Increasing Empire Identity

[Krikkit1]

Some ideas that could help increase player identity with their empire

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)



2. Prep for Civ Change/Legacies
When you first achieve gameplay unlock of a civ OR at some point during the age when your current/previous civ/leader unlocks a civ for the next age
You should get a quest Narrative event... Do X to receive a bonus towards the civ's unique civics if you choose them for the next age.

So if an Exploration civ settles 3 Tundra tiles OR (reaches X point in the game AND (has Catherine as a Leader OR is Bulgaria OR was Greece))
That triggers a Narrative Quest that lets you earn extra culture toward Russian unique civics if you choose them in the Modern Age. (say get 12 Homeland settlements, at least 6 of them in Tundra... or something like that)

The Narrative can then also explain how those new ideas are arising
This Narrative event would help explain Why the upcoming civ change would happen

Edit (from Leucarum's comment): Antiquity/Exploration civs should have Narrative events that happen in Exploration/Modern (see Shawnee)... perhaps triggered by taking an attribute point/slotting a Tradition from that previous civ.


3. Civ Name Control
When you actually change the civ and adopt new uniques in the new Age, you should get another Narrative event...
"we have adopted new ways***detail some of new ways here*** in this new age... some people are calling our new ways [Mongol], shall we

-adopt this name (lump sum culture to Mongol civics, use Mongol civ Name, Graphics, and Settlement List)
or
-hold true to our [Egyptian] traditions and identity (lump sum happiness toward next celebration-to slot those Traditions, use Egyptian civ Name, Graphics, and Settlement List)

Also let the player choose that name for their first Age as well (possibly even have an option where the AI will choose a name and stick with it... Ben Franklin can lead the American Legions in Antiquity, build American Motte and Baileys in Exploration, etc.)

4. City List
At certain points throughout the age, settlements whose name is not on the current City List (And haven't been custom named this age) will trigger Renaming Narrative events to either
-keep their name
or
-adopt one from the current City list.....

after a few of these you can get a universal Narrative Quests to
-honor original names
or
-standardize and integrate them.




ADVANCED OPTIONS
Allow the player to have a single civ all 3 ages.
Outside of the civs "Main Age", its Unique Civics and Traditions are based on their Attributes and the Age
So Antiquity America can get both Antiquity Economic Civics/Traditions and Antiquity Expansionist Civics/Traditions

 

[Siptah]

I hope we get an option during age transition to change names to either
a) keep old name (Rome)
b) change to new name (Spain)
c) use an automated combination (Ibero-Romans)
d) use a custom name (Japan)

And similarly, get the option to keep the graphic style or adopt a new one.

 

[Krikkit1]

I hope we get an option during age transition to change names to either
a) keep old name (Rome)
b) change to new name (Spain)
c) use an automated combination (Ibero-Romans)
d) use a custom name (Japan)

And similarly, get the option to keep the graphic style or adopt a new one.

That would be best... there might be a problem with C... especially since it would need a Lot of possible combos

I would generally keep the name and the graphic style linked, simpler for the programmers

For D it would Probably have to be from a list of Existing Civs ie Meiji (that way they don't have to have both Japan/Japanese and all its grammatical variations for other languages civ is in... you can use an existing asset. (and you would definitely need that for the graphics package/city list)

I could see custom or combined names giving a gold/science bonus in the new age (like old giving happiness and new giving culture)

 

[Leucarum]

1. I don't think graphics would help for a lot of people. I don't look hard enough at my buildings for it to make a difference. I am usually playing far too zoomed out to spot specific styles. Sorry graphics team, you did an amazing job.

2. I think it's just as important to have events after a civ switch relating to the previous civ. Shawnee have this if Firaxis want a template.

3-4. I don't think either of these would make a difference. If the abilities have changed from the civ you are enjoying then it is just amounting to a new coat of paint.

I don't think any choices Firaxis make on civ identity will matter unless switching is optional. Going backwards (playing civs from later eras) is likely a LOT of work. But we already have mods which let you carry over a civ from an earlier era, as well as showing how you can keep those civs with fresh gameplay (civic trees based on civ attributes). So carrying civs forward is definitely within the scope of possibility.

If Civ switching isn't optional, I can't see myself buying any more DLC. There are thread after thread of people giving mechanical/economic reasons why it is a bad mechanic... And I agree with them but identity is for me the big one. The civ I pick for me defines the identity for any given game. I plainly and simply hate being forced to change civ, and want to be able to guide one single civ through the course of the game. Maybe sometimes I would choose to switch, but I personally need the choice not to switch to be in there.

I don't want to drop off the bandwagon, Civ 7 has an amazing chassis, it just also has some features I cannot enjoy. With Civ switching being the number 1 culprit. I tried to keep an open mind, and they did do a better job than humankind. It is still a dumpster fire of a mechanic though.

 

[Xandinho]

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.

