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

[I was NC]

I've tried TSL with civ switching, it works great once modded for TSL IMO, unlock based on geography as explained by uppi, and if civ7 is as moddable as civ6, you'll get it.

Interesting, I very much appreciate the hopeful possibility. I'd planned on waiting until at least the first patch regardless, which gives time for modding.

 

[Equilin]

I've tried TSL with civ switching, it works great once modded for TSL IMO, unlock based on geography as explained by uppi, and if civ7 is as moddable as civ6, you'll get it.

Will probably need copious amount of modded civs tho?

 

[Mightymagyar]

I’m pretty confused here and there’s some incorrect information in the post.

1/3 of whom plays Civ 5? What is the total figure you’re referring to? Are you trying to make some point that Civ 6 isnt as popular as it could be? It’s the best selling game in the entire series.

The mod did not come out “almost immediately.” It came out after the 2nd expansion—years after release. And the civ 6 art dev made it himself to show modders how flexible the art modding system is.

You’re framing the mod as some immediate reflection of backlash from fans but that’s just not the case at all.

Wild that a game with an already dedicated fanbase that released on all platforms, made the most sales

 

[Voidwalkin]

I'll buy it. I hope they pull this off. It's not guaranteed that they do: I'm more concerned that this installment will be a flop than any past version.

It's ambitious. It also may diminish the emotional connection a player feels to their civilization.

My main fear, though, with all this ambition, is that it may have taken design focus away from core gameplay elements that really must be improved upon. Combat AI, balance between offense and defense, I hope these have been focuses. Seems like there's a new mobility system, as well?

I have a feeling balance issues will be being worked out for years after release. With this much new, I doubt they've programmed the AI to be particularly capable, tbh. How could they? With this many moving parts I doubt that they could understand meta well. Meta will be emergent later, as players get a hold of it, and they'll be playing catch up, with a programmed AI that can't begin to cope with these unforeseen players strategies.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I've tried TSL with civ switching, it works great once modded for TSL IMO, unlock based on geography as explained by uppi, and if civ7 is as moddable as civ6, you'll get it.

I've tried TSL with civ switching, it works great once modded for TSL IMO, unlock based on geography as explained by uppi, and if civ7 is as moddable as civ6, you'll get it

I've tried TSL with civ switching, it works great once modded for TSL IMO, unlock based on geography as explained by uppi, and if civ7 is as moddable as civ6, you'll get it.

Not really sure I understand? How and in which game could you already try Civ Switching, i.e. in combination with a TSL map?

 

[Thormodr]

No, it isn't a non-sequitur. Civ 4 and Civ 6 both had multiple leaders available for the same Civ in the game. We have had a grand total one instance where a leader represented multiple Civs. In other words, the fact that there can be multiple different leaders for a Civ (but all historically linked to that Civ) has been suggested in previous titles. Forced civ switching, as proposed for this game, simply has not been.

Well two, actually. Eleanor and Kublai.

 

[uppi]

Do you know where the Songhai are....?

Yes...?

 

[Thormodr]

I absolutely am remembering Civ 5's release. Notice you just said the keyword.... "release"

1 unit per tile was not a firestorm or particularly contentious before the game was released in a terrible state and the small small minority who rightfully concerned about how the AI would handle 1 unit per tile were vindicated... even then tactical combat was one of the most requested changes to the civ formula from 4 (doom stacks were a term to mock Civ combat) and that is primarily the reason why 5 sold so well.

I actually didn't care that doomstacks were gone as I didn't particularly care for them, even though I loved Civ IV. The AIs inability to effectively use 1UPT was severely lacking and became apparent fairly quickly after the release of 5. Carpets of doom instead of stacks of doom. The AI wandering aimlessly and being shot and torn to pieces.

Even that didn't bother me as much as horrendous global happiness. That, too, took a bit of time before it really showed what a bad system it is. *Ugh*

The game was released half baked and it clearly was not ready. That is where a lot of anger came from and consequently why the Mongols DLC was given for free in an attempt to placate people.

This is entirely different from 7 where we have a sizable number of people six months out from release being quite concerned about a fundamental change to the series rather than just to some peripheral changes.

So, a totally different situation.

 

[Thormodr]

Frankly, I don't think so. I feel like you're the one with the tainted-glasses looking back with some soft nostalgia. I don't know the switch from III to IV, but I vaguely remember the switch from IV to V and definitely remember from V to VI. Edit: for a more recent example, I remember the second-hand backlash that Eleanor and leaders leading different civs brought to the game, with the most inane takes on it and some of the most over-the-top hyperboles on what it would entails for the future of the franchise.

And, frankly again, the whining and tantrums I see here for this "feature that'll kill the franchise" is broadly the same amount of whining and tantrums we had for any element that changed through any other change. Plus ça change, as French people say.

Now, I'm not saying that, since any tantrum threw in the past ended up becoming a beloved feature, that people throwing tantrums over the civ-switch is proof that it'll become a beloved feature. But from my point of view of having played Civilization for roughly 20 years, it definitely has the same feel, as far as I can remember.

Been playing since pretty well the month or so of the release of Civ I. I've been on the forums since Civ IV and other Civ forums before that like Apolyton and Weplayciv.

