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

[Gori the Grey]

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.

Three sandboxes.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Three sandboxes.

I believe it's still one sandbox. The age progression is a gradual change from current Civ6 age mechanics, not a total 3 separate games. You still keep your territory, units and buildings and continue playing the same game you've started.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Since we're still arguing about this, I'll just throw out there that personally I think the franchise needed a shakeup to some core fundamentals, and clearly Firaxis thought so too. I don't want Civ 4 v2, Civ 5 v2, or Civ 6 v2. I don't want to rehash the same civ and leader conversations we've had for years now.

Seems a lot of people on here care more about a narrowly-interpreted roleplay aspect more than gameplay fundamentals. The late-game malaise is a critical failure of the last few iterations. The Age system directly addresses that, and civ switching is designed to capitalize on that new system.

Your roleplay is already messed up with the centuries-long gap between (at least the first and second) ages. And it's all a house of cards anyways, since it's predicated on a completely arbitrary set of design choices that aren't concerned with immersion anyways. Civ's systems are and have always been so patently "gamey" that immersiveness has always been by player choice rather than implicit in the game design. I've roleplayed plenty of Civ games and had tons of fun doing so, but I've always had to choose to do so and doing so really requires making suboptimal gameplay choices for the roleplay to have any sort of integrity.

I guess what I'm saying is...you can roleplay just as well with the new system as with the old system, but that's entirely up to your choice.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Since we're still arguing about this, I'll just throw out there that personally I think the franchise needed a shakeup to some core fundamentals, and clearly Firaxis thought so too. I don't want Civ 4 v2, Civ 5 v2, or Civ 6 v2. I don't want to rehash the same civ and leader conversations we've had for years now.

Seems a lot of people on here care more about a narrowly-interpreted roleplay aspect more than gameplay fundamentals. The late-game malaise is a critical failure of the last few iterations. The Age system directly addresses that, and civ switching is designed to capitalize on that new system.

Your roleplay is already messed up with the centuries-long gap between (at least the first and second) ages. And it's all a house of cards anyways, since it's predicated on a completely arbitrary set of design choices that aren't concerned with immersion anyways. Civ's systems are and have always been so patently "gamey" that immersiveness has always been by player choice rather than implicit in the game design. I've roleplayed plenty of Civ games and had tons of fun doing so, but I've always had to choose to do so and doing so really requires making suboptimal gameplay choices for the roleplay to have any sort of integrity.

I guess what I'm saying is...you can roleplay just as well with the new system as with the old system, but that's entirely up to your choice.

No offense, but this sort of sounds like my former Math Teacher rambling about students, who just "don't get it" and do not understand how to do their homework properly. However, how one enjoys playing a video games is not Math, though. I have played Civ for more than 20 years now, and I don't need anyone lecturing me on how narrow minded my roleplay is and that I don't care about the game's fundamentals.

If you think Civ Swichting is the best and only way to fix the boring mid/ end games, great for you. I (and a lot of other participants in this thread) think however, there would have been a more practical and immersive way to do this. Plenty of alternative solutions (from levelling up your existing civ to having the leaders change instead of the civs) have been discussed in this thread already. Agree to disagree. No need to belittle people, who just do not share your opinion on this.

 

[gdr_willter]

Agree to disagree. No need to belittle people, who just do not share your opinion on this.

Yea, everyone need to maintain this stance...

I'm completely okay with seeing that someone says "I dislike Civ 7's new systems, it's not my style". Because I also have such dissatisfactions on each Civ titles and talk about those sometimes.

But if somebody says "Civ 7 is going wrong, you must hate it and it must be fixed", it will just extend the dispute longer and longer. At least this poll sounds like that for me :/

 

[ColtSeavers]

But if somebody says "Civ 7 is going wrong, you must hate it and it must be fixed", it will just extend the dispute longer and longer. At least this poll sounds like that for me :/

Well, I'm not the one lecturing people that my take on this is the only vaild one and that everyone else should just shut up and accept that Civ Switching is the greatest gift this series could ever get. You are welcome to set up a new poll which is scientifically more accurate, though.

Moderator Action: Please cease discussing each other and stick to the thread topic. leif

 

[Pistol90]

I dont really like marketing for Civ7, Civ6 marketing was way better.

Those first look videos in Civ6 were great, now they separate leader and civ and its not so clear and funny to watch those .... they made mistake there, leaders and his native civ should both be in first look video.

 

[Siptah]

I dont really like marketing for Civ7, Civ6 marketing was way better.

Those first look videos in Civ6 were great, now they separate leader and civ and its not so clear and funny to watch those .... they made mistake there, leaders and his native civ should both be in first look video.

