Civ-Switching

[Kumbao]

It seems that the civ switching mechanic is one of the most common and biggest complains about Civilization 7. For me, it is the main reason, why I haven't bought Civ 7 yet.

A possible solution on how to fix that issue without compromising the gameplay or the vision the devs had could be that you choose a Civ in the beginning, that will work basically as your "skin" for the rest of the game. A bit like in a lot of of MMOs and RPGs, where you choose how certain armor parts will look like, when you are actzally wearing a totally different armor type.

For example: you choose Prussia as the Civ that you will represent for the rest of the game. Your cities will have German names and your Civ will always be referenced to as Prussia. However, aftrr you chose said "skin", you will still have to choose an antiquuty civ. Lets say Rome. So you will inherit all of the traits of Rome. Same for exploration. And once you hit the modern age, you will be forced to play as Prussia, since this is the Civ that you chose to represent in the beginning.

As I said, basically it works like the armor sets in some RPGs and MMOs. That way you can role play as your favorite civ, you keep your empire identity without destroying the foundation on which Civ 7 was build.

I hope that I could express what I mean, since english is not my mothers tongue. What do you guys think? Could that be a possible way to fix tge issue that many players have with the civ switching mechanic?

 

[Krikkit1]

I agree with choosing your “skin” separate from the unique bonuses.

However, you should be prompted to choose your skin each age. (it could be the same each age or different one age to another)

Ideally with a Narrative choice
-Keep last ages “skin” for happiness bonus
-New “skin” matches new unique for culture bonus to random unique civic
-New Custom “skin” that Doesn’t match new uniques for ?science? bonus

 

[wilcoxchar]

I don't see why this is necessary when this function is already filled by the leader selection. Your leader stays with you as your persona through the entire game, while your civ changes with each age.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think the era reset is a far bigger problem for people, but this would help

 

[Kumbao]

I agree with choosing your “skin” separate from the unique bonuses.

However, you should be prompted to choose your skin each age. (it could be the same each age or different one age to another)

Ideally with a Narrative choice
-Keep last ages “skin” for happiness bonus
-New “skin” matches new unique for culture bonus to random unique civic
-New Custom “skin” that Doesn’t match new uniques for ?science? bonus

Sure, I think that is a great idea too. For me its about options. Maybe you want to mix and match. You want to play as one civ for two eras and then become anoter Civ in the 3rd era. That would help with that.

 

[Kumbao]

I don't see why this is necessary when this function is already filled by the leader selection. Your leader stays with you as your persona through the entire game, while your civ changes with each age.

Leaders are not the same as the Civ. I honestly dont care about the leader.

I think the era reset is a far bigger problem for people, but this would help

I'd say its 50/50. Within the dedicated Civ community the eras are the biggest problem for those who do not like Civ 7. But when you look outside of it, I see more players complaining about the civ switching then about the eras.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

I don't see why this is necessary when this function is already filled by the leader selection. Your leader stays with you as your persona through the entire game, while your civ changes with each age.

Because the game is called Civilization, not Leader

I want to play the Romans and build an empire to span all of time, not play as Ada Lovelace, leader of three seperate and often completely unrelated civilizations.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Because the game is called Civilization, not Leader

I want to play the Romans and build an empire to span all of time, not play as Ada Lovelace, leader of three seperate and often completely unrelated civilizations.

The fact that we have “leaders” who frankly have no business being slotted there is the icing on the cake.

 

[Kwami]

This is what Millennia did. It didn't work very well. It's confusing to have "Prussia with Russian bonuses" and because anyone can have any bonuses, it all just feels lifeless.

Besides, the design vision is that one civilization comes along and prospers in an area that was once prosperous under a different civilization. It's not one civilization that completely changes everything but the city names once every few hundred years. That makes even less sense than the current design.

 

[Kumbao]

This is what Millennia did. It didn't work very well. It's confusing to have "Prussia with Russian bonuses" and because anyone can have any bonuses, it all just feels lifeless.

Besides, the design vision is that one civilization comes along and prospers in an area that was once prosperous under a different civilization. It's not one civilization that completely changes everything but the city names once every few hundred years. That makes even less sense than the current design.

No, it really does not make less sense.

The whole civ switching design was a mistake. And I try to find some productive ways to fix it in a way that helps players who enjoy that feature and those who dont. If you want to play as three different civs you can still do it. The whole idea with the "skin" would be purely optional. I have no idea why some people always feel the need to badmouthing everything without contributing anything to the discussion themselves.

and I really dont know what you mean by "anyone can have any bonus", since that is literally what we have right now. My idea is just that I would add a coat of paint over that mechanic to give those who dislike the civ switching the option for a bit more of empire identity.

Edit: I apologize for my harsh tone. But I stand by one thing: please just accept the fact that a lot of people dislike the civ switching. There is no reason to discuss why. Its a personal preference and not really something that can be discussed. If you like the mechanic thats awesome. I want Civ 7 to succeed. But right now I cant enjoy the game. And I want to find ways on how to fix this, without destroying what the devs worked on. We are all in the same leaking boat and we all want to repair it. And this thread is specifically about the civ switch. Not about eras. And not about why people dislike it. But to find ways to make it enjoyable for everybody. And my idea would be purely optional.

