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

[Siptah]

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.

Yeah, how they treat a not necessarily French napoleon is just careless and lazy. The other napoleon‘s ability is called Emperor of the French…

 

[MRM]

I wait and see. I don't like the Civ swapping at all, certainly not the way it was presented to us (Egypt - Songhai - Buganda as natural progression? WTH)
Hopefully it will be fixed with expansions or mods but I won't buy at release, buying at sale is more likely. I guess I will take a look at Ara instead.

 

[uppi]

The French didn't give up their baguettes.

Baguettes are a post-revolution invention. So they did not give up their baguettes, because monarchical France did not even have them. Baguettes are just another example of culture changing

 

[queenpea]

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. They 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.

Yeah, I get it. I just don’t necessarily like it. I’m going to give it a shot. I think there is a lot to be concerned about. And confused about.

The fact that the YouTubers were not given a chance to fully experience the crisis-to-civ-switch-to-new-age element, which is this iteration’s most significant deviation from past games was…notable.

Hopefully they are invited back to experience this pre-launch and it is well received. Firaxis would have to be aware that this would be the most controversial change and the focus of most of the speculation.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I think a big worry about the system will be: is it more like the blue shell in Mario Kart (annoying rubberband) or like gaining green in Dominion (effective, interesting slowdown)?

 

[Krikkit1]

l

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.

You could also just play the modern era

 

[pokiehl]

Yeah, I get it. I just don’t necessarily like it. I’m going to give it a shot. I think there is a lot to be concerned about. And confused about.

The fact that the YouTubers were not given a chance to fully experience the crisis-to-civ-switch-to-new-age element, which is this iteration’s most significant deviation from past games was…notable.

Hopefully they are invited back to experience this pre-launch and it is well received. Firaxis would have to be aware that this would be the most controversial change and the focus of most of the speculation.

Yeah I really want to learn more about this system too. But we’re going to get new info at a steady clip with the promo cycle in full swing. Maybe we’ll learn more in just a few days when they do the PAX East event.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Aren't the reasons obvious? Firstly you always have relevant uniques and traits. Making the most of uniques and traits has been a mainstay of Civilization strategy since Civ3, and a key part of its replayability. Secondly, the start of a game, where everything is new, no one is too weak or too strong, and everything to play for; has always been the most fun part of Civ games. By having crisis (partially) wipe the slate clean and picking up with a new Civ we essentially get 3 early-games per game, and less tedious end-game. These are pretty huge mechanical reasons to have civ switching, which go to the heart of some fundamental problems all previous iterations of the franchise have had.

By contrast, the cons seems to be limited to breaking some people's immersion because the imagination required to tie it into a narrative (as in #88) breaks their immersion by adding a slightly different kind of absurdity than has been present in past civ games. Immersion is not nothing, but I'll pick mechanics over a specific interpretation of fluff any day of the week.

I don't get this. Why is it are these switches like Rome into Mongolia necessary for the crisis and ages mechanics? You could have implented the crisis easily, without having to implement the Civ Switching.

 

[queenpea]

l

You could also just play the modern era

In my opinion, this feels like an incomplete play through. I’ve never enjoyed selecting a late game start. I think I sound like I’m whining at this point, so I’ll shut up about that!

Yeah I really want to learn more about this system too. But we’re going to get new info at a steady clip with the promo cycle in full swing. Maybe we’ll learn more in just a few days when they do the PAX East event.

Something to look forward to! I wish they had provided more info on this aspect at launch. I was so excited for the gameplay reveal, and my heart sunk instantly at the announcement of civ switching.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I don't get this. Why is it are these switches like Rome into Mongolia necessary for the crisis and ages mechanics? You could have implented the crisis easily, without having to implement the Civ Switching.

I don't think they are necessary, I think they're achieving different design goals.

The crisis is there to reset the competition so the game isn't effectively over hours before it's formally over. You could have that mechanic without civ-switching no problem.

Civ-switching is there because each era has unique mechanics and each civ needs to be designed for the era it appears, because otherwise you run into the problem of civ design where some civs are good late game, others early game. There are alternatives they could have chosen - each civ could have had three distinct era bonus setups, and you went from Egypt I to Egypt II to Egypt III, but presumably they thought that would cut the available pool and civ diversity too much. Plus, if a civ only existed in the modern era, how do you invent it's earlier special bonuses? That seems like it would be a headache.

 

[jdevo]

The tedious late game, especially in Civ6 after turn ~100 was always a UI issue. There was never a way to automate things you didn't care about, or select multiple units and give orders all at once. I'm looking forward to the general unit mechanic. It's the feature I'm looking forward to the most.

 

[Krikkit1]

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.

3 things they could to to avoid some of the “historical” awkwardness

1. Next Era civs that your civ unlocks get unlocked for “Proximity” (Egypt->Songhai/Abassid) or “Influence” (Spain->Mexico) as opposed to “history”
(Then there are “Gameplay” civs)

2. Have the
-NAME of the previous civs remain as part of the new civs name (Greek-Shawnee-America)

3 City names, Unique buildings, and Some “Historical Architecture” (ie an American founded City should have occasional Ancient looking buildings where the graphics depend on what civ America was in Ancient Era,…unless you start in the Modern Era then all your city graphics are modern.)

Capitals should get an automatic “Rename?” option…probably keeping references to the old name
ie Istanbul (Constantiople)

 

[queenpea]

Honestly, I almost wished they just removed leaders entirely. They add nothing mechanically except, at most, giving two different flavours of the same civilization - but I'd rather have two different civilizations anyway. I also prefer to think of myself playing as collective will or gestalt consciousness of a civilization, rather than as one specific (and bizzarely immortal, omniscient, and omnipotent-within-my-borders) leader. And I think the same way towards the other civilizations too - I go to war with the Aztecs, not Montezuma. Leaders are kind of nice to have in the diplomacy screen, but I quickly stop looking at them anyway and focus on the menus and list of diplomatic modifiers instead. Having a generic envoy displayed on the screen - without a personality, name, or the like (perhaps with vaguely cultural and time appropriate look) would be fine with me. The dev effort spent on modelling, animating, and voicing Leaders could be far better spent. Bring back the quarrelling advisors for example!

