Civilization VII - Civ switching and age transitions

[Evolena]

I doubt it's 11, if it was only 11 then why have arrows on either end of the circles?

There were 15 dots in the next civ selection screen during the gameplay showcase, with Hatshepsut Egypt. So... hard to be certain about anything yet.

I wonder if the listed civs are limited to what the base civ can feasibly progress to (through historical/leader/regional/gameplay factors) and some civs will not show up in the list, so some civs will never be able to turn into specific later civs.

Maybe that could be an explanation.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I think the stream alleviated any final concerns I had.

It all comes down to the Age structure for me, these distinct chapters of history but with continuity between them. It's quite clear, as you transition, that you're still building the same legacy, that your past choices matter and that some of your history is preserved. I am building a legacy to stand the test of time.

What we've seen of the Antiquity Age is very evocative for me, and I think having the Ages really allows them to bring each chapter to life in way that they have never previously been able to do. It also looks like each Age will be substantial, both in terms of content and length. It doesn't look, to me, as though my time with each civ will feel rushed or transient, far from it.

As I move to a new chapter of history, and the game changes, it looks natural that my civilization has changed too. Honestly, I think I can even be quite comfortable with strange ahistorical progressions, like Rome to Mongolia, it just works in the context of the Age structure, in my opinion. Alt history, just done differently.

I think it will never be ok for some people, I respect that. I'm now fully on board.

 

[queenpea]

I think the stream alleviated any final concerns I had.

It all comes down to the Age structure for me, these distinct chapters of history but with continuity between them. It's quite clear, as you transition, that you're still building the same legacy, that your past choices matter and that some of your history is preserved. I am building a legacy to stand the test of time.

What we've seen of the Antiquity Age is very evocative for me, and I think having the Ages really allows them to bring each chapter to life in way that they have never previously been able to do. It also looks like each Age will be substantial, both in terms of content and length. It doesn't look, to me, as though my time with each civ will feel rushed or transient, far from it.

As I move to a new chapter of history, and the game changes, it looks natural that my civilization has changed too. Honestly, I think I can even be quite comfortable with strange ahistorical progressions, like Rome to Mongolia, it just works in the context of the Age structure, in my opinion. Alt history, just done differently.

I think it will never be ok for some people, I respect that. I'm now fully on board.

Just curious, but what concerns did you have heading into the livestream?

I enjoyed most of the stream but the age transition was, for me, the low point. I found that UI screen to be rather anticlimactic and uninspired. It felt like starting a new game to me.

On the flip side, I did like the integration of Roman and Norman buildings and the idea of retaining some Roman character in your civilization with those legacy cards. (However the cards lead back to the UI discussion).

To nitpick, I don’t like how the palace building suddenly switched from Roman to Norman. I think if the city names aren’t switching, then the palace doesn’t need to be replaced.

I’m a bit delirious (at home and sick with Covid right now), but I didn’t understand the sudden appearance of Rouen and the capital move. Was the city renamed intentionally and the capital moved by the player?

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Just curious, but what concerns did you have heading into the livestream?

I enjoyed most of the stream but the age transition was, for me, the low point. I found that UI screen to be rather anticlimactic and uninspired. It felt like starting a new game to me.

On the flip side, I did like the integration of Roman and Norman buildings and the idea of retaining some Roman character in your civilization with those legacy cards. (However the cards lead back to the UI discussion).

To nitpick, I don’t like how the palace building suddenly switched from Roman to Norman. I think if the city names aren’t switching, then the palace doesn’t need to be replaced.

I’m a bit delirious (at home and sick with Covid right now), but I didn’t understand the sudden appearance of Rouen and the capital move. Was the city renamed intentionally and the capital moved by the player?

I was mostly worried about continuity. I didn't want it to look and feel like everything I had done previously was meaningless, something just from another Age and not relevant in this new Age.

I never had a big thematic issue with changing to a new civ. I initially felt a little weird about the idea of going from Egypt to Mongolia, or whatever, but as I've read and seen more about Ages, this has seemed less and less important to me, in terms of my own personal "immersion". Lack of continuity across Ages was the thing that was worrying me, and watching it play out just helped me to see that this wasn't an issue.

I do agree that there are problems with the UI. Most obvious in the policy cards, for me. Just text describing the bonus, no flavour to make you feel like you're making big decisions for your empire. Give me some art or flavour text to spice it up!

Edit: regarding the capital change, when picking legacy bonuses, there is a free one which allows you to change capital. You don't have to choose it, but if you do then it will change the name of that capital to one that is appropriate to your new civ. It seems as though all other city names stayed the same, but I certainly hope that we can still rename cities to whatever we want.

 

[chaosprophet]

I’m a bit delirious (at home and sick with Covid right now), but I didn’t understand the sudden appearance of Rouen and the capital move. Was the city renamed intentionally and the capital moved by the player?

