Playing One civ through the Ages

[Kumbao]

I'm deeply opposed to civ switching. However, I think that Leucarum is right in one point. If civ switching is done right, it could work even for me. The example I think of is Stellaris. You start as a certain race, but as the game progresses you mix and mingle with other races. This can be done up to a point, where your starting race is completely swallowed up by other races or transformed into something entirely different. Sure, your empire still has the same name, but practically everything else CAN change. However, there is still the huge element of choice here, which is an important component if you want to implement something like civ switching or civ evolution.

 

[Leucarum]

I'm deeply opposed to civ switching. However, I think that Leucarum is right in one point. If civ switching is done right, it could work even for me. The example I think of is Stellaris. You start as a certain race, but as the game progresses you mix and mingle with other races. This can be done up to a point, where your starting race is completely swallowed up by other races or transformed into something entirely different. Sure, your empire still has the same name, but practically everything else CAN change. However, there is still the huge element of choice here, which is an important component if you want to implement something like civ switching or civ evolution.

I think evolving versus outright switching your civ produce very different emotional responses which is why I think civ switching is the worse option.

But I will say I think Paradox games do Civ switching the best by making it something you aspire to. Formable civs that you can switch into require effort, give big rewards and you have to make it a goal for the game. Importantly it is also optional. So I suspect that combination of aspirational and optional is important for any civ switching mechanic. Civ 7 fails hard on both those counts.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think evolving versus outright switching your civ produce very different emotional responses which is why I think civ switching is the worse option.

But I will say I think Paradox games do Civ switching the best by making it something you aspire to. Formable civs that you can switch into require effort, give big rewards and you have to make it a goal for the game. Importantly it is also optional. So I suspect that combination of aspirational and optional is important for any civ switching mechanic. Civ 7 fails hard on both those counts.

I think
1. Uniques that are age specific (Inca only get their true uniques in exploration)
2. The possibility when choosing new uniques to keep you name or change it (I can be Nepal or be Inca with Nepal's uniques)
3. "Gameplay unlock" Narrative quests that not only unlock a certain set of uniques but also give bonuses toward getting them If you choose them in the next age (lump sum toward unique Civics)
4. The possibility to have some semigeneric bonuses if you do want Antiquity/Modern "Inca" without anyone else's uniques
AND
5. Narrative around each of those (keep or change name, new uniques or generic civ uniques, pursue unlock quest, etc.)

Could provide what they need... If I am playing Inca, I probably want to get the Nepal uniques for Modern... or maybe I want the Mughal uniques from my Terrace farm / MachuPichu gold

 

[britesparc]

I never thought about it before Civ VII but I do really like the idea of being able to "upgrade" your Civ, almost RPG style, instead of switching. If they wanted to experiment with that in Civ VIII instead of the switching/age transitions I'd be very excited.

Same Civ and leader throughout, but picking and choosing how you upgrade, your uniques and abilities? Yeah, that's cool.

 

[Krikkit1]

I never thought about it before Civ VII but I do really like the idea of being able to "upgrade" your Civ, almost RPG style, instead of switching. If they wanted to experiment with that in Civ VIII instead of the switching/age transitions I'd be very excited.

Same Civ and leader throughout, but picking and choosing how you upgrade, your uniques and abilities? Yeah, that's cool.

The problem with really doing that is it would mean a Drastically reduced set of Civs.... or having what we do now (Rome can upgrade to Spain.. or Chola or Mongol).. If they could upgrade into Exploration Cultural Militaristic civ (called Rome) or into one of those other civ options (called Rome) then

-the civ can maintain its name and get a variety of upgrade possibilities
-a variety of civs is available

 

[Leucarum]

I think
1. Uniques that are age specific (Inca only get their true uniques in exploration)
2. The possibility when choosing new uniques to keep you name or change it (I can be Nepal or be Inca with Nepal's uniques)
3. "Gameplay unlock" Narrative quests that not only unlock a certain set of uniques but also give bonuses toward getting them If you choose them in the next age (lump sum toward unique Civics)
4. The possibility to have some semigeneric bonuses if you do want Antiquity/Modern "Inca" without anyone else's uniques
AND
5. Narrative around each of those (keep or change name, new uniques or generic civ uniques, pursue unlock quest, etc.)

Could provide what they need... If I am playing Inca, I probably want to get the Nepal uniques for Modern... or maybe I want the Mughal uniques from my Terrace farm / MachuPichu gold

When I pick my civ I am setting how I want my game to go. I think Firaxis missed for how many players civ choice = game identity.

Besides the civs in 7 are the best the franchise has ever designed for civs which would be interesting in different ages. I really hope we don't just get some cosmetic band-aid and that if you pick Inca, you get to do the inca stuff throughout the entire game. There's so much stuff where it is a shame it's locked to a specific age.

