Civ-Switching

[Kwami]

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.

So... Are you suggesting that the developers just make up a new civilization that never existed as a successor to the Mississippians? And similar for others that don't have obvious historical predecessors and successors?

I don't like the idea of made up civilizations.

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

But to me, that's less immersive than what we have now. Making up new civilizations is just weird. Also, in the real world, there are sometimes rather large cultural changes in an area. The example that the developers used of Britain is a good one. It seems that most people are OK with "Rome -> Normans -> Great Britain", even though the cultural differences between Roman Britain and Norman Britain and Great Britain are massive. So, I don't know if "cultural link" is the right phrase here. I think people just want historical accuracy, which is frankly impossible for most civilizations.

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.

It seems limiting, though. You suggested that only certain leaders could take particular paths, for example. No more Charlemagne leading the Mississippians, for example. That's definitely more limiting than what we have now. Letting us mix and match leaders and civilizations provides some benefits. We can have leaders that we wouldn't otherwise have and we can try different strategies that would otherwise be blocked.

 

[Kwami]

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

But the USA in 4000 BC isn't a nonsense story? You just have a different idea of what's nonsense than some other players do. I don't think Charlemagne leading the Mississippians is any more silly than the Hawaiians building the great Egyptian pyramids in 3000 BC or the Mongolians launching the first mission to the moon in the 1800s.

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.

I doubt that you can provide even one example of this actually happening.

 

[Kwami]

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.

That's not just renaming, then. That's turning civilizations into a package of a flag, city names, and building art. The rest of the civilization then becomes generic "science bonus package" or "horse combat bonus package". So, you have "Prussia with horse combat bonus package". Or, you get "Prussia with Mongolian bonuses", which to me, is much, much worse for immersion than what we have now.

A rename is much less of a change. You'd just type in a new name, like you do for cities or commanders.

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?

This just further confirms what I wrote, though. You're proposing far more than a simple option to rename a civilization and what you're trying to get is what Millennia did. It didn't work out well in Millennia and I don't think it'll work any better here.

If the "horse combat bonus package" is no longer tied to Mongolia, then it doesn't make any sense to have a unit called "Keshig" or have bonuses with names like "Bokh" and traditions called "Baghatur". Why would the Mayans have these things? They're all Mongolian things.

 

[wilcoxchar]

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)

The funny thing is this already exists for gameplay-related unlocks in the game. When you unlock a civilization through gameplay, it gives you a little blurb explaining why in the unlock screen. People just don't bother reading it I guess.

 

[wilcoxchar]

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.

Yes, a lot of the issue is with player creativity. Players have no problem with Brazil existing in 3000 BC or building the Forbidden City, but apparently lack the creativity to think about why a Roman civilization that has lived on islands for centuries might develop into a maritime culture similar to our Hawaiians. It's a very silly and arbitrary line people have drawn and shows that the problem seems to be more with not liking change because it's change or are just looking for any excuse they can to dislike the game, rather than any actual reasoning.

 

[moondog385]

I think more attention needs to be given to the structure of the ages rather than civ-switching specifically, as addressing the former will "solve the problems" of the latter. For example, allowing players to complete a whole campaign from beginning to end in one age would be one way to avoid civ-switching. Personally though I don't think they should go back on their civ-switching idea entirely because I've come to prefer the whole "built in layers" concept as more historically accurate to starting the game as American barbarians. The transitions just need to be more seamless and refined.

 

[Lebo44]

It's a very silly and arbitrary line people have drawn and shows that the problem seems to be more with not liking change because it's change or are just looking for any excuse they can to dislike the game, rather than any actual reasoning.

No.

If I play FIFA game, I want to have real teams with real squads for immersion. Not Ronaldo playing as a defender for Buganda or Messi being the goalkeeper for Belgium. When I win some games and advance to playoffs, I still want to continue with my team until the final game, not switch to change name, squad and shirts in the middle of the tournament.

But hey, if something like Shaquille O’Neal leading Zambia before switching to Mexico to battle Sid Meier’s Templar Knights switching to Soviet Union is fair game for you—then cool. I guess we just sit on opposite ends of the historical plausibility spectrum.

 

[Leucarum]

I don't think the Civ switching issue is so much one of gameplay as much as what you identify with when playing. If I describe a Civ6 game I'll say I'm playing a Sumeria game or a Norway game. Even in the case where we have multiple leaders, it feels weird to leave out which civ you play, in a way that leaving out your leader doesn't. Hence the portmanteaus of Englaenor and Fraelaenor that people here have used a lot.