During a age transition, as part of the legacy picks, there is a free option to change the capital, which comes with an auto rename (likely for flavor) of the city that becomes the new capital. They could only pick two settlements, so probably only cities and not towns, or maybe only some of the biggest cities. The reason they have that option, is because depending on what civ you're becoming on the next age, maybe a free capital change is really useful. Like, for example, if you went from a civ that was more about bonuses for desert, and then because of that your capital was build there, to now one that is more about coastal bonuses, so moving the capital to a coastal city if you have any would make sense.

And then it probably is something they want as an option for people to build narratives. It is not rare for a nation to change capitals during a big time of change of culture/dynasties/goverment, etc.

Heck, an example that fits that pretty much perfectly is Japan. The original capital was Kyoto, but on the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the capital changed to Edo which was then renamed Tokyo, starting the Meiji era. So one can have a city called Edo, and when picking Meiji Japan on modern era, make it the capital changing the name to Tokyo.

 

[queenpea]

I was mostly worried about continuity. I didn't want it to look and feel like everything I had done previously was meaningless, something just from another Age and not relevant in this new Age.

I never had a big thematic issue with changing to a new civ. I initially felt a little weird about the idea of going from Egypt to Mongolia, or whatever, but as I've read and seen more about Ages, this has seemed less and less important to me, in terms of my own personal "immersion". Lack of continuity across Ages was the thing that was worrying me, and watching it play out just helped me to see that this wasn't an issue.

I do agree that there are problems with the UI. Most obvious in the policy cards, for me. Just text describing the bonus, no flavour to make you feel like you're making big decisions for your empire. Give me some art or flavour text to spice it up!

Edit: regarding the capital change, when picking legacy bonuses, there is a free one which allows you to change capital. You don't have to choose it, but if you do then it will change the name of that capital to one that is appropriate to your new civ. It seems as though all other city names stayed the same, but I certainly hope that we can still rename cities to whatever we want.

I did appreciate that the crisis (which happened off screen) hadn't had the tabula rasa effect I had been worried about. Carl's "Rome" seemed pretty much unscathed after the switch to Normans. Maybe this is a result of him handling the crisis very adeptly, or maybe the crises don't have the strong negative outcomes some had imagined.

I think I will embrace civ switching in a couple years after the DLC has filled out the civilization choices. For me, the Greek to Normans thing is a bit wacky. Crazier to me than Rome to Normans, which I know some people are still on board with, but I'm still not really buying it). I wasn't really encouraged by how the devs were explaining it either. The "broad strokes" explanation was especially jarring to me and seemed to intentionally plaster over, or bulldoze depending on your interpretation, much of the valid criticism of the mechanic.

When VI was announced, I wasn't comfortable with all of the changes, but I wasn't so uncomfortable with any of them either. Remembering back, I remember being delighted with the districts system, the visible wonders taking up an entire map tile, and adjacency bonuses. For example, I remember seeing the bonus for the Colosseum and being fascinated by the six tile radius happiness bonus. I was also super excited about the city states and their suzerain bonuses. So far, I'm not excited by any of the new mechanics I am seeing for VII, so that's a strange new feeling for me.

The only thing I am super positive about, though, is the map.

 

[queenpea]

During a age transition, as part of the legacy picks, there is a free option to change the capital, which comes with an auto rename (likely for flavor) of the city that becomes the new capital. They could only pick two settlements, so probably only cities and not towns, or maybe only some of the biggest cities. The reason they have that option, is because depending on what civ you're becoming on the next age, maybe a free capital change is really useful. Like, for example, if you went from a civ that was more about bonuses for desert, and then because of that your capital was build there, to now one that is more about coastal bonuses, so moving the capital to a coastal city if you have any would make sense.

And then it probably is something they want as an option for people to build narratives. It is not rare for a nation to change capitals during a big time of change of culture/dynasties/goverment, etc.

Heck, an example that fits that pretty much perfectly is Japan. The original capital was Kyoto, but on the Meiji Restoration in 1868, the capital changed to Edo which was then renamed Tokyo, starting the Meiji era. So one can have a city called Edo, and when picking Meiji Japan on modern era, make it the capital changing the name to Tokyo.

Thank you, that was a super helpful, informative explanation. I must have blacked out during that part...

I like this mechanic, I'm on board with it.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I actually wish it was a tabula rasa. I want to see survivors picking up the pieces in a world of decaying ruins, having lost everything but the stories of former glory.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

So far, I'm not excited by any of the new mechanics I am seeing for VII, so that's a strange new feeling for me.

The only thing I am super positive about, though, is the map.

The map is indeed great, sorry to hear that nothing else is exciting you. I have some reservations (governments, great people, and UI being the main three) but I like a lot of what I'm seeing.

That said, I think it's safe to say that the game will be better in two years time, so if it isn't quite there for you yet and you're happy to wait, that's probably a smart choice.

 

[guilarroyd]

I think the stream alleviated any final concerns I had.

It all comes down to the Age structure for me, these distinct chapters of history but with continuity between them. It's quite clear, as you transition, that you're still building the same legacy, that your past choices matter and that some of your history is preserved. I am building a legacy to stand the test of time.

