Playing One civ through the Ages

[Gorbles]

You may enjoy it. But tons of players do not. Benjamin Franklin of The Romans is just dumb as F in my book.

We can only speak for ourselves. And I don't want something removed that I enjoy.

The devs will do what they do regardless. But I'm not gonna sit and not speak up, cheers.

 

[Leucarum]

Also get rid of the stupid "any leader can play any Civ" crap. I hate that mechanic more than I hate Civ switching.

It's very impractical to expect the number of new leaders this would require. So this is the one element of a classic mode I'd give almost 0% chance of happening. What could be plausible is a mode which turns off "unmatched" civs and leaders - but that roster would be pretty sparse.

I really like leader mixing and matching. It lets us have civs with poorly attested leadership (like Mississippians), or means for civs wifh few choices we don't need to see the same one over and over which is really awesome!

 

[Evolena]

Currently, there are (I think) 28 leaders and 43 civs. Already it is impractical link civs to leaders without making leaps to connect them. Leaps that can easily seem insensitive to the subject matter also. You would have to add leaders because then people would get picky about those leaps.

Only 27 leaders (5 of them with an alternate Persona)
That's counting the Leader and 2 Civs that are yet to come in the second part of the Tides of Power Collection, though. Otherwise it's 26 Leaders and 41 Civs usable now.

 

[King Flevance]

The problem with adding leaders is all the time and resources required to "fix" this optional feature while ignoring issues many like me don't care if it gets "fixed". I have much bigger issues with the design than Machiavelli of the Mississippians. (Which the game already automatically doesn't allow - Machiavelli will already paired be paired with Greece or Rome but never Mississippi unless you specifically choose that.) There are some leaders like Ashoka you could connect with India but someone would probably have a problem with even that. This is an exercise that, because the game wasn't originally designed to support that concept, it could just end up with Firaxis chasing their tail. I would vote against them dedicating resources to making 15-20 new leaders instead of all that art and design being applied instead to legacies, UI updates, the entire concept of 1 civ through the ages, new updates like the naval stuff, etc being completed faster. Things that would improved the game for everyone, since there is plenty of those options on the table.

In Civ 5, there are 43 Civ's and a leader for every one of them. Not counted the ones in Civ 6. The lack of leaders is because of ones that are held back for future dlc. They could make a leader just for a single Civ or maybe a couple of closely related ones.

Those leaders were designed to be a figurehead of a singular Civ's overall design. They were meant to slightly compliment that civ's abilities at best so it is not the same as Civ 7's leaders were designed to be a stand alone mechanic that is more isolated and therefore stronger relating to a pool of civs. Civ 7's leaders are actually more like entire civs in 5 or 6 as they are meant to span the entire game, not just 1 age. Asking for 15-20 more leaders to be balanced into the game is a big ask and then what if those arguing decide they don't like how Firaxis matched them up and don't buy for that reason. I completely understand people disapproving of the direction of Civ 7's design but I don't understand people wanting Civ VI part 2. I totally understand that Civ 7's design is so drastically different that I think you either have to accept some concessions or just walk away from Civ 7. Firaxis agreeing to trying to make a classic mode is already a big gesture, "the artist is painting the picture differently (in a way he didn't want to) due to fan outcry". To then start requiring very specific demands, if I were the artist I would just hand you the brush metaphorically. Go make a civ game yourself or mod in the leaders. That is not me telling you that - that is what I would say in that hypothetical scenario. I want to point out that this large detour in design is a concession by Firaxis, and yes, it is probably due to sales and profitability. But I think the community should at least wait and see what the classic mode looks like before we start demanding an additional 15-20 leaders for free in a design where leaders are not just an art asset tacked on as they mostly have been in the past.

 

[Evolena]

Firaxis agreeing to trying to make a classic mode is already a big gesture,

You should be careful with using "classic mode" for what Firaxis is testing with, because that expression is heavily loaded with getting rid of the entire Age transitions, while the announcement was only related to civ-switching.

