My solution to civ switching.

[Gen.Washington]

"Civilizations" as we know them in civ 7 are replaced with "cultures".
The leader you play locks you in to a actual civilization like the previous games.
Every age you select a cultural identity for your civilization, much like we currently pick a civ each age. If your leaders civilization belongs in the era you're currently playing you don't pick a cultural identity but instead you gain some powerful abilities as you play through your civ's "age of glory" or whatever we decide to call it.

Here's an example.
I pick Ben Franklin, so therefore I am playing the American Civilization.
In the first age I pick Rome as my cultural identity, I am now Roman America.
In the age of exploration I choose the Norman culture, I am now Norman America.
In the modern age, since that's the age America's from, I don't pick a unique culture, but instead get some powerful leader/nation bonuses/units as I play through America's age of glory.

This would obviously require some rebalancing and remaking certain civs, etc.

This was revealed to me in a dream, so may have flaws I've overlooked.
Thoughts?

 

[SupremacyKing2]

"Civilizations" as we know them in civ 7 are replaced with "cultures".
The leader you play locks you in to a actual civilization like the previous games.
Every age you select a cultural identity for your civilization, much like we currently pick a civ each age. If your leaders civilization belongs in the era you're currently playing you don't pick a cultural identity but instead you gain some powerful abilities as you play through your civ's "age of glory" or whatever we decide to call it.

Here's an example.
I pick Ben Franklin, so therefore I am playing the American Civilization.
In the first age I pick Rome as my cultural identity, I am now Roman America.
In the age of exploration I choose the Norman culture, I am now Norman America.
In the modern age, since that's the age America's from, I don't pick a unique culture, but instead get some powerful leader/nation bonuses/units as I play through America's age of glory.

This would obviously require some rebalancing and remaking certain civs, etc.

This was revealed to me in a dream, so may have flaws I've overlooked.
Thoughts?

This feels like the same thing we have now, just with different wording to soften the civ-switching. You still have leader bonuses that stay throughout the game, like in civ7. You are just calling them "civilization" bonuses. And you are pairing those bonuses with other bonuses that change each Age, like in civ7. You are just calling them "culture" instead of "civilization" bonuses. This gives the illusion that the player is culture-switching instead of civ-switching. But the gameplay effect is the same. So yeah, it might make players feel better since they won't feel like they are civ-switching anymore when really they are, just by a different name.

 

[AD1730]

I appreciate all these attempts to fix the system, but at some point, I think we have to admit that civ switching is simply incompatible with the franchise for a majority of fans. The only way to solve it is to remove it. However, you can't do that without alienating the minority that loves it. This is why you shouldn't introduce a feature like this in the first place, but here we are. The game can't grow without removing it, but it could irrevocably damage the franchise's reputation in the future if you do.

 

[Hawke9]

I appreciate all these attempts to fix the system, but at some point, I think we have to admit that civ switching is simply incompatible with the franchise for a majority of fans. The only way to solve it is to remove it. However, you can't do that without alienating the minority that loves it. This is why you shouldn't introduce a feature like this in the first place, but here we are. The game can't grow without removing it, but it could irrevocably damage the franchise's reputation in the future if you do.

I still think an optional "classic mode" could save civ 7

 

[AD1730]

I still think an optional "classic mode" could save civ 7

I disagree. An optional mode is unlikely to receive the attention it needs to create engaging gameplay.

 

[Krikkit1]

This feels like the same thing we have now, just with different wording to soften the civ-switching. You still have leader bonuses that stay throughout the game, like in civ7. You are just calling them "civilization" bonuses. And you are pairing those bonuses with other bonuses that change each Age, like in civ7. You are just calling them "culture" instead of "civilization" bonuses. This gives the illusion that the player is culture-switching instead of civ-switching. But the gameplay effect is the same. So yeah, it might make players feel better since they won't feel like they are civ-switching anymore when really they are, just by a different name.

