Playing as a Continuous Civ- A HUGE Mistake

[Leucarum]

Honestly, Civ7 could probably be sustained at a lower player count if the devs rescaled their ambitions. I'm not sure needing more players is the real dealbreaker.

For me the dealbreaker for Civ switching is that I don't honestly believe the devs are going to be able to make an interesting modern era. I can't think of a 4X with a good lategame, and while Civ7's reduction of micromanagement is a big improvement, modern still isn't very good or interesting. I don't see the devs turning that around, under pressure, when no other team ever has. If that is true, (and I think it is) then locking content to the modern era in particular becomes a red flag. If we all are ending our games early, then civ switching is gonna have to be rethought to some extent. I think not responding to that would be the big mistake.

 

[reddishrecue]

I guess it could be a option but people don't like to have options.

 

[Gorbles]

I think before the resources are allocated a decision needs to be made as to which is the better course

Allocating resources to “Classic Mode” to try and broaden the game’s appeal and attract back the people who hate civ switching

Or

Allocating resources to making the game in it’s current state better.

Bearing in mind that a primary goal is probably making the game a financial success

I think for regular development that you're right. And I think there has been resources allocated to this already (we have a Workshop sign-up, and so on). But I also think we're in very experimental territory, so it's hard to tell how it's going to shake out.

Doesn't mean that people can't be disappointed with how it's turning out. I'm don't think I share their disappointment, but that's neither here not there for respecting different opinions.

If you want to play with hypotheticals, you can argue that future content being developed is contingent on the game having a big enough and active enough player base that the future content will sell well. In it's current state, both Civ VI and V have more active players than VII. Investing effort to address a frequent criticism, like continuous civs, even if its not something you specifically would use, could increase the player base and help greenlight more future content to be produced. Otherwise, if the player base stays behind the past two games, they might decide to just cut their loses, close development on VII, and start on the next game.

Which means it's possible that this move, which doesn't benefit anyone who currently enjoys the game, also possibly enables more content in the future.

This is not a guarantee. It's just a hypothetical. But not one that should be dismissed.

The aping of my language wasn't really necessary, was it?

Sure, it's a valid hypothetical. But nobody asked for you to make it. Nobody challenged someone to post upsides. The upsides are pretty clear.

I was responding to a question that somebody else asked. It's interesting that doing so has inspired this kind of response.

 

[magicq99]

Civilization 7 cant be sustained on less than 7k average players on its most played platform

Under the assumption that you refer to Steam as being the most played platform, do we know for sure that this is indeed the case?

Unlike previous Civ games, Civ VII was available on all three major consoles from day one. To my knowledge, we do not have any reliable numbers about active players from the consoles, and I also think that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo are not keen on releasing them, since they mostly want to brag about how many consoles they have sold.

PC/Steam may be the biggest platform for Civ VII individually. But the consoles are huge markets, so if you count Consoles vs. PC in total, for all we know, PC may actually be a minority. I am not saying that is definitely the case, but I think that this is possible.

 

[UWHabs]

Honestly, Civ7 could probably be sustained at a lower player count if the devs rescaled their ambitions. I'm not sure needing more players is the real dealbreaker.

For me the dealbreaker for Civ switching is that I don't honestly believe the devs are going to be able to make an interesting modern era. I can't think of a 4X with a good lategame, and while Civ7's reduction of micromanagement is a big improvement, modern still isn't very good or interesting. I don't see the devs turning that around, under pressure, when no other team ever has. If that is true, (and I think it is) then locking content to the modern era in particular becomes a red flag. If we all are ending our games early, then civ switching is gonna have to be rethought to some extent. I think not responding to that would be the big mistake.

This is legitimately one of the bigger issues with the current model. I think with time, there's a chance to make at least a mildly interesting modern era, but it is a shame to basically reduce 1/3 of the civs in the game to be just cleanup. Like I can think to games I've played as Songhai or Normans or Romans or Maya etc... But looking back at my games, outside of having fun with mountains and Nepal, I can barely point to any legitimately good experiences with modern civs. And it's a shame to lose out on America, France, Mexico, Buganda, etc...

I do think if they come out with a continuous model, I'll enjoy it a few times just to be able to give those modern civs a better go through a game, even if they don't have their full kits outside of their main era. Or maybe I should make an attempt at a modern-only start. Maybe with a fresher map and start, you'd actually get some interesting use of those civs.

 

[Smegger213]

Playing a single Civ all game has worked for 6 iterations of the game so far. I don't see it any different with 7. So, no it wont be a massive mistake.

