LOW number of civilizations at launch

[Gedemon]

pointing that there is a low numbers of civilizations at launch in relation to civ switching is worth discussing, and I fully agree with that.

but I disagree with the way some people are presenting their opinions as facts, and then insist that their interpretation of history is literally what happens in a game that is only history flavored.

my opinion on the subject is still that allowing "transcendance" like in HK would have helped a lot, but you're not going to see me trying to impose that opinion the same way people are trying to impose that civ switching should be removed.

 

[chaosprophet]

Not an echo chamber, its just time for everyone who disagrees with the majority opinion to be quiet that's all. You clearly all know far better than I what is OK to discuss in this place that is not an echo chamber. Fine to keep discussing what you want over and over, but I've had my go and you don't want to tolerate my opinions anymore.

I don't know if anyone involved in this particular discussion is conscious of the environment that is being created here, but it is not a welcoming one to counter opinions, and that is a recipe for an echo chamber I'm afraid.

With that, have a good one, I've said my peace and clearly my opinion is not welcome here anymore, even on threads called "Low number of civilizations at launch"

Having and posting an opinion that is not popular and which then means many people would disagree and post their counter opinion is what to be expected in a forum. If people disagree with yours they will want to post just like you wanted to post yours.

I don't see it as an echo chamber, especially considering that I see many people who overall like what the game has show us and the direction it is going disliking different parts about it. But it is expected that people who dislikes the majority of it, or dislikes a major feature (ages and civ switching in this game) of it will be the minority as many would just lose the interest in the game and not follow a forum about it. Regardless if the mechanics are or will be liked by a majority or not of people, it is expected this discussion forum would have a bigger majority who likes it, especially at this point where the game isn't even out.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I'm glad you're* having fun

Thanks. I encourage you to contribute to the "Design you own Civ" thread. I'm interested in what you thing NA civs should become in the modern age, if it's not Mexico.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Thanks. I encourage you to contribute to the "Design you own Civ" thread. I'm interested in what you thing NA civs should become in the modern age, if it's not Mexico.

Thanks for the invite but I like to keep my criticism to relevant threads. I don't want to derail such a thread with inevitable complaints about civ swapping and eras.

To answer your question though, I wouldn't have designed the game to have eras and civ swapping in the first place but If I was forced to make a 3 tiered path for Native Americans civs, the outcome would either be fictionalized future representation of the civ or I'd let them keep their civ and give them new bonuses in the next era instead of having them swap into the European colonial states created from their genocide and/or oppression.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

the outcome would either be fictional or I'd let them keep their civ and give them new bonuses in the next era

Interesting. I guess i'll never know what they would have been

FYI, The DYOC thread isn't about criticism, or historical accuracy.. it's about having fun. I made an Atlantis civ.

 

[Gori the Grey]

instead of having them swap into the European colonial states created from their genocide and/or oppression.

In this world.

Any given Civ game takes place in an alternate world, where none of those dynamics exist as facts.

[I apologize again for only being able to cite Civ V examples b/c I never played Civ VI but] in Civ V, if I'm playing as Russia, and it comes time to pick an ideology, should I avoid Autocracy (if it's most beneficial to my intended victory condition), knowing about the number of people in this world who suffered under totalitarian regimes in that country?

(The go-to example is wonders--Austria building Pyramids--but I wanted to go with something that involves atrocities (on a par with genocidal colonization) to suggest that such RW considerations have probably never hampered your in-game play before).

In this game, I border Polynesia. Between us is the city state of Belgrade, that gifted me Chu-ko-nus centuries ago and is known for its ivory. Why, in such a historically mixed up environment, should I care about what happened in that one incarnation of the world on which everybody seems to place such high priority?

The elements that make up a Civ game are disconnected bits of this world being reassembled in a new way in a new incarnation of earth history.

 

[TheGrayFox]

In this world.

Any given Civ game takes place in an alternate world, where none of those dynamics exist as facts.

[I apologize again for only being able to cite Civ V examples b/c I never played Civ VI but] in Civ V, if I'm playing as Russia, and it comes time to pick an ideology, should I avoid Autocracy (if it's most beneficial to my intended victory condition), knowing about the number of people in this world who suffered under totalitarian regimes in that country?

(The go-to example is wonders--Austria building Pyramids--but I wanted to go with something that involves atrocities (on a par with genocidal colonization) to suggest that such RW considerations have probably never hampered your in-game play before).

In this game, I border Polynesia. Between us is the city state of Belgrade, that gifted me Chu-ko-nus centuries ago and is known for its ivory. Why, in such a historically mixed up environment, should I care about what happened in that one incarnation of the world on which everybody seems to place such high priority?

The elements that make up a Civ game are disconnected bits of this world being reassembled in a new way in a new incarnation of earth history.

