Easy solution to calm down some of the Civ Switching Controversy (at least a little bit)?

[stealth_nsk]

Without data, we cannot settle it
But I am inclined to the thesis that people care about what Civilization they play not a leader. An opposite leader is a better AI opponent's avatar than an abstract Civilization. But it's just my observation. If I am right they made a mistake.
I agree that YouTubers and Influencers contribute directly to sales, but DLC is a different story. DLC is about the engagement. Perhaps that's why they pushed the monetization of pre-order editions so much. They know they risk a lot and it might affect DLC sales.

Yes, I totally agree what without data we can't fully settle, but we could still throw in some arguments. For example, mine is that people who associate themselves more with civ than the leader often do so, because the game does so. You don't see your leader during the game, you don't see your leader name everywhere, etc. With Civ7 changes in UI (including "Mortal Kombat" diplomacy), more players will have strong association with leaders. How many - I can't tell of course.

P.S. That's one of the areas where Humankind failed completely, IMHO. They use civilization name everywhere in UI, while having totally immemorable leaders. With their rapid civ switch, it's total confusion.

 

[Wielki Hegemon]

Yes, I totally agree what without data we can't fully settle, but we could still throw in some arguments. For example, mine is that people who associate themselves more with civ than the leader often do so, because the game does so. You don't see your leader during the game, you don't see your leader name everywhere, etc. With Civ7 changes in UI (including "Mortal Kombat" diplomacy), more players will have strong association with leaders. How many - I can't tell of course.

P.S. That's one of the areas where Humankind failed completely, IMHO. They use civilization name everywhere in UI, while having totally immemorable leaders. With their rapid civ switch, it's total confusion.

Or Humankind rather failed because it was a constant carousel of Civilizations and you didn't have a moment to root for any of them? From my experience after my first Humankind game, I didn't have this moment of "one more game". Let's try this Civilization now. On paper, Humankind offered plenty of options, but I didn't want to enjoy them. One of the biggest problems I had with this game was immersion. The number of cultures was perhaps large, but the gravity of the decision of which one to pick was not. Civilization VII IMO is doing it much better. But is it enough? But still, it's just me. I think the identity built on asymmetrical factors of the game is very important. If leaders will build that identity instead of Civilizations? I have my doubts. One thing is sure: not for everyone.

BTW sorry for reanimating the discussion this forum is probably over with, but I missed this part. And even if the case seems to be closed it isn't. And it's not easy because is very subjective and our emotions. That's why it is also so hard.

 

[gdr_willter]

The only thing I can say is: the game must be fun. And we only can judge it after we played it.

 

[Zaarin]

But I am inclined to the thesis that people care about what Civilization they play not a leader. An opposite leader is a better AI opponent's avatar than an abstract Civilization.

I 100% agree with this. I've more or less made peace with civ-switching, but I don't identify with the leader I'm playing as and don't like some of the changes to try to push "my leader" to the foreground. The AI needs the leader in the foreground for consistency, but I don't feel that's necessary at all for the player.

 

[TheGrayFox]

The easy solution is to just suck it up and accept the system because cultures in the real world change, real civilizations collapse and that’s okay.

Or another solution is to not buy the game because the change to the formula was unnessecary and you recognize that cultures don't collapse into completely irrelevant cultures with no historical or even geograpic connection due to arbitrary crisis events that all occur at the same time across the entire planet

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I 100% agree with this. I've more or less made peace with civ-switching, but I don't identify with the leader I'm playing as and don't like some of the changes to try to push "my leader" to the foreground. The AI needs the leader in the foreground for consistency, but I don't feel that's necessary at all for the player.

I always wanted to be able to create my own leader, to be honest. At least Attributes allow me that to some extent.

 

[Zaarin]

I always wanted to be able to create my own leader, to be honest. At least Attributes allow me that to some extent.

Play Humankind and see if you still want it. For me, as I said elsewhere, interacting with high-production value historical personalities is (a big part) of Civ's appeal.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Play Humankind and see if you still want it. For me, as I said elsewhere, interacting with high-production value historical personalities is (a big part) of Civ's appeal.

I totally agree in terms of interacting with the other leaders, I just meant for myself. Since I am the one leading the civ(s), I don't have any interest in roleplaying as Ben Franklin, I'd rather call myself something silly like Lord Dictator Jon the Bold, choose my attributes and an avatar, and go from there.

 

[Leucarum]

I don't think it's consistent whether I identified with civ or leader in Civ6. Some civs were such vehicles for their leader (e.g. Alexander, Gilgamesh) that I identified with the leader before the civ. For other civs the leaders were so bland you could replace them with a blank screen and I definitely identified with the civ first (e.g. Netherlands, Scotland).

 

[Zaarin]

For other civs the leaders were so bland you could replace them with a blank screen and I definitely identified with the civ first (e.g. Netherlands

I'm sorry, but Wilhelmina will bop you with her umbrella for that comment.

 

[Leucarum]

I'm sorry, but Wilhelmina will bop you with her umbrella for that comment.

Who?

 

[Zaarin]

Who?

I generally don't like modern leaders, but I found Wilhelmina adorable. Annoying agenda, but adorable.

 

[Leucarum]

I generally don't like modern leaders, but I found Wilhelmina adorable. Annoying agenda, but adorable.

I mean her model was great, but with her leader ability being pretty meaningless, I always thought of it as the Netherlands and not Wilhelmina.They are one of my favourites to play in Civ6 too... Love the river adjacencies.

 

[Bast]

I generally don't like modern leaders, but I found Wilhelmina adorable. Annoying agenda, but adorable.

I always loved having her as an opponent and eliminating her. Especially in surprise war lol

 

[Zaarin]

I always loved having her as an opponent and eliminating her. Especially in surprise war lol

Aww. I remember one game where she was stuck between me and I think it was Dom Satan, and she couldn't hold onto her cities because of loyalty. I kept conquering and giving them back to her, but it was ultimately a Sisyphean task.

 

[Emotional Husky]

The easiest solution is just make it a mode that you can toggle on/off.

 

[evonannoredars]

The easiest solution is just make it a mode that you can toggle on/off.

I have my doubts that adding an option to remove a fundamental core mechanic that's tied to many other mechanics would be easy.

 

[gdr_willter]

The easiest solution is just make it a mode that you can toggle on/off.

Let's think about Civ 6 with the mode which toggle on/off the district, or Civ 5&6 with the Stack of Doom mode.

 

[Baudshaw]

I think it should just have continuous paths so that it feels like you’re playing one Civ in three eras. They’re doing that with China and India, and perhaps later down the line they’ll add more connections like that.

 

[evonannoredars]

I think it should just have continuous paths so that it feels like you’re playing one Civ in three eras. They’re doing that with China and India, and perhaps later down the line they’ll add more connections like that.

As people have pointed out elsewhere before, the 'India' continuous path consists of very different empires which are mostly only continuous in the fact they're located where modern India is. I wouldn't be surprised if they do add a few more pseudo-continuous paths, but it'd be hard to do for the majority of civs because cultures/empires aren't continuous across thousands of years (especially in the post-colonisation modern age).