I believe that, in order to make the game’s narrative more coherent, crises should be far more impactful. This would create a stronger reason for a “civilization switch.” I don’t like the way crises work right now because they hardly matter, and in many cases they turn into tedious micromanagement—such as plagues, where I constantly have to move units around just to avoid being affected. Crises should represent a major turning point for the empire: the player should lose two or three settlements, starting the new era weakened and forced to reorganize. This would also make decisions in later eras much more meaningful.

 

[queenpea]

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.

 

[Haig]

I think that the whole thing at age change where game puts you back into loading screen with main menu music is also bad for immersion.

It feels too much like you are starting a new game with previous game's map seed.

I dont't know if it is mechanically possible to do on otherwise.

I also agree that player should be allowed to keep their civ at age change(and AI keep theirs).

 

[Krikkit1]

1. I don't think graphics would help for a lot of people. I don't look hard enough at my buildings for it to make a difference. I am usually playing far too zoomed out to spot specific styles. Sorry graphics team, you did an amazing job.

I agree the UI features of the city graphics should be made much more effective.

2. I think it's just as important to have events after a civ switch relating to the previous civ. Shawnee have this if Firaxis want a template.

Those would definitely help, however there is already material for all the Exploration and Modern civs in their gameplay unlocks... But adding that to the list.

I think that the whole thing at age change where game puts you back into loading screen with main menu music is also bad for immersion.

It feels too much like you are starting a new game with previous game's map seed.

I dont't know if it is mechanically possible to do on otherwise.

I think it is actually programmed like that.
Perhaps a bit more Narration in
-the 10 turn countdown
-whenever a Future Tech/Civic is researched
-at points in the Crisis
Could help... talking about changing situations, etc.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

From what I've heard so far, more distinct music per Civ is a Biggie too. The sounds associated with a Civ are a big and underappreciated part of what gives each Civ it's flavour.

plenty of copyright free music given the timeframes we are using so this doesn't feel like a difficult thing to stock up on. They could even reuse assets from previous Civ games as additional tracks to keep the sounds fresh and less repetitive.

 

[Kwami]

I believe that, in order to make the game’s narrative more coherent, crises should be far more impactful. This would create a stronger reason for a “civilization switch.” I don’t like the way crises work right now because they hardly matter, and in many cases they turn into tedious micromanagement—such as plagues, where I constantly have to move units around just to avoid being affected. Crises should represent a major turning point for the empire: the player should lose two or three settlements, starting the new era weakened and forced to reorganize. This would also make decisions in later eras much more meaningful.

Some players were mad about losing a few military units and some gold. Could you imagine the outrage if they lost settlements, too?

Back in the New Frontier Pass days, when the developers added the Dramatic Ages mode, they talked about how they considered having more severe consequences for dark ages, but ultimately dismissed the idea because players didn't like losing cities.

 

[Xur]

Even if Firaxis created a system that works better, the main problem remains. Civ7 is associated with “civ swapping” now and that alone is a giant marketing problem that can only be solved by removing it.

For many it will always be the “civ swapping” civ. Any improvement wont change that association and it remains a giant barrier to entry. I really do not see a path forward for the current design.

I doubt even optional civ swapping is enough to change the negative narrative surrounding the game. The narrative of civ swapping and predatory DLC model would likely remain. They need to amputate the problems at the root - bandages are not enough.

 

[Leucarum]

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.

I believe that, in order to make the game’s narrative more coherent, crises should be far more impactful. This would create a stronger reason for a “civilization switch.” I don’t like the way crises work right now because they hardly matter, and in many cases they turn into tedious micromanagement—such as plagues, where I constantly have to move units around just to avoid being affected. Crises should represent a major turning point for the empire: the player should lose two or three settlements, starting the new era weakened and forced to reorganize. This would also make decisions in later eras much more meaningful.

Some players were mad about losing a few military units and some gold. Could you imagine the outrage if they lost settlements, too?

Back in the New Frontier Pass days, when the developers added the Dramatic Ages mode, they talked about how they considered having more severe consequences for dark ages, but ultimately dismissed the idea because players didn't like losing cities.

Isn't this the core tension in Civ7? For the age system to work the player needs to knocked down, but it turns out too many players hate being knocked down. So they've had to backtrack on it, and that unravels Civ 7's core mechanic.

 

[Xandinho]

Some players were mad about losing a few military units and some gold. Could you imagine the outrage if they lost settlements, too?

Back in the New Frontier Pass days, when the developers added the Dramatic Ages mode, they talked about how they considered having more severe consequences for dark ages, but ultimately dismissed the idea because players didn't like losing cities.

Your point is valid, and it’s probably because players dislike losing things that crises weren’t made more impactful. Still, I maintain that, for the transition between civilizations to make narrative sense, there must be a true sense of collapse and rebirth. There has to be the feeling that Rome has fallen in order for Spain to emerge—that’s where political crises play a fundamental role in driving this major turning point. Lost cities would become independent peoples in the next era. In this way, Spain would simply be one of the many states that arose from the fall of Rome, alongside other nearby independent settlements. For players who don’t like losing things, there is the option to disable crises, or at least allow them to decide how impactful those crises should be.

