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

[pokiehl]

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

I like all Civ games but I’m not particularly fond of 6. I think 5 is better. (And I am looking forward to 7)

 

[Baudshaw]

I’m the opposite, I love Civ 6 but I still think Civ 7’s gonna be great

 

[Acken]

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

Couldnt really get in civ6. The graphics were a bit too cartoony for my liking and absolutely hated the fog of war aesthetics
The AI was truly the worse it has ever been.
Gameplay wise, it was too much planning for my taste to be efficient where you should plan a long time in advance where each district will go to not waste worker charges and optimize adjacency.
Hated builder charges.

 

[trev1972]

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

I thought every map.played like a terra with a new and old world?

I really need to rewatch I guess

 

[Ebon-Hawke-]

I thought every map.played like a terra with a new and old world?

I really need to rewatch I guess

It's a new and old world still, but each world is an archipelago

 

[King Flevance]

I think a disconnect comes in for some when civ switching is attempted to be rationalized by the "history is built in layers" sales pitch perspective, that ignores that these civs were conquered - a lose condition in Civ. You can't be conquered in Civ 7 and not recieve a "Game Over" so this idea doesnt translate over. The crises, towns resetting, civ swapping all tries to simulate that, but it fails. It is simply civ switching. Perhaps better seen as a rise and fall but that fall pretty much always resulted in being conquered.

There is no good rationalization outside of one more based in game design. It makes each Age have a unique identity, it allows pacing to not get out of control, allows more player flexibility, etc. If you see the game as a game it makes it more fun and acceptable. However, this view lends itself over better to being able to maintain your empire identity with an upgrade if you do well in the crisis. As it fits the aim for a more narrative experience in 7. Nothing is really ever clarified in the narrative as to why your civ changes, that detail is left to audience imagination.

I know the narrative is just there for flavor and I am still looking forward to it a lot. Though sometimes I feel Civ can be a little too self-restrained to adhere to history too.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think a disconnect comes in for some when civ switching is attempted to be rationalized by the "history is built in layers" sales pitch perspective, that ignores that these civs were conquered - a lose condition in Civ. You can't be conquered in Civ 7 and not recieve a "Game Over" so this idea doesnt translate over. The crises, towns resetting, civ swapping all tries to simulate that, but it fails. It is simply civ switching. Perhaps better seen as a rise and fall but that fall pretty much always resulted in being conquered.

There is no good rationalization outside of one more based in game design. It makes each Age have a unique identity, it allows pacing to not get out of control, allows more player flexibility, etc. If you see the game as a game it makes it more fun and acceptable. However, this view lends itself over better to being able to maintain your empire identity with an upgrade if you do well in the crisis. As it fits the aim for a more narrative experience in 7. Nothing is really ever clarified in the narrative as to why your civ changes, that detail is left to audience imagination.

I know the narrative is just there for flavor and I am still looking forward to it a lot. Though sometimes I feel Civ can be a little too self-restrained to adhere to history too.

Apparently the Gameplay unlocks trigger narrative explanations of possible future transitions.

They could have those narrative transitions
AND
They need to have the ability to choose whether to change or keep (?or customize?) your civs Name + City List + Graphics Style

 

[notNamed]

I think a disconnect comes in for some when civ switching is attempted to be rationalized by the "history is built in layers" sales pitch perspective, that ignores that these civs were conquered - a lose condition in Civ.

I've touched on this in another thread, but just a TL;DR argument. When was Japan conquered by China, Germany? When was Imperial Russia conquered by the Dutch? Et cetera.
The historical argument goes beyond mere A conquered B, though I agree the culture switching (copied by Civ into civilization switching) does not really model the concept it uses for its historical rationalisation.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I think a disconnect comes in for some when civ switching is attempted to be rationalized by the "history is built in layers" sales pitch perspective, that ignores that these civs were conquered - a lose condition in Civ. You can't be conquered in Civ 7 and not recieve a "Game Over" so this idea doesnt translate over. The crises, towns resetting, civ swapping all tries to simulate that, but it fails. It is simply civ switching. Perhaps better seen as a rise and fall but that fall pretty much always resulted in being conquered.

