My solution to civ switching.

[Leucarum]

I'm willing to believe Firaxis when they said leader switching was more confusing than civ switching. I don't think that means civ switching was a good idea...

As much as civ evolution I expect is going to be here to stay (and that's a good thing), I think the company who nails it will be the one who manages to keep the identity element of having your own Civ, while avoiding evolutions that feel bland or generic. Easier said than done... But I think Civ7 is part of the way there. The depth of existing Civs is a very good starting point, as they all have a bunch of age-independent abilities which help them stand out, so the consistent identity element is solid... Ironically so given that Civ7 is the iteration where this boon is discarded every era.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I remember that when I started my own Civ-like the initial idea I had was to actually split every Civ in three 'forms', like they're pokémon, each with a separate leader. The paths would be predetermined and your Civ would evolve at the start of the next act, with a new leader. It worked for a few Civs, it was a huge stretch for a few others (America as... pennsylvania => thirteen colonies => US) and then you get things like the ancient and classical cultures of the Middle East which are a migraine. How does one do a three-stage Phoenicia? Do you add Lebanon? The Druze? How do you tackle Carthage, if at all? How do you do colonial nations, if at all? How about indigenous tribes that were since absorbed?

I quickly dropped it. There was just too much asymetry and hassle and internal hemorrhaging. As bad as the Civ7 system may look to those that want their precious emersion, it's easily one of the lesser evils you can come up with if you want to change things up (without implying that Civ7's system of leaders and civs is superior to what came before, which is imo not true ).

I know that people complain about the Civ Switching a lot, but the game has other problems, and those are far more pressing. It's been five months since release and the game still has less polish and fewer features than Civ6 had ON RELEASE, despite costing 50% more. UI and lack of Civs is what's killing this game - it makes it stale, despite the on-paper infinite combinations and possibilities.

 

[Gen.Washington]

I remember that when I started my own Civ-like the initial idea I had was to actually split every Civ in three 'forms', like they're pokémon, each with a separate leader. The paths would be predetermined and your Civ would evolve at the start of the next act, with a new leader. It worked for a few Civs, it was a huge stretch for a few others (America as... pennsylvania => thirteen colonies => US) and then you get things like the ancient and classical cultures of the Middle East which are a migraine. How does one do a three-stage Phoenicia? Do you add Lebanon? The Druze? How do you tackle Carthage, if at all? How do you do colonial nations, if at all? How about indigenous tribes that were since absorbed?

I quickly dropped it. There was just too much asymetry and hassle and internal hemorrhaging. As bad as the Civ7 system may look to those that want their precious emersion, it's easily one of the lesser evils you can come up with if you want to change things up (without implying that Civ7's system of leaders and civs is superior to what came before, which is imo not true ).

I know that people complain about the Civ Switching a lot, but the game has other problems, and those are far more pressing. It's been five months since release and the game still has less polish and fewer features than Civ6 had ON RELEASE, despite costing 50% more. UI and lack of Civs is what's killing this game - it makes it stale, despite the on-paper infinite combinations and possibilities.

While I agree that for people playing the game a lack of polish and content is the biggest issue, I do believe there are thousands (tens of thousands?) of people who aren't playing the game because civ-switching as is it a turn off that they cant look past.
That's why my solution is supposed to be something that doesn't change the core of civ 7, while easing some issue that many have (including myself) with seeing Greece morph into China while under the rule of Hatshepsut.

 

[Evie]

Mandatory one-path switching and picking one civ that has three se-arate age specific bonuses would fundamentally be the same thing anyway. For change to be meaningful, there has to be choice to it.

How strictly limited the choice is a matter of debate.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

On the one hand, people want to play the same Civ from beginning to end of game. This is a pure fantasy game, because here is no human civilization or culture that has lasted unchanged from 4000 BCE to the present day.

On the other hand, changing the name and graphics of civs by Eras or Ages seems too 'disconnected' for many people, even the ones who are fine with the concept of having their Civ change out from under them at Fixed Dates (or Nearly Fixed).

I suggest that any answer that works for anything resembling a majority of players will have to include Gamer Choice as to what happens to their Civ, and Gamer Choice will have to be mandatory at intervals to represent anything close to actual events BUT should also include the possibility of hanging on to what you already had regardless of he consequences - after all, people as a whole are remarkably Conservative when it comes to many aspects of culture, such as religion, language, family structure: those may change, but rarely abruptly and more often elements are kept on in disguised form even when on the surface a dramatic changes occured.