Edit. Of course, crises would also depend on player management. If you knew how to manage a crisis, losses would be minimal or almost nonexistent.

 

[Kwami]

Your point is valid, and it’s probably because players dislike losing things that crises weren’t made more impactful. Still, I maintain that, for the transition between civilizations to make narrative sense, there must be a true sense of collapse and rebirth. There has to be the feeling that Rome has fallen in order for Spain to emerge—that’s where political crises play a fundamental role in driving this major turning point. Lost cities would become independent peoples in the next era. In this way, Spain would simply be one of the many states that arose from the fall of Rome, alongside other nearby independent settlements. For players who don’t like losing things, there is the option to disable crises, or at least allow them to decide how impactful those crises should be.

Edit. Of course, crises would also depend on player management. If you knew how to manage a crisis, losses would be minimal or almost nonexistent.

I don't disagree. I would also like to see crises mean more. I just don't think it's going to happen any time soon. Maybe as an optional mode later.

 

[Krikkit1]

I don't disagree. I would also like to see crises mean more. I just don't think it's going to happen any time soon. Maybe as an optional mode later.

I think Crises could matter more if they were a bigger part of the Legacies…

While the Crises do give you some options, they should be more specifically announced …
ie at 70- 80% you should see what “Quests” are available for this Crisis and the Legacy options you can get from them.

Also the Crisis chosen should only be semiRandom, with the not Random part based on gameplay stats that the player knows and can see. So at 10% or 35% or 60% Age completion I can see I have
25 points to Barb Crisis (17%)
35 points to Plague Crisis (23%)
and
90 points to Revolt Crisis (60%)
and I can see that establishing a Trade Route will increase the “Plague” by 1 Point.

 

[McSpank01]

I think one of the issues with Civ Switching and retaining the identity is the concept of ages, and essentially 'time jumps'.

It isn't so much that you are evolving your civ and building it up in layers, you are literally switching one out for the other mechanically. I still maintain that you manage to keep quite a lot of your previous civ in terms of buildings and traditions, but the change over is so abrupt that it just feels jarring.

Could it not be that the 'time jump' is less abrupt, and that when you jump to the next age, your units and buildings stay relatively similar, and become more and more updated as your advance in tech. So I might be in Antiquity as Rome, and have a number of Legions and Roman looking buildings. I transition to the next age, and I still have Legions and Roman buildings, but they are a bit decrepit and would need updating.

I would need to advance through the tech tree to upgrade my units and buildings. So I would upgrade my Legions to swordsmen manually, and then to man at arms. The upgrade could be more culturally appropriate to your new civ... or maybe not

On units, I do think that Firaxis should add many more generic options and more specialist, civ specific units. That would give you the option to go with generic or focus on the UU.

Updating buildings in your empire would change the look and feel of the housing in that tile, so it would go from Roman buildings to Norman for instance, just on that tile. That really would give you a feel of a civ built in layers. Maybe you could also spend hammers or gold to update older buildings to the new style, which would make them more efficient. True overbuilding.

Overall, I just think the sudden snap to a new age, where everything is swapped out is one of the big issues, it removes agency from the player and makes them think they are playing a different game. If we could smooth the edges of ages I think you could really improve the game

 

[Crashdummy]

3. Civ Name Control
When you actually change the civ and adopt new uniques in the new Age, you should get another Narrative event...
"we have adopted new ways***detail some of new ways here*** in this new age... some people are calling our new ways [Mongol], shall we

-adopt this name (lump sum culture to Mongol civics, use Mongol civ Name, Graphics, and Settlement List)
or
-hold true to our [Egyptian] traditions and identity (lump sum happiness toward next celebration-to slot those Traditions, use Egyptian civ Name, Graphics, and Settlement List)

Also let the player choose that name for their first Age as well (possibly even have an option where the AI will choose a name and stick with it... Ben Franklin can lead the American Legions in Antiquity, build American Motte and Baileys in Exploration, etc.)

I dont understand how there are still discussion about this. The problem isnt a naming issue, keeping the name is NOT keeping the Civ

I dont think any of the proposal changes would be meaningful to retain empire identity.

The solution is an option, before the game starts, that allows you to pick any civ from start and NEVER be given any option to cnange it, any time jump, etc

 

[GeneralZift]

I would like for governments to be more complex and interesting. Would add a lot of customisability to your empire and help flesh out the identity.
I made a mock-up idea for it in another thread where each government had their own unique ability to supplement their gameplay. That could be a fun idea.

 

[Kwami]

I dont understand how there are still discussion about this.

Eventually, you just have to accept that not everyone shares your opinions about everything.

 

[Crashdummy]

Eventually, you just have to accept that not everyone shares your opinions about everything.

Have anyone that says that they dont like civ switching proposed to solve it with just a name change?

I see this as this situation

* I have a blue Chevrolet Camaro
* Someone takes my Camaro and gives me a green Ford Mustang
* i tell them that i dont want to change my Camaro to a Mustang
* And they tell me that as a solution, they will give me a blue Mustang

The problem isnt the name itself, changing the name changes nothing, it doesnt solve the problem