Playing as a Continuous Civ- A HUGE Mistake

[Smegger213]

There have been numerous CFC threads, before and after launch, from people who wanted to see hotseat.

But you didn't answer my question. You changed to a different argument entirely.

Lets see how many want it then.

Thread 'Poll, do you want hotseat in the game?'

Dec 13, 2025

There has been a lot of talk about hotseat.
Especially, now that the devs have come out and said its been put on the back burner.
So, lets have a see roughly how many want it or not.

• Smegger213
• Replies: 25
• Forum: Civ7 - General Discussions

 

[Gorbles]

Lets see how many want it then.

Thread 'Poll, do you want hotseat in the game?'

Dec 13, 2025

There has been a lot of talk about hotseat.
Especially, now that the devs have come out and said its been put on the back burner.
So, lets have a see roughly how many want it or not.

• Smegger213
• Replies: 25
• Forum: Civ7 - General Discussions

I've got to ask: what does this have to do with my question?

 

[Leucarum]

The ”original” vision of course we dont know about. But the vision presented at the games reveal I remember as pretty clear; layers. And one of those layers was different civs layered upon one another. And if that was their vision, then clearly they are to some degree sacrificing it to please those not content with said vision. And in the process of doing so divert resources from other wants of the community, such as hotseat.

So I don't think it's entirely about pleasing naysayers. I think there is a solid argument that their vision adds a fatal flaw to civ switching.

The part of their vision which has arguably failed the hardest was to keep the game fresh into the late game. The design created a very narrow line between enabling a sense of continuity and curtailing snowballs, which has not been straddled at all.

In the context of modern (and to some extent exploration) being considerably less fun, it becomes hard to justify locking civs to those eras. And I think that comes down to a fundamental tension in their game design which means Firaxis would need to backtrack to some degree whether they do it now or later.

 

[Head_North]

So I don't think it's entirely about pleasing naysayers. I think there is a solid argument that their vision adds a fatal flaw to civ switching.

I’m pretty sure that when the devs presented that they where working on one-civ-mode it was because it was one of the most requested features. So that sounds like it’s being made to please those who wants one-civ. There
may of course as you say be other reasons.

In the context of modern (and to some extent exploration) being considerably less fun, it becomes hard to justify locking civs to those eras.

I would say that exploration being less fun (not gonna argue about modern era since I rarely play it) is because of the mechanics in that era. But if it is the mechanics I can’t see how one-civ would solve that? Or do you mean that what makes exploration less fun is the civ switching in itself?

As a footnote: I can’t believe I’m on the fence defending civ-switching. When I first heard about it and when I first played it I loathed it...

 

[Leucarum]

There may of course as you say be other reasons.

Oh they definitely do want to please naysayers, but there are definitely reasons to make the change!

I would say that exploration being less fun (not gonna argue about modern era since I rarely play it) is because of the mechanics in that era. But if it is the mechanics I can’t see how one-civ would solve that? Or do you mean that what makes exploration less fun is the civ switching in itself?

Snowballing is pretty bad in Civ7 I find, so Exploration and Modern - the civ you pick matters less. In Modern the victory race means that often you don't even go for your unique stuff, but even when you do, you're so far ahead it doesn't matter.

I agree exploration mechanics make the situation worse - the legacy paths are so easily completed it again invalidates civ choice to some degree. But the snowball is still a problem there.

As a footnote: I can’t believe I’m on the fence defending civ-switching. When I first heard about it and when I first played it I loathed it...

I had a fairly immediate sinking feeling when civ switching was announced. I gave the devs the benefit of the doubt at first - I'd left a review for humankind saying that I thought someone else would implement the civ switching better, so I hoped it would be Civ7, but after playing (more than) enough to draw a conclusion I think Firaxis just made new mistakes instead.

 

[King Flevance]

I will echo that I think modern (and exploration) are less fun due to mechanics outside of civ switching. Civ switching is (to me) is just a jarring addition to an already mechanically stale recipe. Why make religion a focal point for exploration when you didn't bother to make religion an engaging or interesting system? Same with ideologies in modern. Players opt out of even using these because of how dull or even punishing these mechanics feel. If these systems were interesting and had multiple options or strategies to invest in, they could be fun but currently they are basic systems with 1 function and shallow gameplay as a result.

Civ switching is irrelevant to this problem. However, I do think Civ switching is to blame for pulling a lot of design time away from the design of the core game mechanics in favor of time spent designing and balancing civs.So we got much more intricate civs plugged into very basic (and some broken) gameplay concepts. The core game concepts need polish like the focus on naval combat.

