I'm clicking the "retire" button on Civ VII

[TylertheDestroyer]

I guess the way I imagine it is your 'leader' is just some generic character that you can customise the look of, and is really there as just a visualisation of the player. The leader doesn't 'do' anything and brings nothing to the way you play. It's just a way to make it easier to recognise people. There wouldn't be any need for any writing, because it's just an avatar.

Yeah I'm going to agree with everyone else who says "no thanks leave the customizable and unrecognizable avatars to Humankind"

Leaders should be historical leaders related to the Civ's they represent. No great scientist for leaders, no Lovelace or Battuta leading the Greeks. Just good old traditional and recognizable political leaders representing the nations and people they historically lead

 

[McSpank01]

Yeah I'm going to agree with everyone else who says "no thanks leave the customizable and unrecognizable avatars to Humankind"

Leaders should be historical leaders related to the Civ's they represent. No great scientist for leaders, no Lovelace or Battuta leading the Greeks. Just good old traditional and recognizable political leaders representing the nations and people they historically lead

Each to their own. Personally I find the weird mismatch of leaders far more egregious than civ switching. Civ switching at least makes some sort of historic sense, leaders in civ 7 are nonsense. I’d rather just do away with them.

 

[Leucarum]

Each to their own. Personally I find the weird mismatch of leaders far more egregious than civ switching. Civ switching at least makes some sort of historic sense, leaders in civ 7 are nonsense. I’d rather just do away with them.

I'm defintely the other way around. I love leader mixing but dislike civ switching. I guess I identify with a civ more often than a leader, so I just view the mixing as a fun gameplay customization.

 

[Wrenched]

Whether you accept civ switching or not is entirely subjective, I don't understand why discuss it so much.

Probably because the two commercial releases that tried variations of civ switching were met with tepid reception to date. Seems worth discussing/investigating.

 

[Leucarum]

Probably because the two commercial releases that tried variations of civ switching were met with tepid reception to date. Seems worth discussing/investigating.

I mostly agree... Paradox games also have a lot of civ switching, which has been well recieved, but they do it in a more limited (if more organic) way.

I'd say that between Humankind and Civ7, Civ switching as a forced deliniation betwren eras is going to look like a very dicey proposition for any future game designers. I think that's a good thing, but the concept of having your Civ evolve through eras is still one worth pursuing.

 

[Hannibal XIII]

There's some very weird ways the choice of leaders this time around has come.

Its like half actual leaders and half great ppl the devs found interesting.

Sure Tubman and Franklin and Ibn Battuta and Machiavelli are better than galaxy-brained nonsense like Kristina of Sweden, but they aren't national-level leaders either

 

[stealth_nsk]

Probably because the two commercial releases that tried variations of civ switching were met with tepid reception to date. Seems worth discussing/investigating.

That's a different question. Most discussions here were whether Civ7 is still a civ game or not and that discussion was pretty much pointless and subjective.

If the question is whether having civ switching affects the game in a bad way, two examples are far too few. Also, civ switching was in one of the most popular Civ4 mods.

However, logically it's pretty clear that civ switching has some negative effect. If we have people who associate themselves with civs and people who associate themselves with leaders, removing one staple clearly would alienate some players (although everything I've seen tells me it's not a significant percentage). So, better question would be whether positive effects from civ switching overcome this negativity in this particular case.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

That's a different question. Most discussions here were whether Civ7 is still a civ game or not and that discussion was pretty much pointless and subjective.

If the question is whether having civ switching affects the game in a bad way, two examples are far too few. Also, civ switching was in one of the most popular Civ4 mods.

However, logically it's pretty clear that civ switching has some negative effect. If we have people who associate themselves with civs and people who associate themselves with leaders, removing one staple clearly would alienate some players (although everything I've seen tells me it's not a significant percentage). So, better question would be whether positive effects from civ switching overcome this negativity in this particular case.

The "civ switching" in Civ 4 (I'm assuming you're talking about Rhye's) worked NOTHING like it does in Civilization VII and it was a mod for a reason. Most players do not play with overhaul mods.

Also are we still operating under this completely unfounded notion that everything is great in the land of Firaxis and Civ VII? The game has less players currently than Civ V and sold less than its immediate predessecor. The discussion about whether Civ 7 is a civ game was not pointless as evidenced by how badly this game has flopped.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The "civ switching" in Civ 4 (I'm assuming you're talking about Rhye's) worked NOTHING like it does in Civilization VII

And civ switching in HK works nothing like in Civ7. If we try to judge civ switching as a general concept and HK fits, mods fit as well

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

And civ switching in HK works nothing like in Civ7. If we try to judge civ switching as a general concept and HK fits, mods fit as well

The swapping in this game works much more similar and comparabe to HK than it does to Rhye's though

Sure we can compare this game to a popular historical mod that most IV players didn't play but anyone who has experienced both will tell you that Rhye's has nothing in common with Ada Lovelace leading the Eygptians who become Zulus. Anybody looking for a historical experience found in a mod like Rhye's and Fall with real life start location and date scriped events to force game overs to Civilization to have them swap to their historical successors is not going to find that level of attention and history in Civilization VII. Anyone looking for that kind of experience still will have just moved on to Paradox grand strategy games, which do an infinitely better job abstracting history than 4X games like Civ.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I mostly agree... Paradox games also have a lot of civ switching, which has been well recieved, but they do it in a more limited (if more organic) way.