 

[wilcoxchar]

This is what Millennia did. It didn't work very well. It's confusing to have "Prussia with Russian bonuses" and because anyone can have any bonuses, it all just feels lifeless.

Besides, the design vision is that one civilization comes along and prospers in an area that was once prosperous under a different civilization. It's not one civilization that completely changes everything but the city names once every few hundred years. That makes even less sense than the current design.

From a purely gameplay perspective it's also much better for balance to have civilizations only appear in game when their bonuses are relevant. Was much worse before when you had, for example, Rome or Babylon getting their uniques in the early game and then being bland and boring for the whole rest of the game or America or Germany only getting their uniques in the late game so you have to play the first hundreds of turns with a boring, ho-hum civ with nothing interesting about it. With civ switching you can have games that are interesting with unique factors about the civ you're playing throughout the entire game, making playing every civ both more fun and more balanced.

 

[Kwami]

No, it really does not make less sense.

The whole civ switching design was a mistake. And I try to find some productive ways to fix it in a way that helps players who enjoy that feature and those who dont. If you want to play as three different civs you can still do it. The whole idea with the "skin" would be purely optional. I have no idea why some people always feel the need to badmouthing everything without contributing anything to the discussion themselves.

and I really dont know what you mean by "anyone can have any bonus", since that is literally what we have right now. My idea is just that I would add a coat of paint over that mechanic to give those who dislike the civ switching the option for a bit more of empire identity. But please, go ahead and tell us how stupid you think that idea is, while Civ 7 continues to fail.

If you make a topic, then some of the replies will disagree with you. That's how forums work.

In this case, I disagree with you. I think that this idea makes much less sense than the current implementation. If a civilization is nothing more than a flag and some city names, then civilizations become even less important than they are now and the entire narrative falls apart.

 

[Kwami]

From a purely gameplay perspective it's also much better for balance to have civilizations only appear in game when their bonuses are relevant. Was much worse before when you had, for example, Rome or Babylon getting their uniques in the early game and then being bland and boring for the whole rest of the game or America or Germany only getting their uniques in the late game so you have to play the first hundreds of turns with a boring, ho-hum civ with nothing interesting about it. With civ switching you can have games that are interesting with unique factors about the civ you're playing throughout the entire game, making playing every civ both more fun and more balanced.

Yes, I agree. The current implementation makes sure that you always have interesting units and mechanics to play with. Previous games couldn't do that.

I think the original poster wants to keep that idea, but call himself "Prussia" the whole time. But then what is Prussia? Just a flag and city list. That's not a civilization at all. And that's precisely why Millenia feels so lifeless and boring after one or two games. Every "civilization" is exactly the same and you just pick the best bonuses every time.

 

[Kumbao]

Yes, I agree. The current implementation makes sure that you always have interesting units and mechanics to play with. Previous games couldn't do that.

I think the original poster wants to keep that idea, but call himself "Prussia" the whole time. But then what is Prussia? Just a flag and city list. That's not a civilization at all. And that's precisely why Millenia feels so lifeless and boring after one or two games. Every "civilization" is exactly the same and you just pick the best bonuses every time.

Okay, then please just tell us what you think could be done to fix the issue that a lot of people have with the civ switching. Since a purely optional choice that people could use to make the game more enjoyable for themselves seems to be already too much for you and you feel the need to tell us why you like that mechanic. Which nobody asked for.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yes, I agree. The current implementation makes sure that you always have interesting units and mechanics to play with. Previous games couldn't do that.

I think the original poster wants to keep that idea, but call himself "Prussia" the whole time. But then what is Prussia? Just a flag and city list. That's not a civilization at all. And that's precisely why Millenia feels so lifeless and boring after one or two games. Every "civilization" is exactly the same and you just pick the best bonuses every time.

A civ is be 2 parts
1. a name/ graphics/ city list
AND
2. a set of unique bonuses

Every civ has both parts based on a real life civ.

All this would do is allow you to reskin your civ just like you can rename cities.

Why is that a problem…. If I can rename my Greek civ capital to Rome or Kyoto why can’t I rename my civ from Greek to Roman or Meijii or American?

It’s just renaming…should we stop players renaming cities or commanders because it doesn’t fit the vision of the devs??
That’s ridiculous.

You can make good arguments for
1. keeping the game mechanics of civ switching
2. keeping the stack of unique bonuses in a single bundle that is based on a real world civilization

But to argue against players having the option to rename their civ is ridiculous!!

*you can make an argument in terms of resources needed, but that’s a pretty poor argument as “empire identity” is a problem they are trying to solve.

 

[Kwami]

A civ is be 2 parts
1. a name/ graphics/ city list
AND
2. a set of unique bonuses

Every civ has both parts based on a real life civ.

Yes. Exactly this. And if you separate the bonuses from the rest, then a civilization is now just a flag and city list. The bonuses might as well be called "horse combat" or "lots of science".