While I agree on almost all points, the last one is difficult. Man leaders apparently have no native civ in the (base) game, e.g., Amina, Trung Trac, Himiko, and Confucius. Hence, I would appreciate separate FLs for civs in general.

 

[Leucarum]

Honestly, since (as a lot of people have pointed out) you could get many of the same effects of switching by having a single civ evolve over the course of a game, I'm not convinced it's going to be the most impactful gameplay change introduced by civ7 when we are looking back from civ8 and beyond. Especially compared to the age system and crises. Even decoupling leaders from civs, and getting rid of builders are probably bigger.

Unfortunately from an emotional angle, since lots of people are very attached to specific civs and don't want to have to change, it's really impactful. I see it being a feature which is Civ 7 specific in the grander arc of the series though.

 

[Krikkit1]

Honestly, since (as a lot of people have pointed out) you could get many of the same effects of switching by having a single civ evolve over the course of a game, I'm not convinced it's going to be the most impactful gameplay change introduced by civ7 when we are looking back from civ8 and beyond. Especially compared to the age system and crises. Even decoupling leaders from civs, and getting rid of builders are probably bigger.

Unfortunately from an emotional angle, since lots of people are very attached to specific civs and don't want to have to change, it's really impactful. I see it being a feature which is Civ 7 specific in the grander arc of the series though.

And they could make the current model accommodate an evolving civ if they gave the player control over their name.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

While I agree on almost all points, the last one is difficult. Man leaders apparently have no native civ in the (base) game, e.g., Amina, Trung Trac, Himiko, and Confucius. Hence, I would appreciate separate FLs for civs in general.

Confucius and Himiko don't? Unless you don't count someone that would have lived in the Zhou dynasty instead of the Han. Same with Himiko and Meiji Japan.

 

[Siptah]

Confucius and Himiko do? Unless you don't count someone that would have lived in the Zhou dynasty instead of the Han. Same with Himiko and Meiji Japan.

Yeah, I didn't count these as native civs, similar to how I wouldn't count Ashoka as native leader for Chola. But I see how you can take a different stance on that.

But for the point in question, whether first looks should be leader + their native civ in one video, I think presenting Himiko and Meiji Japan, as was done in a way in the Nintendo direct (which wasn't a FL video), is a civ VI move that feels misplaced for civ VII. And even if we allow that stretch of a 1500+ years and different culture, as civ VI would have, as an exception, it still doesn't help at all with a case like Trung Trac or Amina.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah, I didn't count these as native civs, similar to how I wouldn't count Ashoka as native leader for Chola. But I see how you can take a different stance on that.

But for the point in question, whether first looks should be leader + their native civ in one video, I think presenting Himiko and Meiji Japan, as was done in a way in the Nintendo direct (which wasn't a FL video), is a civ VI move that feels misplaced for civ VII. And even if we allow that stretch of a 1500+ years and different culture, as civ VI would have, as an exception, it still doesn't help at all with a case like Trung Trac or Amina.

That's a fair point. Though in hindsight if Himiko was in Civ 6, as a leader, she would also have Meiji Restoration, Samurai, and Electronics Factory, so I don't necessarily see the difference. The good news is Japan will most likely be more filled in the future.
I agree more on Trung Trac and Amina.

 

[thecrazyscot]

If you think Civ Swichting is the best and only way to fix the boring mid/ end games, great for you. I (and a lot of other participants in this thread) think however, there would have been a more practical and immersive way to do this. Plenty of alternative solutions (from levelling up your existing civ to having the leaders change instead of the civs) have been discussed in this thread already. Agree to disagree. No need to belittle people, who just do not share your opinion on this.

Alternative solutions have been discussed, yes, but they are offered from a single perspective, that of maintaining immersion via playing a single civilization through the entire game.

If that is the most important thing for you that's fine. Your perspective and disappointment in the direction Civ7 is taking are totally valid.

However, I stand by my comments that it is a narrow interpretation what roleplaying in the civ series is, and that it elevates roleplay over gameplay. Ages and Civ Switching (the two mechanics are inextricably intertwined, imo) are explicitly intended to address gameplay, or mechanical problems. The devs have been really, really clear that they view the low percentage of finished games to be a problem, and they've publicly identified the latter half of the game as the culprit. Ages and Civ Switching are their solution, and they've also publicly stated reasons as to why they designed it they way they did - some of which directly and pre-emptively addressed some of the proposed alternatives in this thread.

Leader switching? Changing avatars would be confusing for players.
Keeping your existing civ? Not all civs existed at all times, so they decided to focus the designs around the period when that civ was at the height of its power, with all unique elements informed by historical research. No need to balance each civ to be strong at any given point in the game.

