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

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

"Building an empire/civilization to span the test of time" shouldn't be unfamiliar concept or phrase if you are a fan of the series.

Wouldn't say it was unfamiliar, just that it hadn't really registered as the tagline. If someone had held a gun to my head and asked me what the tagline of Civ was (before the switching stuff), I probably would have said "one more turn" myself.

I should point out that I enjoy the games but I'm not really a fanatic. I played 1 a bit, then 4 quite a lot, then 5 a bit, then 6 quite a lot. 2 and 3 I've only played once and only relatively recently.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Humankind failed miserably specifically because the only way to win the game is via score victory. Fame is AWFUL.

Secondly because playing the map was boring. Build a quarter, build a building, wait for enough influence to claim another territory, rince and repeat, clicking the end turn button. Combat can be tactical but who cares, I want it automatically resolved, so that it doesn't distract from the important tasks of building and maintaining an empire.

Also the draconian settlement limit, which means you'll never get to 10 cities by natural expansion, which is... one of my fave parts of Civ? It's not Civ I haven't settled at least 15 cities on the map and ideally many many more. :-//

The Civ Switching was an inconvenience because you could never buid to your heart's content before it became opportune to switch again, meaning you'd miss out on the previous emblematic quarters :-// But it was never the problem, beyond that it happened too often and left you with no impression of the Civs you previously chose.

Overall, yeah, HK had multiple problems, and the more I think about it, the more I prefer Millennia.

 

[King Flevance]

More to the point, I'm not sure that the current designers of the game should be constrained by one specific interpretation of one formulation of a 30 year old marketing slogan.

To be fair though, that was communal interpretation of that slogan that was more of a mission statement of the game itself. Every iteration has been about going from the stone age to modern day as a singular civilization. Technically, the new mechanics, that civilization is not standing the test of time. "Empires rise and fall" but leaders "stand the test of time" is more its mission statement. Which I am fine with personally but I understand why a fan of the series would hold this critique against the new system. It is a big change from the core concept of the series. My only concern is the generic "you can be the mongols if you find horses" mentality. I know that history is a bit airy in the Civ series but trying to emulate the intricate nature of empire reformation/conquest in such a seemingly haphazard way is pretty jarring. Not just for gameplay, but to the concept of this particular series.

I would rather they not, but am still somehow excited for Civ 7 despite this. I do worry it will be like districts in 6 though and ultimately disappoint me. There has always been talk of civs being able to break away and become a new nation as America did with England. Its funny for American stone age warriors to be at war with the Cherokee warriors. So while this new system seems wonky, so did the old system in terms of historical realism. However, I am hoping they have something in place where eventually the Cherokee evolve into America. So that the natural evolution of your empire you select is at least relatively consistent with the real world in some logical way. I don't know. I have to many questions and a lot of months to think about them. I mostly commented to lend some credibility to the series slogan and how perhaps it is something to adhere to in development of a beloved series that has survived on that slogan for 30 years. Sid Meier has certainly built a civilization that has stood the test of time.

P.S. I just saw that you joined this site a mere 4 days after I did. I would say that is crazy but it is also Civ 4's release date.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Could just recognize that "time" is a real jerk and getting anything to stand up to the tests of time is an achievement, even if you don't get everything in your civilization to survive, passing a legacy down of any kind is a victory. After all..."It's a shame she won't live. But then again, who does?"

 

[chaosprophet]

Could just recognize that "time" is a real jerk and getting anything to stand up to the tests of time is an achievement, even if you don't get everything in your civilization to survive, passing a legacy down of any kind is a victory. After all..."It's a shame she won't live. But then again, who does?"

And I think people may be focusing too much on the fact that you pick a different "civilization" each age, but you're still the same civilization/empire, the same group of people that changed culture through the ages because of things that happened. Which is something that happened in other games too, you get new techs and civics, the way your civilization looks changes, you may midway get into a war and end up losing a bit of territory, but surviving and later expanding.

