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

[Krikkit1]

Then you will never be happy with Civ VII and should give up on it. You have defined your problem as unsolvable and thrown up your hands and, by your definition, can provide no solution except an entirely new game.

Some of us, though, do not accept your definition or your problem - which is normal in any game, each of us has our own set of game definitions even when playing the same game in the same way.

In my experience with the game and from reading far too many of the same complaints in these Threads:

The game as designed is built around three Ages and nearly complete revamping of the game in each Age, including the playable Civs available in each Age. Changing Civs is a result of that original decision, and so merely allowing you to play the same Civ continuously will not solve the original problem - the reset between Ages, which currently happens almost entirely Out of Sight of the gamer. You finish the Crisis Period, the curtain closes, and when it opens again the set and the actors are all different and the version of Macbeth you thought you were watching turns out to be a version of Bald Soprano - in Sanskrit, done entirely in rhyming couplets by cross-dressing orangutangs.

It might be fascinating, but it's not what you came to see, or expected to play in a Civ game.

Playing the same or different Civs isn't the problem, the hacking of the game into three parts that do not show enough continuity to the player is what messes with too many player's heads. (And yes, it messed with mine and still annoys the %$#^ out of me, but for me, at least, it's playable)

The question is not "I was playing Egypt: why am I now playing Mongols?" it's more "I was playing Egypt, how the H**l did I get to playing Mongols?"

Answer that question to the gamer's satisfaction, and the rest of the game becomes much more acceptable and playable.

That’s why I like the idea of age unlock quests

When you unlock a civ, you should get a quest where the reward is culture for that civs unique civics if you choose them in the next age.

The narratives of those quests (as well as narratives presented when you civ switch) could provide a much smoother transition to a new set of bonuses.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That’s why I like the idea of age unlock quests

When you unlock a civ, you should get a quest where the reward is culture for that civs unique civics if you choose them in the next age.

The narratives of those quests (as well as narratives presented when you civ switch) could provide a much smoother transition to a new set of bonuses.

My personal preference would be to do away with the artificial and Eurocentric Age system completely.

But that ain't going to happen unless someone takes a digital flamethrower to the game code.

My fall back preference, so to speak, is to make the Age Transitions part of the game play, so that Melvin The Average Gamer knows exactly why he is being given the choice of playing Borussia or Burgundy in 'Exploration Age' and not being allowed to keep on playing his beloved Udmurts from Antiquity. And, of course, part of this is that the potential Choice of playing the Udmurts right through to Space Flight should always be there in addition to a varying number of other choices of playable Civs - unlocked by in-game events and gamer decisions that are transparent in that there should be no doubt in Melvin's mind what led him to playing the Burgundian Netherlands in Exploration Age instead of Spain.

The big hurdle to this lies not in making all Civs playable in all ages - that is a lot of detail work giving each Civ in each Age some playability even when outside of their Primary Age - time-consuming for certain, but not requiring any particular brilliance to achieve. The problem is keeping Melvin from gaming the resulting Crisis mechanics now that they are all visible to him and steamrolling the AI civs from start to finish. We've already seen that despite the efforts to avoid this in the Age reset system, that aspect of the game has failed completely in its stated purpose already and will only get worse if steps are not taken to slap Melvin down somehow.

That means the Playable Crisis Period cannot be a set sequence of ascending crises as now , which always hits the AI harder than the human (just yesterday in an Antiquity-Exploration Crisis I observed several of my AI opponents sitting with 0 total Happiness while I had +60: guess Who was losing settlements to flipping and so entering the next Age appreciably weaker than they ended the Crisis?).

I suggest, in fact, that the Crisis period present as a set of Choices (Narrative Events) which, combined with the in–game situation, lead the AI or human gamer into a state where there are NO completely positive outcomes. That would, after all, be a much better definition of Crisis than merely reacting to a set sequence of events that you know can only get so bad before the Age ends. Instead, the Age does not end until you are backed into a corner: choose to keep playing the Udmurts even as many of them are breaking away (and taking their Settlements with them) because a new religion has reduced their loyalty to -100, or choose to play the Burgundians even though they are not Real Udmurts and so, as an example, cannot build the Sauna UI any more.

