failure, and its unneeded in a 4X game, if you want the game engaging and less of a snowball game...make the AI better, not so much better its impossible to beat, but to make the game exciting in every era....like MP is ...lol

 

[Siptah]

I think the general impression is you won’t be able to have duplicate civs.

I really hope that in the next preview (next week?) they'll show of a crisis, civ selection, and transition. That would answer like 90% of the questions I have, as due to these big mysteries, all the details about how trade works in age 3 etc. seem tiny. But I seriously doubt it.

 

[lt22677]

Yeah, they could have done. But then never having France, the USA and others in the game would be kind of disappointing no? But I'm with you on the name thing, an option to keep it (or write a new one) would be kind of cool, so you could hybridise at will. After all, we can rename cities, units and religions, why not civilizations?

As for your other question, that's an interesting one. Maybe it's a priority thing? Maybe the civ that contributed the most to the era progression meter picks first? Maybe its just normal turn order? Or maybe we can have multiple Mongolias. Nothing stops you starting with multiple Mongolias in a game of Civ1-6 after all. It's not even that ahistorical, how many different Roman civilizations (more precisely: polities that have taken the name Rome) have existed simultaneously after all?

Simple, the old system was kept active by being able to choose to play France, England etc... right from the beginning and if you tell me that it is unrealistic then I reply that it is equally unrealistic to keep the same leader for millennia

 

[pokiehl]

To be fair, is easier to restrict this for civ, where there are basically two packs that everybody needs to have. I think leaders you didn't buy can appear in a MP game, right? It would be almost impossible to get every participant of an EU4 MP (which can be a lot of players) game to have the exact same share of all the expansions...

Yeah, some aspects of the non-expansion DLC showed up in Civ 6 MP regardless of ownership, like the first couple personas.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Yeah, some aspects of the non-expansion DLC showed up in Civ 6 MP regardless of ownership, like the first couple personas.

Game mechanics introduced in the New Frontiers pack were playable my everyone, but not the civs. But everyone needs RF and GS to play.