I know it's too early to tell but I think Humankind's culture shift mechanic may've been the better implemented method

[sTAPler27]

The era system from 6 while being a universal change didn't have as substantial gameplay changes to make gameplay progression feel too forced. The worst feature it implemented was stagnation=dark age. Even if your people had endless amenities and thriving economy it didn't matter because those aren't momentous enough occasions. In 7 however ages mean everything because while everyone's still moving on at the same time like in 6 it's much more of a hard shift. If you were still in the antiquity era while the shift was made to the classical it didn't mean much more than picking a dedication and the era name being different. Now ages are physical dividers that dictate story beats and progression. Mayans can never meet the Spanish because the Mayans will always be destined to fall before the Spanish even form for example. Humankind by comparison with its more Humanistic approach understood that cultures sometimes develop in a vacuum or at a pace that meets their needs. In Humankind a culture progresses when it benefits them. While unfortunately techs were still locked behind a wall there was an ability to transcend your culture to the next era.

I really do love the civ switch mechanic I just think they executed it in a very odd way. Every culture just so happens to enter a crisis at the same time regardless if they're even aware the other cultures exist. Crises should be a reason to switch a culture they shouldn't come as a result of it. Cultures evolve to rise to new challenges, and civ 7 gets this mixed up by allowing you to craft your own perfect storm of issues that effect you the least. In Humankind I often am left picking a new culture based on issues caused by my own failures that result from my own gameplay, maybe I mismanaged the economy, maybe my cities are leaving my sphere of influence or a strong military force is mobilizing towards my territory but regardless of all that the crises is a result of my actions and evolving is how I deal with the issues. I'm not saying this doesn't happen in 7 but since the choice to progress is out of the players hands the switch does not feel like its in response to gameplay but instead to plot beats.

Part of what I think makes Civ great is that it's basically the world on randomizer mode with some familiar faces sprinkled in. It's the MadLibs of alternate history, you aren't reliving history you're making it fresh. So to try to firmly lock it into an act structure that follows a primarily western model of history and development in which there's those that thrust the world into phases of modernity just constrains how fantastical a game of Civ actually is. While I think it'll still be Civ at the end of the day features in this game should be as loose as possible to make for some unique scenarios that mirror but don't retell actual human history.

 

[chaosprophet]

If you look at the Dev Diary about ages, one of the main reasons to add that system is to combat the reasons players most often don't finish their games, and a major reason being snowballing. So some of the decisions they made regarding ages, like the soft reset at transitions, having simultaneous crisis and age transitions, having separated civics and tech trees for each, are all decisions that align with that objective. You may dislike the way they decided to tackle it or that it will ultimately not achieve what they want, but by checking the dev diary I think we can at least understand the logic behind it. Whether it will succeed or not, time will tell, but I'm really interested and optimistic about it so far.

 

[Zaarin]

I don't think doing anything worse than Humankind is possible without deliberately trying to make a bad game, and I don't think Ed Beach is the Uwe Boll of game design. HK's ideas weren't all bad, but they were all implemented in the worst way humanly possible.

 

[JNR13]

I don't see how you can't still make your civ picks based on what deficits you want to overcome. The narrated "crisis" won't replace emergent crises, it will come on top and possibly even amplify them.

Civ addresses a lot of complaints about Humankind's switching:
- too frequent to establish player identity
- too open, no historic links privileged
- gamey race to the next era to secure your pick, not letting you experience each era to its fullest
- most picks are just yield-enhancers and don't really make a difference beyond that

So I definitely do not think Humankind did it better.

What's ironic though is the combination of how cultures are matched to an era and the transition logic:
- In Civ VII, the eras represent development stages independent of a historic calendar, yet all players progress through them at the same pace, leading to anachronistic encounters.
- In Humankind, cultures are grouped merely by calendar to create historic encounters and contemporaneity, but players progress through the eras based on their individual development progress.

I feel like those should've been swapped: Grouping civs by calendar should come with simultaneous era progress and grouping civs by development stage should come with individual era progress...

 

[luca 83]

The era system from 6 while being a universal change didn't have as substantial gameplay changes to make gameplay progression feel too forced. The worst feature it implemented was stagnation=dark age. Even if your people had endless amenities and thriving economy it didn't matter because those aren't momentous enough occasions. In 7 however ages mean everything because while everyone's still moving on at the same time like in 6 it's much more of a hard shift. If you were still in the antiquity era while the shift was made to the classical it didn't mean much more than picking a dedication and the era name being different. Now ages are physical dividers that dictate story beats and progression. Mayans can never meet the Spanish because the Mayans will always be destined to fall before the Spanish even form for example. Humankind by comparison with its more Humanistic approach understood that cultures sometimes develop in a vacuum or at a pace that meets their needs. In Humankind a culture progresses when it benefits them. While unfortunately techs were still locked behind a wall there was an ability to transcend your culture to the next era.

