• Civ7 is already available! Happy playing :).

Leader Switching

Changing leaders is very bad from an immersion standpoint IMO. The leader is the face of the civilization; you can't form a relationship with a faceless civilization--and a civilization whose "face" changes might as well be faceless. This was part of Humankind's (many, many) problems: the leaders weren't memorable or distinctive and changed their appearance when their civ changed, making it difficult to keep tabs of relationships (or form them in the first place beyond treaties and wars). I'd find this considerably more alienating than civ-swapping, which I found off-putting initially but have grown to tolerate as it opens the door for some interesting inclusions like the Mississippians who would be difficult or unlikely in the traditional Civ model.
The best solution is to make the Leader *evolve* through the ages. Legacy Points already do that, which is not the ideal solution but it is a solution and I'll take it.

(in an ideal game, all leader bonuses improve inherently per era, either via linear scaling or by having additional aspects added)
 
(in an ideal game, all leader bonuses improve inherently per era, either via linear scaling or by having additional aspects added)
This seems to already be the case for many leaders, who receive X bonus per age.
 
The best solution is to make the Leader *evolve* through the ages. Legacy Points already do that, which is not the ideal solution but it is a solution and I'll take it.

(in an ideal game, all leader bonuses improve inherently per era, either via linear scaling or by having additional aspects added)

I would argue that the pattern of the Legacy Points is the one to follow: with the chance of producing such powerful changes that it amounts to a nearly whole new Leader personality.

Having 'inherent' evolutions means some game designer has to decide what is inherent, and that will inevitably be somewhat arbitrary.

What would Alexander the Great have turned into in the Exploration or Modern Ages? W. W. Tarn tried to turn him into a version of an Edwardian Country Gentleman in his historical 'reconstruction', and made a fool of himself trying (although he did a lot of basic research in the Alexandrian literature, so compiled some very useful original data: it was his interpretation of the materials that went Gonzo in the end). It's examples like that that haunt me as both a gamer and a historian: 'Inherent' is all too often whatever somebody decides to make of it.

Better to have the 'evolution' (or devolution) of a Leader be a product of In-Game Events in that particular game. Success /Failure in one ge should have consequences in the next Age, or in the Crisis period between them, or both. If Alexander the Great never fights a war in the Antiquity Age, he is not likely to suddenly develop a propensity for combat in the Exploration Age, but build on what successes he had in other directions. Even, Dog Knows, eventually becoming a very erudite Edwardian in his pesonality and propensities by the Modern Age.
 
I think evolution would have been a much better option than civ (or leader) switching. A lot of the unease is coming from people not wanting to play from the subsets of civs available, or only wanting to play as a specific civ.

I guess the biggest challenge there would be unique units being both civ and age locked, but heretical as this may sound, if the rest of the civ kits are as detailed as they are now - do wr need unique units? Or are they simulated well enough by bonuses/special abilities for certain unit classes applying through the game. Maybe add a cosmetic change in the era where they'd normally have an unique...
 
Although perhaps seeing a different leader in the diplomacy screen is probably quite weird on second thoughts

This could be an issue, yes. Also, the score banners at the top use the leaders to represent each civ. So leader switching would mean the face of each civ in the score banners would also change. This could be confusing to the player to keep track of which leader is which civ. For the score banners, you could use civ flags instead like Humankind does but that is far less personal. I guess you could change the leaders but have a flag beneath them in the score banner to associate which leader is with which civ. Personally, I like seeing a leader head at the top each civ banner. I suspect this could be the main reason civ7 does civ switching instead: Firaxis wants the leaders to be that constant face of each civ to give the player that personal connection with who they are playing against.
 
Well, let's see: Justification Time.

The Khmer took to the sea, landed in northern France, became Khmermans. Khmermandy, following in the footsteps of historical France, invades the area of Mexico (look it up: 1861 to 1867, the Maximilian Fiasco) and becomes Imperial Mexico.

Anything can be made acceptable, no matter how hard you have to warp Reality to believe it.

