I think I'm coming around on this civ switching implementation, but it depends

[Thormodr]

In the gameplay showcase, Ed Beach or one of the other developers say something to the effect of "your empire adapts by choosing a new civilization"

Sounds weird.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Sounds weird.

In Humankind it's "your empire adopts a new culture"

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

In the gameplay showcase, Ed Beach or one of the other developers say something to the effect of "your empire adapts by choosing a new civilization"

Thanks to @The_J's transcription:

In every Civilization game your empire is always represented by a single civilization. You play through the entire span of history as one civilization. This time around, we want to take you onto a new journey. For the first time ever, in Civ7, the story of your empire is not that of a single civ, but several, connected through time. At the dawn of each new age of human advancement, you'll select a new civ to represent your empire.

 

[GIO888]

It's depressing how many times the word "Humankind" pops up in debates about civ-changing Ages.

It's the reason I stopped playing Humankind.

 

[shaglio]

The thing about civ switching (and I'm sure someone, somewhere had already mentioned this in the 35 billion posts that have been made in the last week), is that Civilization has never really been a game of "historical accuracy" but, rather, a game of "historical what-if?" Unless you choose a TSL earth map, then you're just playing a civ on a random world. So what if the Egyptians arose in an area of that world that had a high abundance of horses. Maybe they would have developed into a horse-based culture and progressed more along the lines of how Mongolia did in our planet's history.

At least I assume that's how Egypt switching to Mongolia was determined in that screen shot. As they reached the end of the Antiquity Era, the game realized that they were growing akin to the Mongolian culture and decided to offer that as one of the options to switch to heading into the next era.

 

[Thormodr]

It's depressing how many times the word "Humankind" pops up in debates about civ-changing Ages.

It's the reason I stopped playing Humankind.

Me too.

 

[chaosprophet]

The thing about civ switching (and I'm sure someone, somewhere had already mentioned this in the 35 billion posts that have been made in the last week), is that Civilization has never really been a game of "historical accuracy" but, rather, a game of "historical what-if?" Unless you choose a TSL earth map, then you're just playing a civ on a random world. So what if the Egyptians arose in an area of that world that had a high abundance of horses. Maybe they would have developed into a horse-based culture and progressed more along the lines of how Mongolia did in our planet's history.

At least I assume that's how Egypt switching to Mongolia was determined in that screen shot. As they reached the end of the Antiquity Era, the game realized that they were growing akin to the Mongolian culture and decided to offer that as one of the options to switch to heading into the next era.

Yeah, I personally would wish it was even more open, as in depending of your actions during an era you could possibly advance to any civilization of the next era, and then have an option where it locks players or at least the AI to only one more historical sense option for each civ for those people who would be bothered by that. I prefer that as it opens more gameplay option, ways to mix different bonuses, more ways to have playthroughts be different from each other.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The thing about civ switching (and I'm sure someone, somewhere had already mentioned this in the 35 billion posts that have been made in the last week), is that Civilization has never really been a game of "historical accuracy" but, rather, a game of "historical what-if?" Unless you choose a TSL earth map, then you're just playing a civ on a random world. So what if the Egyptians arose in an area of that world that had a high abundance of horses. Maybe they would have developed into a horse-based culture and progressed more along the lines of how Mongolia did in our planet's history.

Most of us that are against, or feel iffy, on the civ switching understand the game as a "historical what-if". What I don't like is the new game telling me I can't do as many "historical what-ifs" anymore as far as letting Rome build a spacecraft to meet their God of War planet, or have Washington founded in 4000 B.C. by Abraham Lincon.
Mandatory civ switching kills that idea.

 

[Zaarin]

Yeah, I personally would wish it was even more open, as in depending of your actions during an era you could possibly advance to any civilization of the next era, and then have an option where it locks players or at least the AI to only one more historical sense option for each civ for those people who would be bothered by that. I prefer that as it opens more gameplay option, ways to mix different bonuses, more ways to have playthroughts be different from each other.

That's my understanding of what we're getting: civs are unlocked by your leader, your past civs, and the actions you take in the game, but the AI will take the "most historic" choice.

 

[Olleus]

Most of us that are against, or feel iffy, on the civ switching understand the game as a "historical what-if". What I don't like is the new game telling me I can't do as many "historical what-ifs" anymore as far as letting Rome build a spacecraft to meet their God of War planet, or have Washington founded in 4000 B.C. by Abraham Lincon.
Mandatory civ switching kills that idea.

That's definitely true, and very well put. And I can see why people think of that as a loss - I do too to an extent.

