Playing One civ through the Ages

[Krikkit1]

Here is hoping too that they rework some civ switching requirements to be more tied up to narrative and player performance.

All in all, future is bright for this game.

I REALLY like this idea... I think the unlocks should have 2 "Levels"
Achieve the first one and it opens a Narrative quest for you to achieve the second, harder one

The Second one would give you a lump sum culture to your unique civics for that civ if you chose it.

The game options could be
"all civs unlocked",
"easy unlock"(Level 1 needed to unlock civ)
"hard unlock" (Level 2 needed to unlock civ)

 

[marius_kaparius]

The same as any revolutionary change. You can paint onto classic mode exactly what you want to see, and that's likely a very diverse set of images whose contradictions would only become more problematic if ever attempted.

I really want a Civ7 without civ switching, and with more player agency in objectives, but I shy away from saying I want a classic mode because of the point above. I think it'a far more helpful to give concrete - mechanic X is what I dislike - details. "Classic Mode" is a bit of a dog whistle I think.

This is why I don't want the developer team to spend a lot of resources on it. The people saying that the game is terrible due to Civ switching cannot quantify what they want from the Classic Mode other than saying Civ 6 is better. Other than recreating Civ 6 or an earlier game there is no clear path to achieve this and it is almost guaranteed that when they deliver it the replies would be "too late" or "not good enough". Why should they divert resources from developing the game for the audience that does like Civ 7 for an audience that has likely already made their mind up about it?

 

[Leucarum]

This is why I don't want the developer team to spend a lot of resources on it. The people saying that the game is terrible due to Civ switching cannot quantify what they want from the Classic Mode other than saying Civ 6 is better. Other than recreating Civ 6 or an earlier game there is no clear path to achieve this and it is almost guaranteed that when they deliver it the replies would be "too late" or "not good enough". Why should they divert resources from developing the game for the audience that does like Civ 7 for an audience that has likely already made their mind up about it?

I don't think they are developing a classic mode either. The core of Civ7 isn't civ switching, and a lot of why I have struggled is that I love changes from the age system to removing builders, but just hate the feeling of having to switch civs.

Personally, working on removing civ switching has energized my interest in Civ7 again. I genuinely think a well-implemented way to play Civ7 without civ switching is going to be essential to me staying with it for its lifespan. So I hope they put effort into making it work. I don't think this means Civ switching goes away for those who enjoy it, or that both modes can't be fun.

I don't like the attitude of hoping it's implemented with low effort. That feels a little spiteful to those of us who want this change available to us. Especially as it sounds like it won't prevent you from getting what you want.

 

[Evolena]

On the other hand:
- First thing first, retention of civs is simply fun for many people.
- The inability to defy history and "survive the test of time" sucks - it has always been half of fun in civ to see Mayas, Incas, Babylon, Rome etc defy their historical failures and thrive into the modernity. It especially hurts regarding the always painful and sympathetic Precolombian case. I want to see a powerful post-medieval Cambodia etc.

Yet "defying their historical failure" makes no sense when no Civ playthrough will ever be a historical simulation.

Still, the idea I had for Humankind may apply to Civ as well: Instead of you "becoming", say, the English, you would instead adopt certain traits of the civ, gaining abilities and unique things. Kind of like a skill tree. But you wouldn't "become" someone else. The choices you had could be in part determined by your path through the tree, and in part based on environmental factors, such as terrain.

Isn't that Millenia's approach (which has been criticized for its lack of civ identity, amongst other reasons)?

 

[stealth_nsk]

There are two big parts into this statement.

First is, obviously, marketing. Every youtuber who has something do to with strategy games, is releasing video about civ update now and all gaming magazines publish their articles. Together with limited-time free DLC and, presumably, coming autumn sales, this should boost interest to the game.

Second is that probably Firaxis will come out with some cheap version, like "Ageless civilization challenge", discussed above, because diverting too many resources into optional mode is really not effective until they know this mode has significant interest.

