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

[Siptah]

Ultimately, it is the anti consumer Denuvo drm that will prevent me from buying the game. At least for PC, anyway.

Moderator Action: There is an entire thread devoted to that topic. Please discuss it there. leif

iPad, I am not sure. Civ switching could be fixed or at least made tolerable with mods. No mods for the iPad, as far as I know.

You can use GeForce Now on the iPad (and PC). Recently, all the newer civ games came back to it (after being absent for a few years), so I assume that 7 will also be on GeForce Now. It uses Steam, so you can use all the mods you want.

 

[Gorbles]

This is a dramatic change from how Civ has always been “here is your starting units, here is a map, go forth!”

Except that's exactly what you still do. You get starting units, you get a map, and you're fundamentally encouraged to explore, build, settle new cities, etc.

I get what has changed, and I more than get the opposition to it from some. "civ switching" is a dramatic change, I agree. But the way everything keeps being watered down to such generics as "here's your units and a map", that I don't get, because that hasn't changed. The map being limited in some way doesn't mean there isn't a map. It doesn't stop you from going forth.

Maybe I'm being too literal, but at the same time, that's what I feel like some of you are also being.

 

[Zaarin]

Far too often in the gaming industry companies just try to make the most widely appealing 'safe' games, that often end up being lifeless and lacking any soul. Its rare for companies to risk large amounts of money on something new.

This. How often do we as gamers talk about the weakness of AAA games because they refuse to take risks? Bethesda hasn't put out an innovative game in over 20 years. While risk-taking only pays off if it works, we should be excited that a studio owned by a major publisher like 2K is not only willing to try but had the confidence of its publisher to be allowed to do so.

 

[Thormodr]

You can use GeForce Now on the iPad (and PC). Recently, all the newer civ games came back to it (after being absent for a few years), so I assume that 7 will also be on GeForce Now. It uses Steam, so you can use all the mods you want.

Ok. I'll look into it. Thanks.

 

[user746383]

"Your people have vested absolute power in you. Can you build three more or less related civilizations to each stand the tests of their particular eras?"

Maybe that's fun too, but you have to say it's a bit different than building a single civilization to stand the test of time.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

"Your people have vested absolute power in you. Can you build three more or less related civilizations to each stand the tests of their particular eras?"

Maybe that's fun too, but you have to say it's a bit different than building a single civilization to stand the test of time.

Very good.

I disagree though. What can I say, I'm just feeling belligerent today.

Your position on and influence over the map remains constant, from 4000 BC to whenever the game ends, just like any other Civ game.

Maybe we can replace the word "civilization" with "legacy"?

"Your people have vested absolute power in you. Can you build a legacy to stand the test of time?"

Doesn't sound so different to me.

 

[Trengilly]

Very good.

I disagree though. What can I say, I'm just feeling belligerent today.

Your position on and influence over the map remains constant, from 4000 BC to whenever the game ends, just like any other Civ game.

Maybe we can replace the word "civilization" with "legacy"?

"Your people have vested absolute power in you. Can you build a legacy to stand the test of time?"

Doesn't sound so different to me.

Agree. You the player are building one single empire over the course of three Ages.

First Age you pick a unique set of Antiquity characteristics (unique units, buildings, modifiers, and civics).

In Act 2, Exploration you carryover some key parts from Act 1 (legacy policies, buildings, etc) while picking a new set of unique characteristics for the Exploration Age.

Repeat for Act 3 and then hopefully win the game.

You the player (embodied by the personality of the leader you choose) create one empire . . . one Civilization as it were. What 'names' are assigned to characteristics that Civilization uses over each of the three Acts is just a representation of that characteristics set.

 

[Kev1916]

Agree. You the player are building one single empire over the course of three Ages.

First Age you pick a unique set of Antiquity characteristics (unique units, buildings, modifiers, and civics).

In Act 2, Exploration you carryover some key parts from Act 1 (legacy policies, buildings, etc) while picking a new set of unique characteristics for the Exploration Age.

Repeat for Act 3 and then hopefully win the game.

You the player (embodied by the personality of the leader you choose) create one empire . . . one Civilization as it were. What 'names' are assigned to characteristics that Civilization uses over each of the three Acts is just a representation of that characteristics set.

