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

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


  • Total voters
    391
but if everyone has a choice where to go, there is much less competition (and more treasure good around) compared to when all need to go to the same place. It‘s simply not the same dynamic if the goal is „go someplace else“ compared to „go here“
But there are more civs. The available space per civ is the same.
 
But, should achieving greater balance even be a primary goal? I don't believe it should be. The two primary considerations should be: 1) is it fun? and 2) is it interesting? If you have to sacrifice some balance to make the game more fun and interesting, that's generally a sacrifice worth making.
I fully agree with that but don't understand why you conclude this?

In my view, far too many design decisions in this game have been driven by a desire to achieve greater balance.
 
I fully agree with that but don't understand why you conclude this?
Well, I believe the civ switching and ages mechanics were driven by a desire for more balance. They either were unable to or didn't want to create civs that could be balanced against each other for the entire game so they "fixed" the problem by: 1) having civs that always have active unique abilities, unique units, and unique buildings and 2) rubber-banding the players at age transitions.

For me, I'm fine if some civs are more powerful than others. It's just another way to vary difficulty. If I play with a more powerful civ, it's an easier game. If I play with a weaker one, it's a more difficult one. The same goes for matching/mismatching civs with map types that are more favorable or unfavorable based on their abilities.

In short, I think the best way to deal with the imbalance issue isn't to create these mechanics that make the game feel more artificial, but instead to embrace the imbalances and use them to enhance gameplay.
 
Well, I believe the civ switching and ages mechanics were driven by a desire for more balance. They either were unable to or didn't want to create civs that could be balanced against each other for the entire game so they "fixed" the problem by: 1) having civs that always have active unique abilities, unique units, and unique buildings and 2) rubber-banding the players at age transitions.

For me, I'm fine if some civs are more powerful than others. It's just another way to vary difficulty. If I play with a more powerful civ, it's an easier game. If I play with a weaker one, it's a more difficult one. The same goes for matching/mismatching civs with map types that are more favorable or unfavorable based on their abilities.

In short, I think the best way to deal with the imbalance issue isn't to create these mechanics that make the game feel more artificial, but instead to embrace the imbalances and use them to enhance gameplay.
I don't think anyone here has played the game enough to know what's balanced and what isn't, or if there are super strong choices that will be super powerful compared to others.

I think it was more about "who cares about the B-52 or whatever if the game's already over by then?"
 
Last edited:
Well, I believe the civ switching and ages mechanics were driven by a desire for more balance. They either were unable to or didn't want to create civs that could be balanced against each other for the entire game so they "fixed" the problem by: 1) having civs that always have active unique abilities, unique units, and unique buildings and 2) rubber-banding the players at age transitions.

For me, I'm fine if some civs are more powerful than others. It's just another way to vary difficulty. If I play with a more powerful civ, it's an easier game. If I play with a weaker one, it's a more difficult one. The same goes for matching/mismatching civs with map types that are more favorable or unfavorable based on their abilities.

In short, I think the best way to deal with the imbalance issue isn't to create these mechanics that make the game feel more artificial, but instead to embrace the imbalances and use them to enhance gameplay.
Interesting theory, but I think it is wrong. With mementos, decoupled leaders, and more unique elements per civ than ever before, there are now so many variables that balance is nigh on impossible. If balance was their intention, early signs would suggest they have spectacularly failed. Watch this and tell me that is a game designed to be balanced rather than fun.


 
That's an interesting point, but in the dev stream it's clear that distant land civs can capture treasure fleets. Presumably, they'd then be able to cash them in as well, so the status of the resource the fleet is generated from (i.e. distant land or not) doesn't matter?
Yes, because AIs can't exploit this, but human players could. Capturing treasure fleets popping out near your lands and monetizing them immediately is something every human player would do.
 
Yes, because AIs can't exploit this, but human players could. Capturing treasure fleets popping out near your lands and monetizing them immediately is something every human player would do.
Isn't that the design of the game, though? If you can capture it, you can cash it in. It would seem the weight is on the AI (or other players) to adequately protect it.
 
