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

[Krikkit1]

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.

The issue is if they started "taking the package" ie the Unique Abilities, Civics, Infrastructure.. that creates a Fantasy Roman Civ... same as if they take the Inca or they unlock the Ming... you are essentially creating an alhistoryRome (or an althistory Inca/Ming depending on how you think of it)... as opposed to just getting some units

 

[King Flevance]

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.

I can certainly see that as an abstract way of interpreting these mechanics. Similar to how I described how I would be able to dismiss 2 Egypts on the map in the same game. I am not saying the way they are doing it is wrong or ruins anything for me. However, with there being restrictions to which civs you can pick (being seen as "logical" progressions), and that gameplay can effect these choices, I would like to see some possibilities explored that human history was unable to really offer as far as we know.
I agree that this is the whole point of civ switching which is why I would like to see it not limited to only what has already happened in an alternate timeline. It is failing to capitalize on this mechanic. I would rather these picks be more about evolution of your empire from era to era instead of "civ switching". I understand their explanation as a justification for an abstract view of history but at the end of the day it really just someone saw what Amplitude did in Humankind and said "that is a neat idea, lets also play with that idea." Then it is "how do we justify that?" I am not hating on it, I love the mechanic. I hope more developers play with it too. Maybe it will be really cool in 7. It depends on some of the details I don't have access to right now. I just worry that they are doing a 1:1 lift from humankind but more limitations, which will not improve it by itself.

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)?

I can already do this in Humankind with no limitations whatsoever. Offering an even more variation of weird combinations. By the end of the game, I will have built a very customized civilization vs how custom Civ 7 will allow. If Firaxis is going to lift this mechanic, I will compare its value to the predecessor. So far, what I have seen with this mechanic is just that it offers less options/more restrictions per game. Even in Humankind, this doesn't offer much in the way of alternate history. (HK actually offers more variation in the way JNR13 pointed out in post #4 probably) It is more of an alternate history seeing "United States" spearmen or Mayan battleships in any previous Civ title than this game will offer.

What I like about this mechanic is that it is a way for your civ to "level up" and renew but to add a "more modern" flavor. It is SO much cooler than just a splash screen that says "You have entered the Medieval Era" and you click [OK] because you researched a tech. Now when that Era announcement comes, your civilization has actually entered a new phase. Your people are thinking in a new way. Culture has shifted priorities but old traditions are still there. It really is a great mechanic for an empire building game. It is no longer just a progress mile marker, it is a pivotal moment to your history/strategy.

This is just where my tastes diverge from the majority of other Civ fans I think. I guess I want some history mixed in with some "what if" stuff too. I do think you can go too far with the "what if"s but I think that so long as its fun, and only applied when there is no way to know, it works. Like the novel "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter." (Not the movie, it was straight garbage and not reminiscent of the book) It was fun and total BS but it tried to seem real for atmosphere. It had a good idea behind it. I personally view Civ in the same way.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Actually, can't we already say the Civ7 system is significantly better than HK's?

The paths for Civ are limited by the leader you pick and the Civ you start as, but you can plan for it. You always have the first pick in a single-player game, and you can always pursue whatever path you desire by playing into the parametres you need for your planned unlock (such as Mongolia's three horses).

In other words, Civ switching is very much a strategic choice in Civ7, and one that you can manipulate by hand-picking your leader, civ or strategy. The tradedown is that some paths ONLY work if you take a certain leader with a certain civ.

In HK this kind of isn't the case. In HK, switching just happens what feels like a metric ton of times, as you play the game.

Besides, it feels like it will be more impactful in Civ7. In the games HK I played, I was too busy playing the map to really pay attention to the impending switches, and as such switches never felt meaningful. (HK's biggest problem, I repeat again is that the win condition is by far the most boring part of the game. Who cares about Score Victory when I can colonize the world as I see fit? Boo.)

Like, cool, I get to be the Khmer for 25 turns. In that time, I will build the emblematic district exactly three times and recruit the emblematic unit maybe once, if I'm feeling generous. What gives? I'll be the French in the next era anyway. Rinse and repeat for the entire game, rly.

