Playing One civ through the Ages

[Crashdummy]

Raises hand
Personally, I’d be satisfied with the ability to keep your civ name, city list, and base architectural style.

I won’t say no to bigger changes towards the more “classic” experience, though.

Are you playing the current version of Civ 7?

 

[Crashdummy]

Crashdummy and aieeegrunt are both people who I believe want the Age system gone, or at least reduced to its form in VI. I recall aieeegrunt saying that while Ages in VI are better, even the gameplay mechanics there aren't ideal (but the rest of the game makes up for it).

Pretty sure I'm not misrepresenting them either. Apologies in advance to both if I am.

The point is, this is a real opinion held by real people. There will be others (I've seen many such comments on social media - "when are you getting rid of Ages", "bring the game back to <insert Civ here>", etc).

I do want Ages gone because i think they interrupt gameplay and break immersion. I will try whatever they give us to see if the game feels like Civilization (unlike now)

That being said, i already have the game, since i preordered it based on the absolute Faith i had on Firaxis, something that will NOT happen again in the future. If i didnt own the game, i would try to watch other playing it first to attempt to find out how it feels

 

[marius_kaparius]

I do want Ages gone because i think they interrupt gameplay and break immersion. I will try whatever they give us to see if the game feels like Civilization (unlike now)

That being said, i already have the game, since i preordered it based on the absolute Faith i had on Firaxis, something that will NOT happen again in the future. If i didnt own the game, i would try to watch other playing it first to attempt to find out how it feels

I love how the Classic crowd gets to decide what feels like Civilization and the rest of us don't. Feels a lot like Civilization to me.

 

[Leucarum]

I've said a few times now that I think the winner of this particular 4X arms race will be the franchise that implements Civ evolution (rather than civ switching) without it feeling generic. Which I think was (one of) Milennia's problem(s). I wasn't expecting that Civ7 might get a second chance to swing at that particular goal.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Well, this is unexpected and surely positive news! Didn't think Firaxis would have it in them to make a change like this. To me, what they definitely need to accomplish is this:

1.) You can play any Civ throughout the Ages, including Modern Civs like America! That would also be especially important for TSL Maps!
2.) You have at the least the option that Leaders and Civs match. So no more playing against Catherine of Greece, there must be an option to prevent this.
3.) There must also be an option for your opponent's Civ to stay the same throughout all ages, not just yours!

I think all these three requirements should be fairly easy to accomplish. I also expect some further stuff, like some new unique units even if you only play one Civ through the ages, but that is actually not that important to me. I haven't bought the game yet, but obviously there are lots of other issues besides the Civ Switching that need to be fixed. I also want Firaxis to focus on them, too. I don't think Civ 7 will ever become my favorite Civ game (I'm not a huge fan of Ed Beach's approach for this game in general, and I'm not a big Civ 6 fan, either), but at least now, I do see the possibility that I could buy this game eventually, once the most important issues are fixed!

 

[Leucarum]

1.) You can play any Civ throughout the Ages, including Modern Civs like America! That would also be especially important for TSL Maps!

The phrasing makes it sound as if this is what Firaxis are planning.

2.) You have at the least the option that Leaders and Civs match. So no more playing against Catherine of Greece, there must be an option to prevent this.

Given that not all civs have leaders, and how much leaders cost to make... I would say this is almost certainly not going to happen in Civ7.

3.) There must also be an option for your opponent's Civ to stay the same throughout all ages, not just yours!

I would be amazed if they don't have the option for no switching, everybody switching or a mix.

 

[Sagax]

That is different. He said that there are people who are only satisfied when Civ gets rid of the entire ages system. Which I doubt.

I agree to a degree with you. I would welcome the option to entirely get rid of the ages. But I dont need it. I would already be satisfied with the option to keep my Civ through all ages (same for the opponents).

My bad, I thought you were asking for an example of the opposite.

Are you playing the current version of Civ 7?

I stopped after one game on 1.2.5, as other games took over my limited time. I might wait a bit until more civs and more drastic gameplay changes are introduced.

 

[stealth_nsk]

He wants the mechanics fixed. He doesnt say that he wants them dismantled.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/whats-your-opinion-on-civ-switching.699056/post-16847514 this link also. I think I saw much more of similar posts, here or on Reddit, but it's really hard to search for them.

 

[Kumbao]

Dude, Crashdummy posted in this very thread here. Just five replies before yours. And clarifies his thoughts in the matter. Its getting a bit tiresome at this point.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Well, this is unexpected and surely positive news! Didn't think Firaxis would have it in them to make a change like this. To me, what they definitely need to accomplish is this:

2.) You have at the least the option that Leaders and Civs match. So no more playing against Catherine of Greece, there must be an option to prevent this.

Given that not all civs have leaders, and how much leaders cost to make... I would say this is almost certainly not going to happen in Civ7.

I think, it should be fairly easy to accomplish. You could give the player the option to select Leader for every opposing Civ when he sets up the game. Or make an option, that only Civs are allowed, which have a designated Leader available (Augustus= Rome; Catherine = Russia and Charlemange = France (potentially HRR, if there is a respective DLC).

