Custom empire names

[Lord Yanaek]

I think at that point it's safe to say that civilization switching is one of the most controversial features of upcoming Civ7. I'm not saying it's bad, i'm not saying it's good, i'm just saying it's controversial as in half of the community seems to be favorable to the system while the other half is against, sometimes strongly (to the point of considering it a deal-breaker). There have been a lot of topics on the subject already, including players suggesting ways to "improve" it ("improving" often being a matter of personal preferences) sometimes in very complex ways. I don't think, however, anyone clearly suggested a very simple change, trivial to implement, that could tremendously improve how that new feature is received : custom empire names

Most players who are against the change (myself included) fear that it will break immersion. Some just want to play the same civilization. Some feel like changing names means our civilization didn't "stand the test of time". Some are afraid of historical inconsistencies (Egypt becoming Mongolia). Others are afraid of colonialist chauvinism (Shawnees becoming USA, Inca becoming Brazil ... )
All of those concerns could be alleviated by allowing players to :

1. Choose a custom name at the start of the game. By default they take the name of their Civilization of choice but, if they want to, a simple "rename" button allows them to type in any other name. They can choose the name of a later era civilization (if a players likes to plays as America from the start of the game they can, and if they think America is a continent and not a Civilization they can be the "USA"). They can choose a less widely known, but possibly better name to associate with their leader if they care about extreme historical precision (i've read various mentions of Amina being the leader of some "Hausa" civilization i never heard about previously, some players would probably be happy to lead Hausa with Amina, even if they have to choose the unique abilities of Egypt or Aksum). They can even choose any name they fancy (if someone wants to rule over the "Great Unicorn Kingdom", fine for them, they could with custom names).
2. At era transition, when a player chooses a new civilization, they have an option to keep their previous name, color scheme, flag and possibly art style (or at least an equivalent art-style for the new era, so if i go from Egypt to Mongolia i can keep an African art-style if i want to).

Those 2 features wouldn't change any of the underlying functions, wouldn't require re-balancing the game. They would only require slight changes to the UI (which is probably not finished yet) and maybe some variables to store that custom "identity" (instead of reading it from static data tables). This would work similar to religions in Civ6, most players used a pre-built religion (because it's easier to just click a button than come up with a name, or because they liked the built-in religions) but if someone wanted to create his own religious identity, they could have "Animism" as their organized state religion and that didn't prevent them from building Mosques. It would be totally optional, of course, so that players who do like the idea of changing their civilization identity would barely notice it's there.

Now i can see some players raising concerns about 4000BC America being a-historical, or Egypt with Mongolian abilities no longer being Egypt and thus requiring a new name but honestly, when you can Napoleon Bonaparte Pharaoh of Ancient Egypt, who cares if your neighbor is America or if you have Ordus in your cities? Civilization was never meant to be a realistic historical simulation and again, if someone doesn't like it, they can simply ignore it.

 

[ggalindo001]

I suggested something very similar in another thread. The issue that everyone has heartburn over is in a NAME - not the mechanics.

I think the mechanics are interesting and I look forward to it. And this is an elegant, simple and reasonable solution.

One thing your recommendation doesn't address is if you want to be Canada, and Canada is a Modern Civ -- you start the game as anyone and name yourself "Canada" but you may not be able to ultimately get to Canada in the mechanics by the time you get to the Modern age. You would have to start with a Civ that "historically" links back to Canada. My suggestion in another thread had a mechanism to get back to that (albeit, it would require some level of additional programming vs. your simple solution)

 

[Verdant]

Civ 5 let you name your civ and leader whatever you wanted. Did Civ 6 not have this feature?

 

[SeelingCat]

Civ 5 let you name your civ and leader whatever you wanted. Did Civ 6 not have this feature?

It did not.

From a modding perspective however, it was extremely easy to change a leader's name in the game, but changing a civ's name required overwriting a good chunk of the game's UI (shoutout to @Gedemon for figuring it out!) I hope for 7, they make it so both are easily modifiable - both for mods and for users ideally.

 

[Gedemon]

It did not.

From a modding perspective however, it was extremely easy to change a leader's name in the game, but changing a civ's name required overwriting a good chunk of the game's UI (shoutout to @Gedemon for figuring it out!) I hope for 7, they make it so both are easily modifiable - both for mods and for users ideally.

yep, we will do it again

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Sigh. One of the greatest things I missed from Civ 5 (and Dog Knows there wasn't much that I missed from Civ 5) was the ability to play as my custom character and custom Civ. Spent many a pleasant hour as Red Orm of the Jomsvikings or Ivan the Tolerable of Muscovy or Atlatl the Hun of Hungry (NOT misspelled!) or Asterix the Gall . . .

And, as others have remarked several times in several threads, being able to rename our Civ in a multi-Civ game like Civilization VII would alleviate much of the cognitive disconnect that people fear from starting a new Civ in mid-game: the game might call it what it will, but if you are playing as Egypt and then the Egyptian Empire and then the Egyptian League it is much, much easier to keep track of it all.

 

[Arent11]

Yep, custom civs all the way.

 

[Futumch]

Yeah, I whole heartedly support this.

 

[Josephias]

You have my full support on this

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Also fully in agreement. Bring back custom leader names whilst we're at it, in IV I always played as my own fictional civ & leader anyway.

 

[Deer]

I see no downsides to this. I think I used it once in Civ5 and could easily see myself doing it again in Civ7 if I decide to buy it down the line.

 

[AriochIV]

I wouldn't be surprised at all if you select your color combinations and even empire name completely independently of the civ you start with.