To satisfy the largest number of gamers you should always have a choice of Keep What You Have or Change With The Times. And in each case, your choice will have both positive and negative outcomes:

Keep What We Have, and your outmoded old Civ/Culture may get submerged as the global or local situation changes. BUT no matter how radical the changes, some elements of your old culture will survive: few changes were as radical as the collapse of western Rome and its replacement by a new political/military/linguistic group of Germanic migrants, yet elements of Roman language, political organization and legal principles are still with us, and have persisted for over 1500 years (in other words, for 2 additional Ages in game terms)

Change With The Times, and you may find the changes aren't all what you thought they would be. To stay with the Rome/Post-Rome example, even the Franks and Goths who took over running things in 476 CE and afterwards did not imagine (as far as the contemporary evidence suggests) Charlemagne's Empire of 300+ years later or the Divinely Righted monarchs of Bourbon France - even though both Charley's Empire and the Bourbons were working with concepts derived from Imperial Rome.

But the point is, even though if you squint Charlemagne doesn't look entirely different in practice from say, a Tang Emperor in China, to say (in fact, to Mandate) that your Antiquity Rome changes into Tang (or, in Civ VII, Ming) China is going to be a sticking point with a lot of gamers. Instead, giving them the option of adopting Chinese Imperial characteristics with post-Roman nomenclature and graphics 'smooths' the transition. A Rome by another name is the same kettle of rice - or garum.

In miniatures wargaming we used to have the concept of 'disguised scenarios' - you thought you were playing a game of Romans versus German tribesmen in 100 CE, but in fact the situation was Custer versus All The Indians In The World in 1876 CE.

Civ could do something similar. You think you are playing Rome Through The Ages, but in fact your Exploration Romans are acting a little like French Royalists and maybe a little like Ming Chinese, depending on the in-game situation.

 

[Krikkit1]

On the one hand, people want to play the same Civ from beginning to end of game. This is a pure fantasy game, because here is no human civilization or culture that has lasted unchanged from 4000 BCE to the present day.

On the other hand, changing the name and graphics of civs by Eras or Ages seems too 'disconnected' for many people, even the ones who are fine with the concept of having their Civ change out from under them at Fixed Dates (or Nearly Fixed).

I suggest that any answer that works for anything resembling a majority of players will have to include Gamer Choice as to what happens to their Civ, and Gamer Choice will have to be mandatory at intervals to represent anything close to actual events BUT should also include the possibility of hanging on to what you already had regardless of he consequences - after all, people as a whole are remarkably Conservative when it comes to many aspects of culture, such as religion, language, family structure: those may change, but rarely abruptly and more often elements are kept on in disguised form even when on the surface a dramatic changes occured.

To satisfy the largest number of gamers you should always have a choice of Keep What You Have or Change With The Times. And in each case, your choice will have both positive and negative outcomes:

Keep What We Have, and your outmoded old Civ/Culture may get submerged as the global or local situation changes. BUT no matter how radical the changes, some elements of your old culture will survive: few changes were as radical as the collapse of western Rome and its replacement by a new political/military/linguistic group of Germanic migrants, yet elements of Roman language, political organization and legal principles are still with us, and have persisted for over 1500 years (in other words, for 2 additional Ages in game terms)

Change With The Times, and you may find the changes aren't all what you thought they would be. To stay with the Rome/Post-Rome example, even the Franks and Goths who took over running things in 476 CE and afterwards did not imagine (as far as the contemporary evidence suggests) Charlemagne's Empire of 300+ years later or the Divinely Righted monarchs of Bourbon France - even though both Charley's Empire and the Bourbons were working with concepts derived from Imperial Rome.

But the point is, even though if you squint Charlemagne doesn't look entirely different in practice from say, a Tang Emperor in China, to say (in fact, to Mandate) that your Antiquity Rome changes into Tang (or, in Civ VII, Ming) China is going to be a sticking point with a lot of gamers. Instead, giving them the option of adopting Chinese Imperial characteristics with post-Roman nomenclature and graphics 'smooths' the transition. A Rome by another name is the same kettle of rice - or garum.