It's worth considering that this sort of loss came in as soon as civ specific attributes came in. In Civ2, you could conquer the world as France using legions. In Civ3 that idea was killed - only Rome could conquer with legions, everyone else had to make do with swordsmen. In Civ7 this effect is magnified because the fictional civilization you create by playing a game doesn't draw its uniqueness from a single historical civilization, but from 3 different ones. In, effect, you're trading the what-if "Rome builds a spacecraft" to the what-if "Rome adapted the mass use of Mongol-like horse archers to combat the rise of Islam, changing the whole character of their civilization (and its name) in the process" I think that many people are mourning the loss of the former, and some are mourning it so much that they're not seeing the birth of the latter. Which is natural and, frankly, unavoidable - we always think more about what we're familiar with than the unknown.

Fundamentally, it's a trade off between (1) having lots of "what-if's" where everyone can do anything in any playthrough and (2) unique traits that limit what the player can do as a specific civilization/leader. The former arguably gives the player more freedom in a single playthrough, but the latter more replayability (and so more freedom) between multiple playthroughs. It's just that some of the possibilities were moved from the game itself to the "meta" part of the game (aka, everything on the new game screen) in the transition to Civ3 and now, paradoxically, being partially moved back to the core part of the game.


The one constant through out the history of the franchise is a steady movement from prioritising (1) to (2). Hopefully they'll stop at some point or, in Civilization 4784, we'll have 20,000 playable civs all strictly railroaded into one narrow playstyle for a specific period of history. Some people clearly find it problematic earlier (ie, now). I can't remember, where there complaints with the release of Civ3 that specialising civs towards certain paths (and UU) removed role-playing ability?

 

[Professor Phobo]

Oh yeah, that was one of the most controversial aspects of Civilization 3. Ton of concerns about how it would degrade the sandbox or ruin the balance.

Honestly a lot of those concerns were vindicated - people just like unique civs more than they want symmetrical starting conditions. Almost any system in a strategy game has a trade off of some kind to the design virtues.

I've always wondered if it'd be possible to design a Civ game where every civ is purely or mostly a cosmetic choice, and civilization traits are purchased via culture points/drafting mechanics/some in-game system and you gradually customize your unique civ as you go. I can see the main issue being legibility - I don't want to have to check some detailed civ bio just to find out China bought the ability to recruit Legions. But I've always been more into the alternate history element than I have been the historical touchstones.

 

[Olleus]

I've always wondered if it'd be possible to design a Civ game where every civ is purely or mostly a cosmetic choice, and civilization traits are purchased via culture points/drafting mechanics/some in-game system and you gradually customize your unique civ as you go. I can see the main issue being legibility - I don't want to have to check some detailed civ bio just to find out China bought the ability to recruit Legions. But I've always been more into the alternate history element than I have been the historical touchstones.

It's definitely possible to design a game like that (I mean, Civ I & II did it). It should even possible as an (ambitious) mod for past versions of Civ by, for example, hijacking the religion system. Or by having each special ability tied to a wonder. The leader upgrade system of Civ7 might even make that easier to mod in.

The fact that, AFAIK, nobody made such a mod suggests that demand for it is not super high.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It's worth considering that this sort of loss came in as soon as civ specific attributes came in. In Civ2, you could conquer the world as France using legions. In Civ3 that idea was killed - only Rome could conquer with legions, everyone else had to make do with swordsmen.

I'm pretty young so I had no idea that could happen, as far as France using legions.
Ironically Civ 6 brought that back to an extent. At least with the "Barbarians Clans" game mode there was the potential for every clan to be assigned a UU from a civ that wasn't currently in the game. You could then pay gold to hire that UU and use them. Those UU would still stick around even if that clan turned into a city-state, as long as the era was still appropriate, and they had not unlocked the upgraded form of the unit.

 

[Siptah]

Oh yeah, that was one of the most controversial aspects of Civilization 3. Ton of concerns about how it would degrade the sandbox or ruin the balance.

Honestly a lot of those concerns were vindicated - people just like unique civs more than they want symmetrical starting conditions. Almost any system in a strategy game has a trade off of some kind to the design virtues.

I've always wondered if it'd be possible to design a Civ game where every civ is purely or mostly a cosmetic choice, and civilization traits are purchased via culture points/drafting mechanics/some in-game system and you gradually customize your unique civ as you go. I can see the main issue being legibility - I don't want to have to check some detailed civ bio just to find out China bought the ability to recruit Legions. But I've always been more into the alternate history element than I have been the historical touchstones.

Millennia has this. It‘s a lot of fun to try things out - but as far as I know (only played 3 games I think), it‘s horribly out of balance.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Millennia has this. It‘s a lot of fun to try things out - but as far as I know (only played 3 games I think), it‘s horribly out of balance.

Yeah that's the other problem with asymmetry in a strategy game; it's a nightmare to keep balanced.

