Increasing Empire Identity

[GeneralZift]

Practical Solutions:

- Let the player take their Civilization into the next era with some kind of power Legacy bonus. Like Romans would be Romans+ in Exploration, but in return you miss out on more Era relevant bonuses.
This should be the default unlocked choice and then you must unlock natural transitions via the conditions that historically occurred to create those transitions.

- Improve the visual transition, so don't put the player in the main menu and don't teleport things haphazardly. Instead, things should move and change in like a mini-timelapse.

- For structures, their visual changes happen gradually during the first couple turns in your new Era.

- Conquered cities in the previous era assimilate and adapt their visuals to match your new era, slowly over time.

- Rewrite the transition to make sense. Does your empire evolve naturally or is it the same empire? Do your people die out and get replaced or. Are they the same people? How does it work exactly? Maybe this should match what happens in the actual game.

- Reduce the instant obsolescence of previous Era structures. Maybe make it gradual.

- Avoid cancelling projects from the previous era unless absolutely necessary.

Despite thinking that they have the biggest hill to climb so far with Civ7, I don't think it's impossible for them to fix it from a design perspective.
It's just a lot of work, so that it would feel very different.
But that's not something that they are foreign to doing in the past.

 

[Krikkit1]

Practical Solutions:

- Let the player take their Civilization into the next era with some kind of power Legacy bonus. Like Romans would be Romans+ in Exploration, but in return you miss out on more Era relevant bonuses.
This should be the default unlocked choice and then you must unlock natural transitions via the conditions that historically occurred to create those transitions.

That's what renaming would be ... you now have Romans+... Romans+...what? well you get to choose
Romans+= Castles and Knights (Romans+ Norman uniques)
Romans+= Horse Archers (Romans+ Mongol uniques)
Romans+= Religious Science (Romans+ Abbasid uniques)
Romans+= Mountain chain dominance (Romans+ Inca uniques)
Romans+= Island culture (Romans+ Hawaii/Maj uniques)

now you might say the last doesn't make sense the Romans aren't an Island people... except this is alt-history maybe the "Roman" center of power on this map is not a hilly peninsula in an inland sea, instead in this world Rome's strongest cities are on an Island chain. So that is an issue.

I do think they should add the option of Romans += Generic Cultural+Militaristic Exploration Age Traits.
and they need to let you have the option of Romans+ (ie keep your name)

Having more strict unlock requirements might work, I could see a set of options where there are two levels of "unlock"/bonus requirements
First Level Requirement when fullfilled gives you a Narrative Quest to fullfill the Second Level Requirement (which gives you a bonus to that civs unique civics)
and then civs can be
-always unlocked (you only chase the requirements for the bonus at level 2)
-unlocked by Level 1 requirement (default original option)
-unlocked only by Level 2 Requirement (new strict option)

 

[Kwami]

- Let the player take their Civilization into the next era with some kind of power Legacy bonus. Like Romans would be Romans+ in Exploration, but in return you miss out on more Era relevant bonuses.
This should be the default unlocked choice and then you must unlock natural transitions via the conditions that historically occurred to create those transitions.

Referring to the bolded part: I really don't like this idea. First, because many of the civilizations in the game do not and cannot have "natural transitions". And how do you handle Exploration and Modern civilizations that don't have an Antiquity counterpart? It just doesn't work. Second, what even is a "natural transition"? Does Rome become Byzantium? The Holy Roman Empire? Russia? Italy? Where does Mississippi go? Who becomes Hawai'i? What even is the USA?

The developers explicitly rejected this idea and, I think, for good reasons.

 

[Kwami]

That's what renaming would be ... you now have Romans+... Romans+...what? well you get to choose
Romans+= Castles and Knights (Romans+ Norman uniques)
Romans+= Horse Archers (Romans+ Mongol uniques)
Romans+= Religious Science (Romans+ Abbasid uniques)
Romans+= Mountain chain dominance (Romans+ Inca uniques)
Romans+= Island culture (Romans+ Hawaii/Maj uniques)

And at the risk of sounding contrary, I don't like this, either. What you're proposing (again) is what Millennium did and it just doesn't work. Divorcing the bonuses from the civilization reduces the civilization to a name, color, and building style. At that point, why bother at all? Just let the player pick a name, color, and building style and then rename the bonuses to "Castles and Knights" and "Horse Archers" and don't bother including civilizations at all. They're meaningless without the bonuses that make them unique.

