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

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't find that any more absurd than the USA existing in 4000 BC and being adjacent to Egypt.

I do, however maybe I'm just used to USA existing in 4000 BC being the standard "Sid Meier's Civilization" thing, and this new game is taking it in a totally different direction.

The problem is that Firaxis could make the characteristics of the civilization change without changing the name, but let's take the example of Egypt, now we don't know if there can be other civilizations that can take the Egypt-Mongolia road, let's make sure there are like the Zulus (I'll give a random example) if they both meet the requirements what do we do with dice or do we have two Mongol empires?

I would assume that if you as the player would be able to be Mongolia first, and then AI would choose their next best option. Not sure how MP would work.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

My concern is that the civ switching mechanic is not very interesting.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I do, however maybe I'm just used to USA existing in 4000 BC being the standard "Sid Meier's Civilization" thing, and this new game is taking it in a totally different direction.

I would assume that if you as the player would be able to be Mongolia first, and then AI would choose their next best option. Not sure how MP would work.

That's a big part of it - we're used to some of the franchise's weirdness, new weirdness, not so used to it. For all we know the Age swap mechanic will, by the time Civilization 9 rolls around, be considered core part of the modern series just like hexes, 1upt, quicktime event diplomacy, or mandatory electroshock collars for multiplayer.

 

[Siptah]

I would assume that if you as the player would be able to be Mongolia first, and then AI would choose their next best option. Not sure how MP would work.

Ideally, the selection order is based on your achievement in the previous era, e.g., who acquired most milestones or legacy points goes first.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Ideally, the selection order is based on your achievement in the previous era, e.g., who acquired most milestones or legacy points goes first.

Do you think that is for single player too, or just multiplayer?

 

[Siptah]

Do you think that is for single player too, or just multiplayer?

It's just a guess and wish, I don't have any info that it works that way. FXS being FXS, I assume they keep their "player goes always first" model, as otherwise some players might get frustrated (see Humankind).

 

[Gedemon]

Going back on topic, I wonder if we could have an option where when you switch Civs, you keep your original colours, and the name becomes an AI-generated name which is a mix of the original and new Civilization. So Egypt->Songhai would becomes Songypt or Eghai or something. Similarly when it comes to founding new cities, they have a hybrid name reflecting the entire linguistic evolution of the civilization your playing as. Maybe this would help people view it as an evolution happening in a fictional narrative, rather than ahistorical replacement.

Say @SeelingCat , would you be available 24/24 just for a few days starting the 11th of February ?

 

[CanuckSoldier]

Do you think that is for single player too, or just multiplayer?

The problem for MP is having a game start with only 5 player slots and in the second Age move to 8 slots and have 3 AI you never wanted. When what you wanted was 8-10 player slots the whole game. I think while not the best solution to snowballing, MP can adapt to Ages but not the limited amount of player slots...

 

[lt22677]

Yeah, I have read books in which authors made such argumentations (Peter Heather, amongst others). I never found them convincing. Especially not form a historical in contrast to a modern perspective. Sure the HRE and the Popes saw themselves as successors. But the "byzantines" just didn't. And think about it, when would this have started that they identified/count as "successors"? Diocletian and the tetrarchy creating 4 successors to Rome with different capitals? Constantine bringing the territory under one rule again? When the city of Rome fell (and when exactly?)? Justinian not being able to reunite the former Roman empire? Why should any of this made the people in the capitol of the Roman Empire feel disconnected from their history?

To use a modern example: if the Catalans become independent and create their own nation state. Why would the remaining rump state of Spain identify (or be regarded as by others) as the successor state of Spain?

When Justinian's "Restauratio Imperii" took place (perhaps it would be better to say Justinian's reconquista) we can clearly see that the western part had now taken another path and in fact the Lombards conquered Italy quickly without practically encountering resistance and from this point I found that Professor Heater is right, then I understand that obviously in the historical field there is discussion, but this is not the point, it is instead the fact that if Rome had survived why did it suddenly transform into France or England? then I don't understand the reasoning that goes with your thoughts on the Catalans since in the game they didn't state that there is a system whereby some cities separate from your civilization, but if the Catalans separate from Spain it's clear that they won't be called Spain, but if Spain doesn't have a traumatic event that leads to Independence, why should it transform into another Civilization at the change of era?

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

My concern is that the civ switching mechanic is not very interesting.

To be honest, I think it is being blown out of all proportion.

