My solution to civ switching.

[Leucarum]

Tho if I had to choose one feature I really dislike and I don't think can be "fixed" is the leaders, I think those are the most immersion breaking thing, not a civ evolving.

I'm the exact opposite way around! I feel like the leader mixing/matching adds the diversity to gameplay that Firaxis probably thought Civ Switching would. I really hope that's a mechanic which sticks around!

 

[ehecatzin]

maybe it will be better for me once we get enough leaders

 

[Leucarum]

maybe it will be better for me once we get enough leaders

I can definitely understand why it might feel bad for immersion. But I like that it makes space for civs without leaders like Mississippians

 

[Lord Lakely]

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)

I'm currently in the process of calculating how many Civs we would need, exactly to make that work.

Gaze upon this monstrosity that currently represents the Europe graph (some Civs to be trimmed but still):

AAAARGHHHH. (and this is JUST europe. I am NOT looking forward to the Middle Eastern and South East Asian graphs)

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:

• 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)

Well, I noticed that the game already has a slider with a 'Classic Mode' in the game creator, so something might be in the works.

I think the optimal way to approach this would be by giving every leader a pre-determined path as CLOSE to an approximation to the personal history and/or their Civ's path as possible. Hattie's path should be Egypts (plural) across all three ages, while Augustus and Machiaveli should segue into leading Italian factions in Epxloration and Modern.

Of course SOME of the leaders already chosen have a pathetically narrow scope (Machiavelli) while others such as Genghis Khan and Charlemagne cast a net so wide they could feasibly lead all Civs on their home continent. Working leader-based is key though, with every leader vicariously representing their home Civ as they've done before, and adding leaders for the Civs that still lack representation such as Bulgaria and Hawaii.

I'm trying to get a discussion going in this thread in Ideas and Suggestions for leader-based paths, plugging the gaps that already exist with as few Civs as possible. Spoiler: we're gonna need way more than the eight we got from DLC so far. Anyone who is willing to come up with a constructive solution (beyond: Switches bad, won't play) is welcome to join in. ^__^

 

[Lebo44]

For me, the biggest immersion killer is... the graphics!

Civ 7 undoubtedly has the most visually stunning graphics in the franchise—units, cities, and terrain are richly detailed. Yet despite that, the map feels very cluttered and, to my eyes, the least readable of all Civ games. It’s tough to differentiate between quarters, districts, and various urban features.

Even worse, Civ 6 for example gave a real sense of historical progression on the map. You could see your city evolve—its central square transforming from humble buildings to dazzling, futuristic skyscrapers. Surrounding areas would gradually fill in, with modern infrastructure like stadiums, factories, wind turbines, and awe-inspiring wonders reshaping the map’s landscape.

In Civ 7, architectural styles technically do change through the ages, but the cities themselves still look like large, indistinct blobs. The sections blur together, and the overall vibe remains static, making it harder to feel that exciting progress.

Probably it's just me but growing cities and improving land around them gives me much less satisfaction than in Civ 6.

 

[Leucarum]

I'm currently in the process of calculating how many Civs we would need, exactly to make that work.

Gaze upon this monstrosity that currently represents the Europe graph (some Civs to be trimmed but still):

View attachment 738338

AAAARGHHHH. (and this is JUST europe. I am NOT looking forward to the Middle Eastern and South East Asian graphs)


Well, I noticed that the game already has a slider with a 'Classic Mode' in the game creator, so something might be in the works.

I think the optimal way to approach this would be by giving every leader a pre-determined path as CLOSE to an approximation to the personal history and/or their Civ's path as possible. Hattie's path should be Egypts (plural) across all three ages, while Augustus and Machiaveli should segue into leading Italian factions in Epxloration and Modern.

Of course SOME of the leaders already chosen have a pathetically narrow scope (Machiavelli) while others such as Genghis Khan and Charlemagne cast a net so wide they could feasibly lead all Civs on their home continent. Working leader-based is key though, with every leader vicariously representing their home Civ as they've done before, and adding leaders for the Civs that still lack representation such as Bulgaria and Hawaii.

I'm trying to get a discussion going in this thread in Ideas and Suggestions for leader-based paths, plugging the gaps that already exist with as few Civs as possible. Spoiler: we're gonna need way more than the eight we got from DLC so far. Anyone who is willing to come up with a constructive solution (beyond: Switches bad, won't play) is welcome to join in. ^__^

So, one issue I've had with Civ7 is that despire the variety of combinations leaders could end up picking, the suggested paths constrain things so you always see the AI playing the same things over and over again, which with just a tiny number of civs per era was very repetitive.

One mod which improved the game for me over the unmodded version was a mod which removed all preferences for what civs should follow. Compared to humankind, I think having suggested or preferred paths might have been one of the biggest steps backwards for civ switching.

