Civ-Switching

[McSpank01]

I really like the way things work in a game like Crusader Kings 3.

By that I mean, you have a culture. You can customise that culture to be say 'germanic' in the way it appears. It can have a name, which you can change. Then, depending on the culture around you, you might create a hybrid culture, mixing and matching bits from local cultures into a new one. You also get 'fascination techs' which give you a bonus to researching tech that others around you already have.

I guess what I'm getting at is, the process for 'building in layers' feels much more organic and branching, and is heavily based on who is around you and what they are doing. It is much more complex than what happens in Civ 7, which is ultimately incredibly crude and gamey.

I'm not suggesting that it would ever be possible for Civ 7 to copy a system like CK3, but there are some lessons to take from it. I am happy for my Civ to take on new forms, to adapt to the world around me and evolve in certain directions. I am less happy for it to feel like a huge monumental change to my civ, where I am swapping out one skin for another. Change should feel gradual, it should be determined by events in the game (so I do like civs being unlocked by your actions on paper) and it should feel like the natural, not jarring or gamey.

 

[Civinator]

Why can't Charlemagne lead the Mississippians?

Because two very important factors for the story of a civ (geography and history) are telling you, that this is a complete nonsense.

And it shows, that Civ 7 makes the people more and more stupid. In former versions of the civ series, there were some posts, that those versions were also used for education at school. A Civ 3 mod, per example, was an official medium of education in Canada. Now if a pupil in a test at school is answering the question "who was Charlemagne" with "he was the leader of the Mississippians", I don´t think, that this pupil will receive a good mark.

 

[McSpank01]

Also, yeah I hate leaders, because they are symbols of the most egregious examples of immersion breaking gameyness. Having Charlemagne lead the Mississippians hurts my head and immediately makes me realise I am playing something that has no relationship to reality. I can suspend my disbelief for so long, but these things are a step too far.

I think there is a reason why Civ games have always appealed to people who like history. My own interest in history is almost certainly heavily motivated by playing civ games, I used to literally read the civopedia to learn about cultures and technology.

So for the game to basically try to break history so blatantly, to move away from that and turn history into a cartoon.. it doesn't sit right.

 

[UWHabs]

Having a spread between leaders and civs is good for some history, because you can learn about people like Rizal or Amina, who don't have a directly affiliated civ. But yeah, at the same time you don't really get as invested in them or their history.

For civ switching, I feel like we probably need a few modes to the game. Give me the unrestricted mode where anyone can unlock anyone, give me the normal mode, which is like it is now, give me a hard mode, where you really have to fight to unlock a civ (ie. to unlock Bulgaria, you need to build 6 altars and pillage 50 tiles), and give me the impossible mode, where you can only use the official direct links.

And then along with that, I think some people won't be satisfied until you literally let them play America in Antiquity, and so we'll probably need a mode to let you do that. IMO, the cleanest way would be that if you play a civ "outside of their era", then you get a simple tree for them and a few very generic traditions. So an expansionist civ might get a tradition that's +2 happiness in conquered settlements, or +25% production to settlers, or a 10% bonus to buying in town, etc... You could even have it randomly generate, so every Ancient Era game as America you would get different traditions involved.
Yes, those civs outside of their peak would be weaker, since they lose the passive civ bonus, you lose those other free bonuses, and don't have a UU/UB/UI. But I don't necessarily see that as worse than your civ 6 Germany whose UU doesn't come until the modern era.

 

[McSpank01]

And then along with that, I think some people won't be satisfied until you literally let them play America in Antiquity, and so we'll probably need a mode to let you do that. IMO, the cleanest way would be that if you play a civ "outside of their era", then you get a simple tree for them and a few very generic traditions.

I think Firaxis should include this feature, just to show those people that it doesn't work.

 

[Lebo44]

Having a spread between leaders and civs is good for some history, because you can learn about people like Rizal or Amina, who don't have a directly affiliated civ.

But do you really need to make them leaders to learn about them? What about making them commanders, great people or any kind of special units?