Good points, the question I would ask ( and the answer is just pure greed..) That idea could have just as easly panned out with just one starting Civ with characteristics added as you move through the "ages" and you stay that one Civ
But no they had to add in Civ switching,. why? more civs needed more cash

130 Euro's rofl €100 to get the extra civ

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Good points, the question I would ask ( and the answer is just pure greed..) That idea could have just as easly panned out with just one starting Civ with characteristics added as you move through the "ages" and you stay that one Civ
But no they had to add in Civ switching,. why? more civs needed more cash

130 Euro's rofl €100 to get the extra civ

Hm. They could just as easily sell civ DLC packs containing three Ages of the same civ, I'm not sure the switching mechanic has such a big impact on this.

If you want to accuse them of allowing greed to influence design choices, the decision to decouple leaders from civs is probably a better target for your ire, since this allows them to sell civ packs without the complication of resource intensive leader animations.

 

[chaosprophet]

Good points, the question I would ask ( and the answer is just pure greed..) That idea could have just as easly panned out with just one starting Civ with characteristics added as you move through the "ages" and you stay that one Civ
But no they had to add in Civ switching,. why? more civs needed more cash

To quote myself, the reason I think they went with civilizations:

So basically, in the end it is just a change of name, a different way to represent how your civ changes as time passes. I would venture a guess a reason they decide to make it so you have different civilizations for each age rather than be an civ with a full bonus and then pick generic evolution for each age, is that they prefer to have the possible bonuses you get in a age to have some historical flavor association rather than just generic options. So instead of starting as Civ X and picking on exploration a "Cavalry Military culture specialization" for you next age bonuses, you pick then in the form of a civilization like Mongolia for the association.

Instead of just having generic bonuses for each age, or even nonsense ones for civilization that didn't exist on earlier ages, etc. Overall this is a much bigger cost for them, as needing to designs more game art for all those civilizations, but they still preferred to go with it.

 

[Krikkit1]

To quote myself, the reason I think they went with civilizations:

So basically, in the end it is just a change of name, a different way to represent how your civ changes as time passes. I would venture a guess a reason they decide to make it so you have different civilizations for each age rather than be an civ with a full bonus and then pick generic evolution for each age, is that they prefer to have the possible bonuses you get in a age to have some historical flavor association rather than just generic options. So instead of starting as Civ X and picking on exploration a "Cavalry Military culture specialization" for you next age bonuses, you pick then in the form of a civilization like Mongolia for the association.

Instead of just having generic bonuses for each age, or even nonsense ones for civilization that didn't exist on earlier ages, etc. Overall this is a much bigger cost for them, as needing to designs more game art for all those civilizations, but they still preferred to go with it.

Which is why they should let you choose how that "flavor" is flavored.. there are 'Mongol' type influences on your "thing"(empire, civilization, legacy, etc.).. that's the gameplay affect and it helps the player (and the dev team) to have the Mongol association

shall your "thing" change name to Mongols?? that is the important question that the player must be allowed to answer to get better control over how their story unfolds.

 

[President Skroob]

You know the old saying of building a Civilization to stand the test of time only really applies to "Score" Victories. Winning Domination, Culture or even Science(despite the fact this one requires going into the late-game to get it) can be achieved relatively quickly with the right Civ and Map RNG. Culture victories in particular can be exceedingly easy on Civ 6 with the right Civ and RNG start. Yet what they're proposing to do in Civ 7 is replace the word Civilization with "Leader". First off, I signed up for Civilization, not some Avatar who doesn't even speak my language. Secondly, being Leader centric, as opposed to Civilization centric, means we lose what it means to build a Civilization to stand the test of time, much less have a Leader who is geographically or culturally connected to the Civilization in some form. I mean Augustus of Egypt..? Really? I mean I know Rome and Egypt were cozy and while I do like the idea of Custom factions, I don't want that for vanilla gameplay. Maybe for a Mod or custom game mode but not for a core game mechanic.

