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

[Zaarin]

As someone who loves history, my favorite thing about civ is how I’m always learning something new from it. A lot of people talk about wanting to lead one civ to “stand the test of time” and I know many people who think that because there is a country today called Egypt, they should be playable in every era. Last night, I was curious about the timeline of Egypt and started reading about how the Abbasid conquered Persia and Egypt and later became the Ottoman Empire and at one point part of the French Empire. The current Republic of Egypt was only created fairly recently. So what I’m saying is, even if the name changes you are still more or less playing the same civ and I find it interesting to learn about how different civs evolved and changed over time. I’m not even sure we should call it “civ switching.” Obviously we will get more civs as the game develops but even in vanilla, I think I can still feel like I’m playing one civ that stands the test of time even if the name changes along the way.

A lot of modern state names are chosen for nationalist reasons, and the Islamic Republic of Egypt is about as directly related to Ancient Egypt as Iraq has to Babylon. Which is to say they cover the same geographical region and are undoubtedly genetically descended, but the original culture has long since been paved over repeatedly.

 

[AriochIV]

I find Egypt an interesting example, because even though the modern nation maintains a very strong identification with the ancient culture (which is unsurprising because of the visibility of the monuments and the widely known writing and pictorial representations), in terms of culture, language, religion and even genetic lineage, the modern Egyptians have very little relationship to the Egyptians of antiquity. As I understand it, the culture and population of Egypt was mostly replaced during the Arab conquests, and you have to look to the Coptic minority to find genetic descendants of the ancient Egyptians (and those are from the maternal line, the surviving women of the conquered).

In places like India and China or even Greece and Italy there's an argument to be made that the ancient civilizations have survived to the present, but in Egypt the ancient civilization was essentially destroyed in the Middle Ages.

 

[Siptah]

A lot of modern state names are chosen for nationalist reasons, and the Islamic Republic of Egypt is about as directly related to Ancient Egypt as Iraq has to Babylon. Which is to say they cover the same geographical region and are undoubtedly genetically descended, but the original culture has long since been paved over repeatedly.

This, exactly.

And to add: it‘s similar in all areas of the world I’m aware of. Egypt is actually quite an extreme case, because there have never been major migration waves to the country, despite the many conquests and foreign rules. In Europe, there is much less continuity even genetically. Rome-Italy or Celts-Germany have had large scale migrations that detach the people that live there today from those that did so 2000 years ago (or even 1500). The invention of such predecessor civs many centuries later that are said to have the same (imaginary) virtues and strengths, and would be the same people as the modern nations is actually quite funny - if it wouldn‘t be taken so seriously.

Edit: funny how @AriochIV and I wrote the opposite of each other at the same time

 

[Zaarin]

As I understand it, the culture and population of Egypt was mostly replaced during the Arab conquests, and you have to look to the Coptic minority to find genetic descendants of the ancient Egyptians (and those are from the maternal line, the surviving women of the conquered).

This is incorrect. Genetic studies on bodies from Ancient Egypt have found Egypt to be demographically very stable. Arabs brought a profound change in language and culture, but not in population. Copts and Muslim Egyptians are virtually indistinguishable genetically (and outside of the domain of religion, culturally, too, for that matter). That's not to say the Greeks, Romans, and Arabs left no trace at all genetically, but all three were always minority populations. The discontinuity in Egypt is cultural, not genetic. (That being said, the cultural discontinuity cannot be overstated. Hellenization was largely restricted to urban elites, but the effects of Romanization and especially Christianization were widespread and profound--and whatever was left untouched by them was finally leveled by Islamicization. About the only continuity between Ancient and Modern Egypt culturally is the use of the Hellenized Ancient Egyptian calendar by the Coptic Church and the maintenance of a few Christianized Egyptian festivals.)

 

[Acken]

This will be viewed as a controversial change leading to a lot of internet ink. Similar to the whole 1UPT change in civ5.

I think they probably could have done it a bit differently maybe. Ultimately I think it's an interesting choice that I get into with an open mind.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

IMO the time and techtree jumps will be more jarring ingame than just changing a name.

 

[TheGrayFox]

This will be viewed as a controversial change leading to a lot of internet ink. Similar to the whole 1UPT change in civ5.

I think they probably could have done it a bit differently maybe. Ultimately I think it's an interesting choice that I get into with an open mind.

I still don't understand when compare the change to 1UPT and civ swapping, particularly how "controversial" each was. 1UPT was a very popular change to the series that brought a whole host of new people to the series specifically for the combat changes and the only people who complained about the change from "stacks of doom" (as we used to derogatively called civ combat)to 1UPT before launch was a very tiny minority here who were rightfully concerned (and eventually vindicated) about how the AI would handle such a change.

