Goodbye Civ, and thanks for the memories

[Vandlys]

Yeah, I get what you're saying. To me, the civilizations were always changing. They weren't static. Tribal America could evolve into the Kingdom of America and then the Union of American Soviet States. Yes, it was still called "America" and you were stuck with Teddy and his wool suit, but, to me, the previous iterations allowed civs to be dynamic, just in a more subtle fashion. I've mostly gotten used to civ switching, but I still don't love the more radical switches -- "Revolutionary Napoleon" leads Khmer to Inca to French Empire.

I get that yeah. I honestly don't mind the switching, but I also wouldn't have minded it if it was the way it was in VI.

 

[MutilationWave]

Yea, there's a lot of low hanging fruits that everyone (I think) would welcome back with open arms. I've also wanted throne room or palace back for years. Bring it back in a bit more involved manner like era-evolving leaders. Let us meet leaders in their thronerooms or in front of the palace - bring it into the game. Put it on a tile that we can loot or whatever. There's so many good ideas from earlier civ games, that they could drop the ⅓ "new" and just go ⅓ "civ1-2", ⅓ "civ3-4" and ⅓ "civ5-6".

I don't know what it is, since it's such a simple little thing, but I absolutely loved building my palace piece by piece.

 

[Haig]

I have always thought of Civilization as a sort of history-flavoured fantasy world so for me it never mattered that there is ancient era England etc.

What bothers me about Civ 7 civ switching and leaders leading all nations it feels just too confusing and forced, and adds more bonuses to remember into a game already full of them.

I think Fxs designers had the idea of more is more, where I miss the elegant bonuses of say Civ 6 Germany and Japan or Civ 5 Arabia.

On reddit the strategy discussions seem to be more general, when before there was more "What is your Maori strategy?" or "Favorite civ for naval empire". The hybrid civs are harder to compare in my opinion. This is from my observations, could be wrong.

I really feel that Civ 7 would have worked better if there was a "classic" mode included too.

These.are matter of taste of course, but this is my view of why I stopped playing 7 and am now conquering the world with Gauls in Civ 6.

 

[Ondolindë]

I cannot believe I am writing this myself, but having played and loved the franchise since Civ III, I am actually considering saying food bye at least until Civ VIII is announced, hoping the developers realize their crucial mistakes and poor assumptions at the core of CIV VII. I preordered it even after disagreeing with the civ switch mechanic and other changes hoping that I would find it unique, better developed and more sophisticated than Humankind. Utterly disappointed. I gave it a good try with 130 hours, but I rather play other games especially when my gaming time is so precious and scarce these days. Truly, I was even willing/hoping to make CIV my only priority as I had with CIV VI with more than 4000 hours invested. I do think I got my money's worth. Although, I must confess that as much as I loved CIV VI, my disenchantment started then, when the developers were not as forthcoming and would not listen to the player base even back then. I wrote many posts about that. Anyway, it is sad how out of touch with the true sentiment of the average player they are, or at least the PC player base. I cannot speak for console and other types of players, but the numbers on Steam, I believe, speak volumes as it is also spoken by the recent patch which doesn't even begin to address the major issues. I guess they are sticking to their guns, but guns do backfire at times.

 

[Skojardu]

That's because it isn't

I think people have this opinion because years of 5 and 6 have reprogrammed us to dislike the combat in 4 where it is nearly a guarantee one unit will die in combat unless they are suitably skilled in Flanking. Having units damage each other in V and VI and have the opportunity to withdraw is nice feeling. I've been flipped! It frustrates me, though, since I like both Civ 4 and Civ 4 Col (population management in that game is ideal for me)

 

[aelf]

In my mind, I agree with you, and I believe I've even argued the case here.

In my heart, I still feel there's something more unrealistic about Mississippi becoming Ming China than about Ghandi being born in 4000 BC and living 6000 years.

I realize that it is a challenge for those who feel that way to spell out why they do, and I will admit that I haven't yet found a way to do so.

Occam's Razor would seem to suggest that the latter is something you accepted way back when your requirements for immersion or believability were lower. And because you've accepted it, you no longer notice how strange it is. This might have to do with the change in people's expectations in general. Just think about how many gamers now would say things like turn-based gameplay or the lack of top-notch graphics reduce their immersion.

It might not work for everyone, but being more open-minded might help.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Occam's Razor would seem to suggest that the latter is something you accepted way back when your requirements for immersion or believability were lower. And because you've accepted it, you no longer notice how strange it is. This might have to do with the change in people's expectations in general. Just think about how many gamers now would say things like turn-based gameplay or the lack of top-notch graphics reduce their immersion.