I get that for a lot of players their historical immersiom is damaged by civ switching, so I see where your effort is aimed, but gameplay-wise I wonder if this degree of suggested evolutions would be a step backwards.

 

[Lord Lakely]

So, one issue I've had with Civ7 is that despire the variety of combinations leaders could end up picking, the suggested paths constrain things so you always see the AI playing the same things over and over again, which with just a tiny number of civs per era was very repetitive.

One mod which improved the game for me over the unmodded version was a mod which removed all preferences for what civs should follow. Compared to humankind, I think having suggested or preferred paths might have been one of the biggest steps backwards for civ switching.

I get that for a lot of players their historical immersiom is damaged by civ switching, so I see where your effort is aimed, but gameplay-wise I wonder if this degree of suggested evolutions would be a step backwards.

As happens more often, I'm of the opposite opinion. I prefer predetermined paths and find them more immersive.

I am not opposed to some variation in the choice I have available to me upon age transition. But having everything open just results in me picking the civs I like most every game (Bulgaria and Abbasid for Exploration. Mughal in Modern), ironically with very little variation. I've had insane games where I was still learning the game and was sciencing combos (Greece into Ming under Lafayette after an Era with APPALLING science for example), but now that I know them... well... the average Lord Lakely game is Han (or Assyria) with Shischa Necklace and that Tomahawk that gives +1 Production in every Settlement per Suze bonus, into wide Abbasids into purchasing Wonders as the Mughals.

Personally, I actually would be very happy if the choices offered to me were just the historic choices tied to my leader, and nothing else. That would still give me a choice, and I can plan ahead for that choice. My games would also be less samey.

 

[Leucarum]

As happens more often, I'm of the opposite opinion. I prefer predetermined paths and find them more immersive.

I am not opposed to some variation in the choice I have available to me upon age transition. But having everything open just results in me picking the civs I like most every game (Bulgaria and Abbasid for Exploration. Mughal in Modern), ironically with very little variation. I've had insane games where I was still learning the game and was sciencing combos (Greece into Ming under Lafayette after an Era with APPALLING science for example), but now that I know them... well... the average Lord Lakely game is Han (or Assyria) with Shischa Necklace and that Tomahawk that gives +1 Production in every Settlement per Suze bonus, into wide Abbasids into purchasing Wonders as the Mughals.

Personally, I actually would be very happy if the choices offered to me were just the historic choices tied to my leader, and nothing else. That would still give me a choice, and I can plan ahead for that choice. My games would also be less samey.

In the end I am hopeful that for Civ7, the devs appear to be implementing everything under the sun as an optional game mode. While we'll probably all end up spending more time setting up our games than actually playing them, it has the potential for everyone to get their cake, eat them, and probably sprinkle on some mods for taste.

 

[Lord Lakely]

In the end I am hopeful that for Civ7, the devs appear to be implementing everything under the sun as an optional game mode. While we'll probably all end up spending more time setting up our games than actually playing them, it has the potential for everyone to get their cake, eat them, and probably sprinkle on some mods for taste.

We need the game to save our previous settings. i'm so tired of switching crises off and setting the other things to the perfect values. So many clicks!!!

 

[Leucarum]

We need the game to save our previous settings. i'm so tired of switching crises off and setting the other things to the perfect values. So many clicks!!!

Agreed! There is a save settings option but it resets your civ/leader/momentos if you already had those selected which I inevitably do since I forget I can use the preset.

Also we both agree on turning crises off...

 

[Crashdummy]

We need the game to save our previous settings. i'm so tired of switching crises off and setting the other things to the perfect values. So many clicks!!!

And even better, be able to save several sets of configurations and even the ability to import/export

But then we go back to this Civlization being made with consoles in mind, so all the possibilities PC can give you gets reduced

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

I feel like Elrond, I was there Gandalf 3000 years ago.

It was bad, not just some hickup, but I think we are making the same point, they did eventually turn it around and turn it into a classic. But that takes time, work, and lots of patches and a couple expansions. However I do agree in that this time there's something else, and I think they deviated too much on the rules o 1/3. However I don't think the culprit is the civ switching all by itself, I've mentioned all the things I think caused the discontent, and I also think they can be fixed and tweaked for smoother gameplay.

Tho if I had to choose one feature I really dislike and I don't think can be "fixed" is the leaders, I think those are the most immersion breaking thing, not a civ evolving.

I am also one of the old ones who was there and while it was a bad launch, it wasn't Civ VII bad because the change to 1UPT actually inspired a whole new audience to buy the game. Which is why V easily outsold previous Civilization titles and was a critical and commercial success despite its rocky launch.

VII cannot say the same with its divisive changes. Hilariously you may say that detached leaders is the worst thing about the game, another may say its civ swapping, another may say its seperating the game into three mini-games seperated by loading screen, we could argue about which divisive change we hate the most but at the end of the day all the matters is all these changes together helped compound into a complete flop.

