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

[stealth_nsk]

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.

I have quite the opposite opinion. Humankind has a lot of problems, but this part is done well with their approach. With ages being short and cultures being mainly the choice of focus (food, industry, science, etc.) I wouldn't like to not be able to choose my focus. Or to be stuck in the initially chosen focus, i.e. start focusing on food -> produce a lot of food -> have to choose food civ again.

For Civ7 unlocking looks much better, because unlock conditions we've seen so far match the future play style. I.e. you don't consider mountain-focused civ (Inca) unless you have some mountains.

 

[King Flevance]

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.

I am interested to see what Civ has done by making things like social policies and GP tied to your civ choice, they have certainly added more weight by variety to your decision. This in addition to weight of only being able to pick 3 times. You can tell that they wanted your Civ choice to have as large of an impact as they could.

The best aspect of HK's formula is that you retained a legacy trait from your previous empire also. So each choice was like gaining a new permanent leader trait. This is how you could specialize your whole civilization or compensate for map strategy/poor land. This compounded with the quarters you speak of. But every game you get to pick 6 traits and you can mix and match them. I do agree with others that HK's overall design had room for improvement, and in some cases downright flaws. However, the core concept of civ switching - especially for the first game to implement it - they didn't do poor on that particular mechanic in my eyes. It has inspired other titles in the genre to get excited and try to implement it.

Your view on Mongolia's strategy to gain horses actually makes me like it better as a prerequisite. Though it deviates from my point, your point is more interesting.

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.

There are 7 eras in HK so you pick 6 cultures over the span of the game. With 10 options each era, I am usually only focused on 2-3 as I already know if I want to specialize in food, warfare, science, etc. I know what I am after. I still flip through all my options because I have randomly picked the Phoenicians or something as a sporadic change in tactics after seeing them as an option I hadn't considered. But generally, 2 or 3 civs will stand out as strong candidates for the game. And no I do not pick the same civs every game. It is the fact that I often feel compelled to play different strategies because of the map and diplomacy that makes me enjoy HK's charm. I personally am not a fan of its combat overall or units. I also agree with the complaints that the civ picks feel generic even though they are entire civilizations. I tend to think of it as my culture is "like the English" or "like the Egyptians" but not actually that culture. But I still find the game really charming. (Also I name all my cities so and stuff so the city names are irrelevant for me.) It is a nice custom civilization building game.

 

[agonistes]

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.

I haven't given any thought to implementation, but having past behavior determine cultural qualities at certain benchmarks appeals to me.

 

[Leucarum]

I wonder if it would have been better to tie civ unlocks to leaders and not civs. E.g. Tecumseh unlocks a bunch of civs which care about independent peoples, Hatshepshut is a fan of all the river civs.

A lot of the discomfort from civ switching seems to come from a lack of sarisfactory historical paths for a lot of civs, but if you shift the emphasis from the civ changing to the already heavily-gameified, immortal god-leader, it maybe feels a little less egregious... Not sure.

 

[Zaarin]

I wonder if it would have been better to tie civ unlocks to leaders and not civs.

We have both, though. E.g., playing as the Mississippians unlocks the Shawnee regardless of who your leader is; playing as Tecumseh unlocks the Shawnee regardless of who your Antiquity civ is.

 

[Leucarum]

We have both, though. E.g., playing as the Mississippians unlocks the Shawnee regardless of who your leader is; playing as Tecumseh unlocks the Shawnee regardless of who your Antiquity civ is.

Yeah, so instead of having civ unlocks at all add more leader unlocks so each leader has a preferred path or two through the game.

 

[Zaarin]

Yeah, so instead of having civ unlocks at all add more leader unlocks so each leader has a preferred path or two through the game.

From what we've seen, it looks like leaders do unlock more than just their "historical" civ (e.g., in the Antiquity showcase, it looked like Augustus unlocked Abbasids, interestingly).

 

[Leucarum]

From what we've seen, it looks like leaders do unlock more than just their "historical" civ (e.g., in the Antiquity showcase, it looked like Augustus unlocked Abbasids, interestingly).

Interesting. I had missed that. Weirdly, that makes me feel... Better about the civ switching?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I believe the value of unlock mechanics is not about civs or leaders, it's about working towards some strategic options. Like in example with Mongols, you may specifically prioritize grabbing horses.

If not for this, it would be better to just let everyone choose any civilization and just add roleplay choices for AI civs based on either civ or leader.

 

[Leucarum]

I believe the value of unlock mechanics is not about civs or leaders, it's about working towards some strategic options. Like in example with Mongols, you may specifically prioritize grabbing horses.

Agreed. If they had gone full gameification as opposed to suggesting "authentic" civ evolutions I think it could have maybe made less people annoyed? Who knows though, people are difficult to please around here...

 

[ColtSeavers]

Agreed. If they had gone full gameification as opposed to suggesting "authentic" civ evolutions I think it could have maybe made less people annoyed? Who knows though, people are difficult to please around here...

Why on earth would you think that!?

