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

[TheGrayFox]

Pretty much day one there will be mods that allow you keep your civ name and use whatever unit/building graphics you want for your civ each era. Those are surface things, which is why I don't see them as impactful as true mechanical changes like introducing 1UPT. Age-specific uniques is an important mechanical change, as I'd noted previously, but not so material as to warrant claims that "this is no longer a Civ game". Nobody would be making that claim if each civ had specific uniques per age, they're making that claim because they don't like the name text file changing. Which is totally fair and legitimate, but that's a flavour thing that'll be addressed by modders, not a mechanical thing you have to live with.

I mean at the end of the day the series tagline is build an empire to stand the test of time. Not play three different and sometimes completely unrelated empires each building on top of one another between seperated game rounds.

It's a huge change to the formula probably the biggest we've ever seen, which is why there is such a revolt against it

I also doubt that the game will be "three separated campaigns". It'll be a single campaign punctuated with twos sets of crisis events along the way. However, depending on how the crisis turns and transitions actually play out, maybe it will feel like the exploration age had nothing to do with the ancient age you just finished. I'd be shocked if the dev team was so incompetent that this was the case, but until we see transitions in action, we won't know for sure.

You doubting it doesn't change that they have explicitely seperated what used to be one sandbox campaign into three seperate ones. You can play them completely seperate from one another because he hard divide between the eras and thats literally an advertised selling point. What was once a single arching campaign is now three seperateand connectable scenarios complete with arbitrary crisises and forced civ swapping that completely changes how planning around unique abilities and units and buildings work between them. To say this isn't a huge mechanical change is simply wrong

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I still find bizarre that some people think there is no middle ground between 1UPT and SOD

Civ 7's military commanders may test this dogma. A year from now, I expect more continuing heated debate about Civ 7's combat system vs 5/6 vs 4 than about civ-switching. Civ-switching worries will get smoothed out by customized mods, but the combat mechanics will be something everyone has to live with and hate / love / tolerate.

 

[Gedemon]

Civ 7's military commanders may test this dogma. A year from now, I expect more continuing heated debate about Civ 7's combat system vs 5/6 vs 4 than about civ-switching. Civ-switching worries will get smoothed out by customized mods, but the combat mechanics will be something everyone has to live with and hate / love / tolerate.

right, I doubt the combat will be easy to mod. It may even be harder to implement nUPT than in civ5/6.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Pretty much day one there will be mods that allow you keep your civ name and use whatever unit/building graphics you want for your civ each era. Those are surface things, which is why I don't see them as impactful as true mechanical changes like introducing 1UPT.

Not sure, whether this can be solved that easily. There have been suggestions from Gedemon, who provided us with great Mods in the past, but there are clear limits a Mod can do here. What may sound superficial to you, impacts the overall impression far more than some "true mechanical changes", at least to me. I struggled a lot with 1 UPT at the beginning, but that didn't stop me from buying Civ 5. This whole new Leader Focus is something completly different, you either like it or you don't. With 1 UPT there was at least some hope, that it improves the gameplay experience in the long run (which it acctually did, in my opinion). For Augustus of Mongolia there is no such hope, to me that is just a weird way of playing a game, who claims to capture the human history.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I know some aren't going to like to hear this but I wouldn't take the words of a dude who hasn't even been a lead devoloper on a series bearing his own name in decades as the gospel. By Sid's definition in this interview, many action-adventure sandbox games could be Civilization titles.

I prefer his definition by some margin!

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

You doubting it doesn't change that they have explicitely seperated what used to be one sandbox campaign into three seperate ones. You can play them completely seperate from one another because he hard divide between the eras and thats literally an advertised selling point. What was once a single arching campaign is now three seperateand connectable scenarios complete with forced civ swapping that completely changes how planning around unique abilities and units and buildings work. To say this isn't a huge mechanical change is simply wrong

I said "Age-specific uniques is an important mechanical change" and made that point in multiple posts, including one you quoted. What are you arguing, exactly? That I should have said "huge" instead of "important"?