 

[Bug Repellent]

For me, the biggest immersion killer is... the graphics!

Civ 7 undoubtedly has the most visually stunning graphics in the franchise—units, cities, and terrain are richly detailed. Yet despite that, the map feels very cluttered and, to my eyes, the least readable of all Civ games. It’s tough to differentiate between quarters, districts, and various urban features.

Even worse, Civ 6 for example gave a real sense of historical progression on the map. You could see your city evolve—its central square transforming from humble buildings to dazzling, futuristic skyscrapers. Surrounding areas would gradually fill in, with modern infrastructure like stadiums, factories, wind turbines, and awe-inspiring wonders reshaping the map’s landscape.

In Civ 7, architectural styles technically do change through the ages, but the cities themselves still look like large, indistinct blobs. The sections blur together, and the overall vibe remains static, making it harder to feel that exciting progress.

Probably it's just me but growing cities and improving land around them gives me much less satisfaction than in Civ 6.

I absolutely agree with you and I'm sure current Twitch stats back your claims. Below you see Civ6 vs. Civ7 stats on Twitch right now, Saturday evening US time. If you remove the content creators, Civ7 has a total of four (not a typo) viewers on Twitch. I didn't find a single livestream on Youtube. Civ6 on the other hand, has 185 viewers (not including the streamers). That's a nearly 50:1 ratio in Civ6's favor. At the same time, there is only a 3.5:1 ratio in Civ6's favor in current Steam players. I think it's fair to point out that Civ7 has a streaming problem. I used to watch Ursa Ryan play Civ6 all the time. But I cannot follow him playing Civ7 as I find the games readability atrocious.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I feel like Elrond, I was there Gandalf 3000 years ago.

It was bad, not just some hickup, but I think we are making the same point, they did eventually turn it around and turn it into a classic. But that takes time, work, and lots of patches and a couple expansions. However I do agree in that this time there's something else, and I think they deviated too much on the rules o 1/3. However I don't think the culprit is the civ switching all by itself, I've mentioned all the things I think caused the discontent, and I also think they can be fixed and tweaked for smoother gameplay.

Tho if I had to choose one feature I really dislike and I don't think can be "fixed" is the leaders, I think those are the most immersion breaking thing, not a civ evolving.

Ya I was fhere too. Civ7’s is way, way worse. It’s a debacle

Good thing I never said VII's performance was solely due to its UI.

Was it a factor, though? Undoubtedly. You can't handwave that away, I'm afraid.

You keep trying to use “business as usual” as a deflection to avoid confronting the fact that 7 is a disaster.

 

[Crashdummy]

I absolutely agree with you and I'm sure current Twitch stats back your claims. Below you see Civ6 vs. Civ7 stats on Twitch right now, Saturday evening US time. If you remove the content creators, Civ7 has a total of four (not a typo) viewers on Twitch. I didn't find a single livestream on Youtube. Civ6 on the other hand, has 185 viewers (not including the streamers). That's a nearly 50:1 ratio in Civ6's favor. At the same time, there is only a 3.5:1 ratio in Civ6's favor in current Steam players. I think it's fair to point out that Civ7 has a streaming problem. I used to watch Ursa Ryan play Civ6 all the time. But I cannot follow him playing Civ7 as I find the games readability atrocious.

View attachment 738347
View attachment 738348

Just looking at the thumbnails you can see the readability issue. Even in such small images, you can detect a lot of what is happening on the Civ6 screens, yet in the Civ 7 ones, you can barely distinguish anything

That being said, i dont think readability is a main driver as to why Civ 7 is failing

 

[Wrenched]

I really hope future Civs move away from the world looking like Coruscant. I tolerated the urban sprawl in VI for district planning but it even started to wear thin there.

It is so nice going back to V or IV where there are actual wide expanses of rural landscape or wilderness between cities without a constant push towards ecumenopolis.

I understand the desire to show off the impressive artistry and models but I am definitely wishing for a middle ground/compromise.

 

[Gorbles]

You keep trying to use “business as usual” as a deflection to avoid confronting the fact that 7 is a disaster.

Where did I use the words "business as usual"?

Can you please stop moving the goalposts and putting words into my mouth? I'd appreciate it.

Civ VI was a popular game on release. VII has been a divisive game on release. The difference in these two titles involves, among various other factors, an obvious difference in the quality of the UI on release.

There are, of course, other important factors (mechanical changes, general instability / crashing). But that doesn't stop the UI being important (and measurable, in both user reviews and comments on this forum and beyond).

 

[falcoucap]

Frankly, I love the idea, it would give a real depth and an evolutionary side to the parts. The concept of the "age of glory" fits well with the identity of the nations. Even if it requires rebalancing, it could really refresh the series.