Playing One civ through the Ages

[j51]

I just hope that eliminating civ-switching doesn’t deter the devs from adding new civilizations that could be predecessors or successors of the ones already in the game.

For instance, I’d love to see Feudal Japan with Samurai or England with Longbowmen added, even tough we already got Meiji and GB.

This, yes: Capetian France, Byzantium, ‘Rus or Muscovy, the Xiongnu, Joseon Korea, the Itza, Ethiopia, Wagadou, etc., etc.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

It's a nice step in the right direction hearing this, but it still doesn't touch the side on the destruction they've done to Civ as a game.

I would love to play a game of Civ as the pirate republic, but it won't be a game of Civ as long as there's still Napoleon of the Aztec as an opponent for me.

In seeing this news it also made me thing about actually what it would be like to play, and all I can think about it the janky age transitions and the non-event modern age. I think those things have got the be fixed, and a full length modern age including the cold war added before my purchase is secured too.

Keep it up firaxis and one day Civ VII may be on my wishlist. But for now, I still just don't see the appeal. I have better and much cheaper versions of Civ already.

 

[ehecatzin]

I just hope that eliminating civ-switching doesn’t deter the devs from adding new civilizations that could be predecessors or successors of the ones already in the game.

For instance, I’d love to see Feudal Japan with Samurai or England with Longbowmen added, even tough we already got Meiji and GB.

This, yes: Capetian France, Byzantium, ‘Rus or Muscovy, the Xiongnu, Joseon Korea, the Itza, Ethiopia, Wagadou, etc., etc.

The more I read, the more I'm convinced the classical mode should come with no strings attached to not mess with the possible civ additions. "want to play America in Antiquity? fine, knock yourself out, you get no bonuses until Modern, have fun".

However, UNTIL we get enough civs, yes, I'd like the option to push forward one more era with my current civ and add a bit of extra flavour on top of it. I suspect that's what those "ways to improve civ identity between eras" changes include.

I don't believe the devs think classic mode solves all the civs gaps we have left.

 

[Kurtbob]

I completely missed the highlighted bit....

The more I read, the more I'm convinced the classical mode should come with no strings attached to not mess with the possible civ additions. "want to play America in Antiquity? fine, knock yourself out, you get no bonuses until Modern, have fun".

Man....I really hope not. In previous civ games your choice to play as a modern civ meant that your unique unit/building/improvement wasn't available till late in the game and isn't new, but what about unique traditions, civics? I am not sure if I can play two whole ages without them.

 

[ehecatzin]

View attachment 746030

I completed missed the highlighted bit....

Man....I really hope not. In previous civ games your choice to play as a modern civ meant that your unique unit/building/improvement wasn't available till late in the game and isn't new, but what about unique traditions, civics? I am not sure if I can play two whole ages without them.

Thats makes it two of us lol, "reading the article explains the article"

and, yeah, maybe for you and me such a run would be flavourless, but some people really like that "what if" fantasy of past civ games, so, more power to them. If I where to do a classic mode run I would prefer an antiquity civ instead.

 

[Crashdummy]

Would it work for you if they removed civ-switching but kept the age system intact? I've been thinking on the whole idea recently, and personally, I find the age transitions more problematic than civ transformation. Ages interrupt the game's tempo and create an artificial three-part structure.

If I had to choose between removing civ-switching or the age system, I would vote for the latter and a full continuity mode. Even if I was forced to do crazy but more fluid switchin from Egypt through England to Buganda.

I know you didnt ask me, but i want to reply to this

I think Ages do interrupt gameplay and break immersion. I would love if we get a way to play without them

I admit that from what we know about the game, its way harder to do that than to provide a way to play with any Civ and end with the same one

Im my opinion, a full Classic Mode would be without interruptions on Age changes, but i dont think that is going to happen at least soon

 

[Sekou]

I think VI did it best. Here are a BUNCH of Civs. Some get bonuses/buffs early in the game, some mid game and some later on- but YOU decide how you want to go about it. Start out strong? Build towards a mid game renaissance, as it were? Up to you. But now with VII? "Hey don't worry about making a pesky decision- we'll just re-roll you every 100ish turns (or whatever) and you'll get new buffs and bonuses! Doesn't that sound neat-o?!?"