 

[Gedemon]

"Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!"

I fully agree with this.

I think the OP makes an excellent point and I think we have already seen a perfect example of it with the new continuous mode. It sounded like a good idea for all the people who didn't like the "reset" on transition (which really isn't as big a deal as people make it sound). However after playing with it awhile, I have gone back to just using the regroup mode. Allowing the player to pre-build a bunch of settlers, scouts and galleys and park them on each coast of your homeland so they are ready to immediately set out on turn 1 of Exploration age is such a huge advantage over the AI, it feels like cheating. It's like lowering the difficulty level without actually lowering the difficulty level. I guess that's good if you want to brag about how you can dominate on Deity level but personally I'm not looking for ways to put the AI at any more of a disadvantage than they already are.

Love it or hate it, the game was designed around civ switching and age transitions. As soon as you change that, you just break the game. If it makes the game more enjoyable for some people, and gets more people playing then I'm all for it. More options are always better than less options even if I will never use it myself but I do wonder if it will actually make the game better or more fun to play.

But, OTOH there are many way to implement a "one civ for the whole game" option, none of them requiring a lot of resources. Problem is deciding which one to go, none will please everyone, and I bet that a lot of the people that have been complaining about "I can't play one civ the whole game, I won't buy it" will still not buy it.

 

[UWHabs]

I fully agree with this.



But, OTOH there are many way to implement a "one civ for the whole game" option, none of them requiring a lot of resources. Problem is deciding which one to go, none will please everyone, and I bet that a lot of the people that have been complaining about "I can't play one civ the whole game, I won't buy it" will still not buy it.

The problem is that the versions that some of the hardcode fans would want probably require a lot of resources (if you actually want to give civs custom bonuses outside of their era that are even mildly balanced, for example). And yeah, you're still not going to catch everyone, because there's a portion where it's not the switching per se, but the age transitions that cause them more grief. Or it's the random leader/civ pairings (which obviously would be yet another level of balance if you "had" to go create a leader for each civ without one).

I do think there's a version of continuous civ that makes sense to add, if not because it will sell a million copies and make everyone happy, but for some of the reasons mentioned above just to give some variety and change up the game. Being able to play a game where it's not the same 6 or 8 civs in antiquity every time, where you get a little variety to the game, etc... I think legitimately can make for a nice variation on the base game.

But you do run into the case where the more options you have out there that seriously change the game, the more that you run the risk of some things just seriously breaking the game. Or you start running into a case where the devs have to split their focus 3 ways and end up making 3 bad games, instead of focusing on the core and making 1 great game. Whatever effort they're putting into the continuous civs is time they're not balancing the current civs, or overhauling religion, or fixing up any of the other flaws with the game. And if the version they end up changing to needs new art, or new narration, there's other assets that could be spent otherwise too.

 

[Crashdummy]

Honestly, Civ7 could probably be sustained at a lower player count if the devs rescaled their ambitions. I'm not sure needing more players is the real dealbreaker.

For me the dealbreaker for Civ switching is that I don't honestly believe the devs are going to be able to make an interesting modern era. I can't think of a 4X with a good lategame, and while Civ7's reduction of micromanagement is a big improvement, modern still isn't very good or interesting. I don't see the devs turning that around, under pressure, when no other team ever has. If that is true, (and I think it is) then locking content to the modern era in particular becomes a red flag. If we all are ending our games early, then civ switching is gonna have to be rethought to some extent. I think not responding to that would be the big mistake.

I mean sure, if they rescale themselves to Civ 1 Micropose level, then those numbers might work. But Civ VII numbers cant sustain CURRENT Firaxis

About modern, i understand your point. I dont think the end of the game is ever going to be as exciting as the start of it, but that happens to a lot of genres, its not as big of a deal as some people think. For example, a racing manager simulator, or a sport simulator. At the start of the "career" you have a lot to do and at the end, once you have been successful, you have a lot less and are mostly reaping the fruits of what you sow. And its fine
So the "problem" isnt as big as to think of a whole redesign of the franchise for it, as long as people keep starting new games, its fine. I actually dont even think it s a problem, many genres have more active stages and other stages where you cool off and enjoy the results of the hours you spent

Civ VII actually made the game worse, because now the modern Civlets have lesss "value" than Antiquity ones

 

[Gorbles]

Civ VII actually made the game worse, because now the modern Civlets have lesss "value" than Antiquity ones

Shaking up Legacy Paths and victories could make Modern (and Exploration) just as engaging as Antiquity. They're both already much better than on release.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Shaking up Legacy Paths and victories could make Modern (and Exploration) just as engaging as Antiquity. They're both already much better than on release.

