I finally played a bit of Humankind and could compare ages / culture switch mechanics

[LastSword]

Image selecting before starting game:

Starting era: Modern
Civilization: Egypt
Leader: Napoleon
Ability set: American (or Manifest destiny or whatever)

I cannot explain it any simpler. Before civ7 you technically couldn't pick a leader and civilization separately. Now you can. I will even go one further:

Leader ability: Imperium Maius.

Because why not.

We were connecting: Player -> Civilization + Leader, now we are connecting Player -> Civilization and Player -> Leader separately. The same can be done for abilities.
We can go further and split ability sets into separate Unique Unit, Unique Building... etc.

Civilization switching is a visual/thematic gimmick. A fluff, as you said. Gameplay wise it is just picking a social policy. No different to Humankind.

Well, if you really think that civilization switching is necessary then explain why leader switching is not necessary. Kind of mental gymnastics will be required though. Ultimately it is done so because they decided to do so.

What is more, removing all starting uniques is a natural evolution of the series. Though obviously some people are far from ready for that apparently.

 

[Zaarin]

Civilization switching is a visual/thematic gimmick. A fluff, as you said. Gameplay wise it is just picking a social policy. No different to Humankind.

I find it very different from HK.

Well, if you really think that civilization switching is necessary then explain why leader switching is not necessary.

Because changing leaders gimps your ability to form meaningful relationships with your opponents, as HK amply demonstrated.

What is more, removing all starting uniques is a natural evolution of the series.

I'm not sure I agree that going back to the early 90s is a "natural evolution" of gaming three and a half decades later. (Which is to say, I'm quite sure I don't agree.)

 

[Krikkit1]

I think the idea is to make the
Civ Name+City Name List+Banner Something you can choose separately from the Uniques

So I can keep my Eternal Roman Empire by keeping the name Rome even if I have Mongol and then Russian uniques.

Default they should match, but they should be able to be separated.

 

[LastSword]

I find it very different from HK.

In what aspect?

Because changing leaders gimps your ability to form meaningful relationships with your opponents, as HK amply demonstrated.

Yes, and the same applies to civilization. It would be much better to keep a civilization to create a meaningful relationships/story.

I'm not sure I agree that going back to the early 90s is a "natural evolution" of gaming three and a half decades later. (Which is to say, I'm quite sure I don't agree.)

With more and more uniques with every iteration, it becomes tedious. At one point they will ask how to make next game different from previous.

Right now instead of starting uniques we could already have an alternative way of obtaining uniques. Instead of specific unique civic, we can just acquire a generic civic called a "unique development" and then select a current civic from a list (which would be exclusive to our civilization - removed from the available pool). Unique units could be acquired from using commanders' experience. And so on, so on.
Shortly, making a unique civilization out of players' actions instead enforcing one at the start.

 

[Zaarin]

In what aspect?

Because there are fewer than half the changes. Even on Endless speed, you spent far too little time with any one culture, nor did the cultures you chose in the past really affect the sum total of your civilization except in accumulating bonuses; there was no sense of layering in HK. And, of course, there's simply the fact that everything HK did, it did badly, but that's a different topic.

Yes, and the same applies to civilization. It would be much better to keep a civilization to create a meaningful relationships/story.

If one has to change, it absolutely should be the civilization. I'm not interacting with other players' civilizations, but I am interacting with their leader.

With more and more uniques with every iteration, it becomes tedious.

I don't find it tedious. I'm firmly Team Make Everything Possible Unique.

Right now instead of starting uniques we could already have an alternative way of obtaining uniques. Instead of specific unique civic, we can just acquire a generic civic called a "unique development" and then select a current civic from a list (which would be exclusive to our civilization - removed from the available pool). Unique units could be acquired from using commanders' experience. And so on, so on.
Shortly, making a unique civlization out of players' action instead enforcing one at the start.

I do actually find this idea interesting, and I also find it different from "no uniques"--rather the uniques are dynamic and a response to the player's situation. I'm not sure if such a game would feel like Civilization to me, though--but if FXS announced this for Civ8 I'd at least be open-minded about it (just like I am for civ switching, which I also met with skepticism initially).