Different wording is important. I see 2 improvements to the civ switching

Name/Identity Improvement
Players can keep/choose the “name” of the civ each age (“name” being the complete package of name city list and graphic style) even if it doesn’t match the bonuses they choose.

There would then also be a game setting to determine whether AIs would match their “name” to
-their uniques (current)
-their leader (Franklin chooses America “name” and sticks with it)
**Multiplayer might have an option to force players to do one of those things as well…ie
“open naming”=default
or
“forced naming”=players have to follow the same name changing rules as the AI

Mechanics Option
Have a gameplay option for all players to have uniques only in the age their whole game civ has uniques.

There would be some “attribute partial uniques” for other Ages…so in Antiquity Mongolia and America would both get the Antiquity Expansion unique civic tree (America would also get the Antiquity Economic unique civic tree, Mongolia would also get the Antiquity Military unique civic tree)

So you would play a single civ with one highly unique “age of glory” and some semi unique bonuses in other ages.

 

[Evie]

I proposed somethign pretty similar, only instead of the "cultural identitites" being Civs again (so you would be "Roman America"), the culture refered to specific cultural periods or sub-divisions in that civilization's history. For some that means keeping the same name (eg, all the civs named after dynasties - Meiji, Han, Qing, Ming, and pretty much Norman as well), but for others, this would mean that instead of picking your culture from Roman, Egyptian, Greek, French Republic, British, American, you would have the choice of culture between Principate, Pharaonic, Hellenistic, Belle Époque, Victorian or Gilded Age (or Wild West). Each heavily flavored (including change to your civilization's graphical appearance) to represent that they're a distinct, actual culture that's core to your region's identity - not merely a set of bonus you're picking.

Then in the game you would be listed as Victorian Buganda, or Hellenistic Persia (ie, the Seleucid) or Pharaonic Nubia (which covers at least a couple of dynasties), or Gilded Age Russia, and so forth, with graphics changing depending on combinations.

But it seems that the people who want same-civ-the-whole-game think that's not enough (they want their fully overdesigned bonus collection you pick at game start and never change) and the people who like civ-switching think that's too much (they want to actually civ-switch between complete packages), so...

 

[Yzman]

"Civilizations" as we know them in civ 7 are replaced with "cultures".
The leader you play locks you in to a actual civilization like the previous games.
Every age you select a cultural identity for your civilization, much like we currently pick a civ each age. If your leaders civilization belongs in the era you're currently playing you don't pick a cultural identity but instead you gain some powerful abilities as you play through your civ's "age of glory" or whatever we decide to call it.

Here's an example.
I pick Ben Franklin, so therefore I am playing the American Civilization.
In the first age I pick Rome as my cultural identity, I am now Roman America.
In the age of exploration I choose the Norman culture, I am now Norman America.
In the modern age, since that's the age America's from, I don't pick a unique culture, but instead get some powerful leader/nation bonuses/units as I play through America's age of glory.

This would obviously require some rebalancing and remaking certain civs, etc.

This was revealed to me in a dream, so may have flaws I've overlooked.
Thoughts?

This is exactly what we have currently, just worded differently and made a lot more confusing.

 

[Krikkit1]

This is exactly what we have currently, just worded differently and made a lot more confusing.

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

 

[Gedemon]

This is exactly what we have currently, just worded differently and made a lot more confusing.

A lot of people hate the concept because it breaks their immersion, the feeling of building an Empire that stands the test of times.

Wording and continuity in appearance is a simple fix.

 

[Gen.Washington]

As mentioned by some comments, yes this system is mostly superficial, that was my point. Realistically they are not going to fundamentally change the game, but maybe we could get a minor overhaul that somewhat helps with immersion.

 

[Leucarum]

Civ evolution is a great idea, so I like exploring how these could be done without the jarring changes associated with Civ switching.