I really do love the civ switch mechanic I just think they executed it in a very odd way. Every culture just so happens to enter a crisis at the same time regardless if they're even aware the other cultures exist. Crises should be a reason to switch a culture they shouldn't come as a result of it. Cultures evolve to rise to new challenges, and civ 7 gets this mixed up by allowing you to craft your own perfect storm of issues that effect you the least. In Humankind I often am left picking a new culture based on issues caused by my own failures that result from my own gameplay, maybe I mismanaged the economy, maybe my cities are leaving my sphere of influence or a strong military force is mobilizing towards my territory but regardless of all that the crises is a result of my actions and evolving is how I deal with the issues. I'm not saying this doesn't happen in 7 but since the choice to progress is out of the players hands the switch does not feel like its in response to gameplay but instead to plot beats.

Part of what I think makes Civ great is that it's basically the world on randomizer mode with some familiar faces sprinkled in. It's the MadLibs of alternate history, you aren't reliving history you're making it fresh. So to try to firmly lock it into an act structure that follows a primarily western model of history and development in which there's those that thrust the world into phases of modernity just constrains how fantastical a game of Civ actually is. While I think it'll still be Civ at the end of the day features in this game should be as loose as possible to make for some unique scenarios that mirror but don't retell actual human history.

And what I go always sotenuto!crises can not be global for each country there must be political and economic reasons , also not controllable ,

 

[Krikkit1]

And what I go always sotenuto!crises can not be global for each country there must be political and economic reasons , also not controllable ,

They have indicated different civs may have different crisis…so one might be dealing with rebellions and plague, while another is dealing with rampant corruption and barbarian invasions.

 

[King Flevance]

You have accurately articulated my own issue with Civ's variant of the Civ swap mechanic, I think. The fact that it takes away the fun of seeing alternate histories because it is too dedicated to replicating Earth's history. I would have really liked a few non-existant civs thrown in that are a fun exploration of "what might have been" as natural progression options for ancient Egypt or Rome or the Mayans. However, I am aware that this would be abrasive for many other fans of the series. I really think that this mechanic is not well suited for the Civ franchise personally. I do like that they have implemented less picks (making each pick matter more) and definitive moments of transition in the gameplay (narrative). However, I have doubts that this will be a net positive from my perspective and preferences. The 3 Era model could potentially be unfun if it fails to add anything but negatives, some negatives for balancing and such makes sense. I just hope that the transition feels more like a positive move forward rather than someone just crapping all over my game and now I have to clean it up. It would be nice if sometimes it was a positive event (renaissance) for everyone instead of always doom and gloom for everyone.

Many people often say that Humankind's picks are too unevenly weighted and therefore they often pick the same thing every time. This is not my experience with my games of Humankind at all and I love the variety each play offers me - but I promise that many WILL find this to be true in Civ 7 as well. Because if even 1 civ combo barely eeks out a bonus, no matter how small, over the other civ combos available it will be rightfully (objectively) deemed "the most powerful/beneficial" and every other option will be seen as irrelevant and levied against the balance of the game's mechanics. (Perhaps the top 2 combos based on victory condition) However, that last bit is hyperbolic and debatable and the community will probably divide on that line. I honestly see no other outcome as these things are pretty much impossible to balance perfectly and play preferences will make these small benefits seem very large or inconsequential based solely on your playstyle.
I am never trying to beat Diety or Immmortal. I set the difficulty to the level of play I want to play which is usually "normal" or a notch above. I do not play super competitive because I like to role play my diplomacy vs. gaming the diplomacy. That is why I am also excited about the new diplomacy mechanics. I am just REALLY hoping the AI is not a sporadic schizophrenic mess of a personality but they actually know how to use these new mechanics and leverage relationships. The reason I love 4 so much is that it has a diplomacy model that makes it easy to "get to know" your neighbors. (Mostly)

