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

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.

That sounds exactly as anticlimactic as I fear it will be.

Give me an actual rise and fall of civs. Make the rise great and the fall great. Don't wiggle out of the gain/loss of knowledge, literacy, life expectancy and security the rise & fall of a civ actually means.

And... we still don't know how Firaxis explains the change narratively or do we already have some text exerpts? 🤔 I don't think they will argue that there was migration of people so that Romans became Normans. Even though technically (plus plundering, conquests, violence and slavery) that would correct.

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

That's good. I mean, there can be an *option* to allow civ/leader mixing, but there should be one to stay on the historical path.
 
Last edited:
That sounds exactly as anticlimactic as I fear it will be.

Give me an actual rise and fall of civs. Make the rise great and the fall great. Don't wiggle out of the gain/loss of knowledge, literacy, life expectancy and security the rise & fall of a civ actually means.

And... we still don't know how Firaxis explains the change narratively or do we already have some text exerpts? 🤔 I don't think they will argue that there was migration of people so that Romans became Normans. Even though technically (plus plundering, conquests, violence and slavery) that would correct.



That's good. I mean, there can be an *option* to allow civ/leader mixing, but there should be one to stay on the historical path.
I think the Crisis itself is intended to be the Climax…that is the point that you almost die.

However, during the transition
-Many cities become towns
-Many buildings lose their bonuses

so there is a setback
 
I think the Crisis itself is intended to be the Climax…that is the point that you almost die.

However, during the transition
-Many cities become towns
-Many buildings lose their bonuses

so there is a setback

I'm not sure that cities becoming towns and buildings losing their bonuses is intended to be the result of a setback from the crisis.

Its more a rebalancing of scale for the new Age.

Your city didn't become a town so much as in the new Age growth expands. Population is larger in the Exploration Age and to qualify as a city you need a larger settlement . . . so borderline Cities from Antiquity would no longer qualify to be full cities.

Same with buildings. Old Antiquity Age buildings just aren't important anymore with new technology and so lose some of their bonuses . . . which is why you build over some of them with newer more useful buildings (instead of just adding more buildings).

So if you had a big science focus in Antiquity you would start the Exploration age with a science boost from all your libraries, but it wouldn't be too big an advantage because libraries aren't that useful in the new Age and everyone will need to build Universities to really get their science rolling.

The entire process is intended to prevent runaway snowballing and yield inflation.
 
Last edited:
I think the Crisis itself is intended to be the Climax…that is the point that you almost die.

However, during the transition
-Many cities become towns
-Many buildings lose their bonuses

so there is a setback

But that's the point. It's ok to have some kind of "tower defense" situation where you fight for your survival, your cities getting razed, your trusty legions overrun by barbarians, your governors rebelling.

But then:

(1) I want to play the tower defense, not skip over it
(2) I want to have a chance to defend my beloved cities, try to save my elite legions
(3) If I survive, I want to be rewarded, not punished by suddenly having my cities become towns and my buildings becoming obsolete
 
I'm not sure that cities becoming towns and buildings losing their bonuses is intended to be the result of a setback from the crisis.
Its more a rebalancing of scale for the new Age.
Your city didn't become a town so much as in the new Age growth expands. Population is larger in the Exploration Age and to qualify as a city you need a larger settlement . . . so borderline Cities from Antiquity would no longer qualify to be full cities.
Same with buildings. Old Antiquity Age buildings just aren't important anymore with new technology and so lose some of their bonuses . . . which is why you build over some of them with newer more useful buildings (instead of just adding more buildings).

That's weird. Why should a library, aqueduct, baths, sewers, academies not have an impact in later ages? Many medieval towns would have been happy to have the kind of waterways, baths and sewers Roman cities had. That infrastructure was *better* than much of later times.

The same is true for the primitive steam engines(!) of Romans and Greeks. This knowledge was lost or ignored, it didn't become obsolete.
 
