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

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

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

Definitely! But you said they came up with civ switching because making new civs is less complicated than animated leaders. This doesn't make any sense if the number of animated leaders, and therefore the time and effort spent on animating leaders, is equal or greater than previous Civ titles that did not include switching. If they introduced Ages but not switching, the effort for leaders would be the same.

 

[Acken]

I swear reading some of this discussion, that some players would be satisfied if your civ was called Rome through the whole game but got a Norman and French "package" of bonuses for the other ages.
Exact same gameplay but using the same name looks really important for some.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I swear reading some of this discussion, that some players would be satisfied if your civ was called Rome through the whole game but got a Norman and French "package" of bonuses for the other ages.
Exact same gameplay but using the same name looks really important for some.

I believe a feature to rename your civilization (together with renaming cities) could be quite easy to implement, but I don't know how big the potential audience is.

 

[Acken]

Definitely! But you said they came up with civ switching because making new civs is less complicated than animated leaders. This doesn't make any sense if the number of animated leaders, and therefore the time and effort spent on animating leaders, is equal or greater than previous Civ titles that did not include switching. If they introduced Ages but not switching, the effort for leaders would be the same.

Also DLC galore. It's already happening.
Between Civ, Leaders and personas that's a perfect recipe to sell you as many small bits of the game as they can.

 

[Krikkit1]

I swear reading some of this discussion, that some players would be satisfied if your civ was called Rome through the whole game but got a Norman and French "package" of bonuses for the other ages.
Exact same gameplay but using the same name looks really important for some.

That's what I think could actually help

At the start of the game you not only choose your civ, but your "Name civ" [the Name/CityList/Graphics Style]
Then at each Age Transition
Keep your Current "Name civ" or change to the New "Name civ"

Have it be a Narrative event at the Transitions... either get
a small lump sum of culture for one of the unique civics for changing
or
a small lump sum of happiness for your next celebration for staying the same

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Also DLC galore. It's already happening.
Between Civ, Leaders and personas that's a perfect recipe to sell you as many small bits of the game as they can.

Yeh, I've no doubt they will monetise the absolute heck out of it, though they did that already with VI, hard to know if it will be any different this time. And I'd still contend that this was not the reason they introduced a switching mechanic, far more likely that the designers simply liked it as an idea (heaven forbid!) and the publishers loved it for a different reason.

 

[Acken]

Yeh, I've no doubt they will monetise the absolute heck out of it, though they did that already with VI, hard to know if it will be any different this time. And I'd still contend that this was not the reason they introduced a switching mechanic, far more likely that the designers simply liked it as an idea (heaven forbid!) and the publishers loved it for a different reason.

Oh Yeah it was already a lot in civ6. I just think that you will now get less value for the same amount of $. Like what was 1 civ + 1 leader at 15$ can now be sold separately for a higher sum at 20$.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I swear reading some of this discussion, that some players would be satisfied if your civ was called Rome through the whole game but got a Norman and French "package" of bonuses for the other ages.
Exact same gameplay but using the same name looks really important for some.

Yes, exactly right! Plus leaders and civs have to match, too!

 

[gdr_willter]

I swear reading some of this discussion, that some players would be satisfied if your civ was called Rome through the whole game but got a Norman and French "package" of bonuses for the other ages.
Exact same gameplay but using the same name looks really important for some.

This can't be the final solution, because it only can be applied for the Antiquity Civs. If someone want to play a whole game with America... It will be a hard case.

I think the finest solution is... just releasing the game as itself, and making people to accept it slowly. It's simply better than the most of other ways to satisfy all the different needs.

The only alternative I can come up is the starting option which provide the Civ renaming feature, but it still not the best considering the AIs.

 

[Krikkit1]

This can't be the final solution, because it only can be applied for the Antiquity Civs. If someone want to play a whole game with America... It will be a hard case.

I disagree, just let a player choose their Civ Name/CityList/GraphicsStyle in the beginning... If I want my Han-Mongol-Mexico to use the Mughal Graphics style the first two Ages before switching to Mexico, that should be fine.

Just have the default be starting as the civ you chose (with the change v. keep as a Narrative choice on Age Transition) and have the AI always keep their name and uniques matching

 

[gdr_willter]

I disagree, just let a player choose their Civ Name/CityList/GraphicsStyle in the beginning... If I want my Han-Mongol-Mexico to use the Mughal Graphics style the first two Ages before switching to Mexico, that should be fine.

Just have the default be starting as the civ you chose (with the change v. keep as a Narrative choice on Age Transition) and have the AI always keep their name and uniques matching

Look again my edited post.

And I strongly disagree the idea for selecting city list and graphic style. Yes, the Civ graphic styles are some generic assets, but still connected with the Civs. The lists of settlement names are even more.

And considering these all disputes, we can easily reach to the answer: there is no single solution to makes all happy.

 

[Krikkit1]

Look again my edited post.

And I strongly disagree the idea for selecting city list and graphic style. Yes, the Civ graphic styles are some generic assets, but still connected with the Civs. The lists of settlement names are even more.