As I've said before, I've pre-purchased Civ 7 because I've enjoyed every game in the series that I've acquired. I figure they've earned the benefit of the doubt but if I were in their shoes, I would change course and have the new feature be Leaders changing every Era as opposed to having one Civilization paired with the same Leader the entire time as we've had for 6 iterations of Civ. While part of me wants the option of keeping Leaders, I see the wisdom in forcing change after every Era to maintain consistency but in doing so, they can bring back an old Civ 6 feature with a legacy bonus tied to what Leader you start with. For example, take Augustus. He presently provides the following: +2 Production in the Capital for every Town. Can purchase Culture Buildings in Towns. +50% Gold towards purchasing Buildings in Towns. A legacy bonus could be +2 Production in the Capital for every Town that would carry over to the new Leader in the Exploration Era.

The Leader options available to you should be restricted to the Civilization you picked. That would require that Leaders be chosen for each Civ in each Era. Challenging for some Civs while incredibly easy for others. Mods and/or Game-Mode would lift the restriction, allowing you to pick w/e Leader you want for some shenanigans. Restricting Civs to certain Leaders would thereby make it easier to balance the game. Leaving it as it is now, you'd have to gauge whether it's the Leader that's semi-broken, the Civilization itself or both.

 

[user746383]

Agree. You the player are building one single empire over the course of three Ages.

First Age you pick a unique set of Antiquity characteristics (unique units, buildings, modifiers, and civics).

In Act 2, Exploration you carryover some key parts from Act 1 (legacy policies, buildings, etc) while picking a new set of unique characteristics for the Exploration Age.

Repeat for Act 3 and then hopefully win the game.

You the player (embodied by the personality of the leader you choose) create one empire . . . one Civilization as it were. What 'names' are assigned to characteristics that Civilization uses over each of the three Acts is just a representation of that characteristics set.

I think if it was picking up characteristics from civs from different ages as you progress it would be seen differently, but it's civ switching.

I do hope it's good, I'm not blindly on either the "it's definitely going to be bad" or "it's definitely going to be good" side so we'll see. I do think people are rather unfairly dismissive of the people who don't want to swap civs mid-game because they claim they are expecting a history simulator or something. But hey it's the internet what would we be if we didn't strawman each other.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think if it was picking up characteristics from civs from different ages as you progress it would be seen differently, but it's civ switching.

The key thing is Gameplay wise that’s the same thing. (certain bonuses carry over some don’t)

However gameplay is not the only important thing. The story the player tells with the game is also important. That’s why they could make things better if the option was given about whether to change or keep your name (and city list, flag, etc)

They also should make sure that it the previous civs of your opponent’s are well displayed…so I can tell the difference between Amina leading Egypt Songhai or Aksum Songhai…because that affects both my gameplay with them and how I tell the story of my game.

 

[pokiehl]

Just switching new abilities would be boring and remove the need for 2/3 of the civs in the game.

I think actually switching civs like they have now is a much better solution.

 

[chaosprophet]

Just switching new abilities would be boring and remove the need for 2/3 of the civs in the game.

I think actually switching civs like they have now is a much better solution.

Yeah, it is a reason to have many more civs than usual for a game at the start and even more as time passes by and expansions and DLCs comes out. Also it makes things like different version of different eras of same civ, some civs that may have existed only for a short period more viable choices than in other civs games.

 

[cairnsy44]

I don't love the civ switching, but I do like some of the mechanics related to it, including ages and the opportunity for some more niche civs. TBH the closest thing to a dealbreaker for me right now is the quality of the leader models and the diplo screen, but I know I'll eventually get past those and preorder--even if the leader model quality has severely dampened my enthusiasm.

yeah, I hate seeing the two leaders flailing about in overly dramatic gestures. I want the opponent looking at me and talking to ME.

 

[Voidwalkin]

To a certain extent, you were already making alt-history in Civ. I did have fun imagining an Ancient America.

Seems those are the old days.

Wonder if Civ 8 will retain this change. 6 wasn't a classic. Maybe they felt pressured to shake it up, catch some magic. Most times, when you do that, you don't get a hold of any. We will need to actually be playing to determine this, of course, but odds are against it.

 

[cairnsy44]

While I hated the concept as I first heard it, I am still looking forward to playing it. I may still hate the concept after playing, but want to give it a try before I condemn it completely. Finally, if you are able to customize your civ's name, would all of this brouhaha be remedied?

 

[Voidwalkin]

Finally, if you are able to customize your civ's name, would all of this brouhaha be remedied?

100%.

It's the first place my mind went when I heard this change.