When's the last time a Civ game didn't have an advanced start option? Maybe now there'll also be the ability to set victory conditions at the end of each age, which would actually be new. Most Civ buyers are casual gamers, so the ability to play a shorter version of the game may appeal to some of them and it's hardly surprising that they would therefore market it. But having the ability to play shorter versions of the game doesn't say anything about whether a traditional antiquity-to-space race game will still feel like a single campaign or not.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

What may sound superficial to you, impacts the overall impression far more than some "true mechanical changes", at least to me. ...
This whole new Leader Focus is something completly different, you either like it or you don't.

I respect that and understand that. I'm not saying the flavour things are unimportant to players or don't affect their enjoyment of the game.

As for the leader focus, I've never thought of myself as playing a particular leader, and if I play Civ 7 that likely won't change. I'll ignore who I'm playing, but I will pay attention to who I'm playing against, which was always the important thing about leaders for me: who are my neighbours, not who am I.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I love how people are interpreting game terms and developer quotes as some kind of divine text or at least ideological manifest. Too many and too much Civfanatics having a schism.

CIV is a mess in the use of terms and ideas. The game is named Civilization but now we have the "we build Empires not Civilizations" crew. Of course playable civs are named also "Empires" in many CIV games but it is not less funny to present it like a revelation or "proper" interpretation when is just the vagueness and lax use of terms for a mere game. After all CIV have also too much focus in leaders that could be named Leaders instead anyway.

We have others absurd things from previous CIV versions like a "Canadian civilization" when a term like civilization is mostly used for broad groups of peoples, cultures and polities that share some common customs, technonologies and history. I mean regular people would talk more about the Mesopotamian civilization (as a regional entity that include empires like Assyrian and Babylonian) that about a Canadian civilization that would be seen as just a nation-state part of the modern western civilization. Under this regular perspective is also weird to talk about an Empire made of series of Civilizations when usually it seem as the opossite, civilizations like "Persian civilization" has a history of many empires also multple simultaneous empires from a common civilization (this is why despite many people complains "blob civs" like Celts and Polynesians are valid in a common use of the term civilization). Empires are usually more deffinite entities, many times even under a specific dynasty (not always but it is a common way to see them) so in reality empires are the ones that fall as part of a changing civilization not the other way around.

CIV devs and fans are mixing all around concepts like civilization, empire, culture, nation, government, dynasty, policy, etc. So at the end of the day there is not a proper interpretation of the in-game concepts.
Is better to talk about what each one would like to be represented, what is the kind of dynamics and gameplay personally you want.

 

[IgorS]

It's not a significant change, mechanics wise, because mechanically all that is happening is that your uniques change from era to era. And some of the game rules also now change from era to era, which is an even a bigger change, and the unique changes may well be required to align with these rule changes.

"Your people" don't cease to exist and then get replaced by "some other people". All that is changing is a text file (civ name) and maybe the unit graphics. From a gameplay perspective, both of those things are meaningless; they're pure flavour, they have no impact on how the game plays. You still have continuity of everything else.

What is unknown at this time is the potential impact of the crisis events and transition turns. We know there's gameplay associated with them, but we don't know how it works. This is a change from past versions of the series, and could be a big change or a small change. But the civ-switching itself is close to a nothing-burger from a pure gameplay perspective.

But mechanics is not the only thing about a game. Flavour is also very important. Unless you play your games like a robot, focusing only on gameplay, and not about the package around it. As I have said multiple times, Civ VII may do what it does well gameplay-wise, but it does not mean it will be the right thing atmosphere-wise.
I can compare this again to Assassin's Creed: Odyssey. If you strip the game down to its mechanics, you get a pretty good game. But if you also take into consideration the fact the game is called "Assassin's Creed", you will start asking yourself questions. Like, why is there no parkour, only climbing stuff like Spiderman? Why is the stealth mechanism so bare-bones and most of the time you don't sneak, but engage in combat? Why don't you have a hidden blade? Why is there so much mythology involved? What's with all the RPG elements and level-scaling? And then you end up being disappointed with the game regardless of how fun it is, because it betrays the franchise's formula.
So you can say all you want that the only thing that changes is text and unit graphics, and this is no big deal, but it actually is quite a big deal to people who care about immersion and atmosphere, and not just about gameplay.