This is without players who specifically identify with a civ and want to play that civ which I don't think is a small number. I take issues with nationalism, but I'll recognize that it is a reason a lot of people enjoy Civ...

Put those two together and I get why people feel bad when switching civs. I like most of the antiquity civs, 3-4 of the exploration civs, and maybe 1 modern civ, so I'll be the first to admit that civ switching hits my desire to complete games, even though I am able to enjoy Civ7 in spite of civ switching.

Firaxis said they also tried leader switching and found it more confusing, which I can believe, since the AI avatars you're dealing with changing each round does sound like a head scratcher. But A being worse than B doesn't mean that B isn't confusing or off-putting to a lot of people too.

I'd like to see the era system maintained personally, albeit with the edges smoothed over. But I do think Civ switching would be much better as some form of Civ evolution.

 

[wilcoxchar]

No.

If I play FIFA game, I want to have real teams with real squads for immersion. Not Ronaldo playing as a defender for Buganda or Messi being the goalkeeper for Belgium. When I win some games and advance to playoffs, I still want to continue with my team until the final game, not switch to change name, squad and shirts in the middle of the tournament.

But hey, if something like Shaquille O’Neal leading Zambia before switching to Mexico to battle Sid Meier’s Templar Knights switching to Soviet Union is fair game for you—then cool. I guess we just sit on opposite ends of the historical plausibility spectrum.

Even setting aside the whataboutism here ignoring engaging in the actual discussion, you probably picked the worst possible comparison you could with FIFA, considering FIFA (well, EAFC now I guess) has Ultimate Team where you can play a team with Diego Maradona, Kylian Mbappe, Hope Solo, and Samantha Kerr all on the same team. Not to mention other soccer games like Football Manager have transfers, moving players around on the tactics screens, newgen players, and create-a-club where you can do exactly what you're stating here.

I don't think the Civ switching issue is so much one of gameplay as much as what you identify with when playing. If I describe a Civ6 game I'll say I'm playing a Sumeria game or a Norway game. Even in the case where we have multiple leaders, it feels weird to leave out which civ you play, in a way that leaving out your leader doesn't. Hence the portmanteaus of Englaenor and Fraelaenor that people here have used a lot.

Nobody is leaving off what civ they're playing though when talking about a game though? Every time I've seen people talk about their games, people will talk about what civs they're playing, because civs are still so important to how you play that just saying what leader you picked tells people nothing. To take my most recent playthrough, nobody says "I'm playing a Hatshepsut game" and leaves it at that. They'll say "I played Mississippi-Songhai-Qing as Hatshepsut" or if talking about their current age, "Hatshepsut Mississippi", or similar phrasing.

 

[Leucarum]

Nobody is leaving off what civ they're playing though when talking about a game though? Every time I've seen people talk about their games, people will talk about what civs they're playing, because civs are still so important to how you play that just saying what leader you picked tells people nothing. To take my most recent playthrough, nobody says "I'm playing a Hatshepsut game" and leaves it at that. They'll say "I played Mississippi-Songhai-Qing as Hatshepsut" or if talking about their current age, "Hatshepsut Mississippi", or similar phrasing.

No disagreement, I guess to rephrase, the choice of Civ is - I would say - the defining characteristic of how I remember any Civ game I play... I'm not saying leaders don't matter, but I do think they matter less to the identity of any given game than your choice of civ.

I think when people are saying things like "I want my civ to stand the test of time," "my civ died offscreen" or "my civ made a nonsensical transition" they are all to some degree saying saying "I no longer identify with my civ."

I don't think Civ switching stops me enjoying Civ7 but I am 100% able to empathise with this viewpoint, and why it might kill your enjoyment of the game, or discourage you dipping your toes in at all.

 

[Kumbao]

It is just disheartening to see what this thread has become. I made it with the intention to try and fund ways to improve that mechanic for people who dont enjoy it. And it is a real problem, no matter how much those people, who do enjoy it, claim that this would not be the case.

Instead this once again became a completely stupid and unneccessary discussion, in which people defend said mechanic instead of trying to find ways to make it more enjoyable for people who dont.

This is just a waste of time. For all I care this thread can be closed. There is nothing productive going on here. I will try to get into Ursa Ryand discourt or something. Maybe it is possible to have a productive discussion there. But this is just a waste of time. Bye.