In miniatures wargaming we used to have the concept of 'disguised scenarios' - you thought you were playing a game of Romans versus German tribesmen in 100 CE, but in fact the situation was Custer versus All The Indians In The World in 1876 CE.

Civ could do something similar. You think you are playing Rome Through The Ages, but in fact your Exploration Romans are acting a little like French Royalists and maybe a little like Ming Chinese, depending on the in-game situation.

Exactly…player chooses whether using the bonuses inspired by Songhai means they adopt the name Songhai or are just a exploration age way to be Roman/Meijii/Mexican, etc.

 

[shmily_dana]

I have a hard copy city list of German cities founded by Rome. I'll probably make one for France, Britain, Spain that I'll use if playing one of those leaders. I don't know what I'll do for Ben Franklin. There are some really old settlements in North America. So I might use some of them. For example : The Tucson area has been inhabited for a long time. I hope they implement custom city lists or someone makes a mod.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Exactly…player chooses whether using the bonuses inspired by Songhai means they adopt the name Songhai or are just a exploration age way to be Roman/Meijii/Mexican, etc.

I know I've posted about it before, but it bears repeating:

Player Choice is the key to a successful game.

I do not in all honesty think that Civ VII's problem is with Civ Switching or Age Reset or Immortal Leaders or any other single mechanic. It's problem is that every aspect of the game is presented as a single path with no meaningful choices.

Yes, you get to choose your Civ for the next Age, with some bonuses/aspects developed from the previous Age: but your choices of Civs are limited, and frankly too many of the Civs have only minor distinguishing differences besides Architecture, and everything you do to earn the added bonuses is part of a limited set of actions along a limited set of Legacy Paths - as in, one path per Legacy per Age, which is already getting Boring.

They say the game is supposed to allow the gamer to 'write his own Narrative', but I get the feeling we are only allowed to use verbs and nouns and no adjectives, adverbs or prepositions to compose the narrative.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I have a hard copy city list of German cities founded by Rome. I'll probably make one for France, Britain, Spain that I'll use if playing one of those leaders. I don't know what I'll do for Ben Franklin. There are some really old settlements in North America. So I might use some of them. For example : The Tucson area has been inhabited for a long time. I hope they implement custom city lists or someone makes a mod.

I started composing 'city lists' back in the Civ VI era when I wanted to play as an 'off shoot' Civ, and I still use them.

For Ben Franklin, there are several Native 'town/city' lists that could be used for pre-Modern: I have extensive lists of Haudenosenee, Powhatan, and Salish towns/settlements, for example. Another possibility is to use the Native American place names that have carried over to the modern USA, sometimes with little or no modification. For examples, the Native name for New York City, still used for the island, was Mannahatta, while the cities of Seattle, Chicago, and Tallahassee were all originally Native American place names. You could easily make up a complete city list of Pre-USA native sites still in use.

Or go the other way and use a list of Anglo-Saxon towns from the 6th - 9th centuries, or use a geographically unrelated list from a Civ that shares some characteristics of Expansive and Productive/Economic with Civ VII's America, like the Kushan, Epirot, Old Rus, Xiong-Nu. Once Civ VII divorced Leaders from Civs, it becomes easy to ignore the game-given title of the Civ, use your own City List, and decide you are playing Rome as Byzantium or Maya as Gaul

 

[Lord Lakely]

How strictly limited the choice is a matter of debate.

Philosophically, it's the illusion of choice that people like, not total freedom of choice.

That's the entire debate in a nutshell, isn't it? People like direction and structure, and this is provided by knowing exactly what you're in for. (That, and gamers are notoriously fussy people.)


Conversely, having a completely free path... Well, you're going to figure out what you like, and them play like that until you get bored. Half of the available options will be played once if ever.

 

[Evie]

Some people may want to know exactly what bonuses they'll have the whole game, but that's not "illusion of choice". That's just plain the total absence thereof.

I agree total freedom of choice is too much, but at the opposite end linear paths are too little.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I agree that option 2 is probably most interesting. I guess the right thing to do would be to have timeless bonuses (similar to what leaders have in Civ7) to be attached to civs permanently and age-specific bonuses to be selected as cultures or whatever. This could even be done as a mod to current Civ7 with some efforts.

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I like option #2. I think it solves both problems nicely. It keeps the same civ which will satisfy the die-hards who hate civ-switching. At the same time, by letting the player add civ bonuses each Age, it models the evolution of civs which will make the history players happy. It also gives the player interesting choices which fits the design philosophy of the game.

