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

[djvandyke]

Honesty I dont know. I'm holding out slim hope that they make this an optional feature.

 

[pokiehl]

Honesty I dont know. I'm holding out slim hope that they make this an optional feature.

Seems like the entire game literally revolves around the mechanic. I wouldn’t hold your breath on it changing.

 

[djvandyke]

Sadly I think you are right.

 

[cinattra]

I don't find that any more absurd than the USA existing in 4000 BC and being adjacent to Egypt. I read "Egypt", "Songhai" and "Buganda" as "Civilizations in a fictional universe with the traits that we associate with the real historical civilizations of Egypt, Songhai and Buganda". Which @Professor Phobo perfectly illustrated in #41. Thinking about things in any other way makes everything in a civilization game completely non-sensical - such as why it takes 40 years to cross a tiny ancient city.

If I'm die-hard for my civ and that civ is a modern civ I have to play 2/3's of the game before I can play the civ I want to play. This might mean I may have to play two civs I don't like playing or I'm simply no good at playing.

 

[mackintosh]

Guiding my singular, chosen civ throughout alternate history is sine qua non of Civilization to me. It's a deal breaker. So no, I will not be buying this game. The first Civ I'll miss out on since 1991.

 

[Prester John 2]

I'm actually looking forward to this feature and was advocating for something like this, starting with new civs midway into the game for a while, since I first encountered it while playing Rhye's and Fall of Civilization, a mod for Civ4. The thing is: I play a civ, say Rome, trying to recreate its destiny in the ancient world. But then it fell apart. Then I can switch to another civ, partly its successor, partly with new goals and features to recreate yet another epoch of history. Of course it depends how they actually implement it; I won't play Rome switching to Japan, but anyone who likes to do it, is free to.

 

[cinattra]

It's not sudden, and it's not without reason. Crises often cause considerable changes in culture in real life--look at Europe before and after the Black Death or the Protestant Reformation, for example. And from what we've seen, the crises build up. We also know that there's a time jump from Antiquity to Exploration.

They don't change cultures. They typically change leaders. The French didn't give up their baguettes. They did however eat their rich.

 

[marius_kaparius]

Initially I felt weary about the change but if I think about it from the perspective of playing and finishing games I struggle to fault it.

Let’s say there is a mod that makes it so that you can only pick a Civ/Leader pair and stick with it throughout. Wouldn’t it feel bad if you picked a Modern era Civ and none of the bonuses worked in the first two ages? On the flip side, you pick a Civ that gets you early bonuses, use those to establish a lead and then cruise through the rest of the game clicking next turn or you don’t and there’s nothing that helps you catch up as other Civs bonuses kick in. I don’t think I’d want that mod given the option.

The change makes a lot of sense from the perspective of keeping the player engaged throughout. It also seems to have the benefit of allowing them to drill deeper into the civilization, I find these civ specific Tradition options on the Culture tree to be fascinating.

 

[pokiehl]

They don't change cultures. They typically change leaders. The French didn't give up their baguettes. They did however eat their rich.

What? French bread is from a few hundred years ago. France itself is a big mix of Greco-Roman, Celtic, and Germanic civilizations. The culture of France absolutely has changed over time (like anywhere else in the world).

 

[cinattra]

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

The anti-snowball effect may give the first selection to the leader/civ/player that contributed the fewest milestones/legacy points. Kind of how the worst team in a sports league gets the first overall pick or a higher percentage chance to get the first overall pick.

 

[lt22677]

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.

you're absolutely right, besides from a historical point of view, it's ridiculous from a gameplay point of view, that is, you go from a civilization (Egypt) that is perhaps based on growth to one that is based on conquest (Mongolia or Songhai) and another absurd thing is to have Thebes or Memphis as ancestral cities of the Mongols so randomly
Your idea of having an evolution of civilization along the lines of Ancient Egypt - Fatimids - Modern Egypt or Roman Empire - Renaissance Italy - Italian Republic is much better.

 

[lt22677]

What? French bread is from a few hundred years ago. France itself is a big mix of Greco-Roman, Celtic, and Germanic civilizations. The culture of France absolutely has changed over time (like anywhere else in the world).

Yes but it has not transformed into the Egypt - Mongolia - Modern African Nation type whose name I can't remember now (it seems to me to be a Ugandan ethnic group) if you want to do it it would be much better Gaul - Kingdom of France - French Republic and as regards Egypt the road in my opinion would be better Ancient Egypt - Fatimids - Modern Egypt

 

[queenpea]

What? French bread is from a few hundred years ago. France itself is a big mix of Greco-Roman, Celtic, and Germanic civilizations. The culture of France absolutely has changed over time (like anywhere else in the world).