That's the lesson of modern politics , anyway . . .
Guys, are you trying to convince me that I should have a different subjective reception of immersion in the game?
Sorry I will disappoint you :lol:
 
Leader switching doesn't really work with most civs... ignore how r/Civ would react if they saw Gilgamesh replaced: who would replace Gilgamesh? Your Roman leader turning into an Italian/Byzantine leader and then into an Italian leader is... fine-ish, but every modern nation or nation that no longer exists is a big question mark. Ideas like "Iraq is modern Babylon" now have to be put in place everywhere, and modern and ancient civs become pretty much mutually exclusive. What's the distinction between two civs from different time periods worth if they both end up having leaders who led the same nation for the whole game? And of course there's the issue of Native American civs or other civs with less documentation of leaders. Needless to say, Mississipians are out of the question unless we turn the civ into an actual blob of a bunch of Native American tribes that lived on the Mississipi in different periods of time. What about the United States? Who is the "Antiquity" leader of the US? Is it Pericles or someone else who contributed to parts of antiquity that the nation took inspiration from? That's odd, and immediately runs into the modern/ancient overlap issue. If you go for the geographical route, then you either have the United States led by Tecumseh, or your Native American leader is replaced by Andrew Jackson on the Age turnover, which is much MUCH worse than what we have currently.
Regarding the OP's statement, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference than what we have for Civ 7. All they point out is the possibility of ending with Churchill leading the Romans at the end of the game. The only difference are leaders will be stuck to ages, rather than civs.

The problem with me is the act of forcing people to switch, rather it be leaders or civs. I'd much rather things be optional. But if I had a choice I'd rather switch leaders than civs. But I also wouldn't force people to do it, or limit them to one age. If I want to play as France and expand quickly first let me choose Napoleon. Then if I decide to start building wonders let me switch to Louis XIV, if I want to.
 
Guys, are you trying to convince me that I should have a different subjective reception of immersion in the game?
Sorry I will disappoint you :lol:

ABSOLUTELY Not!!!

"Immersion" or 'Identification' are purely individual and subjective to each and every gamer. It would be idiotic for me or anybody else to try to tell you what constitutes 'immersion' to/for you.

And, frankly, the suggested progression was NOT posted as anything that could contribute to my or anybody else's 'immersion' , but as a satire on the convoluted progressions that Civ VII is apparently presenting to us. We will each and every one of us have to find our own path through those if we expect to enjoy the game for any length of time.
 
First of all, this isa subjective feeling :)
If I have to rationalize it somehow: because Khmer and Normans have no connection, and Normans and Mexico are a little bit far-fetched for me (timeline, Normans were not a colonial power and haven't any settlements in modern-day Mexico). It's just a random combination from the top of my mind.
The normans were colonial…they conquered England and founded colonies from there
 
The normans were colonial…they conquered England and founded colonies from there
To say nothing of their colonies in Sicily, North Africa, the Levant, Anatolia, and the Canaries.
 
Since 'immersion' is purely subjective, note that you can control it to some extent, even with civ switching. If not losing the thread of history is important to you (as it is to me), you can choose to play as Ashoka with Chola, Maurya and Mughal Indian civs. That should keep your (my) historical perspective happy. Playing as Rome, Spain and America (or Mexico) is less focused but still keeps the finger on the pulse of historicity. If I want other foci, I can vary it by picking a 'wacky' choice in Antiquity and but my leader's own civ in Exploration (e.g. going Khmer/Spain by choosing Isabella as my leader). Yes, you're forced to change civs - but that's vital to the age focus of Civ VII - but you don't have to endure weird pivots if you don't want to.
 
Regarding the OP's statement, there doesn't seem to be much of a difference than what we have for Civ 7. All they point out is the possibility of ending with Churchill leading the Romans at the end of the game. The only difference are leaders will be stuck to ages, rather than civs.

The problem with me is the act of forcing people to switch, rather it be leaders or civs. I'd much rather things be optional. But if I had a choice I'd rather switch leaders than civs. But I also wouldn't force people to do it, or limit them to one age. If I want to play as France and expand quickly first let me choose Napoleon. Then if I decide to start building wonders let me switch to Louis XIV, if I want to.

I should clarify that my idea was also suggesting that the leaders were necessarily de-attached from the Civilisations, so that, you could choose the leader that lead the Civilisation in that period, but then you end up being able to pick anyone from the Modern Era to lead Modern Rome.

To me that doesn't feel too abrasive, because I can accept leaders probably die or move on or whatever and we have to pick somebody new. And it feels right to me that I'm still technically leading the same people, just choosing a change in leadership instead of a totally new people.