This apprehension for the Civ switching is certainly not equal in scale to previous angst about announced changes to the upcoming Civ games. This is certainly different and that is predictable as this is a fundamental change to the game and a contradiction to the series motto.

Exodus 1:8
King James Version
8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.

 

[Mahi]

It's definitely a huge risk. No question. But I feel like just carrying on without seeking to build on the game design is also a risk. I'm much more excited to see a Civilization 7 that I don't quite like than I would be to see a Civilization 5.5 I like a lot.

The problem will always be the earlier iteration feel left behind with a new launch.
I wish we could have had navigational rivers and commanders implemented in Civ 6.

 

[Professor Phobo]

The problem will always be the earlier iteration feel left behind with a new launch.
I wish we could have had navigational rivers and commanders implemented in Civ 6.

I was still in the mood for more Civilization IV expansions when they announced V! Just how the cookie crumbles.

 

[lt22677]

This is an excellent post in my eyes! And the best is: The feature of connecting the different conquests in C3C from Mesopotamia up to WW2 to a "single campaign" in C3C "comes out of the box". Here you can watch the story of such a "campaign": https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/the-nine-conquests.677408/

Page 12 of the C3C manual:

Connecting different own scenarios in C3C to a campaign in C3C is also possible with the editor.

Civ 7 in one of its main features is Civ 3 Conquests, with the discussion, if it is done better or not as in C3C.

And now please guess, who was responsable for the Conquests and the Campaign in C3C.

I have to congratulate you , you guessed it, the game can basically be called Civilization 7 Conquests

"Breaking Civilization 7 into chapters also gives campaigns a new rhythm"

A new age begins: Civilization 7 captures the chaos of human history in manageable doses

Firaxis Games needed to move on from Civilization 6 because, its developers explain, ‘it was getting too big for its britches’

www.theguardian.com

 

[Socrates99]

One of the main complaints about the 4x genre is the boring end game. If making the game more dynamic helps I'm all for it. Some of the problem with Civ in the past is if you played an ancient or classical civ without game long UAs your civ became just a vanilla civ later on. This could help keep the player engaged with unique things to play with.

The longer eras and playtime with each civ could help avoid the problem with Humankind where some cultures were just kind of bland.

 

[Core Imposter]

More interesting than the civ switch to me is the statement that any civ can come from behind and win at the end of the game. To me, that's more impactful.

 

[lt22677]

More interesting than the civ switch to me is the statement that any civ can come from behind and win at the end of the game. To me, that's more impactful.

This statement isn't clear to me, it's something that exists in all games of this type, Can you specify it better?

 

[Teproc]

I voted for the first option even though I do have some reservations about the mechanic and it's certainly not the main reason I'll buy the game, but I'm generally positive on the idea. My main concern with Civ VII is the modding situation, which does not look great as far as we can see.

 

[DWilson]

As expected, much of the frustration and discussion about this is dying off. I suspect many bothered by it are writing the game off, while those on the fence are coming around.

I'm mainly following Ara updates myself at this point, which is bittersweet

 

[ColtSeavers]

As expected, much of the frustration and discussion about this is dying off. I suspect many bothered by it are writing the game off, while those on the fence are coming around.

I'm mainly following Ara updates myself at this point, which is bittersweet

My overall impression ist also, that a lot of people are at least cautious and that there is also somewhat less enthuiasm about the game in general. On positive note, I get the impression that the Devs are at least trying to consider some of the concerns and moderate the Civ Switching a little bit, like having more emphasis on a historical path (at least for the AI).
I remain sceptical about this, not because I oppose the Ages mechanics per se, but because I expect it very difficult to implement them pracitically.

 

[Krajzen]

In the worst case I still believe switching system is going to be much more pleasant than Humankind's system, due to there being only three civs instead of six, retaining historical leaders instead of their terrible avatars, era switches being dramatic and not anticlimactic, more historical transitions (also due to 3 civs instead of 6 greatly simplifying the job), the game being much better overall etc.

In the middle case, I expect dlcs and mods to steadily add more and more civs to fill the gaps and make it feel better.

In the optimal case, I hope it is going to be highly moddable or customizable, so you can play more or less historical transitions or retain civs in some eras or simply play as one through the entire game like in the old times etc.

Overall I am simply going to see how it feels on release, and what are the prospects of point 3) happening soon enough. Sooner or later, point 2) is going to naturally make the system flow better and better anyway, to the point we reach the Best Case:
Best Case - we again see "Japan", "Persia" and other staple civs on the map once again, just evolving through three separate historical stages, dynasties, eras, subcultures etc. And at that point I think it is going to feel superior to the old model. You thought playing China in civ6 was cool? Wait till you see civ7 journey with all dlcs and mods where every era you can choose from multiple Chinese dynasties to customize your version of China; you may go as Tang, Song or Ming in the second era, and Qing or PRC* in the third era; so many possibilities!
*-or as Kuomintang China if some modder introduces that option and Chinese gov doesn't go berserk upon seeing that

 

[TreVor_ish]

Changing cultures, because I got enough stars, which is what in CIV VII terms would be betting 3 horse tiles, might be anticlimactic. However, scripted motions that force me into situation to change might be even less thematic. Everyone changing at the same time and getting rubber banded also feels artificial.