So basically, in the end it is just a change of name, a different way to represent how your civ changes as time passes. I would venture a guess a reason they decide to make it so you have different civilizations for each age rather than be an civ with a full bonus and then pick generic evolution for each age, is that they prefer to have the possible bonuses you get in a age to have some historical flavor association rather than just generic options. So instead of starting as Civ X and picking on exploration a "Cavalry Military culture specialization" for you next age bonuses, you pick then in the form of a civilization like Mongolia for the association.

In a way, the crisis system makes the "stand the test of time" even more interesting now. With the exception of when you start a game and get unlucky to be near a very aggressive civ type, it is generally very easy to stand the test of time in civilization. It isn't easy to win, especially depending on difficulty, but to just survive until the later parts of the game isn't hard. Now the crisis will likely add a spice, something besides the end game victory that you will struggle to triumph over and really stand the est of time.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

At PAX just now, devs shared some examples of potential paths for civ switching:

Honestly, I feel like this is pretty interesting. The fact that you play as Maurya India that becomes Chola India, that becomes Mughal India, shows that you can play as the same nation", just evolving over the ages. And yeah, you can pick some ahistorical switches like Egypt to Songhai but that is the what if part of civ. But you can pick more historical switches too.

 

[Professor Phobo]

As they go on they can add even more switches, too, with the addition of more and more civilizations. Songhai feels like a stretch for Egypt but maybe it'll get swapped for something more appropriate down the line.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I do think that civ switching opens up a lot of new possibilities for the player in terms of strategies. It also opens up new possibilities for modders. So it is hard to see why the devs would not do this.

 

[GIO888]

Got to say this is more encouraging for me than when Civ-switching was first revealed.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Chola India, that becomes Mughal India, shows that you can play as the same nation

The Chola and the Mughals are not the same. They don't even overlap territorially to any significant extent.

By the way, it looks like they swapped the Chola and Mughal emblems

 

[Krikkit1]

The Chola and the Mughals are not the same. They don't even overlap territorially to any significant extent.

By the way, it looks like they swapped the Chola and Mughal emblems

Hopefully they will add additional Indian and Chinese civs so there can be multiple each era.

 

[pokiehl]

By the way, it looks like they swapped the Chola and Mughal emblems

They confirmed that was just a mix-up for the slides.

 

[Krajzen]

Honestly, I feel like this is pretty interesting. The fact that you play as Maurya India that becomes Chola India, that becomes Mughal India, shows that you can play as the same nation", just evolving over the ages. And yeah, you can pick some ahistorical switches like Egypt to Songhai but that is the what if part of civ. But you can pick more historical switches too.

This has been fairly obvious positive implication of the civ switching system from the very beginning iMO - a lot of people combined the new idea of switching civ with the old notion of there being only one essential "Egypt" or "China". But the system for me has always asked for the split of unitary civs into periods, dynasties and subcultures, so hopefully after some DLCs and mods you can go as cooler China than you ever had before, one which goes through three dynasties with different bonuses.

It is worth noting that, if I recall correctly, "Egypt" is called in fact "ancient Egypt" which makes me quite happy, as it implies the separate civilization of modern Egypt, so we may finally resolve the endless problem of Islamic Cairo-based Egypt never appearing in games like that due to its name already being taken by ancient Egypt always overshadowing it. You start as an ancient Egypt, then become some more or less accurate Islamic dynasty (Abbasids and Otomans both are technically historical, though I'd love to see Fatimids, Ayyubids or Mamluks), and then turn to the modern Egypt.

That being said, I still claim there definitely should be an option to retain old culture, just so a) You have an alternate history choice of your or AI modern Egypt not being culturally Arabized and Islamized and b) We can greatly simplify transitions if there is no sensible middle candidate.

 

[Zaarin]

The Chola and the Mughals are not the same. They don't even overlap territorially to any significant extent.

By the way, it looks like they swapped the Chola and Mughal emblems

I noted elsewhere that it's interesting--and I'm sure deliberate--that all three eras of India are ethnically distinct: Aryan Maurya, Dravidian Chola, and Perso-Turkic Mughal.