 

[stealth_nsk]

Image selecting before starting game:

Starting era: Modern
Civilization: Egypt
Leader: Napoleon
Ability set: American (or Manifest destiny or whatever)

I cannot explain it any simpler. Before civ7 you technically couldn't pick a leader and civilization separately. Now you can. I will even go one further:

Leader ability: Imperium Maius.

Because why not.

We were connecting: Player -> Civilization + Leader, now we are connecting Player -> Civilization and Player -> Leader separately. The same can be done for abilities.
We can go further and split ability sets into separate Unique Unit, Unique Building... etc.

Civilization switching is a visual/thematic gimmick. A fluff, as you said. Gameplay wise it is just picking a social policy. No different to Humankind.

Well, if you really think that civilization switching is necessary then explain why leader switching is not necessary. Kind of mental gymnastics will be required though. Ultimately it is done so because they decided to do so.

What is more, removing all starting uniques is a natural evolution of the series. Though obviously some people are far from ready for that apparently.

Ok, I see what you mean. This surely works, but with all leaders and civs losing their identity (other than names and graphics) you'll also loose attachment to them. Generally that's what HK does bad - you don't see personality behind AI players there.

That's why preserving leader identity and bonuses (not tied to ages) is the top priority. Untying civs from bonuses is possible, but still looks bad for the overall feeling of the game.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

HK could have done a much better job in handling the way that transitions were conveyed to the player - especially the way the AI empire's transitions were conveyed.

That starts with the leader avatars, which were ... "offputting" is the least offensive word I can think to describe them, visually.

Also, those leaders don't address you directly, they stand off to the side in the diplomacy screen. I'm concerned about Civ 7 taking this same approach. It doesn't create the same feel as the full screen, enemy leader-in-your-face visuals of earlier Civ games.

Then there's the connection to their current culture. Someone earlier (I think it was this thread), noted that ideally the leader avatar could show up in front of a background that is based on their current civilization. HK did not have, and I fear Civ 7 may not have, any truly memorable visual connection that reinforces "A is the leader of Y".

Think about how different the AI era transition could have been in HK if, instead of a bland notification at the bottom of the screen that "The X are now Y", you got a full screen of Napoleon standing in front of a new palace, addressing you immediately after transition:

"Oh, hi, you may noticed something a little different in our empire these days. Yeah, we have War Elephants now and I'm so looking forward to STOMPING YOUR PUNY TROOPS WITH THEM very, very soon. See you on the battlefield. I'll be the one sitting on the elephant that's stepping on you as you look up in dismay."

Or if you have friendly relations, maybe something like this:

"My dear friend, I wanted you to be the first to know. Our empire has been evolving. We now have War Elephants who will march proudly into battle beside you, stomping our enemy into the dirt. Our common foes stand no chance as long as we stick together."

 

[Zaarin]

HK could have done a much better job

Sadly, if there was a "worst way" to do something, HK generally found it.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I find it very different from HK.


Because changing leaders gimps your ability to form meaningful relationships with your opponents, as HK amply demonstrated.

You didn't change leaders in HK though...... outside of the very specfifics of implentation and the amount of times you would civ swap in HK, it really isn't that much different than VII.

If one has to change, it absolutely should be the civilization. I'm not interacting with other players' civilizations, but I am interacting with their leader.

but we've already gone over that this is a purely subjective and after polling the community was pretty much split down the middle regarding changing leaders vs civs. I think the fault in logic here is coming in with the mentality that either civs or leaders have to change. There are so many ways that Firaxis could've implemented a system of customization that allows you to pick other unique bonuses, buildings, units over the course of the game without wholesale changing the identity of either your civ OR leader.

 

[Zaarin]

You didn't change leaders in HK though...... outside of the very specfifics of implentation and the amount of times you would civ swap in HK, it really isn't that much different than VII.