EDIT: I also see a lot of notion about "step into right direction" regarding this change, so while it will not make most if the haters to buy the game, it at least could calm the negativity a bit.

Although I also see "we won" and "Firaxis acknowledge their mistake" narrative and I guess those people could be strongly dissatisfied when the feature will come out, regardless of the option Firaxis choose.

 

[UWHabs]

I think designing and balancing different civ bonuses for civs out of their age is quite a big work and not something to start with. I guess, we'll probably have something like "Ageless civilization challenge" option at start, where civilizations just will not have any bonuses out of their age and later this mode could be further improved if there will be interest in it.


I think that's kind of even more advanced content, but yes, if there will be interest in this mode, it would make sense.


How is this supposed to work with modern civs? And allowing antiquity civs to keep their UBs could lead to powerhouses like Maya.

I clicked through a bunch of civs, and actually a surprisingly large amount of them have their base-level bonuses as pretty generic. Like, the only ancient era civs that really would be out place in later eras would be Maurya, Carthage, and Assyria. Some others (Greece, for example) which are really solid in the first 50 turns of the game, but trail off since their bonus is really only related to the capital. Now, granted, antiquity civs probably matter a little less, since even if their civ bonus was terrible, if they bring forward good traditions or UI/UB. Even all the exploration civs, arguably all of their bonuses should work with appropriate per-era scaling. It's actually kind of surprising clicking through how many civs are pretty generic in their bonuses...

But yeah, you can't let people build buildings out of era. Yield scaling wouldn't work anyways, and obviously having America build a Rail Yard in 2000 BC would be crazier than anything the game has done in the past.

 

[marius_kaparius]

I don't think they are developing a classic mode either. The core of Civ7 isn't civ switching, and a lot of why I have struggled is that I love changes from the age system to removing builders, but just hate the feeling of having to switch civs.

Personally, working on removing civ switching has energized my interest in Civ7 again. I genuinely think a well-implemented way to play Civ7 without civ switching is going to be essential to me staying with it for its lifespan. So I hope they put effort into making it work. I don't think this means Civ switching goes away for those who enjoy it, or that both modes can't be fun.

I don't like the attitude of hoping it's implemented with low effort. That feels a little spiteful to those of us who want this change available to us. Especially as it sounds like it won't prevent you from getting what you want.

I'm not saying it out of spite. I'm concerned about the allocation of limited funding and time. I am not directing this at you but I'm just not convinced that a significant fraction of those clamoring for a Classic mode will be swayed by it. The time that goes into it takes away from UX, balancing, and Victory conditions where the game does need further improvement.

 

[Leucarum]

How is this supposed to work with modern civs? And allowing antiquity civs to keep their UBs could lead to powerhouses like Maya.

I don't know how to make it fair on modern civs. I suspect this is something being discussed within Firaxis for sure. But I don't think there's many UIs/UBs that are problematic if you can spam them all game... I think it's probably Maya who are the only one possubly problematic. But with the new town/city meta I don't even know if it is a problem...

 

[Aquila SPQR]

So they've finally understood what was their biggest mistake. Good. A bit too late, but it's still a welcome news. If they bring back classical mode and fix that ugly urban sprawl I might even consider trying Civ VII, after some time and with 50% discount.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm not saying it out of spite. I'm concerned about the allocation of limited funding and time. I am not directing this at you but I'm just not convinced that a significant fraction of those clamoring for a Classic mode will be swayed by it. The time that goes into it takes away from UX, balancing, and Victory conditions where the game does need further improvement.

Developing optional modes and scenarios isn't something new for civ series, so I don't mind some resources diverted there. I don't think some basic implementation would hurt main game noticeably.

 

[Leucarum]

I'm not saying it out of spite. I'm concerned about the allocation of limited funding and time. I am not directing this at you but I'm just not convinced that a significant fraction of those clamoring for a Classic mode will be swayed by it. The time that goes into it takes away from UX, balancing, and Victory conditions where the game does need further improvement.