The Crisis Choices, then, would lead to the official End of Age which coincides with a Requirement to make a choice of what available next-Age Civ you will play - and that choice always includes your current Civ, even if that choice is not optimal.

Allowing both 'continuous Civ' and 'Civ changing' play is, I firmly believe, the path to making Civ VII a far better game than any previous Civ, none of which offered the same choice of play: if you started in 4000 BCE playing Udmurts in Civs I - VI, you were stuck playing Udmurts even if all their Uniques were related to Tundra (they were a Finnish tribe, for those who have been wondering) and you have been playing on a tropical island map: allowing transitional Civs based on in-game events and choices makes a far, far better game.

Makes you wonder why Civ VII didn't offer such a choice in the first place . . .

 

[misesfan]

Then you will never be happy with Civ VII and should give up on it. You have defined your problem as unsolvable and thrown up your hands and, by your definition, can provide no solution except an entirely new game.

Thats not what was said - what was said was that the problem with the game is huge and cannot be solved by minor changes. This is demonstrably correct, given the metrics of concurrent players and/or player satisfaction ratings. The latest changes have not changed the overall reviews of the game - if anything reviews have gone down with latest sales as more people have played it. Further, the concurrent players have been in the 5K range which ranks the game around 150th in the Steam games played listing on SteamDB.

The entire design DNA, with the streamlining, mobile based, deck-building mechanics and lack of depth of the game is the problem. The fact that they didnt want to create an empire building game and instead build whatever this is, thats the problem.

The question the customer wants answered is - "If I play the Mongols, how can I build an empire to stand the test of time?" Pretty simple, if the devs knew their audience, we wouldnt be here.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Thats not what was said - what was said was that the problem with the game is huge and cannot be solved by minor changes. This is demonstrably correct, given the metrics of concurrent players and/or player satisfaction ratings. The latest changes have not changed the overall reviews of the game - if anything reviews have gone down with latest sales as more people have played it. Further, the concurrent players have been in the 5K range which ranks the game around 150th in the Steam games played listing on SteamDB.

The entire design DNA, with the streamlining, mobile based, deck-building mechanics and lack of depth of the game is the problem. The fact that they didnt want to create an empire building game and instead build whatever this is, thats the problem.

The question the customer wants answered is - "If I play the Mongols, how can I build an empire to stand the test of time?" Pretty simple, if the devs knew their audience, we wouldnt be here.

In a Thread titled "How to repair the Age transition system" he stated that the problem was unsolvable except by replacing the system. Since the Age transition is the basis of the game, that isn't going to happen. From that I assume that he has given up on this game.

Fine, that's his choice and I fully understand how he came to it: I've come very close to uninstalling the game myself several times since release, and I'm keeping that option open for when some games I am certain will be playable are released later this year.

But in the meantime, the Thread is about repair and not replace - because, much as I would like to replace the entire pernicious and pestiferous Age/Era system in 4X games, we are apparently stuck with some form of it for now, so let's see what can be done to salvage some game play within the system.

If people believe firmly that there is no salvaging possible, fine: their choice, their decision. But having stated their choice, they are opting out of a thread devoted to repair of the system.

 

[Leucarum]

I mean the age system does a couple of things. It apportions out game mechanics into distinct eras of the game so that they feel different, tries (and utterly fails) to curtail snowballing, through the crisis system it tries and fails to justify a civ-switch; and it creates a soft reset of diplomacy... There's probably other things I forget/didn't think of. And some of those are good. It even does some well...

I do think it does a pretty good job of mechanical distinctiveness and resetting diplomacy. And I think these are both pretty good concepts to implement. Even if the mechanics which are distinct aren't always themselves very good..

I think Boris is on the money that they aren't using the narrative system enough to set up age transitions. Especially as crises are... What's the word? Hot garbage? I'd also say that the narrative event system should also deal with the consquences of the change! Shawnee have a bunch of modern events which comes after playing them and which do a good job of this, so I'd say they already have their template.

And not having to switch is important for possible narratives... Just why did they release the game without this option?