There is no good rationalization outside of one more based in game design. It makes each Age have a unique identity, it allows pacing to not get out of control, allows more player flexibility, etc. If you see the game as a game it makes it more fun and acceptable. However, this view lends itself over better to being able to maintain your empire identity with an upgrade if you do well in the crisis. As it fits the aim for a more narrative experience in 7. Nothing is really ever clarified in the narrative as to why your civ changes, that detail is left to audience imagination.

I know the narrative is just there for flavor and I am still looking forward to it a lot. Though sometimes I feel Civ can be a little too self-restrained to adhere to history too.

I agree with this. I think the whole "history in layers" pitch and the attempt to frame these new mechanics as "historical" is absurd, especially the way they set it up, e.g. having Greece switch to the Normans or Hawaii becoming America.
FXS just should have been straightforward about it, that they came up with Civ Switching, because making new Civs is far less complicated than having new 3D Leader models. Plus, for some obsure reason, the Devs seem to love the agendas (whereas I think most players don't), and these work much better with leaders than with civs.
The easy solution would have been, to give the players and the AI the option to keep the existing Civs, if they wanted, and let the players, who focus more on pure gameplay mechanics, mix Leaders and Civs as they please. That would have spared us lots of controversy about who should be the predessor of who and how these different "unlocks" should be set up for each specific civ.

 

[notNamed]

The easy solution would have been, to give the players and the AI the option to keep the existing Civs, if they wanted, and let the players, who focus more on pure gameplay mechanics, mix Leaders and Civs as they please. That would have spared us lots of controversy about who should be the predessor of who and how these different "unlocks" should be set up for each specific civ.

Humankind is having a free weekend right now, go try that out and you might find out why they chose to remove that option while copying most everything else.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

FXS just should have been straightforward about it, that they came up with Civ Switching, because making new Civs is far less complicated than having new 3D Leader models.

If that was their reason for introducing the feature, why are there so many animated leaders in the base game?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Humankind is having a free weekend right now, go try that out and you might find out why they chose to remove that option while copying most everything else.

Civ7 didn't copy anything from Humankind, civ switching was developed independently and overall gameplay differ by a lot.

The reason not to keep civilization through ages is based on Civ7 concepts. One of the biggest reasons is what Firaxis wanted to remove the discrepancy between "early" and "late" civs, which was a problem for all previous civ games since civilizations got any difference. So, each civilization has bonuses, infrastructure and units, which are actual only for their age. In this logic keeping civs is impossible, because Firaxis would need to develop 3 versions of each civilization to let them go through ages. They actually did it with India and China, so if, for some reason, you want to keep your civ, India and China are totally available, but making this for each geographic civ would multiply the amount of work too much.

 

[Siptah]

I agree with this. I think the whole "history in layers" pitch and the attempt to frame these new mechanics as "historical" is absurd, especially the way they set it up, e.g. having Greece switch to the Normans or Hawaii becoming America.

I believe the devs when they claim that "history is build in layers" is what inspired civ7's ages mechanics. Inspired doesn't mean that it always needs to be strictly followed. I personally also think that Greece - Normans - America has more historicity to it than 6500 years of pure Greekness, still building classical Amphitheaters in 1973. But I know this is a moot point with many. Hawai'i is obviously an alternative history scenario (something that civ marketed in 6 often), which is why the unlock, if it happens in the game, gets a narrative that frames how this alternative history came about.

FXS just should have been straightforward about it, that they came up with Civ Switching, because making new Civs is far less complicated than having new 3D Leader models. Plus, for some obsure reason, the Devs seem to love the agendas (whereas I think most players don't), and these work much better with leaders than with civs.

I agree on the agendas, I was quite surprised that they made a return over hard coded individual leader behavior along a few metrics. I don't believe your claim that civ switching was implemented to save the money that is needed to create leaders. This might have been one of the reasons (but there are too many leaders for this to be true), but hardly fundamental or at design stage.