And as an aside I think it's a good idea for us to start framing civ continuity in this positive light. There has been a lot of kneejerk reaction from folk who didn't want it. But there's tonnes of cool stuff we could get as a consequence and I think defining it in opposition to civ switching is doing the idea a disservice.

 

[britesparc]

The problem with really doing that is it would mean a Drastically reduced set of Civs.... or having what we do now (Rome can upgrade to Spain.. or Chola or Mongol).. If they could upgrade into Exploration Cultural Militaristic civ (called Rome) or into one of those other civ options (called Rome) then

-the civ can maintain its name and get a variety of upgrade possibilities
-a variety of civs is available

Why would it mean a reduced number of Civs? I'm just talking about a hypothetical Civ 8 where at a certain point (age transition perhaps, or just if you accumulate enough "points") you get to pick an attribute. Eg do you pick +1 yield to farms, or +1 science from libraries? That sort of thing. Obviously those are massively basic examples.

I just think this would give a bit of depth and variety but allow us to keep the whole one-Civ-forever thing.

 

[Gori the Grey]

In Civ 5, I already feel as though my civ does "upgrade" gradually all through the game--by virtue of gaining new social policies.

 

[Krikkit1]

Why would it mean a reduced number of Civs? I'm just talking about a hypothetical Civ 8 where at a certain point (age transition perhaps, or just if you accumulate enough "points") you get to pick an attribute. Eg do you pick +1 yield to farms, or +1 science from libraries? That sort of thing. Obviously those are massively basic examples.

I just think this would give a bit of depth and variety but allow us to keep the whole one-Civ-forever thing.

So You start with your unique civ but then add generic bonuses?

 

[Crashdummy]

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.

The reason i asked is because all the people that say they are ok with changes being cosmetic on civ switching are people that dont have a real problem with the mechanic and just want as little resources as possible used on it

Those of us that do have a problem with civ switching will not be satisfied with changes being cosmetic only

About my stance on Ages abrutly interrupting gameplay to reset part of the game:

I think they are bad, i think they hurt the game and they have no place on a Civilization game. I think such thing should not exist on Civ 8. That being said, i understand that it might be harder to remove Ages than it is to provide a fully functional (not cosmetic) way to start the game with any cov and finish with the same civ. I will try the game again is such thing is implemented, even if Ages resets are not removed and maybe it will be enough to keep my attention

I do think in the long run (probably more than a year and maybe in an expansion) the game would benefit from not having Age resets

 

[Crashdummy]

I'm deeply opposed to civ switching. However, I think that Leucarum is right in one point. If civ switching is done right, it could work even for me. The example I think of is Stellaris. You start as a certain race, but as the game progresses you mix and mingle with other races. This can be done up to a point, where your starting race is completely swallowed up by other races or transformed into something entirely different. Sure, your empire still has the same name, but practically everything else CAN change. However, there is still the huge element of choice here, which is an important component if you want to implement something like civ switching or civ evolution.

I dont think i would like that (havent played Stellaris)

In any way, I think Civilization is not the franchise to attempt any change in Civs within a single game, i think such a concept goes against the very soul of the franchise, which is to take a CIVILIZATION from Stone Age to Space

 

[Sagax]

The reason i asked is because every time i read someone say that they are ok with just cosmetic changes, its people that are playing the game and dont have a real problem with civ switching. The ones that do have an issue with Civ switching wont accept changes that are cosmetic only

Yes, it's a somewhat obvious inference that those who don't actively hate civ-swithing have probably put a fair amount of hours into this game.

What matters more is that while I find the game playable and civ-switching mechanically (but not narratively) enjoyable, I'm all for the game to accommodate more staunch opponents to civ-switching - be it an all-or-nothing "classic" mode or something more hybrid.

 

[Crashdummy]

In Civ 5, I already feel as though my civ does "upgrade" gradually all through the game--by virtue of gaining new social policies.

Exactly

We already were upgrading our Civilizations before, by adding stuff to them. Social policies were one example. Governors were another, Great People, etc

The thing is, the "upgrades" made sense and were made in a way that didnt take you away from gameplay, didnt remove anything from you, didnt reset a thing and was a CHOICE you had to make

Civ 7 removed choice and forced things on players, did less than previous games did and did it worse

 

[Crashdummy]

Yes, it's a somewhat obvious inference that those who don't actively hate civ-swithing have probably put a fair amount of hours into this game.

What matters more is that while I find the game playable and civ-switching mechanically (but not narratively) enjoyable, I'm all for the game to accommodate more staunch opponents to civ-switching - be it an all-or-nothing "classic" mode or something more hybrid.

The point is that you are not the target audience of this change. This new thing they are trying isnt aimed to get you back on the game, which is why a cosmetic only thing would not work

 

[ColtSeavers]

So You start with your unique civ but then add generic bonuses?