The thorniest issue is with snowballing i think. I don't think they're going to be able to use the age resets to contain it, unless they make it asymmetric between player and AI, which would bring its own revolts... And unless they improve the snowballing issue then modern "civlets" may as well not be in the game. It's an existential issue for Civ-Switching if players don't want to finish games. Settlement Limit is their best antisnowballing tool so far, and they have made games (Civ V) where expansion is not the be all and end all. I do think continuous systems like settlement limit, corruption, etc... Are better than age-resets being harder.

And yes better AI could fix era transitions. I don't propose it because I don't see Firaxis pulling it off.

 

[Crashdummy]

Then you will never be happy with Civ VII and should give up on it. You have defined your problem as unsolvable and thrown up your hands and, by your definition, can provide no solution except an entirely new game.

Some of us, though, do not accept your definition or your problem - which is normal in any game, each of us has our own set of game definitions even when playing the same game in the same way.

In my experience with the game and from reading far too many of the same complaints in these Threads:

The game as designed is built around three Ages and nearly complete revamping of the game in each Age, including the playable Civs available in each Age. Changing Civs is a result of that original decision, and so merely allowing you to play the same Civ continuously will not solve the original problem - the reset between Ages, which currently happens almost entirely Out of Sight of the gamer. You finish the Crisis Period, the curtain closes, and when it opens again the set and the actors are all different and the version of Macbeth you thought you were watching turns out to be a version of Bald Soprano - in Sanskrit, done entirely in rhyming couplets by cross-dressing orangutangs.

It might be fascinating, but it's not what you came to see, or expected to play in a Civ game.

Playing the same or different Civs isn't the problem, the hacking of the game into three parts that do not show enough continuity to the player is what messes with too many player's heads. (And yes, it messed with mine and still annoys the %$#^ out of me, but for me, at least, it's playable)

The question is not "I was playing Egypt: why am I now playing Mongols?" it's more "I was playing Egypt, how the H**l did I get to playing Mongols?"

Answer that question to the gamer's satisfaction, and the rest of the game becomes much more acceptable and playable.

Its not unsolvable, it has a solution, a Classic Mode, with no Age transitions and no Civ switching. I did not give up on the game, i am giving the solution, one that you dont like and thats why you try to label as impossible, because you cant argue against it. 6 successful entries show that this is the way to make a Civilization game

And no, its not impossible, it can be done if they want to. The problem is that they are wasting time listening to feedback that tells them minor changes can solve the issues, they implement those minor changes and the issue remains, numbers dont grow, reviews stay low, etc

They can waste all the time they want making minor changes, that will please no one, instead of using that time to really fix the issue

I go back to the house and foundations problem. If your house has a foundation issue, you can spend millons fixing the walls, windows, etc even when all those minor fixes are chear and fast, the problem will remain. You would get better results and in the end it would be cheaper and faster to focus on the foundation issue and solving it

And no, its not just the split into 3 that do not show enough continuity that is the issue, its the civ switching that doesnt work. It makes no sense, doesnt matter how you put it, to change without being conquered, without doing any research of developing new cultuires/civics, it just doesnt happen. Humankind did the switch without losing continuity, didnt work either

You, one that already accepts age transitions and civ switching, think that with your solution the problem will be fixed, while those of us that do have a problem with civ switching are telling you that it wont. You think you know better than us what problem WE have with the game. You dont.

Moderator Action: Please keep the discussion civil. leif

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Its not unsolvable, it has a solution, a Classic Mode, with no Age transitions and no Civ switching. I did not give up on the game, i am giving the solution, one that you dont like and thats why you try to label as impossible, because you cant argue against it. 6 successful entries show that this is the way to make a Civilization game

And no, its not impossible, it can be done if they want to. The problem is that they are wasting time listening to feedback that tells them minor changes can solve the issues, they implement those minor changes and the issue remains, numbers dont grow, reviews stay low, etc

They can waste all the time they want making minor changes, that will please no one, instead of using that time to really fix the issue

I go back to the house and foundations problem. If your house has a foundation issue, you can spend millons fixing the walls, windows, etc even when all those minor fixes are chear and fast, the problem will remain. You would get better results and in the end it would be cheaper and faster to focus on the foundation issue and solving it

And no, its not just the split into 3 that do not show enough continuity that is the issue, its the civ switching that doesnt work. It makes no sense, doesnt matter how you put it, to change without being conquered, without doing any research of developing new cultuires/civics, it just doesnt happen. Humankind did the switch without losing continuity, didnt work either

You, one that already accepts age transitions and civ switching, think that with your solution the problem will be fixed, while those of us that do have a problem with civ switching are telling you that it wont. You think you know better than us what problem WE have with the game. You dont.