Maybe just be aware of how it comes accross. I doubt Firaxis would be pursuing this if it weren't a problem that a similar number of players were clamouring for. I was one of the wierdos who was ok with the maps on launch, but I didn't complain about dev time being spent on improving them.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Maybe just be aware of how it comes accross. I doubt Firaxis would be pursuing this if it weren't a problem that a similar number of players were clamouring for. I was one of the wierdos who was ok with the maps on launch, but I didn't complain about dev time being spent on improving them.

I believe statement here is more important than execution. The effect of this blog post is already massive.

But I totally agree with you that spending time on optional mode is not a waste if there's player demand for this mode.

 

[Gorbles]

Maybe just be aware of how it comes accross. I doubt Firaxis would be pursuing this if it weren't a problem that a similar number of players were clamouring for. I was one of the wierdos who was ok with the maps on launch, but I didn't complain about dev time being spent on improving them.

How does this come across to you:

So they've finally understood what was their biggest mistake. Good. A bit too late, but it's still a welcome news. If they bring back classical mode and fix that ugly urban sprawl I might even consider trying Civ VII, after some time and with 50% discount.

Because to me it isn't a compelling reason for the devs to invest effort into something that might make a single poster "consider" getting the game "at a heavy discount" (after fixing other, unrelated alleged issues).

It also doesn't come across very well! Opinion opinion opinion, etc.

I think it's fair that people don't want the devs to use a lot of resources on this. I don't agree with them personally, but there's nothing wrong with having an opinion. The tone seems perfectly within keeping giving the range of critical opinions we've seen of VII to date.

 

[Sagax]

1. Immersion. When playing civ games, many people seem to associate themselves with civilizations instead of leaders (or in addition to leaders). In this case simple name change could work..

Judging from some louder arguments on this forum, it’s not just a “simple name change” to some - it extends to the gameplay as well. The point is to maintain the exact same game plan, advantages, and uniques throughout the game, to continue being able to do “the thing” that defines the chosen civ as a game faction. This may get tangled with the age reset problem, but I’d imagine the more hardcore Classic proponents would tolerate having age resets if they get to keep all the civ uniques in the next age.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Judging from some louder arguments on this forum, it’s not just a “simple name change” to some - it extends to the gameplay as well. The point is to maintain the exact same game plan, advantages, and uniques throughout the game, to continue being able to do “the thing” that defines the chosen civ as a game faction. This may get tangled with the age reset problem, but I’d imagine the more hardcore Classic proponents would tolerate having age resets if they get to keep all the civ uniques in the next age.

Yes, I believe age resets are the actual problem for many, especially those more into "storytelling". But I can't imagine age reset to go away (as it's a core feature everything is built on), so if we agree on this, we may need to define some audience for which removing civilization changes without removing age reset would work.

 

[Leucarum]

How does this come across to you:

Because to me it isn't a compelling reason for the devs to invest effort into something that might make a single poster "consider" getting the game "at a heavy discount" (after fixing other, unrelated alleged issues).

It also doesn't come across very well! Opinion opinion opinion, etc.

I think it's fair that people don't want the devs to use a lot of resources on this. I don't agree with them personally, but there's nothing wrong with having an opinion. The tone seems perfectly within keeping giving the range of critical opinions we've seen of VII to date.

I mean earlier on in this thread I also compared people wanting a full classical mode to revolutionaries that will inevitably give way to infighting over what the revolution actually means. I'll complain when both sides of rhe argument go a bit too far.

And firaxis definitely aren't doing this for just one person. This is a major point of contention for a lot of players.

Join me sitting on the fence in the middle. The breeze is cool and you get a great view.

Except I do have a standpoint on this one. I want a non-civ switching option to feel good as it's how I want to play the game. But I'm trying to be nuanced and see how everyone can end up with something they'd enjoy.

