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

[Hannibal XIII]

For all my kvetching about it in recent days I cannot say honestly that switching will prevent me from buying 7 outright.

I'm waiting to see how much I'm going to cope, seethe and mald over what civs and leaders get in (I'd love to know what made Buganda more worthy than Ankole or Bunyoro or Rwanda or Burundi -- they all have the same level of historical impact as Great Lakes cattle kingdoms lol).

Then after vanilla release I'm waiting to see if they release a map editor as good as 5 or just have a subpar one for the entire life of the game like in 6 (which is what has kept me from playing that more or buying gathering storm, even though I did enjoy districts once I figured them out.)

If I end up buying 7 it'll almost certainly be on a steam sale, and possibly not until at least one of the major expansions come out. Paradox offers pretty stiff competition for my money and attention budget, and as it currently stands I can't say I'd pick Civ 7 vanilla over EU5 or more content for CK3...

 

[Dale]

I work in games, on 4x games. Civ switching won't stop me playing civ7 because I will play it to see what features play well, don't play well, and what I could change.

As to whether I will have fun playing Civ switching, it's too early to tell. I can't say.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Since I've always, ever since before I ever played a Civ game, known that no civilization, state, political entity, culture, or any other Human Endeavor remained a monolithic whole for centuries, Civilization's Play The Same Civ and Leader from 4000 BCE To Yesterday always bothered me.

Civ VII certainly isn't changing that the way I would probably prefer, or would have suggested, but it is changing it, and to boot may have up-ended the late game ennui that has pervaded Civ for several iterations.

So I've already Pre-Ordered and will start playing on 6 February.

And probably start suggesting things to change by 7 February, but that's been Normal for Civ games since the first Fanatic crawled out of the swamp, smacked a dinosaur out of the way and started typing . . .

 

[Mr. Shadows]

It's too early to make a decision like that, but I never played Humankind specifically because changing civs is such an asinine idea. If they wanted to simulate moving through time they should have had us change leaders rather than civs. It's put a real damper on my enthusiasm, and after getting Midnight Suns instead of a new X-Com I'm starting to worry that Firaxis has jumped the shark.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

It's too early to make a decision like that, but I never played Humankind specifically because changing civs is such an asinine idea. If they wanted to simulate moving through time they should have had us change leaders rather than civs. It's put a real damper on my enthusiasm, and after getting Midnight Suns instead of a new X-Com I'm starting to worry that Firaxis has jumped the shark.

That many leaders would have been prohibitive unfortunately.

 

[Ondolindë]

For me, if it is anything similar to Humankind's civ switching, then it is a deal breaker. But I remain optimistic that it is either a better rendition, which is what I hear from some of the videos I've seen, or they do change it back. Not many of the YouTubers invited were keen on this change, so I think Firaxis at least knows from them that they must really tread carefully.

Anyhow, it is fun to see everybody back talking about the Franchise we love. Great to read you guys.

 

[DWilson]

It is a deal breaker for me. I play the game to play as a Civ, building a continuous Empire that somehow does manage to stand the test of time. I also enjoy being able to take modern civs through early history. It's not so much that it breaks historical feasibility (although we've seen pretty rough examples already, and I really don't want to see how they try to advance many indigenous civs that were colonized), but rather it takes away from the continuity of the game that I'm trying to play. If I wanted to play a game with a serious, historical advancement, I would just keep playing more paradox games, which handle it much better by having more realistic feeling requirements. That said, I won't be the first person lost with a generation change, and their recent history suggests they've been able to expand their audiences significantly. So I really hope that a lot of people love this game, and Firaxis keeps up this historic series

 

[TheGrayFox]

You're framing it unhelpfully. You're interpreting the transition as if all of a civilization's people, language, culture, art, etc... gets killed by Alien Space Bats and replaced by a completely different group of people with a new language, culture, art, etc... from thousands of miles away. That is not the only interpretation.

You say I'm framing it unhelpfully but thats the only way I can see to frame what the game devs have showcased to us.

From a historical perspective the transitions they've showcased are nonsense and the transitions between cultures they have presented via gameplay IS my original civilization's people, language, culture,and art being replaced wholesale by another civilization later.