 

[Patine]

The problem is there is ALSO large group of CivFanatics who DO have the game now and DO like it, who will be pissed if design resource start being spent on making it completely different game than the one they like.

But somehow, mysteriously, the people boycotting the game *now* seem to think that only THEIR opinions will ever impact sales, and that it's therefore okay to piss off the people who like the game right now, because they obviously have no standards and will continue buying the game and expansion anyway.

Thus they keep insisting that no, the only way to fix the game is to make it exactly to their standard, centered only on their need, and without any compromise for the people who like the game now.

Did it ever occur that, "purist," attitudes, if you will - those who only think of their opinions, and have no time of day for others - may exist on both sides of this argument? Even, in fact, in choice of wording by you and Albertan CivFanatic?

 

[Head_North]

Oh they definitely do want to please naysayers, but there are definitely reasons to make the change!

The are not making a change. The are adding an option. And as I stated it was because it was a requested feature. Not to solve anything.

Snowballing is pretty bad in Civ7 I find, so Exploration and Modern - the civ you pick matters less. In Modern the victory race means that often you don't even go for your unique stuff, but even when you do, you're so far ahead it doesn't matter.

I agree exploration mechanics make the situation worse - the legacy paths are so easily completed it again invalidates civ choice to some degree. But the snowball is still a problem there.

Firstly; I fail to see why playing as one-civ solves any of those problems.

Secondly; If they want to solve mechanical problems with the introduction of one-civ then that cannot be just an option. Then the one-civ must be the only way of playing. And since that is not the case, they are not trying to solve gameplay mechanics with one-civ-mode. Hence the addition is only to please those who wants it.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Secondly; If they want to solve mechanical problems with the introduction of one-civ then then that cannot be just an option. Then the one-civ must be the only way of playing. And since that is not the case, they are not trying to solve gameplay mechanics with one-civ-mode. Hence the addition is only to please those who wants it.

The same could be said about adding Civs from all around the world, and not just having Civs from mostly Western cultures, as it used to be. No mechanical value their either, you could also frame that "as pleasing those who want it". Still makes sense though, and so does adding an option to get rid of Civ Switching (for the player and hopefully also the AI!)

 

[Liksomkatt]

Oh, no. Hotseat not being worked on is a big letdown for me. I know people have different preferences, of course, but for me Civ has been all about hotseat since Civ II.

I quickly get bored playing big systemic games alone, and I don't much enjoy playing online with friends. At least compared to actually having them in the room with me.

Playing allied hotseat means we can discuss what to do together and comment on whatever decisions the other makes. We have many interesting discussions like that. And since Civ is turn-based, we can talk about other topics than the game itself by just not playing for a few moments.

I have not purchased Civ VII yet because I was waiting for hotseat. I guess I can have a look and see if there are any good hotseat mods available.

 

[Head_North]

The same could be said about adding Civs from all around the world, and not just having Civs from mostly Western cultures, as it used to be. No mechanical value their either, you could also frame that "as pleasing those who want it". Still makes sense though, and so does adding an option to get rid of Civ Switching (for the player and hopefully also the AI!)

I didn't claim it has mechanical value. That was my point: that i doesn’t. Or at least can’t have a major mechanical impact. Because then civ-switching will be redundant.

What we have been discussing is whether one-civ is going beyond the devs vision for the game. Adding more civs is clearly within the vision, whereas (as I stated earlier) one-civ is not. At least as they originally presented the vision for the game at reveal.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

So, this clearly supports the original point of this topic - Firaxis working on single civ mode negatively affects other features. And while "single civ" crowd is very loud online, there are many people who desperately want hotseat (mostly to play with their family).

You could probably make that argument with any feature though. The reality is that there are lots of features that players want the devs to work on and Firaxis has limited resources to do so. Just like a build queue in civ, Firaxis needs to prioritize one thing at a time. If happens to be one civ per game but the devs could focus on anything and there would be a group of fans complaining that the feature they want is being delayed. And like a build queue in civ, eventually everything gets built. I am sure hot seat will be addded for players who want it, it will just come later.

 

[reddishrecue]

You could probably make that argument with any feature though. The reality is that there are lots of features that players want the devs to work on and Firaxis has limited resources to do so. Just like a build queue in civ, Firaxis needs to prioritize one thing at a time. If happens to be one civ per game but the devs could focus on anything and there would be a group of fans complaining that the feature they want is being delayed. And like a build queue in civ, eventually everything gets built. I am sure hot seat will be addded for players who want it, it will just come later.

