For all who love the Civ Switching Idea: How do you want it to be implemented?

[UWHabs]

I'm also deeply skeptical of it possibly be a good mechanic, but the one way I can see where it might work is if you don't actually get to choose how your civ evolves and the game chooses for you depending on how you play. eg You become the Mongols by being a mounted warmonger, and you become the Mughals by making a lot of money. I don't think this would actually be good because specific players would end up being the exact same civ game after game unless they specifically try to do different things and it'd do bad things to the meta, but at least it's not what we saw with Humankind where there's like 2 to 3 civs worth anything every era that you pick every single game.

I would also hate it less if it's deeply historical and you really just have a few civ "paths". I think that'd be inferior to just having civs, but at least I wouldn't always just be jamming whatever gets me the most science.

The part that I'm still uncertain about is how much option you'll have for the civ choices in those eras. Like so far they've shown the screen where it seems to imply you might have like 2-3 choices on the age transition. I think if they can find a reliable and balanced way to give you an option like that, that might be good. Basically, you can go the historical route, but if you've played the last era like a specific civ, then you can "develop" into them the next era.

I don't really want you to be able to get to the next era and go to like the civ picker screen where you get like 10 or 12 options available to you. It would feel weird to see you make 3 fishing boats and suddenly be able to turn into the Majapahit empire. I kind of wish that maybe in the crisis period, you would get like multiple quests to unlock the next civ you might be interested to develop into. Like maybe every next era civ would have like an initial trigger condition (so Mongolia would be the 3 horse resources), but then when you hit the crisis, you would have like another quest to be able to actually unlock them. Maybe it would be to build 6 horsemen and capture a city with those units. The Majapahit would unlock with 3 fish resources, but then to actually be able to transition to them you need to buy 4 galleys and settle a new city on a new island. Although if each civ only had one option there, I guess that just turns into a longer chain to unlock. So maybe I just want each civ unlock to be at a relatively higher threshold than what we've seen so far.

Something I think so that you get like 3-4 options at most for who to potentially develop into. But I do like the idea more along the lines of "if you played the last age like a civ, you can become them in the next era." If you spend the first era pillaging from the sea, then it's only natural that you could develop into the Vikings for the next era.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I'm excited to see how this mechanic plays out, especially when paired with the new Ages system, but I think what it'll require to be really great is a ton of civs for each age. Unfortunately, that may not be the case at launch.

 

[j51]

I said this on another thread (and saw someone say something similar on a third thread) but it makes sense here: It would be neat if by interacting with certain “predecessor” independent powers you could unlock specific civs in the next era. So if you’re Rome and you buy enough mercenaries from the Slavs you could become Great Moravia in the exploration age if you wanted. Having IP predecessors for some civs would make transitioning to them less jarring.

 

[Josephias]

Several things have been answered since original toughts, but these two sentences sparked some ideas on my mind I want to share

1. Capitals moving. This happened all the time throughout human history on Earth, but it never really happens in Civ games.

Of course, it makes sense you’ll be allowed a free capital switch at each age start considering the level of changes happening (and that not preventing having a project/feature/tool to make new changes down the line). Some other things you should be able to do at age change:

- Modify custom name for your civ (you should also be able to customize name at start)
— and for AI civs, have the option to keep name, update name, or build a custom name were you can “insert” the “old age civ” and “new age civ” strings

- Select architecture style for your civ between at least old civ and new civ.
— and for AI, set options to keep (old) update (new) or environmental (major terrain-type selected)

Et cetera… some of these small tweaks could be the key to make people fine-tune age advance so it feels “right” in their narrative.

2. Age of Exploration and Modern Age versions of civs from earlier Ages. Could we get Modern Egypt, China, or the Soviet Union down the road?

This next I’m going to say is over-the-top DLC material and not really what point 2. Above proposes, but what I initially underestod, and migth be really cool (or fail miserably in the campy-kitsch field, but it’s worth to try:
- for all those desiring Pharaon’s tanks, Aztec into space, SPQR’s delegates to UN or Cartaginese Nukes…
¿What about having, down the road, some what-if DLC that imagine some non-living civs exploration or modern age versions?(this is, not their succesor civs, bit a fantasy, what-if version of the old civ)
This will imply imagined uniques based on the old civ lore but adapted to new ages, with a liberty of design similar to “revival” architecture styles, and might complete strict lines for those civs that do not have.
Otherwise, you migth go the other way around and design paleo-Canadians, bce Soviets, or old regime medieval Australians, just for fun of playing them in earlier ages.