Isn't that the design of the game, though? If you can capture it, you can cash it in. It would seem the weight is on the AI (or other players) to adequately protect it.
Capturing them near your land is much easier and I imagine a lot of strategies to lure AIs to settle in places where you could catch those fleets.

But again, my thoughts here are pure theoretical. In game design all things need to be proven/discovered through playtest - something Firaxis has and I don't. So, it's totally possible that's not an issue and something else is.
 
Interesting theory, but I think it is wrong. With mementos, decoupled leaders, and more unique elements per civ than ever before, there are now so many variables that balance is nigh on impossible. If balance was their intention, early signs would suggest they have spectacularly failed. Watch this and tell me that is a game designed to be balanced rather than fun.
Completely agree. I can see how some decisions may also work on balance at the same time, like dividing by ages and a level of reset on age transition, but if you see the reason they came with it is actually to make the game fun: the inherent snowballing of this type of game makes so it often stops being fun midway, regardless if you're in the winning or losing side, as it already clear the outcome and you just needs to pass turns over and over to reach the point where the game actually counts as a victory or defeat.

Another example, having civs per ages and with lots of bonuses makes it fun to have something unique for most of the game instead of the usual, regardless that it may work a bit for balance (but then as you said, with the fact that you can mix and match leaders and civs for the next age actually makes this something really hard to balance).
 
Yes, because AIs can't exploit this, but human players could. Capturing treasure fleets popping out near your lands and monetizing them immediately is something every human player would do.
Which is why to make EEV work for DL, the Treasure Fleets need to be From a particular Land.

If you get a Treasure Fleet from Your Distant Lands, you need to cash it in at your Homelands.

If you get a Treasure Fleet from Your Homelands, you need to cash it in at the Homelands of a Trading Partner in your Distant Lands.* (you and them both get points…you get the gold)

*Which should also be the requirement for generating Treasure Fleets from your Homelands..you not only need the Treasure Resources, but also a Trade Route from a civ in your Distant Lands.
 
Which is why to make EEV work for DL, the Treasure Fleets need to be From a particular Land.

If you get a Treasure Fleet from Your Distant Lands, you need to cash it in at your Homelands.

If you get a Treasure Fleet from Your Homelands, you need to cash it in at the Homelands of a Trading Partner in your Distant Lands.* (you and them both get points…you get the gold)

*Which should also be the requirement for generating Treasure Fleets from your Homelands..you not only need the Treasure Resources, but also a Trade Route from a civ in your Distant Lands.
This should work, but it would require different types of treasure fleets. And there could be, potentially, additional issues with this design. But yes, the idea of having different fleets having different destinations depending on their origin, is good. I see it as a specific map view once the fleet is selected, highlighting the area where it could be unloaded.
 
Keep your Current "Name civ" or change to the New "Name civ"
It should also happen with the names of the cities you have. The player should get the following options when a new era starts:

1. Keep your current city names as they are
2. Change all your city names into the city names of your "new" civilzation
3. Keep the old names, but have the new cities have the "new" names.
 
Considering Greek culture is foundational for Western culture, I think Greece into virtually any European civ makes perfect sense.
That would also apply to civs like America, Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, Canada, Australia, etc.

That's why the Rome>Spain>Mexico path seems like one of the most historical in the base-game. In this particular path, I wouldn't feel like I am actually changing the civilization I started with.

Sure, there are other future more potentially "direct" paths that could be introduced (Rome>Florence>Italy), but the game, specially in the future with DLCs, will allow for civilizations to continue after the Era change in a historically semi-accurate way.

Even if "Rome fell", its legacy continues on in many, many nations. In a sense, those "ancient" civilizations aren't dead, in real life/history, we are the continuation of those who lived before.

That reasoning made me reconcile myself with the idea of "civ switching" in Civ7.