Remember that every narrative that develops in a game of civilization is, by definition, fictional. When Egypt "becomes" Mongolia, I don't think of historical Egypt "becoming" historical Mongolia, because this is a fictional world where neither of those exist. Instead, I think of this fictional civilization I'm playing as as having traits that we associate with historical Egypt, and evolving in response to a crisis (including some element of invasion from its neighbours) such that it develops the traits that we associate with historical Mongolia. In doing that, it becomes a fictional Mongolia. Thinking of things this way is not much of a stretch, because it's already what we do when Russia starts in 4000 BC next to Babylon deep in the jungle.

Of course you don't have to interpret things this way. But if you're willing to, you might find the mechanic a lot less jarring. Of course, if you're keen to hate it before giving it a go, then go right ahead and ignore this. Rage hating is fun after all

See I find this framing unhelpful to me because Civilization has always been about picking a civilization and creating an empire to stand the test of time. Sure the narratives created are wholly fictional but Russia in 4000 BC next to Babylon fits that series' guidiing design philopshy, a civilization swapping gimmick does not.

I've been playing Civilization for over 2 decades why should I have interpret things differently because the devs wanted to introduce an incredibly gamey mechanic where civilizations without historical leaders can now swap civilization/cultures "analogs" like hats at arbitrary points for purely min.max purposes? That's not Civilization (or atleast wasn't).... If I wanted that I would go play Humankind, where i've already seen the gimmick fail.... .I've already given civ swapping a go, it's not going to be any less jarring now especially the way Firaxis is going about it.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I think broader meanings of "civilization" and "test of time" is helpful here - the Ancient Egyptian Empire may have fallen, but it's influence is still felt. Likewise, in the alternate world of a Civ 7 game, when the Ancient Babylonian empire fell due to the Great Drought and the Mongolian Empire formed out of its ashes, the legacy of that predecessor civilization still informs the future.

It's not necessary that it be that specific Empire with continuity between it's governments and leadership to stand the test of time, but the whole morass of world-changing it did while it was around. This is where I think the legacy mechanic will come in; you're passing the torch between iterations of the same ur-Civilization. It might be a separate empire or dynasty or what-have-you, but there's a narrative through-line from each Civ to the next Civ you play. Playing as the same Leader helps with that too; think of it as like a civilizational spirit that might pass from one empire to the next, but shares some continuity.

Your empire may not have literally stood "the test of time", but in a figurative, more meaningful sense, it actually has - in that the people of your next empire are going to stand on the shoulders of the giant you built. The more I think about it, the more I kind of like this approach to civilization - it feels organic and humanizing. A society is more than its mere indefinite survival, you know? An empire can live on through what it leaves for the future.

Kind of like how parents live on through their children or a great artist lives on through their work or my dog lives on through the puke he just left on my shoes literally a moment ago as I was typing this.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I think broader meanings of "civilization" and "test of time" is helpful here - the Ancient Egyptian Empire may have fallen, but it's influence is still felt. Likewise, in the alternate world of a Civ 7 game, when the Ancient Babylonian empire fell due to the Great Drought and the Mongolian Empire formed out of its ashes, the legacy of that predecessor civilization still informs the future.

If I pick Ancient Eygpt and it falls and suddenly all Eygptians are replaced with Mongols, the name of the civilization changes, they speak mongolian, they use mongolian horse archers, and mongolian archetecture is build on top of those Eygptian ruins than i did not take a civilization and make it stand the test of time.

Your empire may not have literally stood "the test of time", but in a figurative, more meaningful sense, it actually has - in that the people of your next empire are going to stand on the shoulders of the giant you built. The more I think about it, the more I kind of like this approach to civilization - it feels organic and humanizing. A society is more than its mere indefinite survival, you know? An empire can live on through what it leaves for the future.

No it hasn't stood the test of time if it is erased over by a completely different civilization. The more I think about it, the more i hate and want the gimmick to remain in Humankind and stay out of the Civilization series

 

[ggalindo001]

I'm not crazy about it, but it's not a deal-breaker for me. I'm relying on Firaxis to produce a better version of the mechanic than we've seen from other games.

Agree -- for the most part, it is just a "name" change. There could be a very easy "fix" here -- keep the mechanic as described, and just allow you to keep your selected name. If you start as Rome, at then end of Antiquity, you keep the name, but you select the attributes (if playing "historically") as Byzantium or Normans -- of if you have the horses and are so inclined -- you get the attributes of Mongolia. However, you stay as Rome. Who is to say that Rome wouldn't have evolved into a fierce horsemen culture if they had the horses. As the leader of Rome, you get to make that decision. That isn't far fetched. I think everyone is worked up about the "name" of their Civilization. Hopefully this is an option and/or could be modded in.