The Age transitions are the problem- not the Civs (or more precisely- Civ-switching).

 

[marius_kaparius]

Watch how the people asking for this complain about it when it rolls out - even if it works exactly like previous games.

 

[Leucarum]

I just hope that eliminating civ-switching doesn’t deter the devs from adding new civilizations that could be predecessors or successors of the ones already in the game.

For instance, I’d love to see Feudal Japan with Samurai or England with Longbowmen added, even tough we already got Meiji and GB.

This, yes: Capetian France, Byzantium, ‘Rus or Muscovy, the Xiongnu, Joseon Korea, the Itza, Ethiopia, Wagadou, etc., etc.

They've had plenty of successor civs in games in the past. Notably Rome and half of Europe.

 

[Xandinho]

This, yes: Capetian France, Byzantium, ‘Rus or Muscovy, the Xiongnu, Joseon Korea, the Itza, Ethiopia, Wagadou, etc., etc.

I agree, but I don’t think they’ll abandon them. I believe their approach from now on will be to make civilizations more generic and less tied to a specific era, while still keeping the civilization-switching feature for those who enjoy it (and I know there are enough people who do). So I think we’ll still see things like Joseon, Edo Japan, and so on.

 

[Uberfrog]

I suspect it will follow Humankind in that you will have the option to stick with your civ after the age transition. Of course you will miss out on new unique units etc, so they will probably balance it out by giving you more/better traditions or other things to support your civ through continuity.

Done right I think it can be a good strategic choice. I hope they take the time to develop this properly and not rush it out to sate the most vocal critics

 

[IntelligentDisk]

I suspect it will follow Humankind in that you will have the option to stick with your civ after the age transition. Of course you will miss out on new unique units etc, so they will probably balance it out by giving you more/better traditions or other things to support your civ through continuity.

Done right I think it can be a good strategic choice. I hope they take the time to develop this properly and not rush it out to sate the most vocal critics

They're letting you play any Civ in any age so I don't think that will be it. If you choose this mode or setting where you can play any Civ in any age, I don't think there will be a setting for Civ-switching too. That'd be odd, maybe fun to some, if you could start as America then switch to Britain then switch to Rome or Iceland to Normans back to Iceland.

There's so many ways and different settings where this could work.

 

[moondog385]

I just hope that eliminating civ-switching doesn’t deter the devs from adding new civilizations that could be predecessors or successors of the ones already in the game.

For instance, I’d love to see Feudal Japan with Samurai or England with Longbowmen added, even tough we already got Meiji and GB.

Yes, this is my main concern. I’m sort of ambivalent on civ switching as it’s currently implemented but the diversity of civs and the split of India and China that have come with it is definitely welcome.

I’m interested to see how they pull this off. Playing as one civ will still not feel as coherent as I’d like if we’re forced to sit through age transition menus.

 

[moondog385]

I suspect it will follow Humankind in that you will have the option to stick with your civ after the age transition. Of course you will miss out on new unique units etc, so they will probably balance it out by giving you more/better traditions or other things to support your civ through continuity.

Done right I think it can be a good strategic choice. I hope they take the time to develop this properly and not rush it out to sate the most vocal critics

This is how the game should’ve worked to begin with imo.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

Would it work for you if they removed civ-switching but kept the age system intact? I've been thinking on the whole idea recently, and personally, I find the age transitions more problematic than civ transformation. Ages interrupt the game's tempo and create an artificial three-part structure.

If I had to choose between removing civ-switching or the age system, I would vote for the latter and a full continuity mode. Even if I was forced to do crazy but more fluid switchin from Egypt through England to Buganda.

