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

[gdr_willter]

The civ switching is not as jarring as it seems if we think differently about it. Civs evolve over time, that is what it is. But my problem is why should the cities go back to become towns when a new age begin.

I think it gives you a chance to choose only cities you want in the new Age. Towns provide the supporting outputs for Cities, and Cities provide you the critical things like units and wonders, so it's very important that the choice about which settlements will be Cities and which ones will be remained as Towns. You can't maintain all the Cities without Towns as far as I know.

 

[Unaha-Closp]

I'm not a history kind of person, the usual EU/UK WW2 interest, but only slightly, so the Civ switching isn't something that would stop me buying it, that and the receipt I have for buying a key for Steam and me looking at the date until the 6th rolls around. I understand if you're heavily into history, and play Civ games with that in mind, how you plot and push and navigate a Civ through a whole game, but I am really more mechanics driven, mostly Culture related questions at that. I am not overly keen on the Religion/Relics gameplay for Culture in the 2nd age, but will have to play it to see how it is. Otherwise, excited to play it.

 

[Riconatic]

I answered this while back already. Sentiments have not changed. Best change this series has ever had.

 

[Acid.Crash]

Overall, I am liking the idea of civ switching.
At the same time, I would like the switch itself felt more natural (in historical or geographical way).
Hoping this will be achieved when additional civ will be introduced.

 

[uppi]

The civ switching is not as jarring as it seems if we think differently about it. Civs evolve over time, that is what it is. But my problem is why should the cities go back to become towns when a new age begin.

The gameplay reason is to have a bit of a reset to reign in snowballing. It also adds decision space for the player, whether the upgrade will have enough benefits in this age (if the benefits would remain until the end of the game, it might be a non-decision, because you always would want to do it)

The historical flavor is that there are plenty of cities which were once among the most important cities far and wide and are now just a regional center. Take Winchester, Augsburg or Trier für example. And while these the did not suddenly stop being cities, the point from which they declined in importance often came with a change in the political structure.

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

The gameplay reason is to have a bit of a reset to reign in snowballing. It also adds decision space for the player, whether the upgrade will have enough benefits in this age (if the benefits would remain until the end of the game, it might be a non-decision, because you always would want to do it)

The historical flavor is that there are plenty of cities which were once among the most important cities far and wide and are now just a regional center. Take Winchester, Augsburg or Trier für example. And while these the did not suddenly stop being cities, the point from which they declined in importance often came with a change in the political structure.

The great advantage of Civ Switching is that you civ special powers are always relevant. In previous CIVs late game civilizations were far less powerfull than early one because having a special unit and building happening that late was far less impactfull than if you had it in the first 20 turns...

 

[thecrazyscot]

It is my understanding that the issue people have with Civ Switching is more thematic and less mechanical, so reiterating the mechanical advantages of it don't really address the root disagreement. I might be wrong, but that's the read I've gotten.

I agree that it (conceptually) has great mechanical advantages, but it's also such a dramatic change that there will inevitably be some unintentional, new mechanical problems introduced by it. On the whole I think the benefits will vastly outweigh those new problems, but I think we should all be expecting a few bumps on the road with this new system. And if you already don't care for the change fundamentally due to thematic reasons, those bumps might feel much larger than they do to others.

 

[Krikkit1]

It is my understanding that the issue people have with Civ Switching is more thematic and less mechanical, so reiterating the mechanical advantages of it don't really address the root disagreement. I might be wrong, but that's the read I've gotten.

I agree that it (conceptually) has great mechanical advantages, but it's also such a dramatic change that there will inevitably be some unintentional, new mechanical problems introduced by it. On the whole I think the benefits will vastly outweigh those new problems, but I think we should all be expecting a few bumps on the road with this new system. And if you already don't care for the change fundamentally due to thematic reasons, those bumps might feel much larger than they do to others.

Which is why they need to let you keep the Name (and city list and graphic style) of your previous civ.

 

[ColtSeavers]

The great advantage of Civ Switching is that you civ special powers are always relevant. In previous CIVs late game civilizations were far less powerfull than early one because having a special unit and building happening that late was far less impactfull than if you had it in the first 20 turns...

I wonder how important these unique abilities are anyway. I remember Civ 4 being very difficult on its upper levels, but I played Civ 5 and Civ 6 on Level 7 and did not care much about the Leader's or the Civ's unique abilties and was still able to compete with the AI. I always played to the Civs I wanted to play from an immersion point of view, and didn't really care about their respective bonusses at all.