I think earlier civs will still have more effect on the game, due to traditions, unique infrastructures and overall development of your empire (I managed to build 10 wonders in antiquity in my last Hatshepsut/Egypt Immortal game). But it's possible to make modern civs valuable enough

 

[Smegger213]

In both Civ 5 and 6, each Civ gets 1 unit and 1 building. Then they get a couple of special bonuses too. Some Civs get 2 units instead of a building.
Some Civs get a unit that applies to ancient era. Others get modern units. EG Egypt gets a Chariot but Germany gets a U-Boat. But both can be played from start to finish.
I cannot see why they can't implement the same sort of thing for Civ 7.

 

[Siptah]

In both Civ 5 and 6, each Civ gets 1 unit and 1 building. Then they get a couple of special bonuses too. Some Civs get 2 units instead of a building.
Some Civs get a unit that applies to ancient era. Others get modern units. EG Egypt gets a Chariot but Germany gets a U-Boat. But both can be played from start to finish.
I cannot see why they can't implement the same sort of thing for Civ 7.

Not saying it is impossible, but in civ 6, Germany got a unique district which is viable for most of the game. They also get an ability that works for the whole game (more districts than usually allowed). Due to Barbarossa, they also get other bonuses that applied all game (+1 policy slot, CS against CS). Hence, having a late game unit is just one of many bonuses – and the only one that kicks in late. Otherwise, the kit has some very good early to mid-game bonuses.

In civ 7, Prussia has nada until the modern age – it's blank, boring, and weak. This wouldn't be terribly interesting to play. You could make the civ bonus valid throughout all ages in Prussia's case though (+1 CS for each unfriendly nation – which isn't doing that much in Antiquity, but fair). But on top, you'd need something that uses up their culture, because lacking several civics in the first two eras means they would constantly research some future civics, minimizing the effect (and fun!) of civs that have a unique civic tree in these ages. And you'd start Exploration with no policies whatsoever, as you lack traditions that carry over. Hence, if they want to do civs from later eras in previous ones, they need to invent something for these. For the other way round, the Enduring Empires already found a nice way to keep civs and their civic trees relevant without UUs and UBs.

 

[Leucarum]

Or maybe I should make an attempt at a modern-only start. Maybe with a fresher map and start, you'd actually get some interesting use of those civs.

Modern starts are a definite improvement! Modern still suffers from less engaging mechanics overall, and it can be a slow start as the game is designed around you having far more yields at that point, but advanced modern starts at least makes modern into a game and not a victory lap. Not a practical solution though, and if anything it's more evidence of how big a problem modern is for civ switching.

I have a lot of more subjective issues with Civ switching (and don't like modern civs anyway often)... But modern engagement is the problem where I see the most objectively bad issue with civ switching. And there isn't a simple fix, nobody has made a good 4X endgame yet, so I really don't think it's a good idea for Firaxis to bet their house on it.

I suspect that's why they're going for "any civ in any era" rather than "enduring empires." Since they definitely picked the harder of the two paths.

 

[Smegger213]

Not saying it is impossible, but in civ 6, Germany got a unique district which is viable for most of the game. They also get an ability that works for the whole game (more districts than usually allowed). Due to Barbarossa, they also get other bonuses that applied all game (+1 policy slot, CS against CS). Hence, having a late game unit is just one of many bonuses – and the only one that kicks in late. Otherwise, the kit has some very good early to mid-game bonuses.

In civ 7, Prussia has nada until the modern age – it's blank, boring, and weak. This wouldn't be terribly interesting to play. You could make the civ bonus valid throughout all ages in Prussia's case though (+1 CS for each unfriendly nation – which isn't doing that much in Antiquity, but fair). But on top, you'd need something that uses up their culture, because lacking several civics in the first two eras means they would constantly research some future civics, minimizing the effect (and fun!) of civs that have a unique civic tree in these ages. And you'd start Exploration with no policies whatsoever, as you lack traditions that carry over. Hence, if they want to do civs from later eras in previous ones, they need to invent something for these. For the other way round, the Enduring Empires already found a nice way to keep civs and their civic trees relevant without UUs and UBs.