 

[GeneralZift]

Referring to the bolded part: I really don't like this idea. First, because many of the civilizations in the game do not and cannot have "natural transitions". And how do you handle Exploration and Modern civilizations that don't have an Antiquity counterpart? It just doesn't work. Second, what even is a "natural transition"? Does Rome become Byzantium? The Holy Roman Empire? Russia? Italy? Where does Mississippi go? Who becomes Hawai'i? What even is the USA?

The developers explicitly rejected this idea and, I think, for good reasons.

All it means is that there is a default option to transcend your own Civilization, given that you don't fit absolutely any other choice.

In the cases that there is a historical transition, for example, Normans into British, then the requirements should somehow mirror the real life historical circumstances which lead that to occur, wherever possible, to a near extent, but not strictly identical.

Wherever not possible, you just have the old system, so you can still do the acrobatics to get Prussia into Mongols or whatever. Just that the option for Prussia+ will always be available for you, or you may go for Russia if you suit certain circumstances.

This gives the transition more meaning and lines up the Civilization you end up with, and the Civilization you started it with.


Edit example for clarification:
- Case: Ptolemaic Egypt

Geographic option: Mali
Geographic requirement, such as requiring 3 Desert cities.

Historic option: Abbasids
Historical requirement, mirroring the circumstances that lead to it in real life.

Default option: Ptolemaic Egypt (Exploration)
If so chosen, or none of the others are fulfilled, you can just transcend.
You can now play as Egypt in the Exploration era, with access to a special transcended Civic or policy.

 

[bladex1200]

And at the risk of sounding contrary, I don't like this, either. What you're proposing (again) is what Millennium did and it just doesn't work. Divorcing the bonuses from the civilization reduces the civilization to a name, color, and building style. At that point, why bother at all? Just let the player pick a name, color, and building style and then rename the bonuses to "Castles and Knights" and "Horse Archers" and don't bother including civilizations at all. They're meaningless without the bonuses that make them unique.

TBQH I think it just doesn't work for Millennia because of the lack of budget for unique art assets for all possible combinations. This is where Firaxis having a ballooning budget could actually help fix the identity issue with transitions. I still think this doesn't work because this style only really works for antiquity civilizations moving through the ages - post-antiquity civilizations would be jarring to retrograde-incorporate their design into a prior era they didn't exist in (e.g. what does antiquity USA look like if not generic European? And how jarring would generic look if you gave each otherwise-possible civ unique assets for their future-era "mutations"?).

Like imagine if each of the Romans+ had their own splash art, hybrid building style, etc. to indicate the influence of the circumstances on their "vanilla" design. Castle and knight Romans could retain Mediterranean flavor but transition buildings into a more heavily-reinforced style with more imposing walls, heavier armor on legionaries (eventually transitioning to "generic" swordsmen but with legionary trappings such as the older shield design or legionary cloaks). Horse archer Romans could start ditching some of the heavier armor in order to make riding easier, and additionally incorporate some more hastily-constructed wood buildings or leather tents (still in the Meditteranean style, perhaps leather A-frame tents reflecting a legionary camp life) alongside their stone buildings to reflect a transition to a more nomadic military lifestyle. Religious Romans could switch some of their more secular buildings like libraries into more ornate church Gotchic style and start putting religious symbols everywhere, and add robed individuals to military units to reflect the presence of more chaplains in the army. Mountainous Romans could start having carved or more elaborate roughstone buildings complement their signature terracotta roofs and marble temples, as well as pelts on their units to reflect the cooler temperatures at altitude. Having trouble coming up with something for island culture Romans, but I'm sure it could be done.

Really the reason Millennia failed to grab people with its civs is because the bonuses clearly had some kind of "civilizational" themeing rather than being truly generic and having different assets based on your named civilization. Bonuses that provide units should have flavors for the units for each civilization, not just provide a unit that looks the same (and clearly separate from your civ, not fitting in with anyone except the civ that clearly inspired the bonus).