The Ages and Crisis systems do have potential to be very interesting though, I wish these were getting as much discussion as the civ switching.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sounds like its a problem with familiarity then, rather than the mechanic per se?

I would say it's a mixture of both for me. That being said I understand many people are looking forward to it, so I'm happy for them.
I will say that if this was a toggleable game mode, I might be less vocal about the issue.

The problem for MP is having a game start with only 5 player slots and in the second Age move to 8 slots and have 3 AI you never wanted. When what you wanted was 8-10 player slots the whole game. I think while not the best solution to snowballing, MP can adapt to Ages but not the limited amount of player slots...

I thought it was 5 for two Ages and not 8 until the Modern Age?

 

[ColtSeavers]

Sounds like its a problem with familiarity then, rather than the mechanic per se? And, pointing back to #88, I don't think it's fundamentally different either.


That's not an attempt to belittle by the way, just my perspective.

Agree to disagree. Imagining Augustus ruling Mongolia or Franklin in charge of Germany is a totally differnt level of historical nonsense, than Roosevelt being around 4000 BC, at least in my opinion. Hard time imagining playing TSL Maps too, when Hatesheput is ruling Paris and you are facing China with its eternal leader Napoelon.

 

[lt22677]

Huh, he didn't have the same opinion in Empires and Barbarians that I read back in 2009. Anyway, yes, Byzantine Rome had some cultural differences from Classical Rome. No one would deny that. But the Rome of Trajan also had vast cultural differences with the Rome of Scipio, yet we don't consider the former to be the successor of the later. If anything this reinforces the notion that change is always happening, and a change of culture does not break the continuity of a state. If there was any change that was drastic and sudden enough to call it a "succession" rather than continuity it would be the transition from Republic to Principate. But everyone agrees that's a change of regime but not a change of civilization. And that was far more sudden than the progressive splitting away of Constantinople from the Western provinces in the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries.

In a passage from the book cited, Professor Heather clearly says that for him the Byzantine Empire is more of a successor state (as indeed were the various Roman-Barbarian kingdoms) then you say that for you there was a change of regime, but not a change of civilization, I might agree if we first agree on what civilization means and what are the characteristics that distinguish a civilization from others, but this is not the problem, because the fact is that you have a game system that forcibly forces you to change civilization for no reason (while in reality civilizations evolve over time here you suddenly have to transform into another civilization, perhaps forcing you to change suddenly too way of playing by going from a civilization more inclined to trade to one more devoted to military conquest) among other things by taking a characteristic of another game and among other things the WORST recognized by everyone

 

[Siptah]

When Justinian's "Restauratio Imperii" took place (perhaps it would be better to say Justinian's reconquista) we can clearly see that the western part had now taken another path and in fact the Lombards conquered Italy quickly without practically encountering resistance and from this point I found that Professor Heater is right, then I understand that obviously in the historical field there is discussion, but this is not the point, it is instead the fact that if Rome had survived why did it suddenly transform into France or England? then I don't understand the reasoning that goes with your thoughts on the Catalans since in the game they didn't state that there is a system whereby some cities separate from your civilization, but if the Catalans separate from Spain it's clear that they won't be called Spain, but if Spain doesn't have a traumatic event that leads to Independence, why should it transform into another Civilization at the change of era?

Sorry, for being confusing. The Catalan example was not coined why the game in mind, but with the Byzantines/Spain not suddenly feeling as a different entity because a (sizable) part of their entity took a different road.

Regarding the game: we will have to see how exactly the beginning of a new age looks. We know that cities change - they are either destroyed or demoted to towns (as one golden Age ability is that "cities remain cities"). We know that most buildings become useless shells. I imagine - but this is just how I put information together from the screen that told us what you can "purchase" with legacy points, no hard facts - that all your military units are dead. So, it seems that when you start a new age, there was a traumatic event, i.e., you did not survive, at least not in a form that is good enough to just continue.

How this works when you are successful in the crisis before in the game? I don't know. I also don't know how successful you can actually be in it and what happens, aside from you eventually having to put in 6 cards with penalties. The crisis has three stages - maybe you will fail it anyway and its just about "how far can I survive and get these additional legacy points or this golden age?" We'll see. For me, it's definitely the most interesting open question about the game.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Can't say fairer than that, and I appreciate your candour and politeness. I'm curious though, would keeping the original civilization name, colours, city names, aesthetics', etc.. and just getting a new set of uniques and bonuses every era be better for you? That might be toggleable, but the main idea seems like it's far too embedded into the game to be optional. At the end of the day the devs have to make the game that they think is best, not every possible game that someone might want to play.