Moderator Action: Please keep the discussion civil. leif

I see your 'solution' is to change the basic structure of the game and re-issue the game.

That will be very nearly an entirely new game - a digital flamethrower to the code as I remarked - and while I'm no expert on computer game history and computer game company economics, I doubt that anyone has ever done anything that radical before or that it is financially probable now.

So, I repeat, you are writing off this game and begging for another. Embrace it.

And, no, I do not 'accept' age transitions, because I think the entire age/era mechanic is a ridiculous artificial construct that should have been buried at a crossroads at least two renditions of Civ ago. But I also think we are stuck with it for now so have to find ways, within the boundaries of this Thread's topic, to make it work for at least some of us.

And to be blunt, a game in which every Civ automatically lasts from 4000 BCE to 2000 CE is an equally ridiculous fantasy that should get a stake through its miserable heart before it joins the age mechanic under the crossroads. I put up with the silly concept from Civ 2 to Civ 6 because it was that or go back to playing boardgames, but refuse to do so any longer.

 

[AD1730]

I see your 'solution' is to change the basic structure of the game and re-issue the game.

That will be very nearly an entirely new game - a digital flamethrower to the code as I remarked - and while I'm no expert on computer game history and computer game company economics, I doubt that anyone has ever done anything that radical before or that it is financially probable now.

So, I repeat, you are writing off this game and begging for another. Embrace it.

I mean, Paradox did it with Stellaris. That game is unrecognizable from its original launch. If you want to argue that changing a game to that degree after people have purchased it is unethical, I won't disagree. But what's being suggested isn't without precedent.

And to be blunt, a game in which every Civ automatically lasts from 4000 BCE to 2000 CE is an equally ridiculous fantasy that should get a stake through its miserable heart before it joins the age mechanic under the crossroads. I put up with the silly concept from Civ 2 to Civ 6 because it was that or go back to playing boardgames, but refuse to do so any longer.

You disagree with a fundamental tenet of the franchise. Thus, I think it's fair to question your bona fides on this issue. You're demanding that the franchise go in a direction that about half of the fan base has rejected.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

It would be fun if there was an update instead that makes certain Civs unaffected by the timeline all other civs are affectd by-
This Civ would start before anyone else, but can only found one city, and no military units. It comes with flight technology instead and terraforming....

Now... because the three Ages systems are detached from one another, this doesn't mean that a parallel timeline cannot superimpose itself on this
three "Ages"...

Now imagine this Civ had the power to dim the SUN and cause an Ice Age, just by "Terraforming"... this is what happened in 500AD in the Northern Emisphere.
Today we have ZERO idea what Antarctic looked like 2000 BC... maybe it was green... like Greenland??

No distinction in N Vs S emisphere. No Currents circulation patterns, not for heat, not for winds. An Ice Age would cover 3/4th of the globe in snow and that's it.
Is Snow in the game dynamic? No. Nor is vegetable life. Civ 6 "rising seas" was the test-bed for the revolution that didn't happen...

What we wanted for Civ 7 was something else, it always has been about dynamic weather, terrains, and higher degrees of simulation computational efforts.

They can keep the crappy little game they made, and start building the true king whilst playing with small changes.
This "Atlantians" mod would be the basis for Civ 8 at the same time.

And btw, who gets to decide when an Age ends? It should be completely random. It means there should be also the possibility of a continuous playthrough from 4000 BC
up to 2050 AD without a single "crisis".

Kemet and not Egypt. Why call the capital Waset if then the civ is called Egypt? By the time the Greeks called Kemet Aegyptus, Waset was being renamed to Thebes already...

Parrots in Ny State in 500BC Near St. Lorenzo river, also looks very similar to the Vikings flag...
Archeologists insists it's a mormon artifact - Hopewell culture... I'm not so sure about it...
That is, in either ways... the climate was warmer than today...

