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

[Isengardtom]

Long time since I posted here but looking forward to the game and the new gameplay it will bring including the Civ changing

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

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.

 

[AriochIV]

Civ3 introduced borders and resources, didn't it?

 

[King Flevance]

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.

 

[Disgustipated]

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.

 

[AriochIV]

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.

 

[Uberfrog]

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

 

[ColtSeavers]

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 , 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.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

The Ages itself and the associated Crises could be interesting, though.

I think the crisis turns may be the make-or-break mechanic for Civ 7. Done well, it'll set up the transition into a new age to feel natural. Done poorly, and transitions could feel janky and gamey.

 

[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.