And you know what? I don't know if it all will work. Actually, to be honest, I'm a little overwhelmed by how unique every civilization is - there's a lot to wrap my head around and when looking at the wall of uniques there's a risk that each civilization loses personality in favor of just being different combos of stat boosts. And I've always found immortal leader avatars to be silly. Heh - turns out narrative is important to me too. I've actually been finding it helpful to just look at Traditions for each civ to get a sense of its "personality".

But I do know that if a gameplay shakeup makes it fun to play a full game for me, then I can opt-in to the narrative framework. A different framework, sure, but a framework that's just as valid as the one presented in previous iterations.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Leader switching would be worse for me, I think, but I've definitely only come to this opinion over time. Having recognisable characters to compete against is an absolute staple of the series, even more than playing as a single civ, because civs used to be identical, bar the names and their leaders.

The problem for me is that many of the leaders in VI were a bit annoying because of the way they interrupted your game every turn to repeat the same few lines of dialogue. So whilst I see them as important in theory, I'm hoping for better implementation here.

Which of course leads me to my main complaint, and I know it is shared by many: the diplo screen. I want to play against recognisable characters, but I want to play as myself. I miss being able to choose the name of my own leader.

 

[Psychotronics]

I am in fact hoping the game does so badly at release the devs have no choice but to either scrap the civ switching mechanic entirely or at least make it optional, maybe in like a game mode.

I'm not a fan of the mechanic either, but I don't think this would be wise. This is a core mechanic, the game was designed around it. I think it's very unlikely the game will become better by taking it off. If it's really as bad as I think it will be and the game bombs, I hope they just shorten the development cycle and bring Civ 8 early. But what I'd really rather is to be proven wrong.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

But what I'd really rather is to be proven wrong.

Sounds like a much healthier attitude than hoping it fails.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Seems a lot of people on here care more about a narrowly-interpreted roleplay aspect more than gameplay fundamentals. The late-game malaise is a critical failure of the last few iterations. The Age system directly addresses that, and civ switching is designed to capitalize on that new system.

I'd be much more on board if I thought the new age system was actually likely to beat late-game malaise.

It looks to me like there will be ways via several game mechanics to reduce harm suffered by players on era change. I think we'll figure out how to min/max it. Trivially. There are so many bonuses that stacking a few together may be so easy that even if parity is restored more completely it may be easier than past versions to create an impact that widens the gulf again.

I think to me, post 1UPT, the roleplay aspects of civ have taken on much more importance as the strategy side has candidly become much easier. 1UPT and yet more bonuses make me think that general trend is gonna continue.

As to RP, I don't think the switching concept itself is probably what's hurting it most. It's that the concept requires many, many more civs for me to have seamless transitions. I'm probably gonna love this game 6-7 years from now, when they've filled the roster as it should be, if it's priced correctly. I'm not super thrilled because that's a long time to wait, baby. That's 4 jobs, 2 ex girlfriends and 10 pounds, a 10% reduction in hairline and more.

 

[Disgustipated]

I miss being able to choose the name of my own leader.

Me too. It seems they are really leaning in with the roleplay this time around. So I definitely don't see name changes happening in this game either. It reminds me of RPG's where you are forced to play a certain character, I know some are highly acclaimed (Witcher 3), but I'm one of the few who think they aren't that great. I want to play a character I create, not be shoehorned into something else. But I digress. Even in SMAC when you were playing a character, you could still rename. I just imagined myself as the leader of that particular faction, not actually as Deirdre or Morgan etc.

I'd love to see a build your own leader feature in Civ 7, but I don't see that happening.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I'd be much more on board if I thought the new age system was actually likely to beat late-game malaise.

It looks to me like there will be ways via several game mechanics to reduce harm suffered by players on era change. I think we'll figure out how to min/max it. Trivially. There are so many bonuses that stacking a few together may be so easy that even if parity is restored more completely it may be easier than past versions to create an impact that widens the gulf again.

I think to me, post 1UPT, the roleplay aspects of civ have taken on much more importance as the strategy side has candidly become much easier. 1UPT and yet more bonuses make me think that general trend is gonna continue.

If I can counter that, I think the problem of endgame malaise in VI is not just about snowballing & the ease of winning, the endgame is simply boring: nothing interesting to build, no new systems, nothing that changes the dynamic, too much micromanagement, long turn times, etc. Even if VII doesn't solve the problem of snowballing, I'm quite convinced it will still be more fun to play.

Whether it's interesting from a strategic perspective is as much down to the AI as anything, in singleplayer at least, and I believe the problem of snowballing will be reduced in multiplayer games. In my group, we restart games on VI so often because it's obvious that someone has had a wonder start and it will be nigh on impossible to catch them. I think that dynamic will change.