That's entirely possible. But let me share another thought I've had, as I've been mulling over this matter; it's half-baked, but maybe I can get it fully-baked by trying to put it into words.

So here's a form of historical unreality that exists in 1-6, and that I have just accepted as being in the nature of a Civ game: playing as the Romans, I can build the Pyramids. My in-game version of a particular civilization can build a wonder that the this-world version of that same civilization did not build.

To use my case from above, if I'm playing 7 as "America" (in that I plan to get America as my modern-era civ) why can't I similarly say that the particular incarnation of America present in this game had hoplites as its early unique unit? On the surface, it's no more unrealistic for America to have hoplites than for Rome to have the Pyramids. (and that's what we're trying to get at, why civ-switching feels unacceptably unrealistic whereas earlier violations of this-world history felt acceptably unrealistic).

But here's the problem with that analogy. In Civ 7, I'm not America at the time that I'm playing with hoplites; I'm Greece; everything about the game is telling me I'm Greece. Nothing about the game is telling me I'm America. There's no "bag" for the historically-unrealistic thing--American-hoplites--to go into, the way there is a bag for Roman-pyramids to go into.

These reflections have helped me to pre-envision how I think I will play civ 7 should I ever pick up. I think that I will name my civ after the thing that does remain stable throughout the game, the leader. So (in my headcanon) I will play as the Franklins or as the Aminites. Then it will be fine if that imaginary in-game civilization has hoplites during its antiquity phase and marines in its modern phase. It will even be fine that the Franklins had an early "Greek" phase of its civilization, followed by what historians refer to as its "Mongolian" phase and eventuating in the present "American" phase.

 

[Yzman]

That's entirely possible. But let me share another thought I've had, as I've been mulling over this matter; it's half-baked, but maybe I can get it fully-baked by trying to put it into words.

So here's a form of historical unreality that exists in 1-6, and that I have just accepted as being in the nature of a Civ game: playing as the Romans, I can build the Pyramids. My in-game version of a particular civilization can build a wonder that the this-world version of that same civilization did not build.

To use my case from above, if I'm playing 7 as "America" (in that I plan to get America as my modern-era civ) why can't I similarly say that the particular incarnation of America present in this game had hoplites as its early unique unit? On the surface, it's no more unrealistic for America to have hoplites than for Rome to have the Pyramids. (and that's what we're trying to get at, why civ-switching feels unacceptably unrealistic whereas earlier violations of this-world history felt acceptably unrealistic).

But here's the problem with that analogy. In Civ 7, I'm not America at the time that I'm playing with hoplites; I'm Greece; everything about the game is telling me I'm Greece. Nothing about the game is telling me I'm America. There's no "bag" for the historically-unrealistic thing--American-hoplites--to go into, the way there is a bag for Roman-pyramids to go into.

These reflections have helped me to pre-envision how I think I will play civ 7 should I ever pick up. I think that I will name my civ after the thing that does remain stable throughout the game, the leader. So (in my headcanon) I will play as the Franklins or as the Aminites. Then it will be fine if that imaginary in-game civilization has hoplites during its antiquity phase and marines in its modern phase. It will even be fine that the Franklins had an early "Greek" phase of its civilization, followed by what historians refer to as its "Mongolian" phase and eventuating in the present "American" phase.

I understand and don't understand at the same time. You said yourself, it is Greek Hoplites. So you don't need a "bag" for American hoplites, as that isn't what they are.

 

[protocol7]

I think the easiest is just accepting you’re playing three different civs, and the only real relation between them is the latter ones move into the ruins of the former ones after the crisis causes the whole world to collapse offscreen. There’s no real way to square the circle, so just accept it for what it is if you can.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Last night as I was playing, I loaded the save for turn 2 of the Exploration Age. This game, I'm playing Asoka and I'm executing my plan to play Maurya -> Chola -> Mughal.
But mentally, I think of my empire as "Asoka's people."

I meet Tecumseh, who started in Distant Lands, who is (not surprisingly) the Shawnee. As I move a missionary thru his territory, I see a city named Carthage. Hmmm, that must have been his Antiquity mode. Tubman is my neighbor; she started as Aksum and -- checks notes -- is now Songhai. But mostly, she acts like Harriet Tubman. Himiko started as Mississippean, changed to Hawaii, but isn't really doing much that reminds me of south Pacific traits. Those people are "Himiko's people."

