My solution to civ switching.

[Krikkit1]

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.

Those are just the two examples of what is already in civ 7
Example 1: Mongol civ unlocked by gameplay
Example 2: Byzantine civ unlocked by Leader/civ*
*this will be DLC eventually

Giving each “civ” or bundle of uniques a gameplay unlock is a good idea because it provides a potential Narrative for the Transition.
If you Don’t have anything that unlocks it (other than a game setting all unlocked) then it’s a little harder to get a good Narrative.

 

[AD1730]

I guess I just reject the need to have “evolution” in civs. Part of the strategy in the past few Civ games is capitalizing on advantages while your civ has them. The problem, in my view, is that the developers have been far too hesitant to implement bold abilities, units, buildings, etc. We need more civs designed like Venice and fewer with milquetoast design (i.e. how they usually do America).

 

[CivKirk64]

Wording something differently could help. (particularly if it is under player control)

I mean you could just pretend its already like that in your head...
If that's ALL it would take for everone to stop moaning about "Switching" and have no problem with new bonuses each age... then sure please do that so I don't need to hear about it anymore.


"We love the mechanics but hate that I'm not America Founded 4000 BCE by Chuck Norris!"

 

[Gen.Washington]

Here's an example to clarify my idea a bit further.

You're playing as Augustus, so that means you're also playing Rome.
In the Age of Antiquity you don't select a separate culture since you're playing Rome's age of glory. You have access to roman civics, units/buildings, and abilities. You'd also get some extra bonuses since I think the asymmetry of a civ having an era where they excel has always been a fun part of the game.

In the age of exploration you select Ming Chinese culture. You are now playing the Ming Roman dynasty, you have access to Ming civics and units/buildings, and retain your roman abilities.
In the final age you select Qing. You are the Qing Roman dynasty, you have Qing civics, units/buildings, and roman abilities.

Obviously there would need to be a rebalance of civs to make their bonuses relevant all game.
I think this hits the middle ground of letting us build a civ that stands the test of time while also letting people experience multiple cultures through a game.

 

[AD1730]

Obviously there would need to be a rebalance of civs to make their bonuses relevant all game.

Is this really obvious? Previous Civ games had era-specific bonuses and those games were far more successful than this one. One of the core philosophies that led to the failure of this game was the belief that players needed to always have unique abilities, units, buildings, etc.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Is this really obvious? Previous Civ games had era-specific bonuses and those games were far more successful than this one. One of the core philosophies that led to the failure of this game was the belief that players needed to always have unique abilities, units, buildings, etc.

While I agree that this idea that "I need to always have access to uniques units and buildings no matter the era" mindset is detrimental to the series, most civ/leader abilities (atleast the good ones) were in some way relevant for most of, if not the entire game and usually helped dictate your strategy with that civ for the entire game. Think V's Aztecs, your units and buildings only came online during early medieval era but your ability was relevant for the entire game and encouraged you to be warmonger.

If VII walked back eras and civ swapping, they would need to rebalance some abilities to make them relevant throughout ages like past titles