What we've seen of the Antiquity Age is very evocative for me, and I think having the Ages really allows them to bring each chapter to life in way that they have never previously been able to do. It also looks like each Age will be substantial, both in terms of content and length. It doesn't look, to me, as though my time with each civ will feel rushed or transient, far from it.

As I move to a new chapter of history, and the game changes, it looks natural that my civilization has changed too. Honestly, I think I can even be quite comfortable with strange ahistorical progressions, like Rome to Mongolia, it just works in the context of the Age structure, in my opinion. Alt history, just done differently.

I think it will never be ok for some people, I respect that. I'm now fully on board.

100% agree on that, and I would also add: the new ages mechanic allow for more short term meaningful decisions. The uncontrolled snowballing in previous games made the optimal path look always the same: settle on plains hills/luxury, 2 scouts 2 settlers, commercial hub + magnus + classical golden age and you have beaten deity 90% of the time. Now I think that you might wonder if you rush to get a bonus from antiquity or if you try to optimize your play for something that will come only at the next era.

 

[Siptah]

I actually wish it was a tabula rasa. I want to see survivors picking up the pieces in a world of decaying ruins, having lost everything but the stories of former glory.

I can see this coming at some point with a slider at the game settings. "Post-crises impact" or whatever.

 

[Evolena]

They could only pick two settlements, so probably only cities and not towns, or maybe only some of the biggest cities. The reason they have that option, is because depending on what civ you're becoming on the next age, maybe a free capital change is really useful.

The Legacy option clearly states that the settlement "upgrades to a City". The 2 options were Puteoli (a City) and Capua (a Town, at least at turn 65). I thougth that the options were coastal for the Normans, but Capua was more of a toundra town than coastal, even if it or its neighbor has grown into water by the time of the Age transition (1h24'04) so I don't know.

 

[queenpea]

I actually wish it was a tabula rasa. I want to see survivors picking up the pieces in a world of decaying ruins, having lost everything but the stories of former glory.

I think I would throw my laptop across the room...

 

[Zoeff]

Carl's "Rome" seemed pretty much unscathed after the switch to Normans. Maybe this is a result of him handling the crisis very adeptly, or maybe the crises don't have the strong negative outcomes some had imagined.

I really wish they showed the actual crisis in the Antiquity age. The screenshots of the civ switching menu's didn't actually reveal a whole lot as we already knew about the legacy picks and such.

The way the crisis bridges two ages will be crucial for a lot of players I think.

 

[chaosprophet]

The Legacy option clearly states that the settlement "upgrades to a City". The 2 options were Puteoli (a City) and Capua (a Town, at least at turn 65). I thougth that the options were coastal for the Normans, but Capua was more of a toundra town than coastal, even if it or its neighbor has grown into water by the time of the Age transition (1h24'04) so I don't know.

Yes, but then if you not pick the economical golden age legacy, seems like most or many of your cities turn into towns on the age progression. So is saying that may be because they were towns before, or because they were becoming towns with the age transition.

 

[queenpea]

I really wish they showed the actual crisis in the Antiquity age. The screenshots of the civ switching menu's didn't actually reveal a whole lot as we already knew about the legacy picks and such.

The way the crisis bridges two ages will be crucial for a lot of players I think.

I wish we had seen more of the tick tock of the transition as well... I was underwhelmed by the fade to black and the new culture selection screen.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I think I would throw my laptop across the room...

The Age transition is about changing cultural identities. Identities don't change because people are happy and comfortable, and thus there are crises to give narrative to the transition. Well, in order for the crises to properly justify the transition, it should be dramatic and impactful. I want to see the impact of crises. Civilizations are falling! That should be messy. I want to see the mess.

 

[Zoeff]

The Age transition is about changing cultural identities. Identities don't change because people are happy and comfortable, and thus there are crises to give narrative to the transition. Well, in order for the crises to properly justify the transition, it should be dramatic and impactful. I want to see the impact of crises. Civilizations are falling! That should be messy. I want to see the mess.

In terms of flavor and reasoning behind the age transition I wholly agree with this but for gameplay I fear it's the opposite haha

 

[queenpea]

The Age transition is about changing cultural identities. Identities don't change because people are happy and comfortable, and thus there are crises to give narrative to the transition. Well, in order for the crises to properly justify the transition, it should be dramatic and impactful. I want to see the impact of crises. Civilizations are falling! That should be messy. I want to see the mess.

I completely understand what you are explaining, and I would be totally on board. I just don't want to feel punished in two of three rounds of the game. I'm one of those constant autosave loaders when things turn south in my games.

 

[Siptah]

The Age transition is about changing cultural identities. Identities don't change because people are happy and comfortable, and thus there are crises to give narrative to the transition. Well, in order for the crises to properly justify the transition, it should be dramatic and impactful. I want to see the impact of crises. Civilizations are falling! That should be messy. I want to see the mess.

Carl started the next age with 94 global happiness and a lot of gold. Couldn't have been much of a crisis. I really hope we can adjust this to be more severe.