The problem here of course is that even with the additional budget, making art assets for all these mechanics would make DLC costs really expensive compared to what shareholders are used to (produce for a limited fixed cost, sell for $20 and make 5x your costs within a few months).

 

[Nokturno]

It's great that this thread was started. I had two ideas of my own, that I would love to hear the forum's opinion on. (nothing particularly revolutionary, so it can be done).

1) As a sort of "Classic Mode Lite", add a "Preset paths" option on game start, where the player (and all the AI opponents) would effectively pick their final (Modern Age) civilization from the get go, and Ancient/Exploration civs would be predetermined for all based on that. For instance, example choices could be Britain (Rome/Norman/Britain), Germany (Rome/HRE (when we have it)/Prussia), Iran (Persia/Abbasid/Qajar), etc. That would be feasible to do with the current framework of the game, but COULD eliminate the 1st transition screen (when a new civ is picked), and we're left with just the other one where we pick Legacy Bonuses. Make the final (i.e. "modern civ") somehow present in the experience of earlier Ages somehow, for instance, through color of cities and units, and maybe naming of cities. (If I chose Britain and am playing Rome in ancient, my cities will be named, after Roma: Londinium, Eboracum, Camulodunum etc.)
This mode should be optional and players who prefer the current freeform Civ 7 experience could continue playing that way.

2) Auto-rename cities on age transition. In current experience, this one is a huge immersion breaker for me, as 80% cities on smaller maps are founded in Ancient era, and somehow eventually I'll be playing as Britain and still have Latin named cities which reminds me that I was once playing Rome and that was taken away from me.
Instead, the game would auto rename cities when the Age transitions, so that their names are now what the new civ would have named them
For instance, if I founded Londinium while I was Roman, this would rename to e.g. Lunden during the Norman era, and then either London or Londres depending on whether I transitioned to Britain or France.
This sounds difficult to implement but it really is not - give any AI a list of Roman cities and ask it for how Normans would have called them, for example. It will spit it out right away. FXS could use that to compute the Descartes product of all combinations and a historian could review and sign off in days I imagine.

I think (1) and (2) would work together best. One of the big problems with the new system for me is that the games are less memorable for me now. I could look back on my Civ1-6 games and think about "that game where I played as Germans and my main opponent were the French"; with both me and the AI opponents transitioning now it feels like a complete mess.
If at least the final identities were consistent and predetermined at game start, the games would be more memorable for me. Also, this can be implemented in existing framework leaving the freeform experience intact for those who want it.

 

[Siptah]

2) Auto-rename cities on age transition. In current experience, this one is a huge immersion breaker for me, as 80% cities on smaller maps are founded in Ancient era, and somehow eventually I'll be playing as Britain and still have Latin named cities which reminds me that I was once playing Rome and that was taken away from me.
Instead, the game would auto rename cities when the Age transitions, so that their names are now what the new civ would have named them
For instance, if I founded Londinium while I was Roman, this would rename to e.g. Lunden during the Norman era, and then either London or Londres depending on whether I transitioned to Britain or France.
This sounds difficult to implement but it really is not - give any AI a list of Roman cities and ask it for how Normans would have called them, for example. It will spit it out right away. FXS could use that to compute the Descartes product of all combinations and a historian could review and sign off in days I imagine.

There's already a very neat mod for that, which is probably better than any official version of this would be. You can find it on this site (https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/rosetta-dynamic-city-names.697460/) or on the steam workshop.

 

[Crashdummy]

It's great that this thread was started. I had two ideas of my own, that I would love to hear the forum's opinion on. (nothing particularly revolutionary, so it can be done).