But in Civ7, because the transitions are spaced out, and the game's narrative structure revolves around them (crises, etc) AND each Civ has multiple uniques social policies that persist through the ages, it gives much needed seasoning and meaning to the switches, when they occur. That by itself makes the switches fundamentally better in Civ7, and so far, I've seen no gameplay footage that would refute this claim.

 

[chaosprophet]

I can already do this in Humankind with no limitations whatsoever. Offering an even more variation of weird combinations. By the end of the game, I will have built a very customized civilization vs how custom Civ 7 will allow. If Firaxis is going to lift this mechanic, I will compare its value to the predecessor. So far, what I have seen with this mechanic is just that it offers less options/more restrictions per game. Even in Humankind, this doesn't offer much in the way of alternate history. (HK actually offers more variation in the way JNR13 pointed out in post #4 probably) It is more of an alternate history seeing "United States" spearmen or Mayan battleships in any previous Civ title than this game will offer.

Actually, can't we already say the Civ7 system is significantly better than HK's?

The paths for Civ are limited by the leader you pick and the Civ you start as, but you can plan for it. You always have the first pick in a single-player game, and you can always pursue whatever path you desire by playing into the parametres you need for your planned unlock (such as Mongolia's three horses).

In other words, Civ switching is very much a strategic choice in Civ7, and one that you can manipulate by hand-picking your leader, civ or strategy. The tradedown is that some paths ONLY work if you take a certain leader with a certain civ.

To add to what Lord Lakely said, the reason they added the unlock system instead of letting the player pick whatever they prefer, is because the having too many choices was often confusing / more of a hassle for players when transitioning ages, as you can see being said in this section of an interview with Ed and Carl.

 

[ColtSeavers]

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



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.

Not sure I fully understand, I mean Civs like the Zulus do already have the chance to become a super power. Aren't these "what If" developments possible already?

 

[King Flevance]

Actually, can't we already say the Civ7 system is significantly better than HK's?
[...]
But in Civ7, because the transitions are spaced out, and the game's narrative structure revolves around them (crises, etc) AND each Civ has multiple uniques social policies that persist through the ages, it gives much needed seasoning and meaning to the switches, when they occur. That by itself makes the switches fundamentally better in Civ7, and so far, I've seen no gameplay footage that would refute this claim.

I am not ready to commit to that statement just yet. It does make the choice more significant, even more interesting perhaps because it is 1/3 of your game instead of 1/6 therefore your decision feels more impactful. I would even go so far to say Firaxis has added more consequence on top of it so that it objectively IS more impactful. However, your civilization as a whole is more customizable in HK because of the amount of options and no restrictions so I don't think impactful is automatically better than customizable. While it certainly is more interesting sight unseen, I will wait to make my judgement until after I see its implementation first hand. They may be equally bad/good.

The paths for Civ are limited by the leader you pick and the Civ you start as, but you can plan for it. You always have the first pick in a single-player game, and you can always pursue whatever path you desire by playing into the parametres you need for your planned unlock (such as Mongolia's three horses).

In other words, Civ switching is very much a strategic choice in Civ7, and one that you can manipulate by hand-picking your leader, civ or strategy. The tradedown is that some paths ONLY work if you take a certain leader with a certain civ.

In HK this kind of isn't the case. In HK, switching just happens what feels like a metric ton of times, as you play the game.

The map RNG will determine if you get to play Mongolia, not you necessarily. How many other aspects will the map determine? Not that I even think that is bad necessarily, but will Mongols rarely be seen in games because of this? As I stated before, if Rome or some other Civ is seen as overpowered, they will be in every game multiple times and Mongolia may rarely ever be an opponent. Thus leading to the same "every game feels the same" mentality that plagues HK but just for different reasons.

In HK you pick 6 Civs. (Double Civ 7) so the impact is halved but the flexibility is greater. I need to see the sum of its parts to tell but I am certainly excited for what Civ 7 is showing us right now.

 

[King Flevance]

Not sure I fully understand, I mean Civs like the Zulus do already have the chance to become a super power. Aren't these "what If" developments possible already?

But Shaka is always going to be wearing a grass skirt commanding tanks. It would be great to see that the Zulus have a modern culture with a fighter jet as a UU and a airport UB as their modern age representation. Insinuating that they became about airpower instead of "they became Iran" because "reasons".