 

[ombak]

I think the key difference between something like 1UPT vs Civ switching is that in every version of Civ, if I want to play Greece I start a game as Greece. My strategy is already plotted at the beginning. I know I will get Hoplites and all the other special bonuses that come with Greece. These are constants in the game and I can plan accordingly as I explore the map. I have constant knowledge of what I will have access to and can use that knowledge to strategize as I explore the map and discover the terrain.

In Civ 7, I do not know what Civ I will get in round 2 or 3. My first games even more so. Eventually, I will learn paths through it but only through trial. The map and how it relates to my Civ is alien to me. At the start of a game, I don't know what I need to be planning ahead for. Now if you like adaptive strategy (like me) this sounds fun. However, a fair amount of players do not play civ for adaptive strategies. It is downright impressive what some players can formulate and pre-plan for, not to mention execute. This big ball of "unknowables" will certainly be a put off to them and it won't weigh in the same as switching to 1UPT since 1 UPT can still be precalculated.

I think your point is a solid one for a couple of reasons. I too played Civs like this, but there was always a problem. Some of those bonuses are entirely irrelevant for a large part of the game. Playing as the USA, for example, might mean not even reaching or using some of the bonuses before winning, depending on player skill, game speed and so on. That problem is at least one of the reasons why players might not complete an entire match.

I think the approach Firaxis is taking for 7 deals with this. However, it's also not the only way to deal with it and that's where a player like me might be open and others like you, less so.

I wasn't attached to playing like this, I did so because that's what was available. I like the prospect of getting more era-relevant bonuses more often, and perhaps we both do, but the dev team is gambling on "feeling like Civ" winning over the players that are on the fence or not open to the idea of switching, and ultimately preferred it to other options like implementing three eras-worth of bonuses for each Civ, even those with no ancient or modern history.

As was pointed out elsewhere in the thread, ultimately those things are just numbers and lines of text/code. But the flavor matters a lot and we'll find out how much "it feels like Civ" and how much that can win over those who are sceptical (or even, succeed at holding on to those who are open to it).

 

[Gorbles]

There are some who realy like to pretend that the uproar to popular changes like introducing hexes and removing stacks of dooms was anywhere near the same levels of contention and revolt we're seeing from the fanbase regarding civ swapping and eras. You can pull up any poll after poll from before and after V's release that shows that majority of fans here were excited for these changes and someone will try to convince you that you're wrong and that half the fanbase really hated 1 unit per tile and if Civ V was showcased today the stream would erupt into Ls

Yes, it must be a very strange coincidence that we've gotten a "1UPT vs. MUPT" thread in the Civ. subforum of your choice every couple of months for the past 14 years or so.

(not that I've been here for all that time, but a decade is long enough to see the patterns)

The thing is, I don't want to invalidate people not liking any game. If you don't like V and up because of 1UPT? Valid. If you don't like VII because of the civilisation switching / evolving / whatevering mechanics? Valid.

But I have to point out the irony in trying to diminish problems other players have with the franchise by insisting that your problem is bigger, and therefore more important. It's a video game. Problems are personal. Others can share them with you, but that's as far as it goes. It's hardly objective when everybody's dislike is rooted in their own personal immersion r.e. what a civilisation (in any Civ. game) means to them. It's subjective by definition. Valid, but subjective.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Yes, it must be a very strange coincidence that we've gotten a "1UPT vs. MUPT" thread in the Civ. subforum of your choice every couple of months for the past 14 years or so.

