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

 

[Jeffery Bagley]

I will not play civ 7 until they remove the mandatory civ switching. They need to implement an optional "classical" mode for the majority who do not like the switching. I am also not a fan of the era concept......thus I keep playing a heavily modified civ 6......if only they could free up the asset bug in civ 6........

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

A bunch of interesting ideas and opinions here, but the important question IMHO is not between Civ Switching and Continuous Civ but in how to make the gamer's decisions as impactful and meaningful as possible.

Which, I think, demands that the game allow the decision to switch Civs at various points, or to keep on with the starting Civ regardless of consequences.

And to choose and accept various changes to your Civ, either the old or the new, based on in-game events and their consequences - and the gamer's choice of strategy and the type of game the gamer wants to play.

Specific Example: Gamer wants to play a Conquering Host game, starting as Rome. Switching to Mongolia in Exploration would seem like a good choice given the gamer preference, but the option should also exist to remain as Rome with a more cavalry-heavy army (the Equites Sarmatii option for Rome?) OR become Byzantium, with modified 'Roman' characteristics and a cavalry-heavy Tagma/cataphract army as a Byzantine UU.

The more choices, the better. The more Important to the play of the game those choices are, Even better.

So, in the above example, Mongolia, Rome and Byzantium, even though the latter two are distinctly related culturally, should be very distinct and different in their basic characteristics based on their Real Life models, but the game should also allow some very distinct and powerful modifications of those Civs based on the gamer's in-game situation. A set of +1 benefits just won't do: a modified Mongolia should both be recognizable as Mongolia and also be and play very differently from Rome - or even the cavalry-heavy Roman-related Byzantium.

I think part of the set of mechanics needed to help with both immersion and identification is to divorce most of the architecture from direct relationship to the Civ. That is, there should not be a Roman style of buildings, but rather a Mediterranean style that is the basic style for Rome, Greece, or any other Civ based originally in the Mediterranean basin. Civ has done this in the past: related architectural styles to the regions/biomes rather than the Civs. Unique Buildings, of course, should remain just that: Unique to their original Civ.

So, IF you remain as Rome into Exploration, your cities will modify their looks to an Exploration Mediterranean style, but if you Civ Switch to, say, Shawnee (because you've decided to play a Trade/Diplomatic Rome in Exploration) then you should have the choice of Mediterranean Exploration architecture OR American Native Exploration architecture - with Roman Unique structures still around,

In fact, I would make the choice of architectural styles always an option: if you want to play Antiquity Rome with East Asian settlements, that should be your choice - possibly because you have decided that Roman civics and culture more closely resemble the Chinese Western Zhou Dynasty you want to play instead of the game-given Han: your choice, always your choice as the gamer regardless how bizarre (Full Disclosure: I have played Civ VII Byzantium of a sorts simply by renaming Mayan settlements and using Charlemagne's free cavalry to build a Byzantish army: it ain't perfect, but it worked for me).

By giving the gamer the choice of Civ, architecture, Leader combination, and free (within in-game situational constraints) choice of continuing Civ, architecture, and individual bonuses, I think we also give the gamer the maximum possibility of 'telling the narrative' the way he/she wants to. It also gives the gamer the maximum possibility of developing a set of choices that maximize the immersion/identification for that particular gamer.

Improving the game, of course, will require more choices of Civs and Leaders, and for some gamers probably more distinctly associating Leaders with Civs by some kind of Bonus/modified Memento system.

Civ VII already requires Civ choices for each Age. Having set up that system, the game also potentialy allows the choice of Not switching Civs, and potentially of keeping the same Civ or a different Civ but modifying them both by play potential and visual appearance (architecture) as the gamer desires.