The easy solution would have been, to give the players and the AI the option to keep the existing Civs, if they wanted, and let the players, who focus more on pure gameplay mechanics, mix Leaders and Civs as they please.

This has been discussed many times: this really isn't a "solution." The main feature of 7 isn't civ switching, it is ages. Keeping your civ doesn't work well with age mechanics, as many civs have abilities or units that are tied to mechanics that only exist in the respective age. In the end, this means completely fantastic abilities, units and buildings for most civs in one or two ages, or only players that select a new civ can interact with the relevant mechanics in an age. You noted earlier that you are not interested in bonuses etc., so maybe this is fine for you, personally. But that doesn't make it a "solution" for the "problem" civ switching. But I'm sure a mod will do exactly what you proposed very soon after release: copy/paste each civ to the other two ages and give them unlocks while removing the other ones, regardless of the civs not working properly outside of their age.

 

[Leucarum]

This has been discussed many times: this really isn't a "solution." The main feature of 7 isn't civ switching, it is ages. Keeping your civ doesn't work well with age mechanics, as many civs have abilities or units that are tied to mechanics that only exist in the respective age. In the end, this means completely fantastic abilities, units and buildings for most civs in one or two ages, or only players that select a new civ can interact with the relevant mechanics in an age. You noted earlier that you are not interested in bonuses etc., so maybe this is fine for you, personally. But that doesn't make it a "solution" for the "problem" civ switching. But I'm sure a mod will do exactly what you proposed very soon after release: copy/paste each civ to the other two ages and give them unlocks while removing the other ones, regardless of the civs not working properly outside of their age.

One weird thing I was thinking the other day. Buildings and Units for sure are age specific - at least a lot of the time - but there aren't many civs in 7 whose abilities are actully all that tied to the age they are in. Songhai, Mongolia, Majapahit have abilities which tie directly into legacy paths for exploration - but most civs abilities would be fine in any age. Just look at China's stack, as the most homogeneous example in 7. You could prpbably swap the order around and the abilities would function fine. Arguably Han might be better in exploration where specialists matter more.

I kind of feel that 7's civ designs undermine the idea that Civs abilities have to be designed for a given age, if in the edition where they could take this idea the furthest, they didn't really do it... That said, UUs and UBs are where you have the biggest age-specific stuff... And it's definitely a thornier question of how you'd adjust them to work in any era if you want a single civ to work accross any era.

 

[trev1972]

I agree with this. I think the whole "history in layers" pitch and the attempt to frame these new mechanics as "historical" is absurd, especially the way they set it up, e.g. having Greece switch to the Normans or Hawaii becoming America.
FXS just should have been straightforward about it, that they came up with Civ Switching, because making new Civs is far less complicated than having new 3D Leader models. Plus, for some obsure reason, the Devs seem to love the agendas (whereas I think most players don't), and these work much better with leaders than with civs.
The easy solution would have been, to give the players and the AI the option to keep the existing Civs, if they wanted, and let the players, who focus more on pure gameplay mechanics, mix Leaders and Civs as they please. That would have spared us lots of controversy about who should be the predessor of who and how these different "unlocks" should be set up for each specific civ.

edited because i am boring even myself whinging now.

 

[Siptah]

One weird thing I was thinking the other day. Buildings and Units for sure are age specific - at least a lot of the time - but there aren't many civs in 7 whose abilities are actully all that tied to the age they are in. Songhai, Mongolia, Majapahit have abilities which tie directly into legacy paths for exploration - but most civs abilities would be fine in any age. Just look at China's stack, as the most homogeneous example in 7. You could prpbably swap the order around and the abilities would function fine. Arguably Han might be better in exploration where specialists matter more.

Yes, if we just look at abilities (i.e., unique abilities & civic trees) and not units or buildings, there aren't that many age specific ones. In addition to what you said, in Antiquity, it's only Maurya then. But you can make the argument that Han and Khmer are about the early game mostly. In modern you have only America so far.