I would love to see regular civ leaders (from the past Civ games) attached to certain civ/ or civ paths, that differs only in basic character traits: aggressive, expansionistic, economic, scientific etc. but with a possibility, at the beginning of the game or an era, of forming governments consisting few special advisors like Tubman, Rizal of Franklin that will adjust the gamplay. I.e Cortez as an advisor make the fleets stronger/faster, Rizal helps with city states or barbarians, Tubman can boost productivity etc.

 

[aieeegrunt]

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.

This has been a solved problem since Civilization Revolutions

You have a bonus per era.

 

[Leucarum]

For me, it is the main reason, why I haven't bought Civ 7 yet.

This is the sentence I'm the most curious about. When the previews announced civ switching was in the game I remember having a very visceral "uh-oh" reaction. If there was any feature which could have stopped me preordering Civ7, it's civ switching. In the end I decided the main reason for my gut reaction was how bad Humankind was... And while I enjoy Civ7, it's in spite of civ switching. But I am curious how many people didn't buy 7 because of this.

In contrast to the era system, whose flaws only become really apparent when you play (and which I think honestly can still be fixed), I wonder if this is the new feature which is hurting sales the most?

 

[aieeegrunt]

This is the sentence I'm the most curious about. When the previews announced civ switching was in the game I remember having a very visceral "uh-oh" reaction. If there was any feature which could have stopped me preordering Civ7, it's civ switching. In the end I decided the main reason for my gut reaction was how bad Humankind was... And while I enjoy Civ7, it's in spite of civ switching. But I am curious how many people didn't buy 7 because of this.

In contrast to the era system, whose flaws only become really apparent when you play (and which I think honestly can still be fixed), I wonder if this is the new feature which is hurting sales the most?

I suspect “If I wanted Humankind, I’d play Humankind, I wanted Civ” would be reflected in the low sales, and “I hate having my civ deleted and replaced offscreen by developer fiat, twice” is reflected in review, returns, and player count

 

[Leucarum]

I suspect “If I wanted Humankind, I’d play Humankind, I wanted Civ” would be reflected in the low sales, and “I hate having my civ deleted and replaced offscreen by developer fiat, twice” is reflected in review, returns, and player count

I don't see how you'd prove it, but it does feel likely to me that civ switching is more often going to be a push factor away from buying the game. It feels easier to have a visceral opinion against it without having played than the era system which is the other controversial mechanic, but whose flaws are subtler.

 

[UWHabs]

But do you really need to make them leaders to learn about them? What about making them commanders, great people or any kind of special units?

I would love to see regular civ leaders (from the past Civ games) attached to certain civ/ or civ paths, that differs only in basic character traits: aggressive, expansionistic, economic, scientific etc. but with a possibility, at the beginning of the game or an era, of forming governments consisting few special advisors like Tubman, Rizal of Franklin that will adjust the gamplay. I.e Cortez as an advisor make the fleets stronger/faster, Rizal helps with city states or barbarians, Tubman can boost productivity etc.

I do think that could work as well, although the problem is now you basically need twice as many leaders (or more, if you allow to switch out your advisor/commander between eras). You could easily define a group of them which would be sort of like your Pingala/Moksha governor setup from 6, but using actual people from the past.

But I think that's not a sustainable solution, since the development costs to create the fancy leaders is too much for their reduced role.

I've said it in another place, but the current system for leaders both favors those smaller/lesser known ones (you don't need to tie them to a civ, so have full freedom). But at the same time, since they are who the game is most trying to make you associate with, you just naturally are going to be pulled towards the bigger presence leaders like Napoleon, Montezuma, Alexander, etc... Personally I don't really have a problem whether I run into Tubman or Genghis Khan, other than how they actually play and act within the game. But I do get at some level why people have a bigger dislike for some rather than others.

 

[Porry]

It seems like an exaggerated proposal to me. Is the problem really a skin or a name change for you? I repeat, changing eras and civilizations opens up a series of interesting and stimulating strategies. The problem with Civ 7 is simply that this era transition was implemented too carelessly.
On the other hand, I see that for many, the problem is seeing simple names change...

 

[aieeegrunt]

I don't see how you'd prove it, but it does feel likely to me that civ switching is more often going to be a push factor away from buying the game. It feels easier to have a visceral opinion against it without having played than the era system which is the other controversial mechanic, but whose flaws are subtler.

You would have to somehow get stats on why people didn’t buy a game.