I'd say that between Humankind and Civ7, Civ switching as a forced deliniation betwren eras is going to look like a very dicey proposition for any future game designers. I think that's a good thing, but the concept of having your Civ evolve through eras is still one worth pursuing.

I mean we kinda had that already, with Civ6 allowing you to unlock various policy cards as you progress through the tech/culture trees and mix and match them. Civ5 had the policies, etc

The "civ switching" in Civ 4 (I'm assuming you're talking about Rhye's) worked NOTHING like it does in Civilization VII and it was a mod for a reason. Most players do not play with overhaul mods.

Also are we still operating under this completely unfounded notion that everything is great in the land of Firaxis and Civ VII? The game has less players currently than Civ V and sold less than its immediate predessecor. The discussion about whether Civ 7 is a civ game was not pointless as evidenced by how badly this game has flopped.

If it worked like Rhyes And Fall about 85% of the objections would be gone. That mod was hella fun.

 

[Leucarum]

I mean we kinda had that already, with Civ6 allowing you to unlock various policy cards as you progress through the tech/culture trees and mix and match them. Civ5 had the policies, etc

Government evolution sure... Civ5 came closest with the policy trees I guess. But probably Milennia is the 4x game so far which came closest to civ evolution without civ switching with National Spirits. But... Milennia had many, many, many other problems preventing it from succeeding.

 

[vorlon_mi]

In both Civ4 and Civ6, it was possible to have multiple leaders for a particular civ. In the BASE GAME (plus Explansions). For example, one could choose either Napoleon or Louis XIV to lead France in Civ4. No mods required. As noted above, one could either Gorgo or Pericles to lead Greece in Civ6. No mods required. Many of the later Civ6 DLC included personas for existing leaders, e.g., Yongle, Wu Zeitan, and multiple Qin to lead China.

The concept of multiple leaders is not new. Those leaders were linked to particular civs and stayed through the whole game; they might differ between games. It would even be possible (by selecting opponents) to have Wu and Qin in the *same game*, but consistent through the whole game.

Civ7 took that flexibility -- both leaders and personas -- and amplified it in a way that many people disliked and continue to disagree with. For many people in this thread, it's a bridge too far. I like it, but I'm in the minority. It's a new game, it's a different take on building an empire, and I like it. In my current game, my empire led by Ada Lovelace is dominant. I began with Mayan strengths, grew with Abbasid strengths, and am reaching victory with British resolve. My empire is not one thing, but a glorious combination of three things. I enjoy it while recognizing that many here do not.

I'm not going to convince people like @TylertheDestroyer to share my views; I'm not really going to try.
I do recognize the dismal player numbers, concluding that for many people, this new approach doesn't work or isn't attractive.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The swapping in this game works much more similar and comparabe to HK than it does to Rhye's though

That's not was I was talking about.

The message I was replying to was implying that there's some pattern in games failed due to having civ switching. I replied that 2 is not enough for pattern and there are other examples like Rhye. Nothing else.

Comparing how much was implementations are similar to each other is a large topic, which I'm not really interested in digging. And it's quite unrelated to the point I was replying to.

 

[Kev1916]

“In both Civ4 and Civ6, it was possible to have multiple leaders for a particular civ.
The concept of multiple leaders is not new”

When people say “Multiple” they actually mean two !

“Civ” 7 multiple is well many , as many as 2K could or can pump out.

Having two leaders of Rome is not the issue and really the comparison to say

Robert the Bruce of the Egyptian empire fighting Will Shakespeare of the Zulu is not in the same ball park.

 

[Gorbles]

You're not going to get all the people against civ swapping and ages to simply "change their perspective" into accepting Abbasids becoming Buganda, Harriet Tubman leading the Greeks, and the three mini-games in a trench coat masquarading as a Civ game.

I agree.

I don't think Firaxis should, ultimately.

I think Firaxis should continue to give what options they can r.e. advanced game settings, and I think they should continue to invest in UI improvements and better UX throughout. This includes better narrative cohesion during Age transitions.

But I don't think they should go further than that. I'd certainly start enjoying the game less if they did.