I worry that adding new "cultural affixes" might end up feeling a little bland, but I think it's a good route to explore

My personal thought was that maybe the solution was already in colonization, where you have a continental congress that you add to. Having a cabinet of "Great People" that you add to (without replacing your leader) adding their cultural distinctiveness to your own could be a characterful way to do it, albeit with some tension between how you distinguish them from your Civ's leader...

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I feel like there are basically 5 ways to do civ-switching:

1) No civ-switching. Fixed civ.
You select a civ at start of the game and keep it unchanged throughout the game. This is what civ1-6 did.

2) No civ-switching. Fluid civ.
You select a civ at start of the game and keep that civ but you can add/change bonuses to the civ during the game. I think the solution proposed in this thread would fit in this category. You could let the player add new civ bonuses when they hit certain milestones like high culture, getting a certain number of wonders or having a certain number of cities. Or you could have the player add new civ bonuses at Age transitions.

3) Civ-switching at Ages (forced).
You must select a different civ at each Age. This is the civ7 solution.

4) Civ-switching at Ages (optional).
Same as above except the player has option of keeping same civ in the next Age, but receive extra bonuses. This is similar to Humankind approach.

5) Civ-switching not at Ages, based on player actions.
This would allow civ-switching at any point in the game, not Ages. The mechanic for determining when a civ can switch could vary. The idea of this solution would be to make civ switching more organic in the game rather than the arbitrary civ switch at Age transitions.

One solution could be a quest mechanic where the player has the option of completing a quest and if they do, they get to select a new civ. Some quests could be based on history while others could be generic. The player could choose to complete a quest to switch to that civ.

Another solution could be letting the player spend culture to switch civ. This way the player could choose to switch civs if they feel their current civ is not "working for them" or another civ would work better for their new strategy. But there could be consequences, like a risk of some cities splitting away from your civ. And there could be a cap like only 2 civ switches per game so the player would have to be careful about if or when they switch civs and to prevent excessive civ switching.

IMO, #2 and #5 are the best options. #2 is the best if you don't believe in civ switching but still want the player to be able to "customize" their civ. #5 would be the best if you do believe in civ-switching but want the player to have more control.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In my opinion the ideal way to implement switching would be to actually have a "leader" switch in a game. For instance, if you want to play as England all game you can choose England and start with Alfred, and they would have an Anglo-Saxon feel. The next age arrives and you able to change your government and keep your old leader or change into Tudor inspired England with Elizabeth or British Empire inspired England with Victoria. At the same time nothing is stopping you from picking Victoria at the beginning and then switching to Alfred, if you like her bonuses better at the start.

For some civs with only one leader it wouldn't necessarily work out this way, and maybe for player's preference when playing against AI opponents you can have the option of leader switching or not

This idea will also never happen for Civ 7 but maybe they could experiment with it for Civ 8.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I feel like there are basically 5 ways to do civ-switching:

1) No civ-switching. Fixed civ.
You select a civ at start of the game and keep it unchanged throughout the game. This is what civ1-6 did.

2) No civ-switching. Fluid civ.
You select a civ at start of the game and keep that civ but you can add/change bonuses to the civ during the game. I think the solution proposed in this thread would fit in this category. You could let the player add new civ bonuses when they hit certain milestones like high culture, getting a certain number of wonders or having a certain number of cities. Or you could have the player add new civ bonuses at Age transitions.

3) Civ-switching at Ages (forced).
You must select a different civ at each Age. This is the civ7 solution.

4) Civ-switching at Ages (optional).
Same as above except the player has option of keeping same civ in the next Age, but receive extra bonuses. This is similar to Humankind approach.

5) Civ-switching not at Ages, based on player actions.
This would allow civ-switching at any point in the game, not Ages. The mechanic for determining when a civ can switch could vary. The idea of this solution would be to make civ switching more organic in the game rather than the arbitrary civ switch at Age transitions.

