Playing as a Continuous Civ- A HUGE Mistake

[Smegger213]

There is 16 pages about this hate for adding an option to play a continuous Civ. Why do people care that there is now an option to play the game in a way that many people are missing?

Alright well, the various options in a strategy game exist for many reasons. One is variety. Spicing up the usual gameplay. Another is preference. I can tell you with certainty that Marathon is actually quite a fun way to play Civilisation. But it's an acquired taste because no one has that much time on hand.

So they already added options for crisis, Civ switch etc. but you draw the line at allowing someone to just play the same continuous Civ?
What's wrong with that? If it was up to me I would recommend it being in the main game as an option to transcend.

My view too. If there was a choice to play with one Civ whole game or switch Civs. As long as they don't remove the option to do Civ switching. I don't see the problem with that. Personally I hate Civ switching. But I was in the poll option that said I dislike it but still play the game. But what I hate more, is the dumb as f___ idea of any leader can play any Civ. Benjamin Franklin of the Romans is just stupid in my book.

 

[disjointaccount]

It probably was the worst outcome for Firaxis since it gave them no single path to appease a majority

But isn't that just what adding things as options is good? Players can just choose how they want to play. Any one option won't appease a majority but the right set of options could have something for everyone.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Keeping the same civ, even the option to, is taking the game off its unique path and moving it into crowd pleasing territory. Hint: you can't please everybody, stick with what you know to be true and sharpen it.

If you had said that forcing players to keep the same civ would take the game off its unique path, I would have agreed with you. But I fail to see how making civ-switching optional takes the game off its unique path. If something is optional, then players can still play the game in its original form. So the unique original path of the game is still there for those who want it. And the devs can still sharpen the original civ-switching "vision" of the game as you suggest.

I see no harm in trying to please different players by adding more options. It is no different than adding different map types. Nobody says "you have to play a standard continents map because that is the original vision of the game". We give players different map options to add variety and yes, try to please different players who like different maps.

And keep in mind that there are a lot of players who hate civ-switching. I think adding more options for those players makes sense. You seem to be suggesting that the devs should just tell players who don't like civ-switching "tough, deal with it, that's the game, take it or leave it". That does not seem like a good way to deal with your fanbase.

 

[UWHabs]

The downside is that it's more modes to need to support and balance (potentially). Some leaders like Teach or Sayyida play a lot better in continuous mode than regroup mode already, if you start now thinking about trying to balance them you need to pay attention to that. And then now if you have civs out of era, depending on how they do it, you need to figure out how they balance too.

I think in the end it's the only way, given the split reaction from the community. But "just give it as an option" is far from free from a development side, it does take work.

 

[Krikkit1]

My view too. If there was a choice to play with one Civ whole game or switch Civs. As long as they don't remove the option to do Civ switching. I don't see the problem with that. Personally I hate Civ switching. But I was in the poll option that said I dislike it but still play the game. But what I hate more, is the dumb as f___ idea of any leader can play any Civ. Benjamin Franklin of the Romans is just stupid in my book.

And that is one benefit of the one civ option. You could have the option to force AI Ben Franklin to pick America in Antiquity (unless Tubman is there, then you would have weird combos again.)

 

[Head_North]

No, we don't agree, there were polls about this, most people want an alternative to the current form of Civ Switching!

Thread 'What's your opinion on civ switching?'

Jul 19, 2025

Note: civ switching is separate from age transition. Here, let's calculate where we stand on civ switching in particular

• stealth_nsk
• Replies: 1,045
• Forum: Civ7 - General Discussions

• 

That poll is almost half a year old! I think we need a new poll to tell what the current sentiment regarding civ switching is. Otherwise (on the assumption that a poll on civ fanatics influence the devs resource priorization) the change they are trying to make with continuous civ may be a response to opinions that may have changed.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The downside is that it's more modes to need to support and balance (potentially). Some leaders like Teach or Sayyida play a lot better in continuous mode than regroup mode already, if you start now thinking about trying to balance them you need to pay attention to that. And then now if you have civs out of era, depending on how they do it, you need to figure out how they balance too.

I think in the end it's the only way, given the split reaction from the community. But "just give it as an option" is far from free from a development side, it does take work.

Regarding these new civs and leaders, it will be interesting to see how it might affect gameplay, like starting the game with Edward Teach as the Pirate Republic in Antiquity.

 

[Leucarum]

But isn't that just what adding things as options is good? Players can just choose how they want to play. Any one option won't appease a majority but the right set of options could have something for everyone.

Basically I agree with what @UWHabs said. It's doubled the work Firaxis have to do. But I do think they need to do it and I do think it'll be good.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

But what I hate more, is the dumb as f___ idea of any leader can play any Civ. Benjamin Franklin of the Romans is just stupid in my book.