Decoupling leaders from civs makes them even less meaningful IMO, and this would have been the perfect time to cut them. But that's never going to happen. People are way too attached to personalities (both in games, and in the way they understand history incidentally) for them to accept a slightly more abstract representation of things. Just look at the Gandhi-the-genocidal-maniac as a 30 year old meme, or the amount of angst there is on this forum about tiny details about the models for leaders.

Agree 100%.

As it stands right now, this game will launch with a small number of ancient era civs. Let’s say ten civs for simplicity’s sake.

Given that leaders are static, you will have approximately three times the amount of leaders assuming that each age introduces the same amount of new civilizations.

I’m worried that players will feel limited and disappointed by the relatively small number of civs at the start of a new game compared to previous versions.

 

[lt22677]

Not really? For starters, the uniques of Rome wouldn't apply to the Exploration age? That's what this system is mechanically - a way of picking a new set of bonuses for a new age, slightly constrained by what you did the previous age. The rest is window dressing that doesn't affect the mechanics. Important window dressing, because restarting with a (partially) blank state as Rome in the exploration era feels less like a fresh restart than doing the same with the aesthetics of a different civilization. Crises are a way of linking this mechanic to this narrative, while also adding a new mechanic of rubber-banding that ties in thematically with it.

Civilization VII – Features Post

Civilization VII is set to launch on February 11, 2025, for multiple platforms. It will feature 31 civilizations, 26 leaders, and various categories such as cities, game mechanics, and maps. The ga…

tldrmoviereviews.com

Eras​

There are three Eras in the Game Antiquity, Exploration & Modern and at the start of each era you pick a new Civilization to play as.

Eras are progressed by Age Progress Points which are triggered by achieving Legacy Points in the Victory Track,

Crisis

In-between each era there will be a crisis, causing you to add negative policies to your Civilizaiton.

Crisis Polices

Banditry: – Gold for each Imported Resource
Barbarian Mercenaries: Extra Gold Maintenance on Military Units
Decentralisation: – Gold and Food in Towns with a Specialisation
Inferior Tactics: – Combat Strength against Independent Powers.
Prognosis: + Science on Science Buildings in Infected Settlements; – Gold on Science Buildings
Rebellious Commanders: – Happiness in all cities for each Commander Rank
Recruitment Shortfalls: + Food in Towns; – Healing on all Units
Tribute: – Gold for Each City State you are Suzerain of

Practically in the age of crisis you get a penalty, obviously we need to see if there is something else because if it is so objectively it is something ridiculous because in an age of crisis I expect barbaric invasions, revolts, cities that declare the independence etc... ) let's say that at least from the current information they add nothing to the narrative

PS: However, I have decided to join the group of those who will not buy the game immediately and I will wait to see how everything will work. I was too disappointed both by Civ 5 (which at least with the expansions and mods they managed to improve) and by Civ 6 ( which unfortunately I still can't appreciate)

 

[TheGrayFox]

This is just saying "I don't like it because I don't like it because it's different". That's not a critique of the mechanic, or even an explanation of why you don't like it, it's a rejection of the concept of Firaxis changing things. It doesn't leave any room for debate for discussion, just a solid brick wall of "no".

But i'm not just saying "I don't like it because it's different".... I'm saying I don't like it because I've already played the failure that is Humankind and i know what it feels like to suddenly and arbitrarily change from one civilization to antoher for purely mix/max purposes and to have leaders detached from Civilizations.. I don't like it. If I wanted that I would go play Humankind again.

It's not that "change bad", I'm saying I don't like the changes because what they showcased looks stupid and the historical justifications and accuracy Firaxis used to justify the abstraction of "civilization layering" is flimsy at best.

You trying to handwave away valid critique and concerns about a fundamental change to the very core of what the Civilization series is, is kind of insulting.

 

[lt22677]

Agree 100%.

As it stands right now, this game will launch with a small number of ancient era civs. Let’s say ten civs for simplicity’s sake.

Given that leaders are static, you will have approximately three times the amount of leaders assuming that each age introduces the same amount of new civilizations.

I’m worried that players will feel limited and disappointed by the relatively small number of civs at the start of a new game compared to previous versions.

You're basically describing Humankind (which I didn't like)

 

[TheGrayFox]

Some people in this thread seem to have the memory of a gold fish, reverting to previous reasons for not liking evolving a civilization 24h after a post that assuaged their worries was posted.

No post that assuaged are worries has been posted buddy

 

[pokiehl]

No post that assuaged are worries has been posted buddy

My concerns are assuaged. I'm really excited for this and glad they're going this route.

 

[TheGrayFox]

My concerns are assuaged. I'm really excited for this and glad they're going this route.

I'm just curious what post or information this guy so assertively believes should've erased all our concerns about civ swapping mechanic and detaching leaders from their civs because i have not seen it

 

[Krikkit1]

Agree 100%.

As it stands right now, this game will launch with a small number of ancient era civs. Let’s say ten civs for simplicity’s sake.

Given that leaders are static, you will have approximately three times the amount of leaders assuming that each age introduces the same amount of new civilizations.

I’m worried that players will feel limited and disappointed by the relatively small number of civs at the start of a new game compared to previous versions.

You can have civs without leaders
I heard ~40–50 civs with ~20-25 leaders at launch