It would need a lot of work doing to each individual Civ. They may have to rethink bonuses or unique buildings and units.
But I think it can be done.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It would need a lot of work doing to each individual Civ. They may have to rethink bonuses or unique buildings and units.
But I think it can be done.

And this gets us to one of the earlier points. Creating and maintaining separate set of bonuses for all civs for an optional mode looks like an overkill for the game development. It probably would make sense after core game is finalized, similar to Civ6 game modes, but not under active development.

 

[pjotroos]

Interesting that the discussion seems fairly evenly split between "this pivot is a mistake" and "this pivot is necessary", with most of the posts assuming that Firaxis was forced into doing something they didn't want to. I always thought that they were going to eventually re-introduce continuous play in an expansion (5 quid says it would be called The Test Of Time). I'm sure the commercial response accelerated those plans, and took them out of a paid expansion, but I don't think it's a new idea.
You have to start with switching between civilizations if your definining feature is the eras, but there was never going to be enough options for a sensible historical path for everyone. And - speaking as someone who's really into the game now - this feels like a good way of adding over 40 new, reasonable permutations with a relatively low demand on the art team (which often comes up as a major capacity constraint).

As for how that's implemented, I think they really need to commit to a power spike in the relevant era - keep unique units and infrastructure to only that period - and then substitute the civic tree with two generic ones linked to their attributes in the other eras; so Spain, for example, gets an Economic and Militaristic civic tree in antiquity, their own civic tree in exploration, and Economic / Militaristic again in modern. That's 18 new trees in total they would need to design, each of them needing two nodes and one generic policy (antiquity one could simply be "your X buildings generate 1 extra yield", where X is attribute type). Not a ton of work, and I would happily play it.

 

[Crashdummy]

It would need a lot of work doing to each individual Civ. They may have to rethink bonuses or unique buildings and units.
But I think it can be done.

I dont thik individual Civs need unique bonuses on the off Ages. Maybe they can make some generic ones (maybe based on the type of Civ, like militaristic, economic, religious, etc, or maybe based on something else) That is probably going to be enough and its not an insurmountable amount of work

Uniques units are not neccesary, i actually thik its better to have periods of power and others where the enemy has its period of power. Its a better dynamic than everyone being equally powerful all the time

 

[Siptah]

As for how that's implemented, I think they really need to commit to a power spike in the relevant era - keep unique units and infrastructure to only that period - and then substitute the civic tree with two generic ones linked to their attributes in the other eras; so Spain, for example, gets an Economic and Militaristic civic tree in antiquity, their own civic tree in exploration, and Economic / Militaristic again in modern. That's 18 new trees in total they would need to design, each of them needing two nodes and one generic policy (antiquity one could simply be "your X buildings generate 1 extra yield", where X is attribute type). Not a ton of work, and I would happily play it.

I subscribe to this way of handling things, but I'm not even convinced that we would need 18 trees, just 6 (one per attribute). It could be handled similarly to how advanced starts work: you randomly get a tree from one of the two attributes of your chosen civ. Alternatively, you could get to manually choose the tree when you first open the civic tree upon entering the era.

In both scenarios, it would also be possible to mix civs – which I consider rather important. Just having forced switch or static civs as options seems quite suboptimal for everybody: e.g., let me start with Normans in Anquity, keep Normans, but then switch to America in Modern. Or (probably more often necessary), let me start with Han, then go Ming, then keep Ming for Modern. Or let me start with Chola, then go America, then Egypt – for the ultimate generic economy campaign.

 

[Crashdummy]

I subscribe to this way of handling things, but I'm not even convinced that we would need 18 trees, just 6 (one per attribute). It could be handled similarly to how advanced starts work: you randomly get a tree from one of the two attributes of your chosen civ. Alternatively, you could get to manually choose the tree when you first open the civic tree upon entering the era.

In both scenarios, it would also be possible to mix civs – which I consider rather important. Just having forced switch or static civs as options seems quite suboptimal for everybody: e.g., let me start with Normans in Anquity, keep Normans, but then switch to America in Modern. Or (probably more often necessary), let me start with Han, then go Ming, then keep Ming for Modern. Or let me start with Chola, then go America, then Egypt – for the ultimate generic economy campaign.

I wouldnt mind those options for those that like switching, but i would prefer if we can choose before the game starts to make everyone unable to switch

Why? Because i want to reduce to a minimum the amount of interruptions and menus presented on each Age change, since i consider them extremely immersion breaking

I want an option to set Classic Mode, or Non-switching civs, name is irrelevant, that doesnt ever give me an option to switch that interrupts my gameplay