 

[ezzlar]

I think it was in the civ4 mod, Sword of Islam, when new civs appeared with a text popup giving some flavour text what had happened and why. I would like the same thing when your Egyptian empire turns into the Mongols, a small story. And it shouldnt be generic.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I said this on another thread (and saw someone say something similar on a third thread) but it makes sense here: It would be neat if by interacting with certain “predecessor” independent powers you could unlock specific civs in the next era. So if you’re Rome and you buy enough mercenaries from the Slavs you could become Great Moravia in the exploration age if you wanted. Having IP predecessors for some civs would make transitioning to them less jarring.

This is just going to be too unreliable in randomly generated maps, though. You're not guaranteed to have a Slav CS/civ in a Rome game, so that option would be entirely off the table.

Also, I just don't see the devs going through the trouble of making so many civs specifically to account for such permutations. This isn't Europa Universalis where you can just spreadsheet the whole thing and not worry much about assets and unique mechanics.

 

[j51]

That’s a good point. I just hope it’s something that’s easy enough to mod in.

 

[treadwin]

I think there will be an option to only allow "Real Life" Transitions, even in random map games. Despite modern politics seeing migrations after about 1600 as "Invasions" or "Colonisations" rather than just natural population movements, there is nothing wrong with migrating American tribes into modern Americans or South Americans, for the purposes of a game. The modern British could logically evolve from any of: Romans, Celts, Normans, Saxons or Danes.

The hardest part is going to naming the civs for the middle age, particularly in Europe.

 

[brainwashh]

Any civ should turn into any other civ, even if it makes no historical sense.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Any civ should turn into any other civ, even if it makes no historical sense.

I'm with you on that. After all, it just has to make historical sense for the alt-history of a particular game's save file.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Most of the time you would have (at least) two choices entering the exploration age.
There should be some civs with more sophisticated mechanics involved when becoming them. For example I'd like to see America (or Brazil/Gran Columbia) require you to establish a decent city on another continent. That city would become your capital and you would loose you cities on your original continent. I'd go so far as to have these civs be optional and not anyone's default.

A few other possibilities:
Adjust optional civ requirement based on map type and or size and/or the number of civs available in the game.
Have mode-like ruleset that override defaults. You become a civ based on where you expand for TSL map, @j51 idea, etc..

 

[j51]

I like the colonization idea!

 

[treadwin]

I wouldn't describe myself as loving the civ switching idea, but I think the best way to implement it is to create a list of ancient tribes/cultures and then decide which of the middle cultures could be successors to the ancient cultures, and the do the same for the modern age. I really don't think it is a stretch to say the USA (as a end age option) could have come from England, New Spain, or the Six Nations of the Iroquois, as middle age options. I think there are more sensible routes through history than people think.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I wouldn't describe myself as loving the civ switching idea, but I think the best way to implement it is to create a list of ancient tribes/cultures and then decide which of the middle cultures could be successors to the ancient cultures, and the do the same for the modern age. I really don't think it is a stretch to say the USA (as a end age option) could have come from England, New Spain, or the Six Nations of the Iroquois, as middle age options. I think there are more sensible routes through history than people think.

Agreed, but I think you can also work backwards. Take a nation like England, USA, France and look at their histories; which civilizations and cultures had a significant impact on the history of that modern nation? Hence, Rome > Norman > Britain. If you only start at Rome and look at successors, this route is a bit tenuous, but looking backwards from Britain*? Makes perfect sense. Some combination of both approaches seems like a good way to do it, there are so many possibilities. The limiting factor is basically how many civs they can realistically put in the game. I hope they manage a lot!

*note, using Britain instead of England here because it's almost confirmed that we're getting Britain as modern age civ.