It depends on how you define "generic bonuses". I always thought the bonuses and attributes in Civ 4 were just fine. Straightforward, easy to use, and fairly well balanced. The bonuses in Civ 5 were fine too. But with Civ 6 things started to get complicated, and Civ 7 seems to have taken that to a whole new level.

I was just looking at Ashoka’s bonuses:
+1 Production in Cities for every 5 excess Happiness.
+10% Production in Settlements not founded by you.
Declaring a Formal War grants a Celebration.
+5 Combat Strength against Fortified Districts for all Units during a Celebration.

I mean, seriously, who needs that, and who can realistically make use of all of it? I just hope they don’t spend all their energy on this kind of thing when developing the "classic mode". Unfortunately, I’m afraid they’ll spend too much time trying to balance these complex bonuses instead of focusing on improving actual gameplay systems, like religious gameplay mechanics or victory conditions. I think that would have a much greater impact on the game than yet another round of intricate leader bonuses!

 

[Leucarum]

I was just looking at Ashoka’s bonuses:
+1 Production in Cities for every 5 excess Happiness.
+10% Production in Settlements not founded by you.
Declaring a Formal War grants a Celebration.
+5 Combat Strength against Fortified Districts for all Units during a Celebration.

I mean... Ashoka's pretty cohesive even though it's a lot of words! Your units get stronger and you produce more when you're happy, going to war makes you happy, and then the cities you took from others because of that are more productive.

I feel like you could have picked a much less cohesive example. Like Hatshepshut mixing faster wonders/districts with resource imports...

 

[Sagax]

The point is that you are not the target audience of this change. This new thing they are trying isnt aimed to get you back on the game, which is why a cosmetic only thing would not work

I don't need their changes to be specifically aimed at me for them to be worth a try - and maybe even for them to be my preferred settings moving forward. I see some potential in the classic mode and would be willing to give it a try.

Either way, we're probably derailing the discussion - my comment was a misunderstood reply to Kumbao, who was actually looking for someone with your stance.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I mean... Ashoka's pretty cohesive even though it's a lot of words! Your units get stronger and you produce more when you're happy, going to war makes you happy, and then the cities you took from others because of that are more productive.

I feel like you could have picked a much less cohesive example. Like Hatshepshut mixing faster wonders/districts with resource imports...

Well, at least for me, it just feels too gamey and I don’t see any real value in it. On top of that, there are the agendas, which make things even more complicated. For me, that’s just too much micromanaging. You end up focusing on random details just to gain or lose a single point of yield here and there. And as I said before, it’s also very hard to balance that kind of system. I’m afraid they’ll have to spend a lot of time and energy on it, and I think there are more important things to fix first.

 

[britesparc]

So You start with your unique civ but then add generic bonuses?

Yeah or maybe tied to your Civ? Or a bit of both?

The idea is basically: one single Civ, like in the first six games, but extra attributes/bonuses/etc can be chosen and added in-game to allow you to tailor your experience on the fly.

 

[Siptah]

Well, at least for me, it just feels too gamey and I don’t see any real value in it. On top of that, there are the agendas, which make things even more complicated. For me, that’s just too much micromanaging. You end up focusing on random details just to gain or lose a single point of yield here and there. And as I said before, it’s also very hard to balance that kind of system. I’m afraid they’ll have to spend a lot of time and energy on it, and I think there are more important things to fix first.

I think the enhanced flavor for leaders and especially civs is a real strong point for civ 7. I don't consider it non-important, it's one of the things that drives the game for me and makes me to want to play another one. Yes, there are many modifiers to keep track of – more than in civ 6 for sure, but both leaders and civs are also much more thematic and deeper, which is a positive exchange in my opinion. But I think civ and leaders are the easier ones to remember and consider – at least if you play like me and do one age in one session if possible. A quick reminder before you start the session and you're good to go. And most of them feel natural or thematic, so there's only a few ones I keep forgetting. And some are really just passive things that you'd usually not play for, such as Ashokas production from happiness – it's a nice passive bonus, but eventually, you'll eat that happiness with more settlements anyway and won't try to optimize that bonus (at least that's how I play).

But I also grow up with and still play games where modifiers and bonuses are crucial to keep in mind and much more plentiful than in civ 7. E.g., playing Age of Empires 2 and Age of Mythology competitively when I was younger, which basically required to know all bonuses and tech tress by heart to find the optimal strategy against your opponent(s). Or nowadays EU4 or Anno 1800, where constant and temporary, local and global bonuses often surpass the 100 active ones threshold. It's probably some sort of training or getting used to that's involved. And seeing modifiers as something that's worth chasing, optimizing, and adapting to – which probably isn't for everyone. I wouldn't describe me as a min-maxer though.