 

[Siptah]

I mean earlier on in this thread I also compared people wanting a full classical mode to revolutionaries that will inevitably give way to infighting over what the revolution actually means. I'll complain when both sides of rhe argument go a bit too far.

And firaxis definitely aren't doing this for just one person. This is a major point of contention for a lot of players.

Join me sitting on the fence in the middle. The breeze is cool and you get a great view.

Except I do have a standpoint on this one. I want a non-civ switching option to feel good as it's how I want to play the game. But I'm trying to be nuanced and see how everyone can end up with something they'd enjoy.

I‘m pretty sure that if they manage to find a way to may not switching fun, it will also be a lot of fun to actually switch. Except if they really want to make a new game mode, because it’s unlikely that two game mode will receive enough dev time - so one of these will always be lacking.

If classic mode is just a tick that says „allow all civs in each age“ and a tick that says „AI doesn‘t switch“ (the two mandatory options we need apparently) it‘s not enough though. There needs to be a bit of compensation for playing a civ outside of their age. E.g., giving each of them a generic bonus and civic tree and an age specific bonus/civic tree/unit/building instead of just an age specific flavor set. But this wouldn‘t hurt me switching whenever I please and also spontaneously deciding whether I want to keep my civ.

But what do I know? I‘d also be fine with it if it is punishing to play exploration Carthage, modern Assyrian, ancient Hawaii or exploration British.

 

[Krikkit1]

Judging from some louder arguments on this forum, it’s not just a “simple name change” to some - it extends to the gameplay as well. The point is to maintain the exact same game plan, advantages, and uniques throughout the game, to continue being able to do “the thing” that defines the chosen civ as a game faction. This may get tangled with the age reset problem, but I’d imagine the more hardcore Classic proponents would tolerate having age resets if they get to keep all the civ uniques in the next age.

I think “same game plan” is not practical with the age structure…how do unique missionaries or air units or bonuses that rely on Treasure Convoys, pantheons, religions, or ideologies work?
Do you research your unique civics multiple times, etc.

 

[Sekou]

It would be interesting to understand why people are only interested in classic mode? I guess we will have very wide range of answers. I could imagine some:

1. Immersion. When playing civ games, many people seem to associate themselves with civilizations instead of leaders (or in addition to leaders). In this case simple name change could work.
2. Disliking age transition more than civ switch (i.e. that everything is reset, some years are skipped, etc.). For this people I doubt anything could be done as a game mode, because that's a foundation of the game.

Anything else?

Speaking for myself, because I definitely fall into both of these camps as it were, here goes:

1. Immersion, yes. I do not care about leaders. Like at all. Once I pick a Civ that associated leader is gone- I'm the Captain now! (as the famous movie line instructs). This also extends to what I consider the other Civ Sin of VII: 3rd person leader interactions. ME, the player, has been removed from the proceedings. I'm shunted to the side, an onlooker in my own game. (And to the extent I care about Civs is simply due to the uniqueness of their playability. See also: Kupe or Mansa Musa in VI). I however, DO care greatly about leader interactions. Taunting Gilgabro or whomever up there on my monitor has provided me endless amusement

2. Yep. I consider Age Transitions to be VII's Cardinal Sin. It is anti-Civ. 3 mini games rolled into one. Until that's removed I'm not certain I'll find VII palatable.

I've played this series since I. I was so hyped for VII. Pre-order bonuses, took off work to dive into and it just broke my Civ heart. I love this series more than any other and it's a shell of itself.

 

[Crashdummy]

Second is that probably Firaxis will come out with some cheap version, like "Ageless civilization challenge", discussed above, because diverting too many resources into optional mode is really not effective until they know this mode has significant interest.

If they do that, then they will get even more negativity than today

Trying to make a cheap version of a feature as requested as this can be even worse than not doing anything

I dont think that is what they are siming for though, you dont need a workshop to make a cheap version