 

[tiamats4esgares]

There are a TON of issues with the game, and not just civ switching. Your poll doesn't have an option for "this reason alone isn't enough, but I won't be buying for other reasons" so I just voted for the last one, that I wouldn't be buying (because that's my plan).

The UI is also terrible. The unexplored part of the map is ugly af.The leader animations are terrible, and opposing leaders don't face the player. They got rid of workers/builders. They got rid of the min-maxxing that comes with choosing which tiles you work or even how your city expands! It's all ridiculous. The win conditions sound stupid. Only 3 eras, and making "golden ages" much more of a thing than they were before, like the whole game revolves around them. They got rid of city-states and barbarians. SO MANY negatives with this game

There are VERY few positive changes. I like that you pick between 2 options on goody huts. I like that scouts can spend a turn to see further away. But these things are small and niche. Overall, it's a MUCH worse game. There are SO MANY things wrong, that there's no way they can or will fix it all. They have a vision for this game, and it's not what I (or seemingly most players) want. So I will NOT be buying this game, likely EVER.

 

[SeelingCat]

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

You know it!

 

[Disgustipated]

I will most likely buy the game on launch unless gameplay youtubes look really bad.

As for civ switching, not a big fan, but I'll just play it in my mind as like 3 separate games loosely tied together. Not that big a deal in my opinion. I have more immediate concerns about the simplifying of things (in order to improve AI performance presumably) like the limited options of terraforming your rural districts. And I'm worried there just won't be enough to do turn to turn without builders.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Who says that switching Civs is equivalent to a foreign invasion or cultural replacement? Why not instead interpret it as a shift in culture and identity following a response to a crisis? For example you could have an exploration era England be replaced by a modern era United Kingdom, without any kind of invasion or cultural replacement. Same thing with ancient Rome to exploration Byzantium or exploration HRE to modern Germany. Or even ancient Han China to exploration Song China.

I was clear that under this system Firaxis is likely putting shifts like Aztec to Mexico in the same bag that Feudal and Modern Japan, and it is natural that many CIV players find this kind of equivalences obviously dissonant. Ignore the natures, causes and degrees of change between different kinds of "shifts" feels like a crude execution of a promising idea, failing to provide player agency and narrative coherence.

If you (and I'm not addressing this personally to BuchiTaton, but to everyone) don't like the interpretation of changing civs as a foreign invasion and cultural replacement, then don't interpret it that way? Nobody forces you to. History is literally full of cultures that evolve and whose identity change, blend, merge and split. In fact every culture is like that, none is a "pure" form of anything, even going back only a few centuries, let alone 6 millennia. It's the extinction of cultures and the total replacement by foreigners which is the rare historical exception - not the rule.

Again you are losing the point. Many people here (in Steam, Reddit, etc.) that of course know historical changes are OK with the idea of changing civs. Instead many are asking to have the OPTION to do something like England>UK or Han>Ming with Sumer or Maya that from what we know of CIV7 would not be possible.
Pretend that turn Haudenosaunee into Germany would feel the same than historical changes of religion, form of goverment of just dynasty is dishonest and cheap if the causes are not addressed.

I wonder if part of the reason some people hate this so much is that they view it through a lens where there are fixed cultural points in the past that they identify themselves in relation to, rather than the whole thing being a swirling chaotic mess since Homo Sapiens started farming (and a long time before that too).

Maybe for some it is, but at the same time you are missing posts that clearly are explaining others reasons to want a better system to represent change.

 

[Siddorm]

Regarding my Civ 7 buying decision, "civ switching" is less important to me than things like:
My life situation; the pricing of the content that I want; performance (requirements); overall gameplay and balance; AI; UI; bugs; mods.
None of these things are clear yet.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Already rebutted by:

Anyway, just because "conquests, invasion, wars, revolution, and conflicts" played a role in a civilizations evolution (which they do in all aspects of history) doesn't mean that it's a complete replacement of the previous population. The ancient Egyptians didn't all keel over when the: Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, or Arabs invaded.

In gameplay it looks like it.