One solution could be a quest mechanic where the player has the option of completing a quest and if they do, they get to select a new civ. Some quests could be based on history while others could be generic. The player could choose to complete a quest to switch to that civ.

Another solution could be letting the player spend culture to switch civ. This way the player could choose to switch civs if they feel their current civ is not "working for them" or another civ would work better for their new strategy. But there could be consequences, like a risk of some cities splitting away from your civ. And there could be a cap like only 2 civ switches per game so the player would have to be careful about if or when they switch civs and to prevent excessive civ switching.

IMO, #2 and #5 are the best options. #2 is the best if you don't believe in civ switching but still want the player to be able to "customize" their civ. #5 would be the best if you do believe in civ-switching but want the player to have more control.

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.

Option 5 is quite bad from gameplay perspective, it's interesting for historical simulation. This approach requires timeless civs like in option 1, which is already less balanced, but on top of this, it allows gaming the system, like switching from civ with early bonuses to civ with late ones.

 

[Evie]

In my opinion the ideal way to implement switching would be to actually have a "leader" switch in a game. For instance, if you want to play as England all game you can choose England and start with Alfred, and they would have an Anglo-Saxon feel. The next age arrives and you able to change your government and keep your old leader or change into Tudor inspired England with Elizabeth or British Empire inspired England with Victoria. At the same time nothing is stopping you from picking Victoria at the beginning and then switching to Alfred, if you like her bonuses better at the start.

For some civs with only one leader it wouldn't necessarily work out this way, and maybe for player's preference when playing against AI opponents you can have the option of leader switching or not

This idea will also never happen for Civ 7 but maybe they could experiment with it for Civ 8.

And how many leaders would that require, assuming every civilization is to have more than one choice, and assuming leaders should be historical as people keep reminding us?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

And how many leaders would that require, assuming every civilization is to have more than one choice, and assuming leaders should be historical as people keep reminding us?

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I understand not every civ would have more than one choice. For those reasons if you choose a civ with one leader it would be your leader for the entire game.
I guess there could always be an option to mix and match leaders as well, if you'd like to experiment.

 

[Evie]

So...switchign and evolution but only for some civs, and only the ones that actually existed for multiple parts of the game, but if your civ is Babylon well too bad you can only ever have Hammurabi.

With all due respect - and god knows you've earned more of mine than most - I really cannot emphasize enough how much that approach strikes me as the worst of all worlds. Assymetric design where some civilizations can shift and others cannot feels like a design nightmare in terms of some civilizations having formidable flexibility and others not.

Mix and match would be more promising, but of course the screams about leaders with the wrong civ would set the world on fire.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

So...switchign and evolution but only for some civs, and only the ones that actually existed for multiple parts of the game, but if your civ is Babylon well too bad you can only ever have Hammurabi.

With all due respect - and god knows you've earned more of mine than most - I really cannot emphasize enough how much that approach strikes me as the worst of all worlds. Assymetric design where some civilizations can shift and others cannot feels like a design nightmare in terms of some civilizations having formidable flexibility and others not.

I guess in my mind I see it no different than how in Civ 6 if you choose Babylon you will know you get Hammurabi, but if you choose China you get a choice of 4 or 5 different leaders instead. The only difference I am suggesting is you could switch the leader abilities mid-game.

Mix and match would be more promising, but of course the screams about leaders with the wrong civ would set the world on fire.

Which is why this could be an optional setting. I think the more customizable the game options are, the game would be better for it.

 

[Evie]

The problem is, where a civ with multiple leaders would be able to change leader ability and customize mid game (and not just at the start of the game), thus gaining new powers that better fit the game situation as needed one without would be stuck without that ability, less able to adapt to the game situation, and thus hampered.

Either all civs must have the ability to swap, or none - the alternative is unbalanced as all, and would be just as much of a criticism lightning rod for fans of civs stuck unble to change. If all, then that either requires making a bonker number of leaders, or making mix and match the default rather than a mere option.