The City List / Graphic Style / Civ Name would always match

"Greece" would always have Athens and Sparta on its city list and have that Mediterranean group graphics
However you might be using Greece with the Egyptian package of uniques/French package of uniques/Mongol package of uniques... etc.

There would be a mismatch between things like the names/graphics of the uniques and the names/graphics of the rest of the civ... but the player would have chosen that mismatch because they want a modern/exploration Greece (which in their alt history world is Greece with Keshiks or Jacobins)

 

[chaosprophet]

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.

Not only multiply, but also would mean lots of civs that don't exist at all in some ages would need to have to be completely made up for that age.

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

But, considering it already has more unique leaders at release than 6, chances are also it will have more unique leaders at the end than 6 (even if you just compare to the point where they both have the same amount of development). So it being a choice for less work doesn't really seems to hold any water.

 

[gdr_willter]

The City List / Graphic Style / Civ Name would always match

"Greece" would always have Athens and Sparta on its city list and have that Mediterranean group graphics
However you might be using Greece with the Egyptian package of uniques/French package of uniques/Mongol package of uniques... etc.

There would be a mismatch between things like the names/graphics of the uniques and the names/graphics of the rest of the civ... but the player would have chosen that mismatch because they want a modern/exploration Greece (which in their alt history world is Greece with Keshiks or Jacobins)

It's the solution makes you happy, not me.

 

[King Flevance]

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.

Yeah, my point was really just to point out how absurd a notion that the civ switching in 7 is, not rational nor representing history well. Depending on your personal lens you view it through, this could make or break the title's appeal. I have the deluxe pre-ordered so it doesn't phase me. I find Humankind very charming but it does have some noteworthy flaws.

Though I did refer to "history is built in layers" as a sales pitch, I do believe it was the mission statement for the development cycle. We can see this implemented in the design in the carry over buildings and policies. Plus, the narrative event system has shown this core design philosophy at work in it. "Build something you believe in" is their primary sales pitch. I do not believe Firaxis is being misleading or deceptive in any way. I just am not "sold" that they have achieved their mission statement yet. But there is still much I have not seen or experienced.

I understand why some people may find this aspect off-putting and/or even frustrating. Fortunately, I am not struggling with that feeling this release. But I am familiar with it.

 

[pokiehl]

Letting a player call their civ “France” while they pick Egypt in the antiquity age doesn’t seem like a great, well thought out solution to anything.

That seems like a “modder” idea, not an officially polished idea.

 

[Acken]

This can't be the final solution, because it only can be applied for the Antiquity Civs. If someone want to play a whole game with America... It will be a hard case.

I think the finest solution is... just releasing the game as itself, and making people to accept it slowly. It's simply better than the most of other ways to satisfy all the different needs.

The only alternative I can come up is the starting option which provide the Civ renaming feature, but it still not the best considering the AIs.

I wasn't proposing a solution. I was actually just making the case that it's a bit ridiculous IF such a solution would make someone happy

 

[ColtSeavers]

Definitely! But you said they came up with civ switching because making new civs is less complicated than animated leaders. This doesn't make any sense if the number of animated leaders, and therefore the time and effort spent on animating leaders, is equal or greater than previous Civ titles that did not include switching. If they introduced Ages but not switching, the effort for leaders would be the same.

I meant, they chose civ switching over leader switching because it is less work making new civs than making new leaders. I don't even have an issue with this, Firaxis/ 2k is a company after all, which has to make money, like we all do. I just think, they should have been more straightforward with this, and skip all the "history of layers" talk, because it just doesn't make much sense to argue that this is historically more authentical, if you come up with stuff like Catherine the Great leading the Shawnee or having the Greeks switch into the Normans (I guess, I'm repeating myself here ).

 

[pokiehl]

I meant, they chose civ switching over leader switching because it is less work making new civs than making new leaders. I don't even have an issue with this, Firaxis/ 2k is a company after all, which has to make money, like we all do. I just think, they should have been more straightforward with this, and skip all the "history of layers" talk, because it just doesn't make much sense to argue that this is historically more authentical, if you come up with stuff like Catherine the Great leading the Shawnee or having the Greeks switch into the Normans (I guess, I'm repeating myself here ).

I don’t think any of that is true. They in fact prototyped leader switching first and the feedback from that process informed the final design of civ switching.

 

[Ebon-Hawke-]

I meant, they chose civ switching over leader switching because it is less work making new civs than making new leaders. I don't even have an issue with this, Firaxis/ 2k is a company after all, which has to make money, like we all do. I just think, they should have been more straightforward with this, and skip all the "history of layers" talk, because it just doesn't make much sense to argue that this is historically more authentical, if you come up with stuff like Catherine the Great leading the Shawnee or having the Greeks switch into the Normans (I guess, I'm repeating myself here ).

This argument really doesn't make sense, there are reasons leader switching wouldn't work completely unrelated to financial cost of making leaders and they've gone over them in the dev diary. The obvious one is you completely lose a sense of whom your opponents are if the leader and civ are are changing each age. And you need the civ switching to address the core problem of civs being unbalanced via early and late game uniques, not to mention not wanting to limit civs to only those that have "survived" for all of history.