Boris Gudenuf
Deity
The idea of "one Civ start to finish but adding new abilities throughout the game" was proposed as far back as Civ V and debated on these Forums 'way back then.
The problem is having traits/Uniques that remind you of a specific Civ (Tercios, Keshigs, Hoplites, etc) while using them for a completely different Civ. Giving them generic titles simply kills whatever immersion is left from redefining 'Classical Greece' into a medieval kingdom with Hoplites On Horseback - which is what actually happened after a fashion, but just doesn't Sound Right to the average gamer.
The other problem touched on in the last few pages is the potential choice between keeping the same Civ and 'progressing' to an entirely new one - how to maintain something resembling continuity while obtaining traits useful in the following Ages that may have no 'historical' basis at all - as in, an Antiquity Egypt that didn't exist as an independent polity with any 'Egyptian' traits for the next 2000 years.
Giving the gamer complete control over Civ titles, identities, icons, Leaders, etc and, by extension the names of all his units and Uniques is one way to go, but makes a lousy basis. Again, just for simplification and identification it makes sense to call a Hoplite a Hoplite instead of referring to it as a "middle-class militia with a big solid shield and a long iron-tipped spear in tight overlapping formations". Likewise, a "City State polity full of inventive and discorsive types that like to trade, fight, and debate, not necessarily in that order" is much more easily and universally identified as "Classical Greece" so that we can move along to describing whatever Uniques it deserves.
I suggest (again, I've posted this before) that the distinguishing characteristic for Gamer Choice of Civs could be the Attributes of each Civ.
So, if you start the game playing as , say, Aksum with Attributes of Cultural - Economic, then if you keep playing the basic Civ of Aksum, even under another, gamer-chosen name, through the next Ages, it will always have the Attributes of Cultural - Economic. If you want/need to play with other Attributes, you have to change Civs.
AND to change Civs, you have to establish some prerequisites for the change, just as now: no 'out of the blue' swapping Aksum for Dai Viet just because you prefer Viet's combination of Expansionist - Cultural Attributes - although, that would be easier to manage than a swap to Normans, who are Diplomatic - Militaristic, because that would require finding a path to justify changing both Attributes, not just one.
Same with any other Unique or characteristic of the Civ. Want to play with a Tercio-like infantry unit? Play Spain, or adopt the mixed-weapon formation that was the original Colunela that became Tercios - which will require changes probably including social/civic as well as technological and might even include interaction with the 'right' IP (as an example, note that Carthage's Unique Unit, the Numidian cavalry, came from an ally, not Carthage itself, and Mongolia's 'Keshig' horse-archer had antecedents in other steppe cultures stretching back almost 2500 years before 'Mongolia' became a recognizable polity)
Finally, and I will keep hammering on this point, the basis for any game system has to be Gamer Choice. I firmly believe the biggest problem with Civ Switching is not the mechanic itself, but the fact that it was presented as an Absolute Requirement: no matter how well you are doing with Aksum in Antiquity and how well you weather the Antiquity Crisis, you HAVE to change to a complete other Civ for the next Age. That makes no sense, gives the gamer no reward for success in the previous Age, and gives said gamer little or no continuity from one Civ/Age to the next.
Change that one mechanic to a more flexible one allowing the gamer the choice of continuing or completely reshuffling his Civ instead of being forced to follow a single, rigid path, and I suspect the rest of the problems people perceive with the game systems will be much more manageable..
The problem is having traits/Uniques that remind you of a specific Civ (Tercios, Keshigs, Hoplites, etc) while using them for a completely different Civ. Giving them generic titles simply kills whatever immersion is left from redefining 'Classical Greece' into a medieval kingdom with Hoplites On Horseback - which is what actually happened after a fashion, but just doesn't Sound Right to the average gamer.
The other problem touched on in the last few pages is the potential choice between keeping the same Civ and 'progressing' to an entirely new one - how to maintain something resembling continuity while obtaining traits useful in the following Ages that may have no 'historical' basis at all - as in, an Antiquity Egypt that didn't exist as an independent polity with any 'Egyptian' traits for the next 2000 years.
Giving the gamer complete control over Civ titles, identities, icons, Leaders, etc and, by extension the names of all his units and Uniques is one way to go, but makes a lousy basis. Again, just for simplification and identification it makes sense to call a Hoplite a Hoplite instead of referring to it as a "middle-class militia with a big solid shield and a long iron-tipped spear in tight overlapping formations". Likewise, a "City State polity full of inventive and discorsive types that like to trade, fight, and debate, not necessarily in that order" is much more easily and universally identified as "Classical Greece" so that we can move along to describing whatever Uniques it deserves.
I suggest (again, I've posted this before) that the distinguishing characteristic for Gamer Choice of Civs could be the Attributes of each Civ.
So, if you start the game playing as , say, Aksum with Attributes of Cultural - Economic, then if you keep playing the basic Civ of Aksum, even under another, gamer-chosen name, through the next Ages, it will always have the Attributes of Cultural - Economic. If you want/need to play with other Attributes, you have to change Civs.
AND to change Civs, you have to establish some prerequisites for the change, just as now: no 'out of the blue' swapping Aksum for Dai Viet just because you prefer Viet's combination of Expansionist - Cultural Attributes - although, that would be easier to manage than a swap to Normans, who are Diplomatic - Militaristic, because that would require finding a path to justify changing both Attributes, not just one.
Same with any other Unique or characteristic of the Civ. Want to play with a Tercio-like infantry unit? Play Spain, or adopt the mixed-weapon formation that was the original Colunela that became Tercios - which will require changes probably including social/civic as well as technological and might even include interaction with the 'right' IP (as an example, note that Carthage's Unique Unit, the Numidian cavalry, came from an ally, not Carthage itself, and Mongolia's 'Keshig' horse-archer had antecedents in other steppe cultures stretching back almost 2500 years before 'Mongolia' became a recognizable polity)
Finally, and I will keep hammering on this point, the basis for any game system has to be Gamer Choice. I firmly believe the biggest problem with Civ Switching is not the mechanic itself, but the fact that it was presented as an Absolute Requirement: no matter how well you are doing with Aksum in Antiquity and how well you weather the Antiquity Crisis, you HAVE to change to a complete other Civ for the next Age. That makes no sense, gives the gamer no reward for success in the previous Age, and gives said gamer little or no continuity from one Civ/Age to the next.
Change that one mechanic to a more flexible one allowing the gamer the choice of continuing or completely reshuffling his Civ instead of being forced to follow a single, rigid path, and I suspect the rest of the problems people perceive with the game systems will be much more manageable..