 

[Leucarum]

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I like option #2. I think it solves both problems nicely. It keeps the same civ which will satisfy the die-hards who hate civ-switching. At the same time, by letting the player add civ bonuses each Age, it models the evolution of civs which will make the history players happy. It also gives the player interesting choices which fits the design philosophy of the game.

As a die hard who opposes civ switching, I will say that the weakness of option 2 is that it runs the risk of feeling generic. I think the biggest challenge would be how you "flavour" it narratively so it feels exciting.

 

[UWHabs]

The fluid civ proposal would be a little weird, in that within the civ 7 sphere you'd have a mix of like "major" civs vs "minor" civs. Like, how much does "Norman America" differ from, say, "Norman Britain", or vs "The Normans" (ie. choosing them as your major civ)?

Personally, I do think that on each age transition, you should be given the option of which culture to keep as your dominant culture. Maybe it only matters for which 3d models to use, and which city names, but I do think if I can transition and decide whether to continue as "Bulgarian Greece" vs "Greek Bulgaria" (in the first option, choosing to remain Greek but adopting Bulgarian traditions, vs the second case, where you adopt the new culture and only use old Greek traditions). I'm not sure if it's enough to satisfy people, or if that makes it worse since now you have to play as "Greco-Norman America"

 

[aieeegrunt]

As a die hard who opposes civ switching, I will say that the weakness of option 2 is that it runs the risk of feeling generic. I think the biggest challenge would be how you "flavour" it narratively so it feels exciting.

Option 2 is not far off from what Civ Rev did, except you can pidk your bonus, and I never felt the need for a narrative flow reminder

I like it. This feels like a genuine improvement over previous versions of Civ, especially the “I picked the Desert Civ, and spawned in a jungle” problem.

You can pick the bonus that fits the current situation your Civ is in, so your Civ is actually evolving and adapting to it’s situation instead of developer fiat.

It’s similar to how I use Govenor’s from Bear’s Govenor Overhaul

The bigger problem is why this had to be figured out by forum randos in their spare time instead of the people specifically being paid to do this as their goddamn job, but that is an endless Fireaxis issue.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

As a die hard who opposes civ switching, I will say that the weakness of option 2 is that it runs the risk of feeling generic. I think the biggest challenge would be how you "flavour" it narratively so it feels exciting.

My solution to that would be twofold. First, have player actions unlock certain bonuses. Other bonuses could be unlocked based on the civ you picked. This would help create immersion so that the civ evolution would tie to player actions or to history and not seem like just random bonuses in a list. Second, give the bonuses names that are interesting and that connect to history. This would help create flavor.

Example 1: if you conquer a city with horsemen-only units, you unlock the "Mongol Horde" culture bonus "newly founded settlements grant you 2 horse archer units" as an option during the Antiquity to Exploration Age transition screen.

Example 2: playing as Rome, during the Age transition from Antiquity to Exploration, you would have the option of the culture bonus "Byzantine Glory", "wonder construction sped up by 20% if you switch capitals."

An example of a full game might look like this: You play as Augustus of Rome. You get the leader bonus of Augustus. You get the Antiquity bonus of Rome. In the Exploration Age, you add "Byzantine Glory". In the Modern Age, you add the "Italian Renaissance" bonus.

I like the idea of adding bonuses on top of each other, rather than switching. This creates the layers of history effect that the devs were going for in civ7. And it will feel like your civ evolved rather than switched since you still have the Antiquity and Exploration bonuses in the late game. In the example above, you stayed as the Roman civ the whole game, you still have the leader and Rome bonus, you just added a Byzantine flavor in the Exploration Age for a focus on wonders and you added an Italian flavor in the Modern Age for a focus on culture.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I like option #2. I think it solves both problems nicely. It keeps the same civ which will satisfy the die-hards who hate civ-switching. At the same time, by letting the player add civ bonuses each Age, it models the evolution of civs which will make the history players happy. It also gives the player interesting choices which fits the design philosophy of the game.

I think a lot of that depends on how those bonuses were made and labeled by the developers.