I really dislike that too. Of course, civ has always had anachronistic things. For example, Napoleon never led France in 2000 BC either. But at least the leader goes with the civ. So I guess it is fine as an option since civ is about what ifs. But I personally don't like it. That is why I always try to pick a leader that matches the civ.

 

[Gorbles]

I really dislike that too. Of course, civ has always had anachronistic things. For example, Napoleon never led France in 2000 BC either. But at least the leader goes with the civ. So I guess it is fine as an option since civ is about what ifs. But I personally don't like it. That is why I always try to pick a leader that matches the civ.

Saying Napoleon goes with 2,000 BC France is as accurate as saying Napoleon goes with a Mesoamerican civ, to me. He only "goes with" France because he was French in a much later time, when French identity was vastly different to what it was in millenia BC.

Is that really a historical argument worth making? Or is it just preference again?

 

[Head_North]

Saying Napoleon goes with 2,000 BC France is as accurate as saying Napoleon goes with a Mesoamerican civ, to me. He only "goes with" France because he was French in a much later time, when French identity was vastly different to what it was in millenia BC.

Is that really a historical argument worth making? Or is it just preference again?

The problem with this argument that if you accept one anachronism you must also embrace the next is that it has no end.

For example: if you accept that the pyramids can be built by Romans then you should be able to accept that the American (USA) civilization exist in 4000 bc. And if you accept that then you should be able to accept Napoleon leading Persia and so on and so forth. The problem is then that there is no limit to what me “must accept”: Russian city names in Greec civilization? England having war elephants as a unique unit?

The thing is (which I’m sure you are aware of, i’m not trying to be smart) is that everyone has different limits to what degree of anachronism is acceptable. I for one would not being able to accept If the civs where completely made up with no relation to our civilizations on earth. And I have always disliked modern civs in 4000 BC all the way from civ 1.

I can totally understand that some dislike the fact that any leader can lead any civilization. I disliked it in the beginning. To be able to “feel” that you play as a certain civ it has to have some aspects that relate to its “true” history. The correct leader may be one such thing. But as I have been playing the game for a while now, I think the civs are more unique and historically cemented than ever before even though the leaders are disconnected. I mean the unique civics, the architecture, the units and so forth.

 

[disjointaccount]

For example: if you accept that the pyramids can be built by Romans then you should be able to accept that the American (USA) civilization exist in 4000 bc. And if you accept that then you should be able to accept Napoleon leading Persia and so on and so forth. The problem is then that there is no limit to what me “must accept”: Russian city names in Greec civilization? England having war elephants as a unique unit?

Objectively, I think this is more or less true. Historical accuracy (at least as it relates to civ) is pretty binary. The game either is historically accurate or it isn't. And civ is very much not, and has never been. That's not to say that those in the pro-civ-switching camp are the "objectively correct" side, though.

I think you're spot on in that really it's more of a subjective, vibes-based thing. What breaks immersion/kills the experience for a player is really just up to them personally. And so the more options that are added, the greater the range of players will be able to configure the game to suit their historical (or ahistorical) fantasies. (I just bring up the point about civ not being historically accurate because the suggestion I see people seem to suggest sometimes that civ switching is what broke civ's otherwise perfect record of being a flawlessly accurate simulation of real-world history or something is rather silly.)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

For example: if you accept that the pyramids can be built by Romans then you should be able to accept that the American (USA) civilization exist in 4000 bc. And if you accept that then you should be able to accept Napoleon leading Persia and so on and so forth. The problem is then that there is no limit to what me “must accept”: Russian city names in Greec civilization? England having war elephants as a unique unit?

The thing is (which I’m sure you are aware of, i’m not trying to be smart) is that everyone has different limits to what degree of anachronism is acceptable. I for one would not being able to accept If the civs where completely made up with no relation to our civilizations on earth. And I have always disliked modern civs in 4000 BC all the way from civ 1.

To add to this, most things in the game that fans have accepted, which aren't historical but anachronistic, are because they've at least been features in the game from Civ 1. Continuous civs were one of those things until this iteration, so it makes sense why people would dislike this particular change.
The same goes for every leader being tied to a civ, despite the options in some games to mix and match, but that was never a core feature until now either.

I think you're spot on in that really it's more of a subjective, vibes-based thing. What breaks immersion/kills the experience for a player is really just up to them personally. And so the more options that are added, the greater the range of players will be able to configure the game to suit their historical (or ahistorical) fantasies. (I just bring up the point about civ not being historically accurate because the suggestion I see people seem to suggest sometimes that civ switching is what broke civ's otherwise perfect record of being a flawlessly accurate simulation of real-world history or something is rather silly.)