No, but the leaders in HK had no identity so I had no clue who I was speaking to at any given moment. "Oh, it's...random hanbok woman. Did...have we interacted before? Oh, we're at war! When did that happen! I could have sworn I was at war with random toga woman."

but we've already gone over that this is a purely subjective and after polling the community was pretty much split down the middle regarding changing leaders vs civs.

I didn't make the poll, and I didn't ask the community to sanction my opinion.

 

[TheGrayFox]

No, but the leaders in HK had no identity so I had no clue who I was speaking to at any given moment. "Oh, it's...random hanbok woman. Did...have we interacted before? Oh, we're at war! When did that happen! I could have sworn I was at war with random toga woman."

This is absolutely true, HK was a bad game for a whole host of reasons but you didn't switch leaders and lack of identity from not having historical leaders is completely different subject.

I didn't make the poll, and I didn't ask the community to sanction my opinion.

You're more than welcome to your subjective opinion but "If one has to change, it absolutely should be the civilization. " is more of a statement of fact than simple opinion. Which is why I pointed out the inherint flaw in logic of the false dicthtomy and the fact that your opinion isn't universal.

 

[Zaarin]

This is absolutely true, HK was a bad game for a whole host of reasons but you didn't switch leaders and lack of identity from not having historical leaders is completely different subject.

I consider it pretty equivalent with leader switching. The lack of leader identity and the changing leader appearances with no cue for player identity except player color made diplomacy and any kind of interaction confusing and impersonal. I'd say it's the same problem, just a different root cause.

You're more than welcome to your subjective opinion but "If one has to change, it absolutely should be the civilization. " is more of a statement of fact than simple opinion.

I try to make a habit of not qualifying my opinions, the result of breaking a bad habit of over-qualifying my opinions for many years; I try to trust others to be able to tell the difference between an opinion and a fact. I'm actually very well-accustomed to having unpopular opinions, but I don't think this is one of them. My general impression is that most Civ players like leaders--it is one of the major factors that sets the franchise apart--but I'm aware that opinion is not universal.

 

[Siptah]

No, but the leaders in HK had no identity so I had no clue who I was speaking to at any given moment. "Oh, it's...random hanbok woman. Did...have we interacted before? Oh, we're at war! When did that happen! I could have sworn I was at war with random toga woman."

Well, that’s partly your own fault tough. I hardly ever played against non-memorable people. Usually against other people from civfanatics/amplitude or streamers that I follow. So it was pretty easy to keep track of them and identify them correctly. Still a bad idea to have so many generic leaders and few memorable ones without additional effort by the player (like Da Vinci or Hugo).

 

[Zaarin]

Well, that’s partly your own fault tough. I hardly ever played against non-memorable people. Usually against other people from civfanatics/amplitude or streamers that I follow. So it was pretty easy to keep track of them and identify them correctly. Still a bad idea to have so many generic leaders and few memorable ones without additional effort by the player (like Da Vinci or Hugo).

I never downloaded the streamer packs, but TBH playing against quill18 and Potato McWhiskey would not have improved my experience, with no disrespect meant to them.

 

[bbbt]

Differences that I remember (caveat: I pre-ordered HK, played like 2-3 games, and never touched it again, so it's been a little while)

1. Make your own leader (vs historical leader in Civ 7). In both you are staying with the same leader, but HK are not historical leaders, so you essentially (at least vs AI) associate more with the civ, which becomes confusing when they switch.
2. Prehistoric era (vs choose at game creation in Civ 7). You don't actually choose your first civ until after some exploration in HK. Which I actually liked as way to fight start bias/reroll - ie you could choose your civ based on your starting lands. But I was 50/50 on the actual prehistoric era portion. Favorite is actually Old World, which gives you an option for a "game mode" where you choose your fist civ when you found your first city.
3. Lack of distictive Civ design. The sheer number of civs required for the number of ages they had resulted in designs that weren't particularly memorable to me, and primarily just seemed as generic bonuses (do I want the culture bonus or the prod bonus). I worry about this for Civ 7 as well, but tbd.
4. Choice overwhelming/lack of choice. You basically got to choose from all the civs, or just the leftovers, depending on your standing going into the next era. Given #3, this left me either feeling like I wasn't clear what to choose (to be fair: if I played the game more, I'd probably have grown more of a better through strategy), or that I just had gotten the leftovers and would have a generic civ whose specialized bonuses weren't applicable.
   Civ 7 seems like it might counter this by limiting you to one or two options ('historical choice', leader choice), with additional options (ie the 3 horses for Mongolia) likley being something you specifically were aiming for and unlocked the "eureka" for.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I consider it pretty equivalent with leader switching. The lack of leader identity and the changing leader appearances with no cue for player identity except player color made diplomacy and any kind of interaction confusing and impersonal. I'd say it's the same problem, just a different root cause.