 

[wilcoxchar]

One thing I do think they could do to improve the feeling of civ switching is just making the blurbs in the unlock screens more prominent, maybe having them read out during the age transition like the civ intro is. Just because it alone adds so much to the explanation of why you're switching to a certain civ but people seem to easily miss it and then behave like there's no explanation. It would also add a lot of flavor if they were shown somewhere even in the case of a leader or geographic based switch.

 

[Krikkit1]

One thing I do think they could do to improve the feeling of civ switching is just making the blurbs in the unlock screens more prominent, maybe having them read out during the age transition like the civ intro is. Just because it alone adds so much to the explanation of why you're switching to a certain civ but people seem to easily miss it and then behave like there's no explanation. It would also add a lot of flavor if they were shown somewhere even in the case of a leader or geographic based switch.

Exactly…combine the Reason for the bonus change with the ability to choose your civs name/identity and a massive amount of the problem is solved

 

[Kwami]

It is just disheartening to see what this thread has become. I made it with the intention to try and fund ways to improve that mechanic for people who dont enjoy it. And it is a real problem, no matter how much those people, who do enjoy it, claim that this would not be the case.

Instead this once again became a completely stupid and unneccessary discussion, in which people defend said mechanic instead of trying to find ways to make it more enjoyable for people who dont.

This is just a waste of time. For all I care this thread can be closed. There is nothing productive going on here. I will try to get into Ursa Ryand discourt or something. Maybe it is possible to have a productive discussion there. But this is just a waste of time. Bye.

To be fair, you presented an idea that we've already discussed numerous times. I don't really know what you expected to happen. If your goal was to have nothing but support for your idea, then that's not a discussion.

 

[Civinator]

But the USA in 4000 BC isn't a nonsense story? You just have a different idea of what's nonsense than some other players do. I don't think Charlemagne leading the Mississippians is any more silly than the Hawaiians building the great Egyptian pyramids in 3000 BC or the Mongolians launching the first mission to the moon in the 1800s.

You made the question why Charlemagne should not lead the Mississippians and you received a well reasoned answer to your question. Reacting to the answer with you "don´t think this is any more silly than", following by some examples, only shows that my answer to your question even for you seems to be correct.

Charlemagne should not lead the Mississippians because this is (as you post it) silly, or as I have posted it, because this is nonsense. Thank you for confirming, that my answer to your question is correct (so I have some doubts that you were aware about this, when you wrote your post quoted above).

And when looking on many of your posts, it seems that it is needed to add the following:

It seems you have not understood the idea behind the posts showing constructive critics about the current Civ 7. The number of current Civ 7 players seems to be underwhelming and constructive critics are showing ways to get more players on board of Civ 7. For civers like you, who think that all in the current Civ 7 seems to be perfect and all constructive critics are blasphemy, these posts would not be needed, if the number of current players would be sufficient for a good future of Civ 7. But this is the point where I and many other CFC members at present have doubts.

 

[Kwami]

You made the question why Charlemagne should not lead the Mississippians and you received a well reasoned answer to your question. Reacting to the answer with you "don´t think this is any more silly than", following by some examples, only shows that my answer to your question even for you seems to be correct.

Charlemagne should not lead the Mississippians because this is (as you post it) silly, or as I have posted it, because this is nonsense. Thank you for confirming, that my answer to your question is correct (so I have some doubts that you were aware about this, when you wrote your post quoted above).

No, you're twisting what I wrote. I don't have a problem with any of those things. I'm very happy to have Charlemagne lead the Mississippians. You don't like it, but that doesn't mean that nobody else does.

Civilization has always been silly. That's my point.

It seems you have not understood the idea behind the posts showing constructive critics about the current Civ 7. The number of current Civ 7 players seems to be underwhelming and constructive critics are showing ways to get more players on board of Civ 7. For civers like you, who think that all in the current Civ 7 seems to be perfect and all constructive critics are blasphemy, these posts would not be needed, if the number of current players would be sufficient for a good future of Civ 7. But this is the point where I and many other CFC members at present have doubts.

Please, stop. I've been critical of the game when I don't like something and I've been supportive when I do. I don't want the game to change in some of the ways that you do and I'm allowed to have and share my opinions just like you do. There's nothing more to say about that.

