Define broad civilizations to make civ switching work?

[Arent11]

Because it hasn't been doing that before by teaching people that civilizations last for 6,000 years, getting perpetually stronger, the quintessential nationalist revisionist take on history? The idea that history is a constant climb upwards was abandoned by serious historians well over a century ago but persists in pop history and fringe theories so if anything, the new model is abandoning a much more dangerous pseudo-history.

But it didn't. Civs failed all the time in civilization. You destroyed them as a player, you razed cities, your cities got razed & you could fail. Having the "unchanging" civ was the goal - not the norm.

 

[Zaarin]

But it didn't. Civs failed all the time in civilization. You destroyed them as a player, you razed cities, your cities got razed & you could fail. Having the "unchanging" civ was the goal - not the norm.

We must be playing different games because I rarely see any civ fall in Civ6--except on the rare occasions where I play the TSL map and put every Balkan and Balkan adjacent civ into the game. Even then, it's usually that Alexander stagnates with a single city in Albania or Tuscany rather than gets outright defeated.

 

[j51]

Sure but now having the flourishing through change civ is the goal.

 

[chaosprophet]

The idea was to "create an empire that stands the test of time". It was always about *avoiding* the fall of civ. To have a civ that last 6000 years because you *avoid* the errors of the historical civs.

If you now want to simulate the fall of a civ, then do it correctly. Don't sugarcoat what a fall of civ truly means.

You still will have an empire that stands the test of time. Just that this time they added a hang up in the form of crisis and a change of identity in the ages transitions while still being the same empire that have been building up. They're doing it because they think it would work as a different new mechanic that would be interesting and would also address some of the gameplay problems of pretty much every civ game which is the snowballing and late gameplay slog. The snowballing that made it so you pretty much can't even have a war where you lose much, like lets say 1/3 of your cities, as that would put a lot behind the snowballing of the other civs that didn't go through it.

It is fine if someone don't like it/don't like the way they're doing it. But people tend to try to make their opinion "objective" by saying things like this don't makes sense historically when lots of the things in the previous games didn't and some of the changes are even a bit more historical than what previous civs did, or having an interpretation that isn't in line with what the devs mentioned the age is supposed to represent not what the actual game does (if it was about your civ failing, then gameplay wise would make sense for things like the civ dividing in multiple ones, not actually have the whole playing field etc).

 

[Krikkit1]

what's your source for this part here?

Can the AI fail during the Crisis? I.e. you start the new age and a formerly neighboring civ is just gone altogether?

The Crisis is just like any other part of the Game, but with its own special rules that make things harder...
There are 2 Different things

1. The Crisis... a small number of turns ?10?30? where you play the game under an increasing handicap and unpleasant conditions
2. The Transition... a Point where you enter the next Age, certain things (old buildings, old cities) become obsolete and have less yields, certain things (old units) are upgraded, and you get bonuses (some of which may keep your yields up)

 

[Arent11]

We must be playing different games because I rarely see any civ fall in Civ6--except on the rare occasions where I play the TSL map and put every Balkan and Balkan adjacent civ into the game. Even then, it's usually that Alexander stagnates with a single city in Albania or Tuscany rather than gets outright defeated.

Well, I'm playing Alpha Centauri and there is rarely a game that goes without the elimination of several civs? Same with the earlier civs?

In civ 6 you have the game mechanic to conquer capitals, so you don't have to wipe out a civ anymore for a domination win.

 

[Arent11]

You still will have an empire that stands the test of time. Just that this time they added a hang up in the form of crisis and a change of identity in the ages transitions while still being the same empire that have been building up. They're doing it because they think it would work as a different new mechanic that would be interesting and would also address some of the gameplay problems of pretty much every civ game which is the snowballing and late gameplay slog. The snowballing that made it so you pretty much can't even have a war where you lose much, like lets say 1/3 of your cities, as that would put a lot behind the snowballing of the other civs that didn't go through it.