SO.... what about "inter-age" periods????

 

[Lazy sweeper]

An "inter-age" period would glue together two main age shifts---

As Nikolai would put it-- basically a new scenario--- yeah buddy that is what the Age systems are--- you got me... again...

now the scenarios would be 5 or 6 in total... the "dark Age" wildcards now have their own scenarios basically...

The cards are there... no settlers... etc etc....

 

[McSpank01]

So if we are having a game which has ages in it I think there are a number of things I want to happen:

1. I think Ages have to feel distinct. The idea of mini games in concept is not so terrible. Each age should be focusing on a few specific aspects, or goals. This is essentially what the game is sort of attempting to do now, but I think it is failing. I am perfectly fine with an exploration age that actively encourages exploration. I am also fine with a game that encourages religious expansion or some other aspect that seems fitting for that time period. It should not feel like Antiquity+ , which is sort of does at times. So I would rather the game massively leant into that aspect rather than pull back from it and make each age feel samey.

I think to do that, the whole emphasis on 'overbuilding' needs to just go away. I spend my of my time in the beginning of each age, basically resetting what I had before. Oh I need to build more food buildings, more science buildings, more money building.. just because. Nope. What I should be doing is having an empire that was already set up for that in the past, and now I can move onto concentrating on how I want to mould my civ now. If I want to become an exploration focused civ then it should be clear I have to pump out explorers and go naval. There should be much more advantages for doing that, I mean fix distant lands for a start.

2. Ages have to stop being used as a way to stop snowballing. It's just an annoying concept to rubber band the player and cripple them again. If you want to reduce snowballing then I would lean more into my point 1. One of the reasons snowballing is so effective is because there is very little disadvantage to just having a bunch more yields, it helps you no matter what kind of game you play. The game should instead give advantages to players who want to focus more as a way of competing against those who just got a good start and expanded everywhere. Being able to actually use a specific win condition to compete against a player who is broadly getting a big score should be a better option.

To that end, I think if you can fix point one, then there should be less need to reduce everyone's yields, no need to make buildings obsolete and create such a hard reset.

On top of that, they have to start making the map actually matter. Right now the difference between a tundra start and a grassland start is pretty minimal. If the devs were less worried about players having unfair advantages, they could make a more fun game.

 

[Crashdummy]

And to be blunt, a game in which every Civ automatically lasts from 4000 BCE to 2000 CE is an equally ridiculous fantasy that should get a stake through its miserable heart before it joins the age mechanic under the crossroads. I put up with the silly concept from Civ 2 to Civ 6 because it was that or go back to playing boardgames, but refuse to do so any longer.

Its less ridiculous than a Leader lasting that time and you seem to put up with that just fine

The franchise got this huge without age transitions and civ switching, the first iteration that introduces, its a complete failure. These new foundations are bad one, even if you like civ switching, they are not good for the franchise and will never work within it. Maybe in another franchise, but not on this one, because the soul, the core of it has already been established

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Its less ridiculous than a Leader lasting that time and you seem to put up with that just fine

The franchise got this huge without age transitions and civ switching, the first iteration that introduces, its a complete failure. These new foundations are bad one, even if you like civ switching, they are not good for the franchise and will never work within it. Maybe in another franchise, but not on this one, because the soul, the core of it has already been established

IMHO, it is equally ridiculous with a Leader lasting forever, but as Humankind proved, without some kind of personal identification with your played faction and opponents, nothing else in the game works, and we as humans are pre-programmed to recognize human faces better than anything else, so 'Leaders' is what works.

Doesn't mean I like it any better than continuous Civs, but the Perfect 4X Game for me would only deserve that title for me and me only, so there's no point in even talking about it.

Been thinking about this discussion this morning, and to be fair I don't think we are fundamentally in disagreement. I dislike the Civ switching and rigid Age transitions as both are implemented in Civ VII. I equally dislike continuous Civs for 6000 years with Immortal Leaders for 6000 years, but agree that at least they worked to play the game. Where I think we disagree is in the question of how to make the current game playable without starting over almost from nothing and thus leaving us playing checkers for the next several years waiting for a fix.