 

[j51]

I posted this in another one of the civ switching threads:

I think I have a good idea that both makes the transition between civs smoother and allows for the player to keep the same civ if they so choose:

The switch itself doesn’t happen on reset, instead the player just picks the next civ they want. At the start of the age the player still gets access to the new civ ability and any uniques that are unlocked right away (usually units). The unlocking of uniques still occurs the same way too. Once the player slots their third new tradition (or completes their unique civic tree) they are presented with a narrative pop-up that describes how through “adapting to this new age” or some such, they have changed so much that “outsiders now refer to your civilization as [Y].” The player is then offered a choice to embrace this new identity, or to “persevere to old ways. We always have and always will be [X]!” If the the player chooses the new name then their civ’s name, icons, city list, etc. changes to that of the civ they are currently playing.

This can all be made even smoother by adding small narrative pop ups at the age’s start and with each adoption of a new tradition describing some of the ways the civilization is changing. Also architectures styles will need to remain for the previous era and only the new buildings will reflect the new civ, but gradually the filler buildings will change too as more traditions are adopted.

I think this is a much more smooth and natural way to handle civ switching. Also it ties the change not to an abrupt crisis at the end of an era, but instead to a gradual evolution in response to the challenges of the new age. And of course it allows for the player to keep their original civ ‘s name and other identifiers if they so choose.

 

[Leucarum]

I agree with trying to make the changes more organic, but I think the logic of that is that the evolutions need to not be related to other civs. Most Civs don't have a wellspring of obvious evolutions in their history, and turning into "mongols in all but name" for example would probably still feel unsatisfying.

One option could be to have multiple smaller evolutions based on big choices in the tech and civic trees? E.g. when you develop horseback riding/stirrups, do you want to acquire some traits of nomadic horse-based societies? Then have a smaller number of bespoke choices for each civ?

 

[aieeegrunt]

This really seems like overcomplicating things

Have a set of bonuses/UU/building or whatever for each era. When you get to an era, pick a bonus.

You get to evolve your civ your way. I spawned next to a lot of horses, I may want to pick a horse horde style bonus. I’m in the desert, I can go for some sort of Fremen bonus or whatever

If I want to “play the meta” and pick broken combos I can. If I want to pick traits based on my roleplay and the story I am making for myself I can do that too. If I want wacky nonsense, or try new things I can.

Simple, clean, efficient, and totaly player agency

 

[Krikkit1]

This really seems like overcomplicating things

Have a set of bonuses/UU/building or whatever for each era. When you get to an era, pick a bonus.

You get to evolve your civ your way. I spawned next to a lot of horses, I may want to pick a horse horde style bonus. I’m in the desert, I can go for some sort of Fremen bonus or whatever

If I want to “play the meta” and pick broken combos I can. If I want to pick traits based on my roleplay and the story I am making for myself I can do that too. If I want wacky nonsense, or try new things I can.

Simple, clean, efficient, and totaly player agency

Too generic.
Picking Mongol bonuses >> Picking Cav bonuses

The change that’s needed is for the name to stay under player control.
Romans getting Mongol bonuses v Romans becoming Mongols
should be a player choice in game

 

[j51]

Having the optional name change come later after gradually adopting new traditions allows for treating the pick as either a new civ or simply a set of bonuses.

 

[TheRizla]

Surely the solution would be to have the option to civ-switch when you have completed all the legacy paths for that particular era. That way you can decide when you think it’s the best time to switch.

Civ-switching should not happen to all the players at exactly the same time. This creates friction as sometimes you don’t want to civ-switch but you are forced into it.

It would be much better if you could civ-switch separately from everyone else. That way you could have civilizations from the exploration and even modern age playing against those from antiquity.

 

[The Economy]

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


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.

I've been wanting something like this since at least Civ 5.

You keep your civ, but during age transition you can select a couple of extra traits to 'evolve' your civ. Let's say you always receive 2 traits that are unique to your civ, and above that you can pick out 2 extra traits from a list. This way you are always evolving over the course of history, but you still retain your identity.