Yeah, it does seem like devs focus on what their current resources can provide for us.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I didnt claim it har mechanical value. That was my point: that i doens’t. Or at least can’t a have major mechanical impact. Because then civ-switching will be redundant.

What we have been discussing is wheather one-civ is going beyond the devs vision for the game. Adding more civs is clearly within the vision, whereas (as I stated earlier) one-civ is not. At least as they originally presented the vision for the game at reveal.

You might call the Ages System a "Vision", but Catherine the Great leading the Incas certainly is not!

 

[Leucarum]

The are not making a change. The are adding an option. And as I stated it was because it was a requested feature. Not to solve anything.


Firstly; I fail to see why playing as one-civ solves any of those problems.

Secondly; If they want to solve mechanical problems with the introduction of one-civ then then that cannot be just an option. Then the one-civ must be the only way of playing. And since that is not the case, they are not trying to solve gameplay mechanics with one-civ-mode. Hence the addition is only to please those who wants it.

Ok, I think I see where we're butting heads. I agree civ switching wouldn't solve the mechanical problems. The lategame ennui and snowballing issues are things no 4X designer has solved so I would put Firaxis' chances at doing it post-launch, while dealing with backlash well below 1%.

But with those mechanical problems there and likely unsolvable, you can't justify locking civs to an uninteresting age.

When we were initially discussing this what I probably failed to verbalize well is that most of the anti-switching feeling is emotional (it feels bad/I dislike it), but the issues around mechanics of modern/exploration are a mechanical reason why you'd want to have civs playable in any era.

My assumption here is that Firaxis won't solve the mechanical issues. I wouldn't be surprised if they make things marginally better, but I very much doubt they're going to solve them.

 

[Smegger213]

Can I just ask, what is snowballing?
I see this term thrown around a lot. But I have no idea what it means lol.
Showing my age I guess lol.

 

[Leucarum]

Getting dramstically stronger over time relative to the AI. Earlier good decisions compounding over time to give you an unassailable lead

For a lot of people that's kind of the point of a 4X but it does create issues with late game being less interesting and early game being exponentially more important. So for better or worse Firaxis tried to tackle it somewhat.

 

[disjointaccount]

You might call the Ages System a "Vision", but Catherine the Great leading the Incas certainly is not!

I don't really understand this comment, so I'm sorry if I'm missing something. It is a vision though? In the sense that any creative work was the result of a vision of its creators. Like, the word vision just means what the person creating something had in mind for it? To my knowledge, there never actually was a death star and lightsabers aren't real, but that doesn't mean Star Wars somehow wasn't the product of George Lucas' vision for a movie.

The creative vision for Civ 7 involved leaders and civs being decoupled. People not liking that doesn't somehow mean the game spawned out of thin air rather than being conceived and developed by Firaxis.

But with those mechanical problems there and likely unsolvable, you can't justify locking civs to an uninteresting age.

I don't disagree with this, but I think it overlooks the other factors affecting how age-limited civs interact with the late-game problem. Playing one civ the whole way through has been the way it worked in every previous civ game, and at no point was the 4X late game slog alleviated. I think if there is a solution to be had in Civ 7, it's with modern-specific civs, because the greater the extent to which as much of the gameplay as possible is tuned to the stage of the game, the more tools the devs have to address the relevant issues. I'm not saying they hit it out the park with modern as it currently exists (I maintain that its biggest problem right now is just square-peg-round-hole because it's acting as the final age when it's not ultimately meant to, but that's probably beyond the scope of this thread and we should maybe stick to only a handful of tangents at a time), but I think the potential is there, and it comes from age-specific civs. Again, I'm totally down to have an ageless civs mode added; my point is just on this specific matter, I think in the long run (and in a perfect world where every decision about 7's ongoing development is made perfectly) the better mode for alleviating the late game slog would be age-specific civs. (Also, fwiw, I do already find 7 a lot better than its predecessors for this. The boring mindless button-mashing is definitely still there, but it's nothing like in 6 where I was paying more attention to my second monitor by the time I reached industrialisation).

 

[disjointaccount]

Also to add to the snowballing explanation, the name comes from the idea you're like a snowball rolling down a hill, just continually getting bigger and faster.

 

[MutilationWave]

I maintain that its [modern's] biggest problem right now is just square-peg-round-hole because it's acting as the final age when it's not ultimately meant to

Very good point. It's clear to anyone who's played a few games through modern that it was not meant to be the final age. I think modern will be de facto more interesting if it's building up to another age than it is being the final age. The question is, what can be added to or changed about modern if a 4th and final age is added? The map is explored, settlements are pretty much set, same for traditions.

The lategame ennui

Ooh lala, ennui oui. Well put.