How Would You Implement A Classic Mode?

[Crashdummy]

I've said before that I think Civs evolving over time is a really good idea. So mechanically, I think switching Civ abilities is here to stay. But in both Civ7 and Humankind a wholesale Civ switch has just been jarring and a feels-bad for too many players. The counterpoint is that other forms of Civ evolution I've seen have felt quite generic and anticlimactic.

Ultimately I think the winner will be whoever manages to make Civ evolution feel special without wholesale Civ switching.

It would be very irresponsible to risk the whole franchise on what someone think its a good idea that has proven to not be a good idea. Civ switching failed and Civ VII was hurt because of that, if Civ VIII is another failure, you are risking the franchise on a Developer whim, so i disagree on them being here to stay

Ideas that look good on paper are not always good when implemented. I think doing it on a spin off, or on a scenario to test the implementation untill they get it right would be the responsible way to do it for Firaxis

 

[Leucarum]

I kind of experience my movement through the social policy trees of Civ 5 as my civilization evolving over time

I actually think Humankind had a good version of this with its civics, where new civic choices unlocked as a result of gameplay decisions. It was one thing which rrally enhanced roleplaying in a game which otherwise took a sledgehammer to it.

It would be very irresponsible to risk the whole franchise on what someone think its a good idea that has proven to not be a good idea. Civ switching failed and Civ VII was hurt because of that, if Civ VIII is another failure, you are risking the franchise on a Developer whim, so i disagree on them being here to stay

Ideas that look good on paper are not always good when implemented. I think doing it on a spin off, or on a scenario to test the implementation untill they get it right would be the responsible way to do it for Firaxis

I said that Civ evolution was here to stay, but wholesale civ switching was probably not. I think you maybe missed the point? Civs gaining/changing abilities over time = good, Civs changing their identity = bad.

 

[AD1730]

I actually think Humankind had a good version of this with its civics, where new civic choices unlocked as a result of gameplay decisions. It was one thing which rrally enhanced roleplaying in a game which otherwise took a sledgehammer to it.


I said that Civ evolution was here to stay, but wholesale civ switching was probably not. I think you maybe missed the point? Civs gaining/changing abilities over time = good, Civs changing their identity = bad.

Well, they have already done Civ evolution in Civ Rev. It sort of works and I'd be open to a civ gaining different abilities as the game progresses. However, the Civ 7-style era system absolutely must go.

 

[Crashdummy]

I actually think Humankind had a good version of this with its civics, where new civic choices unlocked as a result of gameplay decisions. It was one thing which rrally enhanced roleplaying in a game which otherwise took a sledgehammer to it.


I said that Civ evolution was here to stay, but wholesale civ switching was probably not. I think you maybe missed the point? Civs gaining/changing abilities over time = good, Civs changing their identity = bad.

Sorry, i didnt understand you, second time this day i dont get a post, dont know what is happening to me today, im slow

Evolution might work, we would need to see how its implemented, it need to not interrupt gameplay too much

 

[Krikkit1]

I disagree. For example, now we have continuity and regroup mode and we expect both modes to be balanced and improved.


Names aren't an issue, I agree.

I mean if it is a mode, then ALL civs get no bonuses outside of their Age.

It would mean that Game elements that rely on Traditions /Unique improvements would be less significant, but you have similar issues between Continuity and Regroup.

(and I could see a "no bonus for Americans/Bulgarians in Antiquity" be improved to "generic Antiquity Age bonuses for Americans/Bulgarians" improved to "Economic Antiquity bonuses for Americans and Bulgarians, Americans also get Antiquity Expansionist bonuses, Bulgarians also get Antiquity Militaristic bonuses".... It would never be improved to "here are the American Antiquity bonuses and here are the Bulgarian Antiquity bonuses" outside of a Mod)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Maybe there is a civ switching implementation that works but if there is, it wont be on this franchise, and they cant risk attempting it on Civ VIII, thats my point

In this, unfortunately, we are in agreement. When there is as much money involved as there is in AAA games, taking chances on a design becomes impossible: the finance people do NOT like taking risks.

On the other hand, to semi-quote Edison, now we know two ways in which Civ Switching does not work, so we can be sure not to try those again . . .

 

[Gori the Grey]

On the other hand, to semi-quote Edison, now we know two ways in which Civ Switching does not work, so we can be sure not to try those again . . .

I think a ton has been learned about Civ games from this misstep. I hope Firaxis can recover from it, and make 7 a game that satisfies more of the fanbase, and that they get to go on and make 8. When they do, I think they'll move much more sure-footedly in many respects.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I think a ton has been learned about Civ games from this misstep. I hope Firaxis can recover from it, and make 7 a game that satisfies more of the fanbase, and that they get to go on and make 8. When they do, I think they'll move much more sure-footedly in many respects.

One of the advantages of the 'other' 4X historicalish games that have come out recently (Humankind, ARA, Millenia, elements of Old World) is that they provide examples of what works and what doesn't that don't require Firaxis to spend any money or effort learning.

Any company planning to jump into the 4X historicalish game - or who are already hip-deep in it - had better be taking notes.