 

[Acken]

I wonder how important these unique abilities are anyway. I remember Civ 4 being very difficult on its upper levels, but I played Civ 5 and Civ 6 on Level 7 and did not care much about the Leader's or the Civ's unique abilties and was still able to compete with the AI. I always played to the Civs I wanted to play from an immersion point of view, and didn't really care about their respective bonusses at all.

Those bonuses clearly make a difference in 5 and 6 with civs being on different tiers based on their bonuses. And late game units/buildings are usually putting a civ down a few tiers. But another ability can be so OP that it would compensate.
Civ5 deity could still be won with some of the worst civ like Iroquois or Byzantium regardless for sure but some civs had an easier time than others.
And more importantly some abilities were just more fun than others because more relevant and useful. Playing with Poland feels great.

 

[gimley_gunner]

I’m open to it but if there isn’t an option to turn it off it could be annoying.

Incidentally one thing I haven’t found so far is if you get the requirements to change civ is it optional or automatic?

 

[pokiehl]

I’m open to it but if there isn’t an option to turn it off it could be annoying.

Incidentally one thing I haven’t found so far is if you get the requirements to change civ is it optional or automatic?

Civ switching isn’t optional and it’s not automatic. On age switch you’ll be able to pick from the allowed civs, based on connections to your current civ, your leader, or gameplay unlocks.

 

[gimley_gunner]

Civ switching isn’t optional and it’s not automatic. On age switch you’ll be able to pick from the allowed civs, based on connections to your current civ, your leader, or gameplay unlocks.

Thanks for the reply. That’s abit of a deal breaker not to be able turn it off.

 

[trev1972]

On its own, it wouldn't have stopped me pre-ordering, but its one of a number of things putting me off the game. With civ switching specifically i am a 'theme before mechanics' player and it feels jarring, especially with the mix and match leaders.

Combine that with the restricted map options (no earth map, no huge maps, apparently impossible to play isolated starts or island maps anymore) and the streamlining of a lot of stuff- it feels much less like the sandbox game with tonnes of options that i love, and much more like a heavily curated experience

I will wait for a sale, and to see what the modders are able do.

 

[AW Arcaeca]

I'm not a fan of mandatory civ switching, but I'm planning on modding it anyway. If it works anything like Civ5 I assume there may be a database table mapping what civs can evolve into what other civs, or something analogous. If so it wouldn't be that hard to slap together an SQL script that makes 2 extra copies of every civ and deletes all the possible evolutions except for the ones that are different era versions of the same civ. It would be a different story if it's hardcoded in the DLL but I can't fathom why they would do that because it would effectively make mod support impossible.

 

[Killer Rabbit]

I'm excited about it. After loving Civ 6, playing it to death, and then getting into Old World and Age of Wonders 4 (both of which are excellent), I was not at all hyped at all for Civ 7 because I thought it'd be more of the same. So I was really glad to see that they're taking a chance on something new. They had to do something different—especially after Civs 4, 5, and 6 are all still very playable and great in their own way.

It's gotten me fully back in on the hype train. Can't wait to play next month!

 

[trev1972]

I'm excited about it. After loving Civ 6, playing it to death, and then getting into Old World and Age of Wonders 4 (both of which are excellent), I was not at all hyped at all for Civ 7 because I thought it'd be more of the same. So I was really glad to see that they're taking a chance on something new. They had to do something different—especially after Civs 4, 5, and 6 are all still very playable and great in their own way.

It's gotten me fully back in on the hype train. Can't wait to play next month!

I think people who loved 6, are more likely to love 7?

I really enjoyed 1-5, but 'only' played 6 for a few hundred hours. It was the weakest for me.

No doubt someone will blow my theory away

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

(no earth map, no huge maps, apparently impossible to play isolated starts or island maps anymore

It's probably not much to allay your fears, but we have Archipelago maps on launch

 

[ColtSeavers]

I think people who loved 6, are more likely to love 7?

I really enjoyed 1-5, but 'only' played 6 for a few hundred hours. It was the weakest for me.

No doubt someone will blow my theory away

Well I can second that, at least!

P.S. Though Ed Beach wanted to make a totally different game and all new Ages/ Civ Switching Mechanics, this game still feels somewhat like a Civ 6.5 to me.

 

[AriochIV]

Civ 7 has a lot of the qualities that I liked more in Civ 5 than Civ 6.