 

[Siptah]

Agreed, but I think you can also work backwards. Take a nation like England, USA, France and look at their histories; which civilizations and cultures had a significant impact on the history of that modern nation? Hence, Rome > Norman > Britain. If you only start at Rome and look at successors, this route is a bit tenuous, but looking backwards from Britain*? Makes perfect sense. Some combination of both approaches seems like a good way to do it, there are so many possibilities. The limiting factor is basically how many civs they can realistically put in the game. I hope they manage a lot!

*note, using Britain instead of England here because it's almost confirmed that we're getting Britain as modern age civ.

Looking forward opens up a lot of "what if" next to historical possibilities, while looking backwards allows to trace influences of civs that had a wide influence (such as Greeks, Romans, Maurya, Abbasids, Achaemenids, Burgundians, or Goths). Hence, I agree that a combination of looking forward and looking backwards makes the most sense. And also gives the most options I still hope for an option or mod that enables all civs based in-game actions though.

One issue I have with looking backwards is that some people like to extrapolate nation states back to a time when nations weren't a thing. Rome is the obvious civ that leads to Italy (via Normans, Spain, or one of the Italian city states, for example) looking forwards or backwards, I think most people would agree. But Goths are a good option in both ways as well, especially if we understand them broadly as northern Europeans coming the south in the Migration period. These peoples had a huge influence on the northern part of modern Italy (including the nucleus of modern Italy and most of today's population centers), and some parts still strongly honor this ancestry (not least by having a major region named after a Suebi tribe - which are not Goths, but I think the point that Italy isn't just a modern monolithic Roman core territory is clear). Greeks are also a good option - their antique heritage and influence is still treasured in the south. Yet, I think it only makes sense looking backwards, not looking forwards (since Rome and Greeks are contemporaries in civ 7). So, I hope the "historical" paths are rather open and not blocked by the "nationalist trap" that one obvious pathway blocks others that do have some sense to it. To stay with your Britain example, I think a hypothetical Danish 2nd Age civ should unlock them as well, not just Normans or Anglo-Saxons (or Picts).

This would also allow to role-play as Age 2 civs with a bunch of options. My main goal in a certain campaign might not be to start as Rome and see where it goes, or start with the goal to end up as Italy. My goal might be to play Savoy, and see how I can get there (Rome, Goths, Celts, Gauls?) and where I can get from there on (Italy, France, Switzerland, Spain, Austria?) in fun ways.

 

[Arent11]

I personally am not convinced about the new Civ Switching feature, but obviously there is a signficant amount of people out there, who love this mechanism and look forward to it being implemented. As a matter of fact, I'm at least not totally opposed to the Ages idea. However I can't envision a way how the Civ Switching part is implemented in an interesting and immersive way.
I sort of understand the "geographical/ historical path", though Egypt turning into Songhai just because it is on the same continent, doesn't make much sense to me either. Finding 3 horses to turn Rome into Mongolia, however? What's next, Vikings become Chinese, because they harvested some rice, or Incas turning into Germans after they started 3 surprise wars on their neighbours ? That sounds like Civ 6's heureka mechanism all over again, which just felt goofy and repetitive to me.

So my question for you is: Do you have any specific ideas, how the Civ Switching should look like? Any specific wishes, how exactly these mechanics should work?

Well, of course it has to be done halfway credible:

(1) Romans -> Normans/Byzanz/Holy Roman Empire -> modern Italy/France/Germany/England might at least make sense
(2) The change would have to occur as invasion, independence wars etc.
(3) This invasion/independence wars would have to be implemented in a thrilling, exciting way

The main problem I see here is that a losing battle is hard to sell to the player - why am I trying to fight for the survival of my civ, if I know the game mechanics force me to lose?

The second problem is that it is acceptable to go Romans/Augustus -> Normans -> France/England, but would be really be annoying to come across Montezuma leading the Mongols that then turn to Koreans. I mean, that 'quit button' level annoying.

 

[Krikkit1]

Well, of course it has to be done halfway credible:

(1) Romans -> Normans/Byzanz/Holy Roman Empire -> modern Italy/France/Germany/England might at least make sense
(2) The change would have to occur as invasion, independence wars etc.
(3) This invasion/independence wars would have to be implemented in a thrilling, exciting way

The main problem I see here is that a losing battle is hard to sell to the player - why am I trying to fight for the survival of my civ, if I know the game mechanics force me to lose?