Yes, every game of civilization creates an alternate world/history that plays out completely different than our own, full of abstracted absurtidies like eternal leaders and nations. Yes, the elements that make up a Civ game are disconnected bits of this world being reassembled in a new way in a new incarnation of earth history. Playing a game where Russia that starts in antiquity builds Chichen itza, adopts Judaism, and decides to go fascist because of geopolitical considerations created in this fictionalized world is what we've all come to expect from and is a large part of the charm of the Civilization series.

The people complaining about civ swapping don't want to change those absurdities, we don't want a strict history simulator. Our issue lies entirely with how Firaxis is trying to fundamentally change the formula we're all familar with by adding even more nonsense (and then trying to justify it poorly using the lens of history). We don't have a problem seeing Russia go Autocratic instead of Communist in a fictional worlds created playing the game, however seeing those same Russians being lead by Harriet Tubman and suddenly morphing into Chinese people for no other reason that Firaxis decided the round is over and it's time to switch, is a bridge too far for many. It's not an issue or argument for more historical realism, its about historical flavoring and what we've come to expect from the series.

I don't even have that big of an issue with the Aztecs or Maya becoming Mexico it's just one example of many, the real issue I have is that Firaxis has removed ability to take empires and civilizations I want to play and lead them through all of time without having to engage in their three part act structure complete with forced civilization hat swapping.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Once you've swallowed this level of absurdity:

Playing a game where Russia that starts in antiquity builds Chichen itza, adopts Judaism, and decides to go fascist because of geopolitical considerations created in this fictionalized world is what we've all come to expect from and is a large part of the charm of the Civilization series.

It seems odd to draw the line at this:

Russians being lead by Harriet Tubman and suddenly morphing into Chinese people

The first set is just those disconnected bits I referenced that have existed in every iteration, and that even you think give the game its charm. The second set is just different bits being disconnected/differently-connectable-in-game-than-IRL.

 

[Sagax]

If anything, this ongoing debate across multiple threads shows how long Civ has been trying to let players eat the cake and have it too. It wants players to feel like they're re-treading the journey of humankind, but also wants them to forge their own "what if" path. Over the course of 6 iterations, players have formed a vague collection of core elements that to them seems like the proper balance between historical immersion and role-playing freedom. These elements have never been identical among players, but the game was abstract enough that it didn't matter as much. Civ 7's civ-switching, while not as big of a mechanical shakeup as 1UPT or hexagons, is directly challenging the players' pre-conceived notions about immersion in this game. And this puts the spotlight on how different those "core elements" for immersion have been among players this whole time.

At the end of the day, every player will draw their own line in the sand when it comes to immersion in Civ, and each of those lines is valid - because role-playing and immersion are a deeply personal experience, and I hope we can agree that Civ as a franchise does try to deliver on that front. Trying to dismiss either side with "your perception is incorrect, the issue is in your head" is not helpful, because perception will always be in the eyes of the beholder. And for a mostly single-player game where one can scratch their megalomaniacal itch, allowing a larger number of players to comfortably immerse into their own role-playing narrative is worth considering and keeping on a priority list (not the top priority, but still important).

Rather than being stuck in the endless "it's bad > go learn history > no, YOU go learn history" rotation, maybe we can take a step back and be more pragmatic. Civ-switching is here to stay in Civ 7, whether one likes it or not. Some people dislike it for all sorts of reasons, whether one finds their reasoning justified or not. Looking into Civ 7's future, how can FXS make civ-switching more palatable for more players by iterating on the feature rather than removing/overhaulting it?

 

[Gori the Grey]

I think that some elements of the game play experience will go some way toward minimizing the anticipated blocks to immersion.

After the crisis, some cities will drop to towns, but you will have a lot of the infrastructure you had built. But you will want to replace it (because the buildings in Exploration will have better yields than Antiquity). But it will be you making all of those decisions about which of your Greek buildings need to come down and be replaced with Shawnee buildings.

Admittedly there is an abrupt change of name (that feels discordant against our RL grid), but there's also a gradual shift-over between the two phases (let's say) of your big civilization, that's a result of your in-game choices. That the age-specific civ-lets are named after RL civs does mean you don't have an easy name for the larger totality you are guiding through the whole game, and I see why that's a significant obstacle to immersion. The best you have is your leader name. That's why I think people will speak of the totality-of-civs they play using the leader: The Tubman Peoples, as they entered what historians call the "Shawnee" phase of their history, now found their Mawaskawe Skote as essential to their thriving as their Acropolis formerly had been.

 

[Krikkit1]

or I'd let them keep their civ and give them new bonuses in the next era instead of having them swap into the European colonial states created from their genocide and/or oppression.