Robert the Bruce of the Egyptian empire fighting Will Shakespeare of the Zulu is not in the same ball park.

Which only matters if you care about the leaders. Not everyone does. Tyler doesn't, for example.

Firaxis have their work cut out for them in terms of gathering all these surface-level-similar-but-actually-different opinions into actionable feedback (beyond "make a new game", naturally).

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

In both Civ4 and Civ6, it was possible to have multiple leaders for a particular civ. In the BASE GAME (plus Explansions). For example, one could choose either Napoleon or Louis XIV to lead France in Civ4. No mods required. As noted above, one could either Gorgo or Pericles to lead Greece in Civ6. No mods required. Many of the later Civ6 DLC included personas for existing leaders, e.g., Yongle, Wu Zeitan, and multiple Qin to lead China.

The concept of multiple leaders is not new. Those leaders were linked to particular civs and stayed through the whole game; they might differ between games. It would even be possible (by selecting opponents) to have Wu and Qin in the *same game*, but consistent through the whole game.

Civ7 took that flexibility -- both leaders and personas -- and amplified it in a way that many people disliked and continue to disagree with. For many people in this thread, it's a bridge too far. I like it, but I'm in the minority. It's a new game, it's a different take on building an empire, and I like it. In my current game, my empire led by Ada Lovelace is dominant. I began with Mayan strengths, grew with Abbasid strengths, and am reaching victory with British resolve. My empire is not one thing, but a glorious combination of three things. I enjoy it while recognizing that many here do not.

The problem isn't having multiple leaders per civ. Nobody had a problem with having a choice between which historical leader/flavor you wanted for your Civilization. The problem is entirely with having detached B and C tier Great People as leaders and the completely ungrounded mix and match from detaching them from their historical civilizations.

That's not was I was talking about.

The message I was replying to was implying that there's some pattern in games failed due to having civ switching. I replied that 2 is not enough for pattern and there are other examples like Rhye. Nothing else.

Comparing how much was implementations are similar to each other is a large topic, which I'm not really interested in digging. And it's quite unrelated to the point I was replying to.

Pointing to Rhye's as a civ swapping as success makes no sense though because Rhye's was never sold as a standalone commercial product. Again we're talking about a popular mod for Civ IV, which plays nothing like Civ VII and which most people who owned IV didn't play regularly... why are you bringing up a mod in a discussion that was explicitely about civ swapping flopping commercially.

Which only matters if you care about the leaders. Not everyone does. Tyler doesn't, for example.

Firaxis have their work cut out for them in terms of gathering all these surface-level-similar-but-actually-different opinions into actionable feedback (beyond "make a new game", naturally).

If I just got done saying that I think the game should have recognizable and traditional heads of state that lead their historical nations/peoples as leaders what makes you think I don't care about leaders....?

 

[Gorbles]

If I just got done saying that I think the game should have recognizable and traditional heads of state that lead their historical nations/peoples as leaders what makes you think I don't care about leaders....?

Sorry, I must've misinterpreted you saying the game was called "Civilisation and not Leaders", and that you don't identify with the leader at all.

I don't understand how / why the leader then matters in that instance, but my lack of understanding there doesn't really matter.

I've always identified with the leaders in Civ myself. Nor have I really ever played Civilisation to emulate history. Playing Ramesses all the way through to a spacecraft launch in Civ 1 sufficiently breaks my own historical immersion. As does seeing Abe Lincoln lead of a tribe of "Americans" in 5,000 BC does. For me, history in layers in an actual improvement, even with the anachronistic choices (that you don't have to pick).

All this does, to me, is reinforce my point about it being difficult for Firaxis to turn this into actionable feedback. Again, short of "make an entirely different game".

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I've always identified with the leaders in Civ myself. Nor have I really ever played Civilisation to emulate history. Playing Ramesses all the way through to a spacecraft launch in Civ 1 sufficiently breaks my own historical immersion. As does seeing Abe Lincoln lead of a tribe of "Americans" in 5,000 BC does. For me, history in layers in an actual improvement, even with the anachronistic choices (that you don't have to pick).

And I think that statement there lies into the fact of what constitutes what a Civilization game really is to some people. For the past 6 iterations that has always been the case, so everybody was able to suspend "historical immersion" to allow Abe Lincoln leading America starting from 4,000 BC or allow Ancient Egypt to reach the moon. In Civ 7 they can't fully do that, even if it's more historically accurate.

 

[Civinator]

Playing Ramesses all the way through to a spacecraft launch in Civ 1 sufficiently breaks my own historical immersion.

Therefore an evolution of the leaders as it is possible with Civ 3 and the mods CCM 3 and C3X is a much better solution: You start with Ramesses II in era 1 and have Nasser in era 4.