1) As a sort of "Classic Mode Lite", add a "Preset paths" option on game start, where the player (and all the AI opponents) would effectively pick their final (Modern Age) civilization from the get go, and Ancient/Exploration civs would be predetermined for all based on that. For instance, example choices could be Britain (Rome/Norman/Britain), Germany (Rome/HRE (when we have it)/Prussia), Iran (Persia/Abbasid/Qajar), etc. That would be feasible to do with the current framework of the game, but COULD eliminate the 1st transition screen (when a new civ is picked), and we're left with just the other one where we pick Legacy Bonuses. Make the final (i.e. "modern civ") somehow present in the experience of earlier Ages somehow, for instance, through color of cities and units, and maybe naming of cities. (If I chose Britain and am playing Rome in ancient, my cities will be named, after Roma: Londinium, Eboracum, Camulodunum etc.)
This mode should be optional and players who prefer the current freeform Civ 7 experience could continue playing that way.

2) Auto-rename cities on age transition. In current experience, this one is a huge immersion breaker for me, as 80% cities on smaller maps are founded in Ancient era, and somehow eventually I'll be playing as Britain and still have Latin named cities which reminds me that I was once playing Rome and that was taken away from me.
Instead, the game would auto rename cities when the Age transitions, so that their names are now what the new civ would have named them
For instance, if I founded Londinium while I was Roman, this would rename to e.g. Lunden during the Norman era, and then either London or Londres depending on whether I transitioned to Britain or France.
This sounds difficult to implement but it really is not - give any AI a list of Roman cities and ask it for how Normans would have called them, for example. It will spit it out right away. FXS could use that to compute the Descartes product of all combinations and a historian could review and sign off in days I imagine.

I think (1) and (2) would work together best. One of the big problems with the new system for me is that the games are less memorable for me now. I could look back on my Civ1-6 games and think about "that game where I played as Germans and my main opponent were the French"; with both me and the AI opponents transitioning now it feels like a complete mess.
If at least the final identities were consistent and predetermined at game start, the games would be more memorable for me. Also, this can be implemented in existing framework leaving the freeform experience intact for those who want it.

Since you are asking opinion on it, as one of the players that dont like age transitions and civ switching, none of those options would solve the issue

Persia/Abbasid/Qajar are still 3 different Civlets and are NOT one Civilization. Same with the other examples. It doesnt fix the civ switching and dont remove the immersion breaking selection screens either because you still have them as you said

And the second option doesnt change anything either, the Civilization is more than just a city name list

For me, it has the exact same problems than the current iteration and would just be a waste of resources for very little benefit. The solution is Classic Mode than can be done, its not impossible, it will become harder and harder if they keep wasting resources though

 

[Leucarum]

One thing I've said before and still stand by is that the game which makes Civ Evolutions that don't change your Civ identity but also feel non-generic will win the "Civ Switching" arms race. I'm pretty much certain Civ7 won't be the winner sadly.

 

[bladex1200]

One thing I've said before and still stand by is that the game which makes Civ Evolutions that don't change your Civ identity but also feel non-generic will win the "Civ Switching" arms race. I'm pretty much certain Civ7 won't be the winner sadly.

Genuinely think that will only come in a Paradox-style game with low graphical fidelity as making something feel non-generic but mechanically-dense (as opposed to just visual fluff) works best if the art assets you need to update are minimal (still pictures or portraits, reusable clothing and icons, flags, names and labels, etc) rather than for games with intense graphical fidelity and presentation like the Civ franchise (where I mentioned in my own post that the likelihood of this ever happening is basically nil because it would make DLCs extremely expensive to produce compared to potential profit).

 

[Leucarum]

Genuinely think that will only come in a Paradox-style game with low graphical fidelity as making something feel non-generic but mechanically-dense (as opposed to just visual fluff) works best if the art assets you need to update are minimal (still pictures or portraits, reusable clothing and icons, flags, names and labels, etc) rather than for games with intense graphical fidelity and presentation like the Civ franchise (where I mentioned in my own post that the likelihood of this ever happening is basically nil because it would make DLCs extremely expensive to produce compared to potential profit).

Civ evolution could take a lot of diffetent forms... I think there's plenty that would work in Civ.

My favourite would be to expand the "Continental Congress" mechanic from Colonization. Add great people to your cabinet as a way to evolve your civ rather than outright switching identity or leader.

Could be a really fun way to build off the great people mechanic already in Civ games TBH...