However, like others pointed out and conceded in the opening post, I think it'd be difficult to track diplomacy when the leaders are changing. So really, my 'genuine' opinion is that I'd prefer never to change my Civilisation or Leader. But that, if I have to, this is an idea I had that I wanted to share :)
 
However, like others pointed out and conceded in the opening post, I think it'd be difficult to track diplomacy when the leaders are changing.
This is absolutely no problem, as C3X and CCM 3 are proofing with eraspecific leaders for every civ in 4 different eras of Civ 3 Conquests, thanks to the fantastic programming of Flintlock in his C3X mod for C3C.
 
big disagree here with many:

So the game is Civilization, not Leader, so to me it's the civilization which should last forever but the individual leader who change from time to time.
I guess you do lose some sense of familiarity if the other leaders change in mid-stream.
But by that same token, you are also still playing civilizations which often historically did not belong in the era that you're playing. Apples and oranges.

Perhaps you could allow leader switching, but in the player banners you could display the previous leader grayed-out next to the current one. So you don't forget as easily. Might take up more screen room but that's a UI design problem.

I also would've been interested to see a "Rhys and Fall" Civ 4 mod variant where civs emerge at their relevant point in history, and you can elect to switch to them. But this comes with a lot of caveats:
- often forcefully eliminating earlier civs to make room for new ones...whether by instantly-collapsing them because of some esoteric "instability" or spawning giant enemy armies
- depending on your computer, longer first turns to load in all the earlier civs while waiting for yours
- historically-dependent victory conditions (generating X yields by Turn-Y), otherwise earlier civs will always have more points
 
ABSOLUTELY Not!!!

"Immersion" or 'Identification' are purely individual and subjective to each and every gamer. It would be idiotic for me or anybody else to try to tell you what constitutes 'immersion' to/for you.

And, frankly, the suggested progression was NOT posted as anything that could contribute to my or anybody else's 'immersion' , but as a satire on the convoluted progressions that Civ VII is apparently presenting to us. We will each and every one of us have to find our own path through those if we expect to enjoy the game for any length of time.
Chill 😊 That was a little joke. 😉
I think we all as Civ fans should expect from developers as much customization and mod support as we can. This is the best solution for all.
 
In trying to please everyone, one will often please no one, especially a “big tent” audience like Civ has.

The devs made a bold choice with civ switching and need to stick with it.

Switching leaders isn’t a good solution for anything to me, IMO.
Perhaps You are right but I guess we should at least try. Community and Devs ;)
 
Perhaps You are right but I guess we should at least try. Community and Devs ;)
Well like I said, I don’t think so.

And many users who are displeased with the civ switching have stated they don’t like Civ 7 for other reasons and are at a “0” or so in terms of interest for buying the game. Logically, there is no sense in trying to please those who are disgruntled by the changes. They’ve already decided they don’t like it and are voicing their displeasure as intractable.

The devs should stick with their vision and focus on making the execution for their ideas as good as possible. Those who are opposed in spirit to the game’s ideas will either come around or they won’t.
 
Well like I said, I don’t think so.

And many users who are displeased with the civ switching have stated they don’t like Civ 7 for other reasons and are at a “0” or so in terms of interest for buying the game. Logically, there is no sense in trying to please those who are disgruntled by the changes. They’ve already decided they don’t like it and are voicing their displeasure as intractable.

The devs should stick with their vision and focus on making the execution for their ideas as good as possible. Those who are opposed in spirit to the game’s ideas will either come around or they won’t.
At the end of the day, I don't think ignoring all the critics will make this game successfull in the long run. Sure, lots of people express their displeasure quiet vocally right now (including myself sometimes), but I think you can win at least a bunch of them back, if you make a few tweaks here and there. At least it would be foolish not to try to win some of them back, otherwise the Civ community will be significantly smaller in the future.
 
Last edited:
At the end of the day, I don't think ignoring all the critics will make this game successfull in the long run. Sure, lots of people express their displeasure quiet vocally right now (including myself sometimes), but I think you can win at least a fraction of them back, if you make a few tweaks here and there. At least it would be foolish not to try to win some of them back, otherwise the Civ community will be significantly smaller in the future.
I certainly don't think they should ignore all criticism; there's plenty of great feedback here. I'm saying that, in the chorus of that feedback, it probably doesn't make too much sense to try to placate those who have straight up said over and over that the changes are a "hard pass" or a "firm line" or whatever, and that they hope the game fails. All you might end up doing is compromising the central vision of the game.

The entire game hinges on this ages/civ switch mechanic. The game comes out in a matter of weeks. The die has been cast, no going back on their bold vision now. So, best to buckle down and make sure their execution is as high quality as possible.
 
Top Bottom