I kind of feel that 7's civ designs undermine the idea that Civs abilities have to be designed for a given age, if in the edition where they could take this idea the furthest, they didn't really do it...

I agree here. There would have been more potential to make civs more age specific in their abilities. On the other hand, I wouldn't rule out alternative legacy paths in the not too distant future. Maybe that's why not many abilities are directly linked to these? E.g., while there are free relics or codices at (very few) occasions, those would be useful even when it isn't the legacy goal.
On the other hand, Songhai (to lesser extent) and Mongols (to more extent) only work with the present legacy goals. Songhai's Treasure fleets could still be a bonus (e.g., free gold) with another legacy goal, while Mongol's... well, depends on what the alternative goal would be.

That said, UUs and UBs are where you have the biggest age-specific stuff... And it's definitely a thornier question of how you'd adjust them to work in any era if you want a single civ to work accross any era.

Especially for building and units replacement for which the base is age-specific, e.g., missionaries.

 

[Leucarum]

Especially for building and units replacement for which the base is age-specific, e.g., missionaries.

Yeah, I think this is the trickiest element to bypass if you want to remove cov switching from Civ7. For UUs you could just make the bonuses apply to an unit class regardless.of age, and just have an UU model in one age. That only fails when you have things like U-Boats or Mustangs as unique units.

UIs/UBs are mechanically easier, Civ7 already had them gain yields or otherwise improve over the course of the game, so anachronism is the main issue.

More of an observation/thought experiment than a suggestion here... But do civs really need UUs/UBs?

I agree here. There would have been more potential to make civs more age specific in their abilities. On the other hand, I wouldn't rule out alternative legacy paths in the not too distant future.

I think you might have hit the nail on the head. I wonder when in design the legacy paths solidified. Since some elements of exploration (distant lands civs not being able to score treasure fleets) aren't working yet, I'd imagine these might have been in flux over development possibly until quite late! If so, having civ abilities tied to legacy paths might have only been possible at a late stage. And it still might not be desirable if firaxis are thinking of tweaks down the line.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I believe the devs when they claim that "history is build in layers" is what inspired civ7's ages mechanics. Inspired doesn't mean that it always needs to be strictly followed. I personally also think that Greece - Normans - America has more historicity to it than 6500 years of pure Greekness, still building classical Amphitheaters in 1973. But I know this is a moot point with many. Hawai'i is obviously an alternative history scenario (something that civ marketed in 6 often), which is why the unlock, if it happens in the game, gets a narrative that frames how this alternative history came about.

Agree to disagree!

This has been discussed many times: this really isn't a "solution." The main feature of 7 isn't civ switching, it is ages. Keeping your civ doesn't work well with age mechanics, as many civs have abilities or units that are tied to mechanics that only exist in the respective age. In the end, this means completely fantastic abilities, units and buildings for most civs in one or two ages, or only players that select a new civ can interact with the relevant mechanics in an age. You noted earlier that you are not interested in bonuses etc., so maybe this is fine for you, personally. But that doesn't make it a "solution" for the "problem" civ switching. But I'm sure a mod will do exactly what you proposed very soon after release: copy/paste each civ to the other two ages and give them unlocks while removing the other ones, regardless of the civs not working properly outside of their age.

Well sure, the bonuses. As you pointed out, I think its importance is overstated, especially for the average player. But yes, if you keep your Civ, your bonus features might become irrelevant at a certain age. However, since I suggest that it is just an option that you and the AI keep their original Civ, I don't see a big problem here. If you focus on game play mechanics only, you play with Civ Switiching, otherwise you can ignore it.

 

[ColtSeavers]

If that was their reason for introducing the feature, why are there so many animated leaders in the base game?

Pretty sure, that especially after the DLCs, we will have significantly more Civs than (unique) Leaders in Civ 7.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Humankind is having a free weekend right now, go try that out and you might find out why they chose to remove that option while copying most everything else.

Does the AI then keep its original Civ too, or does this only apply to the human player?