 

[Kwami]

Edit example for clarification:
- Case: Ptolemaic Egypt

Geographic option: Mali
Geographic requirement, such as requiring 3 Desert cities.

Historic option: Abbasids
Historical requirement, mirroring the circumstances that lead to it in real life.

Default option: Ptolemaic Egypt (Exploration)
If so chosen, or none of the others are fulfilled, you can just transcend.
You can now play as Egypt in the Exploration era, with access to a special transcended Civic or policy.

But can I still transition to Hawai'i if I want to and otherwise meet the unlock requirements? Because if not, then you're limiting my options compared to what I have now and I'm not in favor of that.

 

[Kwami]

TBQH I think it just doesn't work for Millennia because of the lack of budget for unique art assets for all possible combinations. This is where Firaxis having a ballooning budget could actually help fix the identity issue with transitions. I still think this doesn't work because this style only really works for antiquity civilizations moving through the ages - post-antiquity civilizations would be jarring to retrograde-incorporate their design into a prior era they didn't exist in (e.g. what does antiquity USA look like if not generic European? And how jarring would generic look if you gave each otherwise-possible civ unique assets for their future-era "mutations"?).

Like imagine if each of the Romans+ had their own splash art, hybrid building style, etc. to indicate the influence of the circumstances on their "vanilla" design. Castle and knight Romans could retain Mediterranean flavor but transition buildings into a more heavily-reinforced style with more imposing walls, heavier armor on legionaries (eventually transitioning to "generic" swordsmen but with legionary trappings such as the older shield design or legionary cloaks). Horse archer Romans could start ditching some of the heavier armor in order to make riding easier, and additionally incorporate some more hastily-constructed wood buildings or leather tents (still in the Meditteranean style, perhaps leather A-frame tents reflecting a legionary camp life) alongside their stone buildings to reflect a transition to a more nomadic military lifestyle. Religious Romans could switch some of their more secular buildings like libraries into more ornate church Gotchic style and start putting religious symbols everywhere, and add robed individuals to military units to reflect the presence of more chaplains in the army. Mountainous Romans could start having carved or more elaborate roughstone buildings complement their signature terracotta roofs and marble temples, as well as pelts on their units to reflect the cooler temperatures at altitude. Having trouble coming up with something for island culture Romans, but I'm sure it could be done.

Really the reason Millennia failed to grab people with its civs is because the bonuses clearly had some kind of "civilizational" themeing rather than being truly generic and having different assets based on your named civilization. Bonuses that provide units should have flavors for the units for each civilization, not just provide a unit that looks the same (and clearly separate from your civ, not fitting in with anyone except the civ that clearly inspired the bonus).

The problem here of course is that even with the additional budget, making art assets for all these mechanics would make DLC costs really expensive compared to what shareholders are used to (produce for a limited fixed cost, sell for $20 and make 5x your costs within a few months).

Well, sure, if there was a whole lot of custom art and detailing everywhere, then maybe something like this could work. But as you wrote, civilizations are already expensive to design and implement. And nearly all of what the designers would have to come up with is ahistorical fantasy, which is going to put off some other group of players. I'm just not seeing how that helps.

 

[Kwami]

1) As a sort of "Classic Mode Lite", add a "Preset paths" option on game start, where the player (and all the AI opponents) would effectively pick their final (Modern Age) civilization from the get go, and Ancient/Exploration civs would be predetermined for all based on that. For instance, example choices could be Britain (Rome/Norman/Britain), Germany (Rome/HRE (when we have it)/Prussia), Iran (Persia/Abbasid/Qajar), etc. That would be feasible to do with the current framework of the game, but COULD eliminate the 1st transition screen (when a new civ is picked), and we're left with just the other one where we pick Legacy Bonuses. Make the final (i.e. "modern civ") somehow present in the experience of earlier Ages somehow, for instance, through color of cities and units, and maybe naming of cities. (If I chose Britain and am playing Rome in ancient, my cities will be named, after Roma: Londinium, Eboracum, Camulodunum etc.)
This mode should be optional and players who prefer the current freeform Civ 7 experience could continue playing that way.