I will say that I was a big fan of alternate leaders in Civ 6 that offered different playstyles for the same civs. I would have much rather have the option to keep your same civilization, but have the opportunity to change leaders, whether by age or government change, depending on your playstyle.

Of course, I'm sure there would have still been a vocal outrage over the possibility of getting rid of immortal leaders. But at the same time, it's not something that I would have forced anyone to change their leader either.

But yes I doubt that a "classic mode" that people are talking about will be implemented at all considering the way the game is represented. Not sure if modders would be able to change anything either.

 

[lt22677]

Sorry, for being confusing. The Catalan example was not coined why the game in mind, but with the Byzantines/Spain not suddenly feeling as a different entity because a (sizable) part of their entity took a different road.

Regarding the game: we will have to see how exactly the beginning of a new age looks. We know that cities change - they are either destroyed or demoted to towns (as one golden Age ability is that "cities remain cities"). We know that most buildings become useless shells. I imagine - but this is just how I put information together from the screen that told us what you can "purchase" with legacy points, no hard facts - that all your military units are dead. So, it seems that when you start a new age, there was a traumatic event, i.e., you did not survive, at least not in a form that is good enough to just continue.

How this works when you are successful in the crisis before in the game? I don't know. I also don't know how successful you can actually be in it and what happens, aside from you eventually having to put in 6 cards with penalties. The crisis has three stages - maybe you will fail it anyway and its just about "how far can I survive and get these additional legacy points or this golden age?" We'll see. For me, it's definitely the most interesting open question about the game.

In my opinion it would have been much better to put a system of evolution of Culture with the civilization that gradually develops traits (either positive or even negative) with the possibility that these traits open up the possibility of particular buildings, particular types of units with unique characteristics of the civilization , particular forms of government etc... a bit like religion was in Civ 5 (or doing something better) instead of being forced to go from Egypt to Mongolia just because you have 3 Horses

 

[pokiehl]

In my opinion it would have been much better to put a system of evolution of Culture with the civilization that gradually develops traits (either positive or even negative) with the possibility that these traits open up the possibility of particular buildings, particular types of units with unique characteristics of the civilization , particular forms of government etc... a bit like religion was in Civ 5 (or doing something better) instead of being forced to go from Egypt to Mongolia just because you have 3 Horses

The problem with this alternate idea is it totally obviates the need for any civ factions beyond the antiquity era. There’s no Mongols needed if earlier civs can just take their stuff.

Also, randomly assuming the traits, architecture, and bonuses of a completely unrelated civ but keeping your original civ identity actually strikes me as even less immersive than the civ changing.

 

[CanuckSoldier]

I would say it's a mixture of both for me. That being said I understand many people are looking forward to it, so I'm happy for them.
I will say that if this was a toggleable game mode, I might be less vocal about the issue.

I thought it was 5 for two Ages and not 8 until the Modern Age?

I'm just going off what I have seen to date, either way 5 player MP is a fail...

 

[lt22677]

Sorry, I'm struggling to parse that, it's too long a sentence for my brain to understand. Apologies if the following doesn't relate exactly to what you said, but a few more full stops would help.

I agree that civilization shifts ought to be gradual rather than sudden but, eh, it's a game, some abstractions have to be made. Nothing to do with timescales makes the slightest bit of sense in any Civilization game anyway, it takes years to walk across a single farm! Also the idea seems to be that you aren't forced to go from trade focussed to conquest oriented against your will. You'll have the option to do so (which is not itself particularly ahistorical - look at how aggressive New Kingdom Egypt was compared to the Middle or Old Kingdoms) but it wont be the only option.

I'll quote you an answer of mine that I gave to another person
"In my opinion it would have been much better to put a system of evolution of Culture with the civilization that gradually develops traits (either positive or even negative) with the possibility that these traits open up the possibility of particular buildings, particular types of units with unique characteristics of the civilization , particular forms of government etc... a bit like religion was in Civ 5 (or doing something better) instead of being forced to go from Egypt to Mongolia just because you have 3 Horses"

For me it would have been a better system because it would have simulated the evolution of a civilization, but oh well we'll see what those at Firaxis come up with, hoping they study it well and don't do the rubbish done by Amplitude with HK

 

[Professor Phobo]

I wonder how they'll display the changeover in game. If Mongolia is listed as Mongolia (Egyptian Legacy), so you know who was what before they became who they are now.