 

[stealth_nsk]

One of the advantages of the 'other' 4X historicalish games that have come out recently (Humankind, ARA, Millenia, elements of Old World) is that they provide examples of what works and what doesn't that don't require Firaxis to spend any money or effort learning.

Any company planning to jump into the 4X historicalish game - or who are already hip-deep in it - had better be taking notes.

I don't think it's that simple. Different genres have different audiences and there's no universal "work" or "not work". Ara got a lot of negative reviews because it was marketed as Civ competitor and it doesn't work for civ fans, but it's a nice management game and is appreciated by that audience.

Another thing is expectations. Many people are mad at Firaxis for civilization switch, but some of them could be content with it in HK, because they want to play civilization games in a way they are accustomed to, but don't have such expectations for a new game.

 

[aieeegrunt]

One of the advantages of the 'other' 4X historicalish games that have come out recently (Humankind, ARA, Millenia, elements of Old World) is that they provide examples of what works and what doesn't that don't require Firaxis to spend any money or effort learning.

Any company planning to jump into the 4X historicalish game - or who are already hip-deep in it - had better be taking notes.

I don't think it's that simple. Different genres have different audiences and there's no universal "work" or "not work". Ara got a lot of negative reviews because it was marketed as Civ competitor and it doesn't work for civ fans, but it's a nice management game and is appreciated by that audience.

Another thing is expectations. Many people are mad at Firaxis for civilization switch, but some of them could be content with it in HK, because they want to play civilization games in a way they are accustomed to, but don't have such expectations for a new game.

If ever there was a time to pull a Helldivers and move into the ecological niche Civ7 has left open it is now.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Another thing is expectations. Many people are mad at Firaxis for civilization switch, but some of them could be content with it in HK, because they want to play civilization games in a way they are accustomed to, but don't have such expectations for a new game.

The word you are looking for, I believe, is "baggage", of which Civ carries a lot going back 30+ years and a new game could arrive without.

Expectations are tricky, though. Humankind initially got a lot of positive commentary from the gorgeous map graphics and the 'tactical' map battles, the latter of which harked back to Test of Time but were never picked up by any 'regular' Civ game. Then upon release the many problems with the gorgeous map graphics, the time required to fight all those tactical battles, the inabilty to keep track of who you were playing against (and even, sometimes, who you were playing) and a host of other problems and the commentary bcame very negative and, as far as I know, remains largely so.

I'm not personally sure which is worse: having no expectations of a game, or having positive expectations that are dashed by ugly reality. ne thing Civ VII should teach is that when you are expecting one type of game and get another, what you actually get had better be enormously and comprehensively better than what you were expecting or it will be shown No Mercy.

 

[Gori the Grey]

come ’l quattro nel sei

 

[aieeegrunt]

History Of The World succeeded where Humankind and Civ7 failed because it fully embraced the concept of “you are playing a new Civ” instead of “you are playing the same civ, but not” identity swap thing

In HoTW when the era changed you no longer control your civ, at all. Your old civ continues on in a moribund state. You control a newly emerging upstart civ that bursts forth unto the world. Depending on which new civ you pick you may be doing so at the expense of your previous civ.

Say you were Babylon in the first era. The next one you pick (or got dealt) Persia. When you as Cyrus erupt from the hills to 4X those around you, Babylon is most likely your first victim.

Next Era you may be Arabia, and Do Unto Cyrus.

The game score is how well you do with each Civ in each era. There was a nice balance to it because the low scorer in an era got first pick which Civ he or she would play in the next one.

It was perfect. You got a fresh 4X experience with each era change. You didn’t care about any one Civ as much because the whole point of it was to score well in each era.

You were actually Building History In Layers.

 

[Gedemon]

History Of The World succeeded where Humankind and Civ7 failed because it fully embraced the concept of “you are playing a new Civ” instead of “you are playing the same civ, but not” identity swap thing

In HoTW when the era changed you no longer control your civ, at all. Your old civ continues on in a moribund state. You control a newly emerging upstart civ that bursts forth unto the world. Depending on which new civ you pick you may be doing so at the expense of your previous civ.

Say you were Babylon in the first era. The next one you pick (or got dealt) Persia. When you as Cyrus erupt from the hills to 4X those around you, Babylon is most likely your first victim.

Next Era you may be Arabia, and Do Unto Cyrus.

The game score is how well you do with each Civ in each era. There was a nice balance to it because the low scorer in an era got first pick which Civ he or she would play in the next one.

It was perfect. You got a fresh 4X experience with each era change. You didn’t care about any one Civ as much because the whole point of it was to score well in each era.

You were actually Building History In Layers.

that's kind of how I did it in my HK mod (and how I'd like to be able to do in a civ mod since then)

having a minor civ territory left from the previous civ if one changes helps a lot for the feeling of continuity.

 

[aieeegrunt]

that's kind of how I did it in my HK mod (and how I'd like to be able to do in a civ mod since then)

having a minor civ territory left from the previous civ if one changes helps a lot for the feeling of continuity.