Wouldn't this be really limiting, though? We only have about a dozen Modern era civilizations. Wouldn't that mean that you only have the same number of paths available? If Germany is always Rome -> Something -> Germany and Qajar is always Persia -> Abbasid -> Qajar, then there's a lot less variety. And many civilizations will never appear because they just don't make sense on pre-determined paths like that. When would Dai Viet ever come up? Or Hawai'i?

It's a neat idea, but I think it only works when there are many more civilizations available than we have now or are likely to have in the next couple of years.

And I do worry that it will spawn a lot of complaints about whether the paths are "correct", especially with nationalism being what it is.

2) Auto-rename cities on age transition. In current experience, this one is a huge immersion breaker for me, as 80% cities on smaller maps are founded in Ancient era, and somehow eventually I'll be playing as Britain and still have Latin named cities which reminds me that I was once playing Rome and that was taken away from me.
Instead, the game would auto rename cities when the Age transitions, so that their names are now what the new civ would have named them
For instance, if I founded Londinium while I was Roman, this would rename to e.g. Lunden during the Norman era, and then either London or Londres depending on whether I transitioned to Britain or France.
This sounds difficult to implement but it really is not - give any AI a list of Roman cities and ask it for how Normans would have called them, for example. It will spit it out right away. FXS could use that to compute the Descartes product of all combinations and a historian could review and sign off in days I imagine.

This I like and I think it's very possible to do. The mod in the Workshop is proof of concept. I hope that we get an official version at some point.

 

[GeneralZift]

But can I still transition to Hawai'i if I want to and otherwise meet the unlock requirements? Because if not, then you're limiting my options compared to what I have now and I'm not in favor of that.

Yes you can, sorry I forgot to mention in the example but it's there in the earlier texts.
Perhaps what you could do is make it easier to achieve the more logical unlocks, and harder to achieve the others.
That would also be interesting. That could be an option if some people don't like it. At least this way it feels fluid and not just like a generic "fill the bar" to unlock system.

 

[GeneralZift]

Civ evolution could take a lot of diffetent forms... I think there's plenty that would work in Civ.

My favourite would be to expand the "Continental Congress" mechanic from Colonization. Add great people to your cabinet as a way to evolve your civ rather than outright switching identity or leader.

Could be a really fun way to build off the great people mechanic already in Civ games TBH...

I've never heard of this but I really like this idea. I'm a big proponent for building your own Civ identity with choices throughout the game (like Government) rather than by nation choice alone. So this seems cool to me.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I've never heard of this but I really like this idea. I'm a big proponent for building your own Civ identity with choices throughout the game (like Government) rather than by nation choice alone. So this seems cool to me.

While many of the problems with Civ VII are because they went sideways (Civ Switching, Concrete Ages), I think they went Backwards from Civ VI in the Gteat People category.

Changing the available Great People to strictly Civ-specific, and for only a few Civs at that, was a step in the wrong direction, IMHO. I don't remember anybody complaining that they couldn't stand it if they got a Great Writer who wasn't from their Civ, and the mechanic has so many potentially positive points:

* Great Diplomats or Great Ministers to, as posted, change the direction of your Civ. Imagine having a Solon, or a Shang Yang (Wei Yang), a Nizam al-Mulk or a Tallyrand to help run your State!

* Great Generals, If we have Leaders, why not the (rare) Great Leader, who comes with 'built in' Promotions? Demetrius Poliorcetes ("Besieger of cities") to take those pesky fortified districts, or Flavius Belisarius, to give both extra strength to your cavalry and instantly put down unrest in any city. The possibilities are nearly endless.

The Great artistic types from Civ VI probably would be hard to place in Civ VII, because the Codexes and Relics we have to gather are too few: a single Great Gatherer could unbalance the game immediately. But Great Engineers/Architects to boost Quarter, Building or Wonder construction could work nicely, and there are historical characters like Dodge, Harriman and Huntingdon that could boost railroad construction or Ford, Boulton, or Arkwright to boost Factory construction.

 

[Bug Repellent]

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.

 

[Kwami]

The only identity that lasts through the ages is the leader identity.

Well, and the traditions, the unique improvements, buildings, and quarters, and the city names.