What if the new bonuses were originally inspired by modern European colonial states (or modern Asian/African states*) created by genocide/oppression….but they kept their civ(name+city list+graphics)

*since gameplay unlocks would mean the Shawnee might be able to unlock Qing, Buganda, Mughal**, etc. sets of unique ability/unit/infrastructure/civics

** all formed through oppression (and occasionally genocide) …but not of the Shawnee.

 

[Taefin]

This discussion seems to get at the heart of the tension of Civ representing diverse nations, and of peoples being poorly represented by the leaders and civs chosen for the game (e.g. who are represented most closely, if at all, by civs portrayed as from the distant past).

It seems to me that placing civs in one age will improve gameplay for slower paced games (civ 7 looks like it will have games that feel ~2x the length of civ6 default games) by ensuring that the player always has their bonuses active, and that no civs miss out on having bonuses for the early determinative (in civ6) phase of the game.

But for a player to feel represented in the game it seems they would need to either identify with a modern civ, or with a leader who they can RP as continuing their nation into the modern age even as they take on the civ name and bonuses associated with a modern civ that possibly shares a name with a nation whose history of colonization still affects them negatively.

For me whether it feels like their are more or effectively fewer civs/leaders will probably depend on whether each game feels like playing the games of civ 6.

But to help reduce the sense of poor representation, perhaps Firaxis could take steps to show that representation is less tokenizing, to counteract the “your people are from the past” message. For instance, not using their most publicized effort to represent the Shawnee as a way to incentivize early/DLC purchase, or not using monikers like “the first American” for Ben Franklin that gives ownership to identities (eg “American”).

 

[Nikolai II]

(civ 7 looks like it will have games that feel ~2x the length of civ6 default games)

Quite possibly, but the streams have showed eras ending some time after turn 100, but before 150, right? So say the average age lasts 120 turns, that's actually a pretty similar number of turns compared to earlier Civ titles.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Personally, I think if civ switching just doesn't jive with you that's totally fine. It is a major departure from previous iterations and if that makes it feel less like "Civ" for you that's legitimate subjective complaint.

However, I don't get the whole "social commentary" argument/complaints about colonialism. I will grant that there are relatively few "direct" links but that is due to INCREASED diversity and INCREASED representation in the civ roster.

What's wrong with having modern civilizations with colonial roots? Should we just not have modern civilizations? Or do you think colonialism is somehow uniquely bad in a world where vanishingly few civilizations exist without committing atrocities against...someone? Most post-colonial modern civilizations are a fusion of colonial and indigenous, and to claim otherwise is honestly erasure of the indigenous people who live there and participate in government, culture, and society.

In fact, if one takes the position that colonial civs as an evolution of non-colonial civs is offensive, it's an equivalent argument to say that playing as a colonial civ as if it always existed is highly offensive to all indigenous people who died in making that civilization what it is. It skips all that, sanitizes it, puts it on the same level as an indigenous civ and erases their complex history by flattening it into a monocultural people group.

Or - hear me out here - maybe these arguments take themselves too seriously and are looking to justify dislike of a mechanic which requires no justification to dislike. It's ok - you can just not like civ switching. You don't need to make it more than it is.

Civ (the game) takes an inherently optimistic view of cultures, representing them in their best light. The approach to civ switching is the same. Yeah, a lot of cultural evolution happened due to conflict, but it doesn't always. And the approach here is going out of its way to celebrate and maintain your previous culture into your new one - the Civ perspective is clearly a celebratory one and choosing to find offense in it is a personal choice.

Apologies if my thoughts are a bit disjointed and subsequently blunter than I might intend. Hard to insert much nuance on my phone while watching the kids at the trampoline park.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Once you've swallowed this level of absurdity:


It seems odd to draw the line at this:


The first set is just those disconnected bits I referenced that have existed in every iteration, and that even you think give the game its charm. The second set is just different bits being disconnected/differently-connectable-in-game-than-IRL.

you're essentially asking "well if you are okay with some level absurdity then why aren't you okay with a completely different type of absurdity which fundamentally changes a long established formula which you've come to enjoy as a fan" and you don't see the disconnect? This same line of reasoning could be used to ask you why you wouldn't be okay adding fantasy races and alien leaders to the game or to inquire why a fan wouldn't be okay with leaders changing completely randomly every age.

As Sagax so elegontly pointed out, every person will subjectively draw a line in the sand at different places when it comes to how they role play and immerse themselves into a game like Civ. So it's really a fruitless for you to try reason that I should be able and willing to shallow different absuridities and changes, just because you can.