All this would do is allow you to reskin your civ just like you can rename cities.

Why is that a problem…. If I can rename my Greek civ capital to Rome or Kyoto why can’t I rename my civ from Greek to Roman or Meijii or American?

I wouldn't care if it was just renaming, but that's not what the original post called for.

You can make good arguments for
1. keeping the game mechanics of civ switching
2. keeping the stack of unique bonuses in a single bundle that is based on a real world civilization

Yes.

But to argue against players having the option to rename their civ is ridiculous!!

I didn't.

 

[Lebo44]

A straightforward fix for the civ-switching mechanism, one that doesn't require altering the core mechanics, is to establish historically plausible progression paths, such as:

• Rome → Normans → France or
• Mississippians → Aztecs → Gran Colombia.

Then, aligning specific leaders with these paths, their presence can reinforce both the plausibility and the distinct cultural character of each progression. So for example, Caesar or Charlemagne can lead only the first path while Montezuma or Bolivar can only lead the second path.

Civilization-switching should be entirely driven by the player's actions, or more precisely, their decisions. This could be facilitated through an in-game event or a dedicated special project, enabling players to indirectly influence the selection of their next civilization.

These are just examples are provided to illustrate the concept:

Rome can switch to Byzantium, Normans or Bulgaria.

• Rome -> Byzantium: religious path, when the user decides to build a Pantheon or set up a Christianity as a religion
• Rome -> Normans: science/cultral path
• Rome -> Bulgaria: military legacy path, when the player chooses to get a special Barbarian commander during the Antiquity or conquers a lot

This represents the ideal implementation from my perspective.

 

[Kwami]

Okay, then please just tell us what you think could be done to fix the issue that a lot of people have with the civ switching. Since a purely optional choice that people could use to make the game more enjoyable for themselves seems to be already too much for you and you feel the need to tell us why you like that mechanic. Which nobody asked for.

I can disagree with your idea without solving everything that you think is wrong with the game.

 

[Kwami]

A straightforward fix for the civ-switching mechanism, one that doesn't require altering the core mechanics, is to establish historically plausible progression paths, such as:

• Rome → Normans → France or
• Mississippians → Aztecs → Gran Colombia.

Then, aligning specific leaders with these paths, their presence can reinforce both the plausibility and the distinct cultural character of each progression. So for example, Caesar or Charlemagne can lead only the first path while Montezuma or Bolivar can only lead the second path.

Civilization-switching should be entirely driven by the player's actions, or more precisely, their decisions. This could be facilitated through an in-game event or a dedicated special project, enabling players to indirectly influence the selection of their next civilization.

These are just examples are provided to illustrate the concept:

Rome can switch to Byzantium, Normans or Bulgaria.

• Rome -> Byzantium: religious path, when the user decides to build a Pantheon or set up a Christianity as a religion
• Rome -> Normans: science/cultral path
• Rome -> Bulgaria: military legacy path, when the player chooses to get a special Barbarian commander during the Antiquity or conquers a lot

This represents the ideal implementation from my perspective.

But what do you do about civilizations that don't have an obvious three-tier path available? Where does Hawaii come from and go? What about the Mississippians? And what about leaders that don't really have a perfect match in the game? Or civilizations that don't have a matching leader? Are we asking too much of the developers to implement that many new civilizations and leaders? Won't this really restrict which civilizations and leaders can be added to the game in future updates and expansions?

And why should we further restrict player choice? Why can't Charlemagne lead the Mississippians?

I could see going this way in a different game, but not in Civilization VII. It's too late for that. And the developers told us that they considered this idea and decided against it precisely because it would limit who they could include in the game.

 

[Lebo44]

But what do you do about civilizations that don't have an obvious three-tier path available? Where does Hawaii come from and go? What about the Mississippians? And what about leaders that don't really have a perfect match in the game? Or civilizations that don't have a matching leader? Are we asking too much of the developers to implement that many new civilizations and leaders? Won't this really restrict which civilizations and leaders can be added to the game in future updates and expansions?

I think it is a matter of creativity. Imagine Mississippians with a crisis event of Great Flooding (something that happened in America long, long time ago in very ancient times) that forced them to became more maritime civ... Still civ-switching but provided some plausability.

And why should we further restrict player choice? Why can't Charlemagne lead the Mississippians?

To keep the immersion, the flavour, the cultural link between all civilizations so that civ-switching is less painful. As in the previous Civs.

I could see going this way in a different game, but not in Civilization VII. It's too late for that. And the developers told us that they considered this idea and decided against it precisely because it would limit who they could include in the game.

In my opinion it would not limit much but this is my view I think they just lack of creativity in that matter (see my answer at the top). That said, my perspective leans heavily toward single-player gameplay, and it may not translate easily into a multiplayer-focused environment—so you might have a point there. In multiplayer oriented-game there is more focus on generic solutions, applicaple to all paths/civs/leaders in similar fashion whereas my ideal solution would require more flavour, event-driven approach.