I'd say for me it was more of the fact that civ switching is forced upon the player, rather than it being an option. If my civ were able to survive the crisis in Antiquity, I'd like the choice to keep my civ or progress to a new one, personally.

 

[Gorbles]

The problem with this argument that if you accept one anachronism you must also embrace the next is that it has no end.

Nobody has to accept, or embrace, anything. We're discussing preference.

The thing is (which I’m sure you are aware of, i’m not trying to be smart) is that everyone has different limits to what degree of anachronism is acceptable.

Yup, that's pretty much what I was saying. Or asking about, at least.

 

[reddishrecue]

Well, there might be none explicitly titled "we want civ switching" because that demand is repeated all over the place in lots of other threads, even when they have nothing to do with this matter in the first place.

Yeah I see.

No, we don't agree, there were polls about this, most people want an alternative to the current form of Civ Switching!

Thread 'What's your opinion on civ switching?'

Jul 19, 2025

Note: civ switching is separate from age transition. Here, let's calculate where we stand on civ switching in particular

• stealth_nsk
• Replies: 1,045
• Forum: Civ7 - General Discussions

• 

Ok, facts. Ty for sharing.

35% is not majority

It was the largest percentage when you take a quick glance.

Also, the point stands that
1. a large number of individuals like civ switching
2. a large number of individuals do not like civ switching

Firaxis has listened to ALL of those individuals by looking at ways to make civ switches OPTIONAL. They are not looking at removing civ switches, just having the option for it.

Now some individuals who like civ switches apparently think that option will make the game worse. But that seems like a much smaller group than those that just like civ switches.

Yeah that's true. Seems like almost an equal split on both sides.

There is 16 pages about this hate for adding an option to play a continuous Civ. Why do people care that there is now an option to play the game in a way that many people are missing?

Alright well, the various options in a strategy game exist for many reasons. One is variety. Spicing up the usual gameplay. Another is preference. I can tell you with certainty that Marathon is actually quite a fun way to play Civilisation. But it's an acquired taste because no one has that much time on hand.

So they already added options for crisis, Civ switch etc. but you draw the line at allowing someone to just play the same continuous Civ?
What's wrong with that? If it was up to me I would recommend it being in the main game as an option to transcend.

I remember I did comment somewhere in this forum and I think people should have more options.

 

[Smegger213]

Napoleon leading France in 2000BC may not be historically accurate. But at least the leaders were attached to their corresponding countries. Its been that way for every version of Civilization since the first. But now we are being given options that are even more un-historical. I would rather go back to the old way.
But players say "oh you can just set up the AI Civ's at the start. Assign leaders accordingly. Well, that's all well and good. But it takes ages to set up and it all falls apart when you get to age transition.

 

[Gorbles]

But at least the leaders were attached to their corresponding countries.

France in 2000 BC is a pretty different, if not completely different, country to France in the Napoleonic era, was my point. "corresponding" is a shallow, nearly purely aesthetic choice. No wonder they felt they could decouple them. The actual historical connection is basically "existed on the same landmass". Which, amusingly, is what some people criticise some of the Civ unlocks for being.

 

[Smegger213]

France in 2000 BC is a pretty different, if not completely different, country to France in the Napoleonic era, was my point. "corresponding" is a shallow, nearly purely aesthetic choice. No wonder they felt they could decouple them. The actual historical connection is basically "existed on the same landmass". Which, amusingly, is what some people criticise some of the Civ unlocks for being.

That is irrelevant in my mind. The same leader stuck to the same Civ in every other version of the game. Yes its not historically accurate. But having any leader play any Civ is much worse historically.
They probably did it so they could have loads of leaders that never even ran any country in the game. Such as Tubman or Ada Lovelace.
I will always take the view that this mechanic is dumb and immersion braking.

 

[disjointaccount]

But having any leader play any Civ is much worse historically.

I completely accept that lots of people don't like civ-switching because, as we've been discussing in this thread, "immersion" is a nebulous, subjective, vibes-based concept and for any number of people, civ-switching is the thing that breaks their personal experience with the game.

That said, any argument against decoupling leaders and civs on the basis of historicity has no leg to stand on imo. Many, many leader/civ pairings as they were presented in previous games were just as nonsensical as Harriet Tubman leading ancient Rome.

 

[Gorbles]

That is irrelevant in my mind. The same leader stuck to the same Civ in every other version of the game. Yes its not historically accurate. But having any leader play any Civ is much worse historically.

Worse to you perhaps. We all have different thresholds.

And I get it! But it means that it's all a circle of whatever each of our levels are. It's a very subjective factor. Difficult to gauge the effort that should be assigned vs. other things that also need attention.

(nevermind the fact that the devs are already looking at some kind of "keep your civ" path)