What if the new bonuses were originally inspired by modern European colonial states (or modern Asian/African states*) created by genocide/oppression….but they kept their civ(name+city list+graphics)

*since gameplay unlocks would mean the Shawnee might be able to unlock Qing, Buganda, Mughal**, etc. sets of unique ability/unit/infrastructure/civics

** all formed through oppression (and occasionally genocide) …but not of the Shawnee.

If Firaxis let us keep our civs fundamentally and just pick new era bonuses, we wouldn't be having this discussion

 

[TheGrayFox]

Personally, I think if civ switching just doesn't jive with you that's totally fine. It is a major departure from previous iterations and if that makes it feel less like "Civ" for you that's legitimate subjective complaint.

However, I don't get the whole "social commentary" argument/complaints about colonialism. I will grant that there are relatively few "direct" links but that is due to INCREASED diversity and INCREASED representation in the civ roster.

What's wrong with having modern civilizations with colonial roots? Should we just not have modern civilizations? Or do you think colonialism is somehow uniquely bad in a world where vanishingly few civilizations exist without committing atrocities against...someone? Most post-colonial modern civilizations are a fusion of colonial and indigenous, and to claim otherwise is honestly erasure of the indigenous people who live there and participate in government, culture, and society.

What in the holy strawman...... Literally no one is arguing that there's anything "wrong" with modern civilizations with colonial rooots.. The United States is one of my favorite countries to play.... Do you think people are arguing to exclude countries from Brazil, US, and Mexico from Civilization games?

In fact, if one takes the position that colonial civs as an evolution of non-colonial civs is offensive, it's an equivalent argument to say that playing as a colonial civ as if it always existed is highly offensive to all indigenous people who died in making that civilization what it is. It skips all that, sanitizes it, puts it on the same level as an indigenous civ and erases their complex history by flattening it into a monocultural people group.

No its not... at all....

Do you not see the implications of forcing people who want to play indigenious civilizations to inevitable become European colonial states in a series where we've historically been able to take a country/people through all of time and the tagline is "build an empire to stand the test of time". Come on... this argument is so uncharitable it's bordering on insulting

Or - hear me out here - maybe these arguments take themselves too seriously and are looking to justify dislike of a mechanic which requires no justification to dislike. It's ok - you can just not like civ switching. You don't need to make it more than it is.

Or hear me out. Your argument is just not very good and there is more than one reason why someone may dislike civ swapping as Firaxis has designed.

Civ (the game) takes an inherently optimistic view of cultures, representing them in their best light. The approach to civ switching is the same. Yeah, a lot of cultural evolution happened due to conflict, but it doesn't always. And the approach here is going out of its way to celebrate and maintain your previous culture into your new one - the Civ perspective is clearly a celebratory one and choosing to find offense in it is a personal choice.

Apologies if my thoughts are a bit disjointed and subsequently blunter than I might intend. Hard to insert much nuance on my phone while watching the kids at the trampoline park.

Most of this has already been adressed. I'm not the one who made up devs idea of "layered history" and used Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norman London forged almost entirely by conflict, conquest as an example of this history.. I'm not the one who designed era defining crisises that lead into a unavoidable civilization change. Civilization evolution can change without conflict, but the civilization changes the devs are trying to modeling with its "layering" happens through conflict, conquest, and collapse.

 

[Taefin]

Alternative framing: one can enjoy (or not enjoy) civ7 while thinking about or not thinking about these tensions. The developers seem to embrace a little of both and their design decisions sometimes do and sometimes don’t appear driven by efforts to help more people find ways to feel represented in the games. Seems to me a fitting conversation to have in connection to the move away from timeless civs. (Agreed that their are multiple paths toward erasure.)

 

[Naokaukodem]

Franks may be the label under which those "barbarians" conquered Gaul, but in fact they brought with them very few Frankish inhabitants, I think it's on the average of a couple of thousands or so. Even if the tradition was frank in the future, it's just for convenience of legitimacy, as it became a kingdom with a king at its head. France is in fact not more Frankish than Mexico is European, it's still a Gallo-Roman population in majority. People FTW.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I wonder how many civs we'll end up with eventually, going to be fun to follow along, for me at least. I hope it will be a lot but I don't know, I think a lot of people will be disappointed with the final number regardless. I can imagine 20 per Age but it's tough to think they'll go much beyond that.

 

[Xandinho]

I wonder how many civs we'll end up with eventually, going to be fun to follow along, for me at least. I hope it will be a lot but I don't know, I think a lot of people will be disappointed with the final number regardless. I can imagine 20 per Age but it's tough to think they'll go much beyond that.

I've done several simulations of complete lists of civilizations, trying to represent all regions while striving to keep the historical paths at least reasonably coherent. It’s clear that 20 civilizations per era is too few; 25 per era would improve things slightly but would still leave a sense of wanting more for several regions. I was only able to create a truly well-rounded list with 30 to 33 civilizations per era.