I do think the limitation of only 3 picks is great as it makes each pick have gravity. I think that linking Civs is an interesting idea vs. everyone can pick from a list of everything. But I am not convinced it is the best way for gameplay as it can be just a way to restrict the player's options in strategy. This could really go either way. Additionally, being able to have multiplae people pick the same civ is interesting but it makes me feel like there should be some kind of distinguishing flavor added. Having 2 Romes with praetorians is kind of unfortunate as it pulls away from the idea of "unique units" just a bit. (They are still unique) I feel like there should be duplicate names just in case people pick the same thing. Or rather than picking an entire civ, you can pick an architectural style (Tudor, Victorian, etc - Some will need names assigned), and then have options of UUs and UBs based on architectural style chosen. Perhaps everyone picks thier top 3 most desired at the same time, then the "winner" for X civ needs to have the highest "commerce>food>science" production" Civ Y needs the highest "science>production>culture" production (tie>tie breaker>tie breaker). Any ties beyond that are randomly chosen. I don't know. It is just weird to have 2 Egypts on the map but I can get behind the abstract idea of a cultural style getting popular in 2 parts of the world and even war chariots being a primary unit in 2 parts of the world. SO it isn't entirely horrible but it is unfortunate as ther "most powerful civs/stratgies" are going to be played by EVERYONE ALL THE TIME reducing variety. In this way Humankind could outshine it.
But we will see. It really is too early to tell with these mechanics that are not just new to the franchise but to the genre. I am excited to see so many new ideas coming into the genre across the board though.

 

[Zaarin]

I would have really liked a few non-existant civs thrown in that are a fun exploration of "what might have been" as natural progression options for ancient Egypt or Rome or the Mayans.

I hope we see something like this as DLC, but I expect it will be late in the dev cycle.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I hope we see something like this as DLC, but I expect it will be late in the dev cycle.

What does "non existant" civ mean exactly? A fantasy Civ, which never existed in history?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I hope we see something like this as DLC, but I expect it will be late in the dev cycle.

Honestly, I think it's more mod territory than the base game or DLC. Creating versions of existing civs for other ages in DLC is generally taking away space for entirely new civs.

 

[Zaarin]

What does "non existant" civ mean exactly? A fantasy Civ, which never existed in history?

What I'm hoping for is hypothetical Exploration/Modern versions of Antiquity civs (or Modern versions of Exploration civs where relevant). E.g. Antiquity Ancient Egypt > Medieval Ancient Egypt > Modern Ancient Egypt.

Honestly, I think it's more mod territory than the base game or DLC. Creating versions of existing civs for other ages in DLC is generally taking away space for entirely new civs.

NFP's vampires and zombies say hi. That's why I expect it late in the dev cycle if it comes.

 

[stealth_nsk]

NFP's vampires and zombies say hi. That's why I expect it late in the dev cycle if it comes.

Game modes for totally bored players are quite fun, but making fictional civs out of time won't change gameplay enough doesn't solve the problem of boredom (or doesn't allow testing new mechanics).

 

[King Flevance]

I hope we see something like this as DLC, but I expect it will be late in the dev cycle.

Definitely. It would be nice but I know that a lot of people like Civ for the historical flavor to be more strict.

What does "non existant" civ mean exactly? A fantasy Civ, which never existed in history?

Living in America, you can't help but wonder what would have happened if the Native Americans had been able to scientifically and culturally stand against the British or perhaps even been a world power that was discovered. What if they had discovered Europe instead? What if Ethiopia had became a super power on the globe due to trade and foreign policy. Or the Zulu became a world threat due to its expanse. What if cultures we only see as primitive had a "better start" and actually was the primary culture? How would it have evolved? I would like for there to be some "what could have been but wasn't" civs in the game along with the ones that actually did exist AS they existed. But it would be nice to see some evolutions that never actually got to happen in real life.

This is why I like the Civ franchise is because it spins history on its head and lets us see funny or interesting "what if" encounters. I feel Civ 7 will be the entry that does this the least as they are throwing in a big dose of "these things are fated to happen every timeline". So every game will feel the same guaranteed even though they have made sure to add things that will make it feel a little different and unique each time too.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Game modes for totally bored players are quite fun, but making fictional civs out of time won't change gameplay enough doesn't solve the problem of boredom (or doesn't allow testing new mechanics).

There's a long history of DLCs focusing on New Civs, New Leaders, 'Fun' mechanics from fantasy or the game developer's last dream, but unfortunately less focus on correcting what turn out to be basic mistakes made in the original design.

And no, I have no idea at this point what those are in Civ VII, but you can bet there will be at least one thing or combination that just doesn't work the way they thought it would, or is subject to such extreme Gamer Exploit that it needs extreme Nerfing.

So, while I love a new Civ, new Leader, new set of buildings, units, et al as much as the next CivFanatic, I hope they also set aside room in DLCs for Corrections to make the old systems work better (or as they should) rather than continually piling new systems and elements on top of a cracking foundation,

 

[Disgustipated]

NFP's vampires and zombies say hi

shhh, I have blocked those from my mind. I'll pretend those never happened.