As another user already pointed out, the game itself gave you the tools to and encouraged you to create and use more memorable personas to play against. I personally hated the system but there is no way you could argue that it was equivalent with leader switching just because it lacked historical leaderheads as a default or because leader apperances changed with the ages.

I try to make a habit of not qualifying my opinions, the result of breaking a bad habit of over-qualifying my opinions for many years; I try to trust others to be able to tell the difference between an opinion and a fact. I'm actually very well-accustomed to having unpopular opinions, but I don't think this is one of them. My general impression is that most Civ players like leaders--it is one of the major factors that sets the franchise apart--but I'm aware that opinion is not universal.

.

.

forums.civfanatics.com

It's not about your opinion being unpopular, it's about your general impression not being supported by any data or even anecdotal observation of communities related to Civilization fans. You're right, most civ players do like leaders and they are one of the major factors that set the franchise apart but that same statement also applies to Civs.

It seems if given a false dicthomy between having to swap between the two, there is a pretty even divide among fans polled about which they would choose. Which is why I point out that you shouldn't say "If one has to change, it absolutely should be the civilization." so definitively.

Moderator Action: Please be civil in discussion. leif

 

[Zaarin]

As another user already pointed out, the game itself gave you the tools to and encouraged you to create and use more memorable personas to play against. I personally hated the system but there is no way you could argue that it was equivalent with leader switching just because it lacked historical leaderheads as a default and leader apperances changed with the ages.

I did create some, but they all looked and acted generic.

Which is why I point out that you shouldn't say "If one has to change, it absolutely should be the civilization." so definitively.

For me, it is definitive. If leaders change, I'm out. Changing leaders would be a deal-breaker for me, just like changing civs has been for many others. The poor quality of Civ7's leaders has already been a tough pill to swallow after the last two games.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I did create some, but they all looked and acted generic.

I don't want to play devil's advocate for HK because god was that game a failure but the different personas could be given different archetypes, strengths, and even diplomatic biases.

For me, it is definitive. If leaders change, I'm out. Changing leaders would be a deal-breaker for me, just like changing civs has been for many others. The poor quality of Civ7's leaders has already been a tough pill to swallow after the last two games.

Personally between the two I'd choose leader swapping before civ swapping but I totally understand your opinion otherwise.

 

[Zaarin]

I don't want to play devil's advocate for HK because god was that game a failure but the different personas could be given different archetypes, strengths, and even diplomatic biases.

If they behaved differently, I didn't notice, but just as big a problem is they didn't look different. Sure, there were minor cosmetic differences, but they all looked very bland. (Worth adding that I'm not face blind, but I do have difficulty recognizing faces sometimes--I'm much quicker at identifying people by their mannerisms.)

 

[8housesofelixir]

Well, that’s partly your own fault tough. I hardly ever played against non-memorable people. Usually against other people from civfanatics/amplitude or streamers that I follow. So it was pretty easy to keep track of them and identify them correctly. Still a bad idea to have so many generic leaders and few memorable ones without additional effort by the player (like Da Vinci or Hugo).

This is precisely why HMK has a pretty stable multiplayer community (a small but very active Discord server) despite its singleplayer community almost falling apart entirely. Playing with the person you know can really help with the identity issue that crushed the HMK experience.