• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

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

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


  • Total voters
    391
Truth. But as I said I just don't agree with the framing of the poll here. I'm not sure if I like the civ switching feature yet, but I also wouldn't say I don't like it yet, nor that I think it needs to be "fixed."

The fact that two answers are that it needs "fixing" are still quite presumptuous to me.
Well a "historical path" like Greece - Normans certainly sounds broken to me, and speculations like Persia - Mongols - Russia don't sound much better to me either. But fair enough, if you are not convinced that fixing is necessary, that's a perfectly fine opinion too.
 
Well a "historical path" like Greece - Normans certainly sounds broken to me, and speculations like Persia - Mongols - Rome don't sound much better to me either. But fair enough, if you are not convinced that fixing is necessary, that's a perfectly fine opinion too.

I think people are still assuming from a very incomplete picture. Perhaps the game will be like that, and I might agree it needs fixing. I think there are signs that there is more to be revealed and it may not need fixing, is all.
 
For you, that's really a bigger change, than not being able to play your original Civ throughout all ages anymore? 🤔
It made the Civ game we know. The competition between a lot of unique civs with its own ability inspired from its history. In my opinion, Civ7 is just one of the similar series using this format, with more specific focus.
 
So out of curiosity, which changes were so much bigger than Civ Switching? And by the way, I don't think there is an objective statement about this after all.

it is subjective.

for me the AI switching their behaviors from "civ leaders" to "civ players" was bigger.

1UPT also, with its impact on tactical AI.

or unpacking cities, making the maps extremely cramped.

I think that isn't simple at all.

For one, it forces every civ to now have 3x as much design depth as they would with just era-specific bonuses, effectively tripling the design/balancing workload.

For two, it still likely will result in a lot of civs feeling kind of samey/impotent in "offline" eras that don't highlight the era they would want to be designed for.

We haven't seen any indication the game will be designed like this, so until we see evidence of it I'm discarding what is essentially a many worlds theory as not being worth all the vague implausibility it opens up.

it's technically very simple.

making it thematic would be longer, true, but not harder... and not less believable than America in 4000BC anyway.
 
For you, that's really a bigger change, than not being able to play your original Civ throughout all ages anymore? 🤔
Civ switching is definitely a big change, conceptually. And it obviously is because a lot of people are still struggling with it.

But I do agree that it all stems from the idea to make all civs unique, it's an evolution of the direction we have been heading since they started adding unique units.

That doesn't mean there aren't legitimate questions and concerns over the implementation, but it's hard for me to see it as such a big change, other than as an abstract concept. And I'm kind of over that by this point, I've talked and thought about it so much that I'm entirely used to the idea!
 
For you, that's really a bigger change, than not being able to play your original Civ throughout all ages anymore? 🤔
First they add bonuses…after that it’s bonus management 0->1bonus set is a bigger jump than 1->3 bonus sets
I think they're both big changes. I'll miss ancient USA.

But don't underestimate the gameplay effect of all the bonuses. Absolute optimal play revolves around stacking bonuses. The more you add, the easier it gets to stack. It's a sugar rush. Player loves the taste, but they're hungry again 2 hours later.

CK3 had that problem. Most players could and did stack enough bonuses on their Men at Arms or knights, that they could stomp any military opposition. Mongols invade and outnumber you 8 to 1? No big deal. Political intrigue? No threat. Doesn't matter your ruler is a blind 2 year old. You've stacked MaA bonuses and have a treasury to afford infinite war(by using Norse legacy bonuses to earn 50-100 gold after every battle and reinvesting it in your economy).

I'd prefer Firaxis not go down a similar road, but there is a distinct danger they'll get there the more uniques added. Everybody'll be happy initially, but unsatisfied in the long term.
 
I think they're both big changes. I'll miss ancient USA.

But don't underestimate the gameplay effect of all the bonuses. Absolute optimal play revolves around stacking bonuses. The more you add, the easier it gets to stack. It's a sugar rush. Player loves the taste, but they're hungry again 2 hours later.

CK3 had that problem. Most players could and did stack enough bonuses on their Men at Arms or knights, that they could stomp any military opposition. Mongols invade and outnumber you 8 to 1? No big deal. Political intrigue? No threat. Doesn't matter your ruler is a blind 2 year old. You've stacked MaA bonuses and have a treasury to afford infinite war(by using Norse legacy bonuses to earn 50-100 gold after every battle and reinvesting it in your economy).