One point on the age/civ switch discussion, though. Ages/Eras have been part of Civ since Civ V - 15 years ago now. Civ Switching is brand new to Civ VII. I would suggest, then, that Ages as used in Civs V and VI were and are acceptable, but drastic changes between Ages/Eras are not and especially if they include a near-complete reset of your Civ in those same transitions.

IF that is an acceptable statement of your position and you assume that the 'core' of the franchise includes the Ages (which it has for the last 15 years) then how should the game implement and use Age changes in a way that is as acceptable as it has been since Civ V?

And even more importantly, I think, how does that game also include both the ability for play of the same (or similar) Civ continuously from start to finish with the possibility (NOT the requirement) of playing a 'morphing' Civ that changes nearly fundamentally from start to finish of game?

Because I do believe that both need to be included to reach all players, now that we have had a taste of both game styles.

And within that framework, how does the game maintain continuous identification of the gamer with his faction, whether it is a fantasy continuous Civ/culture since 4000 BCE or a set of Dynasties/polities of potentially wildly variable aspects in the same period. The Continuous Leader, as fundamentally idiotic as it is historically, at least works for that (see Humankind for a graphic example of what does not work). What might work as well or better?

 

[Crashdummy]

IMHO, it is equally ridiculous with a Leader lasting forever, but as Humankind proved, without some kind of personal identification with your played faction and opponents, nothing else in the game works, and we as humans are pre-programmed to recognize human faces better than anything else, so 'Leaders' is what works.

Doesn't mean I like it any better than continuous Civs, but the Perfect 4X Game for me would only deserve that title for me and me only, so there's no point in even talking about it.

Been thinking about this discussion this morning, and to be fair I don't think we are fundamentally in disagreement. I dislike the Civ switching and rigid Age transitions as both are implemented in Civ VII. I equally dislike continuous Civs for 6000 years with Immortal Leaders for 6000 years, but agree that at least they worked to play the game. Where I think we disagree is in the question of how to make the current game playable without starting over almost from nothing and thus leaving us playing checkers for the next several years waiting for a fix.

One point on the age/civ switch discussion, though. Ages/Eras have been part of Civ since Civ V - 15 years ago now. Civ Switching is brand new to Civ VII. I would suggest, then, that Ages as used in Civs V and VI were and are acceptable, but drastic changes between Ages/Eras are not and especially if they include a near-complete reset of your Civ in those same transitions.

IF that is an acceptable statement of your position and you assume that the 'core' of the franchise includes the Ages (which it has for the last 15 years) then how should the game implement and use Age changes in a way that is as acceptable as it has been since Civ V?

And even more importantly, I think, how does that game also include both the ability for play of the same (or similar) Civ continuously from start to finish with the possibility (NOT the requirement) of playing a 'morphing' Civ that changes nearly fundamentally from start to finish of game?

Because I do believe that both need to be included to reach all players, now that we have had a taste of both game styles.

And within that framework, how does the game maintain continuous identification of the gamer with his faction, whether it is a fantasy continuous Civ/culture since 4000 BCE or a set of Dynasties/polities of potentially wildly variable aspects in the same period. The Continuous Leader, as fundamentally idiotic as it is historically, at least works for that (see Humankind for a graphic example of what does not work). What might work as well or better?

Leaders are clearly not working

I dont think there is any way to fix Civ VII without removing Age transitions and Civ switching. I repeat, those are the problems, you cant fix them with a coat paint

Ages were merely timelines before, which changed almost nothing. When we talk about Age transitions here is the jump in time, the removal of the player from the game, making half the stuff suddenly obsolte without player interaction, upgrading units (both players and AI) without the proper investment, etc, etc. The whole transition introduced on Civ VII, that disrupts gameplay and breaks immersion needs to go

How the game include the ability for both? With a Classic Mode, which is what we have been asking. You get a Classic Mode and a Civ VII mode (whatever you want to call it), the ones that want Classic play pick one, the others pick the other

I dont believe both need to be included in future editions, and i thikn it would be a mistake to keep pushing this in Civ 8 and forward (if there is any forward)

We have had continuous identification with our civilization for 30+ years, the solution is to remove the new stuff that BROKE that. The problem didnt exist, it is present now due to the changes, and now you ask how to get rid of that problem...