 

[Gori the Grey]

As I read it, the phrasing of the announcement deliberately avoided the phrase "classic mode," and offered the more precise "play one civ throughout the ages" (which has given this thread its title).

For me, that was designed to limit expectations: "the game will still have ages, will still primarily be conceived on the 'history in layers' paradigm, but we'll devise a way for a person to play a single civ through those three phases" (or four if they eventually release a fourth).

I think no one should expect that the results of the workshop will be that ages will be eliminated from the game.

But now that I'm thinking carefully about that careful phrasing, I think it also doesn't commit them to locking your rivals into one civ through the ages. It just says you will be able to do that.

But now that I think further, I think it maybe does commit them to coming up with a leader for every civlet (even though I know that there are civlets for which we don't have any known leaders).

Because the whole "you can play one civ through all the ages" will be for naught, if people can't play with a historical civ+leader combo. That's part of what people mean by "one civ."

People who want to play America through the whole game want to play [SomeKnownAmericanLeader]+America through the whole game.

 

[King Flevance]

You can easily grab Tubman or Franklin for America in the Ancient Age.

They would have to add in leaders and/or personas at the least to pair leaders with Civs. The model is clearly originally meant to be 2 leaders, 4 civlets (aka civs in this model) per DLC so that would have to be changed to 4 leaders and 4 civs. Which would at least bring the content closer to the price point. I bet it would be 2 leaders, 2 personas, and 4 civs wherever they could.

 

[Siptah]

Come to think of it, personas are a way out for the people that insist on having a fixed leader + civ combo. Some civs have no known leaders, or offer only suboptimal choices, while some leaders don‘t offer that interesting civs. But you could make a respective persona. These might be very whacky, but people tolerated the comically personas in civ VI, hence they might also tolerate Machiavelli the Greek, Tecumseh the Mississippian, or Charlemagne the Chancler personas. I however, dread these.

 

[Crashdummy]

The devs must stick with the original vision of the game. This is history built in layers. Stop splitting and wasting resources that need to fix already existing features. If you want a single civ playthrough, every entry in the franchise already has that. Let Civ 7 be Civ 7!

Thats the problem, Civ 7 is not a Civilization game and its suffering because of that

The best thing Firaxis can do is try to turn it into a Civilization game

 

[untitledjuan]

I think civ switching and leader and civ mix and matching would have been far more torelated overall if it had been introduced since the beginning with historically corresponding leaders and civilizations. That way, there's always the option match each civ with their corresponding leader or not. Moreover, leaders could also change after a civ change at the end of an age or remain the same, depending on the game configuration.

 

[Evolena]

Thats the problem, Civ 7 is not a Civilization game and its suffering because of that

That's your opinion that's the problem. It can not be an absolute statement.

 

[luca 83]

The problem with adding leaders is all the time and resources required to "fix" this optional feature while ignoring issues many like me don't care if it gets "fixed". I have much bigger issues with the design than Machiavelli of the Mississippians. (Which the game already automatically doesn't allow - Machiavelli will already paired be paired with Greece or Rome but never Mississippi unless you specifically choose that.) There are some leaders like Ashoka you could connect with India but someone would probably have a problem with even that. This is an exercise that, because the game wasn't originally designed to support that concept, it could just end up with Firaxis chasing their tail. I would vote against them dedicating resources to making 15-20 new leaders instead of all that art and design being applied instead to legacies, UI updates, the entire concept of 1 civ through the ages, new updates like the naval stuff, etc being completed faster. Things that would improved the game for everyone, since there is plenty of those options on the table.