It's not up to me to "save" the game, if indeed it needs saving. That's up to Firaxis. I just hope that whatever they come up with is at least as fun as what we have now. I'm not convinced that the ideas presented in this thread are more fun. Indeed, having played Millennia, I very much think that they are not.

 

[Civinator]

No, you're twisting what I wrote. I don't have a problem with any of those things. I'm very happy to have Charlemagne lead the Mississippians. You don't like it, but that doesn't mean that nobody else does.

Civilization has always been silly. That's my point.

If you ask the question, why a civilization game should not set Charlemagne to be the leader of the Mississippians, while there exist a lot of other settings in these games that you describe as silly, you will receive an answer.

Please, stop. I've been critical of the game when I don't like something and I've been supportive when I do. I don't want the game to change in some of the ways that you do and I'm allowed to have and share my opinions just like you do. There's nothing more to say about that.

There is something more to say about this: You should accept in reality and not only in words, that others have this right, too. And you should understand, that the number of players who are completly happy with the existing Civ 7, is not adding any new players to come on board of Civ 7. If the existing number of players is enough to provide Civ 7 a good future, this is fine, especially for you. If not, you have the optimal game you want in its final version and there is no need for you to waste your time in all these posts - and other civers don´t waste their money in buying Civ 7 and possible DLCs in its current form.

It's not up to me to "save" the game, if indeed it needs saving. That's up to Firaxis. I just hope that whatever they come up with is at least as fun as what we have now. I'm not convinced that the ideas presented in this thread are more fun. Indeed, having played Millennia, I very much think that they are not.

I completly agree that it is up to Firaxis (and Take 2), if - and may be what - to do with the future of Civ 7. May be you should play the Civ 3 mod CCM 3 in combination with C3X instead of Millenia to get an idea what could be done to make civ switching and leaders more properly in a civ game, especially as Civ 7 in many elements is only an upgrade of the Civ 3 Conquests campaign. The CCM mods were and are existing since many years before the concepts of Civ 7 were explained to the public.

 

[Kumbao]

One thing I do think they could do to improve the feeling of civ switching is just making the blurbs in the unlock screens more prominent, maybe having them read out during the age transition like the civ intro is. Just because it alone adds so much to the explanation of why you're switching to a certain civ but people seem to easily miss it and then behave like there's no explanation. It would also add a lot of flavor if they were shown somewhere even in the case of a leader or geographic based switch.

While that would not entirely "fix" the civ switching issue for me, it still would be a significant improvement. I like that idea. It would definetly play more into the role playing aspects of Civ 7.

 

[Pfeffersack]

Given how unpopular civ switching seems to be (there is a vocal significant crowd outright disliking it and probably a good sized group of people accepting it/coping with it, but few people stating that they explicitly like the design decision the way it was made), I'm surprised that this mod hasn't received more responses / feedback yet:

Thread 'Classic Civ'

Feb 16, 2025

Preview version of a mod that will allow to play all base* civs on all ages (*excluding DLC at this moment)

In this preview both Antiquity and Exploration civs have been set for testing on all three ages (and all civs are available for a Modern start)

This is experimental, expect issues, and please report them in this thread.

Download here


Installation

extract in your "%LOCALAPPDATA%\Firaxis Games\Sid Meier's Civilization VII\Mods" folder


To uninstall

delete the "classic-civ" folder created on extraction


Configuration

You can edit some parameters...

• Gedemon
• Replies: 22
• Forum: Released Mods

• 

Me being in the "wouldn't have needed civ switching, but can somehow cope with it..."-tent, I gave said mod now a try...and I have to say, despite this being an alpha version and not able to cure anything, the mod does exactly what its name says and @Gedemon already crafted a pretty nice classic Civ experience with it. If I imagine that over time more and more civ and leaders will fill out gaps and someone takes up to balance all of them for the concept of "same civ sticks with leader for the entire game", then I wonder if that could be a solution for those just being irritated by Civ-Switching (but e.g. not with separated eras including partial resets)

 

[Civinator]

Given how unpopular civ switching seems to be (there is a vocal significant crowd outright disliking it and probably a good sized group of people accepting it/coping with it, but few people stating that they explicitly like the design decision the way it was made), I'm surprised that this mod hasn't received more responses / feedback yet:

May be because this mod can only be played by civers who still own Civ 7 and it would be up to those players to post more responses and feedback ?

I think it is good, that you are hinting to this mod.