How to repair the Age transition system -not a civ game- opinions and suggestions

[Stoic]

Can the first DLC fix the eras? So it's unplayable.

 

[Monene]

What if instead of choosing a civilization, you choose a culture and, as you progress, adopt more cultures to add to your civilization? Roman civilization was influenced by Roman, Greek, Phoenician, Egyptian cultures... All civilizations grow and eventually incorporate new cultures within themselves, so there's no drastic Rome-Inca-Siam shift.

 

[Krikkit1]

What if instead of choosing a civilization, you choose a culture and, as you progress, adopt more cultures to add to your civilization? Roman civilization was influenced by Roman, Greek, Phoenician, Egyptian cultures... All civilizations grow and eventually incorporate new cultures within themselves, so there's no drastic Rome-Inca-Siam shift.

That’s basically what we have
Your civilization incorporates
Roman, Incan, and Siamese cultures

2 factors seem to be what cause people difficulty

1. The NAME (and graphics and icon) of your civilization changes each age…some people would like to be able to play the Roman (or Bugandan or Spanish) empire all the way through even if it also incorporated other “cultures” unique characteristics


2. Losing stuff…UU going obsolete has been an understood staple…however in civ7
your UB/UI go obsolete in that you can’t build them
your UA and civics just vanish with only traditions


#1 is fixable without any gameplay changes, just presentation

#2 is tied into the ages structure of the game …even if many civs uniques could work in multiple ages, some would be unbalanced and others would not work at all.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

What if instead of choosing a civilization, you choose a culture and, as you progress, adopt more cultures to add to your civilization? Roman civilization was influenced by Roman, Greek, Phoenician, Egyptian cultures... All civilizations grow and eventually incorporate new cultures within themselves, so there's no drastic Rome-Inca-Siam shift.

That’s basically what we have
Your civilization incorporates
Roman, Incan, and Siamese cultures

The funny thing is that the game itself actually does not call it "civ-switching". If you look at the civ selection screen during an age transition, it asks you to pick another "culture". So I think the game is kind of trying to do this by having you select the next culture that will be added to your civ. The term "civ-switching" seems more of a fan term as a short hand way to describe the mechanic. When Firaxis first introduced the mechanic, some fans saw parallels with Humankind's civ-switching and started calling it "civ-switching" and the term stuck.

This makes me wonder if the issues with the mechanic have more to do with presentation and preconceived notions than actual gameplay. As @Krikkit1 points out, the name, graphics and icon change so people feel like they are changing civs. If the game kept the original civ name, graphics and icon throughout the game and just had a screen where you slot another "civ bonus", which is what I think @Monene is talking about, it might go over better with fans. I am talking about something like the religion screen where you add extra beliefs. So the screen could say Rome at the top and the civ bonus would be Roman and maybe you slot in a culture bonus that is "Greek" and in the Exploration Age you slot in a culture bonus that is "Celtic" and in the Modern Age, you slot in a culture bonus that is "Prussian". So by the end of the Modern Age, your Roman civ would have a Roman bonus, a Greek bonus, a Celtic bonus and a Prussian bonus. But it would still say Rome at the top with Roman iconography.

 

[Leucarum]

This makes me wonder if the issues with the mechanic have more to do with presentation and preconceived notions than actual gameplay. As @Krikkit1 points out, the name, graphics and icon change so people feel like they are changing civs. If the game kept the original civ name, graphics and icon throughout the game and just had a screen where you slot another "civ bonus", which is what I think @Monene is talking about, it might go over better with fans. I am talking about something like the religion screen where you add extra beliefs. So the screen could say Rome at the top and the first civ bonus would be Roman and then you slot a second civ bonus that is "Greek" and a third civ bonus that is "Celtic" and a fourth civ bonus that is "Prussian". But it would still say Rome at the top with Roman iconography.

At that point are you better off not associating the new abilities with civs at all? That way you aren't forcing narratives on players. Maybe have the civs resteict which sets of bonuses they can pick from (e.g. Carthage could pick from a bunch of trade, naval and mercenary themed packs) and have one which is unique to them?