To add to what Lord Lakely said, the reason they added the unlock system instead of letting the player pick whatever they prefer, is because the having too many choices was often confusing / more of a hassle for players when transitioning ages, as you can see being said in this section of an interview with Ed and Carl.

I know my view is not popular, but I really did like the system but I see it as a good jumping off point. I don't see HK's system as bad. But I do see many ways it could be better. It has a lot of potential.

 

[Zaarin]

As I stated before, if Rome or some other Civ is seen as overpowered, they will be in every game multiple times and Mongolia may rarely ever be an opponent.

I don't play MP, but how is that different from now? As I understand the meta, civs with strong early UUs like Sumer, Aztecs, and Scythia are considered extremely OP and to be preferred in MP. Now all civs have a strong early UU, but doubtless there will (always) be a new meta. Again, not a MP player myself, but I would assume that's part of the appeal of MP since it's a thing in every MP scene.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I really don't think this is going to turn out as awkward as people think. I think the civs chosen to represent leader pathways will end up flowing fairly naturally.

I also think we are getting both the Humankind method (multiplayer), as well as something new and special that will make a lot of sense once we have the full picture.

 

[Zaarin]

I really don't think this is going to turn out as awkward as people think.

I think it will be awkward on release, but it will get less awkward with each DLC release. I think it will look a lot better within a year of release, and they said they intend to support Civ7 for a long time.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I think it will be awkward on release, but it will get less awkward with each DLC release. I think it will look a lot better within a year of release, and they said they intend to support Civ7 for a long time.

I now have full confidence that every leader pathway, at launch will make a lot of sense, and communicate the "idea" of what we used to know as a civ, be it how a purely antiquity civ progressed through to "modern" times (which I am now positive Himiko's path will be Yamatai -> Kamakura -> Meiji, and will be represented for Persia, China, India, and the Polynesian expansion from Samoa),; how an idea of a civ unites antiquity and modern times (like Cnut and Henry the Lion leading Danish "Norse" through to Britain and Germany, Kublai connecting Mongolia back to China, or Fumo Liyongo connecting the Swahili Coast to the Periplus and Lake Victoria); or demonstrating a culmination of historical legacies (Rama V's Mandala cities for SEA since Khmer, Amina's Hausa carrying on the general Malian trade route legacy from Wagadu, and the Maya serving double duty in the territorial liberation of both Mexico and the Viceroyalty of New Granada under Benito and Simon).

I think some "civs" at launch won't have leaders yet in the way we used to think about leader-civ connections ("England," Spain, Khmer/Majapahit, Maya/Aztec/Inca, Italy, "Greece," and probably Ottomans), but that is different from the paths which will be released being awkward. Unless of course you think England and Spain not having leaders at launch is "awkward," which I might agree but for the fact that I think they all will get leaders with even more appropriate pathways once their relevant DLC packs release. Britain will get a Mercia/whatever -> England -> British leader and a Picts -> Scotland -> British leader, Spain will get a Cordoba/Andalus to progress from, Khmer will get a Funan leader with exploration Burma and Majapahit will get Srivijaya and Borneo, Italy will get Venice and Lorenzo de Medici, Greece will get Alexander, Ottomans will get Xiongnu and Gokturks.

 

[Zaarin]

I now have full confidence that every leader pathway, at launch will make a lot of sense

That's great, but I don't share your confidence.

 

[King Flevance]

I don't play MP, but how is that different from now? As I understand the meta, civs with strong early UUs like Sumer, Aztecs, and Scythia are considered extremely OP and to be preferred in MP. Now all civs have a strong early UU, but doubtless there will (always) be a new meta. Again, not a MP player myself, but I would assume that's part of the appeal of MP since it's a thing in every MP scene.

Now EVERY player will be Sumer, Aztecs, and Scythia. Even in an 8 player game. Then every player will transition to either Rome, Persia, and Maya - or whatever it may be. The power combo will almost only be played by everyone because no one wants to be at that disadvantage and they don't have to be. Granted some people will go against the grain but there will be a noticeable undeniable overall pattern. And each balancing patch will bring a new meta as you stated.