It is fine if someone don't like it/don't like the way they're doing it. But people tend to try to make their opinion "objective" by saying things like this don't makes sense historically when lots of the things in the previous games didn't and some of the changes are even a bit more historical than what previous civs did, or having an interpretation that isn't in line with what the devs mentioned the age is supposed to represent not what the actual game does (if it was about your civ failing, then gameplay wise would make sense for things like the civ dividing in multiple ones, not actually have the whole playing field etc).

Well actually you have now a 6000 year old leader. Which is of course even more fantastic than playing the Egyptians from Antiquity to the stars. So nothing truly changed, the fantasy is just another one.

 

[j51]

Well actually you have now a 6000 year old leader. Which is of course even more fantastic than playing the Egyptians from Antiquity to the stars. So nothing truly changed, the fantasy is just another one.

Yes

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well actually you have now a 6000 year old leader. Which is of course even more fantastic than playing the Egyptians from Antiquity to the stars. So nothing truly changed, the fantasy is just another one.

Fact Check:
In Civ you ALWAYS had a 6000 year old Leader. So that is exactly as fantastic as it has always been. Nobody has said otherwise.

By Not having a 6000 year old Civilization, one half of the fantasy has been removed in Civ VII.

 

[Krikkit1]

Well, I'm playing Alpha Centauri and there is rarely a game that goes without the elimination of several civs? Same with the earlier civs?

In civ 6 you have the game mechanic to conquer capitals, so you don't have to wipe out a civ anymore for a domination win.

That is one thing I would like to see.... and the Crisis may do well with is partially immortal civs.... if a civ lost most/all of its settlements to another player, it should be able to get Rebel units around its former settlements/territory.... During the Crisis, those Rebel units should be a lot Stronger

So if Rome conquered all the Greek settlements
The Greek player can continue to control some Rebel units that spawn near the conquered settlements for the rest of the Age
Then at the Crisis, the Greek player gets massive numbers of Rebel units and maybe reclaim Athens and Corinth
When Rome finishes the Crisis as Spain, they may be next to a pissed off Norman Civ gearing up to Reclaim Sparta.

If you can't reclaim any of your territory at then end of the Crisis, Then you lose the game... but even then an AI player could arise from the new civ.

It would be a good thing to help make conquest not the only option if keeping your conquests for more than an Age would be difficult. (Difficulty levels may apply)

 

[Arent11]

Fact Check:
In Civ you ALWAYS had a 6000 year old Leader. So that is exactly as fantastic as it has always been. Nobody has said otherwise.

I didn't say that you had no Napoleon the entire game in earlier civs? I just said the continuous element now is that 6000 year old leader, not the civ.

It was just a response to the people that somehow said civ 7 would be more realistic.

 

[Zaarin]

I don't love divorcing leaders from civs, but it's kind of necessary with Civ7's model--and since I always saw them as the personalities I was playing against, not literal leaders who somehow ascended Ori-style, it doesn't make a huge difference for me. I still sort of see them as the zeitgeist of their civ, but not in the same way I did before.

 

[Arent11]

I don't love divorcing leaders from civs, but it's kind of necessary with Civ7's model--and since I always saw them as the personalities I was playing against, not literal leaders who somehow ascended Ori-style, it doesn't make a huge difference for me. I still sort of see them as the zeitgeist of their civ, but not in the same way I did before.

That's all fair and ok. The continuous element is now a leader, not a civ. That's ok.

The arguments boil down to civilization 7 not really reflecting the real world or real history anymore. It's just gameplay & you shouldn't try to compare it to the real world.

That's ok. Maybe the designers can even pull it off, I can't judge that yet. If not, it might lose civ a part of the history & RPG players. But we'll have to see.

 

[Zaarin]

The arguments boil down to civilization 7 not really reflecting the real world or real history anymore. It's just gameplay & you shouldn't try to compare it to the real world.

It never did, and now it's just a different kind of ahistoricity. IMO it's less ahistorical than it used to be, but it is still ultimately a video game, not a history book. TBH I'm less concerned about the historicity of the new model than I am about losing the what-ifs. I hope eventually we see some alt-history DLC of Exploration Age-versions of Antiquity civs, for example (but I also think those sort of things should be DLC or left to modders, just like the fantasy modes from NFP).