 

[Krikkit1]

At that point are you better off not associating the new abilities with civs at all? That way you aren't forcing narratives on players. Maybe have the civs resteict which sets of bonuses they can pick from (e.g. Carthage could pick from a bunch of trade, naval and mercenary themed packs) and have one which is unique to them?

That is my thought for a “true one civ” game mode. In Ages not their “native ages” the civs would get uniques based on their attributes. (so Modern Carthage …MilEcon would get the same bonuses as Modern MilEcon Songhai…but different Traditions, remaining UI and Names)

 

[pjotroos]

A small, cosmetic thing that might help with that perception is to let us optionally pick Civilization's identity at the start - could either be linked to the leader (one of their recommended picks), or just an additional way to guarantee that unlock. If you use that option, all of your city names and your banner will always use your chosen identity. The settlement names stop being a mash-up of three different eras. Maybe have it grant passive bonuses in all eras that replace the mementos.

Then again, I actually think that there was always a plan for an expansion to add a "continue your legacy" option, letting us playing the same civ into the next era, with some alternative tree to replace a new cultural legacy path. If fourth era ever becomes a thing, having option like that is absolute necessity regardless.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

At that point are you better off not associating the new abilities with civs at all? That way you aren't forcing narratives on players. Maybe have the civs resteict which sets of bonuses they can pick from (e.g. Carthage could pick from a bunch of trade, naval and mercenary themed packs) and have one which is unique to them?

I agree, it would likely be best not to associate the bonuses with civs at all so as not to cause the same civ-switching confusion. In fact, I think I would like a system with one civ from start to finish that adds new abilities throughout the game.

 

[Siptah]

I agree, it would likely be best not to associate the bonuses with civs at all so as not to cause the same civ-switching confusion. In fact, I think I would like a system with one civ from start to finish that adds new abilities throughout the game.

While I like such a concept, it has been tried in Millennia and while I think it worked very well, there has been loud critique that it also kills player immersion. With the right pick, China can built hoplites unique units, Sweden declare Crusades, and the Aztecs can have Mounted Steppe Archers, and some people find these things off-putting. Hence, I‘m not sure if it would satisfy the people that think a Greek -Spain transition is ruining their immersion or that Charlemagne leading Buganda makes the game no fun.

 

[AD1730]

At that point are you better off not associating the new abilities with civs at all? That way you aren't forcing narratives on players. Maybe have the civs resteict which sets of bonuses they can pick from (e.g. Carthage could pick from a bunch of trade, naval and mercenary themed packs) and have one which is unique to them?

Traits specifically associated with a civ and leader are necessary to convey information to the player about the capabilities of their opponents. A mix-and-match system makes everything far more confusing than it needs to be. Let's stop trying to fix a system that was successful and wasn't broken in the first place. If you want trait evolution without civ switching, it should either 1) be consistent from game to game for that civ, 2) be associated with a leader change who is associated with the traits, or 3) have an accompanying civ name descriptor (similar to the different versions of Frederick). Of these, 1 and 2 are the best because they are most easily identified at a glance.

#2 is tied into the ages structure of the game …even if many civs uniques could work in multiple ages, some would be unbalanced and others would not work at all.

Balance was overemphasized in Civ 7's design. Civs having an ebb and flow is a good thing and creates more interesting gameplay.

 

[Gorbles]

Civs having an ebb and flow is a good thing and creates more interesting gameplay.

Civilisations having different peaks is an interesting idea.

But in practise it doesn't work out (when the peaks are spaced apart too much), because a civ that peaks late will always struggle - unfairly - against a civ that peaks early. "balance was overemphasised" is just another way of saying you never played a game where it was relevant. That's okay, I tend not to too. But others do. For those players, balance is probably pretty relevant. Unless you're specifically creating a challenge for yourself, nobody wants to be randomed into a civ matchup that adds far more stress than any other matchup might.