For singleplayer, How valuable is 40 different Civs if you will only ever play as the same 9 because they are the "obvious best choice"? This was a common critique levied against HK due to "imbalanced civs ruining choice" so any advice along the lines of "Just don't play the same civs" and "try different strategies" just falls on deaf ears. If the AI weights this and/or the map locks off civs What if 8 of these civs are rarely even seen in a game because the conditions are not worth going after for the civ pick? I would assume Firaxis would, for example, lower Mongolia to only needing 1 or 2 horses if they saw that as a common feedback or something along those lines. This stuff can certainly be addressed, but I believe it is ultimately an almost impossible task. Though no Civ game has managed balance with all the civs. S Tier, A Tier, B Tier, etc. It will be the mechanic that gets the blame because it will feel "too samey" as a result.

Now, I am kind of playing devil's advocate a bit here but only to highlight the concerns I have in hoping Firaxis is considering these things. Making these civs imbalanced was one of the big critiques against HK. One I disagree with too but it still happened, so I hope Firaxis is aware that this mechanic will be scrutinized for any percieved imbalance. I don't think the internet is gonna go easy on Civ just because it is Civ. I am not even sure if having 2 Rome's on the map is a poor implementation. I know it isn't my preference but I could ignore it. Having 6 Rome's on the map would be irritating. That isn't why I play Civ. Never seeing a certain civ show up in a game is annoying. We currently have that thread about Russia going on, imagine if they were in the game but it became a joke online that Russia is never in games because of the hard qualifiers and underwhelming benefits. Again, this is just my concern for the game's behalf based on my enjoyment of HK. I really hope that Civ knocks it out of the park but I do have concerns.

 

[Zaarin]

Now EVERY player will be Sumer, Aztecs, and Scythia. Even in an 8 player game. Then every player will transition to either Rome, Persia, and Maya - or whatever it may be. The power combo will almost only be played by everyone because no one wants to be at that disadvantage and they don't have to be.

I presume you're talking about the fact that players can select duplicates. They said that will be up to your MP community to establish house rules, which I think is reasonable. Worth recalling that the option to disable duplicate leaders was added several patches into Civ6, and I don't think duplicate civs was toggleable until after R&F if memory serves. So technically you could already have a Sumer on Sumer on Sumer on Sumer on Sumer on Sumer match in Civ6.

For singleplayer, How valuable is 40 different Civs if you will only ever play as the same 9 because they are the "obvious best choice"?

If you're playing single player, who cares what the "best" choice is? The NFP civs in Civ6 are objectively some of the most OP civs in the game, but I also find most of them uninteresting to play.

If the AI weights this and/or the map locks off civs What if 8 of these civs are rarely even seen in a game because the conditions are not worth going after for the civ pick?

We already know that the AI prioritizes historical and regional choices. I would presume that's first by leader, then by past civs. The AI isn't going to target "optimal" civs.

I hope Firaxis is aware that this mechanic will be scrutinized for any percieved imbalance. I don't think the internet is gonna go easy on Civ just because it is Civ.

Balance only matters to a certain extent in a single-player game, and Civ has always been built around single-player first, multiplayer second. In my experience, excessive balancing in an assymetrical game makes a bad game (see also: AoE4).

I am not even sure if having 2 Rome's on the map is a poor implementation. I know it isn't my preference but I could ignore it. Having 6 Rome's on the map would be irritating.

I doubt it will be there on launch, but I'm sure the option to disallow duplicates will come--it sounds like it may already be there in single-player.

 

[King Flevance]

I am glad you were able to relieve some of my concerns with duplicate civs. You also make a good point about AI prioritization that gives me hope for the flavor.

If you're playing single player, who cares what the "best" choice is? The NFP civs in Civ6 are objectively some of the most OP civs in the game, but I also find most of them uninteresting to play.

Balance only matters to a certain extent in a single-player game, and Civ has always been built around single-player first, multiplayer second. In my experience, excessive balancing in an assymetrical game makes a bad game (see also: AoE4).

I agree 100%. But this was a common criticism I have seen against HK. The toip 2 have been that every game feels the same because:

A) You change civs like you change clothing and therefor feel like a generic civ.
B) There is no reason to pick anything other than the best 2-3 civs so it is the same choices every game.***


I will enjoy my time with Civ 7. This gripe against HK does not apply to me, but a LOT of people really hold on to it. It is very possible Civ 7 will alleviate "A" - but "B" is not only impossible IMO but could be misjudged due to perception issues and bias. It can also be completely ignored and irrelevant due to playstyle.