I play a lot as France in Civ VI (and V and IV and III…). Honestly, I’m having a hard time accepting that I won’t be able to start a game with my favorite Civ and will instead have to “roll” for it in game by starting off as Rome or whomever and then hoping to trigger the France option.

I’m aware that you can start a game in any age. This is a feature that I have used very little in past Civ games, opting almost always to start in the ancient era for a full play through.

We also don’t know if “France” as we know it will be available for the Exploration or Modern Age. The presence of both Notre Dame and the Eiffel Tower might point to it being available in one form or another in both ages. I can only hope.

Anyway, there is a lot to get used to and a greater number of unknowns at this point.

 

[Siptah]

@queenpea according to screenshots, France is modern (which doesn‘t rule out that there isn‘t an Age 2 variant as well). You can start directly in any age.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Thinking about the Civ-switch mechanic some more, I wonder if they should abandon any pretense of historicity and instead go with geographic keywords for who can switch to who for free/by default.

Give each Civilization a tag based on what terrain it has bonuses for. So Egypt gets stuff from rivers, it gets the River tag. Egypt likewise automatically defaults to any Exploration-Era River Civ, which in this case maybe that's Songhai and one or two more.

The logic here is pure gameplay. In the antiquity era you'll be settling cities and towns around rivers to get your bonuses. It would undermine the value of those decisions in the Exploration and Modern era if the player had to lose the value of those decisions because no civ with similar boosts was available. If your strategy maybe doesn't need those bonuses, maybe you'll give them up, and go from Egypt (River) to Inca (Mountain) because you really want the Inca unique unit or whatever.

Drop any hint that you're basing it on history - because that road leads to problems - and just go with "this is the climate/terrain the civilization is acclimated towards" based on what bonuses you get. So an antiquity-era jungle civilization can go to an exploration-era jungle civilization, even if the jungle in question is on the other side of the world, because we don't care about the Earth Prime timeline, only the timeline in the individual game world of that particular save file.

 

[queenpea]

@queenpea according to screenshots, France is modern (which doesn‘t rule out that there isn‘t an Age 2 variant as well). You can start directly in any age.

Yeah that’s kind of a bummer for me. I never would select a late game start in previous games.

Also, as a complete side note, Revolutionary Napoleon of ancient Aksum is…ridiculous?

 

[pokiehl]

Yeah that’s kind of a bummer for me. I never would select a late game start in previous games.

Also, as a complete side note, Revolutionary Napoleon of ancient Aksum is…ridiculous?

So is Theodore Roosevelt of 4000 BCE building the Hanging Gardens in Washington DC right next to the Cliffs of Dover, right?

I know you said there’s a lot to get used to, but genuinely this entire series is not a history simulator but rather has always been historical-flavored fantasy.

 

[jdevo]

Civ switching seems gimmicky to me. I hope they handle it well, but I just don't see the reasoning behind it. It's odd to have the Romans as your neighbor in the beginning and then have them switch over to the HRE for the middle age only to switch over to French in the third age. I don't understand the why behind it.

 

[queenpea]

So is Theodore Roosevelt of 4000 BCE building the Hanging Gardens in Washington DC right next to the Cliffs of Dover, right?

I know you said there’s a lot to get used to, but genuinely this entire series is not a history simulator but rather has always been historical-flavored fantasy.

Yeah I totally get that. I’ve honestly never enjoyed playing as America, Australia, Canada, etc. This has always felt less like an immersive experience to me.

That’s just my preference as a player.

On Napoleon, I am criticizing the decoupling of civs from leaders. And specifically, by tying one iteration of Napoleon to the French Revolution, this places that leader firmly in one historical context and culture.

 

[pokiehl]

On Napoleon, I am criticizing the decoupling of civs from leaders. And specifically, by tying one iteration of Napoleon to the French Revolution, this places that leader firmly in one historical context and culture.

I hear you, but I do think these choices were made pretty thoughtfully.

I assume they started with this idea that they want to find a way to keep the mid and late game exciting. This ostensibly led to the division of the game into 3 discrete ages, the crisis system, etc. Then they also considered civ balancing from different eras, and the desire to have every faction remain relevant and interesting. This flowed into changing your civilization each era. With the changing of civilizations each era, that means every civ post-antiquity has to be changed into, not selected in antiquity. Accordingly, with unchanging leaders, that would mean you'd never get to be those leaders. So leaders and civs basically have to be decoupled in this gameplay framework.

I also think it aligns with their stated philosophy in this regard. They're emphasizing that your civilization is the culmination of your choices and actions throughout the game. It's still a singular "faction", and needs that static leader to represent it.