 

[chaosprophet]

Regarding the discussion about civ unlocks, the answer on this interview from this point to about 3m later give an idea about why they end up with the unlock system as it is.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Agreed. If they had gone full gameification as opposed to suggesting "authentic" civ evolutions I think it could have maybe made less people annoyed? Who knows though, people are difficult to please around here...

Consequence of using real civs, many of which people are more or less connected to today. Nationalism, which takes 10k different forms now has 10k different bones to pick with Firaxis, it seems.

 

[Leucarum]

Consequence of using real civs, many of which people are more or less connected to today. Nationalism, which takes 10k different forms now has 10k different bones to pick with Firaxis, it seems.

But humans don't have that many bones!

 

[Evolena]

From what we've seen, it looks like leaders do unlock more than just their "historical" civ (e.g., in the Antiquity showcase, it looked like Augustus unlocked Abbasids, interestingly).

The Abbasids had the Augustus portrait to indicate they were a historical choice, yet they had a big lock on them, so not unlocked by Augustus (nor by Rome).

 

[RedCourtJester]

There are 7 eras in HK so you pick 6 cultures over the span of the game. With 10 options each era, I am usually only focused on 2-3 as I already know if I want to specialize in food, warfare, science, etc. I know what I am after. I still flip through all my options because I have randomly picked the Phoenicians or something as a sporadic change in tactics after seeing them as an option I hadn't considered. But generally, 2 or 3 civs will stand out as strong candidates for the game. And no I do not pick the same civs every game. It is the fact that I often feel compelled to play different strategies because of the map and diplomacy that makes me enjoy HK's charm. I personally am not a fan of its combat overall or units. I also agree with the complaints that the civ picks feel generic even though they are entire civilizations. I tend to think of it as my culture is "like the English" or "like the Egyptians" but not actually that culture. But I still find the game really charming. (Also I name all my cities so and stuff so the city names are irrelevant for me.) It is a nice custom civilization building game.

Would be curious if that pre-game "7th era" will serve as a prelude part of three-era games. That way you don't have to re-roll every game you don't like, you can figure your settling first then select a civ that you prefer most for that map role. Would solve rerolls a lot.

The Abbasids had the Augustus portrait to indicate they were a historical choice, yet they had a big lock on them, so not unlocked by Augustus (nor by Rome).

I still feel like "historical choice" may be stretching what we are actually getting. I think each leader will have one historical choice, and perhaps another two "bendy" choices that aren't really historical but the next-closest civs (probably geographically, territorially, or culturally) just to have three options encouraged by the leader.

 

[Zaarin]

Would be curious if that pre-game "7th era" will serve as a prelude part of three-era games. That way you don't have to re-roll every game you don't like, you can figure your settling first then select a civ that you prefer most for that map role. Would solve rerolls a lot.

While, again, just because HK did something badly doesn't mean it couldn't be done well...HK's "neolithic start" was boooooring. You spend ten to twenty turns wandering around the map while not much happens. I prefer Civ's semi-sedentary start--you can wander around a bit if you want to, or you can just settle and get straight to building.

 

[RedCourtJester]

While, again, just because HK did something badly doesn't mean it couldn't be done well...HK's "neolithic start" was boooooring. You spend ten to twenty turns wandering around the map while not much happens. I prefer Civ's semi-sedentary start--you can wander around a bit if you want to, or you can just settle and get straight to building.

Yeah we will have to see how it goes. I think now that leaders are separated and settlements start as towns, there actually could be a little bit of space for some pre-settlement gameplay, especially for nomadic/ancient leaders like Kupe who might be encouraged to "wander" a bit and engage with "pre-antiquity" gameplay a bit more as just a little bit of extra flavor.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Would be curious if that pre-game "7th era" will serve as a prelude part of three-era games. That way you don't have to re-roll every game you don't like, you can figure your settling first then select a civ that you prefer most for that map role. Would solve rerolls a lot.

Seeing your starting position and then selecting your Civ is something I started suggesting back in Civ V days - it would alleviate some of the start positions that are an abomination for the Civ you thought you were playing - like Civ VI Mali or Nubia without a desert tile within 8 tiles of the starting position, or a British or Norse start far, far away from any coast.

And one of the things that has always bothered me about Civ's start - and to only a slightly lesser extent, Humankind, ARA, and Millenia's starts - is that they all assume that nothing important happens before you found your first City. As @Zaarin pointed out, even Humankind's 'Neolithic start' didn't allow you to do more than wander the map, get a few points for a single faster Tech, and pick a Civ and found a city as soon as possible.

And since Civ VII starts you with a first unit specialized City Founder, I don't see much sign that it will be any different; especially since they seem to have designed the smaller Towns strictly as City-Feeders rather than potential Proto-Cities that could be started earlier.

 

[gdr_willter]

And since Civ VII starts you with a first unit specialized City Founder, I don't see much sign that it will be any different; especially since they seem to have designed the smaller Towns strictly as City-Feeders rather than potential Proto-Cities that could be started earlier.

As long as I know, the Founder unit establish the Capital and it starts as a City.

I heard that the map generator in Civ 7 will construct the civ-optimized starting area and then build the rest of the world.