Either you have continuity or you don’t, trying to have it both ways satisfies neither type of player

We are seeing that happnen now in real time with Civ7 trying to have it both ways and failing at both

The Continuity people absolutly loathe civ switching and era resets. You will never get those people on board unless you have a classic mode that is basically Civ6 with navigable rivers and no workers.

The Civ Switch people hate that switching is being watered down to try and appease the Continuity people. The problem is that they are most certainly in the minority of the playerbase.

There is no solution here.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Either you have continuity or you don’t, trying to have it both ways satisfies neither type of player

We are seeing that happnen now in real time with Civ7 trying to have it both ways and failing at both

The Continuity people absolutly loathe civ switching and era resets. You will never get those people on board unless you have a classic mode that is basically Civ6 with navigable rivers and no workers.

The Civ Switch people hate that switching is being watered down to try and appease the Continuity people. The problem is that they are most certainly in the minority of the playerbase.

There is no solution here.

There is a very modern lesson in History of the World, though.

The non-continuous format and really innovative mechanics won a lot of praise for the board game - I think it even won 'best pre-twentieth century game" at GAMA's Origins convention one year.

BUT when Avalon Hill tried bringing it out as a computer game in 1997 it was a disastrous commercial failure - less than 10,000 copies sold and negative reviews from just about every reviewer who tried it. It is said that it contributed heavily to the sale and closure of Avalon Hill shortly afterwards.

The lesson being that even the best mechanics can't save a game that is poorly adapted to its medium: HotW on computer had what several reviewers described as the worst video sequences they had ever seen, along with clunky interface, low-quality maps, and no internet/multi-player (multiplayer was only by e-mail or hot seat, and it was roasted for that).

Some of which (UI/interface, for instance) sounds very familiar at the present time, 28 years later . . .

 

[zerokarma]

I want a sandbox not a board game.

Play one civ from start to finish.

No forced ages, revert it back to the way previous games worked for ages.

I am open to Leader changes over the course of the game with different leaders from the same Civ that I am playing.

Add in the post-ww2 ages which should have been there on launch

 

[Leucarum]

In previous installments I've usually been quite skeptical of arguments that Civ was too board game-y... But it does strike me that 7 implemented a bunch of mechanics which are common and work well in board games but which feel really bad in Civ.

The era progression is for me the one which stands out as a common board game mechanic ported over badly... In a shorter more interactive format like a board game mechanisms like that which bring a game to an end can be a really tense "will they push it forward or not" mechanism. In Civ, the lack of social element makes it feel like the clock is ticking up due to impersonal forces, and the game doesn't offer enough ways to influence it for it to feel linteractive.

 

[Gori the Grey]

But is there even a board game that does what Civ 7 does?

Like, one-third of the way through it, a significant number of things that characterized each player change radically, everything is evened out for all players (which means that leading players lose things they've accumulated in the game). And then the game does that again another time?

I'm hardly the world's expert on board games, but I can't think of one of those that doesn't have pretty regular, steady development within whatever starting grid the game has.

Monopoly, you keep going round and round, progressively building up properties, houses and hotels. The Game of Life, you add kids to your car, but you keep moving your car steadily through the path that is on the board. Sorry, Candy Land: you have a target destination that you move your pieces toward every turn by the same mechanics for determining the length of that movement.

Chutes (or Snakes) and Ladders does have those chutes that can represent a major setback. But that's a random setback for the individual player unlucky enough to hit it, not a complete reset of the whole game for all players at one specified moment.

Jenga (maybe not a board game, but bear with me), you don't reconstruct the overall shape of the tower a third of the way through and have every one start pulling pieces from the new shape.

Like, I almost wonder if Civ 7 violated design principles of games as such, not just turn-based, 4x games, or its own established franchise formula.

 

[Leucarum]

But is there even a board game that does what Civ 7 does?

Like, one-third of the way through it, a significant number of things that characterized each player change radically, everything is evened out for all players (which means that leading players lose things they've accumulated in the game). And then the game does that again another time?

I'm hardly the world's expert on board games, but I can't think of one of those that doesn't have pretty regular, steady development within whatever starting grid the game has.

Monopoly, you keep going round and round, progressively building up properties, houses and hotels. The Game of Life, you add kids to your car, but you keep moving your car steadily through the path that is on the board. Sorry, Candy Land: you have a target destination that you move your pieces toward every turn by the same mechanics for determining the length of that movement.

Chutes (or Snakes) and Ladders does have those chutes that can represent a major setback. But that's a random setback for the individual player unlucky enough to hit it, not a complete reset of the whole game for all players at one specified moment.

Jenga (maybe not a board game, but bear with me), you don't reconstruct the overall shape of the tower a third of the way through and have every one start pulling pieces from the new shape.

Like, I almost wonder if Civ 7 violated design principles of games as such, not just turn-based, 4x games, or its own established franchise formula.

It reminds me a lot of legacy board games like Charterstone, Gloomhaven, Pandemic Legacy etc... Where the game state gets partially reset each time you play but incorporating several features of previous playthroughs TBH.