 

[Crashdummy]

I think most people at this point realizes that both Age transitions and Civ switching were big mistakes, and only a few people defend those decisions. Even the content creators that praised the game for months trying to convince people that it was good, now admit that those were mistakes

Moreso, we now have 2 games that implement it in different ways, and both were failures. We need a Classic Mode to bring the players back, and i know its a lot of work, but the more they delay the start on such work, the less successful it will be when its inevitably released

Civilization was always about picking a Civilization and see where you can take it, to try to stand the test of time, that was the soul of the franchise which was removed on the current iteration

Also, part of the problem with the current Age system is that it places a stop in the gameplay after each age, which breaks immersion, so it isnt just a "allow to choose to continue with the same Civ", i think a Classic Mode should be able to be selected before the start of the game so those stops arent even in the game

 

[Gedemon]

I think most people at this point realizes that both Age transitions and Civ switching were big mistakes, and only a few people defend those decisions. Even the content creators that praised the game for months trying to convince people that it was good, now admit that those were mistakes

Moreso, we now have 2 games that implement it in different ways, and both were failures. We need a Classic Mode to bring the players back, and i know its a lot of work, but the more they delay the start on such work, the less successful it will be when its inevitably released

Civilization was always about picking a Civilization and see where you can take it, to try to stand the test of time, that was the soul of the franchise which was removed on the current iteration

Also, part of the problem with the current Age system is that it places a stop in the gameplay after each age, which breaks immersion, so it isnt just a "allow to choose to continue with the same Civ", i think a Classic Mode should be able to be selected before the start of the game so those stops arent even in the game

doing both at the same time is the big mistake, it will alienate switching to the player's base for generations, which is sad, because I'm still convinced there are implementations of civ-switching that can work. HK with geographic unlocking was the best version of a modded civ game I played since civ4.

 

[Brave Sir Robin]

for many of us,there is one obvious fix.GET RID OF IT !

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

for many of us,there is one obvious fix.GET RID OF IT !

"Obvious', yes, but not necessarily a 'fix'. That devolution/solution leaves us right back with the fantasy 6000 year old Civs some of us would have preferred to see the back of about 3 renditions of Civ ago.

Which is not to say it doesn't need a serious reboot, just that going back to the old bad way is not, IMHO, a fix for a new bad way of designing a 4x game.

What several have posted, and with which I agree, is more Choice for the gamer: them what wants to play the Xiong-Nu from 4000 BCE to 2025 CE should be able to, and them that wants to follow a Civ through multiple evolutions of various degrees of severity should also get their chance.

The great disaster of Civ VII's Civ-switching was not the concept/mechanic itself, but the way it was implemented to give no one much of any choice at all in what and how they could play the game. That pretty much guaranteed the majority would not get to play the game they wanted to play - and so they aren't playing it at all.

 

[ehecatzin]

I'm one of those weirdos that actually likes the civ switching. However I think there needs to be some criteria met before it "clicks" fully:

• We need way more civs as to not make the switching jarring, and some continents really need more love. Some playthroughs are very flavourfull, for example Han-Ming-Qing, Greece-Bulgaria-Russia.you can deviate a bit but you stay "in the ball park" but then you play Mayan and look at the barren wasteland that is mesoamerica in comparison. (not to mention Oceania)
• It needs to be smoother. They are already moving into that direction with smoother era transitions and longer eras, more could be done to add to this like: graphics slowly changing reflecting cultural changes, events, ability to keep your city list intact, etc.
• The ability to keep your civ during era transition. for those who want the extra challenge. (tho events and maybe a couple of extended traditions could be cool rewards for doing so)
• and...no more Eras, it will only make the problem worse

I think It's easier to give classic players the options they want rather than scrap the civ switching completely. add some unlockable rewards for doing so and take advantage of it with civ specific events about fighting off decay and corruption (all civs have cool what if events they could draw from for inspiration), heck It's not even just for classic players, what If I'm doing super well in my Mayan game and I want to keep the ball rolling? then I'm hit with particular challenges and events relating to the Mayan post classical collapse? sign me in.

If anything it would make "building a civ that can stand the test of time" mean something of a challenge.