This is where I’m at. I actually am fine with Civ switching it’s the rigid era changes that kill it for me.

I wish Civs could change at different times too that made thematic sense. Perhaps you picked a militaristic civ but your development tended toward culture and you were given the choice to “transform” into a culture focused Civ via an event. Not a predetermined time when everyone changes.

 

[Askia Muhammad]

This is how the game should’ve worked to begin with imo.

I think they should also force the AI to keep the same Civ and just make that part of the “continuity” setting and leave it as is for those who like that

 

[kotpeter]

I'll put down a few of my thoughts on the matter from yesterday (after reading the update check-in):

• I think the change to civ switching is an attempt to bring more players to the game, while not necessarily ruining the experience to already invested players. I think of it as a potentially good change for all players, but this obviously depends on the exact implementation.
• I don't think age transitions are going anywhere, due to how integral they are to the core gameplay. We might get Civ 7 without age transitions as a scenario at some point, but not in the near future.
• I think there might be 3 settings for civ switching: required (current behavior), disallowed (all players and AIs play as one civ through all ages) and allowed (to switch or not to switch - up to the player, the AIs will probably switch).
• I think there will be generic gameplay bonuses to civilizations played outside of their designated age in the form of traditions and a free attribute point. Traditions will depend on civilization's attributes (diplomatic, militaristic, etc.) and current age. Attribute point will be given for free at the start of the game, and you'll be able to choose one of the two depending on your civ's attributes.

Regardless of how the change is received, I believe the devs will continue working on the game, and we will receive new content bits next spring at earliest. I'm personally hoping for an expansion that would include:

• Changing terrain (chopping woods at least, drilling mountain tunnels and building canals and dams at most)
• More options to interact on the political arena (liberate city-states, create puppet settlements and become suzerains of other civilizations)
• Something to replace settlement limit with (I actually drafted a mechanic for that called stability, you can read more in the document I created)
• Faith yield in some form
• Obviously more civs, leaders, and perhaps a new age

 

[Hawke9]

I for one am extremely excited about being able to play as a single civ all game, it was my main gripe, and I'm looking very optimistic to the Future of civ 7 now, I appreciate the devs listening to the player base and I feel heard

 

[sonicmyst]

With this, I hope later Age civs got reworked to become more interesting during their Age appropriate era. Civs being played on earlier Ages than their respective era should get maluses and unique civics disabled; and civs being played on later Ages than their respective era should get mild bonuses but unique civics disabled.

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.

 

[stealth_nsk]

We've discussed this already. In the thread we've seen those 4 options:

1. Keeping names, including settlement names, while choosing "culture" for each age. Less gameplay affected, but could be viewed as too cosmetic by many.
2. Make civilization options generic enough to fit into any age. Would mimic previous game setup, but would destroy civilization uniqueness.
3. Invent fantasy bonuses for all civs, like Modern age Assyria. Could be interesting to play, but also immersion-breaking. Also making that many unique things would actually make them less unique.
4. Contain age-specific civilization bonuses in their ages and let players play other ages without (or almost without) civilization bonuses. Could work as optional mode, but playing 2/3 of the game (3/4 with 4th age) without bonuses doesn't look like fun. Also, balance is questionable.

All variants have their fans and I guess regardless of which option will be chosen, some people will not be satisfied.

I forgot to add point 5: Remove age transition, remake all parts of the game related to ages (generally all of them), change all civilization to fit this. Pros: It's the classic mode wanted by most fans of the classic mode. Cons: It's not going to happen. It's not a game mode, it's a new game and I wouldn't expect Firaxis to maintain 2 totally different games under the same name.

Also, I've just realized, that Firaxis feature workshop is likely will include only people who own the game (and probably not on all platforms, because creating beta access on consoles is much harder than, say, on Steam). So, I believe we'll have this weird situation where people who don't buy the game die to lack of classic mode will not be able to playtest it.