Increasing Empire Identity

[Foulweather]

Keep your civilization ability. Add another one when you move into the next age. If you're playing with one ability, it guides your gameplay, incentivizing you to play a certain way. If the ability remains as a legacy tradition in the next age, you can continue playing that way, with that same strategy. So even if your civ is now Majapahit, if you're still playing with Treasures of Nineveh it'll still feel kind of Assyrian.

I played a game of Civ 6 recently and it struck me how much the music played into the feel of the game, how it's the same tune but it evolves over time and reflects the progress of your civ. Little things like that make a difference. The music in 7 is (mostly) good, but it doesn't build like 6 does.

Though at this point I think any change is going to be, at best, only a partial success as long as you can't start the game as America in antiquity or win a space race as ancient Egypt. For a lot of people that freedom to be anachronistic (freedom that's taken away by the ages) is a core part of the fun.

 

[McSpank01]

Interesting thread. Lots of ideas and suggestions to unscramble the omelet that is civ switching. IMHO there is no empire identity between eras in Civ7 whatsoever. The entire point of the age system and civ swapping in Civ7 is to trash the old civ identity to usher in a new one. The only identity that lasts through the ages is the leader identity. The best Civ7 can do is give strong empire identities in each era, but that would make civ switching more jarring and give people the feel they're playing three mini games.

I feel like those who think you don't keep your civ identity really overplay what you lose and underplay what you keep on civ transition. Remember, you keep all your Unique Quarters and buildings, you don't need to change any names of your cities, all the buildings you built stay the same, you keep a set of cultural traditions that you can use to plug in the next age. The stuff you lose is the unique civ ability you had previously.

You then cannot make any of your UU or UB from the previous age either.. but then in almost all cases in previous games you couldn't do that anyway, as they were almost always age specific.

So while I agree you could smooth the edges of age transitions, and the way you are presented with your new world is too abrupt, the developers have in fact attempted to let you keep lots of your old civ, and build on top of it.

 

[Monene]

I feel like those who think you don't keep your civ identity really overplay what you lose and underplay what you keep on civ transition.

It feels like you've failed and suddenly your entire culture or civilization has been wiped out and replaced by a new one occupying its ruins and to further humiliate you, they've appointed you leader.

 

[Monene]

and it makes more sense if the leader you chose has no connection to your new civilization, as if he were an opportunist (a role that suits leaders like Catherine II and Machiavelli who either had no connection to their people or never truly ruled).

 

[Patine]

1. Building graphics.
Buildings should have the graphics that they were built under.
-ie if (As Greeks) I take a Mayan city, the Monument and Granary should stay Mayan style
-if I build a Brickyard and a Library, they should be Greek style.

If I then become Ming, those buildings (and the filler buildings around them) should stay in the mesoamerican/mediterranean style.(Exploration version)

When the Monument and Library get overbuilt they would be in the Ming style (and so the filler buildings would change), but
-the Granary (and fillers around it) would stay mesoamerican style and the Brickyard (and fillers around it) would stay mediterranean style.

The first few times you repair a nonunique building under a different civs style, it should give you a narrative event to keep the style or update/assimilate it (one if it was a style of your previous civs, another if it was a style of a civ/previous civ you conquered)... this could lead to an option to replace all building styles with that of your current civ in settlements you did not conquer this age, (maybe even ones you did after the unrest is done)

Keeping buildings in the architectural style of the civilization that built them is directly tied to the game’s theme of “history built in layers.” It’s really frustrating that the entire architecture of your empire changes so abruptly with an era transition, and it’s also a major break in immersion. If the Maya built that library, then the library should retain Mayan architecture until it is eventually replaced by another building.

This is still so shocking to me, that I can't believe it wasn't a mistake? It feels like a major bug or an even larger oversight to me.

The thing is, how many modern cities are full of buildings in public use - or, at least, public use as they were built for - that are of the make and architecture of structures from Antiquity, and that remain standing, or at least, completely and functionally so?