Is X v Y set of bonuses made and labeled as “Mongol” v “Spain” bonuses because it is somewhat based on the historical Mongols v Spanish
OR
you just have “Horse Archer” bonuses v “Naval” bonuses

I believe The first is better for immersion

I start as Americans (but with Roman bonuses)… then
Americans with Mongol bonuses
then
Americans with American bonuses

OR

I can be Romans with Roman bonuses
Mongols with Mongol bonuses
and then
Americans with American bonuses

I can either emphasize the feeling of continuity or change as I wish for My empire.

 

[Krikkit1]

I agree that is its biggest challenge. My solution would be twofold. First, have player actions unlock certain bonuses. Other bonuses could be unlocked based on the civ you picked. This would help create immersion so that the civ evolution would tie to player actions or to history and not seem like just random bonuses in a list. Second, give the bonuses names that are interesting and that connect to history. This would help create flavor. I also think it is important for the bonuses to make sense with the name and have some logical historical connection. This also helps with immersion.

Example 1: if you conquer a city with horsemen-only units, you unlock the "Mongol Horde" culture bonus "newly founded settlements grant you 2 cavalry units" as an option during the Antiquity to Exploration Age transition screen.

Example 2: playing as Rome, during the Age transition from Antiquity to Exploration, you would have the option of the culture bonus "Byzantine Glory", "wonder construction sped up by 20% if you switch capitals."

An example of a full game might look like this: You play as Augustus of Rome. You get the leader bonus of Augustus. You get the Antiquity bonus of Rome. In the Exploration Age, you add "Byzantine Glory". In the Modern Age, you add the "Italian Renaissance" bonus.

I like the idea of adding bonuses on top of each other, rather than switching. This creates the layers of history effect that the devs were going for in civ7. And it will feel like your civ evolved rather than switched since you still have the Antiquity and Exploration bonuses in the late game. In the example above, you stayed as the Roman civ the whole game, you still have the leader and Rome bonus, you just added a Byzantine flavor in the Exploration Age for a focus on wonders and you added an Italian flavor in the Modern Age for a focus on culture.

I think that’s what the Traditions and Ageless UI/UB (and civ Attribute points) was set up for… some stuff is carried over, but some is not.

I think having some stuff lost is important for flexibility. The fact that they switched around Bulgaria’s abilities v Traditions because some stuff was fine for one age but would get silly OP for multiple ages.
(I wouldn’t be surprised to see that happening to Maya…the 5% production on UQ becoming a civic that expires and the UQ getting some other benefit)

 

[Leucarum]

My solution to that would be twofold. First, have player actions unlock certain bonuses. Other bonuses could be unlocked based on the civ you picked. This would help create immersion so that the civ evolution would tie to player actions or to history and not seem like just random bonuses in a list. Second, give the bonuses names that are interesting and that connect to history. This would help create flavor.

Example 1: if you conquer a city with horsemen-only units, you unlock the "Mongol Horde" culture bonus "newly founded settlements grant you 2 horse archer units" as an option during the Antiquity to Exploration Age transition screen.

Example 2: playing as Rome, during the Age transition from Antiquity to Exploration, you would have the option of the culture bonus "Byzantine Glory", "wonder construction sped up by 20% if you switch capitals."

An example of a full game might look like this: You play as Augustus of Rome. You get the leader bonus of Augustus. You get the Antiquity bonus of Rome. In the Exploration Age, you add "Byzantine Glory". In the Modern Age, you add the "Italian Renaissance" bonus.

I like the idea of adding bonuses on top of each other, rather than switching. This creates the layers of history effect that the devs were going for in civ7. And it will feel like your civ evolved rather than switched since you still have the Antiquity and Exploration bonuses in the late game. In the example above, you stayed as the Roman civ the whole game, you still have the leader and Rome bonus, you just added a Byzantine flavor in the Exploration Age for a focus on wonders and you added an Italian flavor in the Modern Age for a focus on culture.

I guess I am presuming all evolutions are available for all civs. I think that has to be the case as there is less to draw from with some civs than others. If every Civ has their own set of bespoke evolutions then sure it would feel less generic, but that feels like a tough ask.

I think whoever squares the circle of "generic bonuses which feel narratively rewarding" will win the 4X lottery, as I'm pretty sure evplving civs are the direction of travel for the genre as a whole. The push-pull between how something feels and how something plays is going to be an interesting one.

 

[Leucarum]

My 2 cents is that you could use great people as a form of evolution. Have new abilities tied to their recruitment. Kind of like Colonization's continental congress.