But that's the point. It's ok to have some kind of "tower defense" situation where you fight for your survival, your cities getting razed, your trusty legions overrun by barbarians, your governors rebelling.

But then:

(1) I want to play the tower defense, not skip over it
(2) I want to have a chance to defend my beloved cities, try to save my elite legions
(3) If I survive, I want to be rewarded, not punished by suddenly having my cities become towns and my buildings becoming obsolete
maybe you can do 1-2-3.

answer tomorrow I suppose

That's weird. Why should a library, aqueduct, baths, sewers, academies not have an impact in later ages? Many medieval towns would have been happy to have the kind of waterways, baths and sewers Roman cities had. That infrastructure was *better* than much of later times.

The same is true for the primitive steam engines(!) of Romans and Greeks. This knowledge was lost or ignored, it didn't become obsolete.
I thought the buildings would stay, and you'd build over.
 
Last edited:
But that's the point. It's ok to have some kind of "tower defense" situation where you fight for your survival, your cities getting razed, your trusty legions overrun by barbarians, your governors rebelling.

But then:

(1) I want to play the tower defense, not skip over it
(2) I want to have a chance to defend my beloved cities, try to save my elite legions
(3) If I survive, I want to be rewarded, not punished by suddenly having my cities become towns and my buildings becoming obsolete
You DO play the tower defense (Crisis), and you are rewarded by keeping those cities as towns instead of as nothing. (and if you played well in the previous age you get to keep them as cities)
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
That's weird. Why should a library, aqueduct, baths, sewers, academies not have an impact in later ages? Many medieval towns would have been happy to have the kind of waterways, baths and sewers Roman cities had. That infrastructure was *better* than much of later times.

The same is true for the primitive steam engines(!) of Romans and Greeks. This knowledge was lost or ignored, it didn't become obsolete.
IRL, Roman/Greek steam engines were obsolete when they were invented.

Also in game, not every building goes obsolete, some do…others may survive but have no effect on towns.
 
You DO play the tower defense (Crisis), and you are rewarded by keeping those cities as towns instead of as nothing. (and if you played well in the previous age you get to keep them as cities)

😭 But why, I didn't lose the war!?

And actually, I suspect that the tower defense will not be very challenging 🤔 In fact, I suspect that I won't lose a single city.

Of course I could be wrong but it was like that in the past. Even on deity it was not common to lose cities.
 
IRL, Roman/Greek steam engines were obsolete when they were invented.

Also in game, not every building goes obsolete, some do…others may survive but have no effect on towns.

I'll have to see how this is actually handled. Libraries and aqueducts should certainly not be suddenly "obsolete".

I mean, the *Internet* might make libraries obsolete. But that's a tech, not an age.

Roman/Greek steam engines just missed steel, iron was not durable enough. That's why some people argued they were only ~300 years away from industrialization.
 
😭 But why, I didn't lose the war!?

And actually, I suspect that the tower defense will not be very challenging 🤔 In fact, I suspect that I won't lose a single city.

Of course I could be wrong but it was like that in the past. Even on deity it was not common to lose cities.
The justification (from another contributor) could be that entering a new Age means your cities/libraries no longer measure up to the new standard. Your libraries produced say 4-6 Ancient Age science, but they only make 1 Exploration Age science. (and if you were really good at science, your libraries are capable of making 4-6 Exploration Age science)

Not losing any settlements should Not be the norm during a Crisis. (It should be the norm for the regular part of the game if you are reasonably skilled)
 
The justification (from another contributor) could be that entering a new Age means your cities/libraries no longer measure up to the new standard. Your libraries produced say 4-6 Ancient Age science, but they only make 1 Exploration Age science. (and if you were really good at science, your libraries are capable of making 4-6 Exploration Age science)

Not losing any settlements should Not be the norm during a Crisis. (It should be the norm for the regular part of the game if you are reasonably skilled)

Ok, as much as I like argueing with you, I think we can stop here. I simply don't know enough about the way they implement it yet to judge in a positive or negative way.