For me, Civ7 works because of the focus on the leader. The game serves to de-emphasize the particular civ. I confess that was the case for me in previous Civ games; I declared war on Shaka or Montezuma, not so much on the Zulu or the Aztecs. I finished a Civ6 game where I was allied with Lady Six Sky, but I had to keep checking to see if she was the Maya or the Inca. I totally understand how de-emphasizing the civ and emphasizing the leader is foreign, disconcerting, and unpleasant for some players.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I understand and don't understand at the same time. You said yourself, it is Greek Hoplites. So you don't need a "bag" for American hoplites, as that isn't what they are.

My post references earlier posts in the thread and presupposes one will remember what I was driving at in them.

There’s no real way to square the circle,

See, for me, I think that playing as an imaginary civ called the Franklins, would have the effect of "squaring the circle."

I would have (as I have had in 3 and 5, the ones I've played) an overarching "people" that I am guiding through the whole game. In 3 and 5, that "people" has always (in my headcanon) had "phases" of its development. (It's just that it also had a single easy name to give it). So that's not intrinsically different. Now I would just give those phases the names of Civ 7's civ(lets).

Edit: so vorlon already does what I could imagine myself doing in order to get over my block with civ-switching.

 

[protocol7]

Ah okay, that’s great if it works for you. For me the “Franklinians” wouldn’t ever feel like an alt-history civ. I like imagining things like the ancient Babylonians continuing to develop until they have fighter jets and spaceships. I’ve come to accept that’s just not possible and all civs in every era except modern are doomed to die off screen and some other civ moves in, and there’s just nothing you can do about it, so the only option is try to enjoy it as best you can for what it is.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Ah okay, that’s great if it works for you. For me the “Franklinians” wouldn’t ever feel like an alt-history civ.

It's funny how different we all are. Some people have no problem with it in the first place. Some people can "fix" it in their head using one strategy. But that same strategy wouldn't work for someone else.

I think the developers fell into the "have no problem with it" camp (duh, or they wouldn't have made such a game), and didn't really realize (until release) that some people's brains work differently.

They probably thought, "It's always been unrealistic; who cares if its unrealistic in this new, different way?"

 

[Siddorm]

Vox Populi messed up my vanilla and other mod games and turned Social Policies OFF. How can I reinstall the mod and not have this problem? I had to delete nearly everything AND reinstall to fix it.

Try reinstalling it as the non-EUI version.

 

[Core Imposter]

If we are going to ignore the Civs and concentrate on the leaders, why isn't the name of the game Random Immortal Leaders?

Civilization as a game is dead. Beached like an errant whale.

 

[Civinator]

If we are going to ignore the Civs and concentrate on the leaders, why isn't the name of the game Random Immortal Leaders?

Yes, this argument returns again and again and it will overshadow Civ 7 during its complete livetime, if there will not be some drastic corrections.

 

[Yzman]

If we are going to ignore the Civs and concentrate on the leaders, why isn't the name of the game Random Immortal Leaders?

Civilization as a game is dead. Beached like an errant whale.

This is borderline trolling at this point. Many, including myself, have always viewed the leader as who you are against. I always refer to how annoying Napoleon is, not France. The leader is who I see, not the civ, literally. In this game, I see the leaders face in the corner, not a civ name. I also see the leader in diplomacy as I did in previous games. This is a personal mental block for you, not something that has drastically changed in the game from previous iteration.

Even if you are stuck at viewing it as you are against a civ...that is fine. You are 3 different civs throughout the game, one for each era. It is just smaller "games" so to speak. Once again, if you just play it for what it is, this doesn't feel differently to me.

 

[Yzman]

Yes, this argument returns again and again and it will overshadow Civ 7 during its complete livetime, if there will not be some drastic corrections.

Yes I can't forget how many times I heard this argument during Random Immortal Leaders 1-4 (Commonly known as Civ 3-6)

You literally have ALWAYS played as an immortal leader in those games, but NOW you are claiming that is a bridge too far.

 

[protocol7]

It doesn’t seem like trolling or a mental issue to me, I can totally get where they are coming from even if I don’t see it the same way.

 

[Civinator]

You literally have ALWAYS played as an immortal leader in those games, but NOW you are claiming that is a bridge too far.

Sorry this is wrong concerning my gameplay. I have shown screenshots and animations, that I play my Civ 3 games with 4 different rulers for each civ in each era during the same game. 4 different rulers during a game for a civ at least is better than only one ruler, but of course the lasting for an era in Civ 3 is even much too long for the life of an individual leader.