I'd prefer Firaxis not go down a similar road, but there is a distinct danger they'll get there the more uniques added. Everybody'll be happy initially, but unsatisfied in the long term.
That is why Crises makes me very slightly hopeful. It’s actually a “negative” thing being added. (and the Age system means many bonuses don’t stack because they are limited to one age)
 
So out of curiosity, which changes were so much bigger than Civ Switching?

Civ 3 adding uniques to each civilization would likely rank highest to me.
  • Previously, your choice of civilization was pure flavour. You chose Mongols or Rome based on who you wanted to roleplay, with no other implications. Now, that choice impacted gameplay. Choosing Mongols or Rome had consequences on what you could do that game and you had to live with the dev team's view of what differentiated that civ from the others, rather than how you pictured that civ.
  • Previously, the game was pure sandbox / alt history. The evolution of each civ was completely divorced from any real world history. Rome could dominate the steppes with massive cavalry just as easily as the Mongols; the Mongols could dominate the oceans just as easily as England. All that mattered was how you played the civ and the in-game circumstances they found themselves in. Now, each civ had something they were better at, that encouraged playing them in a way that was similar to their real world empire and that made that civ seem like its real world counterpart, even if their in-game circumstances were completely different.
  • Previously, your chances of winning from a particular starting position was identical, regardless of which civ you chose. Now, some civs were better than others, either in absolute terms or relative to particular starting positions. For the first time, whether you won or lost from a particular starting position could depend on which civ you chose to play.
As a gameplay change, this one was a huge success, as each subsequent version of the game continued further down this path, adding more and more uniqueness to the civs. But the revolution started in Civ 3 and was a fundamental design break from Civ 1 & 2.
 
Civ3 introduced borders and resources, didn't it?
Yes. It actually added a lot of what has been built on now. I loved every bit of it personally.

I definitely think Civ 7's ages are the biggest gameplay change in the series history. No other mechanic was an entire reformat for the game's model. It even sets limitations on the map script. It seriously bleeds into every aspect of the entire game's design.

Unique bonuses just gave a small boost to a single aspect of the whole game. It was a big changes for the game but it stayed a sandbox. Now you just had various toys/tools to play in the sandbox. Even 1UPT just changed the combat module - 1 aspect of the game. Civics and social policies just reformatted the governing system. These were big changes for sure, but none of them required every other aspect of the game to be designed around it or changed to support it. These all just plugged in to the greater whole.

The Era system in Civ 7 needs everything to be plugged into it. It is still a sandbox, but it is not the same old sandbox with new things or changes in it. It is an actual whole new sandbox with new dimensions. This new Era feature governs the entire game - that is even the point - for pacing. The old sandbox was not governed at all. It is this aspect that, for me, offers the most potential to Civ 7's success or failure.
 
I still say 1 UPT and associated combat changes are just as big. That also bled into other aspects of the game. Unique bonuses weren't really that big a thing to me, they started off small in those days. So for me it's a tie between 1 upt and Civ switching.
 
I think Civ3 gets a bad rap. Aside from the terrible corruption penalties, I enjoyed it and I agree it largely set the model for what Civ still is.

I thought 1UPT combined with the strategic resource system was a huge change, but unfortunately they never ironed the kinks out of the resource system and eventually more or less abandoned it. Without it there's nothing to prevent you from just spamming whatever your best unit is, unfortunately.

Civ switching is certainly huge, especially for the potential of DLC. But I think Civ7 will live or die based on how restrictive the narrative elements are.
 
Whichever particular change one thinks is the biggest, I am actually very pleased when Firaxis takes risks and makes significant changes to the franchise. Civ 7 may not be for everyone, but it will be a more interesting game as a result of these new features.

It’s a much better approach than if we were just getting Civ 4.3.0
 
It’s a much better approach than if we were just getting Civ 4.3.0
I don't know what Civ 4.3.0 is :dunno: , but I'm advocating for change, too, especially not having a Civ 6.1. However in this case, I'm afraid they keep the most uninteresting features like Policy Cards or Agendas, and then add some features on top of it, which didn't work very well for other games (HK). The Ages itself and the associated Crises could be interesting, though.
 
Top Bottom