Think of it as a different perspective on wanting a challenging AI. People want challenging but fair AI. People don't want AI that cheats overtly in order to simulate challenge.

It also ties back to snowballing. By the lategame in VI and earlier (and even in VII, with the criticisms Modern has), you're making less interesting decisions. So the later a civ peaks, the less impactful the decisions you can make with that uniqueness coming into play.

 

[Leucarum]

I agree, it would likely be best not to associate the bonuses with civs at all so as not to cause the same civ-switching confusion. In fact, I think I would like a system with one civ from start to finish that adds new abilities throughout the game.

While I like such a concept, it has been tried in Millennia and while I think it worked very well, there has been loud critique that it also kills player immersion. With the right pick, China can built hoplites unique units, Sweden declare Crusades, and the Aztecs can have Mounted Steppe Archers, and some people find these things off-putting. Hence, I‘m not sure if it would satisfy the people that think a Greek -Spain transition is ruining their immersion or that Charlemagne leading Buganda makes the game no fun.

Traits specifically associated with a civ and leader are necessary to convey information to the player about the capabilities of their opponents. A mix-and-match system makes everything far more confusing than it needs to be. Let's stop trying to fix a system that was successful and wasn't broken in the first place. If you want trait evolution without civ switching, it should either 1) be consistent from game to game for that civ, 2) be associated with a leader change who is associated with the traits, or 3) have an accompanying civ name descriptor (similar to the different versions of Frederick). Of these, 1 and 2 are the best because they are most easily identified at a glance.

I actually agree with the comments that it would either feel generic, a mismatch or tacked-on. I don't think the thought experiment is a bad one though. This for me is going down a thought process mostly to see where it leads.

I think there are a few things worth noting:

Most abilities in Civ7 are very well suited to work over any age with a little scaling. Ironically, Civ7 has shown that Firaxis are very good at designing civs which work in any age. Apportioning these abilities out slowly over the ages could be one way of having civs evolve.

I also like Colonization's solution to Civ Evolution. Adding people to some equivalent of a colonial congress to get new abilities would be a very interesting way to rework the great people systems that have been in Civ.

UUs are a perennial sticking point with more generic solutions. They shouldn't be part of generically available civ evolutions so as not to break immersion. I think maybe the best work around would be for Civs to boost unit classes. E.g. Aksum gets Dhows in antiquity, and then all melee ships get the ability to make a trade route. For civs with late game unit classes... That's the new issue, maybe just give them 2 units to compensate?

 

[Monene]

I had the idea that each civilization can absorb other cultures based on whether it's xenophilic or xenophobic, with their own advantages and disadvantages. Some civilizations depend on their religion, their climate, or an aggressive attitude. But in Civ 7, you don't really add a new culture; they switch civilizations, and the only thing they leave behind to remind you that you were once another are your traditions. It makes sense for a civilization like Mongolia, Russia, or Spain to evolve and add skills and cultures, at least with the right leaders, but others like Japan avoid this completely, with the right leaders. In my mind, it was something like in Civ 6, if a city-state exists and I merge it into my empire (not conquer it), I gain its ability for my civilization. Still, I think players should be able to swap abilities between them if they want.

 

[Monene]

Furthermore, many UUs weren't exclusive. Many in the game are intended to be unique, like elephants or keshigs, but many used them without them being part of their original culture. The samurai was a horse archer, then became more of an ornamental figure with the use of gunpowder. Almost always, the only thing is that someone used them first, and then everyone else used them without having the chance. Except for the Spanish, they were the first, and no one else will be the first.

 

[stealth_nsk]

That’s basically what we have
Your civilization incorporates
Roman, Incan, and Siamese cultures

2 factors seem to be what cause people difficulty

1. The NAME (and graphics and icon) of your civilization changes each age…some people would like to be able to play the Roman (or Bugandan or Spanish) empire all the way through even if it also incorporated other “cultures” unique characteristics


2. Losing stuff…UU going obsolete has been an understood staple…however in civ7
your UB/UI go obsolete in that you can’t build them
your UA and civics just vanish with only traditions


#1 is fixable without any gameplay changes, just presentation

#2 is tied into the ages structure of the game …even if many civs uniques could work in multiple ages, some would be unbalanced and others would not work at all.