It really isn't comparable to the backlash we've seen against civ swapping. I've never seen a near quarter of the forum declare they had no interest in buying V because 1UPT

 

[Isengardtom]

IMO the time and techtree jumps will be more jarring ingame than just changing a name.

I never really take much notice of the in game year

The fact that the leaders remain ensures a smooth transition is my guess.
Other way round would be much more jarring for me

 

[Nikolai II]

1UPT was a very popular change to the series

Oh, you sweet summer child. It is popular now. Back then, it was extremely divisive.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Oh, you sweet summer child. It is popular now. Back then, it was extremely divisive.

I was here before and during V's launch

1UPT was no where near as divisive as civ swapping and again the vast majority were specifically excited about the move to tactical combat from stacks of doom.. Again you won't find any polls from before 2010 with a near quarter talking about having no interest in buying the game specifically because 1UPT.. If anything it's the opposite, more people were excited until V actually launched in a completely broken state and 1UPT naysayers ended up temporarily vindicated

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I never really take much notice of the in game year

The fact that the leaders remain ensures a smooth transition is my guess.
Other way round would be much more jarring for me

Oh, yeah I agree. The year # has always been pretty suspect. In my head I was thinking of the big jump on the board. Either way, some people seem too caught up in a civ name. Others might have not been happy with anything other than Civ 6.2 and will complain about whatever.

 

[Isengardtom]

Oh, yeah I agree. The year # has always been pretty suspect. In my head I was thinking of the big jump on the board. Either way, some people seem too caught up in a civ name. Others might have not been happy with anything other than Civ 6.2 and will complain about whatever.

Indeed
As is always the case with civ games

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Now that the topic has resurfaced, I was wondering whether anyone had come around to the idea over the last few weeks/months? For example, do these little narrative touches help at all? Or is it all just hopeless for some people?

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1i4b2l0/i_really_like_the_narrative_reasoning_of_civ

 

[Oberst Kraft]

Civ switching is not something I'm happy with but I will buy this game because in the future adding more civilizations will lead to more historical transitions.

 

[Civinator]

Oh, you sweet summer child. It is popular now. Back then, it was extremely divisive.

... and for some civers like me it is not the best solution for games of the Civ series even today. What is working well for games with the scale of tactical maps like Panzer General is not so satisfying for games with a scale on world maps and their more limited space for regions on the map like the Civ series.

 

[Nikolai II]

... and for some civers like me it is not the best solution for games of the Civ series even today. What is working well for games with the scale of tactical maps like Panzer General is not so satisfying for games with a scale on world maps and their more limited space for regions on the map like the Civ series.

Yeah, I know. A good chunk of the civfanatics still love their stacks, which is understandable, even if I am happy with the 1UPT solution too.

 

[ehecatzin]

On the matter of stacks, the endless micro management of units blocking the way made me miss stacks of doom. I think the commander mechanic is a really good solution to this problem, really looking forward to it.

As for civ switching, maybe It's sacrilege but "building a civilization that stands the test of time" always felt like a hollow unfulfilled promise when only a fraction of that civ was really unique (or played diferent), and from industrial onwards all looked the same. I'm rather happy they dropped that pretense and instead focused on delivering civs that always feel impactful whenever I choose to play it.

I'm really interested in testing the system for myself and see how else it could be improved

 

[Isengardtom]

The more I see of streams and YouTubers the less I think you will even notice it that much outside of the transition moments.

- you keep playing with the same leader against the same leaders.
- your special buildings carry over through the ages. I really like that concept. It’s what you see here in many European cities. An old city centre with around it more modern structures.

Now that the topic has resurfaced, I was wondering whether anyone had come around to the idea over the last few weeks/months? For example, do these little narrative touches help at all? Or is it all just hopeless for some people?

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1i4b2l0/i_really_like_the_narrative_reasoning_of_civ

it will always be hopeless to some people.
I like the narrative touches in that they give you a choice. I think the actual story linked to them will get old after a while and people will stop reading them and go straight to hovering over the choices

 

[pdome01]

I havent played it yet but it seems like its going away from the type of game I enjoy. I like a good single player game where I really feel immersed in a large mysterious world. This feels jarring, disjointed, and arcady. Ill stick to earlier iterations, at least until a good sale happens.

 

[sonicmyst]

The civ switching is not as jarring as it seems if we think differently about it. Civs evolve over time, that is what it is. But my problem is why should the cities go back to become towns when a new age begin.