The second problem is that it is acceptable to go Romans/Augustus -> Normans -> France/England, but would be really be annoying to come across Montezuma leading the Mongols that then turn to Koreans. I mean, that 'quit button' level annoying.

1..They aren’t from independence wars/invasions that you lose (those happen during the Crisis and if you lose then you lose the game). They could be migrations of people that you incorporated into your empire successfully, an internal rearrangement of power within your empire due to changing technological social conditions.

2. The AI will not have Montezuma leading the Mongols/Korea, or the Mongols going into Korea. The AI will always choose from the “historical” paths for their leader/current civ.
Monty would go
?Maya?->Aztec->Mexico?Modern Native Mesoamericans?
Mongols would probably go to Russia or Qing

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

To stay with your Britain example, I think a hypothetical Danish 2nd Age civ should unlock them as well, not just Normans or Anglo-Saxons (or Picts).

I agree with your whole post but most definitely this. Would be great to have a Viking/Norse/Danish option on the way to Britain, as well as Saxons, Britons, Picts (although I'm ok with Celts more generically, too), potentially some form of Enlightenment era Scotland (although not sure now whether that would go into Exploration or Modern?).

Give me all the options!

 

[Scrabbler]

I was trying to think of how I would like civ switching to be implemented. I think my main request would be to give the player lots of options, not only for how the player chooses civs but also for the AI civ progressions.

For the AI, if I played the game just once I would probably want each AI to pick a successor civ that is closest culturally or geographically. This works well in some cases (e.g., Han-Ming-Qing) but the problem is that some civs have no progression options that are particularly historically satisfying. If I end up playing the game dozens or hundreds of times (quite likely!), it will be incredibly annoying to have the same progressions such as Rome-Normans-France or Egypt-Songhai-Buganda every time, so even if they use “historical” choices, I hope there is at least some randomness in how this is decided.

If I do play the game a lot, I suspect that at least some of the time I might want to play with civ progressions that are completely random, so I hope they also add that option. Another suggestion would be to have a draft each era as a catch-up mechanic, so in a six-player game six civs are randomly chosen for the second era with the player furthest behind getting first choice and the player currently leading getting what is left.

Once they have a full complement of leaders, I think they should also give the player the option to have leaders changing over time so they always match the current civilisation. This would mess up their leader progression mechanic though. Anyway, my main suggestion is to give the player multiple options for how they want to play the game.

 

[Krikkit1]

I was trying to think of how I would like civ switching to be implemented. I think my main request would be to give the player lots of options, not only for how the player chooses civs but also for the AI civ progressions.

For the AI, if I played the game just once I would probably want each AI to pick a successor civ that is closest culturally or geographically. This works well in some cases (e.g., Han-Ming-Qing) but the problem is that some civs have no progression options that are particularly historically satisfying. If I end up playing the game dozens or hundreds of times (quite likely!), it will be incredibly annoying to have the same progressions such as Rome-Normans-France or Egypt-Songhai-Buganda every time, so even if they use “historical” choices, I hope there is at least some randomness in how this is decided.

If I do play the game a lot, I suspect that at least some of the time I might want to play with civ progressions that are completely random, so I hope they also add that option. Another suggestion would be to have a draft each era as a catch-up mechanic, so in a six-player game six civs are randomly chosen for the second era with the player furthest behind getting first choice and the player currently leading getting what is left.

Once they have a full complement of leaders, I think they should also give the player the option to have leaders changing over time so they always match the current civilisation. This would mess up their leader progression mechanic though. Anyway, my main suggestion is to give the player multiple options for how they want to play the game.

I imagine some civs will have multiple “historical” options (I imagine Rome could equally go to a Byzantines, or a Spanish…and Normans could equally go to French or British or Americans)

So especially as the civ count grows, the game can get less predictable while staying “historical”

(AI prioritizes Historical civ choices) should definitely be an option…(default on)

And human players choosing the name of their civ/Leader (and getting to change them in each Age) is Very important.