If I play on low difficulty and my legions curb stomp the barbarians, of course my civ should rule the world 😋

I agree that "not losing any settlements should not be the norm during a crisis" but I suspect that Firaxis is not audacious enough to do that on lower difficulties, because it could lead to people rage quitting.
 
Ok, as much as I like argueing with you, I think we can stop here. I simply don't know enough about the way they implement it yet to judge in a positive or negative way.

If I play on low difficulty and my legions curb stomp the barbarians, of course my civ should rule the world 😋

I agree that "not losing any settlements should not be the norm during a crisis" but I suspect that Firaxis is not audacious enough to do that on lower difficulties, because it could lead to people rage quitting.
I would agree that difficulty levels will probably figure strongly into a Crisis… although how far you are ahead should also count. If you control 2/3 of the old word and hit all 4 ‘Victory conditions’ before anyone else even got off the ground….you should get a much more serious Crisis than someone who has barely managed to get a town out.
 
Speculative questions for Civ switching (I am a fan of this)

1. I am Greece and take the Normans. What option does Rome have then?
- Can Greece also go Norman or do they share another alternative?

2. I am Rome with the leader Confucius and take China’s middle era Civ for Exploration.
- Does China then get Normans or they can double up?

Neither options bother me, just curious how it will play out
Works better if each Civ gets at least 2 options in the proceeding era.
 
Last edited:
Speculative questions for Civ switching (I am a fan of this)

1. I am Greece and take the Normans. What option does Greece have then?
- Can Greece also go Norman or do they share another alternative?

2. I am Rome with the leader Confucius and take China’s middle era Civ for Exploration.
- Does China then get Normans or they can double up?

Neither options bother me, just curious how it will play out
Works better if each Civ gets at least 2 options in the proceeding era.
Each civ has at least two options and it seems leaders will unlock options too. I'm not quite sure what you're asking with your first question, but for the second China/Han will pick their next best option, which might be Mongolia or Shogunate Japan.

edit: ah, you did mean to ask about the Romans! The Augustus First Look isn't clear, but we know that his bonuses supposedly work well with Spain so Rome can probably unlock it and that's the choice an AI Rome in that situation would pick.
 
Last edited:
Each civ has at least two options and it seems leaders will unlock options too. I'm not quite sure what you're asking with your first question, but for the second China/Han will pick their next best option, which might be Mongolia or Shogunate Japan.
Also gameplay can unlock options…Han gets enough mountains in their territory and they can choose Inca.
 
Also gameplay can unlock options…Han gets enough mountains in their territory and they can choose Inca.
That's not what the devs have said. Unless it's a gameplay option you can turn off, AI civs will always pick the historical options. Only human players can jump from Han to Inca to Buganda.
 
That's not what the devs have said. Unless it's a gameplay option you can turn off, AI civs will always pick the historical options. Only human players can jump from Han to Inca to Buganda.
Ai will prioritize historical options. If an AI is Maya and other players (humans choose first) have taken the Inca and Aztecs (all its historical options in this version) but the AI has unlocked Mongols, it should take Mongols… (If it hasn’t unlocked any other options it should just choose a duplicate Inca/Maya.
 
Give me an actual rise and fall of civs. Make the rise great and the fall great. Don't wiggle out of the gain/loss of knowledge, literacy, life expectancy and security the rise & fall of a civ actually means.

We know one of the crisis is plague/disease related. It's easy to imagine another might be something like a "Sea Peoples" invasion by sea, or "Huns" by land.

Ultimately it will depend on implementation.

For instance, I fear the negative policies will be trivial to work around. Ed Beach has always showed to be overly conservative (to my taste) when it comes to maluses. Off the top of my head, that was the case with Happiness, War Weariness, and Loyalty in Civ VI. The amount of tiles that can be submerged is also pretty low without mods, and almost always trivial to work around.

It already looks better than Civ VI Rise & Fall though.
 
Top Bottom