(not that I've been here for all that time, but a decade is long enough to see the patterns)

The thing is, I don't want to invalidate people not liking any game. If you don't like V and up because of 1UPT? Valid. If you don't like VII because of the civilisation switching / evolving / whatevering mechanics? Valid.

But I have to point out the irony in trying to diminish problems other players have with the franchise by insisting that your problem is bigger, and therefore more important. It's a video game. Problems are personal. Others can share them with you, but that's as far as it goes. It's hardly objective when everybody's dislike is rooted in their own personal immersion r.e. what a civilisation (in any Civ. game) means to them. It's subjective by definition. Valid, but subjective.

It's not about dimishing the problems some have with the game, no one is denying that there were some people who complained about the move to 1 unit per tile and hexes. It's about pointing this idea that the move away from stacks of doom was ever as unpopular or divisive as civ swapping is currently is as the fiction it is. It simply wasn't not matter how much some like to pretend it was.

A better Poll! unit per tile?

I was just wondering

forums.civfanatics.com

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/one-unit-per-tile-debate.524566

A better Poll! unit per tile?

I was just wondering

forums.civfanatics.com

 

[Gorbles]

It's about pointing this idea that the move away from stacks of doom was ever as unpopular or divisive as civ swapping is currently is as the fiction it is. It simply wasn't not matter how much some like to pretend it was.

I don't think you have the statistics to make the claim that it isn't, and I think that those who feel as strongly about 1UPT as you do about the way civilisations evolve in VII have every right to feel as put out as you do.

You can't say people are pretending, nobody here knows categorically for sure, statistically. All any of us have are "feels" (specific polls conducted at specific points in time are data points, not actual aggregate data in of itself). Even my own experience here on CFC is anecdotal. So is everyone's.

I believe you think the thing you don't like is the worst thing ever, or however strongly you want to phrase it. I'm not mocking it. But I really think it's counterproductive to try and make the reception to 1UPT seem better in hindsight (with all the benefits that entails, and two entire 1UPT games in the community that have proven themselves popular - VII hasn't even had that chance yet), when literally the other month we had two "AI good or bad" threads that devolved into "1UPT sucks" (at least temporarily, if not outright) and one or two threads literally about 1UPT vs. MUPT.

If it truly wasn't as contentious as people are making it out, we wouldn't keep seeing these threads about it. But we do. And perhaps we will about this specific change in VII, too.

 

[Core Imposter]

At some point you just have to let things go. My life is no less because of the 1 UPT decision. It's just two games I never bought. What difference would a third game not bought make? The way I look at it is that I can continue to play C-IV and there is a great sequel out there waiting to be made. Win-win.

 

[Evolena]

I mean, the main thing people cite for not having played Civ VI is graphics, so... opinions.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I am in fact hoping the game does so badly at release the devs have no choice but to either scrap the civ switching mechanic entirely or at least make it optional, maybe in like a game mode.

If Civ 7 is successful. If it flops (for whatever reason(s), regardless of whether that's due to civ-switching or not), the reversal could be quick.

Note that I doubt it flops. I'm assuming there's been a lot of thought go into the transition / crisis mechanics that will make the actual civ-switching fun to play, at least for most players. But time will tell.

The franchise has a lot of momentum so I’d be surprised if Civ7 doesn’t do well in sales

It took 343 Industries no less than three stinkers to tank the Halo franchise and get themselves deservedly fired. Gears pooped out two of them before the franchise dies.

On the other hand, the modern Fallout series cranked two out of the park with a minor stutter step with New Vegas. Fallout 4 was a huge success.

And 76 tanked so hard they got fire saled to Microsoft.

Turns out changing the core identity of your franchise might piss people off

I disagree on this one. 1UPT changes the actual gameplay, quite significantly. Switching doesn't, it's just flavour.




I said this in another thread but I'm really surprised by how many people are still struggling with the concept of switching. Sure, Egypt to Mongolia sounds a bit goofy but meh, whatever, doesn't affect gameplay, let's just embrace it! But it seems many people still can't.