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Leaders are clearly not working

I dont think there is any way to fix Civ VII without removing Age transitions and Civ switching. I repeat, those are the problems, you cant fix them with a coat paint

Ages were merely timelines before, which changed almost nothing. When we talk about Age transitions here is the jump in time, the removal of the player from the game, making half the stuff suddenly obsolte without player interaction, upgrading units (both players and AI) without the proper investment, etc, etc. The whole transition introduced on Civ VII, that disrupts gameplay and breaks immersion needs to go

How the game include the ability for both? With a Classic Mode, which is what we have been asking. You get a Classic Mode and a Civ VII mode (whatever you want to call it), the ones that want Classic play pick one, the others pick the other

I dont believe both need to be included in future editions, and i thikn it would be a mistake to keep pushing this in Civ 8 and forward (if there is any forward)

We have had continuous identification with our civilization for 30+ years, the solution is to remove the new stuff that BROKE that. The problem didnt exist, it is present now due to the changes, and now you ask how to get rid of that problem...

The Leaders WERE clearly not working. They were (and are) a tremendous resource sink of animated graphics and voice acting, severely restricted the Civs that could be included in the game (because for many, we simply had no legitimate Leaders and/or no language. like Olmecs, Minoans, Harappans, Huns, etc).

They worked only in the sense that they provided instant visible cues to what/who we were playing and playing against,, and nothing else (cue Humankind, again) worked as well for that.

In almost every other aspect, they were a burden on the game. What's not working now is that we are still stuck with them and all their negatives, but they are more general and so do not work as well as specific indicators for the Civ(s) we are playing.

And that brings up the idea that "the problem didn't exist" until Civ VII. There were problems, and the problems are in greater focus now that we've seen alternatives. The continuous Civ you identified with is, frankly, garbage. There is no legitimate way to make any even semi-historically-based Civ valid for the entire span of 6000 years, because there is no Civ or culture that existed for that entire time. Your 'Uniques' will, therefore, be largely made up and artificial or you will be playing a generic Civ for most of the game.

And that is the primary argument for Civ Switching: it keeps your Civ relevant throughout the game.

That is not, by the way, an argument that Civ VII does it right. The arbitrary switch at arbitrary Age transitions done by deus ex machina out of sight of the gamer is just about as bad a method as they could have used, but it does not invalidate Civ Switching as a better way to keep the civ playable throughout compared to the continuous fantasy Civs that are all we had before.

Basically, you do not like the new broken system. I agree: it was badly done and is only marginally playable..

You want to go back to the old broken system in future Civs because you apparently cannot see any other way to play the game.

I disagree completely.

 

[Nokturno]

The Leaders WERE clearly not working. They were (and are) a tremendous resource sink of animated graphics and voice acting, severely restricted the Civs that could be included in the game (because for many, we simply had no legitimate Leaders and/or no language. like Olmecs, Minoans, Harappans, Huns, etc).

What the team did in Civ 7 was certainly not the only way to solve that problem. (And I'm pretty sure there is a good leader to be found for the Huns, and very likely at least a mythological one for the Minoans. We don't need the Minoans with the old Civ roster anyway. They are Greeks!).
They could consult with anthropologists and create a fictional leader for civs that don't have any, or just toss the leaders out of the window. I recently played Civ 2 after a very long time and you don't really get to see leaders, only symbols and heralds.
The former solution is not "historical"? Sure, let's have Ben Franklin leading whatever antique civ into the Ming into the British, as happened with the last Civ 7 game I've been playing. That's surely better and more logical.

Going back to the topic, and my last game. Something happened which did not when I first played Civ 7, the vanilla 1.0 version.
Basically, both the AI and myself were super focused on legacy paths, most of which (all except the science path I believe) don't really require progression through the tech tree.
So, transition criteria were met both times while both myself and my opponents barely made it through the half of the tech tree. Explorations ended with most AI civs still using Cogs!