 

[Krikkit1]

Every time you choose a new civ (including at the beginning of the game) you should choose what it is called

Beginning of the Game
Civ Name Options
1. Standard Name.. Default, AI always chooses this
2. Custom

Civ Change
Civ Name Options
1. New (Old, other Old).. Default, AI always chooses this (to better show the continuity of the player)
2. Old (New, other Old)
3. Custom


City Names Options on Civ change
1. Rename all cities->new (old)
2. New cities take new civ names, Old cities stay as is
3. New cities use old list, old cities stay as is
4. New cities individual drop down list between the civs you had
[Renaming cities directly should always be an option]

I'd say city Graphics should change because it should match the era.....
But to keep some remaining identity
2 civs: 2/3 new 1/3 old
3 civs: 1/2 new, 1/4 of each old

Civ Colors should always stay the same (probably tied to Leader... but let player customize on start)

Civ Flags if displayed in
Small detail:
Change to new/Keep old option on civ change
Large Detail:
Display "primary" prominently, but have the "others" in smaller versions to the side/bottom

 

[Futumch]

Just an aside relating to the post of @AriochIV up above:

As far as colours go, I've always maintained that as a single player game, Civ should bow to the whims of the player.
If I'm playing as Denmark (red and white) and China is in the pool of enemy players (red and gold) then let the game pop up a warning saying these colour combinations are quite close. (A clash, they termed it). Let me click "OK" to continue as-is, or "adjust" to drop back to the setup screen and fiddle about with the settings. As a single player game, it shouldn't matter if my colours are hard to discern from an AI player. It's my choice.
In a multi-player game then yeah, lock down the selections to ensure there's no clashes of course.

 

[AriochIV]

Since each empire is going to be a different civilization from the starting one for two-thirds of every game, there's no particular reason for civilizations to even have associated colors.

 

[Josephias]

I think an additional hint to civs not having associated colors is that icons in the "egypt" evolution videos and in civ selection screens are all shown in black and white.

It however, bring the "risk" of ending up with conflicting schemas with similar icons: e.g the red-green norman/ethiopian? lion behind Ben Franklin in the swicth video. Or yellow-on-red American stars (if they use stars for america). Other reason maybe for not being than strict on Civ names.

 

[Disgustipated]

I especially miss renaming leaders. Civ6 messed up there. But both should be renamable. And same with city names as well (they usually are, but I hope Firaxis doesn't forget this feature).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Since each empire is going to be a different civilization from the starting one for two-thirds of every game, there's no particular reason for civilizations to even have associated colors.

But there's evidence that they do: one screen grab showed both warships and ground units with the same 'swatch' of teal color on them, and on the headgear of a general associated with the ground units.

It would make sense to have every graphic indicator of continuity they could to counter the fears of an inability to keep track of who you are playing. I suspect that in addition to Game-Long color indicators this might also account for the variety of unit graphics: if you can choose a specific 'style', vehicle, or uniform for your troops it becomes easier to associate with them.

In fact, given that this 'Civ Switching' has been part of the game design for 5 years now AND the problems with the mechanic in Humankind have been obvious for at least half that time, I would not be surprised if there were not several things that the game will do to emphasize the continuity from first to last regardless of the specific Civ or combination of Civs you are playing: color, graphic, name, etc.

 

[AriochIV]

But there's evidence that they do: one screen grab showed both warships and ground units with the same 'swatch' of teal color on them, and on the headgear of a general associated with the ground units.

It would make sense to have every graphic indicator of continuity they could to counter the fears of an inability to keep track of who you are playing. I suspect that in addition to Game-Long color indicators this might also account for the variety of unit graphics: if you can choose a specific 'style', vehicle, or uniform for your troops it becomes easier to associate with them.

I'm not saying there's not a color scheme (there obviously is), I'm saying it may be attached to your empire and not a particular civilization. I don't think it makes sense for your empire color to change during the game, so either you get to choose your empire color (in which case it has nothing to do with civilization), or else it's chosen based on your starting civilization (which may not make much sense, given that you're not going to be that civilization for 2/3 of the playthrough).

edit: Or, the other possibility is that color scheme is linked to your leader. That seems unlikely, given the banners behind some of the leaders (notably Franklin) in the diplo screen that don't seem to match the leaders.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'm not saying there's not a color scheme (there obviously is), I'm saying it may be attached to your empire and not a particular civilization. I don't think it makes sense for your empire color to change during the game, so either you get to choose your empire color (in which case it has nothing to do with civilization), or else it's chosen based on your starting civilization (which may not make much sense, given that you're not going to be that civilization for 2/3 of the playthrough).

edit: Or, the other possibility is that color scheme is linked to your leader. That seems unlikely, given the banners behind some of the leaders (notably Franklin) in the diplo screen that don't seem to match the leaders.

We need some new agreed nomenclature to distinguish between what you are playing throughout the game and the specific 'Civilization' you are playing in a single Age.
We mistook reach other while agreeing: I meant a game-long color indicator covering all your Ages, just as you did.

I agree, I don't see the color being identified with a Leader, especially when they have indicated that Leaders are not even tied to a specific Civ in the game. IF specified by Civ, I see two possibilities:

Your initial Civ provides the color identifier for the rest of the game, OR
You get to choose a color at the start (whenever that is, since they hint that each Age can be played as a separate game) and keep it from then on.

That last is the way I would do it - it increases personal identification with the Civ Chain you play, changing the color in a patch or swatch is not that difficult compared to major graphic changes of units and people, and if the game is limited by design (as all previous Civ games were) to X number of Civs in play, they don't have to provide a huge assortment of colors to choose from - although I suspect the Modders will have fun adding 'historically accurate' color schemes - which never were, as a visit to the 18th century exhibits in the Musee de l'Armee in Paris will prove in a few minutes.