As a Latin language professor I had back in university once said, rather informally: "Latin never went extinct, we (contemporary Colombian Spanish speakers) continue using it in one of its many modern forms"
 
Last edited:
This should work, but it would require different types of treasure fleets. And there could be, potentially, additional issues with this design. But yes, the idea of having different fleets having different destinations depending on their origin, is good. I see it as a specific map view once the fleet is selected, highlighting the area where it could be unloaded.
It could also have a flag displayed to the player that indicates “From my Homeland” (ie unload at one of my trade partners) or “From my Distant Lands” (ie unload at home)
 
Interesting theory, but I think it is wrong. With mementos, decoupled leaders, and more unique elements per civ than ever before, there are now so many variables that balance is nigh on impossible. If balance was their intention, early signs would suggest they have spectacularly failed. Watch this and tell me that is a game designed to be balanced rather than fun.


A common consensus is that if you offer a lot of choices for bonuses in a video games, giving multipliers typically will lead to very large values. That's a common theme in ARPGs for example but designers should be more careful for strategy games.
This can be seen here where the combination of multiple +%food are combined with additive bonuses to make the food value get to stupid levels.
I hope the total multiplier are at least added and not multiplied otherwise oh boy (so +10% and +10% is *1.2 and not *1.21)
 
Another solution that comes to mind, you only see and can interact Treasure fleets relevant to you. So DL civs wouldn't even see on the map treasure fleets coming from the DL, likewise HL civs won't be able to see treasure fleets generated in their HL.
 
I'm seriously starting to doubt that I will buy Civ VII at launch.. but the civ switching has little to do with it.
Actually it's the leaders I'm more frustrated by. I hate that you can mix and match across civs.. And I'm seriously worried what that will do for balancing. I think we will start to see "super"-combos that are simply overpowered.
Also, I'm a bit annoyed that so much of the strategy of the city building now seems to focus on stacking bonuses and adjacencies.. "Number go up" seems suhc a limited way to look at it, and I am missing some more uniqueness from the buildings and especially wonders. Maybe I just need to see some more.

Either way, I'm currently leaning towards not buying at launch. I will definitely buy Civ VII at some point, but maybe wait until the first expansion and see what they fix in the meantime.
 
I'm seriously starting to doubt that I will buy Civ VII at launch.. but the civ switching has little to do with it.
Actually it's the leaders I'm more frustrated by. I hate that you can mix and match across civs.. And I'm seriously worried what that will do for balancing. I think we will start to see "super"-combos that are simply overpowered.
Also, I'm a bit annoyed that so much of the strategy of the city building now seems to focus on stacking bonuses and adjacencies.. "Number go up" seems suhc a limited way to look at it, and I am missing some more uniqueness from the buildings and especially wonders. Maybe I just need to see some more.

Either way, I'm currently leaning towards not buying at launch. I will definitely buy Civ VII at some point, but maybe wait until the first expansion and see what they fix in the meantime.
I have exactly the same opinion
 
I'm seriously starting to doubt that I will buy Civ VII at launch.. but the civ switching has little to do with it.
Actually it's the leaders I'm more frustrated by. I hate that you can mix and match across civs.. And I'm seriously worried what that will do for balancing. I think we will start to see "super"-combos that are simply overpowered.
Also, I'm a bit annoyed that so much of the strategy of the city building now seems to focus on stacking bonuses and adjacencies.. "Number go up" seems suhc a limited way to look at it, and I am missing some more uniqueness from the buildings and especially wonders. Maybe I just need to see some more.

Either way, I'm currently leaning towards not buying at launch. I will definitely buy Civ VII at some point, but maybe wait until the first expansion and see what they fix in the meantime.
How do we ”start to see super combos” in our games? You can’t help yourself and always return the super combo you found in your single player? This I do not have solution as I only see combos I want to see in my SP.

Or you are afraid that your multiplayer opponents plays always super combos? My I suggest some house rules there? If they do not agree play with someone else?
 
Last edited:
Balance as in having all civ equal in power is probably not their goal really. Firaxis has never been good at balancing games anyway. Mods are where you need to go for that (and balancing for single player or MP is a different problem).
I think their goal has more to do with making them equally "fun", thinking (and you may disagree because fun is subjective) that late game civs were not fun because most people favorite eras are the early ones.
 
Top Bottom