 

[Krikkit1]

You have accurately articulated my own issue with Civ's variant of the Civ swap mechanic, I think. The fact that it takes away the fun of seeing alternate histories because it is too dedicated to replicating Earth's history. I would have really liked a few non-existant civs thrown in that are a fun exploration of "what might have been" as natural progression options for ancient Egypt or Rome or the Mayans.

I think that is the whole point of the Civ switching. In our world, the Normans, and Spanish looked to Roman traditions about laws, religion and the Mongols adopted Chinese traditions... What if that was switched, what if the Naval "Spanish" was an off shoot of a "Han" culture instead of a Roman one... what if the Roman traditions were adopted by a massive Cavalry Pastoral empire.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

what if the Roman traditions were adopted by a massive Cavalry Pastoral empire.

You mean, sort of like the Cavalry-focused Byzantine armies under Belisarius that reconquered North Africa and Italy?

Sometimes it's not as extreme a 'what if?' as people first suppose . . .

 

[chaosprophet]

This is why I like the Civ franchise is because it spins history on its head and lets us see funny or interesting "what if" encounters. I feel Civ 7 will be the entry that does this the least as they are throwing in a big dose of "these things are fated to happen every timeline". So every game will feel the same guaranteed even though they have made sure to add things that will make it feel a little different and unique each time too.

Are you aware that as the player you can pick and make weird combinations you want when going to the next age, as long as you do the requirement to unlock the civs you don't unlock for free (historical/regiona pathways for the current civ and civs associated with a leader)?

 

[Krikkit1]

You mean, sort of like the Cavalry-focused Byzantine armies under Belisarius that reconquered North Africa and Italy?

Sometimes it's not as extreme a 'what if?' as people first suppose . . .

No...one based around a Pastoral culture (either because Rome fell to one or that group gained power)... The Byzantines were heavy cavalry supporting The City... The Byzantines also had naval warfare advancements... the Mongols did not... What if Rome did not rise to prominence around the Mediterranean, but in a more land based environment, and so they absorbed some neighboring steppe peoples to the point where those steppe people dominated their culture.... Totally different than the Byzantines.

To really allow the "Fantasy" civs you just need
1. ahistoric civ advancements (already part of the game)
2. ability to customize/keep/change the name of your civ (Definitely needs to be in... If I want to have my Roman Empire to be masters of roads and mountains I should be able to pick Inca but keep calling them Rome)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

No...one based around a Pastoral culture (either because Rome fell to one or that group gained power)... The Byzantines were heavy cavalry supporting The City... The Byzantines also had naval warfare advancements... the Mongols did not... What if Rome did not rise to prominence around the Mediterranean, but in a more land based environment, and so they absorbed some neighboring steppe peoples to the point where those steppe people dominated their culture.... Totally different than the Byzantines.

To really allow the "Fantasy" civs you just need
1. ahistoric civ advancements (already part of the game)
2. ability to customize/keep/change the name of your civ (Definitely needs to be in... If I want to have my Roman Empire to be masters of roads and mountains I should be able to pick Inca but keep calling them Rome)

Actually, the Roman Empire without any move to a 'steppe' environment absorbed quite a few Steppe Peoples' military techniques. If you look at the Roman Army units identified in the Notitia Dignitorum you will find several Auxiliary units labeled Sagitarii Equites Hunorum and Lanciarii Equites Sarmatii - Hun Horse Archers and Sarmatian Mounted Lancers (who are depicted as Cataphractoi - armored men on armored horses with long, heavy lances) respectively.

These units were stationed all across the Empire, including at least one unit of each in Britain, so the Steppe cavalry techniques were quite familiar to the Roman Empire - at least to the people who mattered in forming military units and armies.

This, of course, does not mean the basic culture/society of either the Roman or Byzantine became Steppe Pastoral in any meaningful sense, but it does mean that in game terms they could field very Steppe Pastoral-looking military forces without taking on the rest of the Steppe Pastoral package.

At the other end of Eurasia, the Mongols had siege equipment built and manned by Persian and Chinese experts beore they ever conquered either state, including advanced gunpowder weapons (bombs and grenades rather than 'gonnes') and trebuchets. This in no way turned the Mongols into either Persians or Chinese, but it shows that there is, perhaps, more flexibility in military techniques than presupposed in the game.

This, frankly, is one reason that I hope Civ VII includes a 'Mercenary mechanic' similar to what Civ VI's Barbarian Clans mode had where you can 'hire' military units from minor States/Settlements/Peoples. Ideally that would include some of the Unique Units only available from non-city-based peoples like the Huns, Sarmatians, etc.