My impression is, that among the people who dislike Civ Switching, the fact that Civs and Leaders do not match, is the part which bothers the most. So if Firaxis doesn't solve this, this whole effort to give an option to play civ throughout ages won't help much, if one still has to play against Augustus of America or any other weird combination.

 

[Leucarum]

My impression is, that among the people who dislike Civ Switching, the fact that Civs and Leaders do not match, is the part which bothers the most. So if Firaxis doesn't solve this, this whole effort to give an option to play civ throughout ages won't help much, if one still has to play against Augustus of America or any other weird combination.

Speaking for myself. I loathe civ switching but love leader mixing and matching. I don't think it's an overlapling venn diagram as much as you think.

But letting players pick their leader/civ opponents, or having a "banned list" and requiring favoured civs for leaders that have them is within the realm of possibility I agree. We just can't expect that civs like the Mississippians will get a leader so there will be holes.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Speaking for myself. I loathe civ switching but love leader mixing and matching. I don't think it's an overlapling venn diagram as much as you think.

But letting players pick their leader/civ opponents, or having a "banned list" and requiring favoured civs for leaders that have them is within the realm of possibility I agree. We just can't expect that civs like the Mississippians will get a leader so there will be holes.

Sure, I can live without the Mississippians, if they don't have an original leader (I wasn't following the game that closley, so I wasn't aware of that one). That's a low price to pay, if the oppononents I play against, do have the "correct combination" after all.

 

[Gorbles]

Dude, Crashdummy posted in this very thread here. Just five replies before yours. And clarifies his thoughts in the matter. Its getting a bit tiresome at this point.

Yes, and they said they wanted it gone.

You claimed nobody did and asked for examples.

Crashdummy didn't say fixed, either, they specifically said "I do want Ages gone".

Am I understanding everyone right? I'm not misrepresenting anyone, am I?

 

[Leucarum]

Sure, I can live without the Mississippians, if they don't have an original leader (I wasn't following the game that closley, so I wasn't aware of that one). That's a low price to pay, if the oppononents I play against, do have the "correct combination" after all.

I mean, I think 90% of the ability to do what you want is already in the game then. You can set up your opponents in advance already.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I mean, I think 90% of the ability to do what you want is already in the game then. You can set up your opponents in advance already.

I can't play America or Prussia or any other nation for 2/3 of the game, and I have to potenially play against Catherine of Greece. I wouldn't call that 90 %, for me these two issues are literally show stoppers from even considering buying the game in its current state.

 

[Leucarum]

I can't play America or Prussia or any other nation for 2/3 of the game, and I have to potenially play against Catherine of Greece. I wouldn't call that 90 %, for me these two issues are literally show stoppers from even considering buying the game in its current state.

I was specifically referring to your point about playing only leaders and matching civs.

The rest of what you want sounds like it's coming and you can already preselect only leaders which match civs.

 

[britesparc]

As one of those who's not bought the game because of the Civ switching and age transitions, I thought it might be worth throwing in my two cents about what I'd like, seeing as everyone's enjoying (?) debating it.

- ability to play as one Civ throughout, without ever being asked to change, and without my opponents changing
- I don't really care about uniques so I don't mind if a modern Civ is "vanilla" for two-thirds of the game
- I'm not really bothered about leaders at all, so I don't care if you can swap them or they're not matched to their civs, or whatever
- I REALLY don't like the idea of age transitions because the thing that's stopped me getting VII is the notion of choice being taken away from me; so having stuff like relationships change or units change without me specifically making the change myself is deeply unappealing. So yes, if I could wave a magic wand I'd have the option of playing without ages in any way shape or form.
- that's probably unlikely, so I can accept having to cut back to a loading screen if we have to, even if I find the thought immersion-breaking. HOWEVER I'd love it if we could have a "super continuity" mode where literally nothing whatsoever changed between ages.
- something that I would accept is the concept of "choosing your culture" that some have suggested. So your Civ is ageless and never changes but you adopt the "culture" of an age-specific Civ each age, get their bonuses and uniques etc (but not names or aesthetics or anything). This is my lesser option but I'd give it a go.

So TL;DR, my idealised mode would be one unbroken progression of play where everyone stayed as one ageless Civ, but I'm prepared to accept some compromise.

 

[marius_kaparius]

I can't play America or Prussia or any other nation for 2/3 of the game, and I have to potenially play against Catherine of Greece. I wouldn't call that 90 %, for me these two issues are literally show stoppers from even considering buying the game in its current state.

To be fair, Catherine the Great did have a "Greek Plan"

 

[Crashdummy]

I've said a few times now that I think the winner of this particular 4X arms race will be the franchise that implements Civ evolution (rather than civ switching) without it feeling generic. Which I think was (one of) Milennia's problem(s). I wasn't expecting that Civ7 might get a second chance to swing at that particular goal.

I disagree. At this point i think the playerbase has proven already that they dont want to switch their initial Civ/Culture choice in the middle of the game. Doesnt matter if you call it evolution, trascend or any other world

 

[Leucarum]

I disagree. At this point i think the playerbase has proven already that they dont want to switch their initial Civ/Culture choice in the middle of the game. Doesnt matter if you call it evolution, trascend or any other world

I think maybe you misunderstand. I am referring to a less generic version kf ehat Milennia tried where you gain new abilities over time but you do stay as the same civ/culture the enire game.