 

[Siptah]

With the civ combination possibilities, leader attributes, golden ages, legacy points and detailed army commanders, I‘d say civ 7 will always have some unbalanced options. I hope they‘ll get the most OP stuff sorted quickly, but I doubt we‘ll ever get anywhere near „good balance“

 

[Arent11]

In the gameplay showcase, Ed Beach or one of the other developers say something to the effect of "your empire adapts by choosing a new civilization"

Sounds like middle age noble houses that conquer/marry to rule over various serfs & lands.

 

[Olleus]

With the civ combination possibilities, leader attributes, golden ages, legacy points and detailed army commanders, I‘d say civ 7 will always have some unbalanced options. I hope they‘ll get the most OP stuff sorted quickly, but I doubt we‘ll ever get anywhere near „good balance“

I'm actually hoping that there will be lots and lots of synergies between those that will be OP, just OP in drastically different ways! There always an OP path (ideally many of them) available is it's own kind of balance and, even if not as perfectly "fair" as a game that achieves perfect balance through uniformity, it sounds a lot more interesting and fun.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

First of all, I don't want to paint an inaccurate picure: I'm not against the evolution of one civilization into another from a conceptual standpoint. My gripe has been with the example they showed in the big gameplay reveal -- Egypt becoming Mongolia -- and how that demonstrated to me a lack of plausability in terms of which civilizations can become which. I just don't find it within the realm of imagination that simply because Egypt could become societally dependent upon horses that they would have become Mongolia. Mongolia is culturally a lot more than horses, geographically nowhere close to Egypt, spoke a completely unrelated language to ancient Egyptian, and didn't ascend from any remotely similar tribes.

However, I think something is confusing all the conversation on this, and that's one word: "Civilization".

When you transition into a new age, who is transitioning? I don't think we really know yet. We know that a crisis brings your civilization to its knees. My interpretation of this is:

1) Government and authority break down
2) Many people die, perhaps whole people groups
3) Cultural skills and talents are lost to time

Taking the Mongolia example, if we imagine that a tribe of people prospers among the chaos that saw Egypt collapse, a new one could arise. If you imagine that the people called "Mongolians" come from a tribe of people who lived among the Egyptians, and shared some of their culture, but also had some of their own, this is quite believable. The word "Mongolians" is a bit confusing because I associate it with "people from Asia", but in this context it could simply mean "steppe nomads famed for their horsemanship and skill at warfare", geography be damned.

As far as language goes, we simply imagine that the new Mongol civilization speaks either Egyptian, or their own Mesopotamian language. It could be called Mongolian, but it wouldn't be historical Mongolian.

As far as physical appearance goes, this is where things could get weird. If the people of my first civilization have a North African appearance, then it wouldn't make sense for my second civ to suddenly be red and blonde headed people who look Norse. I'm curious how they will handle this. I suppose you could blame this on Sea Peoples, but what about other crises?

As far as architecture goes, it's quite feasible that the new civilization will have a new architecture. Where this could get weird would be to see, for example, Asian architecture arise in Egypt due to the Mongolians, and then the exact same Asian architecture arise on the other side of the world due to (for example) the rise of Korea. I guess we could say aliens...

So my question really is: how much are we evolving "a civilization", and how much are we starting over with a new civ that has some influences from the past; a different, dead civilization? I think there are ways to imagine these kinds of scenarios plausibly, but it's going to depend on how they portray it.

Regardless of whether it's plausible, and regardless of whether it ends up being fun, it all leads me to some interesting, fundamental questions, though.

Are we really building an empire (or civilization) to stand the test of time, if the first two will always fail in crisis?

Is the game Civilization, or Civilizations?

Just my personal head canon, but I like to think of civ-switching as more about your civ's culture evolving than actually changing your civilization itself. So I don't think of it as Egypt becoming Mongolia but rather your empire started with an Egyptian-like culture and that culture has evolved into a Mongol-like culture. Like you said, if we think of the Mongols as "steppe nomads famed for their horsemanship and skill at warfare" then we can think of your Egyptian empire focusing on horse units and warfare as gaining a Mongol-like cultural trait, hence, why you switch to the Mongol "civilization". Civ switching is just the game's abstract way of representing that cultural shift.

Remember too that civ is just a game. A lot of things will be simplified for the sake of gameplay. Also, civ has always been about crafting your own make believe history, it has never been a realistic history simulator. After all, playing as Franklin Roosevelt leading the Americans from 4000 BC to 2000 AD on a random map, with your neighbors being Cleopatra of Egypt, Queen Elizabeth I of England and Shaka of the Zulus, was never historically accurate either. So I think we should cut the game some slack if it does not portray the Mongolian civilization perfectly or does not simulate how empires evolve culturally in a perfectly historically accurate way.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Yeah, ultimately it's a way of granting the player era-specific civilization traits that can be balanced accordingly and still have that package of traits be connected to a memorable keyword so players can learn who has what.