1 UPT changes combat tactics in a huge, and awful way, but that is only one facet of the game

Civ switching, developer fiat crises and soft reset completely removes any sense of role play and immersion.

The board gamey nature or Civ6 was annoying but tolerable. These mechanics might as well smack me in the face repeatedly with a copy of Settlers of Cataan screaming THIS IS A GAME as my Egyptians give electro distortion screams and transmogrify into Mongolians like they were being possessed by Agents in The Matrix

I suspect the only way I will be able to enjoy Civ7 is heavily modded (not a strike against the game, it’s how I play most games), and treating each era as three seperate basically unrelated games, which is functionally what they are

Again this game series is built on its abstractions of human history and creating a game around those abstractions and connections. If this game didn't have its historical themeing, it would've never been series it is today

Nobody plays Civilization for its cold text files and values. The historical flavour and the sandbox immersion is part of the series' game play. Even then splitting the entire game into three seperated campaigns and completely changing how players interact with unique units/abilities over the course of the game is a HUGE gameplay change mechanically

This right here. The big pushback I am seeing about this mechanic reminds me strongly of Fallout 76’s reveal where a single play RPG got transmogrified into an always online PvP.

They’ve taken the sandbox and historical role play and pretty much dumpstered them.

Civ 7's military commanders may test this dogma. A year from now, I expect more continuing heated debate about Civ 7's combat system vs 5/6 vs 4 than about civ-switching. Civ-switching worries will get smoothed out by customized mods, but the combat mechanics will be something everyone has to live with and hate / love / tolerate.

Given how central it is to everything I suspect modding Civ switching out in a meaningful way, more than just label re arranging might be a challenge

I’m a dedicated Germany player. Someone is going to have to mod in an ancient era German and an exploration era Germany with appropriate traits and stuff.

The most enfuriating thing about this developer fiat bippidy boppity boo transmogrification is that we have not only an example of it done wrong with Humankind, but an example of it done right in Civ Revolutions.

The former needs no introduction. In the latter, I can play Germany in all 4 eras with era appropriate bonuses for each.

This would have easily solved the historical role play dumpstering problem

I still cannot wait to see how they handle the Genocide Implications, as a LOT of the historical paths for civs is basically that

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

1 UPT changes combat tactics in a huge, and awful way, but that is only one facet of the game

Civ switching, developer fiat crises and soft reset completely removes any sense of role play and immersion.

Sure, but now you're talking about the crisis and Ages systems. They do have a significant impact on gameplay, switching may be tied to these but it has no major gameplay impact in and of itself.

 

[Kev1916]

Sure, but now you're talking about the crisis and Ages systems. They do have a significant impact on gameplay, switching may be tied to these but it has no major gameplay impact in and of itself.

Civ "switching" denies player choice at the start , and what is just as bad it also restrict's player choice in a later game ( age ..) or indeed your "choice" may only appear in game 3 , it likewise denies your choice of AI opponents to face....

It has a huge fundamental gameplay impact .

 

[Civinator]

...or even more bizarre that some people do not think civ4 was the greatest of all civ game.

Now that is really bizarre.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Civ "switching" denies player choice at the start , and what is just as bad it also restrict's player choice in a later game ( age ..) or indeed your "choice" may only appear in game 3 , it likewise denies your choice of AI opponents to face....

It has a huge fundamental gameplay impact .

I don't quite understand what you mean, to be honest!

If by "denies player choice", you mean that there are only 10 civs at the start (vs 20 or so in older games), then yes, it's fair to say that you have fewer civs to choose from at the start. Is it a "fundamental gameplay" issue though, given that it's very easy to fix? They can add more civs without changing any of the gameplay mechanics.

If by "denies player choice", you mean that players can't take Rome or America from beginning to end, I would agree that the choices are now different but suggest that this is still just flavour, it has nothing to do with gameplay. I e., you could remove switching and the game would play identically.