Those leaders were designed to be a figurehead of a singular Civ's overall design. They were meant to slightly compliment that civ's abilities at best so it is not the same as Civ 7's leaders were designed to be a stand alone mechanic that is more isolated and therefore stronger relating to a pool of civs. Civ 7's leaders are actually more like entire civs in 5 or 6 as they are meant to span the entire game, not just 1 age. Asking for 15-20 more leaders to be balanced into the game is a big ask and then what if those arguing decide they don't like how Firaxis matched them up and don't buy for that reason. I completely understand people disapproving of the direction of Civ 7's design but I don't understand people wanting Civ VI part 2. I totally understand that Civ 7's design is so drastically different that I think you either have to accept some concessions or just walk away from Civ 7. Firaxis agreeing to trying to make a classic mode is already a big gesture, "the artist is painting the picture differently (in a way he didn't want to) due to fan outcry". To then start requiring very specific demands, if I were the artist I would just hand you the brush metaphorically. Go make a civ game yourself or mod in the leaders. That is not me telling you that - that is what I would say in that hypothetical scenario. I want to point out that this large detour in design is a concession by Firaxis, and yes, it is probably due to sales and profitability. But I think the community should at least wait and see what the classic mode looks like before we start demanding an additional 15-20 leaders for free in a design where leaders are not just an art asset tacked on as they mostly have been in the past.

A leader cannot represent an era and a complete ideology it is the character traits, ideologies and historical events of the game that create them that are important to put more leaders and only a visual issue without historical depth

 

[Maiq]

The devs must stick with the original vision of the game. This is history built in layers. Stop splitting and wasting resources that need to fix already existing features. If you want a single civ playthrough, every entry in the franchise already has that. Let Civ 7 be Civ 7!

The devs didn't survive the crisis and now have to build a new layer of their game's history.

 

[Crashdummy]

That's your opinion that's the problem. It can not be an absolute statement.

I disagree. Its an entry with a new mechanic that wasnt present in the entire franchise (which goes back to what the poster i quoted say) and that goes against the very premise the franchise had for over 3 decades, which is to build a Civilizaztion to stand the Test of Time

So its more than my opinion, becaue its backed with clear arguments and it shows with the reception it had

This goes back to the examples we have been giving for months. The same thing happened to Halo, Fallout and Dragon Age, when you try to fundamentally change your game to be something entirely different, the game stops feeling like part of the franchise and fails

 

[Gorbles]

that goes against the very premise the franchise had for over 3 decades, which is to build a Civilizaztion to stand the Test of Time

This premise, I would like to keep pointing out, actually changed to "empire" in CiV.

 

[NorthLondoner]

This premise, I would like to keep pointing out, actually changed to "empire" in CiV.

Which when you finish a game of Civ 7, exactly how it is, is precisely what you have done.

 

[luca 83]

Thats the problem, Civ 7 is not a Civilization game and its suffering because of that

The best thing Firaxis can do is try to turn it into a Civilization game

An artificial intelligence is needed that can develop the computer's capabilities as much as possible, but it requires a transaction or multiple historical paths: the Islamic Middle Ages is not like the Christian one, with other possibilities, other political and social choices leading to different paths. The narrative is important both as storytelling and as simulation.

 

[Evie]

You may enjoy it. But tons of players do not. Benjamin Franklin of The Romans is just dumb as F in my book.

And of course those of us who like it should be deprived so you can have everything your way.

To me, straitjacketing leaders to civs is what's dumb as f. This is a game series where Shakespeare can be Chinese, where the Russians can build the Statue of Liberty, where Gustav Eiffel can be used to speed up the building of the Taj Mahal. Wild combinations, things going completely out of historical order and giving absolutely crazy results in all defiance of history are the heart and soul of this entire game series.

Not straitjacketing what can and cannot be done in the name of slavish devotion to MUH REALISM. That is dumb as f.

 

[Leucarum]

I like that 90% of what Firaxis are doing is in the form of optional game modes. It gives me hope that everyone will be able to get what they want in the end.

As ages get more continuity options, and legacy path options in the end they will just be a suggestion.

It sounds like civ continuity is gonna be implemented in a manner that gives interesting gameplay (otherwise why get playtesters).

Once that is done a "classic mode" basically exists.

The only rubicon which seems logistically hard to cross is reversing leader/civ mixing. Good thing for me that'a the one new feature I love...

 

[Evie]

Oh yeah, options are good (but they should stick to their gun for what the default is) .