Regarding number 1, I expect at some point Firaxis will add the ability to choose civilization name, icon and city list. At minimum - the choice between previous and new culture, as more advanced - ability to choose each of those parameters from the list (excluding those which could be potentially taken by other leaders). I wouldn't expect free entering of civ name as this name could be used in different forms throughout the game, especially if we look outside English).

Regarding the second, with age changing it doesn't make sense to keep more. For example, some civilization features are age specific. Although, I think Firaxis could consider allowing to build unique buildings and improvements from previous ages. Currently it probably would be broken, but it's possible to balance those things and it would also make the overall game more robust as it would make two types of ageless buildings (unique and non-unique) to work in the same way.

 

[Leucarum]

Civ switching based on who your neighbours are, who you trade with or who you conquer would be a weirdly appropriate idea...

 

[Siptah]

Civ switching based on who your neighbours are, who you trade with or who you conquer would be a weirdly appropriate idea...

It sounds intriguing, but so does unlocking civs based on in-game actions. And we all know that this feels rather gamey or unsatisfying to many players by now.

So maybe, the answer is a combination of approaches? In order to unlock a civ fully, you need to earn it in four steps. Civ and leader each provide one full unlock to avoid being stuck, while providing a quarter of an unlock for specific other civs. The other quarters can be unlocked by in-game actions (maybe also in tiers to get more than a quarter), your neighbors or diplomacy, suzerained city states or conquered cities.

Example: you are Napoleon of Egypt. Neither unlocks anything for Bulgaria. Building 3 altars, plundering 3 tiles, and having 10 cavalry each unlocks a quarter for Bulgaria. Having integrated the Thracians provides the last quarter to unlock Bulgaria.

 

[Leucarum]

It sounds intriguing, but so does unlocking civs based on in-game actions. And we all know that this feels rather gamey or unsatisfying to many players by now.

So maybe, the answer is a combination of approaches? In order to unlock a civ fully, you need to earn it in four steps. Civ and leader each provide one full unlock to avoid being stuck, while providing a quarter of an unlock for specific other civs. The other quarters can be unlocked by in-game actions (maybe also in tiers to get more than a quarter), your neighbors or diplomacy, suzerained city states or conquered cities.

I am in pure thought experiment mode. Honestly I think this is only something you could do in the context of completely optional civ switching.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It sounds intriguing, but so does unlocking civs based on in-game actions. And we all know that this feels rather gamey or unsatisfying to many players by now.

So maybe, the answer is a combination of approaches? In order to unlock a civ fully, you need to earn it in four steps. Civ and leader each provide one full unlock to avoid being stuck, while providing a quarter of an unlock for specific other civs. The other quarters can be unlocked by in-game actions (maybe also in tiers to get more than a quarter), your neighbors or diplomacy, suzerained city states or conquered cities.

Example: you are Napoleon of Egypt. Neither unlocks anything for Bulgaria. Building 3 altars, plundering 3 tiles, and having 10 cavalry each unlocks a quarter for Bulgaria. Having integrated the Thracians provides the last quarter to unlock Bulgaria.

I think what Firaxis should do is to allow civilization unlock through narrative events (if they didn't already). Those narrative events already allow quite complex conditions and player choices, so just let it loose and allow modders to make any unlock logic they see fit. For the base game, though, I think current system works ok.

 

[Siptah]

I think what Firaxis should do is to allow civilization unlock through narrative events (if they didn't already). Those narrative events already allow quite complex conditions and player choices, so just let it loose and allow modders to make any unlock logic they see fit. For the base game, though, I think current system works

How would the narrative events be triggered though? Especially for civs/leaders that have many options. Random chance or multiple events to choose from?