It is worth noting that, if I recall correctly, "Egypt" is called in fact "ancient Egypt" which makes me quite happy, as it implies the separate civilization of modern Egypt

Modern Egypt and Turkey are probably the most logical choices for the modern Middle East. Still sad that Egyptians inevitably become Arabs, but I don't have a better solution.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Mughals as a Modern age civ is such a weird concept. I'm still trying to wrap my head round it

 

[Civ5Play]

Got to say this is more encouraging for me than when Civ-switching was first revealed.

I don't agree, for me personally.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Same. I only see 3 real possibilities for a 1700-2020 AD India:

1. Mughal, which starts its strong decline shortly after this period starts, but at its peak covered most of India and has very strong modern name recognition and a distinct identity. It could also be unlocked from the Mongols (if one squints at the history sideways enough), making for interesting connections.
2. British Raj, which covered all of India (and more, depending on how one defines India), and had hegemonic control for about 2/3 of the period in question. But it is, obviously, completely unacceptable to a modern audience to have a core representation of India be one where it is under a foreign Imperial yoke. And while the Mughal are somewhat foreign to India, the British are obviously far more so.
3. Republic of India, covers all of India (if we don't consider Pakistan and Bangladesh as part of India civilization) but only for the last ~80 years. Hence not only is it rather brief coverage but it also means that any way its presented risks being political. The game has traditionally had very few post WW2 leaders when they could be avoided.

So looking at the list, I can see why they went for 1. It doesn't fit the timeline particularly well, but it does tick all the other boxes perfectly.

Also retains the potential for the Republic of India to be an Era 4 civilization if that's planned for a future expansion.

I see a number of reasons to think that most modern nations are going to be skipped in order to preserve a potential Era 4 in the future. The main impediment is the USA, which needs to be in the base game for sales reasons. Unless - and this is pure speculation on my part - unless the Modern Era civ in the base game is "Colonial America" or "The 13 Colonies". Or they retrofit it to Colonial America when they release an Era 4 expansion.

 

[pokiehl]

Also retains the potential for the Republic of India to be an Era 4 civilization if that's planned for a future expansion.

I see a number of reasons to think that most modern nations are going to be skipped in order to preserve a potential Era 4 in the future. The main impediment is the USA, which needs to be in the base game for sales reasons. Unless - and this is pure speculation on my part - unless the Modern Era civ in the base game is "Colonial America" or "The 13 Colonies". Or they retrofit it to Colonial America when they release an Era 4 expansion.

I don’t know think I agree with the need for a new era to support America or any other modern country.

After all, in the Antiquity age, Ancient Egypt and Rome are separated by thousands of years but still fit together fine. America and sit next to the Mughals in the modern age no problem.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I don’t know think I agree with the need for a new era to support America or any other modern country.

After all, in the Antiquity age, Ancient Egypt and Rome are separated by thousands of years but still fit together fine. America and sit next to the Mughals in the modern age no problem.

They can. I agree that Era 4 isn't needed and that all current nations could be candidates for Era 3. I also wouldn't be surprised to see a post-modern Era 4 be the first expansion.

 

[FishFishFish]

Same. I only see 3 real possibilities for a 1700-2020 AD India:

1. Mughal, which starts its strong decline shortly after this period starts, but at its peak covered most of India and has very strong modern name recognition and a distinct identity. It could also be unlocked from the Mongols (if one squints at the history sideways enough), making for interesting connections.
2. British Raj, which covered all of India (and more, depending on how one defines India), and had hegemonic control for about 2/3 of the period in question. But it is, obviously, completely unacceptable to a modern audience to have a core representation of India be one where it is under a foreign Imperial yoke. And while the Mughal are somewhat foreign to India, the British are obviously far more so.
3. Republic of India, covers all of India (if we don't consider Pakistan and Bangladesh as part of India civilization) but only for the last ~80 years. Hence not only is it rather brief coverage but it also means that any way its presented risks being political. The game has traditionally had very few post WW2 leaders when they could be avoided.

So looking at the list, I can see why they went for 1. It doesn't fit the timeline particularly well, but it does tick all the other boxes perfectly.

The 4th option would be the Maratha.