It seems like an exaggerated proposal to me. Is the problem really a skin or a name change for you? I repeat, changing eras and civilizations opens up a series of interesting and stimulating strategies. The problem with Civ 7 is simply that this era transition was implemented too carelessly.
On the other hand, I see that for many, the problem is seeing simple names change...

It’s way deeper than that. You ditch the core identity of a game, you ditch the core of your playerbase

Fallout and Halo, both far more significant franchises than Civ, were sunk by that

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

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.

and look at how much good that devoloper decision to allow unrestricted leaders has done.... a game sitting at overwhelmingly negative user reviews, which sold less than Civ VI, and has less players than Civ V

 

[Krikkit1]

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".


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


Yes.


I didn't.

The original post called for renaming.

Play with the uniques of Rome-Mongol-Prussia…but rename it to Prussia each age (renaming including cities and graphics)

The “skin” is how the PLAYER wants to identify the civ. The bundle of uniques is how the Game identifies the civ.

Just because the Mongols in the game are called Mongols doesn’t mean they have to me located in Asia and crush the Abbasids. In the game, they might be a development of the Mayans located on an Archipelago and crush the Spanish to later develop into the Bugandans.

So if my Mongols are going to come from Mayans and develop into Bugandans…. couldn’t I have the game call them Mayans or Bugandans the whole way through?

They would still have Keshigs and their bundle of uniques would be based on the real historical Mongols…but if they are going to be fighting the Incans and spreading Judaism….why should I be forced to use the Mongol name?

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

It seems like an exaggerated proposal to me. Is the problem really a skin or a name change for you? I repeat, changing eras and civilizations opens up a series of interesting and stimulating strategies. The problem with Civ 7 is simply that this era transition was implemented too carelessly.
On the other hand, I see that for many, the problem is seeing simple names change...

Yes nonsense leader choices and civ swapping is a problem. You can repeat how great you think changing eras and civilizations are for strategy until you're blue in the face and it won't change the reality that this game flopped in large part due to no one wanting to play as Ada Lovelace and Harriet Tubman of the Khmer who become Chinese

 

[Krikkit1]

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.

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

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.

One thing that would Drastically improve the situation is if there was Much better Narrative events with Age Transition and Civ switching.

Every Exploration and Modern civ should have an Introduction Narrative event that basically says how and why your empire has changed to get this new civ. (probably partially having to do with how you unlocked them)

That Narrative event can then include a choice of how you want your empire to be known in this age
-new age civ name (culture for unique civic)
-previous age civ name (happiness for celebration….to hold traditions better)
-custom civ name (science? just because)

Do you want to be called Byzantines…or do you want to keep being called Rome… The player should choose (AI default would be to always have name match uniques…unless there was a game setting for them to keep the same name going through)

 

[McSpank01]

One thing that would drastically improve the situation is if there was Much better Narrative events with Age Transition and Civ switching.

Every Exploration and Modern civ should have an Introduction Narrative event that basically says how and why your civ has changed to get this new bundle of uniques. (probably partially having to do with how you unlocked them)

Ideally yes, but there would need to be massive resource into making these compelling. I would doubt that more than 1% of players actually read the narrative text events right now. I almost never do, I just look at the options. Even the video at the end of an age I mainly skip, and it does all feel a little low budget and scraped together.

The “skin” is how the PLAYER wants to identify the civ. The bundle of uniques is how the Game identifies the civ.

Yeah, I feel like something like this is the way to go. You have a sort of base identity and in each age you can add to it and build upon it based on your own actions in the world. The way they do it right now is so crude. It is literally civ swapping. But what if you get access to certain traditions, techs, civics and units based on what happens in the world, in a more organic way rather than a huge replacement of what you had before.

I don't think the game is ever going to massively change the way civ switching works, but i can think of a bunch of ways in which it could have been done better.

 

[Shirotora Kenshin]

Off topic completely, i‘m sorry - but is there actually a domination victory in Civ7? Would be good for all the little virtual warmongers here.

 

[Krikkit1]

Off topic completely, i‘m sorry - but is there actually a domination victory in Civ7? Would be good for all the little virtual warmongers here.

Yes…it requires crushing those of different ideologies