The "just pretend Egypt turned into Mongolia in a not so violent way" is not as easy when in game your architecture and regular units become Mongol like, and you know the funny thing is that both Epytians and Mongols are a perfect example of why this representation in game dont fit the "just pretend there is not cultural replacement":
- Egyptians have way better historical options for the "have three horses and become..." transition, Arabs, Berbers and Turks! But dont get me wrong I actually think the possibility of Egyptians turning into Mongols is OK both historicaly and gameplay wise, after all in real history Mongols comes from the same general are that Turks and Mongols themselves were pretty close to conquer Egypt if they really wanted, also if the game mechanics have some actual representation of "Mongol-like" independent peoples it would be nice interact with them to get Mongol influences.

- When Hunnic, Ugrian, Turkic and Mongolic groups conquered China, Persia, Afghanistan, India, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, Caucasus, Balkans, etc. They usually ended being culturized in the religion, language, customs and architecture of the conquered people, the main exception is Central Asia but this was also relatively less densely populated and suffered nomadic raids more regularly, but still despite the change of language and phenotype to Turkic the religion*, architecture and many customs are Iranic like. So with these real examples explain me why my Egypt that was "friendly influenced by Mongols" turned to have "mongol-like" cities and units?

A realistic "low impact" Mongol dynasty in Egypt would look mostly Egyptian not Mongol, the rulers would probably hold the Pharoh title like Nubians, Persians and Greeks did and like Mongol-Turkic did with Islamic and Chinese titles. Of course the army would have an elite of Mongol warriors (the war related traditions were the best preserved by this kind of dynasties) but even then a massive amount of troops would be Egyptians still using most of their native militar paraphernalia.
So the level of "mongolization" of your Egyptian civ portrayed by CIV7 do not fit the historical experience for a "lesser" influence, on the contray seems to be even more that what we can see with Central Asia Turkification.

 

[Thormodr]

I voted that I hope they can fix it.

I think adding hundreds of Civs would really add to the immersion. Not sure that Firaxis is willing to do that.

I really loathe the decoupling of leaders from Civs, though.

If modding capability is great, then the community could fix it. Not so sure the modding will be great because it looks like they are really pushing DLC.

Wait and see.

 

[Siptah]

I wonder whether a strict interpretation of „standing the test of time“ makes sense at all. I mean, sure, the pyramids are still around materially. Yet, their purpose and history have been forgotten throughout history for a few centuries, despite some
of their history being available in written form, more or less. But that‘s the thing: did Ancient Greece stand the test of time, because there was always someone who engaged with them and their legacy? Or is standing the test of time only about „still being actively present?“ If you interpret it as the latter, no human stood the test of time, because everybody died. Their legacy and works might be still around, and these might stand the test of time. Just as the Roman legacy is still around after the Songhai took over their empire in civilization 7. So, long confusing musings in short: you either don’t need to stay around to stand the test of time or standing the test of time isn‘t a logical concept.

 

[ArkhanTheBlack]

For me it'll depend a lot on how they actually implement that feature. I think splitting the game in three ages, that can even be played separately is a great design decision.
All three ages are very distinct and should have enough time to really dive into them. So if the goal is to give each age a very authentic feel, I'm all for it.

On the other hand, what I've seen so far from the actual implementation, it already feels inconsequential.
So the Civ changes, but not the leader? Why? Having to play as or against Augustus in the modern age certainly doesn't exactly feel authentic.
It's not like you've constant leader swapping like in human kind with just three ages. And where's the "we want each age to feel distinct" aspect gone now?

Furthermore, not allowing you to *not* swap your Civ already feels like a step back even from Humankind.
Civ changes in history happened mostly because of conquest. Therefore, as long as you're not conquered, there's no real reason to swap.
Only a transition to a bigger empire would make sense, like Rome to Roman Empire or England to Great Britain.

A more realistic aspect could be if your empire falls apart as part of a crisis event at the end of an age.
So, if you end the age as the Roman Empire, it can fall appart int Byzantia, Francia, HRE, etc. and you can choose which to take over.
Could be super interesting, but also somewhat frustrating for some. lol

Unfortunately, all the transitions I've seen so far were borderline face-palm material.
Like swapping to Mongolia from Egypt if you own three horse resources. Seriously!?
I guess that also means you can swap to China if you find a sack of rice on the way?
That doesn't feel like an improvement from Humankind at all.

So for me, the feature can both MAKE or BREAK the game, depending how it's implemented.