I think, *at the very least*, they need to give up this idea that everyone needs to progress at the same time. It is causing way more harm than good and can be easily removed without breaking the game as it is now.
Get the legacy paths for bonuses, sure, but progress seamlessly when you actually reach the tech boundary - like in (vanilla) Civ 6.
With that, and more civs and an option to force historical progression, 7 can at least keep me playing occasionally until we get a proper 8, hopefully rebuilt from the ground up and abandoning 5's board game model.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I personally am of the school of thought that this game isn't meant to be super serious, and I'm all up for my aboriginal Civ have kangaroo horsemen fighting the ancient American cavalry, but maybe that's just me

I'm not looking for custom, I'm looking for specific (arguably OTT) flavour because it's fun and feels fitting with a game where you (used to) be able to start out the American empire or launch spaceships as egypt

This is clearly what the majority of the playerbase wants, so you are’nt winning them back without that

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Basically, both the AI and myself were super focused on legacy paths, most of which (all except the science path I believe) don't really require progression through the tech tree.
So, transition criteria were met both times while both myself and my opponents barely made it through the half of the tech tree. Explorations ended with most AI civs still using Cogs!

There was this idea of tech bottlenecks, and the next "Age" was just a new branch of techs being open for research to all civs but,

1) No single civ could snowball past a tech bottleneck alone . in game This would have been translated to some kind of invention resource limited, or great person limited, which by design, the MAP generator would spread equally. Via exploits, like conquering a city with a required Great person, which had to be a unit! and brought into your empire, to finish the bottleneck tech research.

2) Once this tech is researched, everyone can now research it and "advance" to the next "age"

At the time of this proposal it was mocked for being "too hard on players" .
I implied papyrus research needed papyrus resource AND an alchemic scientist-high priest to unlock writing revolution, or Ancient University...

I guess no-one foresaw what was coming...

This is still borderline taboo mind you... the point is complex.

3) The bottleneck is a non-eurocentric idea. It's the whole world that needs to trade, or else advance wont happen.
This might be reduced to one or two bottlenecks effectively... Ancient University revolution and Scientific revolution.

If Someone KILLS the great Person, everybody is stuck untill a new one is born...
For this concept to work there must be a mixture of complex trading network and espionage solutions available from early
stages... it's the same as if your civs needs iron to build its golden age unit and don't have access to it...
YOU NEED TO FIGHT TO OBTAIN IT.

Instead everyone thought it was a bad idea and that everybody would lose and be unhappy...
What can I say...

The idea is here, sticky.... It won't go away... I put it here...

 

[Skojardu]

The Leaders WERE clearly not working. They were (and are) a tremendous resource sink of animated graphics and voice acting, severely restricted the Civs that could be included in the game (because for many, we simply had no legitimate Leaders and/or no language. like Olmecs, Minoans, Harappans, Huns, etc).

I may be too old-minded, but why couldn't Civ VII wow us with dozens of civs and leaders, but with still image leader pages? I agree that either the art team nailed their brief while nobody else did, OR that art was prioritized over gameplay to a sinful degree.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I may be too old-minded, but why couldn't Civ VII wow us with dozens of civs and leaders, but with still image leader pages? I agree that either the art team nailed their brief while nobody else did, OR that art was prioritized over gameplay to a sinful degree.

Sigh. We've been talking about the Leader resource sink of fully animated Leaders with 'native' language voice actors for over 10 years on these Forumsm and how there are alternatives that would probably work as well for a fraction of the effort.

The response to all this has been - crickets.

And now, in Civ VII, we have equally-expensive in resources leaders who are figureheads only and in many cases never real political, military, cultural or science leaders of any civ at all. This is not necessarily a bad idea, but it doesn't address the problem of the massive cost of the leaders and only slightly addresses the problem of finding leaders appropriate for some Civs complete with attested languages: and that includes some frequently-requested Civs like the Minoans and Olmecs (Neither of which, admittedly, would be easy to find leaders for with or without their dead languages, because we have no names for any of their leaders of any kind - the Minoan leader 'Minos' was probably a Title rather than a personal name, so no luck there)

When other games 'get away' with simple head shots, animated or not, and the Mods have largely used still shots of the leaders for at least 15 years now and no one seems to have had any problem remembering who they are playing, you have to wonder about priorities in the game.

Yes, the animated leaders are or have become a Trademark of the franchise, but we are paying a heavy price in limited leaders and compromised gaming options for that trademark,