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

The ahistory I'm mostly concerned about is that by keeping a single leader for the entire game, Civ is perpetuating the "great person" view of history and that some of those great persons were vampires. It's actually worse, now, because undying Napoleon doesn't just use his hypnotic gaze to control all aspects of French society, he manipulates the ancient Greeks and also the Normans before sinking his fangs into the French Empire. It's worrisome and I fear for the impact it will have on the AI-generated papers schoolchildren submit to their history teachers.

 

[Krikkit1]

The ahistory I'm mostly concerned about is that by keeping a single leader for the entire game, Civ is perpetuating the "great person" view of history and that some of those great persons were vampires. It's actually worse, now, because undying Napoleon doesn't just use his hypnotic gaze to control all aspects of French society, he manipulates the ancient Greeks and also the Normans before sinking his fangs into the French Empire. It's worrisome and I fear for the impact it will have on the AI-generated papers schoolchildren submit to their history teachers.

To be fair this theory of history is well supported by some excellent Civil War documentaries.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The ahistory I'm mostly concerned about is that by keeping a single leader for the entire game, Civ is perpetuating the "great person" view of history and that some of those great persons were vampires. It's actually worse, now, because undying Napoleon doesn't just use his hypnotic gaze to control all aspects of French society, he manipulates the ancient Greeks and also the Normans before sinking his fangs into the French Empire. It's worrisome and I fear for the impact it will have on the AI-generated papers schoolchildren submit to their history teachers.

Like it or not, Napoleon already has his fangs sunk into Modern France: he organized the current states/administrative divisions of France and its Legal Code, so Napoleonic influence is impossible to avoid in modern French life.

And the Civ franchise has always been thoroughly stuck on the "Great Man/Person" view of history, but I suggest that Civ VII's basic organization of the game into Ages that are driven by the greater trends of history (Crisis based on internal and external events outside of individual control, for instance) puts some distance between the game and the Great Men for the first time ever.

 

[chaosprophet]

The ahistory I'm mostly concerned about is that by keeping a single leader for the entire game, Civ is perpetuating the "great person" view of history and that some of those great persons were vampires. It's actually worse, now, because undying Napoleon doesn't just use his hypnotic gaze to control all aspects of French society, he manipulates the ancient Greeks and also the Normans before sinking his fangs into the French Empire. It's worrisome and I fear for the impact it will have on the AI-generated papers schoolchildren submit to their history teachers.

Don't worry, when he face Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter, he will finally be stopped.

 

[Arent11]

It never did, and now it's just a different kind of ahistoricity. IMO it's less ahistorical than it used to be, but it is still ultimately a video game, not a history book. TBH I'm less concerned about the historicity of the new model than I am about losing the what-ifs. I hope eventually we see some alt-history DLC of Exploration Age-versions of Antiquity civs, for example (but I also think those sort of things should be DLC or left to modders, just like the fantasy modes from NFP).

The ahistory I'm mostly concerned about is that by keeping a single leader for the entire game, Civ is perpetuating the "great person" view of history and that some of those great persons were vampires. It's actually worse, now, because undying Napoleon doesn't just use his hypnotic gaze to control all aspects of French society, he manipulates the ancient Greeks and also the Normans before sinking his fangs into the French Empire. It's worrisome and I fear for the impact it will have on the AI-generated papers schoolchildren submit to their history teachers.

The point here is that there are different motivations of players of civ. There are RPG players, history players, strategy players etc.

The civ designers try to keep the RPG players by giving them now a leader as continuous element. That might work. But actually I'm not sure.

The history players might be caught by the nice graphics and deeper uniques/civics. But they will be thrown off by the civ switching.

The strategy players might just be fine.

 

[Zaarin]

The point here is that there are different motivations of players of civ. There are RPG players, history players, strategy players etc.

The civ designers try to keep the RPG players by giving them now a leader as continuous element. That might work. But actually I'm not sure.

The history players might be caught by the nice graphics and deeper uniques/civics. But they will be thrown off by the civ switching.

The strategy players might just be fine.

That's fair, but it also depends on perspective. I'm a chiefly RP and history player, and I overall like the direction they're taking Civ7 except the cheaper leader models.