 

[McSpank01]

It feels like you've failed and suddenly your entire culture or civilization has been wiped out and replaced by a new one occupying its ruins and to further humiliate you, they've appointed you leader.

Yes I think one issue is the narrative Firaxis have come up with for Civ Switching, which I think creates a few problems. Basically the game is telling you there is a crisis, your civ goes into ruin or basically loses relevance or goes to sleep, wakes up a few hundred years later with a new civilisation building on top. That is not really aligning to the core principle of a Civilisation built in layers. I think there is a contradiction at the heart of how Firaxis want to depict the changing nature of a civilisation over time, and the reality of how they have implemented it. Right now it really does feel like your Civ failed and you need to start with a new one it it's ruins.

Keep your civilization ability. Add another one when you move into the next age. If you're playing with one ability, it guides your gameplay, incentivizing you to play a certain way. If the ability remains as a legacy tradition in the next age, you can continue playing that way, with that same strategy. So even if your civ is now Majapahit, if you're still playing with Treasures of Nineveh it'll still feel kind of Assyrian.

I wouldn't be against this, though I think right now far too many Civ abilities are bland and non impactful. Very few truly change the way you approach the game or lead you into a different playstyle. Mostly they are just minor buffs here and there that you don't notice. If Civs truly had more flavour, you might notice them more in the next age if you keep that flavour.

 

[queenpea]

The thing is, how many modern cities are full of buildings in public use - or, at least, public use as they were built for - that are of the make and architecture of structures from Antiquity, and that remain standing, or at least, completely and functionally so?

This is true, but it feels like a feature of the “history is built in layers” design that was either poorly designed or implemented or forgotten about.

In the game, if your civilization starts as Maya, then goes Normans, then goes Qing, why is this not reflected in the architecture of all these tiny little buildings that we can now zoom in on? Why does everything look just Qing now?

Or, if Maya to France looks just the same as Greece to France, where did all of the layers go?

 

[Krikkit1]

The thing is, how many modern cities are full of buildings in public use - or, at least, public use as they were built for - that are of the make and architecture of structures from Antiquity, and that remain standing, or at least, completely and functionally so?

Well I think that works best for Unique buildings which are ageless…. Maybe City Halls would be another one that could maintain an Antiquity/Exploration architecture (with Events allowing updates)

Maybe they could bring back the Palace and have it represented on the map… Have your Palace be modular and each age you add or swap out a few modules.

 

[Xandinho]

The thing is, how many modern cities are full of buildings in public use - or, at least, public use as they were built for - that are of the make and architecture of structures from Antiquity, and that remain standing, or at least, completely and functionally so?

By the time you reach the Modern Age, most of the antiquity buildings would already have been replaced anyway. My point is that the architectural transformation of the empire needs to be gradual and noticeable to the player, so they can truly feel that they are going through a cultural transformation.

 

[Leucarum]

By the time you reach the Modern Age, most of the antiquity buildings would already have been replaced anyway. My point is that the architectural transformation of the empire needs to be gradual and noticeable to the player, so they can truly feel that they are going through a cultural transformation.

I've never noticed the architectural changes that much. As pretty as Civ7's graphics are, they are significantly less functional than Civ6. I kind of got used to not knowing what things are when I look at them and just rely on knowing what adjacencies are for things I want.

 

[queenpea]

I've never noticed the architectural changes that much. As pretty as Civ7's graphics are, they are significantly less functional than Civ6. I kind of got used to not knowing what things are when I look at them and just rely on knowing what adjacencies are for things I want.

I totally agree with you here, but I think that this further drives home the point. There is no real utility in knowing exactly what is going on in your city. The little buildings are just for the *vibes*. I just think that for the sake of "immersion" (understanding that this is subjective) why not reflect the different cultures that have contributed to your empire? What is the point otherwise?