 

[Zaarin]

I am glad you were able to relieve some of my concerns with duplicate civs. You also make a good point about AI prioritization that gives me hope for the flavor.

Glad I could help.

This gripe against HK does not apply to me, but a LOT of people really hold on to it.

TBH my complaint about HK wasn't that it was poorly balanced. It was that it was poorly designed. And it pains me to say it because I loved both Endless Space games, especially the second one. But HK just had no soul and no personality, and even when its ideas were good they were poorly implemented. Even visually it was bland except for the art cards for civs and events (and events were probably its best feature--though they weren't so different from the already well-done events in previous Endless games). Soundtrack was phenomenal, though.

 

[RedCourtJester]

TBH my complaint about HK wasn't that it was poorly balanced. It was that it was poorly designed. And it pains me to say it because I loved both Endless Space games, especially the second one. But HK just had no soul and no personality, and even when its ideas were good they were poorly implemented. Even visually it was bland except for the art cards for civs and events (and events were probably its best feature--though they weren't so different from the already well-done events in previous Endless games). Soundtrack was phenomenal, though.

In several respects, and especially with trying to deduce Civ VII's design, I do realize how much leaders help give 4X games personality, drama, direction. Which is why I don't think anymore that the leader idea will be squandered, but in fact essential to why Civ VII was greenlit in this state as well as what will make Civ VII much better than Humankind.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I am not ready to commit to that statement just yet. It does make the choice more significant, even more interesting perhaps because it is 1/3 of your game instead of 1/6 therefore your decision feels more impactful. I would even go so far to say Firaxis has added more consequence on top of it so that it objectively IS more impactful. However, your civilization as a whole is more customizable in HK because of the amount of options and no restrictions so I don't think impactful is automatically better than customizable. While it certainly is more interesting sight unseen, I will wait to make my judgement until after I see its implementation first hand. They may be equally bad/good.

Well, the switches themselves have also been made more meaningful in Civ7 itself. Each Age has its own mini-game so truly, you're not playing one big game, but rather three games consequetively on the same map against the same opponents, each with different rules and resources. Legacies, which we currently know a bit too little about ( :-/ ), will improve the impact of the transitions as well.

In HK, when you switch your previous Culture is only retained in your city names and maybe the odd Emblematic Quarter you've managed to build in time. In Civ7, you retain the same things + unique policies and legacies. And those are merely the things we know. It's looking good, honestly.

The map RNG will determine if you get to play Mongolia, not you necessarily. How many other aspects will the map determine?

Whether it works depends on the criteria you select beforehand, and Mongolia's are excellent.

Like, it's unlikely you'll get three horses by expanding peacefully. Which means that in order to form Mongolia, you would have to wage war to capture the horses you miss.

Remember, it doesn't matter who hooks up the horses initially. The only criterion is that YOU own three by the end of the act.

It might be tactically beneficial to allow the AI to settle a horse city within reach for you to capture later - this builds up Military legacy and plays well into the transition towards Mongolia later down the line.

There's a bit of luck involved, but on paper I see no reason how a competent player couldn't force Mongolia every single time with careful planning and good strategy.

Not that I even think that is bad necessarily, but will Mongols rarely be seen in games because of this? As I stated before, if Rome or some other Civ is seen as overpowered, they will be in every game multiple times and Mongolia may rarely ever be an opponent. Thus leading to the same "every game feels the same" mentality that plagues HK but just for different reasons.

The fix for that is easy - add a Mongol leader to the game. Every time they pop up, the Mongols will be formed.

Also, there's a good chance the leaders pick randomly between their historical choices, if available. We saw a screenshot of AI Ashoka leading Khmer earlier.

In HK you pick 6 Civs. (Double Civ 7) so the impact is halved but the flexibility is greater. I need to see the sum of its parts to tell but I am certainly excited for what Civ 7 is showing us right now.

When I played HK, you a much larger choice than just 6 Civs per switch. I believe it's about 10 per switch if you get there first. And you also switch five times in the game. It's a headache.

 

[Evolena]

They meant you choose 6 time, not that you choose between 6 options

 

[Willie5000]

To be honest, if Humankind had a system of prerequisites for choosing a culture - such as how you played in the previous era or which culture you're switching from - it would have been a perfect approach.